外商直接投資和貿(mào)易對(duì)中歐及東歐國(guó)家就業(yè)的影響外文翻譯（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　中文3360字,1700英文單詞，9700英文字符</p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯</p><p>　　外文題目： The Effect of Trade and FDI on Employment in central and Eastern European Countries: A Country-Specific Panel Data Analysi

2、s for the Manufacturing Industry </p><p>　　出 處：European Community Studies Association of Austria Publication Series, 1, Volume 12, The EU and Emerging Markets, Part 2, Pages 71

3、-94 </p><p>　　作 者: Özlem Onaran </p><p><b>　　原 文：</b></p><p>　　The Effect of Trade and FDI on Emp

4、loyment in Central and Eastern European Countries:A Country-Specific Panel Data Analysis for the Manufacturing Industry</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　This paper analyzes the labo

5、r demand based on panel data of manufacturing industry from Central and Eastern European Countries and discusses the effect of domestic factors (wages and output) and international factors (trade and FDI) on employment i

6、n the post-transition period. The findings indicate that employment only responds to wages in 50 per cent of the cases. The output elasticity of labor demand is mostly positive, but low, with a number of cases where empl

7、oyment is completely de-linked f</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　This paper aims at exploring the development of employment in Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) in the post-transitio

8、n period and the employment effects of integration into the world economy on employment, in particular with the European economic sphere through trade openness and FDI. In the early 1990s, during the initial phase of tra

9、nsition, CEECs faced a severe recession due to both supply and demand shocks as well as major institutional changes. The adjustment in labor markets t</p><p>　　Izyumov and Vahaly (2002) show that the linkage

10、s between unemployment change and output were highly unstable during the early transition period. The political concerns about unemployment, the preservation of soft budget constraints in many state owned firms,low labor

11、 mobility particularly due to firm-specific non-wage benefits or infra-structure problems are cited as some reasons explaining this inertia. The transition crisis was replaced by a recovery in output starting in the seco

12、nd half of th</p><p>　　moderate job creation.</p><p>　　One question is how much of that negative development in employment in the post-transition era can be related to the previous labor hoardin

13、g. While earlier research on “idle employment” in the CEECs indicates a continuation of the problem (eg. Kajzer, 1995; Jackman, 1994) or even an increase in “overemployment” or “l(fā)abor hoarding” (e.g. Gora, 1995) during t

14、he early transition era, later studies find out that employment became much more responsive to recessions after the mid 1990s, indicating tha</p><p>　　(1995) argues that severe and persistent shortages in ca

15、pital and managerial ability may result in keeping labor demand weak in the medium term. OECD (2005) points out that the large negative structural shocks in the CEECs, such as those associated with opening economies to t

16、rading at world prices have resulted in a substantial increase in unemployment that persists for a considerable period of time. It is one of the concerns of this study to explore the link between employment and output pa

17、rtic</p><p>　　mechanisms.</p><p>　　The situation in manufacturing employment is even more dramatic. It decreased in all countries not only in the first period of transition recession, but also i

18、n the post-recession period. In general, the jobs created in services have off-set the negative effects of the major downsizing in the manufacturing industry, but even during the uninterrupted growth years of 2000s new s

19、ervice jobs have just sufficed to generate stagnation in total employment(Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, B</p><p>　　Table 1: Growth in GDP and employment in CEECs (2000-2005</p><p&g

20、t;　　period average, in per cent)</p><p>　　Source: Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies.</p><p>　　Another important concern is about the quality of the jobs created in the service

21、sector. Although the shift in employment from industry towards services is a pattern, which goes along with improvements in productivity, and can be observed in developed countries as well, Reinert and Kattel (2004) poin

22、t out that the type of deindustrialization in the CEECs is qualitatively very different from the slow ‘de-industrialization’ of high-income countries, which upgrade into a knowledge-intensive servic</p><p>　

23、　A further controversial fact is that rapid improvements in exports and foreign direct investment have so far not been able to reverse the stagnation in aggregate employment or the decline in manufacturing employment in

24、the CEECs. Hunya and Geishecker(2005) provide evidence that the nature of FDI flows can accountfor this development to some extent. About half of the FDI in the New Member States between 1990 and 1998 was in the form of

25、privatization-related acquisitions, and the restructuring of </p><p>　　companies reduced the number of employed while foreign-owned enterprises expanded that number. In this study, we shall estimate the effe

26、cts of FDI and foreign trade on sectoral employment in order to shed light on the aggregate direct and indirect job creation and destruction effects.</p><p>　　Regarding the role of labor market institutions

27、in determining labor demand, many indicators show that the newly formed labor markets in the CEECs are rather flexible. Thus wage or employment rigidity does not seem to be the reason behind the disappointing employment

28、performance in the 2000s. Based on panel data estimation of wage bargaining equations for the sub-sectors of manufacturing in the CEECs, Onaran and Stockhammer (2008) find that wages are highly flexible with respect to u

29、nemployment.</p><p><b>　　譯 文：</b></p><p>　　外商直接投資和貿(mào)易對(duì)中歐及東歐國(guó)家就業(yè)的影響——針對(duì)具體國(guó)家的面板數(shù)據(jù)分析</p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　本文基于中歐和東歐的面板數(shù)據(jù)分析了市場(chǎng)對(duì)勞動(dòng)力的需求，討論了國(guó)內(nèi)

30、因素（工資和輸出），國(guó)際因素（貿(mào)易和外商直接投資）在后過渡時(shí)期對(duì)就業(yè)的影響。研究結(jié)果表明，就業(yè)對(duì)工資的影響僅有50%。勞動(dòng)需求的出口彈性主要是積極的，但少部分的事例表明勞動(dòng)與出口完全脫節(jié)。歐洲的經(jīng)濟(jì)正以一個(gè)驚人的速度進(jìn)行整合，但通過外商直接投資和國(guó)際貿(mào)易并不能減少失業(yè)。雖然有少數(shù)例子證明外商直接投資對(duì)就業(yè)是有正面影響的，但影響是微不足道的，而且外商直接投資占主導(dǎo)地位的國(guó)家也有一些負(fù)面的效應(yīng)出現(xiàn)。</p><p>

31、<b>　　簡(jiǎn)介</b></p><p>　　本文旨在研究中歐和東歐國(guó)家在后過渡時(shí)期的就業(yè)發(fā)展以及世界經(jīng)濟(jì)一體化對(duì)就業(yè)的影響，特別是隨著通過貿(mào)易開放和外商直接投資限制放寬而產(chǎn)生的歐洲經(jīng)濟(jì)一體化對(duì)就業(yè)的影響。在二十世紀(jì)九十年代初期，過渡的初始階段，中東歐國(guó)家面臨著由于政治體制變革，人們的供應(yīng)和需求變少而引起的經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條。為了應(yīng)對(duì)供給和需求的減少，對(duì)勞動(dòng)市場(chǎng)進(jìn)行了調(diào)整。高層啟動(dòng)的條件下發(fā)生的變相高

32、失業(yè)率，政府隨之制定了完全就業(yè)的目標(biāo)，大量的勞動(dòng)力加入到中央計(jì)劃經(jīng)濟(jì)中去（布魯達(dá)，1989；闊奈，1995；布朗查德，1998）。不過，在轉(zhuǎn)型初期，出口的減少比失業(yè)的增加更加明顯。易志優(yōu)墨和瓦浩麗（2002）表明，失業(yè)變化和出口的聯(lián)系在轉(zhuǎn)型初期是極其不穩(wěn)定的。政府也關(guān)心失業(yè)問題，但是許多國(guó)有企業(yè)都受軟預(yù)算的約束。廉價(jià)勞動(dòng)力的流動(dòng)是由于企業(yè)特有的非工資福利或基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，這經(jīng)常被引用為這種慣性的解釋。過渡危機(jī)被20世紀(jì)九十年代開始的維斯加德和

33、斯洛文尼斯的出口復(fù)蘇所取代。在二十世紀(jì)九十年代后期的波羅的海諸國(guó)，保加利亞及羅馬尼亞，作為成熟市場(chǎng)的過渡，在中東歐國(guó)家出現(xiàn)了就業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)和工資的急劇變化（哈弗里克和朗德曼，2005；伯勒爾，2002）。一般來說，相對(duì)</p><p>　　問題是后過渡時(shí)期就業(yè)發(fā)展的消極影響與先前的勞動(dòng)囤積的相關(guān)程度。盡管早期關(guān)于“閑置就業(yè)”的研究表明這是一個(gè)延續(xù)的問題。（卡具澤，1995；杰克曼，1994）甚至是一個(gè)持續(xù)增加的“雇傭過

34、多”或“勞動(dòng)囤積”（國(guó)拉，1995）。后來研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，在過渡時(shí)代的早期得出的結(jié)論——就業(yè)對(duì)二十世紀(jì)九十年代的經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條更為敏感，表明前階段的勞動(dòng)囤積問題得到扭轉(zhuǎn)。（博埃里和加里波第，2006；鮑思，2005）；同時(shí)，公司在轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)體制開始實(shí)行時(shí)加強(qiáng)了硬預(yù)算，在后過渡時(shí)期進(jìn)行相互約束。（謝弗，1998）。鮑思（2005）基于企業(yè)數(shù)據(jù)估算銷售方面的就業(yè)彈性，發(fā)現(xiàn)匈牙利在過渡階段初期已經(jīng)具有高彈性了；波蘭進(jìn)入過渡期，進(jìn)行了較少的改革也取得了高彈性

35、。捷克共和國(guó)和斯洛伐克也實(shí)現(xiàn)了高彈性，雖然他們是從勞動(dòng)改制開始的，與銷售的關(guān)系不大。此外，鮑思提交的證據(jù)也不支持國(guó)有企業(yè)與銷售的相關(guān)性很大這一假說。博埃里和加里波第（2006）基于至1996年中東歐十國(guó)的面板數(shù)據(jù)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)總量進(jìn)行分析，指出經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條導(dǎo)致就業(yè)減少，但國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的增加并沒有創(chuàng)造更多的就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。確實(shí)，在后衰退時(shí)期，出口增長(zhǎng)的中東歐國(guó)家的就業(yè)增長(zhǎng)并沒有比出口停滯的其他歐</p><p>　　制造業(yè)的就業(yè)情況

36、更具有戲劇性。它在過渡時(shí)期的初期及后衰退時(shí)期都在減少。一般情況下，服務(wù)業(yè)創(chuàng)造的就業(yè)崗位能夠抵消制造業(yè)裁員造成的不良影響，但即使是在21世紀(jì)新的服務(wù)性工作不斷發(fā)展的今天，新的服務(wù)性崗位的產(chǎn)生也不能為社會(huì)提供更多的就業(yè)崗位（匈牙利，捷克共和國(guó)，斯洛伐克，立陶宛，保加利亞），或在某些情況下，甚至無法彌補(bǔ)制造業(yè)的就業(yè)損失（波蘭，羅馬尼亞）；只有在斯洛文尼亞，愛沙尼亞和拉脫維亞，就業(yè)顯示了溫和的增長(zhǎng)。表1顯示了各國(guó)在2000—2005年期間GDP

37、和就業(yè)的年平均增長(zhǎng)率。</p><p>　　另一個(gè)重要的問題是服務(wù)部門所創(chuàng)造的工作崗位的質(zhì)量。雖然就業(yè)崗位從工業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)向服務(wù)業(yè)是生產(chǎn)力提高的一種趨勢(shì)，而且這種現(xiàn)象也在發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家中出現(xiàn)。萊納特和卡特（2004）指出，中東歐國(guó)家的產(chǎn)業(yè)空洞化與高收入國(guó)家的慢工業(yè)化不同，高收入國(guó)家已經(jīng)升級(jí)為知識(shí)密集型服務(wù)行業(yè)，但中東歐國(guó)家服務(wù)業(yè)創(chuàng)造的大多是低技能、低工資的工作。</p><p>　　另一項(xiàng)有爭(zhēng)議的事是迅

38、速增長(zhǎng)的出口和外商直接投資至今未能扭轉(zhuǎn)中東歐國(guó)家總就業(yè)量停滯或制造業(yè)就業(yè)崗位減少的局面。漢雅和蓋旭特（2005）舉證證明，外商直接投資可以在一定程度上增加就業(yè)。1990-1998年，新成員國(guó)大約一半的外商直接投資是以私有化直接收購(gòu)的形式投資，而且前國(guó)有資產(chǎn)的重組導(dǎo)致大量的失業(yè)。在隨后幾年中，大多數(shù)外商直接投資都投入在新資產(chǎn)上；雖然新的行業(yè)能增加就業(yè)崗位，技術(shù)進(jìn)步也同時(shí)會(huì)導(dǎo)致裁員。此外，大部分新出現(xiàn)在服務(wù)業(yè)的工作崗位都在銀行業(yè)、零售業(yè)、房

39、地產(chǎn)業(yè)。無論剛開始是以什么形式入境的，現(xiàn)在越來越多FDI采用利潤(rùn)再投資的形式盈利，但其結(jié)果有待觀察。除了直接影響，外商直接投資的負(fù)面影響也被發(fā)現(xiàn)。蓋旭特（2005）：外商投資企業(yè)通過進(jìn)口或國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)的縮小消失取代傳統(tǒng)國(guó)內(nèi)供應(yīng)商致使國(guó)內(nèi)的就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)減少。這是由于進(jìn)口或跨國(guó)集團(tuán)的子公司擁有更大的規(guī)模以及更高的技術(shù)，所以他們有更大的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力。漢雅和蓋旭特（2005）內(nèi)資制造企業(yè)減少了就業(yè)的數(shù)量，同時(shí)外資企業(yè)的就業(yè)數(shù)量不斷增加。在這項(xiàng)研究中，我們?yōu)榱?/p>

40、闡明直接和間接的就業(yè)崗位創(chuàng)造和破壞，需要估計(jì)外商直接投資和外貿(mào)對(duì)部門就業(yè)的影響。</p><p>　　表1 中東歐國(guó)家的GDP和就業(yè)的增長(zhǎng)率（2000-2005年）</p><p><b>　　名詞 </b></p><p><b>　　產(chǎn)量</b></p><p><b>　　產(chǎn)出<

41、;/b></p><p><b>　　產(chǎn)品</b></p><p><b>　　出產(chǎn)</b></p><p><b>　　動(dòng)詞 </b></p><p><b>　　生產(chǎn)</b></p><p><b>　　制造&l

42、t;/b></p><p>　　數(shù)據(jù)來源：維也納國(guó)際經(jīng)濟(jì)研究所</p><p>　　關(guān)于勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)機(jī)構(gòu)在勞動(dòng)需求的決定作用，許多指標(biāo)表明，在中東歐國(guó)家新成立的勞動(dòng)力市場(chǎng)上是相對(duì)靈活的。因此工資或者就業(yè)崗位就不像是21世紀(jì)就業(yè)那么讓人失望。基于中東歐國(guó)家的面板數(shù)據(jù)估計(jì)工資的談判方程，歐楠和石杜康（2008）指出工資高彈性就意味著失業(yè)。博埃里和加里波第（2006）的報(bào)告指出工資的分層在新

43、成員國(guó)中往往不具約束力，也很少在私營(yíng)企業(yè)中實(shí)施；新成員最低工資是歐盟15國(guó)的30%，平均工資是歐盟15國(guó)的50%。相較于歐盟15國(guó)，新成員國(guó)的集體談判的覆蓋率還是很低的。盡管工會(huì)密度率更具可比性（博埃里和加里波第，2006）。</p><p>　　關(guān)于就業(yè)彈性，匈牙利，捷克共和國(guó)和斯洛伐克是排在經(jīng)合組織的就業(yè)保護(hù)法（2004）索引的中部。世界銀行商業(yè)環(huán)境報(bào)告（2006）中的就業(yè)剛性指數(shù)排名中，經(jīng)合組織中的四個(gè)中東

44、歐國(guó)家（捷克共和國(guó)，波蘭，匈牙利和斯洛伐克，捷克是最有就業(yè)彈性的）在20個(gè)國(guó)家中排名5-9，愛爾蘭排名第六。</p><p>　　本文的分析因?yàn)閿?shù)據(jù)的限制僅涵蓋制造業(yè)，制造業(yè)在經(jīng)濟(jì)中是很具代表意義的，在國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值和就業(yè)崗位中都占很大的比重，幾乎占所有外商直接投資的一半以及所有的進(jìn)出口商品。制造業(yè)就業(yè)人數(shù)也已經(jīng)達(dá)到整個(gè)過渡過程的最低點(diǎn)，而且一直沒有恢復(fù)。本文初步估算了制造業(yè)子部門的勞動(dòng)需求方程，以測(cè)試就業(yè)的出口和

45、工資。其次，在工資和出口一定的情況下，測(cè)試世界經(jīng)濟(jì)是否通過國(guó)際貿(mào)易和外商直接投資的整合為制造業(yè)創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)，或者相反，激烈的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)壓力是否會(huì)導(dǎo)致勞動(dòng)的需求曲線向下移動(dòng)。勞動(dòng)的需求方程式是根據(jù)維也納國(guó)際事務(wù)研究所提供的每個(gè)國(guó)家制造業(yè)的面板數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行估計(jì)。由于貿(mào)易和外商直接投資在部門的數(shù)據(jù)可得到性，我們研究的時(shí)期是后過渡時(shí)期的最后恢復(fù)階段。這樣就減少了20世紀(jì)90年代初期和中期經(jīng)濟(jì)的嚴(yán)重收縮，以及后衰退調(diào)整過程中就業(yè)的失真評(píng)估。本文探討的是8個(gè)