|
ANTI-ANTI-DUMPING
It is not just all good things that come to an end. Some bad ones do too. Yesterday，European Union trade officials rejected a plan to extend the ①“anti-dumping” duties levied on shoe imports from China and Vietnam. Even so，the episode points up the opaque and arbitrary nature of EU trade laws.
The duties，imposed for two years on imports sold below the price in the exporting country’s home market，began in 2006 after�、趌obbying by producer countries such as Spain and Italy. As the end-date approached the European Commission was pressed to keep the duties for a further 15 months. The Commission should have stood up to this lobby：it did not.
Anti-dumping duties are generally a bad idea. There may a case for protecting an industry with strategic importance. But shoes are less strategic even than yoghurts. If Beijing wants to subsidise European consumers’shoe habits，by sending footwear halfway around the globe，it should be able to do so. Shoemaking is not an industry with high barriers to entry，nor one where�、踦redatory pricing delivers an unfair competitive advantage.
There are other problems with anti-dumping duties too. They encourage retaliation，moving international trade further in the wrong direction. The protection afforded by anti-dumping measures also encourages producers to focus on pleading or arguing for its continuance rather than concentrating on how to become more competitive themselves，perhaps by moving to the�、躷op end of the market or even by becoming more responsive to customers’needs.
Though yesterday’s decision was the right result，the process by which it was achieved was a reminder of the vagaries of the EU approach to anti-dumping actions. Like most members of the World Trade Organisation，the EU allows its policymakers too much discretion and does not insist on enough transparency. This produces a regime that is neither clear nor certain.
Peter(now Lord)Mandelson sought to reform the anti-dumping laws while he was trade commissioner，but was unable to make headway.�、軸ince the credit crunch has caused a fresh outbreak of economic nationalism among some EU countries，now is probably not the best time to seek to revive reform plans. Instead，EU national governments should make sure that if the Commission again seeks to appease the protectionists and tries to extend anti-dumping next month then their ministers reject it as officials did.
譯文梗概
反對“反傾銷”
結(jié)束的并不都是好事，有時候壞事也有告終的那一天。昨日，歐盟(EU)貿(mào)易官員拒絕了對中國和越南鞋類產(chǎn)品延長征收“反傾銷稅”的計劃。即便如此，這件事仍暴露了歐盟貿(mào)易法律的不透明及武斷特性。
這些關(guān)稅是在西班牙和意大利等鞋類生產(chǎn)國游說之后，從2006年起開始征收的，理由是進口產(chǎn)品的售價低于出口國家本土市場上的價格。隨著關(guān)稅終止日期的臨近，相關(guān)方面對歐盟委員會(EU)施加壓力，要求把這些關(guān)稅延長15個月。歐盟委員會本應(yīng)在這種游說面前站穩(wěn)立場，但它沒有。
反傾銷關(guān)稅一般都是餿主意。要保護一個具有戰(zhàn)略重要性的產(chǎn)業(yè)，也許還說得通。但鞋類的戰(zhàn)略意義甚至還不如酸奶。如果北京方面想要補貼歐洲消費者的購鞋習(xí)慣，把廉價鞋類送到地球的另一邊，不妨讓它這么做。制鞋業(yè)沒有很高的進入障礙，也不是掠奪性定價能夠帶來不公平競爭優(yōu)勢的行業(yè)。
反傾銷關(guān)稅還有其它問題。它們鼓勵對方采取報復(fù)措施，從而國際貿(mào)易進一步推向錯誤的方向。反傾銷措施所提供的保護，還會鼓勵生產(chǎn)商為了延續(xù)這些措施而進行懇求或申辯，而非專注于讓自己變得更具競爭力，比如向高端市場轉(zhuǎn)移，或者甚至是對顧客需求做出更為靈敏的反應(yīng)。
盡管昨日的決定是一個正確的結(jié)果，但得出這個結(jié)果的過程提醒人們，歐盟在反傾銷行動方面有些反復(fù)無常。與世界貿(mào)易組織(WTO)的多數(shù)成員一樣，歐盟讓自己的政策制定者具有太多的任意決定權(quán)，而且沒有堅持要求充分的透明度。這造成了一個既不清晰、也不確定的機制。
曼德爾森勛爵(Lord Mandelson)在擔(dān)任歐盟貿(mào)易專員期間，曾尋求改革反傾銷法律，但未能取得進展。鑒于信貸緊縮已導(dǎo)致某些歐盟國家爆發(fā)新一波的經(jīng)濟民族主義，現(xiàn)在或許并非重啟改革計劃的最佳時機。相反，如果歐盟委員會再次尋求安撫保護主義者，試圖在下月延長反傾銷關(guān)稅，歐盟各國政府應(yīng)當(dāng)確保他們的部長拒絕接受這個決定，就像歐盟官員所做的那樣。
(文章來源：FT中文網(wǎng))
點評：
①anti-dumping duties，反傾銷稅。duty在此意為“稅，關(guān)稅”，可用作復(fù)數(shù)，也可與其它詞一起構(gòu)成形容詞，如duty-free(免稅的)。duty 還有“義務(wù)，責(zé)任，職責(zé)，職務(wù)”的意思�！�
�、趌obby，在此處作動詞，意為“對(議員等)進行游說活動”。lobby作名詞意為“游說者”。
�、踦redatory pricing，掠奪性定價，指通過犧牲短期利潤消除競爭對手而在長期獲得高利潤的定價行為，是一種不公平的競爭行為。price作動詞時意為“定價，出價，標(biāo)價”。
�、躷op end意為“高端的”。高端市場也可作“high end market”。類似表達還有l(wèi)ow end market，低端市場；midrange market，中端市場。
�、菰谶@里，“Since the credit crunch has caused a fresh outbreak of economic nationalism among some EU countries”，是一個由連接詞“since”引導(dǎo)的表起因或原因的狀語從句，說明了主句所陳述的“now is probably not the best time to seek to revive reform plans”的原因。 |