金融服务贸易研究文献综述

104172 金融研究论文中国金融服务贸易分析研究一、绪论（一）研究背景及意义随着经济全球化的发展，各国之间新的贸易模式逐渐形成，近些年统计数据显示，服务贸易的贸易额增长率已达到货物贸易的两倍多，服务贸易更自由、更高效地为全球经济的发展找到了新的增长点。

金融服务贸易构成了服务贸易的重要环节，是其他服务贸易的基础。

金融服务贸易能否健康快速的发展事关一国现阶段经济、社会发展能否跟随上全球发展大局。

在中国，金融服务贸易还是一个新型的产业，刚刚起步，发展不成熟。

全球金融服务业发展如火如荼，面对开放国内金融服务市场，与世界对接的要求，中国承受的更多的不是机遇，应该是挑战与困难。

面对发达国家逐渐成熟的金融服务体系，中国政府应如何做才能够稳固自身，极大获取金融服务贸易的利益，是目前重要的课题。

二、中国金融服务贸易发展现状研究金融服务贸易四种模式，境外消费、自然人流动、跨境交付和商业存在，前两项占得比重不大，本文研究重点主要放在后两项。

跨境交付指标数据可以从WTO官方网站数据库或我国《国际收支平衡表》中获得，而商业存在模式的数据目前除了美国，其他国家无法获得，因此，本文商业存在主要用外资金融机构在华数量、中资银行国外资产两个指标来体现。

（一）我国跨境交付金融服务贸易规模分析中国跨境交付总额在近十年间的发展趋势是一直上升的，2009年受金融危机影响略有下降外，年平均增长率为22.8%，20xx年突破250亿美元。

但是，近些年来中国的服务贸易进出口总额也在逐年攀升，且速度一直略高于金融服务贸易的增长速度，所以从二者比值上来看，金融服务贸易在整体服务贸易上的比重增长不是很明显，一直处于10%以下的水平。

但是中国金融服务占世界金融服务贸易份额很低，20xx年达到最高水平也仅为3%左右，存在很大的上升空间。

（二）我国跨境交付金融服务贸易进出口比较2000年-20xx年之间，中国跨境交付一直呈现逆差，且规模显示出逐步扩大的态势。

金融学类毕业论文文献综述简介：本文旨在对金融学研究领域相关文献进行综述，从多个角度探讨不同主题，并结合最新的研究成果，总结当前金融学研究的热点与未来发展方向。

本综述文献将分为五个主题，涵盖金融市场、投资组合、企业金融、金融市场监管和风险管理。

一、金融市场金融市场作为实现资源配置和风险管理的核心机构，一直是金融学研究的重点之一。

文献研究显示，金融市场的有效性、市场结构的特征以及交易活动对市场效率的影响是当前研究的热点。

相关研究对此进行了广泛探讨，并提出了一系列理论和模型，例如资本资产定价模型（CAPM）和有效市场假说。

二、投资组合投资组合是投资者在金融市场中最基本的决策之一。

在过去的几十年里，学者们基于不同的投资理论，提出了许多关于投资组合管理和资产定价的模型和方法，如马科维茨均值-方差理论和套利定价。

此外，还有一些研究关注于全球投资和跨国资本流动等问题，为投资者提供更全面的投资视角。

三、企业金融企业金融是研究企业融资、投资和分配政策的领域。

研究表明，不同的融资结构和融资决策会对企业价值和经营绩效产生重要影响。

在企业金融领域，有关公司治理、股权结构、融资约束和企业债务政策等研究也备受关注。

此外，国有企业改革以及公司并购等议题也是企业金融研究的重点之一。

四、金融市场监管金融市场监管在金融体系的稳定发展中起到至关重要的作用。

文献研究显示，金融市场监管内容包括监管机构的建立与改革、监管政策的制定与执行以及监管工具和手段的运用等。

当前关于金融市场监管的研究主要集中在金融风险防范、市场不确定性和金融监管创新等方面。

五、风险管理金融风险管理是应对金融市场风险的重要手段。

文献研究表明，风险管理的主要内容包括风险识别、测量和控制。

关于风险管理的研究主要集中在金融衍生品的定价和对冲、风险度量模型和风险管理策略等方面。

此外，金融危机和金融市场波动性等问题也引起了学者们的广泛关注。

结论：通过对金融学研究领域文献的综述，我们可以看到金融市场、投资组合、企业金融、金融市场监管和风险管理等多个主题都是当前研究的热点。

金融业是指为经济中其他行业提供金融服务的行业,金融服务是金融机构运用货币交易手段融通有价物品向金融活动参与者和顾客提供的共同受益、获取满足的活动。

自中国加入世界贸易组织后,我国银行业的发展遇到了国内经济市场化和融入国际经济运行体系的双重压力。

银行难以依靠有形产品取得竞争优势是由于其天然同质性强,所以今后各家商业银行竞争的重点将集中在金融服务上。

然而与国际银行业相比,我国商业银行的金融服务创新差距明显,仍处于不成熟的阶段。

对于该问题的探讨,国内多是从单个方面论述,缺乏整体系统性的总结和研究。

本文即综合相关文献,综述学术界的研究成果,对于分析、促进我国商业银行金融服务创新,应对新世纪的挑战具有重要意义。

一、银行服务创新的动力国外对商业银行服务创新动力的研究中比较有代表性的有三类。

第一类是Hannon和McDowell(1984)的观点,认为引发创新的主因是高科技,因为其在技术上和物质上均为金融服务创新奠定了基础;第二类是Drew(1995)提出的三大因素“新的技术、竞争的压力和顾客需求的变化”,而团队合作和流程重组能够加速服务创新的过程;第三类是Sundbo和Callouj(1998)总结出的银行服务创新的“新工业模式”,认为技术、服务专业和顾客为创新动力,最特别的是顾客,在此模式中与企业各部门产生交互作用而不再作为被动的创新接受者,相反R&D部门起到的作用却很有限。

国内魏英辉（2006）则从外部推力（技术,利率、汇率等货币因素,财富增长所导致对于金融资产和金融交易的需求,制度变化,竞争）和内部推力（追求盈利,规避管制,降低交易成本,新的经营模式和管理理念）两大方面分析了金融创新的动力,观点较为全面,具有总括性。

二、我国商业银行服务创新的现状1、我国商业银行金融服务创新的必要性王华（2008）《论我国商业银行金融服务创新》总结出我国商业银行金融服务创新的必要性有:利率终将走向市场化,商业银行需通过金融服务创新实现金融资产保值;当今涌现出大量股份制商业银行和外资银行,创新能使商业银行通过市场延伸和盈利扩大立于不败之地;现阶段我国商业银行的主要盈利来源已转化为服务费,且客户的需求已产生很大变化。

本份文档包含：关于该选题的外文文献、文献综述一、外文文献标题: Linking Service and Finance作者: Eugene W. Anderson期刊: Marketing Science, 卷: 25期:6；页: 587-589；Linking Service and FinanceEugene W. AndersonAbstractPerhaps the single most important step for future research is to develop a coherent body of knowledge that links service and marketing efforts to financial outcomes and models. Both researchers and practitioners need to better understand how service and marketing efforts affect financial statements and market valuation. To fully map the influence of service efforts on financial returns, they must also solidify their understanding of the chain from service and marketing effort to financial outcome -- the service-profit chain. Modeling in marketing science must continue to evolve from a goods-based, transaction-specific perspective that asks how marketing can best influence individual purchase decisions to a service-based perspective of customer value creation and relationships that asks how service and marketing efforts influence customers and value creation dynamically. Marketing science is shifting its focus toward a world in which service and relationships dominate.Keywords: service; service-profit chain; marketing discipline; marketing theory; audience for marketing scienceI am delighted to have an opportunity to comment on Rust and Chung's (2006) timely and insightful article. This article does an excellent job of summarizing the evolution of marketing models of service and relationships. Rust and Chung (2006) rightly attribute increasing interest in such models to ongoing changes in information technology-an ancient trend with an extremely high likelihood of continuing into the future. Their eloquent and provocative observations on the implications of this trend for future research and practice should dramatically influence both.The purpose of this note is to build on Rust and Chung's thoughtful and sound foundation by highlighting certain research priorities, elaborating on the types of research questions that warrant attention, and further exploring the implications of their work for marketing science and the marketing field as a whole.Making Sense to FinancePerhaps the single most important step for future research is to develop a coherent body of knowledge that links service and marketing efforts to financial outcomes and models. Both researchers and practitioners need to better understand how service and marketing efforts affect financial statements and market valuation. In the absence of such knowledge, senior management and shareholder ambivalence toward marketing efforts is likely to increase, and discontent with service management may follow-especially in firms dominated by a finance- or operations-oriented mindset.To coexist with finance and operations, service managers must develop credible approaches to mapping service-related expenditures and investments into the size, timing, and risk associated with anticipated future cash flows resulting from those investments. Financially oriented managers and companies need to be able to assess whether the size and timing of anticipated cash flows provide an acceptable return given the required resources, as well as whether expected returns offer adequate compensation for the inherent level of risk.Developing concepts and tools to link service efforts to financial returns requires service researchers and practitioners to clearly understand financial statements and financial approaches to valuation, the chain of effects that lead from investments in service to customer behaviors beneficial to the firm, and the mapping from current and potential customer behavior into the size, timing, and risk of anticipated financial returns.With regard to integrating service and finance perspectives, some potential areas of inquiry might include the following:* How do service investments affect the size and timing of anticipated cash flows from customers?* How might we capture the efficacious effects of service and marketing efforts on the risk associated with anticipated future cash flows from customers?* How do we provide a reasonable valuation of anticipated future cash flows that goes beyond current customers and current offerings to capture three other important types of anticipated future cash flows: (1) spending by new customers on current offerings, (2) purchases of future offerings by current customers, and (3) future offerings to future customers.* What is the appropriate discount rate and time horizon? How and why do these parameters vary across customers?* How do we handle heterogeneity in the risk of cash flows from different customers?* How do we best capture the value of service investments on financial statements (e.g., income statement, balance sheet)?* What is the relative impact of service and marketing efforts on the value of anticipated cash flows, as opposed to efforts in areas such as operations, R&D, or human resources?Streamlining the Service-Profit ChainTo fully map the influence of service efforts on financial returns, we must also solidify our understanding of the chain from service and marketing effort to financial outcome-the service-profit chain. Currently there are a host of attitudinal (e.g., brand awareness, brand preference, willingness to pay, customer satisfaction, perceived value, service quality, trust) and behavioral metrics (e.g., customer acquisition, customer retention, share of requirements, price tolerance, recommendations) vying for a role in this chain of effects. Many of these constructs compete to capture the same underlying phenomena, and it has become a confusing landscape for both researchers and practitioners alike. Both academics and practitioners would benefit from a clearer understanding of the right set of such "leading indicators" best suited to linking service investment to financial outcomes. A list of possible questions for research might include the following:* What attitudinal constructs work best in terms of prediction of behavioral andfinancial outcomes?* What behavioral constructs, in turn, best predict financial outcomes?* Which attitudinal and behavioral constructs are most actionable for managers (i.e., can be measured, traced back to specific controllable actions, etc.)?* How should attitudinal measures be linked to one another, to behavioral outcomes, and ultimately to financial outcomes?* How does the appropriate set of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes vary across industries? Across firms with different strategies?* Are attitudinal constructs always relevant? Are behavioral constructs? What factors influence the relative importance of using each?* How do we handle heterogeneity across a firm's different customers in terms of the relative importance of these constructs and their associations?* How do competitive forces influence the service-profit chain and, consequently, the impact of service investments on financial returns?Developing Models Managers Can UseAs academics, perhaps our greatest impact on business and society comes from developing models that managers will actually use. To do this, we need to better understand managers' use of service and relationship models, as well as identify the means by which the best use of such models can be made. In this regard, it might also be useful to consider several key organizational issues related to service and relationship models:* How well are managers actually developing and implementing models of service and relationships?* What do managers see as the biggest challenges in their own efforts to model service and relationships? In what areas do managers see the greatest opportunities?How do we encourage firms to invest in systematic modeling of service efforts and their impact on financial outcomes, as mapped through attitudinal and behavioral constructs?* How do we encourage dissemination and use of what is learned from such systems throughout the firm?* For what level of the organization are such systems best devised?* How can ownership and support for service modeling be achieved?* How can we model the impact of service efforts on not just financial outcomes but also on other areas of the firm, such as operations and human resources?* How do we best communicate the effect of service investments on financial outcomes? To the finance function? To senior management? To shareholders?Meeting the Challenge to Marketing Science and MarketingAs Rust and Chung (2006) so eloquently argue, the importance of models of service and relationships has grown dramatically and will continue to do so as the service-based portion of the world economy increases relative to goods. Modeling in marketing science must continue to evolve from a goods-based, transaction-specific perspective that asks how marketing can best influence individual purchase decisions to a service-based perspective of customer value creation and relationships that asks how service and marketing efforts influence customers and value creation dynamically. Without creating greater intellectual capital in this important area, marketing science may find itself increasingly less relevant to management practice and, consequently, less relevant to business research and education.In addition to creating the right intellectual capital for academic journals, we must also provide our students-doctoral, master's, and undergraduate-with the right training to compete in this world. For our professional students, what proportion of their education is grounded in a goods context? Are the concepts and tools developed based on the marketing of nondurable and durable goods as relevant in a world dominated by service? In our doctoral seminars, how much time is spent on research focused on service and relationships, as opposed to concepts and tools primarily developed and tested in a goods-based context? Are students receiving appropriate training in theory and methods from the basic disciplines that will be most relevant to addressing business problems in an economy dominated by service? For both groups, we need to work to ensure that we have a competitive advantage among business school faculties in training both future managers and future scholars for such a world.Marketing science is shifting its focus toward a world in which service andrelationships dominate. Mainstream marketing in the future is likely to bear a closer resemblance to today's business-to-business marketing, direct marketing, relationship marketing, and/or service marketing, than to the previously dominant context and perspective of marketing durable and nondurable goods. This ongoing trend presents an important opportunity for marketing science to help the marketing academic field as a whole increase its value to the many different audiences we serve. Rust and Chung's insightful analysis of existing research and the implications for future research should help to accelerate our collective contribution in these important areas.SidebarAlthough invited commentaries are not formally peer-reviewed and represent the opinion of the author, authors were carefully chosen based on their outstanding expertise in the areas of their respective commentaries.ReferencesRust, Roland T., Chung Tuck-Siong. 2006. Marketing models of service and relationship. Marketing Sci. 25(6) 560-580.二、文献综述金融服务贸易文献综述摘要：金融服务贸易经过二十年的发展，主要是去管制化和国际化的过程。