服务贸易与货物贸易的差异和互补【外文翻译】

外文翻译
原文
Trade in Services and Trade in Goods: Differences and Complementarities Material Source: April 2009,The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies
Author: Carolina Lennon
Abstract
Despite the increasing importance of services in national economies (accounting for about 50-70 % of internal product), in global economy (accounting for the 20 % of global trade) and in public opinion (i.e. US Concern about Mexican workers due to migration laws or the case of the “polish plumbers” in France at the time of European Constitution referendum) there is no economic consensus about the way in what services should be considered in trade liberalization analyses. The double purpose of this paper is; first, to empirically determine to what extent trade in services differs from trade in goods and, second, to explore for potential complementarities between bilateral trade in goods and bilateral trade in services. For our first goal we regress a set of equations derived from the gravitational model and for the second we instrument bilateral trade for both services and goods in order to analyses potential causalities of each type of flow in the other. Main results show that “bilateral trust and contract enforcement environment”, “networks”, “labor markets” and “technology and technology of communication” have higher impact on service trade than on trade in goods; finally, after incrementing for endogenously, we found that bilateral trade in goods explains bilateral trade in services: the resulting estimated elasticity is close to 1.Reciprocally, though in a lower extent, bilateral trade in services affects positively bilateral trade in goods: a 10% increase in trade in services raises traded goods by 4.6%.
1 Introduction
The services sector is the biggest contributor to a country’s economy, its contribution increases with the level of development of countries, ranging from 47 percent of countries’ GDP in the case of low income countries to a contribution of 70 percent in the case of high income countries. In addition, measured by the
balance of payments (BOP), over the past two decades, growth of trade in services has surpassed growth of trade in goods. Trade in goods has multiplied by 3,5 while Total services has multiplied by around 5. The growing importance of services in domestic economies and international trade is largely due to an increase in the production of intermediate services (i.e. outsourcing).Firms increasingly delegate costly knowledge-intensive intermediate-stage processing activities to specialized suppliers in order to benefit from lower factor costs. To illustrate this phenomenon we can observe in Figure 2 that trade in “Other Commercial Services”, which consists mainly in business to business services or outsourcing services, has experienced a seven-fold increase in its export value over the last twenty years. Besides the economic importance of services activity, in general, and service outsourcing, in particular, this phenomenon has received a huge amount of attention in the media and political circles and the sector has increasingly been included under the framework of current multilateral negotiations (GATS) and regional agreements. Notwithstanding the economic importance of services sector in national economies and in the globalization process, there is no economic consensus about how trade in services should be considered in trade liberalization analyses. Bhagwati et al.(2004) argue that outsourcing is fundamentally a trade phenomenon, hence, with respect to trade in goods, there is no need to use a different approach to analyze trade liberalization outcomes in the services sector . By contrast Mirza et al (2006) develop a theoretical model that incorporates a special feature in services trade, based on the fact that trade in some services can only occur if inputs from both trading countries are jointly used in the transaction process. Some empirical research on the determinants of the bilateral trade in services has been already carried. Grünfeld et al. (2003), Mirza et al. (2004), and Kimura and Lee (2003) explore for the determinants of bilateral trade in services using a gravity framework, differently to us they rely on aggregate data. Additionally Freund and Weinhold (2002) also use a gravity framework but focus only on the U.S. case and mainly on the impact of the new communication technologies on traded services. Aviat and Coeurdacier (2005) apply also a gravitational framework to explain bilateral trade in financial assets. To control for endogenously and to check for the direction of the causal relationship, they jointly study trade in goods and trade in banking assets in simultaneous gravity equations. The work of Kimura and Lee (2003) is the closest to our analysis, because, similarly to us, they also explore for differences and complementarities between trades in services and trade in goods. The purpose of this paper is double.
First, we empirically explore to what extent the determinants of trade in services differs from those of trade in goods and, second, by the use of instrumental variables, we explore for potential complementarities between bilateral trade in goods and bilateral trade in services. All over the analysis we use a gravity framework. We make use of two sets of explanatory variables. The first consists in a set of basic gravity variables, and then, the second adds to the analysis an array of variables we estimate to have an important role in explaining trade in services such as; the “bilateral trust and contract enforcement environment”, the existence of “Networks”, the regulation and qualification of the “labor markets” and the adoption of “technology and new communication technologies”. Given the lack of disaggregate data, previous analysis have only studied the determinant of trade in total services However it is reasonable to think that the nature of services such as the “Travel” and the “Other commercial services” sector should be highly different, and therefore their determinants might also differ. In this context the present analysis benefits from the new release of the OECD database on bilateral trade in services. The outstanding advantage of this new database is that trade in services has been classified by four sub-sectors: “Travel”, “Transportation”, “Other commercial services” and “Government services”. Moreover focusing on “Other commercial services”, the services sector presenting the highest trade growth rate over the last two decades, we enrich the set of explanatory variables. Finally, as far as we know, this work is the first attempt to explore for potential complementarities between trade in goods and trade in services using bilateral trade data as well as the Instrumental Variable (IV) technique. The paper proceeds as follows. In Section 2, we present a review of special features of the services sector and some potential sources of complementarities between trade in services and trade in goods. In Section 3, we present the gravitational model and the data. In Section 4, we discuss results on the differences between trades in services and trade in goods. Section 5, we present results of the instrumental variable estimations and Section 6 concludes.
2 Characteristics of Services and Potential
2.1 Service Characteristics
The services sector has been considered for a long time as the non-tradable sector of the economy, since a large number of services required physical contacts between producers and consumers in order to allow the transaction to occur, rendering trading cost to remote locations prohibitive. New communication technologies in general and the Internet, in particular, help to overcome such
historical barriers as they help to reduce transaction costs from unaffordable to virtually nothing (e.g. call centers and trade in financial assets). Services have a highly heterogeneous nature and they have often been considered as being intangible and non-storable. The heterogeneous nature is drawn from several sources: (1) services often require the suppliers and the consumers to be physically located in the same place in order to fulfill the transaction, therefore they are differentiated by location; (2) several services are customized in order to fit client needs, then, they are differentiated by client firms; In addition, (3) they are highly specialized, in the sense that it is costly (in terms of time and money) to change the type of services offered, accordingly, services production might require expertise gained by education, training or experience . Finally (4) they are heterogeneous in quality because they are labor-intensive. As mentioned in the introduction “Other commercial services”, which consists mainly in business to business services, has been the most dynamic sector of trade in services. This sub-sector has been characterized by Jones and Kierzkowski (2005), Markusen (1989) and Markusen et al. (2000 and 2005) as a sector presenting Increasing Returns to Scale. In particular, Markusen has modeled it as being: (1) a Knowledge-intensive sector requiring a high initial investment in learning (i.e. expertise), (2) a sector that is intensive in skilled labor and (3) which final products are highly differentiated. Because of its intangible character and quality variability, services cannot always be identified by their clients before they are purchased or consumed, this phenomenon, in turn, generates information asymmetries and agency problems. Consequently, the experience of contracting a service can be risky. Finally the fact that services are highly specialized and differentiated implies: (1) that services do not have reference prices and (2) that the efforts involved in searching the suited partner might be significant.
2.2 Complementarities
Some economists have suggested the existence of complementarities between bilateral trade in goods and bilateral trade in services. In Marku sen’s models, an increase in producer services varieties (varieties of intermediate services) confers a positive technological externality in final goods production, which in turn, makes total factor productivity to increase. Amiti and Wei (2004) use data on US manufacturing industries and find that services outsourcing is positively correlated with labor productivity. Francois and Wooton (2005) analyze the interaction between trade in goods and the level of competitiveness in the “export and retail
related services” sector (i.e. shipping and logistic services, wholesale and final consumer distribution). They show theoretically and empirically that an uncompetitive domestic services sector can act as an import barrier to trade in goods. In Feenstra et al. (2004) the authors focus on the importance of services intermediaries in reducing informational barriers to international trade in goods. They elaborate a theoretical model where countries benefit from purchasing goods from a remote country (China) by having access to intermediary services located in a third country (Hong Kong).
译文
服务贸易与货物贸易的差异和互补
资料来源:维也纳学院,国际经济研究作者：Carolina Lennon 摘要
尽管服务在国民经济中的重要性越来越多（约占50%-70％的内部产品），在全球经济（20％的会计全球贸易）及公众意见（即美国因为移民法对墨西哥工人的关注或法国“波兰管道工”在欧洲宪法公投时的情况）中没有关于应该以何种经济方式来认识服务在贸易自由化情况下的分析。

本文的两个重点是：第一，探讨在何种程度上在服务贸易的决定因素不同于货物贸易；第二，探讨两国贸易之间潜在的货物贸易的互补性和服务双边贸易。

对于我们的第一目标，我们应用引力模型得到方程，从而对服务和货物双边贸易进行测量，为了分析流程中每个类型的潜在伤亡。

结果显示，“双方的信任和合同执法环境”，“网络”，“劳动力市场”以及“技术和通信技术”对服务贸易的影响高于对货物贸易的影响。

最后，通过内在测量，我们发现，双边货物贸易能够说明双边服务贸易：当所产生的估计弹性接近1。

同样地，虽然在一个较低的程度上，服务贸易能够影响货物贸易：当服务贸易增幅10％的时候货物贸易将提高4.6％。

1 简介
这些服务部门对国家的经济贡献最大，其贡献取决于国家的发展水平，从一个低收入国家47%的国内生产总值相当于一个高收入国家70%国内生产总值。

此外，也受国际收支平衡的影响，在过去二十年来，服务贸易的增长已经超过了货物贸易的增长。

货物贸易已增加了3.5倍，而服务贸易已增加了5倍左右。

服务贸易在国内经济和国际贸易中日益重要的主要原因是中介服务（即外包）的增加。

企业正越来越重视知识密集的中间阶段的加工活动，从而得到较低的生产成本。

为了说明这一点现象，我们可以观察图2中贸易在“其他商业服务”，
这主要包括企业对企业的服务或外包服务，在过去的20年里出口总额已经增长了7倍。

除了服务贸易对经济的重要性，一般来讲，服务外包，特别是这现象已经得到了媒体和政府部门的大量关注和已经越来越多地被包括在现行多边框架谈判（服务贸易总协定）和区域协定内。

尽管服务部门在国民经济和经济的全球化过程中非常重要，也没有关于在贸易自由化的情况下如何分析服务贸易的经济共识。

巴格瓦蒂（2004）认为，外包是从根本上交易的现象，因此，关于货物贸易，没有必要使用不同的方法来分析服务贸易自由化的成果。

相反通过米尔扎等人（2006）制定的理论模型，纳入了服务贸易的特殊功能，但事实上，这些服务贸易只能在双方贸易国共同使用的投入都在交易过程中时进行。

一些关于两国在服务贸易的决定因素的实证研究已经通过。

格伦菲尔德等人（2003），米尔扎等人（2004），木村和Lee（2003）探索双边服务贸易中利用重力框架的决定因素，与我们不同，他们依靠总的数据。

此外Freund和Weinhold（2002）也使用重力的框架，但只根据在美国的情况，主要分析新的通信技术对服务贸易的影响。

Aviat和Coeurdacier（2005）也应用引力框架来解释金融资产的双边贸易。

为了控制内生性以及分析因果关系的方向，他们在同步重力方程式情况下共同研究货物贸易和银行资产的交易。

木村和Lee （2003）的研究结果和我们最接近，因为和我们相同他们还探索了服务贸易和货物贸易之间的差异和互补性。

本文的目的两个。

首先，探讨在何种程度上在服务贸易的决定因素不同于货物贸易，第二，通过使用的工具变量，来探讨两国之间的贸易潜力以及货物和服务双边贸易的互补性。

所有以上的分析，我们使用一个重力框架。

我们运用两个解释变量。

基本重力集变量和一个变量数组分析，我们估计服务贸易的重要作用如；“双边信任和合同执法环境”，存在的“网络”，“劳动市场”的规例和资格以及采用“技术和新的通信技术”。

由于缺乏分解数据，根据以往的研究分析，只有总的服务贸易的决定因素是合理的，但它认为，服务的性质，例如“旅游”和“其他商业服务”部门应高度不同，因此其决定因素也可能有所不同。

在这方面，目前的分析关于双边服务贸易受益于新的经合组织的数据库。

这种新的数据库突出的优势在与服务贸易一直由四个子行业组成：“旅游”，“运输”，“其他商业服务”和“政府服务”。

此外“其他商业服务”在过去二十年里服务贸易部门颁发的最高增长速度，丰富了我们的解释变量。

最后，据我们所知，这项工作是首次尝试，探索货物贸易和服务贸易之间利用双边的贸易数据以及工具变量（四）技术潜在的互补性。

过程如下。

在第二节中，我们提出一个特殊功能的检讨服务部门和一些服务和货物贸易潜在的互补性来源。

在第三节中，我们提出引力模型和数据。

在第四节讨论关于服务贸易和货物贸易之间的差异。

第五节运用工具变量估计和第六节结束目前的结果。

2 服务的特征及潜力
2.1 服务特点
服务部门已经经过长时间的考虑，作为经济非贸易部门，为了让在交易发生大量的服务需要生产者与消费者之间的物理联系，而远距离高昂的交易成本成为了一个严重问题。

一般新的通信技术和因特网，特别能够帮助克服这些障碍，因为他们有助于降低交易成本。

几乎没有什么负担不起（例如呼叫中心和金融资产交易）。

服务有一个高度差异性，他们往往被认为是无形的，不可储存的，这些差异性主要来源如下：（1）服务通常要求供应商和消费者物理上必须位于同一地点来完成交易，因此它们是按位置区分；（2）一些服务都是为适应客户的需求而定制的，此外他们因不同的客户公司而存在差异性；（3）在这个意义上讲它们是高度专业化的，同时改变所提供的服务类型也就花费（在时间和金钱）增加，因为，服务的生产需要专业的教育知识，培训或经验；（4）他们的质量存在很大差异性，因为他们是劳动密集型产品。

正如在引言中提到的“其他商业服务”，主要包括以业务为主的业务服务，是服务贸易中最活跃的部门。

琼斯和Kierzkowski（2005），马库森（1989年）和马库森等（2000-2005）表明这一分部门的特点是作为一个行业呈现规模收益递增。

特别是马库森已经建立了模型：（1）知识密集行业，需要一个对学习（即知识）的高初始投资；（2）一个熟练劳动密集型的部门；（3）高度分化的最终产品。

由于其无形性和质量的差异性，服务往往不能在他们的客户购买或消费之前确定通过，反过来这种现象产生了信息不对称和代理的问题。

因此，承包服务是危险的，最后事实意味着服务是高度专业化和有区别的：（1）服务没有参考价格（2）在寻找合适的合作伙伴参与的可能是很大的。

2.2 互补
一些经济学家发现，两国之间双边货物贸易和服务贸易存在互补性。

在马库森的模式中，在生产性服务业品种（中间业务品种）的增加赋予了积极的技术生产的最终产品的外部性，这反过来又使总要素生产率提高。

Amiti和Wei （2004）通过美国制造业的使用数据发现，服务外包与劳动生产率正相关。

弗朗索瓦和伍顿（2005）分析了在货物贸易与“出口及零售相关的服务”机构（即航运和物流服务，批发和最终消费者的分布）的竞争力水平之间的互动。

这些理论和经验表明，一个没有竞争力的国内服务部门可以作为进口货物贸易的壁垒。

芬斯特拉等（2004）表明在减少在国际货物贸易的信息障碍时中介服务尤为重要。

他们阐述了一个理论模型，一个国家从远程国（中国）购买商品将有机会接触到位于第三方国（香港）的中介服务。