東亞的反傾銷問題外文翻譯

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>　　東亞的反傾銷問題</b></p><p>　　資料來源: 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70年代，反傾銷是貿(mào)易爭端最常見的類型，而東亞國家是這些調(diào)查的主要目標。在20世紀80年代，同樣的也是真實的。在20世紀90年代也是如此。今天同樣也是如此。</p><p>　　所有對保護措施的叫囂聲，超級3

47、01，政府補貼出口，等等，反傾銷在過去、現(xiàn)在和不明確的未來將繼續(xù)成為最無可爭議的保護方式。一些作者記錄下了世界上日益增長的反傾銷問題（米蘭達等人，1998；普魯薩，2001；以及扎納爾迪，2004）。每個研究提供了越來越多的反傾銷擴散和使用的證據(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)組織成員報告了61例保障調(diào)查，115例反補貼調(diào)查，和1441例反傾銷調(diào)查！說

48、一些不一樣的，過去的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>　　雖然在反傾銷的競爭環(huán)境是否公平上有相當大的分歧，但是毫無疑問，東亞國家已經(jīng)并且可能繼續(xù)是反傾銷行動的主要目標。簡單地說，反傾銷對東亞地區(qū)而言是一個嚴重的問題，幾乎用任何標準來衡量，東亞國家都受到了不相稱比例的反傾銷行動。貧富懸殊的程度在以往的任何研究中尚未確認。本文的目的是在文

49、獻中消除這種差距。</p><p>　　在本文中，我回顧了過去25年的反傾銷糾紛并發(fā)現(xiàn)東亞經(jīng)濟體—日本，印度尼西亞，韓國，馬來西亞，菲律賓，新加坡，泰國，中國臺灣和中華人民共和國—不僅受到格外大量的反傾銷行動而且占了全球反傾銷行動的最大增長。我將表明反傾銷的增長主要是以東亞國家為代價。</p><p>　　另一個細節(jié)，本文揭示的是東亞國家已經(jīng)基本上避開了反傾銷的使用。我計算的東亞國家反傾銷

50、案件的一部分是在圖一中所示。正如所見，東亞國家一般占了不到百分之五的全球反傾銷申請。正如我將要討論的，這種抑制是極為罕見的。這看來東亞國家異常的兩個角度—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對過去25年東亞國家反傾銷模式的更好的了解。無論是衡量案件數(shù)或是每美元的貿(mào)易案件數(shù)，東亞國家與其他大型經(jīng)濟體的不同看起來值得注意。在很大程度上，模式和趨

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

52、在其他因素保持不變的情況下，北美國家的文件時東亞國家的六倍之多。反傾銷的每邊過程，東亞國家是異常的。</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)組織會員國提交的報告。通過協(xié)議，自1980年以來，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告補救方法，包括反傾銷活動。使用世貿(mào)組織成員提交的1980年到2002年所有反傾銷活動數(shù)據(jù)庫編制的報告，超過4600例反傾銷行動已經(jīng)被報告給世貿(mào)組織。非世貿(mào)組織成員發(fā)起的反傾銷活動都在我的數(shù)據(jù)庫。世貿(mào)組織報告之包括基本事件信息，如申請的國家，受影響的國家，被調(diào)查產(chǎn)品的名稱和日期的備案。對于某些事件我也知道責任是否被強加，但是責任的大小卻從來沒有報道。此外，任何人都不能利用世貿(mào)組織的反傾銷報告來追蹤貿(mào)

54、易的影響，因為產(chǎn)品代碼沒有被報道。</p><p>　　在反傾銷使用前的模式來看，對一對數(shù)據(jù)庫發(fā)表評論符合程序。首先，反傾銷調(diào)查的國家和產(chǎn)品的特征影響了會計。反傾銷案件報告被國家特定命名的產(chǎn)品。例如，偶爾調(diào)查涉及單一的產(chǎn)品會被分解多個產(chǎn)品，因此成為多個案件。更常見的，調(diào)查會命名多個國家，因此被記錄為多個案件。兩個特征增長了反傾銷申請的數(shù)量為國內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)尋找更廣的保護范圍。</p><p>　　

55、更復雜的會計問題包括歐盟國家和前蘇聯(lián)共和國。首先，在歐盟法規(guī)下個體國家不申請反傾銷案件，但是代表了整個歐盟的利益。相比之下，反傾銷案件申請不利歐盟個體命名的國家。例如，美國反傾銷行為對與法國和德國的鋼鐵行業(yè)將以兩個獨立的案件來記錄。為了保持會計統(tǒng)一，我有合并案例把包括在相同的時間以相同的產(chǎn)品對個別的歐盟國家申請成為單一的歐盟，已經(jīng)歸類為受歐盟影響的國家。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)計報告（米蘭達等人，1998；普魯薩，2001；以及扎納爾迪，2004）。然而，我覺得結(jié)合案例對歐盟國家允許一個更一致的全球范圍內(nèi)的反傾銷活動的資產(chǎn)負債表。</p><p>　　b．反傾銷—申請模式</p><p>　　在表1中，我在1980年以來報告的反傾銷案件的數(shù)量包括每五年匯總。如上所述，我合計了個別國家并在在這些地區(qū)基礎(chǔ)上編制了匯總表。</p><p>

57、;　　自1980年以來，北美國家已經(jīng)申請比任何其他地區(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)。這幾乎完全是因為澳大利亞。西歐所有的789例（其中主要是歐盟的申請），使其成為第三大的反傾銷使用者。換句話說，從長遠來看反傾銷的使用已經(jīng)被傳統(tǒng)的四個使用者占據(jù)：美國，加拿大，澳大利亞和歐盟。</p><p>　　當人們尋找個人的分時段申請時，然而，一個重要的動

58、態(tài)模式出現(xiàn)了。尤其是在越來越多的世界各國采用一系列反傾銷保護措施。早期（1980年到1984年）的所有反傾銷活動的申請只限于三個地區(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80年代中期反傾銷只是對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80年代后半期，例如，南美和東亞國家開始使用反

59、傾銷。在20世紀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家不是積極的反傾銷使用者。最重要的是新的使用者并沒有剛剛涉足反傾銷。這如普魯薩（2001年到2005年）所討論的，當國家開始使用反傾銷，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>　　中國的出現(xiàn)時對東亞反傾銷使用上

60、升趨勢的主要原因。自從20世紀80年代以來對中國的反傾銷行動已經(jīng)增長了5倍。如果我們從東亞中排除中國，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)1985年到2002年，對東亞國家的反傾銷行動增加了七十五。這看來中國是對增加的那部分的解釋，但是并不是全部。信息是明確的：東亞國家不僅承擔了反傾銷保護主義的重擔，同時負擔是隨著時間的推移越來越大。</p><p><b>　　3．模型和結(jié)果</b></p><p

61、>　　規(guī)格H用來衡量潛在的產(chǎn)業(yè)效應，闡明了這個意外的結(jié)果。我允許在本規(guī)范下行業(yè)效應因地區(qū)而異。因此，我測量了南美洲，南亞對鋼鐵產(chǎn)業(yè)的影響。有趣的是，我發(fā)現(xiàn)沒有一個行業(yè)有統(tǒng)計顯著效應。這表明，東亞國家的傾向被反傾銷案不被命名的產(chǎn)業(yè)帶動。如果沒有什么區(qū)別的話，結(jié)果表明，一旦我們兩國對雙邊貿(mào)易實行管制，有一個鋼鐵，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，東亞國家受到的反傾銷調(diào)查比世界上任何地區(qū)都要多。無論我只是看申請或出口控制的數(shù)量，東亞國家都要比其他任何國家要糟糕。當我用統(tǒng)計技術(shù)來控制宏觀經(jīng)濟因素可能會影響申請的模式，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)不同于哪些負面時間趨勢，東亞的時間趨勢是積極的。這意味著隨著時間的推移，越來越的案例是針對東亞的，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，當然是公開辯論。在本文中，目前我沒有關(guān)于這些事件對東亞是否合適這一問題的證據(jù)。反傾銷支持者如普雷斯托維茨（1998）和馬斯泰爾（1998）肯定認為，這種申請模式只是表明東亞國家的國內(nèi)市場已經(jīng)關(guān)閉。這是一個有吸引力的解釋，它解釋了為什么東亞受到這么多的反傾銷行動，也是為什么東亞只有很少的文件，這樣一些行動：一個封閉的國內(nèi)市場，使得它可能是公司將傾倒在其出

64、口市場（指對反傾銷行動東亞是適當?shù)模?，也不可能使外國公司在亞洲的國?nèi)市場競爭（這意味著，東亞企業(yè)不必訴諸反傾銷）。</p><p>　　然而，沒有任何證據(jù)表明普雷斯托維茨-馬斯泰爾看法是有效的。事實上，林賽（1999）和林賽以及艾肯森（2002）提出的有說服力的證據(jù)，似乎更有可能是封閉的國內(nèi)市場（如果這樣的指控是真實的）完全沒有記載的反傾銷模式。更可信的是，東亞的反傾銷問題，首先需要做的就是這些國家的發(fā)展。東亞國