外商直接投资行为的决定因素【外文翻译】

外文翻译原文FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT, TECHNOLOGY SOURCING AND REVERSE SPILLOVERSMaterial Source:The Manchester School Vol 71 No. 6 December 2003 Author: NIGEL DRIFFIELD Business School, University of Birmingham And JAMES H. LOVE† Aston Business School, Aston University Recent theoretical work points to the possibility of foreign direct investment motivated not by ‘ownership’ advantages which may be exploited by a multinational enterprise but by the desire to access the superior technology of a host nation through direct investment. To be successful, technology sourcing foreign direct investment hinges crucially on the existence of domestic-to-foreign technological externalities within the host country. We test empirically for the existence of such ‘reverse spillover’ effects for a panel of UK manufacturing industries. The results demonstrate that technology generated by the domestic sector spills over to foreign multinational enterprises, but that this effect is restricted to relatively research and development intensive sectors. There is also evidence that these spillover effects are affected by the spatial concentration of industry, and that learning-by-doing effects are restricted to sectors in which technology sourcing is unlikely to be a motivating influence.1 IntroductionTraditional models of foreign direct investment (FDI) have been heavily influenced by a framework which suggests that where a company has some ‘ownership’(i.e. competitive) advantage over its rivals and wher e, for reasons of property rights protection, licensing is unsafe, a company will set up production facilities in a foreign country through FDI (Dunning, 1988). Since much of the discussion of ownership advantages is couched in terms of technology and/or m anagement expertise, there is a strong a priori assumption that this ‘technology exploiting’ FDI will be an important method by which technology is transferred internationally. Indeed, there is a growing literature concerned with the extent to which FDI contributes to technological advance in host countries. Much of thisanalysis is based on estimations of externalities from inward FDI, with the evidence generally pointing towards positive effects of FDI on domestic productivity (Blomström and Kokko, 1998).However, the literature is increasingly turning to the possibility that FDI may be influenced by multinational firms’ desire not to exploit an existing ownership advantage abroad but to acquire technology from the host country, i.e. that ‘technology sourcing’ may be the motive for FDI. Kogut and Chang (1991) and Neven and Siotis (1996) point out that this possibility has exercised the minds of policy-makers in the USA and the EU, with concerns that host economies’ technological base may be undermined by technology sourcing by Japanese and US corporations respectively. These studies examine the effects of host versus home country research and development (R&D) expenditure differentials on FDI flows between Japan and the USA and the USA and the EU respectively. Both studies find a positive relationship between these measures, and interpret this as evidence of technology sourcing. The literature on the internationalization of R&D also contains an increasing amount of evidence that technology sourcing may be a motive for FDI (Cantwell, 1995; Cantwell and Janne, 1999; Pearce, 1999).This literature stresses a range of reasons for FDI in R&D, much of which is concerned with the relative technological strengths of the capital exporting (i.e. ‘home’) firm or country v ersus that of the host. For example, Kuemmerle (1999) distinguishes between ‘home-base exploiting’ FDI and‘home-base augmenting’ FDI. The former is undertaken in order to exploit firm-specific advantages abroad, while the latter is FDI undertaken to access unique resources and capture externalities created locally. And in an analysis of inward and outward FDI in 13 industrialized countries, van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie and Lichtenberg (2001) find positive spillover effects from outward FDI arising from accessing the R&D capital stock of host countries, leading them to conclude that FDI flows are predominantly technology sourcing in nature.Recent theoretical work represents an important step forward in this area, with Fosfuri and Motta (1999) and Siotis (1999) both presenting formal models of the FDI decision which embody the possibility of technology sourcing. They show that a firm may choose to enter a market by FDI in order to access positive spillover effects arising from close locational proximity to a technological leader in the host country. Because of the externalities associated with technology, these spillovers decrease the production costs of the investing firm both in its subsidiary operations and in its home production base. Siotis (1999) also shows that the presence ofspillovers may induce firms to invest abroad even where exporting costs are zero.The theoretical and empirical work reviewed above hinges crucially on the assumption that foreign firms investing in a host economy are able to capture spillover effects from the domestic (host) industry. The purpose of this paper is to test for the existence of this ‘reverse spillover’ effect for a panel of UK industries. If there is some evidence of productivity spillovers running from the domestic to the foreign sector of UK industry, this would suggest that the necessary condition for technology sourcing FDI does exist in practice. In addition to testing empirically for reverse spillover effects we also test for two elements which are implicit in the theoretical analysis: first, that the spatial concentration of production has an effect on productivity spillovers; and second, that learning-by-doing effects are linked to the investing motivations of foreign firms.2 THE MOTIV ATION FOR FDI, SPILLOVERS AND FIRM GROWTHFosfuri and Motta (1999) present a simple model in which two local (i.e. single country) firms are endowed with different technologies and are given the option of exporting to the other country, engaging in FDI or not entering. They show formally that an investing firm which is a technological laggard (i.e. has unit costs of production above those of its competitor) will find it profitable to invest abroad despite having an efficiency disadvantage, as long as the probability of acquiring the leader’s technology through productivity spillovers is sufficiently high. In other words, ‘technology sourcing’ rather than ‘technology exploiting’ FDI may occur. Siotis (1999) develops a similar model, but allows for the possibility of two-way spillovers between foreign and domestic firms. He too finds theoretical support for technology sourcing as a motivation for FDI.It seems plausible that the probability of benefiting from productivity spillovers will at least in part be dependent on the actions of the firms concerned, and that the scope for spillovers, particularly in the context of technology sourcing investment, will vary with the research efforts of domestic firms. Thus technology sourcing is most likely to occur where the scope for productivity externalities to be assimilated by foreign firms is greatest; this in turn is a positive function of the R&D intensity of domestic industry. We therefore anticipate reverse spillover effects being most apparent in those sectors in which domestic industry has invested heavily in R&D; these are the sectors in which the probability of acquiring technology through spillovers is greatest and in which technology sourcing FDI is most likely to occur. However, traditional explanations for FDI based on the exploitation offirm-specific‘ownership’ advantages shou ld not be ignored. Siotis (1999)shows that where a foreign firm has an ownership (i.e. efficiency) advantage relative to domestic firms, FDI will only occur if spillovers are likely to be small (the ‘dissipation effect’). We therefore anticipate technology exploiting FDI to be most likely where there is little scope for reverse spillovers, i.e. where domestic industry does not invest heavily in R&D. Reverse spillover effects should therefore be most evident in relatively research intensive sectors, but absent or less evident in sectors which are relatively non-research intensive.Two further and related hypotheses can also be tested. The first relates to the growth paths exhibited by firms that have different motivations for FDI. To the extent that it is possible to make the distinction between technology sourcing and technology exploiting FDI, then it is also likely that the patterns of development arising from these forms of investment will be different. This is likely to be important in the study of the development of total factor productivity in the foreign owned sector, following the theory of the multinational enterprise dating back to Dunning (1958) and more explicitly outlined in the seminal papers by Vernon (1966), Buckley and Casson (1976) or Dunning (1979). The traditional explanation of the existence of multinational enterprises is that firms transfer firm-specific assets across national boundaries but internalized within the firm (technology exploiting FDI). Firms operating in the foreign country then have to undertake the process of adapting this technology to a new environment, to take account of local working practices, available human capital and customers’ tastes for example. This is neither costless nor instantaneous, and so total factor productivity of foreign investment motivated in this ‘traditional’ manner is likely to demonstrate experience effects and significant learning-by-doing effects. By contrast, firms motivated by technology sourcing are less likely to undergo this adaptation of internal technology: their concern is not with adapting existing technology but in assimilating knowledge generated externally, in this case by local firms.Of course, in some cases the extent of adaptation by technology exploiting firms may be minimal in certain markets, while technology sourcing subsidiaries may undergo some degree of adaptation, so that the relative extent of learning by doing is ultimately an empirical issue. On balance, however, we expect significant learning by-doing effects among technology exploiting foreign firms, but perhaps not in the technology sourcing firms, where spillovers from domestic investments are likely to contribute more to total factor productivity in the foreign sector.The second subsidiary hypothesis relates to the extent to which technological externalities are constrained spatially. The theoretical analysis of Siotis (1999) depends on the existence of geographically localized spillovers to provide an incentive for technology sourcing FDI; Fosfuri and Motta (1999) also acknowledge this geographical dimension to spillovers. Empirically, there is significant evidence that technology spillovers are indeed limited geographically within countries, as well as between them (Head et al., 1995; Driffield, 1999). This suggests that reverse spillovers may be linked to the spatial distribution of industry; we therefore test whether the spatial concentration of production has an effect on the scale of productivity spillovers running from domestic to foreign industry.译文外商直接投资，技术寻求和逆向技术溢出效应资料来源:曼彻斯特大学学报71卷第6期作者：奈杰尔•德里菲尔德英国伯明翰大学商学院；詹姆斯H.爱阿斯顿商学院，阿斯顿大学近期的理论研究表明，外商直接投资的动机可能不是“所有权”优势，而是跨国公司希望通过直接投资积极利用东道国的先进技术。

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。

本科毕业论文(设计)外文翻译外文题目：How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect the Export Decisions of Firms in Ghana?出处：/作者：Joshua Abor, Charles K. D. Adjasi and Mac-Clara Hayford 译文：外商直接投资是如何影响加纳企业的出口决策？摘要：外商直接投资已经被确定为能够促进东道国通过扩大出口，帮助转让技术和最新产品的出口，便利获取新的大的外国市场，为本地工人提供培训，提高技术和管理技能。

但是，很少有人知道外商直接投资作用于出口企业的行为。

在这项研究中提出的问题是：外商直接投资如何影响出口企业的决定？外商直接投资如何影响出口公司的表现？本研究审查了在1991年到2002年加纳出口制造业的决定和出口的表现。

使用概率单位模型结果表明，外商直接投资对公司出口的决定产生积极的影响。

随机效应的结果也显示了外商直接投资和出口的表现有着积极的影响关系。

显然，这项研究的结果表明，外商直接投资对加纳公司在出口决定和出口表现有着非比寻常的影响作用。

这一发现对于政策措施方面有重大的影响，用来鼓励更多外商直接投资流入本国。

一、简介外商直接投资已经被确定对许多国家的经济增长有着重大的贡献。

为了获取外商对本国的直接投资，从而带来相关的外商投资流入利益，东道国政府国家现在使用诸如免税额，税财政奖励，投资津贴及援助，来吸引外商直接投资。

有人认为，当外国公司进入时，有能力影响到该行业的生产率和增长率的水平，并且促进技术升级，增加就业，增加创新。

东道国的出口活动增长也被说成是外商直接投资的重要贡献。

事实上，人们普遍认同这样的看法，外商直接投资促进了东道国的出口国家通过扩大出口的国内资金，帮助转移技术和新的出口产品，便利得获得新的国外大市场，为本地工作人员提供了培训和提高技术技能的管理。

但也有人认为外商直接投资可能会降低或者取代国内储蓄和投资，转让低技术层次或者因为东道国的因素而产生的不适当的比例。

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

XXX factors: market-related。

resource-related。

nal-related。

and n-specific factors。

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

such as market size and growth。

are the most XXX a n for FDI。

Resource-related factors。

XXX。

XXX-related factors。

XXX framework。

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

XXX。

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

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

XXX。

Intheir article。

they XXX factors: market-related。

resource-related。

nal-related。

and n-specific。

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

such as market size and growth。

外文翻译之一To share or not to share: Does local participation matter for spillovers from foreign direct investment? Author(s)：Beata Smarzynska Javorcik and Mariana Spatareanu Nationality：U.S.Source：“To share or not to share: Does local participation matter f or spillovers from foreign direct investment?” Journal of Development Economics, Article in press1. IntroductionAlthough domestic equity ownership requirements used to be extensively utilized by governments in developing countries,2 their incidence has sharply declined in recent years (UNCTAD, 2003). Increasingly competitive environment for foreign direct investment (FDI) and the need to comply with international commitments have put pressure on governments to relax restrictions on foreign entrants.One of the original motivations for the existence of ownership sharing conditions was the belief that local participation in foreign investment projects reveals their proprietary technology and thus benefits domestic firms by facilitating technology diffusion (see Beamish, 1988 and Blomström and Sjöholm, 1999). As writing a contract specifying all aspects of the rights to use intangible assets is difficult, if not impossible, joint domestic and foreign ownership of an investment project is more likely to lead to knowledge dissipation. A local partner may use the knowledge acquired from the foreign investor in its other operations not involving the foreign shareholders or being in charge of hiring policies, as is often the case, the local partner may have less incentive to limit employee turnover.3 This problem is reduced when the multinational is the sole owner of its affiliate.4As a consequence, multinationals may be more likely to transfer sophisticated technologies and management techniques to their wholly owned subsidiaries than to partially owned affiliates.5This in turn has implications for knowledge spillovers to local producers in a host country. Less sophisticated technologies being transferred to jointly owned FDI projects may be easier to absorb by local competitors, which combined with a better access to knowledge through the actions of the local shareholder may lead to greater intra-industry (or horizontal) knowledge spillovers being associated with the shared ownership structure than with wholly owned foreign affiliates. Moreover, lower sophistication of inputs needed by jointly owned FDI projects and the familiarity of the local partner with local suppliers of intermediates may result in greater reliance on locally produced inputs and thus greater vertical spillovers accruing to local producers in upstream sectors. While a lot of research effort has been put into looking for the evidence of FDI spillovers (see the next section), little attention has been devoted to how the ownership structure affects this phenomenon.6This paper is a step forward in understanding the implications of the ownership structure of FDI projects for the host country. Using firm-level panel data from Romania for the 1998–2003 period, we examine whether wholly owned foreign affiliates and investments with joint domestic and foreign ownership are associated with a different magnitude of spillovers within the industry of operation and to upstream sectors supplying intermediate inputs. The results suggest that the ownership structure in FDI projects does matter for productivity spillovers.Consistent with our expectations, the analysis indicates that projects with joint domestic and foreign ownership are associated with positive productivity spillovers to upstream sectors but no such effect is detected for wholly owned foreign subsidiaries. The difference between the two coefficients is statistically significant. The magnitude of the former effect is economically meaningful. A one-standard-deviation increase in the presence of investment projects with shared domestic and foreign ownership is associated with a 4.4% increase in the total factor productivity of domestic firms in the supplying industries. This pattern can be found at the national as well as at the regional level. It holds for both best performers in each sector as well as for firm exhibiting lesser performance. The presence of joint ventures in downstream sectors benefits domestic firms but has no effect on foreign affiliates.In contrast to the vertical effects, the presence of FDI appears to have a negative effect on the performance of local firms operating in the same sector. As argued by Aitken and Harrison (1999), this may be due to the fact that local producers lose part of their market share to foreign entrants and thus are forced to spread their fixed cost over a smaller volume of production. The empirical literature suggests that the negative competition effect outweighs the positive effect of knowledge spillovers in developing countries (Aitken and Harrison, 1999, Djankov and Hoekman, 2000 and Konings, 2001). If greater knowledge dissipation tends to be associated with jointly owned FDI projects, we would expect that FDI with shared ownership has a less negative effect on local producers than do wholly owned foreign projects. Our findings are consistent with this expectation, as in all specifications we find the anticipated pattern. The difference between the magnitudes of the two coefficients is statistically significant for sectors with domestic-market orientation, in the subsample of foreign firms and in the regressions focusing on regional spillovers.While our findings are consistent with the existence of externalities associated with FDI, a word of caution is in order. We use the term ”spillovers” very broadly as our methodology does not allow us to distinguish between pure knowledge externalities, the benefits of scale economies that may be enjoyed by suppliers to multinationals or the effects of increased competition resulting from foreign entry into the product market. More work is certainly needed to fully understand the effects of FDI inflows on host countries.Our findings should not be interpreted as suggesting that restrictions on the extent of foreign ownership are desirable, as such restrictions may lead to lower overall FDI inflows and have other implications not addressed in our analysis. There exist other policies that could potentially be used to facilitate local sourcing by multinationals, such as improvements to the business climate or supplier development programs that assist local producers in learning how to satisfy requirements of foreign buyers. In any case, more research is needed to enhance our understanding of host country conditions facilitating knowledge spillovers from foreign direct investment and the role government policies may play in this area.能分享还是无分享：地方参与真的能从外商直接投资中获得溢出吗？作者：比阿塔·司马新斯卡·加沃斯克和玛瑞安娜·斯帕塔瑞奴国籍：美国出处：发展经济学期刊正在出版中1、引言尽管国内资产所有要求被广大发展中国家政府广泛地利用，近几年来它们的影响力急剧地下降，对外商来说越来越激烈的竞争环境以及需要遵守国际条约的压力迫使镇古放松外国进入者的限制。

本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目：FDI Determinants: Case of Romania出处：Transition Studies Review作者：Maria Birsan and Anuta Buiga译文：对外直接投资的决定因素：以罗马尼亚为例摘要：对外直接投资对大部分东道国具有重要意义，但对于那些仍处于市场经济转型的国家来说，对外直接投资只在一定条件下才是有效的。

并非所有的经济转型国家从一开始就受益于国际直接投资，几个决定性因素解释了之间的差异。

罗马尼亚在经济转型的最初9-10年，曾因为国际投资者的进入而落后。

现在这种情况已大大改善。

本文的目的是确定FDI发展的决定因素是代表外国直接投资发展水平的FDI与GDP的比重(%)。

为此，我们采用要素分析方法，这四个因素是：市场规模和潜力，改革的进度，贸易自由化和劳动力成本。

线性回归模型解释了应变量和四个关键因素之间的关系。

本文最后分析了若干政策意义。

关键词：外国直接投资在罗马尼亚的原因，要素分析，回归分析，外国直接投资的主要决定因素引言外国直接投资的作用需要从很多方面进行研究，涉及对东道国的影响，东道国的优势和成本。

我们在本文的研究中将会提出若干问题，如对外直接投资与经济增长的相关性（原因或影响），对外直接投资对发展现代化经济结构和出口，就业，技术转让和管理转移方面的影响，对地区发展的影响，对收支差额，外国直接投资和对外贸易之间的交易，汇率的影响等等。

对外直接投资的决定因素有很多，公司在国外进行投资的因素，关系到一个国家对FDI的吸引力。

除了上述问题，当提到中东欧国家作为主题经济时，外国直接投资在国有部门私有化过程中发挥了重要作用。

因此，在推动市场经济时，也大大促进了这个新兴市场的竞争水平。

为什么外国投资者选择投资于新兴市场？什么是决定FDI流向一个或多个国家的主要因素？以及是什么动机让公司承担风险在某国进行投资？本文根据投资的原因对外国投资者进行如下分类：•市场导向型：投资者是为了寻找新的市场。

原文Analyses of FDI determinants in developingcountries1.The determinants of FDI: theory and evidenceFDI has been regarded in the last decades as an effective channel to transfer technology and foster growth in developing countries. This point of view vividly contrasts with the common belief that was accepted in some academic and political spheres in the 1950s and 1960s, according to which FDI was harmful for theeconomic performance of less developed countries. The theoreticaldiscussion that permeated part of the development economics of thesecond half of the twentieth century has been approached from a newangle on the light of the New Growth Theory. Thus, the models builtin this novel framework provide an interesting background in orderto study the correlation between FDI and the growth rate of GDP(Calvo and Robles, 2003).In the neoclassical growth model technological progress andlabor growth are exogenous, inward FDI merely increases theinvestment rate, leading to a transitional increase in per capitaincome growth but has no long-run growth effect (Hsiao and Hsiao, 2006). The new growth theory in the 1980s endogenizes technological progress and FDI has been considered to have permanent growth effect in the host country . through technology transfer and spillover. There is ongoingdiscussion on the impact of FDI on a host country economy, as canbe seen from recent surveys of the literature (De Mello, 1997, 1999; Fan, 2002; Lim,2001).According to the neoclassical growth theory model, FDI does notaffect the long-term growth rate. This is understandable if weconsider the assumptions of the model, namely: constant economiesof scale, decreasing marginal products of inputs, positivesubstitution elasticity of inputs and perfect competition (Sass, 2003). Within the framework of theneo-classical models (Solow, 1956),the impact of FDI on the growth rate of output was constrained bythe existence of diminishing returns in thephysical capital.Therefore, FDI could only exert a level effect on the output percapita, but not a rate effect. In other words, it was unable toalter the growth rate of output in the long run (Calvo and Robles, 2003).As a consequence, of endogenous growth theory, FDI has anewly-perceived potential role in the growth process (Bende-Nabende and Ford, 1998). In the context ofthe New Theory of Economic Growth, however, FDI may affect not onlythe level of output per capita but also its rate of growth. Thisliterature has developed various hypotheses that explain why FDImay potentially enhance the growth rate of per capita income in thehost country (Calvo and Robles,2003). However, the endogenous growth theory, which dispenseswith the assumption of perfect competition, leaves more scope forthe impact of FDI on growth. In this theoretical framework,investment, including FDI, affects the rate of growth throughresearch and development (R&D) or through its impact on humancapital. Even if the return on investment is declining, FDI mayinfluence growth through externalities. These may include theknowledge “leaking” into the local economy thr ough the subsidiary(organization forms, improvement of human capital, improvement offixed assets), as well as effects through the various contacts ofthe subsidiary with localcompanies (joint ventures,technical-technological links, technology transfer, orders, sale ofintermediate products, market access, improved financingconditions, more intense competition generated by the presence ofthe subsidiaries, etc.). These factors increase the productivity ofthe subsidiary and of the connecting companies in the host economy.Technology transfer and the local ripple effects prevent thedecline of the marginal productivity of capital, thus facilitatinglonger term higher growth rates induced by endogenous factors.Thus, the existence of such externalities is one of thepreconditions of the positive effect of FDI on the host economy(Sass, 2003).The various theoretical schools attribute different impacts toFDI on economic growth. On the other hand the literature examines alarge number of variables that have been put forward to explainFDI. Some of these variables are encompassed in formal hypothesesor theories of FDI, whereas others are suggested because theymakesense intuitively. Most of the studies reporting a significantlynegative coefficient on the labor cost (wage rate) combine thetheory with the growth rate, inflation and trade deficit. Thosereporting a positive coefficient combine wages with taxes andopenness. The growth rate has been found to have a significantlypositive effect on FDI if it is combined with inflation, tradedeficit and wages. Findlay (1978)postulated that FDI would promote economic growth through itseffect on technological progress. Empirical studies such as thoseby Blomstrom et al. (1992)and Borensztein et al.(1998) found that FDI is positively correlated with economicgrowth. Empirical studies relating economic growth to capitalformation have concluded that gross domestic investment (GDI)exerts a major influence on economic growth. For instance, Levine and Renelt (1992) and De Long and Summers (1991) concluded that the rateof capital formation determines the rate of economic growth. On theother hand, Graham (1995) surveysthe theoretical and empirical literature on the determinants of FDIand the economic consequences of FDI for both host (recipient) andhome (investor) countries. The paper concludes that FDI can haveboth positive and negative economic effects on host countries.Positive effects come about largely through the transfer oftechnology and other intangible assets, leading to productivityincreases and improvements in the efficiency of resourceallocation. Negative effects can arise from the market power oflarge foreign firms (multinational corporations) and theirassociated ability to generate very high profits or from domesticpolitical interference by multinational corporations. However,empirical research suggests that the evidence of negative effectsfrom FDI is inconclusive, while the evidence of positive effects isoverwhelming.According to Sanjaya and Streeten(1977), FDI had a net positive effect on national economicwelfare. The main determining factor of the remaining negativesocial income effects was the extent of effective protectiongranted firms. According to Sun(1998), FDI has significantly promoted economic growth in Chinaby contributing to domestic capital formation, increasing exports,and creating new employment. In addition, FDI flows to China havetended to improve the productive efficiency of resource allocationof the Chinese domestic sectors bytransferring technology,promoting exports, and facilitating inter-regional andintersectional flows of labor and capital. However, FDI flows toChina have had also some negative side effects by:•Worsening of environmental pollution.•Exacerbating inter-regional economic disparities as a result ofthe uneven distribution of FDI.•Transfer pricing.•Encouraging round tripping of the capital of Chinese domesticfirms recent literature has also raised concerns about the harmfuleffects of flows of capital on the recipient countries.Particularly, FDI displaces domestic savings (Papanek, 1973; Cohen,1993; Reinhart and Talvi,1998). In a seminal paper, Papanek(1973) showed the significant negative impacts of differenttypes of capital on national savings. Based on a sample of 85developing countries, Papanek found that foreign capital displaceddomestic savings. Specifically, he showed that foreign aid, privateinvestment and other capital crowded out national savings, and areduction in domestic savings could lead to further increase on thedependency on foreign capital (Baharumshah and Thanoon, 2006).Another determinant, tariffs, has a positive effect on FDI ifthey are combined with the growth rate and openness, but theyproduce a negative effect when combined with wages. The realexchange rate produces a positive effect when it is combined withopenness, domestic investment and government consumption. Whendomestic investment is excluded, the effect becomes negative.This supports the argument that an efficient environment thatcomes with more openness to trade is likely to attract foreignfirms. This conclusion is also supported by Asiedu (2002) and Edwards(1990). In this model, investment tax and wages have a negativeimpact on FDI, while infrastructure and market size have asignificantly positive impact on FDI. Generally, only in the caseof export oriented FDI, cheap labor in terms of lower wages worksas an incentive (Wheeler and Mody,1992). On the other hand Tomiura'(2003) study confirms that the positive association between FDIandR&D is robust even if firms undertaking no FDI and/or noR&D are included. In this respect, Morck and Yeung (1991) hypothesize and provide evidencethat FDI creates wealth when an expanding firm possesses intangibleassets, such as superior production and management skills,marketing expertise, patents and consumer goodwill.FDI determination effects in most of the studies can be seenfrom Table I.The UNCTAD's classification of FDI determinants can be seen fromTable II.2. Data definitionThe indicators tested in this study are selected on the basis ofFDI theories and previous empirical literature. The indicatorstested in the panel study and cross-section SUR, are the FDIdeterminants for which the data have been found for developingcountries for at least 30 years. Data sets related to a number ofdeveloping countries are sometimes discontinuous for some variables(i.e. not available for all 30 years). For that reason whiledefining the main determinants of FDI in this study, 24 developingcountries for which uninterrupted data sets for 30 years at somevariables could be used Developing countries list is reported inthe Appendix. Hence, the forecasts related to main determinants ofFDI in this study were obtained under these constraints. At thesame time, some variables referred as FDI determinants by UNCTACand used in literature were used in the same sampling. Theseare:1 Gross foreign direct investment (GFDI)The gross inflows of investment to acquire a lasting managementinterest (10 percent or more of voting stock). A businessenterprise operating in a country other than that of the investor.Data source: World DevelopmentIndicators (2007).2 Electric power consumption (kwh per capita)(LOGELEC)3 Total external debt, total (DOD, current US$)(LOGEXDEBT)Total external debt is debt owed to nonresidents repayable inforeign currency, goods,or services. Data are in current USdollars. Data Source: World DevelopmentIndicators (2007).4 Technology gap (TGAP)TGAP is the difference of technology level between twocountries. The TGAP is measured by the following formula (Blomstrom (1989): Equation 1 where theGDP per capita of the Argentina is used as y max i.5 Total debt service (per cent of GDP) (TDSGDP)6 Inflation, GDP deflator (annual percent)(INFLATION)7 Domestic gross fixed capital formation (as a percentageof GDP) (GFCF)Indicates capital stock in the host country and the availabilityof infrastructure. Data Source: WorldDevelopment Indicators (2007).8 Telephone mainlines (per 1,000 people)(TELEPHONE)Telephone mainlines are telephone lines connecting a customer'sequipment to the public switched telephone network. Data arepresented per 1,000 people for the entire country. Data Source:World Development Indicators(2007).9 Market size – GDP per capita growth (annual per cent)(GDPpcgro)Annual percentage growth rate of GDP per capita based onconstant local currency. GDP per capita is gross domestic productdivided by midyear population. Data Source: World Development Indicators (2007).10 Trade (per cent of GDP) (TRADE)Trade is the sum of exports and imports of goods and servicesmeasured as a share of gross domestic product. Data Source:World Development Indicators(2007).11 Gross capital formation (annual per cent growth)(GCF)Annual growth rate of gross capital formation based on constantlocal currency. Aggregates are based on constant 2000 US dollars.Data Source: World DevelopmentIndicators (2007).3. ConclusionCompetition among governments to attract FDI has grownsignificantly. Many countries have not only reduced or eliminatedsuch restrictions, but also moved toward encouraging FDI with taxand other incentives.Appropriate domestic policies will help attract FDI and maximizeits benefit, while at the same time removing obstacles to localbusinesses. Foreign enterprises, like domestic ones, pursue the good business environment rather than the special favors offered toinduce the foreign enterprises to locate in the incentive offeringregions, transparency and accountability of governments andcorporations are fundamental conditions for providing a trustworthyand effective framework for the social, environmental, and economiclife of their citizens. They bring huge domestic governancechallenges not only for the benefit of foreign investors, but alsofor domestic business and society at large as well.In the study the main determinants of FDI have been identified.It is possible for the countries to develop policies particular totheir own economic structure by looking at the main FDIdeterminants. For example,; when looking at the “Gross CapitalFormation” indicator in country X, we can conclude that thiscountry can develop policies to encourage the import of investmentgoods instead of the import of consumption goods. Again country Ycan improve intra trade policies by taking the “Openness” indicatorinto account. Or by taking the “Total Debt Service-GDP ratio”indicator into account, country Z can develop polic ies related toutilization of resources provided from external debt in productivefields in order to cover the country's capital inadequacy. So, therole of FDI in country growth can be expressed by the effects ofeach of the determinants or by the effects of all determinantstogether. In this way, the role of FDI at the country growth can beused effectively.本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目：Analyses of FDI determinants in developing countries出处：International Journal of Social Economics作者：Recep Kok Bernur Acikgoz Ersoy译文：外国直接投资在发展中国家的决定因素分析一、外商直接投资的决定因素：理论和证据在过去几十年外国直接投资作为在发展中国家进行技术转让和培养经济增长的一个有效渠道。

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。

原文Determinants of foreign direct investment at the regional level in ChinaAs the worlds most populated country, China has attracted a great deal of attention from a wide range companies seeking to leverage the low relative cost of employing a Chinese work force, or to gain access to the growing Chinese middle and upper classes. From the investor's point of view, picking the right location that provides a competitive advantage is critical to developing a sustainable business model. The location he or she would choose as the destination of FDI must ultimately be more profitable to invest in than in others (Coughlin et al., 1991). Choosing the right location often involves many different factors.Hymer (1960) found that American FDI was mainly concentrated in a few industries and monopolized by several companies. Multinational companies (MNC's) were the product of imperfect markets and monopoly advantages where the companies had the advantage with regards to choosing where to invest. A number of conclusions can be drawn from Hymer's analysis that helps frame up this study:•First, FDI tends to flow into differentiated markets where a MNC believes they will have an advantage competitively.•Second, companies that are able to make investments overseas all have certain advantages, such as economies of scale, differentiated products, special skills, and low-cost production. These companies will make investments in regions that do not have these advantages.•Third, there are many ways in which MNCs can invest overseas in such as exporting, and licensing, in addition to direct investment. MNCs without local partners always prefer to choose foreign direct investment.•Last but not the least Hymer found that about half of the overseas operating capital of American firms came from host countries; thus FDI tends to flow into the countries or regions that have developed financial systems and capital markets. The case for China as a host for FDI has increased substantially since Hymer first published his thoughts in 1960. China as a source of low cost labor, and with an attractive, rapidly growing domestic market represents growth for many companies.The fact that the coastal regions – especially those in close proximity to Hong Kong, and with historic ties to the West and Taiwan also have sophisticated financial systems and capital markets supports Hymers conclusions (Figure 1).Other factors may also contribute to the emergence of China as a leading host for FDI. In the 1970s and early 1980s, Buckley and Casson (1976) and Rugman (1981) put forward the concept of internalization. Internalization[2] means the process of establishing a market inside the company and substituting the internal market for an external market. The transfer price inside the company enables the internal market to operate as effectively as the external market. The theory holds the opinion that the imperfection of external markets compels the company to exchange certain products inside the company. When this happens across national boundaries, it acts as FDI of MNCs. Countries that bring about the imperfections in the external markets (such as high tariff of non-tariff barriers) are where FDI tends to flow. The trend toward collaboration through joint ventures, partnerships, and other forms of collaborative relationships may suggest that companies are attem pting to create “internal markets” with a select group of companies. The central and regional governments – through the degree of openness (i.e. foreign, private ownership of state owned enterprises) may be significantly responsible for the creation of the se “internal markets.”While low cost, access to the domestic markets, and the creation of internal markets that simplify the transfer of FDI are often compelling from a country point of view from a regional perspective, selecting the right location can be a significant challenge. Dunning (1977) assumed that to make a FDI, companies should have three advantages: an ownership advantage; a location advantage; and an internalization advantage. Influenced by industry location theory, Dunning determined the definition of location advantage as the advantage one location had over another based upon: •natural and human resources;•the price, quality and productivity of inputs;•international transportation and communication cost;•investment favor or discrimination;•man-made barriers to trade;•fundamental facilities;•cross-national values, language, culture, commercial practice and politics;•research and development;•the concentration of production and sales;•economic system and political strategy;•resource allocation system. (pp. 395-418)The location advantage (or edge) theory is relevant to this study as it holds the opinion that the reason why an international company makes direct investments in a particular region is that the company would like to attain certain location advantages which do not exist in other host countries. Various studies (Table I) have highlighted the factors that investors care about including: labor cost, market size and market potential, trade barriers and country risks. Those host countries with lower labor cost, lower transport cost, greater market potential, trade protectionism, smaller country risk, better infrastructure and better educated and skilled populations are typically the focus of FDI.According to traditional location theory, investment incentives can be mainly divided into two types: First, those targeted at cost savings, which pursue a production cost edge in host countries where FDI is mainly focused on producing locally and then exporting; and second, for those companies who aim to expand their market presence through increasing their pene tration in “local” markets. FDI mainly focuses on local production and local sale (as opposed to exporting), so this kind of FDI places a high emphasis on market size, market growth, and consumption ability.Empirical worksLocal markets are often considered by country or by region. There is a vast amount of existing literature focused on the geographical distribution of FDI (Table II). Numerous studies have been done that identify the determinants of FDI for regions, countries, regions within countries, as well as FDI flows between countries.While there is not necessarily a single set of factors that consistently determine FDI, infrastructure, skilled labor, labor cost/wage, agglomeration, and government support in terms of openness, and/or attempts at attracting FDI are often cited as having a significant relationship between FDI and the location choice. And while regions thatreceive substantial FDI may benefit, it is ultimately the linkages between education, government, and industry that perpetuate the development of new activities in the region, leading to innovation, and further investment (Porter and Stern, 2001).With the fast development of its economy, China has been of crucial importance to FDI, thus the study of investments in China has been growing (Table III). Wang and Swain (1995) examine the determinants of FDI in China, finding that FDI in the manufacturing sector is positively related to China's GDP, GDP growth, wages, and trade barriers, but negatively related to interest rate and exchange rate.Bhagwati and Srinivasan (1983) conducted a survey to rank provinces of China with the best investment environment. They identified a number of variables: market size; wage, education, extent of industrialization, infrastructure (transport facilities, communication facilities, living environment), and the level of scientific research. Chen (1996) divided China into East, Central and West regions, and found that wage has no relation with spatial distribution of FDI but, that market size has the most influence on the Central Area. Wei (1999) found that bribery and other dishonest behaviors of governors influenced the inflow of FDI. LuMinghong (2000) identified some additional determinants besides general economic factors such as an infrastructure factor with energy consumption as proxy; labor quality with the literacy percentage as proxy; and a system factor with honest government and degree of openness as proxy. Bhagwati and Srinivasan (1983), and Sun et al.(2002) found a correlation between investment in scientific research and FDI flows. Tong and Yueting (2000) considered the hometown connections of overseas Chinese investors as a determinant of FDI flow into China, noting that Taiwanese investors have often invested through Hong Kong to limit delays due to government and bureaucracy. Sun et al.(2002, p. 88)identified possible determinants of FDI flow within China including market demand and size, agglomeration, labor quality, labor cost, level of scientific research, degree of openness, country risk.Empirical frameworkThe location of FDI in China has striking spatial characteristics. The provinces in China are classified into three regions: Eastern, Central, and Western. FDI is unevenlydistributed across the three. Table IV shows that in 2002, the Eastern region received more than 86 percent of the total FDI amount while the Central and Western regions together received less than 14 percent. This is consistent with past trends for FDI in China and has been cited as one of the reasons that have led to the fast development of the coastal provinces and the widening gap in terms of economic development between the coastal and inland provinces. (Cheng and Zhang, 1998) Moreover, the FDI flow into Eastern China has continued to increase. From 2001, the amount of FDI in the eastern regions has increased by 1.19 percent while in the central regions, FDI has only risen by 0.2 percent. In the western regions, FDI actually decreased by 1.39 percent (Lu, 2003d). From these figures it is clear that the location of FDI in China is characterized by enormous spatial diversity.There are other two main characteristics of China's FDI pattern, which may have some certain links with the spatial pattern. Table IVshows that investment activity tends to concentrate on secondary industries like utilities, manufacturing, and property development, while the primary sector attracts only about one fourth of the total FDI. Table IV also shows that foreign capital flows mainly from Asian countries, with more than 60 percent of the total foreign capital comes from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Korean and other Southeast Asian countries. In terms of the total accumulative amount of foreign capital that the country or area actually used ($100 million), the top four sources of FDI were: Hong Kong (2,048.75 mn), the USA (398.89 mn), Japan (363.40 mn), and Taiwan Province (331.10 mn). (Lu, 2003d) These four sources of FDI contribute more than two thirds of total FDI; however, Hong Kong's share of FDI far exceeds those of other countries and regions (Figure 2). Part of this may be explained to the pass through investments made by investors from Taiwan and other countries to ease the flow of capital.At the regional level, the data shows that distribution of FDI across China's regions is very uneven. In 2002, the top four areas are Guangdong, Jiangsu, Shandong, and Shanghai, which accounted for 59.28 percent of the total FDI (Figure 3) (Lu, 2003a, b, c).The reasons for FDI by region are –as stated previously –varied. In the Eastern regions, it has been argued that proximity, history, culture, and language all play asignificant role in determining FDI. Others (Table III) have found a wide range of other significant determinants of FDI. From these past analyses of potential determinants of FDI in China, five were chosen to determine if there was any significant relationship between them and FDI across the regions within China (Table V). Table VI reveals the distributions of FDI according to these determinants (Table VII).•The first determinant is the market size (GDP). It directly affects the expected revenue of the investment. In fact, one major motivation for FDI is to look for new markets (Shapiro, 1998). The larger the market size of a particular region, the more FDI the region should attract given other things remain constant. Kravis and Lipesey (1982), Blomstrom and Lipsey (1991) and others have identified market size as having a positive impact on FDI. We use GDP per capita for demand and size effect.•The second determinant is agglomeration (ROAD) which refers to the concentration of economic activities that leads to positive externalities and the economies of scale. Coughlin et al.(1991), Wheeler and Mody (1992) and Braunerhjelm and Svensson (1996) amongst others found that the level of agglomeration was positively related to the FDI in a particular country. This study uses infrastructure quality to capture the agglomeration benefits. The highway and railway mileage per square kilometer is proxy for the quality of infrastructure.•The third determinant is labor quality (SCHN). This study used the total number of the primary, and secondary schools, as well as universities as a proxy for education and further for labor quality. Mody and Srinivasan (1998), LuMinghong (2000) and Akinlo (2004), all found that labor quality has a positive impact on FDI.•The fourth determinant is labor cost (WAGE), as measured by wage. Bhagwati and Srinivasan (1983), Coughlin et al. (1991),Wang and Swain (1995) all found a relationship between wage or labor cost, and FDI. However, labor cost may have a negative correlation. Multinational firms in China tend to hire quality workers who earn higher wages as a possible reflection of this higher labor quality. Hence, wages in those provinces that attract more FDI may be higher.•The fifth determinant is the degree of openness and progress of reform (SHARE). Sun et al.(2002) and Fujita and Hu (2001)found that a significant relationship between the degree of openness –as defined by the percentage of states owned enterprises (SOE's) and FDI. On the one hand, a more open economy means that foreign investors are more familiar with the host economy and may therefore be more willing to invest in the country. On the other hand, openness can have a negative impact on FDI as it may attract more competition, lessening any competitive advantage a firm may have hoped to realize. We use the share of state-owned enterprises in all enterprises of a region to measure its degree of openness and progress of reform.As noted previously, there are many other commonly used determinants that may have a correlation with FDI in China – determinants like the number of telephone sets, number of tourists, level of scientific research, degree of industrialization, agglomeration of FDI, promotion expenditures for attracting FDI, tax structure, and the special treatment offered to foreign investors that may have impacts, too. However, such data is more difficult to obtain on a regional or provincial level in China, which led to the focus on the five aforementioned determinants.The typical method of estimating the effect of potential determinants of FDI is to regress the chosen dependent variable, such as the amount of FDI in a location, on a set of independent variables which would possibly affect the profitability of investment. These variables typically reflect local market potential, and the cost of production and transport, as well as the general environment faced by the multinational company. On the basis of the existing statistical analyses of the location of FDI in China, we postulate that for the amount of FDI in region i: Equation 1 where GDP, ROAD, SCHN, WAGE, and SHARE represent the variables for market size and demand, agglomeration/infrastructure, labor quality, wage, degree of openness and progress of reform, respectively.Since, our dependent variable is the per capita amount of FDI, we use per capita GDP to capture the regional market potential or market size. In order to experiment with an appropriate choice of the infrastructure variable (ROAD), three alternative proxies were tested:1the total lengths of roads per unit of land mass;1the total lengths of high grade paved roads per unit of land mass; and1the total lengths of railway per unit of land mass.A region's labor cost (WAGE) is given by its average labor cost divided by its retail price index. Our education variable (SCHN) is the total number of primary, secondary schools, and universities for a given region. All real variables are measured in current prices. In our sample, a region is either a province, centrally administered municipality, or an autonomous region.As the determinants of FDI distribution were examined across regions regardless of time trends and with known data limitations, this assignment only requires ordinary least-squares (OLS) estimation. The data used in this study are obtained from China's Statistical Yearbook2003, the China Statistical Yearbook for Regional Economy2003, the China Foreign Economic Statistical Yearbook2003, and the White Books of China's Trade and Economics (2003). For this study, two elements of FDI were used: “Signed Agreement” and “Actually Utilized”. The later one is the actual amount of FDI invested in the region. Since, GDP and wage are denominated in RMB and the FDI in US dollars, we converted the FDI into RMB using the average yearly exchange rate in 2002. It is possible that a high correlation between the various proxies may come out and that the proxies may overlap with one another, which may lead to serious multicollinearity. In order to cope with multicollinearity, those highly correlated pairs were excluded. Specifically, all variables were transformed into the natural logarithm form and were then stacked up across the 30 regions.In summary, foreign direct investment at the regional level in China was expected to be affected by the region's market demand and market size (GDP), infrastructure (ROAD), labor quality (SCHN), labor cost (WAGE), and the degree of openness and progress of reform (SHARE).A general pooled regression model is used on these variables and is specified as: Equation 2 Where subscript i refers to individual provinces; αi is the intercept; ɛ is an error term; βi (i=1, 2, 3, 4, 5) are vectors of unknown coefficients to be estimated.Analysis of resultsThis section determines how location factors determine flows of FDI. reports the OLS estimation results of equation (1) on the regional level. The model is regression with a common intercept and the OLS estimates are significant except for ROAD and SCHN. The Adjusted R2 value of 0.793 further suggests that the model fits the data well.Summary of resultsThis study has found that three of the variables have a statistically significant relationship with FDI in the 30 different regions studied in China. The relationship between a regions market demand and market size (GDP) was a significant and positive factor in attracting FDI in 2002. The Coefficient estimate 2.843 indicates that foreign direct investment is very responsive to differences in per capita GDP across provinces. A 1 percent increase in GDP is estimated to lead to a 2.843 percent increase in FDI. This supports the hypothesis that the market demand and size as well as the general development level of a region have a positive impact on attracting FDI. This would seem to suggest that foreign firms may be motivated to invest in China under an assumption that to do so will allow them to gain access to China's growing middle class.The higher the quality of labor the more attractive a region was to FDI. The results suggest a positive relation between FDI and the quality of labor, as proxied by the number of primary, and secondary schools, and universities. A 1 percent increase in SCHN is estimated to lead to a 0.847 percent increase in FDI. The level of significance suggests that labor quality is important to FDI consideration. Although China is making major investments in education, the still relatively low quality of labor in China may discourage some Western FDI in capital-intensive projects where a skilled work force is a prerequisite for success.The final variable that exhibited a significant relationship with FDI was the degree of openness and level of reform in each region. A 1 percent increase in the share of state enterprise in industrial output is estimated to lead to a 1.147 percent drop in FDI. The more ownership governments have in business enterprises, the lower the FDI. The positive and significant coefficient of SHARE indicates that foreign investors respond positively to the economic reform – as determined by a reduction in the level of stateownership for enterprises in a particular region. The result also gives evidence that an open economic policy and further economic reforms are crucial in attracting FDI to China.The other two variables did not meet the test of statistical significance. As a proxy of the level of infrastructure, ROAD shows no significance in the regression. Since, this variable is used to capture the agglomeration effect, the result is not supportive of the agglomeration argument, i.e. that the level of similar and related businesses in a region may lead to an increase in FDI. There is some evidence, however, to suggest that the positive result gives mild evidence that there is a positive relationship between infrastructure and FDI.A major disadvantage of using the OLS regression is that it cannot resolve or reduce the magnitude of key econometric problems that often arise in empirical studies, namely, the unobserved variables that are correlated with explanatory variables. In the application here, equation does not allow for fixed effects in the cross-section so that intercepts need to be identical across different provinces. As such, unique but unobserved factors driving the FDI amount of individual provinces would not be captured in the respective intercepts in the equation.LimitationsOur study has several limitations that deserve further investigation. First, the importance of determining factors may change over time. Similarly, the location determinants of foreign direct investment may differ by industry. Furthermore, due to data limitation, we were not able to consider the effect of FDI policies, tax incentives, cumulative FDI, and foreign portfolio investment to FDI in China. Finally, we believe corruption and the effects of bureaucratic red tape are also important deterring factors of FDI.本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目：Determinants of foreign direct investment at the regional level in China出处：Journal of Technology Management in China作者：Lv Na, W.S. Lightfoot译文：外商直接投资在中国区域一级的决定因素分析作为世界上人口最多的国家，中国的劳动力日益吸引了外国公司的广泛注意，外国公司进入中国广泛的寻求利用相对低的中国的雇用劳动力成本。