跨国公司与墨西哥的经济发展（20世纪40年代至80年代初）

【作者】 韩琦；

【导师】 洪国起；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 世界史， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 在世界经济日益全球化的今天,跨国公司作为世界经济运行主体之一发挥着越来越重要的作用。跨国公司对发展中国家经济究竟发挥了怎样的作用?发展中国家东道国应该如何处理与跨国公司的关系?这是两个颇有争议的问题。自由主义理论、依附理论和结构主义理论对此分别提出了不同的看法,但要验证这些观点的虚实真伪则需要有扎实的实证分析。本文在马克思历史唯物主义和辩证唯物主义思想的指导下,运用历史学和经济学相结合的方法,着重对1940—1982年墨西哥进口替代工业化期间跨国公司所发挥的作用以及墨西哥国家如何应对跨国公司的做法进行了较为详细的考察。从1940年左右开始,墨西哥经济发展进入了进口替代工业化时期,其中经历了三个阶段,即非耐用消费品的进口替代阶段(1940-1955)、耐用消费品的进口替代阶段(1955-1970)、高级进口替代与促进出口相结合的阶段(1970-1982)。跨国公司在第二阶段大量进入了墨西哥的制造业,促进了墨西哥工业化和整个经济的增长,但是伴随“墨西哥奇迹”到来的同时,一系列结构性问题也为后来发生的危机埋下了伏笔。由于受墨西哥革命和1917年国家宪法的影响,墨西哥政府对外国资本始终采取了利用和限制相结合的政策,但在不同时期侧重点不同,掌握政策的松紧程度也不同。对采掘业和公用设施、基础工业,墨西哥政府坚持国有化方针,对制造业则采取“墨西哥化”和生产“一体化”方针。在前两个阶段(特别是第二阶段)外资政策比较宽松,在第三阶段则加强了对跨国公司的管制。墨西哥国家在与跨国公司的博弈中同时扮演了企业所有者、政策管制者、制成品出口推动者、技术创新者、财政金融经营者等多种角色,其中有些基本是成功的,国家保持了主权独立,并能将外国直接投资引入需要发展的产业和地区。但在倡导技术创新和实行财政政策和货币政策方面最终是失败大于成功,这成为导致债务危机的重要原因。与东亚国家(地区)相比,墨西哥在利用跨国公司方面存在失误,因为从宏观资源配置效率的角度看,跨国公司没有促使墨西哥当地资源比较优势得到充分利用;从微观资源配置效率看,跨国公司没有促使当地企业的成长和增强其竞争力,尽管跨国公司促进了墨西哥制造业的结构效率,但这种促进是通过跨国公司进入制造业的“现代”部门来实现的,而对整个行业的技术进步率和“传统”部门则没有影响;从产业关联效应的角度看,跨国公司产业链条的主要部分在国外,关键技术也在国外,对当地经济产生的联动效应很小。相反,跨国公司在东亚国家(地区)利用了当地丰富的劳动力资源,并促进了当地企业的成长和升级。这种跨国公司作用的区别不仅取决于两地政府谈判能力的区别,而且取决于两地发展战略的差异,而发展战略则是由国内和国外多种因素决定的。总之,通过对1940—1982年跨国公司与墨西哥经济发展进程的研究,笔者的结论是:第一,跨国公司对墨西哥经济发展做出了一定的贡献,包括资本积累贡献、税收贡献、就业贡献、技术贡献、出口贡献等,但跨国公司是一把双刃剑,它也给墨西哥经济发展带来的不少问题,如在第三章和第六至八章案例分析中提到的东道国制造业的“非民族化”、国际收支逆差、地区发展不平衡、收入分配不平等、加强技术依附、改变东道国市场结构、干预东道国政治进程等等。跨国公司与1982年债务危机之间有着内在的联系。与东亚国家(地区)相比,跨国公司在东亚国家(地区)发挥了更大的积极作用,而在墨西哥则基本没有发生像在东亚国家(地区)所产生的那种经济扩散效应。第二,在经济发展的进程中,代表东道国利益的政府与跨国公司之间的关系可以被看作一种博弈关系,因为二者追求的战略目标有很大差异,东道国可以与跨国公司展开讨价还价,通过各种政策手段引导和管理跨国公司的行为。墨西哥汽车工业、制药工业和食品工业的案例分析表明:当东道国政策与跨国公司的经营战略在大方向上基本一致的时候,跨国公司就会做出很多改进或让步,当东道国政策目标与跨国公司战略发生冲突的时候,外国企业就会忽视东道国的政策目标,采取一种捍卫现状的立场。在与跨国公司的较量中,东道国如果采取积极主动的姿态,很有希望获得成功;东道国在博弈中的成败,既取决于双方力量的对比,又取决于国际环境的制约。东道国取得成功的时候,往往既是东道国手中握有王牌,同时又是顺应了国际时势的变化、使谈判双方感到共同利益大于分歧的时候。第三,在经济发展进程中,跨国公司作用的性质一方面取决于跨国公司本身追求利益最大化的本性和它的全球经营战略,另一方面取决于东道国国家的谈判能力、经济政策和发展战略。与东亚国家(地区)的比较表明,墨西哥经济发展战略的选择和经济发展政策的实施有许多失误之处,它的经济发展战略和经济发展政策限制了跨国公司作用向积极方向发挥,在某种意义上讲,跨国公司仅仅是经济发展的手段,它的作用只是放大了经济发展战略的效果。当然,一个国家选择这样的发展战略而没有选择那样的发展战略,往往不是主观因素就能够决定的,它要受到多方面客观条件的制约,国家作用只能在一定的制约框架之内发挥主观能动性。但这样说并不是宿命论,而是想强调,国家决策者应该在尊重历史、顺应时势的前提下,积极发挥主观能动性,因势利导,趋利避害,利用跨国公司为我所用,而不是受制于人。更多还原

【Abstract】 Transnational corporations as one of the main world economic entities is playing a more and more important role in nowadays increasingly globalized economy. What roles do transnational corporations play in the economy of developing countries? How should the host developing countries deal with the relationship with transnational corporations? These are two controversial questions on which Liberalism, Dependency Analysis and Structuralism have given different views. The verification of these opinions requires solid positivistic analysis. This paper combines historical method and economic method to study in details the effects of transnational corporation on the economy of Mexico and the reaction of Mexican state to transnational corporations during the 1940-1982 import-substitution industrialization period under the guidance of Marxist historical materialism and dialectical materialism.Around 1940, the economic development of Mexico entered a period of import substitution industrialization, which has gone through three stages, namely the non-durable consumer goods import substitution phase (1940-1955), durable consumer goods import substitution phase (1955-1970), advanced import substitution and export promotion combination phase (1970-1982). A large number of transnational corporations entered Mexico’s manufacturing industry, promoting the industrialization and the growth of the whole economy of Mexico during the second phase. However, with the arrival of "Mexican miracle" emerged a series of structural problems that foreshadowed the subsequent crises. Influenced by Mexican revolution and the 1917 Constitution, the Government of Mexico has taken a combined policy both utilizing and limiting foreign capital with different focus and degree of tightness at different points in time. For extractive industries, public facilities, and basic industries, the Mexican government sticked to the principle of nationalization, while for the manufacturing industry, it adopted Mexicanization and production integration approaches. During the first and second phase (especially the second phase), the foreign investment policies were quite loose; in the third phase, the control of transnational corporations was strengthened. Mexican State played multiple roles in the game with transnational corporations, including business owners, policy controller, promoter of manufacture exports, technological innovator, and fiscal and financial operators, some of which are the basic successful, maintaining the country’s sovereignty independence and directly introducing foreign investment to the industries and regions that needed development. However, in advocating technological innovation and the implementation of fiscal policy and monetary policy, failure overshadowed success eventually. This became an important cause of the debt crisis.Compared to East Asian countries (regions), the use of transnational corporations in Mexico has flaws. From the view of the efficiency of macro resource allocation, transnational corporations in Mexico did not contribute to the fully utilization of the comparative advantage of local resources; from the view of the efficiency of micro resource allocation, transnational corporations did not promote the growth of local businesses nor enhance their competitiveness. Even though transnational corporations improved the structural efficiency of the manufacturing industry, this improvement was achieved by the entrance of transnational corporations into the "modern" departments of the industry without affecting the "traditional" departments and the technology progress rate of the whole industry. From the perspective of " linkages effective", the major parts of the industrial chain as well as the key technology of transnational corporations remained abroad, resulting small linkage effects on local economy. In contrast, transnational corporations in East Asian countries (regions) made use of the rich local labor resources and promoted the growth and upgrading of local business. The different effects of transnational corporations result not only from the different negotiation capacity of the two governments, but also from the different strategies of economic development in two regions, which are determined by a variety of internal and external factors.In short, based on the study of the transnational corporations and economic development in Mexico during the year 1940-1982, the author concludes that:First, the transnational corporations has made relatively important contributions on economic development in Mexico on a variety of aspects, including capital accumulation, tax, employment, technology, and export. However, transnational corporations are a double-edged sword which also brought many problems to the economic development in Mexico, such as the denationalization of the manufacturing industries in host countries discussed in the case studies of Chapter III and Chapter VI to VIII, the international balance of payments deficit, uneven regional development, income distribution inequalities, dependence on the strengthening of technical, changes of the market structure of host country, interference of political process in host country and so on. There is an inherent connection between transnational corporations and the 1982 debt crisis. Compared to East Asian countries (regions), the transnational corporations played a more active role in East Asian countries (regions). The economic proliferation effect brought by transnational corporations to East Asian countries (regions) almost did not occur in Mexico.Second, in the process of economic development, the relationship between the government on behalf of the benefits of the host country and transnational corporations can be viewed as a game, because the pursuit of the strategic objectives of both are very different, the host country can bargain with transnational corporations, guide and regulate the conduct of transnational corporations through a variety of policies. The case studies of Mexican auto industry, pharmaceutical industry and food industry show that: when the host country policies and the business strategy of transnational corporations were in the same general direction, transnational corporations would make a lot of improvements and concessions; when the host country policies and strategies of transnational corporations were in conflict, the transnational corporations would ignore national policy constrains, adopting a defensive status-quo position. At the trial of strength with the transnational corporations, the adoption of a proactive stance usually promises success of host country; the success or failure of the host country in the game depends on the balance of power as well as the international environment. The host country often succeed when it holds the trump card and also conforms to the international situation changes, making the negotiating parties feel that the common interests are greater than differences. Third, in the process of economic development, the character of transnational corporations on the one hand, depends on its inherent nature of seeking the maximum interest and their global business strategies, on the other hand, depends on the host country’s negotiation capacity, economic policies and development strategies. The comparison to East Asian countries (regions) shows that Mexico’s selection of economic development strategy and implementation of economic development polices had flaws, which limited the positive role that transnational corporations could play. In a sense, transnational corporations are only a means of economic development, whose role is only magnifying the effect of economic development strategies. Of course, such a selection of country development strategies is subjected to many objective constrictions and cannot be decided merely by subjective factors. The state can only exert initiative in the framework of certain constraints. But this is not fatalism, instead, the point to be emphasized is that national policy-makers should respect history, conform to the premise of the current situation, exert a positive initiative, master the opportunities and avoid the harmfulness, make use of transnational corporations, rather than be controlled by them.更多还原