美国出口管制政策调整与中国香港贸易地理结构演变

doi:10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2019.05.001

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

以1997年中国香港回归为时间节点,从总贸易和高技术产品贸易两个维度,区分短期和长期效应,研究美国加强出口管制对中国香港贸易地理结构的影响。研究发现：出口管制政策在短期抑制了中国香港从美国的进口贸易增长,阻碍了香港对内地的高技术输出贸易;在长期致使中国香港对美国高新技术的依赖程度逐步减弱,对其他未对港设限国家的技术依赖明显增强。中国香港的进出口贸易地理集中度明显增强。美国在中国香港的贸易地理地位呈现大幅下滑。内地在香港的贸易地理地位得到显著提升。

关键词: 出口管制, 中国香港, 贸易地理, 结构演变

Abstract:

After Hong Kong return to China in 1997, in order to prevent the transfer of advanced technologies or equipment through Hong Kong to Mainland, the United States gradually strengthened export control of high and new technologies and products against Hong Kong of China from 1997. This paper took the return year of 1997 as a time node, compared the differences of U.S. export policy to Hong Kong of China before and after Hong Kong’s return, analyzed the internal and theoretical relationship between export control of U.S. and trade geography structure of Hong Kong of China, collected the import and export data of Hong Kong of China in 1993 through 2017 from the United Nations Comtrade Database, established the geographic concentration index of import and export trade to measure the change of trade concentration in Hong Kong of China, set up the trade geography status index to analyze the trade importance and comprehensive impacts of the United States in Hong Kong of China, studied the short-term and long-term effects of the United States export control policy adjustment on Hong Kong trade geography structure from the two dimensions of total trade and high-tech products trade. In the empirical analysis, this paper selected the aerospace industry as a representative sample of high-tech industries. It was found that the strengthening of the United States export control against Hong Kong of China hindered Hong Kong’s import trade from U.S. and hindered Hong Kong’s high-tech exports to Mainland in the short term, but promoted the import and export trade concentration of Hong Kong in the long run. While reducing its dependence on U.S. high-tech, Hong Kong has been more dependent on imports and exports from Mainland. For example, in 1996, the volume of Hong Kong’s imports from Mainland was 4.67 times the volume of imports from the United States, and in 2016, the volume of Hong Kong’s imports from Mainland was 9.38 times the volume of imports from the United States. The U.S. trade geographical position in Hong Kong of China declined significantly because of the U.S. export control policy, while the Mainland’s trade geography status in Hong Kong was greatly enhanced. The high-tech products trade between Hong Kong of China and other developed countries which did not implement export control policy against Hong Kong increased significantly. Take the aerospace industry (HS code 88) for example, 36% imports of Hong Kong of China came from the United States in 1996, only 6% imports of Hong Kong of China came from the United States in 2017. At this stage, the import trade of high-tech products from France in Hong Kong of China showed a completely opposite trend. Since France did not impose strict export control against Hong Kong of China, the aerospace products import ratio of Hong Kong of China from France to World increased steadily from 60% in 1996 to 74% in 2017. Therefore, the finding of this paper is that the U.S. export control policy has significantly impacted and changed the trade geography structure of Hong Kong of China.

Key words: export control, Hong Kong of China, trade geography, structure evolution

中图分类号:

F741.1

姜辉. 美国出口管制政策调整与中国香港贸易地理结构演变[J]. 地理科学, 2019, 39(5): 705-713.

Jiang Hui. The Adjustment of U.S. Export Control Policy and the Trade Geography Structure Evolution in Hong Kong of China[J]. SCIENTIA GEOGRAPHICA SINICA, 2019, 39(5): 705-713.

图/表 7

表1

表2

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

参考文献 18

[1]	李光正. 当代世界经济贸易地理格局及其形成的地缘基础[J]. 世界地理研究, 1994(1):10-15.
	[ Li Guangzheng. The geographical patterns of contemporary world trade and their geographic base of formation. World Geography Research, 1994(1):10-15.]
[2]	Stephen J Redding. Economic geography:A review of the theoretical and empirical literature[J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2009,20(1):21-36.
[3]	李航飞, 韦素琼, 陈松林, 等. 经贸视角下中国台湾“新南向政策”分析——基于SNA和VAR方法[J]. 地理科学, 2018,38(1):67-77. doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2018.01.008
	[ Li Hangfei, Wei Suqiong, Chen Songlin, et al. ‘New Southward Policy’ of Taiwan, China under the view of trade: Based on the ways of SNA and VAR. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2018,38(1):67-77.]
[4]	Tan S W. The geography of trade in the European Single Market[J/OL]. http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/ en/601271480467915595/5-TAN.pdf, 2018-02-18.
[5]	Duranton G, Morrow P M, Turner M A. Roads and trade: Evidence from the U S[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 2014,81(2):681-724. doi: 10.1093/restud/rdt039
[6]	Coşar A K, Fajgelbaum P D. Internal geography, international trade, and regional specialization[J]. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2016,8(1):24-56. doi: 10.1257/mic.20140145
[7]	李方一, 刘思佳, 程莹, 等. 出口增加值对中国区域产业结构高度化的影响[J]. 地理科学, 2017,37(1):37-45. doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2017.01.005
	[ Li Fangyi, Liu Sijia, Cheng Ying, et al. Effect of value-added in China’s exports on regional industrial structure advancement. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2017,37(1):37-45]
[8]	Bartelme D. Trade costs and economic geography: Evidence from the US[J/OL]. http://www.economics.illinois.edu/seminars/documents/Bartelme.pdf, 2018-02-16.
[9]	Turgut M. Regional economic activity in turkey: A new economic geography approach[J]. Working Papers, 2014,25(93):39.
[10]	Alexander P D. Geography, Value-added and gains from trade: Theory and empirics[J/OL]. http://freit.org/WorkingPapers/Papers/TradePatterns/FREIT867.pdf, 2018-02-16.
[11]	Holmes T J, Stevens J J. An alternative theory of the plant size distribution, with geography and intra-and international trade[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 2014,122(2):369-421. doi: 10.1086/674633
[12]	Bemrose R K, Brown W M, Tweedle J. Going the distance:Estimating the effect of provincial borders on trade when geography matters[R]. Statistics Canada, Analytical Studies Branch, 2017.
[13]	Delgado M, Kyle M, Mc Gahan A M. Intellectual property protection and the geography of trade[J]. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 2013,61(3):733-762. doi: 10.1111/joie.12027
[14]	Brakman S, Garretsen H, van Marrewijk C. New economic geography: Endogenizing location in an international trade model[M]. Handbook of Regional Science. Berlin Heidelberg Springer: 2014: 569-589.
[15]	张伟丽. 区域经济增长俱乐部趋同:假说检验及解释[J]. 地理科学, 2018,38(2):258-263. doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2018.02.012
	[ Zhang Weili. Hypojournal testing and interpretation on regional economic growth club convergence. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2018,38(2):258-263.]
[16]	宫旭平. 美国对香港的贸易出口管制政策[J]. 工业技术经济, 1999(4):104-105.
	[ Gong Xuping. U S trade export control policy to Hongkong. Industrial Technology &Economy, 1999(4):104-105.]
[17]	杨文龙, 杜德斌, 游小珺, 等. 世界跨国投资网络结构演化及复杂性研究[J]. 地理科学, 2017,37(9):1300-1309. doi: 10.13249/j.cnki.sgs.2017.09.002
	[ Yang Wenlong, Du Debing, You Xiaojun, et al. Network structure evolution and spatial complexity of global transnational investment. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2017,37(9):1300-1309.]
[18]	中华人民共和国国家统计局. 中国科技统计年鉴[M]. 北京: 中国统计出版社, 1997.
	[ National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China. China statistical yearbook on science and technology. Beijing: China Statistics Press, 1997.]

年份	IGCR_top₁	IGCR_top₂	IGCR_top₃	IGCR_top₄	IGCR_top₅
1993	36.80	53.10	60.63	65.12	69.50
1994	36.74	51.98	59.53	64.37	68.98
1995	35.57	50.22	58.09	63.26	68.41
1996	36.65	50.06	57.90	63.29	68.54
1997	36.85	50.30	58.01	63.14	68.00
1998	40.14	52.65	60.06	65.11	69.46
1999	43.34	54.97	62.01	66.86	71.16
2000	42.87	54.82	61.59	66.57	71.09
2001	43.29	54.53	61.21	65.85	70.44
2002	44.21	55.49	61.15	65.87	70.55

年份	EGCR_top₁	EGCR_top₂	EGCR_top₃	EGCR_top₄	EGCR_top₅
1993	32.27	55.29	60.52	65.66	69.06
1994	32.80	56.02	61.59	66.25	69.46
1995	33.28	55.05	61.15	65.46	68.68
1996	34.27	55.48	62.02	66.22	69.55
1997	34.86	56.61	62.68	66.58	70.00
1998	34.23	57.50	62.72	66.83	70.69
1999	33.26	57.01	62.41	66.59	70.50
2000	34.46	57.64	63.16	67.26	71.06
2001	36.82	58.99	64.88	68.65	72.12
2002	39.10	60.28	65.63	69.25	72.35