現在位置 : 消費 > 保護主義 不利於消費者與社會 - 保護主義的悲劇 - Protectionism Sucks
● 保護主義 不利於消費者與社會
作者:布魯斯·斯都克斯(Bruce Stokes) 保護主義源遠流長。面對政治壓力,發達國家以及發展中國家的政府都曾保護過本國的紡織工業、汽車工業、農業及其他行業的生產者,使之免受來自進口產品的競爭。在某些地方,農民雖然人數少,但仍受到保護,因為他們在選舉中具有很大影響力。由於保護主義是政治問題,因此必須從政治上尋求解決方案。 布魯斯·斯都克斯是《國家期刊》(National Journal)的國際經濟專欄作家。 保護主義──即政府保護本國製造商、使之免受國際競爭的做法──在世界各國的政治中根深蒂固。它既是特殊利益集團所導致的結果,也是一般公眾對於變化感到憂慮的反映。伴隨保護主義的是巨大的經濟代價。 對貿易自由化的抵制及其政治根源並非新近才有。十九世紀上半葉,英國實施進口關稅以“保護”英國農民與地主,使之免受來自廉價進口穀物的競爭。但是,這些進口稅使得英國城市的食品價格飛漲,強迫不情願的工廠主支付更高的工資,以保證工人能夠吃上飯。1846年,議會內經過長期鬥爭,這些穀物法案終被取消。該事件標誌著英國新興中產階級的政治崛起。 圍繞關稅的類似鬥爭也曾在十九世紀很長一段時間內主導美國政治。在走向美國內戰(1861-1865)的過程中,北方各工業州需要提高關稅來保護其新興的制造業,使之免受來自歐洲的競爭,但南方各州則要求低關稅,因為他們要進口大部份消費品,包括布匹和農業機械。1861年,傑弗遜·大衛斯(Jefferson Davis)當選為主張與北方分離的美國南方邦聯的總統,在發表就職演說時,他用了大量篇幅來談低關稅的必要性,而非黑奴問題。該事例充份說明了這場鬥爭的重要性。 大半個世紀之後,政治因素推動的保護主義成為世界各國對大蕭條的回應方式。在1928年美國總統大選期間,共和黨總統候選人赫伯特·胡佛(Herbert Hoover)承諾提高農產品的進口關稅,以幫助多年來因農產品價格下跌而遭受損失的美國農場主。當胡佛所承諾的法案進入國會程式時,工業部門的特殊利益集團又紛紛加上對自身有利的關稅保護條款。 其結果是1930年6月通過的《斯穆特一霍利關稅法》(Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act),該項立法將美國關稅提升到歷史最高水準。其他國家隨之實行了報復關稅,導致全球商務大幅滑坡。至1934年,世界貿易額僅為1929年的三分之一。 紡織品與服裝 半個世紀以來,經過旨在降低關稅的全球貿易談判,當代保護主義遠不如過去那樣極端化,但其政治性並沒有減弱。農業、工業及服務業的利益集團仍然抵制市場自由化,因為它們要保持自己在國內市場的壟斷地位。它們害怕外國競爭會帶來低價格與技術創新。 直至最近,紡織與服裝業在世界各國一直受到保護,成為既得利益集團自我保護、免受進口競爭的經典案例。對布匹以及成衣貿易實施限制始於1950年代,當時發展中國家開始與歐美製造商競爭。1974年的《多種纖維協定》(Multifibre Agreement)為紡織品貿易規定了具體的進口配額與關稅。這項保護措施使美國消費者每年多支付200多億美元,提高了襯衫、褲子以及內衣的價格。世界銀行估計,上述進口限制在歐美國家每保護一個就業機會就相當於在窮國剝奪35個工人的就業機會。 然而,由於美歐紡織品與服裝製造商以及工會的政治影響力,這種貿易限制一直維持到1993年,這一年富裕國家終於同意取消限制。但即使如此,這種保護又經過十年才壽終正寢,也就是直到2005年,在保護主義實施了半個多世紀之後,紡織與服裝業的貿易最終實現了自由化。然而即使在今天,有些產品仍面臨極高的關稅。 保護汽車製造商 保護措施也可影響諸如汽車等高價值產品。在不同時期,日本、韓國、中國以及美國的強大的政治利益集團曾為汽車行業提供保護。 1970和1980年代,日本汽車製造商積極進軍美國市場,美國的汽車工業首次面臨外國競爭的挑戰。隨著日本汽車不斷提高市場佔有率,美國的三大汽車制造商──福特、克萊斯勒與通用──說服聯邦政府採取措施,規定日本汽車運抵美國的最高配額。1981年,雷根政府同意實施這種限制,儘管雷根總統信奉自由市場的原則,這是因為汽車及其零部件行業是美國國內的重要雇主。更重要的是,其就業人口集中在一些政治上舉足輕重的州──密執安、俄亥俄與伊利諾──因此對國會與總統選舉影響巨大。 每年的進口限制具有扭曲效果,即鼓勵日本汽車公司調整運抵美國的汽車品種,多運利潤豐厚的高檔車,少運小型廉價的轎車。據估計,在1980年代初期的高峰期,該項配額導致每年50億美元的額外利潤轉移至日本汽車製造商之手,後者可以高價銷售受配額限制的轎車。儘管有此保護,美國汽車工業繼續喪失市場佔有率,讓位於日本產品,因為豐田、日產以及本田乾脆越過貿易壁壘,開始在美國生產汽車。 這種政治影響力導致保護主義政策的情況不僅發生在美國。以韓國為例,來自日本、歐洲及美國的汽車製造商2005年僅在韓國銷售了三萬輛轎車,占該國汽車市場的3.3%。同年,韓國製造商在國外銷售了150多萬輛轎車。韓國的百分之八的關稅以及引擎馬力稅加起來,使售價為三萬美元的進口轎車額外加價九千多美元。更有甚者,直至最近,韓國政府對購買外國轎車的人進行稅表審查,這顯然是不鼓勵購買外國產品。 超比例的投票權 特殊利益集團影響貿易政策之能力以及該影響力能否持續取決於制訂貿易政策的憲政結構、現代社會中不斷變化的政經制衡機制以及有關世界貿易問題的公眾輿論之演化。特殊利益集團常常可以操縱政治體制,是因為後者反映過時的經濟政治現實。 在美國,眾議院的議員代表人民大眾。大約每65萬公民產生一位眾議員。參議院的議員代表地域,每個州產生兩位參議員,無論人口多少。這種安排體現了18世紀制定《美國憲法》時的一項交易,即平衡大小州之間的利益。然而在二十一世紀,這導致農業利益集團在參議院具有超過其人口比例的影響力,強化了對美國農業補貼的支持,導致貿易扭曲。 憲政結構向保護主義傾斜的情況並非美國一家。雖然法國從業農民僅擁有不足該國百分之四的選票,但他們的高投票率使之在全國選舉中占有效選票的百分之八。法國的選舉體制使農場主具有超過其人口比例的當選機會。全國三分之一以上的市、鎮長是從業或退休的農場主。因為法國參議院議員是由城鎮議會間接選舉產生,毫不奇怪,農場主在上院獲得超比例的席位。農場主在參議院的席位百分比不僅超過其總人口的百分比,而且這個差距在過去四十年期間幾乎增大一倍。 法國總統選舉體制的特徵意味著總統候選人難以忽略農場主的利益。此外,複選體制意味著得票最高的兩個候選人要進入第二輪投票,這使農場主──大多屬於政治右翼── 在選擇保守派候選人時具有舉足輕重的影響力。比如,1988年雅克·希拉克(Jacques Chirac)在保守派陣營的第一輪投票中勝出,其中四分之一的票來自農場主。毫不奇怪,希拉克常常被看作是農業利益集團的代言人。 法國政治體制的這些特點使另一些強勢的區域工業,如紡織業與電子業,可產生同樣的壓力。這導致雇主協會(Patronat)──法國工業界首屈一指的貿易協會──處於弱勢地位,並有效消解了它反對農場主遊說及保護主義勢力的聲音。 同樣,在韓國的國民議會中,代表農民的議員享有的代表權是實際農業人口比例的三倍。農業選民的超比例影響力導致食品進口的高關稅,而韓國消費者被迫支付全世界最昂貴的牛肉、水果及蔬菜價格。 但是日本的經驗顯示,改變憲政結構就可以轉變驅動保護主義的政治因素。在1980年代之前,日本議會的選區席位反映二戰之後的人口分佈,即三分之一的人口居住在城市地區,三分之二的人口居住在農村地區。到了1980年代,日本四分之三的人口居住在城市。結果是在選舉國會議員時,五個城市居民的選票相當於一個農村居民的選票。農村影響力的一個副產品是百分之七百的稻米關稅以及全世界受保護最多的農業部門。 1994年,日本進行了選區改革,大大縮小了立法代表的城鄉差別。選票力量的均勢變化使二戰以來主導日本政治的自由民主黨發生轉變,即從一個以農村為基礎的政黨轉變為側重城市及郊區的政黨,並形成新的政策重點。日本政府的補貼從農場主轉向城市居民。雖然日本離開放經濟體仍有很大距離,但其進口量已經大幅度增加。 公眾的矛盾心態 公眾對國際商務的根深蒂固的矛盾心態是貿易政治的驅動力。 全世界各國人民原則上都同意全球化對家庭與國家有利。2002年度的皮尤全球態度調查(Pew Global Attitude Project)顯示,在接受調查的44個國家中, 25個國家有至少百分之六十以上的人認為全球化是好事。非洲人雖生活於最貧窮的大陸,但態度最樂觀。百分之七十的烏干達受訪者表示,增加國際商務對他們的國家有好處。大約三分之二的尼日利亞人同意這一看法。同時,半數以上的越南人認為國際化是好事情,越南經濟的成長速度在亞洲名列第二。 德國馬歇爾基金會(German Marshall Fund)最近的一項民調顯示出歐美人對貿易的矛盾心態。2006年,百分之七十的美國人表示贊成國際貿易,比2005年的三分之二有所提高。歐洲過去的貿易支持率也是三分之二,但現在已增加至四分之三,超過了美國。但是,過半數法國人以及近三分之一的美國人不贊成進一步提高貿易自由度。一半的德國人以及五分之三的美國人與法國人認為,更自由的貿易將導致失業人口增加,而因此創造的就業機會相對較少。 總體而言,美國人與歐洲人似乎在原則上是自由貿易者,但在實踐中則是保護主義者。例如,對那些贊成自由貿易理念的人而言,如果關稅可以保護本地的就業機會,他們就會支持徵收鋼材進口稅。 保護主義的悲劇在於它增加國家的經濟成本,對貧困國家而言尤其如此。世界銀行最近的一些研究得出結論:發展中國家減少保護主義壁壘的做法導致經濟成長率提高1.2到 2.6個百分點。更重要的是,推行貿易自由化措施後,投資加速增長,商品與服務出口迅速擴張。 儘管存在上述經濟惠益,但從保護主義的政治根源與悠久歷史來看,在未來一段時間內,貿易壁壘仍將對經濟的健康發展構成障礙,而如果要克服保護主義,就必須從政治入手。 http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/E-JOURNAL/EJ_Benefits/stokes.htm |
保護主義的危險
Cartoon: The Protectionism Avalanche February 01, 2009 First it was the R-word, then the D-word, and now we've got the P-word (recession, depression and protectionism, in case you haven't been following). Yes, the latest threat to the global economy (as if things could get much worse) is protectionism. Gordon Brown has spoken out against it— "Protectionism protects nobody"—but George Walden writing in the Daily Telegraph reminds us that "President Obama made nationalistic noises on the economy early in his campaign and has not disavowed them". He goes on to say that: Protectionism is a disease that contaminates everything and is a cure for nothing. To resist it governments will need huge reserves of political will and an internationalist spirit, both of them currently in short supply. The cartoon by Chris Riddell from The Observer shows protectionism as an avalanche waiting to engulf the skiers huddled below. It's not absolutely clear who the skiers are, but the "Davos" sign suggests they are participants in the World Economic Forum. It may well be a case of world leaders saying one thing ("We must not resort to protectionism") and doing another ..... Probably apocryphal protectionism anecdote To stem a flood of Japanese bicycles the French decreed that henceforth each machine had to be individually tested. OK, said the Japanese. Not at the port of entry, but in the remote provincial town of Poitiers, the French specified. OK, sighed the Japanese. And by a French Olympic medallist, the French insisted. OK, groaned the Japanese. Unfortunately, said the French, there aren't any French cycling medallists. (Daily Telegraph) |
Protectionism Could Destroy Us All
Governments will need huge reserves of political will and an internationalist spirit to resist putting restrictions on free trade, says George Walden. By George Walden 6:18PM GMT 31 Jan 2009 When the tailors themselves become revolutionary sans-culottes, Thomas Carlyle sighed, then we are all done for. And that is the worry about the inclusion of a "Buy American" provision in the stimulus package currently passing through Congress. If the US reneges on free trade, despite the awful precedent of the Great Depression, when protectionism instigated by America helped destroy the world trading system, we could all be done for too. Everyone is queueing up to denounce the evils of protectionism, but few people's hands are clean, now or in the past. President Obama made nationalistic noises on the economy early in his campaign and has not disavowed them, even though the White House says it is reviewing the Buy American clause. If he succumbs to popular and Democratic Party pressures over the stimulus package, he can console himself with the thought that his idol Abraham Lincoln was against free trade and imposed a 44 per cent tariff during the Civil War to protect industry. Today in America fancy justifications have been mooted for temporary measures, which would be conditional on industries re-skilling and retooling or, as in the car industry, improving their environmental performance, but they do not carry conviction. Protectionism is a disease that contaminates everything and is a cure for nothing. To resist it governments will need huge reserves of political will and an internationalist spirit, both of them currently in short supply. A major reason Obama's election was welcomed across the world was his pledge to make America less isolationist-minded, but if his first major economic act ignores the needs of the global economy and provokes a trade war with the European Union, how likely is it that China or Russia or India or South America will play by the rules? All of them made the right noises at the G20 meeting of Developed and Emerging Economies last November, and at the Davos economic forum last week, but if ever we need to inspect the pudding rigorously for proof it is on protection. At Davos Chancellor Merkel said her bit, but Germany, whose industrial base equals those of France and Britain combined, has also set up a fund whose transparent intention is to shield exports, and declined to take actions, such as cutting carbon emissions, that might have the effect of costing jobs. Looking to President Sarkozy for a staunch line on the subject would be somewhat quixotic in a country that was the author of the Common Agricultural Policy, where a protectionist spirit runs in the blood, and respected writers are openly calling for the retreat not just of France but of Europe itself behind greatly enhanced trade barriers and tariff walls. To understand the political pressures and inter-European strains in the offing, one only has to observe last week's riots in Paris, of which we shall see many more, and the fact that the cost of a French or German car exported to Britain has increased by a quarter in recent months. Prime Minister Putin too toed the line at Davos, yet his internationalist credentials are not exactly glittering. The Russians have already imposed a tax on imported cars to prop up the Russian industry, and as its popularity comes under greater pressure than at any time in a decade, how likely is it that a government that has so recently played politics over Ukrainian gas would resist the siren calls to do ever more to protect vanishing Russian jobs? China could be in an even more exposed position. The very legitimacy of Communist Party rule depends on a continuation of an export-led wave of prosperity. Should unemployment reach the point where the regime itself felt threatened it is unlikely to have any qualms about job protection, perhaps by the devaluation of an already undervalued currency, about which the new American Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has recently complained. For all Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's fervently free trade declarations at Davos, when it comes to getting round the rules the Chinese have form. In the first half of 2008 complaints about the dumping of goods at lower than market prices rose by a third, according to the World Trade Organisation, and 50 per cent of them were against China. There is a tendency in all this for us to forget that it is developing countries that could bear the brunt of any new protectionist wave, and not only as their exports decline as demand in rich countries diminishes. Investment money that has been flooding in could begin flooding out, as American or European banks, increasingly subject to government control, are pressured to redirect scarce loans to national firms to boost employment. The result would be a beggar-thy-neighbour policy towards people many of whom live in beggarly conditions already. The consequences could be fearsome, not least in the field of emigration into Europe. And Britain? At the G20 meeting, Gordon Brown called economic nationalism "the road to ruin". Yet think of the pressures to save jobs with the country destined to undergo the most severe recession the Western world will face. We are "in the eye of a global financial storm", as Brown said in The Daily Telegraph yesterday, partly because, on employment, that is where Labour has put us. It was Blair and Brown who failed to restrict access by East European workers, and who opened the immigration floodgates. To talk about "British jobs for British workers" was a flagrant contradiction, which is why we face an angry wave of strikes by energy workers. The Government's position will become even tougher if there is any suspicion that, as over the CAP, we are the only ones playing by the rules, while everyone else finds ways round them. And we can expect a great deal of creativity to be diverted into that. There is nothing very funny about protectionism, but one good joke. To stem a flood of Japanese bicycles the French, the joke runs, decreed that henceforth each machine had to be individually tested. OK, said the Japanese. Not at the port of entry, but in the remote provincial town of Poitiers, the French specified. OK, sighed the Japanese. And by a French Olympic medallist, the French insisted. OK, groaned the Japanese. Unfortunately, said the French, there aren't any French cycling medallists. Interdependence is a tiresomely overused word, but now is the time to focus sharply on what it means. As the recession rolls on the choice is quite simply between hanging separately, or hanging in there together. |
|