美国区域贸易政策研究

【作者】 崔荣伟；

【导师】 胡令远；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 国际政治， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 20世纪80年代中期以来,美国对外贸易中的一个突出变化是政策重心逐渐偏向区域贸易谈判。从克林顿政府提出雄心勃勃的自由贸易区规划到小布什政府实施“竞争性自由化”战略,美国对外经济政策的明显变化引起了学者们极大的研究兴趣。但既有研究成果大多注重对其进行纯经济学分析,而有意无意地弱化或忽略了政治因素的作用。即便为数不多的注重考察政治动因的研究成果,其提出的一些观点和看法也是存在问题的。因此,如果能够系统揭示美国这一政策背后的政治动因,无论在理论上还是在实践上都具有积极的启示意义。论文主要运用新制度主义理论来解释美国参与区域一体化的行为。本文认为,虽然区域贸易政策与多边贸易制度有着本质的区别,但从美国确立自身领导地位的角度来看,两者却是相通的。多边贸易制度作为美国战后国际制度战略的重要组成部分,是美国确立在贸易领域领导地位的重要凭借。面对70年代以来国际形势发展带来的种种挑战,美国采取的单边主义或多边主义手段都没有取得理想的效果。为此,美国需要一种新的策略来回应挑战,区域贸易政策正是这种策略的具体体现。论文运用以历史制度主义为主体的制度变迁理论来解释美国对外经济政策重心由多边贸易制度向区域贸易政策的这种转变,强调这一转变过程中的“路径依赖”和“突发事件”的影响。本文认为,美国区域贸易政策暗含着两种逻辑：在国际层面上,这一政策试图从地区层面对国际关系进行“再制度化”,既补充和完善了美国的国际制度战略,又为最终建立由美国主导的国际政治经济新秩序奠定基础；在国内层面上,这一政策首先承担着普及新自由主义经济模式——“华盛顿共识”的责任,推动并锁定相关国家的经济改革进程,防止其改革议程发生逆转。其次是限制它国国家经济主权,改变政府在市场经济中的作用。从长远来看,由其倡导的经济自由化改革将激发它国国内政治变革,促使社会力量重新分化组合,新的社会联盟得以建立并参与国内政治进程,最终影响了它国的对外政策。为验证文中提出的基本解释,论文选取了三个具有代表性的案例：《北美自由贸易协定》是美国缔结的第一个区域性贸易协议,它不仅标志着北美区域经济一体化的实质性突破,而且是美国建立新型霸权的范本。《美韩自由贸易协定》是美国在过去十几年中签署的最重要的双边性区域贸易协定,具有重要的政治经济意义。最后,美国的中东自由贸易区设想超出了反恐战争的范畴,其目的是对整个中东地区进行地缘经济与政治的双重整合。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since the mid-1980s, one of the most outstanding changes in United States’foreign economic policy was that U.S. had a preference for the Regional Integration Agreements (RIAs). It raised many scholars’attention and they showed strong research interests in the changes especially confronted with the facts that the Clinton administration brought forward ambitious free trade area plan and that the George W. Bush government executed "competitive liberalization" strategy. But among so many research achievements regarding RIAs signed by U.S., most put emphasis on pure economic analysis while weakening or ignoring the function of political factors. Even some research into political motivation behind the RIAs of U.S., the opinion they hold was problematic in author’s view. So it would make perfect sense both in theory and practice if the thesis could systematically uncover the political motivation behind the RIAs signed by U.S.The new institutionalism is applied by the thesis to explain the RIAs policy adopted by U.S. The author thinks that the multi-lateral trade institution and the RIAs are interlinked from U.S.’s point view regarding maintaining hegemony, though someone might insist that they are totally different in nature. The multi-lateral trade institution has been an indispensable part of international institution strategy U.S. executed since world war II, but it couldn’t solve the challenges confronted by U.S., nor could unilateralism do. So U.S. was in need of an appropriate tactic to get rid of predicament. It is RIAs provided the feasible way out for U.S. Thus, when explaining the transformation of U.S.’foreign economic policy from multi-lateral trade institution to RIAs, the thesis emphasizes path-dependence, critical juncture and etc.The thesis thinks that there are two kinds of logics rooted in RIAs policy adopted by U.S. On one hand, the policy mended and made perfect the U.S.’s international institution strategy since it sought to re-institutionalize the international relations on regional level. This would lay the base for new international political economy order leading by U.S. in future. On the other hand, the policy wants to popularize "Washington Consensus", propels and locks in the economic innovation course in other country in order to prevent reversion of innovation. In long term, the economic liberal innovation would inspire domestic political transformation and re-combination of social forces in other country. New social alliance comes into existence and takes part in the process of domestic political change and this will influence a country’s foreign policy.There are three cases selected to prove the explanation mentioned above. They are NAFTA, KORUS FTA and MEFTA. As the first RIA signed by U.S., not only did NAFTA signal the virtual breakthrough of regional economic integration in North America, but extended as an example of the new kind of hegemony to the rest of world. The KORUS FTA is the most important bilateral commercial RIA signed by U.S. during the past decades which is of political and economic significance. Proposed by George W. Bush administration, MEFTA is still inherited by Obama government though Bush went out of power in 2008. The reason lies in the fact that importance of MEFTA goes beyond anti-terrorism and MEFTA contains double consideration which includes geopolitical and geo-economic motivation of integrating the whole area into U.S.’s strategic project.The last part of thesis reviews and deepens the former explanation.更多还原