1、 外文翻译 原文 Trade in Services Material Source:Material Source:Productivity Commission PO Box 80 Belconnen ACT 2616 Australia Author:Philippa Dee 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 2
2、001). 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. Secon
3、d, 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 shows that on the bas
4、is 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 (eg Ar
5、menia, 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
6、 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 industria
7、ls. 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 beyon
8、d the stage of establishing negotiating guidelines, to the stage of .talking turkey. . services trade liberalisation proposals have already hit the negotiating table. Of the 20 extant Regional Trading Agreements (RTAs) currently being examined at theAustralian Productivity Commission, 14 have signif
9、icant 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
10、 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 maximise net benefits and reduce unintended consequences in a policy area that is still, sadly, lar
11、gely unchartered 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 (eg Dee, Hardin and Holmes 2000, Francois and Wooten 2001). What follows is a discussion of these issues from the persp
12、ective of an empirical trade policy modeller who works in a policy advisory organisation 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 nevert
13、heless use some input from trade theorists. 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 th
14、ose 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 trad
15、e 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,
16、 Rutherford and Tarr 1999, Brown Deardorff and Stern 2000), 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 theoretic
17、al 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 sectorally mobile factors as it has to do with reality in a world where agricultural policy issues now include genetic eng
18、ineering, varietal property rights and geographical indications. Brown, Deardorff and Stern (1996) noted that Ethier and Horn (1991) identified one characteristic t-hat seemed to be special about services . many were customised to the needs of individual purchasers. This is one level of product diff
19、erentiation below that now included in most trade models. Brown, Deardorff 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 implici
20、t in the choice of nesting structure of demand for varieties in some more recent models of services trade. This issue is discussed below. 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 tra
21、de itself is modelled. 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 UN and APEC data to estimate that about 20 per cent of world FDI stocks we
22、re 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 pri
23、mary 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 recognised as a method by which goods and services can be traded, then trade by comme
24、rcial 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
25、 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 liberalising barriers to FDI generally, there has been progress in setting up a multilateral mechanism to liberalise FDI in s
26、ervices. That mechanism is the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) under the WTO. The GATS is set up to liberalise trade in services, and it formally recognises commercial presence, along with three other modes (cross-border) trade,consumption abroad, and the movement of natural persons),
27、as a method by which services are traded. Regional Trade Agreements are also increasingly including provisions to liberalise services and FDI. So comprehensive modelling of services trade policy now needs to take into account liberalisation of FDI in services as well as liberalisation of other modes
28、 of services delivery. At a theoretical level, this means that models need to distinguish the ownership of services activity from the location of that activity. The remainder of this section discusses some of the theoretical, data and parameter issues involved in modelling that distinction, while th
29、e next section looks at the issue of getting credible measures of the extent of barriers to FDI and conventional trade in services. Theoretical issues in modelling ownership and location By happy coincidence, many of the features required to model the location of economic activity were already being
30、 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 treat
31、ment of tariffs and transport costs were unaware that we were adding .economic geography. to our models until Paul Krugman (1998) told us so! But in models that differentiate the ownership and location of economic activity, a number of seemingly innocuous modelling choices can sometimes have alarmin
32、g 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 ext
33、ent of product differentiation, this boils down to the same thing (although Neary (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 appear in a single nest in the preference funct
34、ions, or are there multiple nests with different elasticities of substitution at each node? 译文 服务贸易（节选） 资料来源 : 生产力委员会、澳大利亚 作者： 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
35、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
36、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
37、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。
38、 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，对于农业还有许多工作要做，例如需要一个纯简的机制与牵制返回部门的流动因素，需要一个包括农业基因工程 ,品种产权和地理标志问题的政策。 布朗 .迪尔多夫和斯特恩（ 1996）指出，西尔
39、和霍尔（ 1991）确定的服务的一特点是针对特殊购买者的定制需求。现在大多数贸易模型中的产品差异化水平都低于此。布朗 .迪尔多夫和斯特恩指出，将其纳入正式的实证分析属性是不正确的。我认识到这一特点 并加以明确，但没有对其做后续的分析，因为在对需求的嵌套结构的选择似乎是隐藏服务贸易中的一种新型贸易。下文会针对该问题做具体的分析。 3. 服务贸易的特点 服务贸易的特点中有一个是非常特殊的，并已经开始影响服务贸易的方式。这个特点就是世贸组织正式承认哪些服务属于商业交易。 外国直接投资发生在所有部门。迪和 Hanslow（ 2001）利用联合国和亚太经济合作组织提供的数据估算，约有百分之二十的外国直接
40、投资在第一产业（农业，采矿和食品加工），第二产业和第三产业占了百分之四十的直接投资。非常粗略地估计直接投资输出的资本，会 发现对初级部门的对外投资占世界总投资的百分之八十，而初级传统的出口比例为百分之四十左右，另外百分之六十为服务贸易。 如果直接投资是属于商品贸易和服务贸易的，而商品贸易又是贸易中十分重要的一块，即使它不归入传统的国际收支平衡表。出于同样的原因，传统的贸易业在所有行业具有重要意义。所以服务通过有关商品贸易存在没有什么特殊的，除了一些只能通过商品的交易来进行的服务。 服务贸易对一般外国投资的多变或多变协议上进展甚微而且实现服务贸易自由化存在障碍，但现状已经设立了一个多边机制来促进
41、直接投资的自由化。这就是世界贸易组 织指定的服务贸易总协定（ GATS）。随着服务贸易成为跨境交易、境外消费和自然人流动的一种方法，服务贸易总协定的成立旨在促进服务贸易自由化，并正式承认服务贸易的商业存在。另外关于放宽服务贸易和直接投资的区域贸易协定也越来越多。 因此，现在服务贸易政策进行全面建模需要考虑的是账户自由化的服务业对外投资，以及其他方式的服务自由化。在理论层面，这意味着模式需要区分所有权所在服务活动的地点。本节的剩余部分将讨论理论、数据和参数模型的区别，以及涉及的一些问题。而在后一段将讨论直接投资和服务贸易的传统贸易壁垒等问题。 4.建模理论的所有权和地位 通过服务贸易模式的规模收
42、益递增和企业层面的产品差异化认可，模型所需的位置的许多特性经济活动以及得到了两个正在兴建和实证分析，事实上，对于是谁建立了已经具有国际资本和关税及运输等普遍特征的常规 CGE 模型并不清楚，但较为广泛的是保罗克努格曼（ 1988）建立的模型。 但是，在区分模型所有权和经济活动方位的时候，一些看似无关的因素时常对模型产生巨大的影响。 5. 规模经济是区域现象？ 早期的观点认为，服务贸易的区域和规模经济都是全球性的。假定在判断大集团是否存在垄断竞争时，其中定价高于编辑 出版的价格直接关系到平衡的程度产品差异。这归结因为作为国内和国外公司是否是同样的事情，虽然在细节上有所区别，但大体上是一样的。同样的，是所有企业出现同一优先功能，还是不同的替代弹性和各企业有不同的结点？
