東亞的反傾銷問(wèn)題外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　2126單詞</b></p><p><b>　　中文3573字</b></p><p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p>　　East Asia’s Anti-dumping Problem</p><p>　　Material So

2、urce: Wiley Online Library Author:Thomas J.Prusa</p><p>　　1. INTRODUCTION</p><p>　　The more things change, the more they stay the same. In the 1970s anti-dumping (AD) was the most common

3、type of trade dispute, and East Asian countries were the leading targets of these investigations. The same was true in the 1980s. The same was also true in the 1990s. The same is still true today.</p><p>　　F

4、or all the hue and cry about safeguards, Super 301, government-subsidized exports, etc., AD was, is, and for the indefinite future will continue to be, the undisputed king of protection. Several authors have documented t

5、he world’s growing AD problem (Miranda et al., 1998; Prusa, 2001; and Zanardi, 2004). Each study provides evidence of the growing use and proliferation of AD protection. Prusa (2005) perhaps offers the best evidence, poi

6、nting out that in terms of the quantity of trade litigation</p><p>　　While there is considerable disagreement whether AD levels or tilts the playing field, there can be little doubt that East Asian countries

7、 have been, and will likely continue to be, the leading targets of AD actions. Simply put, AD is a serious problem for East Asia; by almost any measure East Asian countries are subject to a disproportionate share of AD a

8、ctions. The extent of the disparity has not been recognized in any previous studies. The goal of this paper is to eliminate this gap in the li</p><p>　　For this paper, I review AD disputes over the past 25 y

9、ears and find that East Asian economies – Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, China-Taiwan and China-PRC – are not only subject to an extraordinarily large number of AD actions but

10、also account for most of the worldwide growth in AD actions. I will show that the growth of AD has largely come at the expense of East Asian countries.</p><p>　　Another detail that this paper uncovers is tha

11、t East Asian countries have largely</p><p>　　shunned the use of AD. This is also depicted in Figure 1 where I calculate the fraction of AD cases filed by East Asian countries. As seen, East Asian countries g

12、enerally account for less than five per cent of AD filings worldwide. As I will discuss, such restraint is highly unusual. It appears that East Asian countries are outliers on both perspectives – they are subject to a re

13、markably large number of AD actions but file remarkably few AD actions.</p><p>　　My hope is that this paper will give readers a better understanding of the patterns of AD by and against East Asian countries

14、over the past 25 years. Whether measured by number of cases or by cases per dollar of trade, East Asian countries look significantly different from other large economies. To a large extent, the trends and patterns are so

15、 sharp that simple tables do a good job delivering the message. But, to confirm that other factors are not behind the patterns I also use more formal stat</p><p>　　2. A LOOK AT THE DATA</p><p>　

16、　a. Background</p><p>　　In order to get a handle on the worldwide use of AD, I reviewed reports submitted to the WTO by member countries. By agreement, since 1980 all WTO members have been required to make s

17、emi-annual reports on their use of trade remedies, including AD activity. Using these reports a database of all AD actions</p><p>　　filed by WTO members between 1980 and June 2002 was compiled; overall about

18、 4,600 AD actions have been reported to the WTO. AD actions initiated by non-WTO members are not in my database.1 The WTO reports include only basic case information, such as the filing (reporting) country, the affected

19、country, the name of the product being investigated and the date the case was filed. For some cases I also know whether a duty was imposed, but the size of duty is almost never reported. Also, one cannot u</p><

20、;p>　　Before looking at the patterns in AD use, a couple of comments on the database are in order. To begin with, the country- and product-specificity of AD investigations affects the accounting. AD cases are reported

21、by product against a particular named country. For instance, occasionally an investigation involving a single product will be broken into multiple products and consequently reported as multiple cases. More common, an inv

22、estigation will name multiple foreign countries, and hence be record</p><p>　　More complicated accounting issues involve EU countries and former USSR republics. First, under EU rules AD cases are not filed b

23、y individual countries but on behalf of the entire EU. By contrast, AD cases filed against EU countries name individual countries.3 For instance, a US AD action against steel beams from France and Germany would be report

24、ed as two separate cases. In order to keep the accounting consistent, I have ‘merged’ cases involving the same product filed at the same time against i</p><p>　　b. AD – Filing Patterns</p><p>　　

25、In Table 1, I report the number of AD cases filed since 1980, including subtotals for five-year intervals. As mentioned above, I aggregate the individual country filings to a regional basis in these summary tables.</p

26、><p>　　Since 1980, North American countries have filed more AD cases than any other region. About 85 per cent of North American cases have been filed by the United States and Canada. Pacific/Oceania is the seco

27、nd heaviest AD-using region. This is almost entirely due to Australia. Western Europe’s total of 789 cases (which are primarily EU filings) makes it the third heaviest AD user. In other words, over the long run AD use ha

28、s been dominated by the four traditional AD users: United States, Canada, Aus</p><p>　　When one looks at the filings for the individual sub-periods, however, an important dynamic pattern emerges. In particul

29、ar, looking across the columns one can see the adoption of AD protection by more and more countries around the world. Early on (1980–84) all AD filing activity was confined to three regions, North America, Pacific/Oceani

30、a and Western Europe. Furthermore, the four traditional users account for 99 per cent of these filings. As pointed out by Finger (1993) for all intents and purp</p><p>　　Since that time AD use has progressiv

31、ely spread throughout the world. During the second half of the 1980s, for instance, South American and East Asian countries began to use AD. By the second half of the 1990s, AD was used by nearly all parts of the world.

32、Today, only the poorest countries in Africa and Central Asia are not active AD users. What is more, the new users have not just dabbled with AD. As discussed in Prusa (2001 and 2005) when countries begin to use AD, they

33、typically do so in a bi</p><p>　　The emergence of China-PRC is a major reason for the rising trend of AD use against East Asia. Since the 1980s AD actions against China-PRC have increased five-fold. If we ex

34、clude China-PRC from the East Asian totals, we find that between 1985 and 2002 AD actions against East Asian countries grew by 75 per cent. It appears that China-PRC is part of the explanation for the increase but not th

35、e whole story. The message is clear: East Asian countries have not only borne the brunt of AD protectionis</p><p>　　3. MODEL AND RESULTS</p><p>　　Specification H, which measures the potential in

36、dustry effect, clarifies this unexpected result. In this specification I allow the industry effect to vary by region. Thus, I measure a steel/industry effect for South America, an effect for South Asia, etc. Interestingl

37、y, I find that none of the industry dummies are statistically significant. This suggests that the propensity of East Asian countries to be named in AD cases is not driven by industry. If anything, the results indicate th

38、at once we c</p><p>　　4. CONCLUDING COMMENTS</p><p>　　In this paper I have presented compelling evidence that East Asian countries are subject to far more AD investigations than any other region

39、 in the world. Whether I simply looked at the number of filings or controlled for exports, East Asia stands head and shoulders above all others. When I used statistical techniques to control for macroeconomic factors tha

40、t might influence filing patterns, I found that East Asia was the only region to have a statistically significant affected intensity greater</p><p>　　What these findings mean, of course, is open to debate. I

41、n this paper I present no evidence on the question whether the cases against East Asia are appropriate. AD proponents such as Prestowitz (1988) and Mastel (1998) would surely argue that such filing patterns simply indica

42、te that East Asian countries have closed home markets. This is an attractive explanation as it explains both why East Asia is subject to so many AD actions and also why East Asia files so few actions: a closed home marke

43、t m</p><p>　　Yet, there is no evidence that the Prestowitz-Mastel view is valid. In fact, given the persuasive evidence presented by Lindsey (1999) and Lindsey and Ikenson (2002), it seems far more likely th

44、at closed home markets (if such an allegation were true) have absolutely nothing to do with the AD patterns documented. More plausibly, East Asia’s AD problem first and foremost has to do with how these countries have de

45、veloped. East Asian countries export manufactured goods, and AD is primarily used agai</p><p><b>　　譯文</b></p><p><b>　　東亞的反傾銷問(wèn)題</b></p><p>　　資料來(lái)源: 威利網(wǎng)上圖書館

46、 作者：托馬斯J·普魯薩</p><p><b>　　1．介紹</b></p><p>　　事情變化的越多，越保持不變。20世紀(jì)70年代，反傾銷是貿(mào)易爭(zhēng)端最常見(jiàn)的類型，而東亞國(guó)家是這些調(diào)查的主要目標(biāo)。在20世紀(jì)80年代，同樣的也是真實(shí)的。在20世紀(jì)90年代也是如此。今天同樣也是如此。</p><p>　　所有對(duì)保護(hù)措施的叫囂聲，超級(jí)3

47、01，政府補(bǔ)貼出口，等等，反傾銷在過(guò)去、現(xiàn)在和不明確的未來(lái)將繼續(xù)成為最無(wú)可爭(zhēng)議的保護(hù)方式。一些作者記錄下了世界上日益增長(zhǎng)的反傾銷問(wèn)題（米蘭達(dá)等人，1998；普魯薩，2001；以及扎納爾迪，2004）。每個(gè)研究提供了越來(lái)越多的反傾銷擴(kuò)散和使用的證據(jù)。普魯薩在2005年或許提供了最好證據(jù)，他指出貿(mào)易訴訟從數(shù)量上，反傾銷有好幾次重疊的領(lǐng)域。1995年到2000年，世貿(mào)組織成員報(bào)告了61例保障調(diào)查，115例反補(bǔ)貼調(diào)查，和1441例反傾銷調(diào)查！說(shuō)

48、一些不一樣的，過(guò)去的25年，在反傾銷協(xié)定下比在所有其他的關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定和世貿(mào)組織的貿(mào)易法規(guī)放在一起的情況下有更多的糾紛。</p><p>　　雖然在反傾銷的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)環(huán)境是否公平上有相當(dāng)大的分歧，但是毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，東亞國(guó)家已經(jīng)并且可能繼續(xù)是反傾銷行動(dòng)的主要目標(biāo)。簡(jiǎn)單地說(shuō)，反傾銷對(duì)東亞地區(qū)而言是一個(gè)嚴(yán)重的問(wèn)題，幾乎用任何標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)衡量，東亞國(guó)家都受到了不相稱比例的反傾銷行動(dòng)。貧富懸殊的程度在以往的任何研究中尚未確認(rèn)。本文的目的是在文

49、獻(xiàn)中消除這種差距。</p><p>　　在本文中，我回顧了過(guò)去25年的反傾銷糾紛并發(fā)現(xiàn)東亞經(jīng)濟(jì)體—日本，印度尼西亞，韓國(guó)，馬來(lái)西亞，菲律賓，新加坡，泰國(guó)，中國(guó)臺(tái)灣和中華人民共和國(guó)—不僅受到格外大量的反傾銷行動(dòng)而且占了全球反傾銷行動(dòng)的最大增長(zhǎng)。我將表明反傾銷的增長(zhǎng)主要是以東亞國(guó)家為代價(jià)。</p><p>　　另一個(gè)細(xì)節(jié)，本文揭示的是東亞國(guó)家已經(jīng)基本上避開(kāi)了反傾銷的使用。我計(jì)算的東亞國(guó)家反傾銷

50、案件的一部分是在圖一中所示。正如所見(jiàn)，東亞國(guó)家一般占了不到百分之五的全球反傾銷申請(qǐng)。正如我將要討論的，這種抑制是極為罕見(jiàn)的。這看來(lái)東亞國(guó)家異常的兩個(gè)角度—他們受到了顯著的大量的反傾銷行為，但是反傾銷行為的文件非常少。</p><p>　　我的希望是本文能給讀者一個(gè)對(duì)過(guò)去25年?yáng)|亞國(guó)家反傾銷模式的更好的了解。無(wú)論是衡量案件數(shù)或是每美元的貿(mào)易案件數(shù)，東亞國(guó)家與其他大型經(jīng)濟(jì)體的不同看起來(lái)值得注意。在很大程度上，模式和趨

51、勢(shì)非常清晰，簡(jiǎn)單的表格傳遞信息可以做的很好。但是，確認(rèn)其他因素的背后模式我也可以使用更多的正規(guī)統(tǒng)計(jì)方法來(lái)確認(rèn)調(diào)查結(jié)果。例如，在對(duì)可能的影響因素，如匯率和貿(mào)易額的控制，我發(fā)現(xiàn)，東亞國(guó)家受到比北美或西歐國(guó)家兩倍多的案件。此外，我發(fā)現(xiàn)東亞國(guó)家的申請(qǐng)趨勢(shì)在增加，我指的是最近幾年各國(guó)傾向于直接對(duì)東亞國(guó)家反傾銷申請(qǐng)不斷增長(zhǎng)。一個(gè)值得關(guān)注的是反傾銷對(duì)中國(guó)的使用強(qiáng)度不斷增長(zhǎng)。重要的是，我發(fā)現(xiàn)即使排除中國(guó)也是一個(gè)上升的趨勢(shì)。從糾紛的另一方面來(lái)看，我還發(fā)現(xiàn)

52、在其他因素保持不變的情況下，北美國(guó)家的文件時(shí)東亞國(guó)家的六倍之多。反傾銷的每邊過(guò)程，東亞國(guó)家是異常的。</p><p><b>　　2．看數(shù)據(jù)</b></p><p><b>　　a．背景</b></p><p>　　為了了解世界范圍內(nèi)使用反傾銷的情況，我回顧了世貿(mào)組織會(huì)員國(guó)提交的報(bào)告。通過(guò)協(xié)議，自1980年以來(lái)，所有世貿(mào)組

53、織成員被要求提交在貿(mào)易中使用的半年度報(bào)告補(bǔ)救方法，包括反傾銷活動(dòng)。使用世貿(mào)組織成員提交的1980年到2002年所有反傾銷活動(dòng)數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)編制的報(bào)告，超過(guò)4600例反傾銷行動(dòng)已經(jīng)被報(bào)告給世貿(mào)組織。非世貿(mào)組織成員發(fā)起的反傾銷活動(dòng)都在我的數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)。世貿(mào)組織報(bào)告之包括基本事件信息，如申請(qǐng)的國(guó)家，受影響的國(guó)家，被調(diào)查產(chǎn)品的名稱和日期的備案。對(duì)于某些事件我也知道責(zé)任是否被強(qiáng)加，但是責(zé)任的大小卻從來(lái)沒(méi)有報(bào)道。此外，任何人都不能利用世貿(mào)組織的反傾銷報(bào)告來(lái)追蹤貿(mào)

54、易的影響，因?yàn)楫a(chǎn)品代碼沒(méi)有被報(bào)道。</p><p>　　在反傾銷使用前的模式來(lái)看，對(duì)一對(duì)數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)發(fā)表評(píng)論符合程序。首先，反傾銷調(diào)查的國(guó)家和產(chǎn)品的特征影響了會(huì)計(jì)。反傾銷案件報(bào)告被國(guó)家特定命名的產(chǎn)品。例如，偶爾調(diào)查涉及單一的產(chǎn)品會(huì)被分解多個(gè)產(chǎn)品，因此成為多個(gè)案件。更常見(jiàn)的，調(diào)查會(huì)命名多個(gè)國(guó)家，因此被記錄為多個(gè)案件。兩個(gè)特征增長(zhǎng)了反傾銷申請(qǐng)的數(shù)量為國(guó)內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)尋找更廣的保護(hù)范圍。</p><p>　　

55、更復(fù)雜的會(huì)計(jì)問(wèn)題包括歐盟國(guó)家和前蘇聯(lián)共和國(guó)。首先，在歐盟法規(guī)下個(gè)體國(guó)家不申請(qǐng)反傾銷案件，但是代表了整個(gè)歐盟的利益。相比之下，反傾銷案件申請(qǐng)不利歐盟個(gè)體命名的國(guó)家。例如，美國(guó)反傾銷行為對(duì)與法國(guó)和德國(guó)的鋼鐵行業(yè)將以兩個(gè)獨(dú)立的案件來(lái)記錄。為了保持會(huì)計(jì)統(tǒng)一，我有合并案例把包括在相同的時(shí)間以相同的產(chǎn)品對(duì)個(gè)別的歐盟國(guó)家申請(qǐng)成為單一的歐盟，已經(jīng)歸類為受歐盟影響的國(guó)家。這是在較少的情況下約300例調(diào)整的結(jié)果。因此，我在本文中記錄的數(shù)字將不同于任何其他地

56、區(qū)的統(tǒng)計(jì)報(bào)告（米蘭達(dá)等人，1998；普魯薩，2001；以及扎納爾迪，2004）。然而，我覺(jué)得結(jié)合案例對(duì)歐盟國(guó)家允許一個(gè)更一致的全球范圍內(nèi)的反傾銷活動(dòng)的資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表。</p><p>　　b．反傾銷—申請(qǐng)模式</p><p>　　在表1中，我在1980年以來(lái)報(bào)告的反傾銷案件的數(shù)量包括每五年匯總。如上所述，我合計(jì)了個(gè)別國(guó)家并在在這些地區(qū)基礎(chǔ)上編制了匯總表。</p><p>

57、;　　自1980年以來(lái)，北美國(guó)家已經(jīng)申請(qǐng)比任何其他地區(qū)都更多的反傾銷案例。大約百分之八十五的北美案件已經(jīng)提交給美國(guó)和加拿大。大洋洲是反傾銷使用第二重的地區(qū)。這幾乎完全是因?yàn)榘拇罄麃?。西歐所有的789例（其中主要是歐盟的申請(qǐng)），使其成為第三大的反傾銷使用者。換句話說(shuō)，從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看反傾銷的使用已經(jīng)被傳統(tǒng)的四個(gè)使用者占據(jù)：美國(guó)，加拿大，澳大利亞和歐盟。</p><p>　　當(dāng)人們尋找個(gè)人的分時(shí)段申請(qǐng)時(shí)，然而，一個(gè)重要的動(dòng)

58、態(tài)模式出現(xiàn)了。尤其是在越來(lái)越多的世界各國(guó)采用一系列反傾銷保護(hù)措施。早期（1980年到1984年）的所有反傾銷活動(dòng)的申請(qǐng)只限于三個(gè)地區(qū)，北美，大洋洲和西歐。此外，這四大傳統(tǒng)使用者占了申請(qǐng)的百分之九十九。正如手指所指出的所有意圖和目的，直到20世紀(jì)80年代中期反傾銷只是對(duì)四大使用者積極的政策工具。</p><p>　　自從那使用已經(jīng)以后反傾銷逐漸的傳遍了全世界。在20世紀(jì)80年代后半期，例如，南美和東亞國(guó)家開(kāi)始使用反

59、傾銷。在20世紀(jì)90年代后半期，反傾銷被用于幾乎世界各地。如今，只有非洲和中亞最貧窮的國(guó)家不是積極的反傾銷使用者。最重要的是新的使用者并沒(méi)有剛剛涉足反傾銷。這如普魯薩（2001年到2005年）所討論的，當(dāng)國(guó)家開(kāi)始使用反傾銷，他們通常用這種途徑。今天，大多數(shù)最積極的使用者是新使用者。因此在過(guò)去的十年中傳統(tǒng)使用者在反傾銷行為中占了不到百分之四十（普魯薩，2005）。</p><p>　　中國(guó)的出現(xiàn)時(shí)對(duì)東亞反傾銷使用上

60、升趨勢(shì)的主要原因。自從20世紀(jì)80年代以來(lái)對(duì)中國(guó)的反傾銷行動(dòng)已經(jīng)增長(zhǎng)了5倍。如果我們從東亞中排除中國(guó)，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)1985年到2002年，對(duì)東亞國(guó)家的反傾銷行動(dòng)增加了七十五。這看來(lái)中國(guó)是對(duì)增加的那部分的解釋，但是并不是全部。信息是明確的：東亞國(guó)家不僅承擔(dān)了反傾銷保護(hù)主義的重?fù)?dān)，同時(shí)負(fù)擔(dān)是隨著時(shí)間的推移越來(lái)越大。</p><p><b>　　3．模型和結(jié)果</b></p><p

61、>　　規(guī)格H用來(lái)衡量潛在的產(chǎn)業(yè)效應(yīng)，闡明了這個(gè)意外的結(jié)果。我允許在本規(guī)范下行業(yè)效應(yīng)因地區(qū)而異。因此，我測(cè)量了南美洲，南亞對(duì)鋼鐵產(chǎn)業(yè)的影響。有趣的是，我發(fā)現(xiàn)沒(méi)有一個(gè)行業(yè)有統(tǒng)計(jì)顯著效應(yīng)。這表明，東亞國(guó)家的傾向被反傾銷案不被命名的產(chǎn)業(yè)帶動(dòng)。如果沒(méi)有什么區(qū)別的話，結(jié)果表明，一旦我們兩國(guó)對(duì)雙邊貿(mào)易實(shí)行管制，有一個(gè)鋼鐵，化工等行業(yè)被命名的小傾向，往往比其他的略少。</p><p><b>　　4．結(jié)束評(píng)論&l

62、t;/b></p><p>　　在本文中我已經(jīng)提出的令人信服的證據(jù)表明，東亞國(guó)家受到的反傾銷調(diào)查比世界上任何地區(qū)都要多。無(wú)論我只是看申請(qǐng)或出口控制的數(shù)量，東亞國(guó)家都要比其他任何國(guó)家要糟糕。當(dāng)我用統(tǒng)計(jì)技術(shù)來(lái)控制宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)因素可能會(huì)影響申請(qǐng)的模式，我發(fā)現(xiàn)東亞是唯一比北美更有顯著影響的地區(qū)。此外，我發(fā)現(xiàn)不同于哪些負(fù)面時(shí)間趨勢(shì)，東亞的時(shí)間趨勢(shì)是積極的。這意味著隨著時(shí)間的推移，越來(lái)越的案例是針對(duì)東亞的，但是所有其他地區(qū)

63、似乎遇到的案例較少。</p><p>　　這些結(jié)果意味著什么，當(dāng)然是公開(kāi)辯論。在本文中，目前我沒(méi)有關(guān)于這些事件對(duì)東亞是否合適這一問(wèn)題的證據(jù)。反傾銷支持者如普雷斯托維茨（1998）和馬斯泰爾（1998）肯定認(rèn)為，這種申請(qǐng)模式只是表明東亞國(guó)家的國(guó)內(nèi)市場(chǎng)已經(jīng)關(guān)閉。這是一個(gè)有吸引力的解釋，它解釋了為什么東亞受到這么多的反傾銷行動(dòng)，也是為什么東亞只有很少的文件，這樣一些行動(dòng)：一個(gè)封閉的國(guó)內(nèi)市場(chǎng)，使得它可能是公司將傾倒在其出

64、口市場(chǎng)（指對(duì)反傾銷行動(dòng)?xùn)|亞是適當(dāng)?shù)模膊豢赡苁雇鈬?guó)公司在亞洲的國(guó)內(nèi)市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)（這意味著，東亞企業(yè)不必訴諸反傾銷）。</p><p>　　然而，沒(méi)有任何證據(jù)表明普雷斯托維茨-馬斯泰爾看法是有效的。事實(shí)上，林賽（1999）和林賽以及艾肯森（2002）提出的有說(shuō)服力的證據(jù)，似乎更有可能是封閉的國(guó)內(nèi)市場(chǎng)（如果這樣的指控是真實(shí)的）完全沒(méi)有記載的反傾銷模式。更可信的是，東亞的反傾銷問(wèn)題，首先需要做的就是這些國(guó)家的發(fā)展。東亞國(guó)