评价服务贸易自由化对发展中国家的利益

1、本科毕业论文外文翻译题目：Assessing the Benefits to Developing Countries of Liberalization in Service Trade 出处: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.译 文： 评价服务贸易自由化对发展中国家的利益服务的性质本文首先定性服务为大多数经合组织的经济活动（如测定通过就业，并通过原来的增值）以及规模较小但对贫穷发展国家仍就大型的活动。它表明，所谓的核心可以被认为最好是（见梅尔文，1989）通过时间与中介（银行，保险）或空间（电信，运输，零售，批发），弥补了大多数人称之为平衡服务（旅游，咨询服务，政府服

33、务，公用事业）的具有多样性的额外服务项目。这样多样化的活动范围往往作为一个单一的同质的实体用来作定量研究，当实际上它的异质性为一个不同的待遇，往往被标记用来分析便利服务。这种异质性，在我看来，关键在于更好地了解服务贸易自由化如何影响贫穷国家。自由化对贫穷国家的影响在贫穷国家有一个一般假定，那就是它们将会从全球服务贸易自由化中失去，因为它们国内服务业的低效率和低竞争力。尽管这一观点来自经济学家以归于出口国和进口国从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 - 查看字典详细内容利用比较优势和改善市场中为国内消费者从较低价格和联合利益中得到的为论点。这也是人们普遍持有的观点认为许多劳动密集型的生产型服务贸易是贫穷国家服务业的比较优势。幸运的是出现了一些关于当地低效率的服务贸易与外国服务贸易在发展中国家比较的实证研究，让这些论据在实证的基础上进行评估。这似乎反映了全球服务贸易自由化在发展中国家的两个问题，一是发展中国家的假设，认为未来全球服务贸易自由化的谈判将在很大程度上

35、会产生片面的影响。他们的信念是如果新的世界贸易组织多边（或甚至区域）服务贸易自由化谈判，发达国家进入发展中国家服务市场将可能得到显著改善，但反之(显著改善发展中国际的服务供应商进入发达国家的市场准入服务)将可能并不会发生。谈判力量不对称是这个可能结果引起的原因，这项推定是目前大部分服务细分市场的监管架构将维持在经合组织国家，这些国家将对发达国家市场的服务供应商得到明显改善。这一成果，例如，反映在最近美国的双边协定，包括美国和智力的协议。事实上，通过经合组织正在进行的监管改革进程，在市场准入方面的改变其实已经为发展中国家服务供应商做出安排，尽管这些并不一定在日程上反映出来。另一个忽视这个结论的重要层面是南南合作贸易，发展中国家有从其他发展中国家自由化得到好处的潜力。问题的关键是，在模型为基础的(或定量)的服务贸易自由化影响的评估方面，因为低工资率会发生真正的双面自由化，发展中国家的供应商很可能真正受益。这尤其是否存在服务贸易的规模经济，现有的大多数研究关于服务贸易自由化流入的好处，都假定服务贸易多边市场完全开放，且研究结果必须以本推定加以解释。如果片