外商直接投资外文翻译

III-1 外文翻译之一 To share or not to share: Does local participation matter for spillovers from foreign direct investment? Author(s)： Beata Smarzynska Javorcik and Mariana Spatareanu Nationality： U.S. Source： To share or not to share: Does local participation matter for spillovers from foreign direct investment? Journal of Development Economics, Article in press 1. Introduction Although domestic equity ownership requirements used to be extensively utilized by governments in developing countries,2 their incidence has sharply declined in recent years (UNCTAD, 2003). Increasingly competitive environment for foreign direct investment (FDI) and the need to comply with international commitments have put pressure on governments to relax restrictions on foreign entrants. One of the original motivations for the existence of ownership sharing conditions was the belief that local participation in foreign investment projects reveals their proprietary technology and thus benefits domestic firms by facilitating technology diffusion (see Beamish, 1988 and Blomstrm and Sjholm, 1999). As writing a contract specifying all aspects of the rights to use intangible assets is difficult, if not impossible, joint domestic and foreign ownership of an investment project is more likely to lead to knowledge dissipation. A local partner may use the knowledge acquired from the foreign investor in its other operations not involving the foreign shareholders or being in charge of hiring policies, as is often the case, the local partner may have less incentive to limit employee turnover.3 This problem is reduced when the multinational is the sole owner of its affiliate.4 As a consequence, multinationals may be more likely to transfer sophisticated technologies and management techniques to their wholly owned subsidiaries than to partially owned affiliates.5 III-2 This in turn has implications for knowledge spillovers to local producers in a host country. Less sophisticated technologies being transferred to jointly owned FDI projects may be easier to absorb by local competitors, which combined with a better access to knowledge through the actions of the local shareholder may lead to greater intra-industry (or horizontal) knowledge spillovers being associated with the shared ownership structure than with wholly owned foreign affiliates. Moreover, lower sophistication of inputs needed by jointly owned FDI projects and the familiarity of the local partner with local suppliers of intermediates may result in greater reliance on locally produced inputs and thus greater vertical spillovers accruing to local producers in upstream sectors. While a lot of research effort has been put into looking for the evidence of FDI spillovers (see the next section), little attention has been devoted to how the ownership structure affects this phenomenon.6 This paper is a step forward in understanding the implications of the ownership structure of FDI projects for the host country. Using firm-level panel data from Romania for the 19982003 period, we examine whether wholly owned foreign affiliates and investments with joint domestic and foreign ownership are associated with a different magnitude of spillovers within the industry of operation and to upstream sectors supplying intermediate inputs. The results suggest that the ownership structure in FDI projects does matter for productivity spillovers. Consistent with our expectations, the analysis indicates that projects with joint domestic and foreign ownership are associated with positive productivity spillovers to upstream sectors but no such effect is detected for wholly owned foreign subsidiaries. The difference between the two coefficients is statistically significant. The magnitude of the former effect is economically meaningful. A one-standard-deviation increase in the presence of investment projects with shared domestic and foreign ownership is associated with a 4.4% increase in the total factor productivity of domestic firms in the supplying industries. This pattern can be found at the national as well as at the regional level. It holds for both best performers in each sector as well as for firm exhibiting lesser performance. The presence of joint ventures in downstream sectors benefits domestic firms but has no effect on foreign affiliates. III-3 In contrast to the vertical effects, the presence of FDI appears to have a negative effect on the performance of local firms operating in the same sector. As argued by Aitken and Harrison (1999), this may be due to the fact that local producers lose part of their market share to foreign entrants and thus are forced to spread their fixed cost over a smaller volume of production. The empirical literature suggests that the negative competition effect outweighs the positive effect of knowledge spillovers in developing countries (Aitken and Harrison, 1999, Djankov and Hoekman, 2000 and Konings, 2001). If greater knowledge dissipation tends to be associated with jointly owned FDI projects, we would expect that FDI with shared ownership has a less negative effect on local producers than do wholly owned foreign projects. Our findings are consistent with this expectation, as in all specifications we find the anticipated pattern. The difference between the magnitudes of the two coefficients is statistically significant for sectors with domestic-market orientation, in the subsample of foreign firms and in the regressions focusing on regional spillovers. While our findings are consistent with the existence of externalities associated with FDI, a word of caution is in order. We use the term spillovers very broadly as our methodology does not allow us to distinguish between pure knowledge externalities, the benefits of scale economies that may be enjoyed by suppliers to multinationals or the effects of increased competition resulting from foreign entry into the product market. More work is certainly needed to fully understand the effects of FDI inflows on host countries. Our findings should not be interpreted as suggesting that restrictions on the extent of foreign ownership are desirable, as such restrictions may lead to lower overall FDI inflows and have other implications not addressed in our analysis. There exist other policies that could potentially be used to facilitate local sourcing by multinationals, such as improvements to the business climate or supplier development programs that assist local producers in learning how to satisfy requirements of foreign buyers. In any case, more research is needed to enhance our understanding of host country conditions facilitating knowledge spillovers from foreign direct investment and the role government policies may play in this area. III-4 能 分享还是无分享：地方参与真的能从外商直接投资中获得溢出吗？ 作者：比阿塔 司马新斯卡加沃斯克和玛瑞安娜斯帕塔瑞奴 国籍： 美国 出处： 发展经济学期刊正在出版中 1、引言 尽管国内资产所有要求被广大发展中国家政府广泛地利用，近几年来它们的影响力急剧地下降，对外商来说越来越激烈的竞争环境以及需要遵守国际条约的压力迫使镇古放松外国进入者的限制。 股权分享条件最原始的动机之一是大家相信地方参与外国投资项目可以揭示他们自有技术，因此可以通过促进技术分散来使国内企业受益。因为要订一个能够列明使用无形资产所有方面 的权利的合同是很困难的。如果可能的话，国内外共同拥有一项投资项目的所有权更有可能导致知识分散。地方合作者可以将从外国投资者处学来的知识用于其它不涉及外国投资人 或受雇佣政策限制的企业。通常的情况时地方合作者不太会去限制员工流转率。如果跨国公司独自拥有子公司的所有权的话，这个问题就会大量的减少。因而，跨过公司更喜欢将成熟的技术和管理经验转移到他们的独资子公司而不是共同所有的子公司。 反过来这也对东道国的当地所有者有一个知识溢出的暗示。转移到合资的外商独资项目的那些不太成熟的技术更容易被当地竞争者吸收再加上因为当 地股东的行为而更容易获得知识技术，从而导致与共同所有结构相关的产业内知识溢出比全股所有的要大的多。此外，对共同所有的外商直接投资项目投入要求不高再加上地方合作者对当地供货商比较熟，会导致对当地生产的投入品有更大的依赖，因此 导致上游部门的当地生产者更多的垂直溢出。当大量的研究致力于对外商直接投资的溢出效应进行实证研究，很少有人关注所有权结构如何影响这一现象。 这篇论文的过人之处在于 使人 了解 外商 直接 投资项目对东道国的暗示。通过使用 1998 2003 年罗马尼亚公司层面的面板数据， 检验 外商独资子公司和合资企业在其 产业内以及提供中间投入品的上游企业是否有一个不同的溢出范围。结果显示外商直接投资项目的所有权结构与生产力溢出效应相关。 与我们的预期一致，分析结果说明国内外共同所有的项目能够对上游部门有正溢出效应 ，但是独资企业没有这样的溢出效应。在统计计量上这两个系数的差 III-5 额很明显。 前者效应的大小在经济上很有意义 .国内外共同所有的项目多增加一个， 供应产业的国内企业的要素生产率增加 4.4%。这个模型适用于国家也适用于地区的企业。对每一个部门最好的企业和差一点的企业都适用。下游部门合资企业的出现有利于国内企业，对外资机构一点作用 也没有。 与垂直效应形成对比的是， FDI 的出现对在同一个部门的当地企业的绩效有一个负影响。如 阿特肯和哈瑞森（ 1999） 所说，这个现象可以归因于当地生产者被外国进入者抢去了一部分市场份额，以至于因为产量减少而使固定成本增加。这部经验主义作品说明在发展中国家负面竞争效应超过了知识溢出的正效应。如果合资企业知识散播更明显，我们可以预期合资拥有的 FDI 项目 比独资企业对当地生产者的负面影响小一点。我们的调查结果与预期一致，因为在所有的分析中我们找到了预期的模型。在对外国企业的二次抽样和关注地区溢出效应衰退时，对国内市 场导向的部门来说，这两个系数在统计计量上大小的差额很明显。 我们的调查结果 证明 FDI 确实具有外在性，需要予以警惕。 我们广泛地用“溢出”这个词 是 因为我们的方法论无法使我们 辨清楚纯粹的知识外溢，跨国公司供货商所能享受到的规模经济 或者因为外国投资者进入了产品市场而导致的竞争加剧的影响。我们仍需要进行更多的工作去了解 FDI 流入对东道国的影响。 我们的调查结果并不是说明对外商所有权的限制是绝对必要的，因为这样的限制会导致整体流入的减少以及另外产生一些没有在我们的分析中说明的问题。有一些其它的政策可能潜在地促进跨国企业 惊醒当地采购，比如培养商业氛围或开发供应商发展项目会帮厨当地生产者学会如何满足外国买家的要求。在任何情况下，我们需要花更多的力气通过研究来促进我们对东道国环境的认识，这有助于促进外商直接投资的知识外溢以及政府政策在这个领域所扮演的角色。 III-6 外文翻译之二 Is foreign direct investment a channel of knowledge spillovers Evidence from Japans FDI in the United States？ Author(s)： Lee Branstetter Nationality： U.S. Source： Is foreign direct investment a channel of knowledge spillovers Evidence from Japans FDI in the United States？ Journal of International Economics ， Volume 68, Issue 2, 2006,pp.325-344 1、 Introduction To what extent does technological knowledge flow across national borders, and by what means are these knowledge flows mediated? These questions have received an increasing amount of attention over the last decade, as leading scholars in international economics have focused considerable research effort on the topic of knowledge spillovers.1 A considerable body of theoretical and empirical work has focused on the extent to which imports of manufactured goods could serve as channels of knowledge spillovers.2 While less thoroughly explored in formal models, the literature also suggests the possibility of a learning-by-exporting effect in which firms learn to improve the quality of their products and production processes through contact with more advanced foreign competitors in global export markets.3 The flow of goods is not the only means through which technological knowledge can flow across national boundaries. An obvious alternative is foreign direct investment. A number of countries have policies that encourage or even subsidize multinational investment. Often, as has been the case in Singapore and Malaysia, these policies are deliberately biased in favor of multinational firms in technology intensive industries. Such preferences are based on the view that production and/or research activities undertaken by multinational affiliates within national borders confer spillover benefits. In an effort to submit these views to careful statistical tests, a number of scholars have undertaken empirical studies of spillover benefits from FDI. The work of Harrison and her co-authors, which has been particularly influential, has used III-7 micro-level panel data drawn from Morocco and Venezuela.4 Following the basic methodology developed by Aitken and Harrison (1999), Keller and Yeaple (2003) and Haskel et al. (2002) have examined FDI in advanced industrial economies, and Javorcik (2004) has examined FDI in Lithuania. In the previous work, I have examined issues related to the focus of this paper. Branstetter and Nakamura (2003) examined changes in the research productivity of Japanese manufacturing firms over the 1980s and 1990s. As part of that study, we examined the extent to which R&D alliances and partnerships with U.S. firms facilitated the flow of knowledge spillovers across international boundaries. That paper did not examine the role of FDI as a channel of knowledge spillovers. Branstetter (2000b) examined the role of FDI as a channel of knowledge spillovers from the U.S. to Japan, but was able to do so only indirectly, by quantifying the comovement between the R&D spending of U.S. firms and the patent output of Japanese corporations. As noted in that paper, these correlations are subject to confounding influences, raising doubts about the accuracy of such indirect inference. This paper examines the role FDI plays in mediating knowledge spillovers, but it takes a completely different methodological approach. First, in contrast to many of the aforementioned papers, I measure the impact of FDI not only on knowledge spillovers from the investing Japanese firms to indigenous American firms but also the impact of Japanese investment on knowledge spillovers from American firms to the investing Japanese firms.5 Second, I allow the impact of FDI on knowledge spillovers to depend upon the nature of the subsidiary and I find differences in the spillover-enhancing impact of different types of subsidiaries that are consistent with recent theoretical work on multinational firms. Third, I do not follow the earlier convention of using measured changes in TFP or other revenue-based measures to infer the presence or absence of knowledge spillovers. As is well known, conventional measures of productivity can reflect market power as well as technical efficiency.6 When technologically more advanced foreign affiliates first enter a market, their presence may erode the market power of indigenous incumbents while at the same time introducing new III-8 production techniques and technologies from which these same incumbents learn. Real knowledge spillovers can take place, yet their effects can be masked in the data by changes in appropriability conditions. Alternatively, robust demand growth in a sector of the host country could lead to higher profits, which generates higher measured TFP growth for domestic firms while, at the same time, inducing investment by foreign firms. This paper presents an alternative empirical framework for measuring the impact of foreign direct investment on knowledge spillovers using patent citations data. I then use this framework to measure the impact of foreign direct investment in the United States by a group of Japanese manufacturing firms on knowledge flows from American firms to these investing Japanese firms and from the investing Japanese firms to American inventors. To preview my empirical results, I find evidence that foreign direct investment enhances knowledge flows in both directions. I also find that the direction and degree of spillover flow is related to the characteristics of Japanese firms U.S. subsidiaries in plausible ways. Knowledge spillovers received by the investing Japanese firms tend to be strongest via R&D and product development facilities. On the other hand, spillovers from the investing Japanese firms to indigenous American inventors appear to flow most strongly through Japanese firms greenfield affiliates. III-9 外国直接投资是知识外溢的渠道吗 ?日本在美国 外商直接投资 的实证研究 作者： 李 布兰斯