IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/332002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The measurement of barriers to services trade and its impact on Chinese services export

Author

Listed:
  • Bingbing, Jiang
  • Zhaohua, Lee

Abstract

Into the 21st century, the growth rate of trade in services is more than trade in goods. There are urgent needs for reorganizing the concept of trade in services, the method of service barrier quantification, and estimation the impacts of barriers to trade. This paper studies the theory of trade in services, quantifying the seriousness of barriers faced by China’s export of transport, finance, telecommunication sectors, and tests the impacts of barriers on China’s export. The existing methods of measurement of barriers are mainly freedom index and ad valorem equivalents method. The paper expands intensity indexes of services barriers to calculate the restrictions against Chinese service export in financial, transport, telecommunications sectors. It includes the following four categories: restrictions on market access, ownership and control, operating, movement of people. Possible restrictions are classified into restriction 12 categories with weights, which based on the research of Kimura et.al (2003). The sum of weights for all categories is 1. Then a score with a range from 0(least restrictive) to 1(most restrictive) is assigned for each category, and intensity index calculated by summing up the multiplying the selected score by the weight. The study tests the application of gravity model for bilateral services trade in a sample of 55 countries. It finds that the standard gravity model explains services trade flows well. In this paper we employs gravity model using panel data to explore whether the barriers in services trade limit the export of China’s financial, transport, telecommunications services. The result shows that the questioned barriers of trade in services have no significant influence. One possible reason is that China's service trade only has weak international competitiveness and cannot meet the required level of service barriers restriction of trade partner.

Suggested Citation

  • Bingbing, Jiang & Zhaohua, Lee, 2010. "The measurement of barriers to services trade and its impact on Chinese services export," Conference papers 332002, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:332002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/332002/files/5052.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David O’Connor & Fan Zhai & Kristin Aunan & Terje Berntsen & Haakon Vennemo, 2003. "Agricultural and Human Health Impacts of Climate Policy in China: A General Equilibrium Analysis with Special Reference to Guangdong," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 206, OECD Publishing.
    2. A. Bovenberg, 1999. "Green Tax Reforms and the Double Dividend: an Updated Reader's Guide," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 6(3), pages 421-443, August.
    3. Mun S. Ho & Chris P. Nielsen (ed.), 2007. "Clearing the Air: The Health and Economic Damages of Air Pollution in China," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262083582, April.
    4. Aunan, Kristin & Berntsen, Terje & O'Connor, David & Persson, Therese Hindman & Vennemo, Haakon & Zhai, Fan, 2007. "Benefits and costs to China of a climate policy," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 471-497, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rubbelke, Dirk T.G. & Rive, Nathan, 2008. "Effects of the CDM on Poverty Eradication and Global Climate Protection," Climate Change Modelling and Policy Working Papers 46650, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    2. Vennemo, Haakon & Aunan, Kristin & Jianwu, He & Tao, Hu & Shantong, Li, 2009. "Benefits and costs to China of three different climate treaties," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 139-160, August.
    3. Vennemo, Haakon & Aunan, Kristin & He, Jianwu & Hu, Tao & Li, Shantong & Rypd3al, Kristin, 2008. "Environmental impacts of China's WTO-accession," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 893-911, February.
    4. Kyung-Min Nam & Xu Zhang & Min Zhong & Eri Saikawa & Xiliang Zhang, 2019. "Health effects of ozone and particulate matter pollution in China: a province-level CGE analysis," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 63(2), pages 269-293, October.
    5. Cao, Jing & Ho, Mun & Jorgenson, Dale, 2008. "“Co-benefits†of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Policies in China: An Integrated Top-Down and Bottom-Up Modeling Analysis," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-10-efd, Resources for the Future.
    6. Zhang, ZhongXiang, 2014. "Programs, Prices and Policies Towards Energy Conservation and Environmental Quality in China," Working Papers 249427, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    7. Alberto Gago & Xavier Labandeira & Xiral López Otero, 2014. "A Panorama on Energy Taxes and Green Tax Reforms," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 208(1), pages 145-190, March.
    8. Bruno Lanz & Sebastian Rausch, 2016. "Emissions Trading in the Presence of Price-Regulated Polluting Firms: How Costly Are Free Allowances?," The Energy Journal, , vol. 37(1), pages 195-232, January.
    9. Bjertnæs, Geir H. & Tsygankova, Marina & Martinsen, Thomas, 2013. "Norwegian climate policy reforms in the presence of an international quota market," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 147-158.
    10. Claudia Kettner-Marx & Daniela Kletzan-Slamanig, 2018. "Carbon Taxes from an Economic Perspective," WIFO Working Papers 554, WIFO.
    11. Thorsten Bayındır-Upmann, 2004. "On the Double Dividend under Imperfect Competition," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(2), pages 169-194, June.
    12. Charles Ballard & John Goddeeris & Sang-Kyum Kim, 2005. "Non-Homothetic Preferences and the Non-Environmental Effects of Environmental Taxes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 12(2), pages 115-130, March.
    13. MUNK, Knud J., 2011. "Optimal taxation in the presence of a congested public good and an application to transport policy," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2011057, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    14. Agnar Sandmo, 2003. "Environmental Taxation and Revenue for Development," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2003-86, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    15. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/10184 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Stephie Fried & Kevin Novan & William B. Peterman, 2021. "Recycling Carbon Tax Revenue to Maximize Welfare," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2021-023, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    17. Anabel Zárate-Marco & Jaime Vallés-Giménez, 2015. "Environmental tax and productivity in a decentralized context: new findings on the Porter hypothesis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 313-339, October.
    18. Mathy, Sandrine & Guivarch, Céline, 2010. "Climate policies in a second-best world--A case study on India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1519-1528, March.
    19. Takashima, Nobuyuki, 2017. "International environmental agreements with ancillary benefits: Repeated games analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 312-320.
    20. Abeer Elshennawy, 2011. "Is There A Triple Dividend Effect from A Tax on Fertilizer Use? A Computable General Equilibrium Approach," Working Papers 582, Economic Research Forum, revised 05 Jan 2011.
    21. Bjertnæs, Geir H. & Fæhn, Taran, 2008. "Energy taxation in a small, open economy: Social efficiency gains versus industrial concerns," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 2050-2071, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:332002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.