文献出处：De Maeseneire W, Claeys T. Foreign direct investment in Hungary [J]. International Business Review, 2014, 21(3): 408-424. 原文

Foreign direct investment in Hungary

De Maeseneire W, Claeys T

Due to factors such as geographic location and traditional relationship, like other central and eastern Europe, Hungary FDI79 % from the eu 15 countries, including Germany, accounting for 25% of the Hungarian FDI, followed by the Netherlands, Austria, 14% and 13%, respectively. The United States is outside the European Union in Hungary's largest investor, accounted for 5% of the total amount of Hungarian FDI, actually some FDI from the Netherlands and other European countries is also by the American companies to invest in these countries. In recent years, the Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea in the austro-hungarian FDI growth step by step. In 2009, the Hungarian FDI is still mainly comes from the European Union, but the German investment has fallen sharply, relegated to the second from bottom, the fewest since 2001 to invest in Hungary.

As the decision depends on interregional differences in factor and resource endowments. Because countries cannot be considered as homogeneous spaces, individual firms have to choose between a variety of locations and tend to concentrate in favorably endowed regions. Such clustering of firms, by leading to agglomeration externalities, adds further to the attractiveness of the location (Head et al. , 1995). Thus, firms tend also to cluster because of the positive externalities generated by proximity. Hence in addition to the endowment-driven localization theory, explanations of the location choice of MNEs can also be drawn from economic geography. In this respect, externalities related to proximity become a major explanation for the location choice of MNEs.

According to Marshall (1920), three sources of positive externalities can be identified. Locating near to each other provides firms variously with access to

specialized input suppliers and customers, a shared pooled market for skilled labour, and technological spillovers through facilitating information exchange. To these three traditional sources of positive externalities should be added the many different forms of localized externalities, namely backward and inward linkages issuing from the dynamics of the interaction of firms with other firms, institutions and infrastructures (Nachum, 2000). This line of reasoning is all the more relevant since the organizational structure of MNEs has changed since the end of the ‘golden age’ of Western economic growth. The greater volatility of the international business environment has led to a search for more flexible forms of organization (Buckley and Casson, 2000), and therefore to the end of hierarchical capitalism (Dunning, 1995). This in turn has changed the nature of the external linkages of the firms (Nachum, 2000), both in terms of design and location. Firms focus on their core competence while increasing outsourcing. In other words, vertical integration has been discouraged and networks of independent firms have emerged (Harrison,1994, Part III). These firms are often neighbors.

In the light of these theoretical issues and, as raised by Head et al. (1995, p. 224),the question is a matter of deciding to what extent the pattern of FDI location within a country ‘ support[s] an agglomeration–externalities theory of industry localization rather than a theory based on inter-state differences in endowments of natural resources, labor and infrastructures ’. In this respect, the aim of this paper is to assess the determinants of location choice by foreign investors in Hungary, with particular emphasis on the existence and magnitude of agglomeration economies. Both theoretical and empirical work has addressed the process of location choice at the international level, but has rarely analyzed the sub-national (i.e., regional) distribution of FDI with a focus on agglomeration effects; even less has this been done in relation to Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) (see Table 1 below). Many academic papers have explored the determinants of location choice by foreign investors within the USA (Bartik, 1985; Carlton, 1983; Coughlin et al. , 1991; Friedman et al. , 1992; Head et al. , 1998; Head et al. , 1994, 1995, 1999; Luger and Shetty, 1985; Nachum, 2000; Woodward, 1992). Other papers have done the same for

large countries other than the USA or unions of countries in relation to foreign investors as a whole or investors originating from a particular country.Among recent studies, some have focused on the regional choices of foreign investors in China (Head and Ries, 1996; Cheng and Kwan, 1999, 2000; He, 2002), while others have been concerned with the choices of foreign investors in Europe (Barrell and Pain, 1999; Clegg and Scott-Green, 1998; Devereux and Griffith, 1998; Ferrer, 1998; Mayer and Mucchielli, 1998, 1999; Mucchielli and Puech, 2003; Scaperlanda and Balough, 1983). Only a few empirical studies have assessed the location motivations of FDI at a more local level. For example, Guimar?es et al. (2000) have examined such motivations for Portugal, and Cantwell and Iammarino (2000) for the United Kingdom. But among recent studies, by far and away the most comprehensive at a local level is that by Crozet et al. (2003) for France.

As far as the CEECs are concerned, there have been few empirical studies of the location determinants of FDI and of the agglomeration effects among determinants (Kinoshita and Campos, 2003; Lankes and Venables, 1996). To my knowledge, there is no existing study of this pattern for one particular transition country. Indeed, this type of research faces difficulties at an empirical level. Due to data collection problems (data for state, regional and county levels is scarce and not always mutually consistent), the measurement of agglomeration effects in transition economies may be particularly problematic. In addition, the period of time over which transition has been underway in CEECs is relatively short. Both these reasons can make any econometric test problematic.

Spatial patterns of FDI in Hungary

Since the beginning of the transition process, Hungary has attracted a noteworthy amount of FDI, mainly targeting the tertiary sector and originating mostly in the EU. But FDI is unevenly distributed among the Hungarian regions. A major capital city effect

Table 2 shows the distribution of inward FDI across Hungarian counties over the period 1990 – 2000. Foreign-owned branch plants are concentrated in Budapest and therefore in the region of Central Hungary, which accounted for 69 percent of inward