RCEP服务贸易开放度的测算及中国应对  

RCEP Service Trade Openness Measurement and China’s Response

作　　者：白洁[1,2] 严风坤 邢洁 BAI Jie;YAN Feng-kun;XING Jie

机构地区：[1]山东财经大学经济学院 [2]中国社会科学院 [3]山东财经大学国际经贸学院

出　　处：《国际经贸探索》2022年第9期83-95,共13页International Economics and Trade Research

基　　金：2020年国家社会科学基金后期资助暨优秀博士论文项目(20FGJB011)。

摘　　要：文章在对Hoekman频度分析法进行修正的基础上,构建了RCEP服务贸易承诺表正面清单和负面清单缔约方服务贸易开放度的频度分析法,并对RCEP的15个缔约方的服务贸易开放度进行测度和比较,结果表明:(1)RCEP服务贸易承诺表负面清单缔约方的服务贸易整体开放度明显高于正面清单缔约方,发达国家整体开放度高于发展中国家,中国开放度位于发展中国家前列;(2)部门开放度具有差异性,由高到低分为四个梯度;(3)国民待遇开放度均高于市场准入开放度,呈现边境前严苛,边境后相对宽松的特点;(4)缔约方出于比较优势、国家安全等因素考虑,对不同部门给予鼓励或限制,部门差异较大。文章最后提出了中国服务贸易开放和服务业优化升级等方面相关的政策建议。Based on the modification of Hoekman’s frequency analysis method,the paper constructs a frequency analysis method for service trade openness of the parties of the positive list and negative list in RCEP service trade commitment table,and measures and compares service trade openness of the 15 RCEP parties.The results show that:(1)the overall service trade openness of the parties of the negative list in RCEP service trade commitment table is significantly higher than that of the parties of the positive list,and the overall openness of the developed countries is higher than that of the developing countries.China’s openness is in the forefront of the developing countries;(2)there are differences in the openness of the sectors,which can be divided into four gradients from high to low;(3)the openness of national treatment is higher than that of market access;(4)for reasons of comparative advantages,national security and other factors,the parties encourage or restrict different sectors which vary greatly.Finally,policy suggestions are put forward for the opening of China’s service trade and the optimization and upgrading of service industry.

关 键 词：RCEP 服务贸易 贸易开放度 频度分析法 

分 类 号：F744[经济管理—国际贸易]