外商直接投资和贸易对中欧及东欧国家就业的影响——针对具体国家的面板数据分析

1、本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目： The Effect of Trade and FDI on Employment in central and Eastern European Countries: A Country-Specific Panel Data Analysis for the Manufacturing Industry 出 处：European Community Studies Association of Austria Publication Series, 1, Volume 12, The EU and Emerging Markets, Part 2, Page

2、s 71-94 作 者: Özlem Onaran 原 文：The Effect of Trade and FDI on Employment in Central and Eastern European Countries:A Country-Specific Panel Data Analysis for the Manufacturing IndustryAbstractThis paper analyzes the labor demand based on panel data of manufacturing industry from Central and East

3、ern European Countries and discusses the effect of domestic factors (wages and output) and international factors (trade and FDI) on employment in 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 deman

4、d is mostly positive, but low, with a number of cases where employment is completely de-linked from output. An impressive speed of integration to the European economic sphere through FDI and international trade has not prevented job losses in the manufacturing industry. While there are very few case

5、s of positive effects, insignificant effects of trade and FDI dominate, some evidence of negative effects appears as well.I. IntroductionThis paper aims at exploring the development of employment in Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) in the post-transition period and the employment effec

6、ts 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 transition, CEECs faced a severe recession due to both supply and demand shocks as well as major institutional chang

7、es. The adjustment in labor markets to these shocks took place under the starting conditions of high levels of disguised unemployment along with high labor force participation rates in the centrally planned economies due to the target of full employment (Brada, 1989; Kornai, 1995; Blanchard, 1998).

8、Nevertheless, in the early phase of transition the reduction in output was much more pronounced than the increase in unemployment.Izyumov and Vahaly (2002) show that the linkages between unemployment change and output were highly unstable during the early transition period. The political concerns ab

9、out unemployment, the preservation of soft budget constraints in many state owned firms,low labor 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 sta

10、rting in the second half of the 1990s in the Visegard Countries and Slovenia and in the late 1990s in the Baltic States and Bulgaria and Romania, but as market transition matured dramatic changes in the sectoral employment structure and wages emerged in the CEECs (Havlik and Landesmann, 2005; Boeri

11、and Terrell, 2002). In general, compared to the pre-transition era there has been a sharp contraction in employment, an increase in open unemployment, a massive exit from the labor market, and onlymoderate job creation.One question is how much of that negative development in employment in the post-t

12、ransition era can be related to the previous labor hoarding. 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 “labor hoarding” (e.g. Gora, 1995) during the early transition er

13、a, later studies find out that employment became much more responsive to recessions after the mid 1990s, indicating that the labor hoarding problem of the previous phase had already started to be reversed(Boeri and Garibaldi, 2006; Basu et al., 2005); also firms in the transition economies started t

14、o impose hard budget constraints on each other later in the transition phase (Schaffer, 1998). Basu et al. (2005) estimate employment elasticities with respect to sales based on firm level data and find that Hungary had already high elasticities at the beginning of the transition phase; Poland went

15、into the transition less reformed but achieved high elasticities in the transition years; and the Czech Republic and Slovakia also rapidly reached high elasticities, although they started from employment regimes, which were rather unresponsive to sales. Furthermore, the evidence presented by Basu et

16、 al. (2005) does not support the hypothesis that State Owned Enterprises responded less flexibly to changes in sales. Based on a panel data analysis for the aggregate economy, Boeri and Garibaldi (2006) show that in the aftermath of 1996, recession periods led to significant job destruction, whereas

17、 expansions in GDP did not lead to statistically significant job creation in the CEE-10. Indeed high rates of output growth in the CEECs in the post-recession era generated fewer jobs than stagnation in the other countries of the EU (Boeri and Garibaldi, 2006).Izyumov and Vahaly (2002) find a lower

18、Okuns coefficient of -0.526 (effect of GDP growth on the change in unemployment) in the 10 CEECs in the post-recession era of 1995-2000 compared to the coefficient for EU15 (-0.799). Based on the empirical evidence in Basu et al. (2005) and Boeri and Garibaldi (2006) that labor hoarding had already

19、started to be reversed during the transition era,the continuation of the problem of slow employment growth more than a decade after the starting of a major processes of privatization and structural change is worth further analysis going beyond the old over employment problems of the planned economie

20、s. Lehmann(1995) argues that severe and persistent shortages in capital 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 trading at worl

21、d 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 particularly for the period of the 2000s a time when the countries had achieved a long way in te

22、rms of integration into the world economy through marketmechanisms.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 in the post-recession period. In general, the jobs created in services have

23、 off-set the negative effects of the major downsizing in the manufacturing industry, but even during the uninterrupted growth years of 2000s new service jobs have just sufficed to generate stagnation in total employment(Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Bulgaria), or in some cases could

24、not even compensate for the job losses in manufacturing(Poland, Romania); only in Slovenia, Estonia, and Latvia showed a modest increase in employment. Table 1 shows the annual average growth rates of GDP and total employment in the period of 2000-2005.2Table 1: Growth in GDP and employment in CEECs

25、 (2000-2005period average, in per cent)GDPEmploymentCzech R.3.60.1Hungary4.10.4Poland3.1-0.4Slovakia4.30.6Slovenia3.41.2Estonia7.40.8Latvia7.91.1Lithuania6.90.2Bulgaria5.00.6Romania5.0-0.3Source: Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies.Another important concern is about the quality of th

26、e jobs created in the service 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) point out that the type of deindustrialization in the

27、CEECs is qualitatively very different from the slow de-industrialization of high-income countries, which upgrade into a knowledge-intensive service sector; in contrast the service jobs created in the CEECs are mostly lowskilled and low-paid jobs.A further controversial fact is that rapid improvement

28、s 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 the CEECs. Hunya and Geishecker(2005) provide evidence that the nature of FDI flows can accountfor this development to some extent. Abo

29、ut half of the FDI in the New Member States between 1990 and 1998 was in the form of privatization-related acquisitions, and the restructuring of the former state-owned enterprises led to massive labor shedding. In later years, especially in manufacturing, most of the new FDI has been investment in

30、new assets; however even then although new capacities usually increased employment, technological progress also led to lay-offs simultaneously. Moreover, most of the Greenfield jobs have been created in the service sector such as banking,retail and real estate. Irrespective of the initial method of

31、entry, FDI is now increasingly taking the form of reinvestment of profits, the results of which are yet to be seen. Apart from the direct effects, indirect negative effects of FDI are also observed (Hunya and Geishecker, 2005): jobs were destructed through negative spillovers as foreign investors re

32、placed traditional domestic suppliers by imports or domestic firms disappeared or downsized due to intensified competition of larger and technologically more advanced subsidiaries of multi-national enterprises. Overall Hunya and Geishecker (2005) find that domestically-owned manufacturingcompanies r

33、educed the number of employed while foreign-owned enterprises expanded that number. In this study, we shall estimate the effects of FDI and foreign trade on sectoral employment in order to shed light on the aggregate direct and indirect job creation and destruction effects.Regarding the role of labo

34、r market institutions 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 performance in the 2000s. Based on panel data estimation o

35、f 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 unemployment. Boeri and Garibaldi (2006) report that wage floors in the New Member States(NMS) are often not binding, and are rarely enforc

36、ed in the private sector; the ratio of minimum wage to the average wage is around 30 percent compared to a ratio of 50 per cent on average in EU15. Also collective bargaining coverage rates are very low compared to EU-15, although union density rates are more comparable (Boeri and Garibaldi, 2006).

37、Regarding employment flexibility, Hungary,the Czech Republic, and Slovakia are ranked in the more flexible half of the OECD countries according to the Index of Rigidity of Employment Protection Legislation of OECD (2004). The Employment Rigidity Index in World Banks Doing Business Report(2006) ranks

38、 the four OECD members in CEE (Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia, the first being the most flexible) at a level between fifth to ninth among 20 countries, where Ireland is ranked the sixth.译 文：外商直接投资和贸易对中欧及东欧国家就业的影响针对具体国家的面板数据分析 摘要本文基于中欧和东欧的面板数据分析了市场对劳动力的需求，讨论了国内因素（工资和输出），国际因素（贸易和外商直接投资）

39、在后过渡时期对就业的影响。研究结果表明，就业对工资的影响仅有50%。劳动需求的出口弹性主要是积极的，但少部分的事例表明劳动与出口完全脱节。欧洲的经济正以一个惊人的速度进行整合，但通过外商直接投资和国际贸易并不能减少失业。虽然有少数例子证明外商直接投资对就业是有正面影响的，但影响是微不足道的，而且外商直接投资占主导地位的国家也有一些负面的效应出现。1 简介本文旨在研究中欧和东欧国家在后过渡时期的就业发展以及世界经济一体化对就业的影响，特别是随着通过贸易开放和外商直接投资限制放宽而产生的欧洲经济一体化对就业的影响。在二十世纪九十年代初期，过渡的初始阶段，中东欧国家面临着由于政治体制变革，人们的供应

40、和需求变少而引起的经济萧条。为了应对供给和需求的减少，对劳动市场进行了调整。高层启动的条件下发生的变相高失业率，政府随之制定了完全就业的目标，大量的劳动力加入到中央计划经济中去（布鲁达，1989；阔奈，1995；布朗查德，1998）。不过，在转型初期，出口的减少比失业的增加更加明显。易志优墨和瓦浩丽（2002）表明，失业变化和出口的联系在转型初期是极其不稳定的。政府也关心失业问题，但是许多国有企业都受软预算的约束。廉价劳动力的流动是由于企业特有的非工资福利或基础设施，这经常被引用为这种惯性的解释。过渡危机被20世纪九十年代开始的维斯加德和斯洛文尼斯的出口复苏所取代。在二十世纪九十年代后期的波罗

41、的海诸国，保加利亚及罗马尼亚，作为成熟市场的过渡，在中东欧国家出现了就业结构和工资的急剧变化（哈弗里克和朗德曼，2005；伯勒尔，2002）。一般来说，相对于前过渡时期，就业量急剧收缩，公开失业量增加，劳动市场大量输出劳动力，但也只能在一定程度上缓解失业。问题是后过渡时期就业发展的消极影响与先前的劳动囤积的相关程度。尽管早期关于“闲置就业”的研究表明这是一个延续的问题。（卡具泽，1995；杰克曼，1994）甚至是一个持续增加的“雇佣过多”或“劳动囤积”（国拉，1995）。后来研究发现，在过渡时代的早期得出的结论就业对二十世纪九十年代的经济萧条更为敏感，表明前阶段的劳动囤积问题得到扭转。（博埃里

42、和加里波第，2006；鲍思，2005）；同时，公司在转型经济体制开始实行时加强了硬预算，在后过渡时期进行相互约束。（谢弗，1998）。鲍思（2005）基于企业数据估算销售方面的就业弹性，发现匈牙利在过渡阶段初期已经具有高弹性了；波兰进入过渡期，进行了较少的改革也取得了高弹性。捷克共和国和斯洛伐克也实现了高弹性，虽然他们是从劳动改制开始的，与销售的关系不大。此外，鲍思提交的证据也不支持国有企业与销售的相关性很大这一假说。博埃里和加里波第（2006）基于至1996年中东欧十国的面板数据对经济总量进行分析，指出经济萧条导致就业减少，但国内生产总值的增加并没有创造更多的就业机会。确实，在后衰退时期，出

43、口增长的中东欧国家的就业增长并没有比出口停滞的其他欧盟国家来的多（博埃里和加里波第，2006）。易志优墨和瓦浩丽（2002）利用后衰退时期的1995-2000年的十个中东欧国家的数据得出比欧盟十五国（-0.799）更低的奥肯系数-0.526（GDP增长对失业的影响）。根据鲍思、博埃里和加里波第（2006）的研究经验得出劳动囤积情况已经在过渡初期得到改善。对在私有化和结构改革之后持续困扰我们数十年的就业增长缓慢的问题，值得我们在超出计划经济以外的范围进一步研究。莱曼（1995）认为资金缺乏和管理能力薄弱会使劳动力的需求量减少。OECD（2005）指出中东欧国家的在结构上的负面冲击，如经济开放，使

44、得国内交易价格与世界交易价格相一致，导致国内人口在一段相当长的时期内大量失业。这是本论文所关注的问题之一，研究就业与出口的联系，特别是2000年以来国家通过市场机制长时间的调节逐步融入世界经济。制造业的就业情况更具有戏剧性。它在过渡时期的初期及后衰退时期都在减少。一般情况下，服务业创造的就业岗位能够抵消制造业裁员造成的不良影响，但即使是在21世纪新的服务性工作不断发展的今天，新的服务性岗位的产生也不能为社会提供更多的就业岗位（匈牙利，捷克共和国，斯洛伐克，立陶宛，保加利亚），或在某些情况下，甚至无法弥补制造业的就业损失（波兰，罗马尼亚）；只有在斯洛文尼亚，爱沙尼亚和拉脱维亚，就业显示了温和的增

45、长。表1显示了各国在20002005年期间GDP和就业的年平均增长率。另一个重要的问题是服务部门所创造的工作岗位的质量。虽然就业岗位从工业转向服务业是生产力提高的一种趋势，而且这种现象也在发达国家中出现。莱纳特和卡特（2004）指出，中东欧国家的产业空洞化与高收入国家的慢工业化不同，高收入国家已经升级为知识密集型服务行业，但中东欧国家服务业创造的大多是低技能、低工资的工作。另一项有争议的事是迅速增长的出口和外商直接投资至今未能扭转中东欧国家总就业量停滞或制造业就业岗位减少的局面。汉雅和盖旭特（2005）举证证明，外商直接投资可以在一定程度上增加就业。1990-1998年，新成员国大约一半的外商直接投资是以私有化直接收购的形式投资，而且前