1、PDF外文：http:/ 1 本科毕业论文外文翻译 外文题目 : Dose foreign direct investment always enhance economic growth ? 出 处： KYKLOS,Vol.56-2003-Fasc.4,491-508 &nbs
2、p; 作 者 : Joze Mencinger 原 文： Does Foreign Direct Investment Always Enhance
3、;Economic Growth? Joze Mencinger Introduction For international financial institutions, politicians, and the vast majority of economists foreign 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
4、 has acquired the status of conventional fact. Economic theory namely suggests that unfettered international capital flows foster efficient allocation of resources, which by itself should promote growth. The economic benefits of FDI are considered to be twofold. First, FDI can help countries if dome
5、stic savings are insufficient to finance economic expansion； secondly, a foreign corporate presence is associated with positive externalities. The almost desperate efforts of many countries to attract as much FDI as possible indirectly support the theory. However, substantial gains of inward FDI for
6、 the host countries have been much more asserted than confirmed by empirical evidence. The results of a rapidly growing number of empirical studies on the relation between FDI and economic growth differ, although most studies start with essentially the same benchmark cross-country growth model. The
7、differences in the sets of the countries included, sample periods, data, and estimation techniques hamper comparisons across the studies (Edison et al. 2002). In many studies dealing with subsets of the countries, FDI or FDI in combination with some other factor or factors, is positively related to
8、growth, while several studies (Rodrik 1998, Grilli and Milesi-Ferretti 1995, Kraay 2 1998) have found no significant relationship between FDI and growth. Most studies have stressed the differences among the sets of countries included regarding their trade policies, institutional characteristic
9、s, or level of development. More than two decades ago Bhagwati (1978) suggested that the impact of FDI on growth depends on the trade policy of a host country； in export-promoting countries FDI would increase growth, while it would have no impact in a country with an import substitution trade policy
10、. His hypothesis was tested by Balasubramanayam, Salisu and Sapsford (1996)； the outcome was mixed. Blomstrm, Lipsey and Zejan (1994) found that FDI only promotes growth in higher-income developing countries. Empirical studies on the subject have therefore not refuted the statement that in general,
11、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). A sizable literature on FDI in transition economies can be loosely divided into the studies dealing with the determinants
12、of FDI and those dealing with the impacts of FDI on economic performance. Most of the studies used microeconomic data 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
13、 of transition countries (Campos and Kinoshita 2002, Krkoska 2001, Lipschitz et al. 2002) which are considered here. Indeed, we only want to answer two questions. First: Did foreign takeovers, a predominant form of FDI in developed transition countries, enhance their economic growth during the post-
14、transition period? Secondly: If not, what were the reasons? Data We shall concentrate on a very narrow sample both regarding the set of the countries and the period included. The sample consists of eight EU candidates Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Sloveni
15、a in the post-transition period, which is also the period of their gradual accession to EU 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 is based on experiences with transitio
16、n processes in different country groups. First, we try to observe a set of countries with common institutional and cultural characteristics, a particular growth experience, and at a particular level of development. Only these eight out of 25 transition countries were 3 acknowledged as function
17、ing market economies by EU standards and became candidates for entry in 20041. Secondly, transition brought a fundamental break in the way in which economies function and the transition period in the narrow sense should not be included in the sample2. With both restrictions we get a much narrower se
18、t of transition countries than the one used by Campos and Kinoshita (2002). Let us begin by exploring 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 investm
19、ent and gross domestic product (FDI), the latter representing also a kind of revealed liberalization of capital account. The average FDI in the 19942001period was 4.14 percent ranging between 6.05 percent in Estonia and 1.32 percent in Slovenia, while the growth of GDP by 3.65 percent a year was ran
20、ging between 4.87 percent in Poland and 1.97 percent in Czech Republic. Growth was most stable in Slovenia and most unstable in Lithuania. Correlation coefficients between growth and corresponding FDI are negative in seven out of the eight countries and positive in Lithuania； if data are pooled, the
21、 simple correlation coefficient remains negative. 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 in six out of eight years, positive correlation in 1997, and insignificant in 1998. Tab
22、le 1 also indicates that Slovenia, with by far the smallest share of foreign direct investment in GDP, had an economic growth above the average and also very stable. This can be explained by the much better initial conditions of the country at the beginning of transition； one could thus claim that e
23、conomic growth and convergence of the country to the EU would be even faster with more foreign direct investment. Table1 Foreign Direct Investment and GDP growth (country time series, 19942001) country average FDI Standard deviation Average rGDP Standard deviation Correlation coefficient Czech 5.80 3.61 1.97 2.90 -0.18
