Diaeia2016d1a1 en

Has outward foreign direct investment
contributed to the development of the

Chinese economy?
Jan Knoerich*
Research and literature on foreign direct investment (FDI) and economic

development have to date focused almost entirely on development
in the host economy, sidelining the question of any contribution to
development in a multinational enterprise’s country of origin. To address
this shortcoming in research on FDI, this study investigates whether
Chinese outward FDI can be seen as having made a contribution to the
development of the mainland Chinese economy over the past three
decades. It finds that the activity of Chinese enterprises in pursuing
assets and advantages abroad through outward FDI yields four categories
of returns: financial, capability, capacity and macroeconomic. These
returns have addressed some of the specific challenges that China has
faced in the process of its economic development, although the extent
and importance of the development contribution remains uncertain.
Outward FDI can play both a complementary and a supplementary
role to development benefits realized from opening up to international
trade and inward FDI, and from emigration.
1. Introduction
Research and literature on foreign direct investment (FDI) and
economic development has to date focused almost entirely on development
in the host economy where investment is made (Crespo and Fontoura,
2007; Saggi, 2002; JBICI, 2002; Fan, 2003; Görg and Strobl, 2001; Lim, 2001;
UNCTAD, 2013; Javorcik, 2004), sidelining the question of any contribution
to home country development. In an era predating the appearance of the
emerging multinational enterprises (MNEs) as important global players, this
focus on the host economy – and relative negligence of home-economy
development – was reasonable: FDI was largely an activity reserved for
MNEs from countries that were already developed, and theories about FDI
– from Hymer’s (1960) market power hypothesis and Vernon’s (1966) focus
* Dr. Jan Knoerich is Lecturer in the Economy of China at the Lau China Institute, School of
Global Affairs, King’s College London. Contact: [email protected] The author is grateful to
comments provided by the editor and by anonymous reviewers. The author also would like to
thank the participants at the 8th China Goes Global Conference on 19-21 August 2014 for their
comments on an earlier version of this paper.
on product innovation to Dunning’s (2001) ownership advantages –
emphasized the technological, innovative and managerial superiority
of the investing MNE as an essential explanation for the occurrence
of FDI. The investment development path similarly assumed FDI to
occur as a consequence of economic development (Dunning, 1981).
These theories were formulated at a time when most FDI flows were
unidirectional, from more to equal or less advanced economies.
Development in poorer economies was also associated with the
inflow of productive capital, technologies and economic activity from
advanced-economy MNEs, rather than with any form of capital outflow.
The ascendance to global significance of the MNEs from
emerging economies after the turn of the century ushered in a new era
in the study of FDI. Since then, researchers have begun to revisit some
of these assumptions, often suggesting the necessity of expanding
existing theories and common understandings about the nature of FDI
(Gammeltoft, Barnard and Madhok, 2010). Yet somewhat missing from
these discussions is the possibility that, because the MNE is the primary
beneficiary of its investments, its overseas operations and investments
could support the development of its country of origin – especially if
the enterprise comes from a developing or emerging economy. Hardly
any research has examined in detail the development contribution of
outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) in emerging economies or
developing home countries. More generally, a comparatively small
number of studies have examined the impact of FDI on home countries,
with many of them focusing primarily on the potential “hollowing
out” of the advanced home economies and the resulting necessity of
economic restructuring, an issue that would be of lesser significance to
developing home countries.
In view of these shortcomings in research on FDI, the purpose
of this study is to explore the nature and importance of the gains
and potential benefits for a developing home country from OFDI. As
this study seeks to inductively develop a framework that focuses on
the development contribution of OFDI in less advanced economies,
it is analytically prudent to explore this issue by making use of the
case study method. For the purpose of such an examination, I chose
mainland Chinese OFDI as a particularly appropriate case for a number
of reasons. First, China has so far been the source of the highest amount
of OFDI among developing economies. Second, Chinese firms started to
2 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

go abroad as early as the 1980s, when China was clearly undergoing
processes of rapid economic development. Figure 1 illustrates that
already during the 1990s, China’s OFDI stock as a percentage of gross
domestic product (GDP) was between 1 and 3 percent, substantial
enough to justify consideration of its potential contribution to China’s
economic development. After 2003, a stronger outward push became
visible with the accumulated stock of Chinese OFDI rising to an impressive
US$614 billion in 2013. Third, although China is a country with strong
economic fundamentals, it faces severe economic and developmental
challenges related to technological deficiencies, resources shortages,
food security, population pressures, environmental degradation,
pollution and more. Despite rapid economic growth of more than 8
per cent in most years since economic reforms were launched in 1978,
China’s GDP per capita is still relatively low. For these reasons, China is a
particularly useful case for exploring mechanisms that link OFDI to the
development of the home economy.
Figure 1 . China’s OFDI stock
US$ billion %
700 7
600 6
500 5
400 4
300 3
200 2
100 1
0 0
US$ billion % of GDP
Source: UNCTADStat database.
An interesting aspect of Chinese OFDI is that development

considerations have featured in official government policy. Since the
1980s, the Chinese government has, both institutionally and through
Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 3

various legal measures and frameworks, experimented in an industrial
policy-type fashion with the guidance and promotion of OFDI in the
interest of China’s economic development (Zhan, 1995). However, as
research has not thoroughly investigated the development contribution
of OFDI in home developing countries, not much is known about the
effectiveness of such policies. Has OFDI made a meaningful contribution
to development in China? Available theories or frameworks also do
not function well in explaining the development contribution of OFDI
to the home economy, given the aforementioned focus of theories
on ownership advantages and the technological, innovative and
managerial superiority of the investing MNE. As a result, the Chinese
and other governments of developing and emerging economies will
have difficulties making any decisions about appropriate OFDI policies
on the basis of existing academic and scholarly research.
What is the nature of the potential development contribution
of OFDI, and how could government policy effectively harness it? To
address these questions, several analytical steps are at the core of this
study’s investigation. To begin with, I review the relevant literature on
Chinese OFDI to gather preliminary insights into the contribution of
OFDI to economic development in China. Then I identify and categorize
the mechanisms through which Chinese OFDI has made development
contributions. This is done by developing the concept of “returns”
from OFDI and by examining how these returns have contributed to
economic development in China. Particular examples of Chinese MNEs
are drawn upon to confirm the findings.
In order to evaluate the importance of OFDI to the development
of the Chinese economy, I further assess the strengths and feasibility
of these mechanisms in contributing to development. An important
consideration is whether OFDI adds something unique to the other
channels of economic interaction with the rest of the world from which
China’s economic development has been found to have benefited
in the past – namely trade, inward FDI and migration. Development
studies often depict these economic exchanges with the rest of the
world as shown in figure 2 but omit OFDI owing to the lack of research
on its development contribution. I include OFDI in this figure by way of
a dotted line, aiming with this study to determine, for the case of China
initially, whether OFDI should rightfully be included in this graph.

Given the explorative character of this study, an inductive
approach to research was applied. In the spirit of concept development
and theoretical expansion, a single-country case study is examined to
develop an analytical framework on the development contribution of
OFDI (Yin, 2014; Eisenhardt, 1989), which future studies can use and
test in further analyses of the Chinese case or of other developing
countries. This study concludes with relevant considerations for future
economic policy.
I take the State-centric position of the MNE, which considers the
MNE as a product of its economic, institutional and cultural origins in
the home country (Gilpin, 2001, p. 288). This is appropriate for Chinese
OFDI, which has emerged only recently and has not yet generated the
kind of globalized MNEs in which the country of origin is becoming
blurred. For the purpose of this study, I apply a broad understanding
Figure 2. Economic exchanges with the rest of the world and economic development
REST OF THE WORLD
I
M E
I E I O M M
M X N U I
I
P P W T G
G
O Trade O A FDI W R Migration R
R R R A A
A
T T D R T
T
S S D I
I
O O
N
N
National absorptive capacity

(Governance/business climate, eduction and technological literacy, banking and finance, industrial policy)
Firms
Firm-level absorptive/learning capacity
Effective organizational learning
National economic development

(Mitigation of domestic development needs: constraints, shortages and bottlenecks)
Source: Adapted from Andreosso-O’Callaghan and Qian, 1999, p. 128 and World Bank, 2008, p. 8.

of the term “development”, including not only growth in GDP but
also more qualitative contributions to the economy such as economic
restructuring, technological advancement, sustainability, and improved
productivity or efficiency (Soubbotina, 2004, p. 133). I also consider
development to be an issue for countries categorized by the World
Bank as developing or transition economies (a group that includes
China) and a process that the advanced industrialized countries have
successfully concluded.
2. Chinese OFDI: Initial considerations on home-

economy development
Some studies have empirically examined the impact of OFDI
on advanced home economies. Although far from all of them find
evidence of such a relationship, a few have identified positive effects
(Blomström and Kokko, 1998; Dunning and Lundan, 2008; Kokko, 2006;
Lipsey, 2004; Moran, 2006) – an encouraging observation in view of
this study’s particular objectives. Table 1 provides a list of studies that
have found OFDI to enhance economic growth, exports, productivity,
efficiency, competitiveness, technologies and know-how in advanced
home economies. It is possible to infer from these studies that similar
effects must play a role in developing and emerging economies such
as China, although concrete evidence is lacking. In fact, with such
economies as the countries of origin, any impact from OFDI should
come in the form of more specific development contributions to the
home economy, with more significant qualitative benefits than the
typical gains from OFDI made in advanced countries. But given the
lack of concrete evidence, the need for thorough case study analysis of
individual developing countries is urgent.
In line with the broader picture in the literature on inward
FDI and development, accounts of Chinese OFDI have focused on
the development impact that Chinese MNEs have in host countries,
especially in Africa and Southeast Asia (Kubny and Voss, 2014; Whalley
and Weisbrod, 2011). There is no body of literature examining the
impact of OFDI on China’s economic development, although some of
the literature indicates the existence of such an impact. The rest of
this section examines this literature to establish a foundation based on
which a framework of Chinese OFDI and economic development can be
developed.

Table 1. Favourable impact of OFDI on advanced home economies:
Evidence from the literature
Type of FDI Impact on home economy Source
French OFDI French exports and French FDI are Chédor, Mucchielli and
complementary. Soubaya, 2002
UK OFDI OFDI can raise productivity in the United Driffield and Love, 2005
Kingdom.
Austrian OFDI to Outsourcing increases economic and total Egger, Pfaffermayr and
Eastern Europe factor productivity growth in Austria. Wolfmayr-Schnitzer, 2001
Italian OFDI OFDI is associated with employment growth Federico and Minerva,
at the local level compared with the national 2008
industry average.
Swedish OFDI OFDI supports the diffusion of foreign Globerman, Kokko and
technology to Sweden. Sjoholm, 1996
OFDI from Nordic Activities of firms abroad transferred Herstad and Jónsdóttir,
countries knowledge into the national innovation 2006
systems of Nordic home countries.
OFDI from 14 In the long run, OFDI has a positive effect on Herzer, 2008
industrialized output.
countries
OFDI from the OFDI has positive effects on domestic Herzer and Schrooten,
United States and investment in the short run and, for the 2008
Germany United States, in the long run as well.
OFDI from the The association between OFDI and growth is Herzer, 2010
United States positive.
and 50 other
countries
French OFDI Market-seeking and services OFDI create Hijzen, Jean and Mayer,
jobs in the home country; factor-seeking FDI 2009
improves capital-intensity and efficiency, and
enhances exports.
FDI in West R&D activities in west Sweden resulted in Ivarsson and Jonsson,
Sweden benefits for the global economic activities of 2003
the foreign companies involved, in sectors
ranging from manufacturing to services.
Japanese OFDI Japanese exports are promoted by the Lipsey and Ramstetter,
activities of Japanese foreign manufacturing 2003
affiliates.
United States Diffusion of knowledge occurs from the host Popovici, 2005
OFDI country back to the United States.
European Union OFDI from the EU has contributed to Sunesen, Jespersen and
(EU) OFDI enhancing competitiveness and productivity Thelle, 2010
in EU member States.
OFDI from 22 The productivity of an economy increases Van Pottelsberghe
industrialized if its OFDI is directed to R&D-intensive de la Potterie and
countries countries. Lichtenberg, 2001
Note: This table lists only a selection of studies that find results favourable to the home economy.
It is not comprehensive and does not list studies with negative or no findings. A more
comprehensive account of studies and their results has been provided by Lipsey (2004) and
by Kokko (2006) in extensive summaries of the literature.

2.1. Chinese OFDI as a pursuit of assets and
advantages
It has been argued that Chinese OFDI is a natural result of China’s
increasing economic strength (Liu et al., 2005). However, especially
with regard to Chinese OFDI into the advanced economies – which is a
considerable share of all Chinese OFDI – the more common view has been
that the Chinese economy and its firms continue to exhibit numerous
weaknesses, with OFDI often driven by the desire to overcome these
weaknesses (Ash, 2008, p. 199; Child and Rodrigues, 2005, p. 388;
Deng, 2007, p. 77, 2008; Knoerich, 2012, 2010; Von Zedtwitz, 2005;
Yang, 2005, pp. 49-58; Wu 2005, pp. 8-9; Young et al., 1996). Reference
is often made to the lack of within-firm strategic resources, especially
technologies, know-how and brands (Wu, 2005; Deng, 2008). Some
Chinese firms are considered “multinationals without advantages”
(Fosfuri and Motta, 1999), or at least do not exhibit the same type
of firm-specific capabilities, focused on technological, managerial or
marketing superiority, that have been typical for MNEs from advanced
economies (Guillén and García-Canal, 2009).
This view contradicts, at least in part, traditional theories of FDI,
which argue that market power and competitive advantages are both
key to successful overseas investment (Hymer, 1960; Dunning, 2001).
Some literature suggests that Chinese companies began to invest abroad
comparatively early, when China was not yet sufficiently developed to
justify the magnitude of OFDI already observed (Yang, 2005, pp. 54-55).
Chinese OFDI does not seem to fit with the internationalization and
psychic distance approaches to foreign investment either (Johanson
and Vahlne, 1977, 1990). Rather than undergoing incremental overseas
expansion, as these theories would predict, Chinese companies have
expanded rapidly into distant economies, many quite different from the
Chinese economic system. As a result, several studies have mentioned
the need to expand existing theory on the basis of observations about
Chinese OFDI (Child and Rodrigues, 2005, p. 407; Buckley et al., 2007,
pp. 501-503; Gammeltoft, Barnard and Madhok, 2010).
Instead of emphasizing the competitive advantages of Chinese
MNEs as a foundation of their OFDI behaviour, a number of studies
have focused on what could be termed the “pursuit of assets and
advantages” abroad. Chinese MNEs have made attempts to overcome

their firm-specific disadvantages by using OFDI as a means to acquire
various kinds of strategic assets, including know-how, brands and
technologies (UNCTAD, 2006, pp. 162-163; Child and Rodrigues, 2005).
This has been confirmed in numerous case studies (Knoerich, 2010;
Rui and Yip, 2008; Child and Rodrigues, 2005; Wu, 2005), and has
been identified as a motivation for OFDI – even before 1992 (Young
et al., 1996). Chinese OFDI in the acquisition and extraction of natural
resources has also been significant and is rapidly expanding (Buckley et
al., 2007, p. 504; Deng, 2004, p. 11; Cai, 1999; UNCTAD, 2007, p. 100),
with the annual number of new deals reaching record levels in recent
years.
Probably the main motivations for Chinese companies to invest
abroad have in fact been expansion into new markets, strengthening
of export markets, or circumvention of trade barriers (Knoerich, 2012;
Keller and Zhou, 2003, p. 11; Deng, 2004, pp. 12-13; Taylor, 2002, p.
221). Together with strategic-asset-seeking FDI, such pursuit of market
access, often for low-cost or niche products (Knoerich, 2012), explains
the peculiar situation of a certain geographic concentration of Chinese
OFDI in advanced economies: their large markets combine with an
environment in which firms hold a considerable amount of managerial
and marketing know-how, technologies and brand names. OFDI aimed
at reducing production costs has been less important for Chinese
companies, as production costs have been among the lowest in China
itself. However, this kind of OFDI from China is slowly increasing as the
Chinese economy reaches the “Lewis turning point” and as labour costs
are rising rapidly.
OFDI as a pursuit of assets and advantages to overcome
competitive weaknesses and disadvantages is being highlighted as an
important difference from conventional North-North or North-South
FDI. A few studies have examined Chinese OFDI through the resource-
based view of the firm (Deng, 2008), explaining how the Chinese MNEs,
through overseas investments, obtain complementary resources that
they lack in-house. Similarly, the linkage-leverage-learning approach
takes a learning-based view of Chinese OFDI (Li, 2007; Mathews, 2006).
Such perspectives are particularly useful when exploring the
development implications of OFDI for the Chinese economy. Many
of the assets and advantages pursued by Chinese MNEs can yield

broader benefits for the investing firm’s operations in China, for other
firms in China and for the Chinese economy as a whole. Yet, in much
of the literature, the link between the motivations and determinants
of Chinese OFDI and their respective development outcomes in China
has been made implicitly, if at all. There is definitely a lack of detailed,
focused analyses of the various dimensions of this development
contribution. This may be because much of the research on Chinese
OFDI to date has emerged in the field of international business, which
is primarily concerned with firm-level analyses, rather than in other
areas such as development studies, where macroeconomic effects and
development implications may receive greater coverage. The purpose
of this study is to bring more attention to this broader dimension of
economic development – essentially an outcome of the activities
of Chinese firms going abroad – in order to raise awareness of an
important but underinvestigated area of inquiry.
2.2. Chinese government support for OFDI and

development
Since the 1980s, the Chinese government has been concerned
in a number of ways with fostering OFDI in line with national economic
development priorities (Zhan, 1995, p. 81; Zhang and Van Den Bulcke,
1996, p. 417; Zhang, 2003, p. 62). The high level of State ownership of
China’s outward investing firms (Morck et al., 2008, p. 340; MOFCOM,
2014, p. 107; Korniyenko and Sakatsume, 2009, p. 11; OECD, 2008,
p. 2), capital market imperfections that favour those firms (Buckley
et al., 2007, p. 501), and the steering of OFDI behaviour through a
well-structured policy framework and economic incentives have been
regularly pointed out in studies of Chinese OFDI (Brown, 2008, p. 5;
Lu, Liu and Wang, 2011; Wang, 2002, p. 187; Yeung and Liu, 2008;
UNCTAD, 2006, p. 157). In the earlier years of China’s economic
reforms, the Chinese government was particularly concerned with the
encouragement, regulation and control of Chinese enterprise activities
and investments abroad (Zhang, 2003, p. 55). Government involvement
in OFDI decisions could be very direct, guiding large Chinese State-
owned enterprises (SOEs) in selected industries to invest in designated
destination countries in line with China’s long-term strategic interests.
Such government involvement was often motivated by concerns
related to China’s economic development, such as the strengthening

of export opportunities and access to strategic resources, including
know-how, technologies, equipment and raw materials (Wang, 2002,
pp. 192-194; Wu and Chen, 2001, pp. 1237-1239; Guo, 1984; Zhang,
2003, p. 57; Zhan, 1995, p. 70; Zhang and Van Den Bulcke, 1996, pp.
417). OFDI had the potential to improve the competitive strength of
Chinese firms, support catch-up ambitions and offset disadvantages in
global competition (Tan, 2001, p. 192; Chen, 2005, p. 30; Luo, Xue and
Han, 2010).
This approach was continued, albeit in a less stringent way, with
the “going out” policy implemented by China’s Ministry of Commerce
with the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) after
2000. The policy supports the exploration of natural resources to reduce
domestic shortages, promotes exports, encourages the establishment
of research and development (R&D) centres abroad to utilize foreign
technological know-how, and selectively supports engagement in
mergers and acquisitions (M&As) that can improve the competitiveness
of Chinese firms and facilitate access to foreign markets (UNCTAD,
2006, p. 210). Support offered by the government has included the
provision of information, guidance and training to investors (including
through the publication of three consecutive lists indicating the
countries and industries in which Chinese enterprises should invest),
administrative support, facilitation of investments through diplomatic
or non-diplomatic means, and financial assistance, such as through
insurance, taxation (People’s Daily Online, 2007), and low-interest loans
and preferential credit (Child and Rodrigues, 2005; Zhang, 2003, p. 60-
61; Warner et al., 2004, p. 340; UNCTAD, 2006, p. 180; Xiao and Sun,
2005). Gallagher and Irwin (2014) estimate the magnitude of China’s
OFDI finance from its development banks between 2002 and 2012 to
have reached US$140 billion.
Because of these many forms of involvement by the Chinese
State, the business literature often sees political and institutional factors
functioning as important drivers and home-economy determinants of
Chinese OFDI. The support and encouragement by the State, State
ownership, and the existence of capital market imperfections in China
that give preference to SOEs have been found to influence the OFDI
decisions of Chinese enterprises and potentially offer them a source
of competitive advantage (Morck et al., 2008; Antkiewicz and Whalley,
2006; McKinsey, 2008, p. 4).

China’s industrial policy-type OFDI regime is usually dealt
with in a critical manner and not considered in light of the country’s
development priorities. Concerns about the potential negative spillovers
of China’s institutions and OFDI policy regime in host countries greatly
exceed any recognition that the Chinese government may be pursuing
legitimate development policies that may often be in line with host
country interests. The literature does not present a framework that
enables an analysis of whether and how Chinese OFDI contributes to
the development of the Chinese economy, thereby preventing a proper
evaluation of the appropriateness of China’s OFDI policies. The purpose
of the following section is to develop such a framework.
3. The returns from Chinese OFDI

The literature on Chinese OFDI forms a useful basis for exploring
the mechanisms through which OFDI contributes to China’s economic
development. This literature has shown that Chinese enterprises, often
driven by deficiencies in the home economy, invest abroad to pursue
assets and advantages in four key areas: markets, strategic assets,
natural resources and, on lesser occasions, efficiency enhancement. It
is this pursuit of assets and advantages as a core activity of any direct
investment that should form the starting point of an analysis of the
development contribution.
How the pursuit of markets, strategic assets, natural resources
and efficiency contributes to development in the Chinese economy
remains obscure. In this study, I argue that a contribution to economic
development in China becomes possible if the successful and effective
pursuit and appropriation overseas of an asset or advantage generates
some sort of positive return, not only for the subsidiary of the Chinese
company but also for the company’s headquarters and operations
in China and, by extension, for the Chinese economy as a whole. A
thorough analysis of the nature and types of returns that Chinese OFDI
generates, including an examination of the impact these returns have
in China and whether they address any particular development needs,
can greatly help assess the role OFDI plays in supporting development
in the home economy.
In what follows, the case of Chinese OFDI is examined to identify
the returns that OFDI generates. In the process, quantitative macro

data and relevant findings from the literature are supplemented by
concrete evidence from individual cases of Chinese companies. For this
purpose, table 2 provides a rare list of more than two dozen specific
cases in which the returns generated by Chinese companies’ OFDI have
been concretely identified and documented. This collection of clear
examples is in many ways unique, especially given the generally low
availability of concrete and published accounts of Chinese OFDI cases.
The examination of this data resulted in the identification of four types
of returns generated by Chinese companies from OFDI. The following
sections examine each of these in greater detail.
3.1. Financial gains from FDI and associated
economic activities
It is in the nature of an investment that the ultimate objective
is financial gain. Although not explicitly mentioned in table 2, most if
not all investments listed there were ultimately driven by the profit
motive. Balance-of-payments statistics for China show that the overall
amount of money earned by Chinese MNEs abroad is not insignificant
– more than US$30 billion in income was generated from OFDI in
2013. As figure 3 illustrates, rates of return on Chinese OFDI have
ranged between 5 and 6 per cent in the years from 2009 to 2013.
Substantial amounts of FDI income are reinvested in the host country
(US$22 billion in 2013), but when remaining funds are repatriated
and reinvested in the home economy, Chinese companies and China
stand to benefit economically. Although an estimated overall value of
a few billion dollars in repatriated income will not make a particularly
noteworthy economic contribution in view of China’s overall financing
capacity today, the contribution to capital accumulation and potential
development contribution in individual, possibly localized contexts
should not be ignored. For example, remittances from migration may be
much higher than these financial returns from OFDI, but they are often
consumed rather than reinvested. Moreover, the financial income from
OFDI might have mattered more in earlier years of China’s economic
reforms, when China was in greater need of foreign exchange.
Possibly of greater importance have been the financial implications
of OFDI for China’s export industries, especially as enhancement of
exports has played an important role in China’s strategy to promote
economic development and maintain a current account surplus. Many

Table 2. Example cases of Chinese investments abroad
14
Foreign Country
Chinese company Asset/advantage sought Returns
investment (Year)
Consortium led by Las Bambas Peru (2014) “China gave its approval to the merger [of “The mining giant also agreed to supply a
MMG Limited copper mine Glencore with Xstrata] after Glencore agreed to minimum volume of copper concentrate to
(including CITIC (acquired sell its stake in Xstrata’s copper mining project China for a period of eight years.” (BBC, 2014)
Metal) from in Peru to a buyer approved by Chinese
Glencore authorities.” (BBC, 2014)
Xstrata)
Shuanghui Smithfield United States “enabling Shuanghui to learn from the Virginia- “Smithfield, […] and Shuanghui […] have said
International Foods Inc. (2013) based company’s food safety and production their joining will increase U.S. pork exports to
technology.” (Tadena, 2013) China”. (Tadena, 2013)
Zhuhai Yintong Altair Nano- United States “to obtain Altair Nano’s lithium titanate battery “it is one of the technologies listed in China’s
Energy Co., Ltd. technologies (2011) technology for China” (Szamosszegi, 2012, p. 863 Technology Plan. […] Yintong’s New
(Altair Nano) 100) Energy Vehicle Development Plan for 2011-
2020 makes clear that the Altair Nano
investment was undertaken with the state’s
development objectives in mind […].‘Through
holding shares of American Altairnano
Company, Yintong Group has introduced the
globally most advanced cell anode material
technology – lithium titanate technology into
Chinese market. Yintong Group purchases
dedicated lithium titanate material of
Altairnano for production of cell cells {sic} in
China. […] it possesses superior reliability in
applications of national defense, national
infrastructure and other equipment’.*”
(Szamosszegi, 2012, p. 100)
Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Foreign Country
investment (Year)
Anshan Iron & Steel United States “A spokesman for Anshan […] said […] the “Specifically, Anshan explained that:
Steel Group Development (2010) Mississippi company uses an electronic-furnace Anshan’s investment in building mills in the
Co. (14% technology that Anshan would like to introduce U.S. is not only going to fit the need of self-
stake) and to China to save power and reduce pollution.” development, it’s also Anshan’s sacred historic
construction (Areddy, 2010) mission of being the ‘eldest son of iron and
of associated steel’ of the world’s largest iron and steel
steel plants country. […] It is also Anshan’s contribution to
the realization of transforming China from a
big iron and steel country to a strong iron and
steel country.**
Moreover, several of Anshan’s justifications
for its investment derive directly from the […]
industrial policies, including acquiring
advanced technology and returning the
technology to China, and ‘enhanc[ing] the
internationalization of Anshan.’**” (Price et
al., 2011, p. 10)
Zhejiang Geely Volvo Sweden “Geely will be able to tap Volvo for three much- “The report says that Volvo tech will likely be

Holding Group (2010) needed technologies, including the use of a used on a premium car brand that Geely is
midsize platform, Volvo’s proven safety expected to create.” (Ross, 2012)
innovations and interior air quality systems.
The latter two technologies are important to
improve the crashworthiness of Geely’s cars,
along with helping isolate vehicle occupants
from China’s often severe air pollution.” (Ross,
2012)
Hangzhou Machine aba z&b Germany “Chinese HZMTG takes over 100% of the shares “… the production of standard machines was
Tool Group (2010) of aba z&b Schleifmaschinen [grinding relocated to the site in Linan in China…”
(HZMTG) machines].” [translated from German] [translated from German] (Schreier, 2010)
(Schreier, 2010)
15
Foreign Country
investment (Year)
16
Yanzhou Coal Felix Australia “‘Yanzhou Coal has been looking at expanding “agreed to buy Australia’s Felix Resources Ltd.
Mining Co. Resources (2009) its assets into Australia for several years,’ said […] to secure supplies” (Salidjanova, 2011, p.
Ltd. Andrew Driscoll, […]. ‘Its production levels in 7)
China are fairly flat in comparison with its peers “Yanzhou will pursue plans to boost its coal
and opportunities for expansion at home are reserves, President Yang Deyu said in an
limited. It needs to look abroad to expand October interview.” (Scott and Duce, 2009)
output.” (Scott and Duce, 2009)
China-Africa Cotton “China-Africa Malawi “China-Africa Cotton has established a seed- “A small amount of the cotton is processed
Development Ltd Cotton had (2008) breeding base and a ginnery in Malawi, with locally, with the rest being shipped back to
(a joint venture grown a annual capacity of 30,000 tons. […] China-Africa China, Wang [the general manager] says.”
between Qingdao presence in Cotton has also bought a plant in Malawi from (Wang, 2014)
Ruichang Cotton Malawi.” Cargill, […] to extract oil from cotton seed.”
Industrial Co, (Wang, 2014) (Wang, 2014)
China-Africa
Development Fund
and Qingdao Fuhui
Textile Co.)
China National Awilco Norway “technology of the Norwegian oil producer “This year, CNOOC began its first own deep-
Offshore Oil (2008) Awilco, purchased […] for 2.4 billion euros.” sea drilling. This was possible with the
Corporation (Geinitz and Lindner, 2012, translated from technoloy of […] Awilco.” (Geinitz and Lindner,
(CNOOC) German) 2012, translated from German)
Wanxiang Group “has United States “Wanxiang America expanded by purchasing “and shifting a portion of their production to
purchased or (1999-2006) some of these financially distressed firms.” China” (Szamosszegi, 2012, p. 81)
taken stakes (Szamosszegi, 2012, p. 81)
in 20 U.S.
companies”
(Szamosszegi,
2012, p. 82)

Foreign Country
investment (Year)
China Qianjiang Benelli Italy (2005) “The main reasons for QJ to purchase Benelli “Benelli’s products/spare-parts were also to
Group was to utilize a well-known and recognized be used in China, so as to increase the quality
brand in terms of quality and sporting tradition, of domestically manufactured products and to
as well as to capitalize on Benelli’s further diversify production to new categories
professionalism and knowledge, in order to of clients. Increased efficiency and a wide
offer a high-quality product in segments that range of quality products would have helped
had not yet been penetrated by the QJ group.” QJ to compete with the leading Japanese
(Spigarelli et al., 2012, p. 366) companies in the motorbike market.”
(Spigarelli et al., 2012, p. 367)
Lenovo/Legend IBM PC United States “Not only would Lenovo be allowed to use the “As one senior manager commented, ‘The
Business (2005) IBM brand under license for five years, […] it deal has enhanced our technology and
would also own IBM’s premium Think innovative capabilities by at least 5 years.
trademark which covers the prestigious More importantly, we have the world-class
ThinkPad notebook brand and the ThinkCenter managerial team from IBM, and that is
desktop line. Equally important would be invaluable’ (Lenovo, personal communication,
Lenovo’s gaining access to IBM’s international May, 2005).” (Deng, 2007, p. 76)
expertise, especially in areas such as the

management of manufacturing and distribution
channels in the 160 countries.” (Wu, 2005, p.
18).
“as well as gain technology and expertise to
complement its existing firm-specific
advantages in China” (UNCTAD, 2006, p. 163)
Nanjing MG Rover United “Nanjing obtained MG Rover’s engine plant and “All of these assets were expected by Nanjing
Automobile Kingdom other facilities, five Rover car brands, the to produce competitive cars so as to obtain a
(2005) opportunity to sell in Europe, and an existing stronger market position in China and an
network of procurement, selling, and service in exporting position in Europe. […] Another was
Europe.” (Rui and Yip, 2008, p. 220) to attract Chinese customers […] by ‘localizing’
the brand.” (Rui and Yip, 2008, p. 220)
17
Foreign Country
investment (Year)
18
Heilongjiang Armada (joint Russia (2004) “Covering an area of 40,000 hectares, Armada “It raises 30,000 pigs a year and grows
Dongning Huaxin venture) is not only the largest Sino-Russian agricultural soybeans and corn that is sold in local markets
Industry and Trade cooperation project but also the biggest farm in or shipped back to China.” (Stanway, 2013)
Group the Russian Far East.” (Wu and Liu, 2013) “Chinese corporations are involved in
producing food in neighbouring countries for
the domestic market, one example being the
400,000 hectare farm on the China–Russia
border jointly owned by China’s Huaxin Group
and Russia’s Armada.” (Morton, 2013)
Shenyang Machine Schiess Germany “SYMG’s strategy through its acquisition of “‘SYMG machines are being developed and
Tool Group (SYMG) GmbH (2004) Schiess was not just to thereby gain access to brought to readiness for series production
new markets, first in Europe and the[n] using Germany’s technologically high levels of
worldwide. It was also to draw on the skills and engineering expertise and then […] to be
technology of the German company’s designers manufactured [in China] at an economically
and engineers to produce a whole new viable cost,’ explains Dr Marcus Otto, Director
generation of machine tools [...].” (Hattersley, of Schiess Tech. ‘[…] at Schiess Tech’s berlin
2014) [sic] office engineers from ten European
countries are working closely with Chinese
colleagues to develop equipment for the
world market. One of the first results of this
collaboration is our new VIVA TURN 4, […]
which is designed here in Berlin for the
European market and assembled […] in
Shenyang.’” (Hattersley, 2014)
Shagang Thyssen- Germany “In an unprecedented campaign, both the “A complete steelworks including blast
Krupp (2002) Phoenix steelworks (“East”) and the coking furnaces, rolling mills and sintering plant shall
Stahlwerke plant Kaiserstuhl and large parts of the be disassembled into millions of individual
Westfalenhütte were sold to a Chinese parts, to subsequently rebuild it in China’s
consortium (“Shagang”).” [translated from Zhangjiagang, 9,000 kilometres away.”
German] (www.industriedenkmal.de) [translated from German] (Dohmen and
Schmid, 2002)

Foreign Country
investment (Year)
Haier Meneghetti Italy (2001) “Haier saw this acquisition as providing the “[…] buying Meneghetti-produced built-in
refrigerator opportunity to develop new products from a ovens and hobs to market them in China
plant European manufacturing base.” (Bonaglia et al., under the Haier brand name.” (Bonaglia et al.,
2007, p. 377) 2007, p. 377)
Holly Group (Holly Philips United States “The Holly Group provides an example of “Philips Semiconductors agreed to transfer to
Holdings (USA) Ltd) Semi- (2001) foreign acquisition aimed at securing Holly Holdings all equipment, assets and
conductors proprietary technology […] A major step associated know-how, alongside intellectual
(CDMA hand- forward towards implementing this strategy property rights, which were embodied and
set reference was Holly’s acquisition in September 2001 of engendered by the activity of hand-set
design the CDMA hand-set reference design operation reference designs. Furthermore, the Holly
operation), from Philips Semiconductors in the USA.” (Child
Group also benefited […] by gaining an
establishing and Rodrigues, 2005, p. 392) exclusive license to handle and process the
Holly com- CDMA software protocol that earlier had been
munication developed by Philips. The latter promized [sic]
Group Inc. to supply Holly and its (prospective)

customers with key silicon-components, so
that Holly could continue the process of
developing and marketing these licensed
products.” (Warner et al., 2004, p. 335)
Huawei R&D centres India, “Huawei […] provides another example of how “These ventures […] aim to offset areas of
Technologies Germany, Greenfield investment in R&D can help Chinese weakness in China’s innovation system, to
Japan, companies be close to sources of knowledge access foreign technological assets, and to
United and learning.” (Deng, 2007, p. 75) capture the externalities created by host-
States, etc. country technology clusters (www.huawei.
(since 1999) com.cn).” (Deng, 2007, p. 75)
19
20
Foreign Country
investment (Year)
Haier Haier United States “For Haier, investment in the U.S. is certainly “The major role of these R&D centers is to
Industrial (since 1999) motivated by factors such as expanding the develop, acquire, and transfer technology, and
Park range of products it sells and bypassing non- to help the head office develop home
(greenfield), tariff barriers on imports of Chinese appliances. appliances that meet the needs and wants of
South […] In the words of one senior manager, ‘By local consumers (Haier Group, personal
Carolina; setting up the production plant in the U.S., we communication, August, 2004).” (Deng, 2007,
marketing aim to draw on America’s expertise in design, p. 75)
centre, New research, innovation, and technology, as well as
York; design to increase our global brand.’ (Haier Group,
and R&D personal communication, August, 2004).”
centres, Los (Deng, 2007, p. 75)
Angeles and
Boston
Galanz R&D centre, United States “Galanz […] has invested […] in an R&D center “The increased technological strength helped
Seattle (1998) in Seattle, Washington in order to improve its Galanz not only become the world’s largest
own proprietary technological capability.” manufacturer of microwave ovens, but also
(Deng, 2007, p. 75) build up its strong international brand for the
future.” (Deng, 2007, p. 75)
China Petroleum Oil-related Peru and “exploration and exploitation of oil” (Cai, 1999, “On 15 September 1997 the first shipment of
and Natural Gas projects Canada p. 869) crude oil obtained from the company’s
Corporation (since 1992); overseas investment was brought back to
Sudan, China.”*** (Cai, 1999, p. 869)
Venezuela,
Kazakhstan
(since 1996)

Foreign Country
investment (Year)
San Huan New Magne- United States “Magnequench had a unique expertise in the “in 2004, Magnequench, together with its merger
Material High-Tech quench (1995) manufacture of high-powered neodymium partner NEO Material Technologies (and its inte-
Inc., and China (majority magnets, which it pioneered in the 1980s for itsgrated Chinese joint-venture partners), supplied
National share) parent company, General Motors [...]” (Tkacik, about 80 percent of the world market share of
Nonferrous Metals 2008) neodymium and rare-earth oxide powders [...]
Import and Export Magnequench’s crown-jewel technologies had
Company already seeped off unnoticed to China, and the
entire production line was already being disman-
tled in the United States. [...] NEO and its Mag-
nequench affiliate report that 85 percent of their
manufacturing facilities are in China” (Tkacik, 2008)
China Ocean >50 wholly in almost 20 “Operating a fleet of more than 800 ships of “[I]ts annual catch of several hundred
Fishing Corporation owned countries, various types and employing 15,000 sailors and thousand tons of seafood is all sent back to
subsidiaries, including the land-based workers abroad” (Deng, 2004, p. the rapidly growing Chinese market.” (Deng,
joint ventures United States, 11) 2004, p. 11)
and Iran, and
cooperative Argentina as
subsidiaries well as in

West African
nations
(1985-1995)
Shougang (Capital) Masta United States “obtain access to the US company’s high “This investment has significantly
Iron and Steel Corp Engineering (1988) technology design capability in steel rolling and strengthened Shougang’s abilities to design
and Design casting equipment” (Wall, 1997, pp. 24-25); and manufacture heavy metallurgical
Inc. (70%) “Through this investment Shougang is able to equipment and increased the international
use Masta’s 650 blueprints and microfilms, 46 competitiveness of China’s iron and steel
software packages, 41 technical patents and 2 industry. […]
registered trade marks in well-advanced rolling
and continuous casting technologies. Masta
became Shougang’s research-and-development
basis overseas.” (Zhan, 1995, p. 89)
21
Foreign Country
investment (Year)
22
In late 1989, Shougang and its subsidiary
Masta established a joint venture in Beijing,
Masta Engineering Beijing Co. Ltd. With the
advanced technology from Masta, the venture
undertook a number of large technological
renovation projects in China, including one
research-and-development project listed as a
key one in China’s Seventh National
Development Plan. Through joint research
and development with United States experts
and hands-on training in both China and the
United States, Chinese engineers soon
became familiar with the most advanced
technology and know-how in the metallurgical
industry.” (Zhan, 1995, p. 89)
China Metallurgical Channar Australia “extraction of iron ore” (Cai, 1999, p. 868) “The ore is taken by conveyor belt to
Import and Export Mine joint (1987) Paraburdoo, where it is transported – with
Corp venture with product from the mine there and from Eastern
CRA Range – by the Hamersley and Robe River
railway to the port of Dampier, and then
loaded on ships, many headed for China. […]
The Channar ore body was identified as the
most suitable for Chinese steel mills, […]
production began in January 1990, the first
shipment being sent from Dampier to
Shanghai.” (Callick, 2010)
“Within the 30-year duration of the joint
venture there will be a stable shipment of 200
million tons of quality iron ore from Australia
to China.”**** (Cai, 1999, p. 869)

Foreign Country
investment (Year)
China Bicycles Purchase of United States “in order to gain access to the technology for “The company transferred the technology
Corporation an American producing the high specification models in back to its Shenzhen plant which now has a
bicycle demand in the United States and Europe” highly successful export market.” (Wall, 1997,
company (Wall, 1997, p. 24) p. 24);
“In this way, not only was the technology itself
transferred but also the ability to translate it
into practical commercial use.” (Deng, 2004,
p. 11)
Shanghai Baoshan Six joint Australia, “to gain access to both iron-ore mining and “Between 1990 and 1994, the company
Iron and Steel ventures Brazil, South steel marketing” (Deng, 2004, p. 11) shipped over 10 million tons of mineral back
Corporation Africa to China, saving an estimated $6 million in
fees and charges.” (Deng, 2004, p. 11)

* Original source: Guangdong Yintong Investment Holding Group Company Limited New Energy Vehicle Development Plan (2011-2020).
** Original source: “Angang to Invest and Build Factory in the United States”, Anshan Iron and Steel Group Corporation (May 17, 2010) (Chinese translated version).
*** Original source: Renmin Ribao, 16 September 1997, p. 1.
**** Original source: Jiang, Bolun, and Zhenfang Zou (1996). Foreign Investment of Chinese Enterprises (Beijing: Economic Science Press), pp. 18-19.
23
Figure 3. Financial returns from Chinese OFDI
% US$ billion
6.2 35
6 30
5.8 25
5.6
20
5.4
15
5.2
5 10
4.8 5
4.6 0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Rate of return Direct investment income Reinvested earnings
Source: IMF Balance of Payments (BOP) Statistics, UNCTADStat (for FDI positions).
Rates of return are calculated by dividing direct investment income in
year t by the average of the FDI positions for years t and t-1 (UNCTAD, 2013).
Chinese investments, and especially those in advanced economies,

have as their objective the pursuit of new export markets overseas
or the enhancement of access to existing export markets (Knoerich,
2012). Not only are the investing firms’ export earnings enhanced
by such activities, but their Chinese suppliers benefit in similar ways,
with attendant financial benefits accruing directly within the Chinese
economy from profits and foreign exchange earnings.
A final benefit is that OFDI has made financing from overseas
sources possible, opening up a viable alternative to domestic sources of
capital (Wall, 1997, p. 16; Deng, 2004, p. 15). The availability of capital
and foreign exchange has been distorted in China, where SOEs are still
the primary recipients of loans from State banks. Such capital market
imperfections have, for instance, forced small- and medium-sized
enterprises to rely more on informal finance and export earnings to
finance and expand their operations. OFDI has broadened the overall
pool of financing options available to all kinds of Chinese firms.

3.2. Intangible benefits and the enhancement of
capabilities
Beyond immediate financial gains, Chinese firms investing abroad
have enjoyed intangible benefits from the pursuit of technologies,
managerial and marketing skills, brands and various forms of tacit know-
how available in foreign locations. Once these intangible resources
reach the home economy – which would normally occur through
within-firm transfer mechanisms – and are assimilated and integrated
into domestic economic activities, Chinese firms enjoy greater access to
capabilities that are new or unfamiliar to them. Economic development
occurs when these acquired capabilities support Chinese companies
in the process of catching up in technological and other fields, help
improve efficiency in resource use or advance sustainability in the
economy in other ways.
The amount, nature and type of capabilities obtained by Chinese
companies through OFDI differ with the entry mode of investment.
Greenfield investments can yield access to capabilities through reverse
spillovers, reverse competition and demonstration effects, and reverse
labour turnover (Knoerich, 2012). Chinese OFDI in R&D activities has also
expanded at a brisk pace (OECD, 2007, p. 22). With advanced economies
as the dominant destination for this kind of OFDI (UNCTAD, 2005, p.
150), catch-up has been an important motivation (Von Zedtwitz, 2005,
p. 121). Another possibility has been inter-firm cooperation, such as
through joint ventures between Chinese and foreign firms (Wall, 1997,
pp. 15-16). Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) are generally known to
be a particularly direct and effective means of gaining access to firm-
specific capabilities (Dunning, 1998; Inkpen, 1998; Ranft and Lord,
2002), but they are capital-intensive undertakings. Chinese firms have
been very active participants in cross-border acquisitions in advanced
economies, as the cases of Lenovo’s acquisition of IBM’s PC business
(United States) and of Medion (Germany), Geely’s acquisition of
Volvo (Sweden), Shuanghui’s acquisition of Smithfield (United States),
CNOOC’s acquisition of Nexen (Canada) and some other cases listed in
table 2 exemplify.
A few studies have documented internal transfers of
(technological) know-how, brand recognition and other capabilities
back to company headquarters in China (Knoerich, 2010; Zhan, 1995;

Deng, 2004), and the examples of Zhuhai Yintong, Anshan, Huawei,
Shougang, Geely, CNOOC, China Qianjiang Group, Lenovo, Nanjing
Automobile, Shenyang Machine Tool Group, Haier, Holly Group, Galanz,
San Huan New Material High-Tech Inc. and China Bicycles Corporation in
table 2 provide additional evidence of the existence of such “capability
returns”. Many of these documented activities have occurred in sectors
of key importance to China’s economic development, such as in the
machinery and equipment, electronics and automotive industries.
In at least the first four of these cases, documentation (cited in table
2) explicitly highlights the important link to China’s development
priorities, such as the need to mitigate shortcomings in the country’s
national innovation system (Deng, 2007, p. 75).
Despite substantial progress, especially in recent years, China
has in most areas not yet reached a level of technological sophistication
and innovation comparable with the international leaders, and its firms
remain constrained by competitive and technological weaknesses.
There is an intense debate between those who believe in the ability of
Chinese firms to catch up and become strong international competitors
and technology leaders (Rasking and Lindenbaum, 2004; Sigurdson,
2005, p. 15; Zeng and Williamson, 2003, p. 93; Brandt and Thun,
2010), and those who view this potential progress rather sceptically,
citing technological and managerial deficiencies, lack of marketing and
branding skills, weak innovation performance, low productivity, and low
product variety and quality (Nolan, 2001, 2002; Alon, 2012; Yang, 2005,
pp. 49-54; Wu, 2005, pp. 8-9; Steinfeld, 2004; Gilboy, 2004; McKinsey,
2008, p. 5; UNCTAD, 2006, p. 152). China has strong ambitions to
become a knowledge-based economy, but it is reliant on foreign sources
of know-how to complement domestic innovation efforts, as the latter
on their own would be too costly and not fast enough to support catch-
up with the international technology frontier. Thus, investments in
foreign R&D centres, partnerships with more advanced firms abroad
and foreign acquisitions may be more pragmatic approaches. Even
leading Chinese firms such as Haier, TCL and Lenovo have had strategic
needs, which they have sought to overcome by investing overseas
(Deng, 2008).
However, the exact dynamics and success rate of accessing,
appropriating and transferring firm-specific capabilities through OFDI
are still little understood. There is no guarantee that a Chinese firm

will accomplish this successfully. Two important requirements are the
capacity to absorb the know-how and intangible resources obtained
abroad and the ability to transfer them across borders. The complex
nature of many kinds of know-how and the challenges of integrating
parent and subsidiary effectively to facilitate transfers are additional
complicating factors. Beyond these within-firm challenges, stakeholder
opposition in the host country could result in further difficulties, as
could numerous cultural, contractual and legal barriers (Knoerich,
2010).
Yet cases such as that of Lenovo, which emerged as a leading
global computer giant after its acquisition of IBM’s PC division, and the
recent rise of global telecommunications companies Huawei and ZTE
with their international network of R&D centres, indicate that some
Chinese companies have successfully accomplished these tasks. ZTE’s
European R&D centre was instrumental in developing the 4G technology
that gave the company a strong market share in China. Accordingly,
Huang and Wang (2009) find a positive association between OFDI
and Chinese patents, and Wang (2012) proposes that OFDI can help
upgrade the Chinese economy. Another study also suggests that OFDI
is geared towards strengthening industries in China (Huang and Wang,
2011). In view of this co-existence of opportunities and challenges,
a likely conclusion to be drawn is that OFDI can help Chinese firms
upgrade their capabilities, although this works better in some cases
and contexts than in others.
3.3. Enhanced availability of commodities,

materials and physical assets
Certain types of Chinese OFDI enhance the availability and
accessibility of commodities, raw materials or particular kinds of
physical assets (e.g. machines or entire factories). Many investments
by Chinese enterprises, especially State-owned ones, in resource-rich
countries in Africa, the Americas, the Middle East and other regions
have had the objective of tapping into overseas reserves of oil, gas,
iron, copper, aluminium and other resources. Investment projects in
this area tend to be large, accounting for a substantial share of China’s
corporate assets overseas. They are frequently achieved by acquiring
shares in foreign firms or by engaging in cooperation schemes such
as shareholding agreements and joint development (Tan, 2013; Deng,

2004, p. 11; Jiang and Sinton, 2011). In addition, Chinese companies have
been purchasing or leasing farmland in many parts of the world, such
as in Africa and Latin America, to produce a wide range of agricultural
commodities including grain, palm oil, sugar, tea and meat (Sun, 2011,
p. 15; Von Braun and Meinzen-Dick, 2009; Smaller and Mann, 2009).
Some of these commodities, materials and physical assets
are shipped back to China for use in industrial production and to
provide energy and supplies. For at least 11 of the cases in table 2
such direct (or intended) transportation of overseas products or physical
assets back to China has been explicitly documented. In a detailed study
of Chinese OFDI in agriculture, Smaller et al. (2012, pp. 15-27) identify
projects in Argentina, Brazil, Kazakhstan, the Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Russian Federation, Senegal and
Tanzania where export to China is an explicit purpose of the investment.
The Chinese government has offered subsidies to resource-oriented
investments aimed at shipping resources back to China (Luo, 2010, p.
76).
Apart from these immediate benefits, the ownership rights that
OFDI conveys to a Chinese company promise more secure and stable
access to overseas commodities and natural resources than does
reliance solely on market mechanisms. OFDI is a means to hedge against
the risks of being exposed to the volatility of prices in global commodity
markets by enabling more direct access to raw materials under long-
term contracts. The stability and certainty gained from reducing the
likelihood of any shortages or crises provides an important advantage
to China’s economy. Even if commodities are not shipped back to China
but sold in the open market internationally or locally, which is common
for example in the energy and agriculture sectors (Chen, 2011, pp. 607-
608; Economist, 2008, p. 12; Smaller, 2012, p. 6; Morton, 2013), the
additional supply provided by Chinese firms can have the side effect of
lowering the global market price of a commodity, ultimately reducing
import and input prices for industries in China. And in times of crisis
or shortages, Chinese companies, and especially SOEs, could still give
privilege to China as a destination for shipment of these resources
(Economist, 2010a, 2010b; Ma and Andrews-Speed, 2006, p. 19).

For a long time, China’s model of economic growth relied on large-
scale investments in industry and infrastructure construction, requiring
considerable amounts of raw materials. But despite natural and energy
resources in China being plentiful at an aggregate level, owing to the
enormous size of the country’s territory, there is a shortage of most
resources in per capita terms, given China’s huge population of more
than 1.3 billion people. Overall, China’s natural resource endowment
is below the world average. Rapid economic growth over the last
few decades, averaging 10 per cent per year from 1978 to 2010, has
further exacerbated these shortages: domestic natural resources are
not sufficient to meet China’s rising energy needs and supply Chinese
industries. Power consumption has been strongly tied to economic
growth in China, and equally rose by 10 per cent per year between 1991
and 2007 (Liu and Zhang, 2012, p. 4). During the past decade, the share
of heavy industry, such as steel and cement production, in the Chinese
economy has grown continuously (Yang, 2012). Increasing amounts of
raw material inputs are required to serve the rising needs of Chinese
households, including strong growth in energy consumption, and to
maintain China’s high level of exports.
China lacks sufficient capacity in important sources of energy,
especially oil and gas (Smil, 2000, p. 212). Its own oil resources are
being depleted and have continued to fall behind soaring demand,
forcing greater reliance on imports (Ma and Andrews-Speed, 2006). In
the period from 1990 to 2010, China’s self-sufficiency in oil declined
from 119 per cent to 45 per cent (Xing, 2012, p. 8), and oil security
became a priority concern for the government (Smil, 2004, p. 20).
Accordingly, the Chinese government has viewed OFDI as important for
China’s energy security (Yang, 2012).
Moreover, industrialization-induced environmental degradation
(air, water and land pollution) has amplified shortages of water
and land. The constant scarcity of land in China (Ash, 1996, p. 77),
especially in view of China’s enormous population, has kept the issue
of food security on the agenda, even if it is not an imminent threat.
It was just a bit more than 50 years ago that China experienced the
most severe famine in human history, and its government maintained a
policy of 90 per cent self-sufficiency in grain until recently. The pursuit
of agricultural land and water by Chinese companies abroad must be
viewed in this context.

Chinese OFDI in resources exploration, extraction and production
enhances accessibility to energy resources, metals and agricultural
products, with some of these commodities, as well as capital goods,
being shipped directly back to China. This process enhances capacities
in China to produce, consume, construct and operate, in both stable
and unstable times. However, the degree to which China has actually
improved its resource security and benefited from such “capacity
returns” remains an issue requiring further exploration in future
research.
3.4. Macroeconomic effects from OFDI

Finally, Chinese OFDI has had an aggregate impact on industrial
production, exports and employment in China. Chinese investments
in advanced economies have opened up additional markets for goods
produced at low cost in China (Knoerich, 2012), and many Chinese
efficiency- or resource-seeking investments in Africa, Southeast Asia
and other low-cost locations require the procurement of intermediary
products and parts produced in China. This export-promoting function
of Chinese OFDI has existed for many years and for a long time
received explicit encouragement from the Chinese government (Wong
and Chan, 2003, p. 281). It has been tied in with a growing need to
expand business activity beyond China, owing to increasing domestic
competition from foreign investors, oversaturation of domestic markets
and excess production capacities (Wu, 2005, p. 7; Deng, 2004, pp. 11-
12; Keller and Zhou, 2003, p. 11; Zhan, 1995, p. 93). An UNCTAD survey
found that 40 per cent of Chinese companies considered maximizing
domestic manufacturing capacity as an important reason for expanding
abroad, while 36 per cent highlighted circumventing trade barriers
(UNCTAD, 2006, p. 156). Accordingly, Huang and Wang found a positive
association between Chinese exports to a particular country and OFDI
in that country (Huang and Wang, 2011, p. 18). Zou also finds a positive
impact of OFDI on production in China (Zou, 2008).
However, the impact can also be negative, if Chinese companies
expand production in other developing countries at the expense of
production in China. With labour and other costs of production rising
rapidly in China and with the gradual appreciation of the Renminbi,
some Chinese companies have begun to offshore (parts of) their
production activities to lower-cost locations, especially in Asia and

Africa. But this is only a recent trend and not yet of great macroeconomic
significance. Even if such offshoring were to take place at a larger scale,
the consequences would not necessarily be severe, as OFDI could still
expand the production of intermediary products in China for export to
overseas production locations. Such OFDI would also induce companies
in China to upgrade their production activities away from low-cost, low-
skill manufacturing. Again, the net effects are unknown and remain to
be determined in future research.
4. Contribution to development
On the basis of the findings described here, it is now possible
to construct an analytical framework summarizing the mechanisms
through which OFDI has contributed to economic development in China
(figure 4). When conducting OFDI, Chinese firms have pursued a variety
of assets and advantages that are accessible abroad but often either
unavailable or not sufficiently available in China. Successful access to
these assets and advantages overseas, and their transfer back to China –
whether directly or indirectly – has generated financial gains, capability
improvements, capacity enhancements and favourable macroeconomic
Figure 4. OFDI and Chinese economic development: An analytical framework
CHINA REST OF THE WORLD
Pursuit of assets
and advantages
• Market-seeking
OFDI • Efficiency-seeking
• Resource-seeking
• Strategic (created)
asset-seeking
Development needs
• Contraints
• Shortages Mitigation
• Bottlenecks Generation of returns
• Financial
• Capability
Economic • Capacity
Development • Macroeconomic
Border

effects. These financial, capability, capacity and macroeconomic returns
have in turn supported economic development in China, especially
if they addressed any of China’s prevalent development challenges,
such as financing needs, innovation bottlenecks, resource shortages
or export constraints. Some returns are more effective than others in
fulfilling this development function.
Although these findings are encouraging, one may question
the extent to which OFDI makes a significant difference to economic
development worth more intensive consideration by researchers
and policymakers. There are several constraints in addition to those
already mentioned in the preceding section. Most notably, assets
and advantages have to be available and accessible overseas – for
example, the appropriate know-how or resources may not be available,
foreign partner firms may not be willing to offer the necessary degree
of cooperation, or foreign governments may prevent the pursuit of
an asset or advantage if it is against the national interest of the host
country. This last constraint has at times been a particular challenge
to Chinese firms and could be seen as a foreign reaction to some of
China’s OFDI having been induced by considerations of industrial policy.
Returns also have to be realizable – for example, it is not straightforward
to transfer acquired know-how back to the home economy and utilize
it effectively there, especially as Chinese firms may lack the necessary
absorptive capacity. Similarly, the extent to which Chinese natural
resources companies, especially during times of crisis, are able to give
privilege to China for the shipping of raw materials is unknown. There
is also the possibility that China’s interests are not aligned with those
of its enterprises; for example, when Chinese firms offshore productive
activities away from China or when they use OFDI to escape the
institutions of the home economy (Sutherland, 2010, pp. 19-20; Witt
and Lewin, 2007).
The question then is this: How important is OFDI in view of the
other channels of economic interaction with the rest of the world shown
in figure 2 – trade, inward FDI and migration? China has used each of
these channels to support its economic development, yet the degree
of their contribution has been repeatedly questioned. Here also, the
interests of the companies and individuals involved may not be aligned
with those of China as a country, economy and developmental state,
and there have been a number of other limitations.

For example, China has for many decades relied on imports to
support its economic development. The country has a long history of
importing capital goods, dating back at least to the cooperation with the
Soviet Union during the first five-year plan in the mid-1950s. A decade
after the Sino-Soviet split in 1960, Western countries and Japan became
the main sources of technology imports for the Chinese economy. Not
only did imports of capital goods such as machinery and equipment
support industrial modernization, but imported technologies were also
reverse engineered. Such practices have continued to the present day,
albeit with mixed success, given the difficulties inherent in replicating
technologies and the limitations in availability of advanced technologies
on the open market.
China’s development has also benefited substantially from the
country’s emergence as an export platform. Chinese companies have
over the years generated massive export earnings and a considerable
trade surplus by manufacturing low-cost and labour-intensive products
for the world market. They have also benefited from manufacturing
and assembling high-tech products on behalf of leading MNEs. By
serving as original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for these MNEs,
Chinese firms have managed to acquire know-how and technological
skills that helped them upgrade their production activities. However,
MNEs tend to outsource production only of their less technologically
advanced components, which puts strong limits on the overall transfer
of skills to Chinese companies. Moreover, operating as an OEM helps
upgrade capabilities only at early stages of technological development,
and learning opportunities cease once a certain technological level has
been reached.
Beyond the financial gains from increased capital inflows, China
has also reaped technological and other benefits from inward FDI in its
economy (Berthélemy and Démurger, 2000; Tseng and Zebregs, 2002; Liu
and Wang, 2003). The country benefited from various types of spillover
effects, technology transfer and labour turnover. But evidence about
the extent of such benefits remains inconclusive (Sigurdson, 2005, pp.
97-98; Fan, 2003, p. 50; Lardy, 1995; Shan et al., 1999; Lo, 2006; Taylor,
2002, p. 214; Young and Lan, 1997). Technology spillovers in China
could have been disappointing, and FDI might have been concentrated
in low-skill areas. Foreign firms have avoided employing their most
sophisticated technologies in China (Raskin and Lindenbaum, 2004,

p. 7). They have protected market information and avoided sharing
technology in joint ventures (Wang, 2002, p. 203). Moreover, before
the late 1990s, export-processing activities in China undertaken by
companies from the neighbouring economies of “Greater China” (e.g.
Taiwanese investors on the mainland) were unlikely to have induced
substantial spillovers (Naughton, 2007, p. 368; Knoerich, 2015, p. 99).
Obstacles encountered in adapting foreign technologies to match local
specifications add to these limitations (Sigurdson, 2005, p. 98).
Migration to other countries also transferred money to China,
when Chinese migrants sent remittances home to support their family
members. Know-how was also transferred through the education
that Chinese migrants received overseas and through transnational
networks created by the Chinese global diaspora (Saxenian, 2005).
Returning migrants have reportedly made many positive contributions
to the Chinese economy through entrepreneurship, know-how transfer
and inward FDI (World Bank, 2008, p. 125; Filatotchev et al., 2009;
Wright et al., 2008). But at the same time, migration involves an
outward transfer of skills (World Bank, 2008, p. 122) – the so-called
“brain drain”, which has been a serious problem for China (Luo, 2003,
p. 293; World Bank, 2008, p. 124; Naughton, 2007, p. 363). According
to one statistic, 1.2 million Chinese studied abroad between 1978 and
2007, with only 319,700 returnees (Wang, 2008). China has also not
received many immigrants who could contribute to the development
of the Chinese economy.
In sum, despite the support to China’s economic development
offered by trade, inward FDI and migration, each of these channels
of interaction with the rest of the world has confronted its own set
of limitations. The question is then whether Chinese enterprises can
overcome some of these limitations by expanding their own global
operations, thereby generating returns from the pursuit of assets
and advantages overseas. Or, viewed differently, if the development
contribution of trade, inward FDI and migration has its own limitations,
we should not expect the development contribution of OFDI to be
without constraints.
Rather, the analysis provided in this study suggests that OFDI
has been both complementary and supplementary to the other
channels of China’s economic interaction with the rest of the world.

Its complementary function is evident in the potential of OFDI to bring
in additional finances, to further enhance domestic technological
and other know-how, to secure much needed foreign imports and
to support the expansion of exports. Chinese firms employ overseas
Chinese in their foreign subsidiaries, and in occasional circumstances
– for example, when Chinese firms investing abroad collaborate with
host country firms that wish to invest in China – OFDI can even foster
new FDI projects in China.
OFDI has had a supplementary function because it can contribute
to development of the home economy in unique ways not addressed by
the other channels of economic interaction with the rest of the world.
It facilitates access to assets and advantages that are available abroad
but not brought to China through the other channels, such as brands,
particular kinds of advanced know-how, specific capital goods and
new markets that would be hard to penetrate without an investment.
OFDI has enabled Chinese MNEs to access technologies and know-how
that were unavailable in the open market and therefore not accessible
through technology imports, that were not brought to China by foreign
firms and that were internal to the foreign firms involved, thus barring
exchanges of people (e.g. migrants) and talent from yielding the same
results. Firms such as Haier, TCL and Lenovo have benefited from
this aspect of OFDI (Deng, 2008). To some degree, OFDI has helped
overcome the reliance on foreign companies to bring the appropriate
know-how to China through inward FDI, licensing or the OEM track, as it
has allowed the Chinese firms themselves to assume a more proactive
role by venturing abroad and targeting those assets and advantages
they required or desired. Some of the know-how obtained through
OFDI is more tacit and more advanced, and therefore of greater value
to the firms acquiring it and, by extension, to the Chinese economy.
Finally, it appears that OFDI is a unique way to make access to natural
resources abroad more secure and stable than is possible through pure
market mechanisms such as trade.
These complementary and supplementary roles of OFDI may be
what the Chinese government has tried to nurture through its targeted
OFDI policies. In the past, efforts in China to foster technological
change have included purchases of foreign technologies, deals with
foreign firms to allow them market entry in exchange for technological
know-how, and facilitation of FDI into China (Naughton, 2007, pp. 357-

360). In Naughton’s words, “there has been a restless ongoing search
for institutions and policies that can effectively support China’s ongoing
drive to become a technology power” (Naughton, 2007, p. 361). OFDI
has been one additional such component in the government’s attempt
to achieve economic and technological transformation.
5. Conclusions
At present, research is still at the beginning of analysing the
contribution OFDI can make to development in the world’s less
advanced home countries. Taking Chinese OFDI as a case study, this
study provided a first comprehensive investigation into the mechanisms
through which OFDI by Chinese MNEs has provided benefits that
support the development of the Chinese economy. The study finds
that, at least in the Chinese case, OFDI has had its distinctive uses and
advantages in promoting development, growth and catch-up in China,
although many uncertainties remain about the magnitude and actual
importance of this development contribution. More research on all of
the dimensions found in the analytical framework emerging from this
study is of urgent necessity.
Thus, the approach by the Chinese government to promote OFDI
through specific development-oriented investment policies appears
prudent. Chinese policy has used targeted measures to promote the
pursuit of desired assets and advantages abroad that could yield
favourable financial, capability, capacity and macroeconomic returns
for the Chinese economy. This is in line with China’s approach to
industrial policy, observable in other areas of the economy, and its
developmental state more generally.
Given this study’s encouraging findings for the case of China,
there is an urgent need for similar examinations of other developing
countries. Comparable findings should be expected, especially for
those emerging economies that have experienced larger amounts of
OFDI (whereas a specific development contribution may not be as
observable in the advanced economies, which have already passed
through the stages of economic development). The contribution of
OFDI to economic development may not be as important as that of
inward FDI, given that many least developed countries cannot meet the
basic requirement for OFDI: the availability of capital. But the role of

OFDI in supporting development of the home economy requires much
more in-depth consideration than it has received to date, especially
as the exact nature and magnitude of the impact of inward FDI, trade
and international migration on economic development also remains
an issue of scholarly debate even today. This study has found that
OFDI can assume both a complementary and a supplementary role in
relation to these other channels of economic interaction with the rest
of the world.
The analytical framework emerging from this study will be useful
for the examination of other countries. In addition, more detailed
examination of each of the individual returns would be of value.
Research should also consider in greater depth how the economic
motives of firms may differ from the economic and social needs of
the Chinese people and its government, and how this may affect the
development contribution of OFDI. This is an issue covered only briefly
in this study owing to limitations of space and the focus on carrying
out an initial investigation of the development contribution rather than
weighing the benefits of enterprise activities against any associated
costs. In fact, this study followed the approach of many studies on
inward FDI and economic development, to focus on the development
contribution while acknowledging that there are also negative effects.
This research has important policy implications, as it might
redefine the role of government in OFDI policy. Governments might
consider the implementation of more targeted, development-oriented
OFDI policies similar to the promotion and incentives offered to
inward FDI in an economy. The analytical framework of this study
can help governments identify the right policies, which should focus
on maximizing those returns from OFDI that contribute the most to
development of the home economy. In the case of China, government
support has been useful, although it has also triggered some resistance
from international actors who are concerned about the level of
involvement by the State in China’s OFDI activities (Antkiewicz and
Whalley, 2006). It is important to find the right balance in this area –
OFDI should be supported in the interest of economic development,
whilst respecting the rules of the international market and global
competition. In short, there is no doubt that governments in developing
countries would benefit from a better understanding of how OFDI can
be harnessed to support economic development.

REFERENCES
Alon, Ilan (2012). The globalisation of Chinese capital, East Asia Forum Quarterly, 4(2):
4-6.
Andreosso-O’Callaghan, Bernadette, and Wei Qian (1999). Technology transfer: A mode
of collaboration between the European Union and China, Europe-Asia Studies,
51(1): 123-142.
Antkiewicz, Agata, and John Whalley (2006). “Recent Chinese buyout activity and the
implications for global architecture”, Working Paper 12072, National Bureau of
Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w12072.
Areddy, James T. (2010). “Anshan to invest in the U.S.”, Wall Street Journal, 18 May
2010. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704314904575250080104
765948.html.
Ash, Robert (1996). “Agricultural development in China since 1978”, in Robert F. Ash
and Y. Y. Kueh, The Chinese Economy under Deng Xiaoping (Oxford: Clarendon
Press): 55-87.
__________ (2008). “Europe’s commercial relations with China”, in David Shambaugh,
Eberhard Sandschneider and Zhou Hong (eds.), China-Europe Relations: Perceptions,
Policies and Prospects (London and New York: Routledge): 189-230.
BBC (2014). “China group buys $6bn Glencore Peru Copper Mine”, BBC News, 14 April
2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27017623.
Berthélemy, Jean-Claude, and Sylvie Démurger (2000). “Foreign direct investment
and economic growth: Theory and application to China”, Review of Development
Economics, 4(2): 140-155.
Blomström, Magnus, and Ari Kokko (1998). “Multinational corporations and spillovers”,
Journal of Economic Surveys, 12(2): 1-31.
Bonaglia, Federico, Andrea Goldstein and John A. Mathews (2007). “Accelerated
internationalization by emerging markets’ multinationals: The case of the white
goods sector”, Journal of World Business 42: 369-383.
Brandt, Loren, and Eric Thun (2010). “The fight for the middle: Upgrading, competition,
and industrial development in China”, World Development 38(11): 1555-1574.
Brown, Kerry (2008). “Chinese overseas direct investment - What kind of opportunity?”
Working Paper Asia Programme. Chatham House: 1-13.
Buckley, Peter J., Jeremy L. Clegg, Adam R. Cross, Xin Liu, Hinrich Voss and Ping Zheng
(2007). “The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment”, Journal
of International Business Studies, 38: 499-518.
Cai, Kevin G. (1999). “Outward foreign direct investment: A novel dimension of China’s
integration into the regional and global economy”, The China Quarterly, 160: 856-
880.
Callick, Rowan (2010). “Channar joint venture still the beacon for iron ore trade with
China”, The Australian, 4 December 2010. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/

business/channar-joint-venture-still-the-beacon-for-iron-ore-trade-with-china/
story-e6frg8zx-1225965410879.
Chédor, Séverine, Jean-Louis Mucchielli and Isabelle Soubaya (2002). “Intra-firm trade
and foreign direct investment: An empirical analysis of French firms”, in Robert
E. Lipsey and Jean-Louis Mucchielli (eds.), Multinational Firms and Impacts on
Employment, Trade and Technology (London: Routledge): 84-100.
Chen, Jian (2005). “Speeding up implementation of ‘going global’ strategy, upgrading
the level of opening up”, in The Editorial Board of the China Commerce Yearbook,
China Commerce Yearbook (Beijing: China Commerce and Trade Press): 28-31.
Chen, Shaofeng (2011). “Has China’s foreign energy quest enhanced its energy
security?” The China Quarterly, 207: 600-625.
Child, John, and Suzana B. Rodrigues (2005). “The internationalization of Chinese firms:
A case for theoretical expansion?” Management and Organization Review, 1(3):
381-410.
Crespo, Nuno, and Maria Paula Fontoura (2007). “Determinant factors of FDI spillovers
– What do we really know?” World Development, 35(3): 410-425.
Deng, Ping (2004). “Outward investment by Chinese MNCs: Motivations and
implications”, Business Horizons, 47(3): 8-16.
__________ (2007). “Investing for strategic resources and its rationale: The case of
outward FDI from Chinese companies”, Business Horizons 50: 71-81.
__________ (2008). “Resources, capability, and outbound FDI from Chinese companies”,
in Ilan Alon and John R. McIntyre (eds.), Globalization of Chinese Enterprises (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan): 17-30.
Dohmen, Frank, and Barbara Schmid (2002). “China-town in Westfalen”, Der Spiegel, 8
April 2002. http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-22019361.html.
Driffield, Nigel, and James H. Love (2005). “Who gains from whom? Spillovers,
competition and technology sourcing in the foreign-owned sector of UK
manufacturing”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 52(5): 663-686.
Dunning, John H. (1981). “Explaining the international direct investment position of
countries: Towards a dynamic or developmental approach”, Weltwirtschaftliches
Archiv, 117(1): 30-64.
__________. (1998). “Globalization and the new geography of foreign direct
investment”, Oxford Development Studies, 26(1): 47-69.
__________. (2001). “The eclectic (OLI) paradigm of international production: Past,
present and future”, International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(2): 173-
190.
Dunning, John H., and Sarianna M. Lundan (2008). Multinational Enterprises and the
Global Economy (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar).
Economist (2008). “A special report on China’s quest for resources”, The Economist,
386(8571), 15 March 2008; 1-18.

__________ (2010a). “China buys up the world”, The Economist, 11 November 2010.
__________ (2010b). “Being eaten by the dragon”, The Economist, 11 November 2010.
Egger, Peter, Michael Pfaffermayr, and Yvonne Wolfmayr-Schnitzer (2001). “The
international fragmentation of Austrian manufacturing: The effects of outsourcing
on productivity and wages”, The North American Journal of Economics and Finance,
12(3): 257-272.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989). “Building theories from case study research”, The
Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532-550.
Fan, Emma X. (2003). “Technological spillovers from foreign direct investment—a
survey”, Asian Development Review, 20(1): 34-56.
Federico, Stefano, and Gaetano Alfredo Minerva (2008). “Outward FDI and local
employment growth in Italy”, Review of World Economics, 144(2): 295-324.
Filatotchev, Igor, Xiaohui Liu, Trevor Buck and Mike Wright (2009). “The export
orientation and export performance of high-technology SMEs in emerging
markets: The effects of knowledge transfer by returnee entrepreneurs”, Journal of
International Business Studies, 40: 1005-1021.
Fosfuri, Andrea, and Massimo Motta (1999). “Multinationals without advantages”,
Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 101(4): 617-30.
Gallagher, Kevin P., and Amos Irwin (2014). “Exporting national champions: China’s
outward foreign direct investment finance in comparative perspective”, China &
World Economy 22(6): 1-21.
Gammeltoft, Peter, Helena Barnard and Anoop Madhok (2010). “Emerging
multinationals, emerging theory: Macro- and micro-level perspectives”, Journal of
International Management, 16: 95-101.
Geinitz, Christian, and Roland Lindner (2012). “China greift nach riesigen Ölfeldern”,
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 23 July 2012.
Gilboy, George J. (2004). “The myth behind China’s miracle”, Foreign Affairs, July/
August 2004, 83(4): 33-48.
Gilpin, Robert (2001). Global Political Economy: Understanding the International
Economic Order (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Globerman, Steven, Ari Kokko and Fredrik Sjoholm (1996). “Technology sourcing
in Swedish MNEs and SMEs: Evidence from patent data,” Stockholm School of
Economics Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance No. 125.
Görg, Holger, and Eric Strobl (2001). “Multinational companies and productivity
spillovers: A meta-analysis”, The Economic Journal, 111: 723-739.
Guillén, Mauro F., and Esteban García-Canal (2009). “The American model of the
multinational firm and the “new” multinationals from emerging economies”,
Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(2): 23-35.

Guo, Hanbin (1984). “On establishment of joint ventures abroad”, in The Editorial
Board of the Almanac of China’s Foreign Economic Relations and Trade, Almanac of
China’s Foreign Economic Relations and Trade 1984 (Hong Kong: China Resources
Trade Consultancy): 652-654.
Hattersley, Victoria (2014). “The best of both worlds”, Industry Europe, 05 August 2014.
http://www.industryeurope.net/Feature/7498/The-Best-Of-Both-Worlds/.
Herstad, Sverre J., and Ásdís Jónsdóttir (eds.) (2006). National Innovation Systems and
Domestic Multinational Corporations. Norden Nordic Innovation Centre. http://
www.nordicinnovation.net/ _img/domus_synthesis_report_-_web1.pdf.
Herzer, Dierk (2008). “The long-run relationship between outward FDI and domestic
output: Evidence from panel data”, Economics Letters, 100: 146-149.
__________ (2010). “Outward FDI and economic growth”, Journal of Economic Studies,
37(5): 476-494.
Herzer, Dierk, and Mechthild Schrooten (2008). “Outward FDI and domestic investment
in two industrialized countries”, Economics Letters, 99: 139-143.
Hijzen, Alexander, Sébastien Jean and Thierry Mayer (2009). “The effects at home
of initiating production abroad: Evidence from matched French firms”, Centre
d’Études Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales, Document de travail no.
39-2009.
Huang, Shuxian, and Qian Wang (2009). “Reverse technology spillover from outward
FDI: The case of China”, 2009 International Conference on Management of
e-Commerce and e-Government.
Huang, Yiping, and Bijun Wang (2011). “Chinese outward direct investment: Is there a
China model?” China & World Economy, 19(4): 1-21.
Hymer, Stephen H. (1960). The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of
Direct Investment. PhD Thesis, MIT.
Inkpen, Andrew C. (1998). “Learning and knowledge acquisition through international
strategic alliances”, Academy of Management Executive, 12(4): 69-80.
Ivarsson, Inge, and Thommy Jonsson (2003). “Local technological competence and
asset-seeking FDI: An empirical study of manufacturing and wholesale affiliates in
Sweden”, International Business Review, 12(3): 369-386.
Javorcik, Beata Smarzynska (2004). “Does foreign direct investment increase the
productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages”,
The American Economic Review, 94(3): 605-627.
JBICI (2002). “Foreign direct investment and development: Where do we stand?” JBICI
Research Paper No. 15, Japan Bank for International Cooperation Institute (JBICI).
Jiang, Julie, and Jonathan Sinton (2011). “Overseas investments by Chinese national
oil companies: Assessing the drivers and impacts”, International Energy Agency.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/overseas_china.
pdf.

Johanson, Jan, and Jan-Erik Vahlne (1977). “The internationalization process of
the firm -- a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market
commitments.” Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1): 23-32.
__________ (1990). “The mechanism of internationalisation.” International Marketing
Review, 7(4): 11-24.
Knoerich, Jan (2010). “Gaining from the global ambitions of emerging economy
enterprises: An analysis of the decision to sell a German firm to a Chinese
acquirer”, Journal of International Management, 16(2): 177-191.
__________ (2012). “The rise of Chinese OFDI in Europe”, in Ilan Alon, Marc Fetscherin
and Philippe Gugler (eds.), Chinese International Investments (Houndmills,
Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan): 175-211.
__________ (2015). “The role of high technology in mainland China’s outward
investment into Taiwan: Economic, security and cultural dimensions”, in Paul
Irwin Crookes and Jan Knoerich (eds.), Cross-Taiwan Strait Relations in an Era of
Technological Change: Security, Economic and Cultural Dimensions (Houndmills,
Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan): 96-117.
Kokko, Ari (2006). “The home country effects of FDI in developed economies”, Working
Paper No. 225, The European Institute of Japanese Studies Working Paper Series,
Stockholm School of Economics.
Korniyenko, Yevgeniya, and Toshiaki Sakatsume (2009). “Chinese investment in the
transition countries”, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development,
Working Paper No. 107.
Kubny, Julia, and Hinrich Voss (2014). “Benefitting from Chinese FDI? An assessment
of vertical linkages with Vietnamese manufacturing firms”, International Business
Review, 23: 731-740.
Lardy, Nicholas R. (1995). “The role of foreign trade and investment in China’s economic
transformation”, The China Quarterly, 144: 1065-1082.
Li, Peter Ping (2007). “Towards and integrated theory of multinational evolution:
The evidence of Chinese multinational enterprises as latecomers”, Journal of
International Management, 13: 296-318.
Lim, Ewe-Ghee (2001). “Determinants of, and the relation between, foreign direct
investment and growth: A summary of the recent literature”, IMF Working Paper
WP/01/175.
Lipsey, Robert E. (2004). “Home- and host-country effects of foreign direct investment”,
in Robert E. Baldwin and L. Alan Winters (eds.), Challenges to Globalization:
Analyzing the Economics (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press):
333-379.
Lipsey, Robert E. and Eric D. Ramstetter (2003). “Japanese exports, MNC affiliates, and
rivalry for export markets”, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies,
17(2): 101-117.
Liu, Guy, and Liang Zhang (2012). “The Chinese electricity industry: Supply capacity and
its determinants with reference to OECD countries”, Conference paper at the 23rd

Chinese Economic Association (UK) and 4th Chinese Economic Association (Europe)
Annual Conference, 2-3 April 2012. http://www.ceauk.org.uk/2012-conference-
papers/abstracts/117-Liu-Zhang-full.pdf.
Liu, Xiaohui, Trevor Buck and Chang Shu (2005). “Chinese economic development, the
next stage: Outward FDI?” International Business Review, 14: 97-115.
Liu, Xiaohui and Chenggang Wang (2003). “Does foreign direct investment facilitate
technological progress? Evidence from Chinese industries”, Research Policy, 32(6):
945-953.
Lo, Dic (2006). “Making sense of China’s economic transformation”, SOAS, Department
of Economics Working Papers, No. 148. http://www.soas.ac.uk/academics/
departments/economics/research/workingpapers/28831.pdf.
Lu, Jiangyong, Xiaohui Liu and Hongling Wang (2011). “Motives for outward FDI
of Chinese private firms: Firm resources, industry dynamics, and government
policies”, Management and Organization Review, 7(2): 223-248.
Luo, Keren (2003). “China’s changing international migration trends”, Robyn Iredale,
Charles Hawksley and Stephen Castles (eds.), Migration in the Asia Pacific:
Population, Settlement and Citizenship Issues (Cheltenham, UK and Northampton,
MA: Edward Elgar): 293-302.
Luo, Yadong, Qiuzhi Xue and Binjie Han (2010). “How emerging market governments
promote outward FDI: Experience from China”, Journal of World Business, 45: 68-
79.
Ma, Xin, and Philip Andrews-Speed (2006). “The overseas activities of China’s national
oil companies: Rationale and outlook”, Minerals and Energy, 21(1): 17-30.
Mathews, John A. (2006). “Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century
globalization”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Management 23: 5-27.
McKinsey (2008). “Competition from China: Two McKinsey surveys,” The McKinsey
Quarterly, April 2008. https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/PDFDownload.
aspx?L2=21&L3=33&ar=2147.
Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) of the People’s Republic of China (2014). 2013
Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: China
Statistics Press).
Moran, Theodore H. (2006). Harnessing Foreign Direct Investment for Development:
Policies for Developed and Developing Countries (Washington, D.C.: Center for
Global Development).
Morck, Randall, Bernard Yeung and Minyuan Zhao (2008). “Perspectives on China’s
outward foreign direct investment”, Journal of International Business Studies,
39(3): 337-350.
Morton, Katherine (2013). “China’s positive stance on global food policy”, East Asia
Forum. 12 February 2013. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/02/12/chinas-
positive-stance-on-global-food-policy/.

Naughton, Barry (2007). The Chinese Economy: Transitions and Growth (Cambridge,
MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press).
Nolan, Peter (2001). China and the Global Business Revolution (Hampshire, UK:
Palgrave).
__________ (2002). “China and the global business revolution”, Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 26: 119-137.
OECD (2007). “OECD reviews of innovation policy: China - synthesis report”. http://
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/20/39177453.pdf.
__________ (2008). “China’s outward foreign direct investment”, Investment News, 6,
March 2008: 1-2. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/10/40283257.pdf.
People’s Daily Online (2007). “Chinese enterprises ‘going abroad’ enter a period of
rapid development,” People’s Daily Online, 13 July 2007. http://english.people.
com.cn/90001/6215274.html#.
Popovici, Ioana (2005). “Outward R&D and knowledge spillovers: Evidence using patent
citations”, Working Papers 0516, Florida International University, Department of
Economics. http://casgroup.fiu.edu/pages/docs/2247/1275232600_05-16.pdf.
Price, Alan H., Timothy C. Brightbill, Christopher B. Weld and Laura El-Sabaawi (2011).
“Facing the challenges of SOE investment abroad.” Prepared by Wiley Rein LLP;
presented to the The North American Steel Trade Committee. http://www.steelnet.
org/new/20110627.a.pdf.
Ranft, Annette L., and Michael D. Lord (2002). “Acquiring new technologies and
capabilities: A grounded model of acquisition implementation”, Organization
Science, 13(4): 420-441.
Raskin, Amy, and Brad Lindenbaum (2004). “China: Is the world really prepared?”
Bernstein Investment Research and Management, December 2004. https://www.
bernstein.com/CmsObjectPC/pdfs/050114_ChinaBlackbook.pdf.
Ross, Jeffrey N. (2012). “Volvo agrees to transfer tech to new parent Geely”, AutoBlog,
11 December 2012. http://www.autoblog.com/2012/12/11/volvo-agrees-to-
transfer-tech-to-new-parent-geely/.
Rui, Huaichuan, and George S. Yip (2008). “Foreign acquisitions by Chinese firms: A
strategic intent perspective”, Journal of World Business, 43: 213-226.
Saggi, Kamal (2002). “Trade, foreign direct investment, and international technology
transfer: A survey”, The World Bank Research Observer, 17(2): 191-235.
Salidjanova, Nargiza (2011). “Going out: An overview of China’s outward foreign
direct investment”, U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission, USCC
Staff Research Report, March 30. http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2011/
GoingOut.pdf.
Saxenian, AnnaLee (2005). “From brain drain to brain circulation: Transnational
communities and regional upgrading in India and China”, Studies in Comparative
International Development, 40(2): 35-61.

Schreier, Jürgen (2010). “Chinesische HZMTG übernimmt 100% der Anteile an
aba z&b Schleifmaschinen”, MM Maschinenmarkt, 21 April 2010. http://
www.maschinenmarkt.vogel.de/themenkanaele/produktion/zerspanung/
articles/260722/.
Scott, Jason, and John Duce (2009). “Yanzhou Coal to acquire Felix for about A$3.5
billion (update3)”, Bloomberg, 13 August 2009. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/
news?pid=newsarchive&sid=atD1wqLMFFbg.
Shan, Jordan, Gary Tian and Fiona Sun (1999). “Causality between FDI and economic
growth,” in Yanrui Wu (ed.), Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth in
China (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar): 140-154.
Sigurdson, Jon (2005). Technological Superpower China (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing).
Smaller, Carin, Wei Qiu and Yalan Liu (2012). “Farmland and water: China invests
abroad”, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Report. http://
www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/farmland_water_china_invests.pdf.
Smaller, Carin, and Howard Mann (2009). “A thirst for distant lands: Foreign investment
in agricultural land and water”, International Institute for Sustainable Development
(IISD), May 2009. http://www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?id=1122.
Smil, Vaclav (2000). “China’s energy and resource uses: Continuity and change”, in
Richard L. Edmonds (ed.), Managing the Chinese Environment (New York: Oxford
University Press): 211-227.
__________ (2004). China’s Past, China’s Future: Energy, Food, Environment (New York:
RoutledgeCurzon).
Soubbotina, Tatyana P. (2004). Beyond Economic Growth: An Introduction to Sustainable
Development (Washington, D. C.: World Bank).
Spigarelli, Francesca, William Wei and Ilan Alon (2012). “Benelli and QJ compete in the
international motorbike arena”, in Ilan Alon, Marc Fetscherin and Philippe Gugler
(eds.), Chinese International Investments (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave
MacMillan): 355-375.
Stanway, David (2013). “Insight-For Chinese farmers, a rare welcome in Russia’s far
east”, Reuters, 22 December 2013. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/22/uk-
china-russia-agriculture-insight-idUKBRE9BL00V20131222.
Steinfeld, Edward S. (2004). “Chinese enterprise development and the challenge of
global integration”, in Shahid Yusuf, M. Anjum Altaf and Kaoru Nabeshima (ed.),
Global Production Networking and Technological Change in East Asia (Washington,
D.C.: The World Bank and Oxford University Press): 255-296.
Sun, Helen Lei (2011). “Understanding China’s agricultural investments in Africa”, South
African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA), Occasional Paper No. 102, China in
Africa Project, November 2011.
Sunesen, Eva R., Svend T. Jespersen and Martin H. Thelle (2010). “Impacts of EU
outward FDI”, Copenhagen Economics report, 20 May.

Sutherland, Dylan (2010). “An investigation of OFDI strategies in China’s private
businesses: ‘Round-tripping’ or ‘onward-journeying’?” University of Nottingham
Discussion Paper 65. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cpi/documents/discussion-
papers/discussion-paper-65-ofdi-dylan-sutherland.pdf; accessed 10 September
2015.
Szamosszegi, Andrew (2012). “An analysis of Chinese investments in the U.S. economy”,
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, October 2012. http://www.
uscc.gov/researchpapers/2012/11-7-12_An_Analysis_of_Chinese_Investments_
in_the_U.S._Economy%28CTI%29.pdf.
Tadena, Nathalie (2013). “Smithfield shareholders approve Shuanghui deal”, The Wall
Street Journal, 24 September 2013. Available from http://www.wsj.com/articles/
SB10001424052702304213904579095061880118346.
Tan, Rosalina P. (2001). “Direct foreign investment flows to and from China”, in Ellen
H. Palanca (ed.), China’s Economic Growth and the ASEAN (Makati City: Philippine
APEC Study Center Network (PASCN) and Philippine Institute for Development
Studies (PIDS)): 169-228.
Tan, Xiaomei (2013). “China’s overseas investment in the energy/resources sector: Its
scale, drivers, challenges and implications”, Energy Economics, 36: 750-758.
Taylor, Robert (2002). “Globalization strategies of Chinese companies: Current
developments and future prospects”, Asian Business and Management, 1: 209-225.
Tkacik, John J. (2008). “Magnequench: CFIUS and China’s thirst for U.S. defense
technology”, The Heritage Foundation WebMemo #1913 on Asia.
Tseng, Wanda, and Harm Zebregs (2002). “Foreign direct investment in China: Some
lessons for other countries”, IMF Policy Discussion Paper PDP/02/3. http://www.
imf.org/external/pubs/ft/pdp/2002/pdp03.pdf; accessed 06 December 2007.
UNCTAD (2005). World Investment Report 2005: Transnational Corporations and the
Internationalization of R&D (United Nations: New York and Geneva).
__________ (2006). World Investment Report 2006: FDI from Developing and Transition
Economies: Implications for Development (United Nations: New York and Geneva).
__________ (2007). World Investment Report 2007: Transnational Corporations,
Extractive Industries and Development (United Nations: New York and Geneva).
__________ (2013). World Investment Report 2013: Global Value Chains: Investment
and Trade for Development (United Nations: New York and Geneva).
Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno, and Frank Lichtenberg (2001). “Does foreign
direct investment transfer technology across borders?” The Review of Economics
and Statistics, 83(3): 490-97.
Vernon, Raymond (1966). “International investment and international trade in the
product cycle”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2): 190-207.
Von Braun, Joachim, and Ruth Meinzen-Dick (2009). “‘Land grabbing’ by foreign
investors in developing countries: Risks and opportunities”, International Food

Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Policy Brief, No. 13, April 2009. http://www.ifpri.
org/sites/default/files/publications/bp013all.pdf.
Von Keller, Eugen, and Wei Zhou (2003). “From Middle Kingdom to global market:
Expansion strategies and success factors for China’s emerging multinationals”,
Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. http://www.rolandberger.com/expertise/en/
html/publications/82-publications_sc_middle_kingdom_to_global_market.html.
Von Zedtwitz, Maximilian (2005). “International R&D strategies of TNCs from developing
countries: The case of China”, Globalization of R&D and Developing Countries,
Proceedings of the Expert Meeting, 24-26 January 2005 (United Nations: New York
and Geneva): 117-140.
Wall, David (1997). “Outflows of capital from China”, OECD Development Centre,
Discussion Paper No. 123. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/26/1922963.pdf.
Wang, Bijun (2012). “Upgrading China’s economy through outward foreign direct
investment”, in Huw McKay and Ligang Song (eds.), Rebalancing and Sustaining
Growth in China (Canberra Australia: ANU E Press).
Wang, Chao (2014). “Chinese cotton firm harvests a bumper crop in Africa”, ChinaDaily
Asia, 30 June 2014. http://www.chinadailyasia.com/business/2014-06/30/
content_15145267.html.
Wang, Mark Yaolin (2002). “The motivations behind China’s government-initiated
industrial investments overseas”, Pacific Affairs, 75(2): 187-206.
Wang, Ying (2008). “Appeal of overseas studies grows”, Xinhua, China Daily, 17 October
2008. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/17/content_10208273.htm.
Warner, Malcolm, Ng Sek Hong and Xiaojun Xu (2004). “‘Late development’ experience
and the evolution of transnational firms in the People’s Republic of China”, Asia
Pacific Business Review, 10(3/4): 324-345.
Whalley, John, and Aaron Weisbrod (2011). “The contribution of Chinese FDI to Africa’s
pre crisis growth surge”, NBER Working Paper 17544.
Witt, Michael A., and Arie Y. Lewin (2007). “Outward foreign direct investment as
escape response to home country institutional constraints”, Journal of International
Business Studies, 38(4): 579-594.
Wong, John, and Sarah Chan (2003). “China’s outward direct investment: Expanding
worldwide”, China: An International Journal, 1(2): 273-301.
World Bank (2008). Global Economic Prospects: Technology Diffusion in the
Developing World (Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development).
Wright, Mike, Xiaohui Liu, Trevor Buck and Igor Filatotchev (2008). “Returnee
entrepreneurs, science park location choice and performance: An analysis of high-
technology SMEs in China”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1): 131-155.
Wu, Friedrich (2005). “Corporate China goes global”. http://www.cctr.ust.hk/
articles/200509_corporate.pdf.

Wu, Hsiu-Ling and Chien-Hsun Chen (2001). “An assessment of outward foreign direct
investment from China’s transitional economy”, Europe-Asia Studies, 53(8): 1235-
1254.
Wu, Yong, and Ce Liu (2013). “Agricultural joint venture bears fruit”, ChinaDaily, 23 March
2013. http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-03/23/content_16338999.
htm.
Xiao, Jeremy, and Franck Sun (2005). “The challenges facing outbound Chinese M&A,”
International Financial Law Review, 24(12): 44-46.
Xing, Yuqing (2012). “China’s overseas foreign direct investment and the role of the
government”, ADBI Institute presentation, 17 April 2012. http://www.adbi.org/
files/2011.10.17.cpp.day6.sess6.4.xing.china.overseas.investment.policy.pdf.
Yang, Dexin (2005). China’s Offshore Investments: A Network Approach (Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar).
Yang, Yao (2012). “Chinese investment: A new form of colonialism?” East Asia Forum
Quarterly, 4(2): 10.
Yeung, Wai-chung, and Weidong Liu (2008). “Globalising China: The rise of mainland
firms in the global economy”, Eurasian Geography and Economics, 49(1): 57-86.
Yin, Robert K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications).
Young, Stephen, Chun-Hua Huang and Michael McDermott (1996). “Internationalization
and competitive catch-up processes: Case study evidence on Chinese multinational
enterprises”, Management International Review, 36(4): 295-314.
Young, Stephen, and Ping Lan (1997). “Technology transfer to China through foreign
direct investment”, Regional Studies, 31(7): 669-679.
Zeng, Ming, and Peter J. Williamson (2003). “The hidden dragons”, Harvard Business
Review, 81(10): 92-99.
Zhan, James X. (1995). “Transnationalization and outward investment: The case of
Chinese firms”, Transnational Corporations, 4(3): 67-100.
Zhang, Haiyan, and Danny Van Den Bulcke (1996). “China: Rapid changes in the
investment development path”, in John H. Dunning and Rajneesh Narula (eds.),
Foreign Direct Investment and Governments: Catalysts for Economic Restructuring
(London and New York: Routledge).
Zhang, Yongjin (2003). China’s Emerging Global Businesses: Political Economy and
Institutional Investigations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
Zou, Ming (2008). “The influences on TFP from the direct overseas investment of
China”, Journal of Beijing University of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 06.
“Westfalenhütte.” Industriekultur-Fotografie und Geschichte. http://www.
industriedenkmal.de/huttenwerke/huttenwerke-im-ruhrgebiet/westfalenhutte/.

Diaeia2016d1a1 en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Diaeia2016d1a1 en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Diaeia2016d1a1 en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Has outward foreign direct investment

contributed to the development of the

Research and literature on foreign direct investment (FDI) and economic

2 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

US$ billion % of GDP

Source: UNCTADStat database.

An interesting aspect of Chinese OFDI is that development

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 3

4 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

REST OF THE WORLD

National absorptive capacity

National economic development

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 5

2. Chinese OFDI: Initial considerations on home-

6 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 7

8 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 9

2.2. Chinese government support for OFDI and

10 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 11

3. The returns from Chinese OFDI

12 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 13

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Chinese investments, and especially those in advanced economies,

24 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 25

26 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

3.3. Enhanced availability of commodities,

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 27

28 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 29

3.4. Macroeconomic effects from OFDI

30 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Figure 4. OFDI and Chinese economic development: An analytical framework

CHINA REST OF THE WORLD

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 31

32 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 33

34 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 35

36 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 37

38 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 39

40 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2

Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2 41

42 Transnational Corporations, Vol. 23, No. 2