外文翻译--对外直接投资的区位行为：南非约翰内斯堡实例(节选）

《外文翻译--对外直接投资的区位行为：南非约翰内斯堡实例(节选）》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外文翻译--对外直接投资的区位行为：南非约翰内斯堡实例(节选）（9页珍藏版）》请在毕设资料网上搜索。

1、中文 1993 单词， 11300 英文字符， 3600 汉字 本科毕业论文外文翻译 外文题目： The locational behaviour of foreign direct investment: Evidence from Johannesburg, South Africa 出 处： Urban Forum （ 2009 ） 20:415-435 DOI 10.1007/s12132-009-9071-z 作 者： Christian M. Rogerson The Locational Behaviour of Foreign Direct Investment: Eviden

2、ce from Johannesburg, South Africa Christian M. Rogerson Understanding Location Decisions of Foreign Investors at National Level This section turns to review key findings of international research around location decision-making by foreign investors within countries. It is argued that from this lite

3、rature several major reasons can be extracted to interpret the attractiveness of Johannesburg as an important investment destination for FDI in the developing world and especially within Africa. For national governments concerned with uneven spatial development, an understanding of factors influenci

4、ng the location decisions of foreign investors within countries is essential (Cheng and Kwan 2000). The significance of understanding intra-national location decisions is increasingly recognised, however, by sub-national or local governments (Cheshire and Gordon 1996； Wei et al. 2008). It has been o

5、bserved that in many parts of the world sub-national agencies or levels of government are extremely active in seeking to attract new investment, including foreign investors (Charlton 2003； Festervand 2004； Markusen and Nesse 2007). Indeed, in the wake of the increased powers of localities in an era

6、of administrative decentralisation, deregulation and global competition, places can better exploit their location and structural advantages for interacting with global capital (Wei et al. 2008, p. 1). One element of growing inter-urban competition is the establishment of local agencies to attract in

7、vestment, promoting the uniqueness of places and also by offering investment incentives to influence the location decisions of investors. An increasing number of sub-national agencies in North America, Western Europe and especially developing Asia are engaged in vigorous competition for FDI (Charlto

8、n 2003； Marton and Wu 2006； Wei et al. 2006； Markusen and Nesse 2007). Historically, states and cities in the USA and Western Europe have competed aggressively for new investment by offering a variety of incentives (Head et al. 1999； Barrios et al. 2003； Markusen and Nesse 2007). Beginning in 1992,

9、Chinas open door policy and decentralisation of powers from central to local governments opened up the country and resulted in FDI flows (Canfei 2006). With a push for growth it is apparent that Chinese cities stress the infusion of FDI and the globalisation of economic activities (Wei et al. 2006,

10、p. 232). Chinese cities have been actively implementing policies to attract more foreign investment and to promote global city formation, and are increasingly competing with each other over policies, resources and opportunities (Wei et al. 2006, p. 233). Overall, since the early 1990s Wei et al (200

11、6, p. 232) recognise that many Chinese cities have implemented aggressive measures to attract foreign investment, and major cities have announced aggressive measures to build themselves into global cities and move up in the global urban hierarchy, with the establishment of thousands of development z

12、ones targeting FDI. Shanghai is the most successful Chinese city in attracting FDI, especially with the opening of the Pudong New Area (Marton and Wu 2006； Wei et al. 2006). Cheng and Kwan (2000) assert that the US and Chinese cases of inward FDI represent the two most important examples of FDI in t

13、he world. Not surprisingly, therefore, scholarship on the location decisions made at national level by foreign investors is currently dominated by studies on the USA and China, the two leading destinations for FDI over the past two decades (Glickman 1988； Bagchi-Sen 1991； Coughlin et al. 1991； Kotab

14、e 1993； Head et al. 1995； Head and Ries 1996； Head et al. 1999； Cheng and Kwan 2000； Shaver and Flyer 2000； Canfei 2003, 2006； Friedman et al. 2006； Marton and Wu 2006； Hong et al. 2008； Wei et al. 2008). Beyond the location decisions made by foreign investors into the USA and China, there is a para

15、llel smaller literature which deals with the Western European experience (Guimaraes et al. 2000； Hubert and Pain 2002； Barrios et al. 2003). Collectively the findings of this body of research on the location decisions made at intra-national level by foreign investors (particularly within China and t

16、he USA) point to a number of common themes. The must crucial finding is to confirm the overriding significance of agglomeration economies and of the attractions of clusters for foreign investors. Blackbourn (1982) emphasized that the most common location decision made by a foreign investorparticular

17、 concerned with access to domestic marketsis to locate in the core economic region of a host country. The issue of agglomeration was identified as the most significant theme in the location of foreign FDI in China according to a spatial dynamic panel data analysis undertaken by Hong et al. (2008). T

18、he theme of agglomeration is highlighted also in Chinese research by Cheng and Kwan (2000) and Canfei (2003, 2006). The important study by Canfei (2003) points to the conclusion that scale economies derived from the clustering of FDI activities, combined with better access to domestic and internatio

19、nal markets, guide foreign manufacturers location choice in China. In addition, this research highlights that industrial clustering appears to be the most important agglomeration force (Canfei 2003). Under the Chinas open door policy the attractive cities for FDI are determined by those with good in

20、frastructure and an established industrial base which means that agglomeration factors are present (Head and Ries 1996； Wei et al. 2006). Beyond the literature on inward investment in China, research in the USA and Western Europe further confirms the centrality of agglomeration and clustering in inf

21、luencing location decisions made by foreign investors. In a study of Japanese manufacturing investments in the USA, it was concluded that industry-level agglomeration benefits play an important role in location decisions (Head et al. 1995, p. 223). In Portugal, it was disclosed that agglomeration is

22、 a decisive factor in location choice for new foreign investment in the country (Guimaraes et al. 2000). Barrios et al. (2003, p. 4) also point to strong support from the experience of both foreign investment in Ireland and France that agglomeration economies are important for attracting new plants.

23、 Explanations for the importance of agglomeration economies in influencing location decisions made by foreign investors are put forward by Canfei (2003). At its foundation are the links among firms, institutions and infrastructure within any region that give rise to localisation economies that are e

24、xternal to individual firms. Industrial concentration is driven by the emergence of markets for specialised skilled labour, the development of subsidiary trade, suppliers of intermediate inputs and the easy flow of information between enterprises. Accordingly, the development of a diverse base of in

25、dustries stimulates geographical concentration in a cumulative causation process as the relative attractiveness of existing industrial centres is reinforced (Barrios et al. 2003, p. 1). Self-reinforcing agglomeration, Head et al. (1999, p. 198) argue, has critical policy implications for US states w

26、hich are competing for new foreign investments. It is evident that the locality that moves first in offering a subsidy or removing a tax may attract new investment and that the resulting increase in the stock of firms will make it more attractive than it was ever before, even if other states subsequ

27、ently match the policy change (Head et al. 1999, pp. 198199). A significant policy finding from studies of foreign investment is that FDI has favoured spatial clusters with firms engaged in related activities because of the mutual benefit from shared access to localised support facilities, shared se

28、rvices, distribution networks, customised demand patterns and specialised factor inputs (Canfei 2003, p. 351). Overwhelmingly the evidence suggests that foreign investors are attracted to clusters of economic activities and to closely related activities (Head and Ries 1996； Guimaraes et al. 2000； Ca

29、nfei 2003). A useful point made by Shaver and Flyer (2000) in terms of agglomeration of foreign investors in the USA, however, is that firms may differ in the net benefits that they accrue from geographical clustering. Those firms with the best technologies, suppliers and distributors will gain little and even competitively suffer when their technologies, employees and access spill over to competitors. Conversely, firms with the weakest technologies, human capital and training programmes have little to lose and a great deal to gain from clustering (Shaver and Flyer 2000).