《外商直接投资能长期促进经济增长吗？【外文翻译】》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外商直接投资能长期促进经济增长吗？【外文翻译】（14页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、0本科毕业论文外文翻译本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目外文题目: : Dose foreign direct investment always enhance economic growth ? 出出 处：处： KYKLOS,Vol.56-2003-Fasc.4,491-508 作作 者者: : Joze Mencinger 原原 文：文：Does Foreign Direct Investment Always Enhance Economic Growth?Joze MencingerIntroductionFor international financial institutions,
2、politicians, and the vast majority of economists foreign 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 theory namely suggests that unfe
3、ttered international capital flows foster efficient allocation of resources, which by itself should promote growth. The economic benefits of FDI are considered to be twofold. First, FDI can help countries if domestic savings are insufficient to finance economic expansion; secondly, a foreign corpora
4、te presence is associated with positive externalities. The almost desperate efforts of many countries to attract as much FDI as possible indirectly support the theory. However, substantial gains of inward FDI for the host countries have been much more asserted than confirmed by empirical evidence. T
5、he results of a rapidly growing number of empirical studies on the relation between FDI and economic growth differ, although most studies start with essentially the same benchmark cross-country growth model. The differences in the sets of the countries included, sample periods, data, and estimation
6、techniques hamper comparisons across the studies (Edison et al. 2002). In many studies dealing with subsets of the countries, FDI or FDI in combination with some other factor or factors, is positively related to growth, while several studies (Rodrik 1998, Grilli and Milesi-Ferretti 1995, Kraay 11998
7、) have found no significant relationship between FDI and growth. Most studies have stressed the differences among the sets of countries included regarding their trade policies, institutional characteristics, or level of development. More than two decades ago Bhagwati (1978) suggested that the impact
8、 of FDI on growth depends on the trade policy of a host country; in export-promoting countries FDI would increase growth, while it would have no impact in a country with an import substitution trade policy. His hypothesis was tested by Balasubramanayam, Salisu and Sapsford (1996); the outcome was mi
9、xed. Blomstrm, Lipsey and Zejan (1994) found that FDI only promotes growth in higher-income developing countries. Empirical studies on the subject have therefore not refuted the statement thatin general, the results of these studies indicate that the size of inward FDI stocks or flows, relative to G
10、DP, is not related in any consistent way to rates of growth (Lipsey 2002, p. 55).A sizable literature 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 use
11、d microeconomic data 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 and Kinoshita 2002, Krkoska 2001, Lipschitz et al. 2002) which a
12、re considered here. Indeed, we only want to answer two questions. First: Did foreign takeovers, a predominant form of FDI in developed transition countries, enhance their economic growth during the post-transition period? Secondly: If not, what were the reasons?DataWe shall concentrate on a very nar
13、row sample both regarding the set of the countries and the period included. 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 EU and high
14、 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 is based on experiences with transition processes in different country groups. First, we try to observe a set of countries with common in
15、stitutional and cultural characteristics, a particular growth experience, and at a particular level of development. Only these eight out of 25 transition countries were 2acknowledged as functioning market economies by EU standards and became candidates for entry in 20041. Secondly, transition brough
16、t a fundamental break in the way in which economies function and the transition period in the narrow sense should not be included in the sample2. With both restrictions we get a much narrower set of transition countries than the one used by Campos and Kinoshita (2002).Let us begin by exploring time series data for ea
