آیا سرمایه گذاری مستقیم خارجی به سمت داخل عملکرد نوآورانه شرکت های محلی را بهبود می بخشد ؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|2353||2013||14 صفحه PDF||41 صفحه WORD|
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Research Policy, Volume 42, Issue 1, February 2013, Pages 231–244
2.نظریه و فرضیه
2.1 سرمایه گذاری مستقیم خارجی به عنوان یک کاتالیزور برای نوآوری
2.2 FDIدرونی به عنوان مانعی برای نوآوری
3.داده ها و روش ها
3.3 متغیرهای مستقل
3.4 متغیرهای کنترل
3.5 روش آماری
4.1 همبستگی و توصیفی
4.2 نتایج رگرسیون
4.4 نتایج بهره وری
4.5 حساسیت و نیرومندی
5.بحث و گفت گو
Over the past several decades, research in the fields of international business and strategy has devoted increasing attention to outward foreign direct investment (FDI). Despite extensive scrutiny of the firm-specific motivations for, and consequences of, outward FDI; we know relatively little about inward FDI, the impact of inward FDI on host country firms, and especially, how inward FDI affects the innovativeness of those firms. Extant theoretical arguments predict contrasting effects. One line of research highlights the benefits to host country firms. Another line of research highlights the deleterious consequences to host country firms. Utilizing data from 1799 Spanish manufacturing firms from 1990 to 2002, we investigate the relationships between industry-level and firm-level inward FDI and the innovative performance of host country firms. We find that FDI inflows into Spain are negatively associated with the ex post innovation of local firms. We contrast these findings with those using conventional measures of productivity.
Scholars from a variety of disciplines have long examined the firm-specific motivations for, and consequences of, engaging in foreign direct investment (FDI) (e.g., Buckley and Casson, 1976, Cantwell, 1989, Kogut and Chang, 1991, Martin and Salomon, 2003 and Morck and Yeung, 1991). This type of investment is referred to as outward FDI, and it is characterized by individual firms expanding beyond domestic borders to invest in foreign countries via greenfield, alliance, or acquisition (for a review see Caves, 1996). Despite the extensive theoretical and empirical study of FDI, surprisingly, research in international strategy has centered almost exclusively on the antecedents and consequences of outward FDI for the firms making the investments. Relatively little research (with a few notable exceptions) has been directed at the impact of inward FDI on firms in the country receiving those investments. And what little we do know generally addresses the impact of inward FDI on the total factor, or labor, productivity of local firms (Aitken and Harrison, 1999, Blalock and Simon, 2009, Chung et al., 2003, Haddad and Harrison, 1993, Javorcik, 2004 and Konings, 2001). We understand relatively little about how inward FDI affects innovativeness, a measure of learning that scholars suggest is vital to understanding the growth of economies (Grossman and Helpman, 1994 and Salomon and Shaver, 2005). Because FDI is often viewed as a catalyst for economic development, and because countries increasingly compete to attract FDI, it is important for managers and policymakers to understand the impact of inward FDI not just on productivity, but also on innovation. To our knowledge, no study has examined the impact of inward FDI on the innovativeness of indigenous firms. When it comes to the broader impact of inward FDI on the innovation of local firms, extant theory offers two plausible, yet competing, explanations. One line of reasoning suggests that inward FDI ought to lead to beneficial outcomes for local firms. The purported mechanism is through knowledge spillovers from foreign entrants to local firms, and/or through heightened incentives to innovate to compete with better-endowed foreign entrants. Another line of research casts doubt on the positive impact of inward FDI, suggesting instead that inward FDI might adversely affect local firm innovation. This research emphasizes how the increased competition that comes with foreign entry relegates domestic firms to less innovative market niches and/or crowds indigenous competitors out of the market. The aim of this study is to address this debate by examining how inward FDI affects the innovative performance of local firms. Utilizing data from 1799 Spanish manufacturing firms from 1990 to 2002, we examine how their innovative output is influenced by industry- and firm-level FDI inflows. With respect to measures of innovation, we use patent application and product innovation counts. In both cases, we find that inward FDI is negatively related to the ex post innovative performance of Spanish firms. That is, Spanish firms, after having been acquired by foreign entrants, tend to apply for fewer patents. Additionally, indigenous firms operating in industries that receive greater FDI inflows introduce fewer ex post product innovations. In a post hoc analysis, we contrast our findings with those using more conventional labor productivity and total factor productivity measures. In contrast with the innovation results, we find that inward FDI is positively related to ex post labor productivity and total factor productivity. We interpret this to suggest that while inward FDI facilitates efficient resource allocation in the local economy – helping inefficient firms (relative to the foreign entrants) improve – it is detrimental to the technological development of indigenous firms which is critical for long-term economic growth. These combined findings hold important implications for both policy and practice. The paper proceeds as follows. In the next section we review the literature on the impact of inward FDI on host country firms. We subsequently generate competing hypotheses. We then describe the data, the methodology, and present results. The final section discusses the findings and concludes.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
In this study we assessed contrasting theoretical predictions regarding the relationship between inward FDI and innovation. We focus on how inward FDI into the firm, and/or into the firm's industry, affects the firm's innovative performance. Accordingly, we use patent application counts and product innovation counts as dependent variables. We use a complementary set of methods – dynamic count models and quasi-differenced GMM models – to evaluate the effects. We subsequently conduct a post hoc analysis using labor productivity and total factor productivity measures often used in the economics literature. We then compare our results using measures of innovation to those using measures of labor and total factor productivity. Generally, we find that industry- and firm-level FDI inflows are negatively related to the innovativeness of local firms. Inward FDI blunts domestic innovation. Specifically, we find that firm-level FDI inflows are negatively related to the ex post patent applications of multinational affiliates. This suggests that foreign entrants do not rely on their Spanish affiliates for innovation; rather, after investing in Spain, they either substitute innovation from their home country, or shift responsibility for innovation from the Spanish affiliate to the parent firm (De Faria and Sofka, 2010). This is consistent with broader findings on asset-exploiting FDI, as foreign entrants often transfer their superior capabilities to the host country (see Caves, 1996 and Martin and Salomon, 2003). Similarly, we find a negative relationship between industry-level FDI inflows and the ex post product innovation of local firms. Consistent with theory highlighting the deleterious consequences of inward FDI (Aitken and Harrison, 1999, De Backer and Sleuwaegen, 2003, Konings, 2001 and Spencer, 2008), this finding suggests that foreign entry crowds out domestic innovation and/or relegates domestic firms to less profitable niches. We find some interesting differences when comparing the aforementioned innovation findings to those using labor productivity and total factor productivity as dependent variables. Consistent with a number of studies in economics, we find that inward FDI (at both the industry and firm levels) improves the efficiency of local firms, through some combination of competition/knowledge spillovers. Increased inward FDI into the industry generally increases local competition and can spur local firms to adopt more efficient methods of production. Alternatively, foreign acquirers can exploit their superior capabilities and implement superior production methods in the local target. Taken together, these findings highlight an interesting distinction between innovation and productivity, and demonstrate how inward FDI may differentially impact each. Although inward FDI may be beneficial for less productive (relative to foreign entrants) local firms, helping them increase their efficiency and modernize production, at the same time it has detrimental consequences for the innovative capabilities of local firms. We interpret this as evidence that inward FDI pushes local firms toward the production possibility frontier. However, inward FDI does not help those firms become more innovative, facilitating an outward shift in the production possibility frontier. Put differently, a negative competition or crowding out effect dominates the potential for positive innovative externalities from inward FDI. The findings from this study hold important implications for policymakers and managers. For policymakers, our findings are multifaceted. On the one hand, inward FDI positively contributes to resource allocation efficiency in the host country. Foreign investment improves the overall productivity of local firms. Moreover, inward FDI can result in increased local employment and tax revenues. These two outcomes benefit the host country and are welfare enhancing in the near term. On the other hand, however, the results suggest that as a consequence of inward FDI, local innovation stagnates. This indicates that inward foreign investment may not be the best source of knowledge spillovers to local firms. Although foreign firms often bring superior technological capabilities with them, they may reduce the ability of domestic firms to innovate on their own. To the extent that innovation is at the root of economic growth as many in the macro-literature suggest, inward FDI might therefore not be beneficial to the long-term growth prospects of local economies. Inward FDI might not only negatively impact the innovativeness of indigenous firms, but many of the aforementioned efficiency (productivity) gains might be privatized by foreign owners. Therefore, from a national policy perspective, overall local welfare might be diminished if the benefits that accrue to the owners of foreign capital exceed those that accrue to agents in the local market. Outcomes such as these might be detrimental to welfare in the long run, and suggest that policymakers ought to carefully reconsider policies that attempt to attract foreign investment. Overall then, our findings call into question whether inward FDI can serve as a long-run catalyst to growth in domestic economies, or whether it simply offers a short-term fix. For domestic firm managers, the findings suggest that firms ought to understand the full range of effects of foreign entry on their business. Although foreign firms often bring advanced knowledge with them, the exposure to such knowledge may not necessarily benefit the domestic firms. They may stand to benefit from increased productivity, and should therefore capitalize on opportunities to implement enhanced production techniques. However, it is important that firms recognize that they might not be able to enhance their innovative capabilities via knowledge spillovers or through competitive responses to foreign entry. They should plan their innovation investment accordingly. Domestic managers facing the prospects of foreign entry should also be aware of their own capabilities and how to use such capabilities to respond to foreign competition (Lee, 2009). Moreover, domestic firms should be aware of the potential for “brain drain” types of effects whereby talented staff get lured away from the firm to work for higher-paying multinationals (Spencer, 2008). This is not to say, however, that all domestic firms will be affected equally by foreign entry. Some firms might benefit from foreign entry while others might be negatively impacted. For example, Blalock and Gertler (2008) and Blalock and Simon (2009) both suggest that technologically weaker domestic firms benefit more from “low-hanging fruit” productivity enhancements following inward FDI. However, technologically competent domestic firms might stand to benefit more from the complex technological knowledge that foreign entrants bring with them (Blalock and Gertler, 2008). Future research would be well served to examine whether those effects hold for innovation. At this point, we acknowledge several additional limitations of this study that can help motivate future research. First, the findings from this study are limited to the Spanish manufacturing context, and so future research would be well served to examine the effects of inward FDI in other contexts, and potentially, in a cross-country comparative setting that effectively controls for country-specific heterogeneity. Second, since the Fundación SEPI survey does not provide home country-specific or firm-specific information on the foreign firms making investments (e.g., Patel and Vega, 1999), we cannot fully control for such heterogeneity. We encourage future research to revisit these issues to understand the full range of effects. Finally, we are not able to fully speak to the competition mechanisms associated with inward FDI. For example, if we could isolate data on the pay of local R&D workers, we could better assess whether inward FDI raises local R&D wages, thereby crowding out domestic firms. Moreover, if we had disaggregated data on individual R&D workers, we might be able to trace employee mobility and knowledge flows before and after foreign investment. Finer-grained data would help to tell a more complete story with respect to the precise mechanisms through which inward FDI influences innovation versus productivity. We encourage future research to tackle these issues. For all the reasons mentioned above, we are cautious to generalize our findings. Further corroboratory research would certainly help strengthen our conclusions. However, limitations notwithstanding, this study stands to make contributions to the fields of international business and strategy. We hope that future research will refine and extend our contributions by examining improved data sets with more precise measures.