臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

The phenomenon of demographic transition around the World is apparent. This paper examines the impacts of demographic transition on trade in ASEAN and its main trading partners. We find that a low dependency ratio promotes total exports for 21 countries that we have studied. In this study we also use several variables that might affecting export, however we find that the impact of dependency ratio is the strongest among all variable we have and even the impact of dependency ratio is become stronger in the recent decades
Furthermore, countries are categorized into developing and developed countries to examine whether trade pattern in ASEAN and its main trading partners follows the Heckscher-Ohlin model by considering dependency ratio as an explanatory variable. This is because most developing countries are still in the early stages of demographic transition and tend to have a more abundant working-age population which serves as a driving force for international trade. Hence, developing countries are likely to export more labor-intensives goods. On the other hand, most developed countries are in the last stage of demographic transition. Hence, we expect them to export less labor-intensive goods.
Our empirical results show that developing countries which have a low dependency ratio will not always the exporter of labor-intensive goods. At the same time, developed countries which have a high dependency ratio will also not always become the exporter of capital-intensive goods. On the contrary, our studies find that developed countries become the exporter of labor-intensive goods. This counterintuitive result may be due to the issue of population ageing in developed countries.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 1
Introduction 1
1.1 Historical Background of ASEAN 3
1.2 ASEAN trade and its trading partner 3
1.3 Demographic Transition 8
1.4 The impact of Demographic Transition 11
Chapter 2 15
Literature Reviews 15
Does population matters to international trade? 15
Chapter 3 19
Theoretical Framework & Methodology 19
3.1 Theoretical Framework 19
3.2 Methodology 20
Chapter 4 19
Data & Results 23
4.1 Data 23
4.2 Empirical Results 24
Chapter 5 40
Conclusion 40

Booth, A. (1992). An Economic Overview of Southeast Asia. Southeast Asian Affairs, pp. 21-43.
Asean Secretariat. (2015). A Blueprint for Growth ASEAN Economic Community 2015: Progress and Key Achievements. The ASEAN Secretariat.
Bary, P. (2015). The Time-Varying Impact of Regional Trade Agreement: Evidence from Asean. Asian Economic and Financial Review.
Caporale, M. G., Sova, A., & Sova, R. (2015). Trade flows and trade specialisation: The case of China. China Economic Review , 261–273.
Dong-Hyeon Kim & Shu-Chin Lin (2009) Trade and Growth at Different Stages of Economic
Development, The Journal of Development Studies, 45:8, 1211-1224, DOI: 10.1080/00220380902862937
European Commision. (2014). Population ageing in Europe: facts, implications and policies. Directorate General for Research and Innovation.
Frankel , A. J., & Romer, D. (1999). Does Trade Cause Growth? The American Economic Review, Vol. 89, No. 3 , pp. 379-399.
Hansakul, S. (2014). ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) A potential game changer for ASEAN countries. DB Research Management.
Hill, H. (2014). Is There a Southeast Asian Development model? University of Freiburg Department of International Economic Policy Discussion Paper Series.
Jaewan, C. (2011). Korea Intermediate Goods with ASEAN in Intermediate Goods Trade in East Asia: Economic Deepening Through FTAs/EPAs, edited by Mitsuhiro Kagami, BRC Research Center. BRC Research Center, IDE-JETRO, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kabir, S., & Salim, R. A. (2014). Regional Economic Integration in ASEAN How Far It Will Go? Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 313-35.
Kawai, M., & Naknoi, K. (2015). ASEAN Economic Integration through Trade and Foreign Direct Investment: Long-Term Challenges. ADBI Working Paper Series.
Fukumoto, Y., & Kinugasa, T. (2016). Age Structure and Trade Openness: An
Empirical Investigation. The World Trade.
Kunroo, H. M., & Sofi, I. A. (2016). Trade implications of the Euro in EM countries: a panel gravity analysis. Empirica, 43:391–413.
Naito, T., & Zhao, L. (2009). Aging, transitional dynamics, and gains from trade. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 1531–1542.
Narayan, S., & Nguyen, T. T. (2016). Does the trade gravity model depend on trading partners? Some evidence from Vietnam and her 54 trading partners. International Review of Economics and Finance, 220–237.
Nikomborirak, D. (2015). The ASEAN EconomicCommunity (AEC): Myths and Realities. Asian Economic Papers, 14:2.
Perkins, D. H. (2009). Economic Meltdown and Geopolitical Stability. The National Bereau of Asian Research.
Rose, K. A. (Mar., 2004). Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade? The American Economic Review, pp. 98-114.
Rose, K. A., & Engel, C. (2002). Currency Unions and International Integration. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 1067-1089.
Sayan, S. (2005). Heckscher–Ohlin revisited: implications of differential population
dynamicsfor trade within an overlapping generations framework. Journal of
Economic Dynamics & Control, 1471–1493.
Tian, W., Yao, Y., Yu, M., & Zhou, Y. (2011). Dependency Ratio and International Trade. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1792564 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1792564.
World Trade Organization. (2013). Factors shaping the future of world trade. World Trade Report.
Yakita, A. (2012). Different demographic changes and patterns of trade in a Heckscher–Ohlin setting. J Popul Econ, 25:853–870.