服务贸易外文文献翻译2013年3000多字

文献出处

Dee, Philippa and Hanslow, Kevin, Multilateral Liberalization of Services Trade (March 16, 2012). Productivity Commission Working Paper No.1619. Available at SSRN: https://www.360docs.net/doc/c712290724.html,/abstract=323743 or https://www.360docs.net/doc/c712290724.html,/10.2139/ssrn.323743

原文

Trade in Services

Philippa Dee

1 Why worry?

Why should trade theorists and trade policy practitioners worry about services?

First, 60 per cent of the world’s GDP is earned there (World Bank 2001). This is not just a rich country phenomenon —119 of the 132 countries listed in the World Development Report have a services share of GDP that exceeds their industry share. And 81 have a services share of GDP that exceeds 50 per cent — from Bangladesh and Botswana to Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Second, close to a third of world trade is generated there (Karsenty 2000). It is no longer tenable, if it ever was, to regard services as non-traded. Nor is it correct to say that most services trade is via commercial presence and hence not comparable to merchandise trade. Karsenty sho ws that on the basis of available statistics,’ traditional’ trade in services — defined to measure cross-border transactions — is today larger in absolute size than establishment-related trade in services. And some of the economies most dependent (in relative terms) on services trade are also some of the poorest (e.g. Armenia, Lesotho and Kiribati).

Third, barriers to services trade are significant. Because they are primarily regulatory,

and differ substantially from traditional tariffs or quotas, there is no simple ‘tariff equivalent’ with which to compare to merchandise trade barriers. But the effects of removing them can be substantial. For example, Dee and Hanslow

(2001) suggest that the global gains from eliminating barriers to trade in services, based on preliminary estimates of those barriers, could be about the same as those from eliminating all remaining barriers to trade in agriculture and industrials. And significant gains would accrue to developing economies.

Fourth, services trade barriers are currently subject to negotiation in both multilateral and regional forums. The multilateral services 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 t he stage of ‘talking turkey’ —services 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 services and foreign direct investment —issues that extend beyond the boundaries of merchandise trade. And the coverage of non-merchandise trade issues increases, the more recent the agreement.

So it is incumbent on both trade theorists and trade policy practitioners to understand the nature of services, trade in services and services trade barriers. The aim should not just be to identify theoretical possibilities. It should also be to identify negotiating priorities, so as to maximize net benefits and reduce unintended consequences in a policy area that is still, sadly, largely uncarpeted territory empirically. With services sectors 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 these 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 use some input from trade theorists.

2 What is special about services?

These days, a trade theorist might say there is surprisingly little that is special about services.

Even early papers largely dismissed concerns that the determinants of comparative advantage in services might differ from those in goods (Hindley and Smith 1984,Deardorff 1985). A few papers in the late 1980s examined some of the important characteristics of services, and highlighted the role of factors such as knowledge intensity (eg Markusen 1989, Melvin 1989). These same factors were subsequently central to ‘new trade theory’ treatments of trade in manufactures (eg Grossman and Helpmann 1991).

It is now commonplace to treat both manufactures and services as having increasing returns to scale, firm-level product differentiation and Dixit-Stiglitz preferences among firms (eg the survey by Markusen 1995, Markusen, 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 sector 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 sect 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

characteristic that seemed to be special about services — many were customized to the needs of individual purchasers. This is one level of product differentiation below that now included in most trade models. Brown, Leadoff and Stern noted that it did not seem possible to incorporate this property into formal empirical analysis. I am not aware of any subsequent analysis that has included this characteristic explicitly, but it seems to be implicit in the choice of nesting structure of demand for varieties in some more recent models of services trade. This issue is discussed below.

3 What is special about services trade?

There is one characteristic of services trade policy that is special, and is starting to influence the way that services trade itself is modeled. That characteristic is the formal recognition within the WTO of commercial presence as a method by which services are traded.

Foreign direct investment occurs in all sectors. Dee and Hanslow (2001) used Unhand APEC data to estimate that about 20 per cent of world FDI stocks were in the primary sector (agriculture, mining and food processing), with about 40 per cent each in the secondary and tertiary (service) sectors. Using very rough methods to estimate the output being generated from these FDI stocks, they estimated that the world output of outward FDI firms in the primary sector was about 80 per cent as big as the conventional exports of that sector, with comparable proportions being 40 per cent for the secondary sector and 60 per cent in services.

If the output of FDI firms is recognized as a method by which goods and services can be traded, then trade by commercial presence is significant in all sectors, even though it is not captured in conventional balance of payments statistics. By the same token, conventional trade is also significant in all sectors.

So there is nothing special about trade in services via commercial presence (except perhaps that some services can be traded only via commercial presence).

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 setting up a multilateral mechanism to liberalize FDI in-services. That mechanism is the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)under the WTO. The GATS is set up to liberalize trade in services, and it formally recognizes commercial presence, along with three other modes (cross-border trade, consumption abroad, and the movement of natural persons), as a method by which services are traded. Regional Trade Agreements are also increasingly including provisions to liberalize services and FDI.

So comprehensive modeling of services trade policy now needs to take into account liberalization of FDI in services as well as liberalization of other modes of services delivery.

Theoretical issues in modeling ownership and location

By happy coincidence, many of the features required to model the location of economic activity were already being built into both analytical and empirical models of services trade via the recognition of increasing returns to scale and firm-level product differentiation. Indeed, some of us who built such features into conventional CGE models that already had international capital mobility and an extensive treatment of tariffs and transport costs were unaware that we were adding’ economic geography’ to our models until Paul Kurgan (1998) told us so!

But in models that differentiate the ownership and location of economic activity, number of seemingly innocuous modeling choices can sometimes have alarming effects on model results.

Are economies of scale regional?

One early choice is whether the economies of scale in services are regional or global. In treatments that assume large group monopolistic competition, where the equilibrium mark-up of price over marginal cost is directly related to the extent of product differentiation, this boils down to the same thing (although Nearly (2001)argues that perhaps it shouldn’t) as whether domestic and foreign firms, although differentiated, are perfect substitutes at the margin. Equivalently, do all firms appearing a single nest in the preference functions, or are there multiple nests with different elasticity’s of substitution a t each node?

译文

服务贸易(节选)

菲利帕迪依

1服务贸易倍受关注的原因

为什么服务贸易理论学者和服务贸易政策执行者都十分关注服务贸易的发展？

第一，世界GDP的百分之六十是服务贸易产生的（世界银行 2001）。这不是发达国家特有的现象，世界发展报告包含的132个国家中的119个国家存在服务业GDP超过制造业GDP的现象。且其中81个国家服务贸易产生的GDP在本国GDP中的比重超过百分之五十，例如孟加拉国、博茨瓦拉、赞比亚和津巴布韦。

第二，接近三分之一的世界贸易属于服务贸易。而且这个比例不会静止不动，即使是，那也是因为不把服务视为贸易的原因。大多数服务贸易是通过商业存在而无法与货物贸易相比，这个看法是错误的。Karsenty调查表明，在现有统计资料的基础上，传统的服务贸易定义的过境交易的范围比现在的相关服务贸易的范围大。另外，大多数依赖与服务贸易的经济体也是一些最贫穷的国

家。

第三，服务贸易面临巨大的障碍。因为这些障碍通常不同于传统的关税或配额，相对于传统的货物贸易壁垒它不存在简单的关税比率表，但是消除它们的影响又是相当巨大的。例如，Dee 和Hanslow(2001)建议消除服务贸易壁垒，同时消除农业贸易和工业贸易所剩余的障碍以促进全球服务贸易的增长，而所得的重要收益将属于发展中经济体。

第四，服务贸易壁垒目前收到多边谈判和区域组织的关注。在目前正在进行的躲多边服务贸易谈判中，世贸组织下的“built-in”文件谈判过程已经完成了建立谈判准则阶段，正在对服务贸易自由化的建议进行谈判。在澳大利亚生产力委员会现存的20个区域贸易协议（RTAs）目前正在研究超越商品服务的边界延伸、覆盖14个重要的服务和外国直接投资问题。

因此，这是基于双方的贸易理论家和贸易政策实践者对服务的性质、服务贸易和服务贸易障碍的理解。其目的不仅仅是找出理论上的可能性。在这个政策上仍然大部分不符规则的、以经验来判断的领域，最大限度地增加净效益和减少计划外的损失也应该是谈判的优先事项。随着大多数经济体的服务业不断发展，由于错误的理解而造成的跌价风险的影响是非常巨大的，而这种风险仍然存在。

在政策咨询机构工作的莫德勒的实证贸易政策和一些贸易理论家的观点都是针对该问题的讨论。讨论可能会缺少一些理论问题和贡献，但会在数据和参数问题上加以补充并利用贸易理论家的一些观点看法。

2服务的特点

现如今，贸易理论家对于服务贸易的特点的观点较少。

早期的论文基本上排除了关于服务贸易比较优势的决定因素不同于货物贸易的的假设。20世纪80年代中后期的一些论文着重于服务的一些特色，并强调了知识密度等因素的作用。这些相同的因素后来成为关于制造业的新贸易理论的主要构成部分。

现在大多数观点认同制造业和服务业的都是按比例收益递增的、公司层面的产品差异化和迪克西特-斯蒂格利茨倾向公司模型,只有解释来源于公司层面的产品差异化与自然的固定成本的生产规模经济时有所不同。对于农业，大多数学者认为其是一个同质产品规模报酬不变的行业。但是，对于农业还有许多