商学院外文翻译模板.doc

文献一：（宋体五号）英文题目(居中，Times New Roman字体，三号加黑)正文（英文不少于10000印刷符号，Times New Roman字体，五号）翻译一：（宋体五号，另起一页）中文题目(居中，黑体，三号加黑)正文（中文不少于2000字，宋体，五号）文献二：（宋体五号，另起一页）英文题目(居中，Times New Roman字体，三号加黑)正文（英文不少于10000印刷符号，Times New Roman字体，五号）翻译二：（宋体五号，另起一页）中文题目(居中，黑体，三号加黑)正文（中文不少于2000字，宋体，五号）请参照下面模板文献一：Research on Spillover Effect of Foreign Direct Investment1. Introduction In recent decades, economists have begun to identify technical progress, or more generally, knowledge creation, as the major determinant of economic growth. Until the 1970s, the analysis of economic growth was typically based on neoclassical models that explain growth with the accumulation of labor, capital, and other production factors with diminishing returns to scale. In these models, the economy converges to steady state equilibrium where the level of per capita income is determined by savings and investment, depreciation, and population growth, but where there is no permanent income growth. Any observed income growth per capita occurs because the economy is still converging towards its steady state, or because it is in transition from one steady state to another. The policies needed to achieve growth and development in the framework of these models is therefore straightforward: increases in savings and investments and reductions in the population growth rate, shift the economy to a higher steady state income level. From the view of developing countries, however, these policies are difficult to implement. Low income and development levels are not only consequences, but also causes of low savings and high population growth rates. The importance of technical progress was also recognized in the neoclassical growth models, but the determinants of the level of technology were not discussed in detail; instead, technology was seen as an exogenous factor. Yet, it was clear that convergence in income percapita levels could not occur unless technologies converged as well. From the 1980s and onwards, growth research has therefore increasingly focused on understanding and ontogenetic technical progress. Modern growth theory is largely built on models with constant or increasing returns to reproducible factors as a result of the accumulation of knowledge. Knowledge is, to some extent, a public good, and R&D, education, training, and other investments in knowledge creation may generate externalities that prevent diminishing returns to scale for labor and physical capital. Taking this into account, the economy may experience positive long-run growth instead of the neoclassical steady state where per capita incomes remain unchanged. Depending on the economic starting point, technical progress and growth can be based on creation of entirely new knowledge, or adaptation and transfer of existing foreign technology. Along with international trade, the most important vehicle for international technology transfer is foreign direct investment (FDI). It is well known that multinational corporations (MNCs) undertake a major part of the worlds private R&D efforts and production, own and control most of the worlds advanced technology. When a MNC sets up a foreign affiliate, the affiliate receives some amount of the proprietary technology that constitutes the parents firm specific advantage and allows it to compete successfully with local firms that have superior knowledge of local markets, consumer preferences, and business practices. This leads to a geographical diffusion of technology, but not necessarily to any formal transfer of technology beyond the boundaries of the MNCs; the establishment of a foreign affiliate is, almost per definition, a decision to internalize the use of core technology. However, MNC technology may still leak to the surrounding economy through external effects or spillovers that raise the level of human capital in the host country and create productivity increases in local firms. In many cases, the effects operate through forward and backward linkages, as MNCs provide training and technical assistance to their local suppliers, subcontractors, and customers. The labor market is another important channel for spillovers, as almost all MNCs train operatives and managers who may subsequently take employment in local firms or establish entirely new companies. It is therefore not surprising that attitudes towards inward FDI have changed considerably over the last couple of decades, as most countries have liberalized their policies to attract all kinds of foreign investment. Numerous governments have even introduced various forms of investment incentives to encourage foreign MNCs to invest in their jurisdiction. However, productivity and technology spillovers are not automatic consequences of FDI. Instead, FDI and human capital interact in a complex manner, where FDI inflows create a potential for spillovers of knowledge to the local labor force, at the same time as the host countrys level of human capital determines how much FDI it can attract and whether local firms are able to absorb the potential spillover benefits. 2. Foreign Direct Investment and Spillovers The earliest discussions of spillovers in the literature on foreign direct investment date back to the 1960s. The first author who systematically introduced spillovers (or external effects) among the possible consequences of FDI was MacDougall (1960), who analyzed the general welfare effects of foreign investment. The common aim of the studies was to identify the various costs and benefits of FDI. Productivity externalities were discussed together with several other indirect effects that influence the welfare assessment, such as those arising from the impact of FDI on government revenue, tax policies, terms of trade, and the balance of payments. The fact that spillovers included in the discussion was generally motivated by empirical evidence from case studies rather than by comprehensive theoretical arguments. Yet, the early analyses made clear that multinationals may improve locatives efficiency by entering into industries with high entry barriers and reducing monopolistic distortions, and induce higher technical efficiency if the increased competitive pressure or some demonstration effect spurs local firms to more efficient use of existing resources. They also proposed that the presence may lead to increases in the rate of technology transfer and diffusion. More specifically, case studies showed that foreign MNCs may: (1) Contribute to efficiency by breaking supply bottlenecks (but that the effect may become less important as the technology of the host country advances); (2) Introduce new know-how by demonstrating new technologies and training workers who later take employment in local firms; (3) Either break down monopolies and stimulate competition and efficiency or create a more monopolistic industry structure, depending on the strength and responses of the local firms; (4) Transfer techniques for inventory and quality control and standardization to their local suppliers and distribution channels; Although this diverse list gives some clues about the broad range of various spillover effects, it says little about how common or how important they are in general. Similar complaints can be made about the evidence on spillovers gauged from the numerous case studies discussing various aspects of FDI in different countries and industries. These studies often contain valuable circumstantial evidence of spillovers, but often fail to show how significant the spillover effects are and whether the results can be generalized. For instance, many analyses of the linkages between MNCs and their local suppliers and subcontractors have documented learning and technology transfers that may make up a basis for productivity spillovers or market access spillovers. However, these studies seldom reveal whether the MNCs are able to extract all the benefits that the new technologies or information generate among their supplier firms. Hence, there is no clear proof of spillovers, but it is reasonable to assume that spillovers are positively related to the extent of linkages. Similarly, there are many works on the relation between MNCs entry and presence and market structure in host countries, and this is closely related to the possible effects of FDI on competition in the local markets. There are also case studies of demonstration effects, technology diffusion, and labor training in foreign MNCs. However, although these studies provide much detailed information about the various channels for spillovers, they say little about the overall significance of such spillovers. The statistical studies of spillovers, by contrast, may reveal the overall impact of foreign presence on the productivity of local firms, but they are generally not able to say much about how the effects come about. These studies typically estimate production functions for locally owned firms, and include the foreign share of the industry as one of the explanatory variables. They then test whether foreign presence has a significant positive impact on local productivity once other firm and industry characteristics have been accounted.Research conclude that domestic firms exhibited higher productivity in sectors with a larger foreign share, but argue that it may be wrong to conclude that spillovers have taken place if MNC affiliates systematically locate in the more productive sectors. In addition, they are also able to perform some more detailed tests of regional differences in spillovers. Examining the geographical dispersion of foreign investment, they suggest that the positive impact of FDI accrue mainly to the domestic firms located close to the MNC affiliates. However, effects seem to vary between industries. The results on the presence of spillovers seem to be mixed; recent studies suggest that there should be a systematic pattern where various host industry and host country characteristics influence the incidence of spillovers. For instance, the foreign affiliates levels of technology or technology imports seem to influence the amount of spillovers to local firms. The technology imports of MNC affiliates, in turn, have been shown to vary systematically with host country characteristics. These imports seem larger in countries and industries where the educational level of the local labor force is higher, where local competition is tougher, and where the host country imposes fewer formal requirements on the affiliates operations. Some recent studies have also addressed the apparent contradictions between the earlier statistical spillover studies, with the hypothesis that the host countrys level of technical development or human capital may matter as a starting point. In fact, in some cases, large foreign presence may even be a sign of a weak local industry, where local firms have not been able to absorb any productivity spillovers at all and have therefore been forced to yield market shares to the foreign MNCs. 3. FDI Spillover and Human Capital Development The transfer of technology from MNC parents to its affiliates and other host country firms is not only mbodied in machinery, equipment, patent rights, and expatriate managers and technicians, but is also realized rough the training of local employees. This training affects most levels of employees, from simple manufacturing operatives through supervisors to technically advanced professionals and top-level managers. While most recipients of training are employed in the MNCs own affiliates, the beneficiaries also include employees among the MNCs suppliers, subcontractors, and customers. Types of training ranged from on-the-job training to seminars and more formal schooling to overseas education, perhaps at the parent company, depending on the skills needed. The various skills gained through the elation with the foreign MNCs may spill over directly when the MNCs do not charge the full value of the training provided to local firms or over time, as the employees move to other firms or set up their own businesses. While the role of MNCs in primary and secondary education is marginal, there is increasingly clear evidence hat FDI may have a noticeable impact on tertiary education in their host countries. The most important effect is perhaps on the demand side. MNCs provide attractive employment opportunities to highly skilled graduates in natural sciences, engineering, and business sciences, which may be an incentive for gifted students to complete tertiary training, and MNCs demand skilled labor, which may encourage governments to invest in higher education. Many studies undertaken in developing countries have emphasized the spillovers of management skills. There is evidence of training and capacity development in technical areas, although the number of detailed studies appears smaller. While training activities in manufacturing often aim to facilitate the introduction of new technologies that are embodied in machinery and equipments, the training in service sectors is more directly focused on strengthening skills and know-how embodied in employees. This means that training and human capital development are often more important in service industries. Furthermore, many services are not tradable across international borders, which mean that service MNCs to a great extent are forced to reproduce home country technologies in their foreign affiliates. As a consequence, service companies are often forced to invest more in training, and the gap between affiliate and parent company wages tends, therefore, to be smaller than that in manufacturing. 4. Conclusion This paper has noted that the interaction of FDI and spillovers is complex and highly non-linear, and that several different outcomes are possible. FDI inflows create a potential for spillovers of knowledge to the local labor force, at the same time as the host countrys level of human capital determines how much FDI it can attract and whether local firms are able to absorb the potential spillover benefits. Hence, it is possible that host economies with relatively high levels of human capital may be able to attract large amounts of technology intensive foreign MNCs that contribute significantly to the further development of labor skills. At the same time, economies with weaker initial conditions are likely to experience smaller inflows of FDI, and those foreign firms that enter are likely to use simpler technologies that contribute only marginally to local learning and skill development.翻译一：外商直接投资溢出效应研究1.引言在最近几十年中，经济学家们已开始确定技术进步，或更普遍认为知识创造，作为经济增长原动力的一个重要决定因素，直到20世纪70年代，分析经济增长运用典型的新古典主义模型来解释经济增长的积累，劳动力、资本等生产要素与收益递减的规模。在这些模型中，经济收敛于稳态平衡，而人均收入水平取决于储蓄、投资、折旧以及人口的增长，但那里没有永久的收入增长。任何观察到的收入增长率，因为经济仍然汇流实现其稳定状态，或因为它是在转型，从一个稳定状态到另一个状态。在这个框架内，用以实现增长和发展所需的政策，直截了当认为是增加储蓄和投资，并降低人口增长率，使经济转向更高的稳态收入水平。但是，从发展中国家的角度来说，这些政策难以落实。因为低收入和发展水平，不仅严重后果，同时也造成的低储蓄和高人口增长率。重要的技术进步，也认识到在新古典增长模型，但决定因素，技术水平，并没有详细讨论，而是技术，被视为一个外在因素。然而，很明显的收敛，在人均收入水平是不可能发生的，除非技术的融合。从20世纪80年代起，生长发育研究，所以越来越多地注重了解和内生技术进步。现代增长理论主要是建立在模型不变或增加收益的基础上，最重现性的因素是知识的累积。知识的外部效应，在一定程度上是指，一个社会公益事业，研发，教育，培训，及其他投资在知识的创造，从而避免收益递减，以规模为劳动和有形资本。考虑到这一点，经济可能经历积极长期增长而不是新古典主义的稳定状态的人均收入保持不变。视经济为出发点，技术进步和增长的基础可以创造完全新的知识，或适应和转让现有的外国技术。国际贸易中，作为国际间的技术转移最重要的工具，是外国直接投资（FDI）。这是人所共知的跨国公司承担的一个主要部分，世界上的私人研发工作和生产，拥有和控制世界上大多数的先进技术。当一个跨国公司建立了一个外国子公司，分公司领取一定金额的专有技术构成母公司的坚定特定优势，并允许它的竞争中脱颖而出，与当地公司有优越的了解当地市场，消费者的喜好，以及经营手法。这就引出一个地域扩散技术，但不一定任何正式的技术转让超越国界的跨国公司;建立一个外国子公司的是决定在内部使用的核心技术。然而，跨国公司在技术，有可能仍在泄漏到周围经济的外部效应或外溢认为提高人力资本水平，在所在国和当地公司创造生产力得到了提高。在许多情况下影响经营，通过前向和后向联系，为跨国公司提供培训和技术援助，以自己的本地供应商、分包商、顾客等。劳动力市场是另一个重要渠道溢出，因为几乎所有跨国公司列车操作人员和管理人员，他们接下来可能会采取雇佣当地企业或建立完全的新公司。2.外商直接投资与技术外溢在过去数十年间，因为大多数国家都开放了它们的政策，以吸引各种外来投资。许多国家政府甚至推出了各种形式的投资奖励措施，鼓励外国跨国公司的投资在其管辖范围内。然而，劳动生产率和技术溢出的是不是自动后果的外国直接投资。相反，外国直接投资和人力资本的互动，在一个复杂的方式，而外国直接投资的流入创造潜力溢出的知识，以当地劳动力，在同一时间，身为主办国的人力资本水平决定了多少外国直接投资，可以吸引和无论是本地企业能够吸收潜在的溢出效益。最早讨论的外溢效应，在文献上对外国直接投资的日期可以追溯到1960年。第一作者，他们系统地介绍了溢出（或外部效应） ，其中可能产生的后果，外国直接投资是高（1960） ，他分析了一般福利的影响外国投资。共同的目标是研究，是确定的各项成本和效益的外国直接投资。 生产力的外部因素进行了讨论连同其他几个间接的影响，影响到社会福利的评估，例如那些来自外国直接投资的影响对政府的财政收入，税收政策，贸易条件恶化，以及国际收支平衡。事实外溢列入讨论的是一般的动机实证研究案例研究，而不是通过全面的理论论据。然而，早期的分析表明，跨国公司可以提高资源配置效益，进入壁垒，减少垄断性扭曲，并引发更高的技术效率，如果是增加了竞争压力，或一些示范效应马刺本地公司，以更有效地利用现有的资源。他们还建议在场，可能导致增加的速度，技术转移和扩散。更具体地说，案例研究表明，有几种可能：（1）有助于提高效率，突破供给瓶颈（但效果可能变得不那么重要了，随着技术的东道国预付款）; （2）引进新的技术诀窍所展示的新技术和培训工人，后来采取雇佣当地公司; （3）无论是打破垄断，促进竞争和效率，或者创造一个更加垄断的行业结构，这取决于实力和反应当地公司; （4）转让技术的存货和质量控制和标准化，以自己的本地供应商及分销渠道。例如，许多分析之间的联系，跨国公司及本地供应商和分包商有记载学习和技术转移可能弥补基础生产力外溢或市场准入的外溢效应。然而，这些研究很少透露是否跨国企业能够提取的各种好处，新技术或信息产生，他们之间的供货企业。因此，没有明确的证据证明溢出，但它是合理的假设溢出的正相关联系的程度。 同样，也有许多工程上的关系，跨国公司的进入和存在和市场结构的东道国，这是密切相关的可能影响外国直接投资的竞争，在当地市场销售。也有一些个案研究的示范效应，技术扩散，以及劳动培训，在国外跨国公司。然而，尽管这些研究提供了更详细的资料，对不同渠道向外溢，他们都很少提到全局性的重大意义等外溢效应。统计研究的外溢效应，与之相反，可以揭示整体的影响，外国存在对生产力的本地公司，但他们一般都不能说太多的效应如何出笼的。这些研究通常估计生产函数，为当地的国有企业，包括外资份额的行业之一，说明变量。然后，他们测试是否有外国存在有一个显着的积极影响本地生产力一旦其他公司和行业特点，已计入。研究的结论是，国内厂商表现出较高的生产力，在行业具有较大的外资份额，但认为它可能是错误的结论，认为溢出已经发生了，如果跨国公司子公司定位系统，在更多的生产部门。此外，他们也可以执行一些更详细的测试，不同地区的外溢效应。研究地域分散的外国投资，他们认为积极的影响，外国直接投资累积到主要向国内公司位于接近跨国公司的附属公司。不过，效果似乎在各个产业之间。结果是对存在的外溢效应似乎被混淆;最近的研究表明，应该有一个系统的模式不同的地方所在行业和所在国特色的影响，发病的外溢效应。举例来说，外国子公司的技术水平或技术引进，似乎影响金额溢出给本地公司。该技术引进跨国公司的子公司，反过来，已显示出不同的系统，与所在国的特色。这些进口的，似乎较大，在各国和各行业如教育水平，当地劳动力较高，地方竞争是强硬，并在所在国施加较少的正式要求，对联营公司业务。事实上，在某些情况下，外国大型的存在，甚至可能是一个迹象微弱地方工业，如果当地公司尚未能吸收任何生产率外溢所有，并已因此被迫屈服的市场份额给外国跨国公司。3.外商直接投资技术外溢与人力资本增长 技术转让由跨国公司家长及其分支机构和其他东道国公司不仅是在机械，设备，专利权益，及外籍管理人员和技术人员，但同时也意识到培训当地员工。这次培训的影响最各级员工，从简单的生产操作工通过监督员，以技术先进的专业人士和高层管理人员。虽然大多数的人的训练都是受聘于跨国企业自己的子公司，受惠者还包括间跨国企业的供应商、分包商、顾客等。介于对在职培训，以讲座和更正规的学校教育，海外教育中，也许在该公司的母公司，这取决于所需要的技能。各种技能，通过喜悦与外国跨国公司有可能超出直接当跨国企业并没有收取的全部价值培训给本地公司或随着时间的推移，作为雇员转往其他机构，或成立自己的企业。而角色的跨国公司中，小学教育和中学教育是边缘性，有越来越明显的证据帽子的外国直接投资可能有显着影响的高等教育在他们所在的国家。最重要的作用是在需求方面。跨国企业提供具吸引力的就业机会，高技能的毕业生，在天然科学，工程科学，商业和科学的，这可能是一个诱因，为资优学生完成培训，以及跨国企业的需求，熟练的劳动力，这可能会鼓励各国政府投资在较高的教育中。也有更直接的联系，外国直接投资和高等教育。除了提供