中歐和東歐國(guó)家的貿(mào)易和產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)【外文翻譯】

1、<p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯</p><p>　　出 處： Emerging Markets Finance&trade;Jul/Aug2005,Vol41 Issue4,p20-37,18p </p><p>　　作 者： Hotopp.Ulrike R

2、adosevic.Slavo Bishop.Kate </p><p>　　Trade and Industrial Upgrading in Countries of Central and Eastern Europe</p><p>　　Abstract: This paper explores

3、 mechanisms linking trade and restructuring in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries through learning and industrial upgrading. These are reflected in changes in the composition of trade through changes in the rel

4、ative shares of particular products and clusters in exports (scale), and in the number of products exported (scope). An analysis of export clusters shows the decreasing importance of commodities (homogeneous resource-bas

5、ed goods) and a shift toward te</p><p>　　Key words: catching up, Central and Eastern Europe, industrial restructuring, international trade.</p><p>　　The economies of Central and Eastern Europe (

6、CEE) have become highly integrated into the world economy through trade. In a relatively short period, their trade integration approached levels that would be expected given their proximity to European Union markets (Zol

7、tan et al. 2001). Differences in the respective patterns of their trade integration are closely related to respective differences in their economies’ performance since 1989. Countries that have reformed and restructured

8、faster have sig</p><p>　　It is relevant for the long-term growth of the CEE countries whether integration</p><p>　　through trade is pushing their economies toward long-term growth based on innov

9、ation and industrial upgrading. These dynamic effects of trade are highly dependent on its product composition. The transformation of product compositions over time reflects industry restructuring as well as a specific t

10、echnology base whose dynamic potential can be quite different from country to country. This is the case for both imports and exports. Imports can include capital goods and consumer goods. Capital goods</p><p&g

11、t;　　Although scale and scope are not the true mechanisms of learning, they support the transmission of knowledge via trade. In that respect, scale and scope indicators are used as proxies for different forms of learning

12、or industrial upgrading. Moreover, as Langlois (1997) argues, these mechanisms mostly boil down to the reuse of knowledge. Because these concepts have both theoretical and empirical meaning, they are potentially useful p

13、roxies for understanding the links between trade and industrial </p><p>　　Literature Review</p><p>　　The work on trade and catching-up in CEE has mainly followed the empirical route. Exceptional

14、ly, Landesmann’s work on CEE often combines both theoretical and empirical analysis. Stehrer et al. (2000) analyzed the catching-up process in export prices as indicators of product quality. They find evidence of a conve

15、rgence process in export prices across a wide range of countries, as well as a relatively fast catching-up process in technologically more advanced engineering branches in advanced CEE co</p><p>　　The work b

16、y Landesmann (2000) and Landesmann and Burgstaller (1997), Neven (1994), and Kubielas (1998) concentrates on the structure of trade itself. Neven uses a factor-based classification of trade. Kubielas combines the taxonom

17、ies by Neven and by Pavitt (1984) to analyze the catching-up process. </p><p>　　Despite different taxonomies, these studies came to rather similar conclusions regarding changing patterns of CEE trade. Landes

18、mann (1997) shows a change toward labor-intensive branches and a shift away from capital-, R&D-, and skillintensive branches. Also, catching-up within product groups in terms of quality measured in export unit prices

19、 is present in most of the countries (Landesmann 2000). Landesmann’s analysis emphasizes increasing differences in specialization patterns among CEE countrie</p><p>　　The analysis by Kubielas shows a clear s

20、tructural change of trade when analyzed in terms of the factor intensities of export. There are continual improvements for Pavitt’s specialized suppliers, in low-human but highly physical, capital-intensive sectors, and

21、in resource scale-intensive sectors. In supplier dominated and low-human, low-capital-intensive sectors, there was an instant adjustment upward followed by their further stagnation so that revealed comparative advantage

22、indices in supplier-</p><p>　　Overall, the empirical literature shows that there is some evidence for tradebased growth in CEE. It also shows that over the early period of transition, there was a shift in pr

23、oduction toward labor-intensive products, with increased specialization among the countries. In relation to the above, this paper contains two novelties: First, we consider the 1988 to 1999 period, including the period o

24、f recession immediately following the political change (approximately 1989 to 1994–95) and the followin</p><p><b>　　Model</b></p><p>　　Our conceptual model starts from the assumption

25、 that learning effects are embodied in exported goods, and hence, changes in the structure of exports may enlighten our understanding of industrial upgrading.</p><p>　　Economies accumulate production experie

26、nce more rapidly in the sectors in which they are specialized. Excessive specialization may lead to “l(fā)ock-in” into an initial pattern of specialization.3 Although an increase in export share (scale) is beneficial, as it

27、increases the size of the market, it does not ensure high growth. Growth based on increased specialization in exports ultimately must be complemented by increased product variety. Hence, long-term growth rests on complem

28、entary relationships </p><p>　　Behind the notion of scope is the idea that any learning is an exploratory process,where stages of exploration are followed by cumulated learning-by-doing activities. Diversity

29、 is a precondition for further specialization. Theoretically, longterm industrial upgrading reflects an equilibrium development over time between the increase in the number of products and increased specialization. An in

30、itial increase in the number of products would be strong, but eventually market filtering would generate</p><p>　　This virtuous cycle of upgrading would be expected in front-runner economies. Economies that

31、have failed or are lagging in industrial upgrading would pursue two opposite paths. One group of laggards would continue to generate increasing numbers of products in exports, but in none would a country be able to subst

32、antially increase its market share. This additional exporting across a large product surface is stationary and would reach its limits in the number of new products.</p><p>　　Another group of laggards has a n

33、arrow product specialization. Its surface of export products remains narrow and fragile to major external disturbances despite</p><p>　　the deepening of the existing structure. These economies show very weak

34、 structural competitiveness.</p><p>　　Conclusions</p><p>　　This paper has focused on understanding the mechanisms that link trade and industrial upgrading. We approach this problem using the lea

35、rning and industrial upgrading perspective. The paper develops a descriptive theoretical model based on notions of scale or relative concentration in trade and scope or changes in product variety.</p><p>　　1

36、. In the early transition period (1988–94), the dominant mode of learning is scope-based learning or a continuous increase in the number of new products. Countries that opened to world markets started to experiment and t

37、est the competitiveness of products that were either undeveloped or sold on domestic markets only. Only in Hungary do we observe both scale- and scope-based learning, meaning an increased diversity of products accompanie

38、d by an increased specialization in the major product group</p><p>　　2. In the second period (1995–99), scope-based learning has been complemented by scale-based learning in four of the six economies analyze

39、d. Hungary retains its “virtuous pattern” of industrial upgrading in the second period. Patterns in the second period are much more country specific, with Poland and Albania exhibiting distinctive paths when compared wit

40、h Romania, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic. However, the shift in this period seems not to be strong enough to overturn the trend from the fi</p><p>　　3. A common trend is the decreasing importance of commo

41、dities and a shift toward technology and labor-based products. Country differences emerge to the extent to which countries exhibit a shift toward technology or laborbased products in both dimensions, in terms of scale an

42、d scope. Hungary again exhibits a unique pattern where shifts from commodities and laborbased products were more than compensated for by the shift toward technology-based clusters and products.</p><p>　　4. D

43、ifferences in countries’ patterns in terms of the increased importance of technology-based clusters (products) clearly show a polarization between Central and Eastern Europe. Central European economies’ export growth is

44、based on increased diversification in technology-based clusters as well as on increased specialization in this group. Learning mechanisms that underpin their export growth are based on increases in both scale and scope.

45、However, differences between scale and scope or between </p><p>　　5. The labor-based group of products shows differences in the development of scale and scope. This may suggest that there are problems in com

46、petitiveness in this group in the CEE countries, or that the competitive position is not yet consolidated. As Landesmann (2000) shows, the growth of labor productivity is the least in labor-intensive industries in the CE

47、E, it is medium in resource-based industries, which closely resembles our category of commodities, and it is the highest in the high-techno</p><p>　　6. Our methodological approach has revealed new facets of

48、trade restructuring and industrial upgrading in the countries of CEE. In particular, dimensions of scale and scope are useful proxies for a better understanding of the mechanisms that link trade and growth. It relates to

49、 a better understanding of the mechanisms that underpin changes in terms of scale, such as learning by doing, and mechanisms that underpin changes in scope, such as learning by exporting. However, this approach needs to

50、be</p><p><b>　　譯 文：</b></p><p>　　中歐和東歐國(guó)家的貿(mào)易和產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)</p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　本文通過(guò)學(xué)習(xí)探索連接貿(mào)易和調(diào)整在中歐和東歐國(guó)家的產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)機(jī)制。這些變化主要體現(xiàn)在貿(mào)易的組成通過(guò)改變相關(guān)的特定的產(chǎn)品和集群在出口方面

51、的(尺度),和在產(chǎn)品出口的數(shù)量上(適用范圍)。通過(guò)集群分析表明，降低出口商品（同質(zhì)資源為基礎(chǔ)的商品）的重要性，并朝著技術(shù)和勞動(dòng)力密集型產(chǎn)品的轉(zhuǎn)移是一個(gè)普遍趨勢(shì)。然而,國(guó)家之間的差異就變化的規(guī)模和范圍都在技術(shù)和勞動(dòng)密集型的活動(dòng)方面都很大。這些差異表明，貿(mào)易為基礎(chǔ)的學(xué)習(xí)機(jī)制，在中歐和東歐經(jīng)濟(jì)體之間的差異強(qiáng)烈影響產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：趕超，中歐和東歐，產(chǎn)業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)調(diào)整，國(guó)際貿(mào)易</p>&l

52、t;p>　　通過(guò)貿(mào)易中歐和東歐（CEE）國(guó)家的經(jīng)濟(jì)已經(jīng)高度融入世界經(jīng)濟(jì)。在一個(gè)相對(duì)較短的時(shí)間內(nèi)，他們的貿(mào)易一體化預(yù)期將接近歐盟市場(chǎng)的水平 (Zoltan et al. 2001)。自1989年以來(lái)各自國(guó)家的經(jīng)濟(jì)表現(xiàn)的差異與他們各自貿(mào)易一體化模式的不同密切相關(guān)。與落后的國(guó)家相比，那些改革和調(diào)整快的國(guó)家更顯著的改善了他們的出口技術(shù)結(jié)構(gòu)。在本文中，我們分析了在中歐和東歐的出口方式的變化，從而了解在這些經(jīng)濟(jì)體中的不同產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)模式。<

53、/p><p>　　這是有關(guān)對(duì)于中東歐國(guó)家的長(zhǎng)期增長(zhǎng)，無(wú)論是通過(guò)貿(mào)易一體化推向創(chuàng)新和產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)的長(zhǎng)期增長(zhǎng)的經(jīng)濟(jì)體。這些貿(mào)易動(dòng)態(tài)效果是高度依賴(lài)其產(chǎn)品構(gòu)成。產(chǎn)品構(gòu)成的變革隨著時(shí)間的推移反映在產(chǎn)業(yè)調(diào)整結(jié)構(gòu)同時(shí)奠定動(dòng)態(tài)潛力可以從一國(guó)到另一國(guó)是相當(dāng)不同的一個(gè)具體技術(shù)基礎(chǔ)。這種情況對(duì)于進(jìn)口和出口都有。進(jìn)口可以包括資本品和消費(fèi)品。資本貨物可用于生產(chǎn)，以及模仿，而消費(fèi)品能夠促進(jìn)發(fā)展，主要通過(guò)在口味及使用仿制的變化。然而，我們專(zhuān)注于出口。

54、</p><p>　　雖然規(guī)模和范圍都沒(méi)有學(xué)習(xí)的真正機(jī)制，它們支持知識(shí)通過(guò)貿(mào)易傳播。在這方面，規(guī)模和范圍的指標(biāo)是用來(lái)學(xué)習(xí)或作為產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)的不同形式的代理。此外，Langlois（1997）認(rèn)為，這些機(jī)制主要是歸結(jié)到知識(shí)重用。由于這些概念同時(shí)具有理論和實(shí)證的意義，它們是理解貿(mào)易與產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)之間的聯(lián)系可能有用的代理。我們假設(shè)存在很強(qiáng)的影響的收益遞增和溢出的貿(mào)易發(fā)展(Krugman and Obstfeld 2003)。這

55、些動(dòng)態(tài)的貿(mào)易方面可以包括通過(guò)積極的貿(mào)易政策，是為了影響的比較優(yōu)勢(shì)（s）。Redding (1999)探討邊做邊學(xué)及其影響因素的比較優(yōu)勢(shì)。他展示了貿(mào)易伙伴的整體福利是通過(guò)使用積極的調(diào)整貿(mào)易政策的比較優(yōu)勢(shì)和學(xué)習(xí)能力，而不是靜態(tài)的產(chǎn)業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)。雖然這項(xiàng)政策角度的利益，它已經(jīng)超出了本文的范圍。</p><p><b>　　一、文獻(xiàn)回顧</b></p><p>　　對(duì)貿(mào)易和追趕的工

56、作在中歐和東歐主要遵循了實(shí)證路線。特殊情況下，Landesmann在中歐和東歐的工作經(jīng)常結(jié)合理論和實(shí)證分析。Stehrer (2000)等分析了在出口價(jià)格的追趕的過(guò)程作為產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量的顯示。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)的證據(jù)表明，在廣泛的國(guó)家出口價(jià)格趨同，以及作為一個(gè)相對(duì)快速追趕的過(guò)程，在技術(shù)更先進(jìn)中歐和東歐國(guó)家的的工程分支機(jī)構(gòu)?；旌系牟块T(mén)可以在未來(lái)的經(jīng)濟(jì)進(jìn)步中發(fā)揮重要作用。Cuaresma和Woerz的分析表明，“從高科技產(chǎn)品出口的收益超過(guò)從低技術(shù)產(chǎn)品出口的

57、收益”（2003，p.9）。</p><p>　　Landesmann（2000）和Landesmann和Burgstaller（1997），Neven（1994），Kubielas（1998年）的工作集中于貿(mào)易本身的結(jié)構(gòu)。Neven采用以貿(mào)易因素為基礎(chǔ)的分類(lèi)。Kubielas結(jié)合Neven和Pavitt（1984）的分類(lèi)來(lái)分析追趕過(guò)程。</p><p>　　盡管有不同的分類(lèi)法，關(guān)于中歐和

58、東歐的貿(mào)易模式轉(zhuǎn)變這些研究得出類(lèi)似的結(jié)論。Landesmann（1997）展示了勞動(dòng)密集型分支機(jī)構(gòu)的變化和從資金，研發(fā)，和技術(shù)密集分支機(jī)構(gòu)的轉(zhuǎn)變。并且，追趕在產(chǎn)品隊(duì)伍之內(nèi)根據(jù)質(zhì)量在出口單價(jià)被測(cè)量存在大多數(shù)國(guó)家(Landesmann 2000)。Landesmann的分析強(qiáng)調(diào)中歐和東歐國(guó)家之間日益專(zhuān)業(yè)化模式的差異。</p><p>　　更多的“西方”中歐和東歐經(jīng)濟(jì)體（匈牙利，捷克共和國(guó)，斯洛伐克和波蘭）在加強(qiáng)更多的

59、產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)和產(chǎn)業(yè)間專(zhuān)業(yè)化經(jīng)歷了那么大的格局加固。Landesmann顯示了一個(gè)“相對(duì)快速追趕的過(guò)程中有更先進(jìn)[技術(shù)] 的工程分支在以更先進(jìn)中東歐國(guó)家為例”（2000,p.114）。</p><p>　　Kubielas在出口方面因素的強(qiáng)度分析時(shí)表明一個(gè)更清晰的貿(mào)易結(jié)構(gòu)變化。Pavitt的專(zhuān)業(yè)供應(yīng)商在低人力但高度物理的，資本密集型行業(yè)，規(guī)模和資源密集型行業(yè)有不斷改善。在供應(yīng)商為主，低人力，低資本密集的行業(yè)，有向上調(diào)整的

60、瞬間停滯，以便他們進(jìn)一步發(fā)現(xiàn)在供應(yīng)商占主導(dǎo)地位的產(chǎn)品比較優(yōu)勢(shì)指數(shù)隨后開(kāi)始下降在1993年后。</p><p>　　整體而言，實(shí)證文獻(xiàn)顯示一些以貿(mào)易為主的中東歐經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的證據(jù)。它還表明，在過(guò)渡初期，隨著各國(guó)間的專(zhuān)業(yè)化的增加產(chǎn)品轉(zhuǎn)向勞動(dòng)密集型。關(guān)于上述情況，本論文包含兩個(gè)新奇：首先，我們認(rèn)為1988年至1999年期間，包括經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退期立即政治變革（約1989年至1994-95年度）及以下復(fù)蘇（自1994-95年在大多數(shù)

61、國(guó)家）。其次，我們使用以產(chǎn)品為基礎(chǔ)的聚類(lèi)方法，它會(huì)點(diǎn)亮東歐貿(mào)易和建立以規(guī)模和范圍為基礎(chǔ)的學(xué)習(xí)機(jī)制，通過(guò)貿(mào)易的產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)。</p><p><b>　　二、模型</b></p><p>　　我們的理念模型開(kāi)始于假設(shè)學(xué)習(xí)效果體現(xiàn)在出口產(chǎn)品，并且，在出口結(jié)構(gòu)的變化可能啟發(fā)我們對(duì)產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)的理解。</p><p>　　經(jīng)濟(jì)在他們專(zhuān)門(mén)研究的區(qū)域更加迅速地積累

62、生產(chǎn)經(jīng)驗(yàn)。過(guò)度專(zhuān)業(yè)化可能導(dǎo)致“鎖定”到一個(gè)專(zhuān)業(yè)化的初始模式。雖然在出口份額（規(guī)模）的增加是有利的，因?yàn)樗黾恿耸袌?chǎng)規(guī)模，它并不能保證高增長(zhǎng)。提高專(zhuān)業(yè)化的基礎(chǔ)上，出口的增長(zhǎng)最終必須輔之以增加產(chǎn)品品種。因此，長(zhǎng)期增長(zhǎng)取決于規(guī)模和范圍之間的互補(bǔ)關(guān)系。</p><p>　　范圍背后的概念是任何學(xué)習(xí)的想法，它在勘探階段是一個(gè)邊學(xué)邊做活動(dòng)的探索過(guò)程。多樣性是進(jìn)一步專(zhuān)業(yè)化的前提條件。從理論上講，長(zhǎng)期的產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)，反映了隨著時(shí)間的

63、一種對(duì)產(chǎn)品數(shù)量增加和專(zhuān)業(yè)化增加的兩者之間的均衡發(fā)展。在最初的產(chǎn)品數(shù)量增加是強(qiáng)勁的，但最終市場(chǎng)過(guò)濾將會(huì)產(chǎn)生更多專(zhuān)業(yè)化。隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長(zhǎng)和技術(shù)的擴(kuò)散，我們將再次期望在產(chǎn)品數(shù)量的增加是隨著專(zhuān)業(yè)化的提高。</p><p>　　這種升級(jí)的良性循環(huán)將有望成為經(jīng)濟(jì)的領(lǐng)跑者。那些已逝去的或經(jīng)濟(jì)落后的產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)將繼續(xù)在兩個(gè)相反的路徑。落后的一個(gè)小組將繼續(xù)生產(chǎn)越來(lái)越多的出口產(chǎn)品，但沒(méi)有一個(gè)國(guó)家能夠大幅增加其市場(chǎng)份額。在大型產(chǎn)品表面是固定

64、的額外出口這將達(dá)到限制新產(chǎn)品的數(shù)目。落后的另一組有一個(gè)狹窄的產(chǎn)品專(zhuān)業(yè)化。其出口產(chǎn)品的表面仍然狹窄和脆弱，因?yàn)橹饕獠扛蓴_是現(xiàn)有的結(jié)構(gòu)深化。這些經(jīng)濟(jì)體顯示非常軟弱的結(jié)構(gòu)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力。</p><p><b>　　三、結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　本文的重點(diǎn)是了解聯(lián)系貿(mào)易和產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)的機(jī)制。我們處理這個(gè)問(wèn)題使用的學(xué)習(xí)和產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)的觀點(diǎn)。本文開(kāi)發(fā)了一個(gè)描述性的理論模型規(guī)模以相對(duì)集

65、中在貿(mào)易概念和范圍，或在產(chǎn)品品種的變化為基礎(chǔ)。</p><p>　　1、在早期的過(guò)渡時(shí)期（1988-94），學(xué)習(xí)的主要模式是以范圍為基礎(chǔ)的學(xué)習(xí)或數(shù)量不斷增加的新產(chǎn)品。向世界開(kāi)放的國(guó)家，市場(chǎng)開(kāi)始進(jìn)行實(shí)驗(yàn)和測(cè)試要么欠發(fā)達(dá)或只在國(guó)內(nèi)市場(chǎng)銷(xiāo)售的產(chǎn)品競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力。只有在匈牙利我們觀察規(guī)模和以范圍為基礎(chǔ)的學(xué)習(xí)，這意味著產(chǎn)品多樣性的增加和主要產(chǎn)品專(zhuān)業(yè)化的提高。此路徑是從我們的模型中的最優(yōu)產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)的角度來(lái)看，因?yàn)樗瑫r(shí)保證品種和專(zhuān)業(yè)化

66、。</p><p>　　2、在第二階段（1995-1999年），以范圍為基礎(chǔ)的學(xué)習(xí)一直補(bǔ)充了六個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)體中的四個(gè)的規(guī)模分析。匈牙利保留其產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)的“良性格局”的第二階段。在第二階段模式是多國(guó)而異，在波蘭和阿爾巴尼亞展出時(shí)，羅馬尼亞，保加利亞，捷克共和國(guó)有比較獨(dú)特的路徑。然而，在此期間轉(zhuǎn)移似乎沒(méi)有強(qiáng)大到足以推翻初期的這些經(jīng)濟(jì)體的趨勢(shì)。</p><p>　　3、一個(gè)共同趨勢(shì)是商品的重要性的下降，

67、并朝著技術(shù)和勞動(dòng)力為基礎(chǔ)的產(chǎn)品轉(zhuǎn)變。國(guó)家差異的出現(xiàn)，在何種程度上表現(xiàn)出國(guó)家轉(zhuǎn)向技術(shù)或勞動(dòng)為基礎(chǔ)這兩個(gè)方面的產(chǎn)品代替規(guī)模和范圍。匈牙利再次表現(xiàn)出獨(dú)特的模式從商品和勞動(dòng)力為基礎(chǔ)的產(chǎn)品變化超過(guò)補(bǔ)償走向技術(shù)為基礎(chǔ)的集群和產(chǎn)品。</p><p>　　4、國(guó)家的模式差異在以技術(shù)為基礎(chǔ)的集群（產(chǎn)品）的重要性明確顯示了中歐和東歐之間的兩極分化。中歐經(jīng)濟(jì)體的出口增長(zhǎng)是以增加技術(shù)為基礎(chǔ)的集群的多樣化以及在這一組專(zhuān)業(yè)化的提高。學(xué)習(xí)機(jī)制

68、，鞏固它們的出口增長(zhǎng)是基于在規(guī)模和范圍的增加。不過(guò)，規(guī)模和范圍或品種和差異的增加之間的差異是少得多的產(chǎn)品勞動(dòng)密集型群體同質(zhì)性。</p><p>　　5、產(chǎn)品的勞動(dòng)力為基礎(chǔ)的集團(tuán)表現(xiàn)在規(guī)模和范圍的發(fā)展的差異。這可能表明，在這個(gè)集團(tuán)在中歐和東歐國(guó)家有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力問(wèn)題，或者說(shuō)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)地位還不鞏固。Landesmann（2000）顯示，在中歐和東歐勞動(dòng)生產(chǎn)率的增長(zhǎng)至少在勞動(dòng)密集型產(chǎn)業(yè)，這是資源型產(chǎn)業(yè)，這非常類(lèi)似于我們的商品類(lèi)別中，

69、它是在最高技術(shù)小組。公司仍在探索進(jìn)入新的市場(chǎng)機(jī)會(huì)通過(guò)引入新的勞動(dòng)力密集型產(chǎn)品出口（保加利亞，羅馬尼亞，波蘭），或在這一組增加專(zhuān)業(yè)化（捷克共和國(guó)），或放棄這些產(chǎn)品（匈牙利）。</p><p>　　6、我們的方法的方法揭示了在中東歐國(guó)家的貿(mào)易結(jié)構(gòu)調(diào)整和產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)的新層面。特別是，規(guī)模和范圍方面是更好地理解貿(mào)易和發(fā)展的連接機(jī)制的有用的代理。它涉及到的機(jī)制更好地理解，鞏固在規(guī)模上的變化，如在實(shí)踐中學(xué)習(xí)，鞏固在范圍上的變化的