1、 外文翻译 原文 Firms in International Trade Material Source: www.nber.org Author: Andrew B. Bernard For most of its lengthy history the field of international trade largely ignored the role of the firm in mediating the flow of goods and services. Traditional trade theory explained the flow of goods betwee
2、n countries in terms of comparative advantage, that is, variation in the opportunity costs of production across countries and industries. Even the research focusing on differentiated varieties and increasing returns to scale that followed Helpman and Krugman continued to retain the characterization
3、of the representative firm.?However, the assumption of a representative firm, while greatly enhancing the tractability of general equilibrium analysis, is emphatically rejected in the data. My research over the past decade has been an attempt to explore international trade from below: to understand
4、the decisions of heterogeneous firms in shaping international trade and their effects on productivity growth and welfare. Firm Heterogeneity and Trade My early work with J. Bradford Jensen was motivated by a simple question: what do we know about firms that trade? The answer at the time was “very li
5、ttle“ and our initial efforts focused on locating firm-level data and describing the world of exporting firms. Our first study compared exporters and non-exporters for the entire U.S. manufacturing sector and established a set of facts about exporting plants and firms.?Two major results stand out. F
6、irst, only a small fraction of firms are exporters at any given time. Even in sectors where the United States is thought to have comparative advantage, such as Instruments, a majority of firms produce only for the domestic market. Similarly, some firms are exporting even in net import sectors such a
7、s Textiles and Apparel. Second, exporters are substantially and significantly different than non-exporters, even in the same industry and region. Exporters are dramatically larger, more productive, pay higher wages, use more skilled workers, and are more technology- and capital-intensive than their
8、non-exporting counterparts. In related work on German firms with Joachim Wagner, I again found these patterns of systematic differences between exporters and non-exporters and subsequent research by numerous authors has confirmed them to be robust across a wide range of industries, regions, time per
9、iods and countries at varied levels of economic development.?/P Exporting and Productivity The biggest question raised by this early research was the nature of the positive correlation between export status and productivity, that is, whether exporting leads to higher plant productivity. Research don
10、e with J. Bradford Jensen established that “potential“ exporters have better characteristics years before they enter a foreign market, including higher productivity, higher wages, and larger size. However, the most important finding was that exporters do not have higher productivity growth even thou
11、gh they have higher levels of productivity. Todays exporters have no advantage in terms of productivity growth relative to non-exporters over the next year, and over some horizons actual significantly underperform in terms of productivity growth. As a complementary question, we asked whether higher
12、productivity increases the probability of a plant becoming an exporter. Studies on both the U.S. and Germany find evidence for the selection of high productivity firms into exporting as well as evidence of substantial sunk costs to entering the export market. The strong conclusion from this empirica
13、l work is that high productivity firms are able to pay the sunk costs of entering foreign markets but that, once in, they do not receive an extra productivity kick. However, the role of productivity in shaping aggregate export responses should not be overstated. Work on the determinants of the U.S.
14、export boom cautioned that improved U.S. productivity still played a minor role relative to exchange rates and foreign income growth in the dramatic expansion of exports in the late 1980s and early 1990s. While firm-level productivity is not improved by exporting, exporting does benefit the firm in
15、other ways. First, plant failure is dramatically less likely for exporters. In a study of the role of firm structure and multinational ownership on plant deaths, we find that exporting is strongly correlated with survival at U.S. plants, even after controlling for productivity and numerous other pla
16、nt, firm, and industry characteristics. Ownership by a multinational, however, substantially increases the conditional probability that a plant will close. This relationship between multinationality and plant closure holds in other countries as well. The second major benefit of exporting for the fir
17、m is faster growth, both for output and employment. The faster output growth at exporters, combined with their higher initial productivity levels, leads to relatively large effects on aggregate productivity. A substantial fraction of overall manufacturing productivity growth is attributable to faste
18、r growth of high-productivity exporters. Firms and Trade - Theory These empirical results suggested the need for a formal general equilibrium model of heterogeneous firms and international trade. Together with Jonathan Eaton, J. Bradford Jensen, and Samuel Kortum, I developed a model of internationa
19、l trade and heterogeneous firms that focuses on the relationship between plant productivity and exporting. Starting from the stylized facts that there are relatively few exporters, that they are much larger and more productive, and that there is little or no evidence that exporting improves firm pro
20、ductivity, we construct a Ricardian model of heterogeneous firms, imperfect competition with incomplete markups, and international trade. Simulating a 5 percent worldwide reduction in geographic barriers, we find that trade volumes increase by 39 percent and aggregate productivity increases because
21、low-productivity plants fail and high-productivity survivors expand and start to export. The model provides a rich set of additional testable implications, as the interaction of lower trade costs and product differentiation leads to a range of responses by firms within the same industry: the least p
22、roductive are the most likely to fail, and the relatively high productivity non-exporters are the most likely to start exporting. In subsequent theoretical work with Stephen Redding and Peter K. Schott, I embed heterogeneous firms into a model of comparative advantage and analyze how firm, country,
23、and industry characteristics interact as trade costs fall.构 This paper combines the heterogeneous-firm trade firm model of Melitz 共 with traditional cross-country differences in endowments and cross-industry differences in production technology. We report a number of new and often surprising results
24、. In contrast to the neoclassical model, we find that simultaneous within- and across-industry reallocations of economic activity generate substantial job turnover in all sectors, even while there is net job creation in comparative-advantage industries and net job destruction in comparative-disadvan
25、tage industries. We show that steady-state creative destruction of firms also occurs in all sectors, but we find that it is more highly concentrated in comparative-advantage industries than in comparative-disadvantage industries. These results suggest that the effects of trade on labor market outcom
26、es may not be confined to job losses in comparative-disadvantage sectors. We also find that the behavior of heterogeneous firms magnifies countries comparative advantage and thereby creates a new source of welfare gains from trade. The relative growth of high-productivity firms raises aggregate prod
27、uctivity in all industries, and productivity growth is strongest in comparative-advantage sectors. The price declines associated with these productivity increases inflate the real-wage gains of relatively abundant factors while dampening, or even potentially overturning, the real-wage losses of rela
28、tively scarce factors. Firm Responses to Trade Liberalization The empirical and theoretical work on firm heterogeneity and trade naturally leads to the question of how firms respond to trade liberalization and increased foreign competition. J. Bradford Jensen, Peter K. Schott, and I test for the eff
29、ects of competition from low-wage countries such as China on plant employment and plant survival.钩 High levels of import competition from low wage countries are bad for plant growth and survival but are especially problematic for low-capital, low-skill plants in any industry. In addition, we find th
30、at plants facing high levels of competition from low-wage countries are more likely to change their output mix towards products made with more capital and more skilled labor. This discovery of product switching in response to foreign competition has led to a new series of papers documenting the extr
31、aordinary amount of ongoing product switching in the U.S. economy.? In further work on the firm-level response to falling trade barriers, we test the additional implications of the new heterogeneous-firm models of Melitz and Bernard, Eaton, Jensen, and Kortum.?These models predict heterogeneous resp
32、onses to reduced trade costs across firms, including entry into exporting by some and increased failure rates for others. The predictions of the theory are largely supported by the data on U.S. manufacturing plants. Using a new measure of trade costs, we find that reductions in trade costs are assoc
33、iated with faster industry productivity growth. The effect of falling trade barriers varies substantially across firms within an industry. Low-productivity plants fail more often and higher-productivity plants start to export. This heterogeneous response leads to a reallocation within the industry t
34、owards more productive establishments and helps to account for the aggregate productivity gains. Interestingly, a result not predicted by the theoretical models is that plant productivity actually rises in response to lower trade costs. This result points to the need for a richer set of firm-based t
35、heoretical models. 译文 国际贸易中的企业 资料来源 : www.nber.org 作者： Andrew B.Bernard 在有着漫长历史的国际贸易领域的发展中 ， 大部分 人 在很大程度上忽略了中介公司在货物和服务的流通。 传统贸易 理论 解释了国与国之间的商品流通方面比较优势 ,也就是说 ,机会成本变化的生产不同国家、行业。 继 赫普曼克鲁格曼之后 , 即使研究 的重点放在 分化的品种和收益递增的规模 ,但保留了代理 公司 的功能。然而代理公司的假设的提出，大大提高了对重点数据的平衡性分析，在过去的十年里 我探索并研究了以 下内容 :分析 在 构建 国际贸易 混合 企业
36、 对 生产力增长 与 福利 的影响 。 1.公司的非均质性和贸易 我 与 布拉福德杰森早期 工作的 动机 来自于 一个简单的问题 :我们是否了解公司的贸易？在当时的答案：非常少 。 我 们最初的努力集中在定位公司层面的有关 数据和描述出口公司 方面。 我们的第一个研究比较了出口商和 非出口商在整个美国制造业、建立了一套事实植物和出口公司 。 有两个主要的结果脱颖而出。首先 ， 只有一小部份的公司 可以在任何给定的时间出口商品， 甚至在美国领域被认为具有比较优势 ,如仪器 类的 ,大多数企业的生产仅为 了在 国内市场 销售 。同样的 ,也包括 一些公司 比如 净进口纺织品和服装等行业。 第二 ,
37、出口企业完全不同于显著 非出口企业 即使 两者 在同一行业和地区。出口商戏剧性地更大、更富有成效 ,支付更高的工资 ,使用更熟练的工人 ,和更多的技术 。非出口公司 比他们的同行们 更能体现出 资本密集 。 来自瓦格纳 在 德国企业 的 相关工作 ， 我又发现这些模式 ，非出口商 和出口商之 的 系统间的差异 。 接下来的研究证实了他们受到众多 因素的洗礼， 跨越各种不同行业 ,地区 ,不同时期的国家的经济发展水平。 2.出口和生产力 早期研究的最大问题出在出口地位和生产力的正相关关系。我与 延森布拉福德 的研究得出一些“ 潜在”的出口商的年终数据都会比他们进入国际市场的时候要好。 包括有更高
38、的生产率 ,更高的工资 ,和更大的规模。 然而 ， 最重要的发现是 ， 出口商 没有 更高的生产率增长 ,尽管他们具有更高的水平的生产力。 出口商今日的出口对比非出口商的发展并没有优势可言，这样他们会把出口视为实际是经济增长放缓的做法。 作为一个互补问题 ,我们 提出过是否小公司会有更高的可能性成为一家出口企业，通过研究 美国和德国 对 高生产率的选择 的实例 以及出口公司大量的证据 和巨额 成本进入出口市场。 得出了一个有力的结论：高生产力公司可以支巨额成本来进入国外市场，他们不 会错过得到生产力的任何机会，哪怕只是一次。 然而 ,生产力的作用在塑造总出口反应不应该被夸大了。工作的影响因素问
39、题的改进 。 80 年代末到 90 年代 ， 美国出口繁荣警告美国生产率相对汇率和外汇收入增长的出口戏剧性扩展仍然扮演了一个小角色 。 虽然出口不能提高公司的生产效率水平，但是出口造福了公司的一些其他方面。第一，对一个出口公司来说倒闭的可能性较小， 在一项研究中 我们调查了 跨国所有权结构牢固、 工厂倒闭， 我们发现 这些因素 与美国 出口公司 生存密切相关 。 然而 ,大幅度地增加条件 会增加厂商倒闭的可能性 。 有多样化 关系 的 工厂关闭在其他 国家 数不胜数 。第二 个 主要好处 ： 公司 出 出口快速增长 ,无论是对输出和就业 来说有好处。 在 生产 增长速度越快 ， 出口 对 最初
40、的生产力水平 有 相对较大影响 ,导致总生产力 提高， 整体制造生产力 的 增长的原因部分应归功于高效率增长的出口。 3.公司和贸易 理论 这些研究结果 是 正式 多样化结构 构企业的一般均衡模型和国际贸易 所需要的。我和伊顿乔纳森，杰森布莱弗德开发了一个模型，来体现不同结构的企业中出口和生产力之间的关系。从出口很少的企业开始，我们系统地分析了一下，他们都更有生产效率，这表示我们还没有足够证据说明出口能提高生产效率。我们 参考了不同结构的 企业 的 李嘉图模型 ，发现还有一些因素比如在国际贸易中的 不完全竞争 的 不完全标价 对此有着影响。 我们模拟了一个实验，减少 5%的世界贸易障碍，就会使
41、得贸易量和总生产力也会提高 39%。因为低生产效率的厂商会倒闭，而有着高生产力的厂家生存了下来，从而开始出口产品。该模型提供了丰富的数据并且很有意义。 更低的贸易成本和产品差异化导致一系列的 对应 公司在相同的产业 上会体现：低效率生产最可能失败 ， 相对高生产力 非出口企业 最可能开始出口。 通过研究我们报告了一些新的理论和让人惊异的结果。对照新的模型我们发现，同一时期的 再生产和直接生产部门以及一些网络公司给我们提供了很多就业机会。我们发现，稳定不求改革的企业在各个行业中都存在着，但是他们高度集中在非竞争优势产业的行业中。结果表明在劳动力市场中贸易对非竞争优势产业的失业率影响比较小。 我们
42、还发现 ， 异构企业放大国家的比较优势的行为创建了一个全新的利益 来源。 有着高生产力的企业发展促进了整体行业的发展，竞争优势最强的那部分企业具有很高的生产效率。因为生产率提高会导致价格发生下降，颠覆整体价值格局。 4.公司贸易自由化反应 - 对公司的非均质性和贸易问题 的 实证和理论的 研究， 就可以发现 ， 新兴的企业如何应对贸易自由化与日益增加的外国竞争。 我们做了关于低收入国家的竞争所带来的影响的研究，比如中国在工厂就业和企业生存方面的问题。从低收入国家进口的激烈竞争会对企业的生存和发展产生不利影响。我们还发现低收入企业面对国际竞争更容易改变其人员配置和对产品的输出方式。 这一发现使得 针对外国竞争 的 产品交换有了一个新的一系列文件记录 ，来记载进行产品切换的美国经济。
