1、 外文翻译 原文 Historic and Emergent Trends in Chinese Outward Direct Investment Material Source: Management International Review Author: Peter J. Buckley1, Adam R. Cross2, Hui Tan3, Liu Xin4, Hinrich Voss5 Introduction A substantial body of literature has grown on the prominence of China as a recipient o
2、f foreign direct investment (FDI) and its consequences for national economic development and management practice (Branstetter/Lardy 2006). By contrast, much less attention has been paid to Chinas position as an FDI source. Given that China attracted an annual average FDI inflow of around US$29bn (or
3、 more than 7 percent of the worlds total) in the 1990s, but contributed less than US$2.5bn (around 0.6 percent) to global outflows, this is perhaps not surprising (UNCTAD 2006). However, the sharp growth in Chinese outward direct investment (ODI) evident since 2002 (illustrated in Figure 1), combine
4、d with a number of recent high profile attempts by Chinese enterprises to acquire North American and European firms, have brought into relief Chinas rising status and potential as an investor nation. This potential is recognized in a recent UNCTAD survey of investment promotion agencies which predic
5、ts that China will become a top three source country for FDI before the end of 2008 (UNCTAD 2005). It is also highlighted by the Director-General of UNIDO, Kandeh Yumkella, who suggests that annual flows of Chinese outbound investment are likely to reach US$60bn by 2010 (MOFCOM 2006). If growth rate
6、s in Chinese ODI continue and these predictions are realized, Chinas contribution to global FDI flows is likely to approximate current outflows of the leading industrialized countries. In this exploratory study, we identify historic and emergent trends detectable in official aggregate data and indiv
7、idual FDI project level data on Chinese ODI for the period 1991 to 2005 with regard to investment destination, activity type, entry mode choice and investment motivation. Our aim is to assess whether or not Chinese ODI conforms to the general model of ODI and to the special case of emerging country
8、ODI in general, and Asian countries in particular, with respect to the character and evolution of its recent ODI. To do this, we review in the next section some selected contributions to the literature on developing country ODI in order to establish a received wisdom or base model against which we c
9、an contrast our empirical data from China. We also include some evidence from other Asian countries to control for cultural and regional interactions. (1) We go on to consider how the evolving institutional framework within which Chinese ODI is conducted and, especially, how adjustments to the admin
10、istrative system and the engagement and disengagement of government at various times, notably following the launch of Chinas zou chu qu or go global policy in 1999, have influenced the internationalization decisions and motivations of Chinese firms. After providing further evidence for the rise of C
11、hina as an FDI source country, we examine trends in respect of (i) aggregate Chinese ODI stocks and flows; (ii) the spatial distribution of Chinese ODI; (iii) the sectoral distribution, and (iv) the dominant entry mode employed. This is done by reviewing data on accumulated Chinese ODI by host econo
12、my as published by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) and by analyzing previously unpublished data from Chinas State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE), a government agency that administers, via the banking system, foreign exchange-related matters. (2) In the second part of the paper,
13、we relate detected trends to emergent motivations advanced in the literature as driving the outward FDI activities of Chinese firms. We propose that Chinese ODI is indeed distinctive with respect to a standard model of developing country ODI, which itself is distinctive with respect to industrialize
14、d country ODI. Statistics on Chinese ODI are compiled by MOFCOM based on a summation of individual firms direct investment amounts. (3) This aggregation masks the motives of the firms and reflects their choices of entry mode to foreign countries-direct investment is included, while licensing, techno
15、logy transfer deals and other non-equity modes are excluded by definition. In this paper, we supplement these statistics with unique project level data from SAFE. Official statistics usually disaggregate the total by industry/sector and by destination country, but disaggregation by type of motive us
16、ually has to be conducted by analytical techniques such as regression analysis, which is an imperfect method working by inference. In addition, the time factor complicates the analysis (Buck et al. 2007). Firms often proceed by gradualism in foreign market entry, following a sequence of exporting, t
17、hen non-equity modes such as licensing, then direct investment. A second type of sequential entry is from culturally and physically closes countries to progressively more remote ones. These time series effects are only partially visible in cross section data. These limitations need to be borne in mi
18、nd in our analysis. Theoretical Explanations of Developing Country FDI Firm and Industry Level Theory Mainstream international business literature generally explains the strategy of the multinational enterprise (MNE) using the concepts of internalisation (Buckley/Casson 1976), transaction costs (Hen
19、nart 1988) and monopoly advantage (Hymer 1960). Together with location advantages, these concepts are synthesised by Dunning (2001) in his eclectic or OLI paradigm. This posits that the decision to internationalise production is predicated upon the interaction of ownership (O) advantages, location (
20、L) advantages and the gains associated with hierarchical (I) over arms length transacting. Since this theory was developed to explain MNEs from the industrialised countries, its ability to account for developing country FDI has been debated. One view is that an alternative framework to explain late-
21、comer MNEs is needed (e.g., Mathews 2002, Moon/Roehl 2001). However, the majority view is that mainstream theory does work, but that special theories nested within the general theory are needed as well (Buckley et al. 2007, Lall 1983, Wells 1983, Khan 1986, Lecraw 1993, Zin 1999, UNCTAD 2006). Aggre
22、gation and Explanation This review enables us to establish a standard theoretical explanation of ODI from developing countries, in particular that from Asian economies, against which we can compare trends observed in Chinese ODI (see Table 1). This theoretical characterisation suggests six main dime
23、nsions. First, developing country firms have special ownership advantages that derive from their home country-embeddedness; second, developing country ODI is generally directed towards other developing countries; third, developing country firms invest preferentially in psychically and geographically
24、 close locations where relational assets can be exploited most effectively; fourth, developing country firms over time increasingly target investment opportunities in more advanced economies; fifth, international joint ventures are the preferred entry mode, especially early in the internationalisati
25、on process; and sixth, home country government has a strong influence on the level and direction of ODI. The Institutional Setting for Chinese ODI Institutional factors are likely to be an important influence on any countrys aggregate ODI flow as at least part of the direction and nature of that ODI
26、 will be determined by source nation factors (Buckley/Casson 1976). However, institutional factors are dynamic and government policy changes over time. This section shows the influence of the Chinese institutional framework on Chinese ODI. 译文 中国对外投资的历史和当前趋势 资料来源 : 国际管理周刊 作者： 彼得， 巴克利 ， 拉尔 ， 威尔斯 ， 卡恩
27、，谈辉 ,刘星 , 辛里奇 引言： 大量的文献突出的显示了中国是一个对外直接投资的接受国，它是国家经济发展和管理实践的结果。相比之下，很少有人会注意到中国作为对外直接投资国的位置。 鉴于中国吸引了上世纪 90 年代平均每年约为 290 亿美元外国直接投资的流入（或超世界总量的百分 之 7），但 对 全球流出 的 贡献 却 少 于美国的25 亿美元（约 0.6 个百分点），这也许并不奇怪。然而， 自 2002 年以来， 中国对外直接投资大幅增长 ，与大量的中国公司收购北美和欧洲的企业相结合，都显示了中国作为投资国的潜力和崛起地位。 这种潜力在最近 的 贸发会议投资促进机构的调查 中被发现 ， 并
28、 预测 2008 年底之前， 中国将成为外国直接投资的“ 三大 ”投资来源国之一。它也被工法组织的总干事尤姆凯拉强调，他表明，中国对外投资的年流量有可能达到美国 2010 年的 600 亿美元。 如果中国向外直接投资的速度继续增长下去，这些预测 将 得以实现，中国对全球 对 外 直接投资流量 的贡献 很可能接近主要工业化国家 当前的资金流量。 在这探索性的研究中，有关投资目的地，活动类型，进入模式的选择和投资动机的数据检测的官方汇总数据和 1991 年到 2005 年海外直接投资的个人对外直接 项目级数据，使我们认识到历史和现实的趋势。我们的目的是评估中国的海外直接投资是否符合一般的海外直接投
29、资模式以及一般新兴国家对外直接投资的特殊情况，尤其是亚洲国家与最近的海外直接投资特征和发展相联系的。要做到这一点，我们在下一部分选定了一些对发展中国家向外直接投资有贡献的文献来进行审查，以便建立一个我们可以从 中国的经验数据对比的基本模型。其中，还包括了一些来自亚洲其他国家的信息，从而能够控制文化和区域的互动。 1我们要考虑中国海外投资进行的秩序发展提着框架，尤其是如何调整行政系统和管理不同时期政府的参与与退出制度，特别是随着 1999 年中国的“走出去”（全球化）政策，已经影响了国际化的决定和中国企业的动机。中国被进一步证明，它作为对外直接投资来源国已经开始崛起，因此，我们要严格审查（一）中
30、国对外直接投资总存量和流量 ； （二）在中国向外直接投资空间分布 ； （三）部门分配 ； （四）就业的主导进入模式。这是中国外交部通过来 自中国的国家外汇管理局， 政府机构，银行系统，来分析管理与外汇有关的以前未公布的数据，并由商务部向外 公布。 2在本文的第二部分，我们检测到的趋势是在优秀的文献里作为推动中国企业对外直接投资活动的现实激励。我们知道，中国的对外直接投资确实是以一个发展中国家的独特的对外直接投资标准模型而存在，这相对于工业化国家对外直接投资有着显著的特色。中国对外直接投资统计数字是由商务部根据单个企业的直接投资额的累加总和而成的。 3这种聚集隐藏了该公司的动机并反映他们进入外国
31、市场模式的选择 包括直接投资，而许可，技术转让交易和其他非股权方式被排除在外。在本论文中，我们补充来自国家外汇管理局的具有独特项目水平的数据。官方统计通常按目的地国的行业 /部门分解，而动机分类通常要采用诸如回归分析来进行，但这种分类分析技术工作是一个不完美的推理方法。此外，时间因素复杂化分析（巴克 利 等人 ， 2007）。在海外市场进入上，企业往往采取渐进式承接出口的非股权模式（如许可证），然后直接投资序列。数需进入的第二类是从文化和物理上接近的国家逐步到偏远的国家。这些时间序列的影响，仅仅部分横截面数据可见。这些限制必须被记 录在我们的分析里。 发展中国家的对外直接投资理论解释 企业和行
32、业层次理论 主流国际商务文献一般说明了跨国企业战略（跨国公司）利用内部化的概念（巴克利 、 卡森 ， 1976），交易成本（ Hennart， 1988）和垄断优势（海默 ，1960）。再加上区位优势，这些概念合成了邓宁的折衷理论（ 2001）。这表明，国际化生产的决定是基于所有权（ O）优势，区位（ L）优势以及内部化（ I）优势的交易层次互动为前提的。由于这一理论的发展是用来解释来自工业化国家的跨国公司，它能够交待发展中国家对外直接投资引发的争论。一种观点是，一个 替代的框架来解释后发跨国公司需要（例如，马修斯 ， 2002； 罗尔 ， 2001）。然而，大多数人的意见是，主流理论确实可行
33、，但嵌套特殊理论的一般理论也需要（巴克利等人 ， 2007； 拉尔 ， 1983； 威尔斯 ， 1983； 卡恩 ， 1986； Lecraw，1993； 泽恩 ， 1999； 贸发会议 ， 2006）。 聚合和解释 这次审查能够使我们建立一个标准，一个有关发展中国家对外直接投资理论的标准，特别是那些与中国对外直接投资的趋势比较相近的亚洲经济体。这一理论提出六个主要特征 。首先，发展中国家的公司有独特的来自他们母国的所有权优势；第 二，发展中国家的对外直接投资一般是朝向其他发展中国家的；第三，发展中国家的企业会选择那些在思想上和地理位置上都与本国接近的国家或地区进行投资，而这些投资的资产则可以被利用的更为有效 ； 第四，发展中国家企业随着时间的推移越来越多的把投资机会放在先进的经济体上 ； 第五，国际合资企业是首选的输入模式，尤其是在国际化过程的早期；六，母国政府对对外直接投资的方向和水平有很强的影响力。 对中国海外投资机构的设置 制度因素会形象一个国家的对外直接投资流量，至少在资本来源国的投资方向和性质上（巴克利 /卡森 ， 1976）。 然而，体 制因素是动态的，随着时间的推移，政府的政策也在变化。本节显示了中国对外直接投资体制框架对中国海外直接投资的影响。
