【正文】 ein, Hausmann and Fern225。ndezArias (2021) point to reasons why a high share of FDI in total capital inflows may be a sign of a host country39。 and the impact of loans falls between those of the other two. These results hold both for the 58country sample and for a subset of emerging markets. (See Chart 2.) Bosworth and Collins conclude: Are these benefits of financial inflows sufficient to offset the evident risks of allowing markets to freely allocate capital across the borders of developing countries? The answer would appear to be a strong yes for FDI. Borensztein, Borensztein, De Gregorio, and Lee (1998) find that FDI increases economic growth when the level of education in the host country— a measure of its absorptive capacity— is high. The World Bank39。ndezArias (2021) suggest why many host countries, even when they are in favor of capital inflows, view international debt flows, especially of the shortterm variety, as bad cholesterol: It [shortterm lending from abroad] is driven by speculative considerations based on interest rate differentials and exchange rate expectations, not on longterm considerations. Its movement is often the result of moral hazard distortions such as implicit exchange rate guarantees or the willingness of governments to bailout the banking system. It is the first to run for the exits in times of trouble and is responsible for the boombust cycles of the 1990s. In contrast, FDI is viewed as good cholesterol because it can confer the benefits enumerated earlier. An additional benefit is that FDI is thought to be bolted down and cannot leave so easily at the first sign of trouble. Unlike shortterm debt, direct investments in a country are immediately repriced in the event of a crisis. Recent evidence To what extent is there empirical support for such claims of the beneficial impact of FDI? A prehensive study by Bosworth and Collins (1999) provides evidence on the effect of capital inflows on domestic investment for 58 developing countries during 197895. The sample covers nearly all of Latin America and Asia, as well as many countries in Africa. The authors distinguish among three types of inflows: FDI, portfolio investment, and other financial flows (primarily bank loans). Bosworth and Collins find that an increase of a dollar in capital inflows is associated with an increase in domestic investment of about 50 cents. (Both capital inflows and domestic investment are expressed as percentages of GDP.) This result, however, masks significant differences among types of inflow. FDI appears to bring about a oneforone increase in domestic investment。 and Lipsey, 2021). The resilience of FDI during financial crises was also evident during the Mexican crisis of 199495 and the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s. This resilience could lead many developing countries to favor FDI over other forms of capital flows, furthering a trend that has been in evidence for many years (see Chart 1). Is the preference for FDI over other forms of private capital inflows justified? This article sheds some light on this issue by reviewing recent theoretical and empirical work on its impact on developing countries39。中文 3773字 本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯 外文題目 ： How Beneficial Is Foreign Direct Investment for Developing Countries? 出 處： Finance amp。 Development, June 2021 作 者： Prakash Loungani and Assaf Razin 原 文： How Beneficial Is Foreign Direct Inv