兩岸服貿協議對我國的衝擊分析homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~ntuperc/conference-1-files/20130725_3_1.pdf ·...

38
鄭秀玲教授 台灣大學經濟學系 2013/07/25 1 兩岸服貿協議對我國的衝擊分析

Upload: duongthuan

Post on 07-Feb-2018

228 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 2013/07/25

    1

  • 2

    (Joseph Stiglitz)

  • 3

  • ECFA

    4

    2010629ECFA

    201289

    2013621()

    2013

    ECFA

  • 5

    http://www.ecfa.org.tw/

  • 6:

    (1)(2)(3)(4)

    E.

    (b)(

    )

    (CPC83104**)

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    (c)

    (CPC83101**)

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    (d)

    (CPC83106-831

    09)(

    )

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    F.

    (a)

    (CPC871**)(

    )

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    (b)

    (CPC86401**

    )

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    (c)

    (CPC865)

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

    Page8

  • ()

    7:

    (1)(2)(3)(4)

  • 8

    WTO(GATS)4

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)

    (4)

  • 9

    /

    (1).a.b.c.d.e.(2) ()(3)(4)(5)

    (6)()

    (1)(2)(3)

    .(1)

    (1)(2)()(3) ()

    (1)() (2)(3) ()(4) ()

    (1)

    (1)(2)(3)

    (1)(

    )

    (1)

    (2)

    (1)(2)

  • /

    (7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)

    (1)(2)(3)

    (1)

    (1)(2)(3)

    ()(1)(2)(3)(4)

    (1)(2)(3)

    (2).()(3)

    (1)(

    )(2)(3)()

    ()()(4)()(5)(6)(7)

    ()

    10

  • 11

    1. ()

    2. 3.2

    1.2.3.

    50%

    1.

    2.

    1.50%2.3.

  • ()

    1. 2.

    1. 3065%2.

    1. 2.

    3.

    1. 2.

    ()2

    12

  • (Joseph Stiglitz)

    13

    :http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2013/07/10/2003566743

    First, any trade agreement has to be symmetrical.

    Second, no trade agreement should put commercial interests ahead of broader national interests.

    Finally, there must be a commitment to transparency.

    By Joseph Stiglitz

  • 14

    Joseph Stiglitz

    Stiglitz: 1.

    Stiglitz: 2.

    Stiglitz: 3.

    18!!

  • 2.1 :

    (1)(2)(3)

    (4)

    (1)(2)(3)1.30

    65%2.(4)

    //

    ()

    :

    15

  • () ()

    4 4,282 82

    5 4,086 182

    7 2,984 123

    29 1,336 378

    2.2 :

    16

    2013500896

    89

    6

    () ()

    30 1,321 32

    305 365 -11

    321 344 8

    379 302 1

    384 298 2

    499 233 1

  • 444 94 1,193 10 137

    610 92 1,653 4 143

    827 20 864 6 97

    896 24 667 6 82

    230 4,377 26 459

    2.2 : ()

    17

    (Forbes) 2013

    1 1,348 28,135 378 2,373

    2 1,131 22,410 306 2,020

    8 1,030 21,242 230 1,508

    11 9,81 20,338 221 1,317

    3,509 92,125 1,135 7,218

    2040

  • 2.3 :

    12.5 IBMPC (2005)

    50Morgan Stanley (2007)

    30 (2007)

    5520% (2007)

    4335 (2008)

    40 (2008)

    25020 (2009)

    200 (2010)

    151 (2013)

    20081032012652

    6

    18

  • 2.4 :

    19

  • 2.5

    20

    !

  • 21

  • 3.1 ?

    22

    117385C400

    (11-12)

    55% (PC Home)ICP

  • 3.1 ? ()

    23

    (102/7/19) !

    64()!

    ()

  • 3.2 (41)

    24

    93.586158.64.2

  • 25

    50 100

    402013200

    80

    500

    (1)(2)2(3)2(4)

    100~1000

    1000

    2,000

    202

    5017

    3.2 (42)

  • 3.2 (43)

    26

    CEPA

  • 3.2 (44)

    27

    3982166000

    (1)

    (2)

    (3)2010

  • 3.3

    28

    20

    1/3

  • 3.4 (21)

    29

  • 3.4 (22)

    30

  • 3.5

    31

    2008

  • 3.6 (21)

    32

    (2013/7/03) !

    2010ECFA25.3%26.8%201028.02%

  • 3.6 (2 2)

    2007 23.7% 20.4% 8.8% 7.2% 6.2% 33.8%

    2008 24.3% 20.3% 8.0% 6.9% 5.9% 34.5%

    2009 28.5% 19.3% 8.2% 6.7% 5.3% 32.0%

    2010 30.1% 18.5% 8.0% 6.2% 5.1% 32.1%

    2011 33.1% 16.7% 7.2% 5.4% 5.1% 32.5%

    CEPA23.7%33.1%CEPA

  • 3.7 (21)

    34

    : 201236.284.4

    :

  • 3.7 (22)

    35

    :

    :

  • 3.8

    36

    (1)(3)

  • 37

  • :

    38

    200625

    82

    200742

    2007630

    201011

    201012 ()

    20111021

    20111116FTA

    20111129FTA14

    2012315FTA

    FTA