توسعه اقتصادی چین، مرحله بعدی: سرمایه گذاری مستقیم خارجی به سمت خارج؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|6909||2005||19 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Business Review, Volume 14, Issue 1, February 2005, Pages 97–115
China's development path has been widely recognised as being unique, with gradual privatisation and marketisation, massive private capital inflows, and extensive exporting. All this has been achieved without political democratisation. This paper draws attention to a new emerging phenomenon—significant Chinese levels of outward FDI (OFDI)—and takes a first step towards understanding this development at an aggregate level. The question arises, is China's OFDI another unique characteristic of Chinese distinctive economic development path and reform policies, or does it follow an established, universal pattern, specifically Dunning's investment development path (IDP) hypothesis, or rather a refined version of the IDP? In other words, do Chinese OFDI patterns suggest refinements to established theories, or even their refutation? To address these questions, however, exogeneity tests reveal a need to use GMM estimation methods rather than straightforward regressions, since relations between economic development and OFDI are complex and inter-dependent. The GMM results suggest that the level of economic development, proxied by GDP per capita plus refinements, is still the main factor explaining China's rate of OFDI. This is quite consistent with the refined IDP hypothesis and patterns broadly noted elsewhere. Conclusions are drawn for theory, policy and international business.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This study suggests three theoretical developments in relation to first, the alleged need to accommodate new variables specific to transitional and developing economies; second, the necessity for other refinements to the IDP hypothesis that should apply to all countries; third, the theoretical need to accommodate interdependence and co-movement between variables. The main research question addressed in this paper was concerned with whether the emergence of significant OFDI outflows from China represented a uniquely Chinese phenomenon, as a result of China's institutions and idiosyncratic economic reforms, or whether they could still be explained in terms of China's stage of development and the established, but refined, IDP hypothesis. The theoretical importance of this question is raised by earlier studies suggesting that new theories are needed for developing and transitional economies. Certainly, there is no shortage of reasons why China's OFDI should be idiosyncratic and therefore, not susceptible to conventional analysis. China occupies a massive geographical space with a large population, has a unique geographical position in relation to the Asian ‘tiger’ economies, and benefits from extensive business networks among overseas Chinese. Finally, China has adopted a unique path of gradualist economic reforms, some general and some aimed directly at the internationalisation process. These characteristics have thrown up uniquely Chinese institutions with possible implications for OFDI. However, this paper has demonstrated that it is possible to explain nearly half of the variance in Chinese OFDI flows without recourse to these unique features of Chinese institutions. While Dunning's original IDP hypothesis was insufficiently developed to accommodate Chinese institutions, the inclusion here of supplementary variables representing China's stage of development seems to have been justified. As far as theory is concerned, therefore, refinement of the IDP hypothesis in terms of additional, universal variables such as educational investment seems to make redundant variables designed to capture the distinct features of transitional and/or developing economies. This theoretical conclusion also applies to the use of a GMM estimation technique that takes into account time trends and co-movements between explanatory variables. Taking such complexities into account, the GMM results proved to be quite consistent with the augmented IDP hypothesis. Thus, the evidence presented here is of a country with patterns of OFDI largely consistent with the IDP hypothesis, and there is no apparent need to cite China's institutions and unique path to economic reform as having a direct influence on OFDI. Certainly, reforms will have contributed to economic development itself, i.e. the growth of GDP per capita, investments in human capital, exports and inward FDI. These are all influences on OFDI in our model, and institutions, location, networks, etc, thus will have an indirect impact on OFDI through per capita GDP. It seems, however, that explanations of the new phenomenon of significant levels of OFDI may, for the time being, be satisfactorily couched in the language of the IDP literature rather than in terms of China's distinctively gradualist approach to economic reforms. China's OFDI seems simply to be consistent with an economy at China's level of economic development. Thus, China's position as the world's biggest transitional and developing economy suggests that no theoretical accommodation should be made at this stage for either its transitional or developing economy status. As far as conclusions for policymakers and business practitioners are concerned, however, the main problem with this new approach is that there are no comparable GMM results for the analysis of OFDI from other countries. It would appear that in further research, the GMM methodology should be applied to many developing and transitional economies, and should include comparative measures of local institutional support for OFDI (Bevan et al., 2004). Nevertheless, certain implications of the study may be highlighted. For policymakers in transitional or developing countries seeking to promote internationalisation through OFDI, the explanatory power of the augmented IDP hypothesis suggests that policies specifically directed at OFDI may be unnecessary, since OFDI seems to follow economic development automatically. Furthermore, any policies to promote exporting seem unlikely to deter OFDI, given their evidently complementary relationship. Finally, investments in education are positively associated with the out-migration of capital and, presumably, skilled labour. However, such out-migration raises the possibility, currently being studied by the authors, that former expatriates (e.g. those returning to China) may subsequently return to marry their foreign networks and know-how with local entrepreneurs. As far as business practitioners are concerned, the emergence of China as a major source, and not just recipient, of FDI represents a new competitive threat. MNEs have provided China with FDI over many decades to support manufacturing joint ventures, and consequently exports from China quickly emerged as an important competitive threat to western manufacturers. However, interaction between Chinese inward FDI and OFDI has been found to be insignificant in this study. Although Chinese OFDI now represents a massive new business threat to Western firms, only 21.5% of it has been in the manufacturing sector. It seems unlikely, therefore, that the provision of capital, technology and know-how via inward FDI has contributed to this threat.