外国直接投资流向变动趋势：理论和实证分析【外文翻译】.doc

1、1 外文翻译 原文 Trends in foreign direct investment flows: a theoretical and empirical analysis Material Source: Journal of International Business Studies Author: D Sethi Introduction Foreign direct investment (FDI) has been viewed through several theoretical lenses, with researchers taking different snap

2、shots of the phenomenon. Although prior studies have identified several factors that impact on the FDI decision of a multinational enterprise (MNE), those determinants are generally applicable only to the specific context considered, or else affect just the initial market entry. A comprehensive theo

3、retical formulation that helps to analyze patterns of FDI across different geographical regions has proved elusive. Such FDI patterns also need to be examined over time, because factors favoring an MNEs initial investment into a country could change, prompting it to move new investments elsewhere. S

4、everal strategic considerations could motivate such shifts, such as increased competitive intensity at the original location, cost-cutting requirements which prompt the search for new low-cost production locations, or pressure to enter new markets in response to similar moves by rivals. Measures und

5、ertaken by various governments in liberalizing investment regimes also profoundly affect FDI decisions. FDI trends, hence, are a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon, which needs to be examined from macro-economic as well as firm strategy perspectives for a more realistic analysis. As regards the l

6、evel of analysis, ideally FDI should be examined at the firm level, given that each MNEs investment decision is affected by its unique strategic objectives. But, as any analysis of FDI trends would indicate, MNEs often invest in a particular country or region virtually en bloc, notwithstanding idios

7、yncratic variations in individual investment decisions. The rush amongst rivals to enter emerging markets often triggers this bandwagon effect (Knickerbocker, 1973). Shifts in FDI destinations over time can therefore be analyzed at a country level because the determinants under investigation affect

8、all MNEs uniformly (Freeman, 1978). 2 Numerous surveys and publications, such as those from the UN, routinely publish aggregated data on FDI by country. These often reveal a significant increase of FDI into a particular region, with a concurrent deceleration of investments into other, formerly popul

9、ar destinations, suggesting a change of FDI determinants. However, there have been few attempts to distinguish patterns in such trends, in order to encapsulate the factors responsible for those changes into a generic theoretical model. This study seeks to provide such a rationale for the changing tr

10、end of FDI flows, by proposing a theoretical framework that integrates firm strategy as well as macro-economic factors. Several propositions are developed from the model that seek to explain various aspects of the phenomenon. By analyzing US FDI into Western Europe and Asia over 20 years, 19812000,

11、the paper provides preliminary empirical support for those propositions. It also provides evidence to show that some of the determinants of US FDI have changed. Literature review The theory of capital movements was the earliest explanation for FDI, which was viewed as a part of portfolio investments

12、 (Iversen, 1935; Aliber, 1971). Hymers (1960) groundbreaking contribution was the first explanation of FDI in the industrial organization tradition. Hymer saw FDI as a means of transferring knowledge and other firm assets, both tangible and tacit, in order to organize production abroad. Unlike portf

13、olio investments, such transfers did not involve ownership or control being relinquished. In a similar way, Vernon (1966) used the product life cycle concept to theorize that firms set up production facilities abroad for products that had already been standardized and matured in the home markets. Th

14、ese two seminal pieces spawned numerous contributions to explain FDI and MNE activities from different theoretical bases. While Caves (1971) and Dunning (1958) saw FDI as a way of exploiting ownership advantages, it was seen as risk diversification by Rugman (1979), and as organizational assets and

15、knowledge transfer by Kogut (1983). Further, while Buckley and Casson (1976) and Hennart (1982) explained the logic for internalizing transactions within the MNE, Knickerbocker (1973) posited that MNEs exhibit a bandwagon effect when they follow their rivals into new markets as a strategic response

16、to oligopolistic rivalry. The eclectic paradigm (Dunning, 1980, 1993) provides an ownership, location and internalization (OLI) advantages-based framework to analyze why, and where, MNEs would invest abroad. Such investments could be: (natural) resourceseeking, marketseeking, efficiency-seeking or s

17、trategic asset-seeking. The Upsaala model 3 (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977) posits that MNEs engage in FDI incrementally. Initially they make only small investments in geographically and culturally proximate countries, but later, as more experience accrues, larger investments are made into countries dis

18、tant on both counts. Subsequent theoretical developments explain the dynamic evolution of ownership advantages, and how MNEs transfer them through FDI. These include the resource-based approach (Conner, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984), the evolutionary perspective (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Teece et al., 199

19、7) and the organizational management approach of Prahalad and Doz (1987), Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989), and Sethi and Guisinger (2002). The main thrust of these theories is that a firms knowledge and skills constitute tacit ownership advantages that take time to evolve. MNEs, with their ability to de

20、vise and manage complex organizational structures, sustain these advantages by leveraging them through worldwide investments. Many of the empirical studies have focused upon the determinants of FDI, which are based in ownership advantages. Significant relationships have been found between FDI and te

21、chnological intensity (Lall, 1980), firm size (Li and Guisinger, 1992), capital intensity (Pugel, 1981) and product differentiation (Caves, 1971). These studies, however, provide only the rationale and a generalized modus operandi for FDI, without explaining regional variations. It is the latter asp

22、ect that this study explores further. Studies on the Location aspects of FDI Prominent empirical studies that investigated the location advantages-based variables of the OLI triad found that market size, market growth, barriers to trade, wages, production, transportation and other costs, political s

23、tability, psychic distance, and host governments trade and taxation regulations affected the location decisions (Dunning, 1993). None, however, identified and included all variables. The methodologies and foci of these studies also differed considerably. While Root and Ahmed (1978) investigated taxa

24、tion and government policies, using the statutory corporate tax rate as a proxy for the effects of fiscal policies on new investors, Nigh (1985) emphasized the positive effect of political stability, and Contractor (1991) investigated the consequences of government policies on the selection of FDI l

25、ocation. Using the 1977 and 1982 US Department of Commerce Benchmark Surveys, Loree and Guisinger (1995) examined the effects of policy and non-policy variables on location. They found significant positive effects for investment incentives, and 4 negative effects for performance requirements and hos

26、t country effective tax rates. The non-policy variables, namely political stability, cultural distance, GDP per capita and infrastructure, were also significant. Investigating US FDI in OPEC nations, Olibe and Crumbley (1997) found government capital expenditure highly significant and positive, but

27、population not significant. Using agency theory, Mudambi (1999) examined how principal-agent considerations affect the role of government investment agencies in attracting investment. A comprehensive analysis of FDI volume and pattern in various countries is also contained in the Reuber et al. (1973

28、) study. That study found that FDI flows into the developed countries were disproportionately high when compared to the developing countries. Most of these studies are more relevant to initial market entry, and do not analyze FDI trends dynamically. Research on the investment development path, howev

29、er, does have a longitudinal element (Dunning, 1981, 1986; Ozawa, 1992; Narula, 1996; Tolentino, 1992; Dunning and Narula, 1996). This perspective shows how the type of FDI changes with the stage of economic development of the host country. Accordingly, less developed countries attract mostly resour

30、ce-seeking and efficiency-seeking FDI in product markets or labor-intensive production tasks. As these countries develop and improve their economies, technological infrastructure and technical skills of their labor force, they attract FDI in greater value-added activities. However, even this researc

31、h stream does not address the regional changes in FDI trends in response to firm strategy and macro-economic factors. Factors causing changes in FDI trends Location as a region Dunnings (1980, 1998) eclectic paradigm posits generically that an MNE invests in the most advantageous location. This link

32、age is dyadic, between eachMNE and its unique location decision within a country. However, if we consider location decisions of various MNEs collectively, in the context of the bandwagon effect, then location can have a wider, regional connotation. MNEs often evaluate prospective FDI destinations on

33、 a regional, rather than single-country basis. Geographically contiguous countries are likely to have similar cultures, political and economic systems, and development levels. Such countries often constitute a regional economic grouping, with considerable uniformity in their trade and investment pol

34、icies. Numerous benefits accrue to MNEs from operating in such unified markets, with common communication infrastructure, intraregional trade without barriers, and networking opportunities. FDI into Western Europe (EU), East Asia (ASEAN), 5 South Asia (SAARC), Eastern Europe, Latin America (e.g., ME

35、RCOSUR) and Africa (PTA), etc. has followed the same regional pattern in exploiting the advantages of economic integration outlined above and capitalizing on an international division of labor (Dunning, 1993). Hence, the current dyadic interpretation of location in the eclectic paradigm needs to enc

36、ompass the broader regional context more explicitly. This study illustrates the conceptual model by analyzing US FDI into Western Europe and Asia. This choice is not arbitrary, as US MNEs have for several decades been the worlds largest FDI source ($116.5 bn, or 27%, in 1997), except during 19851990

37、, when they slipped behind Japan and UK. Western Europe and Asia, in that order, are the regions receiving the largest inward FDI (World Bank, 2001). Figure 1 provides some illustrative statistics for 1997. Proposition 1. Notwithstanding each MNEs unique FDI location decision, collectively such flow

38、s target economically and culturally integrated regions rather than specific countries. The traditional determinants of FDI The principal determinants of US FDI into Western Europe since the 1950s, as identified by the Reuberetal. (1973) study, were lucrative market, liberal host government policies

39、, technological infrastructure, skilled labor and cultural proximity. Although US MNEs might have had their idiosyncratic combinations of FDI determinants, collectively they considered some mix of traditional variables such as GNP, population, political and economic stability, infrastructure, low ba

40、rriers and cultural proximity. The Reuber study and the UN surveys (World Bank, 2001) identified Western Europe as the most popular destination, because as a region it offered an optimal combination of traditional FDI determinants. This region was attractive to US MNEs for their market-seeking FDI,

41、given its high GNPs and purchasing power, and hence the high wage level disadvantage stood discounted. US MNEs concurrently evaluated other potential destinations on same criteria, but other regions did not attract sizable investments until the late 1970s and 1980s. Political and economic instabilit

42、y, restrictive trade and investment policies, cultural distance and poor infrastructure were the causes of this differential, which negated the advantage of lower wages (UNCTAD, 1997). Proposition 2. MNE investments initially flow to the region that provides the best mix of the traditional FDI deter

43、minants. 6 译文 外国直接投资流向变动趋势：理论和实证分析 资料来源 : 国际商业研究杂志 作者： D Sethi 一 引言 外国直接投资 （ FDI） 已经在一些理论中被研究，对于此现象，研究人员持以不同的简短描述。虽然之前的研究已经发现了几个影响跨国公司 FDI的决策的因素，但这些决定因素通常只适用于特定的环境，要不然只是影响最 初的市场准入。用一个综合性的理论陈述来帮助分析 FDI在不同地域间投资的模式已难以理解。这样的外国直接投资方式还需要更多的检验，因为影响一个跨国公司的初期投资的因素可能会改变，从而促使它把新的投资投向别的地方。几个战略因素会促使这些发生变化，例如增加原始

44、位置的竞争力强度，削减成本的需求促使寻找新的低成本生产地点，或迫使在进入新的市场时对竞争者的类似行动作出反应。政府采取的各种措施使投资机制自由化，也深深地影响着外国直接投资的决策。因此外国直接投资的趋势是一个复杂的、多维的现象，同时外国直接投资还需要从宏观经济 以及公司发展战略方面进行检验，并进行一个更为实际的分析。 关于这个层次的分析，理想的外国直接投资在一定水平上应该被检验，每个外资企业的投资决策是受其独特的战略目标影响的。但是，正如任何对于外商直接投资趋势的分析表明，从整体上，跨国公司往往会投资在某一特定国家或地区。但尽管如此，个人投资决策上因人而异。在竞争者匆忙进入新兴市场往往引起这种

45、流行效果 （ Knickerbocker， 1973）。由于在调查中影响所有跨国公司的决定因素都是一致的，因此随着时间的变化，外国直接投资的目的地的改变就可以在一个国家水平中进行调 查分析 （ 凯西 弗里曼， 1978） 。许多的调查和出版物，例如那些来自联合国的，日常发表的关于国家 FDI的汇总数据，这些经常显示某个特定部位的外国直接投资会显著增加，同时在其他地方的投资会减速，而以前热门的投资会目的地暗示了 FDI决定因素的变化。然而，几乎没有尝试来区别模式，为了缩短因素变成一个一般的理论模型。本研究旨在提供一个研究 FDI流量的变化趋势的基本原理，提出一些外国直接投资的理论架构，整合公司战

46、略以及宏观经济因素。几个命题从模型发展而来，力图寻求解释这一现象的各个方面。通过分析 1981-2000年， 20多年美国向西欧和亚洲的外国直接投资，提出了初步的实证来支持那些命题主张。它还提供了一些证据表明美国的某些外商直接投资的决定因素已经改变了。 二 文献综述 关于重要资本流动的推测是外国直接投资最早的解释，这被视为组合投资7 的一部分 （ Iversen， 1971； Aliber， 1935） 。海默 （ 1960） 的贡献就是第一个解释外国直接投资，开创产业组织理论教派。海默认为，企业为了在海外组织生产，外国直接投资是知识和其他公司资产转移的一种方式，包括有形资产和无形资产。但不像

47、投资组合那样，这种转移未涉及所有权或控制权的放 弃。以类似方式，弗农 （ 1966） 使用该产品生命周期的概念来推断，公司在产品已经标准化和成熟的母国市场建立生产设备。这两种理论引出了许多贡献来解释外国直接投资和跨国企业活动，而这些解释是基于不同的理论依据。同时，凯夫斯（ 1971） 和邓宁 （ 1958） 认为 FDI是利用所有权优势的一种方式，它被看作是风险多样化，即分散投资 （ 鲁格曼， 1979） ，同样的，还有组织资产和知识转移 （ 科加， 1983） 。而且，巴克利和卡森 （ 1976） 以及 Hennart（ 1982） 解释跨国公司内部化汇报的逻辑， Knickerbocker

48、（ 1973） 假设跨国公司会有从众效应，即他们会跟随他们的竞争对手进入新的市场，并把此作为一项应对寡占竞争的战略。 折衷理论 （ 邓宁， 1980， 1993） 提供了一个所有权优势、区位优势和内部化优势 （ OLI） 的框架，来分析跨国公司为什么要进行海外投资以及投资投向哪里。这样的投资将会是：寻求 （自然） 资源；寻找市场；寻求规模效应或谋求资产的战略配置。这个 Upsaala模型 （ Johanson和 Vahlne， 1977） 认为，跨国公司会增加外国直接投资。起初，跨国公司只是很小地投资在那些地理和文化方面都与自己国家相似的国家或区域， 但后来，随着投资经验的累积，跨国公司会将更

49、大的投资投向那些地理和文化方面都与自己国家相差较远的国家或区域。 随后的理论发展解释了所有权优势的动态演化，而解释了跨国公司如何通过 FDI转移。这些理论包括资源主导型理论 （ 康纳， 1991； Wernerfelt， 1984） ，演化的观点 （ 尼尔森和 Winter， 1982； Teece等人， 1997） ，以及组织管理的方法， Prahalad和 Doz（ 1987） ，巴特利和 Ghoshal（ 1989） ， Sethi和 Guisinger （ 2002） 。这些理论的主攻方向是一家公司的知识和技能构成了隐性所有权优势，此优势是花时间来演变的。跨国公司用他们的能力去设计和管理复杂的组织结构，利用杠杆作用在全球范围内进行投资，来支持这些优势。 许多实证研究主要集中在 FDI的决定因素，且这些决定因素均是基于所有权优势的。 FDI和技术强度的重大联系已经被发现 （ Lall， 1980） ，还有 FDI和公司规模的联系 （ Li and Guisinger， 1992） ， FDI和资本密集度的联系 （ Pugel，1981） ，以及 FDI和产品差异的联系 （ 凯夫斯， 1971） 。然而，这些研究只 提供了 FDI的基本原理和通用的研究方法，没