美元霸权、金融发展差异与货币体系错配下中美经济失衡及调整

中美经济失衡是美国长期坚持美元霸权战略的产物,也是中美两国金融发展差异的自然反应,同时还是国际生产中心向中国转移过程中,凸显的国际生产中心和国际货币体系错配后,加深了中美经济失衡对中国经济影响程度的结果。该文认为:中国应采取必要的对策进行调整,如,深化国内金融市场改革、推进制造业中心与人民币国际化同步进行、坚持资本输出与产品输出并重发展战略、改革人民币汇率形成制度、逐步开放资本项目等。     

影响中美经贸合作的消极因素

近年来,在美国国内存在一系列影响中美经贸合作的片面认识和消极因素,如认为"中国贸易只惠己"、"中国对美出口剥夺了美国制造业工人的就业机会"、"中国对美国企业关闭市场"、"人民币汇率导致美中贸易逆差"等.从美国国内政治角度看,这些消极因素的产生和存在有其政治博弈的根源;从国际政治角度看,有其遏制中国的意图.应正确分析影响中美经贸合作的消极因素,以便理性应对,推动中美经贸合作良性发展.     

中国的崛起与美国的衰落——一种权力转移视角的分析

针对目前学界或官方存在的中国梦的实现与美国梦的逝去的提法,采用数据与图表并用的分析方法,对中国的实力与美国的实力进行了对比分析。从中发现,中国的逐渐崛起与美国的渐趋衰落是不争的事实,但是这种情况的存在并不意味着中美之间已经实现了权力的彻底转移。中国与美国在亚太甚至是世界的博弈,只是中美之间权力转移的开始。中美之间权力转移过程中所产生的结构性矛盾,是摆在中美两国领导人面前的重大问题。而这一问题的成功破解,对中美构建新型大国关系具有重大的理论与现实意义。     

美国再工业化对中美贸易摩擦的研究

2008年的金融危机对美国经济造成严重损害,美国重新重视实体经济,因此实施再工业化战略,美国的贸易保护主义借机抬头,加强了对中国的贸易保护.美国2009年实施再工业化战略以来,在制造业产值、 制成品出口、 制造业国际竞争力方面都有了一定程度的成效,中国作为世界的制造大国,美国的第二大贸易国,在美国进行制造业回归之时,也在调整产业结构升级,中美产品有了更多的竞争,随之而来的是中美贸易摩擦加剧.本文介绍美国再工业化战略,分析美国实施再工业化战略以来中美贸易摩擦的变化情况,总结出中美贸易摩擦的新特点.提出了中国应对美国再工业化战略背景下中美贸易摩擦的措施,即推动中美在高新技术制造领域的投资合作、 努力拓展中美贸易自由化的新渠道、 鼓励和引导科技创新,力促制造业向价值链高端攀升、 从国家层面对制造业产业集聚布局进行科学引导,以提升产业国际竞争力等.     

中美经贸争端的启示

近年来 ,中美经贸争端连续不断。中美之间广泛的经济接触及频繁的贸易摩擦 ,是美国国内政治需要及美国全球战略的一部分。从长远看 ,保持和发展中美之间的正常关系和经贸合作 ,符合两国的根本利益 ,中国应灵活地把握时机、发展自己。     

中美两国经济周期协动性分析

美国是世界第一大经济体也是中国的第一大贸易国,其国内的经济波动对中国经济的发展有着重要的影响。通过HP滤波法并使用1978—2009年度数据以及2008—2010年季度数据对中美两国经济周期波动的协动性研究后发现,中美经济周期协动程度随周期变动且呈现出明显的增强趋势,中国经济增长潜力高于美国且经济波动幅度逐渐减小。为此,应加强对美国经济周期波动的预测与中国货币政策制定、施行时机的把握,从而做到提前反周期操作。     

中美双边投资协定核心议题与中国对策——基于法与经济学的分析

中美双边投资协定谈判涉及国民待遇、资本自由转移、征收与补偿、国际争端解决等多项核心议题,在推进双边投资自由化与便利化的同时,也带来诸如行业竞争、资本流通、国家赔偿等风险。中国应制定自己的投资协定范本,就可能对现有社会秩序及国家经济利益造成重大威胁的条款坚决采取保留,在提高国内环保、劳工、知识产权等法律标准的同时,敦促美国在双边经济往来中严格遵守公平、公正待遇与透明化原则,避免经济问题政治化。     

论中美高技术产品贸易失衡之“谜”

中美高技术产品贸易失衡是由中美两国在高技术产品上出现与其比较优势不符的贸易所致。21世纪初,中美高技术产品贸易失衡主要表现为中美信息与通讯贸易顺差,以及中国对美部分高技术产品贸易顺差转为逆差;美国对华技术出口管制对贸易失衡的影响在减弱,外商对华高技术产品加工生产工序的产业转移,成为失衡的主要原因。由此造成美国、中国、东亚经济体在中美高技术产品贸易中形成三方"互利",但非"共赢"的利益分配格局。     

美国对华贸易逆差增加成因的研究述评

关于美国对华贸易逆差不断增加的原因,国内外各界研究的角度主要集中于人民币汇率、贸易政策、中美两国的储蓄投资差额、跨国公司从东亚其它国家和地区向中国转移制造业基地和美元作为国际本位货币等五个方面。通过述评这些观点,认为前两者与美国对华贸易逆差增加没有必然联系,后三者才是原因所在,因此美国以对华贸易逆差扩大为借口要求人民币大幅升值和中国迅速开放更多国内市场是无理要求。     

中美贸易及美在华投资与中国经济增长的关系——基于1983-2010年时间序列数据的实证研究

本文以1983-2010年间中国GDP、中美货物贸易以及美国在华直接投资等数据为基础,回顾了28年间中美经贸的概况,通过对数据进行可比性处理、平稳性分析、协整分析、向量误差修正模型(VECM)分析、格兰杰因果关系检验,得出了中美贸易、美国在华直接投资与中国经济增长之间存在着长期稳定的均衡关系以及中美经贸是典型的互惠互利等结论,最后提出平衡两国贸易和投资的措施建议。     

美国在钓鱼岛问题上的策略及中国的应对

中日钓鱼岛争端实质上既是日本主动战略挑衅的结果,同时也是中关之间战略竞争的体现。在中关日三方的战略博弈当中,最大的不确定因素是美国在钓鱼岛问题上是否会干预以及干预的样式及程度。从根本上看,美国干预的决心及程度取决于其在钓鱼岛海域自身利益需求与战略能力的平衡。美国以中日争端为抓手加速重返亚太．但因长期反恐战争引发的国力下降和国内财政危机,使得其在钓鱼岛主权归属问题上采取一种模糊政策。此举尽显美国战略上虚虚实实的做法,对此我们要清醒认识并加以积极应对。     

Can China’s meat imports be sustainable? A case study of mad cow disease

Rising demand and constrained domestic production have challenged the meat consumption in China. To fill the gap between domestic demand and supply, China imports an increasing volume of meat products from the international market. However, outbreaks of animal diseases can jeopardize China’s ability to meet its need for consumable meat. This article investigates the impact of animal disease outbreaks on the sustainability of China’s meat imports by using the episode of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the United States in 2003 as a case study. Our results show that China’s meat imports are becoming more diversified and sustainable. The outbreak did have significant negative impacts on beef imports from the United States. During the epidemic, not only was China able to increase beef imports from other major exporters, but it also increased imports of other animal products such as edible offal and pork. Our findings indicate that international trade can serve as a reliable source to meet China’s soaring meat consumption.     

US–Japan Trade Frictions: The Past,the Present,and Implications for the US–China Trade War

The United States and Japan have been involved in trade frictions over a number of products including textiles, steel, automobiles, semi‐conductors, and agricultural products over the last 50 years. US–Japan trade frictions have taken basically two forms: (i) the United States attempting to restrict Japan's exports to the United States; and (ii) the United States attempting to increase its exports to Japan by “opening” the Japanese market. By putting pressure on Japan to adopt necessary measures, the United States sought to achieve two main objectives: (i) to reduce its trade deficit vis‐à‐vis Japan; and (ii) to protect and/or promote US industries. The United States failed to achieve the first objective, while some success was achieved for the second objective. The United States triggered a trade war against China with the objectives of: (i) reducing the bilateral trade deficit; and (ii) stopping unfair trade practices by Chinese firms such as violations of intellectual property rights and forced technology transfer. Based on the experiences from the US–Japan trade frictions, the United States may achieve some success for the second objective, but not for the first. The chances of achieving the second objective would increase if the United States cooperates with countries such as Japan and the European Union, which are faced with similar problems.     

美国碳关税政策对中美贸易的影响

基于环境保护和贸易保护的目的,美国提出了征收碳关税诉求。这将对中国对美国的商品出口产生什么样的影响?本文根据我国各行业的碳排放强度和出口贸易细分数据,分析了美国征收碳关税可能会对我国各行业出口贸易的影响,并提出,中国应该在多边贸易组织的框架下对美国将实行的碳关税政策进行限制约束,及时调整国内产业结构。     

中美贸易摩擦对我国海洋渔业的影响及对策研究

中美贸易摩擦已经涉及我国海产品及海洋渔业产业,其中我国对原产于美国的海产品加征关税已经实施,美国已发布对我国加征 10%关税的海产品清单。研究发现,中美互为重要且较稳定的海产品贸易伙伴国,中美贸易摩擦对我国海产品生产、进出口、消费产生负面影响,主要包括推动海产养殖成本上升、导致美国自中国进出口份额下降近一半、引起海产品价格上涨等问题。提出了扩大国内国际市场、推进海洋渔业产业转型升级和加大海产品加工企业财税扶持力度等应对建议。     

Accounting for the China–US Trade Imbalance: An Ownership‐Based Approach

This paper focuses on measuring the trade imbalance between China and the United States (US) within the framework of the ownership‐based approach. It extends the baseline model developed, respectively, by NAS, Julius, and BEA into a three‐country framework, consisting of the domestic economy, the foreign economy, and the rest of the world. The results of the study show that the non‐US foreign direct investment in China is mostly responsible for China's trade surplus with the US. As a result, China's ownership‐based trade surplus is surprisingly small relative to the conventional measure.     

Global trade flows and economic policy uncertainty

ABSTRACT

This article investigates the impacts of economic policy uncertainty (EPU) on global trade flows in gauging international trade developments. We employ a global vector autoregressive (GVAR) trade model, augmented with value-added bilateral trade linkages, that allows for quantifying the effects of economy-specific uncertainty shocks on exports and imports of individual economies. We find substantial spatial propagation in the temporal dynamics of international transmission of shocks amidst the manifestations of cross-border global value chains (GVCs) with China’s accession into the WTO. We provide evidence for the significance of EPU of China and the United States, particularly the latter, in influencing global trade flows. Our results show that while the US impacts can largely be attributed to its indirect trade linkages with other economies, the impacts of China can be relegated more to its direct GVC linkages. The findings have implications on trade protectionist inclinations of the current-term US government and the ongoing efforts of China’s policymakers in steering macroeconomic rebalancing for sustainable growth.     

中国对美“双重输出”格局及其新变化*

20世纪末以来，中美关系作为最重要的南北关系，很大程度上反映着世界格局的演进。客观上，中美分别作为产业资本第一大国和金融资本第一大国，其大国关系的实质乃中国对美“双重输出”：中国向美国输出廉价工业品和对美输出资本投资；美国向中国输出低成本资金和服务。双方因处于不同的发展阶段而形成战略上紧密的经济互补关系。但这一关系因2008年金融危机之后的中美“相向转型”--中国向金融资本经济升级，美国向实体产业回调--而渐进向互斥竞争转化。处于对立矛盾却难以对抗的中国客观上只能对内依次转嫁“输入型危机”所引发的制度成本，近期需要借生态文明和城乡统筹转向国家综合安全战略调整，使这种危机借助乡土社会实现软着陆。     

The 2018 US-China trade conflict after forty years of special protection

ABSTRACT

In 2018, the United States suddenly increased tariffs on nearly 50 percent of its imports from China. China immediately responded with tariff retaliation covering more than 70 percent of imports from the United States. This article assesses what happened in 2018 and attempts to explain why. It first constructs new measure of special tariff protection to put the sheer scope and coverage of the 2018 actions into historical context. It then uses the lens provided by the 2018 special tariffs to explain the key sources of economic and policy friction between the two countries. This includes whether China’s state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and industrial subsidies, as well as China’s development strategy and system of forcibly acquiring foreign technology, were imposing increasingly large costs on trading partners. Finally, it also examines whether the US strategy to provoke a crisis – which may result in a severely weakened World Trade Organization (WTO) – was deliberate and out of frustration with the institution itself.