金融服务贸易文献综述及外文文献资料

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 Finance

Eugene W. Anderson

Abstract

Perhaps 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 science

I 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 Finance

Perhaps 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 Chain

To 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 and

financial 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 Use

As 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 Marketing

As 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 and

relationships 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.

Sidebar

Although 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.

References

Rust, 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。在这个过程中，其实质是自由化和竞争力。目前，金融服务贸易的研究还没有一个较为系统的研究分析理论体系，大都是建立在贸易研究和服务贸易研究的基础之上的。而对金融服务贸易与FDI的研究就更为稀少，并且都是在贸易与FDI、服务贸易与FDI的基础上去研究金融服务贸易与FDI。本文介绍和梳理了金融服务贸易理论的研究文献，对比和评析了相关研究方法及成果。

关键词：金融服务贸易；自由化；竞争力

金融服务贸易是服务贸易的一种。根据服务贸易总协定(GATS)金融服务附件的定义，金融服务是指成员国的金融服务提供者向金融人提供的服务，包括所有保险和与保险相关的服务，以及所有银行和其他金融服务(保险除外)。GATS 金融服务附件对除保险以外的金融服务详细列出了12条，包括了所有可能的融

资、支付、证券发行、金融中介和咨询、资产管理等金融服务形式。

由于金融服务业的重要性及特殊性，金融服务贸易竞争力不仅是一个国家或地区金融体系的实力的表现，同时也是该国家或地区经济社会环境以及金融与经济社会环境协调程度的一个反映。国际学者对其研究已有二十年左右时间，也已经形成相对成熟的理论体系并有较为丰硕的理论成果。在我国国内，由于经济发展程度和金融业所具有的特殊性，国内学者对金融服务贸易，特别是我国金融服务贸易的研究集中在近十年, 其研究也主要从TFS 自由化和TFS 竞争力两个联系密切的角度展开。

随着金融服务业发展，越来越显现出国际化趋势，而TFS自由化便成为必然的选择（刘胜华，2008），其主要原因在于自由化所带来的社会福利及经济效应Wengel，1995，Moshirian，1994，1996，1998，2000，2004，2006，Bhattacharya，1993，Glaessner & Oks，1994，Levine，1996，Glaessens & Glaessner，1998，Bayraktar & Wang，2004，Chen，2005)。就静态福利效应而言，国内市场自由竞争同时允许国外金融机构进入可以使整个社会福利最大；就动态福利效应而言，将带来竞争压力、技术转移、制度创新、吸引外资及产业竞争力提高等效应（郭根龙，冯宗宪，薛伟贤，2000），并且金融服务贸易的开放能够增加贸易量（倪煜，万红先，2009）。作为金融服务业主体的银行业，TFS 自由化可以促进银行间竞争（陈勇，2007），主要表现在，银行业的国际化与银行的资产收益率、资本收益率有很强的促进关系，却与金融稳定内含的银行稳定指标和货币稳定指标关系不，明显（谢建敢，2007）。值得注意的是，TFS 自由化与金融开放并不是相互促进的，即贸易开放对金融开放具有显著的正向影响，而金融开放对贸易开放没有显著的影响（周茂荣，张子杰，2010）。同时还应看到负面效应，TFS 自由化会引发带有时滞性的银行业危机（刘胜华，2008），并且随着TFS 自由化而来的FDI，会扩大银行业贸易逆差、挤压国内金融服务业市场（潘素坤，李慧敏2009）。然而，我国TFS 现状却是在贸易量、外商投资量、贸易的不同提供方式和贸易政策等方面总体规模较小，金融服务贸易的开放度不高，与发达国家相比还有很大的差距（宋耀，2003）这主要是我国TFS 与很多国家相比并未形成有效的竞争力。

对于TFS 竞争力的研究，（完整内容请到百度文库）国内外学者对于理论