外文翻譯參考格式.doc

華中科技大學(xué)文華學(xué)院畢業(yè)設(shè)計（論文）外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯題 目：美國發(fā)展可能要汲取中國的教訓(xùn)學(xué) 生 姓 名： 王亞婧 學(xué)號：080203021115學(xué) 部 （系）: 城市建設(shè)工程學(xué)部 專 業(yè) 年 級: 08級城市規(guī)劃2班 指 導(dǎo) 教 師： 張媛 職稱或?qū)W位：講師20 12年03月05日外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯原文：The growth lesson America could take from ChinaThe basic driver of remarkable economic growth in China and India, Vietnam, Thailand, Brazil and pretty much every other developing country is pretty simple: people migrating from rural areas, where theyre not very productive, to dense cities, where they are very productive. This is a tried-and-true strategy for making people and countries richer. But its not just for developing nations.Over the past year, three terrific books have come out on the importance of cities in Americas economy. In “Triumph of the City,” Harvard economist Ed Glaeser details how cities all over the world have supercharged human development and ingenuity. In “The Gated City,” Ryan Avent focuses more narrowly on the role cities play in making Americans better off. And in “The Rent is Too Damn High,” Matt Yglesias focuses on, well, why the rent is so damn high.The three make similar arguments: First, cities make us smarter, richer and more productive. Avent sums up some of the (voluminous) evidence: “Economist Masayuki Morikawa finds that productivity rises between 10 and 20percent when density doubles. Morris Davis, Jonas Fisher and Toni Whited estimate that a doubling of density may increase productivity by between 17 and 28percent. Their work suggests that more than 30percent of real wage growth over the past 35 years is attributable to changes in density.”Cities, Glaeser says, are “our greatest invention.” People offer ideas and teach skills to, buy services from and engage in healthy competition with one another. Cities enable closer contact among the population. The results can be remarkable. Glaeser cites the example of Silicon Valley: “The computer industry, more than any other sector, is the place where one might expect remote communication to replace person-to-person meetings; computer companies have the best teleconferencing tools, the best Internet applications, the best means of connecting far-flung collaborators. Yet despite their ability to work at long distances, this industry has become the most famous example of the benefits of geographic concentration.Second, we have choked off access to these remarkable growth machines for too many Americans. We havent done it on purpose, necessarily. But weve done it, mostly through regulations that make it either prohibitively expensive or downright impossible to buy or rent a home in the countrys most productive cities. Avent notes the disparity between the Bay area, with its “natural beauty, urban amenities, fantastic climate, cultural riches, and outstanding economic prospects,” and Phoenix, where “temperatures above 100 degrees are commonplace” and the income earned by the typical household “is only about 60 percent of that of the typical Silicon Valley household.” And yet, between 2000 and 2009, the San Francisco metropolitan area lost almost 350,000 residents, while Phoenix gained nearly half a million.The reason isnt that Phoenix is more desirable. Its that San Francisco is prohibitively expensive. Thats in part because demand to live there is high. But its also because regulations make it almost impossible to increase the supply of housing stock. “Land is a scarce resource, so some increase in the price of housing is bound to happen as the economy grows,” Yglesias wrote. “But architects know how to design multifloor buildings and engineers can build elevators. Public policy that restricts their ability to do so not construction costs or the limited supply of land is the main cause of high rents in America.”The different authors focus on various ills. Yglesiass pulse is quickened by height restrictions, like the ones here in Washington. Avent takes aim at the local coalitions who band together to fight new real estate development for all manner of parochial reasons. Glaeser is particularly eloquent about the way ordinary buildings get designated “historical” to impede new development. But all make basically the same point: Because we dont fully appreciate how important cities are in stoking economic development, we dismiss the economic costs of regulations that make them too expensive for many to live in.Which gets to their solutions. Theyre not arguing for pro-density policies. All three are careful to say that Americans should live where they want. Theyre criticizing anti-density policies that make it effectively impossible for Americans to live where they want. The means should thrill the right, as the agenda effectively boils down to deregulation. The ends should engage the left, as the people who are priced out of the cities and thus of the benefits they bring are the poor and the middle class, not the wealthy.And Americans of both parties should embrace the basic logic of the enterprise. Its bad news indeed to realize that we have, for decades, ignored one of the most important dimensions of economic growth: place. The good news, of course, is that in this age of diminished economic expectations, there are still big ideas we can try to increase growth, innovation and productivity. Dont believe me? Just ask China.譯文：中國經(jīng)濟(jì)強力增長的最基礎(chǔ)的動力印度、越南、泰國、巴西和幾乎其他每一發(fā)展中國家的動力是很簡單的。人們從生產(chǎn)率不是很高的農(nóng)村遷移到能夠生產(chǎn)率高的高密度的城市。這是一個使人民和國家變得更富有的有效的策略。但是這不只是 適合發(fā)展中國家。在過去一年里，三本很好的關(guān)于城市在美國經(jīng)濟(jì)中的重要性的書出版了。在城市的勝利這本書中，哈佛經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家Ed Glaeser描述全世界的城市是怎樣增進(jìn)人類的發(fā)展和機智。在門控城市這本書中，Ryan Aven更仔細(xì)的關(guān)注在使美國變得富裕的各因素中城市所扮演的角色。在該死的高租金這本書中Matt Yglesias關(guān)注的是為什么地租如此之高。這三本書都做個一個類似的討論：首先，城市使我們更加聰明，更富有，更高的生產(chǎn)率。Avent總結(jié)了一些（大量的）證據(jù)：“經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家Masayuki Morikawa發(fā)現(xiàn)當(dāng)城市密度增加到一倍時，生產(chǎn)率會身高10%到20%。Morris Davis, Jonas Fisher和Toni Whited估計城市密度如果增加一倍可能會使生產(chǎn)率增加的幅度在17%到28%間。他們的工作研究表明，在過去35年的時間里工資的增長的至少30%是歸功于城市密度的變化。Glaeser說城市是我們最偉大的發(fā)明。人們提供思路和教導(dǎo),買服務(wù)技能,和別人之間有個健康的競爭城市能夠使我們能夠和人們更親密的接觸。其結(jié)果很顯著。格萊塞引入美國硅谷的為一個例子：“計算機產(chǎn)業(yè)，超過任何一個部門，這個部門預(yù)期遠(yuǎn)程通信取代人與人之間的會議，計算機公司有最好的遠(yuǎn)程會議工具，最好的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)應(yīng)用程序，最好的連接偏遠(yuǎn)的地方的合作者的方法。然而盡管他們的職責(zé)是在很遠(yuǎn)的地方工作，但是這個工廠已經(jīng)成為從地理集中獲取好處的一個很著名的例子。第二，對于大多數(shù)美國人來說，我們已經(jīng)掐斷了訪問這些顯著增長的機器的途徑。我們沒有必然的要這么做的目的。但是我們通過制定法規(guī)已經(jīng)這么做了，,這使它要么有人頭稅或徹底可能買或者租一個鄉(xiāng)下的家最多產(chǎn)的城市。Avent說海濱地段的不同就是它的“天然美、城市設(shè)施、美妙的氣候、文化財富,以及卓越的經(jīng)濟(jì)前景時, 鳳凰,號稱“溫度100華氏度以上是常有的事”的成城市，它的典型的家庭的收入“大約只有典型的硅谷家庭的百分之六十”然而,在2000年和2009年之間,舊金山大都市地區(qū)失去了將近350000居民,而鳳凰上漲了近一半一百萬。這個原因并不是鳳凰這座城市更加吸引人。而是舊金山的消費過分的昂貴。這很大程度上是因為在那的生活消費太高。但它也因為法規(guī)使它幾乎不可能增加供應(yīng)的住宅?！巴恋厥且环N稀缺資源，所以只有經(jīng)濟(jì)增長，房屋的價格才能有些增加,” Yglesias寫到：“但是建筑師知道怎樣去設(shè)計多層住宅，工程師們知道怎么建造電梯”。國家政策限制他們這樣做的能力即沒有建設(shè)開支和土地供應(yīng)的限制，這是造成美國高房租的主要原因。不同的作者關(guān)注了各種各樣的問題。Yglesias的脈搏加速身高限制,像那些在這里在華盛頓。Avent需要針對當(dāng)?shù)芈?lián)盟，這個聯(lián)盟結(jié)合在一起來對抗那些新的房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)各種各樣的異同的原因。Glaeser特別雄辯的方式得到指定普通建筑的“歷史”來阻礙