Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-021-00761-y

Factors affecting fluctuations in China’s aquatic product

exports to Japan, the USA, South Korea, Southeast Asia,
and the EU

Miao Miao1 · Huang Liu1 · Jun Chen1

Received: 18 January 2021 / Accepted: 31 July 2021 / Published online: 17 August 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Abstract
Seafood has important health benefits, and the growing demand for aquatic products has
stimulated rapid trade development. Using 2000–2018 data from the UN Comtrade Data-
base, this study first introduced the export scale, product structure, and market distribu-
tion of China’s aquatic products. Then, using an extended constant market share model,
we investigated the factors affecting fluctuations in China’s aquatic product exports to the
USA, Japan, South Korea, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the
European Union (EU). Import demand was found to be the most important factor affect-
ing China’s aquatic product exports. Moreover, China’s export structure and market dis-
tribution for aquatic products have become increasingly consistent with global demand.
In recent years, China’s aquatic product competitiveness has declined while its market
destinations have diversified. Regarding China’s aquatic product types, the main focus has
been on labor- and resource-intensive products with low competitiveness. More recently,
however, China’s competitiveness of product types 0371 and 0372 (Standard International
Trade Classification) has been improving in the world market. To further develop China’s
aquatic product exports, policy should aim to maintain the fisheries ecosystem, encourage
seafood operators to adopt good practices, increase investment in science and technology,
overcome technical barriers to trade, strengthen research on the needs, preferences, and
requirements of major importing countries, expand domestic demand, and strengthen inter-
national cooperation.

Keywords Aquatic products · Seafood · Export · Constant market share · China

Handling Editor: Dr. Gavin Burnell

* Huang Liu
[email protected]
Miao Miao
[email protected]
1
Fishery Machinery and Instrument Research Institute of Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences,
Shanghai 200092, the People’s Republic of China

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
2508 Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533

Introduction

Seafood contains many amino acids, fats, vitamins, and minerals that are important com-
ponents of a healthy diet. It is also an indispensable supplement to nutritionally deficient
cereal-based diets, especially for populations in Asia and parts of Africa. Seafood demand
has steadily risen in tandem with population growth and improved living standards. During
the period 1961–2017, the average annual growth rate of total fish consumption was 3.1%,
outpacing the annual population growth rate (1.6%), and per capita fish consumption rose
from 9.0 kg (live-weight equivalent) in 1961 to 20.3 kg in 2017 (FAO 2020a). This grow-
ing demand for seafood stimulated the rapid development of trade. From 1976 to 2018, the
value of global fish-related exports increased at an annual rate of 8% in nominal terms; by
2018, export revenues were more than 20 times the 1976 figure of USD 7.8 billion (FAO
2020a). In addition to the above-mentioned factors, innovations in processing, storage,
packaging, transport, and marketing helped stimulate seafood trade.
China is a major seafood-producing country. According to the statistics collected by
FAO in 2018, worldwide seafood capture production reached 96.43 million tons, of which
China accounted for 14.64 million (15.18%); meanwhile, worldwide aquaculture fish pro-
duction was 82.1 million tons, and China accounted for 47.56 million (57.93%). Also, in
2018, China ranked first in the world in total seafood export value (USD 21.55 billion)
and third in total import value (USD 11.92 billion) based on UN Comtrade Database. Chi-
na’s improved overall position in global trade is attributable to the “reform and opening
up,” beginning in the late 1970s. In 2001, China became a member of WTO, signaling its
deeper integration into the world economy. WTO accession required changes in China’s
institutional structure and a host of new trade-related laws and regulations, resulting in
improved transparency and stability in its business dealings (Fojtíková 2018).
Since 2006, China has formulated three national 5-year plans for the development of
fisheries—namely, the 11th (2006–2010), 12th (2011–2015), and 13th (2016–2020) 5-year
plans for national fishery development. These plans involved analyzing the opportuni-
ties and challenges faced at each stage and setting out detailed objectives and priorities
for the phased development of aquaculture and fisheries. In 2013, President Xi introduced
the Belt and Road Initiative, aiming to promote connectivity among the Asian, European,
and African continents and facilitate policy coordination, unimpeded trade, and financial
integration (NDRC 2015). Regarding fisheries, the initiative encouraged fishery enterprises
to go abroad, undertake bilateral and multilateral fishery cooperation, and participate in
international fishery associations. This provided development opportunities for the inter-
national trade of Chinese aquatic products. However, China’s aquatic product exports also
saw erratic fluctuations and unstable growth while facing challenges such as trade frictions,
antidumping and antisubsidy investigations, and tariff barriers, including stringent sanitary
and phytosanitary standards (SPS) and other technical barriers to trade (TBT). Against this
background, studying the factors that affect fluctuations in China’s aquatic product exports
and analyzing the underlying reasons could help identify guidelines for the sustainable
development of the foreign trade of aquatic products. Meanwhile, this research could also
help China’s import partners to better understand bilateral trade with China to facilitate
improved policy and planning for aquatic product imports.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The “Literature review” section reviews
the literature on the foreign trade of Chinese aquatic products as well as the related research
methods. The “Overview of China’s seafood export trade” section describes the current
state of China’s aquatic product export trade, including the trade scale, product structure,

13
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533 2509

market distribution, and rejected cases. The “Data and method” section presents the con-
stant market share (CMS) model used in this study. The “Results and discussion” section
presents and discusses the results while the “Conclusion and policy suggestions” section
concludes and offers policy suggestions.

Literature review

China’s seafood exports

With ongoing economic globalization, in tandem with a higher awareness of the health
benefits of seafood consumption, international trade in aquatic products has increased,
attracting considerable research attention (Gephart and Pace 2015; Crona et al. 2015;
Sabau and Muktadir Boksh 2017; Chen et al. 2018; Ping et al. 2018; Giusti et al. 2019;
Geetha et al. 2020; Jin-Kai and Jian-Qiu 2020). With China becoming one of the world’s
major exporters of aquatic products, many studies have specifically focused on China’s sea-
food exports.
Bo et al. (2017) used a gravity model to analyze the factors affecting China’s aquatic
product exports in Central and Eastern European countries. They found that the dis-
tance between China and the importing countries and EU membership were negatively
correlated with the scale of China’s aquatic product exports to those countries. Mean-
while, China’s total output of aquatic products, the GDPs of the importing countries,
the ratio of China’s exchange rate with the importing countries, and WTO membership
all showed positive correlations. Wen-Bo et al. (2017) noted that the market demand for
tilapia, penaeid shrimp, Macrobrachium prawns, and catfish was important for stimulat-
ing production growth, both in China and abroad; although dependence on international
markets was risky, export and trade were still important, especially as China aimed to
become modernized. Further to this, meeting the high standards of the international
market provided lessons that could help China meet its changing demand for farmed
aquaculture products. Using a gravity model, Yang et al. (2020) investigated the deter-
minants of China’s seafood exports. They found that transportation costs and wealth
level seemed to be much more important for products with higher perishability, while
the impacts were insignificant on some other products (e.g., conserved mollusks and
prepared crustaceans). Furthermore, most trade flows were driven by increased income
but with highly varying degrees. Using CMS to investigate the factors affecting fluctua-
tions in tilapia exports, Yun-Yun et al. (2020) found that Chinese tilapia products were
oversupplied and had lost competitiveness; changing that situation would require trans-
forming Chinese tilapia into a low-supply, high-quality, high-price product. Deng-Jun
et al. (2014) found a complementary relationship between seafood exports from China
and developed countries, where developing countries tended to specialize in labor-inten-
sive products and exported them to capital-abundant countries; this resulted in a high
degree of overlap between seafood exports from China and other developing countries
in terms of seafood export mix and export prices. Collecting 4047 cases of rejection
from February 2011 to July 2017, Xiao-Wei et al. (2018) analyzed the reasons why Chi-
nese food exports (including aquatic products) were rejected by the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA); they proposed that China should improve its food safety laws,
regulations, and standards to better match with its trading partners. Jing-Jing (2015)

13
2510 Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533

noted that the SPS measures of developed countries constrained China’s aquatic product
exports; thus, improving standards and quality and safety management would support
the long-term growth of China’s aquatic product exports.

Constant market share model

Constant market share (CMS) was first proposed by Tyszynski (1951). Since then,
Milana (1988), Jepma (1989), and Ahmadi-Esfahani (2006), among others, have
revised, improved, and expanded the model. CMS is now widely used to study inter-
national trade fluctuations and industrial competitiveness and to provide empirical evi-
dence for policy recommendations (Widodo 2010; Fligenspan et al. 2015; Jinzhuo et al.
2016; Varalakshmi and Devatkal 2017; Aguiar et al. 2017; Capobianco-Uriarte et al.
2017; Zheng-Xin et al. 2017; Xu-Ping et al. 2018; Yun-jie and Jie 2018; Yan et al. 2020;
Yun-Yun et al. 2020). Widodo (2010), for example, used CMS to analyze the dynamic
markets of the EU, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Northeast Asia,
and ASEAN countries for the period 1980–2006. Zheng-Xin et al. (2017), meanwhile,
used a CMS model to decompose the factors affecting export fluctuations in China’s
new energy industries; they found that the import demand of the international market
for China’s new energy industry dominated fluctuations in exports. Capobianco-Uriarte
et al. (2017) used CMS to analyze Spain’s competitiveness in the European tomato mar-
ket. Also, using a CMS model, Xu-Ping et al. (2018) investigated the factors affecting
China’s forest product exports; they found that the competitive effect had the biggest
influence on export growth, followed by market-size effects, with the effects of mar-
ket distribution and product structure both being small. Analyzing the factors affecting
China’s exports of agricultural products to Pakistan, Yun-jie and Jie (2018) found that
export growth was affected by both structural and competitive effects. Meanwhile, Yan
et al. (2020) analyzed the dynamics of Australia’s liquefied natural gas export perfor-
mance using CMS and UN Comtrade data for four subperiods spanning 1989–2017.
Our review revealed that there are few English-language studies of the factors affect-
ing China’s trade in aquatic products. In general, gravity models (Lin et al. 2020; Nas-
rullah et al. 2020; Zhihui et al. 2020; Natale et al. 2015) and CMS models are com-
monly used to study the determinants of export performance. Many variables can affect
export volatility, including a trading partner’s GDP, distance between countries, infra-
structure, the macroeconomic environment, and financial market development; it is not
easy to comprehensively and accurately account for all of them. CMS, however, is able
to yield precise hypotheses and, thereby, indicates the direction for further research
(Ahmadi-Esfahani 2006). It is a “macroscopic” framework, which constitutes an impor-
tant supplement to the other empirical models, as well as a feasible method of analyzing
and exploring the factors involved (Zheng-Xin et al. 2017). The present study aimed to
fill gaps in the literature in the following ways: (1) We calculated the factors affecting
fluctuations in China’s aquatic product exports and their degree of contribution using a
CMS model based on the UN Comtrade Database covering 2000–2018. (2) We further
decomposed the factors and their contribution in terms of the destination market level
and the subdivision of aquatic product level. (3) Based on the results, we made sugges-
tions to support the development of China’s seafood exports and to help China’s major
trading partners to better understand trade with China and adjust their import policies
accordingly.

13
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533 2511

Overview of China’s seafood export trade

Export trade scale

China has seen the rapid development of its aquatic product exports in recent years.
However, it also faces many challenges and has experienced unstable growth, which
have affected its international market share and sustainable development.
Since joining the WTO in 2001, China’s aquatic product export trade has developed
rapidly. In 2000, the trade volume of China’s aquatic product exports was USD $3651.9
million. By 2004, it had reached $6631.3, with an annual growth rate of 26.63%. Since
2005, however, drug residues in aquatic products have posed an obstacle for Chinese
exports. The illegal use of malachite green in aquatic products was first exposed in
China in July 2005; subsequently, malachite green drug residues were found in Chinese
aquatic products exported to Japan, the EU, and Hong Kong (Yuxiang and Zheng 2006).
In the same year, the EU and Japan detected nitrofuran metabolite residues in Chinese
fish product exports (Yuxiang and Zheng 2006). Then, in 2006, the USA and Canada
both reported chloramphenicol, malachite green, nitrofuran, and other banned drugs in
Chinese aquatic products, while Japan detected endosulfan in Chinese eel (Zengsheng
and Zheng 2007). In 2007, some aquatic products exported by China were found to con-
tain vibrio cholera and methanol (Zengsheng and Zheng 2007). Although China took
measures to control drug residues in its aquatic products, these incidents contributed
to a slowdown of China’s aquatic product exports. The annual growth rate of exports
started to decrease after 2005. In 2009, affected by the global financial crisis, the annual
growth rate of China’s aquatic product exports fell to 1.33%. After 2009, however, as
the world economy recovered, exports resumed their high-speed growth, and China’s
aquatic exports more than doubled, from $10,222.5 in 2009 to $20,867 million in 2014.
Yet, with the various measures taken to rescue markets after the crisis, many govern-
ments faced serious fiscal deficits. A structural crisis in economic development began
to emerge, and the global economy entered another recession in 2015. At that time, the
annual growth rate of China’s aquatic product exports changed from positive to negative
and experienced another slowdown.
Regarding the global market share of Chinese aquatic product exports, during the peri-
ods of 2000–2006 and 2009–2012, China’s market share showed rapid growth while during
2004–2009 and 2012–2018, China’s market share fluctuated around 10.99% and 15.28%,
respectively. Table 1 shows the details.

Export trade structure

In the Standard International Trade Classification (SITC) Rev. 3, code 03 refers to aquatic
products; it is further classified into 034, 035, 036, and 037. Because of the differences
between 0371 and 0372, we divided China’s aquatic products into five subdivisions: 034,
035, 036, 0371, and 0372. Table 2 shows the definitions of the different codes.
Figures 1 and 2 show changes in the trade volume of China’s aquatic product subdivi-
sions and their share in China’s total aquatic product exports (SITC 03). Figure 1 shows a
general growth trend in the export volume of all subdivisions of China’s aquatic products.
From 2000 to 2018, codes 034, 035, 036, 0371, and 0372 increased by 521%, 345%, 390%,
293%, and 911%, respectively.

13
2512 Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533

Table 1  China’s aquatic product export volume, annual growth rate, and global market share; data based on
the UN Comtrade Database
Year Aquatic product export vol- Annual growth rate Market share of China’s aquatic product
ume (SITC 03; million USD) exports in global aquatic product export
volume

2000 3651.90 7.30

2001 3996.46 9.44 7.88
2002 4480.13 12.10 8.61
2003 5236.83 16.89 9.07
2004 6631.30 26.63 10.24
2005 7511.30 13.27 10.61
2006 8949.36 19.15 11.44
2007 9230.10 3.14 10.91
2008 10,088.08 9.30 10.96
2009 10,222.52 1.33 11.77
2010 13,198.08 29.11 13.13
2011 16,969.05 28.57 14.18
2012 18,122.34 6.80 15.16
2013 19,433.09 7.23 15.12
2014 20,867.07 7.38 15.34
2015 19,569.32 − 6.22 16.11
2016 19,998.68 2.19 15.31
2017 19,889.35 − 0.55 14.87
2018 21,029.25 5.73 15.07

Table 2  Aquatic product codes and definitions (from Standard International Trade Classification Rev. 3)
Code Definition

SITC 03 Fish (not marine mammals), crustaceans, mollusks, and aquatic invertebrates, and preparations
thereof
SITC 034 Fish, fresh (live or dead), chilled, or frozen
SITC 035 Fish, dried, salted, or in brine; smoked fish (whether or not cooked before or during the smok-
ing process); flours, meals, and pellets of fish; fit for human consumption
SITC 036 Crustaceans, mollusks, and aquatic invertebrates, whether in a shell or not; fresh (live or dead),
chilled, frozen, dried, salted, or in brine; crustaceans, in shell, cooked by steaming or boiling
in water, whether or not chilled, frozen, dried, or salted
SITC 037 Fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and other aquatic invertebrates; prepared or preserved; NES (not
elsewhere specified)
SITC 0371 Fish, prepared or preserved, NES; caviar and caviar substitutes prepared from fish eggs
SITC 0372 Crustaceans, mollusks, and other aquatic invertebrates, prepared or preserved; NES

Regarding the contributions of specific aquatic product subdivisions, in 2000, 034

accounted for 35.86% of the total export volume of China’s aquatic products. By 2018, it
had only grown to 38.67%, despite a fivefold increase in export volume. The contributions
made by 035, 036, and 0371 reduced from 3.02%, 23.02%, and 25.57% in 2000 to 2.33%,
19.57%, and 17.43%, respectively, in 2018. However, from 2000 to 2018, we can see the

13
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533 2513

Fig. 1  Changes in the export volume of China’s aquatic product subdivisions; data based on UN Comtrade
Database

Fig. 2  Contributions made by aquatic product subdivisions in China’s total aquatic product export volume;
data based on UN Comtrade Database

rapid development of 0372. Its share in China’s total aquatic product exports increased
from 12.53 to 22%, reflecting improvements in China’s ability to process crustaceans, mol-
lusks, and other aquatic invertebrates.

Market distribution

Here, to provide a better understanding of China’s major export markets for aquatic prod-
ucts, we first list the top 10 regions/partners in China’s aquatic product export trade. Then,
given that ASEAN and the EU are among the world’s largest regional economic organiza-
tions, and both have close economic relations with China, we also figured out the contribu-
tions of ASEAN and the EU to China’s aquatic product exports.
Table 3 shows that Japan, the USA, and South Korea are the top export destinations for
China’s aquatic products. Together, the three countries accounted for 79.28% and 70.48%

13
 2514

13
Table 3  Top 10 regions China exports SITC 03 to and their contribution to China’s aquatic product exports; data based on UN Comtrade Database
Year 2000 % 2004 % 2009 % 2014 % 2018 %

1 Japan 53.4 Japan 41.34 Japan 25.23 Japan 17.56 Japan 18.08
2 USA 14.19 South Korea 14.63 USA 19.89 USA 15.85 USA 15.41
3 South Korea 11.69 USA 14.51 South Korea 9.78 Hong Kong (China) 11.46 South Korea 8.76
4 Hong Kong (China) 5.68 Hong Kong (China) 6.34 Hong Kong (China) 5.13 South Korea 7.75 Other Asia, NES 8.68
5 Germany 2.94 Germany 3.48 Germany 4.79 Other Asia, NES 6.91 Hong Kong (China) 7.83
6 Spain 2.57 Mexico 2.11 Other Asia, NES 3.38 Thailand 4.11 Thailand 3.98
7 Canada 1.16 Canada 1.81 Russia 2.77 Malaysia 3.9 Philippines 3.31
8 Other Asia, NES 1.08 UK 1.59 Canada 2.67 Russia 3.1 Mexico 2.48
9 UK 0.91 Malaysia 1.5 Spain 2.53 Germany 2.42 Germany 2.32
10 France 0.74 Indonesia 1.5 Malaysia 2.48 Philippines 1.98 Russia 2.22
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533 2515

Table 4  Contribution of ASEAN and EU to China’s aquatic product exports; based on UN Comtrade Data-
base
Year (percentage) 2000 (%) 2004 (%) 2009 (%) 2014 (%) 2018 (%)

ASEAN 1.23 5.09 6.84 12.63 12.42

EU 11.71 10.96 17.85 9.55 9.99

The UK left the EU on January 31, 2020; since the export data in this study cover 2000–2018, EU data
include the UK.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

87
South Korea 25
10

34
EU 29
13

30
Japan 52
38

291
US 239
227

2018 2017 2016

Fig. 3  Cases of Chinese aquatic product exports rejected by South Korea, the EU, Japan, and the USA in
2016, 2017, and 2018; data based on annual reports by Shenzhen Institute of Standards and Technology

of China’s aquatic product exports (SITC 03) in 2000 and 2004, respectively. However,
their combined proportion decreased to 42.25% in 2018.
The EU is another major import destination for China’s aquatic products. Its proportion
increased from 11.71 in 2000 to 17.85% in 2009 and then decreased to 9.99% in 2018.
Table 4 shows the details.
Tables 3 and 4 show that Asian countries played an increasingly important role in Chi-
na’s exports. In 2000, ASEAN countries accounted for 1.23% of China’s aquatic product
exports, which increased to 12.42% in 2018. In addition, based on UN Comtrade statistics,
in 2014 and 2018, “other Asian countries” (countries not listed by UN Comtrade) ranked
fifth and fourth, respectively, among China’s top five export destination markets.
Generally speaking, the export markets for Chinese aquatic products began to show a
diversified trend. Table 3 gives details on the distributions of the top 10 regions for China’s
aquatic product exports in 2000, 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2018.

Rejected cases of aquatic product exports

China’s aquatic product exports have faced many difficulties, among which export rejection
has posed the most serious barrier to sustainable trade. Due to data limitations, only certain
refusal cases are presented.
Figure 3 shows cases of Chinese aquatic product exports being rejected by the FDA; the
Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan; the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed of

13
2516 Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533

the EU; and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of South Korea in 2016, 2017, and 2018.
The FDA rejected the largest number of products.
Figure 4 shows the number of refusals in 2018 and the related reasons. The top three rea-
sons were containing pesticide and veterinary drug residues, being unqualified in quality or
sensory examination, and containing microorganisms, such as bacteria.

Data and method

Method

The export trade scale, product structure, market distribution, and refusal cases of Chinese
aquatic products shown above present a picture of China’s aquatic product exports since 2000
and the possible reasons for fluctuations. However, descriptions based on UN Comtrade data
and China Fisheries Yearbooks cannot provide deep insight into the reasons for changes in
China’s aquatic product exports. For this reason, this study introduced a CMS model for fur-
ther analysis.
The CMS model assumes that a country’s share in the world market should remain
unchanged over time if the competitiveness of products remains constant. Therefore, changes
in a country’s exports may be attributable to changes in product competitiveness, resulting in
changes in market share. Such changes might also be the result of changes in the commodity
structure of the exporter or importer, or the interaction between the two. In terms of com-
modity structure, the model can help to understand whether a country’s exports are concen-
trated in products with more significant demand growth. Meanwhile, in terms of market struc-
ture, CMS can help to determine whether a country’s exports are concentrated in countries
or regions with the fastest growth in demand. It can also analyze the factors that affect export
trade volume under the different conditions of a constant market and constant product. Thus, it
is possible to decompose the factors that affect a country’s export trade volatility and quantify
each factor’s contribution to that country’s export trade performance, aiming to understand the
causes of and impediments to the growth of intercountry trade.
The basic form (first level) of the extended CMS model used in this study is as follows:
∑ ∑ 0 ∑ ∑ 0 ∑ ∑
s ΔQ + j Δsij Qij + j Δsij ΔQij
Δq = i j ij ij i i
(1)
(scale effect) (competitive effect) (second − order effect)

Fig. 4  Number of rejections and the reasons in 2018; data based on annual reports by Shenzhen Institute of
Standards and Technology

13
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533 2517

Then, the scale, competitive, and second-order effects are further decomposed as
follows:
�∑ ∑ � �∑ ∑ �
0 ∑ 0 0 ∑ 0
s0 ΔQ + i j sij 𝛥Qij − i si 𝛥Qi + i j sij 𝛥Qij − j sj 𝛥Qj ;
(scale–aggregate growth effect)
��∑ (scale market
� effect) (scale��product effect)
0
� ∑ ∑ 0 ∑ 0
i si 𝛥Qi − s0 ΔQ − i j sij 𝛥Qij − j sj 𝛥Qj ;
(scale interaction�effect)
Δq = �
+𝛥sQ0 0 0
∑ ∑
+ i j 𝛥sij Qij − 𝛥sQ ;
(competitive aggregate growth effect)
� 1 �∑ ∑ �∑ ∑ � 1product�effect)
(competitive �
Q 0 Q ∑ ∑ 0
Q0
− 1 i j 𝛥s Q
ij ij + i j 𝛥sij 𝛥Q ij − Q0
−1 i j 𝛥sij Qij .
(pure second−order effect) (dynamic structural residual)
(2)
The meanings of the notations in Eqs. (1) and (2) and the interpretations of the first-
and second-level decompositions are as follows: Δq represents the change in the export
value of a country’s aquatic products within a time span; 0 and 1 are superscripts that
denote the initial year and the final year of the comparison, respectively; i and j are
subscripts that indicate a certain product and target market; Q refers to the total import
value of aquatic products in the world market; Qij is the total import value of product
i in target market j; S denotes the proportion of China’s total aquatic product exports
in the total worldwide import of aquatic products; and Sij is the proportion of China’s
aquatic product export i in the overall imported aquatic product i of target market j in
the world market.
The meanings of the various effects are as follows: The scale effect ( i j s0ij ΔQij )
∑ ∑
refers to changes in export value due to changes in the structure and scale of the import-
ing market’s demand, under the assumption that the exporting country’s market shares
are still constant in the importing markets. This can be further decomposed into four
effects. The scale–aggregate growth effect ( s0 ΔQ ) denotes changes in the export value
of the exporting country due to changes in the whole market’s import scale. The scale
market effect ( i j s0ij ΔQij− i s0i ΔQi ) denotes changes in export value due to changes
∑ ∑ ∑
in the exporting country’s market share. The positive value represents the country’s
exports to a market where demand is growing rapidly, and the negative value denotes
the country’s exports to a market where demand is growing slowly. The scale product
effect ( i j s0ij ΔQij− j s0j ΔQj ) indicates changes in export value due to changes in the
∑ ∑ ∑
proportions of different products; this reflects the degree of compatibility between Chi-
na’s aquatic product exports and the products imported in the target market with faster
growth. A positive value means that products exported by the country are products
with a growing demand in the import market while a negative value reflects means the
exported products are products with slow growth in market demand. The scale interac-
tion effect [( i s0i ΔQi − s0 ΔQ) − ( i j s0ij ΔQij − j s0j ΔQj )] denotes changes in export
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
value due to the interaction between product structure and market effect.
The competitive effect ( i j Δsij Q0ij ) refers to changes in export value due to
∑ ∑
changes in the exporting country’s competitiveness, under the assumption that the struc-
ture and size of the importing markets remain unchanged. This reflects the exporting
country’s ability to maintain its market share in the importing markets. This can be fur-
ther decomposed into two effects. The competitive aggregate growth effect (ΔsQ0 ) indi-
cates changes in export value due to changes in the exporting country’s total competi-
tiveness; this is reflected by the country’s export share under the assumption that the
demand of importing markets remains unchanged. The competitive product effect

13
2518 Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533

( i j Δsij Q0ij−ΔsQ0 ) refers to changes in export value due to changes in the exporting
∑ ∑

country’s market share with various commodities in the importing target markets.
The second-order effect ( i j Δsij ΔQij ) refers to changes in export value due to inter-
∑ ∑
action between changes in the exporting country’s competitiveness and changes in the
structure and scale of the importing market’s demand. This can be further decomposed into
Q1
two effects. The pure second-order effect [( Q − 1) i j Δsij Q0ij ] denotes changes in export
∑ ∑
0

value due to the interaction between a country’s export competitiveness (export market
share) and changes in the importing market’s demand. If the value is greater than 0, the
change in the export competitiveness of a country’s aquatic products is consistent with the
change in the scale of the importing markets and vice versa. The dynamic structural resid-
1
ual [ i j Δsij ΔQij − ( Q − 1) i j Δsij Q0ij ] indicates changes in exports due to the inter-
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
Q0
action between the exporting country’s competitiveness (export market share) and changes
in the structure of the importing market’s demand.

Data sources and stage divisions

All of the data for aquatic product exports from 2000 to 2018 came from the UN Comtrade
Database. We put the data into the CMS model for calculation and analysis. As mentioned
earlier, in SITC Rev. 3, aquatic products belong to code 03, which is divided into four parts
(034, 035, 036, and 037; see Table 2). Because of differences between codes 0371 and
0372, we divided aquatic products into five parts (034, 035, 036, 0371, 0372). Regarding
destination markets, we selected the USA, Japan, South Korea, ASEAN countries, and the
EU since they are the major importers of Chinese aquatic products.
The study period was divided into five stages based on the analysis in the “Export trade
scale” section. The first stage is 2000–2004, when China’s aquatic product exports grew
quickly after WTO accession. The second stage is 2004–2008, during which the annual
growth rate was unstable. The third stage covers 2008–2009, the period of the global finan-
cial crisis. The fourth stage is 2009–2014, when aquatic product exports rose quickly due
to recovery from the crisis. The last stage is 2014–2018.

Results and discussion

First‑level decomposition of the CMS model

Table 5 shows that the first stage (2000–2004) saw the rapid development of China’s
aquatic product exports, which increased quickly by USD 2979.4 million. Scale effect,
competitive effect, and second-order effect all promoted the growth of aquatic product
exports, with contributions of 30.27%, 53.87%, and 15.86% respectively. After China’s
accession to the WTO in 2001, it increased investment in aquaculture and fisheries and set
up development funds to renovate fish/shrimp breeding ponds and purchase instruments
and equipment to promote fishery development. China also organized research projects on
fisheries at that time and enacted laws and regulations to promote exports. With China’s
rich fishery resources and low labor costs, at this stage, the competitive effect dominated
increases in China’s aquatic product exports, followed by scale and second-order effects.
During the second stage (2004–2008), China’s aquatic product exports continued to
show a growing trend, and three effects played a positive role. Now, however, the scale

13
 Table 5  Decomposition of factors affecting fluctuations in China’s aquatic product exports, 2000–2018 (unit: million USD); data based on UN Comtrade Database
Decomposition 2000–2004 2004–2008 2008–2009 2009–2014 2014–2018

Export volume Percentage (%) Export volume Percentage (%) Export volume Percentage (%) Export volume Percentage (%) Export volume Percentage (%)

Change in export 2979.40 100.00 3456.78 100.00 134.44 100.00 10,644.55 100.00 162.18 100.00
volume
1. Scale effect 901.78 30.27 1600.58 46.30 − 760.02 − 565.33 6161.77 57.89 991.50 611.36
Scale − aggre- 1075.16 36.09 2792.27 80.78 − 563.45 − 419.11 5782.50 54.32 538.72 332.18
gate growth
effect
Scale market − 303.05 − 10.17 − 1513.26 − 43.78 61.55 45.79 437.34 4.11 315.61 194.61
effect
Scale product 164.43 5.52 90.22 2.61 − 351.25 − 261.27 146.90 1.38 519.93 320.59
effect
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533

Scale interaction − 34.76 − 1.17 231.36 6.69 93.12 69.27 − 204.97 − 1.93 − 382.77 − 236.02
effect
2. Competitive 1605.09 53.87 916.28 26.51 751.33 558.86 2719.63 25.55 − 928.07 − 572.25
effect
Competitive 1471.13 49.38 467.61 13.53 739.17 549.82 3105.43 29.17 − 367.06 − 226.33
aggregate
growth effect
Competitive 133.96 4.50 448.67 12.98 12.16 9.04 − 385.79 − 3.62 − 561.00 − 345.92
product effect
3. Second-order 472.53 15.86 939.92 27.19 143.13 106.46 1763.15 16.56 98.75 60.89
effect
Pure second- 472.56 15.86 385.82 11.16 − 41.96 − 31.21 1538.40 14.45 − 23.96 − 14.77
order effect
Dynamic struc- − 0.02 0.00 554.10 16.03 185.09 137.68 224.75 2.11 122.71 75.66
tural residual

13
2519
2520 Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533

effect had become the most important contributor. The contribution of the competitive
effect decreased from 53.87% in the previous period to 26.51%, becoming the least impor-
tant factor. High antidumping duties imposed by the USA on Chinese shrimp in 2004, as
well as a series of aquatic product safety incidents, dramatically reduced the competitive-
ness of China’s aquatic products in the international market.
The global financial crisis occurred during the third stage (2008–2009). It spread to
almost all areas of the global economy, caused a great recession, increased unemploy-
ment rates, and negatively affected international trade. During this period, China’s aquatic
product export trade value increased by only $134.44 million. Compared to the previ-
ous two stages, for the first time, the scale effect inhibited rather than enhanced China’s
aquatic product exports, meaning the entire global demand for aquatic products was greatly
reduced. The scale effect decreased the export volume of the industry by $760.02 million.
During the fourth stage (2009–2014), with the recovery of the global economy, the
international trade of aquatic products entered a stage of rapid development. China’s
aquatic product exports increased by $10,644.55 million, reaching their highest point. The
scale effect turned positive again and became a major factor promoting China’s export
trade value, leading to an increase of $6161.77 million, with a contribution of 57.89%; this
indicated rapid growth in the global import demand for aquatic products. The contributions
of competitive and second-order effects were 25.55% and 16.56%, respectively.
During the fifth stage (2014–2018), the growth of China’s aquatic product exports
was again blocked. As a result of various government measures taken in response to the
2008 crisis, the growth rate of the global economy slowed down again in 2015. Moreo-
ver, stricter SPS and TBT related to aquatic product imports, increased antisubsidy and
antidumping investigations, and fiercer competition from other aquatic product produc-
ers all affected China’s aquatic product exports to a certain extent. During this period, the
export trade value of China’s aquatic products only increased by $162.18 million, almost
equal to the amount during 2008–2009. The scale effect played the main role in promot-
ing China’s export value, with a contribution of 611.36%, followed by the second-order
effect. The competitive effect significantly inhibited exports, contributing − 572.25% to the
change in China’s trade value, indicating that China’s aquatic product competitiveness was
at a disadvantage.

Second‑level decomposition of the CMS model

We further decomposed the scale effect. From 2000 to 2004, the scale–aggregate growth
effect and scale product effect jointly increased China’s aquatic product exports, contrib-
uting 36.09% and 5.52%, respectively. The growing global demand for aquatic products
promoted Chinese exports, and China’s export product structure was consistent with the
structure of global import demand. However, the contributions of scale market and scale
interaction effects were negative, with values of − 10.17% and − 1.17%, respectively.
From 2004 to 2008, the scale–aggregate growth, scale product, and scale interaction
effects all played positive roles, enhancing China’s aquatic product exports by $2792.27,
$90.22, and $231.36 million, respectively. Scale–aggregate growth effect was the most
influential effect, contributing 80.78%. However, the influence of the scale market effect
decreased from − 10.17 to − 43.78%, indicating that China’s export market distribution
became less suited to global demand and needed adjustment.
During 2008–2009, with the spread of financial crisis, the global import demand for
aquatic products declined sharply. Scale–aggregate growth and product effects changed

13
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533 2521

from positive to negative. The continuous decline of the scale product effect indicated that
China’s aquatic product exports were not products with a growing demand in import mar-
kets. Although the scale market and interaction effects were positive, they contributed very
little to an increase in exports.
During 2009–2014, following recovery from the crisis, global import demand for
aquatic products grew substantially. The scale–aggregate growth effect became the most
important contributor, increasing China’s exports by $5782.5 million and contributing
54.32%. Scale market and scale product effects also played a positive role, indicating that
China’s product structure and market distribution were in line with global demand. At this
stage, the scale interaction effect was negative but insignificant at − 1.93%.
From 2014 to 2018, the scale–aggregate growth, scale market, and scale product effects
continued to be positive, increasing China’s exports by $538.72, $315.61, and $519.93
million, respectively. The improvement of the scale market and scale product effects indi-
cated that China’s export market distribution and product structure both matched well
with global import demand. At this stage, the contribution of the scale interaction effect
was − 236.02%, indicating that the interaction of product structure and market effect played
a negative role.
Next, we further decomposed the competitive effect. From 2000 to 2004, the compet-
itive aggregate growth effect had the greatest effect on China’s aquatic product exports,
increasing them by $1471.13 million and contributing 49.38%. This indicated the strong
overall competitiveness of China’s aquatic product exports. It continued to play positive
but fluctuating role in promoting China’s aquatic product exports during the three peri-
ods of 2004–2008, 2008–2009, and 2009–2014. Then, from 2014 to 2018, the competi-
tive aggregate growth effect was negative, contributing − 226.33% and decreasing China’s
aquatic product exports by 367.06 million. Thus, China’s share in global aquatic products
was greatly reduced.
Regarding the competitive product effect, a positive value means a specific product’s
competitiveness, reflected by market share, has a favorable effect on the country’s exports;
a negative value indicates otherwise. During the periods of 2000–2004, 2004–2008, and
2008–2009, the contributions of the competitive product effect were positive at 4.5%,
12.98%, and 9.04%, respectively, promoting China’s aquatic product exports by $133.96,
$448.67, and $12.16 million, respectively. However, from 2009 to 2014, the competitive
product effect turned negative and reduced China’s aquatic product exports by $385.79
million, with a contribution of − 3.62%. Worse, it continued to drop from 2014 to 2018,
indicating China’s competitiveness with regard to specific products was declining.
We turn now to the second-order effect. During the periods of 2000–2004, 2004–2008,
and 2009–2014, the contributions of the pure second-order effect were positive. This indi-
cates that the change in the export competitiveness of China’s aquatic products was consist-
ent with changes in the scale of importing markets. However, from 2008 to 2009 and 2014
to 2018, it was negative, decreasing China’s aquatic product exports by $41.96 and $23.96
million, respectively.
In terms of the dynamic structural residual effect, from 2000 to 2004, it had nearly no
effect on China’s exports. However, after that, for the periods of 2004–2008, 2008–2009,
2009–2014, and 2014–2018, it promoted China’s aquatic product exports by $554.1,
$185.09, $224.75, and $122.71 million, respectively. Table 5 shows the details.
Overall, the competitiveness effect played a leading role in aquatic product exports dur-
ing the early stage of China’s WTO accession. Then, the scale effect became the dominant
factor, meaning international market demand largely influenced the trade volume of Chi-
nese aquatic product exports. Meanwhile, China’s export market distribution and product

13
2522 Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533

structure became more adapted to the needs of international markets. However, the ana-
lyzed data indicated that China’s competitiveness was on the decline.

Decomposition of factors affecting fluctuations in China’s aquatic product exports

at the market level using CMS

In this part, we consider the main destination markets for China’s aquatic product exports,
including the USA, Japan, South Korea, ASEAN countries, and the EU. A CMS model
was used to decompose and analyze the reasons for changes in China’s aquatic product
exports to its partners.
Table 6 shows that, over time, the dominant factor influencing changes in the volume of
China’s aquatic product exports to the USA varied from the competitive effect to the scale
effect. The second-order effect fluctuated between positive and negative, but, generally
speaking, its contribution was insignificant. All of this indicates that the growth of Chi-
na’s aquatic product exports to the USA was mainly attributable to the increasing import
demand of the USA while the competitiveness of Chinese aquatic products was declining
in the USA. In 2018, the USA started imposing tariffs on various Chinese imports, and
China imposed tariffs on US imports in response. This trade friction between the USA and
China continued to escalate. There was a time lag between the release of the list of tariffed
goods and the official implementation, which provided a buffer for aquatic product suppli-
ers and distributors; this is why there was not a steep decline in aquatic product trade in
2018. In the long run, however, US–China trade friction had a significant negative effect
on the aquatic product trade sector. Fish producers and processors that exported to the USA
were at risk of closure. China’s tariffs on US soybeans raised the cost of aquatic feed to a
certain extent, squeezing the profit margins of enterprises. A failure to resolve US–China
trade friction would mean a pessimistic outlook for US–China aquatic product trade.
Regarding the Japanese market, from 2000 to 2004, the competitive effect was the dom-
inant factor, contributing 100.92%, far greater than the 0.66% and 0.27% contributions of
scale effect and second-order effect, respectively. After that time, the scale effect began to
play a more important role in fluctuations in the value of aquatic product exports to Japan.
Unlike the USA, during 2014–2018, the scale effect, competitive effect, and second-order
effect all played positive roles, with contributions of 32.86%, 66.33%, and 0.81%, respec-
tively. China’s competitiveness in the Japanese market was the dominant factor enhancing
China’s aquatic product exports. After Japan’s implementation of the Positive List of Pes-
ticide Residues in Food, Chinese fishery exports to Japan started to face difficulties. Nev-
ertheless, China and Japan have strengthened their cooperation in various fishery-related
fields in recent years. After certain substandard fishery enterprises exporting to Japan were
eliminated, Chinese fishery products started to maintain a degree of competitiveness in the
Japanese market.
In the South Korean market, the contribution of scale effect remained positive and con-
tinued to increase, except during 2008–2009. This indicates that changes in exports of Chi-
na’s aquatic products to South Korea mainly depended on import demand. Meanwhile, the
competitiveness effect showed a downward trend, implying that China had a weak ability
to maintain its market share in South Korea. Moreover, after 2004, the second-order effect
began to inhibit China’s exports.
In the ASEAN market, the scale effect played the most important role in China’s
aquatic product exports, except during 2000–2004 and 2008–2009. Although there
was an increasingly stable import demand in the ASEAN market for China’s aquatic

13
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533 2523

products, the competitive effect continuously declined. During 2014–2018, the scale
effect increased China’s aquatic product exports by $75.07 million while the competi-
tive and second-order effects decreased exports by $45.71 and $1.30 million, respec-
tively. The establishment of the ASEAN–China Free Trade Area strengthened coopera-
tion between the two parties. However, in terms of aquatic product exports, China is not
very competitive in the ASEAN market. China is adjacent to ASEAN countries and has
similar fishery resources. China therefore faces competition from large fishery countries
within ASEAN. China should therefore consider ways to strengthen the complementa-
rity of aquatic product trade with ASEAN countries according to their respective indus-
trial structures.
Regarding the EU market, during the five stages, the contributions of the scale
effect were far greater than the contributions of the competitive effect, except dur-
ing 2004–2008. Regarding competitive effect, during 2009–2014 and 2014–2018, it
decreased China’s aquatic product exports by $275.84 and $27.02 million, contribut-
ing − 164.04% and − 18.43%, respectively. This showed that China’s competitiveness
(market share) of aquatic product exports in the EU was declining. The EU’s inspection
and quarantine standards for fish imports are stringent and frequently updated. Although
in recent years China has increased its aquatic product trade with certain EU countries,
China’s competitiveness in the EU market is generally low.
Apart from the main destination markets mentioned above, in other countries, dur-
ing 2000–2004, 2008–2009, 2009–2014, and 2014–2018, the competitive effect played
a dominant factor and helped increase China’s exports. In recent years, China has par-
ticipated in various trade-related negotiations, promoted the construction of free trade
zones, fostered international fishery cooperation, pushed for a favorable environment
for aquatic product trade, and expanded the aquatic product export markets. This is why
China has been able to maintain competitiveness in a number of countries.

Decomposition of factors affecting fluctuations in China’s aquatic product exports

at the product subdivision level using CMS

Here, we account for the subdivision of aquatic products (SITC 03), including 034, 035,
036, 0371, and 0372. In this case, the CMS model was not needed to consider market
distribution.

SITC 034

As shown in Table 7, except for 2008–2009 (the global financial crisis), in all other
stages, the scale effect associated with 034 was positive and played a dominant role
in promoting its export value for China. This means it was global demand that helped
increase China’s export volume of 034.
Overall, however, the competitive effect associated with 034 showed a declin-
ing trend, except during 2008–2009. From 2014 to 2018, its contribution plunged
to − 677.7%, indicating that China’s competitiveness in 034 was declining.
Although the second-order effect fluctuated between positive and negative, during
the whole period, it had the least effect on China’s exports of 034.

13
 Table 6  Decomposition of factors affecting fluctuations in China’s aquatic product exports at the market level, 2000–2018 (unit: million USD); data based on UN Comtrade
2524

Database
Market Decomposi- 2000–2004 2004–2008 2008–2009 2009–2014 2014–2018

13
tion
Export Percentage Export Percentage Export Percentage Export Percentage Export Percentage
volume (%) volume (%) volume (%) volume (%) volume (%)

USA Change of 443.88 100.00% 1067.99 100.00% 2.97 100.00% 1273.99 100.00% − 28.32 100.00%
export
volume
Scale effect 68.00 15.32 237.73 22.26 − 111.48 − 3750.11 1230.63 96.60 − 80.92 285.71
Competitive 332.28 74.86 665.77 62.34 121.10 4073.81 27.01 2.12 53.91 − 190.37
effect
Second-order 43.60 9.82 164.49 15.40 − 6.65 − 223.70 16.35 1.28 − 1.32 4.66
effect
Japan Change of 789.91 100.00% − 64.17 100.00% − 98.47 100.00% 1085.94 100.00% 135.56 100.00%
export
volume
Scale effect − 5.18 − 0.66 − 135.41 211.03 − 198.42 201.50 635.17 58.49 44.55 32.86
Competitive 797.20 100.92 74.95 − 116.80 107.95 − 109.63 361.69 33.31 89.92 66.33
effect
Second-order − 2.12 − 0.27 − 3.70 5.77 − 8.00 8.12 89.08 8.20 1.09 0.81
effect
South Change of 543.57 100.00% 113.79 100.00% − 84.62 100.00% 617.66 100.00% 125.82 100.00%
Korea export
volume
Scale effect 339.41 62.44 186.88 164.24 193.69 − 228.89 637.32 103.18 189.29 150.45
Competitive 113.72 20.92 − 61.29 − 53.86 − 236.13 279.03 − 12.00 − 1.94 − 56.82 − 45.16
effect
Second-order 90.44 16.64 − 11.80 − 10.37 − 42.19 49.85 − 7.65 − 1.24 − 6.65 − 5.29
effect
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533
 Table 6  (continued)
Market Decomposi- 2000–2004 2004–2008 2008–2009 2009–2014 2014–2018
tion
Export Percentage Export Percentage Export Percentage Export Percentage Export Percentage
volume (%) volume (%) volume (%) volume (%) volume (%)

ASEAN Change of 292.42 100.00% 228.18 100.00% 133.17 100.00% 1937.34 100.00% 28.06 100.00%
export
volume
Scale effect 18.98 6.49 243.06 106.52 − 21.85 − 16.41 1665.83 85.99 75.07 267.56
Competitive 192.26 65.75 − 8.65 − 3.79 161.26 121.09 80.23 4.14 − 45.71 − 162.92
effect
Second-order 81.17 27.76 − 6.23 − 2.73 − 6.23 − 4.68 191.28 9.87 − 1.30 − 4.64
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533

effect
EU Change of 298.97 100.00% 1163.32 100.00% − 64.96 100.00% 168.15 100.00% 146.66 100.00%
export
volume
Scale effect 184.93 61.86 417.01 35.85 − 205.78 316.81 523.04 311.06 176.07 120.05
Competitive 79.61 26.63 474.15 40.76 158.04 − 243.30 − 275.84 − 164.04 − 27.02 − 18.43
effect
Second-order 34.43 11.52 272.16 23.40 − 17.21 26.49 − 79.06 − 47.02 − 2.39 − 1.63
effect
Others Change of 610.66 100.00% 947.68 100.00% 246.34 100.00% 5561.48 100.00% − 245.60 100.00%
export
volume
Scale effect 131.20 21.48 561.11 59.21 − 64.93 − 26.36 1322.89 23.79 67.50 − 27.48
Competitive 327.50 53.63 237.44 25.06 322.65 130.98 2594.41 46.65 − 310.35 126.37
effect
Second-order 151.96 24.89 149.13 15.74 − 11.38 − 4.62 1644.18 29.56 − 2.74 1.12
effect

13
2525
2526 Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533

SITC 035

As for 035, during 2000–2004, the scale and competitive effects played nearly equal roles
in increasing China’s exports. Then, during 2004–2008 and 2009–2014, the scale, com-
petitive, and second-order effects continued to jointly promote China’s exports of 035, with
scale effect being dominant. Then, during 2014–2018, China’s exports of 035 were reduced
by $4.6 million, and the competitiveness effect was the dominant factor reducing exports
by $36.80 million. At this stage, the scale effect increased China’s exports of 035 by $34.78
million. This means China’s competitiveness in 035 needed improvement.
During all of the periods, the second-order effect contributed the least contribution to
fluctuations in 035 exports. During 2000–2004, 2004–2008, and 2009–2014, the second-
order effect increased China’s exports of 035, while in 2008–2009 and 2014–2018, it
decreased China’s exports.

SITC 036

During 2000–2009, fluctuations in exports of 036 were mainly attributable to the com-
petitive effect. During 2000–2004 and 2008–2009, the competitive effect promoted Chi-
na’s exports of 036. However, during 2004–2008, the competitive effect inhibited China’s
exports. Then, scale effect began to play a dominant role. During 2009–2014, scale, com-
petitive, and second-order effects increased China’s exports of 036 by $1650.46, 1030.80,
and $837.95 million, contributing 46.90%, 29.29%, and 23.81%, respectively. However,
from 2014 to 2018, China’s exports of 036 dropped sharply. The scale effect and competi-
tive effect decreased 036 exports by $964.27 and $567.71 million, respectively. This indicated
that the global demand for 036 and China’s market share of 036 both decreased significantly.

SITC 0371

During 2000–2004, only scale effect was positive, indicating that global demand was the
main reason for China’s export increase of 0371. Then, during 2004–2008, 2009–2014,
and 2014–2018, China’s competitiveness in 0371 steadily increased. From 2014 to 2018,
competitive, scale, and second-order effects all helped promote China’s increase in 0371
exports. This time, however, the contribution of the competitive effect was 54.14%, fol-
lowed by scale effect and second-order effect. This reflected the development and improve-
ment of China’s processing technology for aquatic product 0371.
The contribution of the second-order effect associated with 0371 helped increase Chi-
na’s exports of 0371, except during 2000–2004.

SITC 0372

During 2000–2004 and 2004–2008, all three effects promoted China’s increases in 0372
exports, with competitive and scale effects alternately playing the leading role. During
2009–2014 and 2014–2018, the scale effect associated with 0372 was positive, represent-
ing a steady contribution. This means international import demand for 0372 was the major
and stable effect increasing China’s exports of 0372 from 2009 to 2018. Meanwhile, the
competitive effect was improving with regard to 0372. From 2014 to 2018, its contribution

13
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533 2527

grew to 41.31%, compared to 29.72% during 2009–2014, indicating that China’s process-
ing technology for 0371 was improving, and its market share was increasing.
During the whole period, the second-order effect continued to improve China’s exports
of 0372, although its contribution fluctuated. This indicates that the interaction between
changes in China’s competitiveness and changes in the structure and scale of import
demand was good for 0372 exports.
Generally speaking, global demand dominated the changes in China’s exports of 034,
035, and 036. Moreover, we can see improved competitiveness with regard to 0371 and
0372 in global markets.

Conclusion and policy suggestions

Conclusion

China’s aquatic product exports have grown rapidly over the past 20 years, with the volume
of export trade nearly sextupling and the market share doubling. Using an extended CMS
model, we decomposed the factors affecting export fluctuations in China’s aquatic products.
Generally speaking, the empirical results showed that changes in the international import
demand for aquatic products were the most important factor affecting China’s aquatic prod-
uct exports. During 2004–2008, 2009–2014, and 2014–2018, the scale–aggregate growth
effect was the most significant factor promoting China’s aquatic product exports, with con-
tribution rates of 80.78%, 54.32%, and 332.18%, respectively. Meanwhile, after 2009, the
scale market and scale product effects both increased China’s aquatic product exports. This
indicates that China’s export structure for aquatic products and its market distribution were
becoming increasingly consistent with global market demand. Moreover, the competitive
effect, including the competitive aggregate growth effect and competitive product effect,
was declining. Therefore, areas China should focus on include improving the quality of
aquatic products, meeting importing countries’ SPS norms, and maintaining aquatic prod-
uct market share and competitiveness.
As for market destinations, China’s aquatic product market distribution showed a diver-
sified trend. In 2000, Japan occupied 53.4% of China’s total export volume for aquatic prod-
ucts; by 2018, it was reduced to 18.08%. The proportion of seafood exports to the USA,
South Korea, and the EU also declined from 2009 to 2018. At the same time, the share of
exports to other Asian countries increased. That said, Japan, the USA, and South Korea
remain the top three importers of Chinese aquatic products. In this regard, China needs to
consider how to further diversify and optimize its export destination markets and reduce
risks. The results also indicated that scale effect showed a growing trend while the com-
petitive effect had a declining trend in the USA, South Korea, ASEAN countries, and the
EU. This suggests that the rapid growth of China’s seafood exports was mainly attributable
to growing global demand for aquatic products rather than improved competitiveness. As
people become increasingly concerned about the safety and quality of aquatic products,
the inspection and quarantine requirements set by many seafood-importing countries are
becoming more stringent. How to meet such requirements and improve its export competi-
tiveness and market share poses a major challenge for China.
Regarding the subdivision of aquatic products, China’s aquatic products were mainly
concentrated on labor- and resource-intensive types. After 2009, scale effect was the most
important factor affecting China’s exports of 034 and 036. Since 034 and 036 are not

13
 Table 7  Decomposition of factors affecting fluctuations in China’s aquatic product exports at the product subdivision level, 2000–2018 (unit: million USD); data based on UN
2528

Comtrade Database
Sub-divi- Decomposi- 2000–2004 2004–2008 2008–2009 2009–2014 2014–2018

13
sion tion
Export Percentage Export Percentage Export Percentage Export Percentage Export Percentage
volume (%) Volume (%) volume (%) volume (%) volume (%)

SITC-034 Change of 1211.99 100.00 1352.60 100.00 613.20 100.00 3541.66 100.00 103.78 100.00
export
volume
Scale effect 547.61 45.18 1191.90 88.12 − 65.36 − 10.66 2194.42 61.96 884.49 852.30
Competitive 468.48 38.65 109.12 8.07 690.20 112.56 904.79 25.55 − 703.24 − 677.65
effect
Second- 195.89 16.16 51.58 3.81 − 11.64 − 1.90 442.45 12.49 − 77.47 − 74.65
order
effect
SITC-035 Change of 75.43 100.00 94.24 100.00 5.47 100.00 209.59 100.00 − 4.60 100.00
export
volume
Scale effect 31.79 42.14 68.31 72.48 − 33.45 − 611.19 114.52 54.64 34.78 − 755.25
Competitive 33.88 44.91 18.96 20.12 44.20 807.72 67.84 32.37 − 36.80 799.10
effect
Second- 9.77 12.95 6.98 7.40 − 5.28 − 96.53 27.23 12.99 − 2.59 56.15
order
effect
SITC-036 Change of 489.63 100.00 − 313.26 100.00 1013.11 100.00 3519.20 100.00 − 1433.34 100.00
export
volume
Scale effect 74.89 15.30 248.44 − 79.31 − 32.91 − 3.25 1650.46 46.90 − 964.27 67.27
Competitive 380.82 77.78 − 473.31 151.09 1081.00 106.70 1030.80 29.29 − 567.71 39.61
effect
Second- 33.92 6.93 − 88.38 28.21 − 34.98 − 3.45 837.95 23.81 98.64 − 6.88
order
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533

effect
 Table 7  (continued)
Sub-divi- Decomposi- 2000–2004 2004–2008 2008–2009 2009–2014 2014–2018
sion tion
Export Percentage Export Percentage Export Percentage Export Percentage Export Percentage
volume (%) Volume (%) volume (%) volume (%) volume (%)

SITC-0371 Change of 255.09 100.00 1129.34 100.00 − 680.49 100.00 1372.00 100.00 655.69 100.00
export
volume
Scale effect 370.74 145.34 906.57 80.27 − 358.85 52.73 710.31 51.77 268.98 41.02
Competitive − 82.78 − 32.45 126.39 11.19 − 380.55 55.92 461.52 33.64 354.99 54.14
effect
Second- − 32.87 − 12.88 96.38 8.53 58.91 − 8.66 200.17 14.59 31.73 4.84
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533

order
effect
SITC-0372 Change of 947.26 100.00 1193.85 100.00 − 816.85 100.00 2002.10 100.00 840.65 100.00
export
volume
Scale effect 179.80 18.98 698.62 58.52 − 331.01 40.52 1054.73 52.68 451.91 53.76
Competitive 550.92 58.16 330.74 27.70 − 556.77 68.16 595.09 29.72 347.27 41.31
effect
Second- 216.54 22.86 164.49 13.78 70.92 − 8.68 352.28 17.60 41.48 4.93
order
effect

13
2529
2530 Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533

high-value-added aquatic products, in recent years, their market share has been challenged
by competition from newly emerging Asian seafood exporters. However, the competitive
effects of 0371 and 0372 showed growth, partly because of improvements in China’s pro-
cessing technologies in recent years. In more developed economies, fish processing has
diversified into high-value-added products; likewise, in many developing countries, fish
processing has been evolving from traditional methods to more advanced value-adding
processes, depending on commodity and market value (FAO 2020a). Processed aquatic
products therefore show some promising prospects. Yet, China still has a long way to go in
terms of improving processing technologies and optimizing the aquatic product structure.

Policy suggestions

Maintaining China’s aquatic product export trade lies not only in adjusting the product
structure and market distribution to meet global import demands and improving product
competitiveness but also in ensuring sustainable fishery and aquaculture. Therefore, the
recommendations that follow are put forward.

(1) Sustainable fishery production is the basis for sustainable fish-export trade. It is there-
fore necessary to strengthen legal instruments to maintain the fishery ecosystem and
establish an early warning mechanism for environmental pollution. It is also important
to develop stock assessment methods and accurate data collection techniques to monitor
the status of stocks and assess potential sustainability.
(2) Seafood company operators should be encouraged to adopt good practices, such as good
hygiene and manufacturing practices. They also need to use a hazard analysis and critical
control point system to assess whether their performance objectives are being achieved and
whether their control measures are effective. Such measures can help guarantee the quality
and safety of aquatic products and enhance international competitiveness.
(3) It is suggested that related departments should increase science and technology invest-
ment, strengthen R&D on genetic breeding and disease prevention, and improve equip-
ment and technology for fishing, breeding, and processing. Seafood enterprises should
be encouraged to strengthen cooperation with universities and scientific research insti-
tutions at home and abroad. Using scientific and technological means, the industry can
reduce production costs, improve quality, increase added value, and enhance interna-
tional competitiveness.
(4) China should actively respond to technical barriers to trade (TBT). Drawing on the
experiences of developed countries, China can build standardized systems for aquatic
product quality and safety; further revise standards; strengthen the quality supervision
of production, processing, and transportation; and participate in the formulation of
industry standards. In the short term, TBT has had a negative effect on China’s exports,
but in the long run, it can help improve China’s quality management system for seafood,
thereby promoting industry development and connecting with international practice.
(5) It is important to increase research on the import needs, preferences, and requirements
of major seafood-importing countries and partners. The structure of China’s aquatic
product exports should be adjusted to obtain the complementary advantages of import
and export trade and maintain market share in these traditional markets. At the same
time, enterprises should be guided to participate in or hold exhibitions, fairs, and pro-
motional meetings to publicize China’s aquatic products. This can help enhance the
popularity of China’s aquatic products and open up new markets.

13
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533 2531

(6) China itself is a large importer of aquatic products. It is suggested to strengthen research on
domestic fish consumption needs and preferences and encourage fish-selling enterprises
to implement innovations in consumption patterns, distribution methods, and marketing
methods to expand domestic demand and reduce dependence on global market demand.
(7) It is necessary for China’s related departments to strengthen its exchange with other
countries’ fishery departments and set up a consultation mechanism. This could provide
a platform for both departments to consult on issues related to seafood-trade disputes,
ecosystem protection, and sustainable development.
(8) At the local level, it is suggested to give full play to the role of industry associations
and encourage private fishery associations to establish federations with relevant foreign
fishery NGOs to deepen their understanding of local fishing conditions and people’s
needs through exchange and cooperation. This could contribute to the smooth imple-
mentation of cooperative projects and bilateral trade.

Today, sustainable development goals have been agreed upon by 194 UN member states
to guide development policies and initiatives in the coming years (Hambrey 2017). Main-
taining the sustainable development of fishery production is one of the goals of China’s
national 5-year plan. However, the external international environment impacts the sus-
tainable development of aquatic product exports. The recent escalation of trade tensions
between China and the USA created uncertainty in the global fish market, and a number
of heavily traded fish items were included on both countries’ lists of tariffs; this has been
the primary driver of a growth slowdown, not only in China and the USA but also globally.
(FAO 2020a). Meanwhile, COVID-19 has also significantly affected international seafood
trade. Measures to contain COVID-19 have affected the seafood supply chain, from fishing
and aquaculture production, to processing, transport, and wholesale and retail marketing
(FAO 2020b). In the face of an external environment characterized by a global economic
downturn and a shrinking international market, President Xi proposed future development
suggestions at a symposium for entrepreneurs held in July 2020. That is “we need to pool
resources and concentrate on managing the country’s affairs well, and give full play to the
advantage of a huge domestic market, so that a new development pattern will gradually
be created whereby domestic and foreign markets can boost each other, with the domestic
market as the mainstay” (Jin-Ping 2020). It is clear that not only China but also the entire
world has a long way to go to maintain sustainable international seafood trade.

Funding This research was supported by Projects of International Exchange and Cooperation in Agricul-
ture, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of China-Science, Technology and Innovation Cooperation
in Aquaculture with Tropical Countries along the Belt and Road.

Availability of data and material All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this pub-
lished article (and its supplementary information files). If there is any missing, the datasets used or analyzed
during the current study are available from the first/corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability Not applicable.

Declarations

Ethics approval This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.

13
2532 Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533

References
Aguiar GP, da Silva JCGL, Frega JR, de Santana LF, Valerius J (2017) The use of constant market share
(CMS) model to assess Brazil nut market competitiveness. J Agric Sci 9(8):174–180. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​5539/​jas.​v9n8p​174
Ahmadi-Esfahani FZ (2006) Constant market shares analysis: uses, limitations and prospects. Aust J Agric
Resour Econ 50:510–526. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​8489.​2006.​00364.x
Bo Y, Chen S, Guo-Qin Y (2017) Export characteristics and influencing factors of China’s aquatic products
in Central and Eastern European Countries. Chin Fish Econ 6(35):55–63 (in Chinese)
Capobianco-Uriarte M, Aparicio J, Pablo-Valenciano JD (2017) Analysis of Spain’s competitiveness in
the European tomato market: an application of the constant market share method. Span J Agric Res
15(3):e0113. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5424/​sjar/​20171​53-​10629 (13 pages)
Chen R, Hartarska V, Wilson NLW (2018) The causal impact of HACCP on seafood imports in the U.S.: an
application of difference-in-differences within the gravity model. Food Policy 79:166–178. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​foodp​ol.​2018.​07.​003
Crona BI, Van Holt T, Petersson M, Daw TM, Buchary E (2015) Using social–ecological syndromes to
understand impacts of international seafood trade on small-scale fisheries. Glob Environ Chang
35:162–175. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gloen​vcha.​2015.​07.​006
Deng-Jun Z, Ragnar T, Kristin L (2014) China’s impact on global seafood markets. Aquac Econ Manag
18:101–119. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13657​305.​2014.​903308
FAO (2020a) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2020: sustainability in action. Rome. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​4060/​ca922​9en. Retrieved from http://​www.​fao.​org/​docum​ents/​card/​en/c/​ca922​9en. Accessed
22 June 2020
FAO (2020b) Summary of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the fisheries and aquaculture sector.
Retrieved from: http://​www.​fao.​org/3/​ca934​9en/​CA934​9EN.​pdf. Aaccessed 25 July 2020
Fligenspan FB, Lélis MTC, Cunha AM, Clezar RV (2015) The Brazilian exports of labor-intensive goods in
the 2000s: an analysis using the constant market share method. Economia 16:128–144. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​econ.​2015.​03.​005
Fojtíková L (2018) China’s trade competitiveness in the area of agricultural products after the implementa-
tion of the World Trade Organization commitments. Agric Econ Czech 64: 379–388. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​17221/​163/​2017-​AGRIC​ECON
Geetha R, Ravisankar T, Patil PK, Avunje S, Vinoth S, Sairam CV, Vijayan KK (2020) Trends, causes, and
indices of import rejections in international shrimp trade with special reference to India: a 15-year lon-
gitudinal analysis. Aquac Int 28:1341–1369. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10499-​020-​00529-w
Gephart JA, Ml Pace (2015) Structure and evolution of the global seafood trade network. Environ Res Lett
10:125014. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1748-​9326/​10/​12/​125014
Giusti A, Bianchi E, Barontini F, Cripezzi M, Tasselli G, Armani A (2019) Data analysis of official checks
on intra-EU seafood trade: a survey on the Italian veterinary office for compliance with EU require-
ment (UVAC) of Tuscany in three-year period 2014–2016. Food Control 95:274–282. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​foodc​ont.​2018.​08.​016
Hambrey J (2017) The 2030 agenda and the sustainable development goals: the challenge for aquaculture
development and management. Retrieved from: http://​www.​fao.​org/3/​a-​i7808e.​pdf. Aaccessed 25 July
2020
Jepma CJ (1989) Extensions of the constant-market-shares analysis with an application to long-term export
data of developing countries. In: Williamson JG, Panchamukhi VR (eds) The balance between indus-
try and agriculture in economic development. International Economic Association Series. Palgrave
Macmillan, London.1989, pp 129–143 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-1-​349-​19746-0_6. Retrieved from:
https://​link.​sprin​ger.​com/​chapt​er/​10.​1007/​978-1-​349-​19746-0_6
Jing-Jing Y(2015) Research on China’s aquatic products export trade in the terms of European Union’s SPS
measures. Master of thesis, Northeast Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
Jin-Kai Yu, Jian-Qiu M (2020) Social network analysis as a tool for the analysis of the interna-
tional trade network of aquatic products. Aquacult Int 28:1195–1211. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10499-​020-​00520-5
Jin-Ping Xi (2020) Xi Jinping hosts entrepreneurs’ symposium and delivers important speech. http://​
www.​gov.​cn/​xinwen/​2020-​07/​21/​conte​nt_​55287​89.​htm. Accessed 1 June 2021
Jinzhuo W, Jingxin W, Wenshu L (2016) Comparative analysis of primary forest products export in
the United States and China using a constant market share model. Forest Prod J 66(7/8):495–503.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​13073/​FPJ-D-​14-​00077
Lin J, Flachsbarth I, von Cramon-Taubadel S (2020) The role of institutional quality on the performance
in the export of coconut products. Agric Econ 51:237–258. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​agec.​12552

13
Aquaculture International (2021) 29:2507–2533 2533

Milana C (1988) Constant-market-shares analysis and index number theory. Eur J Polit Econ 4:453–478.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0176-​2680(88)​90011-0
Nasrullah M, Chang L, Khan K, Rizwanullah M, Zulfiqar F, Ishfaq M (2020) Determinants of for-
est product group trade by gravity model approach: a case study of China. For Policy Econ
113:102117. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​forpol.​2020.​102117
Natale F, Borrello A, Motova A (2015) Analysis of the determinants of international seafood trade using
a gravity model. Mar Policy 60:98–106. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​marpol.​2015.​05.​016
National Development and Reform Commission (2015) Vision and actions on jointly building silk road
economic belt and 21st-century maritime silk road. Beijing. Retrieved from: https://​en.​ndrc.​gov.​cn/​
newsr​elease_​8232/​201503/​t2015​0330_​11939​00.​html. Accessed 25 June 2020. (in Chinese)
Ping W, Tran N, Chan CY, Dao D, Wilson NLW (2018) An analysis of seafood trade duration: the case
of ASEAN. Mar Resour Econ 34(1):1–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1086/​700599
Sabau G, Muktadir Boksh FIM (2017) Fish trade liberalization under 21st century trade agreements: the
CETA and Newfoundland and Labrador fish and seafood industry. Ecol Econ 141:222–233. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecole​con.​2017.​04.​025
Tyszynski H (1951) World trade in manufactured commodities 1899–1950. Manch Sch 19(3):272–304.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​9957.​1951.​tb000​12.x
Varalakshmi K, Devatkal S (2017) Competitiveness of Indian bovine meat exports-constant market
shares analysis. Indian J Anim Sci 87(8):1026–1033.http://​www.​icar.​org.​in. Accessed 21 Nov 2020
Wen-Bo Z, Francis JM, Li-Ping L, David CL (2017) A comparative analysis of four internationally
traded farmed seafood commodities in China: domestic and international markets as key drivers.
Rev Aquac 9:157–178. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​raq.​12110
Widodo T (2010) Market dynamics in the EU, NAFTA, North East Asia and ASEAN: the method of
constant market shares (CMS) analysis. J Econ Integr 25(3): 480–500. Retrieved from: www.​jstor.​
org/​stable/​23000​869. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2307/​23000​869
Xiao-Wei W, Zhao-Hui Y, Hui D, Xin-Qiang F, Yong W (2018) Barriers to sustainable food trade: Chi-
na’s exports food rejected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2011–2017. Sustainability
10:1712. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su100​61712
Xu-Ping C, Shuai Y, Xiang-Meng H, Ju-Xi T (2018) Dynamic decomposition of factors influencing the
export growth of China’s wood forest products. Sustainability 10:2780. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
su100​82780
Yan L, Xunpeng S, Laurenceson J (2020) Dynamics of Australia’s LNG export performance: a modi-
fied constant market shares analysis. Energy Econ 89:104808. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eneco.​2020.​
104808
Yang BX, Anderson JL, Asche F (2020) Determinants of China’s seafood trade patterns. Mar Resour
Econ 35(2):97–112. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1086/​708617
Yun-jie C, Jie W (2018) Factors affecting China’s export growth of agricultural products to Pakistan—
factorization and calculation based on the CMS model. J Xinjiang Univ (Philos Hum Soc Sci)
46(4):10–20 (in Chinese)
Yun-Yun D, Yong-Ming Y, Yuan Y, Zhen Z, Hong-Yan Z (2020) Competitiveness of Chinese and Indonesian
tilapia exports in the US market. Aquac Int 28:791–804. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10499-​019-​00496-x
Yuxiang F, Zheng L (eds) (2006) Fisheries Department, Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Repub-
lic of China. Overview of national fishery development. China Fisheries Yearbook 2006,1:27–30.
China Agricultural Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
Zengsheng L, Zheng L (eds) (2007) Fisheries Department, Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s
Republic of China. Overview of national fishery development. China Fisheries Yearbook 2007,1:9–
11. China Agricultural Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
Zengsheng L, Zheng L (eds) (2008) Fisheries Department, Ministry of Agriculture of the Peo-
ple’s Republic of China. Overview of national fishery development. China Fisheries Yearbook
2008,1:12–16. China Agricultural Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
Zheng-Xin W, Hong-Hao Z, Ling-Ling P, Tong J (2017) Decomposition of the factors influencing export
fluctuation in China’s new energy industry based on a constant market share model. Energy Policy
109:22–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enpol.​2017.​06.​050
Zhihui L, Jing S, Han S, Zhiyao S, Zihan W (2020) Do China’s wind energy products have potentials for
trade with the “Belt and Road” countries? – a gravity model approach. Energy Policy 137:111172.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​enpol.​2019.​111172

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13