Foreign direct investment as a stimulant in productivity convergence process between Visegrad Countries and UE-15
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6018.326.11Keywords:
foreign direct investment, convergence of productivity, panel model, Visegrad GroupAbstract
The explanation of reasons and degree of differentiation of wealth between countries remains an important issue in economics today. Theories of economic growth are focused principally on the identification of the long-term determinants of diversification of sources and economic growth, which in turn is associated with the notion of real convergence. Given the supply role of foreign capital that impacts on the economy, in the face of dynamic inflow of foreign direct investment (FDI) into developing countries’ economies, it seems reasonable to include it in convergence process modelling, especially in the modelling of the convergence of productivity.
The productivity of the economy is in fact determined by the size of the capital accumulation (both domestic and foreign), savings rate and a number of other conditions. The author hypothesized that the presence of FDI contributes to the acceleration of pace of real convergence between Visegrad countries and EU-15. In this study we estimate interactions between FDI and productivity at both national and NACE level in the years 2000–2014. We concider, in panel data form, among others, productivity in terms of gross value added per employee, degree of penetration of FDI in the economy of the host country. Results suggest conditional β-convergence of productivity existence however they vary across countries, sectors and time. The analysis provides recommendations regarding the arguments for the sectoral policy aimed at encouraging foreign capital to increase its involvement, focusing on reducing productivity gap between the developing and developed countries belonging to European Union.
Downloads
References
Arellano M., Bond S. (1991), Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equation, “Review of Economic Studies”, vol. 58, p. 277–297.
Google Scholar
Babunek O. (2012), Foreign Direct Investment in Visegard Four and the Main Trading Partners, “Statistika”, vol. 49, no. 4, p. 14–26.
Google Scholar
Baltagi B.H. (2005), Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Chichester.
Google Scholar
Barro R., Sala-i-Martin X. (1992), Convergence, “Journal of Political Economy”, vol. 100, p. 223–251.
Google Scholar
Barro R., Sala-i-Martin X. (1997), Technological Diffusion, Convergence and Growth, “Journal of Economic Growth”, vol. 2, March, p. 1–27.
Google Scholar
Barro R., Sala-i-Martin X. (2003), Economic Growth, Second Edition, The MIT Press, Cambridge–Massachusetts–London.
Google Scholar
Baumol W. (1986), Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: What the Long-Run Data Show, “American Economic Review”, vol. 76, December, p. 1072–1085.
Google Scholar
Bernard A., Jones C. (1996), Productivity Across Industries and Countries: Time Series Theory and Evidence, “Review of Economics and Statistics”, vol. 78, no. 1, p. 135–146.
Google Scholar
Bernard A., Jones C. (1996), Technology and Convergence, “Economic Journal”, vol. 106, July, p. 1037–1044.
Google Scholar
Bernard A., Jones C. (2001), Comparing Apples to Oranges: Productivity Convergence and Measurement Across Industries and Countries: Reply, “American Economic Review”, vol. 91, Semptember, p. 1168–1169.
Google Scholar
Blundell R., Bond S. (1998), Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data model, “Econometric Review”, vol. 19, no. 3, p. 321–340.
Google Scholar
Blundell R., Bond S., Windmeijer F. (2000), Estimation in dynamic panel data models: improving on the performance of the standard GMM estimator, [in:] B. Baltagi (ed.), Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration and Dynamic Panels, Elsevier Science.
Google Scholar
Borensztein E., De Gregorio J., Lee J. (1998), How does foreign investment affect economic growth?, “Journal of International Economics”, vol. 45, no. 1, p. 115–135.
Google Scholar
Carree M., Klomp L., Thurik A. (1999), Productivity Convergence in OECD Manufacturing Industries, “Tinbergen Institute discussion paper”, vol. 65, p. 337–345.
Google Scholar
Caselli F., Esquivel G., Lefort F. (1996), Reopening the convergence debate: a new look at crosscountry growth empirics, “Journal of Economic Growth”, vol. 1, p. 363–389.
Google Scholar
Ciołek D. (2003), Badanie konwergencji krajów Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej z wykorzystaniem danych panelowych, [in:] Dynamiczne modele ekonometryczne, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, Toruń, p. 329–342
Google Scholar
Dollar D., Wolff E. (1988), Convergence of Industry Labor Productivity Among Advanced Economies, 1963–1982, “Review of Economics and Statistics”, vol. 70, no. 4, November, p. 549–558.
Google Scholar
Doyle E., O’Leary E. (1999), The role of structural change in labor productivity convergence among European countries: 1970–1990, „Journal of Economic Studies”, vol. 26, no. 2, p. 106–120.
Google Scholar
European Central Bank (2009), FDI and productivity convergence in Central and Eastern Europe, “Working Paper Series”, No. 992.
Google Scholar
Gawlikowska-Hueckel K. (2002), Konwergencja regionalna w Unii Europejskiej, „Gospodarka Narodowa”, no. 10, p. 91−113.
Google Scholar
Gouyette C., Perelman S. (1997), Productivity Convergence in OECD Service Industries, “Structural Change and Economic Dynamics”, vol. 8, p. 279–295.
Google Scholar
Górna J., Górna K. (2013), Analiza konwergencji gospodarczej wybranych regionów Europy w latach 1995–2009, „Roczniki Kolegium Analiz Ekonomicznych”, no. 30. p. 169–185.
Google Scholar
Gradzewicz M., Kolasa M., Growiec J., Postek Ł., Strzelecki P. (2013), Poland’s Exceptional Performance during the World Economic Crisis: New Growth Accounting Evidence, “NBP Working Paper”, no. 186.
Google Scholar
Holtz-Eakin D., Newey W., Rosen H. (1988), Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data, “Econometrica”, vol. 56, p. 1371–1395.
Google Scholar
Islam N. (2003), What Have We Learnt From the Convergence Debate?, “Journal of Economic Surveys”, vol. 17 no. 3, p. 309–362.
Google Scholar
Knight M., Norman L., Delano V. (1993), Testing the neoclassical theory of economic growth: a panel data approach, “IMF Staff Papers”, vol. 40, no. 3, p. 512–541.
Google Scholar
Lee J. (2009), Trade, FDI and Productivity Convergence: A Dynamic Panel Data Approach in 25 Countries, “Japan and the World Economy”, vol. 21, p. 226–238.
Google Scholar
Markowska-Przybyła U. (2010), Konwergencja regionalna w Polsce w latach 1999–2007, „Gospodarka Narodowa”, no.11–12, p. 85–110.
Google Scholar
Michałek J.J., Siwinski W., Socha M. (2007), Polska w Unii Europejskiej: Dynamika konwergencji ekonomicznej, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
Google Scholar
Modranka E. (2012), Zastosowanie modeli panelowych w analizie warunkowej konwergencji typu β z uwzględnieniem zależności przestrzennych, „Roczniki Kolegium Analiz Ekonomicznych”, no. 26. p. 61–72.
Google Scholar
Muller G. (2000), A Glimpse on Sectoral Convergence of Productivity Levels, “Halle Institute for Economic Research Discussion”, Paper No 133, November.
Google Scholar
Narodowy Bank Polski (2016), Kwartalny raport o rynku pracy w IV kw. 2015, Biuro Przedsiębiorstw, Gospodarstw Domowych i Rynków, Instytut Ekonomiczny, Warszawa.
Google Scholar
Paci R. (1997), More Similar and Less Equal: Economic Growth in the European Regions, “Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv”, vol. 133, no. 4, p. 608–634.
Google Scholar
Pascual A.G., Westermann F. (2002), Productivity Convergence In European Manufacturing, “Review of International Economics”, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 313–323.
Google Scholar
Próchniak M., Witkowski B. (2013), Time stability of the beta convergence among EU countries: Bayesian model averaging perspective, „Economic Modeling”, vol. 30, p. 322–333.
Google Scholar
Puziak M. (2009), Real Convergence of New EU Members. An Experience for Ukraine, “Journal of International Studies”, no. 1, p. 40–50.
Google Scholar
Ramajo J., Marquez M., Hewings G., Salinas M. (2008), Spatial heterogeneity and interregional spillovers in the European Union: Do cohesion policies encourage convergence across regions?, “European Economic Review”, vol. 52, p. 551–567.
Google Scholar
Wach K. (2012), Europeizacja małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw: rozwój przez umiędzynarodowienie, PWN Warszawa.
Google Scholar
Wach K. (2015), Entrepreneurship without Borders: Do Borders Matter for Intrernational Entrepreneurship, „Problemy Zarządzania”, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 82–92.
Google Scholar
Wojciechowski L. (2015), Uwarunkowania i skutki przepływu BIZ z krajów UE-15 do UE-12 na przykładzie Polski i Węgier, “Prace Komisji Geografii Przemysłu Polskiego Towarzystwa Geograficznego”, vol. 29. no. 1, p. 73–88.
Google Scholar
Wojciechowski L. (2016a), Wpływ BIZ na kreowanie wartości dodanej w kraju goszczącym ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem przetwórstwa przemysłowego, “Prace Komisji Geografii Przemysłu Polskiego Towarzystwa Geograficznego”, vol. 30. no. 1, p. 143–158.
Google Scholar
Wojciechowski L. (2016b), Luka produktywności: szansa czy przeszkoda w absorpcji skutków obecności bezpośrednich inwestycji zagranicznych?, Ogólnopolska Konferencja Naukowa, Modelowanie danych panelowych: teoria i praktyka, 13.05.2016, SGH, Warszawa.
Google Scholar
Wong W.K. (2006), OECD convergence: A sectorial decomposition exercise, “Economics Letters”, vol. 93, November, p. 210–214.
Google Scholar
Zimny Z. (2015), Inward FDI-Related Challenges to Poland’s Further Economic Progress, “Journal of US–China Public Administration”, vol. 12, no. 11, p. 845–875.
Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
