Related Literature
One branch of related literature has sought to explain possible relationships between
international trade and FDI. The traditional Heckscher-Ohlin (H-O) theorem of trade helps in
explaining the PRC's trade pattern. With the largest population in the world and relatively low
wages, the PRC has comparative and even absolute advantage in manufacturing laborintensive
products relative to most of its trading partners. As the PRC has increasingly
integrated into the world economy over the past three decades, it has evolved into a major
exporter in most categories of labor-intensive goods, as predicted by the H-O theorem.
Based on the same H-O framework, early theoretical analyses also predict product trade and
international capital movements act as substitutes (Mundell 1957). This framework indicates
an increase in a country's inward FDI flows will dampen its trade growth.
More recent theories that incorporate multinational enterprise production into models of
international trade develop two different hypotheses to explain the relationship between FDI
and trade flows. In vertical integration models such as Helpman (1984), the primary incentive
for FDI is to seek lower production costs in the host country and then to export goods
produced or processed by the firm's foreign affiliates. This type of FDI inflow will increase a
host country's trade, primarily through increased exports.2 On the other hand, a host
country's trade is predicted to decrease in horizontal integration models (Horstmann and
Markusen 1992) where FDI inflows substitute for imports. In this case, firms move the
production of their exportable products to the host country to economize on firm-level
economies of scale, avoid trade barriers, and reduce transportation costs.
Gu, Awokuse, and Yuan (2008) and Xing (2007) examine the recent relationship between
trade and FDI for the PRC. Gu, Awokuse, and Yuan (2008) use disaggregated
manufacturing sector data for 1995–2005 to conclude that the PRC's FDI inflows have
statistically significant and positive effects on the PRC's total exports, but these effects differ
across industries. With trade data from 1980 to 2004, Xing (2007) investigates to what extent
FDI promoted intra-industry trade between the PRC and its major trading partners; Japan
and the US. The analysis indicates that Japanese direct investment in the PRC performed a
significant role in enhancing intra-industry trade between Japan and the PRC. However,
there is no such evidence found for the US direct investment in the PRC. Therefore, the
effect of inward FDI on the PRC's economy can be different for different industries and
source countries.
Another branch of the literature has produced descriptive analyses focused typically on a
particular bilateral relationship or on a particular country's international linkages. For
example, Branstetter and Foley (2007) provide an example of the former, with a focus on
PRC-US FDI linkages.3 They attempt to debunk several misconceptions regarding US investment in the PRC by pointing out that US FDI in the PRC is not large, is not very exportoriented,
does not replace investment elsewhere, and does not exploit increased technology
levels in the PRC. The Japan-PRC relationship is examined in research such as Cassidy
and Andreosso-O'Callaghan (2006), which identifies spatial determinants of Japan's FDI in
the PRC.
Lipsey (2000) differs from the previously mentioned literature by focusing on the activities of
US and Japanese manufacturing affiliates in East Asia rather than on FDI flows. He finds
that US affiliates in East Asia were more export-oriented than were Japanese affiliates in
East Asia in 1977, but that the US affiliates became less export-oriented over time while the
Japanese affiliates became more export-oriented up to 1995. Since Lipsey's study used data
from 1977 as a starting point, the focus of his study was on the four so-called newly
industrializing economies—Hong Kong, China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and
Taipei,China—and four members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)—
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand. His results for American and Japanese
affiliates located in these other East Asian economics will be compared with our results for
affiliates in the PRC later in this paper.
Download this Paper [ PDF 138.1KB| 33 pages ].
Post a Comment | We welcome your feedback on this publication. Post a comment. ADBI is not obliged to acknowledge or publish comments and may abridge or edit them before web posting. |
Comment(s)
There are [0] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.
|
The views expressed in this paper are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), its Board of Directors, or the governments they represent. ADBI does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use. Terminology used may not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms.
|
|