世界格局內諸邊貿易協定的風險

Should proposed US plurilateral trade agreements be welcomed? This is a big question, not least for those who consider the liberalisation of world trade to be a signal achievement. It is also highly controversial.

美國提議的諸邊貿易協定應該受到歡迎嗎？這是一個大問題，不僅僅是對於那些認爲世界貿易自由化是一項重大成就的人。這也是個極富爭議的問題。

Since the failure of the “Doha round” of multilateral negotiations — launched shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 — the focus of global trade policy has shifted towards plurilateral agreements restricted to a limited subgroup of partners. The most significant are US-led: the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. As a study by the US Council of Economic Advisers puts it, the Obama administration’s trade agenda aims to put America “at the center of an integrated trade zone covering nearly two-thirds of the global economy and almost 65 per cent of US goods trade”.

自從“多哈回合”(Doha round)多邊談判（“多哈回合”在2001年9月11日恐怖襲擊之後不久啓動）失敗以來，全球貿易政策的焦點已轉向僅限於某個夥伴國集團的諸邊協定。最重要的協定均由美國主導：《跨太平洋夥伴關係》（Trans-Pacific Partnership，簡稱TPP）以及《跨大西洋貿易與投資夥伴關係協定》（Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership，簡稱TTIP）。正如白宮經濟顧問委員會(CEA)一項研究所指出的，奧巴馬政府的貿易議程旨在將美國置於“一個覆蓋全球經濟近2/3、美國貨物貿易近65%的一體化貿易區的中心地位”。

The TPP is a negotiation with 11 countries, most importantly Japan. Its partners account for 36 per cent of world output, 11 per cent of population and about one-third of merchandise trade. The TTIP is between the US and the EU, which account for 46 per cent of global output and 28 per cent of merchandise trade. The main partner not included in these negotiations is, of course, China.

TPP是美國與11個國家（最重要的是日本）談判的貿易協定。其夥伴國的產出佔世界總量的36%，人口占全球總人口的11%，商品貿易佔全球的大約1/3。TTIP是美國與歐盟之間的協定，佔全球產出的46%，商品貿易的28%。當然，中國是未被納入這些談判的主要貿易伙伴。

Some of the countries participating in TPP still have quite high barriers to imports of goods. The CEA notes the relatively high tariffs in Malaysia and Vietnam and agricultural protection in Japan. It also argues that the TPP partners and EU have higher barriers to imports of services than the US.

一些參與TPP的國家仍然存在相當高的貨物進口壁壘。CEA指出了馬來西亞和越南相對較高的關稅以及日本的農業保護。該委員會還認爲，TPP夥伴國以及歐盟的服務進口壁壘高於美國。

Yet lowering barriers is only a part of the US aim. The CEA report adds that, in the TPP, Washington is proposing “enforceable labor protections and greener policies”. But it is also seeking “strong enforcement of intellectual property rights”. In the TTIP, “both sides seek agreement on crosscutting disciplines on regulatory coherence and transparency” — in other words making rules more compatible with one another and more transparent for business. Thus, both TPP and TTIP are efforts to shape the rules of international commerce. Pascal Lamy, former director-general of the World Trade Organisation, argues that “TPP is mostly, though not only, about classical protection- related market access issues . . . TTIP is mostly, though not only, about . . . .  regulatory convergence”.

不過，降低壁壘只是美國的一部分目標。CEA報告補充稱，在TPP中，華盛頓方面提議“可強制執行的勞動保護和更環保政策”。但是，它還尋求“有力執行知識產權保護”。在TTIP中，“雙方尋求就交叉領域的監管連貫性和透明度達成一致”——換句話說，讓雙方的法規更兼容、對企業更透明。因此，TTP和TTIP都是旨在塑造國際商務規則的努力。世界貿易組織(WTO)前任總幹事帕斯卡•拉米(Pascal Lamy)認爲，“TPP主要是（儘管不全是）關於經典的與貿易保護相關的市場準入問題……而TTIP主要是（儘管不全是）關於監管融合”。

Whether these negotiations succeed will depend on whether the administration obtains trade promotion authority from Congress. But should we want them to succeed?

這些談判能否取得成功，將取決於奧巴馬政府是否會從國會獲得貿易促進權(TPA)。但是，我們應該期盼談判成功嗎？

The straightforward points in favour are: plurilateral agreements are now the best way to liberalise global trade, given the failure of multilateral negotiations; their new rules and procedures offer the best template for the future; and they will bring significant gains.

直截了當的支持理由是：考慮到多邊談判的失敗，眼下諸邊協定是促進全球貿易自由化的最佳方式；它們的新規則和程序爲未來提供了最好的模板；它們將帶來顯著收益。

These arguments have force. Yet there are also counter-arguments.

這些觀點很有說服力。不過，也有反面的觀點。

With limited political capital, the focus on plurilateral trade arrangements risks diversion of effort from the WTO. That might undermine the potency of global rules. Jagdish Bhagwati of Columbia University stresses such risks. Furthermore, preferential trading arrangements risk distorting complex global production chains.

在政治資本有限的情況下，專注於諸邊貿易安排可能會分散投入WTO的努力。這進而可能削弱全球規則的效力。哥倫比亞大學(Columbia University)的賈格迪什•巴格沃蒂(Jagdish Bhagwati)強調了此類風險。此外，特惠貿易安排可能扭曲複雜的全球生產鏈。

Another concern is that the US is using its clout to impose regulations that are not in the interests of its partners.

另一個擔憂在於，美國正利用其影響力強行制定不符合夥伴國利益的法規。

I would be less concerned about labour and environmental standards, though both might be inappropriate, than about protection of intellectual property. It is not true that tighter standards are in the interest of all. On the contrary, if US standards were to be imposed, the costs might be very high.

儘管勞工和環境標準都可能不適當，但我對它們不如對知識產權保護那麼擔憂。關於更嚴格的標準有利於各方的說法是不對的。相反，如果普遍推行美國標準，成本可能會非常高。

Finally, the economic gains are unlikely to be large. Trade has been substantially liberalised already and any gains decline as barriers fall. A study of the TPP by the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington suggests that the rise in US real incomes would be below 0.4 per cent of national income. A study of TTIP published by the Centre for Economic Policy Research in London comes to slightly higher numbers for the EU and US. Completion of TPP and TTIP might raise US real incomes by 1 per cent of GDP This is not nothing, but it is not large.

最後一點是，經濟收益不太可能會很高。貿易已經得到大幅自由化，隨着貿易壁壘的降低，進一步的收益會減少。華盛頓彼得森國際經濟研究所(Peterson Institute for International Economics)對TPP的研究顯示，美國的實際收入增量將不到國民收入的0.4%。倫敦的經濟政策研究中心(Centre for Economic Policy Research)發表的對TTIP的研究顯示，歐盟和美國的增量數字略高。TPP和TTIP達成後，可能會使美國實際收入增量達到GDP的1%。這不容忽略，但也不是很大。

The US-EU agreement does not raise concerns about the US ability to bully its partners. In trade, the two sides are equally matched. There are three further concerns with the TTIP, however.

美國和歐盟之間的協定並未引起人們對美國欺負夥伴國的擔憂。在貿易方面，雙方勢均力敵。不過，人們對TTIP還是抱有3個擔憂。

First, Jeronim Capaldo of Tufts University has argued that estimates of the gains ignore macroeconomic costs. His Keynesian approach argues that the EU will lose demand because of a fall in its trade surplus. This is ridiculous. Macroeconomic problems should be addressed with macroeconomic policies. Trade policy has different goals.

第一，塔夫茨大學(Tufts University)的葉羅尼姆•卡帕爾多(Jeronim Capaldo)認爲，對收益的預估忽視了宏觀經濟的成本。按照他的凱恩斯主義邏輯，歐盟將損失需求，因爲其貿易順差將會下降。這是無稽之談。宏觀經濟問題應該用宏觀經濟政策來解決。貿易政策的目標本來就不同。

Second, some of the barriers they are attempting to remove reflect different attitudes to risk. The negotiators will have to devise a text that allows co-ordination of regulatory procedures — over drug testing, say, without imposing identical preferences. If Europeans do not want genetically modified organisms, they must be allowed to preserve that preference. If trade policy treads on such sacred ground, it will die.

第二，這些協定試圖消除的某些壁壘，反映了夥伴國對待風險的不同態度。談判代表們將不得不妥善擬定文本，在避免強加相同偏好的前提下，使監管程序的協調成爲可能，比如說針對藥物測試。如果歐洲人不想要轉基因生物，他們必須被允許保留這種偏好。如果貿易政策觸犯此類神聖領域，它將會碰壁。

Finally, we have the vexed issue of investor-state dispute settlement. Many complain that political choices — publicly-funded health systems or the right to control drug prices — might be put at risk by systems biased in favour of business. Negotiators fervently deny this. They had better be right.

最後，我們還有一個棘手問題，那就是投資者-國家糾紛解決。很多人抱怨稱，政治選擇——公費醫療體系或者控制藥品價格的權利——可能會被偏向於企業的制度置於風險之中。談判代表們強烈否認這一點。他們最好沒說錯。

On balance, the benefits of TPP and TTIP will probably be positive, but modest. But there are risks. They must not become an alternative to the WTO or an attempt to push China to the margins of trade policy making. They must not be used to impose damaging regulations or subvert legitimate ones. Tread carefully. Overreaching could prove counterproductive even to the cause of global trade liberalisation.

總而言之，TPP和TTIP的好處可能是積極的，但程度有限。但是這其中存在風險。必須避免用它們替代世界貿易組織、或把中國推向貿易政策制定邊緣的企圖。它們不得被用於推行破壞性的法規或是顛覆正當法規。必須謹慎行事。把手伸得過長可能會適得其反，甚至不利於全球貿易自由化事業。