1、 1 中文 3853 字， 2135 单词 文献一： Research on Spillover Effect of Foreign Direct Investment 1. Introduction In recent decades, economists have begun to identify technical progress, or more generally, knowledge creation, as the major determinant of economic growth. Until the 1970s, the analysis of economic
2、growth was typically based on neoclassical models that explain growth with the accumulation of labor, capital, and other production factors with diminishing returns to scale. In these models, the economy converges to steady state equilibrium where the level of per capita income is determined by savi
3、ngs and investment, depreciation, and population growth, but where there is no permanent income growth. Any observed income growth per capita occurs because the economy is still converging towards its steady state, or because it is in transition from one steady state to another. The policies needed
4、to achieve growth and development in the framework of these models is therefore straightforward: increases in savings and investments and reductions in the population growth rate, shift the economy to a higher steady state income level. From the view of developing countries, however, these policies
5、are difficult to implement. Low income and development levels are not only consequences, but also causes of low savings and high population growth rates. The importance of technical progress was also recognized in the neoclassical growth models, but the determinants of the level of technology were n
6、ot discussed in detail； instead, technology was seen as an exogenous factor. Yet, it was clear that convergence in income percapita levels could not occur unless technologies converged as well. From the 1980s and onwards, growth research has therefore increasingly focused on understanding and ontoge
7、netic technical progress. Modern growth theory is largely built on models with constant or increasing returns to reproducible factors as a result of the accumulation of knowledge. Knowledge is, to some extent, a public good, and R&D, education, training, and other investments in knowledge creation m
8、ay generate externalities that prevent diminishing returns to scale for labor and physical capital. Taking this into account, the economy may experience positive long-run growth instead of the neoclassical steady state where per capita incomes remain unchanged. Depending on the economic starting poi
9、nt, technical progress and growth can be based on creation of entirely new knowledge, or adaptation and transfer of existing foreign technology. Along with international trade, the most important vehicle for international technology transfer is foreign direct investment (FDI). It is well known that
10、multinational corporations (MNCs) undertake a major part of the worlds private R&D efforts and production, own and control most of the worlds advanced technology. When a MNC sets up a foreign affiliate, the affiliate receives some amount of the proprietary technology that constitutes the parents fir
11、m specific advantage and allows it to compete successfully with local firms that have superior knowledge of local markets, consumer preferences, and business practices. This leads to a geographical diffusion of technology, but not necessarily to any formal transfer of technology beyond the boundarie
12、s of the MNCs； the establishment of a foreign affiliate is, almost per definition, a decision to internalize the use of core technology. However, MNC technology may still leak to the surrounding economy through external 2 effects or spillovers that raise the level of human capital in the host countr
13、y and create productivity increases in local firms. In many cases, the effects operate through forward and backward linkages, as MNCs provide training and technical assistance to their local suppliers, subcontractors, and customers. The labor market is another important channel for spillovers, as al
14、most all MNCs train operatives and managers who may subsequently take employment in local firms or establish entirely new companies. It is therefore not surprising that attitudes towards inward FDI have changed considerably over the last couple of decades, as most countries have liberalized their po
15、licies to attract all kinds of foreign investment. Numerous governments have even introduced various forms of investment incentives to encourage foreign MNCs to invest in their jurisdiction. However, productivity and technology spillovers are not automatic consequences of FDI. Instead, FDI and human
16、 capital interact in a complex manner, where FDI inflows create a potential for spillovers of knowledge to the local labor force, at the same time as the host countrys level of human capital determines how much FDI it can attract and whether local firms are able to absorb the potential spillover ben
17、efits. 2. Foreign Direct Investment and Spillovers The earliest discussions of spillovers in the literature on foreign direct investment date back to the 1960s. The first author who systematically introduced spillovers (or external effects) among the possible consequences of FDI was MacDougall (1960
18、), who analyzed the general welfare effects of foreign investment. The common aim of the studies was to identify the various costs and benefits of FDI. Productivity externalities were discussed together with several other indirect effects that influence the welfare assessment, such as those arising
19、from the impact of FDI on government revenue, tax policies, terms of trade, and the balance of payments. The fact that spillovers included in the discussion was generally motivated by empirical evidence from case studies rather than by comprehensive theoretical arguments. Yet, the early analyses mad
20、e clear that multinationals may improve locatives efficiency by entering into industries with high entry barriers and reducing monopolistic distortions, and induce higher technical efficiency if the increased competitive pressure or some demonstration effect spurs local firms to more efficient use o
21、f existing resources. They also proposed that the presence may lead to increases in the rate of technology transfer and diffusion. More specifically, case studies showed that foreign MNCs may: (1) Contribute to efficiency by breaking supply bottlenecks (but that the effect may become less important
22、as the technology of the host country advances)； (2) Introduce new know-how by demonstrating new technologies and training workers who later take employment in local firms； (3) Either break down monopolies and stimulate competition and efficiency or create a more monopolistic industry structure, dep
23、ending on the strength and responses of the local firms； (4) Transfer techniques for inventory and quality control and standardization to their local suppliers and distribution channels； Although this diverse list gives some clues about the broad range of various spillover effects, it says little ab
24、out how common or how important they are in general. Similar complaints can be made about the evidence on spillovers gauged from the numerous case studies discussing various aspects of FDI in different countries and industries. These studies often contain valuable 3 circumstantial evidence of spillo
25、vers, but often fail to show how significant the spillover effects are and whether the results can be generalized. For instance, many analyses of the linkages between MNCs and their local suppliers and subcontractors have documented learning and technology transfers that may make up a basis for prod
26、uctivity spillovers or market access spillovers. However, these studies seldom reveal whether the MNCs are able to extract all the benefits that the new technologies or information generate among their supplier firms. Hence, there is no clear proof of spillovers, but it is reasonable to assume that
27、spillovers are positively related to the extent of linkages. Similarly, there are many works on the relation between MNCs entry and presence and market structure in host countries, and this is closely related to the possible effects of FDI on competition in the local markets. There are also case stu
28、dies of demonstration effects, technology diffusion, and labor training in foreign MNCs. However, although these studies provide much detailed information about the various channels for spillovers, they say little about the overall significance of such spillovers. The statistical studies of spillove
29、rs, by contrast, may reveal the overall impact of foreign presence on the productivity of local firms, but they are generally not able to say much about how the effects come about. These studies typically estimate production functions for locally owned firms, and include the foreign share of the ind
30、ustry as one of the explanatory variables. They then test whether foreign presence has a significant positive impact on local productivity once other firm and industry characteristics have been accounted. Research conclude that domestic firms exhibited higher productivity in sectors with a larger fo
31、reign share, but argue that it may be wrong to conclude that spillovers have taken place if MNC affiliates systematically locate in the more productive sectors. In addition, they are also able to perform some more detailed tests of regional differences in spillovers. Examining the geographical dispe
32、rsion of foreign investment, they suggest that the positive impact of FDI accrue mainly to the domestic firms located close to the MNC affiliates. However, effects seem to vary between industries. The results on the presence of spillovers seem to be mixed； recent studies suggest that there should be
33、 a systematic pattern where various host industry and host country characteristics influence the incidence of spillovers. For instance, the foreign affiliates levels of technology or technology imports seem to influence the amount of spillovers to local firms. The technology imports of MNC affiliate
34、s, in turn, have been shown to vary systematically with host country characteristics. These imports seem larger in countries and industries where the educational level of the local labor force is higher, where local competition is tougher, and where the host country imposes fewer formal requirements
35、 on the affiliates operations. Some recent studies have also addressed the apparent contradictions between the earlier statistical spillover studies, with the hypothesis that the host countrys level of technical development or human capital may matter as a starting point. In fact, in some cases, lar
36、ge foreign presence may even be a sign of a weak local industry, where local firms have not been able to absorb any productivity spillovers at all and have therefore been forced to yield market shares to the foreign MNCs. 3. FDI Spillover and Human Capital Development The transfer of technology from MNC parents to its affiliates and other host country firms is
