[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]國(guó)際貿(mào)易外文翻譯--澳美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定的經(jīng)濟(jì)效應(yīng)（節(jié)選）

1、中文 中文 5200 字， 字，3200 單詞， 單詞，17000 英文字符 英文字符出處： 出處：Armstrong S. The economic impact of the Australia–US free trade agreement[J]. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 2015, 69(5):513-537.The economic impact of the

2、Australia–US free trade agreementSHIRO ARMSTRONGThe Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) came into effect in 2005. It was the second preferential trade agreement that Australia signed, after its agreemen

3、t with Singapore, and marked a departure from the primacy of Australia’s previous trade policy of unilateral and multilateral trade liberalisation toward preferential liberalisation. This paper assesses the economic ef

4、fects of AUSFTA by applying the Productivity Commission’s gravity model of trade from its Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements review. The evidence reveals AUSFTA resulted in a fall in Australian and US trade with the

5、 rest of the world—that the agreement led to trade diversion. Estimates also show that AUSFTA is associated with a reduction in trade between Australia and the United States.Keywords: AUSFTA; Australia-United States rela

6、tions; free trade agreementIntroductionThe opening up and liberalisation of the Australian economy has been key to its prosperity and competitiveness. Most of that trade liberalisation initially occurred unilaterally thr

7、oughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s as Australia and other East Asian economies removed significant trade barriers without binding agreements. There was a recognition that a country benefited from removing its own border-

8、 and behind-the border-barriers to trade and that those benefits were compounded if others did so as well. This strategy contributed positively to the multilateral trading system by liberalising trade in a non-discrimina

9、tory manner, as unilateral trade liberalisation was bound through subsequent multi- lateral negotiation in the Uruguay Round. This concerted unilateral liberalisation slowly came to an end around the time of the Asian fi

10、nancial crisis in 1997/98 as much of the relatively easy-to-remove border barriers had been reduced and the region started looking to negotiate further liberalisation after the Uruguay Round.Australia and East Asia event

11、ually joined the global trend and started to sign preferential trade agreements that liberalise trade and investment on a preferential basis between agreement members. Before signing an agreement with Singapore in 2003,

12、 apart from the bilateral Closer Economic Relations (CER) agreement with New Zealand that was signed in another era, Australia had not been party to any preferential trade agreements (PTAs) since the era of British Imper

13、ial Preference. Although the Singapore agreement was a first for Australia, its economy was one of the most open internationally, it did not have an agricultural sector and it was not a major economic partner of Australi

14、a.A more significant potential sign of departure from the primacy of non-discriminatory liberalisation occurred with the negotiation of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), which came into effect on January 1,

15、 2005. Much controversy, therefore, surrounded the negotiation of the agreement in the lead up to its conclusion.There was debate about the likely impact on the Australian economy, the implications for Australia’s other

16、trade and investment relationships and its use in promoting other non-economic and diplomatic interests (Ranald 2009).As a result of the agreement, 97 percent of tariff lines covering Australia’s non- agricultural export

17、s to the United States (excluding textiles and clothing) became duty-free, subject to the FTAs) that have been seen as a way to remove trade and other barriers among countries that are usually politically close. Most

18、agreements are full of exemptions and carve-outs of sensitive sectors, including the exclusion of sugar in AUSFTA, demonstrating the limitations of this argument. In its review of Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements,

19、 the Australian Productivity Commission concluded that economic benefits of FTAs are often overstated and that they are often more political than economic in nature (Productivity Commission, 2010a).PTAs can go beyond tra

20、de in goods and services and investment into areas of domestic rules and regulations. Indeed, AUSFTA was significant for the changes it required to Australian domestic regulations and institutions. One line of argu- ment

21、 suggests that merchandise trade is not a very significant aspect of modern PTAs, as many tariff lines are at or close to zero in developed countries. The benefits that CIE modelling predicted were driven by assumptions

22、in areas outside of goods trade. Others have emphasised the ‘deeper integration’ aspects of AUSFTA (Stoler 2003).Yet trade in goods is closely linked to trade in services, investment and the rules, regulations, impedime

23、nts and liberalisations introduced in PTAs. Moreover, goods trade (or merchandise trade) remains the overarching component of econ- omic relationships between countries. Negotiating preferential market access among membe

24、rs on trade in goods is still central to most agreements. There is then the important question of whether preferential agreements create trade among members and the extent to which they divert trade from non-members.Alth

25、ough border barriers in most countries, especially in the Asia Pacific, have been reduced with non-discriminatory most-favoured-nation rates (MFN) that are low or zero for a large range of products, significant border b

26、arriers remain. Yet rules of origin (ROOs)—which add to red tape, vary substantially between agreements and complicate trade due to different tariff rates being applied to a good or service depending on the country in wh

27、ich value was added—still affect trade and are a serious trade policy and regulatory issue.In a study using disaggregated customs data, Pomfret, Kaufmann, and Findlay (2010) analyse the utilisation rates of preferences i

28、n Australian PTAs and find that AUSFTA exhibits the clearest evidence of a preferential trade effect (7) among Australian PTAs as of 2010. Figure 1 shows that 30 percent of Australian imports from the United States utili

29、sed preferences (entered Australia at the pre- ferential tariff rate below the MFN tariff rate) in 2005 with the utilisation rate falling to between 20 and 25 percent for the following four years.Figure 1. AUSFTA tariff