Influence of trade facilitation on depth and breadth of China’s agricultural product export: in the context of the Silk Road Economic Belt
(2.Jiangsu Provincial Food Safety Research Center of Nanjing Agricultural University)
(3.Economics and Management School of Nanjing Agricultural University)
【Abstract】From the perspective of export depth and export breadth, this paper uses the panel data of Chinese agricultural products exporting to 48 countries along the Silk Road Economic Belt from 2008 to 2015, and based on an analysis of the status of China’s agricultural products exporting to these countries and the measurement of trade facilitation level of these countries, this paper employs the extended trade gravity model to analyze the influence of trade facilitation level of these countries on China’s agricultural products export depth and breadth. We found that China’s agricultural products export depth and breadth will increase by1.111% and 0.431% respectively for every 1% increase in the level of trade facilitation of these countries. These results imply that if the trade facilitation level of these countries along the Silk Road Economic Belt can be improved, it can not only increase the export value and market share of China’s agricultural products, but also improve the export structure and diversification of China’s agricultural products export.
【Keywords】 trade facilitation; export depth; export breadth; the Silk Road Economic Belt;
(Translated by CAI Wenxia)
. ① In this paper, the scope of the Silk Road Economic Belt is defined as a reference to Hu Angang (2014) division standards. Deleting countries with missing data, the remaining 48 countries are: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan in the Central Asian Economic Belt. Russia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Turkey in the Central-Asia Economic Belt, 28 countries in the Eurasian Economic Belt and Ukraine, and Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco in North Africa. [^Back]
. ① This article adopts the Standard International Trade Classification (SITC) to classify agricultural products into four categories: the first category (0 category) is food and live animals, the second category (1 category) is beverages and tobacco, and the third category (2 category) are non-fuel materials (excluding Chapter 27 and 28), and the fourth category (4 category) are animal and vegetable oils, greases and waxes [^Back]
 Chen, Y. & Chen,Y. International Trade Issues (国际贸易问题), (9) (2011).
 Dong, G. International Economic and Trade Exploration (国际经贸探索), (29) (2015).
 Fu, J. & Wu, L. International Trade Issues (国际贸易问题), (12) (2015).
 Hu, A., Ma, W. & Yan, Y. Journal of Xinjiang Normal University (新疆师范大学学报), (35) (2014).
 Li, Y. & Guo, Y. International Trade Issues (国际贸易问题),(10) (2013).
 Qian, X. & Xiong, P. Economy Research (经济研究), (1) (2010).
 Tan, J., Cai, Y. & Gao, Y. et al. Agricultural Economic Issues (农业经济问题), (36) (2015).
 Tan, J. & Pan, H. International Trade Issues (国际贸易问题), (5) (2016).
 Zhang, X. & Gong, X. International Economic and Trade Exploration (国际经贸探索), (31) (2015).
 APEC. Assessing APEC Trade Liberalization and Facilitation: 1999 update. Economic Committee, Singapore, 1999, 11.
 BANK A D. Designing and Implementing Trade Facilitation in Asia and the Pacific. Asian Development Bank, 2013.
 GRAINGER A. Customs and Trade Facilitation: From Concepts to Implementation. 2008.
 HAUSMANN R, KLINGER B. Structural Transformation and Patterns of Comparative Advantage in the Product Space. Working Paper, 2006.
 HUMMELS D, KLENOW P J. The Variety and Quality of a Nation’s Exports. American Economic Review, 2005, 95 (3) :704-723.
 MOÏSÉE, ORLIAC T, MINOR P. Trade Facilitation Indicators: The Impact on Trade Cost. Oecd Trade Policy Papers, 2011.
 WILSON J S, MANN C L, OTSUKI T. Trade Facilitation and Economic Development: A New Approach to Quantifying the Impact. World Bank Economic Review, 2003, 17 (3):367-389.