外文翻譯--墨西哥的外商直接投資和進(jìn)出口 （節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　中文3700字,2000單詞，1.1萬(wàn)英文字符</p><p>　　出處：Pacheco‐López P. Foreign Direct Investment, Exports and Imports in Mexico[J]. Studies in Economics, 2005, 28(8):1157-1172.</p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯

2、</p><p>　　外文題目：Foreign Direct Investment, Exports and Imports in Mexico</p><p>　　出 處： Studies in Economics, 2005, 28(8):1157-1172. </p><p>　　作 者： Penelope Pac

3、heco Lopez </p><p><b>　　譯 文：</b></p><p>　　墨西哥的外商直接投資和進(jìn)出口</p><p><b>　　一、簡(jiǎn)介</b></p><p>　　自20世紀(jì)80年代中期以來(lái)，特別是1994年簽署北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定（N

4、AFTA）之后，外商直接投資大幅進(jìn)入墨西哥。墨西哥政府奉行降低外商直接投資的進(jìn)入壁壘的積極政策，希望跨國(guó)公司引進(jìn)外商直接投資通過(guò)知識(shí)溢出與出口增長(zhǎng)較快推動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)。在2001年，墨西哥是拉美最大的外商直接投資（貿(mào)發(fā)會(huì)議，2002年）獲得者，并成為世界第二大貿(mào)易發(fā)展中國(guó)家（世界貿(mào)易組織，2001），有近三分之二的出口來(lái)自跨國(guó)公司（貿(mào)發(fā)會(huì)議，2002）。</p><p>　　本文的目的有三：首先，描述外商直接投資自由化的

5、過(guò)程，并描述性分析外商直接投資在墨西哥的作用；第二，探討外商直接投資和進(jìn)出口的因果關(guān)系；第三，簡(jiǎn)短的總結(jié)評(píng)價(jià)外商直接投資與墨西哥的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展。一般的外國(guó)直接投資的影響是深遠(yuǎn)的，有證據(jù)表明外商直接投資效率顯著影響，如在效率，就業(yè)要素價(jià)格和貿(mào)易方面。墨西哥的情況是，各種研究都集中在外商直接投資對(duì)勞動(dòng)生產(chǎn)率（布洛姆斯特羅姆和佩爾松，1983年；布洛姆斯特羅姆，1988年），工資（芬斯特拉和汗森，1997年），和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)（拉米雷斯2000年;20

6、03年）的影響。然而，盡管外商直接投資和貿(mào)易增長(zhǎng)迅速，外商直接投資對(duì)出口和進(jìn)口的影響尚未廣泛。最近的一篇文章探討外商直接投資和出口的因果關(guān)系（安格斯，2002年），但外商直接投資和進(jìn)口的因果關(guān)系還沒(méi)有研究。</p><p>　　外商直接投資的自由化和作用</p><p>　?。ㄒ唬┩馍讨苯油顿Y的自由化</p><p>　　隨著時(shí)間的推移，對(duì)外商投資法已逐漸放松管制，

7、減少了對(duì)墨西哥公民或活動(dòng)范圍管制。在特別是1989年和1993年的改革，嘗試將外商投資法與北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定兼容。到1995年，1996年，1998年，1999年和2000年對(duì)外商投資法進(jìn)一步修訂，加快了外商直接投資參與墨西哥的經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)。</p><p>　?。ǘ┩馍讨苯油顿Y的績(jī)效</p><p>　　以前分析的外商直接投資自由化的數(shù)據(jù)有利于更好地了解外商直接投資，尤其是從20世紀(jì)90年代

8、的。近數(shù)十年來(lái)，在墨西哥的外商直接投資已發(fā)生顯著變化。在20世紀(jì)70年代，外商直接投資相對(duì)于國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值相對(duì)穩(wěn)定，平均為國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的0.80%，但隨著時(shí)間的推移有所增加，尤其是在20世紀(jì)90年代，流入外商直接投資占國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的比例上升，從1980年的0.94%增加到1993年的1.1%。從1994至2000年平均增加2.7個(gè)百分點(diǎn)，然而，1994年的高數(shù)據(jù)不能全歸功于北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定，因?yàn)?994年的外商直接投資的在改變。這重要的細(xì)

9、節(jié)還沒(méi)有被確定，其中應(yīng)該分析墨西哥的外商直接投資的績(jī)效。</p><p>　　從墨西哥的外商直接投資流入的部門可以看出，他們已主要被投向制造業(yè)，從1994年到2001年，該部門占外商直接投資流入總額的67.3%。</p><p>　　最近，運(yùn)輸和電信服務(wù)業(yè)的逐步放寬，吸引了大量外商直接投資的流入。例如，1999年該部門只引進(jìn)2.56億美元，但次年它注冊(cè)的上升到2,4.58億美元。金融服務(wù)業(yè)

10、的外商直接投資亦顯著擴(kuò)大。在2001年，作為一個(gè)結(jié)果在1999年金融部門的自由化，墨西哥通過(guò)國(guó)家銀行收購(gòu)獲得來(lái)自墨西哥的花旗集團(tuán)的最大外商投資。這項(xiàng)投資在2001年代表外商直接投資總額的百分之五十以上（貿(mào)發(fā)會(huì)議，2002年）。</p><p>　　1994年至2001年外商直接投資在制造業(yè)行業(yè)的分配中，機(jī)器及設(shè)備分部門獲得外商直接投資的比例最高，占48%（包括汽車及汽車零部件部門）；其次是食品，飲料和煙草等部門，

11、約占百分之十九。外商直接投資的公司大部分是在三個(gè)行業(yè)：機(jī)械及設(shè)備（2,818個(gè)公司），化學(xué)物質(zhì)（1,169個(gè)公司），和紡織及皮革制品（1,034個(gè)公司）。盡管在紡織和皮革制品的公司數(shù)量相對(duì)較大，占全部制造業(yè)外商直接投資公司的14.4%，但只占外商直接投資流入量3.8%，反映了企業(yè)的規(guī)模相對(duì)較小。</p><p>　　下面是有關(guān)外商直接投資對(duì)墨西哥的出口的貢獻(xiàn)。例如，在2000年的前35名的跨國(guó)公司，多數(shù)來(lái)自美國(guó)，

12、占墨西哥出口總額的百分之三十（貿(mào)發(fā)會(huì)議，2002）。進(jìn)一步講，自1995至2000年，更多的外商直接投資流入墨西哥，使其出口排名前20位，在增加市場(chǎng)份額方面：它在制造業(yè)和中等技術(shù)排在的第二位，低技術(shù)制造業(yè)在第三位，高技術(shù)制成品排在第六位（貿(mào)發(fā)會(huì)議，2002）。</p><p>　　三、外商直接投資和進(jìn)出口的因果關(guān)系</p><p>　　在本節(jié)中，我們重點(diǎn)放在外商直接投資和出口，外商直接投資

13、和進(jìn)口之間的因果關(guān)系，這可以從任何一個(gè)方向出發(fā)。在出口方面，最初，公司在國(guó)外市場(chǎng)的貿(mào)易，并向合作伙伴學(xué)習(xí)更多有關(guān)其經(jīng)濟(jì)，社會(huì)，政治和執(zhí)政條件。然后他們可能在東道國(guó)設(shè)立子公司或他們可能會(huì)與當(dāng)?shù)仄髽I(yè)合資。這意味著外商直接投資的流入，經(jīng)過(guò)一段時(shí)期，跨國(guó)公司可能開(kāi)始出口（貿(mào)發(fā)會(huì)議，1996年;羅布和維塔，2003年）?？鐕?guó)公司在東道國(guó)在擴(kuò)大出口的派生作用，他們可以引進(jìn)額外的資本，新技術(shù)和更好的市場(chǎng)管理戰(zhàn)略（貿(mào)發(fā)會(huì)議，2002）。因此，這可能是一

14、個(gè)雙向的因果關(guān)系：出口刺激外商直接投資和外商直接投資促進(jìn)出口。</p><p><b>　?。ㄒ唬┭芯糠椒?lt;/b></p><p>　　我們利用格蘭杰因果關(guān)系的方法來(lái)研究外商直接投資的流入量和出口之間的關(guān)系，外商直接投資的流入量和進(jìn)口之間的關(guān)系。在一個(gè)二元框架內(nèi)，變量x引起變量y變化，如果預(yù)測(cè)的變量y改善時(shí)，將考慮在該方程x的滯后變量，其他條件不變。換句話說(shuō)，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)格蘭

15、杰因果關(guān)系中的程序是基于過(guò)去的變化，即一個(gè)變量實(shí)際解釋在另一個(gè)變量的變化。</p><p>　　測(cè)試因果關(guān)系，在理論上說(shuō)，涉及使用的是F-檢驗(yàn)（或Wald檢驗(yàn)）。一類檢驗(yàn)格蘭杰因果關(guān)系的適當(dāng)?shù)男问綖椋ū仨毷沁m用于平穩(wěn)序列）：</p><p>　　Xt= β0 + β1Xt?1 + ... + βjXt?j+ θ1FDIt?1 + ... + θjFDIt?j+ µt

16、 (1)</p><p>　　FDIt= δ0 + δ1FDIt?1 + ... + δjFDIt?j+ γ1Xt?1 + ... + γjXt?j+ νt (2)</p><p>　　Mt= ?0 + ?1Mt?1 + ... + ?jMt?j+ α1FDIt?1 + ... + αjFDIt?j+ σt (3)&l

17、t;/p><p>　　FDIt= ψ0 + ψ1FDIt?1 + ... + ψjFDIt?j+ ξ1Mt?1 + ... + ξjMt?j+ τt (4)</p><p>　　j = 1, 2,..., N,</p><p>　　其中，X是出口額，F(xiàn)DI是外商直接投資的流入量，M是進(jìn)口額，μT，νt，σt和τt是零均值的誤差項(xiàng)。在方程（1）中

18、，原假設(shè)外商直接投資不會(huì)引起X變化（θ1= ...=θj=0），檢驗(yàn)使用的是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的F -檢驗(yàn)（Wald檢驗(yàn)）。如果它被拒絕，θ的共同顯著異于零。同樣，在方程（2）原假設(shè)X不引起外商直接投資的變化（γ1= ...=γj=0），如果被拒絕了，則γ的共同顯著異于零。同樣的程序適用于與方程（3）和（4）。</p><p>　　考慮到Pesaran和Shin改進(jìn)的ARDL模型（1995），根據(jù)四個(gè)方程推導(dǎo)出一個(gè)模型為：&l

19、t;/p><p>　　?yt= λ0 + 錯(cuò)誤!未找到引用源。 ?yt?i + 錯(cuò)誤!未找到引用源。 ?xt?i + πρt?1 + εt (5)</p><p>　　其中ρt- 1是從各方程（方程（1）至（4））獲得的滯后誤差修正項(xiàng)的殘差，εt是隨機(jī)擾動(dòng)項(xiàng)。方程（5）為零假設(shè)，即x不會(huì)導(dǎo)致y的變化，如果被拒絕，滯后系數(shù)βxi共同顯著異于零，使用一個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的F -檢驗(yàn)（Wald

20、檢驗(yàn)）。在案例的X和Y協(xié)整之間，一個(gè)實(shí)現(xiàn)長(zhǎng)期均衡值的變量的變化可能是導(dǎo)致其他變量的結(jié)果變化。同樣，X和Y之間的因果關(guān)系可確定假如誤差項(xiàng)（ρt- 1）是顯著的。請(qǐng)注意，格蘭杰檢驗(yàn)結(jié)果只能表示在X的變化必須在Y的變化之前。一個(gè)ρt- 1（π）的顯著系數(shù)顯示短期的內(nèi)生變量系數(shù)對(duì)長(zhǎng)期平衡態(tài)的調(diào)整，反應(yīng)外生變量的變化。</p><p>　　為了獲得格蘭杰因果關(guān)系得出的一致的結(jié)果，要遵循三個(gè)步驟。第一步是測(cè)試變量整合的順序。

21、第二個(gè)步驟是測(cè)試使用最大似然方法。最后，是進(jìn)行格蘭杰因果檢驗(yàn)。</p><p><b>　?。ǘ?shí)證分析</b></p><p>　　自變量之間的協(xié)整關(guān)系的存在得到確認(rèn)，下一步是檢驗(yàn)外商直接投資流入和進(jìn)口，出口之間的因果關(guān)系。文獻(xiàn)提供了不同的統(tǒng)計(jì)方法來(lái)檢驗(yàn)確定最優(yōu)滯后的因果關(guān)系。在ARDL和誤差校正模型中施瓦茨貝葉斯準(zhǔn)則（SBC）的和赤池信息準(zhǔn)則（AIC）被用來(lái)確定

22、最佳滯后長(zhǎng)度。</p><p>　　從第一組回歸證據(jù)證明出口和外商直接投資之間的因果關(guān)系，要考慮懷特檢驗(yàn)或誤差項(xiàng)。這是一個(gè)有趣的結(jié)果，由以往的理論和支持描述性分析，這表明，出口的增加能吸引更多外商直接投資流入該國(guó)，外商直接投資的流入并鼓勵(lì)出口。我們的結(jié)果與安格西等人發(fā)現(xiàn)是一致的（2002年）。</p><p>　　根據(jù)這兩個(gè)結(jié)果可提出意見(jiàn)。首先，文獻(xiàn)中討論的，墨西哥政府一直遵循以出口為主導(dǎo)

23、的增長(zhǎng)模式作為發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略，其中出口促進(jìn)和刺激外商直接投資。然而，雖然這是事實(shí)，隨著跨國(guó)公司的進(jìn)入出現(xiàn)了墨西哥的出口結(jié)構(gòu)的一些升級(jí)，但它并不意味著能夠提高墨西哥的可持續(xù)產(chǎn)出增長(zhǎng)率。例如，1970至1993年在外國(guó)直接投資自由化前期國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值平均增長(zhǎng)率是每年4.3%相比1994年以來(lái)每年增長(zhǎng)3.3%。其次，外商直接投資與進(jìn)口有著密切的關(guān)系。同時(shí)外商直接投資增加，進(jìn)口量加劇。如前所述，進(jìn)口的要求主要是為國(guó)內(nèi)和出口產(chǎn)品的服務(wù)，并納入技術(shù)，以促進(jìn)

24、經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展。因此，外商直接投資的方向和分配起著重要的作用，是平衡在墨西哥的貿(mào)易和經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的中心，但可持續(xù)增長(zhǎng)率與平衡國(guó)際收支并沒(méi)有一致增加。</p><p><b>　　四、總結(jié)</b></p><p>　　雖然墨西哥的外商直接投資的增長(zhǎng)，特別是自1994年簽署北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定協(xié)議以來(lái)，已經(jīng)對(duì)出口產(chǎn)生積極影響，但是外商直接投資增加也對(duì)墨西哥經(jīng)濟(jì)造成了困難。</p

25、><p>　　第一，有證據(jù)表明它已銷毀本地產(chǎn)業(yè)，卻步國(guó)內(nèi)工業(yè)化（莫蒂莫爾，2000年），并導(dǎo)致墨西哥經(jīng)濟(jì)兩極分化（杜塞爾，2000）。</p><p>　　第二，我們應(yīng)該記住，外商直接投資流入，與其相關(guān)的，或任何其他類型的收購(gòu)已經(jīng)存在的資產(chǎn)，都只會(huì)有一個(gè)非常有限的影響，如果有的話，都是對(duì)生產(chǎn)系統(tǒng)或行業(yè)部門（出口）。外商直接投資是一次性的外匯對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的貢獻(xiàn)的類型。例如，花旗銀行的收購(gòu)巴納墨西哥在2

26、001年外商直接投資總額的50%，但在出口或產(chǎn)出增長(zhǎng)都沒(méi)有產(chǎn)生重大影響。</p><p>　　第三，北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定，包括外商直接投資有關(guān)的協(xié)定，已能夠有效地應(yīng)用一個(gè)成功的外向型發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略包括工業(yè)戰(zhàn)略和貿(mào)易政策，將確保在出口和進(jìn)口增長(zhǎng)方面有更好的平衡而不制約了產(chǎn)量的持續(xù)增長(zhǎng)（布萊克，1996）。有很多的證據(jù)表明，墨西哥的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)是平衡的限制（莫雷諾布里德，1998年，1999年和2001年），而這個(gè)限制對(duì)貿(mào)易自由化

27、更加明顯。雖然北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定曾作為催化劑，促進(jìn)引進(jìn)外商直接投資和出口，但也使墨西哥產(chǎn)生了的一些經(jīng)濟(jì)困難。</p><p>　　Foreign Direct Investment, Exportsand Imports in Mexico</p><p>　　Penelope Pacheco-Lopez</p><p>　　INTRODUCTION</p&g

28、t;<p>　　SINCE the mid-1980s, and particularly since the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, there has been a large increase of foreign direct investment (FDI) into Mexico. The Mexic

29、an government has pursued an active policy of lowering entry barriers to investment from foreign multinational corporations (MNCs) in the hope that FDI will promote economic development through knowledge spillovers and a

30、 faster growth of exports. In 2001, Mexico was the largest FDI recipient in</p><p>　　The purpose of this paper is three-fold; firstly to examine the FDI liberalisation process in Mexico and to present a desc

31、riptive analysis of the performance of FDI; secondly to explore the causality relationships between FDI and exports and imports, and thirdly to conclude with a brief critical evaluation of FDI for Mexico’s economic devel

32、opment. The effects of FDI in general can be far- reaching, with evidence that FDI impacts significantly on efficiency, employment, factor prices and trade.1 </p><p>　　THE LIBERALISATION AND PERFORMANCE OF F

33、DI</p><p>　　a. FDI Liberalisation</p><p>　　Over time, the deregulation of the Foreign Investment Law (FIL) has gradually reduced the range of activities reserved for the State or Mexican citizen

34、s. In particular, the reforms of 1989 and 1993 attempted to make the FIL compatible with the proposal for NAFTA. Further amendments to the FIL in 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2000 accelerated the participation of FDI in Me

35、xican economic activity.</p><p>　　b. FDI Performance</p><p>　　The previous analysis of FDI liberalisation facilitates a better understanding of the FDI figures, especially those from the 1990s.

36、Over recent decades, the performance of FDI in Mexico has changed markedly (see Figure 1). During the 1970s, FDI relative to GDP was more or less stable, averaging 0.80 per cent of GDP, but it has increased over time, es

37、pecially during the 1990s. FDI inflows as a percentage of GDP rose from 0.94 per cent in 1980 to 1.1 per cent in 1993; and from 1994 to 2000 it rose</p><p>　　Looking at the sectoral destination of FDI Sows i

38、nto Mexico, it can be seen that they have been primarily channelled to the manufacturing sector. From 1994 to 2001 this sector accounted for 67.3 per cent of total FDI inflows.</p><p>　　Recently, the deregul

39、ation of services in transport and telecommunications has attracted huge FDI inflows. For instance, in 1999 this sector received only 256 millions of US$, and the following year it registered 2,458 millions of US$.10 The

40、 financial services sector has also expanded significantly. In 2001, as a result of the liberalisation of the financial sector in 1999, Mexico received the largest foreign investment ever made resulting from the acquisit

41、ion of Banco Nacional de Mexico (Baname</p><p>　　FDI in the manufacturing subsectors from 1994 to 2001. The Machinery and Equipment sub-sector received the highest share of FDI - 48 per cent (automobiles and

42、 auto-parts are included in this sub-sector);12 followed by the Food Products, Beverages and Tobacco sub-sector with 19 per cent.13 Table 3 also shows the number of firms in the manufacturing sub-sectors which received F

43、DI and the percentage that it represents. The majority of the firms with FDI are in three sub-sectors: Machinery and Equip</p><p>　　It is relevant to mention the contribution that FDI makes to Mexican export

44、s. For instance, in 2000 the top 35 MNCs, most of them from the US, accounted for 30 per cent of total Mexican exports (UNCTAD, 2002). Further - and perhaps a more relevant result derived from FDI inflows - from 1995 to

45、2000 Mexico occupied top ranking positions in the ‘top 20 export winners list’s in terms of increased market share: it ranked second in medium-technology manufactures, third in low-technology manufactures,</p><

46、;p>　　CAUSALITY RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FDI, EXPORTS AND IMPORTS</p><p>　　In this section we focus our attention on the causal relationship between FDI and exports, and FDI and imports, which could run in ei

47、ther direction. With regard to exports, initially, firms trade in the foreign market, and after learning more about the economic, social, political and ruling conditions of their trading partners they may establish a sub

48、sidiary in the host country (Liu et al., 2001) or they may embark on joint ventures with local enterprises. This implies FDI inflows, and, after so</p><p>　　a. Methodology</p><p>　　We use the Gr

49、anger causality methodology to test for the relationship between FDI infows and exports, and FDI in^ows and imports. In a bivariate framework, the variable x is said to cause the variable y in the Granger sense if the fo

50、recast for y improves when lagged variables for x are taken into account in the equation, ceteris paribus (Charemza and Deadman, 1997). In other words, the standard Granger causality procedure is based on past changes in

51、 one variable explaining actual changes in anot</p><p>　　Testing causality, in the Granger sense, involves using an F-test (or Wald test). The appropriate formulation of a Granger-type test of causality (whi

52、ch must be applied to stationary series) is:</p><p>　　where X is exports, FDI is foreign direct investment inflows, M is imports; ?t, ?t,, ?t, and ?t are error terms with zero mean. In equation (1), the nul

53、l hypothesis ‘FDI does not Granger cause X’ (θ1= …. = θj = 0) is tested using a standard F-test (Wald test). It is rejected if the θs are jointly significantly different from zero. Similarly, in equation (2) the null hyp

54、othesis ‘X does not Granger cause FDI’ (γ1 =…= γj = 0) is rejected if the γs are jointly significantly different from zero. The</p><p>　　Considering the ARDL model developed by Pesaran and Shin (1995), an er

55、ror-correction model for each of the four equations is derived:</p><p>　　where ρt-1 is the lagged error correction term obtained from the residuals in each equation (equations 1 to 4) and εt is the random di

56、sturbance term. From equation (5) the null hypothesis that ‘x does not Granger cause y’ would be rejected if the lagged coefficients of the βxi’s are jointly significantly different from zero, using a standard F-test (Wa

57、ld test). In case of cointegration between x and y, changes in one variable towards its long run equilibrium value may be a result of variations i</p><p>　　In order to obtain consistent results derived from

58、the Granger causality procedure three steps are followed. The first step is to test the order of integration of the variables. The second step is to test for cointegration using the Johansen maximum likelihood approach.

59、Finally, the third step is to carry out the Granger causality tests.</p><p>　　b. Empirical Analysis</p><p>　　Since the existence of cointegration between the variables is confirmed, the next ste

60、p is to test for the causal relationships between FDI in^ows, exports and imports. The literature offers different statistical methods to determine the optimal lags in Granger causality tests. The Schwarz Bayesian criter

61、ion (SBC) and the Akaike information criterion (AIC) were used to determine the optimal lag-lengths in the ARDL and error-correction models. Table 6 shows the results, which point to some pattern</p><p>　　Fr

62、om the first set of regressions there is evidence of bidirectional Granger causality between exports and FDI, either considering the Wald test or the error term. This is an interesting result, which is supported by the t

63、heory and previous descriptive analysis, because it suggests that the performance of exports stimulates more FDI inflows to the country, and also FDI inflows encourage exports. Our results are consistent with those found

64、 by Alguacil et al. (2002). The second set of results supp</p><p>　　Two comments on these results may be made. First, as discussed in the literature, the Mexican government has followed the export-led growth

65、 model as a development strategy (Thornton, 1996; Abdulnasser and Manuchehr, 2000; Balassa, 1983; and Alguacil et al., 2002), where exports are promoted and stimulated by FDI. However, although it is true that there has

66、been some upgrading of the type of Mexican exports, by means of MNCs’ entry, it has not been enough to raise Mexico’s sustainable output grow</p><p>　　CONCLUSION</p><p>　　While FDI has grown in

67、Mexico, particularly since the signing of the NAFTA agreement in 1994, and has had a positive effect on exports, the increase in FDI has also posed difficulties for the Mexican economy.</p><p>　　First, there

68、 is evidence that it has destroyed local industries (Mattar et al., 2002); deterred domestic industrialisation (Mortimore, 2000), and contributed to ‘polarisation’ of the Mexican economy (Dussel, 2000).14</p><

69、p>　　Secondly, it should be remembered that FDIinflows, associated with mergers, or any other sort of acquisition of already existing assets, will only have a very limited impact, if any, on the productive system or th

70、e trade sector (exports). This type of FDI would be a one-off foreign exchange contribution to the economy. For example, the acquisition of Banamex by Citicorp in 2001 accounted for 50 per cent of FDI inflows in that yea

71、r, but did not have a significant impact either on exports or outpu</p><p>　　Thirdly, the NAFTA agreement, including agreements concerning FDI, has effectively removed the ability to the Mexican state to app

72、ly strategic industrial and trade policies for a successful outward-oriented development strategy that would ensure a better balance between the growth of exports and imports without constraining the growth of output in