2. 外语
  3. Last month Hansen Transmissions International, a maker of gearboxes for wind turbines, was listed on the London Stock Exchange.

Last month Hansen Transmissions International, a maker of gearboxes for wind turbines, was listed on the London Stock Exchange.

admin2012-03-23  36
问题     Last month Hansen Transmissions International, a maker of gearboxes for wind turbines, was listed on the London Stock Exchange. Nothing noteworthy about that, you might say, despite the jump in the share price on the first day of trading and the handsome gain since: green technology is all the rage, is it not? But Hansen exemplifies another trend, too, which should prove every bit as durable: the rise of multinational companies from emerging economies. Its parent is Suzlon, an Indian fin that began life as a textile manufacturer, but is now among the world’s five leading makers of wind turbines. Along the way, Suzlon has acquired not only Hansen, originally Belgian, but also RE power, a German wind-energy firm, spending over $ 2 billion on the pair.
    The world is now replete with Suzlons: global companies from emerging economies buying businesses in rich countries as well as in poorer places. Another Indian company, Tata Motors, looks likely to add to the list soon, by buying two grand old names of British car-making, Jaguar and Land Rover, from America’s enfeebled Ford. As a symbol of a shift in economic power, this is hard to match.
    Economic theory says that this should not happen. Richer countries should export capital to poorer ones, not the other way round. Economists have had to get used to seeing this turned on its head in recent years, as rich countries have run large current-account deficits and borrowed from China and other emerging economies (notably oil exporters) with huge surpluses. Similarly, foreign direct investment (FDI)—the buying of companies and the building of factories and offices abroad—should also flow from rich to poor, and with it managerial and entrepreneurial prowess.
    It is not yet time to tear up the textbook on FDI. According to the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD),in 2006 the flow of FDI into developing economies exceeded the outflow by more than $ 200 billion. But the transfer of finance and expertise is by no means all in one direction. Developing economies accounted for one-seventh of FDI outflows in 2006, most of it in the form of takeovers. Indian companies have done most to catch the eye, but firms from Brazil, China and Mexico, in industries from cement to consumer electronics and aircraft manufacture, have also gone global. Up to a point, emerging-market multinationals have been buying Western know-how. But they have been bringing managerial and entrepreneurial skill, as well as just money, to the companies they buy: British managers bear grudging witness to the financial flair of Mexican cement bosses; Boeing and Airbus may have learnt a thing or two from the global supply chains of Brazil’s Embracer.
    Perhaps no one should be surprised. Half a century ago, Japan was a poor country: today Sony and Toyota are among the best-known and mightiest companies on the planet. South Korea is still listed as a developing country in Uncial’s tables, but that seems bizarrely outdated for the homes of Samsung. Now another generation is forming. To its critics, globalization may be little more than a license for giant Western companies to colonies the emerging world, yet more and more firms from poorer economies are planting their flags in rich ground.
    Alas, further liberalization is not certain. The Doha round of global trade talks has been bogged down, partly in squabbles about farm trade but also over industrial tariffs in the emerging world. The services negotiations are half-hearted and direct talks on FDI were ruled out long ago, largely because of developing countries’ fears about rich invaders. And the gains forgone are considerable: a new book by the World Bank estimates that reforming services in developing countries could raise their growth rates by a percentage point. Were OECD countries to allow temporary immigration of skilled workers in service industries, the global gains might exceed $ 45 billion.
    A few emerging-market giants—notably India’s software firms—have been prepared to stand up for liberalization. But most have not made their voices heard. How sad for free trade: such companies would provide much better illustrations of the success of globalization than the familiar Western names do (unless you think Coca-colonization sounds really cool). And how short sighted of them. Even if some of these adolescents grew up behind tariff barriers, that represents their past: their future will surely lie in global markets. If the Doha round fails, the next opportunity may be a long time coming.
It can be inferred from the passage that
选项 A、the future of global free trade is optimistic.
B、developing countries make no contribution to liberalization.
C、the concern of developing countries may affect the progress of liberalization.
D、issues negotiated in the Doha round of global trade talks weren’t practical.
答案C
解析 推断题。从文章第六段内容来看，在多哈回合全球贸易谈判中发达国家与发展中国家为各自的利益角力，而发展中国家由于害怕富国公司会长驱直人，导致关于服务行业谈判效率不高，外国直接投资的谈判甚至早已被排除。文章继而论述了由此导致的巨大利益损失，即可能影响贸易进一步自由化，故[C]为答案。由精解分析可知，这使得贸易自由化的前景不确定，故排除[A]。综合文章前五段的论述可知，发展中国家新兴经济体的崛起是全球经济的积极因素，[B]与之不符，故排除。同时，根据第六段可知，多哈回合全球贸易谈判所涉及问题都与贸易全球化和自由化息息相关，故排除[D]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/4niO777K
0

专业英语八级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)