李宜豐

我的壁球教練兼球友松澤兄(目前在一家公司擔任總經理一職)，日前在我的臉書留言：「老師，以目前台灣簽服貿協議來談，有些行業勞工因台灣簽服貿利得致失業，值得簽嗎？雖說失業是暫時性，但企業歇業關廠損失是永遠的，政府是否應負責輔導企業轉型或補貼損失，這些是否未簽服貿前詳告企業？美國是否有事先與企業溝通？」

我的回答是:

你曾在我們打壁球時說過你的看法。你說，從其他各國的經驗來看，不簽的話，這些無效率企業，早晚還是會歇業關廠，這些行業勞工，早晚還是會失業，消費者應有的福利，並不會增加。簽的話，至少可增加會員國消費者的福利，而且所增加的消費者福利大於關廠與失業之損失，因此其他各國才會競相簽訂經濟整合區域協議，而形成全世界的趨勢。但是，就是怕大陸利用此機會吃掉台灣。

CFA 教材也提到此國家主權議題:

區域經濟整合除了無效率廠商的關廠與勞工失業問題外，另外也有國家主權議題。

如2014 CFA Level I 官方版本教材，第二冊經濟學第449頁第三段，也提到國家主權議題，摘錄如下:

Concerns regarding national sovereignty, especially where big and small nations may be part of the same bloc, have also been an impediment to the formation of FTAs. The proposal for a South Asian regional bloc has faced challenges regarding India’s role because it is one of the biggest economies in the region.

翻譯如下:

有關國家主權議題題，特別是同一個經濟整合區域內，有大國或小國存在，這個問題就特別大。這也是形成自由貿易區的阻礙。

譬如，南亞的經濟整合區域，就面臨印度為當地最大經濟體的挑戰。

CFA 教材也提到與國家主權有關的投資議題:

如2014 CFA Level I 官方版本教材，第二冊經濟學第449頁第四段，也提到有關投資的議題，摘錄如下:

Regional integration is important from an investment perspective because it offers new opportunities for trade and investment. The cost of doing business in a large, single, regional market is lower and firms can benefit from economies of scale. However, it is important to note that differences in tastes, culture, and competitive conditions still exist among members of a trading bloc. These differences may limit the potential benefits from investments within the bloc. In addition, depending on the level of integration and the safeguards in place, problems faced by individual member countries in an RTA may quickly spread to other countries in the bloc.

翻譯如下:

從投資角度而言，經濟整合區域也很重要，可提供貿易與投資的機會。企業在一個大型單一區域市場的經營成本較低，而且廠商可從「規模經濟」(economies of scale)得利。但是，要特別注意在經濟整合區域的會員國之間，仍存各國消費者口味、文化及競爭情況的差異。這些差異可能會限制了在經濟整合區域內投資的潛在利益。此外，端賴經濟整合區域的整合程度，與該地區保護安全的程度，個別會員國所面對的問題，也可能快速傳染到區域內其他的會員國。

最後，與國家主權有關的議題，還有文化差異與歷史考量－例如，戰爭與衝突－會使得整合社會/政治的過程，複雜化。而且，維持一個高度的經濟整合，會限制會員國追求獨立經濟與社會政策的程度。以2014 CFA Level I 官方版本教材，第二冊經濟學第449頁最後一段與第450頁第一段來說明，摘錄如下:

There are at least two challenges in the formation of an RTA and in its potential progression from a free trade area to deeper integration in the form of a customs union, common market, or economic union. First, cultural differences and historical considerations－for example, wars and conflicts－may complicate the social/political process of integration. Second, maintaining a high degree of economic integration limits the extent to which member countries can pursue independent economic and social policies. Free trade and mobility of labor and capital tend to thwart policies aimed at controlling relative prices and or/ quantities within a country, while balance of payments and fiscal credibility considerations limit the viability of divergent macroeconomic polices. This situation is especially true in the case of a monetary union because monetary policy is not under the control of individual countries and currency devaluation/ revaluation is not available as a tool to correct persistent imbalances.[1] When persistent imbalances do arise, they may lead to a crisis that spills over to other countries facing similar problems. A recent example is the fear of contagion caused by the Greek fiscal crisis in 2010. In May 2010, Standard & Poor’s reduced the credit ratings on Greece’s government from investment grade to junk status. It also downgraded the government debt of Spain and Portugal. These countries were suffering from a combination of high government deficits and slow GDP growth. The credit downgrades increased fears that Greece, in particular, would default on its debt and cause economic turmoil not among the healthier countries in the EU but also in the United States and Asia. The EU and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) agreed on a USD145 billion (EUR110 billion) bailout for Greece in May 2010, and provided Ireland with a financing of about USD113 billion (EUR85 billion) in November 2010. As of late 2010, there were continuing concerns about the financial health of Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain. The EU, which created the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) in 2010 to help EU countries in need, has been debating the need for an expansion in the scope and financing capacity of the EFSF.

翻譯如下:

在形成自由貿易區時、或形成自由貿易區後，再由自由貿易區形成關稅同盟時、或形成關稅同盟後，再由關稅同盟形成共同市場時、或形成共同市場後，再由共同市場形成經濟同盟時、或形成經濟同盟後，最後，再由經濟同盟形成經濟貨幣同盟時，整個的深入過程中，至少還有2大挑戰。

首先，文化差異與歷史考量－例如，戰爭與衝突－會使得整合社會/政治的過程，複雜化。

其次，維持一個高度的經濟整合，會限制會員國追求獨立經濟與社會政策的程度。自由貿易與勞力及資本的動員力傾向於阻撓目標在控制一國內的相對價格與/或數量之政策，而國際收支帳與財政可信度的考量卻限制了分歧總體經濟政策的有效性。此情況在貨幣同盟特別明顯。因為個別國家無法控制貨幣政策，而且一旦國際收支帳一再失衡，也無法用貨幣升/貶值作為修正的工具。這些限制乃固定匯率制度與高程度資金動員力所固有。並非貨幣同盟(亦即共同貨幣)才有的問題。

一旦一個會員國的國際收支帳一再的失衡，會導致外溢到其他面臨類似問題的其他國家之危機。最近的例子，就是2010年的希臘危機所造成的傳染之恐慌。2010年5月標準普爾將希臘政府的信用評等，從投資級降到垃圾級。標準普爾也調降西班牙與葡萄牙的主權債券。這些國家，同時蒙受高政府赤字與緩慢的GDP成長。信用調降，恐慌加劇。特別是希臘政府主權債券可能會違約的恐慌，導致歐盟較健康的國家陷入經濟困境，甚至也危及美國與亞洲。

歐盟與國際貨幣基金於2010年5月同意對希臘紓困1,450億美元(850億歐元)。到了2010年底，仍擔心希臘、愛爾蘭、葡萄牙及西班牙的財務健康。歐盟在2010年設立「歐洲財務穩定方案」(European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF))，以協助需要援助的歐盟國家。而且歐盟各國間，到現在，仍在辯論是否應擴大歐洲財務穩定方案的金援範圍與金援能力。