山东理工大学商学院毕业英文文献翻译模板(19页).doc

《山东理工大学商学院毕业英文文献翻译模板(19页).doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《山东理工大学商学院毕业英文文献翻译模板(19页).doc（19页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、-山东理工大学商学院毕业英文文献翻译模板-第 17 页英文资料翻译学 院： 商学院 专 业： 国际经济与贸易 班 级： 国贸110X 姓 名： 学 号： 指导教师： 邹松岐 2015年 6 月Assessing the Benefits to Developing Countries of Liberalisation in Services Trade This is a draft of a report prepared for the OECD Trade Directorate. The author is grateful to KenHeydon, and his colleag

2、ues at OECD for extensive comments and help with logistical and bibliographical support.John WhalleyThe University of Western Ontario1. INTRODUCTIONa. BackgroundThis paper assesses the present state of quantitative literature which seeks to evaluate the potential impacts which would follow from glob

3、al services trade liberalisation as it relates to developing countries. It is important to emphasize that what are frequently referred to as developing countries are themselves also a heterogeneous group of countries. They span rapidly growing economies in Asia, negative growth economies (in GDP/cap

4、ita) in Africa, middle income and very poor countries, small and large, landlocked and ocean access; heavily regulated and recently liberalised. I prefer the term poorer countries, and use this interchangeably with the term developing countries in the text. Much of the literature at issue is relativ

5、ely recent, and is scattered in working papers and other less accessible sources. Policy makers clearly need help in unraveling this at times confusing and fragmentary picture of what the research community has to offer to guide their deliberations. This paper aims to do this rather than to advocate

6、 particular policy positions on global services liberalisation.b. Nature of ServicesThe paper begins 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 d

7、eveloping countries. It suggests that so-called core services can best be thought of (see Melvin, 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 bal

8、ance of what most people refer to as services(tourism, consulting services, government services, utilities). 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 heter

9、ogeneity suggests a different treatment for each. This heterogeneity is, in my view, key to better understanding how services trade liberalisation could affect poorer countries.c. Impacts of Liberalisation on Poorer CountriesThere is a general presumption in the poorer countries that they will lose

10、from global services trade liberalisation since their domestic service industries are inefficient and 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 countr

11、ies from exploiting comparative advantage and improved market access opportunities abroad. It is also 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 ser

12、vices provision. There unfortunately appear to be few if any studies of the relative inefficiency of local 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 trad

13、e liberalisation in the developing world seems to reflect two concerns. One is the general assumption in the developing world that any future negotiated global liberalisation of services trade will be largely one sided in the results it will yield. Their belief is that if new WTO multilateral (or ev

14、en regional) services liberalisation is negotiated, developed country service providers will likely gain significantly improved access to developing country service markets, but the converse (significantly improved access for developing country service providers to developed country service markets)

15、 will likely not happen. Asymmetry in negotiating power is one reason cited for this possible outcome. The 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 mar

16、kets for developing country service providers will occur. This outcome, for instance, is reflected in recent 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

17、 for developing country service providers, though these are not necessarily reflected in scheduled commitments in GATS in the WTO. Another important and neglected dimension to this conclusion is South-South trade, and the potential that developing countries have much to gain from liberalisation of m

18、arkets in other developing countries. The point is that in terms of model-based (or quantitative) evaluations of the impacts of services trade liberalisation, were genuine two-sided liberalization to take place with their low wage rates, developing country providers could well benefit. This is espec

19、ially so if there are scale economies in service provision (as in banking, for instance). Most of the available studies of what benefits might flow from services liberalisation assume there will be full multilateral opening of service markets, and results of studies must be interpreted in light of t

20、his presumption. If one-sided liberalisation is the expected outcome, developing countries may well remain opposed to liberalisation 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 do

21、mestic economies which services liberalisation may imply. One dimension of adjustment relates to potential foreign majority ownership 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 f

22、inancial information of domestic residents, for instance, is seen in some countries as unacceptable. Also, a vibrant and vital domestic broadcast or film industry may be viewed as integral to national cultural identity. Added to such concerns is the potential size of labour market adjustments if dom

23、estic banks are displaced by foreign banks, domestic by foreign airlines, and other large changes in the organization of labour-intensive sectors which might follow after liberalisation.2. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS IN EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OFSERVICES TRADE LIBERALISATION ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIESPrior t

24、o reviewing existing literature relevant to the developing country interest in global services trade liberalisation, it may be helpful to first highlight a number of wider conceptual issues relevant to the discussion.a. The Developing Country Interest in Trade Liberalisation in GeneralThe presumptio

25、n behind most discussion of potential developing country interests in services trade liberalisation is that countries gain from more open services trade in ways which are similar to trade liberalisation in goods. This reflects the idea that countries have differing comparative advantage in the produ

26、ction of both goods and services, and more open trade will allow comparative advantage to be more fully exploited in all countries. Put simply, the thinking is that propositions regarding the gains from freer trade apply equally to both goods and services. There are, however, many complications with

27、 this line of argument even though it is instinctively where most academic economists finish up in their thinking.First, accepting for now the proposition that trade in services and goods can be treated as analytically similar in this way, the issue of how developing countries benefit from services

28、trade liberalisation is subject to all of the nuances set out in the literature on trade policy. While most academic economists instinctively believe that there are benefits for all countries from freer trade, over the years they have nevertheless devoted a considerable portion of their intellectual

29、 energy to producing arguments as to why the contrary may be true. These include arguments for an optimal tariff (terms of trade improvement from protection), for infant industry protection, for tariffs which transfer rents (rent shifting), and tariffs that offset other domestic distortions. These a

30、rguments presumably apply equally to trade in services and goods if they are analytically similar, and hence qualify the presumption that freer global trade in service is a good thing.Second, there are a series of arguments about protection of trade in goods that relate in one way or another primari

31、ly to developing countries and these presumably also come into play in discussing trade in services. Examples are that increased trade can be immiserising due to a terms of trade deterioration; in a Lewis model with traditional practices in agricultural sectors (average rather than marginal product

32、pricing of labour) protection of traded goods sectors is called for to pull labour into import-competing modern sectors; in a Harris-Todaro model with an urban sector specific downward rigid real wage and unemployment, an import subsidy can be beneficial.In addition there are many broader issues ide

33、ntified in the literature about the form global trade liberalisation takes and hence its impacts on developing countries, and these would again apply equally to services and goods. If, as is usually argued, countries gain more from improved access to larger foreign markets(given the larger size of O

34、ECD markets) than from their own liberalisation, what they should seek is genuinely multilateral liberalisation rather than only participate in unilateral liberalisation. This should include freer South-South trade in services, as well as OECD/non-OECD trade. Being smaller economically, developing c

35、ountries have less bargaining power than larger developed countries in trade negotiations, and this applies equally to trade in goods and services and hence globally negotiated outcomes may well be asymmetric.Developing countries also often argue that both trade liberalisation and its impacts need t

36、o be evaluated in the context of its wider impacts on the developmental process, including implications for growth and poverty, which are not typically centrally discussed in conventional trade literature. These arguments also presumably apply equally to trade in goods and services.Hence while the p

37、resumption is that global liberalisation of trade in services will yield gains for both developed and poorer developing countries, and hence the central issue is to evaluate the size of any resulting gains, it needs to be borne in mind that the arguments even from conventional literature on trade in

38、 goods are more nuanced than this.b. Differences Between Trade in Services and Trade in GoodsAccepting for now that there is a general presumption that global trade liberalization in either goods and services is broadly beneficial for developing countries (a contention some would challenge), the nex

39、t issue is whether goods and services differ in some important way. Do they need to be approached differently in evaluating the quantitative impacts involved?This is a key issue in discussing the impacts of services liberalisation on poorer developing countries, since much if not most of the existin

40、g quantitative literature treats services as analytically similar to goods. The approach is to define a single product, commonly called producer services, which is an input into production and against which trade protection operates with a tariff-like instrument. Liberalisation is then a reduction i

41、n or elimination of the tariff. Not surprisingly numerical results from models are similar to those of trade liberalization in goods. Small positive gains accrue to most countries if there are no factor mobility effects captured, as in goods liberalisation models.In reality, however, the term servic

42、es captures a heterogeneous group of activities spanning banking, insurance, transportation, telecoms, consulting s captures ervices, retail and wholesale trade, and several others. Much of this activity facilitates transactions, providing the economic function of intermediation either through time

43、or space which, as pointed out by Melvin (1989), when explicitly modeled as such can produce different implications for trade liberalisation.Ryan (1990 and 1992), for instance, shows that when banking is explicitly modelled as intermediation services that themselves do not directly provide utility,

44、but instead facilitate intermediation between borrowers and lenders, liberalization of trade in banking services can reduce GDP, and even welfare. Chia and Whalley (1997) have produced a numerical example of welfare worsening trade liberalisation in banking services based on this approach. The resul

45、ts from such examples reflect the use of specific formulations and parameter values and functional forms and are hence not general results. They do, however, suggest a weakening in the general presumption that gains will be automatically shared between developed and poorer developing countries if gl

46、obal liberalisation of services trade occurs. Bhatterai and Whalley (1999) provide a related analysis of the implications of liberalisation in network services (effectively telecoms) where the same theme emerges that recognition of the special features of individual services changes the analysis of

47、the impacts of services liberalisation.Another difference is that to achieve meaningful trade liberalisation in services may require modifications of factor mobility restrictions which may not be needed for goods liberalisation. This is recognized in Modes 3 and 4 of GATS which effectively relate to

48、 capital (FDI) mobility and labour (service provider) mobility. With restricted or segmented global factor markets (and especially labour markets), large effects can come from services liberalisation if such liberalization becomes an indirect mechanism for liberalising global factor markets. This is

49、 a central issue for the poorer developing countries who have long pushed for liberalization of immigration controls in OECD countries, since global services liberalization may be a vehicle for them to achieve this end.Thus whether services are treated as being different from goods, whether their economic characteristics are explicitly modeled, and how