Next Article in Journal
Do Gender and Prior Experience Moderate the Factors Influencing Attitude toward Using Social Media for Festival Attendance?
Previous Article in Journal
Da Nang Green Space System Planning: An Ecology Landscape Approach
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Dynamic Change in the Export Technology Structure of China’s Environmental Goods and Its International Comparison

by
Xuping Cao
1,2,3,* and
Nancy Hanson-Rasmussen
2
1
School of Economics and Management, Changshu Institute of Technology, Changshu 215500, China
2
School of Business, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54702, USA
3
Suzhou Agricultural Modernization Research Center, Changshu 215500, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2018, 10(10), 3508; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103508
Submission received: 17 August 2018 / Revised: 24 September 2018 / Accepted: 26 September 2018 / Published: 30 September 2018

Abstract

:
Growing natural disaster intensity, ocean warming, air quality alerts, and a desire to emphasize sustainable practice has prompted countries to payincreased attention to the development of environmental industries. This has led to trade in environmental goods (EGs) and a need for export technology research. The purpose of this paper is to measure the evolution of the technological structure of China’s export EGs and its position in the international industrial value chain. Based on the 2012 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) EGs list and United Nations Comtrade (COMTRADE) data, this study uses the technical complexity index to empirically calculate the technology structure and level changes of China’s EGs exports from 2007 to 2016. The results are then compared with those of the Asia-Pacific region and the world’s major exporters of EGs. Additionally, this study proposes a method called “Equalization Technology Classification” that divides all EGs into five technical levels: high, medium-high, medium, medium-low, and low. The research finds that (1) China’s EGs exports are predominately of medium-low technical complexity, and while the proportion of exported goods with high technical complexity is very low, the export technology structure is constantly being optimized. (2) Compared with Singapore, the United States, and the European Union, the overall technical level of China’s exported EGs is lagging behind. (3) The overall technical level of exported EGs in major exporting countries is rapidly increasing but is especially impressive in South Korea and China, where growth ranks first and second in the world, respectively.

1. Introduction

Environmental goods (EGs) are products that provide measurement, control, and restriction functions for ecosystem problems such as soil destruction, waste, noise, and water and air pollution [1], as well as goods that embrace power from the environment (e.g., oil spillage clean-up equipment, air cleaning machines, compacters, solar panels, and wind turbines). Global warming and environmental pollution are becoming more and more serious, and countries are paying increased attention to the development of environmental industries. Correspondingly, the world EGs trade is growing at a faster rate than all other goods and is making great contributions to protecting the natural environment and promoting global economic development [2]. China is an important driving force for the development of EGs trade in the world. In 2016, its export of EGs accounted for 10.92% of world exports, ranking first in the world [3].
However, China’s economy has entered a new stage of “made in China”, demonstrating a quality revolution. The quality of export commodities is more important than quantity [4]. In recent years, China has actively integrated itself into economic globalization by taking advantage of its low labor costs. Many industries in China are already leading the world in export volume [5]. Economic theory and international development experience demonstrate that sustainable economic growth is inseparable from the continuous optimization of export technology structure [6]. Fan et al. [7] found a downward trend in the proportion of low value-added products in China’s export structure, and those with medium value-added have gradually become the main export. This brings forth the question of whether the evolutionary trend of China’s EGsexport technologyis the same as that of China’s export technology? To this end, this paper will empirically measure the changes in China’s EGs export technology.
Previous studies have focused on trade liberalization, EGs lists, and export technology measures. Rui et al. [8] found that EGs trade liberalization can have a positive spill-over effect on the global environment. In 2001, the Doha Declaration of the World Trade Organization (WTO) initiated negotiations on the liberalization of trade in EGs. However, members expressed differences of opinion on issues such as negotiation methods, product lists, and differential treatment. Therefore, the negotiations progressed slowly. Despite this, regional EGs negotiations have continued. The number of WTO regional trade agreements (RTAs) increases every year, many of which involve tariff reductions for EGs [9]. In 2012, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders Declaration proposed a list of 54 6-digit Harmonized Code EGs, and members reached a consensus on reducing tariffs on EGs [10]. The APEC list has been significantly streamlined compared to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) list and has added clean technologies and renewable energy products [11]. In 2014, 14 WTO members, including the United States, China, the European Union, and Japan, launched a new round of EGs agreement negotiations using the APEC list to discuss the issue of global EGs trade liberalization. Today, the WTO EGs negotiations have not yet resulted in an agreed upon final list. Considering that these negotiations are based on the 2012 APEC EGs list, this study will measure the technical level of exports based on EGs found on the 2012 list.
Guan et al. [12] proposed the technology-added value method for measuring export technology. Lall et al. [13] then proposed a complexity index method, and Du et al. [14] revised the method. Hausmann et al. [15] proposed the use of “product-relevant income levels” (PRODY) to determine the level of product labor productivity, also known as the technical complexity index. What these methods have in common is that they first determine the technical level of a single product, then calculate the overall technical level of the economy and assign the technical content of the product to the weighted sum of the income levels of countries (or regions). The difference between these methods is themeasure and assignment of weight. Valuation weights of Guan et al. [12] and Lall et al. [13] are the world share of various products exported by various countries. Du et al. [14] revised the weight method to the world share of various types of products produced by various countries. The valuation weights of Hausmann et al. [15] are the export comparative advantage index after standardization of various products in various countries. In comparison, the application of the technical complexity method of Hausmann et al. [15] is more common, and the research data is more acquirable. These application areas involve cultural and creative industries, manufacturing, agriculture, etc., but there is a lack of research on the technical level of product export in the environmental industry [16,17,18]. To this end, this paper chooses the technical complexity method of Hausmann et al. [15] to empirically measure the dynamic changes of China’s EGs export technology. The Hausmann et al. [15] method does not classify PRODY values. This study proposes a method called “Equalization Technology Classification” that divides all EGs into five technical levels—high, medium-high, medium, medium-low, and low—according to the PRODY value. This method facilitates clearer analysis and international comparisonof renewable energy product technology.
Different classification criteria for PRODY values will have varying effects on the conclusions of the study, with each classification having limitations. The main classification methods of the previous literature are the “Experience Sorting Method” of Tang [19], the “Technical Fixed Classification” of Zhu et al. [20], and the “Optimal Segmentation Method” of Wei [6]. Tang [19] classifies the PRODY values according to the author’s experience, ensuring that the technology classifications are as normal as possible, and the classification results of different scholars may be different. Zhu et al. [20] ignore the fact that technology changes over time. Wei [6] sorts PRODY data and then determines the number of categories according to needs, which is also likely to cause people to subjectively change the technology differences between samples. The “Equilibrium Technology Method” proposed in this paper emphasizes objectivity and will avoid the classification results being limited and influenced by time change and human experience.
In summary, although the negotiation process under the WTO framework is slow, the consensus of countries or regions is that the liberalization of trade in EGs can improve the global environment. In the context of the growing demand for global EGs, measurement of and empirical research on the technical complexity of EGs is rare. Ma J. and Xu H. believe that the technical level and price of China’s export EGs are generally low, but there is no detailed quantitative verification study [21,22]. To this end, based on previous research, this paper uses the technical complexity index to empirically measure the dynamic changes of China’s EGs export technology and compare it with major countries (or regions) such as the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, and more. The objective of this paper is to discover the changes in the technological level of EGs exported by countries (or regions) around the world and the status of China’s export EGs in the international industrial value chain. The EGs technical complexity classification in this study adopts the “Equalization Technology Classification” method, and EGs are defined using the 2012 APEC EGs list.

2. Methods and Data

2.1. Methods

The export complexity method proposed by Hausmann et al. (2005) uses international trade data to replace hard-to-find global R&D data for various types of products. The basic assumption of this method is that the more technical the class of products that are being exported from high-income countries, the higher the technical complexity of the products. This method does not consider other factors such as trade friction and intervention. In the global manufacturing value chain, developed countries are generally in the process of high value-added value such as R&D design, brand, and key parts production, while developing countries are more involved in low value-added links such as raw material supply and assembly. The status of countries in the global value chain will be reflected in the technological structure of the products that they export. This method combines the per capita income of countries (or regions) with exports. The technological content of the export products of these countries (or regions) in the global value chain can be measured. The method used in this paper consists of three steps: calculating the technical complexity of various EGs, classifying the technical complexity of different EGs, and calculating the overall technical level of each country (or region).
(1) The equation for the technical complexity of EGs exports.
The PRODYk is the export technical complexity of the category k export EGs at the world level. The equation for PRODYk is
P R O D Y k = j x j k / X j j x j k / X j × Y j
The notations in Equation (1) and their meanings are as follows.
jthe jth EGs exporting country (or region)
kthe category of exported EGs
Xjthe total exports of all EGs in the country (or region) j
xjkthe export value of category k EGs of the country (or region) j
Yjthe per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of the country (or region) j
PRODYkthe technical complexity of the category k exported EGs at the world level
(2) The principle of the “Equalization Technology Classification” method.
The basic principle of this method is to ensure that the PRODY value difference of adjacent technology grade products is equal, and there is no limit on the number of products owned by each grade.
First, the calculated PRODY values of n-type EGs are arranged from small to large into an ordered sample (t1, t2, t3, …, tn), in which t1 is the smallest and tn is the largest.
Secondly, it is assumed that the technical complexity of the EGsis divided into m grades, and the PRODY value difference of the adjacent technology grade products is D. The equation for D is
D = t n t 1 m
Finally, the technical classification criteria for EGs are calculated. The standards for the 1, 2, 3, …, m levels of EGs are PRODYt1 + D, t1 + D < PRODYt1 + 2D, t1 + 2D < PRODYt1 + 3D, …, tnD < PRODY. This method can determine the technology classification standards of all EGs in the world in a given period of time. According to this standard, it is possible to clearly know how many high technically complex EGs are exported by a country (or region).
(3) The calculation method of the overall technical levelof exported EGs (which we call EXPY).
Assume that the overall technical level of exported EGs in a country (or region) j is EXPYj, and its equation is
E X P Y j = k x j k X j × P R O D Y k
The calculated EXPY values are mainly used to compare the overall technical level of exported EGs in countries (or regions).

2.2. Data

2.2.1. Classification Data of the APEC EGs List

There is no uniform standard for the classification of EGs. Based on the product function and service industry perspective, this study divides 54 APEC EGs into five categories: environmentally friendly, pollution control and treatment, water purification, renewable energy, and environmental monitoring and analysis. The detailed classification and Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) code description of APEC EGs are shown in Table 1. As can be seen from Table 1, the five categories of EGs contain a total of 54 HS 6-digit code subdivision products. The category of environmentally friendly products includes only the loaded bamboo multi-layer floor. There are 14 kinds of pollution control and treatment EGs, five kinds of water purification EGs, 16 kinds of renewable energy EGs, and 18 kinds of EGs for environmental monitoring and analysis.

2.2.2. Sample Selection and Data Source

This study selected the world’s top 27 exporters (or regions) of EGs from 2007 to 2016, including Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, China Hong Kong, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, South Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam (Table A1) [3]. From 2007 to 2016, the cumulative export volume of EGs of the 27 countries (or regions) accounted for over 90% of the world’s total, demonstrating strong representation.
The per capita GDP of each country (or region) is derived from the World Bank database and has been converted to purchasing power parity (PPP) or currency equilibrium between countries (Table A2) [23]. The PPP in this article uses the “Constant 2011 International $” standard.
In order to ensure data consistency, the data in this paper is from the COMTRADE database, and the commodity codes use the HS2007 standard.

3. Results

3.1. EGs Technology Structure Determination

Using Equation (1), the annual average of PRODY (Table A3) for EGs from 2007 to 2016 was calculated. Then, the PRODY values were divided into five grades by using the “Equalization Technique Classification” method. The result is a classification of EGs into high technical complexity products ($42,919 < PRODY), medium-high technical complexity products ($37,908 < PRODY$42,919), medium technical complexity products ($32,898 < PRODY$37,908), medium-low technical complexity products ($27,888 < PRODY$32,989), and lowtechnical complexity products (PRODY$27,888). The technology structure distribution of the world’s EGs is shown in Table 2.
Table 2 makes evident the variances in the number of EGs in each of the five classifications. There are 24 kinds of medium technical complexity products, 14 kinds of medium-high complexity products, 10 kinds of medium-low technical complexity products, 5 kinds of high technical complexity products, and only 1 low technical complexity product.

3.2. Dynamic Distribution of the Technical Complexity of China’s Exported EGs

According to the classification criteria in Table 2, the dynamic distribution of the technical complexity of China’s exported EGs from 2007 to 2016 is calculated and listed in Table 3.
As can be seen from Table 3, (1) China’s EGs exports are concentrated in medium-low technical complexity products, and the proportion of high technical complexity products exported is low. From 2007 to 2016, the average annual export volume of medium-low technical complexity EGs was as high as 76.80%. The average annual export volume of high technical complexity EGs is only 1.57%, and that of medium-high technical complexity EGs reaches 6.01%. Statistics show that China’s main exported EGs are concentrated in 847989 (radioactive waste compactor), 901380 (coordinate measuring instrument), 854140 (solar battery), 850300 (wind power equipment parts), 840410 (boiler auxiliary equipment), 840290 (biomass boiler), 850490 (transformer), and 901380 (heliostat). Except for the 847989 and 901380 EGs, which are of medium technical complexity, the other six categories are of low-medium technical complexity EGs (Table 2). (2) From the perspective of evolutionary trends, the export technology structure of China’s EGs is constantly being optimized. The export proportion of China’s medium-low technical complexity EGs fell from 79.63% in 2007 to 68.26% in 2016, a decrease of 14.28%. Correspondingly, the cumulative export share of medium-high and high technical complexity products increased from 7.41% in 2007 to 10.04% in 2016, an increase of 35.49%. The export proportion of medium technical complexity EGs also increased from 12.07% in 2007 to 19.32% in 2016, an increase of 60.07%.

3.3. Comparison of Export Technology Structures of EGs in Major Economies

This paper compares the technology structure of EGs exports of the world’s top six EGs exporters (Table A1) in 2007 and 2016 (Table 4).
As can be seen from Table 4, (1) The EGs export structures in China and South Korea are similar, and the proportion of medium-low technical complexity EGs is the highest. Although the proportions of medium-low technical complexity products in the two countries in 2016 were significantly lower than those in 2007, they still maintained a level of about 68%. Comparing the proportion of medium-high and high technical complexity EGs, Singapore, the United States, Germany, and Japan in 2016 reached 58.6%, 44.44%, 30.77%, and 28.98%, respectively, far higher than the 10% level of China and South Korea. (2) The growth rate of high technical complexity EGs in Singapore and Japan is high, from 7.95% and 7.35% in 2007 to 18.81% and 11.48% in 2016, respectively. In contrast, the proportions of high technical complexity EGs exports in China and South Korea has been slow, with only about 2% in 2016.

3.4. The Overall Technical Level of China’s EGs and Its International Comparison

This paper selects the top 10 countries (or regions) that export EGs and five APEC members with large export volumes of EGs from 2007 to 2016 for a comparative analysis of EXPY. The top 10 exporters of EGs (or regions) are China, Germany, the United States, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Italy, China Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and France (Table A1). The other five APEC exporters of important EGs are Mexico, Malaysia, Canada, Thailand, and Vietnam. The EGs EXPY of 15 countries (or regions) from 2007 to 2016 are shown in Table 5.
As can be seen from Table 5, (1) Singapore ranks first in exported EGs’s per average annual EXPY value. This is primarily because of the high proportion of medium-high and high complexity EGs in its export product structure. The products with high technical complexity are mostly 902780 (Mass spectrometer) and 902790 (Physical and chemical analysis instrument parts); those with medium-high technical complexity are mostly 841199 (gas turbine parts), 847990 (humidifier and dehumidifier parts), and 854390 (detector parts). In addition, the average annual EXPY values of exported EGs in the United States, European Union countries, and Japan are also in leading positions. (2) From 2007 to 2016, the overall technology of China’s exported EGs is at a medium-low technical complexity level, ranking only higher than South Korea and Vietnam. For China, there is still a big gap with the world’s major exporters of EGs such as Germany, the United States, and Japan.
(3) The EXPY value of China’s exported EGs increased from $28,438 in 2007 to $32,330 in 2016, indicating that the overall technical level of China’s EGs is constantly improving. It is worth noting that, except for Vietnam and Malaysia, the EXPY of the remaining EGs exporting countries (or regions) from 2007 to 2016 showed an overall growth trend. The EXPY growth rate of EGs in China and South Korea is as high as 13.69% and 14.92%, respectively, which is much higher than other countries (or regions). This shows that the gap between the overall technical level of EGs in these two countries and advanced countries (or regions) is shrinking. In addition, the EXPY growth rate of EGs in Singapore, China Hong Kong, Canada, Germany, and Japan also reached 8.63%, 7.96%, 6.13%, 5.76%, and 5.74%, respectively. This demonstrates that the world’s EGs exporting countries (or regions) are increasingly competitive in terms of technology.

4. Conclusions and Discussion

The innovation in this research is the “Equalization Technology Classification” method for technical complexity classification. It provides an opportunity to expand the application of the technical complexity index in the field of EGs. The technical complexity index has been used to empirically measure and compare the EGs export technology structure of major EGs exporting countries (or regions) from 2007 to 2016.
(1) The general empirical results summary. This study found that China’s exported EGs are of predominately medium-low technical complexity, and the proportion of those with high technical complexity is very low. However, the technology structure of China’s EGs exports is continually being optimized. Additionally, the overall technical level of Singapore’s exported EGs ranks first in the world. The overall technical level of EGs in the United States, the European Union, and Japan is also high, and although China’s ranking is relatively low, there are opportunities for collaboration with the top exporting countries. Finally, the overall technical level of major EGs exporting countries (or regions) is rapidly increasing. However, the technological upgrading level of South Korea and China’s EGs ranks first and second in the world, respectively. In short, global EGs technology competition is becoming increasingly fierce.
(2) Implications and recommendations for policy-makers. This paper demonstrates positive trends in the technological progress of China’s environmental industry. On the one hand, the low proportion of medium-high and high technical complexity exports restricts the overall technical level of China’s EGs. To this end, China’s EGs manufacturers need to abandon short-term market interests, strengthen investment in talent and technology research, and strive to enhance their position in the global environmental industry value chain. On the other hand, the export trade of EGs is too singular. China’s EGs manufacturers should actively extend comprehensive cooperation with Singapore, the United States, and the European Union, such as the standardization of EGs technology, cooperative research on production equipment for EGs, and further opening of investment in the environmental field.
(3) A comparison of the results of this study with other research findings. Ma J. found that China’s EGs export prices are relatively low, relying mainly on quantitative advantages to obtain the total export value advantage [21]. The conclusions of this study fully verify the above viewpoints. Statistics show that China’s main exported EGs are concentrated in 847989 (radioactive waste compactor), 901380 (coordinate measuring instrument), 854140 (solar battery), 850300 (wind power equipment parts), 840410 (boiler auxiliary equipment), 840290 (biomass boiler), 850490 (transformer), and 901380 (heliostat). Most of these categories are of low-medium technical complexity EGs. On the other hand, China’s advanced pollutant monitoring and analysis instruments and equipment are mainly imported [21]. This is also one of the important reasons for the low level of China’s export EGs. Xu H. found that China’s EGs have a large gap in technological innovation with developed countries such as the European Union and the United States [22]. The conclusions of this study also validate Xu H.’s point of view, but this gap is shrinking.
(4) Limitations and future research proposals. At present, the scope of EGs mainly includes three standards of APEC, OECD, and World Bank, but the standards vary greatly. This has a great impact on the research conclusions. Although the current list of APEC EGs forms the basis for negotiations concerning the WTO environmental trade agreement, the final EGs list will certainly change. Researchers must pay close attention to the progress of relevant negotiations concerning EGs trade. Additionally, the technical complexity index also has limitations. For example, the processing trade factor and the implementation of the technology export restriction policy are not considered. Therefore, future improvements and application studies of this method are worth exploring.

Author Contributions

X.C. and N.H.-R. wrote the paper, X.C. analyzed the data, and X.C. collected the data. The study was designed by X.C. and N.H.-R., and the final version was checked and revised by N.H.-R.

Funding

This work was supported by Jiangsu Agricultural Development Committee Agricultural Soft Science Research Foundation in China (Grant No. 18ASS036).

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the comments and criticisms of an early version of this manuscript by the journal’s editors and reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
EGsEnvironmental Goods
APECAsia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
OECDThe Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
COMTRADEUnited Nations Comtrade Database
WTOWorld Trade Organization
RTAsRegional Trade Agreements
HSHarmonized Commodity Description and Coding System
PPPPurchasing Power Parity
GDPGross domestic product
PRODYProduct-relevant income levels
EXPYOverall export technical level

Appendix A

Table A1. The world’s major exporters of EGs from 2007 to 2016.
Table A1. The world’s major exporters of EGs from 2007 to 2016.
Country (or Region)The Annual Average of Export Value/$100 Million
China793.17
Germany592.20
United States530.50
Japan348.29
South Korea330.67
Singapore154.12
Italy153.23
China Hong Kong149.34
United Kingdom149.01
France109.87
Mexico104.48
Netherlands90.48
Switzerland84.58
Malaysia77.56
Canada70.24
Denmark69.81
Thailand55.95
Spain54.27
Sweden53.33
Belgium48.84
Hungary45.29
Australia44.10
Czech Republic40.56
Vietnam30.26
Finland24.09
South Africa20.52
Brazil16.00
Table A2. The GDP 1 per capita of major exporters based on PPP 2 from 2007 to 2016.
Table A2. The GDP 1 per capita of major exporters based on PPP 2 from 2007 to 2016.
Country (or Region)GDP Per Capita/$
2007200820092010201120122013201420152016
Austria43,87844,41842,61943,33644,45344,55244,30344,34544,35444,491
Belgium41,62341,61940,35641,08641,24941,04640,92841,38441,72342,095
Brazil13,27113,80613,65314,53914,97315,11815,43015,37114,66614,024
Canada41,64741,61139,92440,69941,56541,79542,33943,07943,14943,238
China728579488652952610,38411,14611,95112,75913,57014,399
China Hong Kong45,93746,63545,39048,10850,08650,37851,73252,78953,59554,354
Czech Republic28,84429,37327,80428,35328,79728,52728,38029,12030,60531,339
Denmark46,37445,86643,38343,99844,40344,33744,56445,05745,45945,991
Finland42,46742,57538,86839,84840,68439,91339,42839,01838,94239,659
France37,77237,63536,34136,87237,45737,34537,36737,53137,76638,061
Germany40,47440,98938,78440,42942,69342,82242,91443,56143,93844,357
Hungary23,49223,73422,20222,40422,84122,58223,11924,16125,03425,664
Italy38,61237,95435,71036,20136,34735,22834,22033,94634,30234,655
Japan36,69736,27834,31735,75035,77536,36837,14937,33737,88338,283
South Korea28,01428,58828,64330,35231,22931,77732,54933,42634,17834,986
Malaysia20,68520,98920,09221,10721,81922,59123,22424,19525,00225,669
Mexico16,04416,00815,01215,53515,92316,32416,31616,46016,67216,832
Netherlands46,52847,13445,12645,52546,06745,41145,19145,66846,49447,270
Singapore68,42366,03763,68872,10575,01376,02978,54980,30580,89281,443
South Africa11,74111,99011,67611,88812,11912,21512,34012,37212,36312,237
Spain34,33034,16432,65332,50732,06831,10930,67931,19532,29133,320
Sweden44,05143,46640,86342,94343,75543,30843,47644,16845,67946,568
Switzerland56,26956,75654,80655,86656,18456,15056,53657,21857,26457,428
Thailand12,60712,75712,60513,48713,53514,44814,77814,85315,23715,683
United Kingdom38,38437,90336,04236,36736,60836,89337,39938,25238,83939,309
United States51,01150,38448,55849,37349,79150,52051,00851,93253,02953,445
Note: 1 The data come from the World Bank; 2 The PPP uses the “Constant 2011 International $” standard.
Table A3. The annual average of technical complexity for EGs from 2007 to 2016.
Table A3. The annual average of technical complexity for EGs from 2007 to 2016.
HS CodingThe Annual Average of PRODY/$
84213922,878
84029028,044
90138028,369
90139029,266
90328929,977
85049030,310
84041030,724
85414031,144
85030031,266
90268031,329
84191932,725
85016432,926
85023933,605
84049033,674
84042033,843
84178034,245
90329034,496
84219934,792
85023134,893
84742034,911
90262035,410
84198935,520
84199035,594
84179035,661
85142035,730
84212936,306
90318036,414
84212136,420
90330036,732
84196036,737
85143037,020
84798937,271
84193937,505
90271037,544
85149037,637
90261038,161
84798238,404
44187238,643
90319038,969
90269039,126
84129039,139
84119939,192
90314939,569
85141039,811
84799040,144
90158040,402
84051040,762
84118241,203
85439041,792
90278043,182
90279044,488
90275045,200
90273045,688
90272047,929
Note: The raw data of the calculation results are from the COMTRADE database.

References

  1. Gong, Q. Evaluation of international competitive advantages of China’s environmental products. For. Econ. Trade Pract. 2014, 2, 36–39. [Google Scholar]
  2. Wen, W.; You, H. Can environmental product trade liberalization improve the environmental quality of developing countries? Int. Econ. Trade Res. 2017, 33, 22–36. [Google Scholar]
  3. The United Nations COMTRADE Database. Available online: https://comtrade.un.org (accessed on 11 July 2018).
  4. Li, K. Chinese Government Working Report. In Proceedings of the 13th National People’s Congress, Beijing, China, 5 March 2018. [Google Scholar]
  5. Dai, X.; Zhang, E. Does China’s export technical complexity really catch up with developed countries? Int. Trade Issues 2011, 7, 3–16. [Google Scholar]
  6. Wei, H. Re-measurement of structural changes in China’s export commodities. Int. Trade Issues 2015, 4, 16–26. [Google Scholar]
  7. Fan, G.; Guan, Z.; Yao, Z. Analysis of international trade structure: Technical distribution of trade products. Econ. Res. 2006, 8, 70–78. [Google Scholar]
  8. Wan, R.; Nakada, M.; Takarada, Y. Trade liberalization in environmental goods. Resour. Energy Econ. 2018, 51, 44–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wen, W.; You, H. Liberalization of environmental products trade: Competitiveness and decision-making of Chinese enterprises. Int. Econ. Coop. 2015, 2, 36–40. [Google Scholar]
  10. Li, L.; Zhang, B. The impact of APEC environmental inventory on China and its strategic choices. J. Shanghai Univ. Int. Bus. Econ. 2014, 5, 5–15. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ronald, S. Environmental Goods: A Comparison of the Apec and Oecd Lists; OECD Papers; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2003; Volume 10. [Google Scholar]
  12. Guan, Z. Looking at the strength of “Made in China” from the US market—Focusing on emerging technology products. Int. Econ. Rev. 2002, 4, 5–12. [Google Scholar]
  13. Lall, S.; John, W.; Zhang, J. The sophistication of exports: A new measure of product characteristics. World Dev. 2006, 34, 222–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Du, X.; Wang, W. The technology structure of China’s export trade and its Changes: 1980–2003. Econ. Res. 2007, 7, 137–151. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hausmann, R.; Jason, H.; Dani, R. What you export matters. J. Econ. Growth 2005, 12, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, X.; Yang, L.; Qian, Z. Export structure transformation, technical complexity upgrade and China’s manufacturing carbon emissions-from the perspective of embedding global value chains. Sankei Rev. 2017, 3, 5–18. [Google Scholar]
  17. Yin, Z.; Tian, T. The change of China’s agricultural products export competitiveness and international comparison-based on the analysis of the complexity of export technology. Agric. Technol. Econ. 2013, 1, 77–86. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cong, H.; Wu, F.; Zou, D. Estimation and international comparison of technology structure of China’s cultural and creative products trade export. Explor. Econ. Issues 2016, 9, 85–92. [Google Scholar]
  19. Tang, B. Analysis of the measurement and influencing factors of China’s high-tech industry value chain status. Economics 2012, 10, 65–70. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zhu, S.; Chen, Y.; Xie, R. “The competition of the dragon andelephant” and “The dance of the dragon and elephant”—An analysis of Sino-Indian trade relations based on the export technology structure. Stat. Res. 2009, 26, 25–32. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ma, J. Analysis of the trade competitiveness of China’s environmental goods. Int. Econ. Trade Explor. 2011, 27, 34–47. [Google Scholar]
  22. Xu, H. China’s environmental product trade faces international checks and balances and development path choices. For. Trade Econ. Pract. 2017, 9, 44–47. [Google Scholar]
  23. The World Bank Database. Available online: http://databank.worldbank.org (accessed on 20 July 2018).
Table 1. The classification and HS code description of APEC EGs.
Table 1. The classification and HS code description of APEC EGs.
Product CategoryHSCode and Descriptions
Environmentally friendly441872 (packing bamboo multi-layer floor)
Pollution control and treatment847982 (grinding machine), 847989 (radioactive waste pressure real machine), 847990 (humidifier and dehumidifier parts), 840410 (boiler auxiliary equipment), 840490 (steam boiler parts), 840510 (hydrolyzed gas generator), 851410 (controlled atmosphere heat treatment furnace), 851420 (induction furnace and oven), 851430 (industrial electric furnace), 851490 (industrial furnace parts), 841182 (power > 5000 kw gas turbine), 841199 (gas turbine parts), 841780 (waste incinerator), and 841790 (waste incinerator parts)
Water and air purification854390 (detector parts), 842121 (water treatment equipment), 842129 (filter press), 842139 (air cleaning machine), and 842199 (purifier parts)
Renewable energy840290 (biomass boiler), 840420 (condenser), 847420 (milling machine), 854140 (solar battery), 841919 (solar water heater), 841939 (dryer), 841960 (liquefaction machine), 841989 (low temperature refrigeration equipment), 841990 (water heater parts), 841290 (wind turbine parts), 850164 (renewable fuel alternator), 850231 (wind power generation equipment), 850239 (renewable energy generator set), 850300 (wind power equipment parts), 850490 (transformer), and 901380 (heliostat)
Environmental monitoring and analysis901580 (shipborne gravimeter), 902610 (liquid flow measuring instrument), 902620 (pressure gauge), 902680 (gas flow meter), 902690 (gas–liquid measuring instrument parts), 902710 (smoke analyzer), 902720 (chromatograph and electrophoresis), 902730 (spectrophotometer and photometer), 902750 (optical ray instrument), 902780(mass spectrometer), 902790 (physical and chemical analysis instrument parts), 903149(contour projector), 903180 (coordinate measuring instrument), 903190 (inertial platform balancing fixture), 903289 (generator controller), 903290 (controller parts), 903300 (heliostat parts), and 901390 (inertial measurement fixture)
Note: The data come from the COMTRADE database, and the product description is streamlined.
Table 2. The technology structure distribution of the world’s EGs.
Table 2. The technology structure distribution of the world’s EGs.
Technical Complexity ClassificationClassified Standard/$Product HS Code
High technical complexity products42,919 < PRODY902780, 902790, 902750, 902730, 902720
Medium-high technical complexity products37,908 < PRODY ≤ 42,919902610, 847982, 441872, 903190, 902690, 841290, 841199, 903149, 851410, 847990, 901580, 840510, 841182, 854390
Medium technical complexity products32,898 < PRODY ≤ 37,908850164, 850239, 840490, 840420, 841780, 903290, 842199, 850231, 847420, 902620, 841989, 841990, 841790, 851420, 842129, 903180, 842121, 903300, 841960, 851430, 847989, 841939, 902710, 851490
Medium-low technical complexity products27,888 < PRODY ≤ 32,989840290, 901380, 901390, 903289, 850490, 840410, 854140, 850300, 902680, 841919
Low technical complexity productsPRODY ≤ 27,888842139
Table 3. The dynamic distribution of the export technology structure of China’s EGs.
Table 3. The dynamic distribution of the export technology structure of China’s EGs.
Technical Complexity Ration/%
YearsHighMedium-HighMediumMedium-LowLow
20071.835.5812.0779.630.89
20081.575.5913.1378.661.05
20091.525.5714.3777.171.37
20101.174.8111.3581.720.96
20111.175.2612.0380.560.98
20121.405.6013.4878.411.11
20131.535.8614.2876.931.40
20141.717.0215.9673.601.71
20151.806.7816.8073.101.52
20162.018.0319.3268.262.38
Average1.576.0114.2876.801.33
Table 4. The technology structure of EGs exports of the world’s top six EGs exporters in 2007 and 2016.
Table 4. The technology structure of EGs exports of the world’s top six EGs exporters in 2007 and 2016.
Ratio in 2007/%Ratio in 2016/%
ChinaGermanyJapanSouth KoreaSingaporeUnited StatesChinaGermanyJapanSouth KoreaSingaporeUnited States
Low technical complexity products0.894.021.200.470.693.482.387.211.131.170.534.62
Medium-low technical complexity products79.6322.2336.8679.7224.5517.7768.2615.5835.8067.6623.1618.15
Medium technical complexity products12.0746.1138.9413.5624.7731.1619.3246.4434.0920.3717.7132.79
Medium-high technical complexity products5.5818.4315.655.8342.0335.588.0321.2317.509.1239.7930.86
High technical complexity products1.839.217.350.427.9512.012.019.5411.481.6918.8113.58
Table 5. The overall technical level of exported EGs of 15 countries (or regions) from 2007 to 2016.
Table 5. The overall technical level of exported EGs of 15 countries (or regions) from 2007 to 2016.
YearsEXPY Value of EGs/$
SingaporeUnited StatesUnited KingdomFranceItalyCanadaGermanyJapanChina Hong KongThailandMalaysiaMexicoChinaSouth KoreaVietnam
200736,83536,71136,40536,02635,99735,61135,56334,55433,66232,48833,42332,42928,43828,05633,663
200837,64537,04436,74136,63036,59335,99335,34334,71132,53934,11333,28232,49729,67429,30127,033
200935,96636,31636,65434,62634,05534,31533,78032,86631,72032,25831,76731,48829,30728,25727,602
201037,83336,13635,99835,67135,63935,56934,66034,13533,06034,13733,31332,55030,78930,06429,075
201138,06636,71636,71636,12936,01636,10135,48634,86434,22534,55934,13932,91231,66831,45230,132
201238,29436,45036,72136,14935,91935,81735,80234,57333,96134,41534,57932,98431,45131,07831,139
201338,26036,91737,01636,43036,39036,25635,96934,85933,93834,58833,81332,89931,75531,81132,340
201438,92237,26637,34836,84436,89036,51136,38735,56434,81934,62234,52333,59632,85532,84232,039
201539,52137,61737,78937,00737,43537,12036,72736,06935,92133,57233,32333,83832,63633,32832,849
201640,01338,38338,13337,99637,93737,79537,61336,53836,34132,99432,89434,15532,33032,24131,523
Average38,13636,95636,95236,35136,28736,10935,73334,87334,01933,77433,50632,93531,09030,84330,739

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cao, X.; Hanson-Rasmussen, N. Dynamic Change in the Export Technology Structure of China’s Environmental Goods and Its International Comparison. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103508

AMA Style

Cao X, Hanson-Rasmussen N. Dynamic Change in the Export Technology Structure of China’s Environmental Goods and Its International Comparison. Sustainability. 2018; 10(10):3508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103508

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cao, Xuping, and Nancy Hanson-Rasmussen. 2018. "Dynamic Change in the Export Technology Structure of China’s Environmental Goods and Its International Comparison" Sustainability 10, no. 10: 3508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103508

APA Style

Cao, X., & Hanson-Rasmussen, N. (2018). Dynamic Change in the Export Technology Structure of China’s Environmental Goods and Its International Comparison. Sustainability, 10(10), 3508. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103508

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop