自然人自由运动:失落的十年?

Pradip Bhatnagar
{"title":"自然人自由运动:失落的十年?","authors":"Pradip Bhatnagar","doi":"10.1111/J.1467-9701.2004.00607.X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Liberalisation of international trade in services through the Movement of Natural Persons (Mode 4) remains one of the least negotiated issues of trade policy among the 144 members of the World Trade Organisation. Economists believe that there is a basic convergence of economic interest between the developed and the developing world for liberalising Mode 4. Yet the multilateral trading system has not facilitated greater worker mobility between the labour-surplus and labour-scarce countries. Is there any economic logic as to why cross-border movements of workers have not followed the pattern predicted by international trade theory? Or are there strong socio-political barriers that have come in the way of liberalising Mode 4? These are some of the questions the paper attempts to answer. The paper shows that the economic arguments against the free movement of natural persons are based on the narrow perspective of the welfare of domestic workers while ignoring the benefit it brings to the economy as a whole. Further, non-economic arguments miss the point that the movement of workers under Mode 4 of GATS is temporary in nature, and so unlikely to have any lasting social and cultural spillovers. The paper gives specific illustrations from the recent past where temporary import of workers from labour-surplus countries has enabled both developed and developing countries sustain their economic growth. It concludes by arguing that the environment for renegotiating WTO commitments under this important sector of international trade in services is better than ever before, even though the current world economic slowdown may delay actual negotiations for a while. Copyright 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.","PeriodicalId":448271,"journal":{"name":"Employment & Labor Law Abstracts eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Liberalising the Movement of Natural Persons: A Lost Decade?\",\"authors\":\"Pradip Bhatnagar\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/J.1467-9701.2004.00607.X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Liberalisation of international trade in services through the Movement of Natural Persons (Mode 4) remains one of the least negotiated issues of trade policy among the 144 members of the World Trade Organisation. Economists believe that there is a basic convergence of economic interest between the developed and the developing world for liberalising Mode 4. Yet the multilateral trading system has not facilitated greater worker mobility between the labour-surplus and labour-scarce countries. Is there any economic logic as to why cross-border movements of workers have not followed the pattern predicted by international trade theory? Or are there strong socio-political barriers that have come in the way of liberalising Mode 4? These are some of the questions the paper attempts to answer. The paper shows that the economic arguments against the free movement of natural persons are based on the narrow perspective of the welfare of domestic workers while ignoring the benefit it brings to the economy as a whole. Further, non-economic arguments miss the point that the movement of workers under Mode 4 of GATS is temporary in nature, and so unlikely to have any lasting social and cultural spillovers. The paper gives specific illustrations from the recent past where temporary import of workers from labour-surplus countries has enabled both developed and developing countries sustain their economic growth. It concludes by arguing that the environment for renegotiating WTO commitments under this important sector of international trade in services is better than ever before, even though the current world economic slowdown may delay actual negotiations for a while. Copyright 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.\",\"PeriodicalId\":448271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Employment & Labor Law Abstracts eJournal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Employment & Labor Law Abstracts eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-9701.2004.00607.X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employment & Labor Law Abstracts eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-9701.2004.00607.X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

通过自然人流动(模式四)实现国际服务贸易自由化,仍然是世界贸易组织144个成员国中谈判最少的贸易政策问题之一。经济学家认为,发达国家和发展中国家对模式4的自由化有着基本的经济利益趋同。然而,多边贸易体制并没有促进劳动力过剩国家和劳动力短缺国家之间更大的工人流动。为什么工人的跨境流动没有遵循国际贸易理论所预测的模式,这其中有什么经济逻辑吗?还是有强大的社会政治障碍阻碍了模式4的自由化?这是本文试图回答的一些问题。文章指出,反对自然人自由流动的经济学论点是基于对家政工人福利的狭隘视角,而忽视了其给整个经济带来的好处。此外,非经济论点忽略了一点,即服务贸易总协定模式4下的工人流动本质上是暂时的,因此不太可能产生任何持久的社会和文化溢出效应。本文给出了最近的具体例证,说明从劳动力剩余国家临时进口工人使发达国家和发展中国家都能维持其经济增长。报告的结论是,在国际服务贸易这一重要部门下,重新谈判世贸组织承诺的环境比以往任何时候都好,尽管目前世界经济放缓可能会使实际谈判推迟一段时间。版权所有2004布莱克威尔出版有限公司
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Liberalising the Movement of Natural Persons: A Lost Decade?
Liberalisation of international trade in services through the Movement of Natural Persons (Mode 4) remains one of the least negotiated issues of trade policy among the 144 members of the World Trade Organisation. Economists believe that there is a basic convergence of economic interest between the developed and the developing world for liberalising Mode 4. Yet the multilateral trading system has not facilitated greater worker mobility between the labour-surplus and labour-scarce countries. Is there any economic logic as to why cross-border movements of workers have not followed the pattern predicted by international trade theory? Or are there strong socio-political barriers that have come in the way of liberalising Mode 4? These are some of the questions the paper attempts to answer. The paper shows that the economic arguments against the free movement of natural persons are based on the narrow perspective of the welfare of domestic workers while ignoring the benefit it brings to the economy as a whole. Further, non-economic arguments miss the point that the movement of workers under Mode 4 of GATS is temporary in nature, and so unlikely to have any lasting social and cultural spillovers. The paper gives specific illustrations from the recent past where temporary import of workers from labour-surplus countries has enabled both developed and developing countries sustain their economic growth. It concludes by arguing that the environment for renegotiating WTO commitments under this important sector of international trade in services is better than ever before, even though the current world economic slowdown may delay actual negotiations for a while. Copyright 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Fair Measures: A Behavioral Realist Revision of 'Affirmative Action' Labor Restructuring in China's Industrial Sector: Towards a Functioning Urban Labor Market Wage and Employment Effects of Immigration to Germany: Evidence from a Skill Group Approach Fixed Term Employment Contracts in an Equilibrium Search Model The American Experience with Exclusive Representation: Implications for the Issue of Plural Unionism in South Korea
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1