外商直接投资技术寻求和逆向技术溢出效应外文翻译.doc

外商直接投资，技术寻求和逆向技术溢出效应外文翻译 外文翻译原文FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT, TECHNOLOGY SOURCING AND REVERSE SPILLOVERS Material Source: The Manchester School Vol 71 No. 6 December 2003Author: NIGEL DRIFFIELD Business School, University of Birmingham And JAMES H. LOVE? Aston Business School, Aston University Recent theoretical work points to the possibility of foreign direct investment motivated not by ownership advantages which may be exploited by a multinational enterprise but by the desire to access the superior technology of a host nation through direct investment. To be successful, technology sourcing foreign direct investment hinges crucially on the existence of domestic-to-foreign technological externalities within the host country. We test empirically for the existence of such reverse spillover effects for a panel of UK manufacturing industries. The results demonstrate that technology generated by the domestic sector spills over to foreign multinational enterprises, but that this effect is restricted to relatively research and development intensive sectors. There is also evidence that these spillover effects are affected by the spatial concentration of industry, and that learning-by-doing effects are restricted to sectors in which technology sourcing is unlikely to be a motivating influence. 1 Introduction Traditional models of foreign direct investment FDI have been heavily influenced by a framework which suggests that where a company has some ownershipi.e. competitive advantage over its rivals and where, for reasons of property rights protection, licensing is unsafe, a company will set up production facilities in a foreign country through FDI Dunning, 1988. Since much of the discussion of ownership advantages is couched in terms of technology and/or management expertise, there is a strong a priori assumption that this technology exploiting FDI will be an important method by which technology is transferred internationally. Indeed, there is a growing literature concerned with the extent to which FDI contributes to technological advance in host countries. Much of this analysis is based on estimations of externalities from inward FDI, with the evidence generally pointing towards positive effects of FDI on domestic productivity Blomstr?m and Kokko, 1998. However, the literature is increasingly turning to the possibility that FDI may be influenced by multinational firms desire not to exploit an existing ownership advantage abroad but to acquire technology from the host country, i.e. that technology sourcing may be the motive for FDI. Kogut and Chang 1991 and Neven and Siotis 1996 point out that this possibility has exercised the minds of policy-makers in the USA and the EU, with concerns that host economies technological base may be undermined by technology sourcing by Japanese and US corporations respectively. These studies examine the effects of host versus home country research and development R&D expenditure differentials on FDI flows between Japan and the USA and the USA and the EU respectively. Both studies find a positive relationship between these measures, and interpret this as evidence of technology sourcing. The literature on the internationalization of R&D also contains an increasing amount of evidence that technology sourcing may be a motive for FDI Cantwell, 1995; Cantwell and Janne, 1999; Pearce, 1999.This literature stresses a range of reasons for FDI in R&D, much of which is concerned with the relative technological strengths of the capital exporting i.e. home firm or country versus that of the host. For example, Kuemmerle 1999 distinguishes between home-base exploiting FDI andhome-base augmenting FDI. The former is undertaken in order to exploit firm-specific advantages abroad, while the latter is FDI undertaken to access unique resources and capture externalities created locally. And in an analysis of inward and outward FDI in 13 industrialized countries, van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie and Lichtenberg 2001 find positive spillover effects from outward FDI arising from accessing the R&D capital stock of host countries, leading them to conclude that FDI flows are predominantly technology sourcing in nature Recent theoretical work represents an important step forward in this area, with Fosfuri and Motta 1999 and Siotis 1999 both presenting formal models of the FDI decision which embody the possibility of technology sourcing. They show that a firm may choose to enter a market by FDI in order to access positive spillover effects arising from close locational proximity to a technological leader in the host country. Because of the externalities associated with technology, these spillovers decrease the production costs of the investing firm both in its subsidiary operations and in its home production base. Siotis 1999 also shows that the presence of spillovers may induce firms to invest abroad even where exporting costs are zero. The theoretical and empirical work reviewed above hinges crucially on the assumption that foreign firms investing in a host economy are able to capture spillover effects from the domestic host industry. The purpose of this paper is to test for the existence of this reverse spillover effect for a panel of UK industries. If there is some evidence of productivity spillovers running from the domestic to the foreign sector of UK industry, this would suggest that the necessary condition for technology sourcing FDI does exist in practice. In addition to testing empirically for reverse spillover effects we also test for two elements which are implicit in the theoretical analysis: first, that the spatial concentration of production has an effect on productivity spillovers; and second, that learning-by-doing effects are linked to the investing motivations of foreign firms. 2 THE MOTIVATION FOR FDI, SPILLOVERS AND FIRM GROWTH Fosfuri and Motta 1999 present a simple model in which two local i.e. single country firms are endowed with different technologies and are given the option of exporting to the other country, engaging in FDI or not entering. They show formally that an investing firm which is a technological laggard i.e. has unit costs of production above those of its competitor will find it profitable to invest abroad despite having an efficiency disadvantage, as long as the probability of acquiring the leaders technology through productivity spillovers is sufficiently high. In other words, technology sourcing rather than technology exploiting FDI may occur. Siotis 1999 develops a similar model, but allows for the possibility of two-way spillovers between foreign and domestic firms. He too finds theoretical support for technology sourcing as a motivation for FDI. It seems plausible that the probability of benefiting from productivity spillovers will at least in part be dependent on the actions of the firms concerned, and that the scope for spillovers, particularly in the context of technology sourcing investment, will vary with the research efforts of domestic firms. Thus technology sourcing is most likely to occur where the scope for productivity externalities to be assimilated by foreign firms is greatest; this in turn is a positive function of the R&D intensity of domestic industry. We therefore anticipate reverse spillover effects being most apparent in those sectors in which domestic industry has invested heavily in R&D; these are the sectors in which the probability of acquiring technology through spillovers is greatest and in which technology sourcing FDI is most likely to occur. However, traditional explanations for FDI based on the exploitation of firm-specificownership advantages should not be ignored. Siotis 1999shows that where a foreign firm has an ownership i.e. efficiency advantage relative to domestic firms, FDI will only occur if spillovers are likely to be small the dissipation effect. We therefore anticipate technology exploiting FDI to be most likely where there is little scope for reverse spillovers, i.e. where domestic industry does not invest heavily in R&D. Reverse spillover effects should therefore be most evident in relatively research intensive sectors, but absent or less evident in sectors which are relatively non-research intensive. Two further and related hypotheses can also be tested. The first relates to the growth paths exhibited by firms that have different motivations for FDI. To the extent that it is possible to make the distinction between technology sourcing and technology exploiting FDI, then it is also likely that the patterns of development arising from these forms of investment will be different. This is likely to be important in the study of the development of total factor productivity in the foreign owned sector, following the theory of the multinational enterprise dating back to Dunning 1958 and more explicitly outlined in the seminal papers by Vernon 1966, Buckley and Casson 1976 or Dunning 1979. The traditional explanation of the existence of multinational enterprises is that firms transfer firm-specific assets across national boundaries but internalized within the firm technology exploiting FDI. Firms operating in the foreign country then have to undertake the process of adapting this technology to a new environment, to take account of local working practices, available human capital and customers tastes for example. This is neither costless nor instantaneous, and so total factor productivity of foreign investment motivated in this traditional manner is likely to demonstrate experience effects and significant learning-by-doing effects. By contrast, firms motivated by technology sourcing are less likely to undergo this adaptation of internal technology: their concern is not with adapting existing technology but in assimilating knowledge generated externally, in this case by local firms. Of course, in some cases the extent of adaptation by technology exploiting firms may be minimal in certain markets, while technology sourcing subsidiaries may undergo some degree of adaptation, so that the relative extent of learning by doing is ultimately an empirical issue. On balance, however, we expect significant learning by-doing effects among technology exploiting foreign firms, but perhaps not in the technology sourcing firms, where spillovers from domestic investments are likely to contribute more to total factor productivity in the foreign sector. The second subsidiary hypothesis relates to the extent to which technological externalities are constrained spatially. The theoretical analysis of Siotis 1999 depends on the existence of geographically localized spillovers to provide an incentive for technology sourcing FDI; Fosfuri and Motta 1999 also acknowledge this geographical dimension to spillovers. Empirically, there is significant evidence that technology spillovers are indeed limited geographically within countries, as well as between them Head et al., 1995; Driffield, 1999. This suggests that reverse spillovers may be linked to the spatial distribution of industry; we therefore test whether the spatial concentration of production has an effect on the scale of productivity spillovers running from domestic to foreign industry.译文外商直接投资,技术寻求和逆向技术溢出效应资料来源:曼彻斯特大学学报71卷第6期作者:奈杰尔?德里菲尔德英国伯明翰大学 商学院 ;詹姆斯H.爱 阿斯顿商学院,阿斯顿大学 近期的理论研究表明,外商直接投资的动机可能不是“所有权”优势,而是跨国公司希望通过直接投资积极利用东道国的先进技术。为了获得成功,技术获取型外商直接投资的关键取决于东道国的技术外部性的存在。我们对英国制造业的面板这种反向外溢效应的存在进行了检验测试。结果表明该技术所产生的溢出效应由国内部门溢出到国外跨国企业,但这种影响仅限于研究和开发相对密集型行业。还有证据表明,这些溢出效应影响产业空间集聚,而实践中学习的效果受限于技术寻求是不太可能成为动因的行业。 1.绪论 传统模型的外商直接投资FDI已经很大程度受到一个框架的影响,即发现由于产权保护、许可不安全,企业将通过对外直接投资在外国建立生产设施,一些企业会拥有“所有权”即竞争优势超过它的竞争对手邓宁,1988。由于大部分所有权优势的讨论都在于从技术和(或)管理经验的专业知识,有较强的先验假设认为技术获取型对外直接投资将是将是国际技术转移的一个重要方法。的确,有越来越多的相关文献认为对外国直接投资对东道国的技术进步作出了贡献。大部分的分析是基于FDI的外部性估计,一般证据指向对外直接投资对国内生产力的积极影响(Blomstr?m;Kokko,1998)。 然而,理论研究逐渐转向另一种可能性,外商直接投资可能受跨国公司希望不要利用在国外现有的所有权优势而要从东道国获得技术优势的影响,即“技术获取”成为对外直接投资的动机。Kogut、Chang1991和Neven、Siotis1996指出,这种可能在美国和欧盟被有思想的决策者证实过,他们认为本国经济的技术基础可能由于日本和美国企业的技术获取而遭到隐性破坏。这些研究证实东道国与母国的研究与开发R&D支出不同在对外直接投资流动日本和美国之间,美国和欧盟之间具有差异性。这两项研究表明这些组织之间的积极关联,并此解释为技术获取的证据。国际研发的相关研究也表示越来越多的证据显示技术获取成为了对外直接投资的动机Cantwell,1995;Cantwell;Janne,1999; Pearce,1999,研究强调研究与开发对外直接投资的一系列原因中,其中大部分是希望母公司或母国通过资本输出而从东道国获得相应的技术优势。例如Kuemmerle1999区分的本国利用的对外直接投资(FDI)的和本国扩展的外国直接投资。前者是为了进一步利用公司特有的国外优势,而后者是对外直接投资行为为了进行接近其独特的资源和获取外部效应地方化。Lichtenberg和Pottelsberghe 2001分析13个工业化国家流入、流出的FDI数据,所导致的外国研发投入对本国技术进步的影响,结果表明外向直接投资显著促进了本国技术进步。 最近的理论研究在该领域迈出了重要一步,Fosfuri、Motta 1999 和 Siotis 1999提出的正规模型都具体呈现了FDI决定的技术获取动机。他们表明一个公司会通过对外直接投资进入一个市场,从而靠近技术领先的东道国,以市场准入获取积极的技术溢出效应。由于技术有关的外部性影响这些外部效应,降低投资公司和子公司两方面在其国内生产基地的生产成本。由于技术有关的外部性影响这些外部效应降低生产成本在两方面投资公司操作和子公司在其国内生产基地。Siotis1999还表明,溢出效应的存在可能引发公司境外投资即使出口费用为零。 以上理论和实证研究取决于一个至关重要假设是在一个东道国经济投资的外国公司能够捕获来自国内(东道国)产业溢出效应。本文的目的是通过一组英国行业面板数据检验这种“逆向溢出”效应是否存在。如果有从国内的到外国的英国产业生产力外溢效应的证据,这表明,外国直接投资的技术获取的必要条件是存在的。除了测验逆向溢出效应,我们还测试了在理论分析所隐含的两个元素:第一,生产的空间集聚对生产力具有外溢效应;第二,干中学与外国企业的投资动机有关联性。 2.对外直接投资的