外文翻譯--英國(guó)需要公法形式的商會(huì)嗎？

1、<p><b>　　中文3125字</b></p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)（論文）</p><p>　　外 文 翻 譯</p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Does Britain need public law status Chambers of C

2、ommerce?</p><p>　　Legal status</p><p>　　The contrast between private and public law status is the key differentiating factor between the Chamber systems of Britain on the one hand， and France an

3、d Germany on the other. Differing legal status reflects the contrasting traditions of voluntarism in the UK， leading to a belief in the primacy of market forces in the context of the business support environment， and of

4、state intervention in France and Germany， allied to business promotion. The former tradition explains the existence of private</p><p>　　Advantages of public law status</p><p>　　French and German

5、 respondents described the benefits of public law status in terms of the facilitation of partnership between business and government， greater political influence for business， operational independence and ease of long-te

6、rm planning for Chambers， together with sufficient resources for them to provide high quality services for business.</p><p>　　Disadvantages of public law status</p><p>　　French and German respon

7、dents identified few weaknesses in the public law system. Potential problems were， however， seen in terms of bureaucracy， image problems and limits to Chambers' independence. UK Chamber respondents regarded public la

8、w status with suspicion， and considered that its introduction might undermine the vitality and entrepreneurial character of UK Chambers. For the UK respondents， the disadvantages were greater in number and include subjug

9、ation to state control， the offer of few</p><p>　　Advantages of private law status</p><p>　　Both UK respondents emphasised， instead， the advantages of private law status， including the principle

10、 of voluntary Chamber membership and its “guarantee” of de jure (I not de facto) Chamber independence from government control. However， several problems created by private law status were identified， including the tradit

11、ional lack of government support for UK Chambers， their lack of political influence， government's unwillingness to consult them over issues affecting business， and the existence </p><p>　　Disadvantages o

12、f private law status</p><p>　　UK respondents did recognise the problems created by private law status， including lack of political influence， lack of government support and/or consultation， and competition w

13、ith private sector providers. </p><p>　　Advantages of compulsory membership </p><p>　　Regarding the issue of Chamber membership ，F(xiàn)rench and German respondents took the view that mandatory member

14、ship leads to a range of benefits， enabling Chambers to improve their business representation and legitimacy， promoting their financial strength and allowing them to offer a broader range of services， of high quality， su

15、pported by a large and well-qualified staffing establishment. A range of specific advantages were identified， including comprehensive local business membership， balanced re</p><p>　　Disadvantages of compulso

16、ry membership</p><p>　　A number of problems with compulsory membership were identified by French and German respondents. These included lack of general business awareness of Chamber services， the underuse of

17、 services by some members， and conflicts of interest amongst members. Paradoxically， both a big firm bias and a SME bias were put forward as a disadvantage. UK respondents suggested that problems include the danger of lo

18、wer responsiveness to members' needs， with Chamber membership being valued less by involuntary m</p><p>　　Advantages of non-statutory membership</p><p>　　UK respondents considered that there

19、 was no need for compulsory membership to be introduced into the British Chamber system， arguing that the advantages of non-statutory membership were that it allows a focus on the needs of members， ensures closeness to t

20、he market on the part of Chambers， and good relationships with members. They suggested that voluntary membership leads both to member commitment and to Chamber legitimacy.</p><p>　　Disadvantages of non-statu

21、tory membership</p><p>　　UK respondents identified no such disadvantages. In contrast， however， one German respondent suggested that non-statutory membership actually reduces UK Chambers' independence， b

22、y forcing them to rely heavily on government for funding， thus compromising Chambers in their dealings with the state on behalf of businesses.</p><p>　　Funding arrangements</p><p>　　Advantages o

23、f statutory funding</p><p>　　In terms of Chamber funding arrangements French and German respondents took the view that statutory income， based on compulsory subscriptions and local business tax levies， leads

24、 to a number of advantages of Chambers and their members. For Chambers， this provides them with a stable secure and reliable income， largely free of government control， and substantial enough to fund a high standard of s

25、ervices for local businesses and other Chamber services， including infrastructure investments. Chamber</p><p>　　Disadvantages of statutory funding</p><p>　　French and German respondents identifi

26、ed few problems with statutory funding， although it was noted that this could lead to an unacceptably heavy financing burden on the part of larger firms， subject to greater membership costs. Paradoxically， some medium-si

27、zed firms might also be unhappy having to pay for Chamber services which they did not use.</p><p>　　Advantages of non-statutory funding</p><p>　　British respondents commented that relianc on non

28、-statutory income leads to responsiveness to market forces， empathy with members' business problems， and the efficient use of resources， prompted by limited financial means.</p><p>　　Disadvantages of non

29、-statutory funding </p><p>　　The disadvantages of non-statutory funding were identified as lack of financial resources， limits to Chamber staffing and services， and an undue focus on income-earning， non-core

30、 activities. British respondents also pointed to increasing dependence on government funding， often based on short-term， if renewable contracts， as a possible source of problems for UK Chambers.</p><p>　　Cha

31、mber structures</p><p>　　French and German Chamber structures</p><p>　　French and German respondents identified the uniformity and completeness of geographical coverage as a major advantage of t

32、heir respective public law Chamber networks. The existence of a regional Chamber tier in France (although not in Germany) was considered an advantage by French respondents. Respondents in both countries believed that ter

33、ritorial divisions between local Chambers were both rational in their design and well understood by local businesses， leading to enhanced transparency， compr</p><p>　　UK Chamber structure</p><p>

34、;　　UK respondents saw advantages in terms of the flexibility of current arrangements， allowing for the existence of either stand-alone Chambers or CCTEs in appropriate local areas. Members were offered ready access to se

35、rvices of high quality in many areas of the UK， while business confusion with the proliferation of rival service providers was， in their view， often overstated. The UK Chamber structure was， however， perceived as causing

36、 potential problems for businesses， due to its uneven geographi</p><p>　　Chamber missions and activities</p><p>　　Public law Chambers</p><p>　　The legal status of Chambers in the UK

37、， France and Germany exercises a profound influence over the types of service which they can provide. French and German Chambers operate within state-controlled parameters， since their main missions are determined by pub

38、lic law. Their role as the meeting point between government and business is also statutorily defined. However， they enjoy substantial autonomy over the manner in which they carry out their activities on a day- to-day bas

39、is. Respondents consid</p><p>　　Private law Chambers</p><p>　　UK Chambers play a relatively modest role in economic management and development， due largely to the absence of any statutory missio

40、n to do so， and to their less well-established contacts with government. However， a wide range of services for business is provided， although a high proportion of these are fee-based. Chambers need， therefore， to compete

41、 effectively with rival service providers， which they seek to do by product differentiation and price competition. Alternatively， they may attempt t</p><p>　　French and German respondents perceived their nat

42、ional Chamber systems as being relatively stable. However， some minor changes were identified as occurring， including an increasing reliance on non-statutory sources of income and an attempt to save costs by improving or

43、ganizational efficiency. These changes were seen to be prompting a fractional movement of French and German Chambers in a British direction. British respondents stated strongly that the UK Chamber system was undergoing a

44、 period of </p><p>　　Source：Grahame Fallon，2009“Does Britain need public law status Chambers of Commerce?”European Business Review，pp.19-27</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　

45、英國(guó)需要公法形式的商會(huì)嗎？</p><p><b>　　法律地位</b></p><p>　　對(duì)比私人和公共之間的法律地位是英國(guó)商會(huì)系統(tǒng)與法德之間有所區(qū)別的的關(guān)鍵因素。不同的法律地位反應(yīng)英國(guó)在傳統(tǒng)價(jià)值觀上的對(duì)比，導(dǎo)致市場(chǎng)力量在業(yè)務(wù)環(huán)境下至上的信念，并且在法國(guó)和德國(guó)的國(guó)家干預(yù)下配合業(yè)務(wù)推廣。前者用自愿成為會(huì)員、非法定資金、獨(dú)立決定任務(wù)和業(yè)務(wù)支持活動(dòng)解釋了商會(huì)私法在英國(guó)存

46、在的原因。后者用強(qiáng)制性會(huì)員、充足的法定資金、自主決策與國(guó)家法規(guī)相結(jié)合的決策方式解釋了商會(huì)公共法律在法國(guó)德國(guó)擁有強(qiáng)大權(quán)利的原因。</p><p>　　公法地位的優(yōu)勢(shì)：法國(guó)與德國(guó)的受訪者描述私法的好處在于能使政府與企業(yè)建立簡(jiǎn)化合作的條件并且政府可長(zhǎng)期對(duì)企業(yè)進(jìn)行政策影響，也有利于商會(huì)的業(yè)務(wù)獨(dú)立和長(zhǎng)期規(guī)劃。商會(huì)與政府通過(guò)資源共享的方式為企業(yè)提供高質(zhì)量的服務(wù)。</p><p>　　公法地位的劣勢(shì)：法

47、國(guó)與德國(guó)的受訪者承認(rèn)在公法系統(tǒng)中是存在某些缺漏的。潛在的問(wèn)題是官僚主義，形象問(wèn)題和商會(huì)獨(dú)立自治的限制。英國(guó)商會(huì)受訪者對(duì)公法地位持懷疑態(tài)度，認(rèn)為公法的強(qiáng)制會(huì)員制、國(guó)家政策參與商會(huì)任務(wù)決策這兩點(diǎn)會(huì)逐漸削弱商會(huì)的生命力與創(chuàng)造力。對(duì)于英國(guó)受訪者，他們認(rèn)為公法的劣勢(shì)更多，包括商會(huì)可能會(huì)屈服于政府控制，提供更少的服務(wù)給企業(yè)，政府與企業(yè)反對(duì)公法的在英國(guó)存在以及商會(huì)公司成員可能會(huì)異化公共地位。</p><p>　　私法的優(yōu)勢(shì)：英

48、國(guó)受訪者都強(qiáng)調(diào)私法中的地位優(yōu)勢(shì)，包括商會(huì)會(huì)員自愿的原則以及“保證”在法律上（我沒(méi)有事實(shí)上的）商會(huì)獨(dú)立于政府的控制。然而，有私法地位所產(chǎn)生的服務(wù)問(wèn)題包括政府對(duì)英國(guó)商會(huì)支持政策的傳統(tǒng)缺失。政府缺乏對(duì)其政策影響，并且不愿意征詢對(duì)業(yè)務(wù)產(chǎn)生影響的問(wèn)題，對(duì)商會(huì)主要市場(chǎng)中與提供私人服務(wù)機(jī)構(gòu)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)被破壞。</p><p>　　私法的劣勢(shì)：英國(guó)受訪者承認(rèn)有私法地位所產(chǎn)生的問(wèn)題，其中包括缺乏政策影響，缺乏政府支持與系統(tǒng)咨詢以及缺乏與

49、私人機(jī)構(gòu)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力。</p><p><b>　　強(qiáng)制會(huì)員制的優(yōu)勢(shì)</b></p><p>　　關(guān)于商會(huì)的會(huì)員制度，法國(guó)和德國(guó)受訪者用這一觀點(diǎn)看到強(qiáng)制會(huì)員制，認(rèn)為強(qiáng)制會(huì)員制有一系列的優(yōu)點(diǎn)，它使得商會(huì)的業(yè)務(wù)更具合法性與代表性，同時(shí)提高商會(huì)的經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力并且使商會(huì)能夠提供更廣泛的更高品的服務(wù)，由強(qiáng)大的人員編制支持。有些特定的優(yōu)勢(shì)是被確定了的，其中包括全面的當(dāng)?shù)仄髽I(yè)成員，地方經(jīng)濟(jì)

50、利益均衡的代表性，本地語(yǔ)音業(yè)務(wù)的合法性，回應(yīng)議員的意愿，增強(qiáng)商會(huì)的游說(shuō)力量的國(guó)家，處理能力，提高遠(yuǎn)期規(guī)劃和提高效率和效益。</p><p><b>　　強(qiáng)制會(huì)員制的劣勢(shì)</b></p><p>　　法國(guó)與德國(guó)受訪者列出了一系列關(guān)于強(qiáng)制會(huì)員制的問(wèn)題。這些包括商會(huì)服務(wù)缺乏一般業(yè)務(wù)意識(shí)，一些成員服務(wù)利用不足，成員間利益沖突等。矛盾的是，無(wú)論是大公司的偏見(jiàn)還是中小企業(yè)偏見(jiàn)都會(huì)

51、將商會(huì)放在一個(gè)不利的地位。英國(guó)受訪者則認(rèn)為強(qiáng)制會(huì)員制的危害在于此項(xiàng)制度對(duì)較不被重視的自愿成員需求的代表性低下，由此導(dǎo)致商會(huì)與成員的關(guān)系較差。</p><p><b>　　非法定成員制的優(yōu)勢(shì)</b></p><p>　　英國(guó)受訪者認(rèn)為不需要對(duì)英國(guó)商會(huì)系統(tǒng)引進(jìn)強(qiáng)制會(huì)員制度，認(rèn)為非法定成員制度的優(yōu)勢(shì)是這種制度將重點(diǎn)放在成員需求上，確保商會(huì)向市場(chǎng)貼近并且與成員建立良好的關(guān)系。

52、他們認(rèn)為使企業(yè)自愿其商會(huì)會(huì)員有利于會(huì)員組成建設(shè)與商會(huì)合法性。</p><p><b>　　非法定成員制的優(yōu)勢(shì)</b></p><p>　　英國(guó)受訪者認(rèn)為不需要對(duì)英國(guó)商會(huì)系統(tǒng)引進(jìn)強(qiáng)制會(huì)員制度，認(rèn)為非法定成員制度的優(yōu)勢(shì)是這種制度將重點(diǎn)放在成員需求上，確保商會(huì)向市場(chǎng)貼近并且與成員建立良好的關(guān)系。他們認(rèn)為使企業(yè)自愿其商會(huì)會(huì)員有利于會(huì)員組成建設(shè)與商會(huì)合法性。</p>

53、<p>　　非法定會(huì)員制度的劣勢(shì)</p><p>　　英國(guó)受訪者沒(méi)有查明非法定會(huì)員制度。相反，一個(gè)德國(guó)的受訪者認(rèn)為非法定會(huì)員制度實(shí)際上降低里英國(guó)商會(huì)的獨(dú)立性。非法定會(huì)員制度是的商會(huì)嚴(yán)重依賴政府資助導(dǎo)致了商會(huì)為了代表國(guó)家利益而犧牲企業(yè)的利益。</p><p><b>　　法定資金的優(yōu)勢(shì)</b></p><p>　　就商會(huì)資金的統(tǒng)籌安

54、排而言，法國(guó)和德國(guó)的受訪者認(rèn)為法定收入是在強(qiáng)制簽訂合約和地方企業(yè)營(yíng)業(yè)稅征收水平的基礎(chǔ)上，因此導(dǎo)致商會(huì)及其成員的數(shù)量上的優(yōu)勢(shì)。對(duì)于商會(huì)而言，這種方式提供了商會(huì)一個(gè)穩(wěn)定的安全和可靠的收入、在政府控制上有相當(dāng)大的自由，同時(shí)商會(huì)擁有大量的資金為當(dāng)?shù)氐钠髽I(yè)以及其他服務(wù)性商會(huì)提供高水準(zhǔn)的服務(wù)，包括基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施投資。商會(huì)能夠?qū)槲磥?lái)有計(jì)劃的規(guī)劃，并且能夠從核心機(jī)構(gòu)中籌集資金從而規(guī)避分散風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。會(huì)員亦受惠于法定撥款制度，通過(guò)他們控制商會(huì)會(huì)員成本，使得商會(huì)有能

55、力確保此項(xiàng)支付是在公平的水平上，會(huì)員為商會(huì)提供的高品質(zhì)服務(wù)付費(fèi)。</p><p><b>　　法定資金的劣質(zhì)</b></p><p>　　法國(guó)與德國(guó)的受訪者指出法定資金的一些問(wèn)題：法定資金導(dǎo)致了相當(dāng)一部分的大企業(yè)無(wú)法接受沉重的經(jīng)濟(jì)負(fù)擔(dān)，并且屈服于更高的會(huì)員費(fèi)用。問(wèn)題雖然被指出，但奇怪的是一些中等規(guī)模的公司同樣不愿為商會(huì)買(mǎi)單，更何況他們沒(méi)有享受到商會(huì)帶來(lái)的服務(wù)。<

56、/p><p><b>　　商會(huì)組織結(jié)構(gòu)</b></p><p>　　法國(guó)與德國(guó)的商會(huì)組織結(jié)構(gòu)：法國(guó)與德國(guó)的受訪者地獄覆蓋范圍的統(tǒng)一性和完整性看做是公法商會(huì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)的一個(gè)主要優(yōu)勢(shì)。法國(guó)受訪者認(rèn)為區(qū)域型商會(huì)在法國(guó)的存在（雖然不是在德國(guó)）為認(rèn)為是一種優(yōu)勢(shì)。在這兩個(gè)國(guó)家受訪者認(rèn)為當(dāng)?shù)厣虝?huì)之間的領(lǐng)土分歧都在其設(shè)計(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)的合理性，商會(huì)通過(guò)提高其服務(wù)的透明度，綜合性和提高服務(wù)路徑獲得當(dāng)?shù)仄髽I(yè)

57、的理解。這兩種系統(tǒng)借給自己為企業(yè)創(chuàng)建的“一站式”服務(wù)，通過(guò)一站式服務(wù)最大限度的方便用戶的得到服務(wù)和并享受高質(zhì)量的服務(wù)。商會(huì)與商會(huì)間的合作也非常發(fā)達(dá)，這商會(huì)使得可以為地方利益提供專業(yè)化的服務(wù)，從而進(jìn)一步提高對(duì)企業(yè)的整體服務(wù)水平。法國(guó)與德國(guó)的受訪者一致認(rèn)為國(guó)內(nèi)商會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)并不存在任何問(wèn)題。</p><p>　　英國(guó)商會(huì)組織結(jié)構(gòu)：英國(guó)受訪者認(rèn)為其優(yōu)勢(shì)在于英國(guó)商會(huì)現(xiàn)有安排的靈活性，這種靈活性允許任何獨(dú)立的商會(huì)在某些適合的區(qū)域

58、的存在。在英國(guó)的許多區(qū)域里，會(huì)員能被提供高質(zhì)量的服務(wù)，而企業(yè)對(duì)那些有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的服務(wù)提供者所提供的利益感到困惑，在她們看來(lái)這些利益往往被夸大。英國(guó)商會(huì)的結(jié)構(gòu)由于對(duì)企業(yè)造成潛在的問(wèn)題造成的，同時(shí)也由于商會(huì)不平衡的地域覆蓋面和對(duì)商會(huì)的范圍定義的不一致，有時(shí)商會(huì)的服務(wù)范圍也會(huì)有重復(fù)。近期的變化以及多樣劃的趨勢(shì)，英國(guó)的業(yè)務(wù)支持系統(tǒng)被認(rèn)為是導(dǎo)致業(yè)務(wù)在局部地區(qū)的混亂。從業(yè)務(wù)上幫助支持組織的一部分需求也可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致對(duì)企業(yè)管理者在時(shí)間和金錢(qián)上的過(guò)分要求。<

59、;/p><p><b>　　商會(huì)職責(zé)與活動(dòng)</b></p><p>　　公法商會(huì)：英國(guó)、法國(guó)和德國(guó)的商會(huì)法律地位對(duì)他們所提供的服務(wù)類型會(huì)產(chǎn)生深遠(yuǎn)的影響。法國(guó)和德國(guó)的商會(huì)有國(guó)家控制的成分在其商會(huì)運(yùn)作中，因?yàn)樯虝?huì)的主要任務(wù)是有公共法律確定的。他們作為政府與企業(yè)之間的交匯點(diǎn)的作用也是法定定義的。然后商會(huì)對(duì)基本的日?；顒?dòng)享有實(shí)質(zhì)性的權(quán)利。受訪者認(rèn)為法國(guó)和德國(guó)商會(huì)通過(guò)結(jié)合自身的獨(dú)立

60、運(yùn)作，涵蓋區(qū)域的靈活性，使得其在經(jīng)濟(jì)管理和發(fā)展中起核心作用。充足的資金同樣使得商會(huì)能夠向企業(yè)提供范圍廣泛的高質(zhì)量服務(wù)。受訪者認(rèn)為公共法律系統(tǒng)下的商會(huì)無(wú)劣勢(shì)。</p><p>　　私法商會(huì)：英國(guó)商會(huì)在經(jīng)濟(jì)管理與發(fā)展中發(fā)揮著一個(gè)相對(duì)溫和的作用，其主要原因在于缺乏法律授予的應(yīng)盡權(quán)利與義務(wù)并且商會(huì)在較不完善的情況下與政府接觸。雖然英國(guó)商會(huì)為企業(yè)提供多項(xiàng)服務(wù)，但這是以這些高比例的服務(wù)費(fèi)用作為基礎(chǔ)的。商會(huì)需要與其他的服務(wù)提供

61、者進(jìn)行有效的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，這些競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者尋求產(chǎn)品的差異化以及價(jià)格競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。此外，商會(huì)可能是同提供范圍廣泛的服務(wù)，為了最大限度的提高客戶滿意度和物有所值之感。受訪者提出英國(guó)的私法制度的優(yōu)勢(shì)是保持了商會(huì)的商業(yè)才華以及創(chuàng)造力精神，能以市場(chǎng)為主導(dǎo)提供差異化多元化的服務(wù)，以及為會(huì)員提供高品質(zhì)低價(jià)格的服務(wù)。與法國(guó)和德國(guó)的同行相比，英國(guó)受訪者同樣確定私法地位的傳統(tǒng)商會(huì)沒(méi)有壞處。</p><p>　　法國(guó)和德國(guó)受訪者認(rèn)為他們的國(guó)家商會(huì)系統(tǒng)是相定

62、的。然而，一些小的改動(dòng)也時(shí)有發(fā)生，其中包括商會(huì)對(duì)收入為非法定的來(lái)源越來(lái)越依賴，并以提高組織組織的效率企圖以節(jié)省成本。這些變化被認(rèn)為是促使法國(guó)和德國(guó)商會(huì)的運(yùn)動(dòng)朝著英國(guó)的方向發(fā)展。英國(guó)受訪者表示英國(guó)商會(huì)體系正在經(jīng)歷一個(gè)重大變化的時(shí)期。這與法國(guó)德國(guó)正朝英國(guó)方向發(fā)展的一樣。英國(guó)趨向于朝德國(guó)法國(guó)的方向發(fā)展。英國(guó)商會(huì)正趨向于同政府限定法定資金的協(xié)議這一狀態(tài)可以看出英國(guó)商會(huì)對(duì)政府的依賴增加。</p><p>　　出處：[英]格