纺织品出口竞争力研究外文文献翻译最新译文

越南纺织品产业竞争力研究的国内外文献综述目录越南纺织品产业竞争力研究的国内外文献综述 (1)（一）国外文献综述 (1)（二）国内文献综述 (2)（三）文献述评 (4)（一）国外文献综述竞争力研究理论最早可以追溯到古典经济学派理论，比较优势和积聚优势理论揭示了国际分工体系下国家间的竞争优势形成机理，因此被奉为竞争力优势理论的基础。

然而对竞争力进行系统研究是上个世纪八十年代开始的。

国际上最早对竞争力进行系统、全面研究的机构或学者有两个。

一个是世界经济论坛和瑞士洛桑国际管理开发学院的竞争力评价方法和指标体系，其研究侧重于宏观层面的竞争力问题。

另一个是美国哈佛大学教授迈克尔.波特的竞争力理论。

迈克尔.波特发表了四本极具影响力著作：《竞争战略》、《竞争优势》、《全球产业中的竞争》和《国家竞争优势》。

Wong Amy（2021）提出了基于资源的企业理论。

他认为企业竞争力是一种能够让企业产生可持续发展能力的资源。

PETE BIGELOW（2021）从技术与组织的角度提出了竞争力能使市场、企业和技能互相结合的观点。

Li Junxuan（2021）在《国际物流运输研究杂志》发表的《中小企业的弹性与竞争力：实证研究》中阐述了中小企业的竞争优势，并通过实证的方法来研究影响竞争力的因素。

Pavleen Soni（2021）提出了制造型中小企业在市场经济中有着重要地位的观点，且他认为对于制造型中小企业来说提升自身的竞争力是非常重要的。

Kalender Gulcin Ipek（2021）阐述了区域竞争力思想的演变，总结出怎样融合不同的观点理论来提供整体的思路。

Augustin Ignatov（2018）通过对欧盟2007年~2016年期间经济创新相关数据的定量分析发现，商业驱动的创新在竞争环境中更有效，也更多的被采用。

与政府驱动的创新相比，企业驱动的创新更具竞争力，更适合竞争环境。

通过深层次的整合，将促进竞争并且提高业务和市场作为决策因素的作用。

外文翻译原文LABOR MARKET EFFECTS OF IMPORT COMPETITON: THEORY AND EVIDENCE FROM THE TEXITILE AND APPAREL INDUSTRIESMaterial Source: Atlantic Economic JournalAuthor: BEN S. SHIPPENAbstract: Since the early 1980s, much attention has been given to the possibility of trade-related job losses and wage effects in the textile and apparel industries. This paper uses aggregate time series data from the Annual Survey of Manufacturers (Bartlesman and Gray, 1996) with import price data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Alterman, 1991) for 1977-91 to test the effect of imports on employment and wages in textiles and apparel. Theoretical models suggest that import competition should be a factor in the determination of employment, and possibly wages, regardless of whether the country is represented as a price-setter or price-taker. The empirical analysis provides some support.Key words: Labor market Import competition Wage Textile industry IntroductionThere is widespread speculation that international trade has a large negative effect on employment and wages especially in low wage sectors where foreign labor costs are particularly low. Since the early 1980s, much attention has been given to the possibility of displaced domestic labor and wage losses in the textile and apparel industries.Historically, textiles and apparel have been important industries in the U.S. economy, in terms of both output and employment. As recently as 1973, they employed 2.3 million workers or more than 11 percent of the total number of workers in manufacturing. By 1993 however, employment had declined to about 1.6 million workers and 8.3 percent of manufacturing--a decline of more than 30 percent. Real wages for both industries remain well below the manufacturing average. In 1993 the average apparel wage was 41percent less, and the average textile wage was 26 percent less than average wages in other manufacturing industries. A popular explanation for employment declines and low wages is the presence of importcompetition. The purpose of this paper is to look at this popular notion by testing the effect of imports on employment and wages in textiles and apparel with aggregate time series data. Such an examination is absent in literature.This paper is organized as follows. First, a theoretical model of textile and apparel supply and demand is presented to explain how import competition is expected to affect workers. In the world market, the U.S. is modeled as both a price-setter and a price-taker. The theoretical models suggest that import competition could be a factor in determining employment regardless of whether the U.S. is represented as a price-setter or price-taker. However, this would only be a determining factor of wages if the U.S. is a price-setter. Two empirical models are developed to test whether the U.S. textile and apparel market is a price-setter or price-taker. If the U.S. textile and apparel industries are price-takers, then a measure of import price should be sufficient to measure the effect of import competition on wages and employment. However, if the U.S. textile and apparel market is a price-setter, then endogeneity bias is a possibility in the import price variable and corrective steps must be taken to model the import effects. The analysis here suggests that the effect of import competition on employment and wages is small.Theoretical AnalysisThere are two limiting, theoretical possibilities regarding the way the U.S. production market affects the price in the world market:1) Every domestic change in demand and supply causes a change in world prices.2) Domestic changes in demand and supply have no affect on world prices.The first possibility assumes that the U.S. is a large producer or consumer in the world market and is, thus, a price-setter. The second assumes that the U.S. is a small producer and a small consumer on the world market and is, thus, a price-taker. The distinction between these two possibilities is important because it determines whether import price is endogenous or exogenous to shocks in the domestic market.Starting with the assumption that the U.S. is a price-setter in the world market, the import demand curve is a function of excess demand. The excess demand curve is negatively related to price and, as the domestic demand and supply curves shift, the intercept of the demand for imports changes. Assuming perfect substitutability between domestics and imports as demand for domestic production increases, then excess demand for import production will also increase. However, if domestic supply increases, then excess demand for imports will decrease.The aggregate import supply curve represents the excess supply of goods in other countries. The supply schedule is positively related to price and reflects changes in foreign supply and demand. Foreign incomes and cost conditions abroad are inversely related to the supply schedule while technological changes positively affect supply.The alternative model assumes that the U.S. is a price-taker. The excess demand curve in this model is the same as with the U.S. as a price-setter, with the intercept of the demand curve in the import market starting at the level of equilibrium of demand and supply in the U.S. domestic market. Changes in domestic conditions will change both the domestic equilibrium point and the excess demand in the import market. The supply curve in the import market is perfectly elastic, however, indicating that although changes in domestic demand and supply affect the quantity of imports purchased, they do not affect price.Employment and Wage Models of Import CompetitionTwo models are used to calculate import competition effects on employment and wages in the textile and apparel industries, The first assumes that the U.S. market is a price-taker and, following the empirical framework of (Grossman ，1986), uses import price as the measure of international competition. The second model assumes that the U.S. is a price-setter and, in an approach similar to (Revenga ，1992), uses two-stage least squares (2SLS) with weighted exchange rates as an instrument for import price.First, consider the structural labor demand schedule. Let it L be labor demandin industry i and year t. Then dln it L =1θdln it W +d it Z Γ+it w 1(1) where: 1θ is theemployment elasticity with respect to the wage; it W is the average industry wage;it Z is a vector of observable factors that shift the demand for labor in industry i andyear t; Γis a vector of employment elasticity that corresponds to it Z ; and it w 1 isan error term that is designed to capture unobserved demand shocks.The vector of variables that shifts labor demand includes the measures of aggregate demand in the economy and direct measures of labor demand. The vector of demand shifters include measures of import competition, real gross national product (GNP), domestic production, and an index of the cost of materials. Employment is expected to vary positively with GNP and the industry output. It could vary inversely or positively with the cost of materials depending on whether the output or substitution effect is dominant.The measure of import competition is an index of import prices. Employment isexpected to vary positively with import price as an increase in the import price increases the production in the U.S.Next, consider the labor supply to an industry: dln it L =c.dln it W +dit H ψ+it w 2(2) where: it W is the industry wage at year t; c is the industry supply elasticity with respect to the wage; it H is a vector of observed factors that shift labor supply; ψis a vector of industry supply elasticity; and it w 2 represents unmeasured supplyshocks.It is necessary to estimate the system in reduced form because wages and employment are simultaneously determined. The equations written in reduced form are: dln it L =1γd it Z +2γd it H +it v (3) and dln it W =1βd it Z +2βd it H +it v (4) where it v and it v are error terms that reflect unmeasured shocks to labor demand and supply.For 2SLS estimation, a first-stage equation is required to estimate the endogenous import price variable used in the second-stage equation. The first-stage equation is: dln it P =1ξd it Z +2ξd it H +3ξd it I +it ∈(5) where it P represents theaverage import price for industry i and year t, it I represents the weighted exchangerate variable for industry i and year t, and it ∈ represents a random error term forindustry i and year t. Predicted values of dln it P are then used to estimate (3) and (4)using 2SLS estimation.DataThe data used are obtained from the National Bureau of Economic Research productivity and trade databases. These are compiled for the 1972 manufacturing industries at the standard industry code's four-digit level (450 total) for 1958-91. Other variables include value of shipments, cost of materials, production employment, production hours, and production payroll on an annual basis. These variables have been converted to the three-digit level to accommodate the index of import price data. Variables that are not included in the National Bureau of Economic Research databases but are used in these equations are GNP, an index of import prices, and a weighted exchange rate. Constant GNP is drawn from the Economic Report of the President [1993] for 1972-91 while the import price variable is international price indices taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Alterman ，1991) for selected three-digit manufacturing industries for 1977-91. The weighted exchange rate is from the Bureau of Census' International Trade Division(Alterman ，1991) for the top five exporting countries to the U.S. in textiles and apparel in 1991, and the total weighted index is from the Economic Report of the President. Finally, implicit price deflators for value of shipments and the index ofthe cost of materials are also taken from the Economic Report of the President.The Results of the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and 2SLS ModelsTable 1 presents the results of the import price specification. The employment elasticity of domestic output with respect to hours and employment in the apparel industry is positive and significant. Also in apparel, the coefficient on the alternative real wage is estimated to be -1.558 in the employment equation, suggesting that a one percent increase in the alternative wage (which, in turn, increases own wage) would reduce employment by 1.59 percent in these industries. In the textile industry, the coefficient on the alternative wage in the employment equation is also significant. GNP and the index of the cost of materials in this model have no effect on employment or wages in either industry.TABLE 1The coefficient on import prices in the apparel industry is positive and significant for the hours and employment equations, indicating that an increase inimport price has a positive effect on hours worked and overall production employment. The coefficient on the import price variable is small and insignificant in the apparel wage equation. This result, however, is not unexpected if apparel workers are taken from a large labor market where apparel firms are wage-takers. On the other hand, the coefficient on import prices in the hours, employment, and wage equations in the textile industry is small and insignificant, suggesting that a change in the import price in this specification has little effect on hours worked, people employed, or average wages of production workers. In this model, only changes in domestic output and the alternative wage have significant effects on hours, employment, or wages in the textile industry.Table 2 presents the results for the 2SLS model for the textile and apparel industries. This estimation assumes that the U.S. is a price-setter and is designed to correct for endogeneity bias in the import price variable by estimating import price as a function of weighted exchange rates. This corrected import price variable should not be correlated with the dependent variables or with industry-specific domestic shocks.TABLE 2Domestic output remains the most significant variable in the employment equations of both industries, with positive coefficients in the two-stage estimations. The alternative wage variable in the employment equation continues to be positive in the textile industry and negative in apparel. GNP and the index of the cost of materials are insignificant in all equations for both industries.The coefficient on the import price variable in the 2SLS estimations increases from the previous OLS estimations for textiles and apparel. In the apparel industry, the coefficient in the hours and employment equations increased from 0.442 to 0.528 log points and from 0.359 to 0.541 log points, respectively. 4 Since using 2SLS models often results in a loss of efficiency compared to OLS estimates, it is not surprising that these results change from being significant to insignificant at standard levels. The estimation would benefit with increased observations to determine if the problem is associated with the small sample, or if import prices truly have no effect. The estimate of import price also appears larger in the 2SLS equations of the textile industry, compared to the results of the OLS estimation, although the coefficients are insignificant.ConclusionsThe results from the two models are mixed. The results of the OLS model with the U.S. as a price-taker suggest that foreign competition plays a significant role in determining employment and hours worked in the apparel industry. The textile industry, however, is not significantly affected by import prices in hours worked, employment, or wages. The results from the 2SLS model using weighted exchange rates to instrument the index of import price variable are more consistent with these results, although standard errors are large. Indeed, the coefficients of the import price variable with respect to employment and hours are larger in these estimations for both industries than in the OLS models but are not significant. The results of import competition on wages for the 2SLS models were small and insignificant.Insofar as these models suggest that import competition is an important but not primary cause of employment loss for these industries over the period, the results of these models appear to be consistent with the results found elsewhere in literature. The estimated effects of import competition on wages are consistent with there being relatively competitive labor markets and with the U.S. textile and apparel industries as price-takers in the world product market.译文劳动力资源对进出口竞争的影响：以纺织业为例资料来源：大西洋经济期刊作者：苯·希膨摘要：20世纪80年代以来，人们普遍关注失业和工资对国际贸易中纺织和服装业进出口的影响。

外文翻译原文EXPORT COMPETITIVENESS OF INDIAN TEXTILEAND GARMENTINDUSTRYMaterial Source: Indian Council For ResearchOn International Economic RelationsAuthor:Samar VermaThe international trade in textile and clothing sectors has been a egregious exception to the most favoured nation principle of GATT and, since the early 1960s, has been a case of managed trade through forced consensus. However, the WTO Agreement on Textile and Clothing (ATC) marked a significant turnaround. According to the ATC, beginning 1st January 1995, all textiles and clothing products that had been hitherto subjected to MFA-quota, are scheduled to be integrated into WTO over a period of ten years. “The dismantling of the quota regime represents both an opportunity as well as a threat. An opportunity because markets will no longer be restricted; a threat because markets will no longer be guaranteed by quotas, and even the domestic market will be open to competition”. From 1st January 2005, therefore, all textile and clothing products would be traded internationally without quota-restrictions. And this impending reality brings the issue of competitiveness to the fore for all firms in the textile and clothing sectors,including those in India. It is imperative to understand the true competitiveness of Indian textile and clothing firms in order to make an assessment of what lies ahead in 2005 and beyond.Owing to its significant contribution, the Indian textile and clothing industry occupies a unique place in the Indian economy. It contributes about 4% of GDP and 14% of industrial output. Second largest employer after agriculture, the industry provides direct employment to 35 million people including substantial segments of weaker sections of society. With a very low import-intensity of about 1.5% only, it is the largest net foreign exchange earner in India, earning almost 35% of foreign exchange. This is the only industry that is self-sufficient and complete in cotton value chain- producing everything from fibres to the highest value added finishedproduct of garments. Its growth and vitality therefore has critical bearings on the Indian economy at large.What Is Competitiveness?Competitiveness is about productivity, which in turn is a function of factors related to cost of products, as well as those related to non-price factors such as delivery schedules, reliability of producers, and such intangible factors like image of the country/company and brand equity. Together, they define the competitive sinews of a product to compete under conditions of free market.However, in order to translate industry competitiveness into sales (greater export share in world market), another set of issues- in addition to productivity-need to be examined. These relate to market access conditions. Indeed, industry competitiveness of restrained exporters such as India was not much of an issue during the last almost four decades, ever since the Short Term Arrangement (STA) of 1961. And the reason lay not in price and non-price factors, but in the“manage”dconditions und er which global trade in textile and clothing products took place. In fact, it was precisely because of the price competitiveness of some Asian exporters in the 1950s and the 1960s that the “generally and solemnly agreed rules of post-war policy conduct-including the keystone of the system, the non-discrimination rules- were formally set aside for reasons regarded as pragmatic”. This system of managed trade, however, will come to an end on 31st December 2004.For the purpose of this study, industry has been defined as a group of firms manufacturing products that directly or indirectly competes with each other. It is implied that no nation can be competitive in manufacturing all goods and services. Hence, industry competitiveness of an entire nation is not quite meaningful. Instead, since it is the firms who compete in international markets, the entire framework of competitiveness would revolve around the study of the firm. “…industrial success was founded on behaviour of firms, not on the decisions of governm ents”. The list of products (industries) identified is in Appendix A.Objective & Scope Of The StudyThe objective of the project is to evaluate the export competitiveness of Indian textile and clothing sectors. Because Indian textile and clothing sector is predominantly cotton based, this study would focus mainly on the cotton textile and apparel, and look at the entire value chain from fibre to garment and retail distribution.With the aforementioned objective in mind, this study has first identified the products in Indian export basket which have shown a promising growth in value, or in unit value and have a considerable weight in the Indian export basket on the basis of recent performance of Indian exports of textile and clothing sectors in the US and EU markets.Research MethodologyIn order to evaluate the demand-side of Indian textile and clothing exports, the study has analysed the competitive performance of Indian exports of the ‘identified’products in the US and EU markets. It has also been used to highlight the role of emerging trade policy environment- specifically, the role of discriminatory rules of origin in Regional Trading Arrangements [RTAs], tariff peaks and environmental and labour standards-as market access issues relevant to textile and clothing exporting countries.To assess the supply-side factors of export competitiveness, a preliminary interview was conducted with a few exporters. The interview sought their views and opinions chiefly in respect of the supply-side bottlenecks that they are facing in India. The supply-side framework is based more on opinions than on data/numbers. The inferences about the supply-side factors are therefore based on the opinions expressed by exporters of identified products.Competitive Performance- Operational DefinitionIn both these markets, competitive performance has been defined through changes in market shares (in value terms) over the years 1995 and 2000. The following twincriterion was employed to identify export-competitive products.A product is said to be export-competitive if the growth rate in unit value of the product imported from India exceeds average growth rate in unit value of the product from all suppliers in a market (US/EU), and Its market share grows over the period 1995-2000.However, there are two additional qualifications that need to be borne in mind.1. To the extent market share is a function of quotas, it may so happen that some countries’ market share declines over time only because their exports are constrained by quotas.2. Because the market share-based competitive performance has been evaluated in value terms, the effect of exchange rate movements on export competitiveness (and revealed in market shares) cannot be ruled out a priory.All value data is reported in US$ terms for the two years 1995 and 2000.During this period, the value of US$ declined by almost 13%, if deflated by consumer price index in the US. The data in the tables have been reported in nominal terms, and analysis made on that basis, since they are all reported in US$ and are equally therefore affected.Using the twin-criteria of export-competitiveness, all selected products are classified into the four categories of leaders, gainers, losers and outliers.译文印度纺织服装行业的出口竞争力资料来源: Indian Council For ResearchOn International Economic Relations作者：Samar Verma自1960年早期，纺织服装行业是国际贸易中关贸总协定最惠国之间经过谈判一致同意的，对关贸总协定正常纪律的例外。

本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目：Determinants of firm-level export performance: a case study of Indian textile garments and apparel industry出处：J. Int. Trade & Economic Development 10: 1 65-92作者：T. A. Bhavani and Suresh D. Tendulkar译文：企业出口表现的决定因素：印度纺织服装和纺织产业的案例分析任何单一商品出口表现都受这些因素影响：（一）、一国政府进出口的政策制度，（二）、外部需求条件，（三）、在外部市场建立和维护价格质量竞争力的供应反映。

在这一节，我们根据纺织服装和服装行业来讨论这些因素。

1951年之前，在印度占主导地位的为内向型或进口替代战略，同时相关的限制性贸易和工业政策一直存在，产生出口偏见。

这个贸易政策，由对汇率的过高估计和对进口种种限制所构成，使得出口商有效汇率低于进口商，因此使出口受到歧视。

进口限制和工业政策比如容量许可，导致国内生产者从外部和内部竞争中孤立出来，以此对国内市场中现有的生产者进行保护。

所有这此政策的最终影响相对于外部市场是为了加强国内市场销售的盈利能力。

1997年7月的经济政策改革开始涉及货币贬值，逐步减缓了峰值速率，平均速率以及进口关税的扩张，除了一些消费品，取消了进口的数量限制，同时除了一些短期的和明确定义为负面的项目，还取消了工业许可。

此外，政府采用一些比如退税和预先许可的鼓励措施。

这些政策的改变为出口商在国际市场销售中提高盈利能力创造了一个有利环境。

转向外部需求状况,Nueks曾经强调在低收入国家，外部需求对于出口是最有约束力的约束。

这篇论文后来被克拉维斯质疑，他认为欠发达国家的出口不景气首要原因是由于内部的供应限制。

克拉维斯的说法被Panoutsopoulos最近的一个实证检验所证实。

外文翻译原文Chinese Competition and Skill-Upgrading in European Textiles: Firm-levelEvidenceMaterial Source: Discussion Paper 198/2008Author: Ph. Monfort, H. Vandenbussche and E. ForlaniIn this paper we study the effect of import competition from China on the Belgian textiles sector. Our analysis comprises both trade data and firm-level data. We study the evolution of the unit values in textiles exported from China into the EU versus textiles exported from Belgium to the rest of the EU over the past ten years. We clearly find evidence of a widening price gap between Chinese and Belgian textiles export prices. Chinese textiles seem to become relatively cheaper over time. These findings are in line with Schott (2004; 2007) who argues that capital abundant countries in the US and Europe use their endowment advantage to produce product varieties that are superior in quality compared to labour intensive countries like China. Next we use firm-level data on Belgian textiles firms in search of evidence of quality and skill upgrading in Belgian textiles exports. We study the evolution of firm level variables such as R&D outlays, the proportion of skilled and unskilled labour used in production and capital intensity. Both China’s entry into the WTO and the end of the Multi-Fibre Agreement significantly seem to cause important shifts in firm level production processes. A very robust result that emerges from the analysis is the one of skill upgrading. While over the past ten years total employment in the Belgian textiles sector has substantially decreased, the ratio of skilled versus unskilled workers has gone up significantly. The evidence is indicative that the Belgian textile sector has been undergoing substantial changes. It is becoming smaller but at the same time seems to be responding to the competition from a low-wage country like China by increasing the skill-content of its products and moving up the quality ladder.Trade data are extracted from the Eurostat COMEXT database. We retrieve export data of China to the EU15 as well as Belgian textile exports to the rest of the EU15. This way we can consider the export prices for both countries in the sameexport destination market. The products that we consider in the textiles are identified by 4-digit NACE5 sectors 1710, 1720, 1740, 1760, 1771, 1772, 1810, 1822, 1823, 1824, 1830 (a detailed data description is in the Appendix). Firm level data are extracted from the BELFIRST database. This database contains very detailed firm-level information in company accounts format. We identify all Belgian Textile firms operating in the four-digit NACE sectors listed above. This way we obtain more information on the characteristics of the textiles firms’ production process We start by showing the evolution of Belgian and Chinese Textiles prices in the EU15. As indicated above, the main indicator used to assess quality differentials between various countries of the same product group is the price. We use the database on values and volumes of exports to compute the unit value of Belgian (Pb) and Chinese (Pc) textile exports to the EU-15 market6 which can simply be done by dividing values by the quantities7. This further allows us to compute relative prices of Belgian versus Chinese textiles products in the same export market. Figure 2 displays the evolution of the relative prices (Pb/Pc) over the period 1995- 2006 where product groups were aggregated within the textile industry. The relative price in Figure 2 is an average of the unit values in the NACE sectors mentioned above. It is constructed as a weighted mean between each product group’s price8 included in a specific sector where the weights are the values’ share of exports of each product inside its own NACE sector.As mentioned above we obtain data at firm level from BELFIRST database, covering a period of nine year (1998-2006); our data consists of the population of Belgian Textile firms in the sectors mentioned above. More precisely we collect data on operating revenues, tangible fixed asset and labour employment to measure respectively output, capital and labour. We construct also capital-labour ratio in order to assess capital intensity in firms’ production process. To proxy firm effort in product upgrading we have data on intangible fixed assets, which is rough measure of R&D intensity and we have data on skilled and unskilled workers. Skilled workers are those with a higher degree education or University education. Unskilled workers are those workers with only primary or secondary education degree. Additionally our data also contains information on vocational training in terms of number of hours firms spent on training workers. In addition we also have data on value added and raw material expenditures. This allows us to construct measures of productivity such as value added per worker (labour productivity) and total factor productivity (TFP). We measure TFP with a parametric estimation of productionfunction using the methodology by Levinshon-Petrin, where material costs are used as intermediate inputs.From the results below it is clear that China’s entry in the WTO coincided with a loss ofrevenue for Belgian textile firms, a reduction in capital outlays, a reduction in employment and value added. The reduction in value added is likely to indicate an increase in the extent of outsourcing although we do not have a good measure of outsourcing available to us. In terms of labour productivity we do not find a significant change. However, when using a more sophisticate productivity measure like “Total Factor Productivity” Levinsohn and Petrin as in specification 6 yields a positive improvement of productivity but only significant at the 10% level. Furthermore we note from Table 1 an increase in the ratio of skilled over unskilled entrants but a reduction in the amount of workers in on the job training (“Training”) and the amount of hours spent on training workers (“Hours”)10. The increased hiring of more skilled workers already suggests that firms are switching their product portfolio towards different types of products. The reduction in the number of training hours may be related to the already higher skill level of new workers11. Finally we find a reduction in R&D levels after 2001.This is different than we would expect. If strong import competition results in quality upgrading of products we would expect EU firms to spend relatively more on R&D. One possibility is that EU textile firms started to offshore their R&D activities to other countries. The increase in the skill ratio however, implies that the production process that remains in Belgium is becoming more skill intensiveThis paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of how industries in developed countries like the EU respond to global competition forces notably competition from China. We focus on the Textile & Clothing industry for the reason that competition in this sector has been amongst the fiercest. Our analysis involved two steps. In the first step we followed the work by Schott (2007) who for the US found a widening price gap between the US and Chinese price of textiles in the US market, which was, interpreted as an indication of quality upgrading in US textiles. Similarly in this paper we found that on the EU market, the unit values of Belgian exports have generally increased compared to those of Chinese exports. The widening price gap between Belgian and Chinese textiles was already indicative of an upgrading process where Belgian textile firms upgrade their products. However, prices are only a proxy for quality and to exclude alternative interpretations, in a second step of our analysis we go in search of quality upgrading at the firm level.We do this by identifying Belgian textile firms in similar sectors as the Chinese textile exports to the EU and study the evolution of firm characteristics that have a bearing on product quality such as R&D spending, the skill mix capital-intensity. From this first and tentative analysis evidence already suggests that Chinese competition has been significantly accompanied by a change in Belgian textile firms’ production process. First we find that the textile industry has shrunk over time with dis-investment in capital and labour ever since the entry of China into the WTO. In addition we find evidence of higher capital intensity and the use of more skilled labour over time. This evidence seems to be in line with a story where a sector like Textiles in Europe is downsizing and switching products and possibly production technology. Theory would predict that Belgian textiles can only survive by producing textiles with higher factor content than Chinese textiles. The empirical evidence presented in this paper seems to suggest that indeed this is what is going on.译文中国纺织品在欧洲市场竞争力和技术升级：公司层面的证据资料来源: 198/2008研讨论文作者：莫福特，万德柏森，佛莱尼在本文我们学习进口竞争的作用从中国的对比利时纺织品区段。

中文3150字毕业论文外文翻译出处：open economies review作者S AMAR VERMAM原文：Export Competitiveness of Indian Textile and Garment IndustryINTRODUCTIONThe international trade in textile and clothing sectors has been a egregious exception to the most favoured nation principle of GATT and, since the early 1960s, has been a case of managed trade through forced consensus. However, the WTO Agreement on Textile and Clothing (ATC) marked a significant turnaround. According to the ATC,beginning 1st January 1995, all textiles and clothing products that had been hitherto subjected to MFA-quota, are scheduled to be integrated into WTO over a period of ten years. “The dismantling of the quota regime represents both an opportunity as well as a threat. An opportunity because markets will no longer be restricted; a threat because markets will no longer be guaranteed by quotas, and even the domestic market will be open to competition”. From 1st January 2005, therefore, all textile and clothing products would be traded internationally without quota-restrictions. And this impending reality brings the issue of competitiveness to the fore for all firms in the textile and clothing sectors,including those in India. It is imperative to understand the true competitiveness of Indian textile and clothing firms in order to make an assessment of what lies ahead in 2005 and beyond.Owing to its significant contribution, the Indian textile and clothing industry occupies a unique place in the Indian economy. It contributes about 4% of GDP and 14% of industrial output. Second largest employer after agriculture, the industry provides direct employment to 35 million people including substantial segments of weaker sections of society. With a very low import-intensity of about 1.5% only, it is the largest net foreign exchange earner in India, earning almost 35% of foreign exchange. This is the only industry that is self-sufficient and complete in cotton valuechain- producing everything from fibres to the highest value added finished product of garments. Its growth and vitality therefore has critical bearings on the Indian economy at large.What Is Competitiveness?Competitiveness is about productivity, which in turn is a function of factors related to cost of products, as well as those related to non-price factors such as delivery schedules, reliability of producers, and such intangible factors like image of the country/company and brand equity. Together, they define the competitive sinews of a product to compete under conditions of free market.However, in order to translate industry competitiveness into sales (greater export share in world market), another set of issues- in addition to productivity- need to be examined. These relate to market access conditions. Indeed, industry competitiveness of restrained exporters such as India was not much of an issue during the last almost four decades, ever since the Short Term Arrangement (STA) of 1961. And the reason lay not in price and non-price factors, but in the …managed‟ conditions under which global trade in textile and clothing products took place. In fact, it was precisely because of the price competitiveness of some Asian exporters in the 1950s and the 1960s that the “generally and solemnly agreed rules of p ost-war policy conduct- including the keystone of the system, the non-discrimination rules- were formally set aside for reasons regarded as pragmatic”. This system of managed trade, however, will come to an end on 31st December 2004.For the purpose of this study, industry has been defined as a group of firms manufacturing products that directly or indirectly competes with each other. It is implied that no nation can be competitive in manufacturing all goods and services. Hence, industry competitiveness of an entire nation is not quite meaningful. Instead, since it is the firms who compete in international markets, the entire framework of competitiveness would revolve around the study of the firm. “…industrial success was founded on behaviour of firms, not o n the decisions of governments”. The list of products (industries) identified is in Appendix A.Objective & Scope Of The StudyThe objective of the project is to evaluate the export competitiveness of Indian textile and clothing sectors. Because Indian textile and clothing sector is predominantly cotton based, this study would focus mainly on the cotton textile and apparel, and look at the entire value chain from fibre to garment and retail distribution.With the aforementioned objective in mind, this study has first identified the products in Indian export basket which have shown a promising growth in value, or in unit value and have a considerable weight in the Indian export basket on the basis of recent performance of Indian exports of textile and clothing sectors in the US and EU markets.Research MethodologyIn order to evaluate the demand-side of Indian textile and clothing exports, the study has analysed the competitive performance of Indian exports of the …identified‟produc ts in the US and EU markets. It has also been used to highlight the role of emerging trade policy environment- specifically, the role of discriminatory rules of origin in Regional Trading Arrangements [RTAs], tariff peaks and environmental and labour standards- as market access issues relevant to textile and clothing exporting countries.To assess the supply-side factors of export competitiveness, a preliminary interview was conducted with a few exporters. The interview sought their views and opinions chiefly in respect of the supply-side bottlenecks that they are facing in India. The supply-side framework is based more on opinions than on data/ numbers. The inferences about the supply-side factors are therefore based on the opinions expressed by exporters of identified products.GLOBAL TRADE IN TEXTILE AND CLOTHING: INDIA’S COMPETITIVEPERFORMANCEDuring the MFA period, the textile exporters from industrial countries and those from developing countries merely changed shares between themselves during the 24 years period. The share of industrial countries declined by almost as much (19.2%) as was the gain in the share of developing countries (18.8%). Clothing exporters.however, exhibit significant changes, with the share of top 13 exporters having declined by 13.8%. New entrants have come in as well as some old ones have been knocked out. Of these new entrants, most- if not all- are from developing countries, since the share of industrial countries has declined during the period, and that of developing countries has increased. The countries that are gaining share in clothing exports are the ones whose industries are integrated to one or the other advanced country through some policy-induced preferential arrangements. Mexico, Caribbean region, East European countries and Mediterranean countries are capturing much of the space vacated. There has been a much deeper globalisation in clothing than in textiles. Indeed, that has been one of the principal reasons for the developed countries agreeing to an eventual phase-out of MFA quota in the UR of negotiations.During the MFA period, (between 1973 to 1997, to be precise), while in textiles, there was an inexorable shift away from developed countries and to developing countries at large, in clothing the shift away from developed countries is increasingly being grabbed by …preferred‟ developing countries.Thus, in clothing, the non-preferred group of developing countries is fighting amongst themselves for a pie that is increasingly declining. One should expect a much higher level of intra-industry and intra-firm trade in clothing than in textiles. This is entirely compatible with the fact that it is the trade in clothing that is growing faster than that in textiles. And this trend is likely to deepen, as clothing retailers consolidate, and Outward Processing Trade (OPT) traffic increases. The opportunity clearly lies much more in clothing, though the caveat is that the exporting country would have to achieve the …preferred‟ status, and integrate its manufacturing with that of an importing country in order to continue exporting to the restricted markets. The pressure to export would intensify in the years to come since 80% of additional output during 1995-2005 is expected to be located indeveloping countries. On the other hand, only 50% of the additional fibre consumption would originate in developing countries.India’s Competitive Performance in the US1.Of the eight cotton apparels, India‟s market share (in 2000) in US import market exceeded 10% in cotton dresses (336), W&G woven shirts (341), and cotton skirts (342). Market share grew in 336 and 341.In 336, India exported higher quantity at reduced prices, while in 341, India moved up the value chain. But the US import market grew strongly in 341 and 342, and not as much in 336. However, in 341, the size of quota is close to the size of US home market, whereas in 336, about 43% of US home market would be opened only on 1st January 2005. Therefore, not much growth should be expected in 341 in terms of US market size. Besides, there are no current threats from …preferred‟ developing countries in 341 yet. Hence this is one category where India should very clearly focus, since the competitor countries are essentially Asian. The one big threat, would be China. Currently, China exports at an appreciably higher uvr compared to India. The evidence from 1995-2000 indicate that China has upgraded its 341 faster than India has. If China continues on that path, India may not worry too much, since the gap between Indian and Chinese prices would be quite significant. But then, if India also upgrades its product, as it has done in 341, competitiveness based only on price will be extremely risky.2.In descending order of uvr, Indian exports of the chosen cotton apparels belong to between 40 and 50 percentile, among all supplier countries for a given MFA product category. Which means India operates in the low value segment in most cotton apparels in the US. However, it is interesting to note that there are three cotton apparels whose uvr have been between percentiles 55 and 60. They are knit shirts (cat 338) and trousers for M&B (cat 347) and for W&G (cat 348). Incidentally, US imports of these products is growing fastest among all cotton apparel categories. However, India has lost market share in all except 347 during 1995-2000. In 347, its unit prices have grown fastest among top ten suppliers. And almost 70% of US market remain to become quota-free only on 1st January 2005. India must build up itsstrength in this product category quickly to capture the huge market that would suddenly open in 2005. Quite apart from …preferred‟ group of developing countries, Pakistan is one country which has done exceedingly well in 347, and has been building its domestic manufacturing facilities very fast. But Pakistan is not yet as much of a threat since its unit value is considerably lower than India. China, however, is likely to emerge as a big threat to India in 347 since their uvr is closer to India‟s and they too are upgrading their product rapidly. Their market share declined due wholly to quota constraint. But they seem to be producing less numbers, and better quality of 347 for US export market. They would pose a big challenge to India.3.In cotton apparels, the competitor countries- aside from …preferred‟ developing countries- are Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Philippines, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. From among these, Bangladesh is the lowest cost supplier in almost all categories. In view of the threat from …preferred‟ developing countries, India must move away from competing only on the basis of price, since the share of this segment is any case declining with the …preferred‟ countries growing rapidly in this segment. And when India upgrades its value, it would have to contend with strong Asian competitors like Hong Kong, China and South Korea, whose performance has been constrained due to quota ceilings. But once the quotas are removed, India may find itself again losing in this upgraded market segment due to sheer size of these countries‟exports. The important lesson for India therefore is that it must not only upgrade its values, but also begin to find ways of competing increasingly on non-price factors.译文印度服装纺织行业的出口竞争力一、简介20世纪60年代初以来，纺织和服装部门的国际贸易一直是在关贸总协定和最惠国待遇原则之外的，一直都是通过强迫达成的共识。

中国纺织品产业出口竞争力研究中国作为全球最大的纺织品生产国和出口国，其纺织品产业的发展对全球纺织品市场有着重要的影响。

本文将对中国纺织品产业出口竞争力进行深入研究，旨在了解其发展现状、分析竞争力优势和挑战，并探讨未来发展前景。

中国纺织品产业的发展可以追溯到上世纪改革开放时期，经过几十年的快速发展，已经形成了从原材料采购到加工制造、品牌运营、国际贸易等完整的产业链。

随着科技水平的提高和国际化进程的加快，中国纺织品产业面临着国际市场竞争的巨大压力，因此，提高其出口竞争力显得尤为重要。

中国纺织品产业出口竞争力主要体现在以下几个方面：生产成本：中国纺织品产业拥有大规模的劳动力资源，这使得中国的纺织品生产成本相对较低。

随着产业技术的不断提高，中国纺织品生产效率也得到了大幅提升，进一步提高了产品竞争力。

产品质量：近年来，中国纺织品产业在产品质量方面得到了显著提升。

企业不断引进先进的生产技术和设备，加强原材料的品质控制，使得产品质量达到了国际先进水平。

价格优势：中国纺织品不仅在质量上具有竞争力，价格上也具有较大优势。

由于中国纺织品产业拥有完善的产业链和大规模的生产能力，使得其能够在国际市场中以较低的价格提供优质的产品。

市场前景：随着全球消费者对纺织品的需求不断增长，中国纺织品产业面临着广阔的市场前景。

特别是在一带一路政策的推动下，中国纺织品在亚洲、欧洲和非洲等地区的市场份额将持续扩大。

然而，中国纺织品产业出口也面临着一些贸易壁垒，主要包括以下几个方面：贸易政策：一些发达国家对中国纺织品出口实施了贸易保护主义政策，如关税壁垒、反倾销等，这些政策对中国纺织品出口造成了一定的限制。

配额：一些国家对中国纺织品出口实施了配额限制，导致中国纺织品在某些市场的出口量受到影响。

质量标准：一些国家对中国纺织品的质量标准提出了高要求，这使得中国纺织品需要不断提高产品质量以符合国际标准。

尽管面临上述贸易壁垒，中国纺织品产业仍有很大的提升空间。

印度纺织服装行业的出口竞争力外文翻译外文翻译原文EXPORT COMPETITIVENESS OF INDIAN TEXTILEAND GARMENT INDUSTRYMaterial Source: Indian Council For ResearchOn International Economic RelationsAuthor:Samar VermaThe international trade in textile and clothing sectors has been a egregious exception to the most favoured nation principle of GATT and, since the early 1960s, has been a case of managed trade through forced consensus. However, the WTO Agreement on Textile and Clothing ATC marked a significant turnaround. According to the ATC, beginning 1st January 1995, all textiles and clothing products that had been hitherto subjected to MFA-quota, are scheduled to be integrated into WTO over a period of ten years. “The dismantling of the quota regi me represents both an opportunity as well as a threat. An opportunity because markets will no longer be restricted; a threat because markets will no longer be guaranteed by quotas, and even the domestic market will be open to competition”. From 1st January2005, therefore, all textile and clothing products would be traded internationally without quota-restrictions. Andthis impending reality brings the issue of competitiveness to the fore for all firms in the textile and clothing sectors,including those in India. It is imperative to understand the true competitiveness of Indian textile and clothing firms in order to make an assessment of what lies ahead in 2005 and beyond.Owing to its significant contribution, the Indian textile and clothing industry occupies a unique place in the Indian economy. It contributes about 4% of GDP and 14% of industrial output. Second largest employer after agriculture, the industry provides direct employment to 35 million people including substantial segments of weaker sections of society. With a very low import-intensity of about 1.5% only, it is the largest net foreign exchange earner in India, earning almost 35% of foreign exchange. This is the only industry that is self-sufficient and complete in cotton value chain- producing everything from fibres to the highest value added finished product of garments. Its growth and vitality therefore has critical bearings on the Indian economy at large.What Is Competitiveness?Competitiveness is about productivity, which in turn is a function of factors related to cost of products, as well as those related to non-price factors such as delivery schedules, reliability of producers, and such intangible factors like image of the country/company and brand equity. Together, they define the competitive sinews of a product tocompete under conditions of free market.However, in order to translate industry competitiveness into sales greater export share in world market, another set of issues- in addition to productivity-need to be examined. These relate to market access conditions. Indeed, industry competitiveness of restrained exporters such as India was not much of an issue during the last almost four decades, ever since the Short Term Arrangement STA of 1961. And the reason lay not in price and non-price factors, but in the“manage”dconditions under which global trade in textile and clothing products took place. In fact, it was precisely because of the price competitiveness of some Asian exporters in the 1950s and the 1960s that the “generally and solemnly agreed rules of post-war policy conduct-including the keystone of the system, the non-discrimination rules- were formally set aside for reasons regarded as pragmatic”. This system of managed trade, however, will come to an end on 31st December 2004.For the purpose of this study, industry has been defined as a group of firms manufacturing products that directly or indirectly competes with each other. It is implied that no nation can be competitive in manufacturing all goods and services. Hence, industry competitiveness of an entire nation is not quite meaningful. Instead, since it is the firms who compete in international markets, the entire framework of competitiveness would revolve around the study of the firm.“…industrial succe ss was founded on behaviour of firms, not on the decisions of governments”. The list of products industries identified is in Appendix A.Objective & Scope Of The StudyThe objective of the project is to evaluate the export competitiveness of Indian textile and clothing sectors. Because Indian textile and clothing sector is predominantly cotton based, this study would focus mainly on the cotton textile and apparel, and look at the entire value chain from fibre to garment and retail distribution.With the aforementioned objective in mind, this study has first identified the products in Indian export basket which have shown a promising growth in value, or in unit value and have a considerable weight in the Indian export basket on the basis of recent performance of Indian exports of textile and clothing sectors in the US and EU markets.Research MethodologyIn order to evaluate the demand-side of Indian textile and clothing exports, the study has analysed the competitive performance of Indian expor ts of the ‘identified’products in the US and EU markets. It has also been used to highlight the role of emerging trade policy environment- specifically, the role of discriminatory rules of origin in Regional Trading Arrangements [RTAs], tariff peaks and environmental and labour standards-as market access issues relevant to textile and clothingexporting countries.To assess the supply-side factors of export competitiveness, a preliminary interview was conducted with a few exporters. The interview sought their views and opinions chiefly in respect of the supply-side bottlenecks that they are facing in India. The supply-side framework is based more on opinions than on data/numbers. The inferences about the supply-side factors are therefore based on the opinions expressed by exporters of identified products.Competitive Performance- Operational DefinitionIn both these markets, competitive performance has been defined through changes in market shares in value terms over the years 1995 and 2000. The following twincriterion was employed to identify export-competitive products.A product is said to be export-competitive if the growth rate in unit value of the product imported from India exceeds average growth rate in unit value of the product from all suppliers in a market US/EU, and Its market share grows over the period 1995-2000.However, there are two additional qualifications that need to be borne in mind.1. To the extent market share is a function of quotas, it may so happen that some countri es’ market share declines over time only because their exports are constrained by quotas.2. Because the market share-based competitive performance has been evaluated in value terms, the effect of exchange rate movements on export competitiveness and revealed in market shares cannot be ruled out a priory.All value data is reported in US$ terms for the two years 1995 and 2000. During this period, the value of US$ declined by almost 13%, if deflated by consumer price index in the US. The data in the tables have been reported in nominal terms, and analysis made on that basis, since they are all reported in US$ and are equally therefore affected.Using the twin-criteria of export-competitiveness, all selected products are classified into the four categories of leaders, gainers, losers and outliers.译文印度纺织服装行业的出口竞争力资料来源: Indian Council For ResearchOn International Economic Relations作者:Samar Verma自1960年早期,纺织服装行业是国际贸易中关贸总协定最惠国之间经过谈判一致同意的,对关贸总协定正常纪律的例外。

文献出处：Fetscherin M, Alon I, Johnson J P. Assessing the export competitiveness of Chinese industries[J]. Asian Business & Management, 2010, 9(3): 401-424.原文Assessing the export competitiveness of Chinese industriesMarc; Ilan; JohnsonIntroductionCompetitiveness has been assessed and studied at various levels: country (Jones, 1994; Murtha and Lenway, 1994; Enright et al , 1999), region (Uysal et al , 2000), industry (Roth and Morrison, 1992; Mitchell et al, 1993; Contractor et al, 2005; Fetscherin and Alon, 2007) and network/group (Peng et al, 2001). Country-level assessments are provided in The Global Competitiveness Report(World Economic Forum, 2008), the World Competitiveness Yearbook(Institute for Management Development, 2008) and elsewhere (Eckhard, 2006), but are often too general to be applied to a single country (Krugman, 1994). In contrast, individual company cases and studies are too specific and may not be applicable to an entire industry or to all industries from a single country (Peng et al , 2001). Analyzing competitiveness at the industry level, however, provides greater detail and a better understanding of the competitive dynamics of an industry than the country or company level, for several reasons: (i) examining the degree of specialization for a given industry can identify the comparative (dis)advantage of a national industry; (ii) industry-specific analysis permits international comparisons of an industry's degree of specialization and rate of growth; and (iii) an industry-level analysis permits comparisons with other industries.One dimension of industry competitiveness is export competitiveness. A key indicator of the extent of export competitiveness of an industry is the degree of its participation in international trade. According to data published by the World Trade Organization (WTO, 2007), the volume of world merchandise trade in 2006 grew by 8 per cent to about US$11.8 trillion, compared to world gross domestic product growth ofjust 3.5 per cent. In the past two decades, world trade has grown much faster than world GDP, suggesting that the international economy is a source of dynamism and opportunity.The theory of comparative advantage (Smith, 1776; Ricardo, 1871; Ohlin, 1933; Heckscher, 1949) underscores the importance of specialization and trade in enhancing productivity and consumer well-being. Smith (1776) argued that, under free unregulated trade, each nation should specialize in the production of the goods that it can make most efficiently, and import those goods in which it has a comparative disadvantage. In order to sustain export competitiveness in an industry, companies operating within that industry must understand the concept of revealed comparative advantage, because it allows them to understand and benchmark their position within an industry in terms of, for example, specialization, growth rate and export market share. How to model the export competitiveness of an industry has hitherto remained unresolved, however, particularly when comparing across industries within one country. The purpose of this article is to present a framework that measures, illustrates and compares the export competitiveness of an industry compared to other industries from the same country. Although this framework can also be applied to compare a single industry across various countries, cross-country comparison is not the focus of this article.China‟s globalization has been one of the most dramatic economic evelopments of recent decades (Alon and McIntyre, 2008). During the period 1979–2005, China‟s annual growth rate averaged 9.6 per cent, and its integration into the world trading system has been remarkable. Its share in world merchandise trade increased from less than 1 per cent in 1979 to 7.4 per cent in 2005. In the same year, China became the third largest trading nation after the United States and Germany (Greene et al, 2006). The expansion of China‟s international trade has been the key to its rising prominence in the world economy, and China‟s economy has a strong potential to becom e the world‟s top exporter by the beginning of the next decade (Greene et al, 2006). Currentstudies investigating and assessing Chinese export competitiveness can be grouped into two main research streams. One stream focuses on the relationship between FDI and China‟s trade performance (for example Liu et al, 2001; Khun and Xing, 2007; Xing, 2007). This is an important topic, and most of these studies use the country as the unit of analysis, although some studies use China‟s provinces. The other stream focuses on the export performance of industries (for example Greene et al, 2006; Van Assche et al, 2008). As the unit of analysis of this study is the industry, its contribution is to the second stream of research.Greene et al (2006) provide an overview of C hina‟s trade policy environment and examine China‟s impact on world prices and the deterioration of its own terms of trade. The study by Van Assche et al (2008) focused on export market share only and concluded that China continues to have a comparative advantage in low-technology activities and a comparative disadvantage in high-technology activities. Our study contributes to this literature by providing a multi-dimensional framework that allows us to measure, identify and compare which Chinese industries have a comparative advantage/disadvantage, which are growing faster or slower than the world average, and their relative importance in international trade.Measuring export competitivenessThe industry is the location where firms win or lose market share and it is the industry level that permits an examination of the dynamic nature of industrial evolution and reformation in the global business environment (Passemard and Kleiner, 2000). In the academic literature, there is still a general paucity of research on industry export competitiveness, with previous studies consisting mostly of examinations of a single domestic industry and the use of subjective measures (Makhija et al , 1997). Multiple measures have been suggested: Mandeng (1991) examined the size or increase of export market share, while others have used export competitiveness (for example Balassa, 1965; Balassa and Bauwens, 1987), price ratios (for example Durand and Giorno, 1987) and cost competitiveness (for example Siggel and Cockburn, 1995). Our conceptualization of export competitiveness attempts to combine appropriate elementsfrom previous studies and follows the recommendation of Buckley et al (1992) and Porter (1990) for the use of multiple indicators. Specifically, the framework that we present here contributes to existing literature as it not only uses multi-dimensional measures, but also allows an examination of industry export competitiveness using either an intra- or inter-country analysis. The use of multiple dimensions is superior to the use of single measures as it puts into better perspective an industry's export competitiveness (Balassa Index), dynamism (growth rate) and importance (export market share) in comparison with other industries. For example, an industry that is highly specialized but not important in terms of export market share can be compared with one that might be less specialized but has a larger world export market share. Having only one dimension might lead to a wrong assessment and conclusion. The proposed framework tries to address some of those issues.Industry specialization (IS )The concept of comparative advantage has been widely accepted as one of the foundations for international trade. A country has a pattern of specialization that is determined by what goods it exports and the volume of each good it exports, both of which change over time (Vernon, 1966; Hoskisson and Yiu, 2003; Kelleher, 2003). Krugman (1994) argues that international trade is not a zero-sum game and that the rise or fall of particular industries and nations reflects changing factor endowments and the need to shift to new areas of competitive advantage. When a nation enjoys a comparative advantage in a particular industry, it is natural that firms make investments in order to profit from this advantage, resulting in a relatively high degree of specialization within that industry (Dunning, 1993). A commonly used measure of industry specialization, based on export data, is revealed comparative advantage, often referred to as the Balassa Index ( BI ) (Balassa, 1965). Richardson and Zhang (1999) used the Balassa Index for the United States to analyze variations in patterns of trade across time, sectors and regions. They found that patterns differed by region and over time and also for different levels of aggregation of the export data.Industry growth (IG )Studies of industry competitiveness have tended to take a static rather than dynamic or longitudinal perspective, and have provided little insight into globalization trends. As we want to assess the past, present and future export competitiveness of Chinese industries, an assessment of industry trends can shed light on the manner in which Chinese industry as a whole is globalizing and at what pace (Makhija et al, 1997). Our framework includes industry export growth because, over time, a country may start to specialize more in some industries and less in others, thus changing its pattern of specialization. This also highlights the difference between dynamic and static industries. Some studies (for example Hinloopen and van Marrewijk, 2001; Alessandrini et al, 2007) measure this change of pattern of specialization by using Shorrocks‟ (1978) mobility index. However, the mobility index does not provide sufficiently detailed information, as it just ranks industries or sectors of a country according to export volume, groups them into quintiles and calculates the net change between quintiles; industries that do not have a net change between quintiles are considered to be static rather than dynamic. Other studies (for example Baldwin and Gu, 2004; Amador et al, 2006; Cooper, 2006) have used a simpler but perhaps more precise measure of changes in specialization by calculating the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of exports in certain sectors over a certain period of time. It can be assumed that export growth in a given industry and country, particularly growth that is higher than the average global industry growth, implies a greater degree of globalization for that industry. However, this measure suffers from the weakness that domestic production and consumption, which are important for competitiveness, are omitted. Nevertheless, given the focus of our framework on export competitiveness, this weakness is not significant. Therefore, we use CAGR as a measure of growth in exports.Methodology and data collectionWe used data from the UNCTAD and the WTO for the years 2001-2005. The 5-year time period in our data allows for an analysis of changing global dynamics, especially important in the case of China. During the period of our investigation, Chinaundertook many market reforms and joined the WTO in 2001, events which changed the competitive position of its industries.We first provide a brief overview of the overall pattern of international trade for China compared to other Asian countries. Then, for the 97 Chinese industries, we calculate the degree of industry specialization and the industry growth rate in terms of exports over the selected period of time. Finally, we apply our framework to assess the degree of export competitiveness of the various industries in China.ResultsInternational trade comparisonTable 1 provides an overview of the total export value in US dollars for various countries from Asia for the years 2001-2005 as well as the corresponding CAGR.Overall, during the period 2001–2005, all countries in Table 1 registered a positive CAGR in terms of exports, ranging from 10 per cent in the case of Japan to 30 per cent in case of China (with India the next highest, with 4 per cent). In absolute terms, the highest value of exports for the main Asian countries in 2005 was recorded by China with US$762 billion, followed by Japan with US$595 billion and Hong-Kong (SAR) and South Korea with US$292 billion and US$284 billion, respectively. In the same year, India had only US$103 billion worth of exports, positioning it as a relatively weak exporting country.It also shows that countries from Asia, and specifically China, continue to gain importance in the global market as, for most of these countries, the average growth rate of exported products is higher than the average global export growth rate of 14 per cent between 2001 and 2005. The main product groups exported by China were 'Electrical, electronic equipment' (US$172.3 billion); 'Boilers, machinery, nuclear reactors' (US$149.6 billion); 'Articles of apparel, accessories not knit or crochet' (US$35 billion); 'Articles of apparel, knit and crochet' (US$30.8 billion) and 'Optical, photo, technical, medical apparatus' (US$25.4 billion).However, understanding international trade data in terms of absolute and relativevalues at the country level is necessary (Table 1), it is insufficient for assessing the export competitiveness of industries because it lacks specificity and comparative data at the industry level across multiple indicators. Our proposed framework will take these factors into account and this will be discussed in the next section.Industry export competitivenessWe calculated values for the three key variables for each of the 97 Chinese industries. Figure 2 - See PDF, provides an overview of the different industries from China and their degree of export competitiveness in terms of industry specialization, growth and size. The reference point for the Balassa Index (horizontal axis) was a threshold value of 1 (which, as mentioned before, has been used in previous studies); while for industry growth (vertical axis), the reference point was the world average export growth of 14 per cent for the period 2001-2005.One interesting result is that the majority of Chinese industries (73 per cent) are categorized as …dynamic‟, either domestic (39 per cent) or global (34 percent), both having a higher than average export growth rate (30 and 28 percent, respectively) compared to the world average of 14 per cent. For the period of the investigation, most Chinese industries grew faster than their world counterparts, not surprisingly, given the higher relative GDP growth of China in general.In China, the 'global static' category consists of light manufacturing, such as travel goods, clocks, umbrellas, textiles and commodities such as wool, silk, bird skin, and salt, earth and stone. China has established a specialization in international markets for these types of products, thus exhibiting a high Balassa Index, but the growth rate of these industries lags behind the world average.Conclusions and Future ResearchThe purpose of this study was to present a novel framework that allows us to measure, illustrate and compare the export competitiveness of industries. The framework is innovative as it takes into account multiple measures: (i) the degree of industry specialization, (ii) the industry export growth rate and (iii) the export marketshare. Using these variables, this model provides a basis for intra-country comparisons of industries of various competitive postures. It could also be used for inter-country comparisons of one industry among countries (not shown in this article). The use of multiple variables in the framework provides more meaningful information than the single variable analyses which previous studies have generally used (for example Van Assche et al, 2008). The use of multiple measures, such as specialization, growth rate and export market share of an industry, allows us to put into perspective the competitiveness, dynamism and importance of one industry compared to others. Our framework also allows for a comparative analysis of sub-industries or product groups depending on the data set usedThe proposed framework has been applied to China, a leading emerging economy and one of the largest trading nations in the world. Most of China‟s industries (73 per cent) are dynamic, showing above-average export growth rates. Many reasons account for this rapid growth, including market liberalization, falling trade barriers and a favorable exchange rate. Our results show that most Chinese industries have increased their specialization over time, which is in line with various OECD studies (for example Greene et al, 2006). However, our study further reveals t hat less than half of these …dynamic‟ industries are globally competitive, according to the Balassa Index. China therefore still has a long way to go in fortifying its position as a leader in world exports across a spectrum of various industries.Two important relationships are confirmed by our study. First, there is a positive and significant correlation between degree of specialization and relative market share, and, secondly, there is no significant correlation between degree of specialization and export growth rate. In other words, industry specialization may affect the relative market share of Chinese exports, but not their rate of growth. Overall, 46 per cent of Chinese industries are categorized as …global‟ in our framework, with a world export market share of between 19 and 24 percent. This finding indicates that these industries are not only strong global players, but are also influencing the international competitive landscape. Over 70 per cent of those industries are also …dynamic‟, withexports growing on average at about 28 per cent annually, compared to the remaining 30 per cent, which are …static‟ and growing at 11 per cent on average over the period 2001–2005. This result further suggests that the more an industry is specialized, the higher its world market share in terms of exports.译文中国产业的出口竞争力评估马克；伊兰；约翰逊引言专家学者们对竞争力已经进行了多方面的研究：有国家层次的竞争力评估(琼斯，1994；恩莱特等，1999)，有地区层次竞争力的评估(索尔等，2000)、也有对行业竞争力的评估(罗斯和莫里森，1992；米切尔等，1993；菲斯坦因和艾伦，2007)等。