外商直接投资FDI外文文献翻译2014年译文3013字

跨境企业直接投资（FDI）文献综述及外文文献资料本文将综述跨境企业直接投资（Foreign Direct Investment，简称FDI）的相关文献，并提供一些外文文献资料供参考。

文献综述- Title: "Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence from East Asian Economies"- Author: John Doe- Year: 2010- Summary: This study investigates the relationship between FDI and economic growth in various East Asian economies. The findings suggest a positive correlation between FDI inflows and economic growth, highlighting the importance of FDI for economic development.- Author: Jane Smith- Year: 2015- Summary: This research examines the impact of government policies on FDI inflows in European countries. The study finds that countries with more favorable investment climates attract higher levels of FDI, indicating the importance of creating a conducive environment for foreign investors.- Title: "The Role of FDI in Enhancing Technology Transfer and Innovation in Developing Countries"- Author: David Johnson- Year: 2018- Summary: This paper explores how FDI contributes to technology transfer and innovation in developing countries. The findings suggest that FDI can act as a catalyst for technological advancements and promote innovation through knowledge spillovers and linkages with local firms.外文文献资料1. Title: "Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth: A Review of the Empirical Literature"- Author: Peter Lee- Year: 2012- Summary: This literature review examines various empirical studies on the relationship between FDI and economic growth. The review provides insights into the different methodologies used and the overall findings of the studies.- Author: Maria Rodriguez- Year: 2017以上是跨境企业直接投资（FDI）文献综述及一些外文文献资料供您参考。

文献出处：Ramasamy B, Laforet S. The location choice of foreign direct investment location choice [J]. Journal of World Business, 2014, 47(1): 17-25.（声明：本译文归百度文库所有，完整译文请到百度文库。

）原文The location choice of foreign direct investment location choiceRamasamy；Laforet .AbstractWith the acceleration of international capital flows, foreign direct investment location researches are increasingly brought to the attention of the people. Foreign direct investment location research includes general theory of foreign direct investment, foreign direct investment in the macro level and micro level in foreign direct investment in content. Foreign direct investment theory since the hammer of monopoly advantage theory has developed rapidly, has produced many influential theory and genre, but mature and universal foreign direct investment theory system has not yet formed. Scholars of foreign direct investment (FDI) in macro and micro level research mainly concentrated in the country and an area of instead of foreign direct investment to explore aspects of specific determinants and its effect, and effect of foreign direct investment (FDI) location decision space depend on the elaboration, analysis of dynamic evolution, regional scale decomposition, similarities and differences between the international comparison and industry research is still weak. Article argues that these weaknesses as well as more perfect theoretical framework of foreign direct investment will become the future foreign direct investment location research important frontier.Key words: foreign direct investment; location decision; micro FDI location decision1 IntroductionForeign direct investment (FDI) location decision problem as an important topic of international academic research, because of its interdisciplinary research contents and methods, has become the research frontier of economics, geography, management, and even politics. Scholars in recent decades, different fields of FDI location decision problems are a lot of theoretical and empirical research. From the existing results of FDI location decision research content mainly includes three aspects: one is the general theory of FDI, the theory of international direct investment behavior, it is the basis of the research on FDI location decision, has formed many schools; Second, the macro FDI location research, the essence of which is the study of location selection of FDI country;3 it is micro FDI location research, to explore a instead of FDI regional differences and its determinants. But both general FDI theory and study the macro and micro level, is far behind the academic consensus. In addition, how to create a more favorable geographical conditions to attract more FDI, is currently in many countries, especially developing countries) and a instead and regional issues of common concern, and the existing FDI location research is cannot provide fully effective theoretical support, needs to be updated more mature in the practice of FDI location research results to guide the decision. System, therefore, review and summarize the existing research results of FDI location decision, to find out the defects of the present study, a clear direction to the forefront of research in the future to improve FDI location theory and effective decision making is of great significance to guide practice.2 A progress, foreign direct investment theory and its schoolsAfter the Second World War, the FDI flow increases gradually, and become one of the dominant driving force of economic globalization of the world. In this new situation, the problem of FDI has become the international field of academic research hot spot. Before the 1960 s, western scholars on the interpretation of the international capital flow, more is to emphasize the new classical economics theory of the traditional principle of comparative advantage, think that the root reason forinternational capital flow is the interest rate difference from country to country. As the international direct investment scale expands unceasingly, scholars increasingly in-depth study of Fri.’s a result of the research Angle, object, method and so on are different, they put forward the point of view is different also, and formed many schools. This article will discuss only affect more extensive, reflect the track of development of the theory of FDI main schools, these schools according to the overall and its follow the theory of perspective can be divided into two categories: the first category is based on the theory of international trade theory of Frisch schools of thought for studying the general reference to the classical international trade theory, especially the theory of comparative advantage, to provide theoretical basis for study of its FDI.More influential include: (1) the Vernon (1966) international product life cycle theory. The theory is that the product is in different stages of innovation, mature and standardized, multinational companies to adopt internationalization strategy is different also, mature and standardized stage progressive loss due to the monopoly advantage and is suitable for foreign direct investment. The theory explains the greatly after the second world war the United States investment motives of the enterprises in Western Europe, but cannot explain to the direct investment of developed countries in developing countries.(2) Kojima (1978) theory of comparative advantage. The theory is that FDI is a combination of capital, technology and management way, its contribution is to break the previous FDI theory research object has always been the limitations of U.S. companies, for the first time distinguishes between the inverse shun trade guide FDI trade guide and Japan. But its FDI are divided into two types, that is, American and Japanese and deny monopolistic factors on the effect of FDI, both in theory and practice is hard to stand up.(3) originated from Weber's industrial location theory, (1977) proposed by Dunning, etc and the development of theory of location advantage. The theory is that larger location advantage of host country is necessary for multinational companies to FDI and deciding FDI decision tendency and industry structure and type. And that location advantage is dynamic, the economic development of a country (region) level and the change of the structure will change its geographical conditions, thus affect FDIlocation decision.(4) the Dunning (1981) theory of stage of development. Determinants of a country's FDI flow to the country's economic development and structure exist correlation system. This theory has a high practical value and a country at a certain stage, necessarily linked with the corresponding characteristics of FDI policy (new cui, 2002), a deficiency is unable to explain some developed countries due to the direct investment is very big between the actual net outward investment has very small phenomenon. The second type is based on the theory of industrial organization theory of FDI. That is, from the perspective of industrial organization to capital through multinational management to achieve maximum value target for the idea, to build the theory framework.Be influential genres include: (1) the monopoly advantage theory of Hymer.Hymer (1976) for the first time demonstrated that FDI is different from the securities investment, and argue that multinational company foreign direct investment, because they have the monopoly of the specific advantages, such as economies of scale, knowledge advantage, distribution network, production diversification and innovation ability, raw material control, condensation and reputation advantages, etc.But the theory is basically according to the enterprise's FDI behavior research, and lack of universality.(2) Kindle Berger (1969) theory of oligopolistic reaction. In the further study of the second world war the United States after the characteristics of foreign direct investment, according to Kindle Berger oligarchs enterprise take any activity, other companies will make corresponding responses, foreign investment in the us will also be divided into two types of offensive and defensive, the former refers to the monopoly of multinational companies overseas expansion, the latter refers to other companies to protect and follow up investment in overseas markets, and I thought this is a major cause of FDI.(3) such as Buckley (1976) and Rugman market internalization theory (1987).Dunning think multinational company via FDI to the internalization of external market trading as much as possible in order to overcome the external market failure, as long as the marginal profit is greater than the marginal cost, the company has the internalization of motivation.3 The research progress of foreign direct investment macro location decisionTheoretical and empirical research on FDI location selection is an important topic of the international academic attention in recent years. Initially, clear geographical analysis method of introducing FDI behavior research is a British scholar Dunning (1973), then Vernon (1974) and so on the related writings also discusses the FDI location problem, after location analysis gradually become one of the hot spot in the FDI theory. The following from the theory of FDI location and the influence factors of FDI location decision research from two aspects to understand its progress. (1) research on the theory of foreign direct investment location in front of the introduction of FDI theory, many scholars have noticed the importance of location factors, such as Dunning, Vernon had more deeply discussed problem of FDI location. Dunning in its international production compromise theory emphasizes the three advantages include the geographical advantages, and the FDI location factors as market, trade barriers, and location cost and investment environment four categories (Dunning, 1973197 (7).Later Dunning the FDI location factors and made a further elaboration of complement and development (Dunning, 1988, 2006).(2) research on the influence factors of FDI location decision to study the effect of FDI location decision factors generally there are two ways, one is through a company on-the-spot investigation to understand the influence factors of FDI location decision; The second is the econometric analysis to explore the determinants of FDI location. From the point of different literature, these two methods there are many influence factors of examine.4 The research progress of foreign direct investment in the micro location decisionFDI research focus on the micro level a instead of FDI regional differences and its determinants. Due to micro locational research significance for a instead of the regional planning policy response is bigger, so it attracts many scholars research interests. Micro FDI location decision research mainly has three aspects, one is the enterprise level, the second is the regional level, and the third is the source level.5 The prospect of research, foreign direct investment location decisionsInsufficiency and flaw based on existing research, this paper argues that FDI location decision in the future research should pay more attention to the following aspects: one is in view of previous research will be supposed to processing of "isolated island" and reality, FDI location decision research should take into consideration in the future spatial dependence and associated effect, developed a new spatial statistics and spatial econometric method provides a better means to deal with this kind of influence;2 it is against the traditional FDI location determinants inspection lack of dynamic analysis and ignore the stage characteristics of regional distribution of FDI is insufficient, the FDI location analysis of FDI location theory and evolutionary economics should be combined, and a complete historical data for empirical research as the foundation to illustrate the evolvement of FDI location space and its driving mechanism; Three is smaller city, county, due to the differences of space is relatively small and is accord with FDI scale micro level, based on the policy implications of institute of FDI location decision reference for may be closer to the reality will be subject to the attention of scholars; Four is to strengthen the comparative analysis between the powers or large area, such as a comparison between India and Europe and the United States and other countries to study, understand the change of FDI spatial distribution and its decision mechanism of the similarities and differences, in order to provide reference for better introduction and use of FDI in India; Five is as thin as possible industry decomposition of FDI location factors to make the policy more feasible thesis is also a need to be further study direction. In addition, the FDI location analysis how to effective introduction of new economic geography theory and methods, as well as closely related to FDI location decided to study more perfect, more mature general theoretical framework of FDI is also the important exploration in the future.译文外商直接投资区位选择罗萨米;拉夫雷特摘要伴随国际资本跨国流动加速,外商直接投资区位研究正日益受到人们的重视。

毕业论文（设计）外文翻译原文Foreign Direct Investment and Innovation in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidence from Estonia出处：Eesi Pank Bank Of Estonia作者：JAAN MASSO, TONU ROOLANHT, URMAS V ARBLAAbstractA growing literature is trying to analyze the productivity gap between domestic and foreign firms with differences in innovation indicators. In our paper we analyze the relationship between inward and outward FDI at either company or industry level and the innovation behavior of companies in Estonia. We use company-level data from three waves of the Community Innovation Surveys, which are combined with financial data from the Estonian Business Register and FDI data from the balance of payments statistics. For the analysis we apply a structural model involving equations on innovation expenditure, innovation outcome and productivity, and also innovation accounting and propensity score matching approaches. Our results show that the higher innovation output of foreign owned companies vanishes after various company characteristics are controlled for, but there were significant differences in innovation inputs such as the higher use of knowledge sourcing and the lower importance of various impeding factors. Outward investment has a positive influence on innovativeness among both domestic and foreign owned companies.Keywords:innovation, internationalization, foreign direct investments, catching-up countriesNon-technical summaryA growing literature is trying to analyze the productivity gap between domestic and foreign firms with differences in innovation indicators. In our paper we analyze the relationship between inward and outward FDI either at the firm or industry level and the innovation behavior of firms in Estonia, a small catching-up country in the region of Central and Eastern Europe. This region is a good candidate for studying the linkages between FDI and innovation: the countries in the region are below the international technological frontier, have weaker domestic knowledge base and they face significant productivity gaps with the Western European countries, so the entry of multinationals with superior technology could be one source for closing these gaps. Estonia could be especially interesting for the study because in relative terms it is one of the largest recipients of inward FDI and a source of outward FDI in the region, and it also has the highest percentage of innovative companies in the CEE countries.The contribution to the literature is also that this paper combines data from three waves of innovation surveys using various methodological approaches. In particular we use company-level data from three waves of the Community Innovation Surveys for the analysis, namely CIS3 for 1998–2000, CIS4 for 2002–2004 and CIS2006 for 2004–2006. The innovation survey data are merged with financial data from the Estonian Business register and inward and outward FDI data from the balance of payments statistics of the Bank of Estonia (the central bank). For the analysis we apply a structural model involving equations for innovation expenditure, innovation outcome and productivity (called the CDM model in the literature). For the estimated knowledge production function we also apply the innovation accounting framework in order to account for the different factors explaining the innovation output gap between domestic and foreign firms. Propensity score matching is used to identify the effect of FDI and internationalization on various innovation inputs and outputs by considering the differences between FDI and non- FDI firms.Our results show that in most cases no significant differences were found between the levels of expenditure on innovation by companies with differing involvement in inward or outward FDI. Innovation expenditure is negatively affected by a lack of funding, where foreign companies do significantly better. The higherinnovation output from the FDI of foreign owned companies perishes after various company characteristics are controlled for, but there were significant differences in innovation inputs, such as higher use of knowledge sourcing by the foreign owned companies. Outward direct investment influences innovativeness positively among both domestic and foreign owned companies. The results also revealed some evidence of the existence 3 of FDI spillover effects, through the positive linkage between FDI presence within one industry or in vertically linked downstream or upstream industries and the productivity or innovativeness of domestic firms. The results seem to imply that the small size of the local market and the lack of local skills limit the incentives of foreign companies to innovate.ConclusionsIt might seem obvious that internationalization and especially foreign ownership should enhance the knowledge base, productivity and innovations, but the numerous earlier studies reveal very diverse results. Our study investigated the issue in the context of the small catching-up economy of Estonia. The Community Innovation Surveys (CIS) provided a useful body of data for this purpose. We analyzed three waves of the survey, CIS 3, 4 and 2006 covering the years 1998–2000, 2002–2004 and 2004–2006 respectively. These data were interlinked with data on outward FDI from the balance of payments statistics of the Bank of Estonia and with financial data from the Estonian Business Register. For the analysis we combined the CDM used in several innovation studies with a propensity score matching approach.Our main conclusions are as follows. In terms of innovation expenditure, the probability of expenditure on innovation was significantly higher for foreign owned companies (differently to the results of Dachs et al., 2008 and Johansson et al., 2008), although the level of innovation expenditure is only higher among the foreign owned outward investors, after other determinants of the expenditure levels are controlled for, while for domestic multinationals and foreign companies without outward investment the innovations expenditures mostly did not differ significantly from the levels of local firms. In the propensity score matching analysis the differences were similarly insignificant, and in one case the foreign firms even had lower expenditure. Such aresult is expected as foreign companies are expected to be able to use the internal stock of knowledge and technology in their innovation activities and thus may spend less than domestic companies.Among the different impeding factors, the lack of funding has a particular negative impact on expenditure. The propensity score matching analysis also indicated that among other variables the differences in the importance of various impeding factors are the most noticeable, especially factors related to cost and funding (similarly, for example, to Dachs and Ebersberger, 2009). Given that, the relatively minor differences in expenditure between domestic and foreign companies may be slightly surprising. The importance of funding as a constraint for innovation expenditure has decreased, and the differences in the importance of that factor between different groups of companies are also smaller in later periods, reflecting that during the period of strong macroeconomic growth in Estonia there was an improvement in the ability of companies to fund expenditure from both internal sources, due to high profits, and external sources, for example through improved access to bank loans.One factor balancing the impact of funding constraints is public funding for innovation, which has a strong positive impact on expenditure, as it did in most previous studies, and is about twice as common among domestic companies. However, the average frequency of public support for innovation is low compared to other countries anyway. For most innovation output indicators, foreign owned companies and domestic multinationals were more innovative than local companies, but after matching many of these differences became statistically insignificant. The estimation of the knowledge production function for product and process innovation indicators showed that domestic multinationals and foreign outward investors in particular, but foreign companies without outward investments too, were significantly more likely to come up with either product or process innovations, but after predicted innovation expenditure from the expenditure equation and the knowledge sourcing variables were included in the knowledge production function, most of the ownership variables became insignificant and the parameter for foreign companies even became negative, indicating that after other factors are controlled for, foreign companies are actuallyless innovative than domestic ones. Indeed, the parameters for innovation expenditure are strongly significant in all estimations and of similar size despite the remarkable growth in the level of expenditure.Among various knowledge sourcing variables, information sources within the company are especially significant in all specifications, but competitors, customers for product innovation, and suppliers for process innovation are also important. From the matching analysis it seemed that the use of sources within the company or group was notably higher among foreign companies, while domestic outward investors use competitors as knowledge sources. The innovation accounting framework indicated that the differences in the use of different information sources accounted for most of the innovation output gap between foreign and domestic companies. The somewhat lower use of universities by foreign companies is in line with earlier results on their lower embeddedness in the local innovation system, but the result was statistically insignificant and the use of universities is rather low among all types of firms.In the productivity equations the higher productivity of foreign owned companies and domestic multinationals was noted, a feature that is also known as the own-firm effect of FDI, but productivity was highest among the companies with outward investments. This reinforces the results above and demonstrates that the group of foreign companies is quite heterogeneous, including not only true multinationals operating in a number of countries, at least three countries in case of our indirect investors, but also Scandinavian small and medium size companies for which expansion to the neighboring country of Estonia is the maximum extent of foreign market entry. Product innovation has a strong positive impact on productivity, but one that is decreasing over time, most probably because in conditions of strong macro-economic growth companies can increase productivity without innovating because of growing market demand and by exploiting economies of scale. The insignificant impact of process innovation variables could be explained by the possible product innovation bias in the underlying data so that any effect that may be due to the process innovation is already happening in the presence of product innovation (Knell, 2008).In addition to the study of the own-firm effect we also looked to a lesser extent atthe spillover effects from multinationals, for example at whether the presence of foreign companies in the same industry or vertically linked downstream or upstream industries could affect the productivity or innovativeness of domestic companies through increased competition, knowledge flows, demonstration effects or similar. In the productivity equation significant coefficients were more often found for vertical spillover variables than for horizontal spillovers, which show FDI presence in the same industry and were significant only in CIS3. Similarly, with product and process innovations the positive impact from the presence of FDI in the same industry was.Visible only in the first period (1998–2000). In knowledge production functions there were also some significant estimates for forward linkages, for example through foreign companies helping to upgrade the production operations of their local distributors, and backward linkages, where the presence of foreign companies in upstream industries could improve the quality of intermediate inputs purchased and lower costs. These results on the more likely occurrences of vertical spillover effects are in accordance with expectations, but the results need to be treated with caution due to the likely endogeneity of industry level FDI and it would be more appropriate to use the instrumental variable approach (Vahter, 2010).In general, although foreign companies were found to be more innovative in several respects, many of the results did not hold after various other factors had been controlled for. It seems that the small size of the local market and the lack of local skills mean that foreign companies have less incentive to innovate, which has also been indicated in surveys of foreign investors. However, the study has some important limitations. Firstly, there might be other organizational characteristics which are of importance but which are currently left out due to the limitations of the data available. Secondly, the innovation survey data has some problems in terms of the interpretational qualities of the respondents. The responses given might not always reflect a true and detailed understanding of the issue. Despite this, the results represent our best effort to use coherently the joint potential of various datasets in order to derive a detailed picture which also has potential for generalizations.The managers can benefit from this study by tapping into a wider range of knowledge sources through diverse and active involvement in exports and investment.Often they fail to realize that initiating international activities can also serve as an important learning opportunity in how to become more innovative. The policy implications suggest that government policies and triple helix cooperation should be oriented not only towards attracting foreign interest, but also towards building opportunities for more extensive regional and international business networking through exports and outward FDI. The multi-directional openness of the business environment seems to be the key to harnessing the full potential of internationalization from the perspective of innovations.Future research should be aimed at further refining the model configurations in terms of ownership, exports, and other variables to be included in the analysis. At present studies tend to be too limited in incorporating more indirect influences. The theory development should offer more refined explanations for the contradictory influences at company, industry, and country levels that have been revealed. There is a mass of empirical work that has been done in the field, but theory building seems to lag behind. As concerns specific ideas, one fruitful development would be to study the innovativeness of various kinds of foreign investors, like market seeking, efficiency seeking, natural resource seeking and strategic asset seeking, as the different types of investors may be oriented to different kinds of innovations, so that market seeking ones may look for marketing innovations, efficiency seeking investors for process innovations and so forth. However, to distinguish these different types of investors would probably require more detailed data than those used in this study. Furthermore, in our study we ignored the impact of innovativeness on FDI, as innovative companies may be the ones who then go into foreign markets, which should be also given attention in future studies.译文：外商直接投资与中东欧的创新：来自爱沙尼亚的证明摘要越来越多的文献正试图从创新指标差异分析国内和外国公司之间的生产力差距。

了解外国直接投资(FDI)外文翻译外文翻译原文Understanding Foreign Direct Investment FDIMaterial Source: ////0>._foreign_direct_investment.htm Author: Jeffrey P. Graham and R. Barry SpauldingForeign direct investment FDI plays an extraordinary and growing role in global business. It can provide a firm with new markets and marketing channels, cheaper production facilities, access to new technology, products, skills and financing. For a host country or the foreign firm which receives the investment, it can provide a source of new technologies, capital, processes, products, organizational technologies and management skills, and as such can provide a strong impetus to economic development. Foreign direct investment, in its classic definition, is defined as a company from one country making a physical investment into building a factory in another country. The direct investment in buildings, machinery and equipment is in contrast with making a portfolio investment, which is considered an indirect investment. In recent years, given rapid growth and change in global investmentpatterns, the definition has been broadened to include the acquisition of a lasting management interest in a company or enterprise outside the investing firm’s home country. A s such, it may take many forms, such as a direct acquisition of a foreign firm, construction of a facility, or investment in a joint venture or strategic alliance with a local firm with attendant input of technology, licensing of intellectual property, in the past decade, FDI has come to play a major role in the internationalization of business. Reacting to changes in technology, growing liberalization of the national regulatory framework governing investment in enterprises, and changes in capital markets profound changes have occurred in the size, scope and methods of FDI. New information technology systems, decline in global communication costs have made management of foreign investments far easier than in the past. The sea change in trade and investment policies and the regulatory environment globally in the past decade, including trade policy and tariff liberalization, easing of restrictions on foreign investment and acquisition in many nations, and the deregulation and privation of many industries, has probably been the most significant catalyst for FDI’ s expanded role ? The most profound effect has been seen in developing countries, where yearly foreign direct investment flows have increased from an average of less than $10 billion in the 1970’s to a yearly average of less than $20 billion in the 1980’s, to explode in the 1990s from $26.7billion in 1990 to $179 billion in 1998and $208 billion in 1999 and now comprise a large portion of global FDI Driven by mergers and acquisitions and internationalization of production in a range of industries, FDI into developed countries last year rose to $636 billion, from $481 billion in 1998 Source: UNCTADProponents of foreign investment point out that the exchange of investment flows benefits both the home country the country from which the investment originates and the host country the destination of the investment. Opponents of FDI note that multinational conglomerates are able to wield great power over smaller and weaker economies and can drive out much local competition. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.For small and medium sized companies, FDI represents an opportunity to become more actively involved in international business activities. In the past 15 years, the classic definition of FDI as noted above has changed considerably. This notion of a change in the classic definition, however, must be kept in the proper context. Very clearly, over 2/3 of direct foreign investment is still made in the form of fixtures, machinery, equipment and buildings. Moreover, larger multinational corporations and conglomerates still make the overwhelming percentage of FDI. But, with the advent of the Internet, the increasing role of technology, loosening of direct investment restrictions in many markets and decreasing communication costs means that newer, non-traditional forms of investment will play an important role in the future. Manygovernments, especially in industrialized and developed nations, pay very close attention to foreign direct investment because the investment flows into and out of their economies can and does have a significant impact. In the United States, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, a section of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is responsible for collecting economic data about the economy including information about foreign direct investment flowsMonitoring this data is very helpful in trying to determine the impact of such investments on the overall economy, but is especially helpful in evaluating industry segments. State and local governments watch closely because they want to track their foreign investment attraction programs for successful outcomes.How Has FDI Changed in the Past Decade As mentioned above, the overwhelming majority of foreign direct investment is made in the form of fixtures, machinery, equipment and buildings. This investment is achieved or accomplished mostly via mergers & acquisitions. In the case of traditional manufacturing, this has been the primary mechanism for investment and it has been heretofore very efficient. Within the past decade, however, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of technology startups and this, together with the rise in prominence of Internet usage, has fostered increasing changes in foreign investment patterns. Many of these high tech startups are very small companies that have grown out of research & development projects often affiliated withmajor universities and with some government sponsorship. Unlike traditional manufacturers, many of these companies do not require huge manufacturing plants and immense warehouses to store inventory. Another factor to consider is the number of companies whose primary product is an intellectual property right such as a software program or a software-based technology or process. Companies such as these can be housed almost anywhere and therefore making a capital investment in them does not require huge outlays for fixtures, machinery and plants.In many cases, large companies still play a dominant role in investment activities in small, high tech oriented companies. However, unlike in the past, these larger companies are not necessarily acquiring smaller companies outright. There are several reasons for this, but the most important one is most likely the risk associated with such high tech ventures. In the case of mature industries, the products are well defined. The manufacturer usually wants to get closer to its foreign market or wants to circumvent some trade barrier by making a direct foreign investment. The major risk here is that you do not sell enough of the product that you manufactured. However, you have added additional capacity and in the case of multinational corporations this capacity can be used in a variety of waysHigh tech ventures tend to have longer incubation periods. That is, the product tends to require significant development time. In the caseof software and other intellectual property type products, the product is constantly changing even before it hits the marketplace. This makes the investment decision more complicated. When you invest in fixtures and machinery, you know what the real and book value of your investment will be. When you invest in a high tech venture, there is always an element of uncertainty. Unfortunately, the recent spate of dot failures is quite illustrative of this point.Therefore, the expanded role of technology and intellectual property has changed the foreign direct investment playing field. Companies are still motivated to make foreign investments, but because of the vagaries of technology investments, they are now finding new vehicles to accomplish their goals. Consider the following: Licensing and technology transfer. Licensing and tech transfer have been essential in promoting collaboration between the academic and business communities. Ever since legal hurdles were removed that allowed universities to hold title to research and development done in their labs, licensing agreements have helped turned raw technology into finished products that are viable in competitive marketplaces. With some help from a variety of government agencies in the form of grants for R&D as well as other financial assistance for such things as incubator programs, once timid college researchers are now stepping out and becoming cutting edge entrepreneurs. These strategic alliances have had a serious impact inseveral high tech industries, including but not limited to: medical and agricultural biotechnology, computer software engineering, telecommunications, advanced materials processing, ceramics, thin materials processing, photonics, digital multimedia production and publishing, optics and imaging and robotics and automation. Industry clusters are now growing up around the university labs where their derivative technologies were first discovered and nurtured. Licensing agreements allow companies to take full advantage of new and exciting technologies while limiting their overall risk to royalty payments until a particular technology is fully developed and thus ready to put new products into the manufacturing pipeline Reciprocal distribution agreements: Actually, this type of strategic alliance is more trade-based, but in a very real sense it does in fact represent a type of direct investment. Basically, two companies, usually within the same or affiliated industries, agree to act as a national distributor for each other’s products. The classical example is to be found in the furniture industry. A U.S.-based manufacturer of tables signs a reciprocal distribution agreement with a Spanish-based manufacturer of chairs. Both companies gain direct access to the other’s distribution network without having to pay distributor support payments and other related expenses found within the distribution channel and neither company can hurt the other’s market for its products. With out such an agreement in place, theSpanish manufacturer might very well have to invest in a national sales office to coordinate its distributor network, manage warehousing, inventory and shipping as well as to handle administrative tasks such as accounting, public relations and advertising.Joint venture and other hybrid strategic alliances: The more traditional joint venture is bi-lateral, that is it involves two parties who are within the same industry who are partnering for some strategic advantage. Typical reasons might include a need for access to proprietary technology that might tip the competitive edge in another competitor’s favor, desire to gain access to intellectual capital in the form of ultra-expensive human resources, access to heretofore closed channels of distribution in key regions of the world. One very good reason why many joint ventures only involve two parties is the difficulty in integrating different corporate cultures. With two domestic companies from the same country, it would still be very difficult. However, with two companies from different cultures, it is almost impossible at times. This is probably why pure joint ventures have a fairly high failure rate only five years after inception. Joint ventures involving three or more parties are usually called syndicates and are most often formed for specific projects such as large construction or public works projects that might involve a wide variety of expertise and resources for successful completion. In some cases, syndicates are actually easier to manage because the projectitself sets certain limits on each party and close cooperation is not always a prerequisite for ultimate success of the endeav 译文了解外国直接投资FDI资料来源: ////. _direct_investment.htm作者:Jeffrey P. Graham and R. Barry Spaulding外商直接投资(FDI)在全球经济活动中发挥着特殊的作用,它的作用也越来越大。

FDI外商直接投资区位选择外文文献翻译2014年中文译文3100字XXX the n choice of foreign direct investment (FDI)。

XXX factors: market-related。

resource-related。

nal-related。

and n-specific factors。

They then analyze data from a survey of 205 XXX.The authors find that market-related factors。

such as market size and growth。

are the most XXX a n for FDI。

Resource-related factors。

XXX。

XXX-related factors。

XXX framework。

are important but less so than market and resource XXX-specific factors。

XXX。

are also XXX.XXX Policymakers can use this n to attract FDI to their countries。

while businesses can use it to make XXX.改写后Foreign direct investment (FDI) XXX factors。

XXX。

Intheir article。

they XXX factors: market-related。

resource-related。

nal-related。

and n-specific。

The authors conducted a survey of 205 XXX.The authors found that market-related factors。

such as market size and growth。

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 f or spillovers from foreign direct investment?” Journal of Development Economics, Article in press1. IntroductionAlthough 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 Blomström and Sjöholm, 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.4As a consequence, multinationals may be more likely to transfer sophisticated technologies and management techniques to their wholly owned subsidiaries than to partially owned affiliates.5This 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.6This 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 1998–2003 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.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.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。

本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目：FDI and Technology Spillover in China出处: Center for Economic Institutions作者：Sea Jin Chang, Jaiho Chung and Dean Xu译文：中国外商直接投资与技术外溢摘要利用中国企业数据库，我们研究了外国进入者和当地企业之间，以及“现代化”的当地企业之间的技术溢出效应。

我们的研究结果表明，行业内跨国公司的增加对当地企业上游部门的生产率具有积极的影响。

当中国政府对外国所有权的限制被取消，来自于外资企业的积极的产业内溢出效应会变得明显。

另外，我们还发现当地企业之间强烈的溢出效应。

关键词：外商直接投资，溢出效应，中国促进外商直接投资一直是决策者的主要关注点，特别是在发展中国家。

外国直接投资预计将迫使当地企业提高技术效率，当地企业也可以从FDI技术溢出中获得好处。

例如，中国政府鼓励外商直接投资，以支撑落后的产业。

关于FDI 东道国效应的大型文献已经证明了这些政策问题。

过去关于溢出效应的文献主要考察了各行业当地企业生产率和外商独资子公司份额之间的关系。

大部分早期的行业层面的研究是利用截面数据进行的（如Caves，1974；Blömstrom，1986），这些研究证实了正向的FDI溢出效应的存在。

然而，对溢出效应的实证研究结果好坏参半。

一些研究已经证明了正向溢出效应的存在（Hejazi和Safarian，1999；Javorcik，2004；Keller，2002；Liu，Siler，Wang和Wei，2000）。

另外有些研究提出了相反的结论（Aitken和Harrison，1999；Konings，2001），或者发现溢出效应只作用于其他跨国公司（Feinberg 和Majumdar，2001）。

此外，一些争辩说，外国公司构成足够的竞争威胁，他们可能会打击当地企业利润空间，最终“排挤”他们（Blomstrom，Kokko和Zejan，2000；Caves，1996；De Backer和Sleuwaegen，2003）。

FDI外商直接投资文献综述及外文文献资料本文档包括改专题的：外文文献、文献综述一、外文文献A Snapshot of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) with Recent Trends WorldwideJha, Hem Chandra; Ghosh, JagannathAbstractFDI indicates net inward flows of investment to achieve a long lasting management interest operating in a nation other than the nation of the investment. FDI may be of 2 types as inward FDI and outward FDI. Foreign direct investor might take place through creating a wholly owned subsidiary or company, engaging in an equity joint venture with another organization, or through merger/acquisition of an enterprise. Organizations are considering FDI as a way to be globalised. It ensures that companies are closer to their demanded consumer market. It assists in economic development of that nation where the investment is applied and has rescued several countries facing economic down turn. Inward FDI has good effect for job creation-employment for host countries with resource transfer. If a province has huge natural resources, it makes investors invest in that country. Its population plays a vital role for pulling FDI. Major determinants of FDI are size of the host country, future growth prospects of the economy, infrastructural facility, cheap labour force etc. Again if there is high per capita income of that nation or if the people have sound spending capabilities then it will pull high FDI. In 2010 and 2009, FDI was $1,122 billion and $1,114 billion respectively. World's largest receiver of FDI is US whose total figure of FDI has been $194 billion in 2010.25% of FDI in U.Scame in 2010 from France, Japan, UK, Canada, Switzerland, Netherlands etc. China is next largest recipient of FDI. It has reached $185 billion in 2010. India is destination for FDI after China. Telecomm, electronics, construction, automobile, and computer attract most inflows. Significant sources of FDI are Mauritius, Singapore, US and UK. FDI in Europe increased in this decade. Extent of European FDI projects in 2010 topped with 14% increase reaching 3,757 FDI project announcements. UK and France remain leaders in Europe in FDI context. Promotional effort to bring FDI is the trend of every nation. Many countries liberalise their standards/economic policies to pull FDI.Credits go to the expansion in IT, communication technologies and logistics. These allow production to be close to markets utilising advantage of the particular features of several locations. Many nations offer financial benefits like cash grants, tax concessions, and emphasise on modifying the skill parameter, infrastructure and form a platform to meet the demands and expectations.Keywords: FDI, investment, inflow, US, trend, growthIntroductionForeign Direct Investment or FDI indicates the net inward flows of investment to achieve a long lasting management interest operating in a nation other than the nation of the investor. It may be in the form of equity capital, long-term capital, and short-term capital etc. It consists participation in management, sharing of man power, joint-venture, transfer of technology and skills/expertise. FDI may be of two types as inward foreign direct investment and outward foreign direct investment. These two FDIs result in a net FDI inflow which may be positive or negative. These also determine "stock of foreigndirect investment", that is the cumulative number of FDIs for a given period. Foreign direct investment does not include investment through purchase of shares. FDI is considered as an example of international factor movements.Materials and MethodsFor the purpose of in depth study the contents have been taken from relevant books, articles, journals and websites. The method used is analytical and descriptive. Both primary as well as secondary sources of information have been taken.Results and DiscussionsTypes of FDI1. Horizontal FDI : It takes place when an organisation copies its home countrybased activities in a host country at the same value stage through Foreign direct investmenty.2. Vertical FDI: It happens when an organisation goes upstream or downstream in different value chains through FDI. It also takes place when companies execute valueadding activities gradually in a vertical fashion in a host country.Methods of FDI : The foreign direct investor might take place through the following methods:By creating a wholly owned subsidiary or companyEngaging in an equity joint venture with another investor organisation.Through merger or acquisition of an enterprise.Trends of FDI : Generally FDI is propagated at developing countries as companies from advanced economies invested in other markets. US captures most of the FDI inflows. While developed countries still are considered for the largest proportion of FDI inflows. According to data, the stock and flow of FDI has raised and it is going towards developing countries,especially in the emerging economies world wide.Also many companies and organizations are now considering FDI as a way to be globalised. FDIs permits corporations to avoid government pressure on local production and cope with measures by handling trade barriers. The move also ensures that companies are closer to their demanded consumer market, especially if companies establish locallybased sales offices.Benefits of FDI : The major advantage of foreign direct investment is that it assists in the economic development of that nation where the investment is applied. This logic is more applicable for developing countries. FDI has been one major external sources of finance for maximum nations that were developing economically. It is also true that foreign direct investment has rescued several countries when they encountered economic down turn. For example, during the 1997, Asia suffered from financial crisis. The foreign direct investment made in these countries during this duration was steady yet. But other forms of cash inflows suffered a lot. Same thing happened in Latin America in the 1980s and in Mexico in 1994-95.Inward FDI has the good effect for job creation and employment for host countries. It also results in higher wages. Other benefits of FDI are resource transfer, in terms of capital and technical knowledge. In this century, FDI is used as a strategy of new market entry for investors as well as an investment strategy. FDI growth has increased at a higher rate than the level of world trade. Globalization has made thehorizons extended and corporations now treat the whole world economy as their potential market. Also FDI renders reduced cost for investors, through the coordination advantagesand it is more true for integrated supply chains. The preference for a direct investment approach is a good means of strategic control, where the head authority keeps right for technological know-how and intellectual property to be kept in-house.Determinants of FDI : If a province has huge natural resources, then it always makes investors eager to invest their money in that country. For example, Saudi Arabia has attracted foreign companies to invest in that nation to grasp the precious oil resources at their disposal. For export based FDIs, the dimensions of the host country are vital because there are scopes for bigger economies of scale. In this context, the population of corresponding nation plays a vital role for pulling foreign direct investors to that nation. In this situation, the investors are attracted by the prospects of a huge customer base. One major determinant of FDI is the size of the economy of the host country as well as the future growth prospects of the economy of that nation where the investment is to be made. It is generally presumed that if the host country own a massive market, it can develop fast from an economic context. The investors would make most of the investments in prospective country.Another factor is infrastructural facility. Examples are the status of telecommunications, road ways and railways. This factor plays a vital role for attracting the foreign direct investors into a particular country. If the infrastructural facilities are well in a country then there is a notable amount of foreign direct investment. If a nation invites overseas investors and has access to the international markets then it receives higher amounts of foreign direct investment. Some countries have reset their economic policies to cope with the needs of the overseas investors. In this case, the investor companies maintaintransparency according to the legal platforms in that place. Outsider companies should understand the implications of their investment in a particular country and adopt perfect decisions. Cheap labour force is also a vital factor for pulling foreign direct investment. The boom of BPO culture and the revolution of I.T companies in India show that availability of cheaplabor force plays vital part for attracting global direct investment.Again if there is high per capita income of citizens of that nation or if the people of that country have sound spending capabilities then it will result the excellent performances for foreign direct investors. Current status of the citizens in a province is also a determinant in pulling direct investment from global base. Countries like China etc have taken an steps in increasing the quality of their citizens. China has laid down compulsion for every Chinese citizen to have minimum nine years of education. This step has enhanced the standards of the citizens in that nation.According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, there has not been significant growth of Global FDI in 2010. In 2010 and 2009, it was $1,122 billion and $1,114 billion respectively. The amount was below the average between 2005 & 2007. The following table shows US International Direct Investment Flows:FDI in the United States : World's largest receiver of FDI is United States. The total figure of FDI in this nation has been $194 billion in 2010. More than one fourth of FDI in U.S came in 2010 from eight countries named as France, Japan, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, and Netherlands. In United States, the stock of FDI in 2008 has beenthe equivalent of near 16 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). In the same way, we can feel the benefits of FDI in America also. After 2005, more than 4000 new projects and 630,000 new jobs have been incorporated by overseas companies. This has resulted investment of about $314 billion. Overseas companies generally have a tradition of paying higher wages than local enterprises. Overseas companies give an average annual compensation of $68,000 per employee. Exports have increased through the use of multinational distribution networks in United states. Foreign direct investment has resulted 12% of all manufacturing jobs in the US. Affiliating bodies of foreign enterprises spent over $34 billion on research and development in 2006. They also support many national projects. Inward FDI has resulted in this nation higher productivity through increased capital. This has brought high living standards.FDI in China : FDI in China has raised notably in the last decade. It has reached$ 185 bill ion in 2010. After U.S, China is the next largest recipient of FDI world wide. FDI had slowed down and became one-third in 2009 because of Global Financial Crisis butd in 2010, it again got its form.FDI in India : At the beginning, the FDI has been less than $1 billion in India in year 1990. In the contrary, at present India is the most important destination for FDI after China. Telecommunication, electronics, construction activities, automobile, and computer software/ hardware are the sectors which attract most inflows. The significant sources of FDI are Mauritius, Singapore, the US and the UK. FDI in 2010 was significantly decreased from both 2008 and 2009. Foreign direct investment in 2010 reduced to approx $34 billion havingdecrease rate about 60%. Again in 2011, FDI inflow became high of $7.78 billion up from $4.4 billion having increase of 77% than previous year.WalMart, world's largest retailer has caused India to decide to allow 51% FDI in multi-brand retail as an important step. But this decision is under suspension at present due to opposition from several political levels.FDI in Europe : Foreign direct investment in Europe have been subjected an increase in foreign direct investment inflows between 2003 and 2008. In this duration, FDI increased from $30 billion to $155 billion. Russia attracted most of thiese additional investment as its inflows rose from less than $8 billion in 2003 to $70 billion in 2008. The recession collapsed FDI inflows to the Europe region. In the Europe, FDI inflows have been 50% lower in 2009 in comparison to 2008. The real estate sector, which has pulled a quarter of all FDI inflows in Europe since 2008, accounted for much of the aggregate investment fall in the region during recession. The number of European FDI projects in 2010 topped, with a 14% increase, reaching 3,757 FDI project announcements. UK and France remain leaders in Europe in FDI context. But they are losing market share in comparison to countries such as Germany, Poland, Hungary etc. FDI in Europe have been centered on services, software industry and automotive sector. These sectors have been the top most sectors having maximum numbers of FDI projects and job creation. 33% of foreign investors plan to establish their business operations in Europe in 2011 and 2012.FDI and the developing world : FDI renders import of foreign investment. Additionally it offers transfer of skills, technology, adoption of better strategy and job opportunities. All the hostcountries are benefited from foreign investment. There are significant effects of foreign direct investment on local firms in development. Foreign investment increases local productivity growth rigorously. FDI is one of the major contributors of economic development fordeveloping countries.FDI Investment : Promotional effort to bring more and more FDI is the trend of every nation. Pulling foreign direct investment has become vital for surviving in race among developed and developing countries. This race is carried on too when these countries adopt economic integration in different levels. Many countries liberalise their standards to pull FDI in a competitive manner. Home countries appreciate FDI for raising standards and welfare in their nations.So many factors are there which reinforce foreign direct investment which is access to natural resources, markets, and low-cost labor, technology transfer, good market etc. Advancement of technology permits for the variety of production into more discrete stages and break national barriers due to emergence of globalisation. The significant credits go to the expansion in information technology, advancement in communication technologies and development in logistics. These allow production to be close to markets as well as utilising advantage of the particular features of several production locations. Different nations have laid down their respective policies for inviting more foreign investment. Many nations offer financial benefits like cash grants, tax concessions, and specific subsidies. Many countries at the same time emphasise on modifying the skill parameter, infrastructure and form a platform to meet the demands and expectations of overseas investors. Also some nations target to improve the business climate ofthose lands by altering the administrative hindrances. Some governments organise state agencies in order to assist investors. Simultaneously a lot of countries have come into international governing arrangements to raise the attraction of investors for more investment.ConclusionThere should exist a sound investment climate in a country because this willbring further economic growth. Reforms that will improve labor market flexibility, strengthen property rights, simplify business regulations, and increase firms' access to finance are vital. These can increase living standards of that country and reduce poverty in that country. Economic reform is required for creating an investment-oriented climate. Reform would be fruitful because investment climate depends on that. Thus long term benefits can be brought. In this context, cost is main criterian. In this aspect, political environment is a vital determiner. Through out the world, every nation is striving to mould the climate which is suitable for more investment. So the ultimate concept is that "Proper Investment Climate is the need of the Hour".二、文献综述外商直接投资与经济增长关系综述摘要近年来，外商直接投资和经济增长之间的关系已成为学者关注的研究焦点，国内外众多学者对两者之间的关系分别从理论和实证方面进行了论证和分析。

本科毕业论文(设计)外文翻译外文题目：Assessing FDI Incentive Policies: a Checklist出处：Organisation for Economic cooperation and development作者：Organisation for Economic cooperation and development原文：Assessing FDI Incentive Policies: a ChecklistThis article reproduces a document released by the OECD Committee on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises to assist national policy makers in deciding whether to apply FDI incentives. The document proposes a Checklist to assess the costs and benefits of using incentives to attract FDI, to provide operational criteria for avoiding wasteful effects and to warn against the pitfalls and risks of excessive reliance on incentive-based strategies. It draws of a large body of analytical work undertaken by various parts of OECD, an overview of which is provided in Annex I. The Checklist has been developed, and needs to be considered, within the framework of the Committee’s statement “Guiding Principles for Policies toward Attracting Foreign Direct Investment”.The Checklist should not be read as an endorsement of the use of FDI incentives. It also represents a partial analysis in the sense that the viewpoint of individual jurisdictions is applied throughout. In other words, the Checklist focuses on such challenges and pitfalls as can be addressed by national or sub- national authorities acting on their own. This means that the important additional issue of competition between jurisdictions is left largely untouched. Whilst incentives competition may in some cases contribute to efficiency in the allocation of FDI, there are important risks that these benefits come at an excessive cost to the international community at large. The Guiding Principles for Policies toward Attracting Foreign Direct Investment acknowledge this risk. Asimilar position is taken by the social partners of the OECD, including in a recent policy statement by the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD (BIAC), which among other things opined that states should “…be cautious of fuelling an environment where FDI flows primarily to those countries with the ‘deepest pockets’…”.Moreover, the Guiding Principles also note that, even from an individual country viewpoint, incentive policies per se are hardly ever an optimal strategy for attracting FDI. A large body of evidence shows that investors are principally motivated by the quality a host country’s enabling environment. Hence, policies to enhance macroeconomic stability, transparency, other elements ofgood governance, openness to trade, infrastructure and the levels of know-how in the domestic economy are all more potent tools for attracting investors. FDI incentives may in many cases at most tip the balance in favour of one location among a group of economies that are perceived to have broadly equivalent enabling environments.The organisation of the remainder of the article is as follows. Section I aims to establish a common ground as regards the practices that constitute FDI incentives and the outcomes that could be considered as positive or wasteful. Section II surveys and discusses the FDI incentive strategies and policy tools that are available to authorities. Section III lists some of the challenges and risks facing authorities involved in developing and implementing strategies for offering FDI incentives and synthesises the findings into a Checklist of operational criteria for policy-makers.1.Incentives, competition and wasteful practices: what does it all mean?Policy discussions of FDI attraction (and in many cases also the work of academic economists) tend to be fraught with confusion, largely due to an absence of a common language. Conceptually different notions such as strategies for FDI promotion, FDI incentives, policy competition and,even,bidding wars are in practice often used interchangeably. The result has been that crucial distinctions between beneficial and wasteful strategies, deliberate versus inadvertent resource reallocation, and legitimate self interest versus predatory practices have become blurred. The present introductory section aims to establish a few guiding principles for when to categorise FDI promotion strategies as “incentives”, “competition” and, crucially, “wasteful”.1.1. FDI incentivesPolicies of attracting internationally mobile investors have sometimes formally motivated targeted efforts at improving host countries’ enabling environments. Some countries have, for instance, employed particularly low corporate tax rates to attract foreign corporate presence (and induce domestic enterprises to stay). A range of other strategies has included preferential tariff regimes, the cutting of red tape, stepped-up investment in infrastructure and educational measures. Many of the latter have been targeted toward prioritised economic sectors (e.g. the high-tech strategies of South East Asia; the “auto regimes” of Latin America) and regions (not least in connection with“special economic zones”, “export processing zones”, etc.). Others have had as their purpose a general deepening of the capital stock through outright investment subsidies. Even though many such strategies rely for their success on a degree of foreign participation, they cannot be classified as FDI incentives.FDI incentives, in the sense that they target or give preferential treatment to foreign investors, are by nature discriminatory. The definition of FDI incentives proposed by the present document is the following: Measure designed to influence the size, location or industry of a FDI investment project b affecting its relative cost or by altering the risks attached to it through inducement that are not available to comparable domestic investors. Addressing policies to encourage private investment more generally is not the motivation of the present work.Two categories of measures meet this definition, namely the so-called rules-based approaches that rely on discrimination (according to nationality) of investors to be stipulated by law, and specific approaches that tailor incentives to individual foreign investors or investment contexts. The rules-based approaches in many cases represent a relatively straightforward selective application of investment subsidies. Specific approaches, on the other hand, produce a multitude of different incentives, including specially negotiated fiscal derogations, grants and soft loans, free land, job training, employment and infrastructure subsidies, product enhancement, R&D support and ad hoc exceptions and derogations from regulations. The dividing line between the two categories is, however, in practice often blurred.An important caveat relates to the practice of considering FDI incentives in isolation, since the definition of such incentives is necessarily narrow. In practice, authorities often offer incentives that are available to any enterprise not previously located in their host economy. Moreover, specific approaches are sometimes applied to enterprises already located in the host economy to encourage expansion and to discourage them from moving away. While such practices may not necessarily meet the strict definition of FDI incentives their effects are economically equivalent, and the policy challenges to which they give rise are in most cases the same.1.2. Competition for FDIIt should be noted that the usage of FDI incentives in many cases does not mply competition between jurisdictions. Competition may be defined as situations in which authorities are induced to make available incentives or modify the FDI incentives they offer (i.e. by making them more generous) as a result of the incentive strategies pursued elsewhere. There would appear to be two separate, albeit interrelated, classes of competition. Targeted competition occurs where authorities attempt to attract individual FDI projects by means of outbidding the incentives ofother jurisdictions. In doing so they normally apply specific approaches, although there have also been cases of legislation being adapted as part of a bidding process. Regime competition relates to the case where the overall generosity (or design) of a jurisdiction’s FDI incentives s chosen in response to the incentives practices in place elsewhere. mportantly, regime competition has implications both for the design of rules-based FDI approaches and for the amounts jurisdictions allow themselves to spend on pursuing specific approaches.The application of FDI incentives does in most cases not involve targeted competition. It should, however, be noted that systematic and internationally comparable studies of FDI incentives are virtually non-existent, whereby any assessment must rely on case studies and anecdotal evidence. First, a fairly large share of the direct investment projects involving FDI incentives occur where investors have already formed a firm opinion of their preferred location. The issue of incentives thus mostly boils down to bilateral negotiations between investor and host authorities about how the level of risk and loss making (especially at the early phase of projects) can be diminished and about how to partition the difference between the corporate and social yield of the investment. Second, investors who have short-listed a few potential locations may shop around for the most attractive incentives packages, but the authorities of discarded locations generally do not chase the investment by topping up their incentives packages.However, there have been cases of sharp targeted competition in recent decades. The incentives for authorities to bid against each other are particularly strong where the size of an individual project is large and where investors are relatively indifferent between alternative locations. Consequently, the bulk of the evidence of incentives competition relates to economies that are located within the same geographic area and have comparable factor endowments. Joint work by the Secretariat and the OECD Development Centre indicates that, while there are some documented casesof less developed countries being affected by direct FDI competition from mature economies, there is little evidence to suggest that this is a problem of more general concern.In some instances, targeted competition for FDI has risen to the level of veritable bidding wars, where jurisdictions not only compete, but continue raising their bids until the eventual incentives reach levels that would appear unfounded in economics. Studies have concluded that this occurs in industries where the project size is not only large, but where the expected benefits to the host economy are big enough to attract the attention of policy- makers. The benefits may come in a number of different forms, including job creation, future tax revenues and the generation of an improved (in many cases, high-tech) business environment. The bidding for such “trophy projects” appears to have been most intense in sectors such as automobiles, petrochemicals, electronics and information technology.Regime competition appears to be widespread across countries and jurisdictions. Survey responses and anecdotal evidence largely confirm that many of the jurisdictions that offer FDI incentives would prefer not to do soand are concerned about the costs. In the words of one local politician “you can’t say no, but you can’t afford to say yes”. In a nutshell, most policy-makersfeel that they would be unable to attract certain FDI projects if they did not offer an incentive package broadly as generous as the ones available elsewhere.1.3. Wasteful strategiesThe basic aim of a policy of FDI incentives (or any other strategy for attracting FDI) is to maximise the long-term benefits of foreign corporate presence. In doing so it must ensure that the benefits exceed the costs, and that the costs of achieving given goals are kept to their lowest feasible level.The economic benefits of attracting FDI are generally twofold. First,countries with domestic savings so low that they are insufficient to finance a strategy of economic expansion (or where weak financial intermediation has a similar effect) may harness FDI as a source of external finance. This is assumed to be particularly relevant in the case of developing and emerging economies. Second, foreign corporate presence is, as demonstrated by an ample body of economic literature, generally associated with positive externalities (“spillovers”) toward the host economy.The channels though which the spillovers operate are at least fivefold. Foreign corporate presence may 1) act as a trigger for transfers of technology and know-how; 2) assist enterprise development and restructuring, not least in connection with privatisation; 3) contribute to fuller international (trade) integration; 4) bolster business sector competition; and 5) support human capital formation in the host country. In the case of OECD countries, the first two channels are generally thought to be the most important ones. Indeed, the formal justification of many FDI incentives (“nurturing corporate clusters”, “enhancing business competences”, “attracting a pool of skilled labour”, etc.) implicitly assume that the technology-transfer channel is vigorous.译文：评估外商直接投资激励政策：清单本文转载了经合组织委员会发布的国际投资和多国企业的文件，以协助国家决定是否适用外商直接投资激励政策。