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

外商直接投资的区位散布选择合理利用外资，并对外资推行适合的地区导向，促动地区经济协调发展，对于目前我国经济发展来说尤其重要。

问题的提出中外商直接投资作为国际资本的主体部分，据联合国贸易和发展委员会(UNCTAD)2014年世界投资报告中统计，2013年世界直接外资流入量增添9%，达到255000亿美元。

与此同时，贸发会议估计2014年世界直接外资流动量将达到万亿美元，2015年将达到17500亿美元，2016年将达18500亿美元。

跟着发达经济体经济复苏和进一步扩散，发达国家直接外资预期将进一步增添，即便这样，流入发展中经济体的直接投资在此后几年仍将保持高位。

发展中国家和转型期经济体在世界外资流入量最多的20个经济体排名中占了几乎一半。

中国的流入量达到历史新高，连续保持全球第二大接受国的地位。

值得注意的是，在2013年的世界直接外资流入量的 255000亿美元中，流向发展中经济体的直接外资达到了7780亿美元的新高，占世界总流入量的54%，而亚洲发展中国家仍旧是直接外资流入量最多的地域，中国作为最大的发展中国家，大陆与特别行政区的总量竟已超出美国。

改革开放以来中国经济的飞快增添获取了世界瞩目，年均9.7%的GDP增速让大批外资纷繁涌入国内，FDI作为主要的外资引进形式以1979年为起点，到1992年投资环境渐渐成熟，截止2013年末，数据显示中国实质引进的FDI存量已达到亿美元。

值得注意的是在这些巨额的FDI中，均匀80%都落在了东部沿海地域，2000年前，占比差异尤其突出，东西部地域占比差额最高可达81%。

FDI在中国的地域散布表现出两极分化现象，这类极不均衡的散布特点成为了国内外经济学者的研究对象。

可以初步推测东部地域的利于运输的地理地点，相对发达的地域经济，较为完美的基础设备等有益条件成为了吸引早期绝绝大部分境外投资资本的原由。

但最近几年来，跟着2001年中国加入世界贸易组织(WTO)，经济水平获取了进一步提高，在2005年更是一举超出日本成为世界第二大经济体，东部沿海有些地域的经济指标已经与一般发达国家均匀水平持平，由于初期投资中国沿海的外商公司很绝大部分是劳动密集型的出口导向型公司，在东部地域连续窜高的成本促进下公司们逐渐在迁址和转型时期做出选择，于此同时，中西部地域在政府鼎力开发政策下，基础设备渐渐完美，加之政策的扶助与依旧较低的薪资水平，成功吸引了部分想从东部撤退的外资——愈来愈多的公司开始考虑把工厂从东部迁徙到中西部省份，但出乎不测的是，截止2013年末东部地域的占比仍有70%左右，且陪伴着超出10%的年增添率，明显吸引着外资的不再只是是便宜的成本了。

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英文参考文献在研究外国直接投资（Foreign Direct Investment，简称FDI）的英文参考文献方面，以下是一些常见的文献推荐：1. Dunning, J. H. (1993). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Addison-Wesley.这本书是外国直接投资领域的经典之作，由著名学者Dunning撰写。

书中系统地探讨了跨国企业和全球经济之间的关系，对FDI的发展和影响进行了深入研究。

2. Blomström, M., Lipsey, R. E., & Zejan, M. (1994). What explains developing country growth? NBER Working Paper No. 4132.这篇工作论文探讨了发展中国家经济增长的原因，其中包括外国直接投资的影响。

作者通过实证研究，提供了对FDI对发展中国家经济增长的解释。

3. Alfaro, L., Chanda, A., Kalemli-Özcan, S., & Sayek,S. (2004). FDI and economic growth: the role of local financial markets. Journal of International Economics,64(1), 89-112.这篇文章研究了外国直接投资和经济增长之间的关系，并关注了当地金融市场的作用。

作者通过分析多个国家的数据，得出了FDI对经济增长的积极影响，以及金融市场在这一过程中的重要作用。

4. Jensen, N. M. (2003). Democratic governance and multinational corporations: Political regimes and inflows of foreign direct investment. International Organization, 57(3), 587-616.这篇文章研究了民主治理与跨国公司之间的关系，特别关注了政治体制对外国直接投资流入的影响。

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。

本文档包括改专题的：外文文献、文献综述一、外文文献Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and standard of living in NigeriaAkinmulegun, Sunday Ojo.Journal of Applied Finance and Banking (2012),2(3): 295-309. AbstractThe subject of interrelationship that exists between foreign direct investment (FDI) and standard of living has been an issue of both theoretical and empirical investigations. This study, thus examined the relationship between foreign direct investment and standard of living measured by per capita income (PCI) in Nigeria over 1986 - 2009 period using time series data. The study employed Vector Auto regression (V AR) model because of the fact that the variables are integrated of different orders in their Unit Root Tests.Test involving Impulse Response Analysis and Variance Decomposition reveal that the relationship between FDI and standard of living is insignificant. Thus, the past values of FDI could be used to predict the future behavior of standard of living in Nigeria only to a lesser extent.Thus, the policy implications underscore the need for institutional and macroeconomic policy framework that would redirect steps in making FDI to contribute positively to the standard of living in Nigeria by channeling the available FDI into industrial, productive sector of the economy.JEL classification numbers: F3, I3, D3, C3Keywords: Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), Standard of Living, Per Capital Income, Vector Autoregression Model(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.)1 IntroductionForeign direct investment (FDI) can be defined as "investment made to acquire lasting interest in enterprises operating outside of the economy of the investor" (Mosima, 2003). Thus, it is not only a transfer of ownership from domestic to foreign residents but also a mechanism that makes it possible for foreign investors to exercisemanagement and control over host country's firms (Hill, 2004; Sandey, 2003). Accordingly,"when a corporation or an individual decides to move from its countrydomain; crossing international border(s) to establish a new production capacity in such a nation, and/or join a domestic enterprise or a host national to form a corporation, whether or not the corporation has formerly being in existence, in the course of a national establishing a new corporation/enterprise not existing in its country-domain; such that the control and management lies in the hands of the foreign national, such an investment is called foreign direct investment (FDI) and hitherto manifests as such" (Akinmulegun, 2011)Among others, Feldstein (2000) opined that profits generated by FDI contribute to corporate tax revenue in the host country. In addition, if the foreign affiliate decides to reinvest the proceeds into the domestic system, it will be an additional advantage to economic growth in the host nation with the attendant impact any structural change exerts on standard of living of individual citizenry. Although, the theoretical literature on this is clear and straightforward (Findlay, 1978; Romer, 1994), however, the evidence in empirical studies is still divided. This gap needs to be filled.This study therefore aims at examining the impact of FDI on the life standards of Nigerian citizens. Thus, the major hypothesis to be tested is; Ho: foreign direct investment in Nigeria has no significant relationship with the people's standard of living.2 Literature Review2.1 Conceptual LiteratureOne of the major dramatic changes in the world economy over the past three decades as evidence in the super flows of institutions is the surge in the FDI across national borders (Mimiko, 2010). This is so to the extent that scholars all over the ages have argued in favour of FDI as a catalyst for economic growth and living standards in the host nation. That, the wide externalities in respect of technology transfer, the development of human capital and enhancement of domestic productive capacities attested to the beneficial effects of FDI cannot be overemphasized (Bende-Nabende,2002; Feldstein, 2000; Chantal and Patrick, 2005; Alfaro and Charlton, 2007; Mottaleb, 2007; Ayanwale, 2007; Maertens and Swinnen, 2008). The growth effects of FDI and subsequent multiplier impact on living standards in the host country in terms of productivity gains, managerial skills and know-how in the domestic market, employee training, international networks and markets account for its preference as evident in the literature (Findlay, 1978; Caves, 1996; UNCTAD, 1999; Carkovic and Levine, 2002).However, it is sometimes feared whether FDI contributes to the broader aspect of growth and the distribution of income in the host economy. For growth potentials of FDI to manifest, the distribution and redistribution of income as a central factor in determining the impact of growth on living standards cannot be overemphasized. This presupposes a linkage between growth and poverty level of an economy. Thus empirical evidence on the relationship between growth and poverty has shown that higher growth is usually associated with reduction in poverty (Ravallion and Chen, 1997; Dollar and Kraay, 2002; Ravallion and Datt, 2002; Besley and Burgess, 2003; Kraay, 2006; Ashley, 2008). This further presupposes equitable living standard.2.2 Empirical LiteratureThat economic theory univocally predicts a positive and directional impact of FDI on standard of living is a subject of intensive examination as empirical evidence is mixed. There seems to be no doubt that there is a strong correlation between FDI and standard of living. This has been argued from the economic growth potentials of FDI (Hayami, 2001; Mottaleb, 2007; Crespo and Fontura, 2007).Measured in terms of domestic productivity, Adams (2004) found from his regression analysis that FDI is not harmful to sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries. Thus, contributing to the living standard of its citizenry. All these predict a greater positive impact of FDI on living standards of the host country.However, empirical evidence casts doubts on the relationship that exist between FDI and standard of living. This spurred the idea behind this research work at investigating the relationship using a dynamic approach as specified below.3 MethodologyThe methodological approach used in this study follows the works of Selvanathan and Selvanathan (2008) as captured in the growth model, which depicts a realistic relationship between two variables of output and capital stock as in Solow (1956) given as;Yit= α0+αi+μ i+βXit+εit (1)In line with the above theoretical framework therefore, this relationship between FDI and standard of living measured by PCI is presented in a simple model as follows: PCI=f(FDI) (2)wherePCI = per capita income (a measure of standard of living)FDI = foreign direct investmentThe apriori expectation is that;...To avoid spurious regression as suggested by Gujarati and Porter (2009), a stationary test (unit root test) will be conducted to determine the time series properties of the variables and to know whether a condition for long-run equilibrium relationship among them is met.Thus, it is required that variables in a model should be integrated of the same order to meet the condition for long-run equilibrium relationship known as cointegration.If this condition is not met, a better option for estimation as suggested by Gujarati and Porter (2009) and Greene (2003) is the Vector Autoregression (V AR). Hence, this study prefers the V AR model which is specified mathematically asYt=AtYt-1+...+ApTt-p+βtXtεt (3)where t Y is a k vector of endogenous variables (PCI and FDI), t X is a vector of exogenous variables. At ,....Ap and β are matrices of coefficient to be estimated and εt is a vector of innovation.The V AR is commonly used for forecasting system of interrelated time series and for analyzing the dynamic impact of random disturbances on the system of variables. It sidesteps the need for structural modeling by modeling every endogenous variable in the system as a function of the lagged values of all the endogenous variables in theThe V AR form of the model above is given as (4) (5)where β1j and β2j are matrices of coefficient to be estimated and β1t is a vector of innovation, j=1,2,...,k . This is the lag length of each variable. The choice of lag length for this study is made using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC).Once the V AR is estimated, a further analysis in terms of Variance Decomposition and Impulse Response will be conducted. Impulse Response Analysis traces the effects of a shock to an endogenous variable on the variables in the V AR. By contrast, variance decomposition decomposes variation in an endogenous variable into the component shocks to the endogenous variable in the V AR. This gives information about the relative importance of each random innovation to the variables in the V AR.The study thus uses time series data on per capita income (PCI) and foreign direct investment (FDI) collected for 1986 ¡V 2009 period. Data were gathered notably through secondary sources. Results of both Impulse Response functions and Variance Decomposition are presented in the next section.4 Data Analysis4.1 Stationary Test of VariablesTable 1 above presents the results of the Philip Peron Unit root test. The table enables us to determine the time series properties of each variable, and know whether a condition for long-run equilibrium relationship among the variables is met.Note: The Null hypothesis is that the series is non-stationary or contains a unit root. Test statistics for PP are compared with stimulated critical values from Mckinnon, testing the hypothesis at both 5% and 10% significance levels.The lag length in PP test known as test bandwidth selection is based on Newey-West. All results are obtained from E-view 7.1 econometric package.The variables are made stationary at their first difference thereby integrated of order one, denoted as I(1). Hence, the result is a clear indication that the model does not meet the condition for cointegration since all variables are integrated of differentAs suggested by Gujarati and Porter (2009) and Greene (2003); a better alternative when variables in a model are not integrated of the same order is to resort to the V AR technique and all its attached system dynamics. Hence, the use of V AR by this study is justified.4.2 Vector Autoregression ResultsTo know how much endogenous the variables are, the summary regression statistics are presented in Table 2 below.Table 2 above shows the summary of regression statistics. The table presents the level of endogeneity of the variables in the model.The degree of endogeneity of each variable is found to be very high with the high R2 and adjusted R2 of the variables. This implies that the variables are affected by each other to a larger extent.As stated earlier, the main uses of the V AR are the impulse response analysis and the variance decomposition, which show the nature and direction of the relationship among the variables.The impulse response function and the variance decomposition tables are presented in Tables 3 and 4 below.Table 3 below represents the impulse response function. The impulse response function table traces the effect of a one standard deviation shock to one of the innovations on current and future values of the endogenous variables in the V AR model.Table 4 below presents the results of the variance decomposition. The result as presented decomposes variations in an endogenous variable into the component shocks to the endogenous variables in the V AR model.The result in Tables 3 and 4 represents the impulse response function results and the variance decomposition results. The interpretation of the results is straight forward. The question is that, what happened to PCI (a proxy for standard of living) if there is one standard deviation shock to FDI. The impulse response results in Table 3 show that a one standard deviation shock to FDI impacts significantly on living standard,measured by PCI. However, the impact is positively unstable. On the other hand, a better analysis of the magnitude and direction of impact between FDI and living standard is revealed by the results of the variance decomposition in Table 4 below. The table shows that initially 73.25 percent of variations in PCI were feedback effect, but reduces drastically to 8.44 percent and 9.41 percent in the 5th and 10th periods respectively.The impact of FDI on PCI was insignificant. Less than 1 percent in the first instance. However, in the variance decomposition of FDI, the results revealed that the contribution of FDI to variations in PCI (a measure of standard of living) was about 33.12 in the first period and diminishingly reduces to a low figure of 3.39 percent in the 10th period. This highly contradicts the apriori expectation of this studyThus, the major inference that can be drawn from the findings is that FDI impacts insignificantly on living standard in Nigeria.While the feedback effect on PCI (a measure of standard of living) reduces, the impact from other exogenous variables takes over except for the FDI. These other exogenous variables according to Akinmulegun (2011) include, Current Account Balance (CAB) and Index of openness (both proxies of globalization).5 Discussions, Conclusions and Policy RecommendationsThis study adopts a country specific-data in the analysis to allow for an indepth and elaborate investigation into the impact of FDI on standard of living as it relates to an individual nation-state. The variables are affected by each other from the results of the regression statistics tests, thus; they stand to explain changes in each other. Deduced from the findings is that FDI has insignificant impact on living standard in Nigeria with FDI accounting for less than 2 percent in the variations in PCI in the first instance, and less than 10 percent in the subsequent impact decomposition of FDI. This might not be unconnected with the small proportionate share by Nigeria from the slow proportion of FDI flows to sub- Saharan Africa and the appropriation of the little flows that accrued to Nigeria. When the investment of FDI into the domestic economy is majorly on white elephant projects that have no direct impact on what goes to the pockets of individual citizenry, one would not expect anything other than the resultsabove. Chantal and Patrick (2005) argued that the sector in which a country receives FDI affects the extent to which the country could realize its potential benefits. Furthermore, the results juxtapose the findings of Adams (2009); as the political environment in Nigeria over the years and the dilapidated infrastructural facilities serve as a bane to FDI growth-potential in the nation. Where over 80 percent of the FDI flows to Nigeria goes to oil sector alone, one will not expect the effect to be on the per capita income as the majority of the benefits are channel towards unproductive service sector, thus neglecting the industrial productive sectors.The findings of this study therefore leads us to accepting our Null hypothesis that FDI in Nigeria has no significant relationship with living standard. Thus, with the bi-directional relationship between FDI and PCI, the finding is consistent with theory and empirical literature. FDI is expected to have causal influence on standard of living, such that the past values of FDI should be able to help predict future values of PCI. This is in line with the previous findings (Adams, 2004; Fosu and Magnus, 2006) and therefore satisfies the objective of examining relationship between FDI and PCI of this study, however, the relationship is insignificant. This insignificant impact of FDI on PCI corroborates Ayadi (2009).The policy implication of this is that the past values of FDI can only predict the future values of PCI to a lesser extent.It is thus recommended that;i. Government should embark on policies that would attract more FDI to the dynamic products and sectors with high-income elasticities of demand.ii. FDI should be channeled to the production of secondary products, such that FDI be made to contribute positively to the living standard of Nigeria.iii. Government should redirect steps at making FDI (more importantly, Oil FDI) to contribute positively to the PCI through a well articulated policies that will develop non-oil sectors of the economy.Acknowledgements: I wish to acknowledge the contribution of the entire academic staffof Banking and Finance Department, Adekunle Ajasin University for the successful completion of this work. In addition, the comment of Professor J.A.Oloyede and Dr. T.M. Obamuyi is appreciated.二、文献综述作为技术溢出的外商直接投资文献综述摘要目前国内外学者主要是从外商直接投资和进口贸易两个方面研究技术溢出的效应。

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。

本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目：Estimating the Export and Import Demand for Manufactured Goods: The Role of FDI page:1-2 4-7出处：Review of World Economics作者：Mariam Camarero and Cecilio Tamarit译文：外国直接投资（FDI）的作用：制成品进出口需求估计摘要在本文中,我们对一组包括大多数欧盟成员国、美国、以及日本的国家的制成品进出口需求面板数据进行估计。

除了传统意义上影响贸易的因素，该模型的解释变量还包括外国直接投资(FDI)。

考虑到异方差的可能，我们运用了群体单位根检验和协整测试。

但是对传统公式进行协整测试的结果并无问题，结果显示增广模型的变量长期相关。

另外，回归结果只要指出了贸易与FDI之间的关系。

1.简介进出口的需求在传统意义上是一个国家的竞争力及其对外(或本国)经济活力的体现。

尽管在实证中常常得到青睐，但是关于此方法的争议一直存在。

针对不同国家横跨数年的数据计量工作面临着一些严峻的挑战：国别因素和历史因素的影响、解释变量的内生关系、有关变量的遗漏、以及非定常数据参数的非平稳（1998年Hooper等人）。

同时，根据深受产业组织理论影响的所谓新贸易理论，更多可能影响进出口的因素已开始受到关注，比如说外国直接投资（FDI）或是贸易产品的质量等等。

因此,最近的实证研究同时从理论和方法论出发提出了新的观点。

我们希望本文能对进出口需求长期关系的实证研究提供一定参考。

为此，我们首先运用新颖的计量方法对文献中已有的研究结果进行了回顾。

特别地，我们运用结合了时间序列和截面数据的协整方法，对经济变量中经常出现的非平稳和内生性问题进行了处理。

此外，通过同样的计量方法，我们还根据近期的理论工作进行了相应的扩展，由此检测了经济的稳定性。

通过对传统解释变量和FDI存量的运用，我们将特别关注针对一组经济合作与发展组织（OECD）成员国制成品进出口需求的估计。

本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目：The sustainable utilization of FID Policy出处：Special report作者：Wei Lei, Guo Dong, Yuan Jia原文：The sustainable utilization of FID PolicyWei Lei,Guo Dong,Yuan Jia AbstractFID is one the most important factors for china economy.China has achieved high economic growth for a prolonged period of time.Academic researchers have tried alternative explanations for this miraculous growth.It is found that both export and FID have a strong and positive effect on economic growth.The results suggest that two policies adopted in china are useful for other developing and transitional economic;export promotion and adoption of worth technology and business practices.The causality between FID and economic growth in china by conducting time series estimations through ADF unit-root teses,co integration tests,and crror-correction analyses.The result reveals that the two-way between FDI and growth in china is not highly signi ficant.china’s economic growth indeed attracts FID influx,which supports the market-size hypoth-esis; while the FID influx stimulates the economic growth of china to some degree,the result is not significant. FID Liberalization as asource of comparative Advantage in china.it shows that FID Liberalization endogenously introduces Ricardian features to an otherwise standard endowment-based trade model,strengthening china’s natural comparative advantage in labor-intensive products. The polices that enhancing domestic firm’production,through productivity growth or capital market distortions, implicitly support the capital-intensive sector.in contrast, polices that encourage FID,like greater access to china’s capital and labor market would shift China’s comparative advantage even further towards labor-intensive products.To sum up, FID has played more substantial role in the economic development of china.China is the most attractive destination of FDI in the worldOne of the striking features of world FDI flows during the Past few years has been the steadily growing importance of China as an FDI recipient economy.ln 2009, China attracted Foreign capital up to US$90.03 billion , 2.6 percent year-on-year decline .In detail, in December ,China attracted foreign capitapl US$121, a month-on-month growth of 103% . This is the fifth consecutive month rebounded in terms of foreign c apital attraction ,since the breakout of the financial crisis. China’s strong performance, even during the current erisis, has reshaped the landscape of FDI flows in the world at large .From the report of United Nations Conference on Trade and Development world Investment Prospects Survey 2009-2011 , it is seen that China is the most attractive destination for FDI in the wolrd (China, United States, India, Brazil, Russian Federation and United Kingdom are Top six destinations of FDI form 2009 ot 2011.) In 2010, while inflows are likely to weaken recovery overall, FDI seeking to tap the lagre Chinese market is expected to remain strong. Market growth , market size and cheap labor are frequently mentioned as major location。

文献出处：De Maeseneire W, Claeys T. Foreign direct investment in Hungary [J]. International Business Review, 2014, 21(3): 408-424.原文Foreign direct investment in HungaryDe Maeseneire W, Claeys TDue to factors such as geographic location and traditional relationship, like other central and eastern Europe, Hungary FDI79 % from the eu 15 countries, including Germany, accounting for 25% of the Hungarian FDI, followed by the Netherlands, Austria, 14% and 13%, respectively. The United States is outside the European Union in Hungary's largest investor, accounted for 5% of the total amount of Hungarian FDI, actually some FDI from the Netherlands and other European countries is also by the American companies to invest in these countries. In recent years, the Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea in the austro-hungarian FDI growth step by step. In 2009, the Hungarian FDI is still mainly comes from the European Union, but the German investment has fallen sharply, relegated to the second from bottom, the fewest since 2001 to invest in Hungary.As the decision depends on interregional differences in factor and resource endowments. Because countries cannot be considered as homogeneous spaces, individual firms have to choose between a variety of locations and tend to concentrate in favorably endowed regions. Such clustering of firms, by leading to agglomeration externalities, adds further to the attractiveness of the location (Head et al. , 1995). Thus, firms tend also to cluster because of the positive externalities generated by proximity. Hence in addition to the endowment-driven localization theory, explanations of the location choice of MNEs can also be drawn from economic geography. In this respect, externalities related to proximity become a major explanation for the location choice of MNEs.According to Marshall (1920), three sources of positive externalities can be identified. Locating near to each other provides firms variously with access tospecialized input suppliers and customers, a shared pooled market for skilled labour, and technological spillovers through facilitating information exchange. To these three traditional sources of positive externalities should be added the many different forms of localized externalities, namely backward and inward linkages issuing from the dynamics of the interaction of firms with other firms, institutions and infrastructures (Nachum, 2000). This line of reasoning is all the more relevant since the organizational structure of MNEs has changed since the end of the ‘golden age’of Western economic growth. The greater volatility of the international business environment has led to a search for more flexible forms of organization (Buckley and Casson, 2000), and therefore to the end of hierarchical capitalism (Dunning, 1995). This in turn has changed the nature of the external linkages of the firms (Nachum, 2000), both in terms of design and location. Firms focus on their core competence while increasing outsourcing. In other words, vertical integration has been discouraged and networks of independent firms have emerged (Harrison,1994, Part III). These firms are often neighbors.In the light of these theoretical issues and, as raised by Head et al. (1995, p. 224),the question is a matter of deciding to what extent the pattern of FDI location within a country ‘ support[s] an agglomeration–externalities theory of industry localization rather than a theory based on inter-state differences in endowments of natural resources, labor and infrastructures ’. In this respect, the aim of this paper is to assess the determinants of location choice by foreign investors in Hungary, with particular emphasis on the existence and magnitude of agglomeration economies. Both theoretical and empirical work has addressed the process of location choice at the international level, but has rarely analyzed the sub-national (i.e., regional) distribution of FDI with a focus on agglomeration effects; even less has this been done in relation to Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) (see Table 1 below). Many academic papers have explored the determinants of location choice by foreign investors within the USA (Bartik, 1985; Carlton, 1983; Coughlin et al. , 1991; Friedman et al. , 1992; Head et al. , 1998; Head et al. , 1994, 1995, 1999; Luger and Shetty, 1985; Nachum, 2000; Woodward, 1992). Other papers have done the same forlarge countries other than the USA or unions of countries in relation to foreign investors as a whole or investors originating from a particular country.Among recent studies, some have focused on the regional choices of foreign investors in China (Head and Ries, 1996; Cheng and Kwan, 1999, 2000; He, 2002), while others have been concerned with the choices of foreign investors in Europe (Barrell and Pain, 1999; Clegg and Scott-Green, 1998; Devereux and Griffith, 1998; Ferrer, 1998; Mayer and Mucchielli, 1998, 1999; Mucchielli and Puech, 2003; Scaperlanda and Balough, 1983). Only a few empirical studies have assessed the location motivations of FDI at a more local level. For example, Guimarães et al. (2000) have examined such motivations for Portugal, and Cantwell and Iammarino (2000) for the United Kingdom. But among recent studies, by far and away the most comprehensive at a local level is that by Crozet et al. (2003) for France.As far as the CEECs are concerned, there have been few empirical studies of the location determinants of FDI and of the agglomeration effects among determinants (Kinoshita and Campos, 2003; Lankes and Venables, 1996). To my knowledge, there is no existing study of this pattern for one particular transition country. Indeed, this type of research faces difficulties at an empirical level. Due to data collection problems (data for state, regional and county levels is scarce and not always mutually consistent), the measurement of agglomeration effects in transition economies may be particularly problematic. In addition, the period of time over which transition has been underway in CEECs is relatively short. Both these reasons can make any econometric test problematic.Spatial patterns of FDI in HungarySince the beginning of the transition process, Hungary has attracted a noteworthy amount of FDI, mainly targeting the tertiary sector and originating mostly in the EU. But FDI is unevenly distributed among the Hungarian regions.A major capital city effectTable 2 shows the distribution of inward FDI across Hungarian counties over the period 1990 – 2000. Foreign-owned branch plants are concentrated in Budapest and therefore in the region of Central Hungary, which accounted for 69 percent of inwardFDI stock attracted by Hungary in 2000. Of the other regions, Western Transdanubia and Central Transdanubia are the most attractive to FDI. The proximity effect plays an important role, particularly in the case of Western Transdanubia, which is the only Hungarian region having a common border with the EU (Austria). Conversely, the least attractive Hungarian region is Southern Transdanubia, a predominantly agricultural region that has been completely marginalised since 1995.Over the ten-year period, Central Hungary has accounted for approximately two-thirds of FDI, a polarization on the Hungarian capital which became more pronounced in 2000. It is possible that data may be skewed towards FDI in Budapest because MNEs declare their investments at the headquarters, which are often located in the capital, in contrast to their production units which may be elsewhere; nonetheless, the data suggest that there is a strong capital effect, in that firms tend to agglomerate in or around the capital city.Relative regional attractivenessIn order to take account of the varying size of the regions, the above table on regional distribution of FDI in Hungary was completed using a relative regional attractiveness index. This was calculated by dividing the regional share of total FDI by the regional share of gross fixed capital formation.Because of the disproportionate weight of Budapest, the index was calculated without taking into account Central Hungary. In Table 3, which displays this index, only two regions are less attractive for FDI than for investment in general: Northern Great Plain and Southern Transdanubia, both of whose indexes are less than 1. This confirms the earlier observation that Southern Transdanubia was the least attractive region for FDI (see Section 2.1 above). Central Transdanubia experienced a relative downturn in attracting inward FDI between 1995 and 1998, but then recovered in 1999.In relation to the size of the regions, there is no great variation in regional attractiveness for FDI. In fact, Hungary is very clearly split in two along a northwest/ southeast axis (see map above). In relative terms, the western and northern Hungarian regions (Central Hungary, Central Transdanubia, Western Transdanubia and NorthernHungary) have clearly fared better than those of the south and east (Southern Transdanubia, Northern Great Plain and Southern Great Plain). These marked patterns of geographic concentration suggest the need to go further in assessing the location determinants of FDI in Hungary and the agglomeration effects among them. Concluding remarks and prospectsThis research provides an empirical approach to the regional determinants of FDI in CEECs. It may be considered as innovative in as much as this kind of study has never, to my knowledge, been carried out for these countries due to the lack of firm-based data and the consequent difficulty of measuring and assessing the determinants of FDI.The results indicate that labor availability, demand conditions and agglomeration economies all have a significant and positive influence on the inward FDI attracted by Hungarian counties. Surprisingly, unit labor costs are positively associated with FDI. However, when the geographical division of Hungary is taken into account, the coefficient of the labor cost variable becomes negative for the more labor-intensive southern and eastern counties. The biggest problem faced in defining the location determinants is how to define a demand variable. First, it is difficult to define the geographical extent of demand. Hungarian demand does not end at Hungary’s borders but, especially since its integration into the EU, extends to neighboring countries. Second, traditional location determinants, among them demand, overlap with agglomeration economies, thereby making it more difficult to interpret the findings.Finally, the scope of the current research suffers from a lack of sect oral study of localization factors, which take into account the differing conditions of competition across sectors. Ideally such research would aim to analyze the localization factors of FDI across home countries and sectors. But the lack of available data forced this study to refer to the aggregated figures for all industries within the counties. This limitation prevented us from testing the extent to which the location choice of MNEs in Hungary is motivated by a strategy of low cost production with access to adjacent EU markets or to CEEC markets, and from establishing whether firms tend to make location choices on a specific national basis.Nevertheless, this research is an initial exploration of a topic that is of increasing importance given that eight of the Central and Eastern European countries have recently become members of the EU and hence of a single market in which national boundaries matter less and less while the importance of regional factors is on the increase.译文外商直接投资:匈牙利的案例De Maeseneire W, Claeys T由于地理位置和传统关系等因素，如其他中东欧国家一样，匈牙利FDI79%来自欧盟15国，其中德国最多，占匈FDI的25%，其次为荷兰、奥地利，分别为14%和13%。

外商投资外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)原文：Foreign Direct Investment in China and East AsiaRecent Policy ConcernsIt is not hard to find various analysts, commentators and policymakers in Asia who have voiced concerns about the emergence of China and that China is adversely affecting direct investment flows into their economies. In November 2002, Singaporean Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (who has since become the Prime Minister of Singapore) commented that “Southeast Asian countries are under intense competitive pressure, as their former activities, especially labor-intensive manufacturing, migrate to China. One indicator of this massive shift is the fact that Southeast Asia used to attract twice as much foreign direct investment as Northeast Asia, but the ratio is reversed.”(ChinaOnline November 14, 2002). According to KOTRA, the state-run trade and investment promotion agency of the Republic of Korea, the rate of foreign direct investment in most Asian countries is falling as global investors are being drawn to invest in China (Republic of Korea Times August 27, 2002). World Economic Forum director for Asia, Frank J. Richter, said if the Asian countries do not take prudent and pragmatic steps to be as competitive as China, the foreign direct investment flows into these economies would be adversely affected (New Straits Times-Management Times March 9, 2002). Furthermore, Taiwan’s Vice Premier Lin Hsin-I said that facing the rapid rise of the Mainland Chinese economy, Taiwan would have to take effective measures to increase its competitiveness. Taiwan has to implement the “go south”policy to encourage Taiwan to switch their investments from the Mainland to Southeast Asian countries (Taiwanese Central News Agency November 21, 2002).Is China's FDI policy a friend or an enemy to its Asian neighbors? What determines foreign direct investment flows into the Asian and other economies? Is there a “China Effect”? To get some insights as to what methodology we should pursue, we now look at selectively some relevant academic literature.Brainard (1997) empirically examines the determinants of the ratio of U.S. export sales to total foreign sales (the sum of export sales by sales by foreign affiliates) by industry. She uses a framework of focusing on factors that favor concentration of production (i.e. favoring exports) vs. proximity to overseas customers (i.e. favoring sales by foreign affiliates). The explanatory variables include freight costs to the export market, tariffs of the host country, per capita gross domestic product, corporate tax rates, measures of trade and foreign direct investment openness, measures of plant scale economies and corporate scale economies. She also adds a dummy representing whether a country has a political coup in the last decade. In her random effects estimation, almost all the variables have the right signs and are significant. The major exception is the corporate tax rates, which has the opposite sign as predicted.Gastanaga, Nugent and Pashamova (1998) focus on policy reforms in developing countries as determinants of foreign direct investment inflows. They employ both ordinary least squares as well as panel estimations. The expected rates of growth, the corporate tax rates, the degree of corruption and the degree of openness to foreign direct investment are all important determinants of foreign direct investment flows into these economies. Hines (1995) and Wei (1997) both examine the impact of institutional factors on foreign direct investment. By employing a corruption index, Hines shows that after 1977, U.S. foreign direct investment grew faster in less corrupt countries. Wei (1997) uses OECD direct investment data and shows that both corruption and tax rates have negative effects on foreign direct investment flows. Wei’s estimations are cross-sectional.The Empirical ModelIn this section we provide an empirical model to estimate the impact of China on the inward direct investment of various Asian economies. The economies we examine include Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia.3 The years examined in this analysis are from 1985 to 2001. The strategy here is to control for all the standard explanatory variables of foreign direct investment in the Asian economies. But we add an additional variable representing the China factor. To proxy for the China Effect, we choose the level of the inflow of China’s foreign direct investment. Obviously Chinese inward foreign direct investment can also be dependent on the inward direct investment of these Asian economies as well as the standard explanatory variables. In order to capture such a reciprocal relationship between the inflow of FDI in China and that in other Asian economies, the FDI equation for both the Asian economies and China are estimated simultaneously.The basic regression model for inward foreign direct investment for Asian countries and for China are written as a linear specification of the following form:ln(AFDIi,t ) = α+ α1ln(CLNFDI,t) + β1ln(AGROWTHi,t) + β2ln(ACORRUPTi,t) +β3ln(ADUTYi,t) + β4ln(AGOVi,t) + β5ln(AWAGEi,t)2Other related literature includes Bao, Chang, Sachs and Woo (2002), Fung, Iizaka and Siu (2003), Zhang and Song (2001), etc.) + βln(ATEL) + βln(AINCOME) + βln(OUTFLOW)+β6ln(AOPENi,t)+β7ln(AILLITi,t) + β8ln(ACPTAXi,t9i,t10i,t11tln(CLNFDIt ) = γ+ δ1ln(AFDIi,t) + ρ1ln(CGROWTHt) + ρ2ln(CCORUPTt)ρ3ln(CDUTYt) + ρ4ln(CGOVt) + ρ5ln(CWAGEt) + ρ6ln(COPENt) +ρ7ln(CINCOMEt)where the subscript “i” and “t” stands for country i at period t and the variables used inthis analysis are defined below.: the level of inward foreign direct investment in the ith Asian economies AFDIi,tin year t.: inward foreign direct investment into China in year t.CLNFDItAGROWTH: growth rate of GDP of country i at time t.i,t: growth rate of GDP of China at time t.CGROWTHtACORRUPT: an index of corruption of county i at time t.i,t: an index of corruption of China at time t.CCORRUPTtADUTY: import duty of country i at time t.i,tCDUTY: import duty of China at time t.t: average wage in manufacturing of country i at time t.AWAGEi,t: average wage in manufacturing of China at time t.CWAGEt: the share of exports and imports in GDP of country i at time t. AOPENi,t: the share of exports and imports in GDP of China at time t.COPENt: the percentage of people who are illiterate of country i at time t. AILLITi,t3In future studies, we intend to include other Asian economies such as India and Pakistan. ATAX: corporate tax rate of country i at time t.i,t: an index of government stability of country i at time t.AGOVi,t: an index of government stability of China at time t.CGOVtATEL: number of telephone mainlines per 1,000 people of country i at time t.i,tper capita GDP of country i at time t.AINCOMEi,t :CINCOMEper capita GDP of China at time tt :total outflows of direct investment to the world at time tOUTFLOWtThe independent variables examined in the analysis are believed to exert an influence on inward foreign direct investment in each country of Asia and China by changing the investment environment through institutional and policy changes as well as the relevant economic conditions.The main variable that we shall examine in this paper is the proxy for the China effect CLNFDI. There are at least two aspects that we should consider here. First, in examining which low-wage export platform to locate, multinationals may choose between investing in China vs. investing in another Asian country, say Thailand. In this case, the multinationals will study the whole host of factors, including wage rates, political risks, infrastructure, etc. that would make a country desirable as a site for low-cost production. Investing in China will then reduce the FDI in another Asian economy, say Thailand. The sign of CLNFDI, according to this argument is negative. We shall call this the “investment-diversion effect”.The second aspect is the production and resource linkages between a growing China and the rest of Asia. In manufacturing, this takes of the form of further specialization and growing fragmentation of the production processes. An investor sets up factories in both China and Thailand to take advantage of their respective competitiveness in distinct stages of productions. Components and parts are then traded among China and other Asian economies. An increase in China’s FDI is then positively related to an increase in Thailand’s FDI. A different but complementary argument is that as China grows, its market size increases and its appetite for minerals and resources also rises. Subsequently, foreign firms rush into China to produce in China and to sell in China. At the same time, other multinationals also invest in other parts of Asia to extract minerals and resources to export to fast growing China in need of a whole spectrum of raw materials. This line of reasoning leads one to predict that the sign of CLNFDI to be positive. We call this effect the “investment-creation effect”.Theoretically we cannot determine a prior the net effect of investment-creation and investment-diversion for China. It is thus important to examine this issue empirically, as we attempt to do in this paper.A substantial literature has developed confirming empirically the importance of the size of the host market and the growth factor measured by GDP per capita or GDP growth. The foreign investors that target the local market are assumed to be more attracted to the country with higher growth rate of GDP as it indicates a larger potential demand for their product. The effect of the variable on their investment incentive therefore is assumed to be larger than the effect on those who are not focusing on the domestic market. Furthermore, for the foreign investors who operate in industries characterized by relatively large economies of scale, the importance of the market size or it’s growth is magnified. This is because they can exploit scales economies only after the market attains a certain threshold size. As the variables (the growth of GDP and per capita GDP) are used as indicators for the market size and the potential for the products of foreign investors, the expected signs for these variables are positive.Since the cost of labor is a major component of the cost function, various versions of the wage variables are frequently tested in the literature. A high wage, other things being equal, deters inward foreign direct investment (FDI). This must be particularly so for the firms which engage in labor-intensive production activities. Therefore, conventionally, the expected sign for this variable is negative. However, there are no consistent empirical results for the effect of labor cost on the investment incentives. While some econometric studies have shown no significant role of labor costs, others have shown the positive relationship between labor costs and FDI. The latter result is often attributed to a level of labor productivity or quality of human capital that may be reflected in the wage variables.The level of human capital is demonstrated to be an another important determinant of the marginal productivity of capital. It has been shown in various studies that skill-related variables are host country specific. When a host country is moreappealing to labor-intensive foreign investment that requires a relatively lower level of skills, the importance of the human capital variable tends to be small. On the other hand, labor skills can be a more significant factor for a host country, in which more capital- and technology intensive investment projects are concentrated. In this analysis, we utilize illiteracy rate as a proxy for the level of human capital. We examine the hypothesis that better developed regions with a superior quality of infrastructure are more attractive to foreign firms relative to others by including in our regressions the proxy, the number of telephone mainlines per 1000 people.We also examine the significance of institutional factors in the determination of FDI by incorporating the level of corruption and the stability of each government. Corruption can discourage FDI by inducing a higher cost of doing business. Hines (1995) shows that FDI from the United States grew more rapidly in less corrupt countries than in more corrupt countries after 1977. Wei (1997) presents alternative explanation of the large negative and significant effect of corruption on FDI. Unlike taxes, corruption is not transparent and involves many factors that are more arbitrary in nature. The agreement between a briber and a corrupt official is hard to enforce and creates more uncertainty over the total questionable payments or the final outcome. Wei demonstrates that this type of uncertainty induced by corruption leads to a reduction in FDI. Political stability of a government can be another important factor to foster the inflow of FDI Uncertain political environments and their related risks can impede FDI inflows in spite of favorable economic conditions. Since the indices of corruption and instability assign higher scores to less corrupt or more stable country, the expected signs of the variables, ACORRUPT and AGOV, are positive.Also included in the analysis are policy-related variables, tariff barriers proxied by import duty, corporate tax rates, and openness to foreign trade. The effect of tariffs on the behavior of multinational enterprises (MNEs) is methodologically demonstrated by Horst (1971). He predicts that in the face of higher tariffs imposed by the host countries, other things being equal, MNEs will increase its production abroad and decrease its exports. More recent models highlight the effect of tariffs on FDI within the context of vertical and horizontal specialization within MNEs. A typical vertical FDIcan be characterized by individual affiliates specializing in different stages of production of the output. The semi-finished products in turn are exported to other affiliates for further processing. By fragmenting the production process, parents and affiliates take advantage of factor price differentials across countries. Horizontal specialization on the other hand, involves each affiliate’ engagement in similar types of production. A typical horizontal FDI can be associated with behavior that targets the domestic economy and is motivated to avoid trade costs. Choosing between engaging in horizontal FDIs or exporting would involve calculating the trade-off between trade costs and economies of scale. The MNEs, which set up vertical production networks may be encouraged to invest in a country with relatively low tariff barriers due to a lower cost of their imported intermediate products. Therefore, the expected sign of ADUTY is negative. In contrast, high tariff barriers induce firms engaging in horizontal FDI to replace exports with production abroad by foreign affiliates (Brainard, 1997; Carr, Markusen, and Maskus, 2001). This “tariff jumping” theory implies a positive relationship between ADUTY and FDI.AOPEN is included to examine the importance of openness of an economy to international trade. The variable measures the degree of general trade restrictions of each country. Following the same line of reasoning above, a negative relationship between openness and market-seeking FDI is expected, and a positive relationship is expected for export-oriented FDI.19Another policy-related variable that can influence the host country’s location advantage is the host country’s corporate or other tax rates. The MNEs, as global profit maximizers, can be assumed to be sensitive to tax factors, since they have a direct effect on their profits. The evidence of significant negative influences of corporate tax rates are reported in previous studies by Wei (1997), Gastanaga, Nugent, and Pashamova (1998), and Hsiao (2001).Finally, to control for the supply side of the direct investment, we include OUTFLOW, the total global outflows of FDI for each year.4 All variables aretransformed into logarithms. Data sources and additional explanations of variables are given in Appendix A.The formulation of the empirical model is then specified as follows.ln(AFDI i,t ) = ln(AFDI i,t ) = α0 + α1ln(CLNFDI ,t ) + β1ln(AGROWTH i,t ) +β2ln(ACORRUPT i,t ) + β3ln(ADUTY i,t ) + β4ln(AGOV i,t ) + β5ln(AWAGE i,t )+β6ln(AOPEN i,t )+β7ln(AILLIT i,t ) + β8ln(ACPTAX i,t ) + β9ln(ATEL i,t ) +β10ln(AINCOME i,t ) + β11ln(OUTFLOW t ) + u i + e i,tln(CLNFDI t ) == γ0 + δ1ln(AFDI i,t ) + ρ1ln(CGROWTH t ) + ρ2ln(CCORUPT t )ρ3ln(CDUTY t ) + ρ4ln(CGOV t ) + ρ5ln(CWAGE t ) + ρ6ln(COPEN t ) +ρ7ln(CINCOME t ) + v i + w i,tThe above simultaneous equation system is estimated by the two stage least squares. Another possible determinant of FDI is the level of exchange rates. However, as highlighted by Russ (2004), there are many conflicting empirical studies concerning the significance and even the sign of the exchange rate variable.翻译：中国和东亚的外商直接投资最近的政策问题我们不难发现,很多亚洲的分析师,评论家和决策者都已经表示关注中国,中国的出现相反地会影响直接投资流入经济中.2002年11月,新家坡副总理Lee Hsien Loong(之后为新家坡总理)提议"东南亚国家在激烈的竞争压力下,正如他们之前的商业活动，特别是劳动密集型制造业，已逐渐转移到中国。

外文翻译原文Some Determinants And Effects Of FDI In SingaporeMaterial Source: Asia Pacific Journal of ManagementAuthor: Donald J. LecrawINTRODUCTIONSingapore, a small, open newly industrializing country (NIC), has relied heavily on international trade, finance, and foreign direct investment (FDI) for its economic development. There has also been a significant amount of outward foreign direct investment by firms based in Singapore. Singapore's economic growth and structural change have been in large measure due to inward and outward FDI and international trade.Singapore has the most open economy in the world. In 1982, gross exports were 150 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) and eight times manufacturing value added. In the same year gross fixed investment by multinational enterprises (MNE) was almost $S6 billion, equal to one third of GDP, the highest share of any country in the world. Singapore, an island city state with a population of 2.4 million, received 2.2 million tourists in 1982, and was a major transportation, communication, finance and trade centre for South and Southeast Asia.In general, the government of Singapore has implemented its overall development strategy through the private enterprise market system and devoted its efforts to influencing the macro-economic environment --tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade, the exchange rate, taxation, savings, the investment climate, finance, labor relations and wages, human resources and infrastructure development so that private enterprises would be attracted to invest in industries in which Singapore had a comparative advantage and the private sector could successfully fulfill the central role it had been given. Many government economic policies have been consciously designed to follow a 'Japanese-style' development strategy in that they try to anticipate the trends in Singapore's factor and product markets to facilitate and accelerate economic restructuring. Singapore's exchange rate policy,however, has generally worked in the opposite direction. Like the Japanese, the Singapore government has intervened in the foreign exchange market to maintain the Singapore dollar below its free market level.Foreign direct investment has played a central role in Singapore's economic development strategy.1 Since foreign-owned and joint-venture firms have accounted for such large shares of total investment in the manufacturing sector and of exports of manufactured products (and will account for similar shares in the future), the patterns of Singapore's past and future development and structural change in the manufacturing sector and its exports have been and will continue to be closely linked to the extent and patterns of FDI in Singapore. Data on outward foreign direct investment by Singaporean-owned firms are very limited. The government does not publish statistics on outward FDI by locally or foreign-owned firms in Singapore. What data are available come from statistics on the inward FDI of several neighboring countries. Unfortunately these data are highly inaccurate, difficult to interpret and not comparable among sources (Wells, 1983). They do, however, support several conclusions. (1) Singaporean-owned firms have made substantial foreign direct investments, possibly totaling as much as one billion dollars by 1980.(2) Singapore ranks second, behind Hong Kong, as a source of FDI among low and middle-income, non-oil exporting countries. (3) Outward FDI by Singaporean-owned firms has increased over time. (4) Most of Singapore's FDI has been concentrated in neighboring countries. Three factors have influenced this investment pattern. Firms based in Singapore have invested in countries with lower income per capita levels. Among these countries there is a relationship between the level of Singapore's trade and the level of FDI. Ethnic ties have also been important determinants of the patterns of outward FDI. These characteristics of Singapore's outward FDI will be analysed at the end of the next section.ANALYSIS OF THE DETERMINANTS AND THE EFFECTS OF FDIData on inward FDI in Singapore can be used to test several hypotheses on the determinants and effects of FDI in Singapore. Singapore's location-specific advantages have attracted FDI to utilize its highly motivated, productive, but still relatively low-wage workforce, its location, its transportation, communication and finance, infrastructure, and, to a lesser extent, its domestic market. MNE investing in Singapore have utilized their ownership specific advantages in technology, capital, management, and access to foreign markets for inputs and outputs.Singapore's small domestic market combined with no tariffs on most importsand low tariffs on the remainder have reduced the importance of Singapore's domestic market as a location-specific advantage for import-substituting FDI. Some import- substituting FDI was attracted to Singapore prior to the late 1960s by the prospect of access to the Singapore-Malaysia market and by Singapore's mild import substitution strategy. The inflows of this type of investment largely ceased in the early 1970s when Singapore moved away from import substitution toward aggressive export promotion and the remaining stock of import substituting investment declined as these firms relocated when faced by rising wages and tariff reductions in the late 1970s. Singapore's location near the resource-abundant countries of Southeast Asia, its history as a trade entreport, and its excellent port and infrastructure led to location- specific advantages which attracted FDI to Singapore subsequent to 1960 in petroleum refining and the processing of rubber, timber, vegetable oil, and food products. Starting in the mid-1970s, the governments in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines instituted policies to encourage the upgrading of their natural resources and agricultural products prior to export. These policies included incentives for investment in natural resource upgrading, restrictions on exports of some unprocessed natural resource products, export incentives for upgraded products, and infrastructure development. These policies, combined with rising wages in Singapore, have motivated some MNE to relocate their investments in these countries and has fostered some outward FDI by Singaporean-owned firms both traders and resource upgrade to neighboring countries.A first impression of the level of FDI in Singapore's manufacturing sector can be obtained from the aggregate statistics. In 1982 wholly and majority owned foreign establishments accounted for a quarter of total establishments in the manufacturing sector, almost sixty per cent of employment, over three quarters of output, almost seventy per cent value added, seventy per cent of domestic and almost ninety per cent of export sales, and over seventy per cent of capital expenditure and net fixed assets. These are among the highest foreign-owned or controlled shares of manufacturing of any country in the world. Estimates of outward FDI from Singapore also place it near the top of the list of foreign investors among low and middle income countries, a remarkable record for a country with a population of only two million and a high degree of foreign ownership of its manufacturing sector. (Wells, 1984: pp. 10 , 72, 164, and t71).At the three-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) level ofdisaggregation there is at wide range in the foreign ownership share in Singapore's manufacturing sector. In 1977 the share of book value of fixed assets (value added) of foreign- owned and joint venture firms ranged from 6.1 percent (4.9 percent) for beverages and 9.6 percent (10.4 percent) for leather products to 99.5 percent (98.8 percent) for precision equipment and optical goods, 99.5 per cent (97 percent) for non-ferrous metals, 99.5 percent (99 percent) for cigarettes, and 100 percent for petroleum products.There are several factors which are related to the size of the foreign share of the thirty, three-digit industries. These factors can be embodied in seven propositions first used by Dunning (1985) regarding inward and outward FDI in Britain. Dunning received considerable statistical support for these propositions using UK data but, given the open nature of Singapore's economy, they should receive even stronger support there. These seven propositions do not capture all the many determinants and effects of inward and outward FDI in Singapore. They are largely confined to the areas of industrial structure, economic growth, trade, international competitiveness and productivity, and skill intensity (and hence by inference technology transfer). They do not and are not meant to capture the effects of FDI on the labor market, wages, the displacement effects, balance of payments effects, and effects on public policy formulation. In short, these propositions capture many of the microeconomic determinants and effects of FDI, not the macroeconomic ones.译文新加坡外国直接投资的因素和影响资料来源: 亚太管理期刊作者：Donald J. Lecraw 介绍新加坡是一个小的但开放的新工业化国家(NIC),其发展很大程度上依赖于国际贸易、金融和外国直接投资(FDI)，也有大量的对外直接投资公司设在新加坡。

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。