外文翻譯--英國需要公法形式的商會嗎？

1、<p><b>　　中文3125字</b></p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)設計（論文）</p><p>　　外 文 翻 譯</p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Does Britain need public law status Chambers of C

2、ommerce?</p><p>　　Legal status</p><p>　　The contrast between private and public law status is the key differentiating factor between the Chamber systems of Britain on the one hand， and France an

3、d Germany on the other. Differing legal status reflects the contrasting traditions of voluntarism in the UK， leading to a belief in the primacy of market forces in the context of the business support environment， and of

4、state intervention in France and Germany， allied to business promotion. The former tradition explains the existence of private</p><p>　　Advantages of public law status</p><p>　　French and German

5、 respondents described the benefits of public law status in terms of the facilitation of partnership between business and government， greater political influence for business， operational independence and ease of long-te

6、rm planning for Chambers， together with sufficient resources for them to provide high quality services for business.</p><p>　　Disadvantages of public law status</p><p>　　French and German respon

7、dents identified few weaknesses in the public law system. Potential problems were， however， seen in terms of bureaucracy， image problems and limits to Chambers' independence. UK Chamber respondents regarded public la

8、w status with suspicion， and considered that its introduction might undermine the vitality and entrepreneurial character of UK Chambers. For the UK respondents， the disadvantages were greater in number and include subjug

9、ation to state control， the offer of few</p><p>　　Advantages of private law status</p><p>　　Both UK respondents emphasised， instead， the advantages of private law status， including the principle

10、 of voluntary Chamber membership and its “guarantee” of de jure (I not de facto) Chamber independence from government control. However， several problems created by private law status were identified， including the tradit

11、ional lack of government support for UK Chambers， their lack of political influence， government's unwillingness to consult them over issues affecting business， and the existence </p><p>　　Disadvantages o

12、f private law status</p><p>　　UK respondents did recognise the problems created by private law status， including lack of political influence， lack of government support and/or consultation， and competition w

13、ith private sector providers. </p><p>　　Advantages of compulsory membership </p><p>　　Regarding the issue of Chamber membership ，F(xiàn)rench and German respondents took the view that mandatory member

14、ship leads to a range of benefits， enabling Chambers to improve their business representation and legitimacy， promoting their financial strength and allowing them to offer a broader range of services， of high quality， su

15、pported by a large and well-qualified staffing establishment. A range of specific advantages were identified， including comprehensive local business membership， balanced re</p><p>　　Disadvantages of compulso

16、ry membership</p><p>　　A number of problems with compulsory membership were identified by French and German respondents. These included lack of general business awareness of Chamber services， the underuse of

17、 services by some members， and conflicts of interest amongst members. Paradoxically， both a big firm bias and a SME bias were put forward as a disadvantage. UK respondents suggested that problems include the danger of lo

18、wer responsiveness to members' needs， with Chamber membership being valued less by involuntary m</p><p>　　Advantages of non-statutory membership</p><p>　　UK respondents considered that there

19、 was no need for compulsory membership to be introduced into the British Chamber system， arguing that the advantages of non-statutory membership were that it allows a focus on the needs of members， ensures closeness to t

20、he market on the part of Chambers， and good relationships with members. They suggested that voluntary membership leads both to member commitment and to Chamber legitimacy.</p><p>　　Disadvantages of non-statu

21、tory membership</p><p>　　UK respondents identified no such disadvantages. In contrast， however， one German respondent suggested that non-statutory membership actually reduces UK Chambers' independence， b

22、y forcing them to rely heavily on government for funding， thus compromising Chambers in their dealings with the state on behalf of businesses.</p><p>　　Funding arrangements</p><p>　　Advantages o

23、f statutory funding</p><p>　　In terms of Chamber funding arrangements French and German respondents took the view that statutory income， based on compulsory subscriptions and local business tax levies， leads

24、 to a number of advantages of Chambers and their members. For Chambers， this provides them with a stable secure and reliable income， largely free of government control， and substantial enough to fund a high standard of s

25、ervices for local businesses and other Chamber services， including infrastructure investments. Chamber</p><p>　　Disadvantages of statutory funding</p><p>　　French and German respondents identifi

26、ed few problems with statutory funding， although it was noted that this could lead to an unacceptably heavy financing burden on the part of larger firms， subject to greater membership costs. Paradoxically， some medium-si

27、zed firms might also be unhappy having to pay for Chamber services which they did not use.</p><p>　　Advantages of non-statutory funding</p><p>　　British respondents commented that relianc on non

28、-statutory income leads to responsiveness to market forces， empathy with members' business problems， and the efficient use of resources， prompted by limited financial means.</p><p>　　Disadvantages of non

29、-statutory funding </p><p>　　The disadvantages of non-statutory funding were identified as lack of financial resources， limits to Chamber staffing and services， and an undue focus on income-earning， non-core

30、 activities. British respondents also pointed to increasing dependence on government funding， often based on short-term， if renewable contracts， as a possible source of problems for UK Chambers.</p><p>　　Cha

31、mber structures</p><p>　　French and German Chamber structures</p><p>　　French and German respondents identified the uniformity and completeness of geographical coverage as a major advantage of t

32、heir respective public law Chamber networks. The existence of a regional Chamber tier in France (although not in Germany) was considered an advantage by French respondents. Respondents in both countries believed that ter

33、ritorial divisions between local Chambers were both rational in their design and well understood by local businesses， leading to enhanced transparency， compr</p><p>　　UK Chamber structure</p><p>

34、;　　UK respondents saw advantages in terms of the flexibility of current arrangements， allowing for the existence of either stand-alone Chambers or CCTEs in appropriate local areas. Members were offered ready access to se

35、rvices of high quality in many areas of the UK， while business confusion with the proliferation of rival service providers was， in their view， often overstated. The UK Chamber structure was， however， perceived as causing

36、 potential problems for businesses， due to its uneven geographi</p><p>　　Chamber missions and activities</p><p>　　Public law Chambers</p><p>　　The legal status of Chambers in the UK

37、， France and Germany exercises a profound influence over the types of service which they can provide. French and German Chambers operate within state-controlled parameters， since their main missions are determined by pub

38、lic law. Their role as the meeting point between government and business is also statutorily defined. However， they enjoy substantial autonomy over the manner in which they carry out their activities on a day- to-day bas

39、is. Respondents consid</p><p>　　Private law Chambers</p><p>　　UK Chambers play a relatively modest role in economic management and development， due largely to the absence of any statutory missio

40、n to do so， and to their less well-established contacts with government. However， a wide range of services for business is provided， although a high proportion of these are fee-based. Chambers need， therefore， to compete

41、 effectively with rival service providers， which they seek to do by product differentiation and price competition. Alternatively， they may attempt t</p><p>　　French and German respondents perceived their nat

42、ional Chamber systems as being relatively stable. However， some minor changes were identified as occurring， including an increasing reliance on non-statutory sources of income and an attempt to save costs by improving or

43、ganizational efficiency. These changes were seen to be prompting a fractional movement of French and German Chambers in a British direction. British respondents stated strongly that the UK Chamber system was undergoing a

44、 period of </p><p>　　Source：Grahame Fallon，2009“Does Britain need public law status Chambers of Commerce?”European Business Review，pp.19-27</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　

45、英國需要公法形式的商會嗎？</p><p><b>　　法律地位</b></p><p>　　對比私人和公共之間的法律地位是英國商會系統(tǒng)與法德之間有所區(qū)別的的關鍵因素。不同的法律地位反應英國在傳統(tǒng)價值觀上的對比，導致市場力量在業(yè)務環(huán)境下至上的信念，并且在法國和德國的國家干預下配合業(yè)務推廣。前者用自愿成為會員、非法定資金、獨立決定任務和業(yè)務支持活動解釋了商會私法在英國存

46、在的原因。后者用強制性會員、充足的法定資金、自主決策與國家法規(guī)相結(jié)合的決策方式解釋了商會公共法律在法國德國擁有強大權利的原因。</p><p>　　公法地位的優(yōu)勢：法國與德國的受訪者描述私法的好處在于能使政府與企業(yè)建立簡化合作的條件并且政府可長期對企業(yè)進行政策影響，也有利于商會的業(yè)務獨立和長期規(guī)劃。商會與政府通過資源共享的方式為企業(yè)提供高質(zhì)量的服務。</p><p>　　公法地位的劣勢：法

47、國與德國的受訪者承認在公法系統(tǒng)中是存在某些缺漏的。潛在的問題是官僚主義，形象問題和商會獨立自治的限制。英國商會受訪者對公法地位持懷疑態(tài)度，認為公法的強制會員制、國家政策參與商會任務決策這兩點會逐漸削弱商會的生命力與創(chuàng)造力。對于英國受訪者，他們認為公法的劣勢更多，包括商會可能會屈服于政府控制，提供更少的服務給企業(yè)，政府與企業(yè)反對公法的在英國存在以及商會公司成員可能會異化公共地位。</p><p>　　私法的優(yōu)勢：英

48、國受訪者都強調(diào)私法中的地位優(yōu)勢，包括商會會員自愿的原則以及“保證”在法律上（我沒有事實上的）商會獨立于政府的控制。然而，有私法地位所產(chǎn)生的服務問題包括政府對英國商會支持政策的傳統(tǒng)缺失。政府缺乏對其政策影響，并且不愿意征詢對業(yè)務產(chǎn)生影響的問題，對商會主要市場中與提供私人服務機構的競爭被破壞。</p><p>　　私法的劣勢：英國受訪者承認有私法地位所產(chǎn)生的問題，其中包括缺乏政策影響，缺乏政府支持與系統(tǒng)咨詢以及缺乏與

49、私人機構的競爭力。</p><p><b>　　強制會員制的優(yōu)勢</b></p><p>　　關于商會的會員制度，法國和德國受訪者用這一觀點看到強制會員制，認為強制會員制有一系列的優(yōu)點，它使得商會的業(yè)務更具合法性與代表性，同時提高商會的經(jīng)濟實力并且使商會能夠提供更廣泛的更高品的服務，由強大的人員編制支持。有些特定的優(yōu)勢是被確定了的，其中包括全面的當?shù)仄髽I(yè)成員，地方經(jīng)濟

50、利益均衡的代表性，本地語音業(yè)務的合法性，回應議員的意愿，增強商會的游說力量的國家，處理能力，提高遠期規(guī)劃和提高效率和效益。</p><p><b>　　強制會員制的劣勢</b></p><p>　　法國與德國受訪者列出了一系列關于強制會員制的問題。這些包括商會服務缺乏一般業(yè)務意識，一些成員服務利用不足，成員間利益沖突等。矛盾的是，無論是大公司的偏見還是中小企業(yè)偏見都會

51、將商會放在一個不利的地位。英國受訪者則認為強制會員制的危害在于此項制度對較不被重視的自愿成員需求的代表性低下，由此導致商會與成員的關系較差。</p><p><b>　　非法定成員制的優(yōu)勢</b></p><p>　　英國受訪者認為不需要對英國商會系統(tǒng)引進強制會員制度，認為非法定成員制度的優(yōu)勢是這種制度將重點放在成員需求上，確保商會向市場貼近并且與成員建立良好的關系。

52、他們認為使企業(yè)自愿其商會會員有利于會員組成建設與商會合法性。</p><p><b>　　非法定成員制的優(yōu)勢</b></p><p>　　英國受訪者認為不需要對英國商會系統(tǒng)引進強制會員制度，認為非法定成員制度的優(yōu)勢是這種制度將重點放在成員需求上，確保商會向市場貼近并且與成員建立良好的關系。他們認為使企業(yè)自愿其商會會員有利于會員組成建設與商會合法性。</p>

53、<p>　　非法定會員制度的劣勢</p><p>　　英國受訪者沒有查明非法定會員制度。相反，一個德國的受訪者認為非法定會員制度實際上降低里英國商會的獨立性。非法定會員制度是的商會嚴重依賴政府資助導致了商會為了代表國家利益而犧牲企業(yè)的利益。</p><p><b>　　法定資金的優(yōu)勢</b></p><p>　　就商會資金的統(tǒng)籌安

54、排而言，法國和德國的受訪者認為法定收入是在強制簽訂合約和地方企業(yè)營業(yè)稅征收水平的基礎上，因此導致商會及其成員的數(shù)量上的優(yōu)勢。對于商會而言，這種方式提供了商會一個穩(wěn)定的安全和可靠的收入、在政府控制上有相當大的自由，同時商會擁有大量的資金為當?shù)氐钠髽I(yè)以及其他服務性商會提供高水準的服務，包括基礎設施投資。商會能夠?qū)槲磥碛杏媱澋囊?guī)劃，并且能夠從核心機構中籌集資金從而規(guī)避分散風險。會員亦受惠于法定撥款制度，通過他們控制商會會員成本，使得商會有能

55、力確保此項支付是在公平的水平上，會員為商會提供的高品質(zhì)服務付費。</p><p><b>　　法定資金的劣質(zhì)</b></p><p>　　法國與德國的受訪者指出法定資金的一些問題：法定資金導致了相當一部分的大企業(yè)無法接受沉重的經(jīng)濟負擔，并且屈服于更高的會員費用。問題雖然被指出，但奇怪的是一些中等規(guī)模的公司同樣不愿為商會買單，更何況他們沒有享受到商會帶來的服務。<

56、/p><p><b>　　商會組織結(jié)構</b></p><p>　　法國與德國的商會組織結(jié)構：法國與德國的受訪者地獄覆蓋范圍的統(tǒng)一性和完整性看做是公法商會網(wǎng)絡的一個主要優(yōu)勢。法國受訪者認為區(qū)域型商會在法國的存在（雖然不是在德國）為認為是一種優(yōu)勢。在這兩個國家受訪者認為當?shù)厣虝g的領土分歧都在其設計結(jié)構的合理性，商會通過提高其服務的透明度，綜合性和提高服務路徑獲得當?shù)仄髽I(yè)

57、的理解。這兩種系統(tǒng)借給自己為企業(yè)創(chuàng)建的“一站式”服務，通過一站式服務最大限度的方便用戶的得到服務和并享受高質(zhì)量的服務。商會與商會間的合作也非常發(fā)達，這商會使得可以為地方利益提供專業(yè)化的服務，從而進一步提高對企業(yè)的整體服務水平。法國與德國的受訪者一致認為國內(nèi)商會結(jié)構并不存在任何問題。</p><p>　　英國商會組織結(jié)構：英國受訪者認為其優(yōu)勢在于英國商會現(xiàn)有安排的靈活性，這種靈活性允許任何獨立的商會在某些適合的區(qū)域

58、的存在。在英國的許多區(qū)域里，會員能被提供高質(zhì)量的服務，而企業(yè)對那些有競爭的服務提供者所提供的利益感到困惑，在她們看來這些利益往往被夸大。英國商會的結(jié)構由于對企業(yè)造成潛在的問題造成的，同時也由于商會不平衡的地域覆蓋面和對商會的范圍定義的不一致，有時商會的服務范圍也會有重復。近期的變化以及多樣劃的趨勢，英國的業(yè)務支持系統(tǒng)被認為是導致業(yè)務在局部地區(qū)的混亂。從業(yè)務上幫助支持組織的一部分需求也可能會導致對企業(yè)管理者在時間和金錢上的過分要求。<

59、;/p><p><b>　　商會職責與活動</b></p><p>　　公法商會：英國、法國和德國的商會法律地位對他們所提供的服務類型會產(chǎn)生深遠的影響。法國和德國的商會有國家控制的成分在其商會運作中，因為商會的主要任務是有公共法律確定的。他們作為政府與企業(yè)之間的交匯點的作用也是法定定義的。然后商會對基本的日?；顒酉碛袑嵸|(zhì)性的權利。受訪者認為法國和德國商會通過結(jié)合自身的獨立

60、運作，涵蓋區(qū)域的靈活性，使得其在經(jīng)濟管理和發(fā)展中起核心作用。充足的資金同樣使得商會能夠向企業(yè)提供范圍廣泛的高質(zhì)量服務。受訪者認為公共法律系統(tǒng)下的商會無劣勢。</p><p>　　私法商會：英國商會在經(jīng)濟管理與發(fā)展中發(fā)揮著一個相對溫和的作用，其主要原因在于缺乏法律授予的應盡權利與義務并且商會在較不完善的情況下與政府接觸。雖然英國商會為企業(yè)提供多項服務，但這是以這些高比例的服務費用作為基礎的。商會需要與其他的服務提供

61、者進行有效的競爭，這些競爭者尋求產(chǎn)品的差異化以及價格競爭。此外，商會可能是同提供范圍廣泛的服務，為了最大限度的提高客戶滿意度和物有所值之感。受訪者提出英國的私法制度的優(yōu)勢是保持了商會的商業(yè)才華以及創(chuàng)造力精神，能以市場為主導提供差異化多元化的服務，以及為會員提供高品質(zhì)低價格的服務。與法國和德國的同行相比，英國受訪者同樣確定私法地位的傳統(tǒng)商會沒有壞處。</p><p>　　法國和德國受訪者認為他們的國家商會系統(tǒng)是相定

62、的。然而，一些小的改動也時有發(fā)生，其中包括商會對收入為非法定的來源越來越依賴，并以提高組織組織的效率企圖以節(jié)省成本。這些變化被認為是促使法國和德國商會的運動朝著英國的方向發(fā)展。英國受訪者表示英國商會體系正在經(jīng)歷一個重大變化的時期。這與法國德國正朝英國方向發(fā)展的一樣。英國趨向于朝德國法國的方向發(fā)展。英國商會正趨向于同政府限定法定資金的協(xié)議這一狀態(tài)可以看出英國商會對政府的依賴增加。</p><p>　　出處：[英]格