外文翻譯--外商直接投資模式的解釋：基于土耳其汽車產(chǎn)業(yè)的分析-全文預(yù)覽
【正文】 ustry’s own perceptions of future prospects, we apply an evaluative framework for FDIs (Foster, 2020) to the Turkish auto industry context. The results were found to be highly patible with those from the questionnaire data. This is both further evidence for the validity of the framework and interesting in that its outes are consonant with the preceding discussion. The Foster FDIEvaluation framework (2020) prises six factors which are seen to be important, contextual aspects of the overall FDI decision as a plement to the usual financial appraisals. Each factor has an attached (subjective), Likertbased scoring scale. Four of the six factors have positive or affirmative scales, while the other two, F4 and F6, have negatively inclined scales (. a high score denotes potential hazard). For this application we have adopted two conventions. First, we have used a sevenpoint scale for each factor. Secondly, we have presented the plements of the two negatively oriented factors, . if the score for factor F4 were 5, then the score of the plement F4c would be (7 – 5) = 2. By doing this we generate a picture that is visually easy to interpret. A pattern to the right will be favourable and to the left will be unfavourable. Finally, note that here we apply the framework to the Turkish auto industry (TAI) as an entity rather than using it as a plement to the financial assessment of an individual investment proposal. The factors and their scores or the scores of the plements are shown in Figure 1. (Brief details of the nature of the factors in the Foster model can be found in Appendix 2.) 譯 文： 外商直接投資模式的解釋：基于土耳其汽車產(chǎn)業(yè)的分析 土耳其的 FDI模式：現(xiàn)狀和展望 從投資者的角度研究對內(nèi)外商投資時(shí)，可以認(rèn)為 FDI 是個(gè)正普遍上升的經(jīng)濟(jì)來源。 ? political stability was seen as the key to significant expansion of the FITAMs。 and ? high taxes on final vehicle sales, from 37 to 64%. One consequence of these factors, in bination, was low utilisation rates within Turkish auto plants (of the order of 50%, as already noted). A consequence of this in turn is that unit costs are higher than would be the case were something close to full capacity use to be achieved. This in turn has made Turkish exports less petitive, in the EU for example, than might have been expected. In the case of the EU market this lack of petitiveness occurs in spite of markedly higher EU labour rates. This highlights an important point, made elsewhere in a Southeast Asian context, see Foster (1997), that simply having low wage rates available is an inadequate basis for an FDI decision. The point seems obvious once made but is often glossed over because the low wage rationale for FDI is the one most frequently discussed. The sense of Turkey being in an apparently strong petitive position vis224。 and 3. a large privatisation programme, over the past decade. We conclude this section by noting the major sources of FDI into Turkey. Recently the main sources have been: France, Germany, US, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, Italy and Japan, see . Loewendahl and ErtugalLoewendahl (2020, Table 1). In other words the EU and the US lead such inward investment as is occurring, not for example its oilrich Arab neighbours. The auto sector within the Turkish economy At the time of the research in 2020, there were 15 automakers in Turkey (TAMs), of which 10 have at least some element of FDI. The pattern of production and imports is shown in Table 3. It shows a growing share of the Turkish market for auto units being taken by imports
畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1