国际经济与贸易专业 毕业设计（论文）外文翻译

国际经济与贸易专业 毕业设计（论文）外文翻译 毕业设计(论文) 外文文献翻译 2012 届 译文一: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, 译文二:外国直接投资是知识外溢的渠道吗?日本在美国外商 直接投资的实证研究 学生姓名 王伟峰 学 号 080127 系 别 经济与管理系 专业班级 国际经济与贸易0801班 完成日期 2011年12月 To share or not to share: Does local participation matter for spillovers from foreign direct investment? Beata Smarzynska Javorcik and Mariana Spatareanu Although domestic equity ownership requirements used to be extensively utilized by governments in developing countries, 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. This problem is reduced when the multinational is the sole owner of its affiliate. As a consequence, multinationals may be more likely to transfer sophisticated technologies and management techniques to their wholly owned subsidiaries than to partially owned affiliates. This in turn has implications for knowledge spillovers to local producers in a host country. Less sophisticated technologies being transferred to jointly owned FDI projects may be easier to absorb by local competitors, which combined with a better access to knowledge through the actions of the local shareholder may lead to greater intra-industry (or horizontal) knowledge spillovers being associated with the shared ownership structure than with wholly owned foreign affiliates. Moreover, lower sophistication of inputs needed by jointly owned FDI projects and the familiarity of III-2 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. This paper is a step forward in understanding the implications of the ownership structure of FDI projects for the host country. Using firm-level panel data from Romania for the 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 III-3 anticipated pattern. The difference between the magnitudes of the two coefficients is statistically significant for sectors with domestic-market orientation, in the subsample of foreign firms and in the regressions focusing on regional spillovers. While our findings are consistent with the existence of externalities associated with FDI, a word of caution is in order. We use the term ‖spillovers‖ very broadly as our methodology does not allow us to distinguish between pure knowledge externalities, the benefits of scale economies that may be enjoyed by suppliers to multinationals or the effects of increased competition resulting from foreign entry into the product market. More work is certainly needed to fully understand the effects of FDI inflows on host countries. Our findings should not be interpreted as suggesting that restrictions on the extent of foreign ownership are desirable, as such restrictions may lead to lower overall FDI inflows and have other implications not addressed in our analysis. There exist other policies that could potentially be used to facilitate local sourcing by multinationals, such as improvements to the business climate or supplier development programs that assist local producers in learning how to satisfy requirements of foreign buyers. In any case, more research is needed to enhance our understanding of host country conditions facilitating knowledge spillovers from foreign direct investment and the role government policies may play in this area. III-4 能分享还是无分享:地方参与真的能从 外商直接投资中获得溢出吗, 比阿塔?司马新斯卡?加沃斯克和玛瑞安娜?斯帕塔瑞奴 尽管国内资产所有要求被广大发展中国家政府广泛地利用，近几年来它们的影响力急剧地下降，对外商来说越来越激烈的竞争环境以及需要遵守国际条约的压力迫使镇古放松外国进入者的限制。 股权分享条件最原始的动机之一是大家相信地方参与外国投资项目可以揭示他们自有技术，因此可以通过促进技术分散来使国内企业受益。因为要订一个能够列明使用无形资产所有方面的权利的是很困难的。如果可能的话，国内外共同拥有一项投资项目的所有权更有可能导致知识分散。地方合作者可以将从外国投资者处学来的知识用于其它不涉及外国投资人或受雇佣政策限制的企业。通常的情况时地方合作者不太会去限制员工流转率。如果跨国公司独自拥有子公司的所有权的话，这个问题就会大量的减少。因而，跨过公司更喜欢将成熟的技术和管理转移到他们的独资子公司而不是共同所有的子公司。 反过来这也对东道国的当地所有者有一个知识溢出的暗示。转移到合资的外商独资项目的那些不太成熟的技术更容易被当地竞争者吸收再加上因为当地股东的行为而更容易获得知识技术，从而导致与共同所有结构相关的产业内知识溢出比全股所有的要大的多。此外，对共同所有的外商直接投资项目投入要求不高再加上地方合作者对当地供货商比较熟，会导致对当地生产的投入品有更大的依赖，因此导致上游部门的当地生产者更多的垂直溢出。当大量的研究致力于对外商直接投资的溢出效应进行实证研究，很少有人关注所有权结构如何影响这一现象。 这篇论文的过人之处在于使人了解外商直接投资项目对东道国的暗示。通过使用1998——2003年罗马尼亚公司层面的面板数据，检验外商独资子公司和合资企业在其产业内以及提供中间投入品的上游企业是否有一个不同的溢出范围。结果显示外商直接投资项目的所有权结构与生产力溢出效应相关。 与我们的预期一致，结果国内外共同所有的项目能够对上游部门有正溢出效应，但是独资企业没有这样的溢出效应。在统计计量上这两个系数的差额很明显。前者效应的大小在经济上很有意义.国内外共同所有的项目多增加一个，供应产业的国内企业的要素生产率增加4.4%。这个模型适用于国家也适用于地区的企业。对每一个部门最好的企业和差一点的企业都适用。下游部门合资 III-5 企业的出现有利于国内企业，对外资机构一点作用也没有。 与垂直效应形成对比的是，FDI的出现对在同一个部门的当地企业的绩效有一个负影响。如阿特肯和哈瑞森(1999)所说，这个现象可以归因于当地生产者被外国进入者抢去了一部分市场份额，以至于因为产量减少而使固定成本增加。这部经验主义作品说明在发展中国家负面竞争效应超过了知识溢出的正效应。如果合资企业知识散播更明显，我们可以预期合资拥有的FDI项目比独资企业对当地生产者的负面影响小一点。我们的调查结果与预期一致，因为在所有的分析中我们找到了预期的模型。在对外国企业的二次抽样和关注地区溢出效应衰退时，对国内市场导向的部门来说，这两个系数在统计计量上大小的差额很明显。 我们的调查结果证明FDI确实具有外在性，需要予以警惕。我们广泛地用“溢出”这个词是因为我们的方法论无法使我们辨清楚纯粹的知识外溢，跨国公司供货商所能享受到的规模经济或者因为外国投资者进入了产品市场而导致的竞争加剧的影响。我们仍需要进行更多的工作去了解FDI流入对东道国的影响。 我们的调查结果并不是说明对外商所有权的限制是绝对必要的，因为这样的限制会导致整体流入的减少以及另外产生一些没有在我们的分析中说明的问题。有一些其它的政策可能潜在地促进跨国企业惊醒当地采购，比如培养商业氛围或开发供应商发展项目会帮厨当地生产者学会如何满足外国买家的要求。在任何情况下，我们需要花更多的力气通过研究来促进我们对东道国环境的认识，这有助于促进外商直接投资的知识外溢以及政府政策在这个领域所扮演的角色。 III-6 Is foreign direct investment a channel of knowledge spillovers Evidence from Japan's FDI in the United States, Lee Branstetter To what extent does technological knowledge flow across national borders, and by what means are these knowledge flows mediated? These questions have received an increasing amount of attention over the last decade, as leading scholars in international economics have focused considerable research effort on the topic of knowledge spillovers.1 A considerable body of theoretical and empirical work has focused on the extent to which imports of manufactured goods could serve as channels of knowledge spillovers.2 While less thoroughly explored in formal models, the literature also suggests the possibility of a ―learning-by-exporting‖ effect in which firms learn to improve the quality of their products and production processes through contact with more advanced foreign competitors in global export markets.3 The flow of goods is not the only means through which technological knowledge can flow across national boundaries. An obvious alternative is foreign direct investment. A number of countries have policies that encourage or even subsidize multinational investment. Often, as has been the case in Singapore and Malaysia, these policies are deliberately biased in favor of multinational firms in ―technology intensive‖ industries. Such preferences are based on the view that production and/or research activities undertaken by multinational affiliates within national borders confer ―spillover‖ benefits. In an effort to submit these views to careful statistical tests, a number of scholars have undertaken empirical studies of spillover benefits from FDI. The work of Harrison and her co-authors, which has been particularly influential, has used micro-level panel data drawn from Morocco and Venezuela.4 Following the basic methodology developed by Aitken and Harrison (1999), Keller and Yeaple (2003) and Haskel et al. (2002) have examined FDI in advanced industrial economies, and Javorcik (2004) has examined FDI in Lithuania. In the previous work, I have examined issues related to the focus of this paper. Branstetter and Nakamura (2003) examined changes in the research productivity of III-7 Japanese manufacturing firms over the 1980s and 1990s. As part of that study, we examined the extent to which R&D alliances and partnerships with U.S. firms facilitated the flow of knowledge spillovers across international boundaries. That paper did not examine the role of FDI as a channel of knowledge spillovers. Branstetter (2000b) examined the role of FDI as a channel of knowledge spillovers from the U.S. to Japan, but was able to do so only indirectly, by quantifying the comovement between the R&D spending of U.S. firms and the patent output of Japanese corporations. As noted in that paper, these correlations are subject to confounding influences, raising doubts about the accuracy of such indirect inference. This paper examines the role FDI plays in mediating knowledge spillovers, but it takes a completely different methodological approach. First, in contrast to many of the aforementioned papers, I measure the impact of FDI not only on knowledge spillovers from the investing Japanese firms to ―indigenous‖ American firms but also the impact of Japanese investment on knowledge spillovers from American firms to the investing Japanese firms.5 Second, I allow the impact of FDI on knowledge spillovers to depend upon the nature of the subsidiary — and I find differences in the spillover-enhancing impact of different types of subsidiaries that are consistent with recent theoretical work on multinational firms. Third, I do not follow the earlier convention of using measured changes in TFP or other revenue-based measures to infer the presence or absence of knowledge spillovers. As is well known, conventional measures of productivity can reflect market power as well as technical efficiency.6 When technologically more advanced foreign affiliates first enter a market, their presence may erode the market power of indigenous incumbents while – at the same time – introducing new production techniques and technologies from which these same incumbents learn. Real knowledge spillovers can take place, yet their effects can be masked in the data by changes in appropriability conditions. Alternatively, robust demand growth in a sector of the host country could lead to higher profits, which generates higher measured TFP growth for domestic firms while, at the same time, inducing investment by foreign firms. This paper presents an alternative empirical framework for measuring the impact of foreign direct investment on knowledge spillovers using patent citations data. I then use this framework to measure the impact of foreign direct investment in the United States by a group of Japanese manufacturing firms on knowledge flows from III-8 American firms to these investing Japanese firms and from the investing Japanese firms to American inventors. To preview my empirical results, I find evidence that foreign direct investment enhances knowledge flows in both directions. I also find that the direction and degree of spillover flow is related to the characteristics of Japanese firms' U.S. subsidiaries in plausible ways. Knowledge spillovers received by the investing Japanese firms tend to be strongest via R&D and product development facilities. On the other hand, spillovers from the investing Japanese firms to indigenous American inventors appear to flow most strongly through Japanese firms' greenfield affiliates. III-9 外国直接投资是知识外溢的渠道吗?日本在美国外商直接投资 的实证研究 李?布兰斯泰特 技术知识越国境到达了一个怎么样的程度呢,这些知识溢出是通过什么方法调停的呢,再过去十年这些问题受到了越来越多的关注，因为国际经济学最主要的学者已经花了大量的努力关注知识溢出这个话题。理论和经验主义工作的许多部分关注制造品的进口所产生的知识溢出效应的程度。尽管在正式模型中还没有完全进行研究，文章同样说明了“出口学”效应的可能性。这种效应就是公司通过在全球出口市场接触先进的外国竞争者从而提高产品和生产流程的质量。 货物的流动不是技术知识跨国界流动的唯一方法。一个明显的替代方法是外商直接投资。许多国家都有政策鼓励甚至补贴跨国公司投资。通常，就如新加坡和马来西亚的例子，这些政策偏向于技术密集型产业的公司。有这样的偏爱是因为跨国公司在国内的分支机构所采取的生产和/或研究活动会带来溢出效应的好处。为了把这些观点用仔细的统计检验，许多学者采用了从外商直接投资获得的溢出效应的经验主义研究。哈瑞森和他的合作作者的研究尤其有影响力，他们采用了摩洛哥和委内瑞拉的微观层面的面板数据。凯勒和也颇以及哈斯科尔继续采用阿肯特和哈瑞森发展起来的基础方法论检验高级产业经济中的外商直接投资，加瓦茨克检验了立陶宛的外商直接投资。 在先前的研究中，我检验了与这篇论文重点有关的问题。布兰斯泰特和纳卡姆拉检验了1980年和1990年日本制造公司在研究生产率方面的变化。作为研究的一部分，我们检验了研发联盟和与美国的合资企业促进知识外溢国际流动的程度。这篇论文没有检验FDI作为知识外溢渠道的作用。布兰斯泰特检验了在美国向日本知识外溢的过程中FDI的作用，但是只能通过将美国公司研发费用和日本企业专利产出的合作行为定量化从而间接地进行检验。正如在论文中所指，这些相关性常有混淆，从而对这样间接推论的准确性产生怀疑。 这篇论文检验了间接知识外溢过程中外商直接投资所起的作用，但是它采用了完全不同的方法论。首先，与之前所述的许多论文形成对比，我不仅测量了日本投资企业对本土美国公司知识外溢的过程中外商直接投资的影响，同时也测量了美国企业对日本投资企业知识外溢的影响。第二，我根据子公司的性质来看外商直接投资对知识外溢的影响——我发现不同类型的子公司在外溢效应上的不同，这种不同与近期对跨国公司的理论研究一致。第三，我没有采用先前的做法， III-10 用全要素生产率可量化的变化或者其他的以收益为基础的测量方法来推断知识外溢效应是否存在。 正如大家所知，生产力传统的测量方法能够反映市场能力和技术效率。当在技术上更先进的外国机构第一次进入一个市场，他们的存在会侵蚀本土企业的市场能力，同时，介绍了新的生产技术和工艺，这些本土企业就可以从中得到学习。真实的知识外溢产生，然而他们的影响能够通过适当条件的变化用数据示出来。同样地，东道国一个部门如果需求旺盛，会带来高额利润，为国内企业产生更高的全要素生产率增长，同时，诱导外国企业的投资。 这篇论文提供了另一个经验主义结构框架通过使用特许应用数据来衡量外国直接投资对知识外溢的影响。我使用这个框架来衡量一组日本企业在美国的外国直接投资对美国企业向那些日本投资企业以及日本投资企业对美国发明商的知识溢出。预览我的调查结果，我发现外国直接投资在两个方向上都增强了知识流动的证据。我同样发现溢出效应的方向和程度在某种程度上与日本在美国的子公司的性质有关。日本投资企业所得到的知识溢出通过研发和产品发展设施而变得更为显著。在另一方面，日本投资企业对美国本土发明商的知识溢出似乎在日本对美国绿地的投资中更为显著。 III-11