外文翻譯---外商直接投資能長期促進經(jīng)濟增長嗎

1、<p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯</p><p>　　外文題目: Dose foreign direct investment always enhance economic growth ? </p><p>　　出 處： KYKLOS,Vol.56-2003-Fasc.4,491-508

2、 </p><p>　　作 者: Joze Mencinger </p><p><b>　　原 文：</b></p><p>　　Does Foreign Direct Investment Always Enhance </p&g

3、t;<p>　　Economic Growth?</p><p>　　Joze Mencinger</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　For international financial institutions, politicians, and the vast majority of economists for

4、eign direct investment (FDI) appears to be a sort of panacea for every economic problem in the emerging market economies; its positive impact on economic growth has acquired the status of conventional fact. Economic theo

5、ry namely suggests that unfettered international capital flows foster efficient allocation of resources, which by itself should promote growth. The economic benefits of FDI are considere</p><p>　　‘in general

6、, the results of these studies indicate that the size of inward FDI stocks or flows, relative to GDP, is not related in any consistent way to rates of growth’ (Lipsey 2002, p. 55).</p><p>　　A sizable literat

7、ure on FDI in transition economies can be loosely divided into the studies dealing with the determinants of FDI and those dealing with the impacts of FDI on economic performance. Most of the studies used microeconomic da

8、ta and dealt with microeconomic issues (Barrel and Holland 2000, Bevan and Estri 2000, Konings 2001, Damijan et al. 2001) and only a few with impacts of FDI on macroeconomic performance of transition countries (Campos an

9、d Kinoshita 2002, Krkoska 2001, Lipschitz e</p><p><b>　　Data</b></p><p>　　We shall concentrate on a very narrow sample both regarding the set of the countries and the period included

10、. The sample consists of eight EU candidates – Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia – in the post-transition period, which is also the period of their gradual accession to E

11、U and high reliance on FDI. The narrowing of the sample to only eight countries and to the post-transition period on account of the number of observations is deliberate; it</p><p>　　Let us begin by exploring

12、 time series data for each country, and cross-section data for each year by observing simple relationships between the growth of gross domestic product (rGDP), and the ratio of foreign direct investment and gross domesti

13、c product (FDI), the latter representing also a kind of ‘revealed’ liberalization of capital account. The average FDI in the 1994–2001period was 4.14 percent ranging between 6.05 percent in Estonia and 1.32 percent in Sl

14、ovenia, while the growth of GDP by </p><p>　　A similar negative result is obtained by observing cross section data for each year in the observed period; there is a negative correlation between growth and FDI

15、 in six out of eight years, positive correlation in 1997, and insignificant in 1998. Table 1 also indicates that Slovenia, with by far the smallest share of foreign direct investment in GDP, had an economic growth above

16、the average and also very stable. This can be explained by the much better initial conditions of the country at the be</p><p>　　Table1 Foreign Direct Investment and GDP growth (country time series, 1994–2001

17、)</p><p>　　Table2 Foreign Direct Investment and GDP Growth (annual cross section data)</p><p>　　The country time series and annual cross section data series each contain just eight observations

18、which does not allow a proper statistical analysis, much less the establishment of a causal relationship. For that reason the relationship between foreign direct investment and economic growth was examined by panel data

19、(eight candidates for the period 1994–2001) which provides 64 observations. Two surprising results emerged: first, a negative correlation between growth and FDI; second, the signific</p><p>　　Figure 1 Growth

20、 and Foreign Direct Investment in Eight Candidate Countries, 1994–2001</p><p>　　Using the results in Table 3, a zero hypothesis that FDI does not influence economic growth can be rejected which implies adopt

21、ion of the opposite hypothesis, i.e., that FDI affects economic growth. Similarly, a non-rejection of the zero hypothesis that economic growth does not influence FDI implies that we cannot adopt the opposite hypothesis t

22、hat economic growth affects FDI. In short, the assumption that FDI affects economic growth is confirmed, reverse causality, i.e. that growth attracts FDI</p><p>　　Table3 Granger Causality Tests</p>&l

23、t;p>　　Sample 1:64 Lags: 1</p><p>　　Sample 1:64 Lags: 2</p><p>　　Despite significant statistics of the standard Granger causality tests there are two major drawbacks. First, pooling implies th

24、at the underlying causal structure is the same for each cross-sectional unit or each candidate country; if this were not the case, we would get inconsistent estimates. Second, the standard Granger causality test does not

25、 provide for the sign of the relationship. Sims version of the causality test which allows for estimating ‘individual effects’ in the form of a country-s</p><p>　　rGDP = a0 + a1FDI–1 + a2FDI + a3FDI+1 + a4GD

26、P0 + ajDUMj (1)</p><p>　　FDI = b0 + b1rGDP–1 + b2rGDP + b3rGDP+1 + b4GDP0 + bjDUMj (2)</p><p>　　where rGDP is the growth rate of gross domestic product, FDI is the share of foreign direct invest

27、ment in GDP, GDP0 is the initial GDP per capita in percentage of EU average, and DUMj are country dummies. The results are in Table 4. Country specifics were largely absorbed by GDP0 uttering the level of development; th

28、e country dummies were therefore insignificant except for Estonia and Poland in the first equation, and Czech Republic and Poland in the second equation. In short, the results confir</p><p>　　Table4 Causalit

29、y Tests</p><p>　　To estimate the robustness of the causality tests and of the coefficients in the simple regression model with growth being the dependent and FDI the independent variable, eight sub samples (

30、in each one country was omitted) were formed. The results are in Table 5.</p><p>　　Table5 Granger Causality Tests and Simple Regression on Narrower Sets</p><p>　　Despite the robustness of the ne

31、gative sign for FDI and the solid rejection of the reversed causality the results could be disputed by the arguments of FDI endogeneity and a bias due to omitted variables. These issues are dealt with in the framework of

32、 a standard neoclassical growth model used by most researchers in the field. In the Solow-type growth models, FDI is conceived as an addition to the capital stock of the host economy; FDI is thus considered a substitute

33、for domestic capital or a po</p><p>　　rGDP = f (GDP0, rINV, rEMP, FDI, rEU, dummy variables) (3)</p><p>　　with rINV representing growth of gross fixed investment; rEMP growth of employment, and

34、rEU growth of GDP in EU countries provided the results which are inTable6</p><p>　　Table6 The Augmented Production Function, 1994–2001</p><p>　　The negative coefficient for FDI-1 remains signifi

35、cantly negative in all specifications of the production function and all other coefficients are in accordance with the theoretical expectations; i.e. the negative sign of initial GDP/capita is in accordance with the theo

36、ry of convergence. Country specific effects expressed by dummy variables are insignificant; except for Estonia and Lithuania.</p><p><b>　　RESULT</b></p><p>　　How can one find a reaso

37、nable explanation of this result? It is statistically rather robust but conflicts with ‘taken for granted’ wisdom according to which FDI enhances economic growth because it substitutes domestic savings and investment, an

38、d because it brings productivity spillover from foreign-owned to local firms.(未完)</p><p><b>　　譯 文：</b></p><p>　　外商直接投資能長期促進經(jīng)濟增長嗎？</p><p>　　Joze Mencinger</p>&l

39、t;p><b>　　引言</b></p><p>　　對國際金融機構(gòu)，政治家和大多數(shù)經(jīng)濟學家而言，外商直接投資似乎是新興市場經(jīng)濟中每個經(jīng)濟問題的靈丹妙藥；其對經(jīng)濟增長的積極影響已得到了傳統(tǒng)事實的認可。經(jīng)濟理論表明，不受約束的國際資本流動可以促進資源的有效配置，這本身就是促進經(jīng)濟的增長。外商直接的經(jīng)濟效益被認為是雙重的。首先，外商直接投資可以幫助那些國內(nèi)儲蓄不足的國家來籌集經(jīng)濟擴張資金；

40、其次，國外企業(yè)的存在是具有積極的外部效應。許多國家不顧一切的努力去吸引盡可能多的外商直接投資間接的支持了這一理論。然而，對東道國來說，實質(zhì)上外商直接投資的聲稱的實質(zhì)收益要比實證研究證實的多。盡管大多數(shù)研究都是基于相同的跨國增長模型，但基于FDI與經(jīng)濟增長的大量快速增長的實證研究的驗證結(jié)果有所不同，國家設置的不同包括，樣品周期，數(shù)據(jù)以及估計技術阻礙比較（愛迪生等，2002）。在很多研究中發(fā)現(xiàn)一些國家的FDI或FDI相關的一些因素與經(jīng)濟增長

41、呈正相關，然而一些研究（克里克1988，Grilli和Milesi-Ferretti 1995,Kraay 1988）發(fā)現(xiàn)FDI與經(jīng)濟增長無明顯關系。大多數(shù)研究強調(diào)的是各個國家間的差異包括貿(mào)易政策，體制特征或是發(fā)展水平。二十多</p><p>　　對FDI在經(jīng)濟轉(zhuǎn)型期的研究的相當多的著作可以粗略地分為對FDI的決定因素的研究和FDI對經(jīng)濟表現(xiàn)的影響的研究。大多數(shù)研究使用的是微觀數(shù)據(jù)和處理微觀問題的方法（Barre

42、l and Holland 2000, Bevan and Estri 2000, Konings 2001, Damijan et al. 2001)，在這里只有少數(shù)研究FDI對轉(zhuǎn)型國家宏觀經(jīng)濟表現(xiàn)的影響(Campos and Kinoshita 2002, Krkoska 2001, Lipschitz et al. 2002)。事實上，我們只要回答兩個問題：第一，是否外國接管是成熟的轉(zhuǎn)型國家在后轉(zhuǎn)型期用于提高經(jīng)濟增長的主要方式？第

43、二，如果不是，那原因是什么？</p><p><b>　　數(shù)據(jù)</b></p><p>　　我們應該集中精力于包括關于國家的裝置和時期的一個極小的樣本上。將一系列的國家和一個周期集中在一個小的樣本上。這個樣本包括8個歐盟的候選國——捷克共和國，愛沙尼亞，匈牙利，拉托維亞，立陶宛，波蘭，斯洛伐克和斯洛文尼亞，在過度后時期，同時也是他們逐漸入職歐盟和高度依賴FDI的時期。

44、因為對數(shù)量的觀察，樣本縮小到8個國家和過度后時期，這是經(jīng)過深思熟慮的。它的基礎是不同國家集團在過度后時期的經(jīng)驗。首先，我們試著去觀察有著共同體制和文化特征，一個特殊增長經(jīng)歷和處于一個特殊發(fā)展水平一系列國家。只有這8個國家從25個轉(zhuǎn)型國家脫穎而出被歐盟標準公認為市場經(jīng)濟并且成為20041項中的候選人。其次，轉(zhuǎn)型帶來了根本的突破，從狹義上來說，經(jīng)濟運作和的轉(zhuǎn)型期都不應該包括樣本2上。由于這兩方面的限制，我們得到了比Campos and Ki

45、noshita (2002)還要狹窄的轉(zhuǎn)型國家。</p><p>　　我們通過探究每個國家的時間序列數(shù)據(jù)，和通過觀察國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值增長和外商直接投資率和國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的比率的簡單關系探索各個國家每年的截面數(shù)據(jù)，后者代表的是一種相對自由的資本賬戶。在1994—2001年外商平均直接投資在愛沙尼亞是4.14%到6.05%，在斯洛文尼亞是1.32%，而每年的GDP增長率在波蘭是3.65%到4.87%，在捷克共和國是1.97

46、%。經(jīng)濟增長最穩(wěn)定在斯洛文尼亞，最不穩(wěn)定的在立陶宛。經(jīng)濟增長和FDI的相關系數(shù)在8個國家中有7個國家為負，只有立陶宛為正的；如果數(shù)據(jù)匯集，簡單的相關系數(shù)仍然為負。</p><p>　　通過觀察每年的截面數(shù)據(jù)獲得的結(jié)果是負的，在8年里有6年經(jīng)濟增長和FDI的呈負相關，在1997年呈現(xiàn)的是正相關，而1998年又是微不足道的。表1表明斯洛文尼亞外商直接投資占GDP的比重最小，可它超過了平均經(jīng)濟增長并且很穩(wěn)定。這可以被解

47、釋為在轉(zhuǎn)型之初國家的初始條件很好，有人因此宣稱有更多的外商直接投資會使經(jīng)濟更快增長和更快加入歐盟。</p><p>　　表1 外商直接投資與經(jīng)濟增長（國家時間序列，1994—2001）</p><p>　　表2 外商直接投資與GDP增長（截面數(shù)據(jù)）</p><p>　　國家時間序列和截面數(shù)據(jù)系列每個都僅包含了8個國家的觀測值，沒有適當?shù)慕y(tǒng)計分析，更不用說因果關系的

48、建立。由于這個原因，外商直接投資與經(jīng)濟增長可以用面板數(shù)據(jù)來說明（8個候選國在1994—2001）提供了64個觀察值。出現(xiàn)了兩個驚人的結(jié)果：第一，經(jīng)濟增長和FDI是負相關；第二，如果FDI滯后顯示FDI會阻礙其經(jīng)濟增長以及妨礙這些國家加入到歐盟當中，那么負相關的影響便會加強。這種理論與直觀認識相違背，并且得不到實證研究的支持。因此之前看起來謹慎的任何實質(zhì)性的結(jié)論都應該經(jīng)過統(tǒng)計測試。集中的數(shù)據(jù)可以用格蘭杰因果關系檢驗（霍爾茨—埃金等人，19

49、85）滯后量一、二的結(jié)果在表3中。</p><p>　　圖1 8個國家經(jīng)濟增長和外商直接投資，1994—2001</p><p>　　表3的結(jié)果表明，假設零：FDI不會影響經(jīng)濟增長，會被其相反的假設所拒絕，即意味著FDI會影響經(jīng)濟增長。同樣，相反的零假設：經(jīng)濟增長不影響FDI，我們也不能采取相反的假設即經(jīng)濟增長影響FDI。總之，F(xiàn)DI對經(jīng)濟增長影響的假設是被證實的，而經(jīng)濟增長會吸引FDI

50、會被反駁。</p><p><b>　　表3格蘭杰因果檢驗</b></p><p>　　樣本1—64 滯后量1</p><p>　　樣本1—64 滯后量2</p><p>　　盡管格蘭杰因果關系檢驗的標準統(tǒng)計還是有其兩大缺點。首先，把數(shù)據(jù)匯集起來意味著對每個截面單位或每個國家有著相同的結(jié)構(gòu)，但如果不在這種情況下，我們會

51、得出不一致的估計。其次，格蘭杰因果檢驗不能提供這種關系的跡象。西姆斯的因果關次檢驗適用于估計“個別效應”在一個國家具體的截取或截留數(shù)據(jù)的形式下估算，通過下列兩個方程：</p><p>　　rGDP = a0 + a1FDI–1 + a2FDI + a3FDI+1 + a4GDP0 + ajDUMj (1)</p><p>　　FDI = b0 + b1rGDP–1 + b2rGDP + b

52、3rGDP+1 + b4GDP0 + bjDUMj (2)</p><p>　　其中rGDP代表的是國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值增長率，F(xiàn)DI是外商直接投資占GDP的比重，GDP0是每國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值在歐盟平均比例，DUMj是假的國家。結(jié)果在表4中。具體的國家通過GDP0觀察其發(fā)展水平；在第一個等式中愛沙尼亞和波蘭是微不足道的，而捷克共和國和波蘭在第二個等式中是微不足道的?？傊Y(jié)果證實了格蘭杰因果檢驗；T標準系數(shù)在1%的水平下FD

53、I的比率是明顯的并且目前FDI的系數(shù)很高，相反滯后的系數(shù)以rGDP為主。</p><p><b>　　表4 因果檢驗</b></p><p>　　為了估計因果檢驗和簡單回歸模型中相互依賴的系數(shù)以及FDI相互獨立的變量，由8個子樣本組成（每個國家被忽略）。結(jié)果見表5</p><p>　　表5 格蘭杰因果檢驗和簡單回歸</p>&l

54、t;p>　　盡管FDI有簡單的負面性，被拒絕的因果檢驗的結(jié)果會產(chǎn)生爭議是因為FDI的內(nèi)生性以及變量參數(shù)被忽略。這些問題都是在一個標準的新古典增長模型內(nèi)被大多數(shù)研究人員所解決的。在索洛增長模型中，F(xiàn)DI被看作是東道國資本的一個增量，F(xiàn)DI也被視作國內(nèi)資本的替代或是重要的組成部分。一個標準的生產(chǎn)函數(shù)來自于索洛模型，被曼昆，羅默和Weil(1992)和Easterly(2001)所使用，其形式為：</p><p>

55、;　　rGDP = f (GDP0, rINV, rEMP, FDI, rEU, dummy variables) (3)</p><p>　　其中rINV代表的是總的固定投資增長，rEMP代表的是就業(yè)，rEU是在歐盟國家中的GDP增長，結(jié)果在表6中。</p><p>　　表6 擴編的生產(chǎn)函數(shù)，1994—2001</p><p>　　在生產(chǎn)函數(shù)的規(guī)格中FDI-1的

56、負相關系數(shù)仍然明顯，而其他系數(shù)都符合理論預期。負的初始國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值與理論還是相銜接的。由虛擬變數(shù)表達的國家特定影響表示的是微不足道的，除了愛沙尼亞和立陶宛。</p><p><b>　　結(jié)果</b></p><p>　　如何才能找到一個合理的對于這個結(jié)果的解釋？這是重大的但根據(jù)FDI促進經(jīng)濟增長的“理所當然”是有爭議的，因為它代替了國內(nèi)儲蓄、投資和它帶來的外資對當?shù)仄?/p>