A Race to the Market
On Saturday, the United States, Canada and Europe completed the 10-year phase out of the quotas that had governed global trade in textiles and apparel for decades. The system, codified under the Multi-Fiber Arrangement in the 1960s, made possible the development of large garment and textile industries across Asia by giving countries quota-guaranteed access to major export markets. That created millions of jobs in countries where wage-earning opportunities would otherwise have been scarce.
But while Asian countries have long known the protection afforded by these quotas would end, and some have undertaken piecemeal reforms during the past decade, none has effectively used the 10-year phase out to prepare their economies for global competition. Consequently, the most vulnerable exporting countries fear disastrous job losses in the coming months.
In Asia, government officials and business leaders continue to point to China as the source of their problems, and the movement of investment and jobs to the regional low-cost leader is undeniable. But this preoccupation with China misses the point that governments have been slow in undertaking the obvious and necessary reforms that would encourage businesses to stay.
In Bangladesh, for example, garment exporters have long pressed for a comprehensive bonded warehouse system, which would lower the cost of using imported fabric in the manufacture of ready-made garments for export. Yet the government has blocked such a move for fear that cheaper imported fabrics might leak into the domestic market. Instead it has used a gamut of incentives and veiled incentives to try to protect domestic manufacturers in the capital-intensive textile industry. This imperils hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi jobs in the labor-intensive garment industry and represents a real cost to the country as a whole.
In Mongolia, the tax system is a significant impediment to investment and competition and in desperate need of overhaul, especially now that the country can no longer rely on quota-guaranteed access to Western markets. Problems with the current tax code include restrictive limits on the deductibility of business expenses and a two-tier system that discriminates against larger businesses. According to the North America-Mongolia Business Council this, "results in fragmentation of businesses, non-transparent accounting, reduced tax revenue and inhibition of loans and capital market development." Without reform there is a danger that it could accelerate the movement of garment jobs across the border to China.
Almost every small exporting country could adopt reforms that would make its domestic economy more competitive. Export-related services, such as port and customs management, are often run in a way that impedes rather than facilitates trade. In many countries, the rules on investment still protect local producers to the detriment of more efficient foreign investors.
Countries may also need to reconsider their labor laws in this more competitive era. From wages to overtime payments and hiring and firing flexibility, arrangements that effectively captured quota profits for labor may not be sustainable in the post-quota era. Countries with provisions too far out of line from others in the region may effectively price themselves out of the market.
Cambodia, for example, has worked hard to establish itself as a location where domestic producers comply with local labor laws. But it has only been able to accomplish this, while remaining competitive, by keeping such the level of protection to a minimum in order to limit its impact on costs. Countries like Sri Lanka, which have domestic labor laws that are more stringent than the regional average, cannot expect that improving compliance will enhance domestic competitiveness unless these changes directly increase productivity and efficiency. Instead international buyers continue to focus on price, rather than labor standards, something which is unlikely to change in the quota-free era.
Some small-exporting countries hope they can avoid the necessary reforms by persuading the U.S. to provide special tariff-free access. But tariffs are now so low -- averaging 12% in the U.S. -- that even such exemption would be of only limited benefit. That's especially true in the garment industry, where the zero rate only covers the domestic value-added component rather than the imported textiles (which often comprise a significant share of the total cost).
Many also hope to persuade the U.S. and other Western nations to impose new quotas on Chinese exports that would dampen competition among suppliers. Currently, Chinese exports account for less than 20% of world trade in textiles and apparel, and research has suggested that this might grow rapidly to as high as 50% in a quota-free environment, reflecting a massive transfer of production facilities from other developing countries to China. Beijing has already sought to preempt any action by the U.S. by imposing its own new export taxes.
But none of these measures will address the fundamental problem facing most quota-dependent exporting countries. The end of the previous quota system means these smaller countries are now competing, not just with China, but also with each other to trade with the rest of the world. Regardless of China's eventual share of the market, the end of quotas has created a new competitive dynamic among firms in all countries for the non-Chinese remainder of the market, and most countries are woefully unprepared for this.
It is unfortunate that the rhetoric of a perceived race to the bottom has focused attention on job losses. The reality is that it is not a race to the bottom but rather a race to the market, with many more new jobs available to those countries that can provide the right mix of incentives, services and certainty that businesses look for when making sourcing decisions. The winners in this race may still see some loss of jobs. But with the right policy environment, efficient producers can survive and grow. The losers may see most or all of their jobs move not just to China but also to their better-prepared neighbors elsewhere in Asia. They will have only their own inaction to blame.
市场争夺战即将上演
上周六，美国、加拿大和欧洲完成了用10年时间逐步取消控制全球纺织品及服装贸易长达数十年之久的配额制的过程。该体系是根据上世纪60年代时的《多种纤维协定》(Multi-Fiber Arrangement, 简称MFA)制定的，为亚洲地区服装及纺织品行业的发展创造了机会，因为配额制为这些国家提供了有保证的配额，使他们可以进入主要出口市场。此举为就业机会匮乏的这些国家创造了数以百万计的就业岗位。
但尽管亚洲国家很久之前就清楚配额制提供的保护最终会结束，一些国家在过去10年间也进行了部分改革，然而，这些国家都没有有效地利用这10年时间调整经济，以迎接全球挑战。结果是，最为脆弱的出口型国家开始担心今后几个月可能发生灾难性失业。
在亚洲，政府官员和商界领袖仍继续把中国视为问题的根源，当然，投资和工作岗位向这个本地区成本最低的国家之一的流动是无可否认的。但一古脑儿迁怒于中国的做法忽视了一点，就是各国政府迟迟没有进行大刀阔斧的必要改革，以鼓励企业留在本国。
比如，在孟加拉国，服装出口商长期以来一直施加压力，要求建设综合性保税仓库系统，这会降低他们使用进口面料制造出口用服装的成本。但由于政府担心此举可能导致进口廉价面料会流入国内市场，因而一直对此进行限制。事实上，孟加拉国还采取了或明或暗的各种措施，试图保护国内资本密集型的纺织制造商。这损害了孟加拉国劳动力密集的服装行业中数十万份工作，使该国总体上付出了代价。
在蒙古，税收体系极大地阻碍了投资和竞争，迫切需要对其进行彻底改革，尤其是在该国再也无法依赖配额制进入西方市场的情况下。现行税收体系的问题包括对业务开支的□扣额设限，以及歧视大企业的两级体系。北美－蒙古商会称，这导致了企业规模普遍不大、会计不透明、税收收入减少以及贷款和资本市场发展受限。如果不进行改革，服装行业的岗位就会有加速流向中国的危险。
几乎所有的出口小国都可以通过改革使其国内经济更具竞争力。港口和海关管理等与出口相关的服务常常阻碍而不是推动了贸易的发展。在许多国家，投资法规仍以损害更高效的海外投资者为代价保护本地生产商。
在这个竞争日趋激烈的时代，各国还应重新考虑其劳工法。从工资、加班费到聘用和解聘的灵活性等，种种曾确保劳工分享配额利润的做法在后配额时代不一定能维继下去。如果某些国家的法规同本地区其他国家的明显不合拍，他们很可能就因成本问题在竞争中落败。
比如，柬埔寨一直努力打造国内生产商遵守当地劳工法的形象，但为了减少对成本的影响，并同时保持竞争力，该国只能将保护标准降至最低。而国内劳工保护标准高于地区平均水平的斯里兰卡等国，就根本无法指望通过改善劳工法的执行情况，提高国内的竞争力，除非这些改变能直接提高生产率和效率。国际买家关注的焦点仍是价格，而不是劳工标准，配额的取消也不太可能改变这一点。
一些出口小国希望能说服美国提供特别免税进入，从而避免必要的改革。但关税水平目前已经很低（美国平均为12%），即使实施此类减免恐怕也于事无补。对服装业而言尤其如此，在这一行业零关税并不适用于进口纺织品。
还有许多国家希望说服美国和其他西方国家对中国出口产品实施新的配额。目前，中国的出口占全球纺织品和服装贸易中的比例不到20%，研究表明，这一比例可能随著无配额环境的到来而迅速增加到50%，反映大量生产厂从其他发展中国家转移到中国的趋势。为防止美国对华实施配额，中国政府已抢先一步决定对本国出口纺织品征收新的出口税。
但所有这些措施，都不能解决依赖配额出口的众多国家所面临的根本问题。原配额体系的终结意味著这些较小的国家现在不仅要与中国竞争，彼此也将展开竞争。不管中国最终的市场占有率是多少，配额的取消为各国企业竞争中国之外的那部分市场带来了动力，而大多数国家对此都没有充分的准备。
不幸的是，在关于竞相压价的讨论中，工作机会的丧失成为了焦点。但现实是，这不是竞相压价的竞争，而是一场面向市场的角逐，那些能够提供良好的激励、服务和采购可靠性组合的国家将获得更多的新工作岗位。这场竞赛中的胜者可能仍会损失部分工作岗位。但在良好的政策环境下，高效的生产商仍会生存和壮大。失败者会看到，大多数或全部工作岗位不但流向了中国，还流向了亚洲地区准备更为充分的邻国。他们只会为自己的无所作为而深深自责。
编者按：本文作者弗兰克?维贝(Franck Wiebe)是亚洲基金会(Asia Foundation)的首席经济学家。
