国际贸易视角下的低碳经济

低碳经济已成为世界各国应对全球气候变化的战略选择,而实施低碳发展就必须对现有国际贸易理论和实践进行创新。本文对国际贸易背景下我国低碳发展的具体措施和关键环节进行了说明,指出我国应根据国情,加快技术进步,提高能源利用效率以及降低碳排放强度。结合当前国际上颇受争议的碳关税问题,我们认为,碳关税的征收不仅不能降低碳排放,减缓气候变化,相反,碳关税的实施有可能偏离最初的减排设想,加剧发展中国家的负担,导致发展中国家和发达国家出现贸易纠纷。为此,本文分析了碳关税的涵义及其对我国贸易活动和相关产业可能带来的冲击,强调我国应充分运用减排领域的比较优势尤其是联合国倡导的国际原则来解决今后贸易和环境领域可能出现的争端。     

中国应积极面对碳关税

当前气候问题成为世界关注的焦点,美国、法国在全球贸易中对碳关税政策的态度,引起了全球普遍的关注和争议。本文根据碳关税产生的背景和实质,分析了碳关税对中国经济发展的不利影响,考虑到未来低碳经济将成为新的经济增长点,这决定了我国必须在碳关税征收前做好准备,同时提出了我国应对碳关税的政策建议。     

美国气候变化立法中的贸易措施及工具

通过概述美国气候变化立法进展,梳理归纳美国主要气候变化法案涉及的贸易措施及工具,并对碳关税等主要措施进行评析,表明这些措施可以起到威慑中国、印度等新兴经济体的目的,有可能演变为新的贸易壁垒。     

浅析碳关税制度及我国的应对

全球气候变暖是全人类共同面临的巨大挑战,保护气候安全是国际社会的共同目标。为此,国际社会需要密切合作,及早减少温室气体排放。在此背景下,贸易与气候变化的关系进入人们的视野,成为贸易领域研究的前沿问题。2009年6月26日,美国众议院通过了《清洁能源与安全议案》,该议案宣称,将从2020年起对不接受污染物减排标准的国家实行贸易制裁,具体的措施将表现为对未达到碳排放标准的外国产品征收惩罚性关税。“碳关税”的说法由此而来。碳关税的提出,在更大程度上是一个国际政治经济问题,背后隐藏复杂的战略利益分配关系,其对中国未来的出口、就业以及经济增长的影响都不容小觑。为了应对碳关税的博弈,需提前谋划和布局相应的对策。因此,笔者尝试在本文中简述碳关税的形成背景、碳关税的实质、以及我国的应对方法。     

“碳关税”与中国外贸政策之应对

二氧化碳等温室气体排放导致气候变化问题日益受到人们关注。而美国为了在经济危机中寻找新的增长点,意图在新的节能经济中继续处于有利地位,也迫于其国内贸易保护主义的压力,于2009年6月22日通过《清洁能源安全法》。该法以限制温室气体排放、减缓全球变暖为由正式提出了对进口的高耗能产品征收"碳关税"。西方征收"碳关税"一旦成为现实,不仅会使西方国家在短期内达到贸易保护的目的,也会使其在节能环保的"低碳经济"时代保持经济和技术上的优势。本文首先对"碳关税"的由来以及西方国家的意图进行分析阐述,进而讨论其对中国外贸的不利影响,最后,从外贸政策的角度提出应对之策。     

碳关税对我国外贸产生的影响及应对策略

气候大会的相继召开说明各国越来越重视气候变化,发展低碳经济已经成为世界共识。发达国家提出碳关税的概念,以求减少全球二氧化碳排放,引起了以中国为首的发展中国家强烈的反对。主要介绍碳关税的含义、由来以及目前实施的现状,分析征收碳关税将对我国外贸产生的巨大影响,最后从国内和国际两个层面提出应对碳关税的措施。     

试论贸易保护政策理论的演进

虽然WTO的宗旨是提倡贸易自由化,但是各国在逐渐减少关税与配额的壁垒的同时,非关税壁垒如"技术壁垒"、"绿色壁垒"成为新的更严厉的贸易保护手段。文章从传统贸易保护理论到贸易政策的政治经济学理论的研究,认为贸易政策的内生化,对当前世界贸易政策实施具有较强的解释力,也能得出中国的贸易政策制定是"国家主义"在贸易政策的体现,是集权制度下中央政府决策者的偏好显示。     

“低碳线路”借东风

值此保增长无虞、促调整差强人意的关键时刻,碳关税的提出对中国来说无疑具有非常重要的现实意义。那就是,将促使中国积极落实降低碳排放的承诺,促进经济转型。针对美国碳关税两个战场一盘棋的策略,中国一方面需要针锋相对地提出破解,将贸易关税问题与气候变化问题分开,让关税归关税,减排归减排,而另一方面就是积极布局中国自己的低碳路线图。     

美国多轨制贸易政策的动因分析及对我国的启示

本文结合美国的贸易战略分析了美国贸易政策由多边主义转变为多轨制的内因和外因,认为美国国内经济结构的变化是其贸易转变的主要原因,并提出了对我国的启示。     

碳关税对我国产业国际竞争力的影响及对策分析

近年来,随着经济的发展,也出现了越来越多的气候变化问题,一些发达国家以应对此问题为理由提出对本国进口的碳排放量较大的产品征收一种特别的关税——二氧化碳排放关税,即碳关税。虽然我国现在反对征收碳关税,但是考虑到发达国家在国际经济秩序中所处的主导地位,掌控着绝对的话语权,而我们发展中国家之间对碳关税又缺乏统一协调的立场和一致的观点,因此发达国家极有可能在未来单方面实施征收碳关税的政策。碳关税的开征将毋庸置疑的对我国的出口产业造成严重冲击,因此,我国应当未雨绸缪,积极应对碳关税。总体上看,我国在国内征收碳税可能是一种比较有效的应对发达国家碳关税的方法。     

The U.S. proposed carbon tariffs, WTO scrutiny and China’s responses

With governments from around the world trying to hammer out a post-2012 climate change agreement, no one would disagree that a U.S. commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions is essential to such a global pact. However, despite U.S. president Obama’s announcement to push for a commitment to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020, in reality it is questionable whether U.S. Congress will agree to specific emissions cuts, although they are not ambitious at all from the perspectives of both the EU and developing countries, without the imposition of carbon tariffs on Chinese products to the U.S. market, even given China’s own announcement to voluntarily seek to reduce its carbon intensity by 40–45% over the same period. This dilemma is partly attributed to flaws in current international climate negotiations, which have been focused on commitments on the two targeted dates of 2020 and 2050. However, if the international climate change negotiations continue on their current course without extending the commitment period to 2030, which would really open the possibility for the U.S. and China to make the commitments that each wants from the other, the inclusion of border carbon adjustment measures seems essential to secure passage of any U.S. legislation capping its own greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, the joint WTO-UNEP report indicates that border carbon adjustment measures might be allowed under the existing WTO rules, depending on their specific design features and the specific conditions for implementing them. Against this background, this paper argues that, on the U.S. side, there is a need to minimize the potential conflicts with WTO provisions in designing such border carbon adjustment measures. The U.S. also needs to explore, with its trading partners, ccooperative sectoral approaches to advancing low-carbon technologies and/or concerted mitigation efforts in a given sector at the international level. Moreover, to increase the prospects for a successful WTO defence of the Waxman-Markey type of border adjustment provision, there should be: 1) a period of good faith efforts to reach agreements among the countries concerned before imposing such trade measures; 2) consideration of alternatives to trade provisions that could reasonably be expected to fulfill the same function but are not inconsistent or less inconsistent with the relevant WTO provisions; and 3) trade provisions that should allow importers to submit equivalent emission reduction units that are recognized by international treaties to cover the carbon contents of imported products. Meanwhile, being targeted by such border carbon adjustment measures, China needs to, at the right time, indicate a serious commitment to address climate change issues to challenge the legitimacy of the U.S. imposing carbon tariffs by signaling well ahead that it will take on binding absolute emission caps around the year 2030, and needs the three transitional periods of increasing climate obligations before taking on absolute emissions caps. This paper argues that there is a clear need within a climate regime to define comparable efforts towards climate mitigation and adaptation to discipline the use of unilateral trade measures at the international level. As exemplified by export tariffs that China applied on its own during 2006–08, the paper shows that defining the comparability of climate efforts can be to China’s advantage. Furthermore, given the fact that, in volume terms, energy-intensive manufacturing in China values 7 to 8 times that of India, and thus carbon tariffs have a greater impact on China than on India, the paper questions whether China should hold the same stance on this issue as India as it does now, although the two largest developing countries should continue to take a common position on other key issues in international climate change negotiations.     

美国碳关税政策的政治经济学分析——基于美国国内利益集团与政府博弈的视角

美国的政治体制和贸易政策形成的机制,表明其碳关税政策是国内利益集团和政府博弈均衡的结果。文章在Grossman-Helpman(1994)销售保护模型的基础上,建立碳关税博弈模型,构建利益函数对利益集团和政府的行为进行博弈模拟。结果显示,如果美国政府是一个自利政府,同时存在利益集团政治捐献的情况下,政府出于自身利益最大化的考虑会提高碳关税税率,以保护利益集团和自身的利益。同时,利益集团在政府收益函数中的权重越高(即政府获得的政治捐献越高),碳关税政策将更多地受到利益集团游说的影响。     

贸易摩擦背景下关税与货币政策反制策略研究

通过将贸易品美元定价约束、外汇噪声交易和关税反制等特征融入两国DSGE模型，文章对贸易摩擦背景下美国进口关税冲击的传导渠道以及中国的关税反制策略与货币应对政策有效性等问题进行了数值分析。研究发现，关税反制措施能够有效地对冲美国加征进口关税对中国实际产出、消费和净出口的消极影响，并有助于抑制人民币实际汇率贬值。若进一步搭配将出口品关税纳入利率调控框架的积极货币政策，对于经济扩张与保持汇率稳定都更加有效。但从长期社会福利角度看，积极货币政策对美国经济也具有明显的正向溢出作用，关税反制则会产生显著的福利转移效应，不采取任何关税与货币应对政策将使中国遭受最大的福利损失。因此，基于"打击最大化、自损最小化"原则，中国应对美国采取坚决有力的关税反击，同时保持货币政策相对中性、克制，以期实现"以战促和"的战略目标。     

Tariff protection and workforce gender: Evidence from U.S. manufacturing industries

A data set of 266 four-digit SIC U.S. manufacturing industries is used to examine the relationship between tariff protection and workforce gender. The paper shows that industries with a relatively large proportion of women are more likely to be protected by U.S. tariff policy, even when factors such as wages and human capital are controlled. Furthermore, this result is robust in that it is not driven by any particular industry or industries.     

A CGE analysis of the impact of trade liberalization between the U.S. and Mexico

This study examines the effects of free trade between the U.S. and Mexico on the sectoral trade balance of the U.S. The empirical findings indicate that free trade would benefit the overall trade balance of the U.S., but the benefit will be small in the near to medium term for two reasons. First, there is a huge disparity between the economic sizes of the two countries. Second, a sizable share of Mexican exports already enter the U.S. under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) or at low rates under maquiladora production-sharing arrangements. The relatively low tariff rates already in effect allow most of the benefits of trade between the U.S. and Mexico to be realized and therefore limit the potential benefits to the U.S. from free trade.     

The antebellum U.S. iron industry: Domestic production and foreign competition

This paper presents new annual estimates of U.S. production of pig iron and imports of pig iron products dating back to 1827. These estimates are used to assess the vulnerability of the antebellum iron industry to foreign competition and the role of the tariff in fostering the industry’s early development. Domestic pig iron production is found to be highly sensitive to changes in import prices. Although import price fluctuations had a much greater impact on U.S. production than changes in import duties, our estimates suggest that the tariff permitted domestic output to be about 30-40 percent larger than it would have been without protection.