英国需要公法形式的商会吗_【外文翻译

1、本科毕业设计（论文）外文翻译原文：Does Britain need public law status Chambers of Commerce?Legal statusThe contrast between private and public law status is the key differentiating factor between the Chamber systems of Britain on the one hand， and France and Germany on the other. Differing legal status reflects the

2、contrasting traditions of voluntarism in the UK ， leading to a belief in the primacy of market forces in the context of the business support environmen，t and of state intervention in France and Germany， allied to business promotion. The former tradition explains the existence of private law Chambers

3、 in Britain ， with voluntary membership， non-statutory funding and independent determination of missions and business support activities. The latter explains the existence of powerful ， public law Chambers in France and Germany， with mandatory membership， substantial statutory funding and a mix of s

4、tate prescribed and self-determined activities.Advantages of public law statusFrench and German respondents described the benefits of public law status in terms of the facilitation of partnership between business and government， greater political influence for business， operational independenceand e

5、ase of long-term planning for Chambers， together with sufficient resources for them to provide high quality services for business.Disadvantages of public law statusFrench and German respondents identified few weaknessesin the public law system. Potential problems were， however， seen in terms of bure

6、aucrac，y image problems and limits to Chambers independence. UK Chamber respondents regarded public law status with suspicion， and considered that its introduction might undermine the vitality and entrepreneurial character of UK Chambers. For the UK respondents， the disadvantages were greater in num

7、ber and include subjugation to state control， the offer of fewer services to business， the existence of political and business opposition to public status in the UK ， and the likely alienation of public status Chambers from member firms.Advantages of private law statusBoth UK respondents emphasised，

8、 instead， the advantages of private law status， including the principle of voluntary Chamber membership and its“ guaranteeof de jure (I not de facto) Chamber independence from government control. However， several problems created by private law status were identifie，d including the traditional lack

9、of government support for UK Chambers ， their lack of political influence ， governments unwillingness to consult them over issues affecting business， and the existence of damaging competition from private sector providers in UK Chambers key markets.Disadvantages of private law statusUK respondents d

10、id recognise the problems created by private law status， including lack of political influence ， lack of government support and/or consultation， and competition with private sector providers.Advantages of compulsory membershipRegarding the issue of Chamber membership， French and German respondents t

11、ook the view that mandatory membership leads to a range of benefits， enabling Chambers to improve their business representation and legitimac，y promoting their financial strength and allowing them to offer a broader range of services ， of high quality， supported by a large and well-qualified staffin

12、g establishment. A range of specific advantages were identified ， including comprehensive local business membership， balanced representation of local economic interest，s legitimacy as the voice of local business， responsiveness to members wishes ， Chamber empowerment in dealing with the state， enhan

13、ced lobbying power， improved forward planning and enhanced efficiency and effectiveness.Disadvantages of compulsory membershipA number of problems with compulsory membership were identified by Frenchand German respondents. These included lack of general business awareness of Chamber services， the un

14、deruse of services by some members， and conflicts of interest amongst members. Paradoxicall，y both a big firm bias and a SME bias were put forward as a disadvantage. UK respondents suggested that problems include the danger of lower responsiveness to members nee，dswith Chamber membership being value

15、d less by involuntary member companies， and resulting poorer relationships between Chambers and members.Advantages of non-statutory membershipUK respondents considered that there was no need for compulsory membership to be introduced into the British Chamber system， arguing that the advantagesof non

16、-statutory membership were that it allows a focus on the needs of members， ensures closeness to the market on the part of Chambe，rsand good relationships with members. They suggested that voluntary membership leads both to member commitment and to Chamber legitimacy.Disadvantages of non-statutory me

17、mbershipUK respondents identified no such disadvantages. In contras，t however， one German respondent suggested that non-statutory membership actually reduces UK Chambers independence， by forcing them to rely heavily on government for funding， thus compromising Chambers in their dealings with the sta

18、te on behalf of businesses.Funding arrangementsAdvantages of statutory fundingIn terms of Chamber funding arrangements French and German respondents took the view that statutory income， based on compulsory subscriptions and local business tax levies， leads to a number of advantages of Chambers and t

19、heir members. For Chambers， this provides them with a stable secure and reliable incom，e largely free of government control， and substantial enough to fund a high standard of services for local businessesand other Chamber services， including infrastructure investments. Chambers are able to plan futu

20、re activities with confidence and can avoid distraction from core activities by the need to raise money. Members also benefit from the statutory funding system ， through their control over the Chamber membership cost which they incu，r their ability to ensure the payments made are set at an equitable

21、 level and through their access to high quality services.Disadvantages of statutory fundingFrench and German respondents identified few problems with statutory fundin，g although it was noted that this could lead to an unacceptably heavy financing burden on the part of larger firms ， subject to great

22、er membership costs. Paradoxically， some medium-sized firms might also be unhappy having to pay for Chamber services which they did not use.Advantages of non-statutory fundingBritish respondents commented that relianc on non-statutory income leads to responsiveness to market force，s empathy with mem

23、bers business problem，s and the efficient use of resources， prompted by limited financial means.Disadvantages of non-statutory fundingThe disadvantages of non-statutory funding were identified as lack of financial resources， limits to Chamber staffing and services， and an undue focus on income-earni

24、ng， non-core activities. British respondents also pointed to increasing dependence on government funding， often based on short-term， if renewable contracts， as a possible source of problems for UK Chambers.Chamber structuresFrench and German Chamber structuresFrench and German respondentsidentified

25、the uniformity and completenessof geographical coverage as a major advantage of their respective public law Chamber networks. The existence of a regional Chamber tier in France (although not in Germany) was considered an advantage by French respondents. Respondents in both countries believed that te

26、rritorial divisions between local Chambers were both rational in their design and well understood by local businesses， leading to enhanced transparency， comprehensibility and improved user access. Both systems lent themselves to the creati on of、o ne-stop shops for bus in ess services thus help ing

27、to maximise ease of access and services quality for users. Inter-Chamber cooperation was also highly developed， resulting in Chamber specialisation in offering services of particular local interest ， and therefore further enhancing the standard of overall services for business.No disadvantagesof the

28、ir domestic Chamber structures were identified by either French or German respondents.UK Chamber structureUK respondents saw advantages in terms of the flexibility of current arrangements， allowing for the existence of either stand-alone Chambers or CCTEs in appropriate local areas. Members were off

29、ered ready accessto services of high quality in many areas of the UK， while business confusion with the proliferation of rival service providers was， in their view， often overstated. The UK Chamber structure was， however， perceived as causing potential problems for business，es due to its uneven geog

30、raphical coverage and the inconsistency of Chamber boundaries， which sometimes overlapped. Recent changes and continuing diversity in the UK business support system could， it was conceded， lead to business confusion in some local areas. Demands for help from business on the part of mutiple business

31、support organizations could also lead to excessive calls on business managers time and money.Chamber missions and activitiesPublic law ChambersThe legal status of Chambers in the UK ， France and Germany exercises a profound influence over the types of service which they can provide. French and Germa

32、n Chambers operate within state-controlled parameters， since their main missions are determined by public law. Their role as the meeting point between government and business is also statutorily defined. Howeve，r they enjoy substantial autonomy over the manner in which they carry out their activitie

33、s on a day- to-day basis. Respondents consider that French and German Chambers have a central role in economic management and developmen，t combined with operational independence， accommodating local flexibility in Chamber activities. Adequate funding also allows them to offer a wide range of good qu

34、ality services to businesses.Respondents identified no disadvantages for public law system Chambers.Private law ChambersUK Chambers play a relatively modest role in economic management and development， due largely to the absence of any statutory mission to do s，o and to their less well-established c

35、ontacts with government. However， a wide range of services for business is provided， although a high proportion of these are fee-based. Chambers need， therefore， to compete effectively with rival service providers ， which they seek to do by product differentiation and price competition. Alternativel

36、y， they may attempt to offer a wide range of services， in order to maximize customer satisfaction and perceived value for money. Respondents put forwa，rd as advantages of the UK system， entrepreneurship and business flair ， market-led product differentiation ， and the provision of a wide range of hi

37、gh quality， low cost services for members. In common with their French and German counterparts， British respondentsidentified no disadvantagesof their national Chamber systems private law status.French and German respondents perceived their national Chamber systems as being relatively stable. Howeve

38、r， some minor changes were identified as occurrin，g including an increasing reliance on non-statutory sources of income and an attempt to save costs by improving organizational efficiency. These changes were seen to be prompting a fractional movement of French and German Chambers in a British direct

39、ion. British respondents stated strongly that the UK Chamber system was undergoing a period of substantial change. This involved a movement of UK Chambers towards their public law counterparts greater than the contrary trend identified in France and Germany. UK respondents based this view on UK Cham

40、bers increased reliance on statutory funding from government contracts.Source：Grahame Fallon，2009“ Does Britain need public law status Chambers of Commerce?” European Business Review，pp.19-27译文:英国需要公法形式的商会吗?法律地位对比私人和公共之间的法律地位是英国商会系统与法德之间有所区别的的 关键因素。不同的法律地位反应英国在传统价值观上的对比， 导致市场力量在业 务环境下至上的信念，并且在法国和德国的

41、国家干预下配合业务推广。 前者用自 愿成为会员、非法定资金、独立决定任务和业务支持活动解释了商会私法在英国 存在的原因。后者用强制性会员、充足的法定资金、自主决策与国家法规相结合 的决策方式解释了商会公共法律在法国德国拥有强大权利的原因。公法地位的优势：法国与德国的受访者描述私法的好处在于能使政府与企业 建立简化合作的条件并且政府可长期对企业进行政策影响，也有利于商会的业务 独立和长期规划。商会与政府通过资源共享的方式为企业提供高质量的服务。公法地位的劣势：法国与德国的受访者承认在公法系统中是存在某些缺漏 的。潜在的问题是官僚主义，形象问题和商会独立自治的限制。 英国商会受访者 对公法地位持怀

42、疑态度，认为公法的强制会员制、国家政策参与商会任务决策这 两点会逐渐削弱商会的生命力与创造力。 对于英国受访者，他们认为公法的劣势 更多，包括商会可能会屈服于政府控制， 提供更少的服务给企业，政府与企业反 对公法的在英国存在以及商会公司成员可能会异化公共地位。私法的优势：英国受访者都强调私法中的地位优势， 包括商会会员自愿的原 则以及“保证”在法律上（我没有事实上的）商会独立于政府的控制。然而，有 私法地位所产生的服务问题包括政府对英国商会支持政策的传统缺失。政府缺乏对其政策影响，并且不愿意征询对业务产生影响的问题， 对商会主要市场中与提 供私人服务机构的竞争被破坏。私法的劣势：英国受访者承认

43、有私法地位所产生的问题， 其中包括缺乏政策 影响，缺乏政府支持与系统咨询以及缺乏与私人机构的竞争力。强制会员制的优势关于商会的会员制度，法国和德国受访者用这一观点看到强制会员制，认为 强制会员制有一系列的优点，它使得商会的业务更具合法性与代表性，同时提高 商会的经济实力并且使商会能够提供更广泛的更高品的服务， 由强大的人员编制 支持。有些特定的优势是被确定了的，其中包括全面的当地企业成员，地方经济 利益均衡的代表性，本地语音业务的合法性，回应议员的意愿，增强商会的游说 力量的国家，处理能力，提高远期规划和提高效率和效益。强制会员制的劣势法国与德国受访者列出了一系列关于强制会员制的问题。这些包括

44、商会服务缺乏一般业务意识，一些成员服务利用不足，成员间利益冲突等。矛盾的是，无 论是大公司的偏见还是中小企业偏见都会将商会放在一个不利的地位。英国受访者则认为强制会员制的危害在于此项制度对较不被重视的自愿成员需求的代表 性低下，由此导致商会与成员的关系较差。非法定成员制的优势英国受访者认为不需要对英国商会系统引进强制会员制度，认为非法定成员 制度的优势是这种制度将重点放在成员需求上，确保商会向市场贴近并且与成员 建立良好的关系。他们认为使企业自愿其商会会员有利于会员组成建设与商会合 法性。非法定成员制的优势英国受访者认为不需要对英国商会系统引进强制会员制度， 认为非法定成员 制度的优势是这种制

45、度将重点放在成员需求上，确保商会向市场贴近并且与成员 建立良好的关系。他们认为使企业自愿其商会会员有利于会员组成建设与商会合 法性。非法定会员制度的劣势英国受访者没有查明非法定会员制度。 相反，一个德国的受访者认为非法定 会员制度实际上降低里英国商会的独立性。 非法定会员制度是的商会严重依赖政 府资助导致了商会为了代表国家利益而牺牲企业的利益。法定资金的优势就商会资金的统筹安排而言，法国和德国的受访者认为法定收入是在强制签 订合约和地方企业营业税征收水平的基础上， 因此导致商会及其成员的数量上的 优势。对于商会而言，这种方式提供了商会一个稳定的安全和可靠的收入、在政府控制上有相当大的自由，同时

46、商会拥有大量的资金为当地的企业以及其他服务 性商会提供高水准的服务，包括基础设施投资。商会能够对为未来有计划的规划， 并且能够从核心机构中筹集资金从而规避分散风险。会员亦受惠于法定拨款制 度，通过他们控制商会会员成本，使得商会有能力确保此项支付是在公平的水平 上，会员为商会提供的高品质服务付费。法定资金的劣质法国与德国的受访者指出法定资金的一些问题： 法定资金导致了相当一部分 的大企业无法接受沉重的经济负担， 并且屈服于更高的会员费用。问题虽然被指 出，但奇怪的是一些中等规模的公司同样不愿为商会买单，更何况他们没有享受 到商会带来的服务。商会组织结构法国与德国的商会组织结构：法国与德国的受访者

47、地狱覆盖范围的统一性和 完整性看做是公法商会网络的一个主要优势。 法国受访者认为区域型商会在法国 的存在（虽然不是在德国）为认为是一种优势。在这两个国家受访者认为当地商 会之间的领土分歧都在其设计结构的合理性， 商会通过提高其服务的透明度，综 合性和提高服务路径获得当地企业的理解。这两种系统借给自己为企业创建的“一站式”服务，通过一站式服务最大限度的方便用户的得到服务和并享受高质 量的服务。商会与商会间的合作也非常发达，这商会使得可以为地方利益提供专 业化的服务，从而进一步提高对企业的整体服务水平。 法国与德国的受访者一致 认为国内商会结构并不存在任何问题。英国商会组织结构：英国受访者认为其优势在于英国商会现有安排的灵活 性，这种灵活性允许任何独立的商会在某些适合的区域的存在。在英国的许多区域里，会员能被提供高质量的服务，而企业对那些有竞争的服务提供者所提供的 利益感到困惑，在她们看来这些利益往往被夸大。 英国商会的结构由于对企业造 成潜在的问题造成的，同时也由于商会不平衡的地域覆盖面和对商会的范围定义 的不一致，有时商会的服务范围也会有重复。 近期的变化以及多样划的趋势，英 国的业务支持系统被认为是导致业务在局部地区的混乱。从业务上帮助支持组织 的一部分需求也可能会导致对企业管理者在时间和金钱上的过分要求。商会职责与活动公法商会：英国、法国和德国的商会法律地位对他们所提供的服