外文翻譯--發(fā)展中國家對外直接投資的決定因素

1、<p>　　2000單詞，1.1萬英文字符，3300字</p><p>　　出處： Marcelo José Braga Nonnenberg and Mário Jorge Cardoso de Mendonça. The determinants of direct foreign investment in developing countries .Brazilia

2、n Association of Graduate Programs in Economics, 2004: P61-80.</p><p>　　外 文 翻 譯</p><p>　　The determinants of direct foreign investment in developing countries</p><p>　　The partic

3、ipation of developing countries in the total inflows of Direct Foreign Investment (FDI) has varied considerably over the last 25 years, increasing from 15% in 1980 to 46% in 1982, leveling off at slightly over 20% during

4、 the last four years. It must be pointed out, however, that the motives behind these international capital flows are still substantially different than those related to the inflows of FDI to developing countries, in spit

5、e of the changes that have taken place over the la</p><p>　　On the other hand, the current movement of these flows is extremely complex, and is subject to a wide variety of factors related to the competitive

6、 environment in which the firms operate, to their specific characteristics, and to economic factors in the home and host countries.</p><p>　　The objective of this article is to estimate, based on panel data,

7、 the main determinants of FDI in developing countries. As shall be seen, factors such as the size and rate of growth of the product, the availability of skilled labor, the receptivity of foreign capital, the country risk

8、 rating, and the behavior of the stock market play important roles in FDI. Furthermore, by applying the causality test in a panel data context, it was possible to demonstrate the non-existence of the widely held be</p

9、><p>　　Our study is structured as follows: in Section 2 we provide a review of the theoretical literature dealing with the determinants of direct foreign investment. In Section 3, we examine recent studies that

10、 analyze the relation between FDI and several economic factors. In section 4, we outline our model and the hypotheses to be tested, and present the results obtained (ver original). The results are then analyzed in Sectio

11、n 5. In Section 6 we test the causality relation between foreign investment a</p><p>　　The Determinants of FDI: Theory Overview</p><p>　　In this section, we review the theoretical literature dea

12、ling with the determinants of FDI. An aspect that stands out is that most of these studies emphasize factors that are specific to multinational firms, specifically those related to competition among the firms themselves

13、and with local firms, with less attention being given to location factors.</p><p>　　Although the first theoretical studies of the determinants of FDI go back to Adam Smith, Stuart Mill and Torrens, one of th

14、e first to address the issue was Ohlin (1933). According to this author, direct foreign investment was motivated mainly by the possibility of high profitability in growing markets, along with the possibility of financing

15、 these investments at relatively low rates of interest in the host country. Other determinants were the necessity to overcome trade barriers and to secure so</p><p>　　Hymer (1960) ushers in a new tradition i

16、n the study of multinational enterprises (MNE). If MNE are able to compete with local firms that have a much better knowledge of the local and market and environment, it is because MNE present some sort of compensatory a

17、dvantage, such as:</p><p>　　imperfect competition, for example, as a result of a product differentiation</p><p>　　imperfect competition in the factor market, for example, access to patented or p

18、roprietary knowledge, discrimination regarding access to capital, or skill advantages</p><p>　　internal or external economies of scale, including those arising from vertical integration</p><p>　

19、　Governmental intervention, i.e., restriction on imports.</p><p>　　With these advantages, MNE would prefer to supply the foreign market by way of direct investments instead of through exports. In an analogou

20、s manner, MNE would not be willing to license production to local firms if the local firms were uncertain about the value of the license or if the know-how transfer costs (property rights) were too high.</p><p

21、>　　Kindleberger (1969) slightly modifies Hymer’s analysis. Instead of MNF behavior determining the market structure, it is the market structure – monopolistic competition - that will determine the conduct of the firm,

22、 by internalizing its production. Caves (1971), also develops a similar analysis, in which structure dictates conduct. FDI will be made basically in sectors that are dominated by oligopolies. If there is product differen

23、tiation, horizontal investments may take place, i.e., in the same </p><p>　　Thus, the hypothesis of direct investment being determined by specific assets that compensate the initial disadvantage faced by for

24、eign firms in relation to local firms went on to become the HKC tradition, named after Hymer, Kindleberger and Caves. Markusen and Venables (1995) developed a model along the same line, comparing the importance of multin

25、ational firms to foreign trade. The presence of multinational firms (with regard to trade) increases as countries become more similar in terms of inc</p><p>　　A second line of studies of the determinants of

26、FDI is based on the idea of transaction cost internalization. Buckley and Casson (1976) and (1981), and Buckley (1985) were the first to develop this hypothesis, starting with the idea that the intermediate product marke

27、ts are imperfect, having higher transaction costs, when managed by different firms. When markets are integrated by MNE, these costs would be minimized. MNE have proprietary assets with regard to marketing, designs, paten

28、ts, trademar</p><p>　　The internalization theory emphasizes the intermediary product market and the formation of international production networks. The theory’s main strength may lie in its capacity to addre

29、ss the dilemma between the licensing of production to a foreign agent and own production. Therefore, the firm must make two decisions: location and mode of control. When production and control are located in the home cou

30、ntry, the firm exports; when production and control take place in the host country, FDI is made</p><p>　　Also, within a framework that could be classified as microeconomic, there is the work of John Dunning.

31、 His analysis begins by stating that the ownership of dissimilar assets may be considered as one of the factors responsible for the existence of multinational firms. Dunning develops an approach that must be understood,

32、in his view, as a paradigm (in the sense that it brings together conflicting theories, with no single outcome) known as OLI (Ownership, Location, Internalization). This paradigm </p><p>　　Foreign firms hold

33、advantages over domestic firms in a given sector as a result of privileged ownership of certain tangible or intangible assets that are only available to firms of that same nationality.</p><p>　　Based on this

34、 paradigm, Dunning outlines four reasons for a firm to invest abroad: the searches for resources, for markets, for efficiency, and for new strategic assets. The dynamics between knowledge assets and location factors have

35、 dictated the upsurge in multinational investments over the last decades - mainly the search for strategic assets. In spite of the shifting, in recent years, of multinational activity towards developing countries, either

36、 market-seeking or resource-seeking, the main n</p><p>　　Another line of thinking is represented by the product cycle model proposed by Vernon (1966). According to this model, since innovations are labor sav

37、ers, they initially appear in those countries that are more capital intensive, especially the US (the model was developed in the mid-60s). Gradually, production is relocated to countries that are less capital intensive,

38、and lastly, to developing countries. At the same time, production in richer countries is reoriented towards new products that inco</p><p>　　Also along the production internationalization line of thinking, fo

39、r reasons endogenous to the firm, we have the studies developed by Graham [(1978), (1998) and (2000)]. According to these studies, the emergence of MNE is a result of oligopolistic interaction as firms grow, as a risk re

40、duction strategy. In his most recent study, the author employs game theory in order to develop a simplified two-country, one-sector model to analyze the entrance of a firm in a foreign country, and to study the re</p&

41、gt;<p>　　One of the most promising approaches may be the work of Cantwell [summarized in Cantwell (2000)]. This approach considers the technological accumulation concept as an internal and cumulative process to th

42、e firm. Since technology is tacit, meaning that it is not transferred without costs, firms will develop their capacities and knowledge in unique and different manners. Thus, competition among firms is basically technolog

43、ical. Innovation is the main profit maker. The internationalizing of product</p><p>　　Consequently, the firm then deploys its knowledge through international technology networks, investing in other centers s

44、o as to gain access to new knowledge. The Hymer-Kindleberger-Caves paradigm thus does not hold, for the internationalization of production is also kindled by technological competition.</p><p>　　Determinants

45、of FDI: empirical studies</p><p>　　Empirical studies that attempt to estimate the importance of the different determinants of FDI concentrate more on attraction factors, i.e., location factors, since availab

46、le data make it difficult to identify which countries the investments come from, unless a large set of countries and years is analyzed. The capital propriety advantages, for example, mentioned in some of the studies outl

47、ined in Section 2 as an important push-factor, are more difficult to be observed, and depend on research inv</p><p>　　However, the relation between FDI and economic growth deserves special attention. If, on

48、one hand, economic growth is a powerful stimulant to the inflow of FDI, on the other, an increase in foreign investment – since this would mean an increase in the existing capital stock (Greenfield investment) – would al

49、so be one of the factors responsible for economic growth, meaning the existence of an endogenously problem. There are, also, other studies that deal with proving the relation between FDI and </p><p>　　Regard

50、ing the determinants of FDI, it must be stated that there are substantial differences between the flows that only involve developing countries, whether between home and host countries, and those in which the host countri

51、es are developing countries. According to Dunning (2002), in the former case strategic asset-seeking investments take place, in which FDI is used in mergers and acquisitions, seeking horizontal efficiency. In the second

52、case, investments are characterized by the search for </p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　發(fā)展中國家對外直接投資的決定因素</p><p>　　發(fā)展中國家在近25年來參與對外直接投資有很大的差異，由1980年的15%增加到1982年的46%，在近四年內(nèi)趨于20%

53、。然而，必須指出，這些國際資本流動的最終目的仍舊與發(fā)展中國家的對外直接投資有實質(zhì)的區(qū)別，盡管在過去的幾十年里一直有變化。例如，如今與20世紀之初相比，尋找農(nóng)業(yè)或礦物資源遠遠不那么重要。</p><p>　　另一方面，這些當前的現(xiàn)金流動是非常復雜的，其具體特點是受到母國和東道國經(jīng)濟因素及多種因素的相關(guān)公司操作的競爭環(huán)境的影響。</p><p>　　本文的目的是評估，基于面板數(shù)據(jù)，找到對外直接

54、投資在發(fā)展中國家的主要決定因素。應該看到，如規(guī)模和產(chǎn)品的增長速度因素，熟練勞動力的供應，外資的接受能力，國家風險評級，和在對外直接投資中發(fā)揮重要作用的股票的市場行為。此外，通過運用面板數(shù)據(jù)中的因果關(guān)系檢驗，它是可以證明很多人都有的一個想法，即對外直接投資對生產(chǎn)具有積極的影響。然而，用來測試表明因果關(guān)系的程序，相反，這一現(xiàn)象的行為表明的是相反的意義，即通常情況是該國的產(chǎn)品，會影響對外直接投資。</p><p>　　

55、我們的研究結(jié)構(gòu)如下：在第2章我們提供了理論文獻回顧與對外直接投資的決定因素處理。在第3章中我們來研究分析最近研究的對外直接投資與若干經(jīng)濟因素的關(guān)系。在第4章，我們列出了我們的模型和假設進行測試，和現(xiàn)在所取得的成果。然后分析結(jié)果在第5章。在第6章我們測試的產(chǎn)品之間的外國投資和因果關(guān)系。最后，在第7章，我們提出我們的研究結(jié)論。</p><p>　　外國直接投資的決定因素：理論綜述</p><p&g

56、t;　　在本節(jié)中，我們將回顧理論文獻與外國直接投資的決定因素處理。突出的一個方面是，這些研究大多強調(diào)各公司本身的因素，并與當?shù)仄髽I(yè)所特有的跨國公司有關(guān)，特別是那些與競爭的相關(guān)企業(yè)自身和本地公司，比較少的重視區(qū)位因素。</p><p>　　首先從理論上研究對外直接投資的決定因素，我們要回歸亞當斯密，穆勒和托倫斯的理論，解決這個問題首先就是奧林的理論。據(jù)筆者觀察，外國直接投資的動機是高盈利的可能性，主要在發(fā)展中市場，

57、隨著融資利率較低的可能性，投資在東道國的可能性也就越低。需要其他的決定因素來克服貿(mào)易障礙，以確保原材料來源。</p><p>　　海默指出在一個新的傳統(tǒng)將迎來多國企業(yè)研究，跨國公司能夠參與與那些對當?shù)厥袌龊铜h(huán)境的競爭，同時能更好地了解當?shù)仄髽I(yè)，這是因為目前一些跨國公司所利用的一些優(yōu)勢，例如：</p><p>　　不完全競爭，例如，作為一個產(chǎn)品的差異化的結(jié)果。</p><

58、p>　　在要素市場不完全競爭，例如，獲得專利或?qū)Ｓ兄R，獲得資金方面的歧視，或技術(shù)優(yōu)勢。</p><p>　　內(nèi)部或外部規(guī)模經(jīng)濟,包括縱向一體化引起的。</p><p>　　政府干預，即對進口的限制。</p><p>　　有了這些優(yōu)勢，跨國公司更愿意通過直接供應國外市場的投資方式，而不是通過出口。在另一個類似的方式，如果本地公司的牌照價值被確定或者如果技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)化

59、的成本太高了，那么跨國公司不會愿意授權(quán)給當?shù)仄髽I(yè)生產(chǎn)，。</p><p>　　金德爾伯格稍微修改海默的分析。并不是由于多重因素決定了市場結(jié)構(gòu)，而是由于壟斷性競爭所控制了市場，使產(chǎn)品主觀化，它是市場結(jié)構(gòu)，壟斷競爭，這將決定該公司生產(chǎn)內(nèi)部的行為?？朔蛩梗€開發(fā)了這種結(jié)構(gòu)支配行為類似的分析。金融衍生工具將在基本上在由寡頭部門主導。如果有產(chǎn)品差異化，投資將可能發(fā)生在同一個地方，即在同一部門。如果沒有產(chǎn)品的差異，直接投資將

60、在該行業(yè)中的公司生產(chǎn)鏈的背后形成。對外直接投資存在進一步的相關(guān)貿(mào)易壁壘，或者是一種在外部市場的對新企業(yè)壁壘，這將成為新公司的障礙。</p><p>　　因此，海默，金德爾伯格和克夫斯在直接投資的假設下，由特定的資產(chǎn)來補償本地公司已經(jīng)成為了外國公司的傳統(tǒng)。馬庫森和維納布爾斯開發(fā)了沿著相同的路線的模型，通過外貿(mào)來比較跨國公司的重要性。隨著國家和地區(qū)的增長多國公司將在收入方面有更多的類似的存在，并在各種因素和技術(shù)的相對

61、分配的條款。</p><p>　　第二個的研究對外直接投資決定因素的觀念為基礎(chǔ)交易的成本國際化。巴克利和卡森是最早開發(fā)這一假說，開始的想法是當由不同的公司管理會使中間產(chǎn)品市場不完善，有較高的交易成本。當市場中的多國企業(yè)整合，這些費用將減至最低?？鐕驹跔I銷方面有專有的資產(chǎn)，設計，專利，商標，創(chuàng)新能力等，其可能是被轉(zhuǎn)讓無形資產(chǎn)，或者由于感覺良好的機會成本，甚至因為他們是分散的，因此很難出售或出租。</p&g

62、t;<p>　　內(nèi)部化理論強調(diào)了中介市場和產(chǎn)品的國際生產(chǎn)網(wǎng)絡的形成。該理論的主要力量，可能在于它有能力解決到外地代理和自行生產(chǎn)的生產(chǎn)許可證之間的兩難的問題。因此，企業(yè)必須做出兩項決定：位置及控制方式。當生產(chǎn)和控制位于的母國，則公司出口產(chǎn)品；當生產(chǎn)和控制在東道國，對外直接投資就應運而生。通常情況下，這些決定了產(chǎn)品的國際化關(guān)注的幾個階段。</p><p>　　此外，約翰鄧寧做了一個微觀經(jīng)濟學的框架。他的

63、分析說明不同的資產(chǎn)所有權(quán)可以被看作是跨國公司存在的因素之一。鄧寧開發(fā)了一個必須理解的方法（在這個方法中，它匯集了沖突的理論，沒有單一的結(jié)果），他將這個稱為OLI（所有權(quán)，位置，內(nèi)部化）的模式作為一個范例。這一模式可能會提出如下示意：</p><p>　　外國公司在國內(nèi)企業(yè)緩繳作為對某些有形或無形的資產(chǎn)，只適用于該公司的對于同一國籍的同一部門可以產(chǎn)生優(yōu)勢。</p><p>　　在此基礎(chǔ)上的模

64、式，鄧寧概括了一家公司到海外投資的四個原因：資源的搜索，市場，效益，和作為新的戰(zhàn)略資產(chǎn)。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)和區(qū)位因素的動力直接影響了幾十年的國際投資——主要是尋找戰(zhàn)略資產(chǎn)。近幾年，盡管在不斷的變化中，跨國公司對發(fā)展中國家的活動，無論是尋求市場或?qū)で筚Y源，都主要是在發(fā)展中國家的國家戰(zhàn)略資產(chǎn)的搜索增加新穎的投資，改變了自然的區(qū)位因素。如果一方面，知識資產(chǎn)（無形資產(chǎn)）可以跨越國界，跨國公司將有戰(zhàn)略性優(yōu)勢來尋找其他國家提升競爭力，另一方面，這些資產(chǎn)所在地

65、的影響日益加深集群存在的活動，這是相輔相成的。</p><p>　　另一種思路的代表是由弗農(nóng)提出的產(chǎn)品周期模型。根據(jù)這個模式，創(chuàng)新是勞動保護程序，他們起初出現(xiàn)在那些資本密集的國家，特別是美國（該模型是在60年代中期形成）。漸漸地，生產(chǎn)遷往較小的國家形成資本密集型，最后到發(fā)展中國家。與此同時,在生產(chǎn)較富裕的國家將創(chuàng)新產(chǎn)品和工藝融入了新的制作中。該模型部分對于研究認為，跨國公司的傳播將會順序的進行。公司最初將供應出口

66、市場，然后在國外建立貿(mào)易代表，并最終結(jié)束以前以在目標市場的生產(chǎn)方式設立附屬公司。</p><p>　　這還帶動了生產(chǎn)的國際化的思維線內(nèi)源性的原因，我們對公司的研究開發(fā)由格倫漢姆提出。根據(jù)這些研究，跨國公司的出現(xiàn)是一個寡頭壟斷相互作用的結(jié)果，是企業(yè)成長為減少風險的戰(zhàn)略。在他最近的研究中，筆者采用博弈論，以便建立簡化的兩個國家，一個部門模型來分析在外國公司的一個入口，并研究從其他國家在當?shù)厥袌龅姆磻粋€企業(yè)入口。在這

67、里的關(guān)鍵是，企業(yè)間的競爭是一個重要方面。</p><p>　　最有前途的方法之一也許就是坎特韋爾的工作方法。這種方法認為技術(shù)積累是對一個公司內(nèi)部累積的過程。由于技術(shù)是隱性的，也就是說它并沒有成本的轉(zhuǎn)移，公司將以不同的方式開發(fā)一個獨特的技術(shù)。因此，企業(yè)間的競爭基本上是技術(shù)。創(chuàng)新是利潤的主要制造者。生產(chǎn)國際化使得各企業(yè)能夠利用他們的知識和在其他環(huán)境中創(chuàng)新的潛力，增加他們的獨特優(yōu)勢。此外，膨脹導致適應，從而產(chǎn)生更多的創(chuàng)

68、新。</p><p>　　因此，公司通過網(wǎng)絡上的知識，在其他地區(qū)進行投資，以獲得新的知識。本海默，金德爾伯格和克夫斯的理論是不成立的，進而為生產(chǎn)國際化更是點燃了科技競爭。</p><p>　　金融衍生工具的決定因素：實證研究</p><p>　　試圖估計外國直接投資的決定因素的重要性不同的實證研究集中于吸引因素，即區(qū)位因素，因為現(xiàn)有的數(shù)據(jù)使人們難以確定哪些國家可以用

69、來投資，除非對該國的數(shù)據(jù)進行了大量的分析。通常使用的主要因素是市場規(guī)模，國民生產(chǎn)總值的增長，經(jīng)濟穩(wěn)定，經(jīng)濟開放程度，以及其他一些制度的改變。</p><p>　　然而，外國直接投資與經(jīng)濟增長之間的關(guān)系值得特別關(guān)注。如果，一方面，經(jīng)濟增長對對外直接投資的流入是一個非常強大的刺激，另一方面，是在海外投資的增加——因為這將意味著在現(xiàn)有的資本存量的增加。還有，同時，其他研究證明，這還影響與外商直接投資與經(jīng)濟活動水平的關(guān)系

70、處理。</p><p>　　至于外國直接投資的決定因素，必須指出，發(fā)展中國家與發(fā)展中國家，發(fā)展中國家與東道國之間都有實質(zhì)性的差異。鄧寧指出，一種是戰(zhàn)略資產(chǎn)尋求投資的發(fā)生，其中外商直接投資是用于兼并和收購，尋求效率水平。在第二種情況下，投資的特點是對市場的追求，以及資源的全部利用。</p><p>　　出處：馬塞洛何塞布拉加農(nóng)恩博和馬里奧豪德門東薩.《發(fā)展中國家對外直接投資的決定因素》.巴西