Summary:
The servitization of manufacturing has become a significant trend in the development of global manufacturing, and it is also an important part of the upgrading of China's manufacturing value chain. After the 2008 financial crisis, China's service imports grew rapidly, and net service imports have continued to expand. As the competitiveness of China's service industry is relatively low, it is critical to explore whether service trade openness promotes the development of the service industry, the production efficiency of Chinese manufacturing enterprises, and the upgrading of the value chain. First, although China's economic growth has steadily progressed, most studies of the impact of service trade openness on manufacturing are based on data before 2007 and thus cannot address the current situation. Second, the definition of service sectors in the literature is relatively narrow. Finally, few studies consider the regulatory role of marketization in the process of service trade openness. Our main contributions are as follows. First, we build a theoretical framework and then empirically analyze the effects of service trade openness on the labor productivity of manufacturing enterprises under domestic product substitution. More importantly, we explore the regulatory effect of marketization on the openness of service trade. Second, we use the Chinese Industrial Enterprise Database for 2012 and the Service Trade Restriction Index (STRI) of the World Bank, which not only extends the research of Beverelli et al. (2017) to a firm-level study but also explains how the openness of service trade has both promoted the productivity of China's export-intensive manufacturing enterprises and inhibited the productivity of non-exporting enterprises. The productivity promotion effect of service trade openness on export enterprises is stronger in the non-eastern region, but the adverse impact of service trade openness on non-state-owned enterprises and non-export enterprises in the eastern region is even greater. Third, we discuss the regulatory effect of marketization on the openness up of China's service trade. The result shows that domestic marketization has a dual effect on the openness of service trade. Marketization has not only weakened the negative impact of the openness of service trade on non-export enterprises, but also strengthened the positive effect of service trade openness on export firms. Overall, our conclusions are different from those of other studies and provide meaningful policy insights for the establishment of China's dual-circulation development pattern: the international economic cycle should be kept open to promote development, and the domestic economic cycle should be used to expand domestic demand. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that export firms benefit from trade liberalization, and also to prevent non-export firms from being exposed to excessive negative competition brought about by trade liberalization. Marketization has a vital role in both these functions. We also indirectly explain the improvements in the competitiveness of China's manufacturing products after its accession to the WTO, especially after the 2008 financial crisis. However, further research is needed to determine whether this improvement has been in quality or price. We use firm-level theoretical and empirical analyses of Chinese data to explain the abnormal results in Beverelli et al. (2017). Unlike Zhang et al. (2013), Sun et al. (2018), Mao and Fang(2020), we use the STRI of the World Bank, which uses a broad definition of service sectors. Moreover, we consider more types of service trade approaches and more service trade sectors. As a result, the conclusions of this article are relatively novel. Although the empirical results show that the competitiveness of Chinese manufacturing products has improved to a certain extent, it is unclear whether this competitiveness comes from quality improvement, price advantage, or both. In addition, although the substitution effect of intermediate goods produced by manufacturing enterprises on imported intermediate goods cannot be observed directly, problems such as whether there is domestic service substitution for foreign services and how the liberalization of service trade affects the upgrading of China's service industry require further study.
彭水军, 舒中桥. 服务贸易开放、市场化改革与中国制造业企业生产率[J]. 金融研究, 2021, 497(11): 22-40.
PENG Shuijun, SHU Zhongqiao. Service Trade Liberalization, Marketization, and the Productivity of China's Manufacturing Firms. Journal of Financial Research, 2021, 497(11): 22-40.
[1]程大中,2008,《中国生产性服务业的水平、结构及影响——基于投入—产出法的国际比较研究》,《经济研究》第1期,第77~89页。 [2]程新生、谭有超和许垒,2011,《公司价值、自愿披露与市场化进程——基于定性信息的披露》,《金融研究》第8期,第111~127页。 [3]盖庆恩、方聪龙、程名望和朱喜,2019,《贸易成本、劳动力市场扭曲与中国的劳动生产率》,《管理世界》第3期,第70~86页。 [4]李永、王砚萍和孟祥月,2013,《要素市场扭曲是否抑制了国际技术溢出》,《金融研究》第11期,第140~153页。 [5]李旭超,罗德明和金祥荣,2017,《资源错置与中国企业规模分布特征》,《中国社会科学》第2期,第25~43页。 [6]吕越、吕云龙和包群,2017,《融资约束与企业增加值贸易——基于全球价值链视角的微观证据》,《金融研究》第5期,第63~80页。 [7]毛其淋和许家云,2015,《市场化转型、就业动态与中国地区生产率增长》,《管理世界》第10期,第7~23页。 [8]毛其淋和方森辉,2020,《外资进入自由化如何影响中国制造业生产率》,《世界经济》第1期,第143~169页。 [9]聂辉华、江艇和杨汝岱,2012,《中国工业企业数据库的使用现状和潜在问题》,《世界经济》第5期,第142~158页。 [10]彭水军、袁凯华和韦韬,2017,《贸易增加值视角下中国制造业服务化转型的事实与解释》,《数量经济与技术经济研究》第9期,第4~21页。 [11]邵朝对、苏丹妮和王晨,2021,《服务业开放、外资管制与企业创新:理论和中国经验》,《经济学(季刊)》第4期,第1411~1432页。 [12]孙浦阳、蒋为和张龑,2013,《产品替代性与生产率分布——基于中国制造业企业数据的实证》,《经济研究》第4期,第30~42页。 [13]孙浦阳、侯欣裕和盛斌,2018,《外资自由化与贸易福利提升:理论与经验研究》,《世界经济》第3期,第29~53页。 [14]田巍和余淼杰,2013,《企业出口强度与进口中间品贸易自由化:来自中国企业的实证研究》,《管理世界》第1期,第28~44页。 [15]解维敏和方红星,2011,《金融发展、融资约束与企业研发投入》,《金融研究》第5期,第171~183页。 [16]王小鲁、樊纲和余文静:《中国分省份市场化指数报告(2016)》,社会科学文献出版社,2017。 [17]余淼杰,2010,《中国的贸易自由化与制造业企业生产率》,《经济研究》第12期,第99~112页。 [18]张艳、唐宜红和周默涵,2013,《服务贸易自由化是否提高了制造业企业生产效率》,《世界经济》第11期,第51~71页。 [19]张燕、谢建国和刘晴,2013,《贸易自由化与中国国内工业行业的生产利润》,《数量经济技术经济研究》第6期,第77~90页。 [20]赵永亮,2011,《中国内外需求的市场潜力研究——基于工资方程的边界效应分析》,《管理世界》第1期,第20~29页。 [21]祝树金和赵玉龙,2017,《资源错配与企业的出口行为——基于中国工业企业数据的经验研究》,《金融研究》第11期,第49~64页。 [22]祝树金、钟腾龙和李仁宇,2018,《中间品贸易自由化与多产品出口企业的产品加成率》,《中国工业经济》第1期,第41~59页。 [23]Abraham, F., Deardorff, A. V., and Stern R. M. 1988. “The Impact of Tariffs on Profits in the United States and Other Major Trading Countries”, Review of World Economics, 124 (4): 623～634. [24]Aichele, R., and Heiland, I. 2018. “Where is the Value Added? Trade Liberalization and Production Networks”, Journal of International Economics, 115:130~144. [25]Barone, G., and Cingano, F. 2011. “Service Regulation and Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries”, Economic Journal, 121 (555): 931～957. [26]Beverelli, C., Fiorini, M., and Hoekman, B. 2017. “Services Trade Policy and Manufacturing Productivity: the Role of Institutions”, Journal of International Economics, 10 (4): 166～182. [27]Crozet, M., and Milet, E. 2017. “Should Everybody Be in Services？ The Effect of Servitization on Manufacturing Firm Performance”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 26 (3): 820～841. [28]Fernandes, A. M., and Paunov, C. 2012. “The Risks of Innovation: Are Innovating Firms Less Likely to Die？”, Policy Research Working Paper Series, 97(3). [29]Francois, J. 1993. “Explaining the Pattern of Trade in Producer Services”, International Economic Journal, 9 (3): 1～14. [30]Freund, C., and Bolaky, B. 2008. “Trade, Regulations, and Income”, Journal of Development Economics, 87 (2): 0～321. [31]Kee, H.L., and Tang, H. 2016. “Domestic Value Added in Exports: Theory and Firm Evidence from China”, American Economic Review, 106 (6): 1402～1436. [32]Koopman, R., Wang,Z., and Wei, S.J. 2012. “Estimating Domestic Content in Exports When Processing Trade is Pervasive”, Journal of Development Economics, 99 (1): 178～189. [33]Mattoo, A., and Rathindran, R. 1999. “Measuring Services Trade Liberalization and its Impact on Economic Growth: An Illustration”, Journal of Economic Integration, 21 (1): 64～98. [34]Reitzes, J. D. 1991. “The Impact of Quotas and Tariffs on Strategic R&D Behavior”, International Economic Review, 32 (4): 985～1007. [35]Robinson, S., Wang, Z., and Martin, W. 2002. “Capturing the Implications of Services Trade Liberalization”, Economic Systems Research, 14 (1): 3～33.
