企业生产力与对外国际贸易直接投资--基于中国工业企业的实证研究

来源: www.sblunwen.com 发布时间:2020-02-29 论文字数:41184字
论文编号: sb2020021621025229574 论文语言:English 论文类型:硕士毕业论文
本文是一篇国际贸易论文,本文结合中国工业企业数据库(2011-2013)和商务部公布的《境外投资企业(机构)名录》,并基于 Helpman et al. (2004) 的出口-投资模型 (HYM 模型)从企业异质性的角度
本文是一篇国际贸易论文,本文结合中国工业企业数据库(2011-2013)和商务部公布的《境外投资企业(机构)名录》,并基于 Helpman et al. (2004) 的出口-投资模型 (HYM 模型)从企业异质性的角度研究了中国企业的对外直接投资行为。本文主要研究以下几个问题:(1)与非对外直接投资企业相比,对外投资企业存在哪些特征;(2)企业生产率高低对中国企业国际化战略决策的影响,通过 Logit 模型检验其是否符合 HYM 模型的理论预期;(3)投资高收入国家的企业和投资中低收入国家的企业在生产率方面是否存在显著差异;(4)对外直接投资对我国企业的生产率增长的影响。

Chapter One Literature Review

1.1 Traditional Theories about OFDI and MNEs
MNEs and their OFDI activities have always been an intriguing and prevailing topic in the sphere of international economics. It is widely acknowledged that literature focusing on OFDI  theories  and  MNEs  starts  from  the  1960s,  which  contrasts  sharply  with  the  neo-classical trade and financial theory that made little distinction between international portfolio investment flows and OFDI. Due to the fact that the early OFDI is dominantly conducted in MNEs of developed countries, thus, the following theories are initially intended to shed light on the OFDI behavior of MNEs belonging to the advanced economies, and mainly focusing on the emergence of OFDI. In accordance with the evolution of OFDI theory, the theoretical framework  mainly  composes  monopolistic  advantage  theory,  product  life  cycle  theory, internalization  theory,  and  marginal  industry  theory,  etc.  Each  theory,  to  some  extent,  has explained the OFDI practices of developed countries from a specific perspective. However, the  literature  of  this  field  is  relatively  general  and  scattered  due  to  a  lack  of  a  unified theoretical  and  logical  framework.  In  this  section,  I  reviewed  an  array  of  traditional  and  influential OFDI theories related to both developed and emerging economies, and then briefly commented on their merits and demerits.
1.1.1 Traditional OFDI Theories about MNEs of Developed Countries
  1.1.1.1 Monopolistic Advantage Theory
Stephen Hymer’s seminal dissertation (1960) made a great contribution to OFDI theory, leading us to an analysis of MNEs based on an industrial-organizational theory by jumping over the intellectual straitjacket of neo-classical-type trade and financial theory. Multinationals firms were  just  arbitrageurs  that  transferred  the  capital  from  countries  where  returns  were  low  to countries  where  returns  were  higher  based  on  traditional  international  trade  and  investment theory.  Escaping  from  the  arid  mold  of  orthodox  international  economics  theory,  Hymer’s pioneering  conceptual  insight  put  emphasis  upon  the  MNEs  per  se.  Hymer's  monopolistic advantage theory demonstrated that monopolistic advantage (special assets) is the immediate driving force of MNEs’ FDI instead of the financial structure decisions based on the assumption of  market  imperfections.  He  reckoned  that  there  existed  at  least  four  types  of  market imperfections: the imperfection in the product market, in the factor market, in the economies of scale and the externality and deficiency of management. The core of monopolistic advantages is  the  technical  advantage.  Although  Hymer’s  theory  identified  the  structural  market  failure presciently, unfortunately, it overlooked the distinction between structural and transaction-cost market imperfections. In addition, not only did he neglected the significance of the spatial and geographical dimension of the MNEs he also paid little attention to the policymaking and the political or social issues of developing nations. 
................................

1.2 Firm Heterogeneity and OFDI
1.2.1 Firm Heterogeneity Theory
In  the  1980s,  in  order  to  shed  more  light  on  the  widespread  phenomenon  of  intra-industry trade or trade between countries with parallel factor endowment, Dixit and Stiglitz (1977)  primarily  developed  the  modeling  of  monopolistic  completion  and  product differentiation. Then it was employed by Krugman (1979, 1980), who opened the door to formally  modeling  multinational  firms  within  the  general-equilibrium  framework  (Antràs and Yeaple, 2014). To capture more reality, Melitz (2003) incorporated firm heterogeneity (firms differ in productivity) within an industry to illustrate that when exposed to trade, only the  relatively  more  productive  firms  are  able  to  export  to  foreign  markets  while  the  less productive  firms  will  continue  to  serve  the  domestic  market  in  conjunction  with  the  least productive firms being kicked out the industry. Focusing on firms’ choice between exports and horizontal FDI (HFDI), Helpman, Yeaple and Melitz (2004) (HYM model) extended the trade model of Melitz and proved that: first, only the most productive firms tend to engage in foreign activities; second, after weighing the transportation costs of export and the fixed costs of FDI, the most productive firms are more likely to invest abroad, while the relatively less productive firms choose to export; third, other low-productivity firms opt to serve the domestic market only and the least productive firms are forced to leave the industry. This is the  first  time  to  demonstrate  firms’  horizontal  FDI  behavior  from  the  perspective  of  firm heterogeneity.
Grossman et al. (2006) developed a complementary strategy model incorporating firm heterogeneity as a determinant of horizontal and vertical FDI. They showed that even within the same industry where each firm faced the same market size, fixed costs and transportation costs,  firms  differing  in  productivity  have  different  optimal  strategies.  In  addition,  they summarized that the least productive firms produce in the home market while firms engaging in FDI are more productive, and the most productive firms will move both intermediate and assembly  stages  to  the  developing  countries.  Integration  strategies  depend  on  the  scale  of trading costs and fixed costs of the intermediate and assembly stages related.
........................

Chapter Two   Overview of China’s OFDI

2.1 History of China’s OFDI
It has been 40 years, since China’s reform and opening-up. Chinese firms have fulfilled remarkable  achievements  in  these  four  decades  in  terms  of  going  abroad  and  undertaking international operations. Chinese firms are still enthusiastic to enter the global market via both trade  and  investment  in  conjunction  with  their  accumulated  strength  and  experiences. Specifically, Chinese firms’ OFDI roughly can be phased into the following stages.
2.1.1 Initial Development Stage (1979-2000)
In this stage, promoted by the State Council’s policy of “setting up enterprises abroad”, some professional foreign trade companies engaged in international trade for a long period of time  and  international  economic  and  technological  companies  conducting  foreign  economic cooperation  first  invested  abroad  by  virtue  of  their  affluent  foreign  experiences.  With  the promulgation of succeeding OFDI policies, a couple of influential non-trading firms, industrial magnates,  and  comprehensive  international  trust  companies,  such  as  Capital  Iron  and  Steel Corporation, China International Trust and Investment Corporation, gradually got on the board of  foreign  direct  investment.  Later,  quite  a  few  powerful  and  ambitious  private  companies joined in. 
During  this  period,  China’s  OFDI  presents  the  following  features:  (1)  the  scale  of investment  is  relatively  small;  (2)  in  terms  of  geographical  distribution,  a  majority  of  them located in those countries or regions which are adjacent to China both from the perspective of geographical distance and cultural distance, such as Hongkong, Taiwan, and Southeast Asian countries. This is in line with the initial OFDI model of developing countries in the theory of foreign direct investment; (3) As for the industries involved, it mainly concentrates on catering, service  and  other  industries,  and  gradually  begins  to  expand  to  resources  development, machinery manufacturing and processing, transportation, health care, and other industries; (4) the  main  entities  are  those  large  state-owned  trading  companies,  quite  a  few  manufacturing enterprises from other industries and private sector; (5) With respect to the entry modes, the joint  venture  is  the  main  form  of  investment,  and  the  scale  of  Chinese  firms’  investment  is relatively small. Greenland investment only accounts for quite a small proportion. Thus, the entry mode is relatively monotonous. 
..............................

2.2 Current Status of China’s OFDI
As  a  latecomer  in  the  domain  of  international  investment,  the  development  pattern  of China’s OFDI displays its own features in terms of motivation, location, industry, entity, so on and so forth. It is crucial to shed more light on these features in order to get a more vivid picture of  China’s  OFDI.  This  section  conducts  a  comprehensive  analysis  and  summary  of  the characteristics and trends of China’s OFDI from the aspects of scale, location, industry, entry mode and ownership, in order to provide a policy basis for the development strategy of China’s OFDI.
2.2.1 Scale
During the period 2002~2017, the average yearly growth rate reached to 36.5%. By the end  of  the  year  2017,  more  than  20000  domestic  investors  had  set  up  39200  foreign  direct investment enterprises distributed in 189 countries (regions) around the world. The total assets of those firms amounted to $6 trillion. Figure 2 displays the trend of China’s OFDI from 2002 to  2017  in  terms  of  the  amount  and  world  ranking  of  stocks.  In  2017,  the  stock  surged  to $1089.04 billion, which was $451.65 billion more than it in last year (2016), the global ranking climbed to the second place from the sixth in 2016. However, compared with other countries, China’s OFDI stock is still far behind the U.S. (7799 $ billion), only accounting for 23% of the U.S., though it is quite close to the number of other countries  (regions), such as Hongkong, Germany, and Netherland. 
企业生产力与对外直接投资--基于中国工业企业的实证研究
企业生产力与对外直接投资--基于中国工业企业的实证研究
.........................

Chapter Three   Firms Productivity and OFDI ............................. 37
3.1 Mechanism of firms’ OFDI ................................... 37
3.1.1 Consumer preferences .......................................... 37
3.1.2 Firms’ production and market strategy ........................... 37
Chapter Four   Impacts of OFDI on Firms’ Productivity ...................................... 49
4.1 Transmission mechanism of OFDI and hypothesis ................................ 49
4.1.1 Economies of scale ................................ 49
4.1.2 Profit feedback mechanism ............................. 49

Chapter Four   Impacts of OFDI on Firms’ Productivity

4.1 Transmission mechanism of OFDI and hypothesis
This  section  is  mainly  to  summarize  the  transmission  mechanisms  for  how  OFDI  will affect firms’ productivity. Based on previous literature, five mechanisms are adopted to enhance firms’  productivity  through  OFDI,  specifically  including  economies  of  scale,  coordination mechanism, learning effect, cross-border M&As, and joint R&D mechanism.
4.1.1  Economies of scale
Companies can achieve economies of scale by increasing production and lowering costs when  production  becomes  efficient.  How  does  a  firm  fulfill  the  economies  of  scale  through OFDI? Export! Lispey and Wesis (1981), Blonigen (2001), Fontagne and Pajot (2002) by using the data from the U.S., Japan, and France respectively, they founded that OFDI and export were mutually  complementary,  which  verified  that  OFDI  seemed  to  enhance  export.  In  addition, China’s domestic empirical research evidence also supported this contention.  The increase of export will undoubtedly elevate firms’ output, and the increase of output will inevitably reduce the fixed cost of per unit product, so the effect of scale economy of enterprises come into being. Further, the reduction of fixed cost per unit product not only apportions the cost of R&D but also improves the productivity of enterprises.
...........................

Conclusion and Discussion
Chinese firms have actively engaged in OFDI in the recent decade, which has excited the strong interests of scholars both at home and abroad. By combining the Chinese manufacturing dataset and the “List of Foreign Investment Enterprises (Organizations)” from 2011 to 2013. In order to cope with the “learning effect”, only those firms conducting their first OFDI behavior in 2012 and 2013 and those firms have never undertaken OFDI are selected into the sample. This study firstly tested the impact of firms’ productivity on their OFDI decision based on the HYM model (2004). The results are consistent with the prediction of the HYM model, namely, the  more  productive  a  firm,  the  more  it  is  likely  to  invest  abroad.  OFDI  firms  are  the  most productive compared with pure exporters and firms only serving in domestic markets. However, export firms are not necessarily more productive than those firms only serving the domestic market, which verifies the “productivity paradox” phenomenon of Chinese exporters. When the income level of the host country factor is taken into consideration, however, the productivity of OFDI  firms  investing  in  high-income  countries  is  not  necessarily  greater  than  that  of  firms investing  in  low-middle  countries  due  to  the  industrial  structure  and  country  distribution  of China’s OFDI.
reference(omitted)

原文地址:http://www.sblunwen.com/gjmylw/29574.html,如有转载请标明出处,谢谢。

您可能在寻找国际贸易论文方面的范文,您可以移步到国际贸易论文频道(http://www.sblunwen.com/gjmylw/)查找


上一篇:“一带一路”背景下中德汽车产业内国际贸易研究
下一篇:国际贸易开放对高新区产出的影响研究--以高新区特征为调节变量