服務(wù)政策改革和轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長(zhǎng)外文翻譯 (2)

1、<p><b>　　中文3257字</b></p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯</p><p>　　外文題目：Services Policy Reform and Economic Growth in Transition Economies </p><p>　　出 處： 　　　　 The Kiel Inst

2、itute 　　　 </p><p>　　作 者： Felix Eschenbach and Bernard Hoekman </p><p><b>　　原 文：</b></p><p>　　Services Policy Reform and E

3、conomic Growth Transition Economies</p><p>　　Felix Eschenbach and Bernard Hoekman</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　Major changes have occurred in the structure of forme

4、r centrally planned economies, including a sharp rise in the share of services in GDP, employment, and international transactions. However, large differences exist across transition economies with respect to services int

5、ensity and services policy reforms. We ?nd that reforms in policies toward ?nancial and infrastructure services, including telecommunications, power, and transport, are highly correlated with inward FDI.Controlling for r

6、egresso</p><p>　　1. Introduction</p><p>　　One of the stylized facts of economic development is that the share of services in GDP and employment rises as per capita incomes increase (Francois and

7、 Reinert 1996). This re?ects increasing specialization and exchange of services through the market (“outsourcing”)—with an associated increase in variety and quality that may raise productivity of ?rms and welfare of ?na

8、l consumers, in turn increasing demand for services. It also re?ects the limited scope for (labor) productivity in provision of </p><p>　　Services industries were generally neglected under central planning.M

9、arxist thinking emphasized the importance of tangible (material) inputs as determinants of economic development, and classi?ed employment in the services sector as unproductive. The lack of producer services was re?ected

10、 in transport bottlenecks, queuing for and low quality of telecommunications, the absence of ef?cient ?nancial intermediation, and muchlower employment in services than was the case in OECD countries (less than </p>

11、;<p>　　2. Shifts in the Structure of Services in Transition Economies </p><p>　　The share of services in GDP and employment has grown signi?cantly since 1990 in almost all transition economies. Com

12、pared to the high income OECD average in 1990 when the share of services in employment and GDP was around 63 percent transition countries in Europe and Central Asia (ECA) lagged far behind: services accounted for 30–40 p

13、ercent of GDP and employment. As of 2003, services shares had increased substantially. The greatest growth is observed in the Baltic States, which have almost conv</p><p>　　There is also a distinct pattern i

14、n labor productivity performance. The CEE, South-East European (SEE) and Baltic states register an increase in productivity, both overall and within services (broadly de?ned to include government).Conversely, for those o

15、ther countries where data is available, there has been a decline in the measured value of services output per employee. These countries also have not increased their overall labor productivity performance in the last dec

16、ade. Noteworthy is the per</p><p>　　3. Services Reforms and Growth Performance </p><p>　　The forgoing snapshot of trends in the share of services in GDP, employment, output perworker, trade,

17、and FDI reveal both substantial convergence toward European countries, but also a distinct difference between Central European/Baltic states and Central Asian and CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) economies. Given

18、 that trade and FDI in services can be expected to be associated with the acquisition of new technologies, higher service standards and more effective delivery, these differences</p><p>　　While signi?cant pr

19、ogress has beenmade by many transition economies in services reforms, there is also substantial cross-country heterogeneity in terms of liberalization and the quality of the regulatory framework for key “backbone” servic

20、es. Differences in policy reforms are re?ected by differences in FDI in services.This is con?rmed by the correlation coef?cients in the Appendix Table A1 relating investment climate and the combined service sector reform

21、 variables to the stock of FDI as a share</p><p>　　The goal of this paper is to investigate whether reforms have had a positive effect on output growth for the countries under consideration. Standard economi

22、c growth theory postulates that growth is a function of capital and labor inputs. It accords no special role to services. Services play a more prominent role in the literature on ?nancial sector development (see Levine 1

23、997 for a survey), which recognizes that ?nancial intermediaries do not simply passively convert savings into physical inves</p><p>　　The role of producer services of the type captured by the infrastructure

24、services reform index in the growth process has not attracted much attention in the theoretical or empirical growth literature. Francois (1990) develops a model that points to the importance of such producer services for

25、 economic growth, although his model is not dynamic.He argues that the increasing importance of producer services in modern economies re?ects economies of scale and specialization. As ?rm size increases and </p>&

26、lt;p>　　4. Concluding comments</p><p>　　Controlling for a number of standard explanatory variables used in the growth literature (investment, crises, inaction), we ?nd a statistically signi?cant positive a

27、ssociation between per capita GDP growth and measures of service sector policy reforms. Two-stage estimates hint at a “virtuous circle” in which growth and political reform foster the efficiency of reform, which in turn

28、stimulates growth. Although the sample of countries was limited to transition economies annual policy reform indica</p><p><b>　　譯 文：</b></p><p>　　服務(wù)政策改革和轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長(zhǎng)</p><p>

29、;　　Felix Eschenbach and Bernard Hoekman</p><p><b>　　摘 要 </b></p><p>　　如今，服務(wù)業(yè)的經(jīng)濟(jì)份額在國(guó)民生產(chǎn)總值GDP中所占的比例越來(lái)越大，而在現(xiàn)實(shí)就業(yè)和國(guó)際交易中也起著越來(lái)越重要的作用。在計(jì)劃經(jīng)濟(jì)體制上由于服務(wù)業(yè)比重的上升也使這種體制發(fā)生了巨大的變化，開始傾向于服務(wù)業(yè)?？墒牵m然服務(wù)業(yè)對(duì)我們國(guó)民來(lái)

30、說(shuō)已經(jīng)變得越來(lái)越重要，但是在服務(wù)業(yè)本身的政策改革和服務(wù)力度上仍然存在著比較大的缺陷。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，在對(duì)金融和服務(wù)的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施改革中，包括電信、電力和運(yùn)輸上的改革，它們兩者都與外商直接投資有著高度的相關(guān)性。在常用的歷史文獻(xiàn)中，我們經(jīng)常使用回歸分析法，而把服務(wù)政策作為經(jīng)濟(jì)體的解釋變量是從1990年開始的。這說(shuō)明服務(wù)政策的變化應(yīng)該更普遍地以經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的實(shí)證分析為主。</p><p><b>　　1.引言</b&

31、gt;</p><p>　　弗朗索瓦和賴納特(Francois and Reinert 1996)證實(shí)服務(wù)業(yè)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的典型事例之一是：服務(wù)經(jīng)濟(jì)在GDP中的上升和就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)伴隨著人均收入而上升。這反映了服務(wù)業(yè)在居民生活中已經(jīng)越來(lái)越重要，而在服務(wù)市場(chǎng)中，通過對(duì)服務(wù)品種的增加和服務(wù)質(zhì)量的提高來(lái)提升對(duì)其他產(chǎn)業(yè)的相關(guān)利益性。</p><p>　　鮑默爾和?？怂?Baumol 1967;Fuchs 1

32、968)指出服務(wù)的范圍是有限的，所以其服務(wù)業(yè)的運(yùn)營(yíng)也是會(huì)受到限制的。隨著時(shí)間的推移，服務(wù)的相對(duì)成本也會(huì)上升，這些問題將會(huì)對(duì)影響到就業(yè)。</p><p>　　技術(shù)的改革和機(jī)動(dòng)性是服務(wù)業(yè)的兩大命脈。不過，貿(mào)易生產(chǎn)專業(yè)化也是決定服務(wù)行業(yè)是否成功的關(guān)鍵因素?，F(xiàn)實(shí)中，各大集團(tuán)公司都會(huì)在國(guó)際市場(chǎng)上提高國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)出口經(jīng)營(yíng)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力，這對(duì)生產(chǎn)和貿(mào)易專業(yè)化的要求將進(jìn)一步增加。這些競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的提高在很大程度上都取決于對(duì)可用性成本的需求，以及

33、諸如電力、運(yùn)輸、電信等行業(yè)部門的極力配合，這些都是與服務(wù)業(yè)密不可分的。</p><p>　　服務(wù)業(yè)作為新興行業(yè)，其相對(duì)的細(xì)則法規(guī)也是不完善的，往往會(huì)被中央所忽視。像馬克思主義思想它主要強(qiáng)調(diào)的是有形（物質(zhì)）的重要性，它是作為經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的決定因素提出來(lái)的?？墒菑膶?duì)服務(wù)業(yè)措施的忽視來(lái)看，這與馬克思主義有形論而言是相矛盾的。所以服務(wù)行業(yè)離不開中央的調(diào)控，對(duì)于新興的行業(yè)必須給予大力的支持。</p><p&

34、gt;　　服務(wù)業(yè)通常被分為生產(chǎn)性服務(wù)和非生產(chǎn)性服務(wù)。生產(chǎn)性服務(wù)對(duì)于交通運(yùn)輸是有一定要求的，其中一些非經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家相對(duì)于經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家來(lái)說(shuō)在金融業(yè)上會(huì)出現(xiàn)諸如電信服務(wù)質(zhì)量下降的情況。通常，由于交通運(yùn)輸?shù)牟粫常?wù)行業(yè)將會(huì)受阻，這對(duì)服務(wù)業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)是個(gè)致命的打擊；同時(shí)服務(wù)業(yè)的滯后對(duì)于整個(gè)市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)運(yùn)作來(lái)說(shuō)是非常危險(xiǎn)的。</p><p>　　從整個(gè)行業(yè)來(lái)看金融業(yè)可以有效地分配投資資金，不過金融業(yè)的運(yùn)作卻離不開設(shè)計(jì)、廣告、包裝、配

35、送、物流、管理、售后服務(wù)等這些基本的服務(wù)項(xiàng)目，而這也往往也體現(xiàn)了服務(wù)業(yè)的重要性。</p><p>　　本文分析了服務(wù)部門政策改革對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的幾種表現(xiàn)。而在這些表現(xiàn)中，轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)體之間存在著很大的差異。而我們的主要目的是探討對(duì)服務(wù)的有關(guān)政策能夠在何種程度上才有助于解釋這些差異。我們通過簡(jiǎn)短的討論來(lái)分析外商直接投資在服務(wù)業(yè)上如何轉(zhuǎn)變貿(mào)易結(jié)構(gòu)的經(jīng)濟(jì)體。我們首先根據(jù)服務(wù)業(yè)在90年代以來(lái)發(fā)生的情況，快速地提出一個(gè)能夠?qū)Q(mào)

36、易政策和投資進(jìn)行變動(dòng)的構(gòu)思，而這些構(gòu)思的形成又都特別的注重所謂的骨干服務(wù)行業(yè)，比如：金融、電信和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施（包括公用事業(yè)）。然后，我們從普遍使用的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)文獻(xiàn)中通過對(duì)解釋變量的控制，了解連續(xù)增長(zhǎng)的改革政策對(duì)服務(wù)業(yè)的影響程度。在這里我們得出，對(duì)服務(wù)業(yè)的政策改革是經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)表現(xiàn)的重要決定因素。</p><p>　　2.轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)向服務(wù)業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)移</p><p>　　轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)簡(jiǎn)單來(lái)說(shuō)是增長(zhǎng)向發(fā)展轉(zhuǎn)變，而真正的

37、轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)就是發(fā)展經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)。發(fā)展不同于增長(zhǎng)，經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展不同于GDP數(shù)字增長(zhǎng)。在服務(wù)業(yè)中，自1990年以后，世界上對(duì)第三產(chǎn)業(yè)的需求已經(jīng)越來(lái)越大，服務(wù)業(yè)增長(zhǎng)的趨勢(shì)也及其迅速，所以在這種增長(zhǎng)的趨勢(shì)下對(duì)服務(wù)業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)是需要尋求一種很好的發(fā)展模式。</p><p>　　1990年的時(shí)候，在一些高收入的經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家中，服務(wù)業(yè)就已經(jīng)在就業(yè)上占了很大的比例。在國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值中占了將近63%，相對(duì)于在服務(wù)業(yè)上只占20%—30%左右的中亞國(guó)家

38、和歐洲一些國(guó)家來(lái)說(shuō)遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)拉開了距離。截至2008年為止，服務(wù)業(yè)在全世界所擁有的股價(jià)就已經(jīng)占了很大一部分，其中股價(jià)最大的增長(zhǎng)是來(lái)自波羅的海國(guó)家。這些國(guó)家中國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的68%幾乎都來(lái)自服務(wù)業(yè)，雖然這些國(guó)家就業(yè)率比較低。中歐和東歐(CEE)的國(guó)家，在2004年加入到歐盟后，在服務(wù)業(yè)上也開始了一定的投入，其股價(jià)也呈斜線性上升。不過對(duì)于中亞國(guó)家而言，雖然在服務(wù)業(yè)上取得了一定的進(jìn)展，但是自然資源行業(yè)仍然是它們構(gòu)成GDP的主要成分，即使在服務(wù)業(yè)上有了

39、一些改變。</p><p>　　服務(wù)業(yè)中再一個(gè)表現(xiàn)就是勞動(dòng)生產(chǎn)率的不同運(yùn)作模式。中歐和東歐還有波羅的海的國(guó)家在服務(wù)業(yè)上雖然整體已經(jīng)有了顯著地提高，不過從歷史數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)看，每個(gè)員工在服務(wù)輸出上比起其他一些國(guó)家卻有所下降。之所以這樣說(shuō)主要是因?yàn)檫@些國(guó)家在服務(wù)上并沒有更多的投入，其選擇的運(yùn)作模式也是單一的進(jìn)行操作，因此在過去十年中勞動(dòng)生產(chǎn)率的整體性能沒有更大的提高?？墒侵档米⒁獾氖牵_的海國(guó)家，在有些部門中服務(wù)生產(chǎn)率在經(jīng)

40、濟(jì)上就已經(jīng)超過了勞動(dòng)生產(chǎn)率。但是，相對(duì)于高收入的經(jīng)合組織國(guó)家來(lái)說(shuō)服務(wù)生產(chǎn)率的提高是僅僅不夠的。</p><p>　　非洲經(jīng)委會(huì)提供的2001年的投入產(chǎn)出表顯示，在經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)差異的情況下，中介性服務(wù)已經(jīng)被世界所需求，這些都加大了對(duì)服務(wù)出口的力度。</p><p>　　3.生產(chǎn)性服務(wù)業(yè)的改革</p><p>　　在歐洲國(guó)家，外國(guó)直接投資對(duì)國(guó)際貿(mào)易的影響都產(chǎn)生了實(shí)質(zhì)性的趨同

41、，但是也存在著顯著的差異，特別是對(duì)于波羅的海和中亞的國(guó)家來(lái)說(shuō)，服務(wù)在國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值中占的份額也開始出現(xiàn)差別。外商直接投資能夠?yàn)榉?wù)貿(mào)易提供新技術(shù)，隨之而來(lái)的就是要制定更高的服務(wù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和更有效的實(shí)施措施，但是這些東西的產(chǎn)生都會(huì)對(duì)勞動(dòng)生產(chǎn)率帶來(lái)必要的影響。本文還探討的問題就是這些服務(wù)的發(fā)展是否決定了各國(guó)總量的增長(zhǎng)。各國(guó)政府的政策立場(chǎng)作為內(nèi)生變量的一種，影響著服務(wù)貿(mào)易的發(fā)展，對(duì)服務(wù)業(yè)有著舉足輕重的地位。</p><p>　

42、　服務(wù)部門的改革需要對(duì)其放松管制(對(duì)障礙進(jìn)入應(yīng)該進(jìn)行抵制，同時(shí)要促進(jìn)服務(wù)競(jìng)爭(zhēng))和引入混合性管理(制定適當(dāng)?shù)姆森h(huán)境，加強(qiáng)監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)，增加其獨(dú)立性，等等)。在政策上具有的挑戰(zhàn)是否能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)有效地監(jiān)管，同時(shí)增加市場(chǎng)間的平衡競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。對(duì)于已經(jīng)做了產(chǎn)業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)型的國(guó)家來(lái)說(shuō)，堅(jiān)持相適應(yīng)的改革政策和提高服務(wù)行業(yè)的監(jiān)管已經(jīng)刻不容緩。</p><p>　　本文的另一目的是對(duì)于改革的國(guó)家來(lái)說(shuō)在其產(chǎn)出增長(zhǎng)上對(duì)服務(wù)業(yè)是否具有有效的積極性。標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的經(jīng)濟(jì)

43、增長(zhǎng)理論認(rèn)為資本和勞動(dòng)的投入是經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的主要原因，但是它不符合服務(wù)業(yè)的特殊標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。根據(jù)金融部門的發(fā)展文獻(xiàn)來(lái)看，能夠確認(rèn)的是，金融機(jī)構(gòu)只不過是被動(dòng)的用實(shí)物來(lái)進(jìn)行投資，把儲(chǔ)蓄轉(zhuǎn)化為更為有效地投資。相反，對(duì)于金融中介性機(jī)構(gòu)(銀行，資本市場(chǎng))而言，資本的積累和生產(chǎn)力的提高可能會(huì)永久地提升這些部門的成長(zhǎng)。不過，可以肯定的是積極地動(dòng)員儲(chǔ)蓄在投資上的作用，將會(huì)更好地實(shí)現(xiàn)利潤(rùn)的最大化。</p><p>　　通過加強(qiáng)對(duì)私人銀行的聯(lián)系

44、來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)金融與服務(wù)之間的轉(zhuǎn)化，就必須嚴(yán)實(shí)對(duì)金融機(jī)構(gòu)的政策框架。可是事實(shí)上，許多國(guó)家在金融上都存在著大小不一的問題，比如存在銀行中的存款和信貸卻直接或間接地受到政府的管制，金融機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)資金的運(yùn)用也受到了限制。</p><p>　　如上所述，在基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的問題上，仍然有許多問題需要通過政策來(lái)進(jìn)行改革，同時(shí)，我們不能為了提高單一的生產(chǎn)效率而盲目地利用獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)措施來(lái)提高生產(chǎn)效率，要加強(qiáng)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)在監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)上的獨(dú)立運(yùn)用，這樣對(duì)服務(wù)業(yè)的發(fā)

45、展來(lái)說(shuō)會(huì)產(chǎn)生積極的作用。</p><p><b>　　4.總結(jié)</b></p><p>　　在文獻(xiàn)中能夠使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的解釋變量(投資，危機(jī)，通貨膨脹)之后，我們能夠看到在經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)中，人均GDP的增長(zhǎng)率和服務(wù)部門的政策改革呈正相關(guān)性。在生產(chǎn)的良性循環(huán)上，能夠刺激經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的就是提高改革的效率和對(duì)政治策略的必要改革。雖然在國(guó)家轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)體制的政策上，歐洲的改革編制指標(biāo)對(duì)于發(fā)展中國(guó)

46、家來(lái)說(shuō)并不適合，但是，結(jié)果卻顯示，這些服務(wù)政策卻更加適合于發(fā)展中國(guó)家的經(jīng)濟(jì)。</p><p>　　服務(wù)行業(yè)包括金融，電信，和交通等，這些行業(yè)一是投入了商品；二是投入了服務(wù)，對(duì)于第一產(chǎn)業(yè)和第二產(chǎn)業(yè)來(lái)說(shuō)，也需要投入原材料和人力進(jìn)行生產(chǎn)。而這些投入的成本占到了生產(chǎn)總成本的主要份額，并且也成為了企業(yè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力影響的重要因素。各部門，包括教育，培訓(xùn)甚至是衛(wèi)生都需要人員進(jìn)行服務(wù)，這些關(guān)鍵性的投入也需要人力資本來(lái)進(jìn)行維護(hù)。因此，以