Transit Visa-free Policy and Inbound Tourism Growth: An Analysis based on PSM-DID Method

doi:10.12054/lydk.bisu.87

Abstract

Abstract:

Researchers have been focusing on the tourism policies due to the varied policies implemented by the government significantly affecting the development of tourism industry. In particular, visa policies, as the fundamental institutional arrangements of international tourism flows, are attracting increasing attention in the study. Visa restriction and visa liberalization are the important instruments for controlling the movement of people. As a result, visa policy becomes a guarantee of national and economic security while it will also lead to economic loss from refusing potential trade, investment and tourists. Regardless of the reasons for visa policies, the positive impact of visa liberalization and the negative impact of visa restrictions on tourism have become the consensus of most studies. However, transit visa-free policy, as an effective and active visa policy internationally, has attracted few attention. In this paper, based on the panel data from 2008 to 2016 in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region in China, the combination of matching method and difference-in-difference (DID) method was innovatively used to verify the growth effect of transit visa-free policy on inbound tourism. The results showed that the policy significantly promoted the development of inbound tourism, and its promotion functioned immediately. However, due to the flaws of the policy, the effectiveness became weakened gradually. In addition, the regression results were still robust after the Placebo test. This paper is referable for the validity of visa policy, the implementation of visa-free policy and the improvement of research methods for policy evaluation in tourism research.

Key words: transit visa-free policy, inbound tourism, PSM, DID, Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei

摘要：

签证政策对入境旅游增长的推动作用不言而喻。过境免签政策作为一项在国际上行之有效的积极签证政策,亦成为我国促进入境旅游增长的方法之一。本文以京津冀地区为例,基于2008年至2016年的面板数据,创新性地采用倾向得分匹配—双重差分方法（PSM-DID）对过境免签政策的入境旅游增长效应进行验证。结果显示,过境免签政策显著地促进了入境旅游的发展,且此项政策的促进效应当即有效;但是随着时间的推移,碍于该项政策的缺陷,过境免签政策的有效性有所下降。此外,本文采用安慰剂检验后回归结果依然稳健。本文对于研究签证政策的有效性、过境免签政策实施的改进以及旅游研究领域政策评价研究方法的完善都具有参考价值。

关键词: 过境免签, 入境旅游, 双重差分, 倾向得分匹配, 京津冀地区

CLC Number:

Changyao SONG, Ran JIA, Xinjian LI. Transit Visa-free Policy and Inbound Tourism Growth: An Analysis based on PSM-DID Method[J]. Tourism and Hospitality Prospects, 2018, 2(6): 33-46.

宋昌耀, 贾然, 厉新建. 过境免签政策与入境旅游增长——基于PSM-DID方法的分析[J]. 旅游导刊, 2018, 2(6): 33-46.

Figures/Tables 6

References 33

[1]	Abadie A.Semiparametric difference-in-differences estimators[J]. The Review of Economic Studies, 2005, 72(1): 1~19.
[2]	Balli F, Balli H O, Cebeci K.Impacts of exported Turkish soap operas and visa-free entry on inbound tourism to Turkey[J]. Tourism Management, 2013(37): 186~192.
[3]	Besley T, Case A.Unnatural experiments? Estimating the incidence of endogenous policies[J]. The Economic Journal, 2000, 110(467): 672~694.
[4]	Czaika M,Neumayer E.Visa restrictions and economic globalization[J]. Applied Geography,2017(84):75~82.
[5]	Cheng K M.Tourism demand in Hong Kong: Income, prices and visa restrictions[J]. Current Issues in Tourism, 2012, 15(3): 167~181.
[6]	Heckman J J, Ichimura H, Todd P.Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator[J]. The Review of Economic Studies, 1998, 65(2): 261~294.
[7]	Heckman J J, Lalonde R J, Smith J A.The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs[J]. Handbook of Labor Economics, 1999(3): 1865~2097.
[8]	Karaman A S.The pernicious impact of visa restrictions on inbound tourism: The case of Turkey[J]. Turkish Studies, 2016, 17(3): 502~524.
[9]	Lawson R A, Roychoudhury S.Do travel visa requirements impede tourist travel?[J]. Journal of Economics and Finance, 2016, 40(4): 817~828.
[10]	Lee C K, Song H J, Bendle L J.The impact of visa-free entry on outbound tourism: A case study of South Korean travellers visiting Japan[J]. Tourism Geographies, 2010, 12(2): 302~323.
[11]	Li S N, Song H Y.Economic impacts of visa restrictions on tourism: A case of two events in China[J]. Annals of Tourism Research, 2013(43): 251~271.
[12]	Liu A Y, McKercher B. The impact of visa liberalization on tourist behaviors:The case of China outbound market visiting Hong Kong[J]. Journal of Travel Research, 2014, 55(5): 603~611.
[13]	Neiman B, Swagel P.The impact of post-9/11 visa policies on travel to the United States[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2009, 78(1): 86~99.
[14]	Neumayer E.Visa restrictions and bilateral travel[J]. The Professional Geographer, 2010, 62(2): 171~181.
[15]	Song H Y, Gartner W C, Tasci A D A. Visa restrictions and their adverse economic and marketing implications:Evidence from China[J]. Tourism Management, 2012, 33(2): 397~412.
[16]	Su Y W, Lin H L, Liu L M.Chinese tourists in Taiwan: Crowding out effects, opening policy and its implications[J]. Tourism Management Perspectives, 2012(4): 45~55.
[17]	World Economic Forum.Travel and tourism competitiveness report 2013[R]. Geneva: WEF, 2013.
[18]	World Economic Forum.Travel and tourism competitiveness report 2015[R]. Geneva: WEF, 2015.
[19]	World Economic Forum.Travel and tourism competitiveness report 2017[R]. Geneva: WEF, 2017.
[20]	杜强. 京津冀实行144小时过境免签 53个国家旅客受惠[EB/OL]. , 2018-01-04.
[21]	厉新建, 宋昌耀, 张飞飞. 京津冀入境旅游经济一体化水平测度及提升策略[J]. 燕山大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2015, 16(2): 115~121.
[22]	史博利. 通关政策进一步优化各大机场实施72小时免签政策[EB/OL]. , 2015-01-17.
[23]	唐承财, 刘霄泉, 宋昌耀. 雾霾对区域旅游业的影响及应对策略探讨[J]. 地理与地理信息科学, 2016, 32(5): 121~126.
[24]	唐承财, 马蕾, 宋昌耀. 雾霾天气影响北京入境旅游吗?——基于面板数据的实证检验[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, 2017, 31(1): 192~197.
[25]	王良举, 李万莲. 人民币升值对中国入境旅游的影响评估——基于扩展旅游引力模型的实证分析[J]. 旅游科学, 2012, 26(5): 38~44, 94.
[26]	王兴斌. 大陆入境旅游滑坡原因何在[N]. 中国青年报, 2013-08-09(11).
[27]	魏小安. 中国入境游须借“全球一体化”契机深入调整[EB/OL]. , 2014-09-09.
[28]	吴必虎. 中国入境旅游如何摆脱困境?[EB/OL]. , 2015-01-13.
[29]	杨波. 中国72小时过境免签政策开放再思考[EB/OL]. , 2015-07-02.
[30]	中国旅游研究院. 中国入境旅游发展年度报告2013[R]. 北京: 旅游教育出版社, 2013.
[31]	中国旅游研究院. 中国入境旅游发展年度报告2014[R]. 北京: 旅游教育出版社, 2014.
[32]	中国旅游研究院. 中国入境旅游发展年度报告2015[R]. 北京: 旅游教育出版社, 2015.
[33]	中国民航报. “72小时过境免签”政策为何效果不明显?[EB/OL]. , 2015-11-18.

变量	样本量	均值	标准差	最小值	最大值
inbound	252	1.591	2.209	—4.605	5.814
resource	252	1.634	1.279	—2.303	3.114
pollution	252	10.671	0.771	9.030	13.768
FDI	252	0.957	1.905	—4.605	7.200
investment	252	6.387	1.228	3.490	9.591
GDP	252	6.868	7.042	4.016	9.792

变量	样本量	均值	标准差	最小值	最大值
inbound	252	1.591	2.209	—4.605	5.814
resource	252	1.634	1.279	—2.303	3.114
pollution	252	10.671	0.771	9.030	13.768
FDI	252	0.957	1.905	—4.605	7.200
investment	252	6.387	1.228	3.490	9.591
GDP	252	6.868	7.042	4.016	9.792

	模型（1）	模型（3）
	匹配前	匹配后
policy	—0.984***	—0.059 8
	（—3.86）	（—0.37）
常数项	2.153***	2.333***
	（15.41）	（18.86）
Log Likelihood	—550.4	—418.8
N	252	252

	模型（1）	模型（3）
	匹配前	匹配后
policy	—0.984***	—0.059 8
	（—3.86）	（—0.37）
常数项	2.153***	2.333***
	（15.41）	（18.86）
Log Likelihood	—550.4	—418.8
N	252	252

变量	系数	标准差	t值	P值
resource	0.071	0.072	0.989	0.324
pollution	0.028	0.131	0.215	0.830
FDI	0.643	0.092	6.964	0.000
investment	0.200	0.180	1.109	0.269
GDP	—0.969	0.164	—5.927	0.000