中文3680字
外文文献译文
资料来源：Silvia Weyerbrock.Technical Trade Barriers in US/Europe Agricultural Trade[D].Newark：University of Delaware，2000．作者：Silvia Weyerbrock
美国/欧洲农产品贸易的技术性贸易壁垒
摘要
技术性贸易壁垒严重影响了美国/欧洲的农产品贸易。一项1996年美国农业部的调查显示，有57个欧洲的贸易壁垒影响了美国的农产品出口，产生了估计有89955万美元的贸易影响。本文阐述了欧洲和美国的技术法规妨碍双边贸易。本文为个案研究提供了一个背景，并对技术性贸易壁垒的未来作用下了定论。由于贸易规则的变更，更高的食品安全和食品质量的需求以及欧盟的东欧国家，我们希望美国/欧洲的技术性贸易壁垒能够在将来得到发展。
什么是技术性贸易壁垒？
美国/欧洲的农产品贸易受到技术性贸易的强烈影响。如上所述，对于技术性贸易壁垒没有统一的定义。研究人员建议把定义建立在意图，经济影响，工具使用的基础之上。
在本次调查中，我们遵循了由Thornsbury等人（1997年）、罗伯茨和DeRemer （1997年）提出的定义。他们把技术性贸易壁垒定义为“能够管制外国产品在国内市场上销售的法规和标准,并且这些法规和标准的表面目的是为了纠正与这些产品的产、分配和消费相联系的外部作用产生的市场无效。”这一定义包括身份，措施，质量的标准，动植物卫生检疫措施，全球共同展区及包装要求。不过，该定义并不包括诸如补贴和税收（罗伯茨和DeRemer，1997）的奖励措施。除了技术法规，罗伯茨和DeRemer强调，表明符合外国法规可能成为一个技术性贸易壁垒。
技术性贸易壁垒有别于其他贸易壁垒的原因在于它可以产生经济效率。而
且，动植物卫生检疫措施协议不是最惠国待遇，换言之，不同的贸易方为了获得进入一个进口国市场可能需要符合不同的条件。因此，为这些措施设计有效的规则是有难度的（罗伯茨和DeRemer，1997）。
为了遏制近年来盛行的技术性贸易壁垒，关贸总协定的成员国组织了关于动植物卫生检疫措施协议（SPS）和技术性贸易壁垒协议（TBT）的谈判，作为乌拉圭回合谈判的一部分（世界贸易组织，1994年a，1994年b）。这些协议大大加强了对技术性贸易壁垒使用的国际规则。所有世贸组织的成员国都受到了这些协议的制约。该协议规定，动植物卫生检疫措施和技术措施，不应成为变相的贸易壁垒或以武断或歧视性的方式被使用。他们应该只被适用于必要的范围之内，并且必须以科学的原则和风险评估（世界贸易组织，1994年a，1994年b）为基础。各国被鼓励使用由国际科学组织制定的国际标准，诸如食品规范委员会，国际兽疫局（OIE）和国际植物保护公约（IPPC）。但是，如果各国的理由是科学或一个非歧视性的更低水平的风险的话，他们可能保持比国际标准更为严格的标准。在协调统一的情况下，世贸组织的成员国被鼓励运用等效和谈判的原则，例如，兽医等效协议。等效意味着相同的健康保障水平可以由（世界贸易组织，1994年b）不同的方法实现。如果一个国家可以证明它的措施，尽管有些不同，仍能满足其他国家合法目标的要求，法规和标准应被等同看待。等效协议允许的产品能与最小海关检查交易。如果每一方都承认对方的工厂检查程序，那么检查人员前往国外生产和加工设施变得无关紧要。另一个动植物卫生检疫措施协议的新特点，区域化原则，建议病虫害的地位应被区域化考虑，而不是在国家层面上。如果一个国家能够证明它的一块区域所遭受的病虫害比进口国的多并很可能继续保持，那么就不应该对这个区域的商品加以管束。最后，各国再不能轻易拒绝一个基于新成立的争端解决机制做出的小组决定。
美国/欧洲的贸易壁垒
概览
在一项美国科学家联合会，美国农业部监管机构和美国贸易组织的调查中，罗伯茨和DeRemer（1997年）指出了在欧盟，东欧和前苏联的影响1996年6月美国农产品出口的贸易壁垒。这些壁垒包括市场准入壁垒，市场拓展壁垒和市场保留壁垒。市场准入壁垒，包括进口禁令；市场扩大壁垒有限，但并不排除美国的出口；市场保留壁垒是目前正在考虑的措施，一旦获得通过则很可能
影响美国的出口。罗伯茨和DeRemer要求大使专员和贸易组织从当前美国出口收入的价值这个层面来估计受到此类壁垒的贸易影响，可能存在威胁和潜在的损失。请注意，这项调查只涵盖影响美国出口到的那些包括在美国科学家联合会海外办事处项下的国家的贸易壁垒。它既不包括欧盟的贸易壁垒对其他国家特别是美国的影响，也不包括美国的壁垒对欧盟进口的影响。
该调查发现了欧洲的57个贸易壁垒并对美国的农产品出口产生了估计有价值89955万美元的贸易影响。其中的6个贸易壁垒产生了一个估计有超过5000万美元/人的个人贸易影响（见表2）。这些壁垒共计占所有估计贸易影响的61.8％。调查发现在世界范围内只有12个其他的壁垒有如此大的影响。罗伯茨和DeRemer（1997）找到了23条美国/欧洲的贸易法规，它们产生了一个估计有超过500万的贸易影响。
考虑到产品包含贸易壁垒，调查显示，许多壁垒影响美国出口至欧洲的动物产品贸易（见表2）。关于动物产品的所有壁垒的贸易影响达到估计有47730万美元，占所有欧洲壁垒估计贸易影响的53％。相比之下，在世界上的所有其他国家动物产品出口遭受贸易壁垒的只占10730万美元。此外，出口加工食品和粮食超过1亿美元也分别受到了贸易壁垒的影响（罗伯茨和DeRemer，1997）。
美国农业部调查报告是关于技术贸易壁垒影响美国农产品出口的最全面的调查。它通过详细说明这些壁垒是如何遍布的来为技术性贸易壁垒找到光明。但是，其结果应被仔细解释为几个原因：
1．专家咨询很可能有偏见：美国科学家联合会和贸易组织的目标是促进美国农产品出口。监管机构曾经以美国的立场来看待诸如科学依据和符合
新的贸易协定的各项措施的问题来审核他们的估计。
2．一些专家可能已经知道，美国可能会考虑启动以他们的报告为基础的世贸组织争端解决程序。
3．这项调查涵盖市场保留壁垒（即正在审议的壁垒），其通过和实施是不确定的。
4．最后，出于保密的原因，罗伯茨和DeRemer（1997）没有明确指出具体的问题。由于缺乏信息，因此很难评估各种估计的可靠性。
表2在1996年美国农业部调查报告中发现的欧洲的技术性贸易
续表
注意事项：只有当（1）提供超过10个贸易壁垒，或者（2）估计的贸易影响超过5000万美元时，产品种类的信息可供提供。
资料来源：Thornsbury等人（1997年）；罗伯茨和DeRemer（1997年）。
具体措施
本节会提出近期具体的美国/欧洲农业贸易的技术性贸易壁垒。除了研究欧洲壁垒对美国进口的影响，我们也会探讨美国壁垒对欧洲进口的影响。我们明确普遍存在这种壁垒的领域，并试图概略估计它们的贸易影响。
我们的调查没有提供关于美国/欧洲贸易的技术壁垒的系统证据。这需要一个详细的评估，它关于许多标准和法规以及一个关于许多国家出口的全面的
调查。相反，我们的研究是基于研究论文，报纸，工业和机构的出版物诸如“阿格拉欧洲”（报刊名）上找到的信息，美国对外农业服务产业的文件以及一份关于美国贸易和投资的壁垒的欧盟委员会报告。我们省略了这些出版物没有提及的贸易壁垒，可能有许多技术性贸易壁垒与合格评定和执行方面相关。
在本文中，我们试图概略地估计各种技术性贸易壁垒的影响。不幸的是，除了彼得森，帕吉和亨利（1998年美国）在论文上引发的欧盟荷尔蒙争端以外，关于美国/欧洲的技术性贸易壁垒对价格和社会福利的影响的定量的经济研究仍处于莫衷一是的状态。有时，新闻和其他来源确定存在威胁或存在壁垒的贸易影响。如果没有数据，我们近似估计最大可能的影响，例如，一个进口禁令，在实施该项禁令以前给予贸易量的信息。但是请注意，这种估计可能言过其实。进口禁令往往与具体的生产和加工技术有关。如果一家美国的加工企业遵循欧盟的法规，它就仍有可能与欧盟达成生意上的往来。
表3节选的美国/欧洲技术性贸易壁垒的近似的贸易影响
的出口都受到了贸易壁垒的影响。
b. 数据适用于所有红肉但猪肉除外。
c. 东欧禽肉1997年的出口总额达到16000万美元。
最后，请注意，我们并不仅仅试图精确地指出罗伯茨和DeRemer的关于欧洲技术性贸易壁垒影响美国农产品出口的清单。美国农业部的调查构成了1996年6月美国农产品出口所面临的国外技术性贸易壁垒的缩影。美国农业部调查所定义的第二猜测措施会使我们忽略诸如欧盟针对特定危险材料的威胁禁令等的重大现实问题。其他问题可能会被同时解决。
外文文献原文
Material Source:Silvia Weyerbrock.Technical Trade Barriers in US/Europe
Agricultural Trade[D].Newark：University of Delaware，
2000．
Author: Silvia Weyerbrock
Technical Trade Barriers in US/Europe Agricultural Trade
Abstract
Technical barriers strongly affect US/European agricultural and food trade. A 1996 USDA survey identifies 57 questionable European regulations affecting US agricultural exports with an estimated trade impact of $899.55 million. This article identifies European and US technical regulations that impede bilateral trade. The article provides a background for case studies and draws conclusions regarding the future role of technical barriers. We expect that technical barriers in US/Europe trade will proliferate in the future because of changes in trade rules, higher demand for food safety and various food quality attributes, and EU membership of Eastern European countries.
What is a Technical Barrier to Trade?
US/Europe agricultural trade is strongly affected by technical barriers to trade. As mentioned above there is no commonly agreed upon definition of technical barriers to trade. Researchers have proposed definitions based on intent, economic impact, and instruments used.
In this survey we follow a definition proposed by Thornsbury et al. (1997) and Roberts and DeRemer (1997). They define technical barriers as “internationally divergent regulations and standards governing the sale of products in national markets which have as their prima facie objective the correction of market inefficiencies stemming from externalities associated with the production, distribution, and consumption of these products.” This definition includes standards
of identity, measure, and quality, and SPS, global commons, and packaging measures. It, however, excludes incentive measures such as subsidies and taxes (Roberts & DeRemer, 1997). In addition to the technical regulations, Roberts and DeRemer stress that demonstrating conformity to a foreign regulation can be a technical barrier.
Technical trade barriers differ from many other trade barriers because they can be economically efficient. Moreover, SPS regulations are not “most favored nation,”
i.e., different trading partners may need to comply with different conditions for gaining access to, an importing country’s market. Consequently, designing effective rules for such measures is difficult (Roberts & DeRemer, 1997).
To stem the proliferation of technical barriers in recent years, GATT members negotiated Agreements on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) as part of the Uruguay Round Agreement (World Trade Organization, 1994a, 1994b). These agreements considerably strengthen international rules on the use of technical barriers. All WTO members are now subject to these agreements. The agreements specify that SPS and technical measures should not be used as disguised trade barriers or in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. They should only be applied to the extent necessary and must be based on scientific principles and on risk assessment (World Trade Organization, 1994a, 1994b). Countries are encouraged to use international standards developed by international scientific organizations such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the International Office of Epizootics (OIE), and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). Countries, however, may maintain standards that are stricter than international standards, if they are justified by science or by a nondiscriminatory lower level of risk. In the absence of harmonization, WTO members are encouraged to apply the principle of equivalency and negotiate, for example, veterinary equivalence agreements. Equivalency implies that the same level of health protection can be achieved by different methods (World Trade Organization, 1994b). Regulations and standards should be considered equivalent if one country can show that its measures—albeit different—meet the other country’s legitimate objectives. Equivalence agreements allow products to be traded with minimal customs checks. If each side recognizes the other party’s plant inspection procedures, visits of inspectors to foreign production and processing facilities become unnecessary. Another novel feature of the SPS agreement, the principle of regionalization, suggests that disease or pest-free status should be considered on the
regional rather than the country level. If a country can demonstrate that an area of its country is, and is likely to remain, disease or pest-free than importing countries should not place restrictions on goods from this area. Finally, countries cannot easily reject a panel decision based on the newly established dispute settlement mechanism any longer.
Technical Regulations in US/Europe Trade
Overview
In a survey of FAS attaches, USDA regulatory agencies, and US trade organizations, Roberts and DeRemer (1997) identify questionable regulations in the EU, Eastern Europe, and the FSU that affected US agricultural exports in June 1996. Such barriers include market access, market expansion, and market retention barriers. Market access barriers include import bans; market expansion barriers limit but do not preclude US exports; and market retention barriers are measures under consideration, which may adversely affect US exports, if enacted. Roberts and DeRemer asked the attaches and trade organizations to estimate the trade impact of such barriers in terms of the value of current US export revenue that is threatened and could be potentially lost. Please note that the survey only covers questionable measures affecting US exports to countries covered by overseas FAS offices. It does neither cover questionable European measures affecting countries other than the US nor US measures affecting European imports.
The survey finds 57 questionable measures in Europe with an estimated trade impact on US agricultural and food exports of $899.55 million. Six of these questionable measures have an estimated individual trade impact of more than $50 million each(Table 2). Together these barriers account for 61.8% of the total estimated trade impact. Survey respondents identified only 12 other measures worldwide with such a large impact. Roberts and DeRemer (1997) find 23 regulations in US/Europe trade with an estimated trade impact of more than $5 million.
Considering the product coverage of questionable measures, the survey shows that many barriers affecting US exports to Europe affect trade in animal products (Table 2). The estimated trade impact of all barriers on animal products is $477.3
million and accounts for 53% of estimated total trade impacts of all European barriers. By comparison, in all other countries of the world only $107.3 million exports of animal products are subjected to questionable barriers. Moreover, exports of processed foods and grains exceeding $100 million respectively are affected by questionable barriers (Roberts & DeRemer, 1997).
The USDA survey is the first comprehensive survey of technical trade barriers affecting US agricultural exports. It has shed the light on TBTs by detailing how pervasive such barriers are. However, its results should be interpreted carefully for several reasons.
1. The experts consulted are likely to be biased: the goal of FAS attaches and trade organizations is to promote US agricultural exports. The regulatory agencies used to vet their estimates are likely to take the US stance on issues such as the scientific justification and conformity of various measures with the new trade agreements.
2. Some experts may have been aware that the US may consider initiating WTO dispute settlement procedures based on their reports.
3. The survey covers market retention barriers (i.e., barriers under consideration) whose adoption and implementation are uncertain.
4. Finally, for confidentiality reasons, Roberts and DeRemer (1997) could not identify specific issues. Lacking this information, it is difficult to assess the reliability of various estimates.
Note: Information for product categories only given if (1) more than 10 barriers apply, or (2) if the ETI exceeds $50 million.
Source: Thornsbury et al. (1997); Roberts and DeRemer (1997).
Specific Measures
This section identifies recent and current specific technical barriers in US/Europe agricultural trade. In addition to studying European barriers on US imports, we also explore US barriers on European imports. We identify sectors in which such barriers are prevalent and attempt to approximate their trade impact.
Our survey does not provide systematic evidence on technical barriers in US/Europe trade. This requires a detailed assessment of many standards and regulations and a comprehensive survey of exporters in many countries. Instead, our study is based on information found in research papers, newspapers, and industry and agency publications such as Agra-Europe, documents of the US Foreign Agricultural Service, and a European Commission Report on US Barriers to Trade and Investment. We omit questionable measures not mentioned in such publications and, possibly, many TBTs related to conformity assessment and enforcement.
In this article, we attempt to approximate the trade impact of various TBTs. Unfortunately, with the exception of Peterson, Paggi, and Henry’s paper (1998) on the US/EU hormone dispute, quantitative economic studies on the price and welfare effects of TBTs in US/Europe trade are unavailable at this point. Occasionally, news and other sources identify the trade impact of threatened or existing barriers. If no
data are available, we approximate the maximum possible impact of, for example, an import ban, by giving information on the trade volume before the ban. Note, however, that this estimate is likely to be an overstatement. Import bans are frequently linked to specific production and processing techniques. If a US processing firm follows EU guidelines, it may still be able to do business with the EU.
a. Wine and olive oil exports correspond to total exports in the quoted year. Not all wine and olive oil may be affected by the ban.
b. Figure applies to total red meat rather than pork..
c. Eastern Europe’s poultry meat imports amounted to $160 million in 1997.
Finally, please note that we do not attempt to merely pinpoint Roberts and
DeRemer’s list of European technical barriers affecting US agricultural exports. The USDA survey constitutes a snapshot of questionable foreign technical barriers facing US agricultural exports in June 1996. Second-guessing measures identified by the USDA survey would have led us to neglect important current issues such as the EU’s threatened ban on specified risk materials. Other issues may have been resolved in the meantime.
外文翻译 原文 Strategies for distinctive brands Material Source: Journal of Brand Management Author:Judith Lynne Zaichkowsky ABSTRACT Brand identity complements brand equity and it forms an important part of the strategic management of brands. Identity elements include a well-known brand name, logo, font type, symbols, colour, shape, as well as unique product and benefit descriptions. These different elements can contribute to distinct consumer perceptions of various brands in the marketplace and help to differentiate brands from competitors. Brand managers need to start with a vision of what they want their brand to represent and then use the appropriate identity elements to build the brand. Some brand identity components may be influential to choice at the subconscious level of consumers, and therefore the understanding of individual psychological processes of perception and social meaning is required by brand managers. Keywords: brand equity ; brand identity ; logos ; brand names ; packaging INTRODUCTION Much literature in the area of branding has focused on brand equity and its importance to strong brands. Although everyone agrees that understanding and creating brand equity is essential for marketing, very little academic attention is paid to understanding the importance of brand identity and its relation to brand equity and brand management. Brand identity is the visual picture and meaning derived from the visual impact of the brand. For the consumer to identify brands with their respective manufacturers, the brands must be sold with distinctive features supplied by that particular manufacturer. Strong and unique links to one source is what complements and protects brands from being interchangeable in the marketplace. Brand differentiation, or identity, may be achieved through a well-known brand name, logo, typeface, symbol, colour, shape, distinctive design of the package or product, as well as product benefit descriptions known as unique selling points
外文翻译 原文 Firms in International Trade Material Source: https://www.doczj.com/doc/e213859587.html, Author: Andrew B. Bernard For most of its lengthy history the field of international trade largely ignored the role of the firm in mediating the flow of goods and services. Traditional trade theory explained the flow of goods between countries in terms of comparative advantage, that is, variation in the opportunity costs of production across countries and industries. Even the research focusing on differentiated varieties and increasing returns to scale that followed Helpman and Krugman continued to retain the characterization of the representative firm.?However, the assumption of a representative firm, while greatly enhancing the tractability of general equilibrium analysis, is emphatically rejected in the data. My research over the past decade has been an attempt to explore international trade from below: to understand the decisions of heterogeneous firms in shaping international trade and their effects on productivity growth and welfare. Firm Heterogeneity and Trade My early work with J. Bradford Jensen was motivated by a simple question: what do we know about firms that trade? The answer at the time was "very little" and our initial efforts focused on locating firm-level data and describing the world of exporting firms. Our first study compared exporters and non-exporters for the entire U.S. manufacturing sector and established a set of facts about exporting plants and firms.?Two major results stand out. First, only a small fraction of firms are exporters at any given time. Even in sectors where the United States is thought to have comparative advantage, such as Instruments, a majority of firms produce only for the domestic market. Similarly, some firms are exporting even in net import sectors such as Textiles and Apparel. Second, exporters are substantially and significantly different than non-exporters, even in the same industry and region. Exporters are dramatically larger, more productive, pay higher wages, use more skilled workers, and are more technology- and capital-intensive than their non-exporting counterparts. In related
中国农产品贸易现状及前景分析摘要 近年来，随着国内生产力水平的提升和对外开放政策的日益成熟，中国农产品进出口贸易额都一直处于稳固增长状态。然而，这其中依旧存在如出口种类单一、出口市场集中、低价竞争等诸多咨询题。通过对中国农产品贸易现状及其比较优势与劣势的分析，引出了产生这些咨询题的缘故。提出了应该加大对国际农产品市场及国际贸易规则的了解，调整好出口结构，充分发挥自身比较优势，规范为先、品质为本，树立国际品牌形象，对其进出口贸易进行战略性调整，以促进中国农产品贸易健康稳固的进展的差不多应计策略。并结合实际情形，对中国农产品贸易的前景进行了展望。 关键词农产品贸易，中国，现状，应计策略，前景展望 ABSTRACT In recent years, along with the enhancement of domestic productive f orces level and the policy of opening to the outside world become maturi ng day by day, Chinese agricultural product import and export volume are both in continuously growth condition. However, there are still so many questions, such as the exportation types are rare, the markets of exportatio n are centralism, the low price competition and so on. Through the analy sis of the present situation of Chinese agricultural product trade and the c omparison advantage and the disadvantage, drew out the reason of there q uestions. suggested that we should strengthen the understanding of the int ernational agricultural product market and the international trade rule, adju sts the exportation structure well, displays own comparison advantage full y, take standard and quality as the most important things, setting up good
选择题 1.中国加入WTO的时间：2001年12月11日 2.评价一个国家某个产业是否具有国际竞争力，常用四种方法 生产率指标，利润指标，国际市场占有率，贸易竞争力指数, 3.世界贸易组织与国际货币基金组织、世界银行并称为世界经济的“三大支柱” 4.农产品价值的组成 农产品价值=C+V+M C：生产资料价值，即补偿农产品生产中物质消耗部分的价值； V：劳动报酬，即农产品生产中补偿劳动者报酬的价值； M：赢利，即农业生产者为社会创造的价值。 5.日本的肯定列表制度概念以及对我国农产品向日本出口的影响 日本为加强食品(包括可食用农产品)中农业化学品(包括农药、兽药和饲料添加剂)残留管理而制定的一项新制度。该制度要求：食品中农业化学品含量不得超过最大残留限量标准；对于未制订最大残留限量标准的农业化学品，其在食品中的含量不得超过“一律标准”，即0.01 mg/kg。该制度将于2006年5月29日起执行。44 肯定列表制度全面提高了中国农产品出口的技术门槛，严重削弱了中国农产品的出口竞争力，中国农产品出口面临着前所未有的严峻考验。 由于“肯定列表制度”的严格限制，部分国内食品、农产品企业对于如何应对感到无计可施，有的企业只好暂时放弃了出口，选择了观望，以免造成更大的损失。来自商务部的数据显示，我国对日出口的主要是水产品、肉类、蔬菜、水果及其制品等劳动密集型农产品，山东、辽宁、浙江、福建、河北等主要出口地区，对日出口占其农产品出口总量的比重分别达到39%、49%、41%、49%和47%。出口受阻将对这些地区的经济发展和农民增收造成严重不利的影响。 6.农产品的分类：酒和烟等 7.六种国际贸易术语的具体内容。
附录 F.1英文参考资料及中文翻译 F. 1 .1international trade documents role General international trade documents (international trade documents) is the international trade of use all the documents, documents and certificates collectively. Usually with international trade documents to deal with in and out of delivery of the goods El, transportation, insurance, inspection and quarantine, customs declaration, the settlement of exchange, etc. Special international trade documents usually refers to the settlement documents, especially the l/c under the way of settlement of documents. International trade documents and the use of import and export trade program closely related, the documents in the import and export enterprise work throughout the export, purchase, transportation, the whole process of the proceeds, the effort is big, timeliness strong, is broad, in addition to import and export enterprise internal between various departments the cooperation with the outside, still must and bank, customs, transportation department, insurance companies, the inspection and quarantine agencies and the relevant administrative authorities happen various contact, linked together, mutual influence, also are conditions. International trade documents for the performance of a contract is necessary means International trade is the transnational goods business, due to the particularity of the multinational business, which is the purchase and sale of the different departments are located in different countries, are remote, in most cases, the goods and payment can't perform simple direct exchange, but only as the medium of exchange with documents means. The international trade of the documents that sales of goods through the documents realization sale, the seller should not only will the actual delivery of goods export shipment, and should submit to the buyer include the title to the goods vouchers, complete documents to show real assignment. The seller/p means that the delivery of the goods, and the buyer payment is get to buy goods on behalf of property rights certificate, the deal is no longer with the goods as the core, but with documents as the core. Documents and payment of the convection principle has become the international trade of general principles of the commodity business. As international trade experts "; m Cardiff in the export trade in his book mentioned: "from a business perspective, can say CIF the purpose of the contract is not the buying and selling of goods itself, but the documents relating to the goods business." What say here "documents" is the international trade of documents. International trade documents many kinds, every kind of documents has its
黑龙江大学硕士研究生 课程名称：中国农产品国际贸易发展分析 任课教师：李丽娅 开课学年/开课学期：2012-2013-2 学时/ 学分：30/2 所在教学学院：生命科学学院 专业名称：食品加工与安全 学号/姓名：2121454/王璐 教师评语：＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿ 任课教师签字（章）：＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
目录 摘要： (3) 关键词： (3) 1加入WTO对中国农产品国际贸易影响 (3) 1.1中国农产品国际贸易基本状况 (3) 1.2中国农业生产与消费 (3) 1.3中国农产品贸易措施主要变化 (4) 2加入WTO后中国农产品国际贸易政策调整思路 (4) 3影响进出口的WTO协议分析 (5) 4倾销调查对我国农产品出口贸易的影响 (5) 5我国农产品遭遇反倾销的成因分析 (5) 5.1反倾销发起国的贸易保护主义作祟 (5) 5.2众多国家仍未给予我国，市场经济国家待遇 (5) 5.3我国农产品产业结构不合理，重复建设导致恶性竞争 (6) 5.4农产品企业应诉不力 (6) 6我国应对农产品反倾销的有效策略 (6) 6.1强化政府职能，完善相关政策法规 (6) 6.2发挥行业协会的作用。协调帮助出口企业应诉 (7) 6.3农产品企业自身的完善 (7) 参考文献： (9)
品牌营销外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译) 译文： 品牌 消费者总有关于产品可用性、质量和可供选择的价格的不完全信息。这样的“不完美的信息”导致他们依靠那些减轻获取产品信息的费用的品牌。由于依靠名牌和伴生的公司名誉，每次购买时，消费者没有搜寻或调查产品就能做出合理的购买。 许多经济学家惊叹这样一个事实：消费者在名牌上投入了如此的信赖。问题是，如同这些经济学家看见的，消费者的信赖给了公司建立超出他们能收取的价格的品牌“市场力量”。因为这些经济学家宣称要“真实地”辨别产品，当公司以独特的名牌、相关的广告和积极的竞争来“区分”他们的产品，他们能够比其他人得到更多。名牌引导消费
者在不同的产品之间进行那些经济学家认为的人为的分别。公司因为品牌而受到尊敬，因此，名牌能使企业在提高价格的情况下而不会失去重大的销售额。 品牌导致消费者经常根据现实世界和“完美的”信息世界之间的比较而付出不必要的多余地的高价，那里同一个行业内的每个公司都承担出售相同的、没有品牌的“同类”产品。这些是在“完善的竞争模型，”作的假定，及有时供经济学家使用的简化的构建。虽然不完美信息是完全自然的和不可避免的。许多经济学家认为完善的竞争的绝佳状态是衡量政策是否理想的评判标准。那是因为在完善的竞争之下公司没有任何力量抬高交易价格。如果公司提高了他们的产品的价格甚至只比市场价格高一分，它都将什么也卖不出去。因此，在完全竞争情况下，消费者不会支付更高一分的价格购买在其他任何地方以更低的价格能买到的相同的产品。毫不奇怪，假定同类产品是理想的，导致以品牌区分产品而减少消费者福利的不正确涵义。那么，反过来，导致由哈佛经济学家爱德华·H 1956年主张的政策——商标不应该被强制执行。 但是，越来越多的经济行业认识到了假定产品是相同的存在着问题。你无法理解由没有下降的品牌效应为其服务的经济目的假定，我们居住在消费者都知晓的完全信息的世界。实际上，消费者没有充分的掌握信息，并且他们也知道他们并没有掌握完全的信息。因此，他们重视公司的名誉——并且他们愿意支付更多在那些一直供应高质量产品、拥有良好声誉的生产商的产品上。通过这种做法，消费者不会不合理行动。他们简单地设法保护自己没有必须用许多时间去学习获得关于各个公
外文翻译 原文 World Trade and International Trade Material Source:https://www.doczj.com/doc/e213859587.html, Author: Ted Alax In today’s complex economic world, neither individuals nor nations are self-sufficient. Nations have utilized different economic resources; people have developed different skills. This is the foundation of world trade and economic activity. As a result of this trade and activity, international finance and banking have evolved. For example, the United States is a major consumer of coffee, yet it does not have the climate to grow any or its own. Consequently, the United States must import coffee from countries (such as Brazil, Colombia and Guatemala) that grow coffee efficiently. On the other hand, the United States has large industrial plants capable of producing a variety of goods, such as chemicals and airplanes, which can be sold to nations that need them. If nations traded item for item, such as one automobile for 10,000 bags of coffee, foreign trade would be extremely cumbersome and restrictive. So instead of batter, which is trade of goods without an exchange of money, the United State receives money in payment for what it sells. It pays for Brazilian coffee with dollars, which Brazil can then use to buy wool from Australia, which in turn can buy textiles Great Britain, which can then buy tobacco from the United State. Foreign trade, the exchange of goods between nations, takes place for many reasons. The first, as mentioned above is that no nation has all of the commodities that it needs. Raw materials are scattered around the world. Large deposits of copper are mined in Peru and Zaire, diamonds are mined in South Africa and petroleum is recovered in the Middle East. Countries that do not have these resources within their own boundaries must buy from countries that export them. Foreign trade also occurs because a country often does not have enough of a particular item to meet its needs. Although the United States is a major producer of sugar, it consumes more than it can produce internally and thus must import sugar.
中国－澳大利亚农产品贸易现状及前景分析 澳大利亚是中国进口农产品的重要来源国，自2000年起，中国的进口始终保持在10 亿美元以上，2004年更是达到25.4亿美元，占到农产品进口总额的9.1%，创历史新高。澳大利亚还是中国农产品贸易逆差的主要来源国，其中，2004年的逆差额为23亿美元，占中国农产品贸易逆差总额(46.4亿美元)的49.6%。近年来，随着国际农产品市场竞争的加剧，澳大利亚越来越重视与中国的经贸关系，目前已经把开拓中国市场作为其全球贸易战略的重要内容。在不断加大其出口产品营销力度的同时，为使其产品获得更优惠的市场准入条件，还通过承认中国的市场经济国家地位，来推动双边自由贸易协定(Free Trade Agreement，FTA)的签署。从未来的发展看，这些措施可能会促使澳大利亚农产品对中国出口规模的进一步扩大。在此背景下，本文试图对中澳农产品贸易的现状及特征进行系统分析，以期对双边农产品贸易的发展前景作出客观判断。 一、澳大利亚农业及中澳农产品贸易 1．澳大利亚农业概况 澳大利亚拥有丰富的耕地、草地资源，农牧业高度发达。其农业用地44600万公顷，约占国土总面积(77400万公顷)的57%。其中，种植业用地 4800万公顷，占农业用地的10%，以种植小麦、大麦、水稻、油料、棉花、甘蔗为主；畜牧业用地约39800万公顷，占农业用地的90%，以饲养肉牛、绵羊、奶牛为主，但猪禽养殖近年的发展也很迅速。澳大利亚农业以农场经营为主，农场的平均规模约1654公顷。其中，规模在500公顷以上的农场 67600个，占总数的46%，以绵羊、肉牛和奶牛的生产为主；100～499公顷的农场约48500个，占总数的33%，除部分生产肉牛、绵羊、奶牛，其他多以谷物生产为主；规模在49公顷以下的农场约31200个，占21%，主要用于园艺产品生产及作物育种。澳大利亚53.5%农场实行专业化经营，其中，32.5%专门经营畜牧业，约21%专门经营种植业。 澳大利亚农业生产的机械化、专业化、集约化程度高，小麦、大麦、棉花、糖以及大部分畜牧产品的产出规模巨大、外贸依存度很高，每年75%左右的初级农产品以及25%的加工农产品都要依靠国际市场销售。其中，大米、牛肉和奶制品的出口量占产量的60%左右；小麦、大麦、芥子油、食糖均超过70%；棉花、羊毛更是达到95%以上。目前，澳大利亚是世界上羊毛的第一大出口国，牛羊肉、大麦的第二大出口国，奶制品、棉花、食糖、油菜籽的第三大出口国，小麦的第四大出口国，其出口变化对这些大宗农产品的国际市场行情有显著的影响。 澳大利亚是仅次于欧盟、美国、加拿大、巴西和中国的世界第六大农产品出口国，也是主要的农产品净出口国。主要出口市场依次是日本、美国、中国、欧盟、东盟、新西兰以及韩国等。 2．中澳农产品贸易
品牌营销战略参考文献和英文文献翻译 目录外文文献翻译..............................................................................................1 摘要..........................................................................................................1 1. 品牌战略内涵与其功能意义.......................................................................2 2. 我国企业品牌发展概况..............................................................................3 2.1 国内品牌与国外品牌相比存在着很大的差距............................................3 2.2 品牌发展缺乏整体规划. (4) 2.3 产品质量低下品牌个性不足缺乏创新和发展能力.....................................4 2.4 品牌发展策略存在误区. (4) 3. 企业品牌策略选择..................................................................................6 3.1 树立正确的品牌竞争意识着力提高品牌竞争能力......................................6 3.2 搞好品牌定位培养消费者品牌偏好与品牌忠诚.. (6) 3.3 遵循品牌设计规律注重品牌形
Positioning in Practice Strategic Role of Marketing For large firms that have two or more strategic business units (SBUs), there are generally three levels of strategy: corporate-level strategy, strategic-business-unit-level (or business-level) strategy, and marketing strategy. A corporate strategy provides direction on the company's mission, the kinds of businesses it should be in, and its growth policies. A business-level strategy addresses the way a strategic business unit will compete within its industry. Finally, a marketing strategy provides a plan for pursuing the company's objectives within a specific market segment. Note that the higher level of strategy provides both the objectives and guidelines for the lower level of strategy. At corporate level, management must coordinate the activities of multiple strategic business units. Thus the decisions about the organization's scope and appropriate resource deployments/allocation across its various divisions or businesses are the primary focus of corporate strategy.Attempts to develop and maintain distinctive competencies tend to focus on generating superior financial, capital, and human resources; designing effective organizational structures and processes; and seeking synergy among the firm's various businesses. At business-level strategy, managers focus on how the SBU will compete within its industry. A major issue addressed in business strategy is how to achieve and sustain a competitive advantage. Synergy for the unit is sought across product-markets and across functional department within the unit. The primary purpose of a marketing strategy is to effectively allocate and coordinate marketing resources and activities to accomplish the firm's objectives within a specific product-market. The decisions about the scope of a marketing strategy involve specifying the target market segment(s) to pursue and the breadth of the product line to offered. At this level of strategy, firms seek competitive advantage and synergy through a well-integrated program of marketing mix elements tailored to the needs and wants of customers in the target segment(s). Strategic Role of Positioning Based on the above discussion, it is clear that marketing strategy consists of two parts: target market strategy and marketing mix strategy. Target market strategy consists of three processes: market segmentation, targeting (or target market selection), and positioning. Marketing mix strategy refers to the process of creating a unique
中国农产品贸易数据 （一）严重限制了我国的外贸出口 近年来，我国一些出口产品频频遭遇国外技术性贸易壁垒，出口受阻，有的甚至退出 了市场，损失趋于上升。中国90%的农业及食品出口企业受TBT的影响，具有国际竞争力 的劳动密集型农产品出口受到发达国家TBT的限制，造成每年约90亿美元的损失。[6] 日本从2019年5月29日实施的“肯定列表制度”的标准极其严格，导致我国2019 年6月份对日农产品出口额大幅减少，为5.69亿美元，较去年同期下降18%。[7]据测算，受“肯定列表制度”影响最大的农产品包括：茶叶出口涉及就业310万人，蔬菜涉及314 万人，烤鳗涉及43万人。[3]2019年，日本将我国出口的大米检测指标由1993年的47项增加到现在的116项，致使无锡的大米出口由1980年代每年的10多万吨下降到零。 [8]2019年5月9日和5月28日，日本厚生省实施批批检验呋喃它酮和呋喃唑酮，有13 家企业的16批产品分别被检出呋喃它酮和呋喃唑酮超标，这使企业通关时间加长，出口 量进一步萎缩。[3] 近年来，发达国家实行的技术性贸易壁垒不断加大对进口茶叶的农残 检测，提高检测标准，对福建乌龙茶出口造成了负面影响。日本对进口的茶叶设置了108 种农药残留最高限量标准，而实际检测项目多达142种。与欧盟的比较，不仅量多，有的 指标还严于欧盟。2019年5月29日，日本实行“肯定列表制度”，对茶叶农残的检测要 求大幅提高。有限量的农残项目从原来的83项增加到144项，无限量标准实行“一律标准”，即限量为0.01mg/kg。日本对设限外农药采用统一标准，大大增加了福建出口的乌 龙茶农药检出的概率。这使得福建乌龙茶的出口量从2001年的14296吨/年下降到2019 年的12626吨/年，出口金额从2001年的3476万美元下降到2019年的2976万美元。 [9]1999年7月以来，欧盟大幅度增加了出口茶叶农药检验的项目，同时提高了标准的严 格度。在数量上由1999年的6种增加到2019年的216种，其中93.6%农药的最大残留限 量为0.01mg/kg，为仪器的最低检出限，大大增加了我国茶叶出口的困难。而且，欧盟仍 然根据1998年第98/82/EC号规则中有关农药残留最高限量的规定，坚持对干茶叶(固体物) 中的农残进行检测，即检测每公斤干茶叶中农药残留的含量，而不是按照消费习惯对 茶水中农残进行检验，对干茶叶取样检测的方法导致出现农残大量超标现象。随着欧盟实 施的茶叶农残检验标准越来越苛刻，中国对欧盟茶叶出口逐年下降，1998年中国对欧盟(25国)出口茶叶4.3万吨，2019年出口茶叶1.8万吨，九年间下降幅度达58.1%。[3] 在禽肉进出口方面，中美禽肉贸易面临的严重问题是贸易不平衡，我国进口量大，出口量少，2019年中国自美进口禽肉超过60万吨，出口为零。美国总统布什签署的《2019财年综合 拨款法案》第733款规定，不得将该法案拨款用于制订和实施有关允许中国禽肉产品进口，这严重影响了中美禽肉贸易。2019年3月10日，美国参议院正式通过涉及限制进口中国 禽肉产品的《2019财年综合拨款法案》第727条款，继续关闭了中国禽肉产品出口到美国市场的大门。[3] （二）提高出口成本，削弱我国农产品的出口竞争力 从经营成本角度来分析，TBT措施对农产品出口企业会产生成本障碍作用，具有负面 影响，从而进一步削弱农产品出口企业的竞争力。中国出口农产品受阻在很多情况下是