1、 外文翻译 原文 Export Competitiveness: Reversing the Logic Material Source: World Bank Author: Christian Ketels Introduction In the wake of the current economic and financial crisis, countries around the globe are looking for ways to reignite economic growth. Traditionally, export-led growth has been perc
2、eived as one of the most promising pathways to do so. The experience of several waves of Asian economies that achieved high and sustained growth while pursuing a strong export orientationprovided the empirical backdrop for this approach. Government policy to achieve export-led growth is then essenti
3、ally about findings ways to increase the ability to sell domestically produced goods and services on globalmarkets. This ability to export is what has often been understood as export competitiveness. In this thinking, exports become the target and ultimate goal of economic policy. While the crisis h
4、as increased the demand for growth strategies, it has also raised serious concerns about whether the traditional export-led growth strategies are providing the right answer. This note outlines a number of these concerns, ranging from the practical to the conceptual. It argues that an underlying prob
5、lem has been the misguided interpretation of export competitiveness as the ability to sell globally, a concern that was voiced about the term competitiveness more broadly already more than 15 years ago (Krugman, 1994). As an alternative, the note outlines a growth approach in which exports are a dia
6、gnostic instrument and the associated policies focused on exports one plank in a broader competitiveness and growth strategy. It argues that the focus of debate now needs to be on the actual policies that can increase competitiveness rather than exports perse. Policies to improve export competitiven
7、ess: Critical issues The notion that exports and trade more generally are conducive to economic growth has been a long-standing feature of economics. The theoretical arguments focused traditionally on the ability to exploit gains from trade, essentially leading to higher productivity by exploiting c
8、omparative advantages. Over time, arguments related to the exploitation of economies of scale and to different types of externalities became additional features of the debate. The introduction of market imperfection arguments actually introduced significant complications: specialization in thewrong
9、activities, i.e. those with lower levels of positive externalities, could hurt growth prospects (Grossman/Helpman, 1991). Exports, then, might not be beneficial per se, but only if they occur in the right activities. The empirical analyses tried to provide insights into the factual linkages between
10、trade andgrowth. Many researchers have found a stable relationship between openness and prosperity growth (Baldwin, 2003; Dollar/Kraay, 2002; Frankel/Romer, 1999; Sachs/ Warner 1995), or highlighted the role of trade as a means to tap into foreign knowledge and raise productivity (Coe/Helpman, 1995;
11、 Alcala/Ciccone, 2004). But others are more skeptical and attribute these findings to the specific data and econometric approach used (Rodriguez/Rodrik, 2000; Median-Smith, 2001). There are also questions as to whether the relationship between specific trade policy instruments such as tariffs and gr
12、owth has not been stable over time (Clemens/Williamson, 2004). On a more basic notion, there remains a significant amount of empirical evidence that trade remains much stronger within countries than across borders (Mayer/Zignago, 2005), even when traditional tariff and non-tariff-barriers have been
13、removed like in the EUs Internal Market (Ilzkovitz et al., 2007). While neither the theoretical nor the empirical work provided unequivocal support for targeting exports, the successful example of the Asian economies with their significant export growth inspired policy makers to look for ways to enh
14、ance growth through policies to increase exports. They are faced with critical issues at three different levels: How can export competitiveness be improved, is export competitiveness (still) a feasible policy approach, and is export competitiveness an appropriate policy objective? How can the effect
15、iveness of export competitiveness policies be improved? If one accepts the notion that exports provide positive externalities and thus should be encouraged by government, the policy question is how to do so most effectively. One large body of thinking is devoted to identifying general barriers to ex
16、ports that reduce trade below its socially optimal level. Exchange rate (Rodrik, 2009) or other policies to change relative prices can provide a countervailing force by subsidizing exports. But they increase the costs of imports, hurting both domestic consumption and export-oriented industries with
17、high import content. More effective policies would thus target these barriers directly. Some of these barriers are related to inefficiencies in the domestic business environment, for example those captured in the World Banks Logistical Performance Index (Arvis et al., 2010). Others are related to ma
18、rket access abroad, for example through the tariff and non-tariff barriers captured by the WTO, World Bank, and the OECD. Or they could be related to lagging capabilities of domestic companies, either in understanding foreign markets or in their own products, services, or value chains. Another large
19、 body of thinking is devoted to identifying specific sectors in which exports can be increased more easily or with more value being generated. More prosperous countries tend to be more diversified and present in different product categories that other countries (Hausmann/Hwang/Rodrik; 2005). Most of
20、 the new literature focuses on the question of how countries can identify sectors that are not only generically more attractive in terms of the prosperity level they can support the perspective taken by the traditional strategic industrial policy but also are within reasonable reach for a country gi
21、ven its existing industry portfolio. There has recently been interesting progress on the analytics of identifying relations between industries that make successful diversification seem more likely (Hausmann/Klinger, 2006,Delgado/Porter/Stern, 2009; Neffke et al., 2009). There is less systematic prog
22、ress on identifying the policy tools to develop these related industries in ways in ways that avoid the mistakes of industrial policies in the past. Empirical evidence is also mixed with some recent work suggesting that much of the potential and for export growth and export diversification into more
23、 attractive market segments can happen within existing export industries rather than in industries new to a country (Shaw et al., 2009). Overall there is clear evidence that policies to achieve export competitiveness, understood as the ability to sell on global markets, can be improved. Are export c
24、ompetitiveness-oriented policies still feasible? Even if one accepts the notion that export-led growth strategies can work, policy makers face the question as to whether it is a feasible approach for all countries at all times. One body of literature, emerging already when Asian economies focused on
25、 exports to regain growth after the Asian crisis (Felipe, 2003), questions whether the export-orientation is still feasible if it is being pursued by a large number of countries in parallel. It might have negative terms-of-trade effects if all exports focus on the same industries. It might to lead t
26、o unsustainable macroeconomic imbalances with countries running large current account surpluses/deficit on a sustained basis if normal adjustments through exchange rate movements work sluggish. This is a possibility that has become very real over the last few years. Export-oriented countries might g
27、et trapped in beggar-thy-neighbor policies to capture share in the global market for exports instead of adding to global trade (Atkinson, 2009). There is some evidence of this tension emerging in recent years, for example in Europe as German wage restraint improved its relative cost position on expo
28、rt markets. In importing countries there might be a significant political economy backlash from sectors exposed to increasing foreign competition. Here, too, pressure has been rising but so far there is no significantintensification of trade or investment restrictions (WTO/OECD/ UNCTAD, 2010). Anoth
29、er set of contributions focuses more on the question whether export-orientation is feasible in the current economic climate. On the demand side, the sluggish growth in advanced economy markets and the excess capacity globally might leave insufficient room for countries to achieve export growth (Rodr
30、ik, 2009;Blecker/Razmi, 2009). However, increasing trade within the south seems to provide alternative export opportunities (Canuto et al., 2010). On the supply side, the almost unlimited labor supply at low wage levels (Lewis, 1954) in China andcountries like Vietnam might make it hard for other co
31、untries to compete with them successfully on export markets. The empirical data confirms the presence of this effect but does not indicate that it renders export-driven growth strategies infeasible (Wood/Mayer, 2009). Overall, the discussion remains far from having reached a consensus. At the minimu
32、m, there is a sense that there is a need to reach a more balanced approach where exports are not the central driver of countries growth strategies. Is the focus on export competitiveness as the ability to export appropriate? The most fundamental question is whether the focus on raising exports is ap
33、propriate as a guiding principle for a sustainable economic growth strategy, whether or not it could be improved or remains feasible. One concern relates back to the empirical evidence presented at the outset, which indicated that the link between exports and prosperity is less robust and the causal
34、 relationship from one to the other is less clear than would be necessary to confidentially put exports at the center of growth strategies. An alternative view of the data suggests that export-orientation works if some other fundamental conditions are in place. These fundamental conditions should th
35、en be at the core of growth policies, not the exports that are their result or, at best, a multiplier of their impact. Another concern is that the policy focus on exports very easily leads to insufficient attention to domestically-oriented or more traditional sectors (services, agriculture). This cr
36、eates economic costs like traditionally in Japan (Porter at al., 2000). But it is also politically harder to sustain then, for example, the Thai dual track strategy with growth impulses for both exporting and local activities that turned out to generate broad-based public support (Looney, 2004). An
37、alternative view is to integrate export-orientation in a broader based growth strategy. The more general hypothesis is that policies that foster exports by increasing the private profitability of exporting but do not raise productivity of any individual activities can still raise prosperity as long
38、as they drive structural change biased towards higher (in the context of the country) productivity sectors. Policies that raise the productivity of activities in the export sector can also drive structural change but continue to work even when structural change has slowed down. The attraction of cha
39、nging relative prices to drive structural change is that this instrument works much faster than the more sustainable, but also slower process of upgrading productivity. This is an area for more conceptual as well as theoretical research. Another candidate has to do more with the competitiveness-orie
40、nted framework itself. While the framework provides conceptual principles and orientation, the specific policy instruments to use have been developed much less in the literature. And there is less practical anddocumented experience from countries that have followed these recommendations. There are a
41、 good number of examples where countries have implicitly followed the advice that a competitiveness-oriented analysis would provide. But there are much less examples where countries have moved through an analytical process as sketched out above, design policy priorities accordingly, and then impleme
42、nted them as planned. Broader-based adoption of competitiveness-oriented growth policies will to a large degree depend on providing policy makers with more practical examples and tools that can convince them to take the risk that is inherent in adopting any new policy paradigm. Literature Alcal, Fra
43、ncisco, Antonio Ciccone (2004), Trade and Productivity, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2004,613-646. Arvis, Jean-Franois, Monica Alina Mustra, Lauri Ojala, Ben Shepherd, Daniel Saslavsky (2010), Connecting to Compete 2010: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy World Bank, Washington, D.C.: 2010. At
44、kinson, Robert (2009), Sustainable Globalization Means Limiting Export-Led Growth Strategies, in:Renewing Globalization and Economic Growth in a Post-Crisis World,Carnegie Mellon/Atlantic Council, Pittsburgh: 2009. Baldwin, R. 2003. Openness and Growth: Whats the Empirical Relationship. NBER Working
45、 Paper No. 9578, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Blecker , Robert A., Arslan Razmi (2009), Export-led growth, real exchange rates and the fallacy of composition, Mark Setterfield (ed), Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Growth,Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Canuto, Ota
46、viano, Mona Haddad, Gordon Hanson (2010), Export-led Growth v2.0, Economic Premise, Nr. 3, March 2010, World Bank, Washington, D.C.: 2010. Clemens, M. and J. Williamson. 2004. Why Did the Tariff-Growth Correlation Change after 1950? Journal of Economic Growth 9 (1): 546. Coe, D. and E. Helpman. 1995
47、. International R Dollar/Kraay, 2002; Frankel/Romer, 1999; Sachs/ Warner 1995)，或者突出贸易中所扮演的角色就可以进入外国知识 ,提高生产效率 (Coe/Helpman, 1995; Alcala/Ciccone, 2004)。但另一些人人越来越怀疑和质疑这些应用于具体的数据和实证方法的发现(Rodriguez/Rodrik, 2000; Median-Smith, 2001)。是否是具体的贸易关系，诸如关税政策工具和增长并没有稳定一段时间 (Clemens/Williamson, 2004) ，这个也有疑问 ,。一个
48、更基本概念 ,有大量的实证证据表明国内贸易比跨越国界一直要强大的多 (Mayer/Zignago, 2005),甚至在传统关税和非传统贸易壁垒已经被去掉的欧盟内部市场 (Ilzkovitz 等 ,2007)。 实证研究的理论、经验工作都没有为目标出口提供明确的证据 ,成功的例子就是亚洲经济用显著的出口增长激发政策让 政策制定者去寻找方法以便增强发展，增加出口。他们面临三个层次的关键问题；如何提高出口竞争力，出口竞争力是否一种可行的政策取向，现在出口竞争力还是适当的政策的目标吗？ 怎样才能使出口竞争力政策的有效性会提高 ? 如果你接受这样的观念，出口提供正外部性，因此本该获得政府鼓励，政策的问题
49、是如何才最有效。 一个大的设想是致力于识别一般壁垒以减少出口贸易低于其社会最优水平。汇率 (Rodrik,2009 年 )或其他政策的改变，提供了相对的价格补贴去资助出口，但这样会增加进口成本，伤害了国内消费和本身有进口业务的出口行业。更 有效的政策也因此直接瞄准目标这写贸易壁垒。其中的一些壁垒效率低下的国内的商业环境，例如被世界银行的后勤性能指标 (Arvis et al., 2010)曝光的。与其他进入国外市场相关的，例如世贸组织、世界银行 ,经合组织 (OECD)通过关税和非关税壁垒所发现的一些壁垒。或者他们可能与产能低下的国内公司 ,在要么在了解外国市场有关系，或在他们自己的产品 ,服务或价值链上面有关系。 另一个大体的思考是致力于当出口增加更容易或产生的利益更大的时候药能识别关键行业。越繁荣的国家往往是更多元化 ,存在于不同的产品，与其他国家比 较产品类别更多 (Hausmann/Hwang/Rodrik; 2005)。大多数新文献关注的问题是，国家如何能够识别行业 ,他们的繁荣水平能采取传统战略性工业政策支持，不仅一般，而且更具有吸引力；也能合理的达到国家现有行
