【作者】 于国才；

【导师】 蒋殿春；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 世界经济， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 国际间的技术外溢一直被认为是发展中国家技术进步的主要来源之一(Grossman和Helpman,1991),有经验研究表明FDI进入会给东道国带来显著的技术溢出效应(Javorcik,2004; Blalock和Gertler,2007),但是这一证据主要来自对发达国家的经验研究,而对发展中国家的FDI溢出实证研究却不支持这一观点。对比FDI技术溢出在发达国家和发展中国家两种不同的表现,可以发现,除了二者的技术差距、人力资本等东道国本身的消化吸收能力存在差异外,FDI在两类国家本身就存在差异：投资发展中国家跨国公司享有更大的优惠政策,且投资方式以出口平台型FDI为主。以中国为例,纵观外商直接投资在中国的发展,可以发现两个明显的特征：一是外商投资企业享有各种优惠政策,即所谓的“超国民待遇”；二是外商直接投资与加工贸易紧密相连,形成所谓的出口平台型FDI。按照新新贸易理论的思想,过度的优惠政策将会降低FDI进入东道国的生产率门槛,同时,优惠政策对低技术水平的出口平台型FDI更具吸引力,这也将改变FDI进入东道国的构成。因此,中国各级政府引资竞争中的一系列“超国民待遇”优惠政策以及加工贸易方式的出口导向型发展战略,既是外商直接投资企业在中国得以蓬勃发展的重要原因,也是FDI技术溢出、“市场换技术”分析中不应忽视的两大关键因素。现有FDI技术溢出研究文献基本上都沿袭了传统的将FDI视为外生的、同质的,强调的是东道国的消化吸收能力,少有考虑东道国政策对异质型FDI进入中国的市场选择及其技术溢出效果影响的研究。本文从异质型FDI这一新的视角将新新贸易理论思想首次引入FDI技术溢出效应研究,通过拓展新新贸易理论,构造了一个生产率异质性企业在出口、出口平台型FDI与市场型FDI间自我选择的模型,以研究东道国的优惠政策对异质型FDI质量与技术溢出效应的影响。第三章拓展了HMY模型和Yeaple模型,将新新贸易理论对FDI的研究从水平型FDI扩展到所有FDI类型。具体地,我们构造了一个生产率异质性企业在出口、出口平台型FDI与市场型FDI间自我选择的模型,首次从理论上分析了异质型FDI生产率进入门槛及其溢出效应差异。第三章的模型表明,东道国税收减免等FDI激励政策降低了外资进入的生产率门槛,在吸引更多外资的同时却牺牲了外资质量,进而弱化了FDI技术溢出效应。此外,东道国出口退税政策、母国效应以及运输技术的发展等因素降低了FDI返销母国或第三国的运输成本,在一定条件下将导致出口平台型FDI进入东道国的生产率门槛低于市场型FDI的进入门槛。而对于一定规模的FDI市场份额,其溢出效应是企业生产率的增函数,因此,较之于市场型FDI,生产率较低的出口平台型FDI的技术溢出效应更弱。基于中国工业企业的大样本微观数据,第四章、第五章、第六章和第七章分别进行了相应的经验检验。第四章的研究表明,FDI企业中确实均存在出口生产率悖论,即出口企业生产率低于内销企业。这与第三章理论模型部分的结论相符。第四章进一步反过来考察FDI企业进入中国市场是否存在自我选择效应。统计发现,完全出口的FDI中,每年约有20%-27%的比例进入中国市场；而回归结果表明,生产率与沉淀成本是决定FDI企业进入中国市场的关键因素,FDI企业进入中国市场存在自我选择效应。第六章则对出口平台型FDI与市场型FDI的技术溢出效果差异进行检验,结果发现,虽然出口平台型FDI与市场型FDI的技术溢出效应均为负,但前者的技术溢出效果更弱。这一结论基本不因内资企业的行业类型以及外商资本是否来自港澳台地区而改变。在第三章理论分析与第四章和第六章经验分析的基础上,第五章与第七章对“招商引资”优惠政策的实施效果进行检验。结果发现,一方面,无论是出口平台型FDI还是市场型FDI,税收优惠均降低了其生产率并弱化了其技术溢出,这说明,东道国的税收优惠降低了跨国公司子公司的边际成本,这降低了两种类型的FDI进入的生产率门槛,从而不利于其技术溢出；另一方面,税收优惠对出口平台型FDI和市场型FDI技术溢出的影响存在差异,对前者技术溢出效应的阻碍作用更为明显。这是东道国招商引资过程中值得注意的地方。更多还原

【Abstract】 Internationally technology spillover is considered as one of the main sources of technology progress in less developed countries (LDCs)(Grossman and Helpman,1991), and some empirical evidences confirm that there exists obvious technology spillover through FDI entry’s channel. However, such evidences are mainly from developed countries while LDCs deny that. Comparing the two different results of FDI spillover in developed countries and LDCs, we could find that along with differences in host countries’absorptive capacity like technology distance and human capital, there are differences in FDI itself. In another word, FDI enjoys more favorable policy and export-platform FDI is the main form. For example, there are two obvious styled facts in the FDI history in China. First, FDI enjoys various favorable policies, which resulted in super-national treatment; Second, FDI is connected with progress trade model, which resulted in export-platform FDI. According to he New New-Trade Theory, the favorable policies would lower FDI entrance threshold, moreover, it would change the ratio of market oriented FDI, which owns higher technology, and export platform FDI, which could conduct business with considerable lower technology. Therefore, together with progress trade and export oriented development model, governments’favorable polices to attract more FDI could not be neglected in the analysis of FDI spillover in China.The existing papers on FDI spillover follow the homogeneity and exogenous treatment tradition, which focus on the host countries absorptive capacity and ignore the favorable policies’influence on FDI entrance and spillover in host countries. Based on the styled fact that a considerable number of export platform FDI exist in China, This paper introduces the new-New trade theory to FDI spillover study.Following HMY model and Yeaple Model, chapter three extends the self-selection study from horizontal FDI to vertical FDI, which is one form of export platform FDI. Specifically, it builds a model of market self-selection between export, export platform FDI and market oriented FDI, which verifies firstly in theory that the host country’s favorable policy like tax-reduction makes the FDI’s TFP decline and the spillover effects worsen although more FDI would be attracted.Such hypotheses are confirmed by the empirical evidence in the following chapters with Chinese manufacturing firms’data. Chapter four finds that export platform FDI’s TFP is lower than market oriented FDI’s duo to the export tax rebate and other transport cost reductions, which leads to less spillover effect of the former. The idea is confirmed by the empirical evidence in chapter six:the spillover effect of export platform FDI is systematically different from that of market oriented FDI and export platform FDI hinders more China enterprises to improve TFP. The conclusion is robust with different industry categories and not affected by whether FDI is from OECD countries or not.Further studies in chapter five and seven find that China’s current tax favorable policy induces more less productive FDI and hence deteriorates the FDI’s impeditive spillover effects, especially the export platform FDI’s. Our finding can explain why China attracted so many FDI but induced little technology spillover to national enterprises. The conclusion is robust with different industry categories and not affected by whether the capital is from HMT or not.更多还原