南海仲裁案对中国与菲律宾经济联系的影响——基于合成控制法的实证研究

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2024.11.20230200

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

贸易和投资是国家间经济联系的主要形式。地缘政治争端会对双边经济联系产生影响，然而，关于其对贸易和投资的差异影响目前研究不足。本文主要基于2012年1月至2013年12月中国进口月度数据和2003—2019年中国对外直接投资年度数据，采用合成控制方法，考察了南海仲裁案对中国从菲律宾进口和中国对菲律宾外商直接投资的影响。实证结果表明，南海仲裁案对中国从菲律宾的进口没有显著影响，但2013—2019年中国对菲律宾的外商直接投资显著减少，并且通过改变控制池国家、改变事前结果选择和更改估计方法等一系列稳健性检验，结果依然显著。研究结果显示，没有充分证据表明中国因南海仲裁案对菲律宾实施了贸易制裁，但由于南海仲裁案增加了地缘政治不确定性，导致中国企业大幅减少了对菲律宾的直接投资，这可能会进一步影响菲律宾因南海仲裁案而引发的经济发展问题。

关键词: 地缘争端, 南海仲裁案, 进口, 对外直接投资, 合成控制法

Abstract:

Both trade and investment are important economic linkages between countries. Geopolitical conflicts may have great impact on economic linkages, while little is known how trade and investment respond to geopolitical conflict differently. Based on monthly data of January 2012 - December 2013 of China's import and annual data of 2003-2019 China's outward direct investment (OFDI), this paper uses the synthetic control method to investigate the impact of the South China Sea (SCS) arbitration case on China's import from the Philippines and China's OFDI to the Philippines. The empirical results show that the SCS arbitration case did not have significanteffect on China's import from the Philippines, but it decreased China's OFDI to the Philippinessignificantly since 2013. The results passed several robust checks. The results implicatethat there is no evidence that China responded to the SCS arbitration case with trade sanctions.However, in terms of rising geopolitical uncertainty caused by the SCS arbitration case, China'sfirms decreased OFDI to the Philippines significantly, which may further impact economic developmentof the Philippines caused by the SCS arbitration case initiated by itself.

Key words: geopolitical dispute, South China Sea Arbitration Case, import, outward foreign direct investment, synthetic control method

邹嘉龄, 隋广军, 唐丹玲. 南海仲裁案对中国与菲律宾经济联系的影响——基于合成控制法的实证研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2024, 33(11): 28-40.

Jialing ZOU, Guangjun SUI, Danling TANG. Impact of the South China Sea arbitration case on the economic relations between China and the Philippines: An empirical study based on the synthetic control method[J]. World Regional Studies, 2024, 33(11): 28-40.

图/表 14

表1 控制池国家列表

Tab.1 List of countries in the Donor Pool

国家	所属大洲	国家	所属大洲	国家	所属大洲	国家	所属大洲
韩国	亚洲	阿联酋	亚洲	意大利	欧洲	美国	北美洲
日本	亚洲	科威特	亚洲	荷兰	欧洲	加拿大	北美洲
马来西亚	亚洲	阿曼	亚洲	比利时	欧洲	墨西哥	北美洲
泰国	亚洲	哈萨克斯坦	亚洲	西班牙	欧洲	巴西	南美洲
越南	亚洲	蒙古	亚洲	爱尔兰	欧洲	智利	南美洲
新加坡	亚洲	以色列	亚洲	奥地利	欧洲	秘鲁	南美洲
沙特阿拉伯	亚洲	德国	欧洲	丹麦	欧洲	南非	非洲
印度尼西亚	亚洲	俄罗斯	欧洲	匈牙利	欧洲	安哥拉	非洲
伊朗	亚洲	法国	欧洲	瑞典	欧洲	澳大利亚	大洋洲
印度	亚洲	英国	欧洲	挪威	欧洲	新西兰	大洋洲

表2 合成菲律宾的控制组国家所占权重

Tab.2 Synthetic control weights for the Philippines

国家	权重
韩国	0.250
马来西亚	0.241
挪威	0.169
以色列	0.120
阿曼	0.095
匈牙利	0.087
奥地利	0.037
巴西	0.001
总计	1.000

图 1 南海仲裁案对中国从菲律宾进口影响效应注：（a）中国从真实菲律宾和合成菲律宾的进口趋势；（b）中国从真实菲律宾和合成菲律宾进口的差距。

Fig.1 Treatment effects of the South Sea Arbitration on China's import from the Philippines

图2 中国对控制池国家进口的安慰剂检验结果

Fig.2 Placebo test of logarithm of China's import from the donor pool

表3 估计的中国从菲律宾进口的动态效应和p值

Tab.3 Estimated dynamic treatment effects and p-values of China's import from the Philippines

时期	中国从真实菲律宾进口对数	中国从合成菲律宾进口对数	动态效应	p值
2013M01	20.95	21.24	-0.297	0.045
2013M02	20.81	20.94	-0.123	0.364
2013M03	21.20	21.30	-0.105	0.545
2013M04	21.12	21.26	-0.140	0.273
2013M05	21.21	21.38	-0.172	0.227
2013M06	21.12	21.22	-0.098	0.500
2013M07	21.19	21.42	-0.236	0.045
2013M08	21.17	21.28	-0.104	0.364
2013M09	21.29	21.40	-0.114	0.500
2013M10	21.11	21.29	-0.173	0.273
2013M11	21.21	21.38	-0.168	0.409
2013M12	21.24	21.52	-0.281	0.136

图 3 南海仲裁案对中国从菲律宾年度进口影响效应

Fig.3 Treatment effects of China's import from the Philippines

表4 估计对中国对菲律宾OFDI影响效应的合成菲律宾国家权重

Tab.4 Country weights of estimating the treatment effect on China's OFDI to the Philippines

国家	权重	国家	权重
总计	1.000
荷兰	0.365	秘鲁	0.143
瑞典	0.179	科威特	0.138
新西兰	0.156	以色列	0.019

图4 南海仲裁案对中国对菲律宾OFDI的处理效应注：（a）中国对真实菲律宾和合成菲律宾的OFDI趋势；（b）中国对真实菲律宾和合成菲律宾OFDI的差距。

Fig.4 Treatment effects of China's OFDI to the Philippines

图5 中国对控制池国家OFDI的安慰剂检验结果

Fig.5 Placebo test of China's OFDI to the donor pool

表5 估计的中国对菲律宾OFDI的动态效应和p值

Tab.5 Estimated dynamic treatment effects and p-values of China's OFDI to the Philippines

年份	真实菲律宾	合成菲律宾	动态效应	p值	年份	真实菲律宾	合成菲律宾	动态效应	p值
2013	20.36	20.81	-0.46	0.231	2017	20.52	22.28	-1.76	0.038
2014	20.45	21.23	-0.78	0.077	2018	20.54	22.33	-1.80	0.077
2015	20.38	21.91	-1.53	0.038	2019	20.31	22.45	-2.14	0.038
2016	20.39	22.08	-1.69	0.038

图6 更改控制池国家的估计结果

Fig.6 Results of alternative donor pool selections

图7 更改合成中处理前的结果变量使用的估计结果

Fig.7 Results of alternative pre-treatment outcome usage

图8 留一法检验的合成菲律宾估计结果分布

Fig.8 Leave-one-out distribution of synthetic controls for the Philippines

表6 双重差分估计结果

Tab.6 Difference-in-differences estimation results

变量	(1)	(2)	(3)
控制组	控制池国家	排除南海权益相关国家	东盟国家
Treated	-0.619^***(0.164)	-0.706^***(0.175)	-0.459^***(0.139)
控制变量	Yes	Yes	Yes
国家固定效应	Yes	Yes	Yes
年份固定效应	Yes	Yes	Yes
观测值	663	595	170

参考文献 37

1	BECKMAN R. ASEAN and the South China Sea Dispute//CHACHAVALPONGPUN P. Entering Uncharted Waters?: ASEAN and the South China Sea. SEAS Publishing, 2018: 15-35.
2	杨宇, 于宏源, 鲁刚, 等. 世界能源百年变局与国家能源安全. 自然资源学报, 2020, 35(11): 2803-2820.
	YANG Y, YU H, LU G. Interview on the unprecedented changes of energy geopolitics and national energy security. Journal of Natural Resources, 2020, 35(11): 2803-2820.
3	BALDWIN R E, KAY D A. International trade and international relations. International Organization, 1975, 29(1): 99-131.
4	MARTIN P, MAYER T, THOENIG M. The geography of conflicts and regional trade agreements. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2012, 4(4): 1-35.
5	POLACHEK S W. Conflict and trade. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1980, 24(1): 55-78.
6	GUPTA R, GOZGOR G, KAYA H, et al. Effects of geopolitical risks on trade flows: evidence from the gravity model. Eurasian Economic Review, 2019, 9(4): 515-530.
7	刘文革, 黄玉. 地缘政治风险与贸易流动:理论机理与实证研究. 国际经贸探索, 2020, 36(03): 46-59.
	LIU W, HUANG Y. Geopolitical risks and trade flows: Theoretical mechanism and empirical research. International Economics and Trade Research, 2020, 36(03): 46-59.
8	EICHENGREEN B, MEHL A, CHIȚU L. Mars or Mercury redux: The geopolitics of bilateral trade agreements. The World Economy, 2021, 44(1): 21-44.
9	AZZIMONTI M. Does partisan conflict deter FDI inflows to the US? Journal of International Economics, 2019, 120: 162-178.
10	LI Q, VASHCHILKO T. Dyadic military conflict, security alliances, and bilateral FDI flows. Journal of International Business Studies, 2010, 41(5): 765-782.
11	WITTE C T, BURGER M J, IANCHOVICHINA E I, et al. Dodging bullets: The heterogeneous effect of political violence on greenfield FDI. Journal of International Business Studies, 2017, 48(7): 862-892.
12	DEMIR E, GOZGOR G, PARAMATI S R. Do geopolitical risks matter for inbound tourism? Eurasian Business Review, 2019, 9(2): 183-191.
13	KIM H, LEE J, OTHERS. The economic costs of diplomatic conflict: Evidence from the South Korea--China THAAD Dispute. Korean Economic Review, 2021, 37: 225-262.
14	邢剑华, 张辉. 双边政治冲突事件多大程度影响到访游客人数?——基于2012年中日钓鱼岛事件的影响效应评估. 旅游学刊, 2021, 36(6): 103-115.
	XING J, ZHANG H. Do bilateral political conflicts affect visitor arrivals?—Empirical study of Sino-Japanese Diaoyu Islands dispute in 2012. Tourism Tribune, 2021, 36(6): 103-115.
15	LEE S H, LEE Y S, OTHERS. Political influence and trade uncertainty: Evidence from sanction threats and impositions. Economics Bulletin, 2018, 38(1): 367-372.
16	HEILMANN K. Does political conflict hurt trade? Evidence from consumer boycotts. Journal of International Economics, 2016, 99: 179-191.
17	KO J, SHIN M J. Not risky business? Nationalism and foreign direct investment. The Social Science Journal (Fort Collins), 2021: 1-16.
18	郭荣星, 杨书. 南海划界争端:迈向新的地缘政治与经济均衡. 经济地理, 2019, 39(10): 22-28.
	GUO R, YANG S. The South China Sea disputes: toward a new geopolitical and economic equilibrium. Economic Geography, 2019, 39(10): 22-28.
19	彭飞, 李淑琴. 基于事件数据的南海周边主要国家地缘关系演化分析. 热带地理, 2022, 42(7): 1061-1072.
	PENG F, LI S. Evolution of the geo-relations between major countries around the South China Sea based on event data analysis. Tropical Geography, 42(7): 1061-1072.
20	叶淑兰. 南海地缘战略逻辑演进与南海命运共同体建构. 世界地理研究, 2022, 31(4): 687-699.
	YE S. Evolution of geostrategic logic of the South China Sea and construction of a community of shared future in the South China Sea. World Regional Studies, 2022, 31(4): 687-699.
21	韩增林, 彭飞, 张耀光, 等. 海洋地缘政治研究进展与中国海洋地缘环境研究探索. 地理科学, 2015, 35(02): 129-136.
	HAN Z, PENG F, ZHANG Y, et al. Updated progress of marine geopolitics and research of the marine geo-setting in China. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 2015, 35(02): 129-136.
22	贺良辉, 薛德升. 环中国南海周边国家及地区地缘经贸关系动态演化探析. 世界地理研究, 2020, 29(03): 469-479.
	HE L, XUE D. Evolution of geo-economic and trade relations among the countries and regions surrounding the South China Sea. World Regional Studies, 2020, 29(3): 469-479.
23	王鑫静, 姜炎鹏, 马仁锋. 域外国家与南海周边地缘经济联系强度演化与态势评估. 地理研究, 2022, 41(3): 681-697.
	WANG X, JIANG Y, MA R. The evolution and situation assessment of geo-economic linkages intensity between countries outside the region and the surrounding regions of the South China Sea. Geographical Research, 2022, 41(3): 681-697.
24	徐婧雅, 宋周莺. 海南自贸港与泛南海国家的地缘经济关系演变及其影响因素. 世界地理研究, 2022, 31(04): 737-747.
	XU J, SONG Z. The geo-economic relations between Hainan Free Trade Port and Pan-South China Sea countries and its impact factors. World Regional Studies, 2022, 31(4): 737-747.
25	WANG F. South China Sea territorial disputes and Sino-Philippine trade. Economic and Political Studies, 2015, 3(2): 85-111.
26	CAMBA A, MAGAT J. How do investors respond to territorial disputes? Evidence from the South China Sea and implications on Philippines economic strategy. Singapore Economic Review, 2020, 66(1): 243.
27	YU Z, XIAO Y, LI J. How does geopolitical uncertainty affect Chinese overseas investment in the energy sector? Evidence from the South China Sea Dispute. Energy Economics, 2021, 100: 105361.
28	STOREY I. Japan's maritime security interests in Southeast Asia and the South China Sea dispute. Political Science, 2013, 65(2): 135-156.
29	KOHL T. In and out of the penalty box: US sanctions and their effects on international trade. 2021.
30	DONG Y, LI C. Economic sanction games among the US, the EU and Russia: Payoffs and potential effects. Economic Modelling, 2018, 73: 117-128.
31	李曦光. 南海争端解决的法律对策研究. 长春:吉林大学, 2018.
	LI X. Research on legal policies on solving the South China Sea dispute—reflections over the South China Sea Arbitration. Changchun: Jilin University, 2018.
32	ABADIE A. Using synthetic controls: Feasibility, data requirements, and methodological aspects. Journal of Economic Literature, 2021, 59(2): 391-425.
33	ABADIE A, GARDEAZABAL J. The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque Country. The American Economic Review, 2003, 93(1): 113-132.
34	ABADIE A, DIAMOND A, HAINMUELLER J. Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: estimating the effect of California's tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2010, 105(490): 493-505.
35	MAYER T, ZIGNAGO S. Notes on CEPII's distances measures: The GeoDist database. 2011.
36	KAUL A, KLÖßNER S, PFEIFER G, et al. Standard synthetic control methods: the case of using all preintervention outcomes together with covariates. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 2022, 40(3): 1362-1376.
37	ABADIE A, DIAMOND A, HAINMUELLER J. Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. American Journal of Political Science, 2015, 59(2): 495-510.

[1]	宋韬, 楚天骄. 日本对外直接投资的空间格局及其与出口贸易的关系研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2024, 33(5): 73-86.
[2]	陈思洁, 游小珺, 韦素琼. 基于距离视角的泰国OFDI区位选择与机理研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2024, 33(4): 36-50.
[3]	王孟林, 陈瑛, 张婷婷. 中国对美国州层面直接投资时空演变与驱动因素探究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2023, 32(1): 54-66.
[4]	李聪, 卢明华. 中国跨境进口电商企业的时空特征及影响因素分析[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(5): 937-947.
[5]	王丰龙, 司月芳. “一带一路”倡议背景下亚投行设立对中国海外投资的影响研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2019, 28(5): 1-10.
[6]	熊琛然, 王礼茂, 屈秋实, 向宁, 王博. 中国与周边国家地缘经济关系的双向互动分析[J]. 世界地理研究, 2019, 28(5): 11-23.
[7]	黎玲君, 陈瑛, 周进. 中国对金砖国家直接投资效益与投资环境时空耦合分析[J]. 世界地理研究, 2019, 28(4): 55-64.
[8]	李智慧, 张虹鸥, 叶玉瑶, 黄耿志, 苏泳娴, 王智华. 广东省对外直接投资的时空特征及区位因素研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2019, 28(3): 75-84.
[9]	王钢，张朝国. 中国民营企业对外直接投资区位选择研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2013, 22(12): 97-107.
[10]	邱研, 郭谦, 吴殿廷. 我国石油进口海陆统筹战略研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2012, 21(03): 77-.