外商直接投资如何使发展中国家收益外文翻译

《外商直接投资如何使发展中国家收益外文翻译》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外商直接投资如何使发展中国家收益外文翻译（12页珍藏版）》请在毕设资料网上搜索。

1、中文 3773 字 本科毕业论文外文翻译 外文题目 ： How Beneficial Is Foreign Direct Investment for Developing Countries? 出 处： Finance & Development, June 2001 作 者： Prakash Loungani and Assaf Razin 原 文： How Beneficial Is Foreign Direct Investment for Developing Countries? The resilience of foreign direct investment during

2、financial crises may lead many developing countries to regard it as the private capital inflow of choice. Although there is substantial evidence that such investment benefits host countries, they should assess its potential impact carefully and realistically. Foreign direct investment (FDI) has prov

3、ed to be resilient during financial crises. For instance, in East Asian countries, such investment was remarkably stable during the global financial crises of 1997-98. In sharp contrast, other forms of private capital flows portfolio equity and debt flows, and particularly short-term flows were subj

4、ect to large reversals during the same period (see Dadush, Dasgupta, and Ratha, 2000； and Lipsey, 2001). The resilience of FDI during financial crises was also evident during the Mexican crisis of 1994-95 and the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s. This resilience could lead many developing cou

5、ntries to favor FDI over other forms of capital flows, furthering a trend that has been in evidence for many years (see Chart 1). Is the preference for FDI over other forms of private capital inflows justified? This article sheds some light on this issue by reviewing recent theoretical and empirical

6、 work on its impact on developing countries investment and growth. The case for free capital flows Economists tend to favor the free flow of capital across national borders because it allows capital to seek out the highest rate of return. Unrestricted capital flows may also offer several other advan

7、tages, as noted by Feldstein (2000). First, international flows of capital reduce the risk faced by owners of capital by allowing them to diversify their lending and investment. Second, the global integration of capital markets can contribute to the spread of best practices in corporate governance,

8、accounting rules, and legal traditions. Third, the global mobility of capital limits the ability of governments to pursue bad policies. In addition to these advantages, which in principle apply to all kinds of private capital inflows, Feldstein (2000) and Razin and Sadka (forthcoming) note that the

9、gains to host countries from FDI can take several other forms: （ 1） FDI allows the transfer of technology particularly in the form of new varieties of capital inputs that cannot be achieved through financial investments or trade in goods and services. FDI can also promote competition in the domestic

10、 input market. （ 2） Recipients of FDI often gain employee training in the course of operating the new businesses, which contributes to human capital development in the host country. （ 3） Profits generated by FDI contribute to corporate tax revenues in the host country. Of course, countries often cho

11、ose to forgo some of this revenue when they cut corporate tax rates in an attempt to attract FDI from other locations. For instance, the sharp decline in corporate tax revenues in some of the member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development may be the result of such comp

12、etition. (For a discussion, see the article by Reint Gropp and Kristina Kostial in this issue.) In principle, therefore, FDI should contribute to investment and growth in host countries through these various channels. FDI versus other flows Despite the strong theoretical case for the advantages of f

13、ree capital flows, the conventional wisdom now seems to be that many private capital flows pose countervailing risks. Hausmann and Fernndez-Arias (2000) suggest why many host countries, even when they are in favor of capital inflows, view international debt flows, especially of the short-term variet

14、y, as bad cholesterol: It short-term lending from abroad is driven by speculative considerations based on interest rate differentials and exchange rate expectations, not on long-term considerations. Its movement is often the result of moral hazard distortions such as implicit exchange rate guarantee

15、s or the willingness of governments to bailout the banking system. It is the first to run for the exits in times of trouble and is responsible for the boom-bust cycles of the 1990s. In contrast, FDI is viewed as good cholesterol because it can confer the benefits enumerated earlier. An additional be

16、nefit is that FDI is thought to be bolted down and cannot leave so easily at the first sign of trouble. Unlike short-term debt, direct investments in a country are immediately repriced in the event of a crisis. Recent evidence To what extent is there empirical support for such claims of the benefici

17、al impact of FDI? A comprehensive study by Bosworth and Collins (1999) provides evidence on the effect of capital inflows on domestic investment for 58 developing countries during 1978-95. The sample covers nearly all of Latin America and Asia, as well as many countries in Africa. The authors distinguish among three types of inflows: FDI, portfolio investment, and other financial flows (primarily bank loans). Bosworth and Collins find that an increase of a dollar in capital inflows is associated with an increase in domestic investment of about 50