畢 業(yè) 設(shè) 計（論 文）譯文題目： Technical Barriers to Trade 貿(mào)易技術(shù)壁壘 學(xué)生姓名： 學(xué)號： 專業(yè)： 國際經(jīng)濟與貿(mào)易 所在學(xué)院： 指導(dǎo)教師： 職稱： 2011年 12 月 9 日貿(mào)易技術(shù)壁壘摘要由于技術(shù)壁壘的WTO貿(mào)易協(xié)定（TBT）的生效，各位議員在采用和推廣使用都投入了相當(dāng)大的努力，旨在減少合格評定中心（CA）有關(guān)的貿(mào)易障礙的措施。到目前為止，我們在CA領(lǐng)域的具體貿(mào)易促進方案的影響的知識是有限的，其貿(mào)易影響的實證研究可取的。本研究探討供應(yīng)商的合格聲明（SDOC）對貿(mào)易流動的影響。SDOC制度下的供應(yīng)商自己提供書面保證符合適用的技術(shù)法規(guī)，需要由第三方認證的市場，合規(guī)性的成本被假定為小于CA的制度。本研究側(cè)重于三個SDOC在歐洲聯(lián)盟從醫(yī)療設(shè)備，電信設(shè)備和機械行業(yè)引進合格的產(chǎn)品的情況下的案例。該文件解釋了使用SDOC的理由，預(yù)期收益和SDOC制度的設(shè)計特點。定量分析采用了重力場模型，并發(fā)現(xiàn)令人信服的證據(jù)表明在歐盟引進的SDOC是一個影響到歐盟市場的積極進口流量的演變的因素。歐盟內(nèi)部的貿(mào)易流動和額外中歐經(jīng)濟合作與發(fā)展組織國家的進口增加了SDOC資格的無線電和電信設(shè)備和低風(fēng)險的醫(yī)療設(shè)備，而機械的結(jié)果含糊不清。最顯著的增加，可見在所有三個部門，發(fā)現(xiàn)來自非經(jīng)合組織國家（發(fā)展中國家）樣品中包括出口到歐盟市場。選擇個別歐盟成員國的SDOC的影響分析還表明，影響的程度取決于SDOC取代CA的政權(quán)的性質(zhì)。產(chǎn)品要求從市場到市場的變化很大，證明適用的要求得到滿足，這是供應(yīng)商的責(zé)任。對于某些產(chǎn)品，必須有一個由監(jiān)管機構(gòu)或認可的認證機構(gòu)評估制造商的整合。對于其他產(chǎn)品，一個由供應(yīng)商自己的合格的書面聲明，就足夠了。端點是發(fā)放合格證書或聲明。世貿(mào)組織技術(shù)性貿(mào)易壁壘協(xié)議規(guī)定，“. .依照評估程序，嚴格比給予足夠信心更實用，認為產(chǎn)品符合適用的產(chǎn)品要求. .”（第5.1.2條）。理由是，以盡量減少那些想賣到國外的企業(yè)對合格評定（CA）的要求的監(jiān)管負擔(dān)。雖然世貿(mào)組織成員都投入了相當(dāng)大的努力，在采用和推廣使用各種CA的方法，以降低出口商的遵守成本，這些方案實際上是貿(mào)易便利化的程度限定了我們的知識的范圍?，F(xiàn)有的經(jīng)驗調(diào)查，這個問題都集中在一個特定的方法對CA - 互認協(xié)議（MRAS）。本研究的目的是響應(yīng)的供應(yīng)商的合格聲明（SDOC），另一種工具可用于簡化了合格評定程序的貿(mào)易影響的實證知識的缺乏。延長使用SDOC的情況下，主要是基于信念，它使國際貿(mào)易更容易避免或消除的負擔(dān)，否則就會存在形式的第三方合格評定的要求。這項研究的重心是一個以確定是否在貿(mào)易流量，以支持這個信念發(fā)現(xiàn)經(jīng)驗證據(jù)的嘗試：由一套SDOC介紹的個案研究，并確定是否有增加的貿(mào)易，以下推出的統(tǒng)計證據(jù)。個案研究，包括整個歐洲聯(lián)盟從“新辦法”付諸實施在1985年和21世紀初之間的技術(shù)協(xié)調(diào)和標準化的統(tǒng)一的SDOC引進。調(diào)查的產(chǎn)品屬于三個部門 - 無線電和電信終端設(shè)備（RTTE），醫(yī)療器械和機械 - 新方法指令在整個歐盟市場建立一個統(tǒng)一的SDOC系統(tǒng)。這些案件之一 - RTTE - 可以被認為是比別人“素凈”，SDOC變化可以追溯到一個特定的時間點，在沒有其他重大變化被引進的時候。其他兩起案件涉及到SDOC發(fā)生變化，同時與其他協(xié)調(diào)一致的措施，特別是引進在整個歐盟地區(qū)的統(tǒng)一標準。估計過渡到SDOC的影響，顯示了對進口到歐盟市場的積極作用。結(jié)果略有不同跨越來源國的群體，但支持這一觀點，SDOC可能會導(dǎo)致供應(yīng)商提高效率，使出口市場更容易 - 從而促進貿(mào)易。作為背景的實證分析，文件解釋了使用SDOC的預(yù)期效益等特點，定義SDOC制度的理由，也承認適用于有效地利用其在公眾利益的監(jiān)管工具的先決條件。傳聞證據(jù)，并采取技術(shù)壁壘的貿(mào)易在世界貿(mào)易組織委員會（TBT）的討論表明，在SDOC有廣泛的興趣，還有其使用的強大的理論論證，但偶爾懷疑SDOC的經(jīng)濟影響的真正程度。廠商預(yù)期變化的CA制度由強制性的第三方合格評定SDOC，作為技術(shù)法規(guī)的證明，結(jié)果批準降低成本，縮短產(chǎn)品上市時間，并可能降低產(chǎn)品價格。事實上， SDOC的理論好處是可以相當(dāng)大的。然而，實際節(jié)省成本可能會遠遠低于預(yù)期的原因。因素，可以限制從SDOC向制造商增大的利益，包括因各種原因的作用，越來越多的客戶驅(qū)動的私人認證計劃和供應(yīng)商的決定，自愿繼續(xù)依靠外部服務(wù)的合格認證的某些方面。同樣重要的是，遵從成本可以降低，因此可以預(yù)計SDOC引進對貿(mào)易的影響的方法，也有做（一）SDOC取代CA的政權(quán)和具體特點（二）SDOC的具體特點。兩者都可以有所不同。SDOC要求經(jīng)常在其復(fù)雜性方面不同，它可以改變生產(chǎn)者的利益。也取決于貿(mào)易和更廣泛的經(jīng)濟影響SDOC的CA政權(quán)預(yù)先在合適的位置：凡SDOC取代的政權(quán)，其中包括強制性合格評定，然后前政權(quán)更加繁重，更大的應(yīng)該是“開放”SDOC效果。這里考察的三個部門，國家CA制度，歐盟統(tǒng)一的SDOC系統(tǒng)所取代，平均，更具限制性。然而，有歐盟成員國以前的CA要求的情況下更加繁重。不同類型的前政權(quán)SDOC的貿(mào)易效應(yīng)實證研究也應(yīng)以在這項研究的仔細調(diào)查為經(jīng)驗。轉(zhuǎn)到SDOC談到SDOC的貿(mào)易影響的分析，其中潛在的供應(yīng)商是位于也不測試實驗室或認證機構(gòu)的地理位置的基礎(chǔ)上，國家之間都沒有歧視。因此，所有的供應(yīng)商，本地和外地的，應(yīng)該受益。不過，也有“額外”的好處，SDOC制度的優(yōu)勢，只適用于居住外SDOC市場的實際或潛在的供應(yīng)商，這應(yīng)該引起他們出口更多的SDOC市場。此外在歐盟SDOC引進的情況下，有一個統(tǒng)一的效果，以前分段歐盟成員國市場，各自有不同的監(jiān)管要求，轉(zhuǎn)變成一個單一的綜合市場主體的新的共同SDOC制度。效果的統(tǒng)一，促進規(guī)模經(jīng)濟，應(yīng)加強在同一方向的SDOC效果，即增加進口流量。但SDOC相當(dāng)于一個政權(quán)是在一個特定的歐盟市場已經(jīng)到位之前，歐共體的SDOC主動，節(jié)約成本，可以預(yù)期要少，因此進口上升少。實證調(diào)查的重點是兩個問題：1）是否過渡到SDOC已經(jīng)推動歐盟進口和2）是否在SDOC中觀察到的任何差異的影響各個歐盟成員國的 “進口可以被歸結(jié)到了這些國家的性質(zhì)”以前的CA制度。使用重力模型進行定量分析。要回答第一個問題，赫克曼兩階段估計程序應(yīng)用到個別的歐盟市場的雙邊進口流量。赫克曼程序第一款估計國家對貿(mào)易的概率的一個選擇過程，然后使用此信息在第二估計在現(xiàn)有的積極的貿(mào)易流量的影響。在這項研究中，伙伴國家的其他歐盟成員國，以及一個非歐盟國家，進一步分成經(jīng)濟合作與發(fā)展組織和12個非經(jīng)合組織國家（發(fā)展中國家）。進口包括屬于電信和無線電設(shè)備，機械和醫(yī)療器械行業(yè)，而我們知道歐共體的SDOC制度是可適用的。由SDOC未涉及的某些產(chǎn)品也包括在內(nèi)，作為對照組的產(chǎn)品。對照組的產(chǎn)品，再加上使用列入三個對照組的國家（澳大利亞，日本和美國）誰沒有落實政策的變化發(fā)生在歐盟的時間SDOC，確保到SDOC無關(guān)的決定因素 - 尤其是整個歐盟的協(xié)調(diào)SDOC引進和其他規(guī)范性的變化體現(xiàn)在歐共體指令引入SDOC - 有足夠的控制模型中的任何進入歐盟市場的進口流量的顯著變化，可以歸結(jié)為切換到SDOC的制度。盡管機械是處在一個薄弱的情況下，所有三個部門的研究結(jié)果證實，SDOC使貿(mào)易更加容易。他們還表明，雖然SDOC適用于所有生產(chǎn)者不受歧視，無論他們的位置，實際影響在整個出口國家的不同群體的不同。同樣的泊松回歸分析應(yīng)用于機械進口的調(diào)查分為四個主要市場 - 德國，英國，法國和意大利。在各自的預(yù)-SDOC德國和英國的制度，會導(dǎo)致我們期望一致，進入德國進口顯著增加，而SDOC被發(fā)現(xiàn)有英國進口沒有影響。法國和意大利的信息基礎(chǔ)預(yù)測是不可用的，但SDOC的強烈積極的邊際效應(yīng)，被機器進口商觀察到是否市場會與更繁重的預(yù)-SDOC的第三方認證類型制度相一致。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 “l(fā)iberalising” 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 of three control group countries (Australia, Japan and the United States) who did not implement SDOC at the time the policy change occurred in the EU, ensures that determinants unrelated to SDOC notably harmonisation across EU of SDOC introduction and other regulatory changes embodied in the EC directives introducing SDOC are adequately controlled for in the model and any significant changes in import flows into EU markets can be attributed to the regime switch to SDOC.Despite machinery being a weak case, the results for all three sectors confirm that SDOC has made trade easier. They also show that although SDOC applies without discrimination to all producers, regardless of their location, the actual impact has varied across the different groups of export countries.The same Poisson regression analysis is applied to the investigation of machinery imports into four major markets Germany, the UK, France and Italy. Consistent with what the respective pre-SDOC regimes of Germany and the UK would lead us to expect, imports into Germany show a significant increase whereas SDOC is found to have no effect on UK imports. Information underpinning predictions for France and Italy was unavailable, but the strongly positive marginal effects of SDOC observed for machinery imports into either market would be consistent with more burdensome pre-SDOC regimes of the third-party certification type.