渡過難關在港口基礎設施進行投資，降低東亞貿(mào)易成本外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　中文4980字</b></p><p><b>　　本科畢業(yè)論文外文</b></p><p>　　外文題目： Weathering the Storm Investing in Port Infrastructure to Lower Trade Costs in East Asia

2、 </p><p>　　出 處： Policy ReseaRch WoRking PaPeR 4911 </p><p>　　作 者： Kazutomo Abe and John S. Wilson </p><p

3、><b>　　原 文：</b></p><p>　　Weathering the Storm: Investing in Port Infrastructure to Lower Trade Costs in East Asia</p><p>　　Kazutomo Abe John S. Wilson</p><p><b

4、>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　The world economic crisis of 2008 presents clear challenges to prospects for economic growth in developing countries. This is particularly true for emerging economies in Eas

5、t Asia that have relied to a great extent over the past decade on export-led growth.What steps to facilitate trade promise a relatively strong return on investment for East Asia to help sustain trade and growth? The auth

6、ors examine how port infrastructure affects trade and the role of transport costs in driving exports and im</p><p>　　1.Introduction</p><p>　　This paper examines how investment in port facilities

7、 affects trade costs and facilitation. We focus on developing countries in East Asia where international trade has played a major role over the past several decades in economic development. Port infrastructure has played

8、 a key role in facilitating trade in the region. However,serious congestion in seaports is evident from data on maritime shipping and trade. The scope of the study includes the costs, as well as benefits, of the construc

9、tion of</p><p>　　International Trade in East Asia</p><p>　　International trade in East Asia has grown more rapidly than other regions in the world over the past two decades. At the same time, ra

10、pid economic growth fostered development in the region (Table 1). In particular, ASEAN countries in the early 1990s and China after the late 1990s recorded remarkable growth in trade even as the Asian economic crisis had

11、 a negative effect on the economic growth and trade in the region for the late 1990s.</p><p>　　A number of studies have attributed various factors to the growth in trade; including rapid industrialization of

12、 developing countries in the region and an active trade liberalization and facilitation agenda tied to development plans. In turn, many studies have pointed out that expansion in international trade stimulated the econom

13、ic growth. This mechanism also functioned in the early 2000s when most of the ASEAN member economies took the path of recovery from the crisis, and China emerged as a d</p><p>　　While the trade and investmen

14、t liberalization stimulated trade in the region, various bottlenecks to the movement of goods hindered trade expansion. In particular, in East Asia, port infrastructure has an important role in supporting increases in tr

15、ade by removing such bottlenecks.</p><p>　　Table 1: Growth of GDP and Trade in East Asia</p><p>　　(Source) World Bank, World Development Indicators.</p><p>　　(Note) Unit: percent. N

16、ominal GDP is in the current $US. Trade means the sum of imports and exports.</p><p>　　Regional Trade in East Asia</p><p>　　Intra-regional trade has increased as a proportion of the total export

17、s in East Asia over the past decade. Table 2 below illustrates the shares of exports in selected sub-regions and countries in East Asia.</p><p>　　Table 2: Shares of Exports of the Selected Region and Countri

18、es in East Asia</p><p>　　(Source) International Monetary fund, Direction of Trade Statistics.</p><p>　　(Note) Unit: percent.</p><p>　　The United States and Japan have been the major

19、 destinations for exports from East Asia. China emerged as another major importer for the region. In contrast, the share of the United States has declined. Intra-regional trade in East Asia continued to be around 40 perc

20、ent of the share of total exports since 1995. Including the United States, this ratio was around 60 percent since 2000.</p><p>　　For the ASEAN5, nearly 60 percent of the group’s exports went to East Asia, an

21、d 73 percent, to East Asia and the United States in 2006. Intra-regional trade within the ASEAN5 has been on an increasing trend. A number of studies attribute this to the formation of transnational production network in

22、 the region. China emerged as the largest absorber of exports from ASEAN5 after 2000, passing Japan and the United States as the largest importers of goods from these countries. While the presence of th</p><p&

23、gt;　　The Important Role of Ocean Ports in the Trade of East Asia</p><p>　　Countries in East Asia need to rely heavily on ocean transportation as the means of international trade. Among the ASEAN5, the penins

24、ular part of Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand are adjacent to each other, but significant amounts of the trade among them must rely on ocean transportation. Indonesia and Philippines are islands countries. If measured by

25、 weight, virtually all the traded goods between the ASEAN5 and all of the major trading partners, the United States, Japan and China, need to move </p><p>　　Reflecting the geographic characteristics noted ab

26、ove, governments in East Asia have historically set a priority on port infrastructure improvements -- in coordination with an exportoriented development strategy. Transport infrastructure has also been a key sector in OD

27、A in East Asia. More recently, the improvement of port infrastructure plays a major role in the trade facilitation initiatives in the processes of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the WTO. Shortage in port ca

28、pacity and</p><p>　　Containerization as Technical Progress</p><p>　　Containerization has involved significant technical progress in ocean freight transport since its introduction in the 1960s. I

29、t moved rather slowly to developing countries from the late 1970s, reflecting the capital intensive nature of this technology (Hummels (2007)). Containerization of cargo facilitated transportation with standardization of

30、 loading and unloading and reduced transport costs through faster and higher quality transportation networks. In 2006, containerized cargo in weight repre</p><p>　　The ratios of containerization of total ves

31、sel cargo in 2005 reached more than 80 to 90 percent in the major and recently constructed or upgraded ocean ports in East Asia: e.g. Singapore, 93 percent; Hong Kong, 90 percent; Osaka (Japan), 100 percent; Laem Chabang

32、 (Thailand), 96 percent; Port Kelang (Malaysia) 90 percent; Manila (Philippines), 84 percent; and Keelung and Taichung (Taiwan), 96 percent. These sites have the most container-specialized berths and loading facilities a

33、nd are mainly use</p><p>　　Since the late 1990s, developing countries in East Asia actively constructed and dredged container ports with deep berths and large automated cranes. This construction accelerated

34、in the 2000s when trade expanded rapidly in the region. Container berths more than 14 meters deep can accommodate vessels with nearly twice as large a capacity as those 13 meters or less deep.The larger container vessels

35、, together with deepened container berths, help address the growing demand in trade of East Asia for</p><p>　　Containerization contributes to reducing transport costs. Empirical studies of this issue,however

36、, have found that declines in transport cost due to wider use of containerization have likely been modest. On this point, Hummels (2007) suggests the possibility that technology raised the quality of transportation, but

37、the price indices of ocean transportation does not reflect better quality. Moreover, Hummels, referring to the empirical result on the estimated elasticity by Blonigen and Wilson (200</p><p>　　Trends in Port

38、 Traffic in East Asia: Expanded Capacity but More Congestion</p><p>　　The major ocean ports in East Asian developing countries have suffered from serious congestion with rapid growth in freight demand over t

39、he past decade. Bottlenecks arise in spite of continued investments in port improvement, expansion and containerization. Figure 1 illustrates the trends in capacity and throughput in the major container ports in ASEAN5,

40、China and Japan.</p><p>　　Figure 1: Capacity and Throughput in Major Container Ports</p><p>　　(Source) Authors’ estimates. Containerization International Yearbook, Shipping Statistics Yearbook.&

41、lt;/p><p>　　(Note) Index at 1996 =100. Bar graph denotes the sum of the estimated capacity of the major container ports in the country / region. The numbers of major ports are: 8 in ASEAN5, 8 in China, and 11 i

42、n Japan. See Appendix for the detailed methodology of the estimation of the port capacities. Line graphs in the figure denote the sum of the loaded and unloaded containers in TEU.</p><p>　　Port traffic in AS

43、EAN5 has steadily grown, while the Asian economic crisis slowed this trend around 2000. The growth of port traffic throughput, measured as total unloaded and loaded containers in TEU, has consistently exceeded that of th

44、e physical capacity of the ports. China has had growth in port traffic, by 30.8 percent annually from 1996 to 2006, much faster than experienced in ASEAN at 9.0 percent. The investment in port infrastructure could not ke

45、ep pace with the growth of port capacity d</p><p>　　Ports with sufficient capacity, efficient facilities with high technology, and good management contribute to lower transport and trade costs. In addition t

46、o the explicit costs from port tariffs and loading / unloading charges, the time costs from congestion and inefficient facilities / management contribute to transport costs. These costs are reflected in freight charges b

47、y shipping companies, storage costs, and brokerage fees by port broker incurred by traders. More frequently, these costs are </p><p>　　The Economic Crisis and Port Infrastructure in East Asia</p><

48、p>　　The economic crisis is affecting the economies in East Asia in a number of ways. This includes a sharp decline in exports and restricted access to finance. With a multiplier effect, the economies in East Asia, inc

49、luding China and Japan, fell into recession at the end of 2008 and reduced intra-regional trade. It has been reported that about 10 percent of container ships have been idle during this period. Some shipping companies ex

50、pect the decline in volume in 2009 may reach 20 percent. Chronic po</p><p>　　The decline in demand for international transportation suggests a decline in the expected rates of return in new investment in por

51、t infrastructure.. This may hinder some of the port development projects that had been viable prior to the crisis. However, since infrastructure projects require a long gestation period and cost recovery is expected over

52、 a long time period; demand and rates of return should be considered from a long-term perspective. One should note that the demand for ports in the re</p><p>　　As long as port development projects are viable

53、 in the long-run, investment in ports likely provides a good policy target in the region both in terms of creating macroeconomic demand and improving supply side growth prospects. Investment in port infrastructure in dev

54、eloping economies in East Asia could have a strategic role in this regard. The following sections of this paper center on the benefits and costs of increased port capacity within the context outlined above.</p>&l

55、t;p>　　2.Port Infrastructure, Transport and Trade Costs: Survey</p><p>　　Trade costs are widely defined as any costs which increase the prices of traded goods during the delivery process from the exporters

56、 (or producers) in exporting countries to the final consumers.Developed countries face substantially high international trade costs: estimated about 74 percent in terms of ad valorem tax equivalent, including transportat

57、ion costs, policy barriers, information costs, contract enforcement costs, currency costs, and legal and regulatory costs(Anderson and van Wincoop (</p><p>　　Limited Availability of Trade Cost Data</p>

58、<p>　　The existence of trade costs is a key theoretical assumption of the standard gravity model of trade. Bilateral trade in the gravity model is determined by the magnitude of the economies of the trading partne

59、rs and relative bilateral trade costs. A major analytical obstacle to this model is the limitation of official statistics on the trade cost, which prevents the researchers from directly regressing the bilateral trades on

60、 the amounts/rates of trade costs in total. As a compromise,proxy variabl</p><p>　　The limitation in availability of the data is also true for the narrowly-defined transport costs between the ports that cons

61、titute a part of trade costs. The authorities of most countries only publish the amounts of import on the CIF base, inclusive of export prices of the goods and costs for insurance and freight without showing any details.

62、 If researchers would like international transport cost data between the ports of trade partners, they must estimate the international transport cost by sep</p><p>　　Estimating trade costs for empirical anal

63、ysis is challenging, therefore. An empirical compromise has been the “matching method” which uses ratio of the CIF import value divided by FOB export value between the same trading partners, whereas the former is reporte

64、d from the importing country and the latter, from the exporting country. Limao and Venables (2001) estimate transport costs, or more precisely the “transport cost factors” by applying the method to the Direction of Trade

65、 Statistics (DOT), </p><p>　　Determinants of Transport Costs</p><p>　　Limao and Venables (2001) estimate determinants of transport costs, in particular those related to infrastructure. Their tra

66、nsport cost factor regression has distance, per capita incomes, geographical factors, such as common barriers and island dummies, and the indexes of the levels of infrastructure of various parties, as explanatory variabl

67、es. Their infrastructure index consists of four items: (i) length of road, (ii) length of paved road, (iii) length of rail, and (iv) telephone main lines pe</p><p><b>　　畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯</b></p>&l

68、t;p>　　外文題目： Weathering the Storm Investing in Port Infrastructure to </p><p>　　Lower Trade Costs in East Asia </p><p>　　出 處： Poli

69、cy ReseaRch WoRking PaPeR 4911 </p><p>　　作 者： Kazutomo Abe and John S. Wilson </p><p><b>　　譯 文：</b></p><p>　　渡過難關：在港口基

70、礎設施進行投資，降低東亞貿(mào)易成本</p><p>　　Kazutomo Abe John S. Wilson</p><p><b>　　摘 要</b></p><p>　　2008年在發(fā)展中國家經(jīng)濟增長的前景是世界經(jīng)濟危機明顯的挑戰(zhàn)。尤其在東亞，新興經(jīng)濟體的一致信賴在過去的十年中很大程度上決定了以出口導向型的經(jīng)濟增長。用什么措施來促進貿(mào)易

71、承諾較強的投資回報率幫助東亞維持貿(mào)易和增長嗎?作者探討了港口基礎設施和作用影響貿(mào)易的交通工具成本在推動對這一地區(qū)的出口和進口。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)港口擁擠在顯著提高東亞的運輸費用的在美國和日本和曼聯(lián)。分析表明，切割港口擁擠可能會削減10%的運輸成本，為東亞的百分之三。這翻譯為0.3%全面降低關稅到0.5%。此外，評估顯示，貿(mào)易降低成本投資在東亞港口設施轉化為高消費者福利超過該費用擴大的港口該地區(qū)。</p><p><b

72、>　　1．簡 介</b></p><p>　　本文將調(diào)查如何在港口設施投資成本，影響貿(mào)易便利化。我們專注于東亞的發(fā)展中國家， 在過去的幾十年里的經(jīng)濟發(fā)展中其國際貿(mào)易方面發(fā)揮了重大作用。港口設施在該地區(qū)促進貿(mào)易發(fā)展起到了關鍵的作用。然而， 從海洋運輸數(shù)據(jù)和貿(mào)易數(shù)量來看，嚴重的擁擠在港口是明顯的。研究的范圍包括成本、福利、港口設施建設以及解決東亞的交通擁擠。文章還討論了港口投入，以刺激需求和生產(chǎn)力

73、的重要性，特別是在經(jīng)濟危機時。</p><p><b>　　東亞國際貿(mào)易</b></p><p>　　在過去二十年里東亞國際貿(mào)易比世界各地增長速度快得多。與此同時，快速的經(jīng)濟增長促進了該地區(qū)的發(fā)展。特別是在20世紀90年代初到20世紀90年代末在中國和東盟國家，記錄著貿(mào)易的顯著增長，盡管亞洲經(jīng)濟危機對經(jīng)濟增長和20世紀90年代晚期的貿(mào)易地區(qū)有負面的影響。</p&

74、gt;<p>　　許多研究都認為，各種因素對貿(mào)易的增長，包括在該地區(qū)的快速工業(yè)化國家和發(fā)展中國家的貿(mào)易自由化和積極便利化議程的發(fā)展計劃聯(lián)系在一起。反過來，許多研究都指出，國際貿(mào)易的擴大刺激了經(jīng)濟增長。這個機制在本世紀初運作時，從危機中復蘇的大部分東盟成員經(jīng)濟體采取的路徑，并成為中國在該地區(qū)的主要出口國。中國2001年加入世界貿(mào)易組織的貢獻率非常高的增長在貿(mào)易和直接投資。</p><p>　　在東盟區(qū)

75、域貿(mào)易自由化，例如自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定，也建議擴大區(qū)域內(nèi)貿(mào)易，促進經(jīng)濟恢復。</p><p>　　貿(mào)易和投資自由化刺激了地區(qū)貿(mào)易，然而貨物流動的各種障礙阻礙了貿(mào)易的擴展。特別是在東亞，港口基礎設施在堅持消除這些瓶頸，從而增長貿(mào)易的重要作用。</p><p>　　表1：東亞的國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值和貿(mào)易增長</p><p><b>　　東亞區(qū)域貿(mào)易</b><

76、/p><p>　　在過去十年區(qū)域內(nèi)貿(mào)易增長作為東亞出口總額的比例。表2說明了在選定的分區(qū)域和東亞國家出口股。</p><p>　　表2：出口:在東亞的地區(qū)和國家和地區(qū)</p><p>　　美國和日本一直是來自東亞出口的主要目的地。中國成為另一個該區(qū)域的主要進口國。與此相反，美國的份額下降。自1995年以來出口區(qū)域內(nèi)貿(mào)易繼續(xù)在東亞地區(qū)將大約40%的總份額。包括美國，自20

77、00年以來這一比例大約60%。</p><p>　　對于東盟，近百分之六十本集團的出口前往東亞，百分之七十三對東亞和美國于2006年。區(qū)域內(nèi)貿(mào)易一直有上升的趨勢。許多研究歸結于這樣一個跨國生產(chǎn)網(wǎng)絡在該地區(qū)形成。中國成為從東盟出口的最大吸收者是在2000年后，來自這些國家的產(chǎn)品的最大進口國是日本和美國。雖然美國的存在仍然很大，東亞區(qū)域內(nèi)貿(mào)易為一體，由東盟加上中國，日本和韓國的代表，于1990年后呈上升趨勢。<

78、/p><p>　　港口海洋在東亞貿(mào)易中的重要作用</p><p>　　東亞各國需要大量依靠海洋運輸作為國際貿(mào)易的手段。其中東盟，馬來西亞，新加坡和泰國半島部分是彼此相鄰，而印尼和菲律賓的島嶼國家。但大量的貿(mào)易，其中必須依靠海洋運輸。如果按重量計算，幾乎所有的東盟之間和所有的主要貿(mào)易伙伴，美國，日本和中國，需要通過海洋移動。有的東盟成員國與中國之間的鐵路運輸有助于其貿(mào)易，但它是有限的，因為國際貿(mào)

79、易的主要部分在以中國之間的工業(yè)中心的地位，即它的沿海省份。航空運輸正在迅速增加，到相當大的份額，特別是在貿(mào)易的價值。對發(fā)展中國家的貿(mào)易占主導地位仍然依賴海上運輸。例如，東盟國家從空運超過美國總進口份額，達到百分之五十六點三的價值，但重量只有1.4磅。</p><p>　　反映地理特征如上所述，在東亞各國政府在歷史上設置一個港口基礎設施的改善優(yōu)先協(xié)調(diào)與外向型發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略。在東亞的主要部門，交通基礎設施也得到了官方發(fā)展援

80、助。最近，港口基礎設施的改善起到了重要作用，在貿(mào)易在亞太經(jīng)濟合作組織（APEC）和世界貿(mào)易組織的進程便利化舉措。在過去十年港口吞吐能力和在發(fā)展中國家的優(yōu)質(zhì)短缺都有所上升。</p><p><b>　　集裝箱技術進步</b></p><p>　　海運運輸自20世紀60年代引進，集裝箱化涉及重大的技術進步。它移動緩慢，而從20世紀70年代后期發(fā)展中國家，反映了這種技術資本

81、密集的性質(zhì)（Hummels（2007））。集裝箱能促進貨物運輸與裝卸，降低標準化通過快速和更高質(zhì)量的運輸網(wǎng)絡的運輸成本。 2006年，東盟海運貨物集裝箱貨物重量的39%到美國國家在2001年則為31%。集裝箱在穩(wěn)步擴大，盡管溫和的步伐，但在此期間仍在擴張。</p><p>　　在2005年總的貨物集裝箱船的比例達到了百分之八十至九十在東亞地區(qū)的主要建造或升級，最近海港，例如：新加坡，93%；香港，90%；大阪（日

82、本），100%；林查班（泰國），96%；巴生港（馬來西亞）90%；84%馬尼拉（菲律賓）和基隆，臺中（臺灣），96%。這些地區(qū)擁有集裝箱專業(yè)化泊位，裝卸設施，主要用于國際貿(mào)易中使用。東亞其他主要港口有還配備了集裝箱的設施。這包括在日本和韓國。中國的新港口，如上海，大連，寧波，以及青島集裝箱泊位已是深水裝備，以適應最新的大型集裝箱船。</p><p>　　20世紀90年代末以來，東亞發(fā)展中國家積極構建和疏浚深泊位和

83、大型自動化集裝箱碼頭起重機。這種結構在2000年加速該地區(qū)的貿(mào)易增長迅速。集裝箱泊位超過14米深可容納近兩倍大的那些深13米或以下船只的能力。規(guī)模較大的集裝箱船，集裝箱泊位以及加深，幫助解決在東亞的貿(mào)易不斷增長的需求，提高效率海運集裝箱貨運量。這是一個體現(xiàn)技術進步型的新港口和碼頭泊位擴建工程能帶來既增加容量和提高效率。</p><p>　　集裝箱化有助于降低運輸成本。這個問題的實證研究，然而，發(fā)現(xiàn)在運輸成本下降，

84、由于廣泛使用的集裝箱有可能不大。在這一點上，胡默爾（2007）建議技術提高了運輸質(zhì)量的可能性，但海洋運輸?shù)膬r格指數(shù)并不能反映質(zhì)量更好。此外，胡默爾指的是在布羅尼根和威爾遜（2006）通過彈性實證結果還表明，從集裝箱的成本削減金額應該是有限的。</p><p>　　東亞港口交通趨勢：擴大產(chǎn)能，但更擠塞</p><p>　　在過去十年中在東亞發(fā)展中國家的主要港口都受到海洋與貨運需求的快速增長嚴

85、重擠塞。瓶頸出現(xiàn)在港口改善，擴建和集裝箱繼續(xù)投資盡管。圖1說明了東盟，中國和日本的主要港口和集裝箱吞吐量.</p><p>　　圖1：能力和主要集裝箱港口吞吐量</p><p>　?。ㄗⅲ┲笖?shù)在1996年為100。條形圖表示該港口的大型集裝箱估計容量的總和在國家/地區(qū)。主要港口的數(shù)字是：8個在東盟，8個在中國，11個在日本。見附錄了該港口的吞吐能力估計的詳細方法。圖中的線圖表示在標準箱的集

86、裝箱裝卸的總和。</p><p>　　東盟口岸已穩(wěn)步增長，而亞洲經(jīng)濟危機減緩這種趨勢在2000年左右。在港口吞吐量增長的交通，為總裝卸標準貨柜單位的貨柜計算，一直超過了實際能力的港口。中國已在港口運輸?shù)脑鲩L，每年從30.8%，在1996-2006年速度更是遠遠超過東盟的9%。在港口基礎設施投資不能跟上港口吞吐能力的增長在同一期間內(nèi)，每年平均增長20.8%和5.3%。由于造成堵塞，船舶需要等待才能上船和離船。在日本

87、港口與此相反的東盟和中國，有閑置生產(chǎn)能力。這反映了日本經(jīng)濟停滯期長，日本貿(mào)易增長緩慢。大量公共投資在1999年和2000年，由于日本政府反周期的財政政策，促進了港口吞吐能力增加。這些因素，再加上替代航空運輸，導致了日本港口吞吐量的能力。</p><p>　　有足夠的能力，具有較高的技術效率的設施，良好的管理港口有助于降低運輸和貿(mào)易成本。除了顯性成本從港口關稅和裝貨/卸貨費，從擁擠和低效率的設施/管理的時間成本，促

88、進了運輸成本。這些費用反映在運費由船公司，倉儲費用，以及由商人承擔港口經(jīng)紀人經(jīng)紀費。更常見的，這些費用在扣除支付給代理貿(mào)易商。我們的研究探討是否和在何種程度上在東亞港口基礎設施的改善，在過去的十年減少了總港口運輸費用。它也將探討擴大產(chǎn)能的投資是否能收回成本。</p><p>　　東亞經(jīng)濟危機和港口基礎設施</p><p>　　經(jīng)濟危機，正在影響許多方面在東亞的經(jīng)濟。這包括出口限制獲取資金急

89、劇下降。有了事半功倍的效果，在東亞經(jīng)濟體，包括中國和日本在2008年底陷入衰退和減少區(qū)域內(nèi)貿(mào)易。據(jù)報道，約有百分之十的集裝箱船在此期間一直閑置。有些船公司預計在2009年下降量可能會達到百分之二十。慢性減輕港口擁擠可能在一段時期該地區(qū)的一些港口。在美國，日本和歐洲的全面復蘇在短期內(nèi)是不可能的。因此，發(fā)展中經(jīng)濟體的出口在東亞將不會返回到高峰時的2008年。</p><p>　　在國際運輸需求的下降表明了在新投資的回

90、報率在港口基礎設施預期下降.這可能會阻礙港口的發(fā)展，在危機爆發(fā)之前，實施可行的一些項目。然而，由于基礎設施項目需要一個很長的醞釀期，預計在很長一段時間內(nèi)不能收回成本，需求和回報率應該從長遠的角度來考慮。人們應該注意到，在該地區(qū)對港口的需求并不僅僅取決于只在美國和日本的需求。從長遠來看，從外部轉向內(nèi)部和區(qū)域需求可能發(fā)生。</p><p>　　只要港口發(fā)展計劃可以在長期是可行的，在港口投資提供了可能在該地區(qū)的宏觀經(jīng)濟

91、都在創(chuàng)造需求和改善供給方面的增長前景良好的政策條件的目標。在港口基礎設施的投資在發(fā)展東亞經(jīng)濟可能在這方面具有戰(zhàn)略作用。下面闡述的部分是以利益為中心，提高港口吞吐量同時所需的成本關系。</p><p>　　2.港口基礎設施，運輸和貿(mào)易成本：統(tǒng)計調(diào)查</p><p>　　貿(mào)易成本被廣泛定義為在任何費用的增加從出口國到最終消費者的進口國（或生產(chǎn)者）傳遞過程的交易商品的價格。發(fā)達國家面臨相當高的國

92、際貿(mào)易成本：包括運輸成本，政策障礙，信息成本，合同執(zhí)行成本，貨幣成本，以及法律和監(jiān)管成本（安德森和克拉克估計約有百分之七十四從價稅等值條件（2004））。貧窮國家有較高的貿(mào)易成本。在港口基礎設施的數(shù)量和質(zhì)量密切影響運輸成本。擴大港口吞吐能力和改善港口設施，可以簡化和加速過程，裝卸工藝，使用更有效的集裝箱船。這部分調(diào)查的基礎設施和運輸成本的現(xiàn)有文獻，主要集中在實證結果對海洋港口尤其如此。</p><p><b

93、>　　有限貿(mào)易成本數(shù)據(jù)</b></p><p>　　貿(mào)易成本的存在是一個關鍵的標準對貿(mào)易引力模型的理論假設來說。兩國在貿(mào)易引力模型是由貿(mào)易伙伴的雙邊貿(mào)易成本和相對的經(jīng)濟規(guī)模。一個主要障礙，這一模式的分析是對交易成本，以防止對直接回歸的金額/總貿(mào)易成本的利率的雙邊官方統(tǒng)計行業(yè)的研究人員的限制。作為一種妥協(xié)，代理變量，如距離，需要時間的貿(mào)易，地理和政策指南，以及各種調(diào)查指標出現(xiàn)在貿(mào)易回歸，除了名義發(fā)

94、表關稅稅率。這使我們能夠估計交易成本的影響，以及這些因素對貿(mào)易成本的影響。然而，在某種程度上影響貿(mào)易成本這些變量本身和在何種程度上影響雙邊貿(mào)易貿(mào)易成本仍不清楚。</p><p>　　在數(shù)據(jù)的可用性限制也如此港口之間的貿(mào)易成本的構成狹義部分的運輸成本。多數(shù)國家的當局只公布CIF基地，出口價格計算的貨物和運費和保險費用，而不顯示任何細節(jié)包括進口量。如果研究人員想國際運輸貿(mào)易伙伴之間的港口的成本數(shù)據(jù)，他們必須分開估計在

95、大多數(shù)國家，從到岸價進口價格的一部分，到國際運輸成本。只有美國和新西蘭的正式發(fā)布航運/運輸成本為目的的進口稅收的申報的數(shù)據(jù)。</p><p>　　估計交易成本進行實證分析是具有挑戰(zhàn)性的。所以，妥協(xié)的經(jīng)驗一直是“匹配法”，使用進口的到岸價格由FOB出口值除以相同的貿(mào)易伙伴之間的價值比率，而前者是從進口國，而后者，從出口國報告。Limao和Venables（2001）估計運輸成本，或者更準確的“運輸成本因素“的方法運

96、用到了貿(mào)易統(tǒng)計，由國際貨幣基金（IMF）所發(fā)表，方向。筆者預計可使用的運輸成本因素作為因變量的回歸，研究運輸成本，這包括對基礎設施水平指標的各種因素。當他們出現(xiàn)獲得一個有說服力的結果，匹配法應規(guī)定使用中的精心治療。例如，胡默爾和Lugovskyy（2006）分析了該方法的準確性，比較官方公布的進口費用的美國和新西蘭的統(tǒng)計數(shù)字估計，得出的結論是匹配的方法可能會產(chǎn)生“噪音”的信息。</p><p><b>

97、　　運輸成本的決定因素</b></p><p>　　李茂和維納布爾斯（2001）估計運輸成本的決定因素，特別是有關基礎設施。它們的運輸成本因素回歸有距離，人均收入，地理因素，如常見的障礙和島嶼假人，以及對各方面的基礎設施水平的指標作為解釋變量。其基礎設施指數(shù)四個項目組成：（一）道路長度，（二）鋪平道路長度，（三）長的鐵路，以及（四）電話每人主線。這些四項目被歸一，平均對基礎設施一個國家的指數(shù)，由于它主