外文翻譯--東亞產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易測度與決定因素的研究（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　中文3700字，2100單詞，1.1萬英文字符</p><p>　　出處：Thorpe M, Zhang Z. Study of the Measurement and Determinants of Intra-industry Trade in East Asia *[J]. Asian Economic Journal, 2005, 19(2):231–247.</p>

2、<p><b>　　英文</b></p><p>　　Study of the Measurement and Determinants of Intra-industry Trade in East Asia</p><p>　　Michael Thorpe，Zhaoyang Zhang</p><p>　　The present

3、paper investigates the development of intra-industry trade (IIT) among the East Asian economies over the 1970–1996 period. A dynamic index is used to capture the changes in the structure of trade flows. Based on this app

4、roach, IIT is decomposed into horizontal (HIIT) and vertical components (VIIT) and the determinants of each are investigated. The results show that both HIIT and VIIT have exhibited increased importance over the sample p

5、eriod in manufacturing. Using pooled panel data </p><p>　　Keywords: intra-industry trade, East Asia, Manufacturing.</p><p>　　1. Introduction</p><p>　　The period of the 1970s to the

6、mid-1990s was one of extraordinary growth in exports for a widening group of East Asian economies. Although this expansion of trade reflected a broad array of global partners, there was a significant rise in intra-region

7、al trade, particularly in components and intermediate goods as foreign investment supported an increased specialization and regional division of labor.</p><p>　　The traditional view on growth in trade for a

8、country recognizes that although the outcome represents a positive-sum game, a growing specialization based on comparative advantage will be accompanied by significant transitional adjustment costs, with losers as well a

9、s winners within a country. The adjustment implications of East Asian trade expansion are important for policy-makers both within and outside the region (Brulhart and Thorpe, 1999). One widely used empirical method to as

10、sess possible </p><p>　　HIIT is viewed primarily as driven by economies of scale and occurs when products are differentiated (within similar qualities) and consumers express preferences for product variety (

11、Helpman, 1981, 1987). VIIT has been dealt with in varying ways in the published literature. It has been defined as the exchange of similar goods of different quality (as determined by unit values), reflecting differing s

12、kill intensities and, hence, driven by comparative advantage (see e.g. Falvey, 1981; Greenaway et</p><p>　　Because different forces are seen to be driving HIIT and VIIT, there are implications for assessing

13、the adjustment costs for a country associated with an expansion in trade (Nielsen and Luthje, 2002; Greenaway et al., 1994; Brulhart and Elliott, 2002). Factors are likely to be less mobile within vertically differen- ti

14、ated industries when compared to horizontally differentiated ones, because the differences in skill requirements are considered greater in the former (Brulhart and Elliott, 2002). </p><p>　　Another developme

15、nt in the published literature has been the growing awareness that traditional static measures of IIT fail to reflect the fact that adjustment is a dynamic process and requires a measure of IIT that reflects the changes

16、in structure of trade patterns occurring over a period rather than just measuring the structure of flows at discrete intervals at different points of time. Hamilton and Kniest (1991) introduced the notion of a marginal,

17、or dynamic, measure of IIT (MIIT) which has</p><p>　　The aim of the present paper is to examine the changing nature of intra-East Asian IIT trading patterns following its significant trade liberalization and

18、 trade expansion, and to identify country specifics that help to determine the intensity of IIT over the period 1970–1996. In particular, we distinguish IIT as either horizontally or vertically differentiated, and then e

19、xamine how the various country-specific factors affect the intensity of East Asia’s horizontally and verti- cally differentiat</p><p>　　Findings from the present study will help to identify measures that Eas

20、t Asia can adopt in support of their effort to promote tighter regional economic integration through greater intra-regional trade.</p><p>　　2. Levels of Intra-industry Trade in East Asia</p><p>

21、;　　The basis for the various measures of IIT used in the present study is the so- called Grubel–Lloyd (G–L) index (Grubel and Lloyd, 1975). It is constructed as follows:</p><p>　　where Xp and Mp are exports

22、and imports of commodity p during a particular time period. This indicator implies the degree of balanced trade or overlap between exports and imports.The measure will range between zero and one, the former value represe

23、nting complete inter-industry trade, the latter complete IIT. The above index measures the proportion of IIT for the country in question on a multilateral basis. A bilateral two-way trade measure is used in the current

24、study. This approach is consiste</p><p>　　There appears to be no justification for attempting to force trade balance in bilateral trade relationships (Vona, 1991). Helpman (1987) suggests that the bias to th

25、e IIT index is source influenced and that there is no simple or satisfactory adjustment possible. The approach in the present is to use an unadjusted index of IIT, while incorporating directly into the model the testing

26、for any effects resulting from trade imbalances. As the G–L index measures changes in the structure of trade flows,</p><p>　　3. Modelling the Determinants of Intra-industry Trade</p><p>　　In the

27、 field of international trade it is often difficult to test and operationalize relationships because of the lack of a distinct, general theoretical model of exchange. This is particularly problematic when assumptions of

28、imperfectly competitive markets and differentiated products are used because there are many theories and models relating to trade issues that must be considered. The choice of any one specific model is likely to be unnec

29、essarily restrictive and limited. For example, the Hel</p><p>　　Although the major focus of the present paper is on the determinants shaping (dynamic measures of) VIIT and HIIT, a model employing IIT as the

30、dependent variable is also investigated. The hypotheses involving country characteristics relate to an individual East Asian country or to its relationship with each of its regional trading partners, while those concerne

31、d with industry characteristics reflect individual industries in each country.</p><p>　　4. Conclusions</p><p>　　The present paper investigates the development of East Asia’s two-way trade over t

32、he years 1970–1996, a period during which there was significant trade liberalization and trade expansion within the region. We examine the patterns of intra-East Asian trade, using a dynamic measure of IIT that looks at

33、 the changes in the structure of trade patterns over time. We decompose the bilateral relation- ships into IIT and IT, and also distinguish between VIIT and HIIT. The distinction is important in ass</p><p>　

34、　The results show that the structure of intra-regional trade in manufacturing across East Asia was quite different in 1996 when compared to the situation more than 2 decades earlier. The G–L IIT index indicates that appr

35、oximately 25 percent of this trade was IIT in nature in 1971; by the end of 1996, 50 percent of this trade was IIT. Singapore and Malaysia, in fact, have been the main contributers to this shift, followed by China, Japan

36、, Taiwan and Thailand. Regional integration and structural ad</p><p>　　Using pooled panel data by country–partner–industry–year at 3-digit ISIC level, we find that in bilateral relationships the greater the

37、market size of partners and the closer they are in terms of size as well as their levels of development, the greater is their two-way trade in all measures of IIT. Geographic proximity and exchange rate depreciations are

38、 observed to have similar impacts. Results also indicate that the higher the standard of living of an individual country the greater its IIT acr</p><p>　　The findings, overall, tend to conform with a priori

39、expectations and offer some empirical validation to the theoretical explanatory variables. They provide a better understanding of East Asia’s intra-regional trade patterns and has implications for assessing the structura

40、l adjustment costs associated with the trade liberalization process.</p><p><b>　　譯 文：</b></p><p>　　東亞產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易測度與決定因素的研究</p><p>　　此文探討了在1970年到1996年期間東亞經(jīng)濟體的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的發(fā)展狀況。動態(tài)指標被

41、用于捕獲貿(mào)易流動結(jié)構(gòu)的變化。在此基礎(chǔ)上，產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易被分成為水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易和垂直產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易，并且對它們各自的決定因素進行了研究。結(jié)果表明，這兩種稱為水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易和垂直產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的出現(xiàn)，在制造業(yè)中增加了取樣周期的重要性。利用面板數(shù)據(jù)匯集發(fā)現(xiàn)在產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的所有雙向貿(mào)易措施關(guān)系到國家的特定變量，如市場規(guī)模、外匯折舊率、發(fā)展和收入水平，地理上接近的合作伙伴。規(guī)模經(jīng)濟被認為對產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易和水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的發(fā)展有積極影響，但與垂直產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易呈負相關(guān)。

42、雖然一個國家的相對開放的貿(mào)易體制沒有顯示任何形式的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易有明顯關(guān)系，貿(mào)易不平衡會影響產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易和水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的發(fā)展。這個發(fā)現(xiàn)的結(jié)果對結(jié)構(gòu)的影響表現(xiàn)在隨著貿(mào)易自由化進程為水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易發(fā)展會調(diào)整相關(guān)的成本和相關(guān)的各種需求，涉及貨物在兩地貿(mào)易的質(zhì)量，同時垂直產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易是由國際分工和相對要素稟賦差異驅(qū)動的。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞:產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易、東亞、制造</p><p><b&g

43、t;　　1.簡介</b></p><p>　　20世紀70年代至90年代中期是東亞經(jīng)濟出口擴大的一個超常時期。盡管這種擴張貿(mào)易反映了一系列廣泛的全球合作，區(qū)域內(nèi)貿(mào)易仍有顯著上升，特別是在有外商投資增加支持的零部件和中間產(chǎn)品勞動力區(qū)域?qū)I(yè)化分工。</p><p>　　一個國家貿(mào)易增長的傳統(tǒng)觀點認識到，雖然結(jié)果是一個零和游戲，對于輸家、贏家或者一個國家內(nèi)，在一個日益專業(yè)化的基礎(chǔ)上比

44、較優(yōu)勢將伴隨著顯著的過渡性調(diào)整成本。東亞貿(mào)易影響擴大的調(diào)整對地區(qū)內(nèi)部和外部的政策制定者都重要（Brulhart and Thorpe, 1999）。一個被廣泛使用實證的方法來評估可能的調(diào)整壓力是看產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的模式。在總體貿(mào)易的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易相對較高的市場份額反映更少的勞動市場混亂，傾向于將更多的勞動力在而不是產(chǎn)業(yè)之間。因此，調(diào)整產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易將會使支出更少。不過，在這方面的研究人員已越來越多地尋求將產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易分解為縱向的和橫向的（分別是垂直產(chǎn)業(yè)

45、內(nèi)貿(mào)易和水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易）。這就提出了一些與擴大雙向貿(mào)易和相關(guān)的壓力的性質(zhì)和強度假定鏈接調(diào)整的相關(guān)問題。</p><p>　　水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易被認為主要是由規(guī)模經(jīng)濟驅(qū)動，出現(xiàn)這種現(xiàn)象因為產(chǎn)品的差別化（存在類似的品質(zhì)）和消費者表達喜好產(chǎn)品品種（Helpman, 1981, 1987）。垂直產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易已作為不同的方法被應(yīng)用在出版的文獻中。它已被定義為交替反映通過比較優(yōu)勢驅(qū)動的類似貨物不同質(zhì)量（如單位值確定）、不同強度和不

46、同技術(shù)。（見Falvey, 1981; Greenaway et al., 1994, 1995, 1999; Fontagne and Freudenberg,1997; Aturupane et al., 1999）。另一種考慮重點在對生產(chǎn)過程的組織而不是成品的最終使用特性（Thom and McDowell, 1999）。根據(jù)Balassa (1986)的垂直產(chǎn)品專業(yè)化的概念，雙向貿(mào)易可能涉及交換在生產(chǎn)之間的不同階段，國家的中間產(chǎn)

47、品或交換涉及的組件被出口加工，最后再被進口。在這種情況下，相對要素稟賦很可能是，僅僅在亞工業(yè)水平的行業(yè)層面，而并非是在產(chǎn)業(yè)間貿(mào)易的情況。</p><p>　　由于驅(qū)動水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易和垂直產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的因素很多，有些因素被用來評估一個國家擴大貿(mào)易的調(diào)整成本（Nielsen and Luthje, 2002; Greenaway et al., 1994; Brulhart and Elliott, 2002)。在垂直

48、分化行業(yè)水平相比，該種因素可能較少移動。因為前者被認為更大程度上需要不同的技能，（Brulhart and Elliott, 2002）。因此，垂直產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的擴大貿(mào)易的行為較勞動調(diào)整成本將相對更大。在某種程度上，反映了再分配的垂直產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易之間不同的生產(chǎn)階段的資源，而不是跨不同行業(yè)。要素市場的調(diào)整成本可能會比在產(chǎn)業(yè)間貿(mào)易少（Thom and McDowell, 1999）的情況。不同形式的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易不分開也并不奇怪，可能的原因之一是計

49、量經(jīng)濟分析結(jié)果雙向貿(mào)易的影響因素的不同（Greenaway and Torstensson, 1997, 2000）。然而，根據(jù)經(jīng)驗，分析出這些不同的考慮并不總是非常明確的。因為兩者的性質(zhì)重疊的顯著特點并能夠確定和衡量合適的解釋變量。幾個最近的研究都集中在這個問題由雙方水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易使用的測量方法和垂</p><p>　　出版的文獻中的另一個進展已日益認識到產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易是傳統(tǒng)的靜態(tài)測量方法未能反映實際的調(diào)整，這是一

50、個動態(tài)的過程，需要一個產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的。它反映了變化的貿(mào)易是在一個時期內(nèi)發(fā)生的，而不是只在離散的時間間隔測量結(jié)構(gòu)模式。Hamilton and Kniest (1991)介紹了一個邊際或動態(tài)的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易測量方法的概念（MIIT），并被進一步發(fā)展（見Brulhart, 1994; Oliveras and Terra, 1997; Brulhart, 2000）。</p><p>　　此文章的目的是研究東亞內(nèi)部產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)

51、易的性質(zhì)的變化，及交易模式下重要的貿(mào)易自由化和貿(mào)易擴張，并確定具體的國家，以幫助確定1970年到1996年期間以外的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的強度。特別地，產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易要求我們分辨出水平或垂直差異，然后研究各國家如何受特定因素影響，東亞的水平和垂直方向有區(qū)別的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易存在制造業(yè)。根據(jù)尋找決定因素即產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的規(guī)模，我們將確定在何種程度上提高該地區(qū)經(jīng)濟的互補性可能有助于推動整體產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易。</p><p>　　從目前的研究結(jié)果將

52、有助于確定措施，東亞可通過加強區(qū)域內(nèi)貿(mào)易促進區(qū)域經(jīng)濟一體化，使經(jīng)濟關(guān)系更為緊密。</p><p>　　2. 東亞的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易水平</p><p>　　為在本研究中使用的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的各項措施的基礎(chǔ)是所謂的Grubel–Lloyd (G–L)指數(shù)(Grubel and Lloyd, 1975)。其構(gòu)造如下：</p><p>　　其中 和 分別是出口和在特定時間內(nèi)的進口商

53、品P。這一指標意味著貿(mào)易平衡度或出口和進口之間的重疊。這項措施將介于0和1之間，前值代表完整產(chǎn)業(yè)間貿(mào)易，后者完成產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易情況。上述指標的測量方法，為國家在多邊基礎(chǔ)上的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易問題的構(gòu)成比例。兩國雙向貿(mào)易措施是用在目前的研究。這種做法是與Bergstrand（1983）的把雙邊措施在計量經(jīng)濟學(xué)分析概念的首選理由是一致的。</p><p>　　似乎沒有企圖破壞雙邊貿(mào)易關(guān)系的平衡的理由（Vona, 1991）。He

54、lpman (1987)指出，產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易指數(shù)的影響和偏差的來源，沒有簡單或令人滿意的可能去調(diào)整。目前的方法是使用未經(jīng)調(diào)整的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易指標，同時納入模型直接的貿(mào)易不平衡造成任何影響的測試。G - L指數(shù)措施的貿(mào)易流動，Brulhart (1994)提出了一種動態(tài)指標的變化對產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的邊際概念，以解決在調(diào)整過程中，產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的重要性為基礎(chǔ)（見Thom and McDowell, 1999）。</p><p>　　3

55、. 建立行業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易決定因素</p><p>　　在國際貿(mào)易領(lǐng)域往往是難以測試和實施，由于存在一個獨特的，普遍缺乏匯率理論模型的關(guān)系。這是特別有問題的時候，不完全競爭市場假設(shè)和差異化的產(chǎn)品使用。因為有許多理論和模型是有關(guān)貿(mào)易必須考慮的問題。任何一個特定模式的選擇很可能是不必要的限制和有限的。例如，Helpman和Krugman（1985）模型，制定產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易中，有關(guān)產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的幾個命題的可能因素，但是模型中的水平差

56、異為前提的最終消費品貿(mào)易。依賴來自任何一個明確的模型，因此必須具有相關(guān)性和有意義的檢驗假設(shè)使用獨立的變量。對產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的計量經(jīng)濟學(xué)的許多研究都沒有明確地解決這個問題。由于產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的措施是抓住了跨越制造業(yè)和許多不同的國家之間的廣泛群體的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的份額，必須謹慎采取行動設(shè)立的測試模型。雖然具有強烈的共識，已經(jīng)擺脫了大量工作經(jīng)驗的團體，并研究探討了國家和行業(yè)的具體因素和產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易，對水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易和垂直產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易作為因變量的計量經(jīng)濟考慮范

57、圍的因果關(guān)系的各項措施研究需要注意，因為在工作中很可能有不同的勢力。在本研究中，假設(shè)是來自理論工作，對于產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的預(yù)期符號借鑒現(xiàn)有出版的文獻只對靜態(tài)測量的重點，而事實上，從我們的假設(shè)水平產(chǎn)業(yè)</p><p>　　雖然本文件的主要重點是在研究（動態(tài)測量方法）垂直產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易和水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易，模型采用個人所得稅作為因變量也是調(diào)查的決定因素。涉及國家特征的假設(shè)涉及到個別東亞國家或它與每一個合作伙伴的區(qū)域貿(mào)易關(guān)系，而那些

58、與行業(yè)特點有關(guān)反映在每個國家個別行業(yè)。</p><p><b>　　4.結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　本文探討了東亞地區(qū)的雙向貿(mào)易在1970-1996年的發(fā)展，一期期間有顯著的貿(mào)易自由化和區(qū)域內(nèi)貿(mào)易的擴大。我們研究內(nèi)部東亞貿(mào)易的模式，采用了動態(tài)監(jiān)測，在產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易中的貿(mào)易格局隨著時間的推移結(jié)構(gòu)的變化的樣子。我們分解成產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易和產(chǎn)業(yè)貿(mào)易的雙邊關(guān)系，并區(qū)分垂直產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)

59、易和水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易。這種區(qū)別在從貿(mào)易自由化帶來的要素成本的調(diào)整可能導(dǎo)致的重要后果可以看出。</p><p>　　結(jié)果表明，整個東亞地區(qū)區(qū)域內(nèi)的制造業(yè)貿(mào)易結(jié)構(gòu)是相當不同的，與1996年的情況相比，超過二十幾年前。在G- L的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易指數(shù)表明，這個行業(yè)中大約有25%，在1971年產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易中，截止1996年年底，產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易占總貿(mào)易的百分之五十。新加坡和馬來西亞，其實一直是這種轉(zhuǎn)變的主要貢獻者，接下來是中國、日本、臺

60、灣和泰國。區(qū)域一體化和每個國家的結(jié)構(gòu)調(diào)整無疑有助于這一進程。水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易和垂直產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易呈現(xiàn)出增長期的重要性。在這兩個水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易和垂直產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的周期低谷時有發(fā)生，這方面值得更多的關(guān)注和分析。</p><p>　　通過使用3位數(shù)字的國際標準行業(yè)分類按國家一級伙伴行業(yè)年匯集面板數(shù)據(jù)，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，在雙邊關(guān)系中更大的市場規(guī)模和合作伙伴建立更緊密，他們是在規(guī)模上，以及他們的發(fā)展水平，更大的是他們的雙向貿(mào)易的所有措施的

61、產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易。我們觀察到地理上的接近和匯率貶值有類似的影響。結(jié)果還表明，較高的國家的生活就越接近所有形式的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的標準。規(guī)模經(jīng)濟被認為對產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易和水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易的積極影響，但與垂直產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易呈負相關(guān)。當然顯示一個國家的貿(mào)易體制相對開放，與任何產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易，形成了貿(mào)易不平衡，確實會嚴重影響產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易和水平產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)貿(mào)易專業(yè)的關(guān)系。貿(mào)易不平衡越大，這些地區(qū)的雙向貿(mào)易越少。</p><p>　　這一發(fā)現(xiàn)，總體而言，往往以