兩岸服務業貿易自由化之可計算一般均衡分析：未充分就業與對外直接投資的意涵

A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis on the Cross-Strait Services Trade Liberalization: The Significance of Unemployment and FDI

謝承評(Cheng-Ping Hsieh)

指導教授 ： 李叢禎

國立臺北大學/社會科學學院/經濟學系/碩士(2014年)

摘要

海峽兩岸服務貿易協議係「兩岸經濟合作架構協議(ECFA)」之後續貿易協定，此協議雖已於2013年簽屬，然因民眾對於該協議內容的疑慮及政治因素考量，故迄今仍未生效。本文以實證經濟觀點，在考量不同服務業貿易自由化模式及未充分就業情況下，探討此一協議對於兩岸總體經濟及產業之影響，以提供客觀決策支援訊息。盱衡目前相關文獻發展，服務業貿易自由化研究多以可計算一般均衡模型作為量化評估工具，並根據服務業貿易障礙推估隱含之約當關稅，從事約當關稅減讓模擬情境分析，然而此一方式並無法完整呈現服務業貿易自由化之經濟影響，原因在於其忽略服務業供給模式中「商業據點呈現」伴隨的對外直接投資的影響。由於利用關稅減讓方式模擬服務業自由化之經濟影響，往往獲致正向之總體經濟影響效果，惟對外投資之鬆綁牽涉投資資金的流入與流出，對總體經濟不完全帶來正面的影響，因此實有必要將此一效果反映於模擬情境中，以正確且全面的捕捉服務業貿易自由化所帶來的經濟影響。
基此，本文採用全球貿易分析模型(Global Trade Analysis Project, GTAP)，利用約當關稅減讓及對外直接投資鬆綁兩種方式，模擬兩岸服務業貿易自由化的經濟影響。另由於就業問題係貿易自由化政策主要考量的重點之一，故在本文模擬情境中亦考量充分與未充分就業情境。具體而言，本文考量服務業約當關稅減讓、對外直接投資鬆綁、及兩種模式同時衝擊下，分別設定充分就業及未充分就業封閉法則從事模擬，共計六種模擬情境，並針對這六種情境下兩岸實質國民生產毛額、產業產出、進出口以及勞工就業率的變化進行經濟影響評估。
本文模擬結果顯示，臺灣在六種情境下都可由兩岸服務業貿易自由化中受惠，但中國卻不然，在單獨討論外資鬆綁的情境中，無論是在充分就業或未充分就業情境下，中國皆遭受負面經濟衝擊，此係因中國對台灣有淨投資資金流出所致。由於外資的淨流出或流入量攸關服務業貿易自由化之經濟影響，因此在雙邊投資管制鬆綁的政策下，如何創造吸引外資投資之環境並確保外資長期穩定投資，係政府研擬相關配套措施之首要考量。另本文模擬結果亦顯示，服務業貿易自由化後並非所有服務業部門均能得利，是故政府應研擬合宜的產業輔導措施，以提升這些可能受損的產業部門競爭力。最後，本研究發現在未充分就業情境下，開放自由貿易所帶來的經濟成長效果較為顯著，易言之，在當前失業問題備受矚目之際，透過自由貿易擴大市場規模，將有助於提升國內經濟動能，刺激經濟成長，合宜的就業及勞工技能輔導措施將能有效提升勞動參與，是為實現貿易自由化下經濟成長願景不可或缺的配套措施。

關鍵字

對外直接投資 ； 服務業貿易自由化 ； 可計算一般均衡 ； 全球貿易分析模型

並列摘要

The Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services, which was signed in 2013, is a follow-up agreement for the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). However, this agreement does not come into effective until now because of political controversies and public concerns. This paper aims at conducting an empirical analysis on the economic impacts of the cross-strait service trade liberalization with a special focus on different modes of services supply and unemployment. Theoretically, there are four modes of services supply, consisting of cross-border trade (mode 1), consumption abroad (mode 2), commercial presence (mode 3), and movement of natural person (mode 4). Mode 1 means that a person in his country receives services from other countries through its telecommunications or postal infrastructure. Mode 2 means a person moves abroad to consume the foreign services. Mode 3 means a local or foreign company sets up an office or a branch in one country and provides service there. Mode 4 means a foreign person provides a service in one country as an independent supplier. At present, most studies adopt computable general equilibrium (CGE) models and implement the scenarios of reducing tariff equivalents in services sectors to analyze the effect of services trade liberalization. However, using tariff equivalents as shocks cannot exactly capture the effects of services trade liberalization. Commercial presence usually accompanies by great amount of foreign direct investment (FDI). The effect of FDI on real GDP tends to be positive in the scenarios of reducing tariff equivalents. This is not consistent with the conclusion of the econometric studies that indicate FDI may have negative effect on the host country. In other words, the scenarios of cutting tariff equivalents may not sufficiently reflect the impacts of service trade liberalization, particularly the impacts of FDI flows.
Accordingly, this paper adopts the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model to explore the effects of services trade liberalization across the Strait. We construct a FDI database and adopt the gravity model to estimate the FDI flows. In addition to the scenarios of removing tariff equivalents, we also implement the scenarios of FDI and a combination of the two. The three types of service trade liberalization scenarios are respectively simulated under the closures of full employment and unemployment. In sum, there are six simulation scenarios through which we draw the results of real GDP, industrial outputs, imports and exports and make a comparison analysis.
All of the simulation results suggest that Taiwan will benefits from services trade liberalization. However, in the scenarios considering only the effect of FDI, China will experience a negative economic impact due to a net FDI outflow to Taiwan. In addition, the simulation results indicate that the net FDI outflow and inflow are crucial in determining the impacts on the macro-economy. Developing some strategies to attract FDI inflow in long-run is the priority in making effective response measure. Moreover, not all services sectors will benefit from the liberalization. The government should adopt some compensation and supporting policies to prevent those sectors from losing competitiveness. Finally, under the scenarios of unemployment, the effect of services trade liberalization on economy is more significant. In an ear of unemployment, therefore, trade liberalization enlarges market scale, and services as a key driver stimulating economic growth. A coordinated set of measure for enhancing labor participation (such as training, job attachment, job placement and post-placement services) can help to realize the economic gain from service trade liberalization.

並列關鍵字

foreign direct investment ； services trade liberalization ； computable general equilibrium ； Global Trade Analysis Project

參考文獻

Weng, Y.H., K.C. Hsu, S.H. Hsu, and F.C. Tu (2001), “The Economic Impact of the Opening of the Three Links Between Taiwan and China,” Taiwan Economic Association Annual Conference Proceedings, 95-120.

Brown, D. K., K. Kiyota, and M. Stern (2006), “Computational Analysis of the Menu of US-Japan Trade Policies,” The World Economy, 29(6), 805-855.

Chang, S.C. (2007), “The Interactions among Foreign Direct Investment, Economic Growth, Degree of Openness and Unemployment in Taiwan,” Applied Economics, 39(13), 1647-1661.

Chen, K.M. (2011), “Outward Foreign Direct Investment, Wage Rigidity and Unemployment: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis,” The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 20(4), 569-583.

Chen, K.M., M.C. Tsai, C.C. Lin, and C.H. Tu (2009), “Impact of Cross-Strait Trade Liberalization: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis,” China & World Economy, 17(6), 106-122.