FDI的决定因素—实证分析外文翻译.doc

FDI的决定因素实证分析外文翻译 毕业论文外文翻译外文题目:Determinant factors of foreign direct investment: some empirical evidenc出 处: European Business Review.20015:269-278 作 者: Jos I. Galn原文: Determinant factors of foreign direct investment: some empirical evidenceThe Authors:Jos I. GalnABSTRACT The globalization of markets and internationalization of companies is a phenomenon of growing interest in current research. Given the increasing permissiveness of regulations, more and more companies are going beyond national borders and making foreign direct investments FDI. The purpose of this paper is to study the determinant factors in Spanish FDI. Although traditionally isolated from international markets, Spain has undergone a remarkable international development over the last few years. Its integration in the European Community, the privatization of great public monopolies, government efforts and insistence and its cultural and linguistic affinity with Latin America constitute some of the contingencies that seem to have favored the international development of many Spanish firms. Studying the internationalization process involves answering three basic questions: Why does a firm decide to initiate this process? How through which form are the international activities realized? Where does the firm locate its foreign activities? Rooted in the eclectic paradigm of Dunning 1979, 1980, this work tries to identify the determinant factors of each one of these three basic decisions.Thus, three questions are to be answered: why undertake FDI?, why internationalize through FDI instead of other forms?, and where to undertake FDI? This paper contributes to current research in two ways. It provides a snapshot of the Spanish situation in international markets and it constitutes a practical application of Dunnings eclectic paradigm. The paper consists of four sections. After reviewing the literature in the first section, the research model and empirical methodology is commented upon in section two. Subsequently, the main results are presented and discussed and the paper ends with a summary of the main conclusions.1.Theoretical framework and literature review The literature on FDI is very extensive and is originally rooted in economics. International trade theory and classical location theory are frequently referred to in early contributions Ohlin, 1933. Nonetheless, the work of Hymer 1976 was to be a landmark in the study of FDI. The reasons given by this author for the internationalization of companies are of two kinds: variables related to the companys dimension and ownership of specific assets scale economies, diversification and knowledge accumulation and variables derived from the existence of market failures. From this classification of variables, two groups of theories and works can be distinguished in the literature: those framed within industrial organization Caves, 1971; Kindleberger, 1969; Hirsch, 1980 and those focussing on the internalization process Buckley and Casson, 1976; Hennart, 1982, 1989; Teece, 1986; Rugman, 1981, 1986. In spite of analyzing FDI from different perspectives, both approaches are complementary Chang, 1995; Madhok, 1997. The authors within the industrial organization school set out from the hypothesis that multinational companies undertake FDI to benefit from the specific capabilities that they own, which give them certain monopolistic power Kindleberger, 1969. Such power can become apparent in the form of innovative technological processes, patents, trademarks, financial resources, management abilities or exclusive distribution channels. Caves 1971 considers the diversification of products as the main influencing factor and Hirsch 1980 emphasizes the importance of knowledge and capabilities generated from R&D activities. On the other hand, the internalization theory is founded on transaction cost economics Williamson, 1975, 1985 and considers that the greater the presence of factors facilitating opportunistic behavior on the part of trade partners, the higher transaction costs incurred to protect against such opportunism. Thus, the company would incline towards internationalization forms which involve a high degree of control, that is, it would prefer internalizing international activities through FDI rather than exporting or licensing, for example. Apart from these classical theories, many other works focussing on the study of particular variables and factors influencing FDI can be found in the literature. They adopt different conceptual frameworks to study the determinant factors of FDI. It is worth mentioning the developments about competitive reaction Knickerbocker, 1973; Graham, 1978, 1989; the study of networks and supplier-buyer relationships Mattson, 1985; the analysis of government rules, political stability and other variables related to the host market Nigh, 1985; Fatehi-Sedeh and Safizadeh, 1989; the examination of the importance of fluctuations in currency markets Alibert, 1971; and, the research on effect of tax policies in origin and host markets Alworth, 1971; Gersovitz, 1987; Jun, 1989. The eclectic paradigm, also known as the OLI paradigm, proposed that the undertaking of FDI is determined by the realization of three groups of advantages: Ownership advantages are specific to the company and are related to the accumulation of intangible assets, technological capacities or product innovations. Internalization advantages stem from the capacity of the firm to manage and co-ordinate activities internally in the value added chain. They are related to the integration of transactions into multinational hierarchies through FDI. Location advantages refer to the institutional and productive factors which are present in a particular geographic area. They arise when it is better to combine products manufactured in the home country with unremovable factors and intermediate products of another location. FDI will take place when the three kinds of advantages come together. In this sense, and according to the reasoning of Hennart and Park 1994 and Buckley and Casson 1998, all the advantages are interconnected and affect indistinctly the likewise interconnected decisions of “why”, “how” and “where” to internationalize. Nonetheless, as will be commented upon in the next section, this paper presents an individual and simplified treatment of decisions and advantages, arguing that ownership advantages mostly determine the “why” decision, internalization advantages mostly determine the “how” decision and location advantages mostly determine the “where” decision.2.Research model and empirical methodology According to the scheme proposed by the eclectic paradigm, there are three groups of factors affecting foreign direct investment. In consequence, the model proposed is composed of three groups of factors ownership, internalization and location which are essentially those determining the decision to enter foreign markets, that three premises were assumed to structure this research: Although these three premises are assumed in the design of the research, the analysis of data will provide certain information about their validity see degree of adequacy below. Nonetheless, it must be taken into account that this model to a great extent simplifies the reality. One can immediately realize that the three decisions are very interconnected and are not made separately, so that each group of factors would actually influence the whole decision process. Thus, this model should be thought of as an initial approach to the phenomenon which requires further developments and provides preliminary evidence of the behavior patterns of internationalized companies After an exhaustive analysis of the literature, those factors that were to be included in each group ownership, internalization and location were selected. Each company was asked to value each of the factors they considered relevant from zero to five according to the importance they had for their decisions on FDI: why to undertake FDI, why FDI and not another form and where to direct investments respectively. They were also asked to choose a unique determinant factor within each group. A total of 103 17.6 per cent firms returned the questionnaire duly completed. A simple but illustrative methodology was used to analyze the data. Three measures were built for each of the factors: Degree of relevance of the factor: Average score given to each factor by the companies in the sample. A linear transformation was applied in order to make it range from zero to ten. This measure allows us to know the importance of each factor for each of the decisions. Degree of determination of the factor: Percentage of firms which have chosen this factor as the determinant one. It allows us to identify the main factor influencing the decision. It is expected that those factors with the highest degree of determination will have a high degree of relevance as well. Degree of adequacy of the factor: Percentage of companies which have allotted one point at least to this factor, that is, which have recognized it has a certain degree of relevance. It allows us to know to what extent the selection of factors was adequate, that is, it tells us whether the chosen factors are usually taken into account by firms before making a decision, even though they are not considered very relevant afterwards.3.Conclusion Knowing the determinant factors of FDI can be very useful for managers since it helps them to define and lead future behavior in foreign markets. Furthermore, the systematic approach introduced in this paper is also important for academics since it means an empirical adaptation and testing of Dunnings paradigm. Such an approach can be easily reproduced in other environments and populations, thus facilitating comparisons between regions or countries. Finally, this work can be helpful for governments and public policy since it provides some clues about the best way of fostering FDI. The main conclusions reached with this research can be summarized as follows: The countries in the European Community and Latin America are the main receptors of Spanish FDI. This supports the importance of cultural affinity for internationalization. Although most the companies undertaking FDI are manufacturers, the presence of service companies is significant. With respect to the ownership factors motivating FDI, the analysis shows the great importance of specific and intangible assets. The experience in national markets, the availability of technological and innovative capabilities or the international vocation of top managers spur companies to cross the borders of national markets. Scale economies and, especially, government incentives hardly influence the behavior of companies. As regards the location factors and the selection of a destination for FDI, the current and future expectations generated by markets characteristics dominate the decisions. Other features such as the availability of infrastructures or workforce, transportation costs or political stability are also relevant but remain on a second level. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, cultural affinity is considered an important factor by a significant number of companies. 译文:FDI的决定因素?实证分析Jos I. Galn摘 要 市场的全球化与公司的国际化在最近的研究中成为了越来越有趣的现象。由于法规越来越宽松,越来越多的企业正在超越国界,进行对外直接投资。 本文的目的是研究在西班牙的外国直接投资的决定因素。虽然以往被国际市场隔绝,但是西班牙经历了最近几年在国际上的发展后,其整合入欧洲共同体、广大公共垄断部门的私有化、政府的努力和坚持、它的文化和语言的亲和力与拉丁美洲的私有化整合构成了的一些意外情况似乎有利于许多西班牙企业的国际发展。 研究国际化进程涉及回答三个基本问题: 1.为什么一个公司决定启动这一进程? 2. 国际活动(通过哪种形式)如何实现的呢? 3.企业打算在哪里开展其对外事务? 深植于邓宁的折衷范式(1979,1980),这项工作尝试去确定每个基本的决定其背后的决定因素是什么。因此,有三个问题需要回答:为什么要进行外商直接投资?为什么通过外国直接投资而不是其他形式进行国际化?在哪里进行外国直接投资? 本文在两个方面有助于目前的研究。它提供了西班牙目前在国际市场情形的粗略概括,它还构成了对邓宁的折衷范式的实际应用。 本文共四个部分,第一个部分对研究资料进行了回顾,第二部分对研究模型与实证方法进行了陈述,随后,作者对结果进行了陈述与讨论,并在文章的最后对主要的结论进行了总结。一、理论框架及文献回顾 外国直接投资的相关文献非常广泛,对该问题的研究早已深深的根植于经济学的发展过程中。早期的文献中会经常提到国际贸易理论与古典区位理论,尽管如此,海默(1976)的研究在外国直接投资研究中是一个里程碑。此作者给出了公司国际化的原因有两类:资产所有权与规模的变异性与市场失灵所造成的变数。 从这个分类变量的影响,两组理论和作品的文献可以分为:以产业组织为框架(Caves,1971;Kindleberger,1969;Hirsch,1980)或者集中于国际化的进程(Buckley and Casson,1976;Hennart,1982,1989;Teece,1986;Rugman,1981,1986)。尽管从不同的角度对FDI进行了分析,这两种途径之间却是互补的Chang,1995;Madhok,1997。作者在组织机构的框架下对于企业设置的假设,即跨国公司受益于那些使其本身具备一定的垄断力量的特定能力而进行的外国直接投资Kindleberger, 1969,这种优势可以通过传新技术工艺、专利、商标、财务来源以及管理能力等表现形式体现出来。Caves 1971认为产品的多样化是主要的影响因素;Hirsch 1980则强调来自知识与研发能力的重要性。另一方面,国际化是建立在交易成本经济学的基础上的(Williamson, 1975,1985),并且认为促使贸易伙伴进行投机活动的要素存在可能性越大,其防范投机行为的成本就会越高。因此,公司将更倾向于那些控制力高的投资形式,因此,他们更希望通过FDI的形式将国际活动本土化而不是出口或者许可经营。另一个理论基于产品生命周期(Vernon,1966,1979)理论来阐述了国际化的起源与发展,该理论认为进入国外市场的形式取决于产品所处的成长阶段,当其在国内达到成熟期时,企业开始失去市场份额,他们就会开始开拓国外市场,并且在他国建立生产中心。 除了这些经典理论,还有许多其他侧重于对特定变量和外国直接投资影响因素的作品可以在研究文献中找到。他们采取不同的概念框架,以研究外国直接投资的决定因素。值得一提的是,竞争性反应的理论发展(Knickerbocker,1973;Graham,1978,1989);政府制度、政治稳定性以及东道国市场其他相关变量的研究(Nigh,1985;Fatehi-Sedeh and Safizadeh,1989);期货市场波动性的研究Alibert,1971;原产地与东道国税收政策影响的研究(Alworth,1971;Gersovitz, 1987;Jun,1989)。 折衷范式,也被称为OLI模式。本理论认为,FDI的实施是由三组优势的存在来决定的: 1.所有权优势是针对公司和相关的无形资产的积累、技术能力或产品创新; 2.内部优势源于在价值增值链中企业的管理能力协调内部活动的能力,它们涉及到通过外国直接投资跨进行的国际交易