服务贸易外文文献翻译2013年3000多字
文献出处
heyohDee, Philippa and Hanslow, Kevin, Multilateral Liberalization of Services Trade (March 16, 2012). Productivity Commission Working Paper No.1619. Available at SSRN: /abstract=323743 or
/10.2139/ssrn.323743
原文
Trade in Services
高中物理教材
Philippa Dee
1 Why worry?
Why should trade theorists and trade policy practitioners worry about rvices?
First, 60 per cent of the world’s GDP is earned there (World Bank 2001). This is not just a rich country
希拉里特朗普
phenomenon — 119 of the 132 countries listed in the World Development Report have a rvices share of GDP that exceeds their industry share. And 81 have a rvices share of GDP that exceeds 50 per cent — from Bangladesh and Botswana to Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Second, clo to a third of world trade is generated there (Karnty 2000). It is no longer tenable, if it ever was, to regard rvices as non-traded. Nor is it correct to say that most rvices trade is via commercial prence and hence not comparable to merchandi trade. Karnty shows that on the basis of available statistics,’ traditional’ trade in rvices — defined to measure cross-border transactions — is today larger in absolute size than
establishment-related trade in rvices. And some of the economies most dependent (in relative terms) on rvices trade are also some of the poorest (e.g. Armenia, Lesotho and Kiribati).
Third, barriers to rvices trade are significant. Becau they are primarily regulatory,
and differ substantially from traditional tariffs or quotas, there is no simple ‘tariff equivalent’ with which to compare to merchandi trade barriers. But the effects of removing them can be substantial. For example, Dee and Hanslow
2011山西中考数学
(2001) suggest that the global gains from eliminating barriers to trade in rvices, bad on preliminary estimates of tho barriers, could be about the same as tho from eliminating all remaining barriers to trade in agriculture and industrials. And significant gains would accrue to developing economies.
Fourth, rvices trade barriers are currently subject to negotiation in both multilateral and regional forums. The multilateral rvices trade negotiations currently under way as part of the ‘built-in’ agenda of the WTO have moved beyond the stage of establishing negotiating guidelines, to the stage of ‘talking turkey’ — rvices trade liberalization proposals have already hit the negotiating table. Of the 20 extant Regional Trading Agreements (RTAs) currently being examined at the Australian Productivity Commission, 14 have significant coverage of rvices and foreign direct investment — issues that extend beyond the boundaries of merchandi trade. And the coverage of non-merchandi trade issues increas, the more recent the agreement.
So it is incumbent on both trade theorists and trade policy practitioners to understand the nature of rvices, trade in rvices and rvices trade
后期是什么意思
barriers. The aim should not just be to identify theoretical possibilities. It should also be to identify ne
gotiating priorities, so as to maximize net benefits and reduce unintended conquences in a policy area that is still, sadly, largely uncarpeted territory empirically. With rvices ctors being large in most economies, the downside risk from getting it wrong is significant, and the risk is certainly there (e.g. Dee, Hardin and Holmes 2000, Francois and Wooten 2001).
What follows is a discussion of the issues from the perspective of an empirical trade policy modeler who works in a policy advisory organization and who
borrows(probably not enough) from trade theorists. The discussion may therefore miss some theoretical issues and contributions, but to compensate, will include data and parameter issues that could nevertheless u some input from trade theorists.
2 What is special about rvices?
The days, a trade theorist might say there is surprisingly little that is special about rvices.
Even early papers largely dismisd concerns that the determinants of comparative advantage in rvices might differ from tho in goods (Hindley and Smith 1984,Deardorff 1985). A few papers in the late 1980s examined some of the important characteristics of rvices, and highlighted the role o
we can work it out
f factors such as knowledge intensity (eg Markun 1989, Melvin 1989). The same factors were subquently central to
‘new trade theory’ treatments of trade in manufactures (eg Grossman and Helpmann 1991).
It is now commonplace to treat both manufactures and rvices as having increasing returns to scale, firm-level product differentiation and Dixit-
Stiglitz preferences among firms (eg the survey by Markun 1995, Markun, Rutherford and Tarr1999, Brown Deardorff and Stern 2000),1 with only the interpretations sometimes differing about the source of the firm-level product differentiation and the nature of the fixed costs producing the economies of scale. Only the agricultural ctor is routinely treated, in theoretical models at least, as being a constant returns to scale, homogeneous product industry. But perhaps this has as much to do with needing a simple mechanism to pin down returns to ct orally mobile factors as it has to do with reality in a world where agricultural policy issues now include genetic engineering, varietals property rights and geographical indications.
Brown, Leadoff and Stern (1996) noted that Ethier and Horn (1991) identified one
bootloader
characteristic that emed to be special about rvices — many were customized to the needs of individual purchars. This is one level of product differentiation below that now included in most trade models. Brown, Leadoff and Stern noted that it did not em possible to incorporate this property into formal empirical analysis. I am not aware of any subquent analysis that has included this characteristic explicitly, but it ems to be implicit in the choice of nesting structure of demand for varieties in some more recent models of rvices trade. This issue is discusd below.
3 What is special about rvices trade?
There is one characteristic of rvices trade policy that is special, and is starting to influence the way that rvices trade itlf is modeled. That characteristic is the formal recognition within the WTO of commercial prence as a method by which rvices are traded.
id是什么意思
Foreign direct investment occurs in all ctors. Dee and Hanslow (2001) ud Unhand APEC data to estimate that about 20 per cent of world FDI stocks were in the primary ctor (agriculture, mining and food processing), with about 40 per cent each in the condary and tertiary (rvice) ctors. Using very rough methods to estimate the output being generated from the FDI stocks, they estimated that the world output of outward FDI firms in the primary ctor was about 80 per cent as
big as the conventional exports of that ctor, with comparable proportions being 40 per cent for the condary ctor and 60 per cent in rvices.
识骨寻踪第九季If the output of FDI firms is recognized as a method by which goods and rvices can be traded, then trade by commercial prence is significant in all ctors, even though it is not captured in conventional balance of payments statistics. By the same token, conventional trade is also significant in all ctors.
fieldtripSo there is nothing special about trade in rvices via commercial prence (except perhaps that some rvices can be traded only via commercial prence).
What is special is that, although there has been little progress in achieving multilateral or plurilateral agreement on liberalizing barriers to FDI generally, there has been progress in tting up a multilateral mechanism to liberalize FDI in-rvices. That mechanism is the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)under the WTO. The GATS is t up to liberalize trade in rvices, and it formally recognizes commercial prence, along with three other modes (cross-border trade, consumption abroad, and the movement of natural persons), as a method by which rvices are traded. Regional Trade Agreements are also increasingly including provisions to liberalize rvices and FDI.
