外文翻译参考格式.doc

华中科技大学文华学院毕业设计（论文）外文文献翻译题 目：美国发展可能要汲取中国的教训学 生 姓 名： 王亚婧 学号：080203021115学 部 （系）: 城市建设工程学部 专 业 年 级: 08级城市规划2班 指 导 教 师： 张媛 职称或学位：讲师20 12年03月05日外文文献翻译原文：The growth lesson America could take from ChinaThe basic driver of remarkable economic growth in China and India, Vietnam, Thailand, Brazil and pretty much every other developing country is pretty simple: people migrating from rural areas, where theyre not very productive, to dense cities, where they are very productive. This is a tried-and-true strategy for making people and countries richer. But its not just for developing nations.Over the past year, three terrific books have come out on the importance of cities in Americas economy. In “Triumph of the City,” Harvard economist Ed Glaeser details how cities all over the world have supercharged human development and ingenuity. In “The Gated City,” Ryan Avent focuses more narrowly on the role cities play in making Americans better off. And in “The Rent is Too Damn High,” Matt Yglesias focuses on, well, why the rent is so damn high.The three make similar arguments: First, cities make us smarter, richer and more productive. Avent sums up some of the (voluminous) evidence: “Economist Masayuki Morikawa finds that productivity rises between 10 and 20percent when density doubles. Morris Davis, Jonas Fisher and Toni Whited estimate that a doubling of density may increase productivity by between 17 and 28percent. Their work suggests that more than 30percent of real wage growth over the past 35 years is attributable to changes in density.”Cities, Glaeser says, are “our greatest invention.” People offer ideas and teach skills to, buy services from and engage in healthy competition with one another. Cities enable closer contact among the population. The results can be remarkable. Glaeser cites the example of Silicon Valley: “The computer industry, more than any other sector, is the place where one might expect remote communication to replace person-to-person meetings; computer companies have the best teleconferencing tools, the best Internet applications, the best means of connecting far-flung collaborators. Yet despite their ability to work at long distances, this industry has become the most famous example of the benefits of geographic concentration.Second, we have choked off access to these remarkable growth machines for too many Americans. We havent done it on purpose, necessarily. But weve done it, mostly through regulations that make it either prohibitively expensive or downright impossible to buy or rent a home in the countrys most productive cities. Avent notes the disparity between the Bay area, with its “natural beauty, urban amenities, fantastic climate, cultural riches, and outstanding economic prospects,” and Phoenix, where “temperatures above 100 degrees are commonplace” and the income earned by the typical household “is only about 60 percent of that of the typical Silicon Valley household.” And yet, between 2000 and 2009, the San Francisco metropolitan area lost almost 350,000 residents, while Phoenix gained nearly half a million.The reason isnt that Phoenix is more desirable. Its that San Francisco is prohibitively expensive. Thats in part because demand to live there is high. But its also because regulations make it almost impossible to increase the supply of housing stock. “Land is a scarce resource, so some increase in the price of housing is bound to happen as the economy grows,” Yglesias wrote. “But architects know how to design multifloor buildings and engineers can build elevators. Public policy that restricts their ability to do so not construction costs or the limited supply of land is the main cause of high rents in America.”The different authors focus on various ills. Yglesiass pulse is quickened by height restrictions, like the ones here in Washington. Avent takes aim at the local coalitions who band together to fight new real estate development for all manner of parochial reasons. Glaeser is particularly eloquent about the way ordinary buildings get designated “historical” to impede new development. But all make basically the same point: Because we dont fully appreciate how important cities are in stoking economic development, we dismiss the economic costs of regulations that make them too expensive for many to live in.Which gets to their solutions. Theyre not arguing for pro-density policies. All three are careful to say that Americans should live where they want. Theyre criticizing anti-density policies that make it effectively impossible for Americans to live where they want. The means should thrill the right, as the agenda effectively boils down to deregulation. The ends should engage the left, as the people who are priced out of the cities and thus of the benefits they bring are the poor and the middle class, not the wealthy.And Americans of both parties should embrace the basic logic of the enterprise. Its bad news indeed to realize that we have, for decades, ignored one of the most important dimensions of economic growth: place. The good news, of course, is that in this age of diminished economic expectations, there are still big ideas we can try to increase growth, innovation and productivity. Dont believe me? Just ask China.译文：中国经济强力增长的最基础的动力印度、越南、泰国、巴西和几乎其他每一发展中国家的动力是很简单的。人们从生产率不是很高的农村迁移到能够生产率高的高密度的城市。这是一个使人民和国家变得更富有的有效的策略。但是这不只是 适合发展中国家。在过去一年里，三本很好的关于城市在美国经济中的重要性的书出版了。在城市的胜利这本书中，哈佛经济学家Ed Glaeser描述全世界的城市是怎样增进人类的发展和机智。在门控城市这本书中，Ryan Aven更仔细的关注在使美国变得富裕的各因素中城市所扮演的角色。在该死的高租金这本书中Matt Yglesias关注的是为什么地租如此之高。这三本书都做个一个类似的讨论：首先，城市使我们更加聪明，更富有，更高的生产率。Avent总结了一些（大量的）证据：“经济学家Masayuki Morikawa发现当城市密度增加到一倍时，生产率会身高10%到20%。Morris Davis, Jonas Fisher和Toni Whited估计城市密度如果增加一倍可能会使生产率增加的幅度在17%到28%间。他们的工作研究表明，在过去35年的时间里工资的增长的至少30%是归功于城市密度的变化。Glaeser说城市是我们最伟大的发明。人们提供思路和教导,买服务技能,和别人之间有个健康的竞争城市能够使我们能够和人们更亲密的接触。其结果很显著。格莱塞引入美国硅谷的为一个例子：“计算机产业，超过任何一个部门，这个部门预期远程通信取代人与人之间的会议，计算机公司有最好的远程会议工具，最好的互联网应用程序，最好的连接偏远的地方的合作者的方法。然而尽管他们的职责是在很远的地方工作，但是这个工厂已经成为从地理集中获取好处的一个很著名的例子。第二，对于大多数美国人来说，我们已经掐断了访问这些显著增长的机器的途径。我们没有必然的要这么做的目的。但是我们通过制定法规已经这么做了，,这使它要么有人头税或彻底可能买或者租一个乡下的家最多产的城市。Avent说海滨地段的不同就是它的“天然美、城市设施、美妙的气候、文化财富,以及卓越的经济前景时, 凤凰,号称“温度100华氏度以上是常有的事”的成城市，它的典型的家庭的收入“大约只有典型的硅谷家庭的百分之六十”然而,在2000年和2009年之间,旧金山大都市地区失去了将近350000居民,而凤凰上涨了近一半一百万。这个原因并不是凤凰这座城市更加吸引人。而是旧金山的消费过分的昂贵。这很大程度上是因为在那的生活消费太高。但它也因为法规使它几乎不可能增加供应的住宅。“土地是一种稀缺资源，所以只有经济增长，房屋的价格才能有些增加,” Yglesias写到：“但是建筑师知道怎样去设计多层住宅，工程师们知道怎么建造电梯”。国家政策限制他们这样做的能力即没有建设开支和土地供应的限制，这是造成美国高房租的主要原因。不同的作者关注了各种各样的问题。Yglesias的脉搏加速身高限制,像那些在这里在华盛顿。Avent需要针对当地联盟，这个联盟结合在一起来对抗那些新的房地产开发各种各样的异同的原因。Glaeser特别雄辩的方式得到指定普通建筑的“历史”来阻碍