|本文是一篇国际贸易论文，本文结合中国工业企业数据库（2011-2013）和商务部公布的《境外投资企业（机构）名录》，并基于 Helpman et al. (2004) 的出口-投资模型 （HYM 模型）从企业异质性的角度研究了中国企业的对外直接投资行为。本文主要研究以下几个问题：（1）与非对外直接投资企业相比，对外投资企业存在哪些特征；（２）企业生产率高低对中国企业国际化战略决策的影响，通过 Logit 模型检验其是否符合 HYM 模型的理论预期；（３）投资高收入国家的企业和投资中低收入国家的企业在生产率方面是否存在显著差异；（４）对外直接投资对我国企业的生产率增长的影响。
Chapter One Literature Review
1.1 Traditional Theories about OFDI and MNEs
MNEs and their OFDI activities have always been an intriguing and prevailing topic in the sphere of international economics. It is widely acknowledged that literature focusing on OFDI theories and MNEs starts from the 1960s, which contrasts sharply with the neo-classical trade and financial theory that made little distinction between international portfolio investment flows and OFDI. Due to the fact that the early OFDI is dominantly conducted in MNEs of developed countries, thus, the following theories are initially intended to shed light on the OFDI behavior of MNEs belonging to the advanced economies, and mainly focusing on the emergence of OFDI. In accordance with the evolution of OFDI theory, the theoretical framework mainly composes monopolistic advantage theory, product life cycle theory, internalization theory, and marginal industry theory, etc. Each theory, to some extent, has explained the OFDI practices of developed countries from a specific perspective. However, the literature of this field is relatively general and scattered due to a lack of a unified theoretical and logical framework. In this section, I reviewed an array of traditional and influential OFDI theories related to both developed and emerging economies, and then briefly commented on their merits and demerits.
1.1.1 Traditional OFDI Theories about MNEs of Developed Countries
184.108.40.206 Monopolistic Advantage Theory
Stephen Hymer’s seminal dissertation (1960) made a great contribution to OFDI theory, leading us to an analysis of MNEs based on an industrial-organizational theory by jumping over the intellectual straitjacket of neo-classical-type trade and financial theory. Multinationals firms were just arbitrageurs that transferred the capital from countries where returns were low to countries where returns were higher based on traditional international trade and investment theory. Escaping from the arid mold of orthodox international economics theory, Hymer’s pioneering conceptual insight put emphasis upon the MNEs per se. Hymer's monopolistic advantage theory demonstrated that monopolistic advantage (special assets) is the immediate driving force of MNEs’ FDI instead of the financial structure decisions based on the assumption of market imperfections. He reckoned that there existed at least four types of market imperfections: the imperfection in the product market, in the factor market, in the economies of scale and the externality and deficiency of management. The core of monopolistic advantages is the technical advantage. Although Hymer’s theory identified the structural market failure presciently, unfortunately, it overlooked the distinction between structural and transaction-cost market imperfections. In addition, not only did he neglected the significance of the spatial and geographical dimension of the MNEs he also paid little attention to the policymaking and the political or social issues of developing nations.
1.2 Firm Heterogeneity and OFDI
1.2.1 Firm Heterogeneity Theory
In the 1980s, in order to shed more light on the widespread phenomenon of intra-industry trade or trade between countries with parallel factor endowment, Dixit and Stiglitz (1977) primarily developed the modeling of monopolistic completion and product differentiation. Then it was employed by Krugman (1979, 1980), who opened the door to formally modeling multinational firms within the general-equilibrium framework (Antràs and Yeaple, 2014). To capture more reality, Melitz (2003) incorporated firm heterogeneity (firms differ in productivity) within an industry to illustrate that when exposed to trade, only the relatively more productive firms are able to export to foreign markets while the less productive firms will continue to serve the domestic market in conjunction with the least productive firms being kicked out the industry. Focusing on firms’ choice between exports and horizontal FDI (HFDI), Helpman, Yeaple and Melitz (2004) (HYM model) extended the trade model of Melitz and proved that: first, only the most productive firms tend to engage in foreign activities; second, after weighing the transportation costs of export and the fixed costs of FDI, the most productive firms are more likely to invest abroad, while the relatively less productive firms choose to export; third, other low-productivity firms opt to serve the domestic market only and the least productive firms are forced to leave the industry. This is the first time to demonstrate firms’ horizontal FDI behavior from the perspective of firm heterogeneity.
Grossman et al. (2006) developed a complementary strategy model incorporating firm heterogeneity as a determinant of horizontal and vertical FDI. They showed that even within the same industry where each firm faced the same market size, fixed costs and transportation costs, firms differing in productivity have different optimal strategies. In addition, they summarized that the least productive firms produce in the home market while firms engaging in FDI are more productive, and the most productive firms will move both intermediate and assembly stages to the developing countries. Integration strategies depend on the scale of trading costs and fixed costs of the intermediate and assembly stages related.
Chapter Two Overview of China’s OFDI
2.1 History of China’s OFDI
It has been 40 years, since China’s reform and opening-up. Chinese firms have fulfilled remarkable achievements in these four decades in terms of going abroad and undertaking international operations. Chinese firms are still enthusiastic to enter the global market via both trade and investment in conjunction with their accumulated strength and experiences. Specifically, Chinese firms’ OFDI roughly can be phased into the following stages.
2.1.1 Initial Development Stage (1979-2000)
In this stage, promoted by the State Council’s policy of “setting up enterprises abroad”, some professional foreign trade companies engaged in international trade for a long period of time and international economic and technological companies conducting foreign economic cooperation first invested abroad by virtue of their affluent foreign experiences. With the promulgation of succeeding OFDI policies, a couple of influential non-trading firms, industrial magnates, and comprehensive international trust companies, such as Capital Iron and Steel Corporation, China International Trust and Investment Corporation, gradually got on the board of foreign direct investment. Later, quite a few powerful and ambitious private companies joined in.
During this period, China’s OFDI presents the following features: (1) the scale of investment is relatively small; (2) in terms of geographical distribution, a majority of them located in those countries or regions which are adjacent to China both from the perspective of geographical distance and cultural distance, such as Hongkong, Taiwan, and Southeast Asian countries. This is in line with the initial OFDI model of developing countries in the theory of foreign direct investment; (3) As for the industries involved, it mainly concentrates on catering, service and other industries, and gradually begins to expand to resources development, machinery manufacturing and processing, transportation, health care, and other industries; (4) the main entities are those large state-owned trading companies, quite a few manufacturing enterprises from other industries and private sector; (5) With respect to the entry modes, the joint venture is the main form of investment, and the scale of Chinese firms’ investment is relatively small. Greenland investment only accounts for quite a small proportion. Thus, the entry mode is relatively monotonous.