國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)受益于外商直接投資嗎？來(lái)自委內(nèi)瑞拉的數(shù)據(jù)【外文翻譯】

1、<p><b>　　外文翻譯</b></p><p><b>　　原文</b></p><p>　　Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment?Evidence from Venezuela</p><p>　　Material Source:

2、 Journal of Economic Literature</p><p>　　Author: Brian J. Aitken and Ann E. Harrison</p><p>　　Governments often promote inward foreign investment to encourage technology “spillovers” from foreig

3、n to domestic firms. Using panel data on Venezuelan plants, we find that foreign equity participation is positively correlated with plant productivity (the “own-plant” effect), but this relationship is only robust for sm

4、all enterprises. We then test for spillovers from joint ventures to plants with no foreign investment. Foreign investment negatively affects the productivity of domestically owned </p><p>　　In the 1990’s,dir

5、ect foreign investment (DFI) became the largest single source of external finance for developing countries. In 1997, DFI accounted for about half of all private capital and 40 percent of total capital flows to developing

6、 countries. Following the virtual disappearance of commercial bank lending in the 1980’s, policy makers in emerging markets eased restrictions on incoming foreign investment. Many countries even tilted the balance by off

7、ering special incentives to foreign enterpr</p><p>　　Can these subsidies be justified? Apart from the employment and capital inflows which accompany foreign investment, multinational activity may lead to te

8、chnology transfer for domestic firms. If foreign firms introduce new products or processes to the domestic market, domestic firms may benefit from the accelerated diffusion of new technology (David J. Teece, 1977). In so

9、me cases, domestic firms may increase productivity simply by observing nearby foreign firms. In other cases, diffusion may occ</p><p>　　Case studies present mixed evidence on the role of foreign investment i

10、n generating technology transfer to domestic firms. In Mauritius and Bangladesh, studies suggest that the entry of several foreign firms led to the creation of a booming, domestically owned export industry for textile

11、s (Jong Wong Rhee and Therese Belot, 1989).Edwin Mansfield and Anthony Romeo (1980), however, found that only a few of the 15 multinationals in their survey helped domestic firms acquire new technology. In a s</p>

12、<p>　　Few researchers have attempted to go beyond qualitative case study evidence. In this paper, we focus on two questions. First, to what extent do joint ventures or wholly owned foreign subsidiaries (hereafter r

13、eferred to as “foreign” or “foreign-owned” firms) exhibit higher levels of productivity than their domestic counterparts? Second, is there any evidence of technology “spillovers” to domestically owned (“domestic”) firms

14、from these foreign entrants?</p><p>　　Using a richer data set, we are able to overcome important data restrictions faced by earlier researchers. In this paper, we use annual census data on over 4,000 Venezue

15、lan firms, allowing us to measure the productivity effects of foreign ownership. Previous attempts to measure spillover effects from foreign investment faced a critical identification problem: if foreign investment gravi

16、tates towards more productive industries, then the observed correlation between the presence of foreign firms a</p><p>　　We present two results. First, we find a positive relationship between increased forei

17、gn equity participation and plant performance, suggesting that individual plants do benefit from foreign investment. However, the positive own-plant effect is only robust for smaller plants, defined as plants with less t

18、han 50 employees. For large enterprises, the positive effects of foreign investment disappear when plant-specific differences are taken into account. This suggests that foreign investors are inv</p><p>　　In

19、Section I, we begin with a general discussion of the possible benefits as well as the costs of foreign investment.Section II discusses the Venezuelan data.Section III presents the estimation results and Section IV conclu

20、des the paper.</p><p>　　I. Foreign Investment, Competition, and Technology Spillovers: The Framework</p><p>　　The so-called “industrial organization” approach to foreign investment in manufactur

21、ing suggests that multinationals can compete locally with more informed domestic firms because multinationals possess nontangible productive assets, such as technological know-how, marketing and managing skills, export

22、contacts, coordinated relationships with suppliers and customers, and reputation. Since the assets are almost always gained through experience, they cannot be easily licensed to host country firm</p><p>　　I

23、n addition, domestically owned firms might benefit from the presence of foreign firms. Workers employed by foreign firms or participating in joint ventures may accumulate knowledge which is valued outside the firm. As ex

24、perienced workers leave the foreign firms, this human capital becomes available to domestic firms, raising their measured productivity. Likewise, some firm-specific knowledge of the foreign owners might “spill over” to

25、domestic industry as domestic firms are exposed to new prod</p><p>　　But foreign presence can also reduce productivity of domestically owned firms, particularly in the short run. If imperfectly competitive f

26、irms face fixed costs of production, a foreign firm with lower marginal costs will have an incentive to increase production relative to its domestic competitor. In this environment, entering foreign firms producing for t

27、he local market can draw demand from domestic firms, causing them to cut production. The productivity of large enough, net domestic productivi</p><p>　　In this paper, we estimate log-linear production functi

28、ons at the plant level to answer two basic questions: (1) whether foreign equity participation is associated with an increase in the plant’s productivity, and (2) whether foreign ownership in an industry affects the prod

29、uctivity of domestically owned firms in the same industry—i.e., whether there are positive or negative “spillovers” to domestic enterprises.</p><p>　　II. Data Description</p><p>　　The data set

30、employed in this paper was obtained directly from Venezuela’s National Statistical Bureau, the Oficina Central de Estadistica e Informatica (OCEI). OCEI conducts an annual survey of industrial plants, known as the Enques

31、ta Industrial. The years covered include 1976 through 1989, with the exception of 1980 (the industrial survey is not taken in census years). The industrial survey covers all plants in the formal sector with more than 50

32、workers, as well as a large sample of smaller p</p><p>　　The data set contains information on foreign ownership, assets, output, employment, input costs, location, and product destination. DFI_Plant is defin

33、ed as the percentage of subscribed capital (equity) owned by foreign investors. DFI_Sector is defined as foreign equity participation averaged over all plants in the sector, weighted by each plant’s share in sectoral emp

34、loyment.</p><p>　　III. Effects of Foreign Investment on Productivity </p><p>　　Our finding of large, negative spillovers from foreign investment to domestic firms is in sharp contrast with prev

35、ious econometric studies, which generally found positive spillovers. Previous researchers typically estimated some variant of equation (1) using across section of industries (rather than plants), where the coefficient on

36、 foreign share was interpreted as a measure of spillovers from foreign presence to domestic firms.Using data aggregated at the sectoral level, these studies were unab</p><p>　　Overall, the evidence in Table

37、1 suggests that the positive impact of foreign investment on the productivity of domestically owned firms reported in some earlier studies is not robust when we control for differences in industry productivity. Foreign i

38、nvestors in Venezuela tend to locate in more productive industries, and increases in foreign investment lead to a decline in the productivity of domestic firms. </p><p>　　IV. Conclusion</p><p>

39、;　　Using a panel of more than 4,000 Venezuelan plants between 1976 and 1989, we identify two effects of foreign direct investment domestic enterprises. First, we find that increases in foreign equity participation are co

40、rrelated with increases in productivity for recipient plants with less than 50 employees, suggesting that these plants benefit from the productive advantages of foreign owners. Second, we find that increases in foreign o

41、wnership negatively affect the productivity of wholly domestica</p><p>　　On balance, our evidence suggests that the net effect of foreign ownership on the economy is quite small. Weighted least-squares estim

42、ates suggest that the positive effects for recipient firms slightly outweigh the negative effects on firms that remain domestically owned; other approaches yield a net negative impact of DFI. We conclude that there are b

43、enefits from foreign investment, but that such benefits appear to be internalized by joint ventures. We find no evidence supporting the existence </p><p>　　Our results raise several issues for further re-sea

44、rch. To what extent can the results for Venezuela be extended to other developing countries? The level of foreign investment in Venezuela might be too low, or the economy not sufficiently developed or diversified, to rec

45、eive large benefits from foreign presence. The scope for spillovers might be greater in the export-oriented economies in East Asia. We also ignore other potential gains from foreign investment, such as increased employme

46、nt and in</p><p><b>　　譯文</b></p><p>　　國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)受益于外商直接投資嗎？來(lái)自委內(nèi)瑞拉的數(shù)據(jù)</p><p>　　資料來(lái)源:經(jīng)濟(jì)文獻(xiàn)期刊 作者：布萊恩·艾特肯和安·哈里森 </p><p>　　政府往往促進(jìn)外來(lái)投資來(lái)鼓勵(lì)技術(shù)從國(guó)外到國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)的“

47、溢出效應(yīng)”。對(duì)委內(nèi)瑞拉的工廠使用面板數(shù)據(jù)，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，外國(guó)資本的參與和工廠生產(chǎn)力（下稱(chēng)“自有工廠”的效果）成正相關(guān)，但這種關(guān)系只適于強(qiáng)勁的小型企業(yè)。然后，我們測(cè)試在沒(méi)有外國(guó)投資下從合資企業(yè)到工廠的技術(shù)外溢。外國(guó)投資消極地影響了國(guó)內(nèi)所有工廠的生產(chǎn)力。外商投資的凈影響，同時(shí)考慮到這兩個(gè)互相抵消的效果，是相當(dāng)小的。外國(guó)投資的收益似乎完全是從合資企業(yè)中獲取的。</p><p>　　20世紀(jì)90年代，外商直接投資（DFI）成

48、為發(fā)展中國(guó)家外部資金最大的單一來(lái)源。 1997年，外商直接投資大約一半的所有私人資本和百分之四十的總資本，流入了發(fā)展中國(guó)家。隨著20世紀(jì)80年代的商業(yè)銀行貸款實(shí)際上的消失，決策者在新興市場(chǎng)放寬了對(duì)外國(guó)投資傳入的限制。許多國(guó)家甚至對(duì)外國(guó)企業(yè)通過(guò)提供特殊的激勵(lì)措施，包括降低所得稅或收入免稅，進(jìn)口關(guān)稅減免，和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的補(bǔ)貼使平衡傾斜。此特殊待遇的理由往往源于相信外國(guó)投資以技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓形式產(chǎn)生的外部性。</p><p>　　

49、這些補(bǔ)貼是合理的嗎？除了就業(yè)和資本流入伴隨著同外國(guó)投資，跨國(guó)公司的活動(dòng)可能導(dǎo)致國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)讓技術(shù)。如果外國(guó)公司引進(jìn)國(guó)內(nèi)市場(chǎng)的新產(chǎn)品或流程，國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)可能受益于新技術(shù)加速擴(kuò)散（戴維J ·蒂斯，1977）。在某些情況下，國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)可能會(huì)僅僅通過(guò)觀察附近的外國(guó)企業(yè)來(lái)增加生產(chǎn)率。在其他情況下，當(dāng)國(guó)內(nèi)雇員從外國(guó)移動(dòng)向國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)，也許會(huì)從勞工移動(dòng)率發(fā)生擴(kuò)散。一些研究表明，外國(guó)公司比國(guó)內(nèi)同行發(fā)起更多在職培訓(xùn)計(jì)劃（拉爾夫乙，1975年;雷納爾多，19

50、86年）。如果從外商投資獲取的利益不是由傳入的公司完全內(nèi)部化，一些類(lèi)型的補(bǔ)貼是合理的。</p><p>　　本案例利用目前的混合證據(jù)，研究對(duì)外投資在技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓給國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)的作用。在毛里求斯和孟加拉國(guó)，研究表明，幾個(gè)外國(guó)公司的進(jìn)入導(dǎo)致了創(chuàng)新的蓬勃發(fā)展，國(guó)內(nèi)擁有紡織品出口行業(yè)（黃鐘李承晚和泰蕾茲貝洛特，1989年）。然而，埃德溫曼斯菲爾德和安東尼羅密歐（1980），發(fā)現(xiàn)只有在其調(diào)查的15個(gè)跨國(guó)公司幫助國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)獲得新技術(shù)。

51、迪米特里熱爾米迪（1977）研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，在12個(gè)發(fā)展中國(guó)家的65個(gè)分支機(jī)構(gòu)中，幾乎沒(méi)有證據(jù)證明技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)移到當(dāng)?shù)氐母?jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手。國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)缺乏技術(shù)外溢是由于若干因素，包括在國(guó)內(nèi)員工高層次崗位的有限聘用，在國(guó)內(nèi)公司和國(guó)外子公司之間缺少勞動(dòng)力移動(dòng)性，當(dāng)?shù)毓镜挠邢薹职?，子公司沒(méi)有研究和發(fā)展成果，跨國(guó)公司較少鼓勵(lì)他們的知識(shí)擴(kuò)散到當(dāng)?shù)氐母?jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手。</p><p>　　很少有研究人員試圖在定性專(zhuān)題研究證據(jù)之外研究。在本文中，我們集中在

52、兩個(gè)問(wèn)題上。首先，在何種程度上合資或外商獨(dú)資附屬公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)“外國(guó)”或“外商獨(dú)資”企業(yè)）比國(guó)內(nèi)同行展示更高水平的生產(chǎn)力？第二，是否有任何證據(jù)顯示技術(shù)“溢出效應(yīng)”，從這些外國(guó)公司的進(jìn)入者到國(guó)內(nèi)擁有（“國(guó)內(nèi)”）？</p><p>　　使用更豐富的數(shù)據(jù)集，我們可以克服早期研究所面臨的重要數(shù)據(jù)的限制。在本文中，我們?cè)诔^(guò)4000家委內(nèi)瑞拉公司使用年度普查數(shù)據(jù)，讓我們來(lái)衡量外國(guó)所有權(quán)的生產(chǎn)力的影響。以前試圖衡量外商投資溢

53、出效應(yīng)面臨一個(gè)關(guān)鍵的識(shí)別問(wèn)題：如果外商投資趨向于更高生產(chǎn)力的產(chǎn)業(yè)，在外國(guó)公司的存在和國(guó)有企業(yè)的生產(chǎn)力觀察到的相互的關(guān)系，夸大了外國(guó)投資的積極影響。因此，人們可以發(fā)現(xiàn)外國(guó)投資在沒(méi)有發(fā)生技術(shù)外溢的地方發(fā)生了的積極外溢的證據(jù)。由于我們觀察過(guò)每家工廠的行為，我們可以控制全行業(yè)的生產(chǎn)力水平的固定差異可能影響外國(guó)投資水平。我們的研究證實(shí)，這些差異實(shí)際上是與外國(guó)投資結(jié)構(gòu)相關(guān)，偏向于以前的結(jié)果。</p><p>　　我們提出兩個(gè)

54、結(jié)果。首先，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)外國(guó)資本參與和工廠的表現(xiàn)之間成正相關(guān)關(guān)系，表明個(gè)別工廠從外國(guó)投資效益。然而，積極的自有工廠的影響，只是對(duì)于小型工廠，工廠定義少于50名員工。對(duì)于大型企業(yè)，當(dāng)工廠的具體差異考慮在內(nèi)時(shí)，外商投資的積極影響消失。這表明，外國(guó)投資者在較為生產(chǎn)力較高的工廠投資。第二，當(dāng)外國(guó)投資增加時(shí)，在國(guó)內(nèi)擁有工廠生產(chǎn)率下降。這表明從國(guó)外到國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)負(fù)面溢出，我們理解為市場(chǎng)偷竊效果。如果我們?cè)黾恿朔e極的自有工廠和負(fù)面溢出效應(yīng)，總的來(lái)說(shuō)，外國(guó)投資

55、對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)工廠生產(chǎn)力的影響非常小。</p><p>　　在第一部分，我們開(kāi)始研究可能帶來(lái)的利益的一般性討論，以及外國(guó)投資的成本。第二部分討論了委內(nèi)瑞拉的數(shù)據(jù)。第三部分介紹了估算結(jié)果，第四部分對(duì)文章進(jìn)行總結(jié)。</p><p>　　I.外商投資，競(jìng)爭(zhēng)和技術(shù)外溢：框架</p><p>　　在本文中，我們估計(jì)在工廠一級(jí)對(duì)數(shù)線(xiàn)性生產(chǎn)函數(shù)來(lái)回答兩個(gè)基本問(wèn)題：（1）外國(guó)資本參與和工廠

56、的生產(chǎn)率的提高有否關(guān)聯(lián)，以及（2）在一個(gè)行業(yè)的外國(guó)所有權(quán)是否影響國(guó)內(nèi)同行業(yè)的國(guó)有企業(yè)的生產(chǎn)率，也就是說(shuō)，對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)是否有積極或消極的“溢出效應(yīng)”。</p><p>　　所謂的“產(chǎn)業(yè)組織”的做法，類(lèi)似于制造業(yè)的外商投資，表明跨國(guó)公司能與更明智的國(guó)內(nèi)公司進(jìn)行當(dāng)?shù)馗?jìng)爭(zhēng)，因?yàn)榭鐕?guó)公司擁有無(wú)形的生產(chǎn)性資產(chǎn)，如技術(shù)訣竅，營(yíng)銷(xiāo)和管理技能，出口聯(lián)系，與供應(yīng)商和客戶(hù)的協(xié)調(diào)關(guān)系以及聲譽(yù)。由于資產(chǎn)幾乎總是通過(guò)經(jīng)驗(yàn)獲得的，他們不能輕易授

57、權(quán)給東道國(guó)的公司，但可以在一個(gè)合理的價(jià)格向東道國(guó)的子公司轉(zhuǎn)讓?zhuān)ǖ偎梗?977）。如果跨國(guó)公司確實(shí)擁有這種無(wú)形資產(chǎn)，那么我們希望外資持股來(lái)提高企業(yè)的生產(chǎn)力。</p><p>　　此外，在國(guó)內(nèi)擁有的公司可能受益于外國(guó)公司的存在。由外國(guó)公司所雇用的工人或參加合資企業(yè)可能在合資企業(yè)積累企業(yè)外部?jī)r(jià)值的知識(shí)。作為有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的工人離開(kāi)外國(guó)公司，這成為對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)可用人力資本，提高他們的測(cè)量效率。同樣，一些外國(guó)業(yè)主公司的特定知識(shí)可能“

58、溢出”到作為國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)的國(guó)內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)，他們有機(jī)會(huì)接觸到新產(chǎn)品，生產(chǎn)和營(yíng)銷(xiāo)技巧，或接收從上游或下游外國(guó)公司的技術(shù)支持。外國(guó)公司也可以作為對(duì)投入的需求在一個(gè)行業(yè)穩(wěn)定的收入來(lái)源，它可以造福上游企業(yè)，讓他們培養(yǎng)和保持與國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的員工的關(guān)系。在所有這些情況下，外國(guó)的存在將提高國(guó)內(nèi)國(guó)有企業(yè)的生產(chǎn)力。</p><p>　　但外資的存在也可以減少?lài)?guó)內(nèi)國(guó)有企業(yè)的生產(chǎn)力，特別是在短期內(nèi)。如果不完全競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的企業(yè)面臨著固定的生產(chǎn)成本，外國(guó)

59、公司較低的邊際成本將激勵(lì)國(guó)內(nèi)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的增加相對(duì)產(chǎn)量。在這種環(huán)境下，進(jìn)入當(dāng)?shù)厥袌?chǎng)的外國(guó)企業(yè)可借助國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)的需求，使它們不得不削減產(chǎn)量。在生產(chǎn)力足夠大，國(guó)內(nèi)凈生產(chǎn)力會(huì)降低，即使跨國(guó)公司技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)移或其特定的資產(chǎn)進(jìn)入國(guó)內(nèi)公司。</p><p><b>　　II.數(shù)據(jù)描述</b></p><p>　　在本文該使用的數(shù)據(jù)集，直接從委內(nèi)瑞拉國(guó)家統(tǒng)計(jì)局中央辦事處各省統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)（OCEI）

60、獲得。 OCEI對(duì)作為以工業(yè)著名的工業(yè)廠房進(jìn)行一次年度調(diào)查。內(nèi)容包括1976年到1989年除1980年例外（工業(yè)調(diào)查并不采取普查年）。工業(yè)統(tǒng)計(jì)調(diào)查涵蓋了50名工人以上的正規(guī)部門(mén)的所有工廠，以及一個(gè)小型工廠的大樣本。對(duì)于較小的工廠，OCEI計(jì)算樣本的權(quán)重，允許集聚輸出和其他變量來(lái)估計(jì)外國(guó)投資對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)亟?jīng)濟(jì)的的重要性。調(diào)查工廠的數(shù)量從1982年的3955家少量工廠到1978年的6044家工廠。該數(shù)據(jù)集是不均衡的面板，全國(guó)工廠總數(shù)每年的樣本各不相

61、同。</p><p>　　該數(shù)據(jù)集包含關(guān)于外國(guó)所有權(quán)，資產(chǎn)，產(chǎn)出，就業(yè)，投入成本，地理位置，和產(chǎn)品目的地。 DFI_Plant被定義為出資比例（外國(guó)投資者擁有的股票）。 DFI_Sector被定義為外資參股該行業(yè)平均超過(guò)所有的工廠，每個(gè)工廠的份額加權(quán)部門(mén)就業(yè)。</p><p>　　III. 外商直接投資對(duì)生產(chǎn)力的影響</p><p>　　我們發(fā)現(xiàn)從外商投資對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)

62、巨大、負(fù)面的影響，與過(guò)去以往計(jì)量經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)研究通常會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)積極的外溢形成鮮明對(duì)比的。先前的研究典型地估計(jì)方程（1）的變型，在部分行業(yè)（而不是工廠），其中外國(guó)股票系數(shù)被解釋為外國(guó)存在外溢到國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)的衡量。將數(shù)據(jù)在部門(mén)級(jí)別匯總，這些研究無(wú)法控制相關(guān)各部門(mén)生產(chǎn)率的差別，但不是由外國(guó)的存在造成的。如果外國(guó)投資者相對(duì)于一個(gè)規(guī)范而更傾向于提高生產(chǎn)力的的工廠，從而不能控制不同行業(yè)的差異，可能找到外商直接投資份額和即使沒(méi)有發(fā)生技術(shù)外溢的國(guó)內(nèi)公司生產(chǎn)力呈正相關(guān)

63、</p><p>　　總體而言，表1的證據(jù)表明，外國(guó)投資對(duì)國(guó)有企業(yè)的生產(chǎn)率產(chǎn)生積極的影響，當(dāng)我們控制工業(yè)生產(chǎn)率差異的時(shí)候，在一些早先的研究報(bào)告中是不穩(wěn)健。在委內(nèi)瑞拉的外國(guó)投資者更傾向當(dāng)?shù)鼐哂猩a(chǎn)力的行業(yè)，外國(guó)投資的增加導(dǎo)致國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)的生產(chǎn)率下降。</p><p><b>　　IV. 結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　我們選取了超過(guò)4000家在19

64、76年至1989年之間的委內(nèi)瑞拉企業(yè),我們確定了兩點(diǎn)FDI對(duì)東道國(guó)企業(yè)的影響。第一點(diǎn)，我們發(fā)現(xiàn),在國(guó)外參股提高生產(chǎn)率的相關(guān)企業(yè)只有不到50名本地員工，這些工廠受益于外國(guó)業(yè)主的生產(chǎn)優(yōu)勢(shì)。外商獨(dú)資的企業(yè)生產(chǎn)力提高，對(duì)同行業(yè)的其他國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)有負(fù)面好影響。這些負(fù)面影響是巨大，不同的分析模型強(qiáng)有力地說(shuō)明了這一點(diǎn)。盡管以前的研究普遍發(fā)現(xiàn)積極的影響，這些結(jié)果可以解釋這樣的趨勢(shì)，跨國(guó)公司傾向于投資集聚的產(chǎn)業(yè)和生產(chǎn)率更高的行業(yè)。</p>&l

65、t;p>　　總的來(lái)說(shuō)，我們的證據(jù)表明，關(guān)于FDI對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的凈影響是相當(dāng)小。結(jié)果估計(jì)表明，F(xiàn)DI對(duì)東道國(guó)企業(yè)的正面效應(yīng)還是略大于對(duì)企業(yè)的負(fù)面效應(yīng)的。其他方法產(chǎn)生的外國(guó)直接投資的負(fù)面影響. 我們的結(jié)論是FDI是有好處的，但這種好處似乎是合資企業(yè)內(nèi)部化的。沒(méi)有證據(jù)證明從外國(guó)企業(yè)到東道國(guó)企業(yè)技術(shù)溢出效應(yīng)的存在。</p><p>　　我們的研究結(jié)果提出了進(jìn)一步研究的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題。在何種程度上能將委內(nèi)瑞拉的成果擴(kuò)大到其他發(fā)展

66、中國(guó)家？在委內(nèi)瑞拉的外國(guó)投資水平可能過(guò)低，或經(jīng)濟(jì)不夠發(fā)達(dá)和多元化，不足以接受過(guò)多的外國(guó)投資。對(duì)于溢出的范圍可能更大，在Asia.12東部有出口導(dǎo)向型的經(jīng)濟(jì)體。我們還忽略來(lái)自其他外商投資的潛在好處，如增加就業(yè)和資本流入。最后，我們可能很難分析出外國(guó)直接投資的長(zhǎng)期影響。如果積極的影響是永久性的，而負(fù)面影響是暫時(shí)的，由于淘汰企業(yè)的退出競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，生產(chǎn)力的負(fù)面影響可能下降。外國(guó)所有權(quán)的生產(chǎn)優(yōu)勢(shì)可能會(huì)增加人力資本存量，通過(guò)吸收工人培訓(xùn)，邊學(xué)邊做。長(zhǎng)期內(nèi)