IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/332002.html

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, December.
    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. 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.
    2. Dirk T.G. Rübbelke & Nathan Rive, 2008. "Effects of the CDM on Poverty Eradication and Global Climate Protection," Working Papers 2008.93, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    3. Vennemo, Haakon & Aunan, Kristin & He, Jianwu & Hu, Tao & Li, Shantong & Rypdal, Kristin, 2008. "Erratum to "Environmental impacts of China's WTO-accession [Ecological Economics 64 (2008) 893-911]," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 712-712, July.
    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. 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.
    7. Claudia Kettner-Marx & Daniela Kletzan-Slamanig, 2018. "Carbon Taxes from an Economic Perspective," WIFO Working Papers 554, WIFO.
    8. 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).
    9. Agnar Sandmo, 2003. "Environmental Taxation and Revenue for Development," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2003-86, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    10. 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.).
    11. Sterner, Thomas & Ewald, Jens & Sterner, Erik, 2024. "Economists and the climate," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/10184 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Ikefuji, M. & Magnus, J.R. & Sakamoto, H., 2010. "Climate Change, Economic Growth, and Health," Discussion Paper 2010-86, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    14. Zhang, ZhongXiang, 2011. "Breaking the Impasse in International Climate Negotiations: A New Direction for Currently Flawed Negotiations and a Roadmap for China to 2050," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 108263, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    15. Henrik Klinge Jacobsen & Katja Birr-Pedersen & Mette Wier, 2003. "Distributional Implications of Environmental Taxation in Denmark," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 24(4), pages 477-499, December.
    16. Budzinski, Oliver, 2002. "Ecological Tax Reform and Unemployment," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-251, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    17. Bohringer, Christoph & Lange, Andreas, 2005. "On the design of optimal grandfathering schemes for emission allowances," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(8), pages 2041-2055, November.
    18. Nicholas Z. Muller, 2014. "Toward the Measurement of Net Economic Welfare: Air Pollution Damage in the US National Accounts–2002, 2005, 2008," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Economic Sustainability and Progress, pages 429-459, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Roeder, Kerstin & Habla, Wolfgang, 2012. "The Political Sustainability of Germany's Environmental Tax Rate," VfS Annual Conference 2012 (Goettingen): New Approaches and Challenges for the Labor Market of the 21st Century 62060, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    20. Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline, 2015. "Can environmental taxation in France really become ecological? Current situation and conditions of acceptability," PSE Working Papers halshs-04198162, HAL.
    21. Christian Elleby & Frank Jensen, 2018. "How Many Instruments Do We Really Need? A First-Best Optimal Solution to Multiple Objectives with Fisheries Regulation," IFRO Working Paper 2018/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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.