Question

翻译高手快来，我要急死了，英语捉急

In addition to agricultural trade being affected by economicgrowth and declining trade costs, it has been greatly affected by distortionarygovernment policies. Since the 1950s, world agriculture has been characterizedby the persistence of high agricultural protection in developed countries, byanti-agricultural and anti-trade policies of developing countries and by thetendency for both sets of countries to use trade measures to stabilize theirdomestic food market thereby exacerbating price fluctuations in the
international marketplace. This disarray has not only beenhighly inefficient but has also contributed to global inequality and poverty (sincethe vast majority of the world’s poorest households depend directly or indirectlyon farming for their livelihoods; see Anderson et al. 2010a). The situationworsened up to the mid-1980s, with agricultural protection in Europe, North Americaand Japan peaking and international food prices plummeting in 1986, thanks inlarge measure to an agricultural export subsidy war between the US and theEuropean community. Meanwhile, many developing countries had been reducing farmincomes not only by heavily taxing agricultural exports but also,albeitindirectly, by protecting manufacturers from import competition and overvaluingthe national currency.This disarray in world agriculture meant that there
was over-production of farm products in HICs and under-productionin more-needy developing countries. It also meant there was less international tradein farm products than would be the case under free trade, thereby ‘thinning’the market for these weather-dependent products and thus making them morevolatile. The extent of that volatility is evident in figure 1. Using astochastic model of world food markets, one study estimates that thecoefficient of variation of international food prices in the 1980s was threetimes greater than it would have been under free trade and that the volume ofinternational trade in grains, livestock products and sugar was half what itcould have been (Tyers & Anderson 1992,
tables 6.9 and 6.14).

Answer 1

除了农产品贸易的增长和贸易成本的下降，影响了，它已经被distortionarygovernment政策极大地影响。20世纪50年代以来，世界农业已通过高新农业保护发达国家的持久性，利用农业和反贸易政策与发展中国家的国家的趋势两套使用贸易措施来稳定本国食品市场，从而加剧了价格波动的
国际市场。这种混乱不仅具有高度效率低下，而且也有助于全球不平等和贫穷（因为世界上绝大多数贫穷的家庭关系直接或indirectlyon农业维持生计；看到安德森等人。公寓）。该situationworsened到80年代中期，在欧洲北部的农业保护，美国和日本的峰值和国际食品价格下降1986，由于在美国和欧盟的措施之间的农业出口补贴的战争。同时，许多发展中国家已经减少farmincomes不仅征重税农产品的出口，而且，albeitindirectly，保护制造商和overvaluingthe受进口竞争的本国货币。这种混乱的世界农业意味着
在高收入国家中，产生更多的贫困发展中国家的农产品的生产。这也意味着更少的农产品国际贸易的情况要比在自由贸易下，从而“thinning'the市场为这些天气相关的产品，从而使他们morevolatile。这种波动的程度在图1中是显而易见的。利用世界粮食市场的随机模型，一项研究估计，在上世纪80年代的国际粮食价格变异系数为三倍大于它会一直在自由贸易和国际贸易量在谷物，畜产品和糖的一半可能已（泰尔斯&；安德森1992，
表6.9和表6.14）。

Answer 2

除了农业贸易的影响经济增长和减少贸易成本,它大大影响distortionarygovernment政策。自1950年代以来,世界农业characterizedby持久性高农业保护在发达国家,byanti-agricultural和反贸易政策的发展中国家和thetendency两组国家使用贸易措施来稳定本国食品市场从而加剧了价格的波动
国际市场。这种混乱不仅beenhighly效率低下,也导致了全球不平等和贫困(由于绝大多数的世界上最贫困的家庭直接或indirectlyon依赖农业为生;看到安德森et al . 2010年)。situationworsened到1980年代中期,与农业保护在欧洲,北美和日本峰值和1986年国际食品价格暴跌,由于在测量一个农业出口补贴美国和欧洲共同体之间的战争。与此同时,许多发展中国家已经被严重减少farmincomes不仅农产品出口也征税,albeitindirectly,通过保护制造商进口竞争和overvaluingthe国家货币。这在世界农业意味着混乱
生产过剩的农产品在HICs和under-productionin more-needy发展中国家。这也意味着有更少的国际tradein农产品将会比在自由贸易下,从而“稀疏”这些与天气相关的产品市场,从而使它们morevolatile。图1中,波动的程度是显而易见的。使用astochastic模型世界粮食市场的一项研究估计,thecoefficient国际粮食价格的变化大于三次在1980年代就在自由贸易和卷国际贸易谷物、牲畜产品和糖是它的一半(Tyers &安德森1992,
表6.9和6.14)。