Foreign direct investment (FDI) into Korea and China contributed greatly to the recent rapid economic development of both countries. Many efforts have been thus far given to more thorough analyses of the entry mode of FDI in Korea and China. Due to th...
Foreign direct investment (FDI) into Korea and China contributed greatly to the recent rapid economic development of both countries. Many efforts have been thus far given to more thorough analyses of the entry mode of FDI in Korea and China. Due to the lack of available relevant data, however, micro level analyses have rarely included a firm level analysis or research, which includes the variables of detailed industrial sectors, especially manufacturing sector, such as investment size and the regional distribution of FDI. This paper surveys the theories of FDI, which capture a unique feature, hands-on management standard, that enables investors to react in real time to a changing economic environment. Equipped with superior managerial skills, foreign direct investors are able to outbid portfolio investors for the top productivity firms in a particular industry in which they have specialized in the source country. Consequently, FDI investors would make investment both larger and higher quality(with large rates of returns) than domestic investors. The major findings of this paper are as follows. First, a major advantage of FDI is that it includes stable foreign capital without increasing domestic debt. Futhermore FDI facilitates financial and corporate restructuring. Second, FDI increases consumer welfare by enhancing competition and boosting productivity through transfers of advanced technology and management know-how, benefit not normally associated with portfolio investment. Among these benefits, the spillover effect of advanced technologies of FDI is particularly important for developing countries. Third, FDI promotes competition in domestic markets, thereby raising efficiency. FDI liberalization alone has the ability of transforming entrenched monopolistic domestic markets into strongly competitive center of activity. Fourth, some worry that FDI may tip the current account of a country into deficit due to imports of intermediate goods, upward pressure on local currency, income transfer and the repatriation of profits by foreign multinationals. While some of this may be true, in the long term, FDI improves current account due to its tendency to foster increases in locally produced contents of intermediate goods, export competitiveness realized through transfers of advanced technology and management know-how. Thus, Korea and China should now focus its deregulatory efforts on improving efficiency of the internal regulatory environment. The transparency of regulations need to be enhanced making law more clear, removing any contradictions. Now that investment incentives have been strengthened, the remaining task is the efficient applications of these incentives. For this purpose, local governments must be supported in the attempts to acquire expertise in inducing investment and be given greater autonomy. The Korean and Chinese government needs to promote awareness in the general public of the benefits of FDI. Public officials, consumers, and workers need to be shown that FDI is not a 'win-lose' but a 'win-win' proposition. In particular, our young generations must be educated in a way that fosters an open and rational mind