본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
kiep logo

Contents

Citation

Citation
No Title

Article View

East Asian Economic Review Vol. 8, No. 2, 2004. pp. 257-287.

DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.11644/KIEP.JEAI.2004.8.2.130

Number of citation : 0

View
548

Download
174

PDF PPT Twitter Facebook

Abstract

Recent literature maintains there are at least two explanations for the motivations of FDI, one involving trade barriers (horizontal-FDI) and the other factor proportions hypothesis (vertical-FDI). The first view is that multinationals act in order to overcome trade barrier, and the second view is that multinationals arise to take advantage of international factor price differences. The purpose of this paper is to study the motivations of Korean foreign direct investment in China. Using the panel data on Korean FDI in China for the years 1988~2002, we examined the geographic determinants of direct investment in China from Korean firms. In doing so, we investigated, on the one hand, to what extent multinational activity is consistent with the factor proportions theory, i.e., to what extent multinational activity is related to cheap factor supplies. On the other hand, we study the market access motivation for multinational activity. Our econometric results suggest that factor proportions hypothesis is indeed the dominant influence on investor calculations for the early period of Korean FDI in China. Since end of 1990s, however, market-seeking FDI pattern is more common than FDI motivated by factor price differentials. We also find that the hypothesis that good-quality infrastructure is conducive to attracting FDI is not supported for Korean firms. Evidence supports the claim that regions with high degree of reform, which implement preferential treatments to foreign investors, still have advantage over other regions in attracting FDI. In sum, the findings in this paper indicate that Korean FDI for the early period of KorRecent literature maintains there are at least two explanations for the motivations of FDI, one involving trade barriers (horizontal-FDI) and the other factor proportions hypothesis (vertical-FDI). The first view is that multinationals act in order to overcome trade barrier, and the second view is that multinationals arise to take advantage of international factor price differences. The purpose of this paper is to study the motivations of Korean foreign direct investment in China. Using the panel data on Korean FDI in China for the years 1988~2002, we examined the geographic determinants of direct investment in China from Korean firms. In doing so, we investigated, on the one hand, to what extent multinational activity is consistent with the factor proportions theory, i.e., to what extent multinational activity is related to cheap factor supplies. On the other hand, we study the market access motivation for multinational activity. Our econometric results suggest that factor proportions hypothesis is indeed the dominant influence on investor calculations for the early period of Korean FDI in China. Since end of 1990s, however, market-seeking FDI pattern is more common than FDI motivated by factor price differentials. We also find that the hypothesis that good-quality infrastructure is conducive to attracting FDI is not supported for Korean firms. Evidence supports the claim that regions with high degree of reform, which implement preferential treatments to foreign investors, still have advantage over other regions in attracting FDI. In sum, the findings in this paper indicate that Korean FDI for the early period of Korean FDI in China is consistent with motives related to the factor proportions hypothesis, which explains that one of the determinants of FDI is to exploit the cheap labor of this country. On the other hand, recently motives related to horizontal FDI are more common.

JEL classification: C33, F21, O53

Keywords

FDI, Market Access, Factor Proportions, Panel Data, Random Effect Model

Language

Korean

References

  1. Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. 2002. Report and Joint Policy Recommendations on Strengthening Economic Cooperation among China, Japan, and Korea in 2002. Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy. (in Korean)
  2. Ahn, J. S. 2002. “A Study of the Installation Process and Managing System of Economic Development District in China,” Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 89-104. (in Korean)
  3. China Statistics Press. 1989-2003. China statistical yearbook. (in Chinese)
  4. Blonigen, B. A. and Davies, R. B. and K. Head. 2003. "Estimating the Knowledge-Capital Model of the Multinational Enterprise: Comment," American Economic Review, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 980-994. CrossRef
  5. Brainard, L. 1993a. "A Simple Theory of Multinational Corporations and Trade with a Trade-off between Proximity and Concentration," NBER Working Paper no. 4269.
  6. Brainard, L. 1993b. "An Empirical Assessment of the factor proportions Explanation of multinational sales," NBER Working Paper no. 4583.
  7. Brainard, L. 1997. "An Empirical Assessment of the Proximity-Concentration Trade off between multinational sale and trade," American Economic Review, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 520-544.
  8. Carr, D. L., Markusen, J. R. and K. E. Maskus. 2001. "Extimating the Knowledge-Capital Model of the Multinational Enterprise," American Economic Review, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 693-708. CrossRef
  9. Cheng, Leonard K. and H. Zhao. 1995. Geographical Pattern of Foreign Direct Investment in China: Location, Factor Endowments, and Policy Incentives. Department of Economics. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
  10. Cheng, Leonard K. and Yum K. Kwan. 2000. "What are the Determinants of the location of foreign direct investment? The Chinese experience," Journal of International Economics, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 379-400. CrossRef
  11. Feenstra, R. and G. Hanson. 1995. "Foreign Investment, Outsourcing and Relative Wages," In Feenstra, R., G. Grossman, and D. Irwin ed. Political Economy of Trade Policy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  12. Feenstra, R. 2001. "Global production and Rising Inequality: A survey of Trade and Wages," Mimeo. UC Davis and University of Michigan.
  13. Hanson, G., Mataloni, R. and M. Slaughter. 2001. "Expansion Strategies of U.S Multinational Firms," Mimeo. University of Michigan.
  14. Helpman, E. 1984. "A Simple Theory of International Trade with Multinational Corporations," Journal of Political Economy, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 451-471. CrossRef
  15. Helpman, E. 1985. "Multinational Corporation and International Trade, Evidence from 14 Industrial countries," Journal of the Japanese and International Economics, vol. 1, pp. 62-81.
  16. Helpman, E. and P. Krugman. 1985. Market structure and Foreign Trade. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  17. Horstman, I. and J. R. Markusen. 1987. "Strategic Investments and the Development of Multinationals," International Economic Review, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 109-121.
  18. Horstman, I. 1992. "Endogenous Market structures in International Trade," Journal of International Economics, vol. 32, no. 1-2, pp. 109-129. CrossRef
  19. Keller, W. 2003. International Technology Diffusion. Mimeo. University of Texas at Austin.
  20. Lee, Hongshik. 2003. "The Decision to Invest Abroad: The Case of South Korean Multinationals," KIEP Working Paper no. 03-02, Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy.
  21. Lee, Hongshik. 2004. "Expansion Strategies of South Korean Multinationals," KIEP Working Paper no. 04-05, Seoul: Korea Institute for International Economic Policy.
  22. Lipsey, R. E. 1999. "The Role of FDI in International Capital Flows," In Martin Feldstein ed. International Capital Flows, pp. 307-362. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  23. Lipsey, R. E. 2001. Foreign Direct Investment and the Operation of Multinational Firms. Mimeo. Queens University.
  24. Markusen, J. R. 1995. "The Boundaries of Multinational Enterprise and the Theory of International Trade," Journal of Economic Perspective, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 169-189. CrossRef
  25. Markusen, J. R. 1997. "Trade versus Investment Liberalization," NBER Working Paper no. 6231.
  26. Markusen, J. R., Venables, A., Eby-Konan, D. and K. Zhang. 1996. "A Unified Treatment of Horizontal Direct Investment, Vertical Direct Investment, and the Pattern of Trade in Goods and Services," NBER Working Paper no. 5696.
  27. Markusen, J. R. and K. Maskus. 2001. "General-Equilibrium Approaches to the Multinational Firm: A review of Theory and Evidence," NBER Working Paper no. 8334.
  28. Markusen, J. R., Ekholm, K. and R. Forslid. 2003. "Export-platform Foreign Direct Investment," NBER Working Paper no. 9517.
  29. Schrank, Anfrew. 2001. "Export Processing Zones: Free Market Islands or Bridges to Structural Transformation?" Development Policy Review, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 223-242. CrossRef
  30. World Bank. 1993. Foreign Direct Investment-Benefits Beyond Insurance. Washington DC.
  31. Yeaple, S. 2001. The Determinants of U.S. Outward Foreign Direct Investment: Market Access Versus Comparative Advantage. Mimeo. University of Wisconsin.
  32. Zhou, Changhui., Delios, A. and J. Y. Yang. 2002. "Locational Determinants of Japanese Foreign Direct Investment in China," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 63-86.
  33. United Nations. 1999. World Investment Report 1999.
  34. United Nations. 2003. World Investment Report 2003.