透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.134.77.195
  • 學位論文

影響台灣農產品出口的因素-邊際效應的驗證

The Main Determinants of Taiwan Agricultural Exports: A Border Effect Analysis

指導教授 : 羅竹平

摘要


本文運用重力模型檢視台灣1992年至2008年間,影響台灣農產品出口的主要因素,其中和台灣同文同種的中國之邊際效應對台灣農業出口的影響是本文特別關注的。研究結果顯示台灣的農業出口與進口國的平均每人生產毛額及人口規模呈現正向的關係,和距離則呈現負向的關係。進口國的領土面積則對台灣農業的出口沒有顯著的影響力,和文獻的結果有差異,可能和進口國的農業多為專業化生產,無法滿足其國內消費者多元的需求傾向有關。 中國對農產品的需求雖和台灣有相同的偏好,但在初期開放交流與戒急用忍政策下,中國與台灣農產品的出口為顯著的負向關係,邊際效應的存在使得出口至中國的值更低,若邊際效應不存在,估計台灣農產品出口至中國於1992年會是存在時的475.8倍,至 1998年為8.98倍,有逐漸改善的趨勢。1999年至2008年的關係為不顯著的,但估計的係數有逐漸上升的趨勢,2003年後更由負值轉為正值,表示台灣政府對中國的貿易政策會影響農產品外銷至中國的情況。研究結果和文獻不同,顯示農產品出口至中國比起工業產品與中國貿易,受政府政策之影響是較深的,因此政府政策的實施是影響台灣農業出口至中國的關鍵因素。預計簽訂ECFA後,台灣農產品出口至中國會大幅度增加。 而香港與台灣農業出口於1993年至2001年間呈現正向的關係,邊際效應的存在使出口值為不存在下的7.645-21.031倍,和香港是兩岸轉口貿易的中介者有關。日本與台灣的農業出口則從1992年以來一直維持著穩定的正向關係,和殖民因素有關聯,雖然近年來關係有微幅下降的趨勢,出口值也從1992年較無邊際效應存在下的31.125倍,下降至2008年的8.611倍,但整體而言日本對台灣的農產品需求仍有高度的倚賴性。

並列摘要


This article applies gravity model to analyze the main determinants of Taiwan agricultural exports during 1992 to 2008. Especially the border effect between Taiwan and China is mainly stressed in the research. Results showed that trading partners’ per capita GDP and population had positive effect on Taiwan agricultural exports, but the distance factor had negative effect on it. Contrary to the prior studies, importing countries’ land area had no significant influence on Taiwan agricultural exports. The reason may be explained by specialization in agricultural production of Taiwan’s trading partners recently. Although people lived in China had the same preference as Taiwanese in agric-products demanding, China had significant negative relations with Taiwan agricultural exports under “early mutual free trade” and “no haste, be patient” trading policies from1992 to 1998. The border effect existed causing Taiwan exported less agric-products to China in those years, but the effect became less intensive gradually at the time. If there were no border effect, the exporting volume would be more. Moreover, the trading relations with China were insignificant from 1999 to 2008, but the coefficients had rising trends with the time passed by. Especially after year 2003, the coefficients transformed from negative to positive. The results contrary to the prior studies, and implied that the policies Taiwan government made had larger effect on agricultural export to China than on industrial trade with China. So, the government trade policies played an important role in Taiwan’s agric-products export to China. If Taiwan sign ECFA contract with China these days, it is expected that the agricultural exporting volume of Taiwan to China will increase sharply in the near future. Results also indicated that Hong Kong had positive relations with Taiwan agricultural exports from1993 to 2001.The existing of border effect caused Taiwan exporting more volume to Hong Kong than the effect didn’t exist. It could be explained by that Hong Kong was the trading agent between Taiwan and China. As far as Japan was concerned, it had positive and steady relations with Taiwan agricultural exports since 1992 because of colony. Although the positive relations has been decreasing gradually in recent years, and the impacts of the border effect existed causing exporting more to Japan than the effect didn’t exist had decreased from 1992 to 2008, Japan still highly relied on Taiwan’s agric-products in general.

參考文獻


黃登興、張幼宜(2006)。「兩岸三地貿易流量的變遷—引力模型的驗證」,臺灣經濟預測與政策,第36卷第2期,頁47-75,中央研究院經濟研究所。
Anderson, J. E. and E. van Wincoop (2003). “Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle.” American Economic Review, 93(1), 170-192.
Atici, C. and Furuya, J. (2008). “Regional Blocs and Agricultural Trade Flow: The Case of ASEAN.” JARQ, 42(2), 115-121, from http://www.jircas.go.jp .
Atici, C. and Guloglu, B. (2006). “Gravity Model of Turkey’s Fresh and Processed Fruit and Vegetable Export to the EU.” Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, 18(3), 7-21.
Chunlai Chen, Jun Yang and Christopher Findlay (2008). “Measuring the Effect of Food Safety Standards on China’s Agricultural Exports.” Review of World Economics, 144(1), 83-106.

延伸閱讀