1 |
資產市場與商品貿易自由化林文鐘, Lin, Wen-Chung Unknown Date (has links)
本文是根據JoAnne Feeney的模型架構延伸,主要探討開放國內與國際資產市場對於商品貿易自由化的影響,在一小型開放經濟體係下,國內代表性個人同時為生產者與消費者,我們將討論在資本財股權皆可貿易和部份資本財股權不可貿易兩種情形下,探討開放資產市場後,代表性個人可透過資產市場來分散所得風險,以降低其向政府遊說課徵進口關稅來保護自己產業的意願。在資本財股權皆可貿易下,開放資產市場確能達到貿易自由化的目的;但如果有些資本財股權是不可貿易的情形下,則須考量受進口競爭產業的規模與不可貿易資本財股權佔所得比例而定,雖然有些情形不能達成完全自由化,但開放資產市場多多少少還是能減少代表性個人向政府遊說的意願,降低商品貿易的障礙。
|
2 |
「兩岸自由貿易區」經濟效益研究蔡欣茹 Unknown Date (has links)
本研究採用FTAP模型配合GTAP第6版資料庫,模擬分析兩岸組成自由貿易區對雙方總體經濟與各部門長期變動的影響。本文除了考慮商品部門和服務業貿易自由化以外,同時也加入兩岸直航和撤除台灣對大陸進口限制的討論。實證結果顯示,兩岸建立自由貿易協定對台灣有益。兩岸自由貿易區同時帶來台灣與大陸在進出口貿易量和國內生產毛額的提高。在社會福利方面,台灣社會福利每年增加74億美元,大陸則是每年減少24億美元。造成大陸利得下降的主要原因是其製造業部門的貿易條件惡化。就產業的長期影響來看,兩岸自由貿易區可使台灣和大陸淨出口金額上升,分別增加251.76億美元與292.92億美元,其中以台灣紡織業和化工產品的淨輸出為最高。農業貿易自由化和取消進口限制,導致台灣農產品在產出和淨出口金額上多半低於大陸。開放服務業市場以及直航帶來的大陸運輸量提高,顯示推動兩岸自由貿易區服務業廠商傾向於提高對大陸投資並減少在台灣的投資。 / This paper adopts the FTAP model, a computable general equilibrium model, to analyze the long run economic effects of a cross-strait FTA on Taiwan and China. In addition to the liberalization of trade in goods and services, the direct cross-strait transportation and removing restrictions on imports from China are also discussed in this study. The simulation results reveal that the FTA of Taiwan and China might resilt in significant influences on both Taiwan and China. First, Taiwan and China have significant increases in their total volume of trade and GDP. Second, the social welfare of Taiwan increases $US74.64 billion, but the social welfare of China decreases $US24.42 billion because its TOT of manufacturing sector is worse off. In addition, the FTA makes the net export of Taiwan and China increase $US251.76 billion and $US292.92 billion, respectively. The manufacturing industries of Taiwan and China have the greatest increases in their net export, patticularly the textile and chemical products of Taiwan. Because of the liberalization in agriculture trade and removing restrictions on imports from China, the increase in agriculture output and net export of Taiwan is lower than those of China. Finally, the empirical results indicate that the liberalization of services trade and the direct cross-strait transportation attract services industries to raise their investment into China and decrease the investment in Taiwan.
|
3 |
考量商品貿易之匯率報酬評價 / Determinant of exchange rate return-considering commodity trade王可佳, Wang, Ke Jia Unknown Date (has links)
本研究欲探討國家商品貿易特性在匯率報酬評價中扮演的角色,決定匯率報酬的因素非常多,包含利率、市場波動、國際貿易及國家政治等非常廣泛的因素,而國家商品貿易特性也會是影響匯率報酬評價的可能因素之一。本研究以「進口比率」(Import Ratios) 衡量國家的商品貿易特性,也以該數值建構投資組合。研究結果發現,去除商品貿易特性特殊之國家後,進口比例(Import Ratio)越高之投資組合,其遠期外匯貼水也偏高,且外匯超額報酬也隨之遞增。
在Ready, Roussanov, and Ward(2013)論文中認為,國家的商品貿易特性是造成不同國家利率高低差異的原因,所以該作者認為國家商品貿易特性極有可能是利差交易背後的原因。然而,本研究的Fama-Macbeth 兩步驟橫斷面迴歸實證結果發現,國家的商品貿易特性確實是造成國家利率差異的因素之一,但利差交易背後的風險背後的因素,雖然包含國家商品貿易因素,但仍包含其他因素,且商品貿易因子(IMX)無法取代利差交易因子(HML)在外匯超額報酬評價模型中的角色。
此外,本研究亦嘗試在Lustig所提出之市場因子(RX)和利差交易因子(HML)的兩因子模型中,再額外加入商品貿易因子(IMX),構成匯率評價的三因子模型,但研究結果發現不論是在遠期外匯貼水投資組合或商品貿易投資組合中,三因子模型都沒有優於兩因子模型。 / There are many factors in determinant of exchange rate returns, such as interest rates, market volatility, international trade and politics. The purpose of this research is considering commodity trade in the pricing model of excess return of currency market. This research use “Import Ratios” to measure the characteristic of different countries’ commodity trade. We use import ratios to construct “Import Ratio Sort Portfolio”. After removing the countries which commodity trade characteristics are special, we could see when import ratios is higher, the forward discount and exchange rate return are also higher in import ratio sort portfolio.
Ready, Roussanov, and Ward(2013) thought the commodity trade is the reason that cause interest rate differences between countries. In this research, the result of Fama-Macbeth two-step regression show that commodity trade is one of the reasons that cause interest rate differences. It means that there are other risks behind carry trade. In the pricing model of excess return of currency market, HML factor can’t be replaced by IMX factor.
We also try to construct three-factor model, which consider excess return, carry trade, and commodity trade simultaneously. But the result shows that three-factor model can not have better explanatory power than Lustig, Roussanov, and Verdelhan(2011)’s two-factor model.
|
Page generated in 0.0155 seconds