浅谈贸易技术壁垒.doc

毕 业 设 计（论 文）译文题目： technical barriers to trade 贸易技术壁垒 学生姓名： 学号： 专业： 国际经济与贸易 所在学院： 指导教师： 职称： 2011年 12 月 9 日贸易技术壁垒摘要由于技术壁垒的wto贸易协定（tbt）的生效，各位议员在采用和推广使用都投入了相当大的努力，旨在减少合格评定中心（ca）有关的贸易障碍的措施。到目前为止，我们在ca领域的具体贸易促进方案的影响的知识是有限的，其贸易影响的实证研究可取的。本研究探讨供应商的合格声明（sdoc）对贸易流动的影响。sdoc制度下的供应商自己提供书面保证符合适用的技术法规，需要由第三方认证的市场，合规性的成本被假定为小于ca的制度。本研究侧重于三个sdoc在欧洲联盟从医疗设备，电信设备和机械行业引进合格的产品的情况下的案例。该文件解释了使用sdoc的理由，预期收益和sdoc制度的设计特点。定量分析采用了重力场模型，并发现令人信服的证据表明在欧盟引进的sdoc是一个影响到欧盟市场的积极进口流量的演变的因素。欧盟内部的贸易流动和额外中欧经济合作与发展组织国家的进口增加了sdoc资格的无线电和电信设备和低风险的医疗设备，而机械的结果含糊不清。最显著的增加，可见在所有三个部门，发现来自非经合组织国家（发展中国家）样品中包括出口到欧盟市场。选择个别欧盟成员国的sdoc的影响分析还表明，影响的程度取决于sdoc取代ca的政权的性质。产品要求从市场到市场的变化很大，证明适用的要求得到满足，这是供应商的责任。对于某些产品，必须有一个由监管机构或认可的认证机构评估制造商的整合。对于其他产品，一个由供应商自己的合格的书面声明，就足够了。端点是发放合格证书或声明。世贸组织技术性贸易壁垒协议规定，“. .依照评估程序，严格比给予足够信心更实用，认为产品符合适用的产品要求. .”（第5.1.2条）。理由是，以尽量减少那些想卖到国外的企业对合格评定（ca）的要求的监管负担。虽然世贸组织成员都投入了相当大的努力，在采用和推广使用各种ca的方法，以降低出口商的遵守成本，这些方案实际上是贸易便利化的程度限定了我们的知识的范围。现有的经验调查，这个问题都集中在一个特定的方法对ca - 互认协议（mras）。本研究的目的是响应的供应商的合格声明（sdoc），另一种工具可用于简化了合格评定程序的贸易影响的实证知识的缺乏。延长使用sdoc的情况下，主要是基于信念，它使国际贸易更容易避免或消除的负担，否则就会存在形式的第三方合格评定的要求。这项研究的重心是一个以确定是否在贸易流量，以支持这个信念发现经验证据的尝试：由一套sdoc介绍的个案研究，并确定是否有增加的贸易，以下推出的统计证据。个案研究，包括整个欧洲联盟从“新办法”付诸实施在1985年和21世纪初之间的技术协调和标准化的统一的sdoc引进。调查的产品属于三个部门 - 无线电和电信终端设备（rtte），医疗器械和机械 - 新方法指令在整个欧盟市场建立一个统一的sdoc系统。这些案件之一 - rtte - 可以被认为是比别人“素净”，sdoc变化可以追溯到一个特定的时间点，在没有其他重大变化被引进的时候。其他两起案件涉及到sdoc发生变化，同时与其他协调一致的措施，特别是引进在整个欧盟地区的统一标准。估计过渡到sdoc的影响，显示了对进口到欧盟市场的积极作用。结果略有不同跨越来源国的群体，但支持这一观点，sdoc可能会导致供应商提高效率，使出口市场更容易 - 从而促进贸易。作为背景的实证分析，文件解释了使用sdoc的预期效益等特点，定义sdoc制度的理由，也承认适用于有效地利用其在公众利益的监管工具的先决条件。传闻证据，并采取技术壁垒的贸易在世界贸易组织委员会（tbt）的讨论表明，在sdoc有广泛的兴趣，还有其使用的强大的理论论证，但偶尔怀疑sdoc的经济影响的真正程度。厂商预期变化的ca制度由强制性的第三方合格评定sdoc，作为技术法规的证明，结果批准降低成本，缩短产品上市时间，并可能降低产品价格。事实上， sdoc的理论好处是可以相当大的。然而，实际节省成本可能会远远低于预期的原因。因素，可以限制从sdoc向制造商增大的利益，包括因各种原因的作用，越来越多的客户驱动的私人认证计划和供应商的决定，自愿继续依靠外部服务的合格认证的某些方面。同样重要的是，遵从成本可以降低，因此可以预计sdoc引进对贸易的影响的方法，也有做（一）sdoc取代ca的政权和具体特点（二）sdoc的具体特点。两者都可以有所不同。sdoc要求经常在其复杂性方面不同，它可以改变生产者的利益。也取决于贸易和更广泛的经济影响sdoc的ca政权预先在合适的位置：凡sdoc取代的政权，其中包括强制性合格评定，然后前政权更加繁重，更大的应该是“开放”sdoc效果。这里考察的三个部门，国家ca制度，欧盟统一的sdoc系统所取代，平均，更具限制性。然而，有欧盟成员国以前的ca要求的情况下更加繁重。不同类型的前政权sdoc的贸易效应实证研究也应以在这项研究的仔细调查为经验。转到sdoc谈到sdoc的贸易影响的分析，其中潜在的供应商是位于也不测试实验室或认证机构的地理位置的基础上，国家之间都没有歧视。因此，所有的供应商，本地和外地的，应该受益。不过，也有“额外”的好处，sdoc制度的优势，只适用于居住外sdoc市场的实际或潜在的供应商，这应该引起他们出口更多的sdoc市场。此外在欧盟sdoc引进的情况下，有一个统一的效果，以前分段欧盟成员国市场，各自有不同的监管要求，转变成一个单一的综合市场主体的新的共同sdoc制度。效果的统一，促进规模经济，应加强在同一方向的sdoc效果，即增加进口流量。但sdoc相当于一个政权是在一个特定的欧盟市场已经到位之前，欧共体的sdoc主动，节约成本，可以预期要少，因此进口上升少。实证调查的重点是两个问题：1）是否过渡到sdoc已经推动欧盟进口和2）是否在sdoc中观察到的任何差异的影响各个欧盟成员国的 “进口可以被归结到了这些国家的性质”以前的ca制度。使用重力模型进行定量分析。要回答第一个问题，赫克曼两阶段估计程序应用到个别的欧盟市场的双边进口流量。赫克曼程序第一款估计国家对贸易的概率的一个选择过程，然后使用此信息在第二估计在现有的积极的贸易流量的影响。在这项研究中，伙伴国家的其他欧盟成员国，以及一个非欧盟国家，进一步分成经济合作与发展组织和12个非经合组织国家（发展中国家）。进口包括属于电信和无线电设备，机械和医疗器械行业，而我们知道欧共体的sdoc制度是可适用的。由sdoc未涉及的某些产品也包括在内，作为对照组的产品。对照组的产品，再加上使用列入三个对照组的国家（澳大利亚，日本和美国）谁没有落实政策的变化发生在欧盟的时间sdoc，确保到sdoc无关的决定因素 - 尤其是整个欧盟的协调sdoc引进和其他规范性的变化体现在欧共体指令引入sdoc - 有足够的控制模型中的任何进入欧盟市场的进口流量的显着变化，可以归结为切换到sdoc的制度。尽管机械是处在一个薄弱的情况下，所有三个部门的研究结果证实，sdoc使贸易更加容易。他们还表明，虽然sdoc适用于所有生产者不受歧视，无论他们的位置，实际影响在整个出口国家的不同群体的不同。同样的泊松回归分析应用于机械进口的调查分为四个主要市场 - 德国，英国，法国和意大利。在各自的预-sdoc德国和英国的制度，会导致我们期望一致，进入德国进口显着增加，而sdoc被发现有英国进口没有影响。法国和意大利的信息基础预测是不可用的，但sdoc的强烈积极的边际效应，被机器进口商观察到是否市场会与更繁重的预-sdoc的第三方认证类型制度相一致。technical barriers to tradeabstractsince the wto agreement on technical barriers to trade (tbt) came into force, members have invested considerable efforts in adopting and promoting the use of measures intended to reduce conformity assessment (ca) related barriers to trade. our knowledge of the impact of specific trade facilitating programmers. in the ca field is limited so far, making empirical studies of their trade impact desirable. this study investigates the impact of suppliers declaration of conformity (sdoc) on trade flows. as under sdoc regimes suppliers themselves provide written assurance of conformity to applicable technical regulations of a market, the costs of compliance are assumed to be smaller than for ca regimes requiring certification by third parties.the study focuses on three cases of sdoc introduction in the european union covering eligible products from the medical devices, telecommunications equipment and machinery sectors. the paper explains the rationale for using sdoc, expected benefits and design characteristics of sdoc regimes. the quantitative analysis uses a gravity model and finds compelling evidence that the introduction of sdoc in the eu was a factor that influenced the evolution of import flows into eu markets positively. intra-eu trade flows and imports from extra-eu oecd countries increased for sdoc-eligible radio and telecommunications equipment and low-risk medical devices, whereas the results for machinery are ambiguous. the most striking increases, visible in all three sectors, are found for exports to eu markets from non-oecd (developing) countries included in the sample. analysis of the effect of sdoc for selected individual eu members furthermore suggest that the magnitude of effect depends on the nature of the ca regime that sdoc replaced.product requirements can vary greatly from market to market, and it is the responsibility of suppliers to prove that applicable requirements are met. for some products, there must be an assessment of a manufacturers conformity by a regulatory agency or a recognised certification body. for other products, a written declaration of conformity by the supplier himself is sufficient. the endpoint is issuance of a certificate or declaration of conformity.the wto agreement on tbt provides that “conformity assessment procedures shall not be applied more strictly than necessary to give adequate confidence that products conform with the applicable product requirements ” (article 5.1.2). the rationale is to minimise the regulatory burden that conformity assessment (ca) requirements pose for firms that wish to sell abroad. while wto members have invested considerable efforts in adopting and promoting the use of various ca approaches to lowering exporters compliance costs, our knowledge of the extent to which these programmes actually facilitate trade is limited. available empirical investigations of this question have focused on one particular approach to ca - mutual recognition agreements (mras). the aim of this study is to respond to the lack of empirical knowledge of the trade effects of suppliers declaration of conformity (sdoc), another tool available for simplifying the conformity assessment process.the case for extending the use of sdoc is based largely on the belief that it makes international trade easier, by avoiding or eliminating burdens which would otherwise exist in the form of requirements for third-party conformity assessment. the heart of this study is an attempt to determine whether empirical evidence can be found in trade flows to support that belief: by examining a set of cases where sdoc was introduced, and determining whether there is statistical evidence of increased trade following its introduction.the cases studied consist of the harmonised introduction of sdoc throughout the european union resulting from the “new approach” to technical harmonisation and standardisation put into effect between 1985 and the early 2000s. the products investigated belong to three sectors radio and telecommunications terminal equipment (rtte), medical devices and machinery for which the new approach directives established a uniform sdoc system throughout the eu market. one of these cases rtte can be considered to be “purer” than the others, in the sense that the change to sdoc can be traced to a particular point in time at which no other major changes were introduced. the two other cases involve changes to sdoc that occurred simultaneously with other harmonised measures, notably the introduction of harmonised standards across the eu region.estimation of the impact of the transition to sdoc shows a positive effect on imports into eu markets. results vary somewhat across groups of source countries but support the view that sdoc can lead to efficiency gains for suppliers and render exporting to a market easier hence facilitate trade.as background to the empirical analysis, the paper explains the rationale for using sdoc, expected benefits and other characteristics defining sdoc regimes, acknowledging also preconditions applicable to its effective use as a regulatory tool in the public interest.anecdotal evidence and the discussions taking place in the wto committee on technical barriers to trade (tbt) indicate that there is widespread interest in sdoc, and strong theoretical arguments for its use, but occasional doubts about the real extent of sdocs economic impact.manufacturers expect a change of ca regime from mandatory third-party conformity assessment to sdoc, as proof of compliance with technical regulations, to result in reduced costs for approval, reduced time to market, and potentially lower product prices. indeed, it appears that the theoretical benefits of sdoc can be sizeable.nevertheless, actual cost savings may be much less than anticipated for a number of reasons.factors that can limit the benefits accruing to manufacturers from sdoc include the growing role of customer-driven private certification schemes and suppliers decisions, for various reasons, to voluntarily continue to rely on external services for some aspects of conformity attestation.equally important, the ways in which compliance costs can be reduced, and hence the effect that introduction of sdoc can be expected to have on trade, have also to do with (a) the specific characteristics of the ca regime that sdoc replaces and (b) the specific features of sdoc. both can vary.sdoc requirements frequently differ in their complexity, which can vary the benefits for producers. the trade and broader economic impact of sdoc also depends on the ca regime previously in place: where sdoc replaces a regime which includes mandatory conformity assessment, then the more onerous the previous regime, the greater should be the “liberalising” effect of sdoc. for the three sectors investigated here, the national ca regimes which the eus harmonised sdoc system replaced were, on average, more restrictive. there are however instances where eu members previous ca requirements were not more onerous. sdocs trade effects for different types of prior regimes are also examined empirically in this study.turning to the analysis of sdocs trade effects, sdoc discriminates neither between countries in which potential suppliers are located nor on the basis of the geographical location of a testing laboratory or certification body. hence all suppliers, local and foreign, should benefit. however, there are “additional” benefits for the part of the sdoc regimes advantages that apply only to the actual or potential suppliers residing outside the sdoc market, and this should cause them to export more to the sdoc market. in the case of eu introduction of sdoc there is furthermore a harmonisation effect that transforms formerly segmented eu member markets, each having different regulatory requirements, into a single integrated market subject to the new common sdoc regime. the effect of harmonisation is to promote economies of scale, which should reinforce the sdoc effect in the same direction, i.e., increase the flow of imports. but where a regime equivalent to sdoc was already in place in a specific eu market prior to the ecs sdoc initiative, cost savings can be expected to be less and consequently imports to rise by less.the focus of the empirical investigation is on two questions: 1) whether transition to sdoc has promoted eu imports and 2) whether any observable differences in sdocs influence on individual eu members imports can be attributed to the nature of those countries previous ca regimes.the quantitative analysis is performed using a gravity model. to answer the first question, the two-stage heckman estimation procedure is applied to bilateral import flows into individual eu markets. the heckman procedure first models a selection process estimating the probability that a country-pair will trade, and then uses this information in a second estimation of impact on existing positive trade flows. in this study, partner countries are other eu members as well as a set of non-eu countries, divided further into oecd and 12 non-oecd (developing) countries. imports consist of products belonging to the telecom and radio equipment, machinery and medical devices sectors for which we know the ecs sdoc regime became applicable. certain products not covered by sdoc are also included, as control group products. use of control group products, plus the inclusion