1、本科毕业论文外文翻译 原文 Openness to Foreign Direct Investment in Services: An International Comparative Analysis Stephen S. Golub National policies towards FDI typically feature measures aimed at both attracting and discouraging in ows. Policies to attract FDI such as tax breaks, favourable regulatory treatme
2、nt and subsidies of various sorts are usually focused on manufacturing. Policies towards services are far more ambivalent. Laws and regulatory practices frequently discriminate against foreign investors in services such as public utilities (electricity distribution and telecommunications in particul
3、ar), transport (notably air and maritime transport), nancial services, and even construction and wholesale/retail distribution. The ambiguous attitudes towards FDI in services are amply illustrated in recent policy actions and debates. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
4、, an inter-agency group that screens foreign direct investment for national security concerns, has recently been in the limelight with several high-profile cases, notably one involving the acquisition of a US port by investors in Dubai. A recent open skies aviation agreement between the United State
5、s and the European Union was scuttled in part because the United States refused to ease its restriction that all US airlines must be at least 75 per cent owned by US citizens. Japan rejected a takeover offer from the UK-based Childrens Investment Fund in the energy company J-Power. China has been mo
6、ving, under pressure from the United States, to open its nancial services industry to foreign investors. Likewise, India is also gradually opening wholesale and distribution services to large foreign rms such as Wal-Mart despite strong local opposition. Venezuela and other Latin American countries w
7、ith left-wing governments, on the other hand, have recently increased restrictions on foreign investment in telecommunications. Thailand has also recently moved to reduce control by foreign investors in its telecommunications industry. As in the case of manufacturing, countries benet from FDI in ser
8、vices through employment creation, capital accumulation, transfer of technology, improved service and increased competition. Moreover, liberalisation of FDI in services can contribute to manufacturing productivity by increasing availability of quality of production-related services (Arnold et al., 2
9、006, 2007； Golub et al.,2007). Critics argue that FDI can also impose economic costs such as displacement of local rms and reduced competition. Infant entrepreneurship arguments can be adduced in favour of discrimination against foreign investors. Service sectors are also typically subject to econom
10、ic or prudential regulation, because of tendencies towards natural monopoly or other market failures, although such market failures do not in themselves provide a clear-cut rationale for discrimination between local and foreign investors. The main reasons for limiting foreign ownership in services a
11、re non-economic, relating to national security or economic nationalism. Industries such as telecommunications, banking, transportation and electricity provision are often viewed by host countries as strategic or sensitive. Services are therefore generally subject to far more stringent restrictions t
12、han manufacturing and even natural resources (Hoekman, 1995). The cross-border provision of services, unlike goods, often can only be delivered through commercial presence, i.e. setting up of foreign operations, rather than international trade in the item itself. It is therefore to be expected that
13、FDI plays a prominent role in the globalisation of the service sector, fostered in part by partial opening of service industries to FDI. Formal international agreements on FDI and on trade in services have been far less extensive than on international trade in goods, although various global negotiat
14、ions and regional free-trade agreements often cover some aspects of international investment in services, notably the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) provisions on commercial presence. To the extent that it has occurred, opening to FDI in services has primarily been unilateral. FDI in
15、services has been increasing rapidly, raising the stakes in the debates about policies. In 2005, services constituted the majority of inward FDI stocks, at almost two-thirds for developed countries, and about 50 per cent for developing countries, up considerably from 1990 (Table 1). Within services,
16、 nance, trade and business services are the three largest categories, but transport, communications and electricity have also been increasing rapidly. It should be noted, however, that the share of services in total FDI remains smaller than the share of services in world GDP, reecting in part the fa
17、ct that FDI in services remain relatively restricted. Evidence that restrictions reduce FDI is provided below. Despite the increasing prominence and controversies surrounding FDI in services, very little systematic information is available on policies towards FDI in services. Unlike international trade where international comparisons of tariff and non-tariff
