Т С Медведкин - Проблемы развития внешнеэкономических связей и привлечения иностранных инвестиций региональный аспект - страница 81

Страницы:
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115 

Janasz W., Elementy strategii rozwoju przemysiu, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecinskiego, Szczecin 2000. Kaczmarek B., Wspdidziaianie przedsiebiorstw w gospodarce rynkowej, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Lodzkiego, Lodz 2000.

Metcalf L. E., Frear C., The role of Perceived Product importance in organizational buyre-seller relationship, Journal of Business to Business Marketing 1993, no 1.

Metcalf, L. E., Frear, C. R., Krishnan, R., Buyer - seller relationships: an application of the IMP interaction model, European Journal of Marketing

1992, vol. 26, no. 2.

Morgan R., Hunt S., The Commitment Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing, Journal of Marketing 1994, Vol. 58, No. 3.

Prasad B., Decentralized cooperation: a distributed approach to team design in a concurrent engineering organization, Team Performance Management 1998, Vol. 4, No. 4.

Praktyczny Siownik Wspdiczesnej Polszczyzny, Wydawnictwo Kurpisz, Poznan 1998, Vol. 17.

Sibley S. D., Michie D. A., An Exploratory Investigation of Cooperation in a Franchise Channel, Journal of Retailing 1982, Vol. 58, no 4. Smolinski S., Elementy ekonomiki przemysiu, PWN, Warszawa - Poznan, 1982. Wielka Encyklopedia PWN, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 2003.

Turner G.B., LeMay S.A., Hartley M., Wood C.M., Interdependence and cooperation in industrial buyer-supplier relationship, Journal of Marketing

Theory and Practice 2000, Vol. 8, No. 1.

Wiertz C., de Ruyter K., Keen C., Streukens S., Cooperating for service excellence in multichannel service system: an empirical assessment, Journal of Business Research 2004, Vol. 57.

Wojownik J., Ekonomika i programowanie rozwoju przemysiu, PWE, Warszawa 1976. PE3IOME

Можно сказать, что компания сотрудничестве с другими компаниями является одной из основных отличительных компетенций для успеха в бизнесе и имеет очень большое влияние на их деятельность. Благодаря им фирмы могут оптимизировать использование ресурсов и производственных мощностей, улучшения качества, сокращения производственных циклов, а также повысить рентабельность. Таким образом, следует подчеркнуть, что сотрудничество и взаимодействие оказывает положительное влияние на многие функциональные области предприятия. Они улучшить свои конкурентные позиции и позволить создание адекватной стратегии позволит достижение целей, которые будет трудно достичь в вегетативной активности. Вот почему исследования, касающиеся сотрудничества и взаимодействия влияние на выбранных областях деятельности компании, является существенным. В статье представлены результаты эмпирического со ссылкой на этот вопрос.

Юпочевые слова: сотрудничество, взаимодействие, промышленные предприятия. PE3OME

Можна сказати, що компанія в співробітництві з іншими компаніями є однією з основних відмінних компетенцій для успіху в бізнесі і має дуже великий вплив на їх діяльність. Завдяки їм фірми можуть оптимізувати використання ресурсів і виробничих потужностей, поліпшення якості, скорочення виробничих циклів, а також підвищити рентабельність. Таким чином, слід підкреслити, що співпраця та взаємодія робить позитивний вплив на багато функціональні області підприємства. Вони поліпшити свої конкурентні позиції і дозволити створення адекватної стратегії дозволить досягнення цілей, які буде важко досягти в вегетативної активності. Ось чому дослідження, що стосуютьсяспівпраці та взаємодії вплив на обраних областях діяльності компанії, є істотним. У статті представлені результати емпіричного із посиланням на це питання.

Ключові слова: співпраця, взаємодія, промислові підприємства. SUMMARY

It is possible to say that company cooperation with other companies is a core distinctive competency for business success and has a very big influence on their activity. Thanks to them firms can optimize the resource usage and production capacity, improve the quality, shorten the production cycles as well as improve the profitability. Thus, it should be underlined that the cooperation and collaboration have a positive influence on many areas of the company's functionality. They improve its competitive position and allow creation of the adequate strategy enabling achievement of targets which would be difficult to achieve in autonomic activity. That's why the research concerning cooperation and collaboration impact on the chosen areas of company activity, is essential. The paper presents the empirical results with the reference to this issue. Key words: cooperation, collaboration, industrial enterprise.

RETHINKING FDI-BASED DEVELOPMENT IN THE POST-GLOBAL CRISIS ERA

Ozturk Ibragim, Marmara University, Professor, Istanbul , Turkey

I. CHANGING DESTINATION OF FDI

In the post-global crisis era, countries positioned to take greater advantage from foreign investment activity in 2010 are largely from emerging economies, with the 'BRIC+T' nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, Turkey) performing "particularly well." Their three most prominent assets for foreign investors include an "attractive combination of market growth, improved availability of skills and competitive cost levels." For the first time on record, the four BRIC countries—together with the U.S. and its largest single consumer market—comprise the top five destination countries for foreign investment.

It seems that this newer trend will continue in the future. Is this a good or bad news?

II. FDI, GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

In the past several decades since 1960, the inflow of foreign direct investment (FDI) and the growth of multinational enterprise (MNE) activities have increasingly been regarded as one of the defining characteristics of the world economy and an engine of economic growth in developing countries such as Turkey.

In that regard, MNE-related externalities have been attracting increased interest from developing countries because of the perceived benefits in terms of the injection of capital, technology and knowledge, as well as the potential generation of economic growth in host countries. Key MNE

externalities include the knowledge spillovers and linkages from multinationals (MNEs) to domestic firms in host countries. The nature of these MNE externalities may either arise from pure market transactions (e.g., through MNE vertical linkages) or else through knowledge spillovers which take non-market or nonmonetary form.

The less developed a country is, the greater the need for such MNE externalities, as a means to alleviate resource and skill constraints normally associated with underdevelopment. Developing countries actively seek FDI to strengthen industrial competitiveness and enhance their growth prospects.

As a result, developing country attitudes towards FDI have changed, with dramatic improvements in the FDI policy regimes. Governments in developing countries have not only reduced barriers to FDI but have also been offering special incentives to attract foreign firms and foster relationships between MNEs and local firms.

III. HOME COUNTRY EXPECTATIONS / DETERMINANTS OF FDI

Through FDI, foreign investors benefit from utilizing their firm-specific assets and resources efficiently, such as technology and managerial know-how. Foreign companies are motivated by a whole range of factors. Here are the basic stylized facts about FDI

1. Attractive combination of growth,

2. Improved availability of skills and

3. Competitive cost levels. Secondary factors

4. Political stability,

5. Economy's degree of openness, accessibility,

6. Ease of currency conversion, repatriation of profits,

7. Infrastructure,

8. Availability of natural resources,

9. Level of education, quality of human capital,

10. Macro economic factors: fiscal deficit, inflation, trade openness, etc.

11. Socio-political stability and favorable business operating conditions.

IV. HOST COUNTRY EXPECTATIONS

As a catch-up mechanism, FDI's role in narrowing the gap in production technology and marketing techniques between developing and developed countries.

1. Access to capital to finance growth

2. Acquiring advanced technology,

3. Managerial expertise,

4. Employment and productivity,

5. Human resource development,

6. Global marketing networks,

7. Best-practice systems of corporate governance,

8. Export diversification and gain of foreing currency,

V. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF FDI

WIN-WIN STRATEGY? It is a 'Yes-but' paradigm! Its quality and fairness is conditional upon.....Anyway, the bulk of pie goes to home country.

YES.....Inventory of potential FDI contributions to a host economy

1. Learning curve effect,

2. Productivity spillovers,

3. Exports catch up with the quality frontier,

4.   Higher unit values due to multinationals' superior technology and marketing techniques.

© Ozturk I., 2013

TPOEJIEMFJ PA3BHTHH BHEIHHE3KOHOMHlIECKHX CBJBEH H TPHBJIEHEHHJI HHOCTPAHHFJX HHBECTHЦHH:

PErHOHAJHjHMH ACITEKT

Warning: However, there is no evidence of FDI increasing the similarity between the developing and the high-income export structure.

5. Higher-quality inputs to local suppliers. So, FDI may benefit indigenous producers of final goods and allow them to upgrade their exports.

6. Welfare effect: Brings new products, improved quality, and/or lower prices to consumers in the host country.

7. Provides additional resources (capital, technology, and management) to raise the level of domestic output.

8. Provides technologies, management techniques, and quality control processes that potentially allow the host economy to undertake completely novel activities,

9. Allow local firms to engage in existing activities more efficiently and offer better/cheaper goods to consumers or inputs to producers to penetrate international markets and earn foreign exchange and/or allow competitive

10. Allows substitution of imports.

BUT.......these benefits depend on the conditions of the host economy, e.g.

1. Level of domestic investment/savings,

2. Mode of entry (merger & acquisitions or Greenfield (new) investments),

3. Sector involved,

4. Country's ability to regulate foreign investment.

5. Degree of openness (that not protected or sheltered from competition.)

OPENNES AND COMPETITION: This is because, FDI in protected markets does not meets expectations. The term "tariff jumping investment," which might imply replication of plants of similar size and sophistication across borders, does not adequately capture the dissimilarities in management and production processes. For both economic and technological reasons, attracting foreign investment to serve a protected local market failed to serve as an effective infant industry strategy. FDI that was oriented toward protected domestic markets and prevented from being integrated into the parent's global sourcing network by mandatory joint venture and domestic content requirements would not have such a positive effect.

CASE STUDIES:

It should be noted that there have not been so many cases since the 1970s that countries developed via FDI-MNE activities.

JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA, TURKEY: WHAT DOES HISTORY TELL US?

FDI in Japanese and Korean Development: Amount insignificant, with maximum effectiveness

CASE-I: JAPAN

The amount of foreign capital invested directly in Japan from 1899 to 1931 was not large. It is not radically different even today.

FDI flows into Japan have surged since the latter half of the 1990s. From 1990 to 1996, direct investment in Japan hovered at an average of $1 billion

annually. This figure reached the $3 billion mark in 1997 and came to $12.7 billion in 1999 (on a balance of payments basis). This inflow has since

decreased, but is still at a high level compared to past years - around $6 billion to $9 billion per year through 2004.

The recent rise in inward FDI since 2003 is driven by several factors:

Deregulation of state and private sectors,

Foreign acquisitions of companies because of corporate bankruptcies Changing legal framework supporting mergers and acquisitions. Decline in cross-shareholding has put more shares on the market; The global push to reorganize industries encourages entry into Japan by foreign firms; The yen's appreciation makes Japanese assets more attractive.

However, the impact in terms of learning curve effect was very great indeed. It is clear that foreign direct investment: Participated in and stimulated a broad range of business endeavor, often employing advanced methods, Provided valuable knowledge about western technology and management practice, Affected the internal economic geography.

Despite the low realization of FDI, case study evidence shows that foreign firms helped to develop such strategic industries as semiconductors and to raise productivity through the transfer of technology and managerial know-how. The case of Deming, guru of brand and productivity management, at around 1960s is a case in this topics.

CASE-II: KOREA

Throughout Korea's economic development, FDI has played a negligible role. Even in 1996, FDI accounted for less than 1 percent of total domestic fixed capital formation in Korea, far less than in the Southeast Asian countries. Case study evidence shows, however, that despite its quantitative insignificance FDI has had a significant impact on the quality of Korean economic development by spinning out skilled workers and managers and through technical guidance of subcontractors.

In a world of trade barriers and amidst the Cold War, they succeeded in putting certain conditionalities on FDI inflows so as to guarantee the benefits of FDI. Also, rather than attracting FDI, these countries preferred to learn from foreign experts and then indigenize it. Lastly, they kept their national saving rate as high as possible, at around no less then 30 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP).

Japan and Korea: temporary preference for barrowing, limited amount of capital resources were channeled to industries vital to long-term economic growth. Emphasis on learning curve effect from foreign experts.

In the 1980s, however, annual average FDI in Korea increased from US$ lOO million to over $800 million. Following a contraction that lasted until 1993, FDI resumed an upward trend, reaching $3 billion in 1997 and a record $5.1 billion in 1998.

For the sectoral distribution of FDI inflow into Korea, the manufacturing sector was the largest recipient during the early liberalization period, absorbing 67.4 percent of total inward FDI during 1962-86. This trend continued until 1993,when the share of the manufacturing sector exceeded 65 percent of total FDI inflow. The share of manufacturing as a percentage of total FDI has remained at approximately 55 percent since 1996. More investment took place in the heavy and chemical industries. Since the mid-l980s, FDI in labor-intensive and low-technology industries, such as textiles and clothing, has fallen significantly because of the rise in labor costs.

Instead, the electrical and electronics sector and transport equipment and chemicals are receiving increased amounts of foreign investment. Since 1997, foreign food companies increased their investment in Korea by acquiring domestic food companies and their distribution networks. The composition of FDI in the service sector has also changed. The hotel business used to be the largest subsector in terms of cumulated FDI up to the early 1990s. Since the mid-I990s, FDI in wholesale and retail trade as well as financing and insurance increased remarkably.

Despite the small amount of FDI in Korea relative to the size of its economy, it was foreign firms that brought the key technology and constructed the basis for such industries as electronics and pharmaceuticals. For example, subsidiaries of foreign semiconductor firms contributed to the growth of domestic firms into major players in the world market by spinning out skilled workers and managers as well as through technical guidance to subcontractors, bringing in new capital goods and technology, introducing advanced management know-how, conducting in-house R&D, and enhancing competition.

CASE-III TURKEY: QUA VADIS?

Let's study the case of Turkey. The country has opened its markets to foreign competition and FDI inflows partly since 1980s, particularly since the early 2000s. By attracting FDI, Turkey expects to finance its development, create employment, direct local production to export markets, transfer technology and so on. As of 2006-2008, Turkey succeeded in attracting $15-20 billion in FDI per annum and has become one of the top 17 recipient countries. Since 2002, Turkey has attracted almost 80 billion dollars of FDI as of 2011. The score in 2011 is over 10 billion dollars.

TPOEJIEMM PA3BHTHH BHEIIIHE3KOHOMHlIECKHX CBJBEH H TPHBJIEHEHHJI HHOCTPAHHMX HHBECTHЦHH:

PErHOHAJIbHUH ACTEKT

We can argue that in the last decade, Turkey has been successful in attracting FDI when compared to 1990s, when Turkey lagged behind other emerging countries in terms of the volume and quality of FDI inflows. On the other hand, comparatively speaking, Turkey has been still behind most of other emerging market economies since 2002. Side effects of FDI inflows in Turkey:

First of all, main characteristics of FDI are that the bulk of inflows go to privatization projects of state enterprises, finance, retail and real estate sectors, and finally to manufacturing. As of today, the bulk of FDI goes to already working sectors rather than to the green field investments. Therefore employment creation effect is weak.

Second, it seems that FDI inflows have substituted for domestic savings, rather than strengthening it, and that therefore the domestic saving rate has declined to well below 15 percent of GDP. While short-term credit based consumption rose sharply recently, the current low level of domestic savings fails to finance the gross fixed capital formation at some 23-25 percent of GDP. It is not surprising, therefore, that, as the saving-investment gap widens, Turkey's current account deficit (CAD) rises exponentially as well._

FDI and sectoral composition in Turkey (2002-2010)

 

 

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Agriculture

0

1

6

7

6

9

41

49

78

Industry

165

539

329

829

2.100

5.116

5.174

3.778

3.082

Mining

2

13

73

40

122

337

151

89

195

Manufacturing

95

440

190

785

1.866

4.211

3.955

1.565

874

Food and related industry

14

249

78

68

608

766

1.252

196

149

Paper and related industries

0

0

11

23

52

60

64

92

17

Chemicals

8

9

38

174

601

1.109

200

339

102

Machine tools

13

16

6

13

54

48

226

223

64

Transportation equipments

34

145

27

106

63

70

77

233

39

Electricity and gas

68

86

66

4

112

568

1.068

2.124

2.040

Services

406

156

855

7.699

15.533

14.012

9.532

2.423

3.198

Construction

0

8

3

80

222

285

336

208

384

Wholesale and retail

75

58

72

68

1.166

165

2.085

389

324

Logistics, comm., and transp.

1

1

639

3.285

6.696

1.117

170

382

204

Finance

246

51

69

4.018

6.957

11.662

6.069

497

1603

Real estate

0

3

3

29

99

560

641

560

298

Health and social sectors

4

21

35

74

265

177

149

101

114

Total

571

696

1.190

8.535

17.639

19.137

14.733

6.001

6.415

Third, export implication of FDI led import penetration into Turkish markets is much stronger. In order to export 100 units of goods, Turkey has to carry out at least 80 units in average. This rate increases in high-tech sectors while decreases in labor intensive, low value added sectors. In Turkey's major export sectors such as automobile, consumer electronics, Turkey has been in net deficit position. Turkey's export surplus is still coming from labor intensive garment, textile sectors. A domestic based, classical industry, where wages are low, social security is weak and unregistered economy is wide.

The fourth and worst news is that, after a decade of efforts to attract FDI, the share of high-tech in Turkey's overall export remains just at some 3 percent. Medium-tech technologies at some 30 percent, the remaining share of export comprises low tech products, in which Turkey is a price taker and therefore has to accept very low returns under global competition. Horizontal technology transfer is quite weak whereas vertical transfer is quite sufficient in order to increase the quality of supply from the local subsidiaries of MNES.

VI. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

Two ways in which FDI transfers technology to the host-country based firms is via MNE backward linkages, and labor mobility. There are several ways in which technology flows occur, either through arms-length means (such as through licensing) or through trade in intermediate goods, plant and equipment or even products or services should possess a minimum threshold stock of knowledge that will allow it to absorb MNE externalities. With regard to backward linkages and spillovers, MNEs generally avoids horizontal technology transfer, insisting upon whole or majority ownership of their plants to keep what they called "leakage" of technology and management procedures to a minimum.

In the vertical direction, however, they worked closely with suppliers in the host country (foreign-owned and indigenously owned suppliers) to increase those suppliers' productivity, ensure low rejection rates for their inputs, generate lower prices, improve management, and build team spirit.

At the macro level, high growth countries may attract more FDI as opposed to FDI causing this high growth. If this is the case, the coefficients on cross-section estimates are likely to overstate the positive impact of foreign investment. As a result, one might find evidence of positive externalities from foreign investment where no externalities do occur.

For developing countries, these studies find no indication of the existence of positive horizontal externalities. Conclude that the effects are mostly negative. An explanation for this result might be that MNEs minimize technology leakages to competitors while simultaneously tend to improve the productivity of suppliers by transferring knowledge to them. This argument points to the notion that if FDI were to generate spillovers, they are more likely to be vertical rather than horizontal in nature (not in the same sector). Simply speaking, we want to transfer, they want to protect...

VII. WHAT SHOULD / COULD BE DONE?

A) Regulation of investment

Regulation is only as effective as a country's ability to enforce it. The cost of implementation may be prohibitive for many countries. Hence

(i) Bilateral and multilateral support, alongside multi-stakeholder participation, is vital for the formulation of such agreements.

(ii) Rule-based, non-discriminatory policy: National legislation can support better investment security for local markets, fair competition

and corporate responsibility through defining equitable, secure, non-discriminatory, and transparent investment practices.

(iii) Ethical and socially responsible FDI can be encouraged through national, bilateral and international investment guidelines and regulation

e.g. consumer rights, information provision, commercial probity, labor standards and corporate culture. (Warning: Whilst there is concern that increased regulation could deter new foreign investors, there is evidence, such as in Eastern Europe, that tighter regulation of corporate, environmental and labor standards has not affected FDI growth.)

B) National Capacity building

* STRATEGY AND FOCUS REQUIRED: Sectors targeted by investment promotion agencies receive on average more than twice as much FDI inflows than non-targeted sectors.

Inter-firm linkages represent a good basis for knowledge spillovers.

Linkages could be motivated via market size, local content regulations, the size and technological capability of local firms.

Страницы:
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115 


Похожие статьи

Т С Медведкин - Проблемы развития внешнеэкономических связей и привлечения иностранных инвестиций региональный аспект