外文翻譯--中國的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護以及外國的直接投資-其他專業(yè)-在線瀏覽
2025-03-24 09:53本頁面
【正文】 st on whether stronger IPR protection stimulates or discourages FDI flows to developing countries (for a review see Shatz et al. (2021)). Depending on a nation’s IPR regime, 10 multinational firms can serve a foreign market by choosing among several options: exports, FDI, joint ventures and licensing. While some theoretical studies have shown that stronger IPR protection stimulates innovation, the effect on FDI could be either positive or negative ( [Chin et al., 1988] and [Helpman, 1993]). Stronger IPR protection could have a positive effect and result in an increase in FDI by reducing the threat of imitation by local firms and thereby ensuring high returns to the investment in research and development of foreign firms. In contrast, the strengthening of IPR protection may have a negative effect on FDI if it results in an increase in the monopoly power of foreign firms. When faced with less petition from locally produced imitation products, multinational firms may attempt to maximize profits by reducing affiliate output and sales ( [Maskus and Penubarti, 1995], [Smith, 1999] and [Smith, 2021]). Furthermore, stronger IPR protection could also discourage FDI if multinational firms choose to license instead of increasing FDI. In contrast to lowtech producers, firms investing in heavy knowledgebased industries may be more sensitive to IPR protection concerns ( [Mansfield, 1995], [Markusen, 2021] and [Javorcik, 2021]). Thus, the relationship between IPR protection and FDI remains an empirical question that has yet to receive adequate attention. In recent years, many empirical studies have examined the factors influencing FDI flows to transition economies such as Central and Eastern European Countries and China. The studies focusing on European transition economies usually found that traditional determinants (., market potentials, factor costs, and distance) and transitionspecific factors (., levels and methods of privatization and EU membership) help to attract FDI ( [Carstensen and Toubal, 2021] and [Bevan and Estrin, 2021]). Comparatively, empirical studies focusing on China tend to place more emphasis on fundamental economic factors such as market size, labor and investment costs. In a study focusing on the drivers of FDI into China over 1978–1992, Wang and Swain (1995) found that GDP, wages, and trade restrictions have a positive effect while interest rates and exchange rates appear to have a negative effect on FDI. Similarly, Heid and Ries (1996) investigated the determinants of FDI location decision in 54 Chinese cities and found that FDI is mostly attracted to Chinese cities that have strong industrial base and excellent infrastructure. In another study, Sun et al. (2021) analyzed the determinants of FDI across China’s thirty provinces from 1986 to 1998 and found that the key drivers of FDI have changed over time. Hsiao and Hsiao (2021) also examined why China has attracted so much FDI and found that about 50% of China’s FDI originated in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Zhang (2021) asked why a very large portion of Chinabound FDI es from Hong Kong and Taiwan. They found that the characteristics of FDI from the major developed nations (EU, US, and Japan) 11 are different from those of Hong Kong and Taiwan. Also, several studies have investigated other aspects of FDI in China. Some authors explored how FDI is a productive input spurring China’s recent economic growth ( [Chen et al., 1995], [Wu, 2021] and [Yao and Wei, 2021]). Although many authors
教學課件相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1