外文翻譯---外商直接投資能長(zhǎng)期促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)嗎

1、<p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯</p><p>　　外文題目: Dose foreign direct investment always enhance economic growth ? </p><p>　　出 處： KYKLOS,Vol.56-2003-Fasc.4,491-508

2、 </p><p>　　作 者: Joze Mencinger </p><p><b>　　原 文：</b></p><p>　　Does Foreign Direct Investment Always Enhance </p&g

3、t;<p>　　Economic Growth?</p><p>　　Joze Mencinger</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　For international financial institutions, politicians, and the vast majority of economists for

4、eign 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 has acquired the status of conventional fact. Economic theo

5、ry namely suggests that unfettered international capital flows foster efficient allocation of resources, which by itself should promote growth. The economic benefits of FDI are considere</p><p>　　‘in general

6、, 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).</p><p>　　A sizable literat

7、ure on FDI in transition economies can be loosely divided into the studies dealing with the determinants of FDI and those dealing with the impacts of FDI on economic performance. Most of the studies used microeconomic da

8、ta 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 of transition countries (Campos an

9、d Kinoshita 2002, Krkoska 2001, Lipschitz e</p><p><b>　　Data</b></p><p>　　We shall concentrate on a very narrow sample both regarding the set of the countries and the period included

10、. The sample consists of eight EU candidates – Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia – in the post-transition period, which is also the period of their gradual accession to E

11、U 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</p><p>　　Let us begin by exploring

12、 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 investment and gross domesti

13、c product (FDI), the latter representing also a kind of ‘revealed’ liberalization of capital account. The average FDI in the 1994–2001period was 4.14 percent ranging between 6.05 percent in Estonia and 1.32 percent in Sl

14、ovenia, while the growth of GDP by </p><p>　　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

15、 in six out of eight years, positive correlation in 1997, and insignificant in 1998. Table 1 also indicates that Slovenia, with by far the smallest share of foreign direct investment in GDP, had an economic growth above

16、the average and also very stable. This can be explained by the much better initial conditions of the country at the be</p><p>　　Table1 Foreign Direct Investment and GDP growth (country time series, 1994–2001

17、)</p><p>　　Table2 Foreign Direct Investment and GDP Growth (annual cross section data)</p><p>　　The country time series and annual cross section data series each contain just eight observations

18、which does not allow a proper statistical analysis, much less the establishment of a causal relationship. For that reason the relationship between foreign direct investment and economic growth was examined by panel data

19、(eight candidates for the period 1994–2001) which provides 64 observations. Two surprising results emerged: first, a negative correlation between growth and FDI; second, the signific</p><p>　　Figure 1 Growth

20、 and Foreign Direct Investment in Eight Candidate Countries, 1994–2001</p><p>　　Using the results in Table 3, a zero hypothesis that FDI does not influence economic growth can be rejected which implies adopt

21、ion of the opposite hypothesis, i.e., that FDI affects economic growth. Similarly, a non-rejection of the zero hypothesis that economic growth does not influence FDI implies that we cannot adopt the opposite hypothesis t

22、hat economic growth affects FDI. In short, the assumption that FDI affects economic growth is confirmed, reverse causality, i.e. that growth attracts FDI</p><p>　　Table3 Granger Causality Tests</p>&l

23、t;p>　　Sample 1:64 Lags: 1</p><p>　　Sample 1:64 Lags: 2</p><p>　　Despite significant statistics of the standard Granger causality tests there are two major drawbacks. First, pooling implies th

24、at the underlying causal structure is the same for each cross-sectional unit or each candidate country; if this were not the case, we would get inconsistent estimates. Second, the standard Granger causality test does not

25、 provide for the sign of the relationship. Sims version of the causality test which allows for estimating ‘individual effects’ in the form of a country-s</p><p>　　rGDP = a0 + a1FDI–1 + a2FDI + a3FDI+1 + a4GD

26、P0 + ajDUMj (1)</p><p>　　FDI = b0 + b1rGDP–1 + b2rGDP + b3rGDP+1 + b4GDP0 + bjDUMj (2)</p><p>　　where rGDP is the growth rate of gross domestic product, FDI is the share of foreign direct invest

27、ment in GDP, GDP0 is the initial GDP per capita in percentage of EU average, and DUMj are country dummies. The results are in Table 4. Country specifics were largely absorbed by GDP0 uttering the level of development; th

28、e country dummies were therefore insignificant except for Estonia and Poland in the first equation, and Czech Republic and Poland in the second equation. In short, the results confir</p><p>　　Table4 Causalit

29、y Tests</p><p>　　To estimate the robustness of the causality tests and of the coefficients in the simple regression model with growth being the dependent and FDI the independent variable, eight sub samples (

30、in each one country was omitted) were formed. The results are in Table 5.</p><p>　　Table5 Granger Causality Tests and Simple Regression on Narrower Sets</p><p>　　Despite the robustness of the ne

31、gative sign for FDI and the solid rejection of the reversed causality the results could be disputed by the arguments of FDI endogeneity and a bias due to omitted variables. These issues are dealt with in the framework of

32、 a standard neoclassical growth model used by most researchers in the field. In the Solow-type growth models, FDI is conceived as an addition to the capital stock of the host economy; FDI is thus considered a substitute

33、for domestic capital or a po</p><p>　　rGDP = f (GDP0, rINV, rEMP, FDI, rEU, dummy variables) (3)</p><p>　　with rINV representing growth of gross fixed investment; rEMP growth of employment, and

34、rEU growth of GDP in EU countries provided the results which are inTable6</p><p>　　Table6 The Augmented Production Function, 1994–2001</p><p>　　The negative coefficient for FDI-1 remains signifi

35、cantly negative in all specifications of the production function and all other coefficients are in accordance with the theoretical expectations; i.e. the negative sign of initial GDP/capita is in accordance with the theo

36、ry of convergence. Country specific effects expressed by dummy variables are insignificant; except for Estonia and Lithuania.</p><p><b>　　RESULT</b></p><p>　　How can one find a reaso

37、nable explanation of this result? It is statistically rather robust but conflicts with ‘taken for granted’ wisdom according to which FDI enhances economic growth because it substitutes domestic savings and investment, an

38、d because it brings productivity spillover from foreign-owned to local firms.(未完)</p><p><b>　　譯 文：</b></p><p>　　外商直接投資能長(zhǎng)期促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)嗎？</p><p>　　Joze Mencinger</p>&l

39、t;p><b>　　引言</b></p><p>　　對(duì)國(guó)際金融機(jī)構(gòu)，政治家和大多數(shù)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家而言，外商直接投資似乎是新興市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)中每個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)問(wèn)題的靈丹妙藥；其對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的積極影響已得到了傳統(tǒng)事實(shí)的認(rèn)可。經(jīng)濟(jì)理論表明，不受約束的國(guó)際資本流動(dòng)可以促進(jìn)資源的有效配置，這本身就是促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長(zhǎng)。外商直接的經(jīng)濟(jì)效益被認(rèn)為是雙重的。首先，外商直接投資可以幫助那些國(guó)內(nèi)儲(chǔ)蓄不足的國(guó)家來(lái)籌集經(jīng)濟(jì)擴(kuò)張資金；

40、其次，國(guó)外企業(yè)的存在是具有積極的外部效應(yīng)。許多國(guó)家不顧一切的努力去吸引盡可能多的外商直接投資間接的支持了這一理論。然而，對(duì)東道國(guó)來(lái)說(shuō)，實(shí)質(zhì)上外商直接投資的聲稱的實(shí)質(zhì)收益要比實(shí)證研究證實(shí)的多。盡管大多數(shù)研究都是基于相同的跨國(guó)增長(zhǎng)模型，但基于FDI與經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的大量快速增長(zhǎng)的實(shí)證研究的驗(yàn)證結(jié)果有所不同，國(guó)家設(shè)置的不同包括，樣品周期，數(shù)據(jù)以及估計(jì)技術(shù)阻礙比較（愛(ài)迪生等，2002）。在很多研究中發(fā)現(xiàn)一些國(guó)家的FDI或FDI相關(guān)的一些因素與經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)

41、呈正相關(guān)，然而一些研究（克里克1988，Grilli和Milesi-Ferretti 1995,Kraay 1988）發(fā)現(xiàn)FDI與經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)無(wú)明顯關(guān)系。大多數(shù)研究強(qiáng)調(diào)的是各個(gè)國(guó)家間的差異包括貿(mào)易政策，體制特征或是發(fā)展水平。二十多</p><p>　　對(duì)FDI在經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型期的研究的相當(dāng)多的著作可以粗略地分為對(duì)FDI的決定因素的研究和FDI對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)表現(xiàn)的影響的研究。大多數(shù)研究使用的是微觀數(shù)據(jù)和處理微觀問(wèn)題的方法（Barre

42、l and Holland 2000, Bevan and Estri 2000, Konings 2001, Damijan et al. 2001)，在這里只有少數(shù)研究FDI對(duì)轉(zhuǎn)型國(guó)家宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)表現(xiàn)的影響(Campos and Kinoshita 2002, Krkoska 2001, Lipschitz et al. 2002)。事實(shí)上，我們只要回答兩個(gè)問(wèn)題：第一，是否外國(guó)接管是成熟的轉(zhuǎn)型國(guó)家在后轉(zhuǎn)型期用于提高經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的主要方式？第

43、二，如果不是，那原因是什么？</p><p><b>　　數(shù)據(jù)</b></p><p>　　我們應(yīng)該集中精力于包括關(guān)于國(guó)家的裝置和時(shí)期的一個(gè)極小的樣本上。將一系列的國(guó)家和一個(gè)周期集中在一個(gè)小的樣本上。這個(gè)樣本包括8個(gè)歐盟的候選國(guó)——捷克共和國(guó)，愛(ài)沙尼亞，匈牙利，拉托維亞，立陶宛，波蘭，斯洛伐克和斯洛文尼亞，在過(guò)度后時(shí)期，同時(shí)也是他們逐漸入職歐盟和高度依賴FDI的時(shí)期。

44、因?yàn)閷?duì)數(shù)量的觀察，樣本縮小到8個(gè)國(guó)家和過(guò)度后時(shí)期，這是經(jīng)過(guò)深思熟慮的。它的基礎(chǔ)是不同國(guó)家集團(tuán)在過(guò)度后時(shí)期的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。首先，我們?cè)囍ビ^察有著共同體制和文化特征，一個(gè)特殊增長(zhǎng)經(jīng)歷和處于一個(gè)特殊發(fā)展水平一系列國(guó)家。只有這8個(gè)國(guó)家從25個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)型國(guó)家脫穎而出被歐盟標(biāo)準(zhǔn)公認(rèn)為市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)并且成為20041項(xiàng)中的候選人。其次，轉(zhuǎn)型帶來(lái)了根本的突破，從狹義上來(lái)說(shuō)，經(jīng)濟(jì)運(yùn)作和的轉(zhuǎn)型期都不應(yīng)該包括樣本2上。由于這兩方面的限制，我們得到了比Campos and Ki

45、noshita (2002)還要狹窄的轉(zhuǎn)型國(guó)家。</p><p>　　我們通過(guò)探究每個(gè)國(guó)家的時(shí)間序列數(shù)據(jù)，和通過(guò)觀察國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值增長(zhǎng)和外商直接投資率和國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的比率的簡(jiǎn)單關(guān)系探索各個(gè)國(guó)家每年的截面數(shù)據(jù)，后者代表的是一種相對(duì)自由的資本賬戶。在1994—2001年外商平均直接投資在愛(ài)沙尼亞是4.14%到6.05%，在斯洛文尼亞是1.32%，而每年的GDP增長(zhǎng)率在波蘭是3.65%到4.87%，在捷克共和國(guó)是1.97

46、%。經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)最穩(wěn)定在斯洛文尼亞，最不穩(wěn)定的在立陶宛。經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)和FDI的相關(guān)系數(shù)在8個(gè)國(guó)家中有7個(gè)國(guó)家為負(fù)，只有立陶宛為正的；如果數(shù)據(jù)匯集，簡(jiǎn)單的相關(guān)系數(shù)仍然為負(fù)。</p><p>　　通過(guò)觀察每年的截面數(shù)據(jù)獲得的結(jié)果是負(fù)的，在8年里有6年經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)和FDI的呈負(fù)相關(guān)，在1997年呈現(xiàn)的是正相關(guān)，而1998年又是微不足道的。表1表明斯洛文尼亞外商直接投資占GDP的比重最小，可它超過(guò)了平均經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)并且很穩(wěn)定。這可以被解

47、釋為在轉(zhuǎn)型之初國(guó)家的初始條件很好，有人因此宣稱有更多的外商直接投資會(huì)使經(jīng)濟(jì)更快增長(zhǎng)和更快加入歐盟。</p><p>　　表1 外商直接投資與經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)（國(guó)家時(shí)間序列，1994—2001）</p><p>　　表2 外商直接投資與GDP增長(zhǎng)（截面數(shù)據(jù)）</p><p>　　國(guó)家時(shí)間序列和截面數(shù)據(jù)系列每個(gè)都僅包含了8個(gè)國(guó)家的觀測(cè)值，沒(méi)有適當(dāng)?shù)慕y(tǒng)計(jì)分析，更不用說(shuō)因果關(guān)系的

48、建立。由于這個(gè)原因，外商直接投資與經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)可以用面板數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)說(shuō)明（8個(gè)候選國(guó)在1994—2001）提供了64個(gè)觀察值。出現(xiàn)了兩個(gè)驚人的結(jié)果：第一，經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)和FDI是負(fù)相關(guān)；第二，如果FDI滯后顯示FDI會(huì)阻礙其經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)以及妨礙這些國(guó)家加入到歐盟當(dāng)中，那么負(fù)相關(guān)的影響便會(huì)加強(qiáng)。這種理論與直觀認(rèn)識(shí)相違背，并且得不到實(shí)證研究的支持。因此之前看起來(lái)謹(jǐn)慎的任何實(shí)質(zhì)性的結(jié)論都應(yīng)該經(jīng)過(guò)統(tǒng)計(jì)測(cè)試。集中的數(shù)據(jù)可以用格蘭杰因果關(guān)系檢驗(yàn)（霍爾茨—埃金等人，19

49、85）滯后量一、二的結(jié)果在表3中。</p><p>　　圖1 8個(gè)國(guó)家經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)和外商直接投資，1994—2001</p><p>　　表3的結(jié)果表明，假設(shè)零：FDI不會(huì)影響經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)，會(huì)被其相反的假設(shè)所拒絕，即意味著FDI會(huì)影響經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)。同樣，相反的零假設(shè)：經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)不影響FDI，我們也不能采取相反的假設(shè)即經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)影響FDI?？傊?，F(xiàn)DI對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)影響的假設(shè)是被證實(shí)的，而經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)會(huì)吸引FDI

50、會(huì)被反駁。</p><p><b>　　表3格蘭杰因果檢驗(yàn)</b></p><p>　　樣本1—64 滯后量1</p><p>　　樣本1—64 滯后量2</p><p>　　盡管格蘭杰因果關(guān)系檢驗(yàn)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)統(tǒng)計(jì)還是有其兩大缺點(diǎn)。首先，把數(shù)據(jù)匯集起來(lái)意味著對(duì)每個(gè)截面單位或每個(gè)國(guó)家有著相同的結(jié)構(gòu)，但如果不在這種情況下，我們會(huì)

51、得出不一致的估計(jì)。其次，格蘭杰因果檢驗(yàn)不能提供這種關(guān)系的跡象。西姆斯的因果關(guān)次檢驗(yàn)適用于估計(jì)“個(gè)別效應(yīng)”在一個(gè)國(guó)家具體的截取或截留數(shù)據(jù)的形式下估算，通過(guò)下列兩個(gè)方程：</p><p>　　rGDP = a0 + a1FDI–1 + a2FDI + a3FDI+1 + a4GDP0 + ajDUMj (1)</p><p>　　FDI = b0 + b1rGDP–1 + b2rGDP + b

52、3rGDP+1 + b4GDP0 + bjDUMj (2)</p><p>　　其中rGDP代表的是國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值增長(zhǎng)率，F(xiàn)DI是外商直接投資占GDP的比重，GDP0是每國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值在歐盟平均比例，DUMj是假的國(guó)家。結(jié)果在表4中。具體的國(guó)家通過(guò)GDP0觀察其發(fā)展水平；在第一個(gè)等式中愛(ài)沙尼亞和波蘭是微不足道的，而捷克共和國(guó)和波蘭在第二個(gè)等式中是微不足道的?？傊?，結(jié)果證實(shí)了格蘭杰因果檢驗(yàn)；T標(biāo)準(zhǔn)系數(shù)在1%的水平下FD

53、I的比率是明顯的并且目前FDI的系數(shù)很高，相反滯后的系數(shù)以rGDP為主。</p><p><b>　　表4 因果檢驗(yàn)</b></p><p>　　為了估計(jì)因果檢驗(yàn)和簡(jiǎn)單回歸模型中相互依賴的系數(shù)以及FDI相互獨(dú)立的變量，由8個(gè)子樣本組成（每個(gè)國(guó)家被忽略）。結(jié)果見(jiàn)表5</p><p>　　表5 格蘭杰因果檢驗(yàn)和簡(jiǎn)單回歸</p>&l

54、t;p>　　盡管FDI有簡(jiǎn)單的負(fù)面性，被拒絕的因果檢驗(yàn)的結(jié)果會(huì)產(chǎn)生爭(zhēng)議是因?yàn)镕DI的內(nèi)生性以及變量參數(shù)被忽略。這些問(wèn)題都是在一個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的新古典增長(zhǎng)模型內(nèi)被大多數(shù)研究人員所解決的。在索洛增長(zhǎng)模型中，F(xiàn)DI被看作是東道國(guó)資本的一個(gè)增量，F(xiàn)DI也被視作國(guó)內(nèi)資本的替代或是重要的組成部分。一個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的生產(chǎn)函數(shù)來(lái)自于索洛模型，被曼昆，羅默和Weil(1992)和Easterly(2001)所使用，其形式為：</p><p>

55、;　　rGDP = f (GDP0, rINV, rEMP, FDI, rEU, dummy variables) (3)</p><p>　　其中rINV代表的是總的固定投資增長(zhǎng)，rEMP代表的是就業(yè)，rEU是在歐盟國(guó)家中的GDP增長(zhǎng)，結(jié)果在表6中。</p><p>　　表6 擴(kuò)編的生產(chǎn)函數(shù)，1994—2001</p><p>　　在生產(chǎn)函數(shù)的規(guī)格中FDI-1的

56、負(fù)相關(guān)系數(shù)仍然明顯，而其他系數(shù)都符合理論預(yù)期。負(fù)的初始國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值與理論還是相銜接的。由虛擬變數(shù)表達(dá)的國(guó)家特定影響表示的是微不足道的，除了愛(ài)沙尼亞和立陶宛。</p><p><b>　　結(jié)果</b></p><p>　　如何才能找到一個(gè)合理的對(duì)于這個(gè)結(jié)果的解釋？這是重大的但根據(jù)FDI促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)的“理所當(dāng)然”是有爭(zhēng)議的，因?yàn)樗媪藝?guó)內(nèi)儲(chǔ)蓄、投資和它帶來(lái)的外資對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)仄?/p>