外商直接投資和貿(mào)易對中歐及東歐國家就業(yè)的影響——針對具體國家的面板數(shù)據(jù)分析

1、本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯外文題目： 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 處：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 “l(fā)abor 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.譯 文：外商直接投資和貿(mào)易對中歐及東歐國家就業(yè)的影響針對具體國家的面板數(shù)據(jù)分析 摘要本文基于中歐和東歐的面板數(shù)據(jù)分析了市場對勞動力的需求，討論了國內(nèi)因素（工資和輸出），國際因素（貿(mào)易和外商直接投資）

39、在后過渡時期對就業(yè)的影響。研究結(jié)果表明，就業(yè)對工資的影響僅有50%。勞動需求的出口彈性主要是積極的，但少部分的事例表明勞動與出口完全脫節(jié)。歐洲的經(jīng)濟正以一個驚人的速度進行整合，但通過外商直接投資和國際貿(mào)易并不能減少失業(yè)。雖然有少數(shù)例子證明外商直接投資對就業(yè)是有正面影響的，但影響是微不足道的，而且外商直接投資占主導(dǎo)地位的國家也有一些負面的效應(yīng)出現(xiàn)。1 簡介本文旨在研究中歐和東歐國家在后過渡時期的就業(yè)發(fā)展以及世界經(jīng)濟一體化對就業(yè)的影響，特別是隨著通過貿(mào)易開放和外商直接投資限制放寬而產(chǎn)生的歐洲經(jīng)濟一體化對就業(yè)的影響。在二十世紀九十年代初期，過渡的初始階段，中東歐國家面臨著由于政治體制變革，人們的供應(yīng)

40、和需求變少而引起的經(jīng)濟蕭條。為了應(yīng)對供給和需求的減少，對勞動市場進行了調(diào)整。高層啟動的條件下發(fā)生的變相高失業(yè)率，政府隨之制定了完全就業(yè)的目標，大量的勞動力加入到中央計劃經(jīng)濟中去（布魯達，1989；闊奈，1995；布朗查德，1998）。不過，在轉(zhuǎn)型初期，出口的減少比失業(yè)的增加更加明顯。易志優(yōu)墨和瓦浩麗（2002）表明，失業(yè)變化和出口的聯(lián)系在轉(zhuǎn)型初期是極其不穩(wěn)定的。政府也關(guān)心失業(yè)問題，但是許多國有企業(yè)都受軟預(yù)算的約束。廉價勞動力的流動是由于企業(yè)特有的非工資福利或基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，這經(jīng)常被引用為這種慣性的解釋。過渡危機被20世紀九十年代開始的維斯加德和斯洛文尼斯的出口復(fù)蘇所取代。在二十世紀九十年代后期的波羅

41、的海諸國，保加利亞及羅馬尼亞，作為成熟市場的過渡，在中東歐國家出現(xiàn)了就業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu)和工資的急劇變化（哈弗里克和朗德曼，2005；伯勒爾，2002）。一般來說，相對于前過渡時期，就業(yè)量急劇收縮，公開失業(yè)量增加，勞動市場大量輸出勞動力，但也只能在一定程度上緩解失業(yè)。問題是后過渡時期就業(yè)發(fā)展的消極影響與先前的勞動囤積的相關(guān)程度。盡管早期關(guān)于“閑置就業(yè)”的研究表明這是一個延續(xù)的問題。（卡具澤，1995；杰克曼，1994）甚至是一個持續(xù)增加的“雇傭過多”或“勞動囤積”（國拉，1995）。后來研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，在過渡時代的早期得出的結(jié)論就業(yè)對二十世紀九十年代的經(jīng)濟蕭條更為敏感，表明前階段的勞動囤積問題得到扭轉(zhuǎn)。（博埃里

42、和加里波第，2006；鮑思，2005）；同時，公司在轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟體制開始實行時加強了硬預(yù)算，在后過渡時期進行相互約束。（謝弗，1998）。鮑思（2005）基于企業(yè)數(shù)據(jù)估算銷售方面的就業(yè)彈性，發(fā)現(xiàn)匈牙利在過渡階段初期已經(jīng)具有高彈性了；波蘭進入過渡期，進行了較少的改革也取得了高彈性。捷克共和國和斯洛伐克也實現(xiàn)了高彈性，雖然他們是從勞動改制開始的，與銷售的關(guān)系不大。此外，鮑思提交的證據(jù)也不支持國有企業(yè)與銷售的相關(guān)性很大這一假說。博埃里和加里波第（2006）基于至1996年中東歐十國的面板數(shù)據(jù)對經(jīng)濟總量進行分析，指出經(jīng)濟蕭條導(dǎo)致就業(yè)減少，但國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的增加并沒有創(chuàng)造更多的就業(yè)機會。確實，在后衰退時期，出

43、口增長的中東歐國家的就業(yè)增長并沒有比出口停滯的其他歐盟國家來的多（博埃里和加里波第，2006）。易志優(yōu)墨和瓦浩麗（2002）利用后衰退時期的1995-2000年的十個中東歐國家的數(shù)據(jù)得出比歐盟十五國（-0.799）更低的奧肯系數(shù)-0.526（GDP增長對失業(yè)的影響）。根據(jù)鮑思、博埃里和加里波第（2006）的研究經(jīng)驗得出勞動囤積情況已經(jīng)在過渡初期得到改善。對在私有化和結(jié)構(gòu)改革之后持續(xù)困擾我們數(shù)十年的就業(yè)增長緩慢的問題，值得我們在超出計劃經(jīng)濟以外的范圍進一步研究。萊曼（1995）認為資金缺乏和管理能力薄弱會使勞動力的需求量減少。OECD（2005）指出中東歐國家的在結(jié)構(gòu)上的負面沖擊，如經(jīng)濟開放，使

44、得國內(nèi)交易價格與世界交易價格相一致，導(dǎo)致國內(nèi)人口在一段相當長的時期內(nèi)大量失業(yè)。這是本論文所關(guān)注的問題之一，研究就業(yè)與出口的聯(lián)系，特別是2000年以來國家通過市場機制長時間的調(diào)節(jié)逐步融入世界經(jīng)濟。制造業(yè)的就業(yè)情況更具有戲劇性。它在過渡時期的初期及后衰退時期都在減少。一般情況下，服務(wù)業(yè)創(chuàng)造的就業(yè)崗位能夠抵消制造業(yè)裁員造成的不良影響，但即使是在21世紀新的服務(wù)性工作不斷發(fā)展的今天，新的服務(wù)性崗位的產(chǎn)生也不能為社會提供更多的就業(yè)崗位（匈牙利，捷克共和國，斯洛伐克，立陶宛，保加利亞），或在某些情況下，甚至無法彌補制造業(yè)的就業(yè)損失（波蘭，羅馬尼亞）；只有在斯洛文尼亞，愛沙尼亞和拉脫維亞，就業(yè)顯示了溫和的增

45、長。表1顯示了各國在20002005年期間GDP和就業(yè)的年平均增長率。另一個重要的問題是服務(wù)部門所創(chuàng)造的工作崗位的質(zhì)量。雖然就業(yè)崗位從工業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)向服務(wù)業(yè)是生產(chǎn)力提高的一種趨勢，而且這種現(xiàn)象也在發(fā)達國家中出現(xiàn)。萊納特和卡特（2004）指出，中東歐國家的產(chǎn)業(yè)空洞化與高收入國家的慢工業(yè)化不同，高收入國家已經(jīng)升級為知識密集型服務(wù)行業(yè)，但中東歐國家服務(wù)業(yè)創(chuàng)造的大多是低技能、低工資的工作。另一項有爭議的事是迅速增長的出口和外商直接投資至今未能扭轉(zhuǎn)中東歐國家總就業(yè)量停滯或制造業(yè)就業(yè)崗位減少的局面。漢雅和蓋旭特（2005）舉證證明，外商直接投資可以在一定程度上增加就業(yè)。1990-1998年，新成員國大約一半的外商直接投資是以私有化直接收購的形式投資，而且前