注意(经常项目)差额

Mark S. Joy, Noemie Lisack, Simon P. Lloyd, Dennis Reinhardt, Rana Sajedi, Simon Whitaker
{"title":"注意(经常项目)差额","authors":"Mark S. Joy, Noemie Lisack, Simon P. Lloyd, Dennis Reinhardt, Rana Sajedi, Simon Whitaker","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3120389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is substantial evidence that openness to trade raises economic growth and boosts living standards. But trade liberalisation has been asymmetric, focused on goods rather than services trade. The decline in goods trade barriers may have favoured countries specialising in goods, like China, Germany and Japan, allowing them to increase exports relative to imports, and contributing to their persistent current account surpluses. By contrast, countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, who specialise in the services sector where trade is more restricted, have been running persistent deficits. This pattern of persistent surpluses and deficits in these key countries has proven hard to explain in the International Monetary Fund’s External Balance Assessment methodology. This paper suggests that asymmetric trade liberalisation is one overlooked explanation. We demonstrate how realistic additions to textbook economic models allow trade policy to have persistent effects on current account imbalances. We also find empirical support for significant quantitative effects. These results suggest that liberalising services trade, levelling up to the liberalisation seen in goods trade, could reduce excess global imbalances by around 40%. Moreover it could contribute to higher and more inclusive global growth.","PeriodicalId":341166,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mind the (Current Account) Gap\",\"authors\":\"Mark S. Joy, Noemie Lisack, Simon P. Lloyd, Dennis Reinhardt, Rana Sajedi, Simon Whitaker\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3120389\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is substantial evidence that openness to trade raises economic growth and boosts living standards. But trade liberalisation has been asymmetric, focused on goods rather than services trade. The decline in goods trade barriers may have favoured countries specialising in goods, like China, Germany and Japan, allowing them to increase exports relative to imports, and contributing to their persistent current account surpluses. By contrast, countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, who specialise in the services sector where trade is more restricted, have been running persistent deficits. This pattern of persistent surpluses and deficits in these key countries has proven hard to explain in the International Monetary Fund’s External Balance Assessment methodology. This paper suggests that asymmetric trade liberalisation is one overlooked explanation. We demonstrate how realistic additions to textbook economic models allow trade policy to have persistent effects on current account imbalances. We also find empirical support for significant quantitative effects. These results suggest that liberalising services trade, levelling up to the liberalisation seen in goods trade, could reduce excess global imbalances by around 40%. Moreover it could contribute to higher and more inclusive global growth.\",\"PeriodicalId\":341166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3120389\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3120389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

有大量证据表明,贸易开放能促进经济增长,提高生活水平。但贸易自由化一直是不对称的,重点放在商品贸易而非服务贸易上。商品贸易壁垒的下降可能有利于专门从事商品贸易的国家,如中国、德国和日本,使它们能够增加相对于进口的出口,并为它们持续的经常账户盈余做出贡献。相比之下,像美国和英国这样的国家,专门从事贸易受到更多限制的服务业,一直处于持续的赤字状态。事实证明,很难用国际货币基金组织(imf)的外部平衡评估(External Balance Assessment)方法来解释这些关键国家的这种持续盈余和赤字模式。本文认为,不对称贸易自由化是一个被忽视的解释。我们展示了对教科书经济模型的现实补充如何使贸易政策对经常账户失衡产生持续影响。我们还发现了显著数量效应的实证支持。这些结果表明,开放服务贸易,达到商品贸易自由化的水平,可以将过度的全球失衡减少约40%。此外,它还可以促进更快、更具包容性的全球增长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Mind the (Current Account) Gap
There is substantial evidence that openness to trade raises economic growth and boosts living standards. But trade liberalisation has been asymmetric, focused on goods rather than services trade. The decline in goods trade barriers may have favoured countries specialising in goods, like China, Germany and Japan, allowing them to increase exports relative to imports, and contributing to their persistent current account surpluses. By contrast, countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, who specialise in the services sector where trade is more restricted, have been running persistent deficits. This pattern of persistent surpluses and deficits in these key countries has proven hard to explain in the International Monetary Fund’s External Balance Assessment methodology. This paper suggests that asymmetric trade liberalisation is one overlooked explanation. We demonstrate how realistic additions to textbook economic models allow trade policy to have persistent effects on current account imbalances. We also find empirical support for significant quantitative effects. These results suggest that liberalising services trade, levelling up to the liberalisation seen in goods trade, could reduce excess global imbalances by around 40%. Moreover it could contribute to higher and more inclusive global growth.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
How Do International Trade Shocks Propagate Through Domestic Supply Chains? Connecting World Input-Output Tables and Firm-Level Supply Chain Data The Complementarity Between Trust and Contract Enforcement Level Playing Fields and Rebalancing: A Comment Hong Kong’s Intermediary Role on Funding the BRI: How Does it Fare Against Singapore? Diminishing American Power: The US - China Trade War, Sanctions, and Coronavirus
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1