2011 11 * 20 60 70 Hymer 1960 Vernon 1966 Buckley 1976 Dunning 1977 Helpman 2004 FDI Yokota et al. 2009 FDI Kathuria 2002 Buckley et al. 2007 Khalifah et al. 2009 * 100836 330013 zhwenzhhua@ 163. com 09&ZD034 21
2010 80 90 1 Chenery and Strout 1966 Dunning 1980 1988 2007 Dunning 1977 1988 1995 Kojima 1978 Dunning Dunning & Narula 2004 FDI Wells 1983 Lall 1983 20 80 1 1990 1999 3706. 6 459. 5 8 1 2000 2009 9766. 4 1843. 6 5. 3 1 UNCTAD World Investment Report 2010 22
2011 11 20 90 1 1 2010 1990 1999 2000 2009 1 FDI GDP 13. 6% 28. 3% 108. 1% FDI 2009 GDP 1 /3 15. 5% 33. 5% 116. 1% 6. 5% 13. 9% 113. 8% 2 FDI 6. 8% 11. 9% 75% 7. 9% 14. 7% 86. 1% 3. 3% 5. 4% 63. 6% 23
2009 211 82 109 20 2009 5939 2009 796 75 GSI 1 2008 72. 9 2009 75. 3 1953 20 70 90 2008 36 56 2011 3. 98 2 24 1 2 GSI Geographical Spread Index UNCTAD World Investment Report 2010 2011 3 10 A11
2011 11 Dunning 1981 1988 1. 1 WDI 5 198 1970 2005 0. 5% 1% 691 OG 2% SG GDP SE 3% 2. 1 5 0. 5% 198 1970 2005 23 2 691 23 0. 2 22 2 2 0. 2 78. 504 0. 029 30. 825 0. 119 74. 834 0. 04 40. 74 0. 12 15 64 66. 192 0. 043 GDP 33. 99 0. 123 71. 341 0. 053 1999 2001 = 100 91. 626 0. 128 GDP 60. 383 0. 08 0. 513 0. 13 GDP 76. 67 0. 086 1999 2001 = 100 93. 087 0. 134 60. 48 0. 094 2000 = 100 103. 811 0. 139 1 2 90. 591 0. 095 GDP 22. 33 0. 159 73. 939 0. 111 71. 378 0. 175 38. 828 0. 112 GNI 4. 867 0. 18 51. 239 0. 113 74. 07 0. 18 25
15 64 GDP GDP 1 2 10% GDP 3 23 GDP 23 4 7 12 3 OG 0. 5% 1% 2% 3% SG 60. 4% 62. 7% 66. 1% 67. 8% SE 60. 5% 64. 5% 68. 5% 67. 1% 2 GDP 2 1. GDP 2. 1 2 3 26
2011 11 3 OG GDP SG SE % OG SG SE OG SG SE OG SG SE OG SG SE 1995 0. 58 65. 8 71. 9 1984 0. 71 59 65. 9 2001 3. 24 70. 3 74. 2 1989 0. 66 64 54. 7 1998 1. 31 66. 8 62. 9 1986 1. 49 64. 3 66. 1 1986 1. 49 64. 3 66. 1 1988 2. 43 64. 9 67. 5 1998 11. 5 69. 8 67. 9 1992 0. 95 52 55. 5 1994 1. 79 55 57. 7 1998 0. 75 1999 1. 9 67. 6 2001 2. 62 70. 6 1984 0. 51 66. 6 66. 4 1994 2. 74 71. 2 68. 4 1997 2. 58 70. 5 69. 3 1984 0. 96 54. 9 55. 1 1986 1. 07 57. 8 56. 9 1996 2. 81 63. 2 64. 9 1997 4. 29 62. 9 65. 2 1986 0. 71 67. 7 61. 3 1988 1. 44 69 63 1997 2. 49 73. 4 1998 3. 1 73. 6 1997 0. 98 60. 2 58. 1 1996 0. 9 61 65. 7 1999 1. 48 64 67. 4 2000 4. 45 64. 8 68. 1 2000 4. 45 64. 8 68. 1 1991 0. 56 67. 2 1993 0. 74 65. 2 58. 2 1986 0. 73 58 56. 7 1994 0. 58 51. 7 53. 7 1996 2. 19 1984 1. 85 56. 3 56. 7 1982 0. 5 55. 1 63. 2 1994 1. 75 62. 6 71. 1 1996 3. 7 59. 6 70. 8 1995 0. 64 63. 1 56. 1 1997 1. 62 64 54. 6 1999 1. 13 55. 5 58. 8 2001 0. 67 61. 1 50. 8 1994 0. 93 60. 4 1985 0. 75 65. 9 67. 5 1991 2. 75 44. 6 0. 89 60. 4 60. 5 1. 88 62. 7 64. 5 3. 01 66. 1 68. 5 5. 84 67. 8 67. 1 27
100 IBM Intel 28
4000 15000 Wells 1983 20 80 90 TCL 2007 29 2011 11
30
2011 11 3 3 2010 31
1. 20 20 70 70 75% 1983 64KDRAM 1969 1973 1978 1984 32
2011 11 2. 21 2005 4 21 1 2 3 4 1948 90 2 140 30 90% 3COM 3LEAF 33
IMF WTO 2010 FDI 6 2003 2007 2 2006 2010 2002 2011 Buckley P. and M. Casson 1976 The Future of the Multinational Enterprise London Macmillan. Helpman Elhanan Marc J. Melitz and Stephen R. Yeaple Export versus FDI with Heterogeneous Firms American Economic Review 3 300 316. Chenery Hollis B. and Alan M. Strout 1966 Foreign Assistance and Economic Development The American Economic Review Vol. 56 No. 4 Part 1 679 733. Hymer S. 1960 International Operations of National Firms A Study of Direct Foreign Investment Doctoral Dissertation Massachusetts Institute of Techonology. Dunning John H. 1977 Trade Location of Economic Activity and the Multinational Enterprise A Search for an Eclectic Approach in Ohlin B. P. O. Hesselbornamp and P. M. Nijkman ed The International Allocation of Economic Activity 395 418 London Macmillan. Dunning John H. 1980 Toward an Eclectic Theory of International Production Some Empirical Tests Journal of International Business Studies 1 9 31. Dunning John H. 1988 Explaining International Production London Unwin Hyman. Dunning John H. 1995 Reappraising the Eclectic Paradigm in an Age of Alliance Capitalism Journal of International Business Studies 3 461 491. Dunning John H. and Rajneesh Narula 2004 Multinationals and Industrial Competitiveness A New Agenda Edward Elgar Publishing Limited 38 71. Khalifah Noor Aini and Radziah Adam 2009 Productivity Spillovers from FDI in Malaysian Manufacturing Evidence from Micropanel Data Asian Economic Journal 6 143 167. Kojima Kiyoshi 1978 Direct Foreign Investment London Croon Helm. Lall S. 1983 The New Multinationals The Spread of Third World Enterprises London John Wiley &Sons. Krugman Paul 1991 History and Industry Location The Case of the Manufacturing Belt American Economic Review 2 80 83. 34
2011 11 Buckley Peter J. Jeremy Clegg and Chengqi Wang 2007 Is the Relationship between Inward FDI and Spillover Effects Linear An Empirical Examination of the Case of China Journal of International Business Studies 38 3 447 459. Buckley Peter J. and John H. Dunning 1976 The Industrial Structure of U. S. Direct Investment in the U. K. Journal of International Business Studies 2 5 13. Vernon Raymond 1966 International Investment and International Trade In The Product Cycle Quarterly Journal of Economics 5 190 207. Kathuria Vinish 2002 Liberalisation FDI and Productivity Spillovers An Analysis of Indian Manufacturing Firms Oxford Economic Papers New Series 4 88 718. Wells L. T. 1983 Third World Multinationals The Rise of Foreign Investment from Developing Countries The MIT Press. Andreff Wladimir 2001 Some New Economic Concepts Emerging From the Transformation Process DIEM Rport 2001 128 145. Yokota Kazuhiko and Akinori Tomohara 2009 A Decomposition of Factors Influencing Horizontal and Vertical FDI A Separate Analysis Eastern Economic Journal 3 462 478. Country-specific Advantages Supplementary Explanation of International Investment Theory Pei Changhong a and Zheng Wen b c a Institute of Economics CASS b Finance and Trade Economics Institute CASS c School of International Economics and Trade Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics Abstract The existing international investment theory makes multinational corporations as research subject. It thinks that the main advantage resources of multinational corporations conducting overseas investment are the firm advantages and the host country s location advantages. This understanding has certain rationality but its shortcoming is that it seriously neglected the role of home country in outward foreign investment thus difficult to fully explain the outward investment of contemporary developed countries and emerging countries. This paper establishes a supplementary explanation framework for multinational investment theory a home country is the cornerstone of a country s overseas investment enterprises the level of national income and the development level of service sector provide the basic conditions for overseas investment. Home countries with different conditions and different endowments created the industry advantages scale advantages location advantages organization advantages and other specific advantages for investment abroad. These advantages from home countries are also the sources of competitive advantages for domestic firms participating in international investment at the same time have significant affects. Key Words International Investment Country-specific Advantages JEL Classification F21 E22 35