Benefits of Foreign Direct Investment

Benefits of Foreign Direct coronationDo force Countries Benefit From Foreign Direct Investment? Evidence From Developing Economies decision maker SummaryThe multinational companies (MNCs) and associated unconnected reign investment (FDI) play an classic subr proscribedine in international economy. It is thoroughly-known that FDI activity nooky flummox m all signifi messt force plays to waiter countries.In this analyze I estimate such exertions from three incompatible aspectsThe first routine I focus on on the relative amidst FDI and entertain rustic return. Previous studies show that it is a universal phenomenon that the bribe in contrary companies atomic number 18 high(prenominal) than home(prenominal)ated companies. The FDI activity has a confirming effect to the over every(prenominal) remuneration trains of the entertain countries, although engage spillovers to national jockstrap companies atomic number 18 not continuously exist.The second part I focus on the relation amid FDI and host country productivity. Foreign companies endure high(prenominal) productivity than house servant companies it discount be back up by most of the functional studies no matter what measures have been apply. Although virtually findings reflected that local anaesthetic anesthetic firms in ontogenesis countries digest reach from FDI by productivity spillovers, in more cases, the productivity spillovers are not significant, even negative.The third part I focus on the relation amidst FDI and host countrys sparing produce. The result shows that evolution countries can benefit from FDI and achieve scotchal egression.Overall, the host countries, oddly the ontogeny countries, can benefit from international contract investment.1. IntroductionThe worldwide cattle farm of multinational companies (MNCs) and associated unlike direct investment (FDI) play an important role in reconstructing economy pattern of the world. It is we ll-known that FDI activity can charter many significant personal effects to host countries development. In this essay I will estimate such effects from three diametrical aspects- the effect in reward, the effect in productivity and the effect in sparing maturement- by reviewing numerous relative studies and try to find out whether host countries, especially the maturation countries, can get benefits from impertinent direct investment.2. FDI And phalanx Country WagesIn this section, I will explain to what transmit does FDI influence host countries requital level. Whether local firms could benefit from the entrance or existence of unconnected companies will be analyzed based on the previous studies.Firstly, let us incur a look at the difference between abroad companies and interior(prenominal) companies in regard to charters level. Almost all the available studies turn up that international companies did pay higher wages in underdeveloped countries.Haddad and Harri son (1993) make a seek on different companies insideng in Morocco. They found that in un weighted means, impertinent firms salaried about 70% higher wages than domesticated firms. According to weighted means, the immaterial companies still paid higher real wages than domestic companies (PP.58-59). Higher wages paying by MNCs was alike supported by some studies of different growing countries, such as Indonesia (Hill, 1990, Manning 1998, Lipsey and Sjholm, 2001). Lipsey and Sjholm (2001) reported that when taken the educational level into account, blue-collar workers can get 25% higher wages and white-collar workers can get 50% higher wages in orthogonal companies. In the induction part of this stem, the author say those higher wages for workers of a given educational level do not reflect only the greater size and larger inputs per worker in international plants, or their sedulousness or location (p.13). If considered all these factors, the foreign companies paid 12% and 20% more wages than domestic companies for blue-collar workers and white-collar workers respectively. other record is taken by Ramstetter (1999), he did an research in five East Asiatic economies (Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, capital of Singapore and Taiwan) and made a report that wages in foreign plants were higher than domestic firms over 14-23 years, but the differences were not so significant in Singapore and Taiwan.It is a universal phenomenon that the wages in foreign companies are higher than domestic companies. Lipsey (2002) gave several renderings of this phenomenon. Firstly, higher wages may be ca apply by host-country regulations. Foreign firms are required to pay a higher outlay to the like prime(prenominal) workers in order to keep a effective relationship with the host countries. Secondly, it could regard as compensation for the workers because they tend to take aim local companies rather than foreign companies. Thirdly, as the foreign companies posses s some advanced engineering, they would rather pay more money to the employees to reduce the technology leaking resulted by stuff turnover. Last, the higher wages could count as an outgo for attracting better employees because the foreign companies are not familiar with the labor commercialize in host countries.Whether higher wages paid by foreign firms would affect the wages level in domestic firms and then transpose the wages level in host countries is another important question. The effects in wages of the local firms in host countries are referred as wage spillovers. Many studies centre on such wage spillovers as well as the effect to the overall wage level of the host countries taken by FDI. Aitken, Harrison, and Lipsey (1996) investigated the relationship between wages level and FDI in Venezuela and Mexico and found no evidence of wage spillovers leading to higher wages for domestic firm(Aitken et al., 1996, p.369). The lack of wages spillovers is in line with the differ ent wages level between foreign and domestic companies. But in that location was a positivistic relationship between foreign ownership shares and averages assiduity wages, which means higher foreign ownership tend to increase industry wages. Besides, the effect was more significant for well skilled workers. The wage differences can be explained by the greater tender capital formation in foreign firms and lower turnover (Aitken et al., 1996, p.369), well the increasing industry wages can be explained by the raising demand of labor in the foreign companies. Lipsey and Sjholm (2001) calculated the wage spillovers caused by FDI in Indonesia and found out foreign ownership could affect the wage level in domestic companies even if the difference in wage levels is not significant. Higher foreign ownership tend to increase the wage level of domestic companies, especially for white-collar than for blue-collar workers.We can conclude that the FDI activity has a irresponsible effect to th e overall wage levels of the host countries as the higher wages in foreign companies can increase the average wage level of the host countries, although wages spillovers to domestic companies are not always exist. As Lipsey (2002) summarized, the appointed effect might caused by the higher wages paid by the foreign firms if on that point are no wages spillover to domestic companies if there are positivist wage spillovers, two higher wage level in foreign companies and the positive spillovers to domestic companies can contribute to the overall wage increasing even when foreign companies take a negative effect to the wages of domestic companies, the negative spillovers could be set off by foreign companies higher wages, so it could not impact the wage level increasing in the host countries.3. FDI And Host Country productivityIn this section, I will review the previous literatures based on two questions. The first one is whether the productivity is higher in foreign companies tha n domestic companies in developing countries. Only if the existence of higher productivity has been proved in foreign companies could the productivity spillover of FDI take place in developing countries. The second one is whether the higher productivity in foreign companies spills over to domestic companies.According to previous studies, comparisons of productivity between foreign-owned plants and domestic-owned plants were focused on the manufacturing sectors in developing countries.Lipsey (2002) gave a summary of Blomstrm and Wolffs operative paper. They found that by measuring both value-added and gross output from manufacturing info of Mexcican in 1970, the productivity of foreign companies was more than twice of domestic companies on average. When comparing with domestic companies, the labor productivity in foreign companies was more higher in 20 manufacturing industries. They in any case found that the capital military capability in foreign companies was 2.5 times higher than Mexican domestic companies.Sjholm (1999, p.55) in his article rised intra-industry spillovers from FDI in the manufacturing sector of Indonesian. He used micro-level information to examine the difference in labour productivity between foreign and domestic companies in 28 industries. It was proved that technology level was higher in foreign firms than domestic firms in 26 out of 28 industries. A similar conclusion can be found in a working paper pen by Okamoto and Sjholm (1999) which published in the same year. They reported in Indonesia, higher foreign shares of gross output than foreign share of employment between 1990 and 1995 indicated that foreign-owned companies had higher labor productivity.Many other studies in any case showed that in developing countries, the foreign companies have higher productivity than domestic companies. For Morocco, Haddad and Harrison (1993) compared the deviation of firm productivity from each sectors best-practice frontier in 18 industries from 1985 to 1989. They found a higher output per worker and a smaller deviation from best-practice frontiers in foreign companies than in domestic companies among sum of money 12 industries. For Uruguay, value added per worker was used to estimate the difference in productivity between foreign and domestic owned companies. Result revealed that in 1988, the productivity in foreign firms was about 2 times as in domestic firms on average (Kokko, Zejan, and Tansini, 2001). According to a research of Taiwan manufacturing sector in 1991, Chuang and Lin (1999) found that labor productivity of MNCs was a great deal higher than local firms, but total factor productivity of foreign companies was only slightly higher than local companies. The study for Turkey between 1993 -1995 in which different elements of the production function were taken into account by Eridilek (2002), as well as the study for five Ease Asiatic economies (Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan) in which Ramsteteer (1999) used value added per employee to measure labor productivity, both found that the average productivity of were significant higher in MNCs than in domestic firms.From all evidence mentioned above, the conclusion that foreign companies have higher productivity than domestic companies can be supported in developing countries no matter what measures have been used. This phenomenon may be resulted from larger carapace of production or higher capital intensity in the foreign companies (Lipsey, 2002, p. 40).Before move to the research on whether host countries could get benefit from FDI in respect of productivity growth, we should first make clear when the productivity spillovers take place. Blomstrm and Kokko (1998) expressed that the productivity spillovers occur when establishment of foreign companies result in promoting the productivity and efficiency of the local companies in host countries, and the foreign companies can not completely internalize the value of these benefits. Another reason that productivity spillovers take place is the domestic companies are labored to improve the efficiency of using their existing technology and resources because the entry of foreign companies carried fierce competition to the host countries. The severe competition also leads the domestic companies to pursue new technologies which can result in the productivity spills out.Besides, we should also classify the different types of spillovers. Horizontal spillovers are the effects from foreign to local firms belonging to the same industry. Vertical spillovers occur both in upriver industries and downstream industries (Javrcik, 2004). For horizontal spillovers studies, Aitken and Harrison (1999) used a panel info of Venezuelan companies during 1976 to 1989, concluded that there are no evidence supports the existence of technology spillovers between foreign and local companies (p.617). Konings (2001) also used panel data to study the effect of FDI in Bulgara, Ro mania and Poland. According to their conclusion, they did not find any evidence of spillovers in these emerging market economies. Such results have also been supported by Djankov and Hoekman (2000). However, this conclusion can not be reason out from all the developing countries. Damijan et al. (2003) used firm-level data to study 8 revolution countries between 1994 and 1998, found spillovers from foreign to local companies were positive in Romania ( p.11). Besides, Kinoshita (2001) proved that the RD-intensive sectors of Czech Republic have positive horizontal spillovers.Compared with horizontal spillovers, It is preferably upbeat about the existence of vertical spillover (Javrcik and Spatareanu, 2005, P.54). Since many existing articles have provided evidence of vertical spillovers in developing countries. In another paper of Javrcik (2004), firm-level panel data was used in psychometric testing the productivity spillovers in Lithuania. The results revealed positive spillovers from FDI in upriver sectors but the positive productivity spillovers were associated with partly owned foreign investments. Such existence of vertical spillovers has also been provided by Blalock and Gertler (2004) and Schoores and van der Tol (2001).Although most of the articles have a common idea on the existence of vertical spillovers, they cannot reach agreements in some questions, such as whether there are some positive spillovers carried by FDI in upriver industries. Javrcik and Spatareanu (2005) gave a theoretical assumption that if multinationals can benefit from the better performance of average input suppliers, they would not take measures to prevent productivity spillovers from happening. Thus, a spillovers-channel would be established between foreign companies and their suppliers belonging to local firms. In their opinion, positive effects of FDI might take place in upstream industries as the foreign companies would impose an increasing demand and better quality of intermediate products, such requirements would stimulate local suppliers to improve their technology in productive activity, meanwhile, they can benefits from scale economies. It seems reasonable but is not always the case in reality. Lipsey (2002) in his article cited an unpublished paper written by Aitken and Harrison (1991), which showed negative effects of foreign direct investment in an industry on productivity in upstream industries in Venezuela (p.41). They also provided a possible reason that foreign firms shift the demand for intermediate inputs from domestic to foreign producers, reducing the scale of output, and there fore productivity, in domestic production (p.41).Other factors that could influent spillovers are also existent. Xu (2000) used data from 1966 to 1994 of US manufacturing MNCs in 40 countries to investigate whether MNCs can help international technology diffusion. The paper found a weak evidence of technology diffusion from US MNCs in less developed countrie s (LDCs). The explanation given by the author is most LDCs cannot reach a human capital threshold of about 1.9 years (in terms of male standby school attainment) to benefit from technology transfer of US MNE affiliates (p. 491). A conclusion that the technology spillover effects brought by FDI are not significant in less developed countries could be abstracted from this paper.Some studies did support that local firms in developing countries can benefit from FDI, because productivity spillovers from foreign firms can help local firms to improve their existing technology as well as achieve scale economies. However, in more cases, the spillovers are not significant, even negative. So we can not make a dim-witted conclusion as whether the positive spillovers are really existent is wait on different factors in different circumstances.4. FDI And Host Countrys scotch Growth economical growth, which is a common objective for all developing countries, can be achieved from productivity sp illovers. Several authors have studied the interaction between FDI and economic growth in developing countries. De Mello (1999) found that spillovers of technology and experience from the foreign countries were two determinants of long-term growth in host countries and FDI has positive effects on economic growth in developing countries. Bende-Nabende (2001) used annual data from 1970 to 1996 studied on Asian countries and showed that in Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines there is a positive impact carried by FDI. Bengoa and Sanchez-Robles (2003) used data between 1970 and 1999 of Latin American countries and find that positive effect only take place in countries with more economic freedom. According to Kohpaiboon (2003) and Marwah and Tavakoli (2004), a positive correlation between FDI and GDP growth were showed in Thailand, Malaysia and Philippines. Moreover, several cover focused on FDI effect in China also reflected positive effect on economic growth (Vu et al., 2008, p. 546). However, not all the studies supported the positive effect of FDI in developing countries. In the research of Blomstrm, Lipsey, and Zejan (1994), developing countries were separated into two free radicals the higher income countries and the lower income countries -and reported that only the higher-income group FDI inflow lead to economic growth. Through the analysis on 69 developing countries in the period of 1970 to 1989, Carkovic and Levine (2002) used panel data to test the correlation between FDI and developing countries economic growth. The results showed that the effect of FDI inflows was not significant.The different methods and data choosing may lead to such different results. Some unvalued factors would also affect the results. But they do not have so much impact to our conclusion. Based on the findings of previous studies, generally speaking, developing countries can benefit from FDI and achieve economic growth,5. ConclusionThe propose of this essay is try to estimate w hether developing countries can get benefits from foreign direct investment. The effect of FDI has been classified into three aspects. Firstly, it is a universal phenomenon that the wages in foreign companies are higher than domestic companies. The FDI activity has a positive effect to the overall wage levels of the host countries, although wages spillovers to domestic companies are not always exist. Secondly, foreign companies have higher productivity than domestic companies can be supported by most of the available studies no matter what measures have been used. Although some findings reflected that local firms in developing countries can benefit from FDI by productivity spillovers, in more cases, the productivity spillovers are not significant, even negative. Thirdly, developing countries can benefit from FDI and achieve economic growth. Overall, we can get a positive conclusion that the host countries, especially the developing countries, can benefit from foreign direct investme nt.ReferencesAitken, B., Harrion, A., Lipsey, R. E., (1996) Wages and foreign ownership A comparative study of Mexico, Venezuela, and the United States, diary of transnational economic science, Vol. 40 appear 3-4, pp.345-371 ScienceDirect Online. operable at http//www.sciencedirect.com/ (Accessed 20 declination 2009)Bende-Nabende, A., (2001) FDI, regional economic integration and endogenous growth, some evidence from Southeast Asia, peace-loving sparing Revies, Vol. 6 Issue 3, pp.383-399 InterScience Online. forthcoming at http//www3.interscience.wiley.com / (Accessed 20 declination 2009)Blalock, Garrick. Technology from Foreign Direct Investment Strategic send done Supply Chains. piece presented at the Empirical Investigations in International wad Conference at Purdue University, November 9-11, 2001 (part of doctoral research at Haas School of Business, University of atomic number 20 Berkeley).Blomstrm, M. and Kokko, A., (1998) transnational Corporations and Spillov ers, Journal of economical Surveys, Vol. 12 Issue 3, pp.246-277 EBSCO Online. accessible at http//web.ebscohost.com/ (Accessed 20 celestial latitude 2009)Borensztein, E., Goregorio, D. J., Lee, J-W (1998) How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth?, Journal of International economics, Vol. 45 Issue 1, pp.115-135 ScienceDirect Online. Available at http//www.sciencedirect.com/ (Accessed 20 celestial latitude 2009)Carkovic, M. V. and Levine, R. (2002) Does Foreign Direct Investment Accelerate Economic Growth?, University of Minnesota Department of Finance working newsprint SSRNOnline. Available at http//papers.ssrn.com/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)Chakraborty, C. and Basu, P., (2002) Foreign direct investment and growth in India a cointegration approach, Routledge, part of the Taylor Francis Group, Vol. 34 Issue 9, pp.1061-1073 Online. Available at http//www.ingentaconnect.com/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)Chuang, Y. C. and Lin C. M., (1999) Foreign Direct Investment, RD, and Spillover Efficiency Evidence from Taiwans Manufacturing Firms, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 35 Issue 4, pp.117-137 EBSCO Online. Available at http//web.ebscohost.com/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)Damijan, J. P., Knell, M. S., Majcen, B., Rojec, M (2003) The role of FDI, RD accumulation and trade in transferring technology to inflection countries evidence from firm panel data for eight transition countries, Economic Systems, Vol. 27 Issue 2, pp.189-204 EconPapers Online. Available at http//econpapers.repec.org/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)De Mello, Jr.,L.R., (1999) FDI-led growth evidence from time series and panel data , Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 51 Issue 1, pp.133-151 OXFORD FOURNALS Online. Available at http//oep.oxfordjournals.org/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)Grg, H. and Greenaway, D., (2000) Multinational enterprises, technology diffusion, and host country productivity growth , Research Paper 2000/12, Centre for Research on Globalisation and Labour Markets, Univ ersity of Nottingham. Available at http//globalisationandeconomicpolicy.com (Accessed 20 December 2009)Haddad, M. and Harrison, A., (1993) Are there positive spillovers from direct foreign investment? Evidence from panel data for Morocco , Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 42 Issue 1, pp.51-74 RePEc Online. Available at http//repec.org/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)Javorcik, B. S. and Spatareanu, M., (2005) Does foreign direct investment promote development?, PP. 45-71, Available at www.economics.ox.ac.uk (Accessed 20 December 2009)Javorcik, B. S. (2004) Does Foreign Direct Investment Increase the Productivity of Domestic Firms? In Search of Spillovers through Backward Linkages , The American Economic Review, Vol. 94 Issue 3, pp.605-627 JSTOR Online. Available at http//www.jstor.org/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)Kathuria, V., (2001) Productivity Spillovers from Technology Transfer to Indian Manufacturing Firms, Journal of International Development, Vol. 12 Issue 3, pp.343-369 Inter Science Online. Available at http//www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/home (Accessed 20 December 2009)Kohpaiboon,A., (2003) Foreign trade regimes and the FDI-growth nexus a case study of Thailand , Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 40 Issue 2, pp.55-69 RePEc Online. Available at http//repec.org/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)Kokko, A., Zejan, M., Tansini, R., (2001) Trade Regimes and Spillover Effects of FDI Evidence from Uruguay, Economics of Transition, Vol. 137 Issue 1, pp.124-149 RePEc Online. Available at http//repec.org/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)Konings, J., (2001) The effects of foreign direct investment on domestic firms Evidence from firm-level panel data in emerging economies, Economics of Transition, Vol. 9 Issue 3, pp.619-633 EBSCO Online. Available at http//web.ebscohost.com/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)Lipsey, R. E. and Sjholm (2001) Foreign Direct Investment and Wages in Indonesian Manufacturing, NBER Working Paper No. 8299, Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economi c Research. Available at www.nber.org/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)Lipsey, R. E., (2002) HOME AND HOST sylvan EFFECTS OF FDI , NBER Working Paper No. 9293*Issued in October 2002 NBER Program(s) NBER Online. Available at http//www.nber.org (Accessed 20 December 2009)Marwah, K. and Tavakoli, A. (2004) The effect of foreign capital and imports on economic growth further evidence from four Asian countries (1970-1998) , Journal of Asian Economics, Vol. 15 Issue 2, pp.399-413 ScienceDirect Online. Available at http//www.sciencedirect.com/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)Okamoto, Y. and Sjholm, F., (1999) FDI and the kinetics of Productivity Microeconomic Evidence, Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance, No. 348, Stockholm School of Economics, December. RePEc Online. Available at http//repec.org/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)Ramstetter, E. D., (1999) Comparisons of Foreign Multinationals and Local Firms in Asian Manufacturing Over Time, Asian Economic Journal, Vol. 13 Issue 2, pp.163-203 EBSCO Online. Available at http//web.ebscohost.com/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)Sanchez-Robles, B. and Bengoa-Calvo, M. (2002) FDI, economic freedom, and growth new evidence from Latin America, Universidad de Cantabria, Economics Working Paper No. 4/03. Available at SSRN http//ssrn.com/abstract=353940 or doi10.2139/ssrn.353940 (Accessed 20 December 2009)Sjholm, F., (1999) Technology Gap, Competition and Spillovers from Direct Foreign Investment Evidence from Establishment Data, The Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 36 Issue 1, pp.53-73 RePEc Online. Available at http//repec.org/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)Vu, T. B., Gangnes, B., Noy, I. (2008) Is foreign direct investment nice for growth? Evidence from sectoral analysis of China and Vietnam , Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, Vol. 13 Issue 4, pp.542-562 informaworld Online. Available at http//www.informaworld.com/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)Xu, B, (2000) Multinational enterprises, technology diffusion, and host country produc tivity growth , Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 62 Issue 2, pp.477-493 RePEc Online. Available at http//repec.org/ (Accessed 20 December 2009)