觀光發展與經濟成長之研究

Three Essays on Tourism Development and Economic Growth

葉龍泰(Lung-Tai Yeh)

指導教授 ： 黃柏農

國立中正大學/管理學院/經濟系國際經濟研究所/博士(2012年)

摘要

本文包含三篇關於觀光發展與經濟成長的研究議題，茲分別說明如下：
第一篇實證研究為使用橫斷面資料來研究84個國家在1995到2008年這段期間「觀光發展」和「經濟成長」之間的「線性」和「非線性」的關係，其研究目的在於運用門檻迴歸模型來檢驗觀光和經濟成長之間關係的差異。為了證明經濟成長和觀光發展之間的關係，我們選擇了「觀光專業化程度」、「觀光客人數比例」及「旅遊服務比例」來當作門檻變數。
研究結果顯示：在我們研究的84個國家中，有38個國家在三個門檻變數中均高於最適的門檻水準值，我們推論這些國家應該採用較積極的觀光政策。至於其餘的46個國家則至少有一個門檻變數低於最適的門檻水準值，因此這些國家應該採用不同程度的觀光政策來促進經濟成長。根據本研究結果，可以得到主要的政策意涵是：不是所有的國家都一定會從觀光發展中獲利，也就是說觀光成長不一定會帶來經濟成長。因此，我們會建議並非所有的國家都要採用觀光政策來促進經濟發展，也許這些國家可以透過其它非觀光部門來達成經濟成長的目標。
第二篇實證研究為運用Astatkie et al. (1997)所提出的雙門檻迴歸模型(Nested Threshold Autoregressive Model, NeTAR)來檢驗觀光和經濟成長之間的關係。亦即，本文除了使用橫斷面資料和雙門檻迴歸模型來研究84個國家在1995到2008年這段期間「觀光發展」和「經濟成長」之間的關係以外，在本文，我們還選擇了「人均所得」、「國家人口數」、「觀光專業化程度」及「觀光客人數比例」來當作門檻變數。
若我們以雙門檻變數來檢驗觀光發展和經濟成長之間的關係，則研究結果顯示：(a)在觀光國(高觀光專業化程度的國家或高觀光客人數比例的國家)，不論其所得高低(富國或窮國)，其觀光發展都會正向影響經濟成長；(b)在大國，不論其觀光專業化程度高低，其觀光發展則都會負向影響經濟成長；(c)在小國，不論其所得高低(富國或窮國)，其觀光發展則都會正向影響經濟成長；(d)最後，我們發現只有在高觀光專業化程度且高觀光客人數比例的國家，其觀光發展才會正向影響經濟成長。因此，依照我們的研究結果，可以得到主要的經濟意涵是：並非所有的國家都適合藉由觀光發展來促進經濟成長，只有小國及高觀光專業化程度或高觀光客人數比例的國家，才適合發展觀光，並利用觀光政策來達成經濟成長的目的。
最後，第三篇實證研究使用動態追蹤資料（Dynamic Panel Data, DPD）的方法來研究84個國家在1995到2008年的觀光發展和經濟成長。為了不讓國家特性因素影響研究結果，本研究進一步根據世界銀行所得水準的定義，將資料分成四類：低所得族群、中低所得族群、中高所得族群，及高所得族群。此外，我們還依據區域將資料分成：亞洲、非洲、歐洲和美洲。接著，我們再利用Blundell & Bond (1998)所建議的一階系統GMM方法來估計這四個所得族群和四個區域的追蹤資料VAR模型。最後，檢定其觀光發展和經濟成長之間的因果關係。
研究結果顯示：(a)在低所得族群、亞洲國家和非洲國家，觀光發展會正向影響經濟成長；(b)在中所得族群（包含中低和中高所得族群）和美洲國家，其觀光發展和經濟成長之間不存在顯著的因果關係；(c)在高所得族群和歐洲國家，觀光發展則會負向影響經濟成長。最後，本文提出一些值得提供政府參考的重要政策意涵。

關鍵字

一般動差法 ； 雙門檻迴歸模型 ； 門檻迴歸模型 ； 經濟成長 ； 觀光發展 ； 動態追蹤資料模型

並列摘要

The main issue of this dissertation is to research the relationship between tourism development and economic growth. It includes three essays which are as follows:
The first paper uses cross sectional data (1995–2008 yearly averages) for 84 countries to investigate the linear and nonlinear relationship between tourism development and economic growth. The purpose of this paper is to apply the threshold regression model to investigate the difference in the relationship between tourism and economic growth by using certain threshold variables. To identify the conditions under which economic growth is related to tourism development, we select the degree of tourism specialization, the ratio of tourist, and the ratio of travel services as threshold variables.
If threshold variables are lower than certain optimal threshold levels, there is no significant relationship between tourism development and economic growth. However, when these threshold variables are higher than certain optimal levels, there is a significantly positive relationship between these two. Hence, if there is a significantly positive relationship between tourism development and economic growth, then the country should adopt a more aggressive tourism policy to promote economic development. Conversely, if there is no significant relationship between the two, then the country should adopt a more conservative tourism policy. Results reveal that in 38 out of the 84 countries studied, all the three threshold variables are found to be higher than the optimal levels. It is inferred that these 38 countries should adopt a more aggressive tourism policy. As for the other 46 countries, at least one threshold variable is lower than the optimal levels. Thus, these countries should adopt tourism policy with different degrees to foster economic growth. In the light of the results, the main policy implication is that it is not necessary for all countries to benefit from the tourism development, that is, tourism growth does not always lead to economic growth. Therefore, we may suggest that not every country should adopt a tourism policy to promote economic development, and these countries may achieve economic growth through other non-tourism sectors.
The second paper applies the Nested Threshold Autoregressive (NeTAR) Model proposed by Astatkie et al. (1997) to investigate the difference in the relationship between tourism development and economic growth. Here, we select per capita GDP, population, degree of tourism specialization, and ratio of tourist as threshold variables.
If we use double threshold variables to examine the relationship between tourism development and economic growth, then the results find that: (a) in tourism countries (high degree of tourism specialization country or high ratio of tourist country), no matter income levels, tourism development leads economic growth positively; (b) in big countries, no matter degree of tourism specialization, tourism development leads economic growth negatively; (c) in small countries, no matter income levels, tourism development leads economic growth positively; (d) finally, only in high degree of tourism specialization and high ratio of tourist country, tourism development leads economic growth positively. Hence, according to the results, the main economic implication is that it is not necessary for all countries to develop tourism to promote economic growth. Only small country, high degree of tourism specialization country or high ratio of tourist country may achieve economic growth through tourism policy.
Finally, the third paper uses the dynamic panel data (DPD) of tourism development and economic growth for 84 countries from 1995 to 2008. Based on the income levels defined by the World Bank, the data are divided into four categories: low income group, lower middle income group, upper middle income group, and high income group. In addition, we classify these 84 countries into four regional groups: Asia, Africa, Europe and America. We employ the one-step system GMM (GMM-SYS) approach suggested by Blundell & Bond (1998) for the estimation of the panel VAR model in each of the four groups. Then, we test the causal relationship between tourism development and economic growth.
The research results reveal that (a) in the low income group and in the Asian & African countries, tourism development leads economic growth positively; (b) in the middle income group (include lower middle and upper middle income groups) and in the American countries, there is no causal relationship between tourism development and economic growth; (c) in the high income group and in the European countries, tourism development leads economic growth negatively. Finally, we propose some important policy implications for the government.

並列關鍵字

Generalized method of mements ； Nested threshold autoregressive model ； Threshold regression model ； Economic growth ； Tourism development ； Dynamic panel data model

參考文獻

Astatkie, T., Watts, D. G., and Watt, W. E. (1997), “Nested Threshold Autoregressive (NeTAR) Models,” International Journal of Forecasting, 13, 105-116.

Arellano, M. and Bond, S. (1991), “Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations,” Review of

Arellano, M. and Bover, O. (1995), “Another Look at the Instrumental Variable Estimation of Error-Components Models,” Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29-51.

Balaguer, J. and Cantavella-Jorda, M. (2002), “Tourism as a Long-Run Economic Growth Factor: the Spanish Case,” Applied Economics, 34, 877-884.

Baltagi, B. H. (2001), Economics Analysis of Panel data, 2nd edition, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chicester.