政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　外文翻譯之一</b></p><p>　　To share or not to share: Does local participation matter for spillovers from foreign direct investment?</p><p>　　Author(s)：Beata Smarzynska Javorci

2、k and Mariana Spatareanu</p><p>　　Nationality：U.S.</p><p>　　Source：“To share or not to share: Does local participation matter for spillovers from foreign direct investment?” Journal of Developme

3、nt Economics, Article in press</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　Although domestic equity ownership requirements used to be extensively utilized by governments in developing countries,2 their incid

4、ence has sharply declined in recent years (UNCTAD, 2003). Increasingly competitive environment for foreign direct investment (FDI) and the need to comply with international commitments have put pressure on governments to

5、 relax restrictions on foreign entrants. </p><p>　　One of the original motivations for the existence of ownership sharing conditions was the belief that local participation in foreign investment projects rev

6、eals their proprietary technology and thus benefits domestic firms by facilitating technology diffusion (see Beamish, 1988 and Blomström and Sjöholm, 1999). As writing a contract specifying all aspects of the r

7、ights to use intangible assets is difficult, if not impossible, joint domestic and foreign ownership of an investment project is more </p><p>　　This in turn has implications for knowledge spillovers to local

8、 producers in a host country. Less sophisticated technologies being transferred to jointly owned FDI projects may be easier to absorb by local competitors, which combined with a better access to knowledge through the act

9、ions of the local shareholder may lead to greater intra-industry (or horizontal) knowledge spillovers being associated with the shared ownership structure than with wholly owned foreign affiliates. Moreover, lower sop<

10、;/p><p>　　This paper is a step forward in understanding the implications of the ownership structure of FDI projects for the host country. Using firm-level panel data from Romania for the 1998–2003 period, we ex

11、amine whether wholly owned foreign affiliates and investments with joint domestic and foreign ownership are associated with a different magnitude of spillovers within the industry of operation and to upstream sectors sup

12、plying intermediate inputs. The results suggest that the ownership structure in </p><p>　　Consistent with our expectations, the analysis indicates that projects with joint domestic and foreign ownership are

13、associated with positive productivity spillovers to upstream sectors but no such effect is detected for wholly owned foreign subsidiaries. The difference between the two coefficients is statistically significant. The mag

14、nitude of the former effect is economically meaningful. A one-standard-deviation increase in the presence of investment projects with shared domestic and foreign o</p><p>　　In contrast to the vertical effect

15、s, the presence of FDI appears to have a negative effect on the performance of local firms operating in the same sector. As argued by Aitken and Harrison (1999), this may be due to the fact that local producers lose part

16、 of their market share to foreign entrants and thus are forced to spread their fixed cost over a smaller volume of production. The empirical literature suggests that the negative competition effect outweighs the positive

17、 effect of knowledge spill</p><p>　　While our findings are consistent with the existence of externalities associated with FDI, a word of caution is in order. We use the term ”spillovers” very broadly as our

18、methodology does not allow us to distinguish between pure knowledge externalities, the benefits of scale economies that may be enjoyed by suppliers to multinationals or the effects of increased competition resulting from

19、 foreign entry into the product market. More work is certainly needed to fully understand the effects of FDI </p><p>　　Our findings should not be interpreted as suggesting that restrictions on the extent of

20、foreign ownership are desirable, as such restrictions may lead to lower overall FDI inflows and have other implications not addressed in our analysis. There exist other policies that could potentially be used to facilita

21、te local sourcing by multinationals, such as improvements to the business climate or supplier development programs that assist local producers in learning how to satisfy requirements of foreig</p><p>　　能分享還是

22、無分享：地方參與真的能從外商直接投資中獲得溢出嗎？</p><p>　　作者：比阿塔·司馬新斯卡·加沃斯克和瑪瑞安娜·斯帕塔瑞奴</p><p><b>　　國籍：美國</b></p><p>　　出處：發(fā)展經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)期刊正在出版中</p><p><b>　　1、引言</b&g

23、t;</p><p>　　盡管國內(nèi)資產(chǎn)所有要求被廣大發(fā)展中國家政府廣泛地利用，近幾年來它們的影響力急劇地下降，對外商來說越來越激烈的競爭環(huán)境以及需要遵守國際條約的壓力迫使鎮(zhèn)古放松外國進(jìn)入者的限制。</p><p>　　股權(quán)分享條件最原始的動機之一是大家相信地方參與外國投資項目可以揭示他們自有技術(shù)，因此可以通過促進(jìn)技術(shù)分散來使國內(nèi)企業(yè)受益。因為要訂一個能夠列明使用無形資產(chǎn)所有方面的權(quán)利的合同

24、是很困難的。如果可能的話，國內(nèi)外共同擁有一項投資項目的所有權(quán)更有可能導(dǎo)致知識分散。地方合作者可以將從外國投資者處學(xué)來的知識用于其它不涉及外國投資人或受雇傭政策限制的企業(yè)。通常的情況時地方合作者不太會去限制員工流轉(zhuǎn)率。如果跨國公司獨自擁有子公司的所有權(quán)的話，這個問題就會大量的減少。因而，跨過公司更喜歡將成熟的技術(shù)和管理經(jīng)驗轉(zhuǎn)移到他們的獨資子公司而不是共同所有的子公司。</p><p>　　反過來這也對東道國的當(dāng)?shù)厮?/p>

25、有者有一個知識溢出的暗示。轉(zhuǎn)移到合資的外商獨資項目的那些不太成熟的技術(shù)更容易被當(dāng)?shù)馗偁幷呶赵偌由弦驗楫?dāng)?shù)毓蓶|的行為而更容易獲得知識技術(shù)，從而導(dǎo)致與共同所有結(jié)構(gòu)相關(guān)的產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)知識溢出比全股所有的要大的多。此外，對共同所有的外商直接投資項目投入要求不高再加上地方合作者對當(dāng)?shù)毓┴浬瘫容^熟，會導(dǎo)致對當(dāng)?shù)厣a(chǎn)的投入品有更大的依賴，因此導(dǎo)致上游部門的當(dāng)?shù)厣a(chǎn)者更多的垂直溢出。當(dāng)大量的研究致力于對外商直接投資的溢出效應(yīng)進(jìn)行實證研究，很少有人關(guān)注所有權(quán)

26、結(jié)構(gòu)如何影響這一現(xiàn)象。</p><p>　　這篇論文的過人之處在于使人了解外商直接投資項目對東道國的暗示。通過使用1998——2003年羅馬尼亞公司層面的面板數(shù)據(jù)，檢驗外商獨資子公司和合資企業(yè)在其產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)以及提供中間投入品的上游企業(yè)是否有一個不同的溢出范圍。結(jié)果顯示外商直接投資項目的所有權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)與生產(chǎn)力溢出效應(yīng)相關(guān)。</p><p>　　與我們的預(yù)期一致，分析結(jié)果說明國內(nèi)外共同所有的項目能夠?qū)?/p>

27、上游部門有正溢出效應(yīng)，但是獨資企業(yè)沒有這樣的溢出效應(yīng)。在統(tǒng)計計量上這兩個系數(shù)的差額很明顯。前者效應(yīng)的大小在經(jīng)濟(jì)上很有意義.國內(nèi)外共同所有的項目多增加一個，供應(yīng)產(chǎn)業(yè)的國內(nèi)企業(yè)的要素生產(chǎn)率增加4.4%。這個模型適用于國家也適用于地區(qū)的企業(yè)。對每一個部門最好的企業(yè)和差一點的企業(yè)都適用。下游部門合資企業(yè)的出現(xiàn)有利于國內(nèi)企業(yè)，對外資機構(gòu)一點作用也沒有。</p><p>　　與垂直效應(yīng)形成對比的是，F(xiàn)DI的出現(xiàn)對在同一個部門

28、的當(dāng)?shù)仄髽I(yè)的績效有一個負(fù)影響。如阿特肯和哈瑞森（1999）所說，這個現(xiàn)象可以歸因于當(dāng)?shù)厣a(chǎn)者被外國進(jìn)入者搶去了一部分市場份額，以至于因為產(chǎn)量減少而使固定成本增加。這部經(jīng)驗主義作品說明在發(fā)展中國家負(fù)面競爭效應(yīng)超過了知識溢出的正效應(yīng)。如果合資企業(yè)知識散播更明顯，我們可以預(yù)期合資擁有的FDI項目比獨資企業(yè)對當(dāng)?shù)厣a(chǎn)者的負(fù)面影響小一點。我們的調(diào)查結(jié)果與預(yù)期一致，因為在所有的分析中我們找到了預(yù)期的模型。在對外國企業(yè)的二次抽樣和關(guān)注地區(qū)溢出效應(yīng)衰退

29、時，對國內(nèi)市場導(dǎo)向的部門來說，這兩個系數(shù)在統(tǒng)計計量上大小的差額很明顯。</p><p>　　我們的調(diào)查結(jié)果證明FDI確實具有外在性，需要予以警惕。我們廣泛地用“溢出”這個詞是因為我們的方法論無法使我們辨清楚純粹的知識外溢，跨國公司供貨商所能享受到的規(guī)模經(jīng)濟(jì)或者因為外國投資者進(jìn)入了產(chǎn)品市場而導(dǎo)致的競爭加劇的影響。我們?nèi)孕枰M(jìn)行更多的工作去了解FDI流入對東道國的影響。</p><p>　　我

30、們的調(diào)查結(jié)果并不是說明對外商所有權(quán)的限制是絕對必要的，因為這樣的限制會導(dǎo)致整體流入的減少以及另外產(chǎn)生一些沒有在我們的分析中說明的問題。有一些其它的政策可能潛在地促進(jìn)跨國企業(yè)驚醒當(dāng)?shù)夭少彛热缗囵B(yǎng)商業(yè)氛圍或開發(fā)供應(yīng)商發(fā)展項目會幫廚當(dāng)?shù)厣a(chǎn)者學(xué)會如何滿足外國買家的要求。在任何情況下，我們需要花更多的力氣通過研究來促進(jìn)我們對東道國環(huán)境的認(rèn)識，這有助于促進(jìn)外商直接投資的知識外溢以及政府政策在這個領(lǐng)域所扮演的角色。</p><

31、p><b>　　外文翻譯之二</b></p><p>　　Is foreign direct investment a channel of knowledge spillovers Evidence from Japan's FDI in the United States？</p><p>　　Author(s)：Lee Branstetter<

32、;/p><p>　　Nationality：U.S.</p><p>　　Source：“Is foreign direct investment a channel of knowledge spillovers Evidence from Japan's FDI in the United States？ Journal of International Economics ，Vo

33、lume 68, Issue 2, 2006,pp.325-344</p><p>　　1、Introduction</p><p>　　To what extent does technological knowledge flow across national borders, and by what means are these knowledge flows mediated?

34、 These questions have received an increasing amount of attention over the last decade, as leading scholars in international economics have focused considerable research effort on the topic of knowledge spillovers.1 A con

35、siderable body of theoretical and empirical work has focused on the extent to which imports of manufactured goods could serve as channels of knowledge sp</p><p>　　The flow of goods is not the only means thro

36、ugh which technological knowledge can flow across national boundaries. An obvious alternative is foreign direct investment. A number of countries have policies that encourage or even subsidize multinational investment. O

37、ften, as has been the case in Singapore and Malaysia, these policies are deliberately biased in favor of multinational firms in “technology intensive” industries. Such preferences are based on the view that production an

38、d/or research ac</p><p>　　In the previous work, I have examined issues related to the focus of this paper. Branstetter and Nakamura (2003) examined changes in the research productivity of Japanese manufactur

39、ing firms over the 1980s and 1990s. As part of that study, we examined the extent to which R&D alliances and partnerships with U.S. firms facilitated the flow of knowledge spillovers across international boundaries.

40、That paper did not examine the role of FDI as a channel of knowledge spillovers. Branstetter (2000b) ex</p><p>　　This paper examines the role FDI plays in mediating knowledge spillovers, but it takes a compl

41、etely different methodological approach. First, in contrast to many of the aforementioned papers, I measure the impact of FDI not only on knowledge spillovers from the investing Japanese firms to “indigenous” American fi

42、rms but also the impact of Japanese investment on knowledge spillovers from American firms to the investing Japanese firms.5 Second, I allow the impact of FDI on knowledge spillovers to </p><p>　　As is well

43、known, conventional measures of productivity can reflect market power as well as technical efficiency.6 When technologically more advanced foreign affiliates first enter a market, their presence may erode the market powe

44、r of indigenous incumbents while – at the same time – introducing new production techniques and technologies from which these same incumbents learn. Real knowledge spillovers can take place, yet their effects can be mask

45、ed in the data by changes in appropriability cond</p><p>　　This paper presents an alternative empirical framework for measuring the impact of foreign direct investment on knowledge spillovers using patent ci

46、tations data. I then use this framework to measure the impact of foreign direct investment in the United States by a group of Japanese manufacturing firms on knowledge flows from American firms to these investing Japanes

47、e firms and from the investing Japanese firms to American inventors. To preview my empirical results, I find evidence that foreign d</p><p>　　外國直接投資是知識外溢的渠道嗎?日本在美國外商直接投資 的實證研究</p><p>　　作者：李

48、3;布蘭斯泰特</p><p><b>　　國籍：美國</b></p><p>　　出處：國際經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)期刊2006年第68卷第2期，第325到344頁</p><p><b>　　1．引言</b></p><p>　　技術(shù)知識越國境到達(dá)了一個怎么樣的程度呢？這些知識溢出是通過什么方法調(diào)停的呢？再過去十

49、年這些問題受到了越來越多的關(guān)注，因為國際經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)最主要的學(xué)者已經(jīng)花了大量的努力關(guān)注知識溢出這個話題。理論和經(jīng)驗主義工作的許多部分關(guān)注制造品的進(jìn)口所產(chǎn)生的知識溢出效應(yīng)的程度。盡管在正式模型中還沒有完全進(jìn)行研究，文章同樣說明了“出口學(xué)”效應(yīng)的可能性。這種效應(yīng)就是公司通過在全球出口市場接觸先進(jìn)的外國競爭者從而提高產(chǎn)品和生產(chǎn)流程的質(zhì)量。</p><p>　　貨物的流動不是技術(shù)知識跨國界流動的唯一方法。一個明顯的替代方法是外

50、商直接投資。許多國家都有政策鼓勵甚至補貼跨國公司投資。通常，就如新加坡和馬來西亞的例子，這些政策偏向于技術(shù)密集型產(chǎn)業(yè)的公司。有這樣的偏愛是因為跨國公司在國內(nèi)的分支機構(gòu)所采取的生產(chǎn)和/或研究活動會帶來溢出效應(yīng)的好處。為了把這些觀點用仔細(xì)的統(tǒng)計檢驗，許多學(xué)者采用了從外商直接投資獲得的溢出效應(yīng)的經(jīng)驗主義研究。哈瑞森和他的合作作者的研究尤其有影響力，他們采用了摩洛哥和委內(nèi)瑞拉的微觀層面的面板數(shù)據(jù)。凱勒和也頗以及哈斯科爾繼續(xù)采用阿肯特和哈瑞森發(fā)展

51、起來的基礎(chǔ)方法論檢驗高級產(chǎn)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)中的外商直接投資，加瓦茨克檢驗了立陶宛的外商直接投資。</p><p>　　在先前的研究中，我檢驗了與這篇論文重點有關(guān)的問題。布蘭斯泰特和納卡姆拉檢驗了1980年和1990年日本制造公司在研究生產(chǎn)率方面的變化。作為研究的一部分，我們檢驗了研發(fā)聯(lián)盟和與美國的合資企業(yè)促進(jìn)知識外溢國際流動的程度。這篇論文沒有檢驗FDI作為知識外溢渠道的作用。布蘭斯泰特檢驗了在美國向日本知識外溢的過程中F

52、DI的作用，但是只能通過將美國公司研發(fā)費用和日本企業(yè)專利產(chǎn)出的合作行為定量化從而間接地進(jìn)行檢驗。正如在論文中所指，這些相關(guān)性常有混淆，從而對這樣間接推論的準(zhǔn)確性產(chǎn)生懷疑。</p><p>　　這篇論文檢驗了間接知識外溢過程中外商直接投資所起的作用，但是它采用了完全不同的方法論。首先，與之前所述的許多論文形成對比，我不僅測量了日本投資企業(yè)對本土美國公司知識外溢的過程中外商直接投資的影響，同時也測量了美國企業(yè)對日本投

53、資企業(yè)知識外溢的影響。第二，我根據(jù)子公司的性質(zhì)來看外商直接投資對知識外溢的影響——我發(fā)現(xiàn)不同類型的子公司在外溢效應(yīng)上的不同，這種不同與近期對跨國公司的理論研究一致。第三，我沒有采用先前的做法，用全要素生產(chǎn)率可量化的變化或者其他的以收益為基礎(chǔ)的測量方法來推斷知識外溢效應(yīng)是否存在。</p><p>　　正如大家所知，生產(chǎn)力傳統(tǒng)的測量方法能夠反映市場能力和技術(shù)效率。當(dāng)在技術(shù)上更先進(jìn)的外國機構(gòu)第一次進(jìn)入一個市場，他們的存

54、在會侵蝕本土企業(yè)的市場能力，同時，介紹了新的生產(chǎn)技術(shù)和工藝，這些本土企業(yè)就可以從中得到學(xué)習(xí)。真實的知識外溢產(chǎn)生，然而他們的影響能夠通過適當(dāng)條件的變化用數(shù)據(jù)表示出來。同樣地，東道國一個部門如果需求旺盛，會帶來高額利潤，為國內(nèi)企業(yè)產(chǎn)生更高的全要素生產(chǎn)率增長，同時，誘導(dǎo)外國企業(yè)的投資。</p><p>　　這篇論文提供了另一個經(jīng)驗主義結(jié)構(gòu)框架通過使用特許應(yīng)用數(shù)據(jù)來衡量外國直接投資對知識外溢的影響。我使用這個框架來衡量一