beata javorcik university of oxford and cepr
Post on 01-Feb-2016
29 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Can Eastern European experience teach us anything about development impacts of FDI in other parts of the world?
Beata JavorcikUniversity of Oxford and CEPR
Yes! Why?
Why the composition of FDI inflows differs from region to region, major multinationals are present on all continents
Differential impacts of FDI can be attributed to host country conditions rather than region-specific factors
Why should we expect technology transfer through FDI? Theoretical literature
OLI paradigm (Dunning 1988) Models with heterogenous firms (Helpman, Melitz and
Yeaple, AER 2004)
MNCs are more likely to offer training to their employees
MNCs are responsible for most of the world’s R&D 700 multinational corporations accounted for 46% of the
world’s total R&D expenditure and 69% of the world’s business R&D in 2002 (UNCTAD, 2005)
R&D budgets of large multinationals may exceed R&D spending of some countries
R&D budgets of some MNCs exceed R&D spending of transition countries (2003)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
CIS new EU memberstates
Ford Motor Pfizer DaimlerChrysler Siemens
mill
ion
s o
f U
S d
olla
rs
CIS figure includes: Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.New EU member states figure includes: Czech Rep, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Rep, Slovenia.
Productivity spillovers from FDI
Horizontal - from presence of multinationals (MNCs) in the same sector
demonstration effect, movement of labor MNCs have an incentive to prevent them
Different channels are at work and relative magnitudes differ by country
29
24
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Incr
ease
dco
mpe
titio
n
Loss
of m
arke
tsh
are
Loss
of
empl
oyee
s
Wor
sene
d ac
cess
to c
redi
t
Info
rmat
ion
abou
tne
w te
chno
logi
es
Info
rmat
ion
abou
tm
arke
ting
tech
niqu
es
Hire
d fo
rmer
MN
Cem
ploy
ees
% o
f re
sp
on
de
nts
Czech Rep.
Latvia
World Bank survey: Has the presence of foreign firms operating in your industryhad any impact on your firm?
Productivity spillovers from FDI
Horizontal - from presence of multinationals (MNCs) in the same sector
demonstration effect, movement of labor MNCs have an incentive to prevent them
Backward linkages - contacts between local suppliers and MNC customers
direct assistance to suppliers, higher requirements MNCs have an incentive to promote them
=> more likely to observe spillovers through backward linkages rather than the horizontal channel
Broad patterns are similar across regions
No evidence of horizontal spillovers
Evidence consistent with spillovers through backward linkages
Lithuania (Javorcik, AER 2004) Indonesia (Blalock and Gertler, JIE 2007)
Beneficial effects of services FDI
A one-standard-deviation increase in FDI in services => a 3.8% increase in the average productivity of Czech firms in manufacturing
Services liberalization from the level of Romania to the level of the Czech Republic => a 4.8% increase in the average productivity of Czech firms
Arnold et al (2007)
A one-standard-deviation increase in services liberalization => a productivity increase of 6% for Indian firms
Arnold et al (2008)
Bottom line
Diverse experiences of countries are a reflection of their policies and characteristics, not region-specific factors
Hence, Eastern European experience contain valuable lessons for Asian countries, and vice versa
Thank you
Foreign ownership improves performance (Indonesia: Arnold and Javorcik 2008)
Total Factor Productivity
Pre-acquisitionYear
Acquisitionyear
One year later
Two years later
Treatment group 0.864 1.079 1.142 1.215
Control group 0.867 0.976 1.022 1.083
ATT 0.106*** 0.122*** 0.135***(0.034) (0.045) (0.051)
No. of matched pairs 297 297 297
Foreign ownership improves performance (Indonesia: Arnold and Javorcik 2008)
Labor productivity
Pre-acquisitionYear
Acquisitionyear
One year later
Two years later
Treatment group 4.28 4.50 4.60 4.62
Control group 4.20 4.14 4.06 4.05
ATT 0.280*** 0.459*** 0.489***
(0.072) (0.074) (0.088)
No. of matched pairs 392 392 392
Acquisitions induce rapid changes
(d) Employment
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
t-1 t0 t+1 t+2
(e) Average wage
7.607.808.008.208.408.608.809.00
t-1 t0 t+1 t+2
(c) Output
10.0010.2010.4010.6010.8011.0011.2011.40
t-1 t0 t+1 t+2
Acquisitions lead to higher investment
(f) Investment
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
t-1 t0 t+1 t+2
(g) Investment in machinery
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
t-1 t0 t+1 t+2
Acquisitions facilitate integration into global markets
(h) Export share
15
20
25
30
35
t-1 t0 t+1 t+2
(i) Import input share
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
t-1 t0 t+1 t+2
What foreign owners do not change
(k) Skilled labor ratio
0.20
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.25
1 2 3 4
(j) Capital-labor ratio
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
t-1 t0 t+1 t+2
(l) Capacity utilization
60
65
70
75
80
t-1 t0 t+1 t+2
How do we reconcile an increase in TFP with no change in capital- and skill-intensity? TFP increase achieved through organizational
and managerial changes
Attracting more experienced and motivated workers
Pay scales linked to performance Foreign affiliates in Indonesia pay higher wages to workers
with a given educational level than domestic producers (Lipsey and Sjöholm 2004)
Training of workers
Better inputs
Thank you
Mixed results from firm-level panel studies of FDI spillovers
Aitken and Harrison (AER 1999) - Venezuelan plant-level data 1976-1989
Increase in FDI presence negatively affects TFP of local plants in the same sector
Haskel, Pereira and Slaughter (REStat 2007) - UK plant-level data 1973-1992
Increase in FDI presence positively affects TFP of local plants in the same sector
Javorcik (AER 2004) - Lithuanian firm-level data 1996-2000 Positive spillovers to supplying sectors, no evidence
of intra-industry effects
Country conditions may matter Aitken and Harrison (1999) – Venezuela 1976-1989
Heavy restrictions on foreign investors, mandatory JVs, import substitution => low incentives for technology transfer to foreign affiliates (Moran 2007)
Increase in foreign equity => increase in TFP only in firms with under 50 employees => little potential for producing knowledge spillovers
Haskel, Pereira and Slaughter (2007) - UK 1973-1992 Highly developed country => limited potential for ‘market stealing’ Highly developed country => limited room to learn Lesser performers benefit more from spillovers
Javorcik (2004) - Lithuania 1996-2000 Transition from central planning to free market Limited competition and exposure to foreign goods => ‘market stealing’ effect likely Limited exposure to foreign buyers in the past => potential for spillovers from foreign customers
top related