中文3478字
本科毕业论文外文原文
外文题目： Financial Foreign Direct Investment: The Role of Private Equity Investments in the Globalization of Firms from Emerging Markets
出 处： Management International Review, 2009:11-26 DOI:10.1007
/s11575-008-0122-9
作 者： Tamir Agmon and Avi Messica
原 文：
1. Introduction
International business and economic development are closely related. When applying to emerging markets, foreign direct investment (FDI) and development economics are two sides of the same coin. In terms of the classical OLI model of the economics of international business, the multinational enterprises (MNE) brings into play the ownership advantage while the governments of emerging markets bring into play the location advantage (Dunning 2000). For most part, the economics and the strategy of international business focused on the MNE while economic geography from Koopman (1957) to Krugman (1991) and later (as well as development economics) have focused on the country in which the investment takes place. This paper brings together international business development economics and international trade to gain better insights into an important and fascinating phenomenon in the arena of international business – the recent growth of private equity investments in emerging markets. The tremendous growth of private equity investments in emerging markets is evident from the data presented in Table 1. The total went up almost ten times, from about $3.5B to more than $33B in the period 2003-2006. Emerging Asia led the emerging markets with $19.4B raised in 2006 by 93 funds; about a third of the money that was raised by these funds went to China and
India.
The main argument that is presented and discussed in this paper is that private equity investments in emerging markets is another expression of foreign direct investment (FDI) where firms from the developed countries export specific factors of production (their ownership advantage) to small countries and emerging markets (new locations) as a way to generate value to all stakeholders. The firms in the developed countries in this case are specialized financial institutions (private equity funds) (Yoshikawa et al. 2006) and the factor of production that they export is high-risk sector specific capital. We dubbed this form of FDI as financial foreign direct investment (FFDI), but the process and the rational are the same as in the classical FDI analysis. FFDI (synonymous–but not restricted to–for private equity throughout this paper) is a subset of FDI that is solely devoted–as the name implies–for investments in private firms in purpose of generating high return on- investment over a relatively short period (5-7 years). The term “short” is relative and in comparison with the typical investment periods of the investors of private equity funds (e.g., pension funds, endowment funds and the like). At the extreme, i.e., in venture capital investments, investors take into account upfront that some of their investments will be written off at the prospects that few will generate return that will more than compensate those sunk investments (hence the “high-risk” referral). Sector specific capital is a general phenomenon. In many industries such investment is more than mere financial investment and is augmented by specific information that the investor may posses in the form of managerial expertise, deal structuring specialty, networking capabilities and the like. In the case of the high-risk capital industry there is a need to bridge the gap between the risk perception of the investment project by the entrepreneurs or the “insiders” and the investors (most often risk-averse investors), the “outsiders”. This is accomplished by a combination of validation processes and screening mechanisms that are engaged by the private equity funds. In this regard they act as financial and risk intermediaries (Coval/Thakor 2005, provide an analytical framework for this approach). The value of the general partners of private equity funds depends on the quality of the risk intermediation that they perform for their investors. This makes them credible and reliable processors of information.
Table 1: Emerging Markets Private Equity Funds Raising, 2003-2006 (US$ Millions) Emerging CEE Asia Russia Latham Sub-Sahara Africa Middle- East Africa Multiple Regions 2003 2,200 2004 2,800 2005 15,446 2006 19,386 406 1,777 2,711 3,272 417 714 1,272 2,656 NA NA 791 2,353 350 545 1,915 2,946 116 618 3,630 2,580 3,489 6,454 25,765 33,193 Total Source: EMPEA (Emerging Markets Private Equity Association) 2007.
The discussion and the analysis presented in this paper draw on three different bodies of literature; the literature of finance and growth from development economics, (Levine 1997, 2004), the literature on comparative advantage in the discussion of patterns of trade (Deardorff 2004) and the literature of imperfect contracts in micro economics and in financial economics (Hart 2001, Zingales 2000).
Financial foreign direct investment as practiced by private equity funds can be a powerful contributor to economic and business growth in emerging markets. FFDI changes the scene of international business as it contributes to a change in the relations between firms in developed countries and firms in the emerging markets. The unique relatively short term nature of a private equity investment makes it an appropriate instrument for the transition period that the world of international business is experiencing regarding the role of emerging markets and the role of China and India in particular. This is so because the short term nature of private equity investments allows firms in emerging markets for sufficient time for transfer of information and learning and yet allow the local stakeholders to resume full ownership once the process is completed.
The relations between the development economics literature on finance and growth and the international business literature is presented and discussed in the next section of the paper. It is shown that the two bodies of literatures are quite related once one penetrates the specific lingo employed by each one of them. The problems in the institutional setting and the lack of sufficient development of the capital
markets in most emerging markets are overcome by creating specific international alliances that generate local comparative advantage. In section three, the concept of local comparative advantage (Deardorff 2004) is used for better understanding of FFDI. The perfect and efficient financial market of the Modern Theory of Finance is replaced by a set of imperfect contracts negotiated and renegotiated between domestic firms in emerging markets and private equity funds from the US and other major capital markets. This issue is discussed and analyzed in section four of the paper. Private equity funds drew a fair amount of criticism lately. The potential of private equity investment in emerging markets is discussed in section five of the paper. The conclusions of the study are briefly discussed in section six, the last section of the paper.
2. Finance, Growth and International Business
In a survey paper on the relations between financial development and economic growth Levine (1997) states that: “…the development of financial markets and institutions are critical and inextricable part of the growth process”. He continues and says that: “…financial development is a good predictor of future rates of economic growth, capital accumulation
and technological change. Moreover, cross-country, case study, industry- and firm- level analyses document extensive periods when financial development-or the lack thereof-crucially affect the speed and the pattern of economic development”, (Levine 1997, p. 689). Levine makes two other important points; first that the discussion of finance and developments takes place outside the state-contingent world of Arrow (1964) and Debreu (1959) and the discussion takes place in an incomplete world with imperfect (monopolistic) competition. The second point is that there are three main research questions in the field of finance and development that needs more attention. (1) Why does financial structure change as countries grow? (2) Why do countries at similar stages of economic development have different looking financial systems? and (3) are there longterm economic growth advantages to adopting legal and policy changes that create one type of financial system vis-à-vis another?
The three research questions raised by Levine deal with different aspects of the location of foreign direct investment. In particular, the three research questions deal
with the gap between the potential of a certain country, or countries, as a site for an international oriented investment and the actual investment that has taken place. This is particularly true where the investment from the developed countries is in the form of high-risk sector specific capital such as provided by private equity funds. The potential of some countries in attracting private equity funds is not being fully realized due to the absence of an appropriate financial system. A well developed financial system is necessary to enhance the import of sector specific (high-risk) capital, a necessary condition for FFDI.
As the financial structure of a country changes (as the country grows), it is suggested by Levine in his first question that different types of FDI can be accommodated. The development of FDI in China is an evidence of this process. Yet, as it is proposed in Levine’s second question, the financial markets of countries with similar rate of growth develop in different pace and in a different way. There are long-term economic growth advantages of adopting certain patterns of development for the financial market of a given country. In many cases FDI and FFDI do depend on relatively transparent and enforceable corporate governance. Morck, Wolfenzon, and Yeung (2005) demonstrated that economic entrenchment has a high price in foregone growth opportunities.
There are three related problems in creating a domestic financial system for private equity and venture capital investments:
How to mobilize the type and the quantity of savings (capital) appropriate for such investments where most of the capital should be imported from the major capital markets of the world?
How to generate credible information and trust? How to monitor management and to exert corporate control?
The only feasible way to accommodate private equity and venture capital investments in emerging markets is to import sector specific high-risk capital from the US and other major capital markets. The term sector specific capital recognizes the fact that capital is not a unified factor of production (in the same way that there are different types of labor there are different types of capital). High-risk sector specific capital relates to the portfolio of the investors and to the relational capital of the
金融学专业外文翻译----私募股权投资在新兴市场全球化企业中的角色
