نقل مکان از طریق سرمایه گذاری مستقیم خارجی از کشورهای قدیم عضو اتحادیه اروپا به کشورهای جدید: مقیاس و ابعاد ساختاری فرایند
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|9429||2008||13 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 7299 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
- 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 : Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Volume 19, Issue 1, March 2008, Pages 53–65
The paper analyzes two issues related to the relocation via FDI from old to new EU member states. The first is the nature and scale of the relocation via FDI, i.e. the existing and future potential for relocations. The second is structural characteristics of the relocation process, i.e. which industries are in the heart of the process. We apply the so-called flying geese model (FGM) framework to analyze the structural trends in inward FDI to the new member states. We claim that it is mostly efficiency-seeking FDI in manufacturing, which is the bearer of the relocation process. The existing stock of efficiency-seeking FDI in the new member states is very small in terms of overall EU-15 outward FDI, but at the same time results in rather high level of foreign penetration in the new member states. These limit the existing and future scale of relocation to the new member states. In terms of the structural aspect of relocation, efficiency-seeking FDI in the new member states is increasingly in medium tech and in lower end segments of high tech industries, while the attractiveness of these countries for low tech labor intensive production is gradually vanishing. Low tech industries will be increasingly relocated outside EU-25.
The issue of production relocation via foreign direct investment (FDI)1 from the old (EU-15) to the new EU member states from Central Europe (NMS-8)2 has attracted an increasing attention in the recent period. Although the restructuring of production along the lines of integrating countries’ competitive advantages is one of the main benefits of economic integration and is to be a welcomed and anticipated result of the last EU enlargement, policy makers, trade unions and public at large in EU-15 seem to be caught by a negative surprise. Three issues are particularly interesting in the context of FDI and relocation: (i) does the relocation via FDI causes the fall of home country production, exports and employment; (ii) what is the (actual and potential) scale and nature of this relocation; (iii) what are the structural characteristics of the relocation via FDI. While the first issue is of particular interest of EU-15 as investing countries, the third issue is the most important for NMS-8 as FDI recipient countries. The second issue is relevant for both. In the existing literature, far the most attention has been devoted to the first issue, i.e. to the impact of FDI on investing countries’ production, exports and employment. Although empirical studies are not of unanimous opinion, the overwhelming conclusion is that there is basically no empirical evidence, which would support the notion of decreasing exports and employment in EU-15 because of the relocation of production to NMS-8.3 This is in sharp contrast with a popular view that every relocation results in the reduction of exports and employment in the investing country. Such a perception may be true for a particular production, particular industry, particular region or a particular cohort of employees, but looking the investing country as a whole, the empirical evidence says that relocation has been (more than) compensated by increased investment, production, exports and employment in other investing country industries. The relocation problem for economic policy is that those employees, which have lost jobs because of the relocation, are not the same as the employees, which have got the jobs because of the restructuring of home country economy into higher value added activities. In other words, in spite of a positive macroeconomic effect of relocation for investing economy, the fact that particular regions and/or cohorts of employees may be worse off, urges the policy makers to resolve the problems of those being worse off. The primary aim of this paper is to shed light on the second and the third issue, i.e. firstly, on the nature and scale of the relocation via FDI, on what is the existing and future potential for relocations via EU-15 FDI to NMS-8 (Section 2), and, secondly, on what are the structural characteristics of the relocation process, which industries are in the heart of the process. Here we apply the so-called flying geese model (FGM) to analyze the structural trends in inward FDI to NMS-8 (Section 3).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Three issues are particularly interesting and relevant in the context of the relocation process via FDI: (i) does the relocation process causes the fall of home country production, exports and employment; (ii) what is the (actual and potential) scale and nature of the relocation process; (iii) what are the structural characteristics of the relocation process. In the existing literature, far the most attention has been devoted to the first issue. The aim of this paper is to tackle the second and the third issue. More precisely, to shed some light, firstly, on the nature and scale of the relocation via FDI, on what is the existing and future potential for relocations via EU-15 FDI to NMS-8 and, secondly, on what are the structural characteristics of the relocation process, which industries are in the heart of the process. We apply the so-called flying geese model (FGM) to analyze the structural trends in inward FDI to NMS-8. We first claim that it is efficiency-seeking (production cost advantages-seeking, vertical) FDI in the manufacturing sector, where the main potential for relocation lies. We further claim that the scope for relocation via EU-15 FDI to NMS-8 is limited and so is its potential for future growth. Namely, the existing level of EU-15 FDI in NMS-8 represents only a very small share of EU-15 total outward FDI stock and could, thus, only result in relatively small part of EU-15 relocation. At the same time, the existing level of foreign penetration in NMS-8 is already rather high and does not allow for fast major breakthroughs in inward FDI in the near future. Also, relocation is accompanied by increased imports of subsidiaries from their foreign parent companies, which may more than compensate eventual initial substitution of exports by production abroad. Most of value added of foreign subsidiaries in NMS come from low and medium-high tech industries, followed by medium-low and high tech industries. However, in 1993–2001, this structure has undergone major changes in the direction from low to medium and high tech industries. These changes are the most distinctive in exports, where medium-high and high tech industries already account for the main part of total exports of foreign subsidiaries. Export propensity of high and medium-high tech foreign subsidiaries is much higher than of medium-low and low tech ones. The relocation via efficiency-seeking FDI in NMS, thus, goes increasingly in medium-high and high tech industries while low tech industries are loosing their attractiveness for foreign investors. There seems to be a flying geese pattern of FDI in NMS in the sense that labor intensive low tech FDI is increasingly replaced by medium tech FDI. In the future, EU-15 will increasingly relocate their low tech and low wage industries to the countries outside the EU-25, while NMS-8 will increasingly be a recipient of medium tech and lower-end segments of high tech industries.