外商直接投資外文翻譯

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(wú)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(guó)籍：美國(guó)</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(guó)內(nèi)資產(chǎn)所有要求被廣大發(fā)展中國(guó)家政府廣泛地利用，近幾年來(lái)它們的影響力急劇地下降，對(duì)外商來(lái)說(shuō)越來(lái)越激烈的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)環(huán)境以及需要遵守國(guó)際條約的壓力迫使鎮(zhèn)古放松外國(guó)進(jìn)入者的限制。</p><p>　　股權(quán)分享?xiàng)l件最原始的動(dòng)機(jī)之一是大家相信地方參與外國(guó)投資項(xiàng)目可以揭示他們自有技術(shù)，因此可以通過(guò)促進(jìn)技術(shù)分散來(lái)使國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)受益。因?yàn)橐喴粋€(gè)能夠列明使用無(wú)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(guó)內(nèi)外共同擁有一項(xiàng)投資項(xiàng)目的所有權(quán)更有可能導(dǎo)致知識(shí)分散。地方合作者可以將從外國(guó)投資者處學(xué)來(lái)的知識(shí)用于其它不涉及外國(guó)投資人或受雇傭政策限制的企業(yè)。通常的情況時(shí)地方合作者不太會(huì)去限制員工流轉(zhuǎn)率。如果跨國(guó)公司獨(dú)自擁有子公司的所有權(quán)的話，這個(gè)問題就會(huì)大量的減少。因而，跨過(guò)公司更喜歡將成熟的技術(shù)和管理經(jīng)驗(yàn)轉(zhuǎn)移到他們的獨(dú)資子公司而不是共同所有的子公司。</p><p>　　反過(guò)來(lái)這也對(duì)東道國(guó)的當(dāng)?shù)厮?/p>

25、有者有一個(gè)知識(shí)溢出的暗示。轉(zhuǎn)移到合資的外商獨(dú)資項(xiàng)目的那些不太成熟的技術(shù)更容易被當(dāng)?shù)馗?jìng)爭(zhēng)者吸收再加上因?yàn)楫?dāng)?shù)毓蓶|的行為而更容易獲得知識(shí)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(shí)溢出比全股所有的要大的多。此外，對(duì)共同所有的外商直接投資項(xiàng)目投入要求不高再加上地方合作者對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)毓┴浬瘫容^熟，會(huì)導(dǎo)致對(duì)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(duì)外商直接投資的溢出效應(yīng)進(jìn)行實(shí)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(guò)人之處在于使人了解外商直接投資項(xiàng)目對(duì)東道國(guó)的暗示。通過(guò)使用1998——2003年羅馬尼亞公司層面的面板數(shù)據(jù)，檢驗(yàn)外商獨(dú)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(gè)不同的溢出范圍。結(jié)果顯示外商直接投資項(xiàng)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(shuō)明國(guó)內(nèi)外共同所有的項(xiàng)目能夠?qū)?/p>

27、上游部門有正溢出效應(yīng)，但是獨(dú)資企業(yè)沒有這樣的溢出效應(yīng)。在統(tǒng)計(jì)計(jì)量上這兩個(gè)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(guó)內(nèi)外共同所有的項(xiàng)目多增加一個(gè)，供應(yīng)產(chǎn)業(yè)的國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)的要素生產(chǎn)率增加4.4%。這個(gè)模型適用于國(guó)家也適用于地區(qū)的企業(yè)。對(duì)每一個(gè)部門最好的企業(yè)和差一點(diǎn)的企業(yè)都適用。下游部門合資企業(yè)的出現(xiàn)有利于國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)，對(duì)外資機(jī)構(gòu)一點(diǎn)作用也沒有。</p><p>　　與垂直效應(yīng)形成對(duì)比的是，F(xiàn)DI的出現(xiàn)對(duì)在同一個(gè)部門

28、的當(dāng)?shù)仄髽I(yè)的績(jī)效有一個(gè)負(fù)影響。如阿特肯和哈瑞森（1999）所說(shuō)，這個(gè)現(xiàn)象可以歸因于當(dāng)?shù)厣a(chǎn)者被外國(guó)進(jìn)入者搶去了一部分市場(chǎng)份額，以至于因?yàn)楫a(chǎn)量減少而使固定成本增加。這部經(jīng)驗(yàn)主義作品說(shuō)明在發(fā)展中國(guó)家負(fù)面競(jìng)爭(zhēng)效應(yīng)超過(guò)了知識(shí)溢出的正效應(yīng)。如果合資企業(yè)知識(shí)散播更明顯，我們可以預(yù)期合資擁有的FDI項(xiàng)目比獨(dú)資企業(yè)對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)厣a(chǎn)者的負(fù)面影響小一點(diǎn)。我們的調(diào)查結(jié)果與預(yù)期一致，因?yàn)樵谒械姆治鲋形覀冋业搅祟A(yù)期的模型。在對(duì)外國(guó)企業(yè)的二次抽樣和關(guān)注地區(qū)溢出效應(yīng)衰退

29、時(shí)，對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)市場(chǎng)導(dǎo)向的部門來(lái)說(shuō)，這兩個(gè)系數(shù)在統(tǒng)計(jì)計(jì)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(shí)具有外在性，需要予以警惕。我們廣泛地用“溢出”這個(gè)詞是因?yàn)槲覀兊姆椒ㄕ摕o(wú)法使我們辨清楚純粹的知識(shí)外溢，跨國(guó)公司供貨商所能享受到的規(guī)模經(jīng)濟(jì)或者因?yàn)橥鈬?guó)投資者進(jìn)入了產(chǎn)品市場(chǎng)而導(dǎo)致的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)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(duì)東道國(guó)的影響。</p><p>　　我

30、們的調(diào)查結(jié)果并不是說(shuō)明對(duì)外商所有權(quán)的限制是絕對(duì)必要的，因?yàn)檫@樣的限制會(huì)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(shuō)明的問題。有一些其它的政策可能潛在地促進(jìn)跨國(guó)企業(yè)驚醒當(dāng)?shù)夭少?gòu)，比如培養(yǎng)商業(yè)氛圍或開發(fā)供應(yīng)商發(fā)展項(xiàng)目會(huì)幫廚當(dāng)?shù)厣a(chǎn)者學(xué)會(huì)如何滿足外國(guó)買家的要求。在任何情況下，我們需要花更多的力氣通過(guò)研究來(lái)促進(jìn)我們對(duì)東道國(guó)環(huán)境的認(rèn)識(shí)，這有助于促進(jìn)外商直接投資的知識(shí)外溢以及政府政策在這個(gè)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(guó)直接投資是知識(shí)外溢的渠道嗎?日本在美國(guó)外商直接投資 的實(shí)證研究</p><p>　　作者：李

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

49、年這些問題受到了越來(lái)越多的關(guān)注，因?yàn)閲?guó)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(shí)溢出這個(gè)話題。理論和經(jīng)驗(yàn)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(shí)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(shuō)明了“出口學(xué)”效應(yīng)的可能性。這種效應(yīng)就是公司通過(guò)在全球出口市場(chǎng)接觸先進(jìn)的外國(guó)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)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(dòng)不是技術(shù)知識(shí)跨國(guó)界流動(dòng)的唯一方法。一個(gè)明顯的替代方法是外

50、商直接投資。許多國(guó)家都有政策鼓勵(lì)甚至補(bǔ)貼跨國(guó)公司投資。通常，就如新加坡和馬來(lái)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?yàn)榭鐕?guó)公司在國(guó)內(nèi)的分支機(jī)構(gòu)所采取的生產(chǎn)和/或研究活動(dòng)會(huì)帶來(lái)溢出效應(yīng)的好處。為了把這些觀點(diǎn)用仔細(xì)的統(tǒng)計(jì)檢驗(yàn)，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(yàn)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(lái)的基礎(chǔ)方法論檢驗(yàn)高級(jí)產(chǎn)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)中的外商直接投資，加瓦茨克檢驗(yàn)了立陶宛的外商直接投資。</p><p>　　在先前的研究中，我檢驗(yàn)了與這篇論文重點(diǎn)有關(guān)的問題。布蘭斯泰特和納卡姆拉檢驗(yàn)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(yàn)了研發(fā)聯(lián)盟和與美國(guó)的合資企業(yè)促進(jìn)知識(shí)外溢國(guó)際流動(dòng)的程度。這篇論文沒有檢驗(yàn)FDI作為知識(shí)外溢渠道的作用。布蘭斯泰特檢驗(yàn)了在美國(guó)向日本知識(shí)外溢的過(guò)程中F

52、DI的作用，但是只能通過(guò)將美國(guó)公司研發(fā)費(fèi)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(yàn)。正如在論文中所指，這些相關(guān)性常有混淆，從而對(duì)這樣間接推論的準(zhǔn)確性產(chǎn)生懷疑。</p><p>　　這篇論文檢驗(yàn)了間接知識(shí)外溢過(guò)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(duì)比，我不僅測(cè)量了日本投資企業(yè)對(duì)本土美國(guó)公司知識(shí)外溢的過(guò)程中外商直接投資的影響，同時(shí)也測(cè)量了美國(guó)企業(yè)對(duì)日本投

53、資企業(yè)知識(shí)外溢的影響。第二，我根據(jù)子公司的性質(zhì)來(lái)看外商直接投資對(duì)知識(shí)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(duì)跨國(guó)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(cè)量方法來(lái)推斷知識(shí)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(cè)量方法能夠反映市場(chǎng)能力和技術(shù)效率。當(dāng)在技術(shù)上更先進(jìn)的外國(guó)機(jī)構(gòu)第一次進(jìn)入一個(gè)市場(chǎng)，他們的存

54、在會(huì)侵蝕本土企業(yè)的市場(chǎng)能力，同時(shí)，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(shí)的知識(shí)外溢產(chǎn)生，然而他們的影響能夠通過(guò)適當(dāng)條件的變化用數(shù)據(jù)表示出來(lái)。同樣地，東道國(guó)一個(gè)部門如果需求旺盛，會(huì)帶來(lái)高額利潤(rùn)，為國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)產(chǎn)生更高的全要素生產(chǎn)率增長(zhǎng)，同時(shí)，誘導(dǎo)外國(guó)企業(yè)的投資。</p><p>　　這篇論文提供了另一個(gè)經(jīng)驗(yàn)主義結(jié)構(gòu)框架通過(guò)使用特許應(yīng)用數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)衡量外國(guó)直接投資對(duì)知識(shí)外溢的影響。我使用這個(gè)框架來(lái)衡量一