外文翻译---对外投资和发展国内政策和国际投资协议的作用

本科毕业设计（论文）

外文翻译

原文：

Foreign investment and development: the role of domestic policy and international investment agreements

All developing countries participate, to greater or lesser degrees, in the global competition for foreign investment. But attracting investment is not the only challenge. Harnessing foreign investment to achieve sustainable development is often even more difficult. What is needed to address these twin challenges varies from one country to the next. This article argues that for most developing countries creating the right domestic policy environment is necessary but, for some countries at least, will not be sufficient to attract investment or ensure that it contributes to development. New kinds of international investment agreements (IIA) that do a better job of promoting more stable investment flows and supporting sustainable development are needed.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) flows into developing countries increased significantly in 2006, reaching US$379.1 billion, their highest ever levels. The percentage of global investment inflows going to developing countries in 2006 exceeded their average annual percentage share from 1995-2000, though their share declined slightly to 29 per cent, down from 33.2 per cent in 2005, due to even faster rates of increase in investment flows into developed countries. FDI inflows are critically important for growth. Since 1994, FDI has represented the largest component of total resource flows into developing countries exceeding inflows from other private sources, such as loans and portfolio investment, and public sources, such as overseas development assistance (ODA). FDI exceeded 51 percent of total resource flows to developing countries in 2006. Unfortunately, this apparently rosy global picture masks significant challenges for developing countries seeking to realize the benefits of FDI.

FDI flows to developing countries are unstable and unevenly distributed

FDI has been concentrated in a relatively small number of countries, mostly in Asia, including Singapore, India and Malaysia. In many African countries and less developed countries (LDC) around the world, ODA remains the largest source of external finance. Recent investment activity, driven by the search for new resource wealth, has passed some countries by entirely.

A closer look at the major regional groupings of developing countries confirms the uneven distribution of foreign investment activity. For example, FDI inflows increased in 2006 in 33 African countries but fell in 21.Inflows increased in all regions on the continent except southern Africa, where inflows declined, including in Commonwealth members Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, Zambia and South Africa. Over the past decade the stock of foreign investment, a much more stable measure than investment flows, at least doubled in 3/4 of African Commonwealth countries, but some countries have seen their stocks of foreign investment decline, including Botswana and Zambia.

Looking across the globe, similar diversity exists. Some developing countries experienced substantial increases in investment inflows in 2006 and an increase in investment stocks over time. But investment inflows into Oceania declined by 11 per cent in 2006 and the stocks of FDI in the small states in this region have fluctuated widely. The stock of FDI in Fiji has shrunk since 1997, while Tuvalu has experienced a massive increase.

As well as being unevenly distributed, FDI flows to developing countries have been highly variable, with significant declines following years of growth in 1984, 1997 and 2002. Thus while increased investment is flowing to developing countries overall, many countries have not been successful in attracting consistent inflows of FDI.

Developing country FDI is concentrated in extractive industries

While two-thirds of FDI worldwide is in services, investment flows into many African countries, including Commonwealth LDC such as Tanzania, Uganda and Gambia, are largely concentrated in extractive industries. In some African countries, including Nigeria, three quarters or more of the stock of FDI is in extractive industries.

Despite the service sector orientation of many Caribbean economies, a significant share of inward FDI stock in the region is also in extractive industries. Investment inflows in Oceania are concentrated in the mining sector.

Investment in extractive industries tends to be particularly unstable compared with other FDI because it is affected by volatile global commodity prices. As well, UNCTAD has found that investment in extractive industries is more difficult for host countries to regulate to ensure compatibility with domestic standards and development goals (World Investment Report 2007). Sometimes, foreign investment in extractive industries, which is dominated by transnational corporations (TNC), produces few new jobs and results in environmental degradation and social dislocation while most of the financial returns are captured off-shore.

FDI unrealized contribution to development

In July 2008 the Secretary-General of the United Nations released a report that reviewed the implementation of the 2002 UN Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development. It concluded that action is needed to encourage larger and more consistent FDI flows to a broader group of developing countries and to ensure that investment activity leads to development. The need is particularly pressing for small economies which have seen growth rates decline compared to larger low- and middle-income states.

Addressing this need means making developing countries more attractive to investors. All investors make decisions about where and when to invest based on their expectations about the future in light of their specific business strategy. Some of the factors relevant to investor decision-making are outside the control of governments. A country’s natural resource endowment is an obvious example. Nevertheless, domestic policies in a host country can both improve investors’ expectations regarding the likely returns associated with their investments and enhance the prospect that their expectations will be realized making the country more appealing as an investment destination. In countries as diverse as India, China, Turkey and Indonesia, investment has been facilitated through domestic policy reform to protect property rights,

improve transparency of government operations and reduce distortions associated with administrative practices. In Africa, a few countries, including Tanzania and Ghana, have taken similar steps. Developing a strategy for achieving a domestic policy environment that contributes to development as well as attracting investment, however, requires understanding the linkages between investment and development. Factors affecting the development impact of FDI

Attracting investment is not an end in itself. To be desirable, investment must contribute positively to development. Studies that have attempted to find a clear link between FDI and development, however, have been inconclusive. There is no doubt that FDI can contribute to economic growth and poverty reduction by supplementing local sources of investment capital and increasing employment and local tax revenues. As well, FDI can have a variety of positive spillovers in terms of improved local productivity and innovation and the transfer of new technologies and production and management techniques.

There can also be costs. Domestic investment may be crowded out and domestic competition and entrepreneurship may be suppressed. FDI may worsen income inequality and encourage reliance on the exploitation of local natural resources at the expense of the development of other productive sectors of the economy. In some cases, the activities of foreign investors have had a negative impact on human rights and the environment. As noted, the risk of negative effects may be greatest in relation to FDI in extractive industries, the most important sector for foreign investment in many developing countries.

One of the benefits associated with economic activity generated by FDI is that income from that activity may produce tax revenues that can be applied to fund social and other programmers designed to achieve development goals. In many developing countries, however, weak taxation regimes mean that governments do not succeed in capturing an adequate share of the income resulting from FDI. Income that is captured is sometimes squandered rather than reinvested to support long-term growth, including future foreign investment.

Whether FDI will contribute to sustainable development will depend on a host of

local factors including the nature and abilities of its human capital, the effectiveness of its environmental, labor and human rights standards and its tax system, its regulatory capacity and its capacity to absorb technology, which, in turn, is a function of its human resources and its technological infrastructure. How domestic policy can affect these factors to enhance FDI development impact is discussed in the next section.

Investment-led development through domestic policy reform

Reform of the international financial architecture and a successful conclusion to the Doha Round of WTO negotiations would both contribute to a stronger and more stable basis for continuing investment in developing countries. But the ongoing failure of the international community to deliver results in either of these areas means that renewed focus must be placed on other strategies, including domestic reform in developing countries.

In general terms, the elements of a domestic environment that encourage development through foreign investment are well understood, having been mapped out by, for example, the OECD in its Framework for Investment (2006) based on the 10 areas identified by the 2002 UN Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development and the World Bank in its World Development Report 2005. A comprehensive but not exhaustive list of policy areas include those that have direct effects on investment, like investment policy and investment promotion programmers, as well as those that have indirect effects, such as trade policy, competition policy, tax policy, corporate governance standards, policies for promoting responsible business conduct, human resource development and labor market policy, infrastructure development, and financial and public sector governance.

The particular policy mix appropriate for a specific country will depend on its individual circumstances. Attempts to transfer regulatory structures from other countries, especially developed countries, with little or no adaptation to local conditions have not proved to be successful. As well, creating the right investment environment is not a one-time policy shift but rather a complex, multifaceted and long-term process (see box).

Recent research shows that investment promotion programmers can have a positive effect on the attractiveness of a particular jurisdiction. On the other hand, trying to ‘pick winners’ has not been successful and the World Bank, among others, advocates moving away from specific incentives to domestic policy measures that improve the general climate for investment in host countries (World Development Report 2005).

An important benefit of such an approach is that reforming the domestic policy environment will promote investment and growth generally, not just FDI. Improved transparency, for example, is likely to be disproportionately advantageous to small and medium local firms with few resources to devote to compliance with government requirements. Transparency, improved efficiency in government administration and more secure property rights may also contribute to moving small businesses from the informal economy to the formal, with positive effects on tax revenues.

Developing countries seeking the right domestic policy mix must confront a tension between attracting investment and achieving development objectives. States must balance social needs and investor preferences. For example, regulators must develop and enforce standards, including those related to health and safety, labor, the environment and human rights, even if doing so will impose costs on investors. Disincentives to invest, however, can be minimized to the extent that such regulation is transparent, efficient, predictable and free of corruption. Similarly, an effective tax system will be needed to capture value create through FDI, but if the tax system is fairly administered investment disincentives associated with the tax burden will be reduced.

Domestic reforms can be complemented with IIA

In many cases, a domestic reform strategy is unlikely to be sufficient to attract stable long term investment flows. Some states simply lack capacity to achieve domestic reforms, or suffer from rent-seeking behavior on the part of government officials and others who benefit from the existing regime. Also, some states that have reformed their domestic regimes have experienced little increase in FDI inflows. This may reflect foreign investors’ concerns regarding the credibility of host state

commitments to maintain pro-investment reforms. International investment agreements (IIA) provide credible commitments, though, as discussed in the next section, existing forms of agreement are not well adapted to encouraging investment flows that contribute to development.

Existing IIA protect investors but do not promote development effectively The Monterrey Consensus calls for a ‘new partnership’ between developed and developing countries in relation to development finance, including increased FDI. In any case, increased investment itself is no guarantee of positive development outcomes. With few exceptions, existing IIA are not designed to achieve development outcomes. It is possible, however, to imagine new forms of IIA that do a better job of attracting investment and promoting sustainable development.

Source: J. Anthony VanDuzer. Foreign investment and development: the role of domestic policy and international investment agreements. The Commonwealth Finance Ministers Reference Report，2008：P2-4.

译文：

对外投资和发展:国内政策和国际投资协议的作用所有的发展中国家在更大或更小程度上参加全球性国外投资的竞争。但是吸引投资不是唯一一个挑战。利用国外投资去获得可持续发展通常难上加难。真正需要的是设法解决这些不同于其他国家的挑战。本文认为，对大多数发展中国家而言，创造良好的国内政策环境是必要的，但是对于另一些国家至少将不会充分地去吸引投资或者确保它有助于发展。新的国际投资种类（国际管理服务协会）是必须的，会更好的更稳定的提升投资流动和支持可持续发展。

在2006年，国外的直接投资（国外直接投资）流向发展中国家非常显著，达到了3791亿美元，是他们的最高水平。全球投资流入发展中国家的百分比在2006年超过了他们的1995年到2000年的平均年度百分比，尽管他们的股份从2005年的$33.2下降，稍微下降到$29，甚至更快的接近发达国家的比率。国外直接投资流入是逐渐增长的。从1994年开始，国外直接投资已经代表最大的总资源流入其他发展中国家并超过从其他私人资源流入的成分，如贷款，投资有价证券和公共资源，如海外发展援助。在2006年发展中国家的外国直接投资超过了总资源流入的51%。不幸地，这看起来称心如意的全球局面，掩盖着从发展中国家寻找去实现国外直接投资的利益的重大挑战。

国外直接投资流入发展中国家是不稳定和不规则地分布着

国外直接投资已经集中的在一个相对小数量的国家，基本上在亚洲，包括新加坡，印度和马来群岛。在世界上的很多非洲国家和欠发达国家，海外发展援助依然是最大的外部财政资源来源。最近的投资活动，被发觉是新资源财富驱使，已经被一些国家完全通过。

近观主要的发展中国家地域归类证实了不规则的外国投资活动的分布。譬如，在2006年外国直接投资流入在33个非洲国家有增长，但是在另外的21个国家有所下降。除了在非洲南部流入量下跌，流入量在非洲大陆全部地域均有所增长，包括在联邦成员博茨瓦纳，莱索托，纳米比亚，赞比亚和南非。在过去十年，国外投资储备，是一个比投资流入更稳定的量，至少是3/4的非洲联邦的两倍，但是一些国家已经看到他们的国外投资储备下降，包括博纳瓦茨和赞比亚。

在全球范围内来看，存在着很多类似的情况。一些发展中国家在2006年经

历了可观的投资流入量增长并随着时间的推移投资储备也有所增长。但是大洋洲的投资流入量在2006年下降了$11，同时在一些大洋洲的小国家的国外直接投资储备波动很大。斐济的国外直接投资从1997年后衰退，而图瓦卢经历了一些可观的增长。

除不规则得分布之外，发展中国家的国外直接投资从1984的下降,1997和2002年的发展之后已经发生了很大的改变。因此当增长的投资总体正在流向发展中国家，许多国家已经不能成功的吸引持续的国外直接投资流入量。

发展中国家的国外直接投资集中在农业

当全世界三分之二的国外直接投资是在服务业，投资流入了许多非洲国家，包括一些联邦不发达国家如坦桑尼亚，乌干达与甘比亚，而且很大的集中在农业。在许多非洲国家，包括尼日利亚，四分之三或者更多的国外直接投资储备是在农业。尽管例如许多加勒比经济服务部门的外来直接投资存量在该地区的很大一部分也是在采掘业。而大洋洲的投资流入集中在采矿业。

在农业的投资比起其他国外直接投资更加不稳定，因为这被全球物价影响。同时，贸发会议发现在采掘业的投资更难以东道国为确保国内的标准和发展目标的兼容性来进行管制（全球投资报告2007）。有时，在采掘业由跨国公司占主导地位，外商投资产生一些新的就业机会和环境退化的结果和社会混乱的投资回报，而最被捕获离岸。

外国直接投资的贡献完成的发展

2008年7月，联合国秘书长发布了一份报告，回顾了2002年实施联合国《蒙特雷共识》以来发展筹资的情况。它的结论是行动是需要更大更一致的鼓励。外国直接投资流向更广阔的发展中国家以便确保投资活动的发展。尤为迫切需求看到小规模经济体增长率下降到更大的比率的中低等收入的国家。

解决这需要意味着使发展中国家对投资者更具吸引力。所有的投资者在按照自己的特定的商业策略决定投资的时间和地点的基础上实现对未来的期望。其中一些因素是与投资者决策相关的控制范围之外的政府因素。一个国家的自然资源禀赋就是一个明显的例子。然而,东道国的国内政策能提高投资者对可能相关的投资回报的预期认识，使他们可能会意识到在这个国家投资对于他们更有吸引力，从而提高他们的期望。在不同国家里如印度、中国、土耳其和印度尼西亚，

已通过国内政策改革保护产权、提高透明度的政府运作和减少行政行为相关的行为来促进投资。在非洲，其他一些国家，包括坦桑尼亚和加纳，也已经采取了类似的措施。制定一项战略来改变国内政治环境，来有助于开发以及吸引投资。无论如何，要了解投资发展之间的联系。

对外投资对发展的影响因素

吸引投资不是一个自身的结束。投资者都为积极发展作出自己的贡献是非常可取的。在外国直接投资和发展之间已经尝试找一个很清晰的关系，然而还没有定论。毫无疑问，外国直接投资可以促进经济增长、投资资本的补充、增加就业和通过地方税收收入来减少贫穷的地方。同时，外国直接投资可以促进本地生产力的提高和创新与新技术的转让和生产管理技术方面的各种积极的外溢。

还可以有成本。国内投资可能被挤出国内竞争同时创新可能被抑制。外国直接投资可能恶化的收入不平等和鼓励在对其他生产部门的经济发展为代价对当地自然资源的开发依赖。在某些情况下,外国投资者的活动带来负面的影响人权和环境。值得注意的是,风险的负面效应可能是最大的外商直接投资关系，在许多发展中国家采掘业是外商投资最重要的部门。

伴随经济活动所产生的对外直接投资的一个好处是外国直接投资活动可能会产生税收,可以应用于基金社会和其他项目,旨在实现发展目标。在许多发展中国家，然而，弱税收制度意味着政府也不会成功地获得适当的应得的对外直接投资所产生的收入。获得的收入，有时候被用来挥霍而非用于再投资支持长期的增长，包括将来的外商投资。

外国直接投资是否有助于可持续发展将取决于包括它的性质和当地的人力资本能力的许多因素，其环境，劳工和人权标准和税收制度，其监管能力和吸收技术的能力的有效性，这又是一个人力资源的功能，还有其技术基础设施。国内政策如何能影响这些因素影响,从而提高了外国直接投资的发展将在下一个部分。

通过国内投资导向的发展政策改革

国际金融架构和成功结束多哈回合的世贸组织谈判的改革都将有助于建立一个更强大和更稳定的基础，来继续在发展中国家的投资。但持续的失败在国际社会产生的影响也意味着这些领域的重建的焦点必须放在其他策略，包括在发展

中国家的国内改革。

总的来说，通过对外投资鼓励国内环境因素是比较容易理解的，例如，在投资框架（2006）中，投资经合组织以10个确定的领域为基础，这些领域由2002年联合国蒙特雷发展筹资问题共识和世界银行2005年世界发展报告确定。一个全面的，但并不详尽清单的政策范畴包括那些对投资有直接影响如投资政策，以及那些有间接影响的，如贸易政策，竞争政策，税收政策，公司治理标准，政策以促进负责任的商业行为，人力资源开发和劳动力市场政策，基础设施发展，金融和公共部门治理。

特定的政策组合对于某一特定国家是否合适将取决于它的具体情况。试图转移来自其他国家监管结构的政策压力，尤其是发达国家，很少或根本没有适合当地条件来证明他是成功的。同时，营造一个良好的投资环境并不是一次性的政策转变，而是一个复杂，涉及方方面面，长期的过程。

最近的研究成果表明，促进投资的项目可以在某一特定的地方中有积极的作用。另一方面，想要找到赢家是不成功的，同时，提倡鼓励改变具体的国内政策措施，全面提高东道国投资环境。（2005年世界发展报告）

一个重要的好处是，不仅仅是对外直接投资，这样的方法改革国内政策环境会普遍促进投资和增长。透明度提高，例如，可能是没有资源投入而不利于中小型企业，不能满足政府要求。透明度的提高可以在政府行政和更安全的财产权益的改善，也可能导致移动小企业从非正式经济形式走向正规，以积极的影响的税收。

发展中国家寻找正确的国内政策的组合需要面对吸引投资和实现发展目标之间的压力。国家必须平衡社会的需求和投资者的偏好。例如，监管机构必须制定和执行标准，包括涉及到健康和安全、劳动、环境和人权，即便这样做将会征收投资者的资本。惩罚措施可能被用来投资，然而，在某种程度上说这样的规定是透明的、高效的、可预测的和没有腐败的。同样，有效的税收制度，将需要通过外国直接投资获取创造价值，但是如果税收系统已经与管理相适应，那么也将会减少投资的税收负担。

国际亚洲研究所对国内金融改革的补充

在许多情况下，国内改革政策不太可能足以吸引稳定的长期投资的流动，一

些地区缺乏一定的能力来实现国内改革。同样，一些地区已经改变了他们的国内制度以增加对外直接投资。这可能反映了投资者参照当地的一些制度和信誉来进行投资项目的改革。国际投资协议承诺提供可靠的协议，尽管，就像下一章将要提到的，协议的存在形式还没有很好的适应鼓励投资，有助于发展。

现有的国际亚洲研究所保护投资者但并不能有效的促进投资

《蒙特雷共识》要求发达国家与发展中国家之间形成新的伙伴关系发展融资，包括增加的对外直接投资。在任何情况下，增加投资本身并不会保证能有良性的发展。除了少数例外，现有的国际亚洲研究所并不是为了实现发展的结果。这是有可能的，然而，新的形式的国际亚洲研究所将会更加好的吸引投资，促进可持续发展。

出处：安东尼.万杜泽.《对外投资和发展:国内政策和国际投资协议的作用》.

联邦财政部长参考报告，2008：P2-6.