臺灣大學: 國家發展研究所郝培芝張芳庭Chang, Fang-TingFang-TingChang2013-03-292018-06-282013-03-292018-06-282011http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw//handle/246246/254218在不考慮單邊貿易自由化的情況，依照經濟學觀點，多邊貿易自由化將使資源配置效率極大，並且創造出最大的福祉或總體實質所得，因此各國應該支持多邊貿易談判；不過並不能解釋90年代起雙邊自由貿易協定的蓬勃發展。隨著雙邊自由貿易協定激增，企業和海關為了處理大量不一致的貿易規則，龐大的行政和貿易成本將抵銷貿易自由化所帶來的好處，進而使總實質所得成長不如預期，因此學者預期義大利麵碗效應很可能成為一股推力促使著各國轉而倡議成立更廣泛的自由貿易區；然而事實上雙邊貿易談判風潮未見消退，各國仍積極地布局雙邊自由貿易協定的網絡。上述兩項觀點皆從整體實質所得來判斷各國應該支持哪一種貿易協定或體系，卻沒有考量到不同角色國家可能有不同的立場。 目前，學者Ronald J. Wonnacott利用輪軸與輻條結構替不同國家進行角色定位，並初步探討輪軸國或輻條國等不同角色的國家對貿易協定的偏好選項，結論為輻條國必定偏好區域內完全自由貿易而非輪軸與輻條結構，而輪軸國的偏好選項不確定；而本文欲在既有的輪軸與輻條理論(hub and spoke theory)納入市場規模因素，將輪軸國與輻條國的兩種角色再細分為作為輻條的大國、作為輻條的中國、作為輻條的小國、作為輻條的大國、作為輻條的中國以及作為輻條的小國等六種角色，並且發現輪軸國與輻條國對貿易協定的偏好選項沒有改變，作為輻條的大國、作為輻條的中國及作為輻條的小國偏好區域內完全自由貿易，而作為輻條的大國、作為輻條的中國及作為輻條的小國則不確定。 在得到輪軸國與輻條國在應然面上的選擇後，接下來必須在錯縱複雜的貿易協定網絡中進行身分辨認。若以簽署次數角度來看，一國可能同時兼有輪軸國與輻條國兩種身分，無法界定出唯一的輪軸國；為了衡量真正有實力成為輪軸的國家，必須從市場准入和總量的角度來看。本文欲利用Richard Baldwin的樞紐測度指標來界定東亞地區的輪軸國，研究結果指出2005年東亞地區主要輪軸國為日本，而到了2009年主要輪軸國變成了中國大陸。 最後，從中國大陸、泰國和新加坡的個案分析中發現東亞國家實際貿易政策走向不符合輪軸與輻條理論的預測，推論出東亞經濟體在簽署雙邊自由貿易協定時沒有將輪軸與輻條因素納入貿易協定選擇的考量重點中，其他因素似乎更能解釋東亞區域整合現狀。Except for the case of unilateral liberalization, from an economic perspective, multilateral trade liberalization brings about the biggest improvement in allocative efficiency of resources, thus creating the greatest amount of welfare and total real GDP. This theory implies that multilateral trade negotiation should be supported by all nations. Yet, the rise of bilateral free trade agreements since the 1990s is somewhat contrary to this economic logic. With bilateral free trade agreements mushrooming around the world, the administrative and trade costs of enterprises and customs authorities are increasing to deal with various trade regulations. These costs reduce the benefits of liberalization, and lead to real GDP growth below the expected level. Therefore, some scholars predict that the current spaghetti bowl effect may induce all nations to advocate broader free trade areas. Yet, in spite of this prediction the growth trend of bilateral free trade deals remains unabated. Both of the two points mentioned above demonstrate that all nations should stand for the multilateral trade agreement or the broader free trade area. However none of them matches reality. In fact, nations of different roles could have different attitudes toward trade agreements or trade systems. In the Wonnacott model nations are categorized according to a hub and spoke pattern in order to account for the preferences of these different roles on trade agreements. He finds that the spoke role nation prefers regional free trade to a hub-and-spoke pattern, but the preference of the hub role nation varies. In an attempt to extend the existing hub and spoke theory, this paper examines the hub and spoke roles of nations by introducing market scale as additional factor, and finds that small, middle, and large spoke nations prefer regional free trade agreements while the preference of small, middle, and large hub nations is uncertain, which is same as the results of Wonnacott’s study. After analyzing the theoretical choice of hub or spoke on trade agreements, this paper tries to define hub positions from analyzing the complex FTA networks in the real world. From the perspective of the number of FTAs signed, it is impossible to define hub countries because a nation can play both hub and spoke roles simultaneously in the FTA networks. Hence, this paper adopts Baldwin’s market access perspective, and uses his hub-ness measure method to find the hub role nation in East Asia. The 2005 East Asia HM index suggests Japan as the main hub while the 2009 East Asia HM index indicates that China has already replaced Japan and has become the new hub country. Finally, this paper examines whether the actual trade policies of East Asian nations match theoretical predictions of the hub and spoke theory for the cases of China, Thailand and Singapore. Our findings suggest that the hub and spoke element is not influential to the governmental decision-making process when a nation considers trade agreement options. This paper concludes that other factors explain the status quo of East Asia integration more adequately.2684517 bytesapplication/pdfen-US輪軸與輻條樞紐測度自由貿易協定市場規模東亞區域整合Hub and SpokeHub-ness measureFree Trade AgreementMarket ScaleEast Asia Integrationthesishttp://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/254218/1/ntu-100-R97341042-1.pdf