評(píng)價(jià)服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化對(duì)發(fā)展中國(guó)家的利益

1、本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯題目：Assessing the Benefits to Developing Countries of Liberalization in Service Trade 出處:The world Economy, Volume 27,Issue 8, August 2004,Page:1225-1253 作 者： John Whalley 原 文： Assessing the Benefits to Developing Countries ofLiberalization in Services TradeNature of ServicesThe paper begin

2、s by characterizing services as a majority of activity for most OECD economies (as measured by employment, and by value added originating), and a smaller but still large portion of activity for poorer developing countries. It suggests that so-called core services can best be thought of (see Melvin,

3、1989) as relating to intermediation through time (banking, insurance) or space (telecoms, transportation, retailing, wholesaling), with a wide range of diverse additional service items making up the balance of what most people refer as Services (tourism, consulting services, government services, uti

4、lities). This diverse range of activities is typically treated in quantitative studies as a single homogeneous entity, frequently labeled as services for analytical convenience, when in fact its heterogeneity suggests a different treatment for each. This heterogeneity is, in my view, key to better u

5、nderstanding how services trade liberalization could affect poorer countries. Impacts of Liberalization on Poorer CountriesThere is a general presumption in the poorer countries that they will lose from global services trade liberalization since their domestic service industries are inefficient and

6、non-competitive. This view is despite the arguments from economists as to the gains to domestic consumers from lower prices and the joint benefits which accrue to both exporting and importing countries from exploiting comparative advantage and improved market access opportunities abroad. It is also

7、despite the commonly held view that the production of many services are labor intensive, which economists believe should be the source of comparative advantage for poorer developing countries in services provision. There unfortunately appear to be few if any studies of the relative inefficiency of l

8、ocal versus Foreign Service providers in developing country service markets which allow the strength of these arguments to be evaluated on empirical grounds.This caution towards global services trade liberalization in the developing world seems to reflect two concerns. One is the general assumption

9、in the developing world that any future negotiated global liberalization of services trade will be largely one sided in the results it will yield. Their belief is that if new WTO multilateral (or even regional) services liberalization is negotiated, developed country service providers will likely ga

10、in significantly improved access to developing country service markets, but the converse (significantly improved access for developing country service providers to develop country service markets) will likely not happen. Asymmetry in negotiating power is one reason cited for this possible outcome. T

11、he presumption is that the present regulatory structure for most service market segments will remain in place in OECD countries, and few significant improvements in access to developed country markets for developing country service providers will occur. This outcome, for instance, is reflected in re

12、cent US bilateral agreements, including the US-Chile agreement. In reality, through the process of ongoing regulatory reform in the OECD, changes are in fact being made in market access arrangements for developing country service providers, though these are not necessarily reflected in scheduled .An

13、other important and neglected dimension to this conclusion is South-South trade, and the potential that developing countries have much to gain from liberalization of markets in other developing countries. The point is that in terms of model-based (or quantitative) evaluations of the impacts of servi

14、ces trade liberalization, were genuine two-sided liberalization to take place with their low wage rates, developing country providers could well benefit. This is especially so if there are scales economies in service provision (as in banking, for instance). Most of the available studies of what bene

15、fits might flow from services liberalization assume there will be full multilateral opening of service markets, and results of studies must be interpreted in light of this presumption. If one-sided liberalization is the expected outcome, developing countries may well remain opposed to liberalization

16、 on the grounds it is non-reciprocal despite the results of studies.The second caution that developing countries express is the nature and size of the adjustments in domestic economies which services liberalization may imply. One dimension of adjustment relates to potential foreign majority ownershi

17、p and control of provision in key service sectors, and the related security and cultural concerns. Foreign entities having access to and control over bank records and financial information of domestic residents, for instance, is seen in some countries as unacceptable. Also, a vibrant and vital domes

18、tic broadcast or film industry may be viewed as integral to national cultural identity. Added to such concerns is the potential size of labor market adjustments if domestic banks are displaced by foreign banks, domestic by foreign airlines, and other large changes in the organization of labor-intens

19、ive sectors which might follow after liberalization Against this background, the paper identifies three central issues which existing literature on the quantification of the potential benefits to developing countries of service trade liberalization raises. For simplicity in the discussion of studies

20、 assume, as in the literature, that this is in fact multilateral liberalization rather than the unilateral liberalization developing countries presume it may well be in reality. The first is the representation of and measurement of barriers to services trade in individual countries, and the associat

21、ed issue of measuring the size of services trade itself. Both the level and composition of global services trade is poorly measured at present because there is no formal customers clearance for services trade. Despite this, the literature Consensus is that services trade is large (the WTO put it at

22、30 per cent of combined trade in goods and services), and growing (at perhaps double the rate of goods trade). Current information on barriers to flows of services trade reflects a number of sources. One measures the quantity impacts from various restrictions as estimated by economic models. Another

23、 uses estimates of price differentials for across domestic and foreign service providers across national markets. Yet another is frequency data showing how often regulatory measures are used in particular service segments in particular countries. Tax equivalents are used in some of the literature to

24、 capture associated barriers to FDI flows which might otherwise accompany freer service trade flows In the paper I suggest that these are major conceptual problems with all of these estimates of the size of barriers, while acknowledging that no other meaningful data exist which can be used and many

25、problems inevitably arise with whatever approach is followed. By way of illustration, frequency data do not allow users to differentiate between those barriers which restrict trade (i.e. are binding constraints on trade), and those which do not restrict trade because they are redundant (i.e. are non

26、-binding constraints). Neither do studies substantively enumerate and represent the various ways in which restrictions on services trade apply and how these affect the assessment of impact, nor do they assess the relative severity of barriers. To an economist working on the impacts of distortions of

27、 trade, available barrier estimates from frequency data in no way provide meaningful estimates of marginal barriers to trade. Another example is that if data on costs of service provision in different markets are obtained, any differences across markets may merely reflect differences in domestic reg

28、ulatory environments and not barriers to entry for Foreign Service providers. Price differences across countries for services can also reflect quality differentials across countries rather than barriers. Using model results to infer barriers to trade can yield outcomes that quantity impacts from bar

29、riers may be negative from model residuals even where it is clear that binding restraints on trade apply. A second issue discussed is the interpretation of results from existing model based literature seeking to quantify the impacts of trade liberalization in services. Most of what is available invo

30、lves numerical simulation exercises using (Typically global) general equilibrium models based on conventional models of trade liberalization in goods (see Whalley, 1985). In these exercises, producer services are typically identified as an input into intermediate production and barriers to service t

31、rade are represented in the form of ad valorem tariff-like restrictions. These can be in tax-equivalent (for FDI flows) or tariff-equivalent (for service flows) form. The size of initial barriers, how they change under liberalization, elasticity and the size of service trade flows, along with relati

32、ve country size and any differences in market structure then determines results much as in conventional goods models of trade.譯 文： 評(píng)價(jià)服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化對(duì)發(fā)展中國(guó)家的利益服務(wù)的性質(zhì)本文首先定性服務(wù)為大多數(shù)經(jīng)合組織的經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)（如測(cè)定通過(guò)就業(yè)，并通過(guò)原來(lái)的增值）以及規(guī)模較小但對(duì)貧窮發(fā)展國(guó)家仍就大型的活動(dòng)。它表明，所謂的核心可以被認(rèn)為最好是（見(jiàn)梅爾文，1989）通過(guò)時(shí)間與中介（銀行，保險(xiǎn)）或空間（電信，運(yùn)輸，零售，批發(fā)），彌補(bǔ)了大多數(shù)人稱(chēng)之為平衡服務(wù)（旅游，咨詢服務(wù)，政府服

33、務(wù)，公用事業(yè)）的具有多樣性的額外服務(wù)項(xiàng)目。這樣多樣化的活動(dòng)范圍往往作為一個(gè)單一的同質(zhì)的實(shí)體用來(lái)作定量研究，當(dāng)實(shí)際上它的異質(zhì)性為一個(gè)不同的待遇，往往被標(biāo)記用來(lái)分析便利服務(wù)。這種異質(zhì)性，在我看來(lái)，關(guān)鍵在于更好地了解服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化如何影響貧窮國(guó)家。自由化對(duì)貧窮國(guó)家的影響在貧窮國(guó)家有一個(gè)一般假定，那就是它們將會(huì)從全球服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化中失去，因?yàn)樗鼈儑?guó)內(nèi)服務(wù)業(yè)的低效率和低競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力。盡管這一觀點(diǎn)來(lái)自經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家以歸于出口國(guó)和進(jìn)口國(guó)從l Bnwn shuxin dngxng wi du d dush jng h zzh d dush jngj hudng fw (r jiy cdng, bng tnggu zngz

34、h de wnjin), yj dxng hudng de gum jio xio, dn rng du pnqing de f zhn zhng guji de bfn.l 字典 - 查看字典詳細(xì)內(nèi)容利用比較優(yōu)勢(shì)和改善市場(chǎng)中為國(guó)內(nèi)消費(fèi)者從較低價(jià)格和聯(lián)合利益中得到的為論點(diǎn)。這也是人們普遍持有的觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為許多勞動(dòng)密集型的生產(chǎn)型服務(wù)貿(mào)易是貧窮國(guó)家服務(wù)業(yè)的比較優(yōu)勢(shì)。幸運(yùn)的是出現(xiàn)了一些關(guān)于當(dāng)?shù)氐托实姆?wù)貿(mào)易與外國(guó)服務(wù)貿(mào)易在發(fā)展中國(guó)家比較的實(shí)證研究，讓這些論據(jù)在實(shí)證的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行評(píng)估。這似乎反映了全球服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化在發(fā)展中國(guó)家的兩個(gè)問(wèn)題，一是發(fā)展中國(guó)家的假設(shè)，認(rèn)為未來(lái)全球服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化的談判將在很大程度上

35、會(huì)產(chǎn)生片面的影響。他們的信念是如果新的世界貿(mào)易組織多邊（或甚至區(qū)域）服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化談判，發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家進(jìn)入發(fā)展中國(guó)家服務(wù)市場(chǎng)將可能得到顯著改善，但反之(顯著改善發(fā)展中國(guó)際的服務(wù)供應(yīng)商進(jìn)入發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家的市場(chǎng)準(zhǔn)入服務(wù))將可能并不會(huì)發(fā)生。談判力量不對(duì)稱(chēng)是這個(gè)可能結(jié)果引起的原因，這項(xiàng)推定是目前大部分服務(wù)細(xì)分市場(chǎng)的監(jiān)管架構(gòu)將維持在經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家，這些國(guó)家將對(duì)發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家市場(chǎng)的服務(wù)供應(yīng)商得到明顯改善。這一成果，例如，反映在最近美國(guó)的雙邊協(xié)定，包括美國(guó)和智力的協(xié)議。事實(shí)上，通過(guò)經(jīng)合組織正在進(jìn)行的監(jiān)管改革進(jìn)程，在市場(chǎng)準(zhǔn)入方面的改變其實(shí)已經(jīng)為發(fā)展中國(guó)家服務(wù)供應(yīng)商做出安排，盡管這些并不一定在日程上反映出來(lái)。另一個(gè)忽視這個(gè)結(jié)論的重要層面是南南合作貿(mào)易，發(fā)展中國(guó)家有從其他發(fā)展中國(guó)家自由化得到好處的潛力。問(wèn)題的關(guān)鍵是，在模型為基礎(chǔ)的(或定量)的服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化影響的評(píng)估方面，因?yàn)榈凸べY率會(huì)發(fā)生真正的雙面自由化，發(fā)展中國(guó)家的供應(yīng)商很可能真正受益。這尤其是否存在服務(wù)貿(mào)易的規(guī)模經(jīng)濟(jì)，現(xiàn)有的大多數(shù)研究關(guān)于服務(wù)貿(mào)易自由化流入的好處，都假定服務(wù)貿(mào)易多邊市場(chǎng)完全開(kāi)放，且研究結(jié)果必須以本推定加以解釋。如果片