基于后向关联分析的跨国并购与国家经济安全研究
|
摘要
跨国公司进入、外资并购国有企业、国家经济安全受到挑战,这些问题近年来不仅受到业界和学界的广泛关注,而且也引起了中央高层领导们的高度重视。一方面,我国坚持积极引进外资,包括允许跨国并购,给我国利用外资促进企业改组改制,提升企业竞争力带来难得的机遇;但另一方面,跨国公司并购我国骨干企业给国家经济安全也带来了不容忽视的隐患。
近年来,跨国公司在我国掀起了一场新的并购浪潮:并购领域不断扩大,从一般工、商领域迅速延伸到技术密集型的金融保险、能源交通以及重大装备制造业领域;廉价收购我骨干企业的优质资产、独有品牌、核心技术和制造能力,使得我国企业经过多年积累的一批自主知识产权流失;同时又严控技术转移,封锁核心技术。这种新的并购趋势削弱了我国技术研发平台,阻碍了我国技术水平的提高,威胁了国家经济安全。
当前,国际竞争力的核心就是国与国之间科技水平的竞争,技术水平的提高有多种渠道,获取技术外溢是广大发展中国家引进外资的一个重要目的,也是提高本国科技水平的一个便捷渠道。在新时期开放条件下,既要坚持积极引进外资的政策,包括允许跨国并购,又要坚持独立自主、自力更生的方针,因而,系统并深入地研究跨国并购对技术外溢的影响以及如何利用技术外溢提高本国行业利润和社会福利、维护国家经济安全都具有很强的理论意义和政策意义。
首先,本文对跨国并购与国家经济安全这两个层面的研究进行回顾和总结,并进行简要评述,为下文建模时从东道国国家层面选取跨国并购的影响因素以及国家经济安全衡量指标提供理论依据。
接着,本文探寻了跨国公司在广大发中国家产生技术外溢的主渠道,沿“截面数据→面板数据→外溢渠道”这一研究主线,通过对不同时期、不同数据样本、不同计量方案、不同外溢渠道下经验实证的对比,明确了上下游内外资企业间的后向关联渠道(Backward linkages)是跨国公司在发展中国家产生技术外溢、提高中间投入品生产行业技术水平的可靠渠道。
通过建立上下游双边垄断模型,在中间投入品为非贸易品以及并购可带来收益递增的条件下,运用三阶段逆向推导法和Shapley值法,定性分析了本国上游行业中间品生产技术水平的提高,在促使本土上下游企业组建联盟以抵御跨国并购中所起的作用,为进一步分析在跨国并购改变市场结构的前提下,本国上游中间品生产企业应如何尽可能地通过后向关联渠道挖掘技术外溢奠定基础。
在明确中间品生产技术水平的提高,对保障本国龙头企业免遭跨国并购的重要意义以后,本文将上下游双边垄断模型扩展成为包含4家企业在内的上下游双边寡头垄断模型,借鉴了联盟博弈理论中具有“平衡贡献性质”的中间投入品价格谈判机制,从而使得行业利润在企业间的分配具有Shapley值性质的前提下,定性分析了下游跨国公司对上游龙头企业的纵向并购机理,以及在有跨国并购改变市场结构以及2种中间品生产技术可供选择的情况下,在各市场结构中,通过后向关联渠道所获取的新技术对本国行业利润和社会福利的影响,并以此作为国家经济安全衡量指标。由此得出结论:只有当本国上下游企业联盟,与跨国公司在市场竞争方面取得一个均衡态势时,通过后向关联渠道所获取的新技术才会给本国行业利润和社会福利带来最大化收益,此时后向技术外溢效应最大,国家经济安全也可以得到最大限度的保障。
在得到定性分析结论后,本文以2002年的中国投入-产出系数和1999-2006年间38个工业部类的面板数据为样本,构造了反映后向技术外溢的后向关联渠道,实证结果表明:当内外资企业市场竞争处于均衡态势时,后向外溢效应为最大,且统计上显著。另外,分样本的检验结果还表明:上下游内外资企业间技术差距越大、下游行业外资企业集聚程度越强、上游行业内外资企业竞争越激烈、上游行业内资企业规模越大,均有利于后向外溢效应的发生。
最后,本文依据定性分析结果和定量分析结论,提出了在新时期开放局面下,在建立互利共赢的引资机制下,如何利用来自跨国公司的后向技术外溢提高本国技术水平、维护国家经济安全的政策建议。具体包括:组建上下游企业联盟、优化国有经济结构、完善宏观政策导向体系等。
本论文的理论价值是将跨国并购、技术外溢与国家经济安全置于统一的分析框架之中,通过建立上下游双边寡头垄断模型,借鉴了具有“平衡贡献性质”的中间投入品价格谈判机制,得到了跨国公司纵向并购机理、提高中间品生产技术以保障本国龙头企业免遭跨国并购,以及如何最大化地实现后向外溢效应的结论,这为建立并完善和谐统一、互利共赢的新时期对外开放体系提供了理论上的支撑。本论文的实际应用价值则是从定性结论以及定量角度系统、深入地研究了后向外溢效应及其各种影响因素,从而为今后我国招商引资政策的调整、国有企业深化改革、市场换技术的再实施提供了有益的借鉴。一方面可以指导我国企业更好地安排生产和投资的组合选择,另一方面也有助于改进我国宏观经济政策的制定和实施,提高宏观经济政策的效力。
Topics such as entry of Multinational Corporations (MNCs), merging and acquiring State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) by Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), which are challenges to our national economy security, have not only interested guild and academe, but also attracted attentions of central government’s senior leaders. On one hand, our nation must persist in introducing FDI, including M & A which can give us great opportunities to reorganize SOEs and upgrade their competition ability by making full use of it. On the other hand, we must not ignore the hidden troubles that cross-border M & A may bring to our national economy security.
Recently, MNCs have launched a new wave of M & A. With an even larger covering, MNCs have acquired enterprises from the fields of common industry and commerce to the fields of some particular industries such as finance, insurance, energy sources, and some vital manufacturing industries, which have a common feature of technology denseness. They purchase the high quality assets, proprietary brand, core technology and manufacturing ability of key SOEs at an easy rate. These actions make a set of independent intellectual property rights disappear, which have been accumulated for many years by the SOEs. Yet, MNCs have been hardly controlling the technology transfer and closing off core technology. These new trends have weakened our nation’s R & D platform, blocked our nation’s technology from improving, and further threatened our national economy security.
Presently, the essence of international competition ability exists in the technology competition. There are many channels to improve technology, among which the technology spillover from MNCs is important. And many developing countries become interested in introducing FDI to obtaining technology spillover.
At the condition of new opening periods, we must insist in not only introducing FDI actively, including cross-border Merge and Acquisiton, but also the policy of independence and self-helping. Hence, it makes sense to systematically and thoroughly research the influence of cross-border M & A to technology spillover and the method to improve our nation’s industry profits and social welfare in order to protect our national economy security.
First of all, this paper provides a literature review on the cross-border M & A and national economy security. It lays a foundation of theory and direction for further analyzing the factors which can influence the cross-border M & A and choosing the index of national economy security.
Secondly, the paper looks into the main channels of technology spillover which MNCs have taken to developing countries. Along the clue of“sectional data→panel data→spillover channel”, the empirical researches at different periods, with different data samples and different econometric plans are compared. It comes to the result that the backward relationship between up-river domestic enterprises and down-river MNCs is a reliable spillover channel.
Thirdly, under the hypotheses of un-tradable intermediate inputs and increasing income brought by acquisition, the paper uses three-stage backward induction and Shapley Value to qualitatively analyze the effects of improving intermediate inputs producing technology on preventing MNCs from vicious merging our up-river domestic leading enterprise by alliance of up-river and down-river enterprises. A model of bilaterally monopolistic industries is constructed. It lays a foundation for further analysis on how to get the maximal technology spillovers from down-river MNCs through backward linkages, on the condition of changing of market structure by acquisition.
Fourthly, by analyzing the bilaterally monopolistic industries, the paper reveals the importance of improving intermediate inputs producing techonolgy when protecting leading enterprise from merged. The model of bilaterally monopolistic industries then is extended to the model of bilaterally oligopolistic industries, and the balancedness of game with coalitions to the negotiation of intermediate inputs price between up- and down-river industries, which can make profits distribution among enterprises have character of Shapley Value, is introduced to qualitatively analyze the mechanism of MNCs’vertical acquisition and the effects from down-river MNCs on host country’s social welfare and industrial profits which are regarded as the indices of national economy security, under the condition of cross-border acquisition and choice of two intermediate inputs producing technologies. The result is that when the domestic enterprises and MNCs have equal market shares, host country’s industrial profits and social welfare benefit from backward technology spillovers can reach the maximum level, where the effects of backward technology spillovers are the biggest, and the national economy security can be farthest protected.
Fifthly, with the results of the qualitative analysis, the paper uses a panel data, which includes China input-output tables in 2002 years and index of 38 industries from 1999-2006, to construct a index between up-river domestic enterprises and down-river MNCs, which can represent the backward technology spillovers. The empirical test proves that when the domestic enterprises and MNCs have equal market shares, the backward effects are the biggest and it is distinct in statistics. Further, the sub-sample’test shows that the bigger the technology gap between up-river domestic enterprises and down-river MNCs, the higher centralization of down-river MNCs, the stronger the competition between domestic and foreign enterprises in up-river industry, the larger the scale of up-river domestic enterprises, the more likely the effects of backward technology spillover happen.
Finally, Based on the conclusions from qualitative and quantitative analysis above, some policies, such as domestic down-river enterprise alliance with up-river enterprise, optimizing state owned economy, perfecting oriented mechanism of macro-economy policy, are suggested to make full use of the backward technology spillovers from MNCs to upgrade our country’s technology level and ensure our national economy security under new opening periods and reciprocal institution.
This paper’s academic merit is putting the cross-border M & A, technology spillover and national economy security into a uniform analysis frame, by constructing the model of bilaterally oligopolistic industries and introducing the balancedness to negotiation of intermediate inputs price, to get the conclusions on mechanism of vertical acquisition, the importance of intermediate inputs producing technology in anti-vicious acquisition and how to realize the maximal backward technology spillovers, which supplies the theoretic support to how to build and perfect harmonious and reciprocal opening institution in new periods. The paper’s practical merits are empirically testing the backward technology spillovers taking place in our country and the factors, which can provide some advices on adjusting of introducing FDI, deepening reform of SOEs, re-operating of exchange between market and foreign technology. On one hand, it can better guide our domestic enterprises’combination of production and investment. On the other hand, it can help to advance the working-out and implementing of our national macro-economy policy, improving its effectiveness.
近年来,跨国公司在我国掀起了一场新的并购浪潮:并购领域不断扩大,从一般工、商领域迅速延伸到技术密集型的金融保险、能源交通以及重大装备制造业领域;廉价收购我骨干企业的优质资产、独有品牌、核心技术和制造能力,使得我国企业经过多年积累的一批自主知识产权流失;同时又严控技术转移,封锁核心技术。这种新的并购趋势削弱了我国技术研发平台,阻碍了我国技术水平的提高,威胁了国家经济安全。
当前,国际竞争力的核心就是国与国之间科技水平的竞争,技术水平的提高有多种渠道,获取技术外溢是广大发展中国家引进外资的一个重要目的,也是提高本国科技水平的一个便捷渠道。在新时期开放条件下,既要坚持积极引进外资的政策,包括允许跨国并购,又要坚持独立自主、自力更生的方针,因而,系统并深入地研究跨国并购对技术外溢的影响以及如何利用技术外溢提高本国行业利润和社会福利、维护国家经济安全都具有很强的理论意义和政策意义。
首先,本文对跨国并购与国家经济安全这两个层面的研究进行回顾和总结,并进行简要评述,为下文建模时从东道国国家层面选取跨国并购的影响因素以及国家经济安全衡量指标提供理论依据。
接着,本文探寻了跨国公司在广大发中国家产生技术外溢的主渠道,沿“截面数据→面板数据→外溢渠道”这一研究主线,通过对不同时期、不同数据样本、不同计量方案、不同外溢渠道下经验实证的对比,明确了上下游内外资企业间的后向关联渠道(Backward linkages)是跨国公司在发展中国家产生技术外溢、提高中间投入品生产行业技术水平的可靠渠道。
通过建立上下游双边垄断模型,在中间投入品为非贸易品以及并购可带来收益递增的条件下,运用三阶段逆向推导法和Shapley值法,定性分析了本国上游行业中间品生产技术水平的提高,在促使本土上下游企业组建联盟以抵御跨国并购中所起的作用,为进一步分析在跨国并购改变市场结构的前提下,本国上游中间品生产企业应如何尽可能地通过后向关联渠道挖掘技术外溢奠定基础。
在明确中间品生产技术水平的提高,对保障本国龙头企业免遭跨国并购的重要意义以后,本文将上下游双边垄断模型扩展成为包含4家企业在内的上下游双边寡头垄断模型,借鉴了联盟博弈理论中具有“平衡贡献性质”的中间投入品价格谈判机制,从而使得行业利润在企业间的分配具有Shapley值性质的前提下,定性分析了下游跨国公司对上游龙头企业的纵向并购机理,以及在有跨国并购改变市场结构以及2种中间品生产技术可供选择的情况下,在各市场结构中,通过后向关联渠道所获取的新技术对本国行业利润和社会福利的影响,并以此作为国家经济安全衡量指标。由此得出结论:只有当本国上下游企业联盟,与跨国公司在市场竞争方面取得一个均衡态势时,通过后向关联渠道所获取的新技术才会给本国行业利润和社会福利带来最大化收益,此时后向技术外溢效应最大,国家经济安全也可以得到最大限度的保障。
在得到定性分析结论后,本文以2002年的中国投入-产出系数和1999-2006年间38个工业部类的面板数据为样本,构造了反映后向技术外溢的后向关联渠道,实证结果表明:当内外资企业市场竞争处于均衡态势时,后向外溢效应为最大,且统计上显著。另外,分样本的检验结果还表明:上下游内外资企业间技术差距越大、下游行业外资企业集聚程度越强、上游行业内外资企业竞争越激烈、上游行业内资企业规模越大,均有利于后向外溢效应的发生。
最后,本文依据定性分析结果和定量分析结论,提出了在新时期开放局面下,在建立互利共赢的引资机制下,如何利用来自跨国公司的后向技术外溢提高本国技术水平、维护国家经济安全的政策建议。具体包括:组建上下游企业联盟、优化国有经济结构、完善宏观政策导向体系等。
本论文的理论价值是将跨国并购、技术外溢与国家经济安全置于统一的分析框架之中,通过建立上下游双边寡头垄断模型,借鉴了具有“平衡贡献性质”的中间投入品价格谈判机制,得到了跨国公司纵向并购机理、提高中间品生产技术以保障本国龙头企业免遭跨国并购,以及如何最大化地实现后向外溢效应的结论,这为建立并完善和谐统一、互利共赢的新时期对外开放体系提供了理论上的支撑。本论文的实际应用价值则是从定性结论以及定量角度系统、深入地研究了后向外溢效应及其各种影响因素,从而为今后我国招商引资政策的调整、国有企业深化改革、市场换技术的再实施提供了有益的借鉴。一方面可以指导我国企业更好地安排生产和投资的组合选择,另一方面也有助于改进我国宏观经济政策的制定和实施,提高宏观经济政策的效力。
Topics such as entry of Multinational Corporations (MNCs), merging and acquiring State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) by Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), which are challenges to our national economy security, have not only interested guild and academe, but also attracted attentions of central government’s senior leaders. On one hand, our nation must persist in introducing FDI, including M & A which can give us great opportunities to reorganize SOEs and upgrade their competition ability by making full use of it. On the other hand, we must not ignore the hidden troubles that cross-border M & A may bring to our national economy security.
Recently, MNCs have launched a new wave of M & A. With an even larger covering, MNCs have acquired enterprises from the fields of common industry and commerce to the fields of some particular industries such as finance, insurance, energy sources, and some vital manufacturing industries, which have a common feature of technology denseness. They purchase the high quality assets, proprietary brand, core technology and manufacturing ability of key SOEs at an easy rate. These actions make a set of independent intellectual property rights disappear, which have been accumulated for many years by the SOEs. Yet, MNCs have been hardly controlling the technology transfer and closing off core technology. These new trends have weakened our nation’s R & D platform, blocked our nation’s technology from improving, and further threatened our national economy security.
Presently, the essence of international competition ability exists in the technology competition. There are many channels to improve technology, among which the technology spillover from MNCs is important. And many developing countries become interested in introducing FDI to obtaining technology spillover.
At the condition of new opening periods, we must insist in not only introducing FDI actively, including cross-border Merge and Acquisiton, but also the policy of independence and self-helping. Hence, it makes sense to systematically and thoroughly research the influence of cross-border M & A to technology spillover and the method to improve our nation’s industry profits and social welfare in order to protect our national economy security.
First of all, this paper provides a literature review on the cross-border M & A and national economy security. It lays a foundation of theory and direction for further analyzing the factors which can influence the cross-border M & A and choosing the index of national economy security.
Secondly, the paper looks into the main channels of technology spillover which MNCs have taken to developing countries. Along the clue of“sectional data→panel data→spillover channel”, the empirical researches at different periods, with different data samples and different econometric plans are compared. It comes to the result that the backward relationship between up-river domestic enterprises and down-river MNCs is a reliable spillover channel.
Thirdly, under the hypotheses of un-tradable intermediate inputs and increasing income brought by acquisition, the paper uses three-stage backward induction and Shapley Value to qualitatively analyze the effects of improving intermediate inputs producing technology on preventing MNCs from vicious merging our up-river domestic leading enterprise by alliance of up-river and down-river enterprises. A model of bilaterally monopolistic industries is constructed. It lays a foundation for further analysis on how to get the maximal technology spillovers from down-river MNCs through backward linkages, on the condition of changing of market structure by acquisition.
Fourthly, by analyzing the bilaterally monopolistic industries, the paper reveals the importance of improving intermediate inputs producing techonolgy when protecting leading enterprise from merged. The model of bilaterally monopolistic industries then is extended to the model of bilaterally oligopolistic industries, and the balancedness of game with coalitions to the negotiation of intermediate inputs price between up- and down-river industries, which can make profits distribution among enterprises have character of Shapley Value, is introduced to qualitatively analyze the mechanism of MNCs’vertical acquisition and the effects from down-river MNCs on host country’s social welfare and industrial profits which are regarded as the indices of national economy security, under the condition of cross-border acquisition and choice of two intermediate inputs producing technologies. The result is that when the domestic enterprises and MNCs have equal market shares, host country’s industrial profits and social welfare benefit from backward technology spillovers can reach the maximum level, where the effects of backward technology spillovers are the biggest, and the national economy security can be farthest protected.
Fifthly, with the results of the qualitative analysis, the paper uses a panel data, which includes China input-output tables in 2002 years and index of 38 industries from 1999-2006, to construct a index between up-river domestic enterprises and down-river MNCs, which can represent the backward technology spillovers. The empirical test proves that when the domestic enterprises and MNCs have equal market shares, the backward effects are the biggest and it is distinct in statistics. Further, the sub-sample’test shows that the bigger the technology gap between up-river domestic enterprises and down-river MNCs, the higher centralization of down-river MNCs, the stronger the competition between domestic and foreign enterprises in up-river industry, the larger the scale of up-river domestic enterprises, the more likely the effects of backward technology spillover happen.
Finally, Based on the conclusions from qualitative and quantitative analysis above, some policies, such as domestic down-river enterprise alliance with up-river enterprise, optimizing state owned economy, perfecting oriented mechanism of macro-economy policy, are suggested to make full use of the backward technology spillovers from MNCs to upgrade our country’s technology level and ensure our national economy security under new opening periods and reciprocal institution.
This paper’s academic merit is putting the cross-border M & A, technology spillover and national economy security into a uniform analysis frame, by constructing the model of bilaterally oligopolistic industries and introducing the balancedness to negotiation of intermediate inputs price, to get the conclusions on mechanism of vertical acquisition, the importance of intermediate inputs producing technology in anti-vicious acquisition and how to realize the maximal backward technology spillovers, which supplies the theoretic support to how to build and perfect harmonious and reciprocal opening institution in new periods. The paper’s practical merits are empirically testing the backward technology spillovers taking place in our country and the factors, which can provide some advices on adjusting of introducing FDI, deepening reform of SOEs, re-operating of exchange between market and foreign technology. On one hand, it can better guide our domestic enterprises’combination of production and investment. On the other hand, it can help to advance the working-out and implementing of our national macro-economy policy, improving its effectiveness.
引文
[1]王允贵.利用外商投资中“以市场换技术”剖析.国际贸易问题, 1996, (9):50-53
[2]宋志刚,王力强.引进外商直接投资面临新形势. http://www.cass.net.cn/file /2004062214979.html, 2004-06-22
[3]曾繁华,李坚.“以市场换技术”制度安排问题研究.管理世界, 2000, (5):191-203
[4] Dunning, J.H. Trade, location of economic activity and the MNE: a search for an eclectic approach. London: Holms & Meier Press, 1977, 77-98
[5] Markusen J.R., Venables A.J. Multinational firms and the new trade theory. Journal of International Economics, 1998, 46 (2):183-203
[6]江小涓.中国的外资经济对增长、结构升级和竞争力的贡献.中国社会科学, 2002, (6):4-14
[7]吴易风.关于引进外资的政策思考.高校理论战线, 1995, (5):7-8
[8]杨永华.利用外资与维护国家经济安全.北京:中国发展出版社, 1999, 45-50
[9]左大培.跨国公司及其对东道国经济影响的再分析.国际经济评论, 2003, (5):35-39
[10] Kahler Miles. Economic security in an era of globalization: definition and provision. The Pacific Review, 2004, 17(4):485-502
[11] Nesadurai, Helen E.S. Globalisation and economic security in east Asia. London: Routledge Press, 2006, 205-211
[12]李海舰.外资进入与国家经济安全.中国工业经济, 1997, (8):62-66
[13]李欣广.引进外资与维护国家经济安全.国际贸易问题, 1999, (8):36-40
[14]魏浩.经济全球化条件下我国外资优惠政策与国家经济安全的考虑.财贸研究, 2002, (5):90-92
[15]魏浩,马野青.外商直接投资对我国经济安全的影响.中央财经大学学报, 2005, (3):66-70
[16]高梁.对跨国公司并购我国装备制造业骨干企业的反思.学习与实践, 2006, (3):5-12
[17]郭丽岩,路风.自强还是自残?——有关外资收购中国骨干企业的深层次议题.国际经济评论, 2006, (6):27-31
[18] Melin, L. Internationalization as a strategy process. Strategic Management Journal, 1992, (13): 99-118
[19] Chang, S.J. International expansion strategy of Japanese firms: capability building through sequential entry. Academy of Management Journal, 1995, (38): 383-407
[20] Buckley P, and Casson M. The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan Press, 1976, 159-162
[21] Caves, R.E. Multinational firms and economic analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982, 263-270
[22] Davidson WH. Global strategic management. New York: Wiley [r, 1982, 333-336
[23] Hennart Jean-Francois, and Park Young-Ryeol. Greenfield vs. acquisition: the strategy of Japanese investors in the United States. Management Science, 1993, 39 (9): 1054-1070
[24] Cho, K.R., and P.Padmanabhan. Acquisition versus new venture: the choice of foreign establishment mode by Japanese firms. Journal of International Management, 1995, 1(3): 255-285
[25] Yoshida, M. Japanese direct manufacturing investment in the United States. New York: Praeger Press, 1987, 87-90
[26] Kujawa, D. Production practices and strategies of foreign multinationals in the United States-case studies with a special focus on the Japanese. New York: International Labor Affairs Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor, 1984, 77-80
[27] Hennart, J.-F. A transaction costs theory of equity joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 1988, 9(4): 361-374.
[28] Wilson, B. The propensity of multinational companies to expand through acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 1980, 11(1): 59-65
[29] Hennart J-F. A theory of multinational enterprise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1982, 123-126
[30] Andersson T, Arvidsson N, and Svensson R. Reconsidering the choice between takeover and Greenfield operations. Working Paper 342. Stockholm: The Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research, 1992, 1-35
[31] Andersson T, and Svensson R. Entry modes for direct investment determined by the composition of firm-specific skill. Scandinavia Journal of Economics, 1994, 96(4): 551-560
[32] Barkema H., Vermeulen AM. International expansion through start-up or throughacquisition: a learning perspective. Academic Management Journal, 1998, 1(2): 7-26
[33] Larimo Jorma. Form of investment by Nordic firms in world markets. Journal of Business Research, 2003, 56(10): 791-803.
[34] Caves, R.E., and S.Mehra. Entry of foreign multinationals into U.S. manufacturing industries. In M.Porter(ed), Competition in Global Industries. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1986, MA, 459-481.
[35] Zejan Mario. New ventures of acquisitions: The choice of Swedish multinational enterprises. The journal of industrial economics, 1990, 38(3): 349-355
[36] Yip George S. Diversification entry: internal development versus acquisition. Strategic Management Journal, 1982, 3(4): 331-345
[37] Chatterjee, S. Excess resources, utilization costs, and mode of entry. Academy of Management Journal, 1990, 33(4): 780-800
[38] Oster, S. Modern competitive analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, 1990, 77-79
[39] Ansoff, H.Igor. Corporate strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965, 108-110
[40] Kogut Bruce, and Singh Harbir. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 1988, 19(3): 411-432
[41] Hall, B.H. The effect of takeover activity on corporate research and development. In Auerbach, A.J. (ed), Corporate Takeovers: Causes and Consequences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for NBER, 1987, 55-70
[42] Gort. An economic disturbance theory of mergers. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1969, 83(4):624-642
[43] Harris, R.S., and Ravenscraft, D. The role of acquisitions on foreign direct investment evidence from the U.S. stock market. Journal of Finance, 1991, 46(3): 825-844
[44] Zou Huan, and Simpson Paul. Why foreign takeovers in China differ across industries. Working Paper, United Kingdom: Loughborough Business School, Manchester Business School, 2006, 1-45
[45] Khoury, S. Transnational mergers and acquisitions in the United States. New York: Lexington Books, 1980, 146-155
[46] Knickerbocker, F.T. Oligopolistic reaction and multinational enterprise. Division of Research. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1973, 107-111
[47] Yu,C.-M., K.Ito. Oligopolistic reaction and foreign direct investment: the case ofthe U.S. tire and textile industries. Journal of International Business Studies, 1988, 19(3): 449-460
[48] Johanson, J., J.E. Vahine. The internationalization process of the firm-a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 1977, 8(1): 22-32.
[49] Lincoln, J.R., M. Hanada & J.Olson. Cultural orientations and individual reactions to organizations: a study of employees of Japanese-owned firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1981, 26(1): 93-115.
[50] Penrose, E. The theory of the growth of the firm. Blackwell, Oxford, 1959, 59-70
[51] Hoskisson, R.E., and Hitt, M.A. Strategic control systems and relative R&D investment in large multiproduct firms. Strategic Management Journal, 1988, 9(6): 605-621
[52] Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 1984, 5(2): 171-180
[53] Granstrand, O., and Sjolanders, S. The acquisition of technology and small firms by large firms. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1990, 13(3): 367-386
[54] Blonigen, Bruce A., and Taylor, Christopher T. R&D intensity and acquisitions in high-technology industries: evidence from the US electronic and electrical equipment industries. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 2000, 48(1): 47-70
[55] Ghoshal, S. Global strategy: an organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal, 1987, 8(5): 425-440
[56] Kim, W.C., Hwang, P., and Burgers, W.P. Multinationals’diversification and risk-return trade-off. Strategic Management Journal, 1993, 14(4): 275-286
[57] Abrahamson, E., and Fombrun, C.J. Microcultures: determinants and consequences. Academy of Management Review, 1994, 19(4): 728-755
[58] Miller, D., and Chen, M-J. Sources and consequences of competitive inertia: a study of the U.S. airline industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1994, 39(7): 1-23
[59] Miller, D., and Chen, M-J. The simplicity of competitive repertoires: an empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 17(6): 419-439
[60] Peteraf, M.A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 1993, 14(3): 179-191
[61] Teece, D.J. Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal ofEconomic Behavior and Organization, 1982, 3(1): 39-63
[62] Williamson, O.E. Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press, 1975, 420-431
[63] Williamson, O.E. The economic institutions of capitalism: firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press, 1985, 175-188
[64] Baysinger, B., and Hoskisson, R.E. Diversification strategy and R&D intensity in large multiproduct firms. Academy of Management Journal, 1989, 32(8): 310-332
[65] Hoskisson & Hitt. Strategic control systems and relative R&D investment in large multiproduct firms. Strategic Management Journal, 1988, 9(6):605-621
[66] Prahalad, C.K., and Hamel, G. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 1990, 68(3): 79-91
[67] Argyres, N. Evidence on the role of firm capabilities in vertical integration decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 17(2): 129-150
[68] d’Aveni, R.A., and Ravenscraft, D.J. Economies of integration versus bureaucracy costs: does vertical integration improve performances? Academy of Management Journal, 1994, 37(5): 1167-1206
[69] Pennings, J.M., Barkema, H.G., and Douma, S.W. Organizational learning and diversification. Academy of Management Journal, 1994, 37(3): 608-640
[70] Hartzing A-W. Acquisitions versus Greenfield investments: both sides of the picture. In: the Annual AIB Conference. Vienna, October, 1998, 1-75
[71] Dubin, Michael. Foreign acquisitions and the growth of the multinational firm. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard Business School, 1976, 207-215
[72] Forsgren M. Foreign direct investment in an interorganizational perspective-a model for foreign acquisition behaviour. CIF Working Papers, vol.1. Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1984, 1-88
[73] Agren L. Swedish direct investment in the U.S. PhD dissertation. Stockholm School of Economics, Institute of International Business, 1990, 56-60
[74] Yamawaki H. International competitiveness and the choice of entry mode: Japanese multinational in U.S. and European manufacturing industries. Working Paper 424. Stockholm,The Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research, 1994, 1-55
[75] Hennart J-F, Larimo J, Chen S-F. Does national origin affect the propensity of foreign investors to enter the United States through acquisition? Proceedings of the Univesrity of Vaasa. Discussion Papers, vol.189. Vaasa University of Vaasa, 1996, 1-42
[76] Larimo J. Mode of entry in foreign direct investments: behaviour of finnish firms in OECD markets. Proceedings of the University of Vaasa. Discussion Papers, vol.232. Vaasa: University of Vaasa, 1997, 1-36
[77] Padmanabhan P., and Cho KR. Decision-specific experience in foreign ownership and establishment strategies: evidence from Japanese firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 1999, 30(1): 25-44
[78] Brouthers Keith D., and Brouthers Lance Eliot. Acquisition of Greenfield start-up? Instiutional, cultural and transaction cost influences. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, 21(1): 89-97
[79] Hofstede, G. Organising for cultural diversity. European Management Journal, 1989, 7(4): 390-397
[80] Buckley & Casson. Analyzing foreign market entry strategies: extending the internalization approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 1998, 29(3):539-61
[81] Muller Thomas. Analyzing modes of foreign entry: greenfield investment versus acquisition. Discussion Paper 2001-01, Department of Economics, University of Munich, January, 2001, 1-64
[82] Mattoo Aaditya, Olarreaga Marcelo, Saggi Kamal. Mode of foreign entry, technology transfer, and FDI policy. Journal of Development Economics, 2004, 75(1): 95-111
[83] Eicher Theo,Kang Jong Woo. Trade, foreign direct investment or acquisition:optimal entry modes for multinationals. Journal of Development Economics, 2005, 77(1): 207-228
[84] Horstmann,I.J.,Markusen,J.R. Endogenous market structure in international trade. Journal of International Economics, 1992, 32(1): 109-129.
[85]夏申.跨国公司“入侵”与我国的经济安全.国际经济评论, 1996, (7): 20-24
[86]章昌裕,沈志斌.引进外资与国家经济安全.管理现代化, 1999, (3):33-37
[87]江勇,章奇,郭守润.经济安全及其评估.统计研究, 1999, (9):52-56
[88]刘衍玲.经济全球化背景下我国国家经济安全问题初探.求实, 2004, (11):132-133
[89]屈朝霞,寿莉.跨国公司直接投资与中国国家经济安全.工业技术经济, 2005, (5):40-41
[90]王存奎,张英军.外资热与国家经济安全.中国外资, 2004, (6):41-43
[91]雷家骕.关于国家经济安全研究的基本问题.管理评论, 2006, (7):3-8
[92]姚立新,张明志. FDI影响我国经济安全机理分析与评析.中国经济问题,1999, (1):15-20
[93]夏京文. FDI利用对我国经济安全的影响.工业技术经济, 2002, (3):119-121
[94]王洛林.中国外商投资报告:外商投资的行业分析.北京:经济管理出版社, 1997, 54-57
[95]徐莲子,谢保嵩.外商直接投资与我国经济安全.经济体制改革, 2003, (2):24-26
[96]王俊豪,吴晶晶.基于国家经济安全的跨国公司并购管制.经济与管理研究, 2006, (10):19-25
[97]戴海峰.外资并购热中的冷思考.当代经济研究, 2003, (3):24-26
[98]张英军.外资热与国家经济安全.中国外资, 2004,(6):41-43
[99]龙晓柏.外资对中西部区域经济安全影响研究.河北经贸大学学报, 2004, (5):37-41
[100]李红,卢晓勇.利用外资对我国金融安全的影响研究.江西社会科学, 2006, (9):160-165
[101]温耀庆,陈泰锋.论引进外资与国家经济安全.国际贸易问师, 2001, (2):35-41
[102]张德强,谭晶荣.对利用FDI项目中环境保护问题的思考.南京财经大学学报, 2005, (3):38-42
[103]赵蓓文.国家经济安全视角下的外资风险传导与扩散机制.世界经济研究, 2006, (3):21-26
[104]潘申彪,余妙志.江浙沪三省市外商直接投资与环境污染的因果关系检验.国际贸易问题, 2005, (12):74-79
[105]应瑞瑶,周力.外商直接投资、工业污染与环境规制——基于中国数据的计量经济学分析.财贸经济, 2006, (1):76-81
[106]罗志松,荣先恒.吸收FDI对我国经济安全的影响及其对策.世界经济研究, 2005, (2):4-8
[107] Caves R. Multinational firms, competition, and productivity in host country markets. Economica, 1974, 41(5): 176-193
[108] Blomstrom M. Foreign investment and productive efficiency: the case of Mexico. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 1986, 35 (1): 97-110
[109] Blomstrom, M., and E. N. Wolff. Multinational corporations and productivity convergence in Mexico. In William Baumol, Richard Nelson and Edward N. Wolff, Editors, Convergence of productivity: cross-national studies and historical evidence, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994, 202-230
[110] Sjoholm, F. Technology gap, competition and spillovers from direct foreigninvestment: evidence from establishment data. Journal of Development Studies, 1999, 36(1): 53-73
[111] Borensztein E, Gregorio J.De, Lee J-W. How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? Journal of International Economics, 1998, 45(1): 115-135
[112] Alfaro, L., A. Chanda, S. Kalemli-Ozcan, and S. Sayek. FDI and economic growth, the role of local financial markets. Journal of International Economics, 2004, 64(1): 89-112
[113] Haddad M, A. Harrison. Are there positive spillovers from direct foreign investment?: evidence from panel data for Morocco. Journal of Development Economics, 1993, 42(1): 51-74
[114] Aitken B., A. Harrison. Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence form Venezuela. American Economic Review, 1999, 89(3): 605-618
[115] Djankove, S., Hoekman, B. Foreign investment and productivity growth in Czech enterprises. World Bank Economic Review, 2000, 14(1): 49-64
[116] Kathuria, Vinish. Productivity spillovers from technology transfer to Indian manufacturing firms. Journal of International Development, 2000, 12(3): 343-369
[117] Kugler, Maurice. The diffusion of externalities from foreign direct investment: the sectoral pattern of technological spillovers. Mimeo, University of Southampton, 2001, 1-55
[118] Kinoshita, Yuko. R & D and technology spillovers through FDI: innovation and absorptive capacity. CEPR Discussion Paper DP2775, 2001, 1-36
[119] Bosco, Maria Giovanna. Does FDI contribute to technological spillovers and growth? A panel data analysis of Hungarian firms. Transnational Corporations, 2001, 10(1): 43-68
[120] Konings, Jozef. The effects of foreign direct investment on domestic firms: evidence from firm level panel data in emerging economies. Economics of Transition, 2001, 9(3): 619-633
[121] Damijan, Joze P., Boris Majcen, Mark Knell and Matija Rojec. The role of FDI, absorptive capacity and trade in transferring technology to transition countries: evidence from firm panel data for eight transition countries. Mimeo, UN Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva, 2001, 1-66
[122] Zukowska-Gagelmann, Katarzyna. Productivity spillovers from foreign directinvestment in Poland. Economic Systems, 2002, 24(3):78-101
[123] Liu Xiaming, Pamela Siler, Chengqi Wang and Yingqi Wei. Productivity spillovers from foreign direct investment: evidence from UK industry level panel data. Journal of International Business Studies, 2000, 31(3): 407-425
[124] Girma Sourafel, Holger Gorg and Mauro Pisu. The role of exports and foreign linkages for FDI productivity spillovers. Mimeo, University of Nottingham, 2000, 1-33
[125] Girma Sourafel, David Greenaway and Katharine Wakelin. Who benefits from foreign direct investment in the UK? Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 2001, 48(2): 119-133
[126] Girma Sourafel and Katharine Wakelin. Are there regional spillovers from FDI in the UK? In Greenaway, David, Richard Upward, Katharine Wakelin (eds.): Trade, Investment, Migration and Labour Markets. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2002, 505-511
[127] Harris Richard and Catherine Robinson. Spillovers from foreign ownership in the United Kingdom: estimates for UK manufacturing using the ARD. Mimeo, University of Durham, 2001, 1-42
[128] Haskel Jonathan E, Sonia C. Pereira and Matthew J. Slaughter. Does inward foreign direct investment boost the productivity of domestic firms? NBER Working Paper 8724, 2001
[129] Girma Sourafel. Geographic proximity, absorptive capacity and productivity spillovers from FDI: a threshold regression analysis. GEP Research Paper, University of Nottingham, 2002, 1-55
[130] Girma Sourafel and Holger Gorg. Foreign direct investment, spillovers and absorptive capacity: evidence from quantile regressions. GEP Research Paper, University of Nottingham, 2002, 1-36
[131] Ruane Frances and Ali Ugur. Foreign direct investment and productivity spillovers in Irish manufacturing industry: evidence from firm level panel data. Trinity Economic Papers, Trinity College Dublin, 2002, 1-42
[132] Barrios Salvador and Eric Strobl. Foreign direct investment and productivity spillovers: evidence from the Spanish experience. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 2002, 138(3): 459-481
[133] Pack, H., and Saggi, K. Vertical technology transfer via international outsourcing. Journal of Development Economics, 2001, 65 (2): 389-415
[134] Ragnhild Balsvik. FDI and mode of entry with vertical spillovers throughbackward linkages. Working Paper, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, 2003, 1-28
[135] Markusen, James R., and Venables, Anthony J. Foreign direct investment as a catalyst for industrial development. European Economic Review, 1999, 43(2): 335-356
[136] Hobday, M. Innovation in east Asia: the challenge to Japan. London: Edward Elgar, 1995, 112-140
[137] Lopez-Cordova., J. Ernesto. NAFTA and Mexico’s manufacturing productivity: an empirical investigation using micro-level data. Working Paper, Inter-American Development Bank, 2002, 1-40
[138] Javorcik, Beata S., and Spatareanu, Mariana. To share or not to share: does local participation matter for spillovers from foreign direct investment? Rutgers University, Newark Working Paper, 2006, 1-45
[139] Smarzynska, Beata K. Spillovers from foreign direct investment through backward linkages: does technology gap matter? Working Paper, the World Bank, 1818 H St, NW, MSN MC3-303, Washington DC, 2002a, No.20433, 1-53
[140] Smarzynska, Beata K. Determinants of spillovers from foreign direct investment through backward linkages. Working Paper, the World Bank, 1818 H St, NW, MSN MC3-303, Washington DC, 2002b, No.20433, 1-40
[141] Smarzynska, Beata K. Does foreign direct investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? The American Economic Review, 2004, 94 (3): 605-619
[142] Thangavelu, Shandre M., and Pattnayak, Sanja Samirana. Linkages and spillovers from foreign ownership in the Indian Pharmaceutical firms. Department of Economics SCAPE Working Paper Series, Singapore Centre for Applied and policy Economics, Paper No.2006, 1-56
[143] Blalock, Garrick. Technology from foreign direct investment: strategic transfer through supply chains. Discussion paper series. Berkelev: University of California, Haas School of Business, 2001, 1-34
[144] LIU Zhuomin, and LIN Ping. Backward linkages of foreign firect investment-evidence from China. Working Paper, Department of Economics, Hong Kong: Lingnan University, 2002, 1-55
[145] Merlevede, Bruno., and Schoors, Koen. FDI and the consequences towards more complete capture of spillover effects. Working Paper, Department of Economics and Centre for Russian International Sociao-Political and Economic Studies, Ghent University, Hoveniersberg 24, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium, 2006, 1-55
[146] Mucchielli, Jean-Louis., and Jabbour, Liza. Technology transfer through backward linkages: the case of the Spanish manufacturing industry. Working Paper, University of Paris I Pantheon-Sorbonne and TEAM-CNRS, 2006, 1-34
[147] Laura Alfaro & Andres Rodriguez-Clare. Multinationals and Linkages: An Empirical Investigation. Working Paper, Harvard Business School,Inter-American Development Bank, 2003, 1-55
[148] Rodriguez-Clare, Andres. Multinationals, linkages and economic development. American Economic Review, 1996, 86(4): 852-873
[149] Gorg, H., and Ruane, F. Multinational companies and linkages: panel-data evidence for the Irish electronics sector. International Journal of the Economics and Business, 2001, 8(1): 1-18
[150] Gorg, H., and Strobl, E. Multinational companies and indigenous development: an empirical analysis. European Economic Review, 2002, 46(7): 1305-1322
[151] Griliches, Zvi., and Mairesse, Jacques. Production functions: the search for identification. NBER Working Paper, No. W5067, 1995, 1-42
[152] Olley, G. Steven., and Pakes, Ariel. The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica, 1996, 64 (6): 1263-1297
[153] Levinsohn, James., and Petrin, Amil. Estimating production functions using imputs to control for unobservables. NBER Working Paper, 2000, No.7819, 1-55
[154]伍德里奇.计量经济学导论——现代观点.北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2003, 202-204
[155] Sinani, Evis., and Meyer, Klaus E. Spillovers of technology from FDI: the case of Estonia. Journal of Comparative Economics, 2004, 32(3): 445-466
[156] G?rg H. Analysing foreign market entry– the choice between greenfield investment and acquisitions. Journal of Economic Studies, 2002, 27(3):165-181
[157] Mülle, Thomas . Analyzing Modes of Foreign Entry: Greenfield Investment versus Acquisition. Mimeo, University of Munich, 2001, 1-33
[158] Salant S,Switzer S,Reynolds R J. Losses from horizontal merger: the effects from an exogenous change in industry structure on cournot nash equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1983, 98(2):185-199
[159] Perry M, Porter R. Oligopoly and the incentives for horizontal merger. American Economic Review, 1985, 75(1):219-227
[160] Fauli R. On merger profitability in a cournot settings. Economics Letters, 1997, 54(1):75-79
[161] Laixun Zhao. Unionization, vertical markets, and the outsourcing ofmultinationals. Journal of international econimics. 2001, 55(1):187-202
[162] Shapley, L.S. The solutions of a symmetric market game. Contributions to the theory of games, 1953(4):145-162.见:哈罗德·W·库恩.博弈论经典.北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2004,74-84
[163]王耀中,刘舜佳.关于跨国公司与前后向关联效应的研究综述.经济理论与经济管理, 2007, (1):34-39
[164] Theo Eicher, Jong Woo Kang. Trade, foreign direct investment or acquisition: optimal entry modes for multinationals. Journal of Development Economics, 2005, 77(1): 207-228
[165] Roman Inderst & Christian Wey. Bargaining,mergers,and technology choice in bilaterally oligopolistic industries. The RAND Journal of Economics, 2003, 34(1): 1-19
[166] Salant S,Switzer S,Reynolds R J. Losses from horizontal merger: the effects from an exogenous change in industry structure on cournot nash equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1983, 98(2): 185-199
[167] Myerson,R.G.. Graphs and cooperation in games. Mathematics and operations research,1977, 2(3): 225-229
[168]哈尔·R.范里安.微观经济学:现代观点.上海:上海人民出版社, 1994, 138-140
[169]包群,赖明勇. FDI技术外溢的动态测算及原因解释.统计研究, 2003, (6):33-38
[170]胡立法.“索洛剩余”与外资对中国经济增长的技术贡献率实证分析.世界经济研究, 2003, (10):54-62
[171]徐涛.引进FDI与中国技术进步.世界经济, 2003, (10):22-27
[172]阳小晓,赖明勇. FDI与技术外溢:基于金融发展的理论视角及实证研究.数量经济技术经济研究, 2006, (6):72-81
[173]沈坤荣.外国直接投资与中国经济增长.管理世界, 1999, (5):22-34
[174]何洁.外国直接投资对中国工业部门外溢效应的进一步精确量化.世界经济, 2000, (12):29-36
[175]陈斌,袁怀中.江苏外商直接投资外溢效应的实证研究.江苏统计, 2000, (9):23-25
[176]沈坤荣,耿强.外国直接投资、技术外溢与内生经济增长——中国数据的计量检验与实证分析.中国社会科学, 2001, (5):82-93
[177]王成岐,张建华,安辉.外商直接投资、地区差异与中国经济增长.世界经济, 2002, (4):15-23
[178]魏后凯.外商直接投资对中国区域经济增长的影响.经济研究, 2002, (4):19-26
[179]王飞.外商直接投资促进了国内工业企业技术进步吗.世界经济研究, 2003, (4):39-44
[180]潘文卿.外商投资对中国工业部门的外溢效应:基于面板数据的分析.世界经济, 2003, (6):3-7
[181]陈柳,刘志彪.本土创新能力、FDI技术外溢与经济增长.南开经济研究, 2006, (3):90-101
[182]李铁立.外商直接投资技术溢出效应差异的实证分析.财贸经济, 2006, (4):13-18
[183]刘舜佳. FDI与经济增长:基于金融市场吸收能力的研究.上海金融, 2007, (5):9-12
[184] Liu Zhiqiang. Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Spillover:Some Evidence from China. In: An International coference, Great China and the World Economy, Hong Kong, 2000, 1-36
[185]秦晓钟,胡志宝.外商对华直接投资技术外溢效应的实证分析.江苏经济探讨, 1998, (4):47-49
[186]陈涛涛.中国FDI行业内溢出效应的内在机制研究.世界经济, 2003, (9):23-28
[187]卢荻.外商投资与中国经济发展——产业和区域分析证据.经济研究, 2003, (9):40-48
[188]黄静波. FDI与广东技术进步关系的实证分析.管理世界, 2004, (9):81-86
[189]李广众,任佳慧.论我国外商直接投资的技术溢出效应——基于各地区19个制造业行业的经验分析.国际贸易问题, 2005, (4):78-80
[190]张海洋a. R&D两面性、外资活动与中国工业生产率增长.经济研究, 2005, (5):107-117
[191]严兵.“以竞争换技术”战略与外资溢出效应.财贸经济, 2005, (1):18-22
[192] Kokko, A. Technology market characteristics and spillovers. Journal of Development Economics, 1994, 43(2): 279-293
[193]周礼,张学勇. FDI对国有工业企业技术外溢效应的实证研究——基于宏观数据的联立方程模型分析.国际贸易问题, 2006, (4):90-94
[194]欧阳志刚.外商直接投资对工业行业内部的技术外溢.国际贸易问题, 2006, (5):69-74
[195]蒋殿春,黄静.微观层面吸收能力对FDI技术外溢的影响.经济与管理研究, 2006, (11):75-79
[196]姚洋,章奇.中国工业企业技术效率分析.经济研究, 2001, (10):35-46
[197] Tong Sarah Yueting. Foreign Direct Investment, Technology Transfer and Firm Performance. HIEBS Working Papers NO.1023, Hong Kong Institute of Economics and Business Strategy, 2001, 1-34
[198]王志鹏,李子柰.外资对中国工业企业生产效率的影响研究.管理世界, 2003, (4):17-25
[199]袁诚,陆挺.外商直接投资与管理知识溢出效应:来自中国民营企业家的证据.经济研究, 2005, (3):69-79
[200]胡祖六.关于中国引进外资的三大问题.国际经济评论, 2004, (3):24-28
[201]王春法. FDI与内生技术能力培养.国际经济评论, 2004, (3):19-22
[202]董书礼.以市场换技术战略成效不佳的原因辨析及我国的对策.商务重点软科学研究课题《我国加入WTO后的技术引进对策研究》研究报告, 2004
[203]张建华,欧阳轶雯.外商直接投资、技术外溢与经济增长——对广东数据的实证分析.经济学(季刊), 2003, (2):647-666
[204]许罗丹,谭卫红,刘民权.四组外商投资企业技术溢出效应的比较研究.管理世界, 2004, (6):14-25
[205]周燕,齐中英.基于不同特征FDI的溢出效应比较研究.中国软科学, 2005, (2):138-143
[206]王耀中,刘舜佳.基于前后向关联分析的外商直接投资与技术外溢.经济评论, 2005, (6):31-34
[207]刘宇.外商直接投资技术外溢效应下降之谜.财贸经济, 2006, (4):9-12
[208]张海洋b.中国工业部门R&D吸收能力与外资技术扩散.管理世界, 2005, (6):82-88
[209]中国统计年鉴编委会.中国统计年鉴.北京:中国统计出版社, 2000:408-449; 2001:402-445; 2002:424-467; 2003:460-503; 2004:518-553; 2005:490-510; 2006:506-555
[210]国家统计局国民经济核算司. 2002年中国投入产出表.北京:中国统计出版社, 2006:136-328
[211] Hausman, Jerry A. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 1978, 6(46): 1251-1271
[212]高铁梅.计量经济分析方法与建模——Eviews应用及实例.北京:清华大学出版社, 2006, 325-326
[213] Kokko, Ari, Rube Tansini, and Mario C Zejan. Local technological capability and productivity spillovers from FDI in the Uruguayan manufacturing sector. The Journal of Development Studies, 1996, 32(4):602-606
[214] Globerman, S. Foreign direct investment and spillover efficiency benefits in Canadian manufacturing industries. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1979, 12(1): 42-56
[215] Blomstrom, Magnus, and H. Persson. Foreign investment and spillover efficiency in an underdeveloped economy: evidence from the Mexican Manufacturing industry. World Development, 1983, 11: 493-501.
[216] Flores Jr., Renato G., Maris Paula Fontours, and Ogerio Guerrs Santos. Foreign direct investment spillovers: what can we learn from Portuguese data? Working Paper, 1999, 1-42
[217] Kokko, Ari, and Blomstrom, Magnus. Policies to encourage inflows of technology through for foreign multinationals. World Development, 1995, 23(3): 459-468
[218]麻挺松.代理合约特性与我国转轨经济中的地方政府间恶性竞争.河北经贸大学学报, 2006, (3):45-48
[219] Holmstrom,B., and Milgrom, P. Multi-task principal-agent analyses: incentive contracts, asset ownership, job design. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 1991, (7):24-52.
[220] Lazear, E. and S.Rosen. Rank-ordered tournaments as optimal labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 1981, 89:841-864.
[221]张成君.以公共优质政策促进产业良性竞争.经济问题, 2005, (6):15-17
[222]李孟刚.产业安全理论研究.北京:经济科学出版社, 2006, 309-310
[223]李荣融.“市场换技术”换不来领先技术.中国经济周刊, 2006, (17):13
[224]香伶.浅议R & D竞争与企业规模的关系.当代经济研究, 2005, (3):32-35
[225]田伯伏,杨运杰.企业规模、有效竞争与我国技术创新战略选择.中央财经大学学报, 2006, (7):55-58
[226] Christopher Freeman. The economics of industrial innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1982, 245-261
[2]宋志刚,王力强.引进外商直接投资面临新形势. http://www.cass.net.cn/file /2004062214979.html, 2004-06-22
[3]曾繁华,李坚.“以市场换技术”制度安排问题研究.管理世界, 2000, (5):191-203
[4] Dunning, J.H. Trade, location of economic activity and the MNE: a search for an eclectic approach. London: Holms & Meier Press, 1977, 77-98
[5] Markusen J.R., Venables A.J. Multinational firms and the new trade theory. Journal of International Economics, 1998, 46 (2):183-203
[6]江小涓.中国的外资经济对增长、结构升级和竞争力的贡献.中国社会科学, 2002, (6):4-14
[7]吴易风.关于引进外资的政策思考.高校理论战线, 1995, (5):7-8
[8]杨永华.利用外资与维护国家经济安全.北京:中国发展出版社, 1999, 45-50
[9]左大培.跨国公司及其对东道国经济影响的再分析.国际经济评论, 2003, (5):35-39
[10] Kahler Miles. Economic security in an era of globalization: definition and provision. The Pacific Review, 2004, 17(4):485-502
[11] Nesadurai, Helen E.S. Globalisation and economic security in east Asia. London: Routledge Press, 2006, 205-211
[12]李海舰.外资进入与国家经济安全.中国工业经济, 1997, (8):62-66
[13]李欣广.引进外资与维护国家经济安全.国际贸易问题, 1999, (8):36-40
[14]魏浩.经济全球化条件下我国外资优惠政策与国家经济安全的考虑.财贸研究, 2002, (5):90-92
[15]魏浩,马野青.外商直接投资对我国经济安全的影响.中央财经大学学报, 2005, (3):66-70
[16]高梁.对跨国公司并购我国装备制造业骨干企业的反思.学习与实践, 2006, (3):5-12
[17]郭丽岩,路风.自强还是自残?——有关外资收购中国骨干企业的深层次议题.国际经济评论, 2006, (6):27-31
[18] Melin, L. Internationalization as a strategy process. Strategic Management Journal, 1992, (13): 99-118
[19] Chang, S.J. International expansion strategy of Japanese firms: capability building through sequential entry. Academy of Management Journal, 1995, (38): 383-407
[20] Buckley P, and Casson M. The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan Press, 1976, 159-162
[21] Caves, R.E. Multinational firms and economic analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982, 263-270
[22] Davidson WH. Global strategic management. New York: Wiley [r, 1982, 333-336
[23] Hennart Jean-Francois, and Park Young-Ryeol. Greenfield vs. acquisition: the strategy of Japanese investors in the United States. Management Science, 1993, 39 (9): 1054-1070
[24] Cho, K.R., and P.Padmanabhan. Acquisition versus new venture: the choice of foreign establishment mode by Japanese firms. Journal of International Management, 1995, 1(3): 255-285
[25] Yoshida, M. Japanese direct manufacturing investment in the United States. New York: Praeger Press, 1987, 87-90
[26] Kujawa, D. Production practices and strategies of foreign multinationals in the United States-case studies with a special focus on the Japanese. New York: International Labor Affairs Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor, 1984, 77-80
[27] Hennart, J.-F. A transaction costs theory of equity joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 1988, 9(4): 361-374.
[28] Wilson, B. The propensity of multinational companies to expand through acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 1980, 11(1): 59-65
[29] Hennart J-F. A theory of multinational enterprise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1982, 123-126
[30] Andersson T, Arvidsson N, and Svensson R. Reconsidering the choice between takeover and Greenfield operations. Working Paper 342. Stockholm: The Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research, 1992, 1-35
[31] Andersson T, and Svensson R. Entry modes for direct investment determined by the composition of firm-specific skill. Scandinavia Journal of Economics, 1994, 96(4): 551-560
[32] Barkema H., Vermeulen AM. International expansion through start-up or throughacquisition: a learning perspective. Academic Management Journal, 1998, 1(2): 7-26
[33] Larimo Jorma. Form of investment by Nordic firms in world markets. Journal of Business Research, 2003, 56(10): 791-803.
[34] Caves, R.E., and S.Mehra. Entry of foreign multinationals into U.S. manufacturing industries. In M.Porter(ed), Competition in Global Industries. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1986, MA, 459-481.
[35] Zejan Mario. New ventures of acquisitions: The choice of Swedish multinational enterprises. The journal of industrial economics, 1990, 38(3): 349-355
[36] Yip George S. Diversification entry: internal development versus acquisition. Strategic Management Journal, 1982, 3(4): 331-345
[37] Chatterjee, S. Excess resources, utilization costs, and mode of entry. Academy of Management Journal, 1990, 33(4): 780-800
[38] Oster, S. Modern competitive analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, 1990, 77-79
[39] Ansoff, H.Igor. Corporate strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965, 108-110
[40] Kogut Bruce, and Singh Harbir. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 1988, 19(3): 411-432
[41] Hall, B.H. The effect of takeover activity on corporate research and development. In Auerbach, A.J. (ed), Corporate Takeovers: Causes and Consequences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for NBER, 1987, 55-70
[42] Gort. An economic disturbance theory of mergers. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1969, 83(4):624-642
[43] Harris, R.S., and Ravenscraft, D. The role of acquisitions on foreign direct investment evidence from the U.S. stock market. Journal of Finance, 1991, 46(3): 825-844
[44] Zou Huan, and Simpson Paul. Why foreign takeovers in China differ across industries. Working Paper, United Kingdom: Loughborough Business School, Manchester Business School, 2006, 1-45
[45] Khoury, S. Transnational mergers and acquisitions in the United States. New York: Lexington Books, 1980, 146-155
[46] Knickerbocker, F.T. Oligopolistic reaction and multinational enterprise. Division of Research. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1973, 107-111
[47] Yu,C.-M., K.Ito. Oligopolistic reaction and foreign direct investment: the case ofthe U.S. tire and textile industries. Journal of International Business Studies, 1988, 19(3): 449-460
[48] Johanson, J., J.E. Vahine. The internationalization process of the firm-a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 1977, 8(1): 22-32.
[49] Lincoln, J.R., M. Hanada & J.Olson. Cultural orientations and individual reactions to organizations: a study of employees of Japanese-owned firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1981, 26(1): 93-115.
[50] Penrose, E. The theory of the growth of the firm. Blackwell, Oxford, 1959, 59-70
[51] Hoskisson, R.E., and Hitt, M.A. Strategic control systems and relative R&D investment in large multiproduct firms. Strategic Management Journal, 1988, 9(6): 605-621
[52] Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 1984, 5(2): 171-180
[53] Granstrand, O., and Sjolanders, S. The acquisition of technology and small firms by large firms. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1990, 13(3): 367-386
[54] Blonigen, Bruce A., and Taylor, Christopher T. R&D intensity and acquisitions in high-technology industries: evidence from the US electronic and electrical equipment industries. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 2000, 48(1): 47-70
[55] Ghoshal, S. Global strategy: an organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal, 1987, 8(5): 425-440
[56] Kim, W.C., Hwang, P., and Burgers, W.P. Multinationals’diversification and risk-return trade-off. Strategic Management Journal, 1993, 14(4): 275-286
[57] Abrahamson, E., and Fombrun, C.J. Microcultures: determinants and consequences. Academy of Management Review, 1994, 19(4): 728-755
[58] Miller, D., and Chen, M-J. Sources and consequences of competitive inertia: a study of the U.S. airline industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1994, 39(7): 1-23
[59] Miller, D., and Chen, M-J. The simplicity of competitive repertoires: an empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 17(6): 419-439
[60] Peteraf, M.A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 1993, 14(3): 179-191
[61] Teece, D.J. Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal ofEconomic Behavior and Organization, 1982, 3(1): 39-63
[62] Williamson, O.E. Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press, 1975, 420-431
[63] Williamson, O.E. The economic institutions of capitalism: firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press, 1985, 175-188
[64] Baysinger, B., and Hoskisson, R.E. Diversification strategy and R&D intensity in large multiproduct firms. Academy of Management Journal, 1989, 32(8): 310-332
[65] Hoskisson & Hitt. Strategic control systems and relative R&D investment in large multiproduct firms. Strategic Management Journal, 1988, 9(6):605-621
[66] Prahalad, C.K., and Hamel, G. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 1990, 68(3): 79-91
[67] Argyres, N. Evidence on the role of firm capabilities in vertical integration decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 17(2): 129-150
[68] d’Aveni, R.A., and Ravenscraft, D.J. Economies of integration versus bureaucracy costs: does vertical integration improve performances? Academy of Management Journal, 1994, 37(5): 1167-1206
[69] Pennings, J.M., Barkema, H.G., and Douma, S.W. Organizational learning and diversification. Academy of Management Journal, 1994, 37(3): 608-640
[70] Hartzing A-W. Acquisitions versus Greenfield investments: both sides of the picture. In: the Annual AIB Conference. Vienna, October, 1998, 1-75
[71] Dubin, Michael. Foreign acquisitions and the growth of the multinational firm. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard Business School, 1976, 207-215
[72] Forsgren M. Foreign direct investment in an interorganizational perspective-a model for foreign acquisition behaviour. CIF Working Papers, vol.1. Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1984, 1-88
[73] Agren L. Swedish direct investment in the U.S. PhD dissertation. Stockholm School of Economics, Institute of International Business, 1990, 56-60
[74] Yamawaki H. International competitiveness and the choice of entry mode: Japanese multinational in U.S. and European manufacturing industries. Working Paper 424. Stockholm,The Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research, 1994, 1-55
[75] Hennart J-F, Larimo J, Chen S-F. Does national origin affect the propensity of foreign investors to enter the United States through acquisition? Proceedings of the Univesrity of Vaasa. Discussion Papers, vol.189. Vaasa University of Vaasa, 1996, 1-42
[76] Larimo J. Mode of entry in foreign direct investments: behaviour of finnish firms in OECD markets. Proceedings of the University of Vaasa. Discussion Papers, vol.232. Vaasa: University of Vaasa, 1997, 1-36
[77] Padmanabhan P., and Cho KR. Decision-specific experience in foreign ownership and establishment strategies: evidence from Japanese firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 1999, 30(1): 25-44
[78] Brouthers Keith D., and Brouthers Lance Eliot. Acquisition of Greenfield start-up? Instiutional, cultural and transaction cost influences. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, 21(1): 89-97
[79] Hofstede, G. Organising for cultural diversity. European Management Journal, 1989, 7(4): 390-397
[80] Buckley & Casson. Analyzing foreign market entry strategies: extending the internalization approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 1998, 29(3):539-61
[81] Muller Thomas. Analyzing modes of foreign entry: greenfield investment versus acquisition. Discussion Paper 2001-01, Department of Economics, University of Munich, January, 2001, 1-64
[82] Mattoo Aaditya, Olarreaga Marcelo, Saggi Kamal. Mode of foreign entry, technology transfer, and FDI policy. Journal of Development Economics, 2004, 75(1): 95-111
[83] Eicher Theo,Kang Jong Woo. Trade, foreign direct investment or acquisition:optimal entry modes for multinationals. Journal of Development Economics, 2005, 77(1): 207-228
[84] Horstmann,I.J.,Markusen,J.R. Endogenous market structure in international trade. Journal of International Economics, 1992, 32(1): 109-129.
[85]夏申.跨国公司“入侵”与我国的经济安全.国际经济评论, 1996, (7): 20-24
[86]章昌裕,沈志斌.引进外资与国家经济安全.管理现代化, 1999, (3):33-37
[87]江勇,章奇,郭守润.经济安全及其评估.统计研究, 1999, (9):52-56
[88]刘衍玲.经济全球化背景下我国国家经济安全问题初探.求实, 2004, (11):132-133
[89]屈朝霞,寿莉.跨国公司直接投资与中国国家经济安全.工业技术经济, 2005, (5):40-41
[90]王存奎,张英军.外资热与国家经济安全.中国外资, 2004, (6):41-43
[91]雷家骕.关于国家经济安全研究的基本问题.管理评论, 2006, (7):3-8
[92]姚立新,张明志. FDI影响我国经济安全机理分析与评析.中国经济问题,1999, (1):15-20
[93]夏京文. FDI利用对我国经济安全的影响.工业技术经济, 2002, (3):119-121
[94]王洛林.中国外商投资报告:外商投资的行业分析.北京:经济管理出版社, 1997, 54-57
[95]徐莲子,谢保嵩.外商直接投资与我国经济安全.经济体制改革, 2003, (2):24-26
[96]王俊豪,吴晶晶.基于国家经济安全的跨国公司并购管制.经济与管理研究, 2006, (10):19-25
[97]戴海峰.外资并购热中的冷思考.当代经济研究, 2003, (3):24-26
[98]张英军.外资热与国家经济安全.中国外资, 2004,(6):41-43
[99]龙晓柏.外资对中西部区域经济安全影响研究.河北经贸大学学报, 2004, (5):37-41
[100]李红,卢晓勇.利用外资对我国金融安全的影响研究.江西社会科学, 2006, (9):160-165
[101]温耀庆,陈泰锋.论引进外资与国家经济安全.国际贸易问师, 2001, (2):35-41
[102]张德强,谭晶荣.对利用FDI项目中环境保护问题的思考.南京财经大学学报, 2005, (3):38-42
[103]赵蓓文.国家经济安全视角下的外资风险传导与扩散机制.世界经济研究, 2006, (3):21-26
[104]潘申彪,余妙志.江浙沪三省市外商直接投资与环境污染的因果关系检验.国际贸易问题, 2005, (12):74-79
[105]应瑞瑶,周力.外商直接投资、工业污染与环境规制——基于中国数据的计量经济学分析.财贸经济, 2006, (1):76-81
[106]罗志松,荣先恒.吸收FDI对我国经济安全的影响及其对策.世界经济研究, 2005, (2):4-8
[107] Caves R. Multinational firms, competition, and productivity in host country markets. Economica, 1974, 41(5): 176-193
[108] Blomstrom M. Foreign investment and productive efficiency: the case of Mexico. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 1986, 35 (1): 97-110
[109] Blomstrom, M., and E. N. Wolff. Multinational corporations and productivity convergence in Mexico. In William Baumol, Richard Nelson and Edward N. Wolff, Editors, Convergence of productivity: cross-national studies and historical evidence, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994, 202-230
[110] Sjoholm, F. Technology gap, competition and spillovers from direct foreigninvestment: evidence from establishment data. Journal of Development Studies, 1999, 36(1): 53-73
[111] Borensztein E, Gregorio J.De, Lee J-W. How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? Journal of International Economics, 1998, 45(1): 115-135
[112] Alfaro, L., A. Chanda, S. Kalemli-Ozcan, and S. Sayek. FDI and economic growth, the role of local financial markets. Journal of International Economics, 2004, 64(1): 89-112
[113] Haddad M, A. Harrison. Are there positive spillovers from direct foreign investment?: evidence from panel data for Morocco. Journal of Development Economics, 1993, 42(1): 51-74
[114] Aitken B., A. Harrison. Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence form Venezuela. American Economic Review, 1999, 89(3): 605-618
[115] Djankove, S., Hoekman, B. Foreign investment and productivity growth in Czech enterprises. World Bank Economic Review, 2000, 14(1): 49-64
[116] Kathuria, Vinish. Productivity spillovers from technology transfer to Indian manufacturing firms. Journal of International Development, 2000, 12(3): 343-369
[117] Kugler, Maurice. The diffusion of externalities from foreign direct investment: the sectoral pattern of technological spillovers. Mimeo, University of Southampton, 2001, 1-55
[118] Kinoshita, Yuko. R & D and technology spillovers through FDI: innovation and absorptive capacity. CEPR Discussion Paper DP2775, 2001, 1-36
[119] Bosco, Maria Giovanna. Does FDI contribute to technological spillovers and growth? A panel data analysis of Hungarian firms. Transnational Corporations, 2001, 10(1): 43-68
[120] Konings, Jozef. The effects of foreign direct investment on domestic firms: evidence from firm level panel data in emerging economies. Economics of Transition, 2001, 9(3): 619-633
[121] Damijan, Joze P., Boris Majcen, Mark Knell and Matija Rojec. The role of FDI, absorptive capacity and trade in transferring technology to transition countries: evidence from firm panel data for eight transition countries. Mimeo, UN Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva, 2001, 1-66
[122] Zukowska-Gagelmann, Katarzyna. Productivity spillovers from foreign directinvestment in Poland. Economic Systems, 2002, 24(3):78-101
[123] Liu Xiaming, Pamela Siler, Chengqi Wang and Yingqi Wei. Productivity spillovers from foreign direct investment: evidence from UK industry level panel data. Journal of International Business Studies, 2000, 31(3): 407-425
[124] Girma Sourafel, Holger Gorg and Mauro Pisu. The role of exports and foreign linkages for FDI productivity spillovers. Mimeo, University of Nottingham, 2000, 1-33
[125] Girma Sourafel, David Greenaway and Katharine Wakelin. Who benefits from foreign direct investment in the UK? Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 2001, 48(2): 119-133
[126] Girma Sourafel and Katharine Wakelin. Are there regional spillovers from FDI in the UK? In Greenaway, David, Richard Upward, Katharine Wakelin (eds.): Trade, Investment, Migration and Labour Markets. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2002, 505-511
[127] Harris Richard and Catherine Robinson. Spillovers from foreign ownership in the United Kingdom: estimates for UK manufacturing using the ARD. Mimeo, University of Durham, 2001, 1-42
[128] Haskel Jonathan E, Sonia C. Pereira and Matthew J. Slaughter. Does inward foreign direct investment boost the productivity of domestic firms? NBER Working Paper 8724, 2001
[129] Girma Sourafel. Geographic proximity, absorptive capacity and productivity spillovers from FDI: a threshold regression analysis. GEP Research Paper, University of Nottingham, 2002, 1-55
[130] Girma Sourafel and Holger Gorg. Foreign direct investment, spillovers and absorptive capacity: evidence from quantile regressions. GEP Research Paper, University of Nottingham, 2002, 1-36
[131] Ruane Frances and Ali Ugur. Foreign direct investment and productivity spillovers in Irish manufacturing industry: evidence from firm level panel data. Trinity Economic Papers, Trinity College Dublin, 2002, 1-42
[132] Barrios Salvador and Eric Strobl. Foreign direct investment and productivity spillovers: evidence from the Spanish experience. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 2002, 138(3): 459-481
[133] Pack, H., and Saggi, K. Vertical technology transfer via international outsourcing. Journal of Development Economics, 2001, 65 (2): 389-415
[134] Ragnhild Balsvik. FDI and mode of entry with vertical spillovers throughbackward linkages. Working Paper, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, 2003, 1-28
[135] Markusen, James R., and Venables, Anthony J. Foreign direct investment as a catalyst for industrial development. European Economic Review, 1999, 43(2): 335-356
[136] Hobday, M. Innovation in east Asia: the challenge to Japan. London: Edward Elgar, 1995, 112-140
[137] Lopez-Cordova., J. Ernesto. NAFTA and Mexico’s manufacturing productivity: an empirical investigation using micro-level data. Working Paper, Inter-American Development Bank, 2002, 1-40
[138] Javorcik, Beata S., and Spatareanu, Mariana. To share or not to share: does local participation matter for spillovers from foreign direct investment? Rutgers University, Newark Working Paper, 2006, 1-45
[139] Smarzynska, Beata K. Spillovers from foreign direct investment through backward linkages: does technology gap matter? Working Paper, the World Bank, 1818 H St, NW, MSN MC3-303, Washington DC, 2002a, No.20433, 1-53
[140] Smarzynska, Beata K. Determinants of spillovers from foreign direct investment through backward linkages. Working Paper, the World Bank, 1818 H St, NW, MSN MC3-303, Washington DC, 2002b, No.20433, 1-40
[141] Smarzynska, Beata K. Does foreign direct investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? The American Economic Review, 2004, 94 (3): 605-619
[142] Thangavelu, Shandre M., and Pattnayak, Sanja Samirana. Linkages and spillovers from foreign ownership in the Indian Pharmaceutical firms. Department of Economics SCAPE Working Paper Series, Singapore Centre for Applied and policy Economics, Paper No.2006, 1-56
[143] Blalock, Garrick. Technology from foreign direct investment: strategic transfer through supply chains. Discussion paper series. Berkelev: University of California, Haas School of Business, 2001, 1-34
[144] LIU Zhuomin, and LIN Ping. Backward linkages of foreign firect investment-evidence from China. Working Paper, Department of Economics, Hong Kong: Lingnan University, 2002, 1-55
[145] Merlevede, Bruno., and Schoors, Koen. FDI and the consequences towards more complete capture of spillover effects. Working Paper, Department of Economics and Centre for Russian International Sociao-Political and Economic Studies, Ghent University, Hoveniersberg 24, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium, 2006, 1-55
[146] Mucchielli, Jean-Louis., and Jabbour, Liza. Technology transfer through backward linkages: the case of the Spanish manufacturing industry. Working Paper, University of Paris I Pantheon-Sorbonne and TEAM-CNRS, 2006, 1-34
[147] Laura Alfaro & Andres Rodriguez-Clare. Multinationals and Linkages: An Empirical Investigation. Working Paper, Harvard Business School,Inter-American Development Bank, 2003, 1-55
[148] Rodriguez-Clare, Andres. Multinationals, linkages and economic development. American Economic Review, 1996, 86(4): 852-873
[149] Gorg, H., and Ruane, F. Multinational companies and linkages: panel-data evidence for the Irish electronics sector. International Journal of the Economics and Business, 2001, 8(1): 1-18
[150] Gorg, H., and Strobl, E. Multinational companies and indigenous development: an empirical analysis. European Economic Review, 2002, 46(7): 1305-1322
[151] Griliches, Zvi., and Mairesse, Jacques. Production functions: the search for identification. NBER Working Paper, No. W5067, 1995, 1-42
[152] Olley, G. Steven., and Pakes, Ariel. The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica, 1996, 64 (6): 1263-1297
[153] Levinsohn, James., and Petrin, Amil. Estimating production functions using imputs to control for unobservables. NBER Working Paper, 2000, No.7819, 1-55
[154]伍德里奇.计量经济学导论——现代观点.北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2003, 202-204
[155] Sinani, Evis., and Meyer, Klaus E. Spillovers of technology from FDI: the case of Estonia. Journal of Comparative Economics, 2004, 32(3): 445-466
[156] G?rg H. Analysing foreign market entry– the choice between greenfield investment and acquisitions. Journal of Economic Studies, 2002, 27(3):165-181
[157] Mülle, Thomas . Analyzing Modes of Foreign Entry: Greenfield Investment versus Acquisition. Mimeo, University of Munich, 2001, 1-33
[158] Salant S,Switzer S,Reynolds R J. Losses from horizontal merger: the effects from an exogenous change in industry structure on cournot nash equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1983, 98(2):185-199
[159] Perry M, Porter R. Oligopoly and the incentives for horizontal merger. American Economic Review, 1985, 75(1):219-227
[160] Fauli R. On merger profitability in a cournot settings. Economics Letters, 1997, 54(1):75-79
[161] Laixun Zhao. Unionization, vertical markets, and the outsourcing ofmultinationals. Journal of international econimics. 2001, 55(1):187-202
[162] Shapley, L.S. The solutions of a symmetric market game. Contributions to the theory of games, 1953(4):145-162.见:哈罗德·W·库恩.博弈论经典.北京:中国人民大学出版社, 2004,74-84
[163]王耀中,刘舜佳.关于跨国公司与前后向关联效应的研究综述.经济理论与经济管理, 2007, (1):34-39
[164] Theo Eicher, Jong Woo Kang. Trade, foreign direct investment or acquisition: optimal entry modes for multinationals. Journal of Development Economics, 2005, 77(1): 207-228
[165] Roman Inderst & Christian Wey. Bargaining,mergers,and technology choice in bilaterally oligopolistic industries. The RAND Journal of Economics, 2003, 34(1): 1-19
[166] Salant S,Switzer S,Reynolds R J. Losses from horizontal merger: the effects from an exogenous change in industry structure on cournot nash equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1983, 98(2): 185-199
[167] Myerson,R.G.. Graphs and cooperation in games. Mathematics and operations research,1977, 2(3): 225-229
[168]哈尔·R.范里安.微观经济学:现代观点.上海:上海人民出版社, 1994, 138-140
[169]包群,赖明勇. FDI技术外溢的动态测算及原因解释.统计研究, 2003, (6):33-38
[170]胡立法.“索洛剩余”与外资对中国经济增长的技术贡献率实证分析.世界经济研究, 2003, (10):54-62
[171]徐涛.引进FDI与中国技术进步.世界经济, 2003, (10):22-27
[172]阳小晓,赖明勇. FDI与技术外溢:基于金融发展的理论视角及实证研究.数量经济技术经济研究, 2006, (6):72-81
[173]沈坤荣.外国直接投资与中国经济增长.管理世界, 1999, (5):22-34
[174]何洁.外国直接投资对中国工业部门外溢效应的进一步精确量化.世界经济, 2000, (12):29-36
[175]陈斌,袁怀中.江苏外商直接投资外溢效应的实证研究.江苏统计, 2000, (9):23-25
[176]沈坤荣,耿强.外国直接投资、技术外溢与内生经济增长——中国数据的计量检验与实证分析.中国社会科学, 2001, (5):82-93
[177]王成岐,张建华,安辉.外商直接投资、地区差异与中国经济增长.世界经济, 2002, (4):15-23
[178]魏后凯.外商直接投资对中国区域经济增长的影响.经济研究, 2002, (4):19-26
[179]王飞.外商直接投资促进了国内工业企业技术进步吗.世界经济研究, 2003, (4):39-44
[180]潘文卿.外商投资对中国工业部门的外溢效应:基于面板数据的分析.世界经济, 2003, (6):3-7
[181]陈柳,刘志彪.本土创新能力、FDI技术外溢与经济增长.南开经济研究, 2006, (3):90-101
[182]李铁立.外商直接投资技术溢出效应差异的实证分析.财贸经济, 2006, (4):13-18
[183]刘舜佳. FDI与经济增长:基于金融市场吸收能力的研究.上海金融, 2007, (5):9-12
[184] Liu Zhiqiang. Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Spillover:Some Evidence from China. In: An International coference, Great China and the World Economy, Hong Kong, 2000, 1-36
[185]秦晓钟,胡志宝.外商对华直接投资技术外溢效应的实证分析.江苏经济探讨, 1998, (4):47-49
[186]陈涛涛.中国FDI行业内溢出效应的内在机制研究.世界经济, 2003, (9):23-28
[187]卢荻.外商投资与中国经济发展——产业和区域分析证据.经济研究, 2003, (9):40-48
[188]黄静波. FDI与广东技术进步关系的实证分析.管理世界, 2004, (9):81-86
[189]李广众,任佳慧.论我国外商直接投资的技术溢出效应——基于各地区19个制造业行业的经验分析.国际贸易问题, 2005, (4):78-80
[190]张海洋a. R&D两面性、外资活动与中国工业生产率增长.经济研究, 2005, (5):107-117
[191]严兵.“以竞争换技术”战略与外资溢出效应.财贸经济, 2005, (1):18-22
[192] Kokko, A. Technology market characteristics and spillovers. Journal of Development Economics, 1994, 43(2): 279-293
[193]周礼,张学勇. FDI对国有工业企业技术外溢效应的实证研究——基于宏观数据的联立方程模型分析.国际贸易问题, 2006, (4):90-94
[194]欧阳志刚.外商直接投资对工业行业内部的技术外溢.国际贸易问题, 2006, (5):69-74
[195]蒋殿春,黄静.微观层面吸收能力对FDI技术外溢的影响.经济与管理研究, 2006, (11):75-79
[196]姚洋,章奇.中国工业企业技术效率分析.经济研究, 2001, (10):35-46
[197] Tong Sarah Yueting. Foreign Direct Investment, Technology Transfer and Firm Performance. HIEBS Working Papers NO.1023, Hong Kong Institute of Economics and Business Strategy, 2001, 1-34
[198]王志鹏,李子柰.外资对中国工业企业生产效率的影响研究.管理世界, 2003, (4):17-25
[199]袁诚,陆挺.外商直接投资与管理知识溢出效应:来自中国民营企业家的证据.经济研究, 2005, (3):69-79
[200]胡祖六.关于中国引进外资的三大问题.国际经济评论, 2004, (3):24-28
[201]王春法. FDI与内生技术能力培养.国际经济评论, 2004, (3):19-22
[202]董书礼.以市场换技术战略成效不佳的原因辨析及我国的对策.商务重点软科学研究课题《我国加入WTO后的技术引进对策研究》研究报告, 2004
[203]张建华,欧阳轶雯.外商直接投资、技术外溢与经济增长——对广东数据的实证分析.经济学(季刊), 2003, (2):647-666
[204]许罗丹,谭卫红,刘民权.四组外商投资企业技术溢出效应的比较研究.管理世界, 2004, (6):14-25
[205]周燕,齐中英.基于不同特征FDI的溢出效应比较研究.中国软科学, 2005, (2):138-143
[206]王耀中,刘舜佳.基于前后向关联分析的外商直接投资与技术外溢.经济评论, 2005, (6):31-34
[207]刘宇.外商直接投资技术外溢效应下降之谜.财贸经济, 2006, (4):9-12
[208]张海洋b.中国工业部门R&D吸收能力与外资技术扩散.管理世界, 2005, (6):82-88
[209]中国统计年鉴编委会.中国统计年鉴.北京:中国统计出版社, 2000:408-449; 2001:402-445; 2002:424-467; 2003:460-503; 2004:518-553; 2005:490-510; 2006:506-555
[210]国家统计局国民经济核算司. 2002年中国投入产出表.北京:中国统计出版社, 2006:136-328
[211] Hausman, Jerry A. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 1978, 6(46): 1251-1271
[212]高铁梅.计量经济分析方法与建模——Eviews应用及实例.北京:清华大学出版社, 2006, 325-326
[213] Kokko, Ari, Rube Tansini, and Mario C Zejan. Local technological capability and productivity spillovers from FDI in the Uruguayan manufacturing sector. The Journal of Development Studies, 1996, 32(4):602-606
[214] Globerman, S. Foreign direct investment and spillover efficiency benefits in Canadian manufacturing industries. Canadian Journal of Economics, 1979, 12(1): 42-56
[215] Blomstrom, Magnus, and H. Persson. Foreign investment and spillover efficiency in an underdeveloped economy: evidence from the Mexican Manufacturing industry. World Development, 1983, 11: 493-501.
[216] Flores Jr., Renato G., Maris Paula Fontours, and Ogerio Guerrs Santos. Foreign direct investment spillovers: what can we learn from Portuguese data? Working Paper, 1999, 1-42
[217] Kokko, Ari, and Blomstrom, Magnus. Policies to encourage inflows of technology through for foreign multinationals. World Development, 1995, 23(3): 459-468
[218]麻挺松.代理合约特性与我国转轨经济中的地方政府间恶性竞争.河北经贸大学学报, 2006, (3):45-48
[219] Holmstrom,B., and Milgrom, P. Multi-task principal-agent analyses: incentive contracts, asset ownership, job design. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 1991, (7):24-52.
[220] Lazear, E. and S.Rosen. Rank-ordered tournaments as optimal labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 1981, 89:841-864.
[221]张成君.以公共优质政策促进产业良性竞争.经济问题, 2005, (6):15-17
[222]李孟刚.产业安全理论研究.北京:经济科学出版社, 2006, 309-310
[223]李荣融.“市场换技术”换不来领先技术.中国经济周刊, 2006, (17):13
[224]香伶.浅议R & D竞争与企业规模的关系.当代经济研究, 2005, (3):32-35
[225]田伯伏,杨运杰.企业规模、有效竞争与我国技术创新战略选择.中央财经大学学报, 2006, (7):55-58
[226] Christopher Freeman. The economics of industrial innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1982, 245-261