外文翻译原文--外商直接投资和东盟国家的工业化

外文翻译原文--外商直接投资和东盟国家的工业化 Foreign Direct Investment and Industrialization in ASEAN Countries By Ulrich H i e m e n z Contents I Introduction - II The Pattern of FDI by Home Country - III FDI and Industrial Development - IV The Trade Orientation of FDI - V Conclusions I I n t r o d u c t i o n lthough foreign investment FDI was not a very important component A of total gross domestic capital formation in any of the ASEAN countries except Singapore [Hill Johns 1985 pp 360-361] there is little dissent among professional economists that - in one way or another - FDI has indeed promoted industrial development in ASEAN as well as other Asian countries The discussion rather focuses on the extent of benefits derived from FDI and on the question whether FDI from one home country in particular Japan has been better attuned to the development needs of host countries than FDI from other home countries [eg Kojima 1978 1985 Sekiguchi Krause 1980 Lee 1983 1984] Both issues are addressed in the subsequent analysis of German Japanese and US investment in ASEAN countries The study supplements work recently done by Ariff Hill [1985] Hill Johns [1985] and Hill [1985] The subsequent section provides a brief overview of the sectoral distribu- tion of FDI across ASEAN countries and across manufacturing industries In Section III the pattern of FDI from different home countries is compared to a number of industry characteristics in the host countries Although large gaps in data availability severely restrict the implementation of rigorous statistical tools an attempt is made to assess the relative importance of several explanatory variables such as factor absorption effective protection and export orientation for investment behaviour of transnational corporations TNCs from different countries This behaviour determines in turn the foreign firms contribution to the direction and speed of industrialization and to the expansion and diversification of manufactured exports to old and new destinations The latter aspect is dealt with in Section IV which gives evidence on the trade orientation of affiliated companies and the importance Remark The empiricalanalysispresentedin this paper drawsheavilyon data compiledby my colleague Martin Groin His assistance as well as comments by Rolf J Langhammer and an anonymousrefereeare gratefullyacknowledgedThe projectwas undertakenwith financialsupport by the VWFoundation 122 Ulrich Hiemenz of intra-firm trade vis-a-vis total trade flows Some tentative conclusions are drawn in the final section lI The Pattern of FDI by Home Country A first clue with respect to the motivation of TNCs operating in ASEAN countries can be derived from the sectoral distribution of FDI presented in Table 1 Using stock data supplied by home countries of TNCs 1 the 1983 percentage distribution of FDI among sectors shows ASEAN to be a special case in the developing world The two by far largest foreign investors in the region Japanese and US TNCs 1065 and 796 billion US respectively concentrated the major share of their investment in mining activities includ- ing petroleum while manufacturing was the major sectoral recipient of the two home countries foreign investment in the group of all developing countries Similarly German TNCs which so far have kept a low profile in ASEAN countries 1982 FDI 56 billion US have engaged in manufactur- ing activities to a considerably smaller degree than they did in other developing countries as indicated by the two thirds share of FDI in manufac- turing for all developing countries in comparison to a somewhat above one third share in ASEAN The growth rates for the 1976-1983 period confirm that preferences for FDI in non-manufacturing activities of ASEAN countries have been continuing both in the cases of US and German TNCs Only Japanese manufacturing FDI has been growing slightly faster than the total stock of Japanese FDI in the region It is also interesting to note that growth of Japanese investment to ASEAN manufacturing exceeded that to all countries world even though there was an important reorientation of Japanese investment to North America and Europe over this period These trends which deviate a bit from observations made by Hill and Johns [1985 pp 368-369] for a slightly different sample of East Asian developing countries on the basis of flow data supplied by host countries do however correspond to the structure of economic activities still prevailing in ASEAN countries2 Except for Singapore shares of manufacturing value added in GDP are much lower in ASEAN countries than in other Asian or Latin American NICs In 1982 these shares were below 20 per cent in Although home country data on FDI are even more scarce than respective data supplied by host countries the former have been preferred because host country data - albeit being used frequently - are severely deficient Data supplied by the five ASEAN countries differ with respect to definition coverage and time period In particular published stock data on FDI refer to registered or approved investment in Indonesia Malaysia the Philippines and Thailand Realized investment is however considerably lower and realization rates vary significantly among home countries and over time For details see the report prepared for the EC Commission by Langhammer Grol [1986] 2 This general conclusion has to be qualified however with respect to individual countries which were able to attract over-proportionate shares of manufacturing FDI as will be discussed below see p 128 ft Industrialization in ASEAN Countries 123 Table 1 - The Sectoral Distribution of Japanese US and German FDI by Developing Regions in pc of each countrys total FDI in the respective region World Developing Countries Total ["Other Asia"a] ASEAN Japan 1983 Mining 194 260 370 494 Manufacturing 319 371 399 396 Trade 160 47 45 19 Banking and finance 72 31 25 12 1977-1983 Annual average growth of total FDI 183 175 177 180 of manufacturing FDI 187 159 174 206 US 1983 Mining 294 343 398 657 Manufacturing 399 402 220 184 Trade 126 124 105 66 Banking and finance 127 57 141 78 1976-1983 Annual average growth of total FDI 78 60 139 147 of manufacturing FDI 66 83 106 133 West Germany 1983 Mining 48 75 1 n a Manufacturing 436 614 383 348 Trade 197 75 154 189 Banking and finance 105 112 350 393 1976-1983 Annual average growth of total FDI 139 69 173 181 of manufacturing FDI 122 34b 129b 128 a Developing market economies of Asia excl Middle East - b 1977-1982 Source Deutsche Bundesbank var issues Ministry of Finance var issues US Department of Commerce var issues unpublished data and own calculations Indonesia Malaysia and Thailand and only in the Philippines it amounted to 25 per cent [Ariff Hill 1985 Table 21] It has to be left open at this point whether commodity-oriented FDI ultimately benefits the recipient country Foreign support in exploiting domestically available raw materials may generate resources - in particular foreign exchange - that could enhance 124 Ulrich H i e m e n z industrialization and economic development but such gains may be offset by eg transfer pricing or unfavourable exchange rate effects Dutch desease Addressing more specifically the contribution of TNCs to industrializa- tion both volume and sectoral dispersion of manufacturing FDI from different home countries play a crucial role In 1983Japanese FDI in ASEAN Table 2 - FDI in Manufacturing Industries of ASEAN Countries 1977-1983 FDI by home country a 1977 1981 1983 a ao I Oer a0anI OS I Oer many many many In pc of manufacturing FDI ASEAN Food 62 181 36 150 32 62 Chemical products 79 221 216 130 171 250 154 207 272 I Metals metal products 133 D 286 D 318 I 136b Machinery 36 31 37 51 D 105 56 07b 45 Electrical machinery 66 227 188 76 i D 150 70 359b 307 Transport equipment 86 D 75 D 72 D Textiles and clothing 331 98 190 D 159 D 14 Other manufacturing 207 461 156 495 140 363 Total manufacturing FDI in pc of total FDI ASEAN 348 216 1478 456 244 402 396 184 378 Indonesia 252 99 582 345 76 795 275 47 775 Malaysia 576 185 713 702 286 708 698 216 602 Philippines 260 379 583 i 384 427 583 402 353 429 Thailand 754 215 367 737 47 380 749 45 425 a D denotes data not disclosed for reasons of confidentiality - b Estimates Source" See Table 1 manufacturing amounted to 423 billion US compared to 146 and 20 billion US for US and German TNCs respectively A detailed analysis of manufacturing FDI in ASEAN countries based on home country information is severely impeded by a lack of sufficiently disaggregated data which would allow a comparison of FDI from different home countries and by large gaps in published statistics due to the suppres- sion of data for reasons of confidentiality The available evidence is summa- rized in Table 2 [for a more detailed breakdown see Hiemenz 1986 Annex Tables 1a-d] The data reveal major differences in the regional and sectoral Industrialization in ASEAN Countries 125 composition of FDI from different home countries About half of total Japanese FDI was received by Indonesia but in terms of sectoral composition manufacturing was the prime target of Japanese FDI primarily in Malaysia and Thailand while the Philippines were a preferred location for US manufacturing FDI 3 For German TNCs the concentration of FDI in manu- facturing was highest in Malaysia Country-specific peculiarities apart sectoral priorities of Japanese manu- facturing FDI were on average in chemical products and metals with an increasing trend since 1977 and in textiles and clothing as well as other manufacturing comprising such important product categories as plastic goods precision instruments toys and sport goods with a declining trend These priorities reflect in part the aim of Japanese firms to secure access to natural resources and in part an early exploitation of location-specific advantages cheap labour through export-oriented FDI in labour-intensive industries By contrast US and German TNCs rather aimed at defending shares in domestic markets in ASEAN countries in the 1970s and engaged in an international division of labour only selectively This is reflected by the focus of both US and German investment on chemical products and electrical machinery These differences of investment patterns by home country did not change significantly over the 1977-1983 period [GroS 1985 Table 5] and correspond to the composition of ASEAN imports by country of origin [Langhammer Hiemenz 1985 pp 112-114] Japanese suppliers increasingly dominated a number of import markets in the 1970s and early 1980s Hence an inter-industry specialization between Japan on the one hand and the US and Germany on the other hand determined import patterns while US and German exporters were competing in more or less the same product categories intra-industry specialization llI FDI and Industrial Development The above observations seem to confirm the initial notion that industriali- zation and export expansion in ASEAN countries were stimulated in differ- ent ways by Japanese and non-Japanese FDI The subsequent analysis seeks to establish in what way FDI may have helped the countries in the region to exploit comparative advantages in manufacturing This issue is pursued by comparing the patterns of FDI to various industry characteristics in ASEANs "Other Four" Table 3 As mentioned above such an analysis suffers from the high industry aggregation of FDI data which leaves little choice but to employ fairly pedestrian tools of descriptive statistics such as indices and a Singaporehas been excluded from this and the subsequent analyses since in a highly developed city state with a large share of FDI in total investment evaluation criteria would have to be different from those applied to the other ASEAN countries under review 126 Ulrich Hiemenz shares and which tends to veil differences among FDI of different origin A further problem concerns the many gaps in US data To increase the comparability of the data sets we have chosen to distribute the residual of US manufacturing FDI in each country among suppressed sectors according to the distribution of Japanese FDI among these sectors Hence the statistics presented in Table 3 represent a lower boundary of differences between Japanese and US patterns of FDI The first question to be asked is whether there has been a degree of similarity between the structure of manufacturing production in ASEAN countries and the pattern of FDI Until 1977 all ASEAN countries had undertaken considerable effort to establish a wide range of import substitut- ing and at least some export-oriented manufacturing activities except for Indonesia in the latter case As a first working hypothesis one would assume that an inflow of modern production and management methods into a wide range of manufacturing subsectors achieves more with respect to promoting industrialization and international competitiveness of the whole sector than an isolated transfer of technology to just few branches of manufacturing industries4 It has to be acknowledged however that virtually all host countries applied a "picking the winner" strategy of industrialization and hence channeled FDI to specific manufacturing subsectors by means of investment policies Furthermore FDI in priority sector may be questionable from a welfare point of view if relative prices are distorted in favour of these priority sectors ie FDI would contribute to either excessive import substitu- tion or excessive export expansion With these qualifications in mind the respective indices presented in Table 3 nonetheless reveal two remarkable trends Firstly in 1977 the degree of similarity between FDI and production structures tended to be highest for the leading investor in each host country ie Japanese TNCs in Indonesia Malaysia and Thailand and US TNCs in the Philippines However the differences of similarity indices among leading and other investors have largely evened out by 1983 although the ranking of investors by size of FDI has remained the same And secondly in 1983 similarity indices for Japanese and US FDI tended to converge below the 1977 level measured for the leading investor in all three countries for which these data are available This suggests that the degree of inter-industry concentration has increased over time in the case of the leading investor ie the US in the Philippines and Japan in Indonesia after 1981 and Malaysia while the other investors revealed a tendency to broaden their spectrum of inter-industry diversification 4 The diffusion of technical progress among manufacturing industries does of course depend on intersectoral linkages Know-how associated with FDI in a few leading sectors may permeate all manufacturing activities through trickle-down effects We assume nonetheless that this process is accelerated when FDI is widely distributed among industrial subsectors Industrialization in A S E A N C o u n t r i e s 127 T a b l e 3 - FDI and Selected Indicators of Manufacturing Production in ASEANs "Other Four" 1977 1981 1983 Japan US a Ger- Japan com Ger- Japan US a Ger- many many many Indonesia Similarity indexb c 52 FDlManuf Prodd 52 Share of FDI in 656 - top three growth sectorsd 656 - top four negative 656 RCA categuriesd e 656 - top three ERP 1000 categoriesd f 1000 Malaysia Similarity indexb c 49 FDIManuf Prodd 49 Share of FDI in 352 - top three growth sectorsd 352 - positive RCA categuriesd e - top three negative 197 RCA categoriesd e 197 - top two ERP 648 categoriesd g 197 Philippines Similarity indexb c 74 FDlManuf Prodd 65 Share of FDI in - top three growth sectorsd 2510 - positive RCA 708 categuriesd e 708 - top three negative 292 RCA categoriesd e 292 I - top three ERP categoriesd f i Thailand Similarity indexb c 39 FDlManuf Prodd 39 Share of FDI in - positive RCA categoriesd 4215 - top three negative 575 RCA categoriesd e 575 - top three ERP na categoriesd f a To compute indices and shares presented in this table suppressed data on US FDI were approximated by distributing the residual of US manufacturing FDI among suppressed sectors according to the distribution of Japanese FDI among these sectors - bThe similarity index is computed as 0 cos S S 1 T S SlY J 1[j sjX2 ] [7 1y2 ]S denotes the percentage distribution of FDI by home country x among manufacturing industries j while SIis the respective distribution of manufacturing value added in host country y - c The 1977 structure of FDI is compared to the structure of production in the 1970s 1981 and 1983 FDI are related to the structure of production in the 1980s - d Figures in parentheses give results on the basis of the more detailed Japanese classification of manufacturing industries all other indices and shares are computed with respect to e f the narrower US classification - Both 1981 and 1983 FDI is compared to 1982 RCA values - Both 1981 and 1983 FDI is compared to 1980 effective rates of protection - gAll FDI compared to 1980 ERP only Source Hiemenz [1986 Annex Tables la-d] own computations 128 U l r i c h H i e m e n z Despite the converging degree of inter-industry concentration of FDI Japanese and US TNCs nonetheless displayed different sectoral priorities as has been discussed above The nature of this diversification of FDI is highlighted by comparing the shares of FDI from different home countries in the three 5 leading sectors with respect to output growth trade performance and import protection Table 3 shows that in all countries for which data are available and all years under review both US and German TNCs geared their FDI much more towards fast growing manufacturing subsectors than Japan- ese TNCs did The major explanation for this uniform pattern is the high share of US and German investment in chemical industries and electrical machinery subsectors which hardly figure prominently in the sectoral distribution of Japanese FDI [Hiemenz 1986 Annex Tables la-d] The production of electrical machinery was favoured both by a fast growing and usually highly protected domestic market for consumer electronics and household appliances and opportunities to export parts and components produced at low wage costs The latter aspect has however not yet had an overriding importance in the period under review as "revealed comparative advantage" RCA values computed for this sector indicate Chemical in- dustries - the other rapidly growing industrial subsector particularly in Indonesia - simultaneously enjoyed high rates of effective protection in almost all ASEAN countries and therefore it is not surprising that the share of US and German FDI in industries which were granted high effective protection clearly exceeds the Japanese share in these industries in all countries except for Malaysia and the Philippines in 1983 In Malaysia Japanese investors appear to have concentrated on highly protected industries much more than US and German investors did These estimates are clearly misleading since they reflect to a substantial degree Japanese investment in textile and clothing activities This sector enjoys high rates of effective protection in the domestic market but the lions share of Japanese investment in this industry took place in free trade areas and was designed to cater to world markets This example shows that the above findings have to be interpreted with great caution since they are heavily influenced by the industry classification dictated by available FDI data Slight variations of this classification in particular a more detailed breakdown of industries can have a substantial influence on the shares of FDI in groups of industries with similar characteristics as some of the figures in parentheses indicate To obtain additional insight into the contribution FDI has made to industrialization and trade expansion in the ASEAN region the pattern of FDI is compared to the pattern of RCA among manufacturing industries In countries with only one or two clearly outstanding sectors the analysis was restricted to these sectors Industrialization in ASEAN Countries 129 Table 3 gives shares of FDI by home country for groups of industries with positive export-oriented industries and with high negative RCA values import-competing industries 6 The early stage of industrialization in Indonesia is reflected in negative RCA values for all manufacturing activities Concerning the other three more industrialized countries there are three groups of industries with a clear RCA in international trade in more than one country These are the resource-based food industries7as well as textiles and clothing and the industries lumped together in other manufacturing with comparative advantages based on low labour costs The share of FDI from different sources in industries with positive RCA values varies considerably among ASEAN countries and over time US and German TNCs have focused on export-oriented industries more than Japanese TNCs in the Philippines while the opposite applies to Malaysia and Thailand Taking all three investors together the share of FDI in export-oriented industries has been largest in Thailand while the data for Malaysia are likely to underestimate the true extent of FDI in such industries because of the above mentioned classification problems The prominence of Thailand results from substantial Japanese and US investment in such export-oriented activities as food processing and clothing and textiles Concerning the internationally least competitive industries US and Japanese investors switch ranks over time but in the 1980sthe share of US and also German FDI in these industries is generally larger than the Japanese share in Indonesia the Philippines and Thailand The dominating factors for this result are the US investment in car manufacturing and chemical industries the latter also being a priority sector for German investors So far we have merely established which manufacturing subsectors may have benefited from an inflow of FDI through an improved availability of modern production and management techniques as well as training methods which can be emulated by domestic firms In this respect the evidence presented above is far from being conclusive Using a broad measure of trade performance ie RCA values sectoral investment patterns of Japanese and US TNCs are not easily classified as favouring either inward or outward orientation of industrial development The more detailed data presented 8 Note that industries with high negative RCA value are not identical with highly protected industries The structure of protection applied in ASEAN countries and elsewhere in the developing world mostly benefits the producers of chemicals and consumer goods while producers of other industrial intermediates and of investment goods receive little or no protection For eg machinery industries effective rates of protection are at most average in all four countries while RCA values are consistently among those topping the negative list [Hiemenz 1986 Annex Table 1] Hence negative RCA values capture a wider range of import-competing industries than effective rates of protection 7 Another resource-based industry with positive RCA values was metals and metal products in Malaysia in 1977 The international competitiveness of this industry was based on the countrys natural endowment with tin but this competitiveness was lost on the industry-wide scale later on when wore manufactured metal products were imported WeltwirtschaftlichesArchivBd CXXIII 9 130 Ulrich Hiemenz elsewhere [Hiemenz 1986 Annex Table 1] suggest furthermore that invest- ment patterns were changed in the late 1970s and early 1980s when trade protection to domestic industries had been somewhat lowered in most ASEAN countries under review compared to the early 1970s and industrial- ization policies in general were more supportive to export-oriented activities eg by the establishment of export processing zones [for details see Ariff Hill 1985] By 1983 US and also German FDI had shifted to manufacturing industries with a good record of export expansion and in this respect became more similar to the Japanese pattern of FDI Priority sectors for FDI did however remain distinctly different for investors from the various home countries Table 2 While Japanese FDI was concentrated in metal indus- tries textiles and clothing as well as other traditional labour-intensive industries US and German FDI focused on those modern labour-intensive industries lumped together in the category electrical machinery and on chemical industries which - under the impact of successive oil price shocks - have emerged as a source of largely resource-based exports primarily in Indonesia and Malaysia and Singapore of course This leads to the conclusion that in recent years FDI from the other two home countries has contributed to the development of industries with a high export potential in a similar way Japanese FDI had benefited such industries already in the 1970s This conclusion does however not answer the question whether the transfer of technology from different home countries was equallybeneficial to ASEAN manufacturing or whether "Japanese-style" FDI was in better accordance with the factor endowment of the host countries as Kojima [1985] has recently contended again The evidence on this issue is scanty and mostly anecdotal and Lee [1983] has argued that such differences of transferred technologies are likely to be a historical phenomenon which has disappeared with the convergence of technology levels in the US and Japan The only test of the Kojima hypothesis which can be performed on the basis of our data is a comparison of labour intensities embodied in FDI in the Asian region This measure rather provides an indication of the type of activity established in host countries than of the technology itself The factor intensity shows however whether FDI has helped to realize comparative advantages based on the abundance of cheap and relatively well educated labour Labour intensities employees per US million of total assets for Japanese and US FDI given in Table 4 have been computed on the basis of employment and capital stock data supplied by MITI and the 1977 US benchmark survey These estimates require the qualification that the com- parability of Japanese and US capital stock data could not be established beyond doubt8The results do in any case conform to the expected pattern In s Note that data on total assets include both equity and loans of foreign as well as domestic investors The number of employees refers to total employment in foreign affiliates However both Japanese and US data are derived from sample surveys and hence may diverge with respect to coverage Industrialization in ASEAN Countries 131 Table 4 - Employees per US Million of Total Assets in Foreign Affiliates by Re lion 1977 and 1983 1977 1983 Industry World I "Other Latin World Latin Asiaa America America z