毕业论文译文Word文档下载推荐.docx

1、院系名称：经济管理学院班 级：国贸091学 号：200900664113学生姓名：梅金枝指导教师：魏冉2013 年 3 月中国的外商直接投资与收入不均M. Greaney 美国夏威夷大学经济系 尧 丽 中国电子科学与技术大学 经济与管理学院一、引言在过去三十年里，中国的经济高速增长，而伴随这种增长的收入差距，引起了越来越多的关注。收入不均涉及以下收入差距，如：区域间的，城市与农村之间的、产业间的、劳工团体间的（即熟练与非熟练劳动力）以及不同所有制的企业间的。由于在中国部分收入不均的类型是长期存在的并处于增长的态势，因此经济学建和政策制定者需要了解加重或减轻这些模式所带来的影响。中国目前已是最大

2、的出口国和接收外商直接投资最多的国家，因此国际贸易和外商直接投资作为影响这种收入差距的因素而被广泛关注。虽然在相关的国际贸易的经济学文献中，已经对贸易和收入的联系进行了广泛的研究，但是这些研究往往只专注于识别外国所有权的工资溢价。我们的特殊之处在于，对FDI如何影响收入以及收入分配不平等状况提出了更彻底的研究。虽然以前关于FDI和收入分配不均的研究大部分处于宏观经济的层面上，但是对于中国境内不同所有制企业收入分配方式的不同所带来的众多影响，数据能容许我们进行更为详尽的分析。这使得我们能够对外国企业、海外华人投资者的外国企业、国有企业、以及其他国内企业进行直接比较。在控制了行业和全省的影响后，我

3、们可以在各公司间比较平均工资从而决定，归因于显著决定因素这些工资差异达到了何种程度，例如工人的技能或资本 - 劳动比率和新的决定因素间的差异，如企业规模、出口国地位、所有制类型。考虑到对异构型企业模式的预测，我们的研究通过对外商直接投资企业和内资企业进行比较从而第一个掌握这些公司的出口地位。我们对于中国主要工业地区的两大产业的初步研究结果显示，无论是传统决定因素还是新的决定因素都与部门内部的工资差异有关。二、文献评述克拉克，坎皮诺，海菲尔和拉赫曼（2011）关于外商直接投资的影响包括它与收入不平等的关系查阅了众多文献。他们的结论是，外商直接投资通常不仅会有技术外溢效应促进经济的增长，同时也会加

4、剧收入不均。通过运用跨国面板数据，克拉克等人研究了外商直接投资与收入不均关系。对一国之内FDI对收入不均的影响的研究只有两个：杰森和罗斯（2007）对墨西哥的研究，班达OCIEs，因为中国政府造成了这种区分而且容许可能的基于外资来源的不对称效应。黄（2004）发现,OCIEs和FDIEs有不同的技术溢出效应。格林尼和李（2012）发现有证据显示的对中国劳动力市场的不同影响。在中国, OCIEs可能超过FDIEs的潜在的优势包括紧密联系的语言和文化, 接近的地理,更容易获得签证和其他政府批准。表1提供了概要统计数据，几乎250000名公司包含在我们整理后的数据集。2004年的公司平均年限是9年,

5、拥有243名员工,生产总产量是7430万元。在工业总产值之中,16.6%是出口,但只有27.7%的公司是出口商。熟练工（即有一些大学或更高的教育程度）占公司的平均劳动力的12%,而非熟练工（即那些只有高中完成或更低教育）占普通公司劳动力的88%。女职工在一般公司占40%的就业。年平均工资在所有调查公司是1.32万元。在底部的表格行，分解的资本来源未总和到100%,因为他们不包括公司资本,那是一种被定义为从其他企业所获得的资本。企业资本的来源是公司被划分为某一类型的标记（如SOEs, ODEs,OCIEs,FDIEs）,显示在表1的上列中,但是没有报告在数据集中。公司类型的分解显示了一些期待性的

6、趋势（如传统的SOE更老，更大，更少地参与出口，也比其他公司类型更少地就每个工人的产量有所创造）和一些不那么令人期待的趋势（如SOEs花费像FDIEs一样多去训练每个工人，那是OCIEs的两倍标准）。这个标准的许多变量偏差是如此大地显示在这么多的参与工厂中，因而我们关于这个数据集的首要分析聚焦在数据集的二次采样上。注：本文摘译自“ Theresa M. Greaney. Department of Economics University of Hawaii: Foreign Direct Investment and Income Inequality in China.”翻译内容为:第一页

7、到第七页第一段。Foreign Direct Investment and Income Inequality in ChinaTheresa M. Greaney Department of Economics University of Hawaii Yao Li School of Management and Economics Universityof Electronic Science and Technology of China 1. IntroductionChinas rapid economic growth over the past three decades ha

8、s been accompanied by increasing concern over the income disparities that have accompanied this growth. Income inequality may involve income gaps across regions, across urban vs. rural areas, across industries, across labor groups （i.e., skilled versus unskilled labor） and/or across firms with diffe

9、rent ownership types. Since some of these types of inequality have been found to be persistent and growing in China, economists and policy-makers want to understand the influences that exacerbate or mitigate these patterns. Attention often is focused on international trade and foreign direct investm

10、ent （FDI） as contributing influences since China is now the top exporting country and the top recipient of FDI worldwideAlthough the linkages between trade and incomes have been examined extensively in the international trade and labor economics literature, research on the linkages between FDI and i

11、ncomes has tended to focus solely on identifying a foreign ownership wage premium. We propose a more thorough examination of FDIs effect on incomes and on income inequality in particular. Although most of the previous research on FDI and income inequality has been at the macroeconomic level, our fir

12、m-level data allows for much more detailed analysis of the various influences on income differentials paid by different types of firms operating in China. This allows us to make direct comparisons between foreign firms, foreign firms owned by overseas Chinese investors, state-owned firms and other d

13、omestic firms. Controlling for industry and province effects, we can compare average wages across firms to determine to what extent these wage differentials can be attributed to well-known determinants, such as differences in worker skills or capital-labor ratios, versus newer determinants such as a

14、 firms size, exporter status, or ownership type .Taking the predictions of the heterogeneous firms models into account, our study is among the first to control for firms exporter status in making comparisons between FDI firms and domestic-owned firms. Our preliminary results for two large industries

15、 in a major industrial region in China indicate that both the traditional determinants and the newer determinants matter for explaining intra-sectoral wage inequality.2. Literature ReviewClark, Campino, Highfill and Rehman （2011） survey the broad literature on FDI effects, including its relationship

16、 to income inequality. They conclude that FDI generally leads to positive technological spillovers and economic growth, but also to increased income inequality. Seven of the nine studies summarized by Clark et. al. examined the FDI-income inequality relationship using cross-country panel data. Only

17、two studies focused on FDI effects on inequality within a single country: Jensen and Rosas （2007） focus on Mexico and Bhandari （2006） on the US. The former is more relevant to our study since it focuses on a developing country.Jensen and Rosas （2007） examine income inequality within states in Mexico

18、 as capital flows were liberalized between 1990 and 2000. They compare states that received a lot of FDI with those that received little FDI since most US multinationals choose to locate close to six border routes between the two countries. Using an instrumental variable at the cross-state level, th

19、ey find that states with lots of FDI had lower income inequality, measured by state-level Gini coefficients that include returns from labor and capital. Not included in the survey by Clark et. al. （2011） are several studies that have examined income inequality in China, but their research questions

20、have differed somewhat from those surveyed and from our study. Candelaria, Daly and Hale （2009） examine Chinas regional income inequality but they do not include FDI as a possible determinant. They document persistent and increasing regional income inequality in China over the past two decades, desp

21、ite a decline in some institutional barriers, such as Chinas permanent registration system, and in informational barriers that might limit factor mobility within a country. They find that differences in labor quality, industry composition and geographical location explain some of Chinas inequality a

22、cross provinces. However, even when labor is allowed to move more freely due to provincial reforms between 2001 and 2007, they find that interprovincial migration does not eliminate regional wage differences. Greaney and Li （2012） examine the effects of FDI on Chinas wages and employment, but our le

23、vel of analysis is industry-level rather than firm-level in that earlier paper. We find that industries that receive higher shares of their funding from state, collective or private domestic capital sources tend to pay less, and a higher share of collective capital also is associated with higher emp

24、loyment, after controlling for different sizes and capital-intensities across industries. Among the two capital inflows into China, overseas Chinese capital and FDI capital areassociated with higher pay when measured in log capital amounts. They are associated with fewer workers at the industry leve

25、l when they are measured in capital shares. There are many studies that have looked for a foreign ownership wage premium for countries other than China. Lipsey and Sjoholm （2001） find a foreign ownership premium of 12% for blue-collar workers and 22% for white-collar workers in Indonesian factories

26、after controlling for region, industry, plant size, and worker characteristics. In fact, the opening sentence of their paper reads “It seems to be a universal rule that in every country, foreign-owned firms and plants pay higher wages, on average, than domestically owned ones.” They point out that t

27、his holds true for developed countries as well as for developing countries. Heyman, Sjoholm and Tingvall （2007） examine this proposition using detailed matched employer-employee data from Sweden and find a smaller wage premium associated with foreign ownership than previous studies found. They find

28、that foreign-owned firms do pay more than domestic-owned firms but the former do not pay more for identical workers. The higher wages paid in foreign firms can be explained by firm and worker characteristics. Rather than looking for a foreign ownership wage premium, Zhao （2001） investigates FDIs eff

29、ect on the skilled labor wage premium in China. He proposes an alternative hypothesis to the usual linkage through skill-bias technology. Labor market distortions in a developing and transition economy like China might force foreign investors to pay a wage premium to attract skilled labor away from

30、the “privileged” state-owned enterprises, but unskilled labor is easy to attract. Therefore, Zhou proposes that FDI firms pay a larger skilled labor wage premium compared with state-owned enterprises （SOEs）. He finds empirical support for his hypothesis using urban census data for six provinces from

31、 1996. Wu （2001） reports the same skilled wage premium from FDI, but attributes it to better intellectual property rights protection of foreign-invested enterprises rather than to labor market distortions. Hale and Long （2011） also find that FDI has direct and indirect effects on skilled labor. FDI

32、firms pay more for skilled labor and the observed quality of that labor is higher than in private domestic firms. For indirect effects, they find that higher FDI in an industry drives up the skilled labor wages in private domestic firms and drives down the quality of skilled workers in SOEs. They find no direct or indirect effects of FDI on unskilled worker wages or quality. Our dataset does not allow us to directly observe skilled versus unskilled wages but we do examine the relationship between firms average wages and workers educat