【英文】布鲁盖尔研究所报告：欧盟与中国的投资协议被低估了吗（14页）

By contrast, in the services sector, investment liberalisation has taken place through a  combination of unilateral and multilateral measures, since the WTO covers liberalisation of  investment in services but not in manufacturing . Also in contrast to manufacturing, investment liberalisation in services is far less advanced. From 1997, China’s FDI restrictiveness  score decreased from 0.739 to 0.306 in 2019 – still much higher than the average score of less  than 0.06 in the three biggest EU countries.  Like other WTO members, China made multilateral commitments in its GATS schedule  under Mode 3 (commercial presence of foreign services companies), when it acceded to the  WTO. 

Among the 162 services sectors listed by the WTO in its Services Sectoral Classifcation  List (SSCL)8 , and after a transition period ranging between two and six years after its WTO  accession, China made full market access commitments under Mode 3 (meaning that foreign  frms can invest freely in China) in only 26 sectors; partial commitments (meaning that foreign frms wishing to invest in China must form a joint venture with a local partner or are subject to other forms of market access limitations) in 71 sectors; and no commitments (meaning  that foreign frms are not free to invest in China, unless they obtain specifc authorisation) in  65 sectors9 . 

 Considering China’s limitations on national treatment, which imply that foreign frms are  subject to certain requirements that do not apply to local frms, only 22 of the 162 services  sectors are completely free of market access and national treatment limitations under Mode  3 in China’s WTO commitments, a much lower fgure than in most other countries’ WTO  commitments.