外文翻譯---外商直接投資能長期促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長嗎-在線瀏覽
2025-07-31 10:04本頁面
【正文】 n et al. 2020) and only a few with impacts of FDI on macroeconomic performance of transition countries (Campos and Kinoshita 2020, Krkoska 2020, Lipschitz et al. 2020) which are considered here. Indeed, we only want to answer two questions. First: Did foreign takeovers, a predominant form of FDI in developed transition countries, enhance their economic growth during the posttransition period? Secondly: If not, what were the reasons? Data We shall concentrate on a very narrow sample both regarding the set of the countries and the period included. The sample consists of eight EU candidates – Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia – in the posttransition period, which is also the period of their gradual accession to EU and high reliance on FDI. The narrowing of the sample to only eight countries and to the posttransition period on account of the number of observations is deliberate。 if data are pooled, the simple correlation coefficient remains negative. A similar negative result is obtained by observing cross section data for each year in the observed period。 one could thus claim that economic growth and convergence of the country to the EU would be even faster with more foreign direct investment. Table1 Foreign Direct Investment and GDP growth (country time series, 1994–2020) country average FDI Standard deviation Average rGDP Standard deviation Correlation coefficient Czech 4 Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania + Poland Slovakia Slovenia All countries Table2 Foreign Direct Investment and GDP Growth (annual cross section data) year average FDI Standard deviation Average rGDP Standard deviation Correlation coefficient 1994 1995 1996 1997 + 1998 1999 2020 2020 19942020 The country time series and annual cross section data series each contain just eight observations which does not allow a proper statistical analysis, much less the establishment of a causal relationship. For that reason the relationship between foreign direct investment and economic growth was examined by panel data (eight candidates for the period 1994–2020) which provides 64 observations. Two surprising results emerged: first, a negative correlation between growth and FDI。 before any substantial inference is made results should be statistically thoroughly tested. The pooled data allow the application of the standard Granger causality tests (see HoltzEakin et al. 1985). The results for one and two lags are in Table 3. Figure 1 Growth and Foreign Direct Investment in Eight Candidate Countries, 1994–2020 5 Using the results in Table 3, a zero hypothesis that FDI does not influence economic growth can be rejected which implies adoption of the opposite hypothesis, ., that FDI affects economic growth. Similarly, a nonrejection of the zero hypothesis that economic growth does not influence FDI implies that we cannot adopt the opposite hypothesis that economic growth affects FDI. In short, the assumption that FDI affects economic growth is confirmed, reverse causality, . that growth attracts FDI, is rejected. Table3 Granger Causality Tests Sample 1:64 Lags: 1 Null Hypothesis Observations FStatistics Probability GDP does not Granger cause FDI/GDP 56 FDI/GDP does not Granger cause GDP Sample 1:64 Lags: 2 Null Hypothesis Observations FStatistics Probability GDP does not Granger cause FDI/GDP 48 FDI/GDP does not Granger cause GDP Despite significant statistics of the standard Granger causality tests there are two major drawbacks. First, pooling implies that the underlying causal structure is the same for each crosssectional unit or each candidate country。 the country dummies were therefore insignificant except for Estonia and
畢業(yè)設(shè)計相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1