美国基础产业的国际竞争力【外文翻译】.doc

1、 外文翻译 原文 International Competition in the Products of U.S.Basic Industries MaterialSource:http:/www.nber.org/chapters/c6214 Author:BarryEichengreen Capitalism, as Joseph Schumpeter defined it, is a process of creative destruction. In a market economy, one should expect new products, processes, and e

2、ven producers to supplant their predecessors in the normal course of events. Yet Schumpeters metaphor provides little comfort to employees and shareholders of basic industries in the United States, all of which are suffering the effects of foreign competition. The American steel industry is the most

3、 dramatic case in point: between 1979 and 1985, the number of wage employees there declined from 342,000 to 151,000, while the percentage rate of return on stockholders equity fell from 5.8 to - 18.5 (American Iron and Steel Institute 1986). Recent trends in the automobile, textile, and apparel indu

4、stries, while somewhat less alarming, similarly convey an impression of U.S. basic industries in steady and perhaps irreversible decline. In this paper, I first document the dramatic fall in the shares of U.S. basic industries in domestic employment and global production. I then consider explanation

5、s for these industries relative-and, in some instances,absolute-decline. Those explanations fall into two categories: domestic and international. Domestic explanations focus on the decisions of three sets of actors: management, labor, and government. Management is blamed for ill-advised decisions (O

6、Boyle 1983), labor for high wage costs (Kreinin 1984), government for harmful tax, trade, and macroeconomic policies (Bluestone and Harrison 1982). International explanations focus on the tendency of the product cycle to continually shift the production of established products and standardized proce

7、sses to newly industrializing countries (due to what Alexander Gerschenkron called, in now unfashionable parlance, the advantages of “economic backwardness”). Late industrializers, it is argued, while lacking the infrastructure to be in the forefront of innovation, have the advantage of low labor an

8、d material costs when it comes to the production of established goods using standardized technologies. The problem that plagues this search for culprits should be familiar to fans of the board game Clue. As in Clue, the problem is one of too many suspects, and some method is required to eliminate ca

9、ndidates. One of the findings of section 5.1 is a striking contrast in the recent fortunes of the American steel industry on the one hand and the automotive and textile industries on the other-steel continuing to spiral downward, automobiles and textiles showing signs of greater stability. For an ex

10、planation of recent difficulties in the basic industries to be convincing, it must be capable of accounting for this contrast. Much of the analysis that follows is organized around the contrasting experiences of these industries. After documenting recent trends in the U.S. basic industries, I decomp

11、ose those trends into components associated with the rise of competing supplies, the growth of demand, and changes in competitiveness.First, I consider the rise of competing supplies, contrasting product cycle explanations that view shifts in the location of basic industries as a natural consequence

12、 of the international diffusion of standardized technologies with explanations that emphasize the influence of public policy. Evidence on the diffusion of established technologies, while confirming the importance of the product cycle, suggests also that continued innovation in the United States can

13、preserve important segments of the U.S. basic industries. Next, I examine global trends in demand for the products of basic industries. Because there is a strong correlation between the intensity of demand-side pressures and the severity of the problems faced by the basic industries, I conclude that

14、 demand-side factors have played an important role in recent trends.Finally, I analyze factors influencing the competitiveness of basic industries in the United States and abroad, ranging from labor costs, work conditions, management strategies, and investment decisions to the macro, trade, and tax

15、policies of governments. A central message of this paper is that monocasual explanations for the recent difficulties of U.S. basic industries conceal more than they reveal. Those difficulties reflect both the efficient interplay of market forces (driven largely by economic development abroad) and in

16、efficiencies resulting from labor, management, and government decisions that have proven ill advised in light of subsequent events. Insofar as product-cycle-based shifts in the international pattern of comparative advantage have contributed to recent difficulties, some decline in the U. S. basic ind

17、ustries is both inevitable-barring measures to isolate the U. S. market from international competition-and justifiable on efficiency grounds. Insofar as labor, management, and government decisions share responsibility, the recent difficulties of U.S. basic industries may be at least partially revers

18、ible. To the extent that these factors vary in importance across industries-indeed across segments of the same industry-it is misleading to offer an undifferentiated assessment of the prospects of the basic industries in the United States. Much depends on the facility with which different segments o

19、f those industries adopt new technologies emanating from the high-tech sector. The steel industry, for example, is increasingly bifurcated into a declining segment dominated by largescale integrated works and a more profitable, technologically progressive segment dominated by minimills. Similarly, t

20、he application of new technologies holds out more promise for the survival and prosperity of some segments of the U.S. automobile and textile industries than for others. In consequence, it is increasingly difficult to analyze the basic industries as a monolithic bloc and even to distinguish them cle

21、arly from the high-tech sector. 5.1 Recent Trends in U.S. Basic Industries It is not immediately clear which industries should be defined as basic. Basic industries are typically thought to be those that traditionally loomed large in U.S. industrial production and have fallen recently on hard times:

22、 iron and steel, textiles and apparel, and motor vehicles. These industries are lumped together more for their long-standing importance to the U.S. economy, their recent difficulties, and their regional concentration than for their innate economic characteristics. Technically, basic industries are t

23、hose situated far upstream in the input-output table. Their products serve as inputs into production in a variety of other sectors. They are distinguished by the age of the industry and of the enterprise. Their technology is relatively standardized. Production is often capital-intensive, and there e

24、xist barriers to entry. Textiles, apparel, motor vehicles, and steel satisfy these criteria to differing extents. While the steel industry is relatively far upstream, aged, and capital-intensive, the speed with which its technology evolves resembles the high-tech industries. The textile and apparel

25、industries,while relatively old and heavily dependent on standardized technologies,are not situated so far upstream (in the sense that they rely as much on consumer as producer goods markets), are labor- rather than capital-intensive, and until recently have exhibited few entry barriers. Despite the

26、 difficulties posed by the terminology, in this paper I adopt the popular definition of basic industries and focus on steel, motor vehicles, textiles, and apparel. Table 5.A.2 uses these regressions to decompose changes in U.S. competitiveness (as they are reflected in changes in production employme

27、nt) into these four components and a residual. The first line shows that slack macroeconomic conditions, real exchange rate appreciation, and higher energy prices all tended to reduce U.S. manufacturing employment between the second half of the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s. Only some slight

28、 decline of real manufacturing wages moderated the trend. Of these factors, the dollars real appreciation was the most important; by itself it would have caused production employment in manufacturing to fall by more than an eighth. But U. S. manufacturing employment declined considerably less than t

29、he movement of these variables would predict. Other sources of enhanced competitiveness (“other factors” in table 5.A.2) contributed significantly to the maintenance of manufacturing employment over the period. The basic industries show many of the same patterns but important differences as well. Em

30、ployment in steel and vehicles is more cyclically sensitive than employment in textiles and apparel, more strongly affected by movements in the real exchange rate, and more responsive to changes in the relative price of energy. Although the recent moderation of real manufacturing wages has stimulate

31、d employment in all four industries, the contribution of wage trends to the change in total industry employment has been relatively small. A striking feature of the table is the contrast in the impact of “other factors” between motor vehicles and the other basic industries. In textiles, apparel, and

32、 iron and steel, these other factors contributed to the decline in production employment over the period. The interpretation of this finding is that the further intensification of foreign competition tended to add to the three industries competitive woes. In automobiles, in contrast, other factors a

33、ccount for a significant rise in production employment. Whether his has been due to increased barriers to foreign competition, notably the negotiation of Japanese export restraints in 1981, or to new investment,marketing, and product development strategies on the part of the U.S. automobile producer

34、s can not be determined by regression alone. 译文 美国基础产业的国际竞争力 资料来源 :http:/www.nber.org/chapters/c6214 作者： Barry Eichengreen 资本主义， Joseph Schumpeter 把它定义为一个创造性的毁灭过程。在市场经济中 ,每个人都应该期待新的产品 , 流程 ， 和他们的前辈代替生产者也 是 正常经营过程中的事件 。然而 Schumpeter 的比喻为美国 员工和股东基础产业提供一点点安慰 ,所有这一切都是国外竞争的痛苦影响。这美国钢铁工业是最明显的例子 :1979年和 198

35、5年之间 ,员工工资有从 342,000 到 151,000,而所占的比例 ,股东收益率股票就从 5.8 到 18.5(美国钢铁技术学院 1986 年 8 月初版 )。近期在汽车、纺织、服装行业 ,有些令人担忧 ,同样令人担忧的是美国最基本的、稳定的行业出现无法逆转下降。 在这段中，我 首先证明大幅减少美国的股票基础 在于工业在 国内 的 就业和工业的 全球生产 。然后我考虑解释相对于这些行业他们在某些情况下绝对下降。那些解释可分为两大类 :国内 和国 外。国内的解释集中 主要由三个因素主导 :管理、劳动 ,政府等。管理是由于 不切实际 的决定 才产生的 (1983)O boyle， 劳动为

36、高工资 成本 (Kreinin 1984年 )。 政府 不利 税收 、 贸易和宏观经济政策(bluestone和 Harrison， 1982)。 国际上解释产品周期主要集中倾向于产品的流动和产品标准化的过程建立新的工业化国家。（由于 Alexander Gerschenkron声称： “经济落后“的优点是现在老套的说法。）早期工业，有人主张，在那个时候创新所面临的是 缺乏基础 设备。 低廉劳动 力 和材料成本 在 商品生产的建立已经采用标准化技术 。 困扰的是，搜索线索是匪徒应该是那些热爱棋盘类游戏的人 。在线索中，问题是太多的嫌疑人，有些方法是减 少嫌疑人。条款 5.1 发现一个强烈的对比

37、在最近美国钢铁工业的活动和汽车、纺织业，其中钢铁继续螺旋状向下，但汽车和纺织品更稳定的迹象。分析 近 年 来的基础产业难以令人信服 ,但 它必 定 能 说明 这种对比 的原因。 大部分的分析经验是围绕这些行业的。 近期对美国基础产业记录后， 我把改变竞争力的原因分解为供应和需求的增长 。首先，我认为竞争用品上涨对比产品周期影响，即认为这是当局的解释，强调公共政策的标准化技术是必然受到国际传播的影响，基础产业的位置变化说明现有技术的扩散 ，同时确认了产品周期的重要性， 还建议美国持续创新，才能保持美 国的基础产业的重要环节。接下来，我审查的基础产业产品需求的全球趋势。因为有一个与需求方的压力强度

38、和基础产业所面临的问题的严重程度密切相关，我的结论是需求方面的因素发挥了重要作用在最近的趋势。最后，我分析的影响因素在美国和国外基础产业的竞争力，从劳动力成本，工作条件，管理策略，并决定向宏投资，贸易和各国政府的税收政策。 这份文件的中心思想是， monocasual 解释美国的基础产业最近的困难。这些困难既反映了市场的力量有效的相互作用 （驱动经济发展主要由国外）是效率不高造成的，之后发生的事件证明对于劳动力管理和政府决策的失误。至于在比较国际格局的产品周期的变化利用最近的困难作出了贡献，在美国的一些的基础产业衰退是不可避免的，孤立的措施，禁止从国际竞争的美国市场上的效率和合理的理由。由于劳

39、动力，管理，政府的决策共同承担责任，美国的基础产业最近的困难可能少部分是可逆的。 在某种程度上，这些因素在各个行业的不同的重要性，确实跨越部门与行业会使人误解，提供一个基本的是无差别的前提才能评估美国行业。这在很大程度上取决于该设施与该行业的不同部分采用 新技术的高科技行业。钢铁行业，例如， minimills 说越来越多的大型工程所占主导地位的下降段使一般的工程更加有利可图，技术进步占主要原因。同样，新的应用技术拥有更多的生存和繁荣的前景，一些对美国汽车和纺织行业的部分与其他行业对比。结果，人们越来越难以分析的是基础产业如整体一块，甚至可清楚地从高科技领域区分开来。 5.1 在美国基本工业的

40、最新发展趋势 目前还不明确基础行业的定义是什么 。 大多数认为 基础工业 是解决 美国传统工业 在 艰难的时刻 度过的基础 ：钢铁，纺织品和服装，汽车。这些行业集中在一起为他们的长期对美国经 济的重要性，最近他们的困难，天生的经济特色的区域集中。从技术上讲，基础产业是 依靠 在投入 大于产出 的 主流 。其产品投入生产，服务等行业的各种为输入。他们的特点是行业的年龄和企业。他们的技术比较规范。生产通常是资本密集，且存在进入障碍。纺织品，服装，汽车，钢铁满足这些条件的不同程度的冲击。虽然钢铁行业是比较上游 的 ， 历史悠久的 ，资本密集型的，它的技术的发展 速度 类似于高科技产业。纺织服装行业，

41、相对在很大程度上依赖于标准化技术，至今未位于上游（在某种意义上说，他们依靠 消费者的多少取决于 生产资料市场），劳动 大都不 是资本密集 型的，直到 目前已表现出一些行业门槛 。尽管在本文中采用的术语 构成困难重重 ，基础产业重点 注重于 钢铁，汽车，纺织品和服装。 表 5.A.2 使用这些回归分解为这四个组件和美国的竞争力中残留的变化（因为他们是在生产就业变化反映出来）。第一行显示， 较弱 的宏观经济条件下，实际汇率升值，能源价格上涨的趋势，减少上世纪 70 年代下半年和 1980年上半年的美国制造业的就业机会。只有一些制造业的实际工资略有下降的趋势放缓。在这些因素中，美元的实际升值是最重要

42、的，它本身会造成生产下降会使 更多的生产 部门提供更多 就业。但是，美国 制造业的就业人数大幅度下降不到这些变量的运动将 被 预测。增强竞争力的其他来源（ “ 其他因素 ” 表5.A.2），大大促进了制造业就业在此期间 的回旋余地。 基础产业展以及许多相同的模式，但 还是有 重要的区别。在钢铁和汽车就业周期性 比 纺织品和服装就业 更 敏感，更强烈地受到影响，实际汇率的变动，更加适应在能源相对价格的变化。虽然制造业的实际工资最近放缓， 但 也带动了所有四个行业的就业，工资 上升 的贡献，在总的就业人数变化相对较小。 该图表反映的是 “ 其他因素 ” 对 机动车和其他基础工业 的 影响 。在纺织品，服装，钢铁，这些其他因素 造成 了就业 期间的生产下降。 对 这一发现 的解释 是，外国竞争进一步加剧 了 三次产业的竞争 力 。汽车，相比之下，其他因素占了生产就业 明显 上升。无论 其他 ，是由于外国竞争增加 所导致 ，特别是在 1981 年日本出口限制的谈判，新的投资，市场营销，美国汽车制造商不能由 部分产品的回归分析 定发展战略 。