服務業在全球價值鏈及國際產業分工之角色分析

Services in Global Value Chains and International Fragmentation

陳敏慧(Min-Hui Chen)

指導教授 ： 林師模

中原大學/商學院/商學博士學位學程/博士(2019年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201900140

摘要

全球化與貿易自由化的盛行導致WTO的成立，並於2001年進行國際服務貿易協定(Trade in Service Agreement, TISA) 的談判。目前亞太地區加入TISA的國家有台灣、南韓、澳大利亞、土耳其及日本，而2018年TISA會員國服務貿易的總量已達全世界的七成。雖然服務業本身之貿易量無法與製造業產品相比，但卻可以無形的帶動製造業產品的貿易。當服務伴隨著產品出口，所投入的附加價值參與價值鏈的投入，所提供的附加價值會被體現在出口的產品中，而這些產品包括中間產品及最終產品。
本研究從三個層面探討服務業參與全球價值鏈的情況。首先，我們以世界投入產出表 (World Input-Output Table, WIOT) 探索台灣、韓國服務業與中國雙邊貿易的競爭力，所使用的衡量指標為貿易的附加價值(Value Added in Trade, VAiT)與附加價值貿易(Trade in Value Added, TiVA)；而為了比較產業的競爭力，我們也參考 Koopman et al.(2014) 及Wang et al.(2014) 的做法將出口毛額分解，以比較台韓服務業與中國雙邊貿易的競爭優勢。接著，本研究透過出口毛額的分解，分析台灣與韓國參與全球供應鏈在亞洲分工的趨勢。這部分係以世界投入產出數據庫（WIOD）之資料檢驗和比較1995年至2011年全球價值鏈中，台灣和韓國在亞洲的服務業和製造業的分工和垂直專業化情況。最後，本研究以再以WIOT進行分析，比較2000年到2014年台灣與韓國金融業在亞太地區參與全球價值鏈分工的地位及程度。
第一個部分之實證結果發現，台灣光電產業產品出口到中國所含之台灣金融和商業服務的附加價值VAiT比例每年增加9.8-11.5％，與韓國相似（12.2％至11.3％）。而在服務業參與全球價值鏈的情況方面，第二個部分之實證結果發現，太平洋區域國家中服務業分工最熱絡的國家為印度，其次為中國，IPF分別為1.99 到1.64與2.44到1.82。韓國服務業分工熱絡程度排名第三，IPF為2.45到2.03，台灣之IPF則為2.31到2.43，落後於韓國及印尼(IPF為2.45到2.31)，但贏過日本(IPF為2.87到2.91)。
至於在服務業雙邊貿易方面，第三個部分的實證結果發現，2000年台灣F&B產業與中國雙邊貿易的分工地位(-0.05)比韓國(-0.06)高，而2005到2014年台灣F&B產業與中國雙邊貿易的分工地位比韓國低(台灣為-0.04到-0.14，韓國為-0.0005到-0.06)。亞太區域經濟體中，各國的F&B產業與中國雙邊貿易為促進貿易之重要推手，其中，2006年有很大的變化，南韓地位大躍進。F&B產業與中國雙邊貿易分工的地位為，日本>澳大利亞=俄羅斯>南韓>印尼>印度>土耳其>台灣(GVC position指數，0.12>0.07=0.07>0.05>0.02>0.01>0.002>
-0.04)。2014年F&B產業與中國雙邊貿易分工的地位為：澳大利亞>俄羅斯>印地安>土耳其>日本>韓國>台灣(GVC position指數，0.06>0.04>0.003>
-0.002>-0.02>-0.06>-0.14。
關鍵字: 全球價值鏈;競爭力;貿易的附加價值;附加價值貿易;分工和垂直專業化;雙邊貿易。

關鍵字

全球價值鏈 ； 競爭力 ； 貿易的附加價值 ； 附加價值貿易 ； 分工和垂直專業化 ； 雙邊貿易。

並列摘要

The prevalence of globalization and trade liberalization led to the establishment of the WTO (world trade organization) and the negotiation of the Trade in Service Agreement (TISA) in 2001. At present, the countries participating in TISA in the Asia-Pacific region include Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, Turkey and Japan. In 2018, the total amount of service trade of TISA member countries has reached 70 percent of the world. Although the trade volume of the service industry itself is not comparable to that of the manufacturing industry, it can invisibly drive the trade of manufacturing products. When services are accompanied by product exports, the value added of the inputs is invested in the value chain, and is reflected in the products that are exported, and these products include intermediate products and final products.
This study explores the global value chain in which the service industry participates in three dimensions. First, we use the World Input-Output Table (WIOT) to explore the competitiveness of Taiwanese and South Korean service industries in bilateral trade with China. The measures used are the Value Added in Trade (VAiT) and Trade in Value Added (TiVA). In order to compare the competitiveness of the industry, we also refer to Koopman et al. (2014) and Wang et al. (2014) to decompose the gross export in order to compare the competitive advantage of Taiwanese and South Korean service industry in bilateral trade with China. Then, this study analyzes the trend of the Asian fragmentation in the global supply chain in which Taiwan and South Korea participate, through the decomposition of gross exports. This section uses the World Input-Output Database (WIOD) to test and compare the fragmentation and vertical specialization in the global value chain (GVC) from 1995 to 2011 in Taiwan and South Korea in the service industry and manufacturing industry in Asia. Finally, this study compares the status and extent of the global value chain fragmentation of Taiwanese and South Korean financial and business (F&B) industry in the Asia-Pacific region from 2000 to 2014.
Our empirical results show that the value added of Taiwanese financial and business services (VAiT) in Taiwanese electrical and optical equipment industry (ELE) exports to China has a proportion that grows from 9.8 percent to 11.5 percent per year. This was similar to that of South Korea (12.2 percent to 11.3 percent). In the case of the service industrial participation in the global value chain, the empirical results of the second part found that the countries with the hottest fragmentation of services in the Pacific region were India, followed by China, with IPF of 1.99 to 1.64 and 2.44 to 1.82, respectively. South Korean service industry ranked third in terms of fragmentation enthusiasm, with IPF of 2.45 to 2.03, Taiwanese IPF was of 2.31 to 2.43, behind that of South Korea and Indonesia (IPF of 2.45 to 2.31), but won Japan (IPF is 2.87 to 2.91).
As for the bilateral trade in the service industry, our empirical results indicate that Taiwanese F&B industry in 2000 had a higher fragmentation (-0.05) in bilateral trade with China than South Korea (-0.06). From 2005 to 2014, Taiwanese F&B industry had a lower fragmentation in bilateral trade with China than South Korea (-0.04 to -0.14 in Taiwan and -0.0005 to -0.06 in South Korea). Among the economies of the Asia-Pacific region, the F&B industry of various countries is an important promoter in bilateral trade with China. Among them, there were great changes in 2006, that South Korea made a great leap forward. The order of F&B in bilateral trade with China is as follows: Japan, Russia, South Korea, Indonesia, India, Turkey, and Taiwan (GVC position index, 0.12, 0.07, 0.05,0.02, 0.01, 0.002, - 0.04). In 2014, the order of F&B in bilateral trade with China is as follows: Australia, Russia, Indian, Turkey, Japan, Korea, Taiwan (GVC position index, 0.06, greater than 0.04, 0.003, -0.002, -0.02,- 0.06, -0.14.
Keywords: global value chain (GVC); competitiveness; Value Added in Trade (VAiT); Trade in Value Added (TiVA); fragmentation and vertical specialization; bilateral trade

並列關鍵字

competitiveness ； Value Added in Trade (VAiT) ； Trade in Value Added (TiVA) ； fragmentation and vertical specialization ； bilateral trade

參考文獻

Ahmad, N. (2013), “Measuring trade in value added, and beyond”, Prepared for the Conference on ‘Measuring the Effects of Globalization’, Washington, DC, pp. 1-34.

Athukorala, P.C. and Yamasita, N. (2006), “Production fragmentation and integration: East Asia in a global context”, North American Journal Economics and Finance, 178, pp. 233-256.

Arnold, J., Javorcik, B., and Mattoo, A.(2011),“Does services liberalization benefit manufacturing firms? Evidence from the Czech republic”, Journal of International Economics, 85, 1, pp.136-146.

Aplinsky, R. (2010), “The Role of Standards in Global Value Chains”, Working Paper No. 5396, World Bank Policy Research, pp. 1-20.

Baldwin, R. and Lopez-Gonzalez, J. (2013), “Supply-chain trade: a portrait of global patterns and several testable hypotheses”, NBER Program(s): International Trade and Investment, the National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working paper No 18957, pp. 1-63.