2015 International Conference on Management Science & Engineering (22th)
October 19-22, 2015
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Standards, Trade Facilitation and Ecologically
Oriented Development along the Silk Road
YANG Li-juan
School of Economics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P.R.China
Abstract: Wide research proved that technical
standards have statistically significant and theoretical
meaningful influence on international trade. As an early
model characterized with internationalization and
regional cooperation, thriving trade along the Silk Road
has special and critical significance for countries in this
region as well as around the world. The paper tries to
give some insights from a technical standard perspective
for how to realize trade facilitation and ecologically
oriented development in the process of co-building the
Silk Road Economic Belt. We differentiate basic
standards and ecologically oriented standards and use
panel data concerning China’s standards stock and its
trade performance to investigate the role of technical
standards in facilitating trade toward an ecologically
oriented direction. Results show that moderate while
overall growth of standards, especially those
internationally harmonized standards, promotes China’s
foreign trade development. In sectors which have
reasonable standards amount and composition, the larger
the stock of ecologically oriented while internationally
harmonized standards, the larger the trade volume of
China. In order to substantially facilitate trade in a more
sustainable and ecologically-oriented direction, countries
along the Silk Road should widely communicate and
cooperate in international level, regional level as well as
national level about standardization practices and
enhance the international level for national
standardization system.
Keywords: ecologically oriented development, ics
classification, silk road, technical standards, trade
facilitation
1 Introduction
The Silk Road enabled an early model for
internationalization in human history, which started from
ancient China and boomed from trade to a great extent.
The ancient Silk Road, encompassed wide range of land
and sea trade corridors in Eurasia, has made great
contributions for trade and cultural exchanges. Through
mutual learning and communication, people from diverse
Supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities (13LZUJBWZY053, 14LZUJBWZY026)
978-1-4673-6513-0/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE
civilizations gained unparalleled sharing of ideas,
commodities, arts, science and innovation. It is an
important business and trade route among Asia, Europe
and Africa, and also served as an important bridge
between Eastern and Western world’s political, economic
and cultural exchanges. Recently, the Silk Road has
attracted great attention under the background of fulfill
commercial needs and cultural prosperity for countries
along the route and around the world.
The initiative of building the Silk Road Economic
Belt and the 21st century Maritime Silk Road has been
proposed by Chinese president Xi Jinping during his visit
to Central Asia and ASEAN countries. “One Belt and
One Road” originates from China and goes through
Central Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, West Asia and
parts of Europe, connecting with the Asia Pacific
Economic Circle to the east and extending to European
Economic circle to the west. It covers about 4.4 billion
population and gross economic capacity is about 21
trillion US dollars. It is not only the world economic
corridor with the largest span, but also the cooperation
belt with much development potential. The initiative of
constructing “One Belt and One Road” gives young
connotation of the times to the ancient Silk Road and
depicts the grand and magnificent chapter for common
development and prosperity of Eurasian continent. With
the accelerating process of globalization and integration
in today’s world, the Silk Road is becoming a new value
model for promoting regional cooperation and peaceful
development.
Trade acts as the reallocations for various economic
resources in spatial geographical region while trade
facilitation is the general trend of international trade
development. The key for thriving trade is the realization
of trade facilitation. And in order to realize trade
facilitation, we must first eliminate or reduce various
visible and invisible trade barriers and obstacles which
may increase trade costs. In the tide of trade
globalization and liberalization, the role of traditional
trade barriers such as tariff, quotas, etc. is declining,
while the more common factors causing trade frictions
may be the diversity and variety in terms of production
orientation, consumption concept, and even value
judgment, standard and way of thinking, etc.
Throughout the history of world economy
- 944 -
development, trade openness and cities play an important
role in the spatial allocation of economic resources and
act as ties and centers for business exchanges and
economic growth. Cities distributed along the Silk Road
become the supporting points of the regional economy.
Meanwhile, they also rely on the inherent motivation
from the development of Silk Road civilizations and
Oasis economy. Cities and oasis are interdependent and
mutually promote each other. Prosperous cities provide
spatial structure for communication of civilizations and
allocation of economic resources. Developed business
and trade lay a solid foundation for the Silk Road while
the massive trade activities greatly enrich the material
and spiritual life here.
Without the prosperity of the city, the Silk Road will
not become a communication channel for civilizations
and artery for trade. Protect the oasis and protect the
ecological environment are not only historical
responsibilities we must shoulder in the construction
process of the Silk Road Economic Belt, but also provide
new ideas and new possibilities for positioning and
developing of cities along the Silk Road. Oasis is the
foundation of the Silk Road. We need to achieve a new
trade mode and new way of civilization characterized
with a harmonious development between man and nature,
cooperation and coexistence as well as the lowest energy
consumption. The development of the Silk Road
Economic Belt is the harmonious development between
man and nature, the harmonious and jointly development
of man and nature in the framework of dialogue of
civilizations. Therefore, we need to push it toward an
ecologically-friendly and sustainable direction.
Wide research proved that technical standards have
statistically significant and theoretical meaningful
influence on international trade. As an early model
characterized with internationalization and regional
cooperation, thriving trade along the Silk Road has
special and critical significance for countries in this
region as well as around the world. This paper tries to
give some insights from the technical standard point of
view. It is well known that standards constitute the corner
stones for international trade and serve as common
technical languages and practice guidance for business
communications among trade countries. Deepen the
cooperation in the field of technical standards will bring
opportunities for countries along the Silk Road to do
business with each other under the same rules. Therefore,
we try to investigate trade effects of standards using
dataset of China while pay more attention on standards
which may have very close relation with green trade
development.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows.
In section 2, we review key literature relating to the
impact of standards on international trade and develop
our hypotheses. Section 3 provides an overview of
standards system in China. Our empirical strategy is laid
out in section 4. Section 5 presents our findings and
discussions. Finally, section 6 concludes.
2 Literature review
In Early researches, theoretical as well as empirical,
had identified standards as an important intermediary
that could mitigate uncertainty in economic markets by
transmitting quality signals. For example, Akerlof (1970)
[1]
and Leland (1979) [2] found incomplete and
asymmetric information may lead to uncertainty, while
prior warranties, especially stringent standards were
helpful for avoiding market failure and degradation of
average quality of products. Hudson and Jones (2003)
further applied these ideas into analyzing how
international standards may influence foreign trade
development. When trade enterprises entering foreign
markets, products with famous brands had competitive
advantages because brands may transmit favorable
quality signals thus influenced consumers’ purchasing
decisions. Another similar phenomenon was about
“country of origin”. Most consumers considered products
from high income countries usually had high product
quality because they tended to link product quality with
per capita income of producing countries. Those small
and medium sized enterprises from developing countries
thus may encounter severe challenges due to lack of
brand recognition. Hudson and Jones thought that these
enterprises should positively comply with international
standards from ISO so as to reduce possible information
asymmetry when participating global competition [3].
Some researchers focused on the compliance cost
with international standards. Barret (1994) [4], Fisher and
Serra (2000) [5] found that excessively stringent
environment standards may distort efficient market
competition and hinder trade. This issue was particularly
prominent in network industries since standards acted as
connecting nodes in network. Klimenko (2009a, 2009b)
analyzed policies and international trade agreements on
technical compatibility for industries with network
externalities. Results showed that reciprocal exchange of
commitments regarding market access alone may be
insufficient to achieve global efficiency. Efficient trade
agreements should not only consider market access but
also set compatibility level of standards. Otherwise,
discriminatory use of compatibility standards in network
industry like ICT etc. may pose severe trade barriers and
reduce social welfare[6][7].
Another subset of research focused on trade effects
of harmonization between different standards. Gandal
(2000) proposed network industrial theory should
consider international trade so as to extend standards
competition and standardization strategy research to
open economy [8]. Gandal and Shy (2001) analyzed
government incentive to accept foreign country’s
standards when network externality and conversion costs
both existed. Results showed that if government policy
was limited to either recognize all foreign standards or
not recognize them at all, then the equilibriums of the
game were always falling into recognition. When
conversion costs were relatively large, two countries may
increase their welfare by forming a standardization union
- 945 -
which did not recognize standards of the third
(nonmember) country. When network effects were
significant, all countries would mutually recognize all
standards and had no incentive to form standardization
unions [9].
Empirical studies concerning standards’ influence
on international trade were very few before 2000 due to
the lack of data. Swann, Temple and Shurmer (1996)
made early contributions in quantifying the relationship
between standards stock and trade performance.
Specifically, they used Perinorm database to investigate
impact of BSI standards on UK’s import and export. A
BSI standard was counted as an international standard if
it was classified as either “identical to” or “equivalent to”
a European or an international standard in Perinorm. If
not, then it was counted as a national standard. Results
showed UK national standards had a positive and
statistically significant effect on export and import, while
UK international standards had a positive yet weakly
significant effect on export and a negligible effect on
imports. These conclusions proved that standards
promote trade growth and had trade-creating effects [10].
Following this line of investigation by using
Perinorm database, econometrical studies concerning
trade effects of standards began to appear in large
numbers afterwards. Most representative contributions
came from Blind, Moenius afterwards. Blind together
with colleagues examined foreign trade and bilateral
trade flows between pairs of countries while establishing
concordance table between trade data and standard stock
based on ICS classified methods. Series of
comprehensive and systematic studies about German
standards included: role of national standards and
international standards on Germany’s world trade and
Germany-UK bilateral trade (Blind and Jungmittag, 2001)
[11]
as well as in ICS groups level (Blind, 2004)[12], on
Germany-France bilateral trade (Blind and Jungmittag,
2002)[13], on Switzerland’s trade with Germany (Blind,
2004), on trade among Germany, France and UK in
instruments for measurement and testing (Blind, 2001)[14].
Most studies confirmed trade effects did exist and played
an important role in Germany’s foreign trade
development.
Moerius (2004) investigated impact of standards on
bilateral trade between 12 OECD countries. He classified
two kinds of standards: country-specific standards from
trade countries and shared common standards between
them. Results confirmed all these standards had impact
on trade while trade effects varied among different
industrial sectors. Country-specific standards of
importers hindered import in food, beverages, crude
materials and mineral fuels sectors, but promoted trade in
other sectors like oils, chemicals and manufacturing. The
reason was that high compliment costs for
country-specific national standards exceeded positive
information effects was in low-technology sectors [15].
Moenius (2006a, 2006b) further examined trade effects
of standards in agriculture and electronics sectors,
respectively. He found as far as agriculture sector was
concerned, country-specific standards were not always
impeding trade while internationally harmonized
standards were not always promoting trade. But in the
field of electronics, both national standards and
international standards positively increased trade flows
while country-specific standards showed a more
pronounced effect on trade [16] [17].
Hereafter, Portugal-Perez, Reyes and Wilson (2010)
investigated the influence of internationally harmonized
standards on EU-15 imports of electronics from the rest
of the world. Specifically speaking, a standard was
considered internationally harmonized if it was “identical
to” an existing IEC standard. They found trade effects of
standards’ harmonization were different in three subsets
of electronics products: electronic components,
consumer electronics and telecoms, as well as IT
products. Although a positive and robust relationship
appeared between internationally harmonized standards
and trade in all of the three categories, EU-specific
standards that were aligned to international norms had a
mixed impact on trade across sectors and estimation
methods used [18].
In regional level, Chen and Mattoo (2008) applied
information concerning standards and regulations in
mutual recognition agreements and harmonization
agreements to investigate trade effects of standards. They
estimated a gravity model of bilateral trade between pairs
of countries including OECD countries and non-OECD
countries. Results showed that harmonization agreements
may increase trade between member countries but reduce
exports from excluded developing countries to this
region. Mutual recognition agreements, on the other hand,
promoted trade both within the region and with the rest
of the world. Mutual recognition agreements including
restrictive rules of origin increased intra-region trade at
the expense of imports from other countries [19].
Besides, Reyes (2011) used highly detailed dataset
that linking U.S. international trade transactions to U.S.
firms and a new industry-level database of EU product
standards, to investigate the response of U.S.
manufacturing firms to the harmonization of European
product standards toward international norms in
electronics sector. Results showed that international
harmonization of EU standards increased U.S. exports to
EU. More U.S. firms entered the EU market and new
entrants to the EU region were drawn mainly from the
most productive set of firms already exporting to
developing markets before harmonization. Furthermore,
harmonization decreased export sales of existing
exporters [20].
As for developing countries, Chen, Wilson and
Otsuki (2008) used data from World Bank Technical
Barriers to Trade Survey and firm-level model to
investigate standards’ impact on firms’ export decisions
in developing countries. They found that different types
of standards and regulations exhibit sharply distinct
relations with firms’ intensive and extensive margins of
exports. Quality standards were positively related not
only with firms’ average export volume across markets
- 946 -
and products but also their export scope (measured by
the number of export markets and products). A similar
relationship is found between labeling requirements and
export scope. Certification procedures, however, were
associated with a significant decline in export scope [21].
Czubala, Shepherd and Wilson (2009) examined the
impact of EU-15 standards on textiles and clothing
exports from 47 Sub-Saharan countries in Africa. They
focusd on EU standards that were aligned with
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
standards. Results showed standards in EU-15 which
were not harmonized with ISO standards may reduce
African exports of these products while internationally
harmonized EU standards were less trade-restricting [22].
Recently, some papers were concerned with Chinese
standards. Mangelsdorf (2011) made the first empirical
evidence concerning role of technical standards for trade
between China and EU. Main findings confirmed that
purely national Chinese standards had negative effects on
European exports while Chinese international standards
had positive effects [23]. Mangelsdorf, Portugal-Perez and
Wilson (2012) examined the impact of food standards in
China on its agricultural exports. Results showed that
China’s national standards, especially mandatory
standards had export-promoting effects. Standards
harmonization also had positive impact on trade.
Marginal effects of international harmonized standards
exceeded purely Chinese domestic standards [24]. Yang
(2013a) investigated the impact of standards on China’s
trade volume with the rest of the world and its bilateral
trade flows with US. Results showed that China’s
internationally harmonized voluntary standards had the
strongest trade-promoting effects and were helpful for
Sino-US trade surplus [25]. Yang (2013b) found
increasing stock for national standards and international
standards positively promoted China’s foreign trade in
sector level while international standards had a bigger
effect. Meanwhile, product standards, basis standards,
method standards, management standards, safety
standards, health care standards as well as environmental
protection standards also promoted China’s trade volume
growth [26].
In this research field, some scholars also showed
their interest in one particular standard (ISO 9000) and
tried to analyze the role of ISO 9000 penetration in the
development of international trade. Anderson et al. (1999)
reported average annual savings of $200,000 for a
mid-sized firm due to ISO certification. These internal
benefits may enhance firm’s competitiveness and
therefore may influence international trade flows [27].
Clougherty and Grajek (2008) found that ISO
certification facilitated trade in developing countries
while established institutional frameworks to detect
quality-valuing firms are lacking [28]. They further
considered the trade-effects of ISO 9000 while
investigated the different channels in which standards
may influence international trade. They found evidence
of common-language and quality-signaling effects of
international standards may help augment country-pair
trade. ISO-rich countries benefited the most from
standardization, while ISO-poor countries found ISO
9000 standards were representing a trade barrier because
of compliance-costs effects of standards [29].
The above theoretical and empirical researches
contributed rich and interesting explanations and insights
concerning relationship between standards stock and
international trade. We now extend this line of research
by focusing on different standards characterized with
nature and emerging stage that may account for how we
could facilitate trade in an ecologically oriented way so
as to substantially realize sustainable green trade
development.
According to different standardization objects, we
may divide seven types of standards whose stock
information also could be found in database provided by
Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic
of China (SAC), including: quality standards, basis
standards, method standards, management standards,
safety standards, health care standards and environmental
protection standards. Furthermore, from emerging stage
and development history, quality standards, basis
standards and method standards concentrate appear in
large amounts during the early stages of economic
growth. These standards mainly define basic product
nature and specify fundamental production content and
process. With the development of specific industries and
enhancing awareness of consumers, demand for
management standards, safety standards, healthcare
standards and environmental protection standards is
increasing during the development and maturity period
afterwards. In fact, the latter four kinds of standards
usually convey people’s aspiration for better living
conditions and higher residence quality while safeguard
and promote economic and trade development in a more
effective and efficient way at the same time. In order to
realize green trade and green economic development,
setting and implementing adequate standards concerning
management, safety, healthcare and environmental
protection is one of the inseparable preconditions for
blazing a new trail to industrialization featuring high
scientific and technological content, good economic
returns, low resources consumption, little environmental
pollution and a full display of advantages in human
resources.
From this point of view, we differentiate two
categories of standards: first, basic standards, including
quality standards, basis standards and method standards;
second, ecologically oriented standards, including
management standards, safety standards, healthcare
standards and environmental protection standards.
Usually, production and consumption comply with
ecologically oriented standards are indeed sustainable
and eco-friendly, thus the increasing stock of these
standards may promote green trade and green economy
in a more efficient and effective way. It is urgent for
member countries to develop adequate and
comprehensive
ecologically
oriented
standards.
Meanwhile, WTO/TBT agreements state that member
- 947 -
countries should set their national standards on the basis
of international standards if international standards
already exist. We may expect the positive trade effects of
ecologically oriented standards and internationally
harmonized standards. However, as could be found in the
next section, standards stock is very limited while the
composition is far from proportionally in some sectors.
In such a case, the role of standards would be constrained
and it’s hard to acquire the expected integrative results.
As such, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1-a: In sector level, the larger the stock
of ecologically oriented standards, the larger the trade
volume of China.
Hypothesis 1-b: In sector level, the larger the stock
of ecologically oriented standards, the smaller the trade
volume of China.
Hypothesis 2-a: In sectors which have reasonable
standard amount and composition, the larger the stock of
ecologically oriented while internationally harmonized
standards, the larger the trade volume of China.
Hypothesis 2-b: In sectors which have reasonable
standard amount and composition, the larger the stock of
ecologically oriented while internationally harmonized
standards, the smaller the trade volume of China.
Having stated our key hypotheses, we proceed to
sketch the standards development background of China
in Section 3, and explain our empirical strategy and data
collection in Section 4.
3 China’s standardization system
3.1 Overview
In order to fulfill the promises of WTO accession,
the Standardization Administration of the People’s
Republic of China (SAC) was established in April 2000,
and authorized by the State Council to exercise
administrative responsibilities by undertaking unified
management, supervision, and overall coordination of
standardization works in China. A uniformed national
standards system has been established. Meanwhile, SAC
is also actively adopting international standards set by
authoritative worldwide standardization organizations
like ISO, IEC, ITU, etc. Until the end of 2014, there
were 44367 standards issued and implemented, including
30867 active standards (including 5885 mandatory
standards and 39422 voluntary standards) and 13500
revocatory standards. There are 7480 national standards
identical to (“IDT”) international standards (including
787 mandatory standards and 6540 voluntary standards)
and 3742 modified (“MOD”) international standards
(including 431 mandatory standards and 3257 voluntary
standards). Classified with standardization objects, there
are 15112 product standards, 8205 basis standards, 17140
method standards, 1414 management standards, 2172
safety standards, 973 healthcare standards, and 438
environmental protection standards.
We follow Blind (2004) to assign standards to trade
data based on concordance table between ICS
classification and Standard International Trade
Classification Revision 2. The concordance table for 32
ICS sectors is reported in Tab.1.
In accordance with above analyses, we classified
basic standards and ecologically oriented standards while
further count internationally harmonized standards which
identical to or modified identical to an international
standard in each group. The growth trend of basic
Tab.1 Concordance between ICS classification and SITC (second edition) classification
ICS technical sectors
ICS code
SITC code
ICS technical sectors
ICS code
00;03;08;12;271;56;721;7
Agriculture
65
Paper technology
85
22;941
Aircraft and space vehicle engineering
49
792
Paint and color industries
87
Packaging and distribution
Chemical technology
71
51;52;55;57
55
of goods
Construction materials and
Precision mechanics.
91
273;278;661;662;691;812
39
building
Jewelry
Civil engineering
93
723
Metrology and Measurement
17
842;843;844;845;846;
Clothing industry
61
Mechanical systems
21
847;848;851
Domestic and commercial
97
697;775;821;831;898
Manufacturing engineering
25
equipment. Entertainment. Sports
Electrical engineering
29
693;716;771;772;773;778 Mining and Minerals
73
Energy and heat transfer
27
351;711;712;718
Metallurgy
77
engineering
Electronics
31
776
Road vehicles engineering
43
01;02;04;05;06;07;09;11;2 Rubber and plastic
Food technology
67
83
2;41;42;43;727
industries
Shipbuilding and marine
Fluid systems
23
742;743
47
structures
Glass and ceramics industries
81
664;665;666
Telecommunications
33
Health care technology
11
774;872
Testing
19
Information technology Office
Textile and leather
35
751;752;759
59
machines
technology
Image technology
37
871;881;882;883;884
Wood technology
79
- 948 -
SITC code
25;64;725;726
53
692;893
667;885;897
873
694
695;696;736;737
32
274;28;67;68
781;782;783;784;785
23;58;62
793
761;762;763;764
874
21;26;61;65;724
24;63
standards and ecologically oriented standards are
reported in Tab.2, Fig.1 and 2. This trend is in
accordance with our analysis in section 2 about
standards’ appearing stages.
Obviously, the stock of basic standards is absolutely
higher than that of ecologically oriented standards in all
sectors, and the growth trend of the former is also more
notable than that of the latter. In the long run, the amount
of standards concerning ecologically oriented standards
seems to be increasing with the growth of the basic
standards. Until 2010, there are 13 sectors in which the
amount of basic standards is above 500 while only 4 of
them have ecologically oriented standards more than 100,
in other 9 sectors the amount of ecologically oriented
standards is only between 4 and 64. Meanwhile, the
international level of standards composition is also
enhancing during sample period. Testing sector has the
highest ratio (56.7%) of internationally harmonized basic
standards, and Electrical engineering sector boasts the
highest ratio (81%) for ecologically oriented while
internationally harmonized standards. We may also find
that there is no ecologically oriented while
internationally harmonized standards in Mechanical
systems sector, Precision mechanics and Jewelry sector,
Aircraft and space vehicle engineering sector, Mining
and Minerals sector, Paint and color industries sector and
Paper technology sectors until the end of 2010. In these 6
ICS classified sectors, the amount of ecologically
oriented standards is also very limited (between 1 to17).
Tab.2 Composition of basic standards and ecologically oriented standards (2010)
internationally
ecologically
ecologically oriented international ratio
international ratio
basic
harmonized basic
oriented
while internationally for ecologically
for basic standard
standard
standard
standard
harmonized standard oriented standard
32
20
0.625
1
0
0
ICS
code
standard
49
34
39
93
42
55
40
45
11
1
0.275
0.022
1
8
0
1
0
0.125
61
79
103
185
98
173
50
52
0.51
0.301
4
10
3
4
0.75
0.4
55
81
189
203
177
195
50
52
0.282
0.267
8
7
5
2
0.625
0.286
19
85
261
279
247
277
140
106
0.567
0.383
14
2
10
0
0.714
0
37
43
303
327
290
255
155
71
0.534
0.278
11
72
6
11
0.545
0.153
87
97
335
358
332
256
83
35
0.25
0.137
3
99
0
50
0
0.505
47
23
438
445
416
429
124
182
0.298
0.424
19
16
2
3
0.105
0.188
91
73
469
476
422
459
136
114
0.322
0.248
44
17
24
0
0.545
0
27
17
576
595
430
581
69
243
0.16
0.418
136
12
10
4
0.074
0.333
11
31
617
620
335
614
182
253
0.543
0.412
282
6
50
1
0.177
0.167
59
33
727
756
719
734
249
241
0.346
0.328
6
19
1
4
0.167
0.211
21
83
855
893
850
873
229
418
0.269
0.479
4
18
0
1
0
0.056
35
71
1011
1158
945
1141
467
185
0.494
0.162
64
16
27
4
0.422
0.25
25
29
1221
1491
1091
1309
536
714
0.491
0.545
108
179
58
145
0.537
0.81
77
67
1589
1638
1584
1392
284
178
0.179
0.128
5
242
1
26
0.2
0.107
65
1660
1487
247
0.166
157
25
0.159
- 949 -
Healthcare
Metrology
Testing
Energy and heat
Electrical engineering
Electronics
Precision mechanics
Road vehicles
Shipbuilding
Clothing industry
Agriculture
Food technology
Wood technology
Glass and ceramics
Rubber and plastic
Civil engineering
Domestic
1500
1000
500
0
1500
1000
500
0
1500
1000
500
0
1500
1000
500
0
Mechanical systems
Fluid systems
Manufacturing
TelecommunicationsInformation technology Image technology
Aircraft and space vehicle
Packaging
Textile and leather
Chemical technology Mining and Minerals
Paper technology
Paint and color
Metallurgy
Construction materials
10
00
95
05
20
20
20
19
10
90
19
05
20
95
00
20
20
19
10
90
19
00
05
20
20
95
19
20
10
90
10
00
05
20
20
95
20
19
05
10
90
19
20
00
20
95
20
19
19
90
internationally harmonized basic standards
Data resource: SAC
Fig.1 Growth trend of basic standards (1990-2010)
Healthcare
Metrology
Testing
Energy and heat
Electrical engineering
Electronics
Precision mechanics
Road vehicles
Shipbuilding
Clothing industry
Agriculture
Food technology
Wood technology
Glass and ceramics
Rubber and plastic
Civil engineering
Domestic
300
200
100
0
300
200
Y axis:count X axis:year
basic standards
1500
1000
500
0
300
200
100
0
19
05
20
00
20
95
20
19
19
90
1500
1000
500
0
100
0
300
200
100
0
300
200
Mechanical systems
Fluid systems
Manufacturing
Telecommunications Information technology Image technology
Aircraft and space vehicle
Packaging
Chemical technology Mining and Minerals
Paper technology
Paint and color
Textile and leather
Metallurgy
Construction materials
20
1910
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
1910
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
1910
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
05
95
00
20
20
ecologically oriented standards
Y axis:count X axis:year
05
20
1910
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
20
00
20
95
ecologically oriented whlie internationally harmonized standards
19
19
90
300
200
100
0
19
19
90
100
0
Data resource: SAC
Fig.2 Growth trend of ecologically oriented standards (1990-2010)
- 950 -
4 Model and data
5 Empirical analysis and results
4.1 Model specification
Our theoretical foundations include Helpman and
Krugman (1985) [30], Swann, Temple and Shurmer (1996),
Blind and Jungmittag (2001), Eaton and Kortum (2002)
[31]
, Blind (2004), Mangeldorf, Portugal-Perez and
Wilson (2012), we establish following demand function
to explain the role of standards on China’s trade
performance from 1990-2010:
The use of logarithm for the variable avoids biases
related to high values concerning data but may reduce
the number of observations since standards in some ICS
fields were zero originally. Therefore, we add one
standard in each standard count variable following
Portugal-Perez, Reyes and Wilson (2010), which
increases the mean value by one unit but does not affect
the variance. Results of pooled OLS regressions are
reported in Tab.4.
Ecologically oriented standards show statistically
significant effects in 19 ICS sectors while standards
stock and trade volume has positive and statistically
significant relations in 17 of them. The increasing
standards stock promotes total trade, export and import
simultaneously in 11 sectors. Among them, the positive
impact is stronger on export than on import in 5 sectors
including Metrology and Measurement (ICS code: 17),
Testing (ICS code: 19), Electrical engineering (ICS code:
29), Electronics (ICS code: 31), Precision mechanics and
Jewelry (ICS code: 39). The import-promoting effects
are stronger in 7 sectors including Image technology
(ICS code: 37), Road vehicles engineering (ICS code:
43), Aircraft and space vehicle engineering (ICS code:
49), Wood technology (ICS code: 79), Paper technology
(ICS code: 85), Domestic and commercial equipment as
well as Entertainment and Sports (ICS code: 97). These
findings convincingly demonstrate our Hypothesis 1-a.
Ecologically
oriented
while
internationally
harmonized standards have strong and consistent
promoting effects on total trade, export and import in 7
sectors involving Road vehicles engineering (ICS code:
43), Packaging and distribution of goods(ICS code:43),
Agriculture(ICS code:65), Food technology(ICS
code:67), Chemical technology(ICS code:71),Wood
technology(ICS code:79), Glass and
ceramics
industries(ICS code:81). However, there are also 7
sectors which do not have internationally harmonized
while ecologically oriented standards, including:
mechanical system(ICS code:21), Electronics(ICS
code:31), Precision mechanics and Jewelry(ICS code:39),
Aircraft and space vehicle engineering(ICS code:49),
Mining
and
Minerals(ICS
code:73),
Paper
technology(ICS code:85), as well as Paint and color
industries(ICS code:87). Furthermore, in sectors whose
amount of ecologically oriented standards is less than 10,
we may find international harmonization of ecologically
oriented standards do not show a positive presumed role
for promoting trade. Obviously, the comprehensive
exhibition of trade promoting effects of standards is not
only connected with standards amount but also decided
by the composition of standards system. The scarce of
ecologically oriented while internationally harmonized
standards heavily dampen the expected positive role for
promoting trade volume growth. These findings provide
support for our Hypothesis 2-a.
Besides, basic standards show statistically
significant effects in 30 ICS sectors in which
(1)
where i denotes technical ICS sector and t denotes
is the constant term common to all sectors;
year.
measure time-invariant unobservable sector-specific
measure time-variant effects;
is the
effects;
general disturbance term for the model, which is
time-varying and serially uncorrelated with mean zero
and variance
parameters.
technical sector
. The coefficient
is estimable
represents standardization level in
in year .
4.2 Variable and data
We use total trade volume, export volume and
import volume to measure China’s trade performance. As
for standards, we first divide total stock of China’s
standards into basic standards and ecologically oriented
standards. Then we further focus on internationally
harmonized standards among them. A standard is
internationally harmonized if it is identical to or
modified identical to an existed international standard.
Information about standards stock is searched from
Nation Standards Query supplied by Standardization
Administration of the People’s Republic of China (SAC).
We count active Chinese standards while revocatory
standards are not included. Trade volume data are
compiled from UN Comtrade Database, and they are
quoted in U.S. dollar and in annually real value. Our data
contains 32 ICS classified groups over a 21-year period,
constituting 672 observations.
Descriptive statistics of all variables are reported in
Tab.3. Overall, export volume of China is relatively
higher than its import volume. Maximization value of
basic standards and ecologically oriented standards is
1584 and 282, respectively. Mean value of basic
standards is 11 times higher than that of ecologically
oriented standards. Ecologically oriented standards,
whether total stock or internationally harmonized
standards of them, are both obviously fewer than their
basic standards counterparts. Maximization value of
ecologically oriented standards is less than 300 while
internationally harmonized standards do not surpass 150.
The minimum value of two groups of standards is both
zero.
- 951 -
trade-enhancing effects in 26 sectors. As far as
internationally harmonized basic standards are concerned,
they show statistically significant effects in 17 sectors,
while positive effects in 11 ICS sectors. Adequate
standards stock and relatively higher international
harmonization level are helpful for the full play of trade
promoting effects of basic standards.
Variable
Tab.3 Sample statistics
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
Min
Max
total trade
672
24000000000
42400000000
7322802
265000000000
export
672
13500000000
27600000000
5157649
206000000000
import
672
10600000000
22100000000
1666555
208000000000
basic standard
672
185.15
242.58
0
1584
internationally harmonized basic standard
672
45.87
85.48
0
714
ecologically oriented standard
ecologically oriented while internationally
harmonized standard
672
15.61
39.52
0
282
672
2.83
9.57
0
145
Tab.4 Ecologically oriented standards, internationally harmonized standards and China’s foreign trade (1990-2010)
Basic standards
ICS sector
Product standards, basis standards and
method standards
trade
total
Agriculture
export
import
total
Aircraft and space
vehicle engineering
export
import
total
Chemical
technology
export
import
Construction
materials and
building
total
export
import
total
Civil engineering
export
import
total
Clothing industry
export
import
Domestic and
commercial
Ecologically oriented standards
total
national
standards
0.309***
(0.096)
0.216
(0.157)
0.446**
(0.157)
0.335
(0.407)
0.775
(1.048)
0.348
(0.364)
1.721***
(0.166)
1.400***
(0.125)
1.990***
(0.233)
-0.111
(1.077)
-0.287
(1.154)
1.383***
(0.374)
0.850***
(0.167)
1.652***
(0.241)
0.640***
(0.158)
0.684***
(0.140)
0.668***
(0.137)
1.728***
(0.511)
1.783***
(0.404)
harmonized
standards
-0.164***
(0.046)
-0.067
(0.082)
-0.286***
(0.082)
0.205
(0.250)
-0.032
(0.594)
0.200
(0.227)
-1.319***
(0.178)
-0.564**
(0.229)
-1.965***
(0.237)
0.239
(0.420)
0.322
(0.451)
-0.429***
(0.125)
1.682**
(0.635)
2.762***
(0.945)
1.102**
(0.402)
0.036
(0.104)
0.048
(0.104)
-0.725**
(0.304)
-0.422
(0.390)
- 952 -
Management standards, safety standards,
health care standards and environmental
protection standards
national
harmonized
standards
standards
-0.034
0.439***
(0.083)
(0.090)
0.107
0.351***
(0.100)
(0.102)
-0.185
0.482***
(0.118)
(0.091)
1.088**
(0.505)
1.649
(0.954)
**
1.016
(0.472)
0.274
0.871***
(0.237)
(0.156)
-0.375
0.877***
(0.229)
(0.119)
0.879**
0.836***
(0.336)
(0.227)
0.903
-0.169
(0.788)
(0.438)
0.981
-0.164
(0.851)
(0.470)
0.591
-0.331**
(0.412)
(0.136)
-0.206
-0.719
(0.583)
(1.196)
-0.798
-1.280
(0.910)
(1.900)
-0.279
0.077
(0.374)
(0.736)
0.372*
-0.799***
(0.183)
(0.100)
0.380*
-0.805***
(0.186)
(0.101)
-.0.004
-0.620***
(0.163)
(0.125)
0.558**
-0.730***
(0.217)
(0.227)
R2
0.941
0.942
0.907
0.589
0.540
0.587
0.980
0.985
0.969
0.704
0.691
0.909
0.898
0.922
0.823
0.944
0.954
0.839
0.949
Basic standards
ICS sector
Product standards, basis standards and
method standards
trade
equipment.
Entertainment.
Sports
export
import
total
Electrical
engineering
export
import
total
Energy and heat
transfer engineering
export
import
total
Electronics
export
import
total
Food technology
export
import
total
Fluid system
export
import
total
Glass and ceramics
industries
export
import
total
Health care
technology
export
import
Information
technology. Office
machines
total
export
import
total
Image technology
Ecologically oriented standards
export
import
national
standards
1.898***
(0.425)
0.785
(0.503)
-1.023**
(0.453)
-0.920*
(0.484)
-1.157**
(0.432)
2.750***
(0.862)
0.759
(1.138)
3.007**
(1.216)
-0.606
(0.947)
0.000
(1.196)
-0.740
(0.934)
0.384
(0.250)
-0.055
(0.183)
0.960**
(0.375)
1.132***
(0.172)
1.516***
(0.246)
1.078***
(0.165)
1.397**
(0.577)
1.140
(0.656)
2.090***
(0.405)
0.725**
(0.259)
1.297**
(0.460)
0.412
(0.285)
3.041***
(0.784)
3.548***
(1.146)
2.349***
(0.432)
1.662**
(0.724)
2.077**
(0.769)
1.281*
(0.704)
harmonized
standards
-0.457
(0.399)
-0.060
(0.452)
1.034**
(0.389)
0.904*
(0.434)
1.169***
(0.362)
-0.497
(0.288)
-0.667
(0.596)
-0.261
(0.315)
1.763***
(0.402)
1.531***
(0.447)
1.822***
(0.417)
0.125*
(0.068)
0.068
(0.056)
0.169
(0.113)
0.014
(0.153)
0.045
(0.190)
-0.032
(0.154)
-0.227
(0.407)
-0.047
(0.450)
-0.727**
(0.327)
0.059
(0.273)
-0.264
(0.420)
0.158
(0.330)
-0.470
(0.394)
-0.371
(0.551)
-0.415*
(0.222)
-0.152
(0.452)
-0.354
(0.467)
-0.010
(0.471)
- 953 -
Management standards, safety standards,
health care standards and environmental
protection standards
national
harmonized
standards
standards
0.487**
-0.700***
(0.224)
(0.239)
1.318***
-1.154***
(0.395)
(0.349)
1.317***
-0.739
(0.402)
(0.445)
1.464***
-0.785
(0.415)
(0.466)
1.205***
-0.713
(0.397)
(0.442)
-0.854
0.219
(0.533)
(0.296)
1.810***
0.006
(0.567)
(0.320)
-1.299*
-0.176
(0.721)
(0.345)
1.488*
(0.772)
*
1.588
(0.871)
*
1.446
(0.765)
-0.199
0.156
(0.340)
(0.100)
0.430*
0.174**
(0.238)
(0.079)
-0.829
-0.012
(0.497)
(0.171)
0.430
-0.422*
(0.277)
(0.218)
0.469
-0.416
(0.368)
(0.315)
0.343
-0.463**
(0.260)
(0.189)
0.638
0.059
(0.335)
(0.538)
0.083
0.551
(0.374)
(0.610)
0.005
0.882**
(0.281)
(0.362)
0.037
0.064
(0.217)
(0.101)
0.746**
-0.056
(0.260)
(0.154)
-0.165
0.156
(0.271)
(0.132)
-0.201
-0.109
(0.270)
(0.213)
-0.506
-0.015
(0.409)
(0.266)
0.054
-0.267*
(0.152)
(0.138)
1.673**
-1.460**
(0.618)
(0.642)
1.112*
-1.020
(0.574)
(0.598)
2.053**
-1.614*
(0.769)
(0.797)
R2
0.945
0.921
0.966
0.968
0.960
0.904
0.958
0.761
0.947
0.956
0.944
0.972
0.967
0.951
0.982
0.982
0.977
0.968
0.962
0.972
0.987
0.976
0.980
0.979
0.972
0.988
0.967
0.962
0.964
Basic standards
ICS sector
Product standards, basis standards and
method standards
trade
total
Paper technology
export
import
total
Paint and color
industries
export
import
Packaging and
distribution of
goods
total
export
import
total
Precision
mechanics. Jewelry
export
import
total
Metrology and
Measurement
export
import
total
Mechanical systems
export
import
total
Manufacturing
engineering
export
import
total
Mining and
Minerals
export
import
total
Metallurgy
export
import
Road vehicles
engineering
Ecologically oriented standards
total
export
national
standards
0.598***
(0.112)
0.369***
(0.042)
0.676***
(0.159)
4.478***
(0.519)
4.105***
(0.634)
4.806***
(0.554)
0.848***
(0.079)
0.955***
(0.084)
0.618***
(0.084)
0.103
(0.180)
-0.040
(0.188)
0.394*
(0.209)
0.557
(0.356)
0.342
(0.302)
1.047
(0.696)
2.559***
(0.615)
2.866***
(0.668)
2.442
(1.434)
0.139
(0.431)
0.555***
(0.189)
-0.097
(0.606)
0.943***
(0.146)
1.102***
(0.236)
0.309
(0.337)
0.608**
(0.280)
0.452
(0.383)
0.652*
(0.340)
-0.691***
(0.150)
-0.933***
(0.222)
harmonized
standards
0.013
(0.067)
0.368***
(0.064)
-0.102
(0.085)
-2.185***
(0.590)
-1.903**
(0.669)
-2.415***
(0.593)
0.011
(0.058)
0.012
(0.063)
-0.036
(0.066)
0.503***
(0.173)
0.601***
(0.197)
0.304
(0.175)
0.038
(0.125)
0.195
(0.119)
-0.256
(0.239)
0.094
(0.140)
0.019
(0.154)
0.151
(0.318)
0.192
(0.159)
0.033
(0.102)
0.316
(0.204)
0.314*
(0.161)
0.428
(0.327)
0.934**
(0.370)
0.637***
(0.165)
0.782**
(0.269)
0.598***
(0.194)
0.116
(0.136)
0.533***
(0.176)
- 954 -
Management standards, safety standards,
health care standards and environmental
protection standards
national
harmonized
standards
standards
0.297***
(0.102)
0.175
(0.168)
***
0.338
(0.108)
***
-1.183
(0.230)
***
-1.064
(0.245)
-1.306***
(0.271)
**
-1.041
1.388***
(0.354)
(0.372)
-1.168***
1.478***
(0.383)
(0.398)
-0.664**
1.098***
(0.288)
(0.323)
0.472**
(0.184)
***
0.610
(0.165)
0.207
(0.236)
***
3.051
-0.796***
(0.500)
(0.215)
2.989***
-0.702**
(0.662)
(0.254)
2.892***
-0.957***
(0.755)
(0.255)
-0.189
(0.346)
*
-0.636
(0.362)
1.468
(1.061)
0.666
-0.402
(0.690)
(0.504)
0.316
-0.121
(0.348)
(0.226)
0.846
-0.599
(0.922)
(0.680)
-0.059
(0.248)
-0.831
(0.587)
0.562
(0.569)
-0.016
-0.816
(0.170)
(0.478)
0.001
-1.247
(0.361)
(1.025)
-0.041
-0.645**
(0.124)
(0.271)
0.518**
0.701***
(0.160)
(0.123)
0.373**
0.626***
(0.172)
(0.119)
R2
0.959
0.959
0.938
0.963
0.949
0.949
0.981
0.983
0.956
0.929
0.888
0.944
0.967
0.965
0.933
0.966
0.957
0.837
0.940
0.981
0.890
0.954
0.734
0.940
0.974
0.931
0.967
0.935
0.921
Basic standards
Ecologically oriented standards
Management standards, safety standards,
health care standards and environmental
R2
protection standards
national
harmonized
national
harmonized
trade
standards
standards
standards
standards
-0.555***
-0.119
0.613***
0.714***
import
0.908
(0.182)
(0.153)
(0.175)
(0.155)
***
1.308
-0.251
0.134
0.240
total
0.976
(0.417)
(0.224)
(0.091)
(0.200)
***
Rubber and plastic
1.334
-0.150
0.113
0.528
export
0.978
(0.383)
(0.184)
(0.186)
(0.421)
industries
**
*
1.279
-0.276
0.160
0.195
0.969
import
(0.479)
(0.260)
(0.084)
(0.190)
**
***
0.817
0.554
0.167
-0.565
total
0.944
(0.358)
(0.170)
(0.279)
(0.400)
Shipbuilding and
0.376
0.824***
0.470
-0.669*
0.970
export
marine structures
(0.627)
(0.154)
(0.414)
(0.321)
0.626
-0.150
0.260
-0.089
import
0.278
(1.016)
(0.445)
(0.590)
(1.276)
1.284
0.835
0.391
-0.467
total
0.973
(0.815)
(0.522)
(0.542)
(0.381)
*
*
1.432
1.001
-0.566
0.435
Telecommunications export
0.978
(0.791)
(0.522)
(0.538)
(0.393)
*
1.313
0.490
-0.481
0.189
0.955
import
(0.747)
(0.476)
(0.503)
(0.325)
*
**
**
**
-2.163
2.394
1.632
-1.392
0.852
total
(1.081)
(0.922)
(0.626)
(0.650)
-1.027**
1.506***
1.731***
-1.476***
export
Testing
0.972
(0.440)
(0.319)
(0.484)
(0.458)
*
*
-4.815
4.776
1.150
-0.920
import
0.617
(2.714)
(2.426)
(0.940)
(0.934)
***
0.290
0.056
0.077
0.299
0.932
total
(0.096)
(0.110)
(0.286)
(0.179)
***
**
0.278
0.124
0.073
0.481
Textile and leather
0.962
export
(0.064)
(0.109)
(0.280)
(0.206)
technology
**
0.292
0.020
-0.008
-0.001
import
0.810
(0.132)
(0.125)
(0.326)
(0.173)
***
***
*
0.410
-0.070
0.213
0.282
0.965
total
(0.084)
(0.111)
(0.071)
(0.151)
***
***
*
0.555
-0.111
0.166
0.403
export
0.967
Wood technology
(0.078)
(0.141)
(0.054)
(0.191)
***
**
0.333
-0.044
0.235
0.161
import
0.942
(0.091)
(0.092)
(0.095)
(0.119)
*
**
***
Note: Heteroskedasticity-Robust Standard Error in parentheses. denotes p < 0.01, denotes p < 0.05, denotes p < 0.001.
ICS sector
Product standards, basis standards and
method standards
6 Conclusion
This paper has developed two hypotheses regarding
how standards, such as ecologically oriented standards
and internationally harmonized standards can facilitate
China’s foreign trade in a more eco-friendly and greener
direction. National standards constitute the fundamental
operational level on which trade countries conduct
technical cooperation and business communication. For
domestic producers, national standards further provide
references for setting industrial standards and enterprise
standards so as to support the development of industry
and guide the application for innovation and technical
progress. From this perspective, standardization strategy
fundamentally acts as an important micro growth engine
for improving China’s export development and a critical
trade-supportive policy for developing countries. For
trade member countries, the stock and composition of
ecologically oriented standards as well as the level of
international harmonization of standards decide the
eco-friendly direction and sustainable capacity for trade.
It is hard to realize eco-friendly and sustainable
economic growth and green economy if there are very
limited ecologically oriented safety standards, healthcare
standards and environmental protection standards. Lack
of ecologically oriented standards and internationally
harmonized standards is not conducive to a harmonious
trade development. In order to achieve green economic
growth and foreign trade development, China should
develop and improve ecologically oriented standards,
like atmospheric environment standards, energy saving
and emission reduction standards, while revising and
- 955 -
supervising implementation of these standards efficiently
and effectively. Standardization is the key stage for
industrialization and marketization of innovative
technologies. Timely promulgating and strongly
implementing national standards may guide enterprises
to realize low resources consumption and little
environmental pollution development, thus promote
sustainable development for China’s economy and
society.
For countries along the Silk Road, it is necessary to
widely communicate and cooperate in international level,
regional level as well as national level about
standardization practices and enhance the international
level for national standardization system. We should
follow international advanced standards, accelerate
adoption of international standards and broaden technical
scope and category. In the long term, countries along the
Silk Road should strengthen consultation and exchanges
and mutually beneficial cooperation with international
standardization organizations including IEC, ISO and
ITU etc. Moreover, we should substantially participate
into the preparation and setting process of international
standards, enhancing reputation of national standards on
the basis of completely considering technical standards
types and economic and social development capacity so
as to promote national standards to become international
standards.
References
[1]Akerlof G A. The market for lemons: Quality
uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 1970: 488-500.
[2]Leland H E. Quacks, lemons, and licensing: A theory
of minimum quality standards. The Journal of Political
Economy, 1979: 1328-1346.
[3]Hudson J, Jones P. International trade in “quality
goods”: Signaling problems for developing countries.
Journal of International Development, 2003, 15(8):
999-1013.
[4]Barrett S. Strategic environmental policy and
international trade. Journal of Public Economics, 1994,
54(3): 325-338.
[5]Fischer R, Serra P. Standards and protection. Journal
of International Economics, 2000, 52(2): 377-400.
[6]Klimenko M M. Policies and international trade
agreements on technical compatibility for industries with
network externalities. Journal of International
Economics, 2009, 77(2): 151-166.
[7]Klimenko M M. Strategic interoperability standards
and trade taxes. International Review of Economics &
Finance, 2009, 18(4): 539-551.
[8]Gandal N. Quantifying the trade impact of
compatibility standards and barriers: An industrial
organization perspective. Tel Aviv University, University
of California-Berkeley and CEPR, 2000.
[9]Gandal N, Shy O. Standardization policy and
international trade. Journal of International Economics,
2001, 53(2): 363-383.
[10]Swann P, Temple P, Shurmer M. Standards and trade
performance: The UK experience. The Economic Journal,
1996: 1297-1313.
[11]Blind K, Jungmittag A. The impacts of innovation
and standards on German trade in general and on trade
with the UK in particular: A step further on swann,
temple and shurmer. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems
and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, 2001.
[12]Blind K. The economics of standards: Theory,
evidence, policy. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,
2004.
[13]Blind K, Jungmittag A. The impacts of innovation
and standards on German-France trade flows. Fraunhofer
Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe,
2002.
[14]Blind K. The impacts of innovations and standards
on trade of measurement and testing products: Empirical
results of Switzerland’s bilateral trade flows with
Germany, France and the UK. Information Economics
and Policy, 2001, 13(4): 439-460.
[15]Moenius J. Information versus product adaptation:
the role of standards in trade. International Business and
Markets Research Center Working Paper, Kellogg
School of Management Working Paper, Northeastern
University, Evanston, 2004.
[16] Moenius J. The good, the bad and the ambiguous:
Standards and trade in agricultural products. IATRC
Summer Symposium, 2006: 28-30.
[17]Moenius J. Do national standards hinder or promote
trade in electrical products. Commended Paper, IEC
Centenary
Challenge,
http://www.
iecchallenge.
org/papers, 2006.
[18]Portugal Perez A, Reyes J D, Wilson J S. Beyond the
information technology agreement: Harmonization of
standards and trade in electronics. The World Economy,
2010, 33(12): 1870-1897.
[19]Chen M X, Mattoo A. Regionalism in standards:
good or bad for trade? Canadian Journal of
Economics/Revue Canadienne D'économique, 2008,
41(3): 838-863.
[20]Reyes D. International harmonization of product
standards and firm heterogeneity in international trade.
Policy Research Working Paper Series, No.5677, World
Bank, Washington, DC, 2011.
[21]Chen M X, Wilson J S, Otsuki T. Standards and
export decisions: Firm-level evidence from developing
countries. The Journal of International Trade &
Economic Development, 2008, 17(4): 501-523.
[22]Czubala W, Shepherd B, Wilson J S. Help or
hindrance? The impact of harmonized standards on
African exports. Journal of African Economies, 2009,
18(5): 711-744.
[23]Mangelsdorf A. The role of technical standards for
trade between China and the European Union.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2011,
23(7): 725-743.
[24]Mangelsdorf A, Portugal-Perez A, Wilson J S. Food
standards and exports: Evidence from China. World
Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5976, 2012.
- 956 -
[25]Yang Lijuan. Do national standards impact foreign
trade? Evidence from China's foreign trade and Sino-U.S.
bilateral trade. Frontiers of Economics in China, 2013,
8(1): 114-146.
[26]Yang Lijuan. Trade effects of Chinese standards:
Empirical research based on standard category in 33 ICS
sectors //Proceedings of 2013 International Conference
on Management Science & Engineering (IEEE) (20th),
2013(1): 1096-1113.
[27]Anderson Shannon W, Daniel Daly J, Johnson
Marilyn F. Why firms seek ISO 9000 certification:
regulatory compliance or competitive advantage?
Production and Operations Management, 1999, 8: 28-43.
[28]Clougherty Joseph A, Grajek, Michal. The impact of
ISO 9000 diffusion on trade and FDI: A new institutional
analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 2008,
39: 613-633.
[29]Joseph A. Clougherty, Michal Grajek. International
standards and international trade: Empirical evidence
from ISO 9000 diffusion. International Journal of
Industrial Organization, 2013: 1-13.
[30]Helpman, Elhanan, Krugman Paul. Market structure
and foreign trade. MIT Press, 1985, Cambridge, MA.
[31]Eaton Jonathan, Kortum Samuel. Technology,
geography, and trade. Econometrica, 2002, 70:
1741-1779.
- 957 -