|
|
|
| The De Facto Exchange Rate Regime, Firm Productivity, and Firms’ OFDI Activities |
| ZHANG Xia, WANG Yanan, SHI Bingzhan
|
College of Economics and Management, Agricultural Education Development Research Center, Southwest University;
School of Economics and Commerce, South China University of Technology;
Institution of International Economics, Nankai University |
|
|
|
Abstract China is the capital exporting country worldwide. With Chinese OFDI activities increasing significantly, China’s exchange rate regime reforms have been undertaken step by step. Not only has the de jure exchange rate regime become more flexible, but also has the de facto exchange rate regime. Apart from the research on the exchange rate and OFDI based on the open macro economy, this paper explores how the bilateral exchange rate regime affects firms’ OFDI decisions from the microeconomic view, further enriching the research on exchange rate and OFDI. This paper builds a theoretical model under the general equilibrium framework and discusses the mechanisms between the bilateral exchange rate regime arrangement and firms’ OFDI activities based on a two-country open macroeconomic model. It also uses highly detailed micro data to test and analyze the related hypothesis. Specifically, it uses List of Overseas Investment Enterprises (institutions) data, China Industry Business Performance Data, bilateral de facto exchange rate regime data published on Shambaugh’s personal website, World Development Index data from the World Bank, the Gravity database from the CEPII, the IFS database, and the China Statistical Yearbook from 2000 to 2013.
This paper shows that compared to the floating exchange rate regime, the fixed exchange rate regime can lower the threshold productivity required for firms to conduct OFDI activities and to switch from export to OFDI activities. That is, the bilateral fixed exchange rate regime can stimulate firms’ OFDI activities. This paper also shows that compared to the bilateral de facto floating exchange rate regime, the bilateral de facto fixed exchange rate regime can increase firms’ inclination to undertake OFDI activities by 0.8%~55.4%. Furthermore, on average, one-unit increases in firm productivity can increase firms’ probability of undertaking OFDI activities by 0.04%~2.9%. The bilateral de facto fixed exchange rate regime stimulates firms to conduct OFDI more than firm productivity. Second, considering the difference in ownership, the location of firms, and the incidence of financial crisis, the bilateral de facto fixed exchange rate regime and firm productivity can still stimulate firms’ OFDI inclination but to a different scale. Lastly, considering sample selection bias and two-way causality, our conclusions still stand. Overall, the conclusions of this paper are theoretically and empirically supported with significant robustness.
The results of this paper show that the positive effects of the bilateral fixed exchange rate regime on firms’ OFDI activities should be appreciated. Specifically, firms in developing countries demonstrate lower productivity and lack international competition. The bilateral de facto fixed exchange rate regime can give them more opportunities to increase their core competitive capacity via international competition. In practice, the internationalization of the RMB is on the road. In the long run, the Chinese exchange rate regime arrangement will be more flexible, more and more nations will have more flexible bilateral exchange rate regime arrangements with China. Thus, Chinese firms must increase their own hardcore ability to face the significantly historical alterations of Chinese exchange rate arrangements with other countries.
Three aspects of this paper are noteworthy. First, this paper is not confined to the view of exchange rate level or exchange rate volatility, but through the fundamental aspect of exchange rate regime arrangement. Second, it builds a two-country open macroeconomic model with firms’ heterogeneity and further discusses the mechanism by which the exchange rate regime affects firms’ OFDI activities. Third, this paper uses highly detailed firm level data to verify the mechanisms by which the bilateral exchange rate regime between China and host countries affect Chinese firms’ OFDI activities.
Future breakthroughs in the following aspects may be made. Theoretically, we plan to build a two-country macroeconomic DSGE model and use simulation to argue how different exchange rate regime arrangements can affect firms’ OFDI levels with different firms’ total factor productivity level. Furthermore, we intend to incorporate Chinese characteristics into this medium-scale DSGE model, such as firms’ financial constraints, labor mobility, and factor misallocation. Empirically, if related data are accessible, we plan to decompose firms’ OFDI levels into intensive margins and extensive margins and to further elaborate on how exchange rate regimes can affect firms’ OFDI activities.
|
|
Received: 31 October 2018
Published: 24 October 2019
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] |
胡兵和邓富华,2014,《腐败距离与中国对外直接投资——制度观和行为学的整合视角》,《财贸经济》第4期,第82~92页。
|
| [2] |
黄先海、金泽成和余林徽,2017,《要素流动与全要素生产率增长:来自国有部门改革的经验证据》,《经济研究》第12期,第62~75页。
|
| [3] |
蒋冠宏和蒋殿春,2012,《中国对发展中国家的投资——东道国制度重要吗?》,《管理世界》第11期,第45~56页。
|
| [4] |
蒋冠宏和蒋殿春,2014,《中国工业企业对外直接投资与企业生产率进步》,《世界经济》第9期,第53~76页。
|
| [5] |
李磊、蒋殿春和王小霞,2017,《企业异质性与中国服务业对外直接投资》,《世界经济》第11期,第47~72页。
|
| [6] |
刘莉亚、何彦林和王照飞,2015,《融资约束会影响中国企业对外直接投资吗?——基于微观视角的理论和实证分析》,《金融研究》第8期,第124~140页。
|
| [7] |
施炳展和张雅睿,2016,《人民币双边事实汇率制度与中国出口增长》,《金融研究》第8期,第1~18页。
|
| [8] |
田巍和余淼杰,2012,《企业生产率和企业“走出去”对外直接投资:基于企业层面数据的实证研究》,《经济学(季刊)》第2期,第383~408页。
|
| [9] |
王勋,2013,《金融抑制与发展中国家对外直接投资》,《国际经济评论》第1期,第51~60页。
|
| [10] |
王自锋,2009,《汇率水平与波动程度对外国直接投资的影响研究》,《经济学(季刊)》第4期,第1497~1520页。
|
| [11] |
许和连和王海成,2016,《最低工资标准对企业出口产品质量的影响研究》,《世界经济》第7期,第73~96页。
|
| [12] |
严兵、张禹和韩剑,2014,《企业异质性与对外直接投资——基于江苏省企业的检验》,《南开经济研究》第4期,第50~63页。
|
| [13] |
张为付,2008,《影响我国企业对外直接投资因素研究》,《中国工业经济》第11期,第130~140页。
|
| [14] |
张明,2016,《人民币汇率形成机制改革:历史成就、当前形势与未来方向》,《国际经济评论》第3期,第54~68页。
|
| [15] |
Ackerberg, D. A., Caves, K., and Frazer, G., 2015, “Identification Properties of Recent Production Function Estimators”,Econometrica, 83(6), pp. 2411~2451.
|
| [16] |
Brandt, L., Biesebroeck, J. V. and Zhang, Y. F., 2012, “Creative Accounting or Creative Destruction? Firm-level Productivity Growth in Chinese Manufacturing”, Journal of Development Economics, 97, pp. 339~351.
|
| [17] |
Conconi, P., Sapir, A. and Zanardi, M., 2016, “The Internationalization Process of Firms: From Exports to FDI”, Journal of International Economics, 99, pp. 16~30.
|
| [18] |
Crowley, P. and J. Lee, 2003, “Exchange Rate Volatility and Foreign Investment: International Evidence”,International Trade Journal, 17(3), pp. 227~252.
|
| [19] |
Galí.J. and T. Monacelli, 2005, “Monetary Policy and Exchange Rate Volatility in a Small Open Economy”, Review of Economic Studies, 72(3), pp. 707~734.
|
| [20] |
Head, K. and J. Ries, 2003, “Heterogeneity and the FDI versus Export Decision of Japanese Manufacturers”,Journal of the Japanese & International Economies, 17(4), pp. 448~467.
|
| [21] |
Helpman, E., Melitz, M. J. and Yeaple, S. R., 2004, “ExportVersus FDI with Heterogeneous Firms”, American Economic Review, 94(1), pp. 300~316.
|
| [22] |
Klein, M. W. and J.C. Shambaugh, 2006, “Fixed Exchange Rates and Trade”, Journal of International Economics, 70, pp. 359~383.
|
| [23] |
Klein M. W., and J. C.Shambaugh, 2008, “The Dynamics of Exchange Rate Regimes: Fixes, Floats, and Flips”, Journal of International Economics,75, pp. 70~92.
|
| [24] |
Takagi, S. and Z. Shi, 2011, “Exchange Rate Movements and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): Japanese Investment in Asia, 1987–2008”,Japan and the World Economy, 23(4), pp. 265~272.
|
| [25] |
Xing, Y. and L. Zhao, 2008. “Reverse Imports,Foreign Direct Investment and Exchange Rates”,Japan and the World Economy, 20(2), pp. 275~289.
|
| No related articles found! |
|
|
|
|
