开题报告

浙江大学城市学院毕业论文 外文翻译

Although some economists remain skeptical of the existence of positive externalities associated with foreign direct investment (FDI), many countries spend large sums attracting foreign investors in the hope of benefiting from knowledge spillovers. Data collected through enterprise surveys conducted in the Czech Republic and Latvia suggest that the entry of multinationals affects domestic enterprises in the same industry or in upstream or downstream sectors through multiple channels. Some of these channels represent true knowledge spillovers while others have positive or negative effects on domestic producers in other ways. The relative magnitudes of these channels depend on host country conditions and the type of FDI inflows, which explains the seemingly inconsistent findings of the literature. The focus of the debate should shift from attempting to generalize about whether or not FDI leads to productivity spillovers to determining under what conditions it can do so.

In the view of many policymakers, particularly those in developing countries, foreign direct investment (FDI) is not only a source of capital and additional employment but primarily a channel through which new technologies and know-how are transferred across international borders. Policymakers hope that knowledge brought by foreign affiliates will spill over to domestic firms and increase the competitiveness of their economies. This belief has led many countries to use externalities associated with FDI as a justification for providing fiscal and financial incentives to foreign investors.

The fact that large sums are often spent attracting FDI and the importance of technology transfer have led many academics to search for evidence of knowledge spillovers from FDI. Their conclusions have been mixed. Early cross-section studies of intraindustry spillovers find a positive association between industry-level productivity and FDI; the conclusions of recent firm-level panel analyses are more ambiguous (see the literature surveys by G?rg and Strobl 2001; Lipsey 2002; Saggi 2002; and G?rg and Greenaway 2004). The meta-analysis of G?rg and Strobl (2001) shows that cross-sectional studies tend to overstate the intraindustry spillover effects, possibly because the studies are unable to control for unobservable industry heterogeneity. Among firm-level panel analyses, those focusing on industrial countries are more likely to report positive findings on intraindustry spillovers than those using developing country data. More recent work examining interindustry spillovers has produced more encouraging results by providing evidence consistent with the existence of knowledge spillovers from multinationals to supplying industries (see Javorcik 2004 and Blalock

20

浙江大学城市学院毕业论文 外文翻译

and Gertler 2008). A review of the case study literature concludes that while the majority of case studies support the existence of FDI spillovers, under some circumstances such spillovers are unlikely to take place (Moran forthcoming).

Critics of globalization and academic skeptics have interpreted these mixed results as reflecting “extravagant claims about positive spillovers from FDI” that are not corroborated by the “sobering evidence” (Rodrik 1999, p. 37). They suggest that one dollar of FDI is worth no more than a dollar of any other kind of investment and that there is thus no case for special treatment of FDI.

Despite the mixed evidence, governments all over the world have continued their efforts to attract FDI inflows. The 1990s witnessed an explosion in the number of national investment promotion agencies. Between 1990 and 2005, the number of such agencies increased from 11 to 63 in developing countries and from 3 to 20 in developed countries. In 2004 alone, 59 of 108 countries surveyed in the World Bank's Census of Investment Promotion Agencies offered some type of incentives to foreign investors (Harding and Javorcik 2007).

The contrast between the views of academic skeptics and the actions of governments has left observers wondering whether academics have simply failed to uncover spillovers that indeed exist or whether the generosity with which governments treat foreign investors is not really warranted. This article contributes to this debate by presenting information collected through enterprise surveys conducted in the Czech Republic and Latvia. Enterprise surveys can provide useful evidence that complements case studies and econometric analyses. Survey evidence is less prone than case studies to the criticism of not being representative and difficult to generalize. And in contrast to econometric analyses, which often treat the mechanism behind spillovers as a black box, surveys can capture the multiple channels through which spillovers take place.

The survey evidence presented here illustrates the myriad channels (including both real and pecuniary externalities) through which FDI inflows affect the performance of domestic producers in a host country. Some of these channels are true knowledge spillovers, others exert a positive effect on domestic producers through demand shocks; some may have a negative impact on the observed performance of local firms. The methodologies employed in most econometric studies are unable to distinguish between the various channels. To complicate matters further, the relative magnitude of these channels depends on host country conditions and the type of FDI inflows, which may

21

浙江大学城市学院毕业论文 外文翻译

explain the seemingly inconsistent findings of the literature.

外国和中国本地公司之间的相互生产力溢出

效应

发展中国家当地的知识外溢

如前所述，大多数现有的研究已涉及到与跨国公司在东道国当地企业的溢出效应。正如Blomstr?m和Kokko（1998）和Saggi（2002年），总结了生产力溢出发生的下列方式：跨国公司可能会中断供应瓶颈，展示新技术和培训工人（那些后来参加当地企业就业的工人），打破垄断，促进产业结构的竞争和效率，存货和质量控制和标准化，以他们的本地供应商和分销渠道转移技术，并迫使当地企业增加其管理的努力或通过使用由跨国公司的营销技巧。这些活动可能会推出新的知识和加强竞争，从而有助于提高生产率。如果生产率的提高大于竞争的损失，将有积极的生产力溢出效应。否则，对东道国经济的外国存在影响将是负面的。否则，对东道国经济的外国存在影响将是负面的。

对发达国家和发展中国家的实证研究，为上一节中提到的方式提供不同的结果。在一些国家发现消极的生产率外溢，特别是在一些发展中国家。人们普遍认为，本地公司可以采取由跨国公司拥有的技术，如果他们有能力吸收这些（Nunnenkamp，2004年）先进的技术优势。此外，有研究已经发现，在一个国家不同地区有不同的溢出效应（魏，刘，2006）。虽然当地公司可能受益于跨国公司的存在，那么跨国公司能从当地公司中学习到什么？最近的文献表明，跨国公司可以受益于当地企业拥有的知识。首先，如牧野和Delios（1996）的研究，讨论了国际合资企业在发展中国家表现了当地知识的重要性。第二，Fosfuri和莫塔（1999）和德里菲尔德和爱（2003）等分析了跨国公司技术从发达国家的当地公司采购。在这两种分析的建立下，我们假设的跨国公司可以从当地企业学习，即使在一个发展中国家。

外国直接投资理论认为先进的技术，尽管很重要，不仅为国外子公司在东道国

22

浙江大学城市学院毕业论文 外文翻译

的成功就足够了。外国公司需要的知识，在东道国的竞争中包括工作安排，而非汇编法律知识，营销和金融专业知识，以及产品的创新和修改（邓宁，1988）。境外投资企业有一个地方知识缺乏的劣势。地方知识是对当地市场的了解，以及文化和环境条件（英克彭和比米什，1997），包括文化传统，规范，当地的商业惯例，价值观和体制的差异，工作条件，法律，政府政策法规和经济的一般知识。地方性知识还包括在当地一家公司与当地政府进行谈判的技能和能力;它能获得在与当地精英谈判的技能和方法，以及其是否有能力处理当地劳动力和工会; 还有其职权和有关当地市场准入，产品质量，品牌和市场声誉。这是国外投资企业在东道国需要拥有一整套的知识成功运作的困难所在。一个有当地知识储备的国外投资企业可以补充一个企业在国外的所有权优势，可以减少被当做国外公司的缺点，从而提高（牧野和Delios，1996年）国外子公司的表现。因此，要在东道国设立成功的业务，意味着公司必须访问当地的知识，以此作为克服市场风险和不确定性（斯托和Wells，1972）。

牧野和Delios（1996）在研究中对地方知识的获取的三种渠道进行了详细讨论：（1）通过在当地组建一家合资企业或公司，（2）通过国外母公司的股票转让获得主办国的经验，（3）通过在东道国业务经验的积累。第一个通道被看作是介于坚定通道之间，其中地方知识是从一个地方转移到合资企业。当地的合作伙伴是当地知识的直接来源，它可以补充投资公司的所有权优势。第二通道是一个本地知识等内企业从国外母公司转移到合资企业。交易成本经济学认为，一个企业有内在的机制激励着这类无形资产的市场。第三个通道也被视为在知识的范围内，公司通过收购，边学边做，积累当地知识，成为合资企业的过程。

以上三个被认同的渠道是外国公司获取当地知识的重要途径。然而，这种分析忽略了一个重要渠道链：当地知识的传播。鉴于当地非排他性的竞争对手，只有部分知识的本质，它可以对外国公司施加外部影响。外国公司可以直接通过学习和观察当地企业的存在获得知识和获益。当地企业可以对外商投资企业的示范和竞争产生影响，从而影响他们的生产力。

23