外文翻译---国际和国内的技术外溢与中国生产率增长

《外文翻译---国际和国内的技术外溢与中国生产率增长》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外文翻译---国际和国内的技术外溢与中国生产率增长（7页珍藏版）》请在毕设资料网上搜索。

1、 1 本科毕业论文外文翻译 外文题目： International and International Technological Spillovers and Productivity Growth in China 出 处： Xiaolan Fu； Yundan Gong. Asian Economic Papers, Spring2009, Vol. 8 Issue 2, p1-23 作 者： Xiaolan Fu； Yundan Gong 原 文： International and International Technological Spillovers and Producti

2、vity Growth in China Three decades of the Chinese economys fast economic growth has attracted substantial research interest. This impressive growth performance is not only due to factor accumulation,but to productivity growth as well. As the largest foreign direct investment (FDI) recipient in the d

3、eveloping world, how much has China beneated from the huge inoows of FDI? Technology transfer through FDI has been regarded as a major engine of technological upgrading in developing countries for a long period. What are the roles of international and intranational research and development (R&D) spi

4、llovers in the technical progress and productivity growth in China? Can developing countries rely on foreign technology to catch up with the industrialized countries? Empirical evidence on the impact of FDI on the productivity growth of indigenous arms is mixed (Blomstrom and Kokko 1998； Aitken and

5、Harrison 1999； Greenaway 2001； Javorcik 2004). It is found that intranational knowledge spillovers are a more important source of technological progress than the international spillovers for the United States and Japan (Branstetter 2001). In the context of China, Hu and Jefferson (2002) find signifi

6、cant productivity depression rather than positive spillover effects of FDI on domestic arms. Using cross-section data for 1995, Buckley,Clegg, and Wang (2002) find that non-Chinese multinational enterprises (MNEs)generate technological and international market access spillover beneats for Chinese ar

7、ms, whereas overseas Chinese investors confer only market access beneats. Spatially,Chen, Li, and Shapiro (2008) find that in locations with a strong clustering of innovative foreign arms, local arms benefit from knowledge spillovers, but not in locations where foreign concentration is measured by e

8、mployment or capital. These studies provide useful insights. However, foreign knowledge and the spillovers from FDI are often 2 tested using an output/employment/asset share of foreign invested arms or productivity or R&D activities of foreign arms in the same industry or region. Although there are

9、some studies that have tested the spillovers of international knowledge stock through international trade and FDI at the country and industry levels directly (e.g., Coe and Helpman 1995), no study at arm level has tested the international knowledge on spillovers directly. This paper explores the rol

10、e of inter- and intranational technological spillovers from FDI in technical change, efficiency improvement, and total factor productivity (TFP)growth in Chinese manufacturing arms using a recent Chinese manufacturing firm-level panel data set of 56,125 arms over the 200105 period. International ind

11、ustry-specific R&D stock is linked to the Chinese arm-level data by corresponding industry and adjusted by industry- and arm-level degrees of openness. Therefore, we employ two sources of R&D spillovers from FDI: R&D spillovers from innovation activities by foreign invested arms in the same industry

12、 and international R&D spillovers through FDI. We use the non-parametric frontier technique to decompose the TFP growth of arms into technical change and efficiency improvement. Unlike most of the existing studies that estimate TFP using a single unchanging production function across industries, thi

13、s study allows for the differences in production technology across industries, and TFP is estimated for each industry separately. This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses the theoretical framework on international and intranational R&D spillovers. Section 3 discusses the data, model,

14、and methodology. Section 4 presents empirical evidence. Section 5 provides conclusions. The literature presents two alternative perspectives for the choice of technology development paths for developing countries. One perspective proposes that FDI technology transferred from developed countries has

15、positive effects on developing countries (Eden, Lecitas, and Martinez 1997； Kokko, Tansini, and Zejan 1997), and therefore, the technology spillover effects of FDI may be more important than the effects of domestic investments (Borensztein, Gregorio, and Lee 1995). The degree of technology diffusion

16、 from FDI grows with the increase in technology distance between the hosts and the foreign countries (Findlay 1978). The greater the technology distance, the more difficult it becomes for developing countries to boost independent innovation. Another outlook is that the introduction of FDI will make

17、the competing domestic arms worse off (Aitken and Harrison 1999), and will reduce the R&D efforts of local arms (OECD 2002). Furthermore, the benefits of FDI technology spillovers are limited because most techniques transferred from foreign investment arms are usually mature techniques, not core tec

18、hniques； and as the working conditions and rewards of overseas-funded arms are better than that of native arms, knowledge diffusion caused by turnover of native talented personnel is usually one-way from the native arms to overseas-funded arms. Moreover, technologies created in the industrialized co

19、untries are argued to be biased to the factor endowment of the country where the technology is developed, and 3 therefore are capital and skilled-labor augmenting(Basu and Weil 1998； Acemoglu 2002). The advanced foreign technology, therefore,may not be appropriate for developing countries given thei

20、r different factor, economic, and social conditions (Atkinson and Stiglitz 1969； Stewart 1983). Finally, considering that technology progress has the characteristic of path dependence, a country that is dependent on the technology spillover of FDI for a long period will later limit its independent i

21、nnovation. Therefore, strengthening R&D and enhancing the independent creative abilities should be the main path for developing countries technological advancement. Taking into account the pros and cons of the foreign and indigenous innovation, Lall (2003) argues that neither autonomous innovations

22、nor FDI-reliant strategies can be used independently. Theoretically, FDI contributes to technological upgrading in the host economy in several ways. First, advanced technology embedded in imported machinery and equipment can lift the level production technology of the host economy. Second,R&D and ot

23、her forms of innovation generated by foreign arms and R&D labs of MNEs increase the innovation outputs in the country directly (Athreye and Cantwell 2007). Third, FDI may contribute to the local innovation system by bringing in advanced management practices and thus improving the innovation efficien

24、cy of the local innovation system (Fu 2008a). Finally, technological spillovers from foreign innovation activities may influence technical change and the catch-up of indigenous arms. Knowledge spillovers from foreign to local arms may take place through knowledge transfer within the supply chain, sk

25、illed labor turnovers, demonstration effects when local arms are learning by imitation, and competition effects when the competitive pressure caused by foreign presence forces the local arms to improve their production technology and management. However, foreign R&D activities could also generate ne

26、gative externalities to the domestic innovation activities. These negative effects could occur if foreign arms exploit their superior technology and marketing power to force local competitors to reduce their outputs or if they attract the most talented researchers and compete in the markets of innov

27、ation products that threaten local arms, or SMEs in particular(Aitken and Harrison 1999； Fu 2004, 2007； Aghion et al. 2005； UNCTAD 2005). Moreover,there are several reasons that local arms might not be able to enjoy the FDI spillover effects efficiently. First, knowledge transfer via supply chain re

28、quires effective linkages between foreign arms and local suppliers and customers (Balasubramanyam, Salisu, and Sapsford 1996； Fu 2004). Second, significant spillovers from FDI on local arms are also subject to sufacient absorptive capacity of the local arms and organizations (Cohen and Levinthal 198

29、9； Girma 2005； Fu 2008a). Third, the appropriateness of the technology embedded in FDI affects the sign and significance of the productivity effects of FDI spillovers. Technologies created in industrialized countries are argued to be biased to the factor endowment of the country where the technology is developed (Basu and Weil 1998； Acemoglu 2002). Finally, different types of FDI have markedly different productivity spillover effects (Drifaeld and Love 2003).