對外貿(mào)易外文翻譯--貿(mào)易開放和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長出口導(dǎo)向型還是進(jìn)口導(dǎo)向型？

1、<p>　　中文2833字，1474單詞，8300英文字符</p><p>　　附錄2：外文文獻(xiàn)譯文</p><p>　　貿(mào)易開放和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長：出口導(dǎo)向型還是進(jìn)口導(dǎo)向型？</p><p>　　選自：應(yīng)用經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)，2008年，40，161-173</p><p>　　作者：Titus O. Awokuse</p><p

2、>　　食品和資源經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)系，特拉華大學(xué)，207湯森廳，紐瓦克，特拉華州19717，美國</p><p>　　以前大多數(shù)的調(diào)查只集中在出口的擴(kuò)大對經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的影響，而忽略了進(jìn)口促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的潛在貢獻(xiàn)。本文著重在進(jìn)口和出口上重新審視阿根廷、哥倫比亞和秘魯之間的貿(mào)易和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的關(guān)系。Granger因果檢驗(yàn)和脈沖響應(yīng)函數(shù)是用來檢查貿(mào)易的增長是否刺激經(jīng)濟(jì)增長（或反之亦然）。結(jié)果表明，過去的研究中認(rèn)為單單出口是經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的發(fā)

3、動機(jī)可能是個誤導(dǎo)。雖然有一些經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)支持出口導(dǎo)向型增長，進(jìn)口主導(dǎo)的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長假說的實(shí)證支持相對較強(qiáng)。在某些情況下，也有從國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值增長，出口和進(jìn)口的反向因果關(guān)系的證據(jù)。</p><p>　　Ⅰ.導(dǎo)言外向型貿(mào)易政策對經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的潛在的利益已經(jīng)成為許多實(shí)證調(diào)查的主題。</p><p>　　盡管一些研究得出了貿(mào)易和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長之間的經(jīng)濟(jì)關(guān)系理論，因果關(guān)系的方向和影響的幅度（巴格瓦蒂，1978年，愛德

4、華茲，1998年）仍然存在分歧。這種文學(xué)絕大多數(shù)注重出口對經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的因果關(guān)系。出口導(dǎo)向型增長理論的主要問題是，一個出口導(dǎo)向型的對外貿(mào)易政策是否是定向向內(nèi)拉動經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的可取貿(mào)易政策。一些研究人員爭論出口對經(jīng)濟(jì)增長流動的因果關(guān)系，并以此作為出口導(dǎo)向型增長理論（ELG）。這個從經(jīng)濟(jì)增長對出口流動的反向因果關(guān)系就是所謂的以增長為主導(dǎo)的出口（GLE）。第三種選擇是進(jìn)口主導(dǎo)的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長（ILG），這表明，經(jīng)濟(jì)增長可能主要是由進(jìn)口增長帶動的。</

5、p><p>　　盡管進(jìn)口和進(jìn)口競爭存在潛在的重要作用，還是很少有人致力于進(jìn)口和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長之間的因果關(guān)系。許多研究中，貿(mào)易開放對經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的影響主要集中在出口的作用上，大多忽視了進(jìn)口的貢獻(xiàn)。然而，最近的一些研究表明，如果沒有對進(jìn)口的控制，任何觀察到的出口和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長之間的因果關(guān)系，可能是虛假的和誤導(dǎo)（Esfahani，1991; Riezman等，1996; Thangavelu和Rajaguru，2004年）。進(jìn)口量可能對

6、經(jīng)濟(jì)增長非常重要，因?yàn)殛P(guān)鍵的出口增長通常是與進(jìn)口的快速增長相結(jié)合的。此外，由出口增長的分析得出：排除進(jìn)口量可能會出現(xiàn)典型的遺漏變量問題。最根本的因果關(guān)系，實(shí)際上可能是進(jìn)口和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長之間的關(guān)系。</p><p>　　雖然眾多的實(shí)證研究探討了出口在經(jīng)濟(jì)增長中的作用，它們主要集中亞洲經(jīng)濟(jì)體與早期的拉丁美洲國家，它們在經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展路徑方面的研究很少，許多拉美經(jīng)濟(jì)體大多遵循貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義政策，強(qiáng)調(diào)進(jìn)口替代工業(yè)化戰(zhàn)略。目前大多數(shù)經(jīng)

7、濟(jì)學(xué)家的普遍看法是，進(jìn)口替代的做法是不利于經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的，因?yàn)樗旧砭痛龠M(jìn)了生產(chǎn)效率低下，并鼓勵尋租行為。近年來，許多拉美國家已經(jīng)實(shí)行了強(qiáng)調(diào)市場自由化和貿(mào)易開放的宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)和貿(mào)易政策改革。</p><p>　　本文探討在一個整體框架中，三個拉美經(jīng)濟(jì)體（阿根廷，哥倫比亞和秘魯）出口和進(jìn)口的貿(mào)易和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長之間的因果關(guān)系。這個探索作出了幾項(xiàng)貢獻(xiàn)。首先，與ELG假說的最以往的研究相比，本研究延伸傳統(tǒng)的新古典增長模型，通過估算增

8、強(qiáng)生產(chǎn)功能測試出口和進(jìn)口對經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的影響。出口和進(jìn)口被作為協(xié)整向量自回歸（VAR）模型的兩個內(nèi)生變量。這個建?？蚣芤部梢詸z驗(yàn)ELG和ILG這些拉美經(jīng)濟(jì)的假設(shè)。其次，本文還采用基于向量誤差修正模型（戶田和Phillips，1993）的因果模型在時間序列的建模。因此，除了檢驗(yàn)出口、進(jìn)口與增長之間的格蘭杰因果關(guān)系，也可以通過協(xié)整和脈沖響應(yīng)函數(shù)（IRF）分析對長期運(yùn)行的行為進(jìn)行調(diào)查。Ⅱ.實(shí)證分析與結(jié)果</p><p>

9、　　表2提供了約翰森的跟蹤結(jié)果，以及在最大特征值協(xié)整檢驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上使用兩個最優(yōu)滯后長度的VAR的結(jié)果。從跟蹤檢驗(yàn)結(jié)果表明，阿根廷，哥倫比亞，和秘魯在5％的顯著水平下存在兩個協(xié)整向量。類似的證據(jù)表明這三個國家的所有最大特征值存在協(xié)整關(guān)系。協(xié)整關(guān)系的存在意味著ECM規(guī)范是合理的，此外，ECM規(guī)范的殘差是白噪聲。為了探討出口，進(jìn)口和產(chǎn)量的增長之間的動態(tài)關(guān)系，在拉丁美洲，一種五變量的季度性ECM被估計(jì)。首先，基于向量ECM規(guī)范的Granger因果

10、關(guān)系被檢驗(yàn)。然后，GIRFs由VECM產(chǎn)生，GIRFs的實(shí)證研究結(jié)果與格蘭杰因果關(guān)系檢驗(yàn)結(jié)果進(jìn)行了比較。</p><p>　　表2. Johansen協(xié)整檢驗(yàn)結(jié)果</p><p>　　注：**表示拒絕零假設(shè)在5％顯著水平的協(xié)整秩為r。R表示恒定的內(nèi)部和外部的協(xié)整檢驗(yàn)協(xié)整向量的數(shù)量協(xié)整向量。 Johansen的協(xié)整檢驗(yàn)根據(jù)一系列的連續(xù)過程決定協(xié)整向量的數(shù)量。我們停止于那個不能拒絕零假設(shè)的r上

11、。測試中的臨界值（C（5％））是從Osterwald Lenum獲得的。</p><p>　　表3. 基于誤差修正模型的格蘭杰因果關(guān)系檢驗(yàn)結(jié)果(ECM)</p><p>　　注：在最后一行的數(shù)字是估計(jì)每一個協(xié)整方程的t -統(tǒng)計(jì)。所有其他值漸近格蘭杰因果關(guān)系的F檢驗(yàn)，括號中的值為p值。</p><p>　　圖1顯示了阿根廷國家的每個創(chuàng)新相對于其他變量的脈沖響應(yīng)。第一面

12、板包含國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值，從GDP的增長在四個季度后產(chǎn)生了積極響應(yīng)看出，出口的正面沖擊影響導(dǎo)致了一個 “小”的負(fù)面，相比之下，進(jìn)口的沖擊對GDP增長的影響相對較大的。為了檢驗(yàn)國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值與出口和進(jìn)口反向因果關(guān)系，第二個和第三個面板給出了結(jié)果，結(jié)果表明，出口的負(fù)面影響對GDP的增長產(chǎn)生正面沖擊當(dāng)，而對進(jìn)口也產(chǎn)生積極影響（見圖1，面板2和3）。在阿根廷，雖然有一些觀點(diǎn)支持ELG理論，進(jìn)口對經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的影響似乎要強(qiáng)得多。這一發(fā)現(xiàn)強(qiáng)化了由ILG論點(diǎn)提供

13、支持的Granger因果關(guān)系分析的結(jié)果。</p><p>　　圖2給出了哥倫比亞的脈沖響應(yīng)分析的結(jié)果。首先，沒有證據(jù)支持ELG理論，是因?yàn)樵谒灶I(lǐng)域中，生產(chǎn)總值實(shí)質(zhì)增長對于實(shí)際出口創(chuàng)新是不顯著異于零的。相比之下，證據(jù)似乎證實(shí)ILG進(jìn)口沖擊對產(chǎn)出增長具有積極和重大的影響。再次，從國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值增長影響對貿(mào)易出口和進(jìn)口在產(chǎn)量上增長的創(chuàng)新積極響應(yīng)有反饋的效果。</p><p>　　圖3是秘魯?shù)拿}沖

14、響應(yīng)結(jié)果。結(jié)果表明，一個SD實(shí)際出口的正面沖擊引出一個持續(xù)的實(shí)際GDP增長的積極響應(yīng)。雖然小了些，實(shí)際國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值對于進(jìn)口的正面沖擊也顯著積極。因此，在秘魯，對出口導(dǎo)向經(jīng)濟(jì)增長有實(shí)證證據(jù)支持的假說。如前所述，產(chǎn)量的增長對進(jìn)口和出口也具有積極和重大影響。</p><p><b>　　Ⅲ. 結(jié)束語</b></p><p>　　綜上所述，本研究的結(jié)果證實(shí)，排除進(jìn)口和出口作為

15、經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的發(fā)動機(jī)的作用而只是專注于許多過去的研究可能會產(chǎn)生誤導(dǎo)，或者說是不完整的。目前從選定的拉丁美洲國家提供實(shí)證支持ELG和ILG這兩種假設(shè)。在某些情況下，也有從國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值增長、出口和進(jìn)口的反向因果關(guān)系的實(shí)證?？傮w而言，這項(xiàng)研究顯示，進(jìn)口對經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的的影響相對比出口的效果更強(qiáng)。因此，它可以得出合理的結(jié)論，幾個拉美國家的出口和進(jìn)口在拉動經(jīng)濟(jì)增長方面發(fā)揮非常重要的作用</p><p>　　這一發(fā)現(xiàn)對于拉丁美洲和其

16、他發(fā)展中國家的影響有若干政策。首先，如果維持進(jìn)口限制，以出口為促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的戰(zhàn)略只能對部分有效。其次，進(jìn)口的開放性對于經(jīng)濟(jì)增長是非常重要的，因?yàn)樗亲鳛槌隹诘难a(bǔ)充。第三，發(fā)展中國家有限的技術(shù)資可通過進(jìn)口（格羅斯曼和赫爾普曼，1991；科和赫爾普曼，1995）從發(fā)達(dá)國家獲得外國技術(shù)和知識。從大的發(fā)展中國家采取進(jìn)口替代發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略的經(jīng)驗(yàn)中可以看出，大規(guī)模的進(jìn)口限制可以制約經(jīng)濟(jì)增長。最后，建議未來的實(shí)證研究，側(cè)重于貿(mào)易自由化的影響應(yīng)明確說明的進(jìn)口

17、在拉動經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的作用。它可能對于擴(kuò)展分析框架應(yīng)用于其他發(fā)展中國家是有用的。</p><p>　　附錄3：外文文獻(xiàn)原文</p><p>　　Trade openness and economic growth:</p><p>　　is growth export-led or import-led?</p><p>　　選自：Applied

18、Economics, 2008, 40, 161–173</p><p>　　作者：Titus O. Awokuse</p><p>　　Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Delaware, 207 Townsend Hall, Newark, Delaware 19717, USA</p>&l

19、t;p>　　Most previous investigations have only focused on the effect of export expansion on economic growth while ignoring the potential growth-enhancing contribution of imports. This article re-examines the relationshi

20、p between trade and economic growth in Argentina, Colombia, and Peru with emphasis on both the role of exports and imports. Granger causality tests and impulse response functions were used to examine whether growth in tr

21、ade stimulate economic growth (or vice versa). The results suggest th</p><p>　　I. INTRODUCTION</p><p>　　The potential benefit of outward-oriented trade policy for economic growth has been the su

22、bject of many empirical investigations. Although several studies have demonstrated the theoretical economic relationship between trade and economic growth, disagreements still persists regarding the causal direction and

23、magnitude of the effects (Bhagwati, 1978; Edwards, 1998). The vast majority of this literature focuses on the causal effect of export on economic growth. The main question in the exportled-g</p><p>　　Despite

24、 the potentially important role of imports and import competition, relatively little attention has been devoted to the causal relationship between imports and economic growth. Most studies on the effect of trade openness

25、 on growth have primarily focused on the role of exports and have mostly ignored the contribution of imports. However, some recent studies have shown that without controlling for imports, any observed causal link between

26、 exports and economic growth may be spurious and thus</p><p>　　Although numerous empirical studies have investigated the role of exports in economic growth,they largely focused on Asian economies, with few s

27、tudies including Latin America countries.Earlier in their economic development paths,many Latin American economies mostly followed protectionist trade policies emphasizing the importsubstitution industrialization strateg

28、y. The current prevailing view among most development economists is that the import-substitution approach is detrimental to economic gro</p><p>　　This study investigates the causal relationship between trade

29、 and economic growth for three Latin American economies (Argentina, Colombia and Peru) within an integrated framework that explores the role of both exports and imports. This study makes contributions to the literature i

30、n several ways. First, in contrast to most previous studies of the ELG hypothesis, this study extends the traditional neoclassical growth model by estimating an augmented production function that explicitly tests for th&

31、lt;/p><p>　?、? Empirical Analysis and Results</p><p>　　Table 2 provides the results for the Johansen trace and maximal eigenvalue tests for cointegration based on a VAR using an optimal lag length

32、of two. Results from the trace test indicate that there are two cointegrating vectors at the 5% significance level for Argentina, Colombia, and Peru, respectively. Similar evidence is provided by the maximal eigenvalue t

33、est suggesting the existence of cointegrating relationships among the variables for all three countries. The existence of cointegrating re</p><p>　　Figure 1 shows the impulse responses of each variable to in

34、novations from each of the other variables for Argentina. In the first panel containing the response of GDP, a positive shock to real exports resulted in an initial ‘small’ negative, response from GDP growth which became

35、 positive after four quarters. In contrast, the response of GDP growth to a shock in imports is relatively larger and positive throughout. In order to check for reverse causality from GDP to exports and imports, the resp

36、o</p><p>　　Figure 2 presents the results from impulse response analysis for Colombia. First, there is no evidence in support of ELG as the response of real GDP growth to innovations in real exports is not si

37、gnificantly different from zero at all horizons. In contrast, the evidence appears to confirm ILG as a shock to imports has a positive and significant effect on output growth. Once again, there is feedback causal effects

38、 from GDP growth to trade as both exports and imports respond positively to innovati</p><p>　　Figure 3 reports the impulse response results for Peru. The results show that a one SD positive shock in real exp

39、orts elicits a persistently positive response from real GDP growth. Although a bit smaller, real GDP response to a positive shock to imports is also significantly positive. Thus, in the case of Peru, there is empirical e

40、vidence in support for both the ELG and ILG hypotheses. As indicated before, output growth also has a positive and significant impact on both exports and imports.</p><p>　?、? Concluding Remarks</p>&l

41、t;p>　　In summary, this study’s results confirm that the exclusion of imports and the singular focus of many past studies on just the role of exports as the engine of growth may be misleading or at best incomplete. Cur

42、rent empirical evidence from selected Latin American countries provides empirical support for both ELG and ILG hypothesis. In some cases, there is also evidence for reverse causality from GDP growth to exports and import

43、s. Overall, this study shows that the strength of the effect of impor</p><p>　　There are several policy implications of this finding for Latin America and other developing countries. First, export promotion

44、as a strategy for economic growth would only be partially effective if import restrictions are maintained. Second, import openness is very important to economic growth as it complements the role of exports .Third, develo