单选题 Last month Hanson Transmissions International, a maker of gearboxes for wind turbines, was listed on the London Stock Exchange. Nothing noteworthy about that, you might say, despite the jump in the share price on the first day of trading and the handsome gain since: green technology is all the rage, is it not? But Hanson exemplifies another trend too, which should prove every bit as durable: the rise of multinational companies from emerging economies. Its parent is Suzlon, an Indian firm that began life as a textile manufacturer but is now among the world's five leading makers of wind turbines. Along the way, Suzlon has acquired not only Hanson, originally Belgian, but also REpower, a German wind-energy firm, spending over $ 2 billion on the pair.
The world is now replete with Suzlons: global companies from emerging economies buying businesses in rich countries as well as in poorer places. Another Indian company, Tata Motors, looks likely to add to the list soon, by buying two grand old names of British carmaking, Jaguar and Land Rover, from America's enfeebled Ford. As a symbol of a shift in economic power, this is hard to match.
Economic theory says that this should not happen. Richer countries should export capital to poorer ones, not the other way round. Economists have had to get used to seeing this turned on its head in recent years, as rich countries have run large current-account deficits and borrowed from China and other emerging economies (notably oil exporters) with huge surpluses. Similarly, foreign direct investment (FDI) -- the buying of companies and the building of factories and offices abroad--should also flow from rich to poor, and with it managerial and entrepreneurial prowess.
It is not yet time to tear up the textbook on FDI. According to the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in 2006 the flow of FDI into developing economies exceeded the outflow by more than $ 200 billion. But the transfer of finance and expertise is by no means all in one direction. Developing economies accounted for one-seventh of FDI outflows in 2006, most of it in the form of takeovers. Indian companies have done most to catch the eye, but firms from Brazil, China and Mexico, in industries from cement to consumer electronics and aircraft manufacture, have also gone global. Up to a point, emerging-market multinationals have been buying Western know-how. But they have been bringing managerial and entrepreneurial skill, as well as just money, to the companies they buy: British managers bear grudging witness to the financial flair of Mexican cement bosses; Boeing and Airbus may have learnt a thing or two from the global supply chains of Brazil's Embraer.
Perhaps no one should be surprised. Half a century ago, Japan was a poor country: today Sony and Toyota are among the best-known and mightiest companies on the planet. South Korea and Taiwan are still listed as developing countries in UNCTAD's tables, but that seems bizarrely outdated for the homes of Samsung and Taiwan Semiconductor. Now another generation is forming. To its critics, globalisation may be little more than a licence for giant Western companies to colonise the emerging world, yet more and more firms from poorer economies are planting their flags in rich ground.
Alas, further liberalisation is not certain. The Doha round of global trade talks has been bogged down, partly in squabbles about farm trade but also over industrial tariffs in the emerging world. The services negotiations are half-hearted and direct talks on FDI were ruled out long ago, largely because of developing countries' fears about rich invaders. And the gains forgone are considerable: a new book by the World Bank estimates that reforming services in developing countries could raise their growth rates by a percentage point. Were OECD countries to allow temporary immigration of skilled workers in service industries, the global gains might exceed $ 45 billion.
A few emerging-market giants-notably India's software firms-have been prepared to stand up for liberalisation. But most have not made their voices heard. How sad for free trade: such companies would provide much better illustrations of the success of globalisation than the familiar Western names do (unless you think Coca-colonisation sounds really cool). And how short-sighted of them. Even if some of these adolescents grew up behind tariff barriers, that represents their past: their future will surely lie in global markets. If the Doha round fails, the next opportunity may be a long time coming.

单选题 Which of the following is NOT true about Hansen Transmissions International?
[A] It's a multinational company characterized by green technology.
[B] It was originally a Belgian company acquired by an Indian firm.
[C] It's an example of emerging economies buying businesses in rich countries.
[D] The parent of the company started from a business in wind energy.

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】细节题。文章在第一段指出，Hansen exemplifies another trend too，which should prove every bit as durable：the rise of multinational companies from emerging economies．由此可知，汉森公司代表了另一种长盛不衰的趋势，即来自新兴经济体的跨国公司正在崛起。第一段进而指出，汉森公司原属比利时，其母公司为印度的苏司兰跨国公司，作为全球五大风力涡轮机制造商之一，凭制造纺织品起家，还并购了德国的风能产品公司，由此可知，[B]、[C]符合文意，故排除。同时，第一段指出，汉森传动国际公司在伦敦证券交易市场当天股票价格暴涨，其后收益颇丰的原因是绿色科技正风靡时下(green technology is all the rage)，由此可知[A]符合文意，故排除。[D]指出汉森公司的母公司，即印度苏司兰公司凭风能工业起家，与第一段论述事实不符：该公司凭制造纺织晶起家(an Indian firm that began life as a textile manufacturer)，故[D]为答案。

单选题 "... this is hard to match" in the second paragraph suggests that
[A] the acquisition by Tata Motors is different from that of Suzlons.
[B] Indian companies are developing so fast that others can't compare with them.
[C] traditional economic theory doesn't work in explaining the shift in economic power.
[D] it's hard to explain why there has been a shift in economic power.

【正确答案】 C

【答案解析】语义理解题。文章第三段指出Economic theory says that this should not happen．Richer countries
should export capital to poorer ones，not the other way round．Economists have had to get used to seeing this
turned on its head in recent years…由此可知，按照原有的经济理论，发展中国家新兴经济体收购发达国家企业的事情本不应当发生。而经济学家们不得不对近年来由于经济实力转移而引起的这种逆反趋势习以为常。由此可见，第二段最后一句话为过渡句，引出第三段内容，由此可知，[C]为答案。[A]指出印度塔塔汽车公司收购美国福特公司旗下的英国汽车制造业的两大传统晶牌性质与苏司兰公司实为相同，故排除 [A] 文章在第四段虽然提及印度公司所作所为引入注目，但是并没有表明其发展速度无可匹敌，[B]表述不够准确，故排除。[D]指出很难解释经济实力转移的原因，既与第三、四段内容无关联(第三、四段主要是例证经济实力转移)，也不是本文论述的主题，故排除[D]

单选题 Which of the following is NOT cited as an example of change in today's economic world?
[A] Richer countries exporting capital to poorer ones.
[B] Tata Motors buying two old British car making companies.
[C] Rich countries borrowing money from emerging economies.
[D] Developing countries bringing managerial skills to developed ones.

【正确答案】 A

【答案解析】细节题。文章在第一、二段中指出了发展中国家的新兴经济体正以强劲的增长势头，使世界的经济实力发生转移，以印度苏司兰公司收购比利时和德国公司、印度塔塔汽车公司购买美国福特公司旗下两大传统品牌为例，说明了经济全球化过程中新的趋势，[B]符合该新趋势，故排除。文章在第三度指出，按照传统经济理论，富国应该向穷国输出资本，而不是反其道行之。换言之，[A]情况符合传统经济理论，为经济领域的通常情况，而非体现出当今经济领域的变化，故[A]为答案。第三段继而指出，经济学家们不得不对近年来由于经济实力转移而引起的这种逆反趋势习以为常，即富国积累了大笔的经常账户逆差，从有大量资金盈余的中国和其他发展中国家那里借贷。[C]体现了此种新的逆反趋势，故排除。文章在第三段指出，传统意义上，由于富国管理和企业经营方面的强势，使得在海外购买公司并且建立工厂和分部遵循从富到穷的方向流动，而第四段却指出，来自新兴市场的跨国公司在购买西方国家的技术，除资金外，他们也把管理经营技巧随之引入所购买的公司，[D]体现出这一新变化，故排除。