FDI 1-1 -
FDI [] [ ] F832 A 20 70 80 80 10 90 (FDI) FDI FDI FDI FDI 1991 FDI 0.2% 2002 33.8% FDI 2002 FDI FDI FDI FDI 20 90 20 90 1997 FDI FDI H.Chenery A.M.Strout1966 FDI FDI Baran - 2 -
1973 FDI May Arena1970 FDI FDI FDI RheeBelot1990 Lipsey2002 FDI FDI (Frankel and Rose, 1996) FDI FDI 0.3 (Lipsey, 1999; 2001) 90 FDI FDI FDI (Kalecki, 1966)FDI (Dooley et. al, 1994) FDI (Reis, 2001) FDI FDI (Woodward, 2003) FDI 20 90 FDI 16%18% FDI FDI GDP FDI Woodward2001 FDI 1997, 2003 FDI FDI FDI 1998 FDI 2001 FDI FDI 2004 GNP GDP GNP GDP - 3 -
2004 FDI FDI FDI FDI FDI FDI FDI FDI 5% FDI 1994 FDI 30% 1996 40% 1992 FDI FDI FDI 90 FDI 16~18% FDI 24~30% 1 111.1 111.1 116.7 11.1 100 2 124.1 240.8 252.8 24.1 100 3 139.2 392.0 411.6 39.2 100 4 156.9 568.5 596.9 56.9 100 5 177.4 774.3 813.0 77.4 100 6 201.4 1014.4 1065.1 101.4 100 910.1 310.1 600-4 -
FDI 100 FDI 15% 10% 5% FDI FDI 100 FDI 1 FDI FDI FDI p q N FDI N=log(p+q)/p / log(1+q) 1 p=10%q=5% N=log1.5 / log1.05=8.31 2 1 111.1 111.1 116.7 11.1 100 2 111.1 227.8 239.2 22.8 88.3 3 111.1 350.3 367.8 35.0 76.1 4 111.1 478.9 502.8 47.9 63.2 5 111.1 613.9 644.6 61.4 49.7 6 111.1 755.7 793.5 75.6 35.5 7 111.1 904.6 949.8 90.5 20.6 8 111.1 1060.9 1113.9 106.1 5.0 9 111.1 1225.0 1286.3 122.5-11.4 999.9 572.9 427.0 1992 1994 1997 1989 1992 1989~1992 71% 1990 90% 1989 219 1991 1992 395 506 1989~1992-5 -
1991 1994 1992 1993 GDP 5% 6.78%5.79% 1994 11% 1991~1995 1991-82.65 1995-126.89 45% 1990~1995 30.7 59.4 51.7%1995 56.8%1992~1997 1994 79.54%1997 90.41% 19921993 1996 FDI 90 1994~1996 FDI FDI 1990~1996 FDI 1995~1996 GDP 11~13% FDI FDI 20 80 FDI FDI FDI 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 FDI 111.6 275.2 337.9 377.4 423.5 452.8 454.6 404.1 407.7 468.5 527.4 535.1 4775.8 FDI 40.0 44.0 20.0 20.0 21.1 27.2 28.2 23.8 22.4 70.9 28.5 18.5 364.6 1993 FDI 11 UNCTAD 2004 2003 FDI 2004 7 49 5400 2004 9 7 2003 2003 3439 334 350 1% 0.5% - 6 -
0.15% 11.14 10.13 1992~2003 FDI 4776 FDI 365 3 10.08 FDI 1FDI FDI 1 80 290 2003 90 4, 1993~2000 13% 90 4 2FDI FDI (Reis, 2001) FDI 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003-32 -54-55 -17 4 41 75 55 70 101 97 161 446-21 -38-37 -51-60 -34-24 -19-62 -58-81 -141-626 3FDI FDI 1993~2001 50.7% 49.3% - 7 -
80% FDI 3 3% 13~14% 1993 1995 100 2001 200 30% 1995 1996 60%1993~2003 42% 5 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003-119.0 76.6 16.2 72.4 297.2 293.2 156.7 205.2 174.1 354.2 458.7 1985.5 (B) -106.5 72.9 180.5 195.4 462.2 466.1 362.1 344.7 340.2 441.7 446.5 3205.8 (A) -12.8-10.4-117.7-124.4-159.2-166.4-179.7-146.7-191.7-149.5-78.4 1331.9 A/B(%) - 14.27 65.21 63.66 34.44 35.7 49.63 42.56 56.35 33.85 17.56 41.55 13~14% FDI 5000 10% 500 500 300~400 5 FDI 2002 150 2003 79 FDI 2004 84.4 1~6 68.2 2004 1~7 48.8-8 -
1. FDI GDP 1% 11 2. FDI 12 FDI 3. FDI FDI GDP GNP FDI FDI 4. 350 0.5% 0.15% - 9 -
[1] [M] 2001 [2] FDI [J] 1998 (3) 43-47 [3] [J] 2003 (9) 40-48 [4] [J] 1997 (10) 18-23 [5] [J] 2003, (9-10)5-11 [6] GNP GDP [J] 2004 (3) 14-21. [7] [J] 2004 11 37-46 - 10 -
[8] Kalecki, Michal and Sachs,I., 1966: Forms of Foreign Aid: An Economic Analysis, Reprinted in Collected Works of Michal Kalecki. Vol. V. Developing economies. Ed. By Jerzy Osiatynski. Transl. by Chester Adam Kisiel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993, pp. 61-91. [9] Dooley, Michael, Eduardo Fernandez-Arias, and Kenneth Kletzer. Recent Private Capital Inflows to Developing Countries: Is the Debt Crisis History?[R]. NBER Working Paper, 1994. No.4792 [10] Frankel, J. A. and Rose, A. K.. Currency Crashes in Emerging Markets: Empirical Indicators[R]. NBER Working Paper, 1996. No. 5437. [11] Lipsey, R. E.. Foreign Direct Investment in Three Financial Crises[R]. NBER Working Paper, 2001. No. 8084. [12] Osiatynski, J.. The Collective Works of Michal Kalecki Volume V: Developing Economics[M], Ox-ford, 1993. [13] Reis, A. B.. On the Welfare Effects of Foreign Investment[J]. Journal of International Economics, 2001, (54), pp. 411-427. [14] Woodward, D.. The Next Crisis? Direct and Equity Investment in Developing Countries[M]. Zed Books, New York, 2001. Theoretic and Empirical Analysis on the FDI Profits remitting and Potent Balance of Payments Crisis DUAN -Junshan MAO -Zhonggen School of Finance, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai 200083 School of business, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093 Abstract: It is generally to be thought that the foreign direct investment (FDI) is a kind of high-quality foreign capital, and it does much good to the host country economy developing, so promoting FDI the more the better. However, the research discovers the remittance of FDI income would bring much pressure to the current account balance in the host country, then may result in balance of payments crisis. The experience of the several financial crisis also confirmed this standpoint. There is potent risk in the current situation of China, so need to pay attention to it. Keywords: Foreign Direct Investment Income; Current Account Deficit; Balance of Payments Crisis - 11 -