服務(wù)業(yè)領(lǐng)域?qū)ν馍讨苯油顿Y的開放鑒于國際的比較分析【外文翻譯】

1、<p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯</p><p>　　外文題目：Openness to Foreign Direct Investment in Services: An International </p><p>　　Comparative Analysis </p><

2、;p>　　出 處： The World Economy </p><p>　　作 者： Stephen S. Golub </p><p><b>　　原 文：</b></p

3、><p>　　Openness to Foreign Direct Investment in Services: An International Comparative Analysis</p><p>　　Stephen S. Golub</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　Nat

4、ional policies towards FDI typically feature measures aimed at both attracting and discouraging in ?ows. Policies to attract FDI such as tax breaks, favourable regulatory treatment and subsidies of various sorts are usua

5、lly focused on manufacturing. Policies towards services are far more ambivalent. Laws and regulatory practices frequently discriminate against foreign investors in services such as public utilities (electricity distribut

6、ion and telecommunications in particular), transport (not</p><p>　　1. Introduction</p><p>　　As in the case of manufacturing, countries bene?t from FDI in services through employment creation, ca

7、pital accumulation, transfer of technology, improved service and increased competition. Moreover, liberalisation of FDI in services can contribute to manufacturing productivity by increasing availability of quality of pr

8、oduction-related services (Arnold et al., 2006, 2007; Gould et al., 2007). Critics argue that FDI can also impose economic costs such as displacement of local ?rms and reduced co</p><p>　　The cross-border pr

9、ovision of services, unlike goods, often can only be delivered through commercial presence. setting up of foreign operations, rather than international trade in the item itself. It is therefore to be expected that FDI pl

10、ays a prominent role in the globalization of the service sector, fostered in part by partial opening of service industries to FDI.</p><p>　　Formal international agreements on FDI and on trade in services hav

11、e been far less extensive than on international trade in goods, although various global negotiations and regional free-trade agreements often cover some aspects of international investment in services, notably the Genera

12、l Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) provisions on commercial presence. To the extent that it has occurred, opening to FDI in services has primarily been unilateral. </p><p>　　FDI in services has been inc

13、reasing rapidly, raising the stakes in the debates about policies. In 2005, services constituted the majority of inward FDI stocks, at almost two-thirds for developed countries, and about 50 per cent for developing count

14、ries, up considerably from 1990. Within services, ?nance, trade and business services are the three largest categories, but transport, communications and electricity have also been increasing rapidly. It should be noted,

15、 however, that the share of serv</p><p>　　2. Methodology</p><p>　　This section explains how measures of policies discriminating between foreign and domestic investors are computed. There are sev

16、eral issues involved in computing the restriction scores. A classi?cation of various types of restrictions, a choice of industries and a system of weighting are needed. </p><p>　　Restrictions can be separate

17、d into those affecting market entry and those affecting post-entry operations. The former is emphasized here, given the predominance and importance of policies restricting entry. Post-entry national treatment is much mor

18、e widely accepted and institutionalized than the right of establishment (UNCTAD, 2003, Ch. 5).</p><p>　　Restrictions of entry can take the form of limitations on foreign ownership and screening requirements.

19、 Ownership restrictions specify permissible maximum foreign equity participation, ranging from a complete ban on foreign holdings to allowing 100 per cent foreign ownership. Usually, ownership limitations are applicable

20、to a particular industry. Screening requirements, on the other hand, often apply to all sectors. Screening can vary widely in its stringency, from routine mastication and automa</p><p>　　Given that restricti

21、ons are often septic to a particular industry, a high level of disaggregation is necessary. The sectors included are those which are most commonly involved in FDI and services trade and subject to restrictions. Social se

22、rvices such as education and health were not included in this analysis.</p><p>　　As noted above, the focus is on departures from national treatment rather than regulatory barriers hampering market access for

23、 both domestic and foreign ?rms. An exception is made for government monopoly or near-monopoly, however, as government monopoly is in effect a ban on FDI. Industries reserved for the government are scored as though owner

24、ship is banned. Where government ownership was determined to be greater than 50 per cent, a partial ownership restriction was imputed.</p><p>　　There is no comprehensive source of information on national FDI

25、 policies. The data used here pull together and harmonies the data from Golub (2003) and Koyama and Golub (2006) for developed countries and UNCTAD (2006) for developing countries. These studies are based on a large numb

26、er of alternative sources from various international organisations and the private sector, which are themselves derived from surveys of national regulations. Developed-country data span 1980–2006 while the developing-<

27、;/p><p>　　3. Results</p><p>　　Before presenting the results, the limitations should again be acknowledged. Systematic classi?cation and quanti?cation of FDI restrictions is complicated due to the d

28、isparate nature and inconsistent reporting of restrictions across countries. Despite efforts to rely on multiple sources and objective reports, there is an unavoidable element of arbitrariness and subjectivity to the sco

29、ring. There is no international agreement on standardized reporting of policies towards FDI in services, with the</p><p>　　As the introduction to this paper indicated, in 2007 and 2008 several countries impo

30、sed new restrictions on FDI, but others have continued to liberalism. The net effect of these recent policy changes is not covered in the present indicators. </p><p>　　Multivariate cross-section regressions,

31、 using some of the standard variables considered in the literature on determinants of FDI, such as GDP per capita, infrastructure and corruption, cornered the effect of FDI restrictions on FDI inward stocks, but the regr

32、ession analysis is limited by the small number of observations, and the results are not reported here.</p><p>　　4. Conclusions</p><p>　　Almost all countries now welcome foreign investment in exp

33、ort-oriented manufacturing. The service sector, however, tends to be subject to more restrictions on foreign holdings, notwithstanding substantial liberalisation in the past two decades. This paper has sought to document

34、 and analyze the pattern of restrictions in the service sector for a large group of developed and developing countries. Indices of barriers to foreign ownership as well as operational restrictions towards foreign ?rms we

35、re</p><p><b>　　譯 文：</b></p><p>　　服務(wù)業(yè)領(lǐng)域?qū)ν馍讨苯油顿Y的開放：鑒于國際的比較分析</p><p>　　Stephen S. Golub</p><p><b>　　1.引言</b></p><p>　　通常一個(gè)國家的對外國直接投資

36、者的政策特色措施目的在于吸引和阻止資本流入。而吸引外國直接投資者的政策包括稅收優(yōu)惠，有利的監(jiān)管處理和各類補(bǔ)貼等措施，由于外商直接投資比較偏向于制造業(yè)，所以這些措施也經(jīng)常集中在制造業(yè)。相比于對服務(wù)業(yè)政策，這些政策則要完善的多。一些國家的法律和管理?xiàng)l例經(jīng)常歧視在服務(wù)產(chǎn)業(yè)進(jìn)行投資外國商，這些服務(wù)業(yè)包括公共事業(yè)(尤其是配電系統(tǒng)和通訊事業(yè))，交通運(yùn)輸系統(tǒng)(航空與海運(yùn)尤為明顯)，金融服務(wù)，甚至是建筑業(yè)和批發(fā)/零售經(jīng)銷業(yè)等國家占據(jù)主體的行業(yè)。<

37、/p><p>　　在制造業(yè)中，外商直接投資會(huì)通過創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)，進(jìn)行資本積累和技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)移從而來改進(jìn)服務(wù)和增加競爭，進(jìn)而使國家受益。此外，阿若德和戈盧布(Arnold 2006;Golub 2007)等人提出外國投資者對服務(wù)行業(yè)的開放有助于提高生產(chǎn)效率，繼而提高服務(wù)行業(yè)的整體質(zhì)量。而一些反對者認(rèn)為，外國直接投資可以實(shí)施一系列比如降低經(jīng)濟(jì)成本等措施來減少當(dāng)?shù)氐母偁幷?。在初期的?chuàng)業(yè)論中，大多數(shù)是以反對外國投資者為主，因此服務(wù)部

38、門通常也會(huì)受到經(jīng)濟(jì)上的監(jiān)管，防止它們出現(xiàn)自然壟斷或出現(xiàn)市場失靈的傾向。盡管這種市場失靈對服務(wù)業(yè)本身而言并不能為本地和外國直接投資者提供一視同仁的理由。不過，在服務(wù)業(yè)上對外國所有權(quán)進(jìn)行限制是不經(jīng)濟(jì)的，因?yàn)檫@會(huì)涉及到國家安全或民族經(jīng)濟(jì)的利益。同時(shí)在一系列行業(yè)中，如電信，銀行，運(yùn)輸和電力供應(yīng)等往往會(huì)被東道國視為敏感區(qū)域。因此，服務(wù)業(yè)普遍比制造業(yè)，甚至自然資源行業(yè)受到更為嚴(yán)格的限制。</p><p>　　跨國服務(wù)不像貨物

39、交易，往往只能用商業(yè)的形式來進(jìn)行交易。通?？鐕?wù)先必須建立國外業(yè)務(wù)，而不是直接用貿(mào)易的形式來提供服務(wù)。因此，可以看到外商直接投資的一個(gè)突出作用在于對全球化服務(wù)行業(yè)而言，它能夠優(yōu)先為部分服務(wù)產(chǎn)業(yè)合理提供外資。</p><p>　　相比國際商品貿(mào)易，服務(wù)業(yè)在利用外資上所依據(jù)的國際協(xié)議比較少。盡管在不同的全球貿(mào)易談判和區(qū)域性的自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定會(huì)涉及到某些方面，但是總體上對服務(wù)業(yè)的貿(mào)易協(xié)定還是比較少的。在某種程度上，外商直

40、接投資比較傾向于開放性的服務(wù)行業(yè)。</p><p>　　FDI在服務(wù)業(yè)的投資一直在增長。在發(fā)達(dá)國家中，外商直接投資在服務(wù)業(yè)領(lǐng)域已經(jīng)占據(jù)了大約50%的股份，而發(fā)展中國家比起發(fā)達(dá)國家服務(wù)業(yè)FDI的利用顯然不夠。其中，主要以交通、通信和電力的外商直接投資為主。但是需要注意的是，雖然發(fā)達(dá)國家外商直接投資在服務(wù)業(yè)中比較多，不過從全球來看，F(xiàn)DI在服務(wù)業(yè)的投資比例仍低于服務(wù)業(yè)的GDP產(chǎn)值。這所反映的事實(shí)是FDI在服務(wù)業(yè)的投資

41、仍然受到限制。</p><p><b>　　2.研究方法</b></p><p>　　本節(jié)說明的是國內(nèi)外投資者如何對待歧視性政策。這里會(huì)涉及到幾個(gè)問題，通過問題得出外商直接投資最重要的是在各類限制中選擇一個(gè)好的行業(yè)和體系是非常重要的。</p><p>　　哈丁和霍姆斯采用全面的方法來對外商直接投資的流入障礙進(jìn)行研究，但只涉及到幾個(gè)國家，并不能全

42、面概論。戈盧布和小山采取了一系列關(guān)于外商直接投資對發(fā)達(dá)國家和發(fā)展中國家的影響進(jìn)行各種樣本的研究，同時(shí)對哈丁和霍姆斯的做法進(jìn)行了改變。</p><p>　　在目前的研究中有許多是關(guān)于對FDI的限制。其中原因首先是因?yàn)橥鈬苯油顿Y政策是多樣和復(fù)雜的，因此不容易被所有人接受；其次，這些政策的信息因?yàn)閬碓床煌撬圆蝗菀撰@得，而且有時(shí)候政策之間也會(huì)互相矛盾，有時(shí)候卻會(huì)被提供不完整的信息。第三，政策并非靜止的，相反，政府經(jīng)

43、常會(huì)改變政策。第四，在國家政策上，因?yàn)椤皣翊觥钡膯栴}，對外國和國內(nèi)的投資者會(huì)產(chǎn)生不同程度的歧視。國內(nèi)投資者并不認(rèn)為對勞動(dòng)力和產(chǎn)品市場的政策能夠被平等的適用，除了政府壟斷。例如，國內(nèi)產(chǎn)品的含量要求，對價(jià)格的上限規(guī)定，以及審查監(jiān)管方面等這些障礙問題都得不到很好的解決。第五，本研究僅限于公開的對外限制，幾乎忽略了私人或政府的努力，國內(nèi)的傾斜傾向有利于外國公司在本國的發(fā)展。第六，在章程的說明上，其執(zhí)法的廣度和深度可能并不容易被推斷出來。第七

44、，這項(xiàng)研究并沒有從正面上就對外國投資者進(jìn)行歧視，例如減稅。</p><p>　　一般來說限制性政策可以影響入境前的準(zhǔn)入和入境后的調(diào)控。前者強(qiáng)調(diào)的是入境后政策上的優(yōu)勢性，后者又被視為入境后的國民待遇，比一些普通的國民政策享受更加優(yōu)惠的待遇，而且也普遍的被各國所推崇。</p><p>　　在入境上所采取的限制形式一般有對所有權(quán)的限制以及對國家入境的嚴(yán)格要求。入境的嚴(yán)格要求通常需要在考慮國家利益

45、的基礎(chǔ)上，各國政府權(quán)衡利弊，做出能否入境的批示，然后才通知其入港。通常情況下，所有權(quán)的限制只適用于特定行業(yè)，但是隨著入境后國家對外資企業(yè)的限制，促使了外資企業(yè)向多元化業(yè)務(wù)發(fā)展。入境后服務(wù)部門上的限制主要是關(guān)于對企業(yè)管理人員或董事會(huì)成員的國籍問題，同時(shí)還會(huì)對隨附而來的外籍工作人員的臨時(shí)入境也會(huì)有所限制</p><p>　　由于對企業(yè)的限制往往針對的是特定的行業(yè)，所以對這些行業(yè)進(jìn)行高層次的分類是必要的。這些行業(yè)通常是

46、那些最常見的并且與外商直接進(jìn)行交往的服務(wù)貿(mào)易。例如教育和保健類的社會(huì)服務(wù)業(yè)。</p><p>　　我們把全國總量用各行業(yè)各部門的總量來進(jìn)行替代，其中也包括外商直接投資和國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的比重。在全國生產(chǎn)總值中，一些服務(wù)部門的行業(yè)占了很少的一部分，像衛(wèi)生、教育和其他社會(huì)服務(wù)，卻受到外商很少的投資，這樣就引起了一系列的內(nèi)生性問題：高度限制的行業(yè)可能會(huì)遇到外商直接投資瓶頸。因此，外商直接投資對國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值所占的權(quán)重砝碼就更

47、加大了。為了減輕內(nèi)生性問題，戈盧布采用經(jīng)合組織的相關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)對外商直接投資和服務(wù)貿(mào)易之間進(jìn)行研究指出在跨境貿(mào)易中只要是合理的外商直接投資即使受到政策限制也會(huì)在比重上對國家產(chǎn)值產(chǎn)生影響。</p><p>　　這里有關(guān)外商投資的政策信息并不是全面的。而使用的數(shù)據(jù)也都是統(tǒng)一協(xié)調(diào)之后戈盧布從2003年和2006年中聯(lián)合國貿(mào)易發(fā)展會(huì)議上提取的發(fā)達(dá)國家和發(fā)展中國家的貿(mào)易數(shù)據(jù)。這些研究是在被國家法規(guī)所監(jiān)控的大量的國家組織和私營企業(yè)

48、進(jìn)行貿(mào)易所得到的數(shù)據(jù)的基礎(chǔ)上而進(jìn)行討論的。發(fā)達(dá)國家的數(shù)據(jù)跨度是從1980-2006年截取的，而發(fā)展中國家的數(shù)據(jù)只限于2000-2005年。</p><p><b>　　3.研究結(jié)果</b></p><p>　　以上得出的結(jié)論，我們應(yīng)再次感到限制性政策所帶來的重要性。由于國家性質(zhì)和國家政策不同，對FDI的限制進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)性和量化的分類已經(jīng)顯得非常重要。盡管這些分類要移開多種

49、資源和有效的報(bào)告，不可避免的是要有一個(gè)主觀性的認(rèn)識，不可隨意的對任何國家的進(jìn)口都采取限制性政策，用來保護(hù)本國的出口。沒有一個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的國際協(xié)議是專門針對FDI對服務(wù)業(yè)進(jìn)行投資的，不過一般理論上都是依據(jù)國際貿(mào)易總協(xié)定來進(jìn)行貿(mào)易調(diào)整的。但是也有些貿(mào)易爭議，國際貿(mào)易總協(xié)定也無法依據(jù)。因此可以說，對于整個(gè)服務(wù)業(yè)來說，必須從整體進(jìn)行考慮，不能專門針對某一種行業(yè)來考慮外商直接投資是如何對其產(chǎn)生影響的，如果這樣做可能所獲得的效果會(huì)更佳的效果?？偟膩碚f，

50、以上結(jié)論也只是初步對FDI對服務(wù)業(yè)如何進(jìn)投資所做的一些解釋，并不能作為最終結(jié)果來進(jìn)行定論。有些國家對于限制性政策的要求是根據(jù)本國來制定的，但是這種自我主張對于其他國家來說顯得并不透明。所以在現(xiàn)實(shí)上不同國家所受到的限制政策也是有強(qiáng)弱之分，這樣一來國與國之間并不能開展公平的貿(mào)易，而要想進(jìn)行公平的貿(mào)易國與國之間的政策必須是透明的。這里得到的結(jié)果也是在全面的資料和嚴(yán)格的審視下得出的，從而得到外商直接投資在</p><p>

51、;<b>　　4.結(jié)論意見</b></p><p>　　現(xiàn)在幾乎所有的國家都?xì)g迎以出口為導(dǎo)向的生產(chǎn)性外商投資，而服務(wù)部門往往在自由程度上所受到的限制會(huì)比其他部門來得多，這種限制性措施在過去的兩年都有大幅度地增長。本文試圖記錄和分析發(fā)展中國家在服務(wù)業(yè)上的發(fā)展模式和其企業(yè)在部門上出口國外所受到的限制。而在對外國所有權(quán)與經(jīng)營上的限制，這兩者通常會(huì)詳細(xì)地出現(xiàn)在部門各個(gè)層次上，并且慢慢地聚集成了整個(gè)民

52、族的經(jīng)營指標(biāo)。盡管本研究在這些方面都有局限性，但是它卻代表了外商投資政策最全面和最深入的服務(wù)準(zhǔn)則。此外，限制性的指標(biāo)驗(yàn)證了外商直接投資與其股票之間存在的負(fù)相關(guān)性，這也說明這些指標(biāo)大致上都比較準(zhǔn)確，而且也明確表示了對外國投資的決心。而在服務(wù)行業(yè)上受到最嚴(yán)重往往是那些主權(quán)國家所無法考慮周全的的行業(yè)，像電信、運(yùn)輸、金融和電力行業(yè)，這些行業(yè)比較開放，被廣泛地分散在各個(gè)服務(wù)區(qū)域之間。在現(xiàn)實(shí)中，最開放的國家往往是在東歐和西歐還有歐美等國家，他們往往