世界需求和竞争力对出口和经济增长的影响外文翻译(编辑修改稿)

世界需求和竞争力对出口和经济增长的影响外文翻译(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

Prebisch 1968). One of the earliest researchers to highlight the influence of the external environment on trade performance was Nurkse (1961). Contrasting trade patterns between the nieenth and twentieth centuries, he argued that economic growth in the industrialized core had not resulted in a proportionate increase in demand for LDC exports. Echoing the same sentiments two decades later, Lewis (1980) points out that since most of the exports of developing countries are destined for markets in developed countries, they have been adversely affected by the economic slowdown in industrialized countries since the mid1970s. The export performance of countries is therefore said to be tied to the economic conditions of the industrialized core region. The above is characteristic of dependency writings such as those of Cardoso and Faletto (1979). In this case, structural differences between a developed and developing region are seen to determine their asymmetrical trading relationship. Some empirical support for the position of the export pessimists is provided by studies on the role of external demand on the export performances of developing countries (. Kavoussi 1985。 Singer and Gray 1988). These reports indicate that export earnings decline substantially when the level of external demand is depressed. The role of the external demand assumes even greater significance when the rise of global protectionism is considered. The continued absorptive capacity of the international market for the exports of developing countries in the face of global reswcturing is questioned by Cline (1982) for example. Cline concluded that if several developing countries were to follow in the footsteps of the exportoriented Asian NICs, it would provoke a widespread protectionist response from the developed countries. This further limits the ability of developing countries to grow through trade. An integrative perspective. The debate between export optimists and pessimists have adopted rather polarized views so that policy remendations have also been conflicting. The dualistic framework of the export promolion/outwardorientation versus import substitution/inward orientation models reflects this. The empincal literature has also not provided a clear resolution of the debate. For instance in investigating the exportsgrowth relationship, Balassa (1985) reports a higher parametric value for exports in the postoil crisis period following 1973. Rana39。 s (1988) study contradicts Balassa39。 s conclusions in that exports were found to have a less positive effect on growth after the oil crisis. An important source of the conflict between the export optimists and the export pessimists is the degree of openness which is deemed to be desirable during the process of economic development. Import substitution regimes tend to be characterized by high levels of protection for its producers (. quantitafive restrictions or tariffs on imports) in order to avoid the vagaries of external demand. Export optimists support a higher degree of openness because it enables a country or region to find its parative advantage, thus avoiding highcost, inefficient activities and being more petitive. However, Streeten (1982) argues that the process of national production is often a mix of the two strategies. Bruton (1989) has pointed out that mdustrialization through import substitution is credited with building up the capital goods sector as well as technological maturity. Import substitution is thought to pave the way for successful export。