银符考试题库-在线练习-剑桥商务英语中级口语分类模拟题1

剑桥商务英语中级口语分类模拟题1

SPEAKING

(1) Causes of Globalization

What explains this globalization? It is certainly not attributable to conquest, the source of most previous historical episodes where a single economic system has held sway over a vast geographical terrain. The source lies instead in the development of technology. The costs of transport, of travel, and above all the costs of communicating information have fallen dramatically in the postwar period, almost entirely because of the progress of technology. A 3-minute telephone call from the USA to Britain cost ＄12 in 1946, whereas today it can cost as little as 48 cents, despite the fact that consumer prices have multiplied by over eight times in the intervening period. The first computers were lumbering away with piles of punched cards in the early postwar years, and telegrams provided the only rapid means of written communication. There was no fax or internet or e-mail or world-wide web, no PCs or satellites or cell-phones. Today we witness phenomena that no futurist dreamed of half a century ago, such as Indians with medical degrees residing in Bangalore who earn a living by acting as secretaries to American doctors by transcribing their tapes overnight.
It is clearly the availability of cheap, rapid and reliable communications that permits such phenomena, just as this is the key to the integration of the international capital market. I presume the same factor is important in nurturing the growth of multinational corporations, since it is this which enables them to exploit their intellectual property efficiently in a variety of locations without losing the ability to maintain control from head office. But I would surmise that other factors are also at work, such as the spread of consumer knowledge about what is available that comes from travel and from advertising, itself encouraged by the communications revolution and its children like CNN. The reduction in transport costs is also a key factor underlying the growth in trade.
Of course, it needed a reasonably peaceful world to induce economic agents to exploit the opportunities for globalization presented by technological progress. But the technological basis for the phenomenon of globalization implies that, barfing an end to the "Pax Americana" or else extremely vigorous conscious actions to reverse the process, globalization is here to stay.
(2) Consequences of Globalization

Globalization certainly permits an increase in the level of global output. Whether as a result of the old Heckscher-Ohlin theory of the basis of comparative advantage as lying in different factor abundance in different countries, or as a result of the new trade theories that explain trade by increasing returns to scale, trade will increase world output. 2 Likewise FDI brings the best technology, and other forms of intellectual capital, to countries that would otherwise have to make do without it, or else invest substantial resources in reinventing the wheel for themselves. It may also bring products that would otherwise be unavailable to the countries where the investment occurs, which presumably increases the quality, and therefore the value, of world output. And international capital flows can transfer savings from countries where the marginal product of capital is low to those where it is high, which again increases world output.
Globalization must be expected to influence the distribution of income as well as its level. So far as the distribution of income between countries is concerned, standard theory would lead one to expect that all countries will benefit. Economists have long preached that trade is mutually beneficial, and most of us believe that the experience of widespread growth alongside rapidly growing trade in the postwar period serves to substantiate that. Similarly most FDI goes where a multinational has intellectual capital that can contribute something to the local economy, and is therefore likely to be mutually beneficial to investor and recipient. And a flow of capital that finances a real investment is again likely to benefit both parties, since the yield on the investment is expected to be higher than the rate of interest the borrower has to pay, while that rate of interest is also likely to be higher than the lender could expect at home since otherwise there would have been no incentive to send it abroad. Loose talk about free trade making the rich countries richer and poor countries poorer finds no support in economic analysis. Nor is there any reason for supposing that the North benefits itself at the expense of the South by imposing import restrictions like non-tariff barriers or agricultural subsidies: standard theory says that, while this does indeed impoverish the South, the public in the North also suffers, and it loses more than the producers gain. This suggests that a promising strategy for eliminating such barriers is to seek a coalition with Northern consumers, rather than to engage in North-bashing which will simply alienate potential Northern allies.
The effects on domestic income distribution are less clear. Standard theory says that trade will tend to hurt unskilled labor in rich countries and to help it in poor ones, since the poor countries will be able to export-labor-intensive goods like garments to rich countries, thus increasing the demand for unskilled labor in the poor countries and decreasing it in the rich ones. That is, within rich countries, there is a good analytical reason for arguing that trade will tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. There has in recent years been a lively debate among economists in the developed countries as to whether the increase in imports of labor-intensive goods has been a major factor in causing the fall in the relative (and sometimes absolute) wages of the unskilled in these countries: the majority of economists seem to have concluded that it is a contributory factor, but that the major part of the explanation lies instead in the skill-intensive form of technological progress (Cline, 1997).
It seems more difficult to doubt that exports of labor-intensive goods have been a factor that has done something to increase the demand for unskilled labor, and therefore to equalize the income distribution, in the exporting countries like Sri Lanka. Hence I find it betrays a sad lack of concern with the prospects of the poor to hear, as I have during this conference, garment exports being denigrated as likely in some unexplained way to bring negative impacts. On the other hand, some of the effects of the communications revolution must surely have had a disequalizing effect on income distribution in these countries: think of the Indian doctors who are acting as secretaries to American doctors rather than treating Indian patients, thereby earning more for themselves and also tending to pull up the pay of other doctors in India, who are relatively affluent by Indian standards. Similarly, differential mobility of skilled versus unskilled labor tends to pull up the salaries of the skilled in developing countries toward world levels, thereby leaving less for the immobile poor. The same result will occur if the owners of highly- mobile capital are able to evade taxes by investing abroad, and also if governments are induced to avoid imposing high tax rates on internationally mobile capital, or on those who might be prompted to emigrate, in the hope of keeping these factors at home. Thus the net effect of globalization on income distribution within developing countries seems to me distinctly ambiguous.
What impact is globalization likely to have on the long-term possibilities of economic growth in developing countries? My vision of the growth process is that it takes off when the elite in a developing country comes to understand the opportunities of applying world-class technologies within their country, and introduces institutional arrangements that permit individual pursuit of self-interest to serve, in general, the social good. Once that happens the country is able to grow at a rapid rate, unless some political accident obstructs the process, until it catches up with best-practice technology, and therefore attains the living standards of the developed countries. Globalization is tending to make the technologies and the knowledge for this process to occur more readily available, and therefore to enable the process to be telescoped in time. (Singapore may be a small country, but there is no previous case in history of any country that did not enjoy massive resource discoveries going from stark poverty to affluence in under 30 years.)
But it is surely also true that globalization is bringing new dangers. The virulence of the East Asian crisis was primarily a result of countries exposing themselves to the full force of the international capital market before they had built up an unquestioned reputation for being able as well as willing to service their debts come what may, which meant that when investors became concerned about their potential vulnerability as a result of the Thai crisis there were no other investors willing to step in and provide stabilizing speculation even after exchange rates and interest rates had clearly overshot. Of course, one can argue that this increased vulnerability to external shocks has to be weighed against a decreased vulnerability to internal shocks: think how much more Bangladesh would have suffered this year (1998) if the international community had not provided aid to partially offset the cost of the floods, let alone how much more hunger, or even starvation, there would have been bad Bangladesh been unable to import additional rice. But this does not justify dismissing the increased dangers from external shocks. Moreover, I might note that Professor Indraratna offered you a much longer and more imaginative list of dangers than I have here identified, which looks beyond narrow economic questions and considers the role of globalization in spreading such unsavoury phenomena as drugs, crime, and terrorism.

1. Answer the following question.
Do you agree that the rise of multinational corporations is leading to global homogeneity?

I agree that multinational corporations are indeed creating global sameness in consumer preferences. This homogeneity is manifested in two concurrent megatrends, which are the embracing of American popular culture throughout the world, and a synthesis of cultures, as reflected in consumer preference. In sum, multinationals have indeed instigated a homogeneous globe, which grows in extent along with free-market capitalism and global connectivity.
The development of multinational corporations does enhance global unity by bringing the same methods of business administration as well as products and services throughout the world. In food and fashion, once a nation's denizens "fall into the Gap" or get a taste of a Coke or Big Mac, their preferences are forever westernized. The ubiquitous Nike "swoosh", which nearly every soccer player in the world will soon do epitomizes this phenomenon. In media, the cultural agendas of giants such as Time-Warner now drive the world's entertainment preferences. Moreover, the effect of multinational corporations is far from eliminating regional deference. The corporations itself is blend in the regional and cultural features. The so-called cultural innovation does exist. Let's take KFC for example: its standard design, decoration and food supplied in every chain all around the world influence people consume its product and service. However, to say the multinational corporations do no good to promote and improve the unique culture of the nations where their branches are located is very unfair. Ideally, the multinational corporations should incorporate the culture of the target country's culture with the corporate culture and the culture it belongs to.

2. Discuss the following questions with your partner.
a. What are the benefits to customers of a global marketplace?
b. What is important when a foreign company wants to enter business in China and what is important when setting up a production plant in another country?

a.
A: A global marketplace can benefit customers greatly. The importance of competition in the company cannot be denied. In an age of rapid change, world competition can be the vehicle of change, through innovation or through improvement.
B: Yes, without a global marketplace, the customers will not have a good choice of products and services. Without competition, the consumers will have highly priced products, and it is impossible for them to enjoy impeccable service.
A: Companies will have greater space to develop their business in global market. Customers look for the best values for what they spend while producers seek the best price and profit for what they have to sell. Government seeks to promote the public safety, assure fair competition, and provide a range of services believed to be better performed by public rather than private enterprise.
B: In this system, when economic forces are unfettered, supply and demand create the price of goods and services. Enterprises are free to develop their businesses. In theory, unless they can provide goods or services of a quality and price to compete with others, they are driven from the market, so only the most efficient and those who best serve the public remain in business.
b.
A: In recent years, more and more foreign companies are entering business in China. What do you believe are the factors they need to consider?
B: The most important step, is to identify its goals: whether to sell to China, to manufacture in China for export or domestic markets, or to buy from China.
A: Yes, they must decide on a clear target, and they should know China is not the right place for every kind of foreign business.
B: After identifying the goal, the next they should do is to find a partner. Having a good Chinese partner can save a lot of unnecessary trouble since he is more familiar with the local situation.
A: And they must obey the Chinese laws when doing business, otherwise, they may get into trouble. So they had better employ a competent lawyer who is familiar with Chinese laws and experienced at dealing with business cases. Don't forget the saying, "Do in Rome as Romans do."
B: However, when setting up a production plant in another country, companies should take the main points such as costs and labor supply into consideration. Lowering costs and increasing margins are the main ways to boost profits. So it's obvious that they calculate the costs, including transportation fees, raw materials, etc.
A: Definitely, the lower the costs are, the better. Then they need to consider labor supply. To be more specific, they need to find out whether there is adequate labor supply or not, and how expensive it is to employ local labor there. Actually, many world-famous brands set up their plants in China, just because we have cheap labor.
B: So, to sum up, they need to find a country where costs are low and labor supply is adequate and cheap when planning to set up a production plant in another country.

SPEAKING

1 2

深色：已答题浅色：未答题