검색 상세

An Empirical Evaluation of Trade Effect of CEPA between Mainland China and Hong Kong

초록/요약

It has been six years since Hong Kong CEPA (a free trade agreement signed between Mainland China and Hong Kong) came into effect on Jan 1st, 2004. Some serious questions, like about the trade effects of CEPA, or which side exactly got significant benefit from CEPA, attracted lots of attention from policy makers and general businessmen. In order to answer these questions, this thesis will concentrate on evaluating the trade effect of CEPA by making use of Balassa Economic Model, the theory of trade creation and trade diversion and OLS econometric analysis model. In addition, this study can be distinguished from others because it uses quantitative methods and long periodic consecutive economic data to run regressions, provideing a detailed and scientific analysis of the contribution and effect of CEPA not only on Hong Kong, but also on Mainland China. The result of this study shows that CEPA has a significant positive effect for both Mainland China and Hong Kong since it took effect. More specifically, it played a positive role for the intra-regional (between Mainland China and Hong Kong) trade; it didn’t bring negative influence for the extra-regional (between Mainland China and other regions or between Hong Kong and other regions) trade; in general, it produced national welfare for both sides.

more

목차

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Past literature review 1
1.3 Objective and significance of this study 2
1.4 Method of this study 2
1.5 Limitation of this study 3

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1 Review of Trade liberalization 4
2.2 Theory of Trade Creation and Trade Diversion 10
2.3 Balassa Model and its modification 14

CHAPTER III
OVERVIEW OF BILATERAL TRADE AND CEPA 19
3.1 Bilateral economic cooperation between Mainland China and Hong Kong 19
3.2 Overview of CEPA 22
3.3 Economic impact of CEPA 28

CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH METHOD AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS 31
4.1 Methodology 31
4.2 Equations and explanations 32
4.3 Data description 33
4.4 Unit root test and cointegration test 34
4.5 Empirical finding and analysis 38

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION 42
5.1 Conclusion 42
5.2 Policy implication 42
5.3 Direction for further research 43

REFERENCE 44
APPENDIX 47

more