外商直接投資與制度環(huán)境--在轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)體中的作用研究外文翻譯

1、<p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯</p><p>　　外文題目：Foreign Direct Investment and Institutional Environment in Transition Economies </p><p>　　出 處:Transition Studies Review

2、</p><p>　　作 者：Andrej Sujan </p><p>　　Foreign Direct Investment and Institutional Environment in Transition Economies</p><p>

3、;　　Andrej Su?jan</p><p><b>　　ABSTRACT</b></p><p>　　We analysed the relation between foreign direct investment and the quality of the institutional environment in transition economies

4、. The analysis confirmed a significant impact of various institutional aspects on the inflow of foreign capital. To isolate the importance of the institutional environment from the impact of other factors, a panel data a

5、nalysis was performed using the data of 24 transition economies in the period 1995–2002. The results showed that in the observed period the quality o</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　Foreign direc

6、t investment (FDI) is widely believed to make major contributions to the economic development of emerging markets. On the other hand, FDI is also of crucial importance to multinational firms. Thus, both the developed and

7、 the developing economies have a common interest in encouraging FDI flows, although their targets vary (Resmini 2000, Estrin and Meyer 2004): positive externalities of FDI are important for host economies,</p><

8、;p>　　while profits and corporate growth are a typical target of globally oriented companies.</p><p>　　A positive impact of FDI on economic growth has been confirmed by a number of studies (e.g., Lunn 1980

9、, Schneider and Frey 1985, Carkovic and Levine 2002). FDI contributes to economic growth through several channels. First, it is expected to be growth enhancing through capital accumulation more inputs are incorporated in

10、to production (Buckley et al. 2002) and there is a wider range of intermediate goods (Feenstra and Markusen 1994). Second, FDI is an important source of technological change and </p><p>　　1993a, b; Borenszte

11、in et al. 1998). </p><p>　　FDI is especially important for transition economies, since these economies have sufficient stocks of human capital but lack the technology and capital needed to spur growth (Aleks

12、ynka 2003; see also Billington 1999, Bevan and Estrin 2000). Cross-border capital flows (their magnitude as well as composition and stability) are important for the success of transition (Garibaldi et al. 2002, Neuhaus 2

13、006). Although over the last fifteen years many transition economies have recorded negative experien</p><p>　　new technology, knowledge, and employment to these countries but also opened new markets for them

14、.</p><p>　　One of the most important determinants of FDI flows to a country is the quality of its institutional framework. According to Pejovich (1990, p. 25–34), there are three basic institutions that defi

15、ne the nature of the capitalist system: private property rights, the law of contracts, and a strong but limited government. The positive impact that property rights protection and the respect of contracts have for a mark

16、et economy has been empirically confirmed by many authors (e.g., La Porta et al. 199</p><p>　　Transition economies represent a very suitable natural experimental model for studying the impact of institutiona

17、l quality improvements on economic development in general (North 2005) and specifically on foreign capital inflows.The change of the economic system in former socialist countries included a significant institutional chan

18、ge which allows researchers to econometrically test the importance of institutions for several areas of economic life.</p><p>　　For transition economies, the relation between institutional changes and foreig

19、n capital inflows has so far not been comprehensively analysed. Baniak et al. (2005) examined the general determinants of FDI in transition economies. There have also been studies about the influence of various regulator

20、y institutions on the performance of particular segments in some transition economies. Glaeser et al. (2001), for example, compared the Polish and Czech capital market developments. The quality of regu</p><p&g

21、t;　　We extend, or supplement, the preceding analyses in several aspects. First, we provide a comprehensive rationalization of the importance of foreign capital for economic growth in transition economies via the export-l

22、ed model of growth. Second, the analysis of the potential impact of institutions on FDI in transition economies is based on the Heritage Foundation data, which differ from the EBRD data. Ten areas of institutional qualit

23、y are inspected and evaluated. The overall index of institutiona</p><p>　　The paper is structured as follows. After the presentation of data on FDI in transition economies, we analyze the importance of forei

24、gn capital for economic growth in transition. Then we consider the potential impact of various aspects of institutional framework in transition economies. A more rigorous econometric analysis follows, assessing the quali

25、ty of the institutional environment as a determinant of FDI in transition economies.</p><p>　　FDI and quality of institutional environment in transition economies Stylized facts on FDI and institutional envi

26、ronment quality</p><p>　　In our analysis we relied on the definition by the Heritage Foundation1 which describes the quality of the institutional environment in a given economy by, evaluating ten areas, each

27、 being awarded a grade on a scale from 1 (best) to 5 (worst). All subgrades are then used to form an overall index of institutional quality. The Heritage Foundation data combined with the facts on FDI inflows (Table 2) s

28、eem to suggest that there is a threshold of overall institutional quality at around 3.5 that the e</p><p>　　Cheap labour and good location were qualities that Romania and Bulgaria were able to offer also in

29、the mid-1990s, but instability, uncertainty, and lack of reforms (including privatization) kept investors away from them. Once the institutional circumstances changed, the preferences of investors changed, too.The first

30、impression obtained from the above data is that better institutional framework raises FDI inflows. This would mean that beside its direct influence on the economic performance of a </p><p>　　Empirical analys

31、is of the importance of institutional quality for FDI.</p><p>　　The empirical analysis was carried out in two steps. First the importance of the institutional environment for FDI was confirmed by a simple co

32、rrelation analysis taking into account various aspects of institutional quality. Then a set of new variables was obtained from the most important institutional aspects by the principal-component method, and these variabl

33、es were used in a panel data analysis to determine the significance of institutions for FDI and to take into account also some other impo</p><p>　　The importance of various institutional aspects was examined

34、 by a correlation analysis between FDI and components of the Heritage Foundation Index. Despite its simplicity, correlation is nonetheless illustrative, since it exposes those areas of institutional environment that have

35、 the highest correlations with FDI. It is reasonable to believe that these are also the institutional aspects that represent an indicator of ‘‘FDI climate’’ or ‘‘FDI</p><p>　　friendliness’’ for foreign inves

36、tors. The analysis covered a span of 8 years (1995–2002) in 24 transition economies. The most important factors turned out to be regulation, property rights protection, and the presence of a black market. The area of cap

37、ital flows and foreign investment (in this area the Heritage Foundation subindex evaluates various restrictions regarding capital transfers) was fourth, followed by wages and prices. The stability of the rules of the gam

38、e and the ability to enforce</p><p><b>　　markets.</b></p><p>　　Correlation analysis indicates that foreign investors care mostly about the legal aspects of the economy. But this does

39、 not mean that other factors are not important. To include other factors in the analysis, together with institutional quality,we created a new variable (fdifact), using all the five areas with highest correlations with F

40、DI (property rights protection, regulation quality, FDI environment, the extent of the black market, and wages and prices determination). The new variable was fo</p><p>　　There are several other factors that

41、 affect FDI flows beside institutional quality: location, labour costs, and human capital, etc. To extract the impact of the overall institutional quality on FDI, a panel data analysis must be run. Our test was performed

42、 on the Heritage Foundation data set covering again a span of 8 years (1995–2002) for 24 transitional countries. The panel data analysis was based on a general-to-specific approach, suggested by Berg et al. (1999). Despi

43、te a vast literature on </p><p>　　Conclusion</p><p>　　The analysis has shown that FDI can assist in the process of economic growth of transition economies. It has also confirmed that the quality

44、 of the institutional environment of transition economies significantly influences the inflow of foreign capital. The analysis regarding the impact of institutional environment on FDI was carried out in two phases. First

45、, the results of the correlation analysis using the Heritage Foundation data as an indicator of institutional quality showed that regulation</p><p>　　As far as the policy implications are concerned, the resu

46、lts of the analysis point to the role of the state as an institution builder. In this role the governments of transitional countries should focus primarily on creating a good legal system. Private property rights protect

47、ion and the rule of law have turned out to be crucial for attracting foreign investors. In the past decade, most FDI has flown to those transition economies that managed to establish an efficient and transparent legal sy

48、ste</p><p><b>　　譯 文：</b></p><p>　　外商直接投資與制度環(huán)境--在轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)體中的作用研究</p><p>　　Andrej Sujan</p><p><b>　　引 言</b></p><p>　　我們分析外商直接投資與制度環(huán)境的質(zhì)量

49、之間的過度經(jīng)濟(jì)關(guān)系。通過分析我們確定各種制度層面的外商直接投資資本的流入對環(huán)境是有重大影響的。為了將制度環(huán)境的重要性與其它的一些影響因素相分離，本文運用面板數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行了分析，所用的是1995-2002年期間的24個轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)體的數(shù)據(jù)。分析結(jié)果表明，在觀察期間，制度環(huán)境的質(zhì)量顯著地影響著外商直接投資在經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型期間的投資水平。同時，其它的幾個因素也被證明有著顯著影響。 </p><p>　　外商直接投資被人們普遍認(rèn)為是對

50、新興市場經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展有著重大貢獻(xiàn)的經(jīng)濟(jì)因素。而且，外商直接投資對于跨國公司來講也是至關(guān)重要的。因此，無論是發(fā)達(dá)國家還是發(fā)展中國家，它們的經(jīng)濟(jì)體都是鼓勵外商直接投資。外商直接投資的正外部性對東道國的經(jīng)濟(jì)來講是非常重要。外商直接投資對經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長有著積極地影響，這一點在此已經(jīng)得到證實。（例如，Lunn 1980，Schneider 和Frey 1985，Carkovic 和Levine2002）。</p><p>　　一、

51、外商直接投資與制度環(huán)境經(jīng)濟(jì)</p><p>　　外商直接投資對經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的貢獻(xiàn)是通過多種渠道的。首先，他們希望通過資本的積累，也就是將更多的投入納入生產(chǎn)的過程中，與此同時會有大范圍的中間產(chǎn)品產(chǎn)生。其次，外商直接投資是一個重要的技術(shù)變革資源和人力資本資源（Buckley et al. 2002）。不僅如此，外商直接投資還是導(dǎo)致技術(shù)擴(kuò)散的原因（Lucas 1993a，b；Borensztein et al.1998）。

52、外商直接投資對經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型來說是特別重要的。原因在于，這些經(jīng)濟(jì)體有相對充足的人力資源但是他們?nèi)狈夹g(shù)和資金，這些技術(shù)和資金都是刺激經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的重要因素（Aleksynka 2003；Bilington 1999，Bevan 和Estrin 2000）?？缇迟Y本流動是成功的重要過渡。盡管在過去的15年里，有許多轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)體的負(fù)面經(jīng)驗，記錄了外國快速營利者和資產(chǎn)剝離者，同時也顯示了外商直接投資實際上是對經(jīng)濟(jì)增長起了重大貢獻(xiàn)的。在收到大量的外國資本后

53、（例如，斯洛伐克，羅曼尼亞和保加利亞）最近開始出現(xiàn)了很高的增長率。在相當(dāng)程度上可以解釋為這種增長是由出口導(dǎo)向型經(jīng)濟(jì)模型導(dǎo)致的，因為外商直接投資對東道國來講，不僅能帶來新的技術(shù)，知識和就業(yè)機會，</p><p>　　外商直接投資是流入一個國家的體制框架的質(zhì)量的最重要的決定因素之一。通過Pejovich（1990，P25-34），有三個基本的機構(gòu)，它們定義了資本主義制度的性質(zhì)：1、私有財產(chǎn)權(quán)，2、合同法，3、極其強大

54、的政府。財產(chǎn)權(quán)的保護(hù)和對合同的尊重對這個經(jīng)濟(jì)市場具有積極地正面影響，這一點已經(jīng)被很多學(xué)者所證實（例如，La Porta 等人，1999年，2000年。Pournarakis 和Varsakelis2004年）。</p><p>　　此外，法律體系的重要性已經(jīng)在一系列文章中被證實（La Porta 等人1997年，1998年；Pistor和徐2002）。</p><p>　　轉(zhuǎn)型期經(jīng)濟(jì)體代表

55、對外國資本流入的制度質(zhì)量的改善和對經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展的影響。經(jīng)濟(jì)體制的變化象征著前社會主義國家的一個重要的制度變遷，這個變遷允許研究人員對經(jīng)濟(jì)生活的多個重要領(lǐng)域和機構(gòu)進(jìn)行計量經(jīng)濟(jì)測試。</p><p>　　對于經(jīng)濟(jì)體制的轉(zhuǎn)型，制度的變遷和外資的流入之間是存在關(guān)系的，這至今都沒有得到全面的分析。Baniak等人在2005年研究了外商直接投資的轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)的一般決定因素。有研究表示各監(jiān)督機構(gòu)在一些轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)特定部門的業(yè)績的影響下得

56、到改善。例如Glaseser 等人在2001年將波蘭和捷克資本市場的發(fā)展進(jìn)行了對比。質(zhì)量的監(jiān)管被證明是波蘭資本市場發(fā)展的重要因素。貝文等人在2004年廣泛的研究了外商直接投資對歐洲銀行的復(fù)興和開發(fā)的作用，專門針對所有權(quán)，銀行部門進(jìn)行改革，在外匯和貿(mào)易自由化的類型和法律的過渡性指標(biāo)的基礎(chǔ)上，體制環(huán)境發(fā)展是有重要作用的。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)了正式機構(gòu)和外商直接投資之間存在著一個牢固的關(guān)系。此外，Grogan和Moers在2001年把焦點聚集在制度質(zhì)量的

57、重要性上。從對外商直接投資的歐洲復(fù)興開發(fā)銀行數(shù)據(jù)的例子上看，發(fā)現(xiàn)一個國家的作用是非常大的，而且也是非常重要的。弗蘭克爾等人在2004年研究了雙邊外商直接投資的資金流向在新興的市場上是個重力模型的重點。但是同時也發(fā)現(xiàn)了該國的風(fēng)險—歐洲貨幣風(fēng)險的評級衡量中外商直接投資是相當(dāng)重要Smartzynska javorcik在2004年研究了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)</p><p>　　外商投資者的興趣在轉(zhuǎn)型期經(jīng)濟(jì)體過渡進(jìn)程中已經(jīng)被激發(fā)。

58、在1989年到2003年間，總的凈資本流入有2200億美元（歐洲復(fù)興開發(fā)銀行2004年b，第45頁）?？們羲饺速Y本的流動在擴(kuò)大，從1989年的62億美元到2002年，已經(jīng)超過了360億美元（歐洲復(fù)興開發(fā)銀行2004年a，第11頁）。平均而言，2002年和2003年的外商直接投資總額已經(jīng)在GDP中占了5%。這里有些明顯的例外：斯洛伐克，16%（2002年），保加利亞，7%（2003年），愛沙尼亞，8%（2003年），哈薩克斯坦9%（200

59、2年）（歐洲復(fù)興開發(fā)銀行2004年b，第45頁）。</p><p>　　在同一時期，由于一些大型私有化和綠色領(lǐng)域項目的投資使得歐洲東南部經(jīng)濟(jì)體經(jīng)歷了外商直接投資57%升幅的增長。投資者對這個地區(qū)的穩(wěn)定性比較看重。羅馬尼亞和保加利亞因為有穩(wěn)定的宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)，體制框架，又是歐盟成員，并且有廉價勞動力而吸引了大量的外商投資。在2004年，兩國的經(jīng)濟(jì)共同體收到了從SEE 領(lǐng)域的46.7億美元。這兩個經(jīng)濟(jì)體參見組也認(rèn)為充分發(fā)展

60、其資本市場和吸引投資是很重要的。</p><p>　　盧卡斯認(rèn)為想要出現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)奇跡，外商直接投資和技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓是至關(guān)重要的。為了確定過渡時期國家的經(jīng)濟(jì)業(yè)績中外商直接投資的重要性，我們審查了1995- 2002年期間的24個轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)體。在對面板數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行分析的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行一般到具體的做法。孤立了外商直接投資對輸出性能的影響后，對眾多因素進(jìn)行了審查：變量的長期增長，影響因素及短期周期性的運動。</p><p

61、><b>　　總 結(jié)</b></p><p>　　有關(guān)分析表明，在經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的進(jìn)程中外國直接投資可以協(xié)助經(jīng)濟(jì)體轉(zhuǎn)型，這也證實了轉(zhuǎn)型經(jīng)濟(jì)下環(huán)境質(zhì)量對外資的影響是巨大的。分析關(guān)于對外直接投資的環(huán)境體制影響可以分成兩個階段進(jìn)行。首先，作為一個相關(guān)機構(gòu)，對傳統(tǒng)基金會進(jìn)行質(zhì)量指標(biāo)的數(shù)據(jù)分析，分析結(jié)果表明，監(jiān)管，產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)，黑市已經(jīng)對外商直接投資有較大的影響。而外商直接投資中環(huán)境對其的影響是排第四的

62、，其次是工資和價格指數(shù)。將數(shù)據(jù)分成兩個組進(jìn)行分析，分析表明，在較差的體制框架下，傳統(tǒng)基金會指數(shù)會在3.5或者是更低，即外商直接投資占改組人均流入金額。為了將機構(gòu)與其他機構(gòu)相隔離，特別是將影響經(jīng)濟(jì)的因素相隔離，然后進(jìn)行數(shù)據(jù)分析。得出整體制度框架質(zhì)量是分析時期外商直接投資在經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型時的重要影響因素。同時也證明了，預(yù)算赤字，內(nèi)幕私有化和勞動力的成本也是影響的因素。特別是東道國加盟以后。</p><p>　　至于政策而言