扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2008E2-RC-46
For over a decade the most common policy advice given to developing countries by international development institutions has been to copy the export-oriented path of the newly industrializing countries, the celebrated NICs. These economies-Brazil, Hong Kong, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan-burst into the world manufacturing market in the late 1960s and the 1970s; by 1978 these six economies, along with India, enjoyed unequaled growth rates for gross national product and for exports, with exports accounting for 70 percent of the developing world's manufactured exports. It was, therefore, not surprising that dozens of other countries attempted to follow their model, yet no countries-with the possible exceptions of Malaysia and Thailand-have even approached their success. In "No More NICs," Robin Broad and John Cavanagh search for the reasons behind these failures, identifying far-reaching changes in the global economy-from synthetic substitutes for commodity exports to unsustainable levels of foreign debt-as responsible for a glut economy offering little room for new entrants. Despite these changes, the authors maintain, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund-the foremost international development institutions-have continued to promote the NIC path as the way for heavily indebted developing countries to proceed. And yet the futility of this approach should, according to the authors, be all too apparent so many years into a period of reduced growth in world markets.
The author of the passage most clearly implies that Broad and Cavanagh disagree with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund about which of the following?
The ways in which the global economy has changed in recent years
The causes of the unsustainable levels of foreign debt that the developing countries have incurred in recent years
The level of foreign debt that should be maintained by developing countries
The degree to which international development institutions should monitor the growth of developing countries
The degree to which heavily indebted developing countries should emphasize exports in their overall economic strategy
此讲解的内容由AI生成，还未经人工审阅，仅供参考。
答案是 E。
作者的这篇材料意思是，Broad和Cavanagh与世界银行和国际货币基金组织关于发展中国家应该强调出口在其整体经济战略中的程度上有分歧。文章指出，尽管全球经济发生了变化，但是这些国际发展机构仍在推动发展中国家采用NICs模式。Broad和Cavanagh则认为，世界市场减少增长期间，这种做法显然是徒劳的。因此，答案选择E。
文章开头说了NIC就是export-oriented path, 而结尾处说尽管有了这些changes，WB和IMF还是在促进NIC path，也就是说作者认为不该再继续强调export了，而那俩个机构还是在强调export
问题中应该找word bank支持NIC的做法，然后B&C不同意
答案E： 巨额负债的developing country 加强出口贸易，是bank支持，但是B&C反对的
答案D：是B&C同意的
答案C：是B&C同意的
答案B: 是B&C发现的，没有说到world bank在这的作用
答案A： B&C是同意的
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund-the foremost international development institutions-have continued to promote the NIC path as the way for heavily indebted developing countries to proceed.
NIC--export-oriented path
错误原因：没有理解这句话的意思
A：文章中说的是全球经济的改变。选项强调的是ways 全球经济改变的方式
错选C，这选项与正确答案E的区别在于一个强调说它们观点的不同在于认为发展中国家需要维持的外汇负债水平；而文中表达的是“国际货币基金组织支持——NIC path as the way for heavily indebted developing countries....”
文章大意: 世界发展机构建议发展中国家走NIC道路，尽管NIC的经济成就很显著，但是由于世界经济的功大于求现象（表现为外债水平高，加工工业过剩），提供给新NIC国家发展的空间有限。结论：NIC道路徒劳无功。证据：过去那么多年的经济生产下降。
错选C ，原文说两个组织提出继续将NIC作为重债发展中国家前进的道路，跟保持外债水平没有关系
审清题目：问的是B&C不同意Bank的什么，也就是分歧点在哪，所以答案应该是一个Bank提出的东西，但是B&C反对。
而ABCD都是B&C的观点或者发现，是为了反对bank的原因，而并不牵扯bank的behavior
只有E是bank所倡导的，是B&C提出一大堆来反对bank的真正的点
B&C认为全球经济从synthetic substitutes for commodity exports到unsustainable levels of foreign debt的变化应该是NIC path不能成功的原因
World Bank & International Monetary Fund认为应该继续promote the NIC path as the way for heavily indebted developing countries to proceed
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund-the foremost international development institutions-have continued to promote the NIC path as the way for heavily indebted developing countries to proceed.
-from synthetic substitutes for commodity exports to unsustainable levels of foreign debt-as responsible for a glut economy offering little room for new entrants
Despite these changes, the authors maintain, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund-the foremost international development institutions-have continued to promote the NIC path as the way for heavily indebted developing countries to proceed. And yet the futility of this approach should, according to the authors, be all too apparent so many years into a period of reduced growth in world markets.
NIC在前文的定义是the export-oriented path of the newly industrializing countries
开头这句the export-oriented path of the newly industrializing countries, the celebrated NICs。已经定义了NIC就是export-oriented path 。所以"the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund-the foremost international development institutions-have continued to promote the NIC path "中提到 IMF在promote NIC path，就等于再说IMF在promote export-oriented path。
E的意思：那些富有高额外债的发展中国家是否应该继续专注于以出口来发展经济。
And yet the futility of this approach should, according to the authors, be all too apparent so many years into a period of reduced growth in world markets.提出NIC这种方法的无用性在世界市场增长缓慢的这段时间里特别明显===意味着他们觉得bank和fund过于强调出口在经济战略里的重要性了
看全文第一句话！
levels of foreign debt-as responsible for a glut economy offering little room for new entrants. Despite these changes, the authors maintain, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund-the foremost international development institutions-have continued to promote the NIC path as the way for heavily indebted developing countries to proceed. 最后几句话，也就是说世界组织极力推动发展中国家进行模仿NIC注重出口的道路，但是没有注意到已经供过于求，所以，分歧点在于对对出口的重视
In "No More NICs," Robin Broad and John Cavanagh说明RB和JC是呼吁不要NIC，NIC在前文的定义是the export-oriented path of the newly industrializing countries；而the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund-the foremost international development institutions-have continued to promote the NIC path ，所以World Bank and the International Monetary Fund 是呼吁NIC的
and yet the futility of this approach should be all too apparent so many years into a period of reduced growth in wolrd markets 老师能否帮忙翻译一下 感谢