İMKB FİRMALARI İÇİN DOĞRUDAN YABANCI YATIRIM GİRİŞ VE ÇIKIŞ KARARININ BELİRLEYİCİLERİ

Year 2017, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, 579 - 601, 06.04.2018

Yeşim Üçdoğruk Gürel , Çağnur Balsarı Berna Kırkulak Uludağ

https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.364290

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, 2008 yılındaki küresel
ekonomik durgunluğa tanıklık etmeden önce, doğrudan yabancı yatırımın (DYY) belirleyicilerinin,
halka açık şirketlerde giriş ve çıkışlar açısından farklılık gösterip
göstermediğini incelemektir. Çok terimli probit modeli, firmaların yabancı
yatırımı yapma, yabancı sermayeli olma ve aynı anda hem yabancı sermayeli olma
hem de yabancı yatırım yapma davranışlarının belirleyicilerini analiz etmek
için kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, bir firmanın yabancı yatırım faaliyetinde
bulunma ihtimalinin firma büyüklüğü, yaş ve reklam yoğunluğu ile birlikte
arttığını ve likidite ile azaldığını göstermektedir. Sektörde doğrudan
yatırımcıların pazar payları ne kadar yüksek olursa, dalgalanma etkisi yoluyla
diğer firmalarında doğrudan yabancı yatırım yapma oranı o kadar yüksektir. Buna
ek olarak, yabancı yatırım yapma olasılığı finansal kısıtlarla birlikte artarken,
yabancı sermayeli olma ihtimali karlılıkla artmakta ve sermaye yoğunluğu ile
azalmaktadır. Ar-Ge yoğunluğu ne kadar yüksek olursa, bir firmanın her iki
tipteki doğrudan yabancı yatırım faaliyetine aynı anda katılma ihtimali de o
kadar yüksek olur. Sonuçlar imalat sanayi ve imalat sanayi dışı firmalar için
ayrım gözetmemektedir.

Keywords

Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım, Türkiye, Çok Terimli Probit

THE DETERMINANTS OF INWARD AND OUTWARD FDI BEHAVIOR FOR ISE-LISTED FIRMS

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine whether
or not the determinants of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) differ in terms of
inflows and outflows at firm level for publicly traded companies in Turkey just
before witnessing 2008 global economic slowdown. A multinomial probit
regression is used to analyze the determinants of inward, outward and both
inward and outward FDI behavior of firms simultaneously. Findings suggest that
the probability of a firm to engage in FDI activity increases with firm size,
age and advertising intensity and decreases with liquidity. The higher the
market share of FDI receivers in sectoral output, the more likely a firm will
engage in FDI activity through spillover effects. Additionally, the probability
to engage in outward FDI increases with financial constraints whereas the
probability to receive inward FDI increases with profitability and decreases
with capital intensity. The higher the R&D intensity, the more likely a
firm is to engage in both types of FDI activity simultaneously. The results are
mostly insensitive to manufacturing and non-manufacturing industry distinction.

Keywords

FDI, Turkey, Multinomial Probit

References

• Referans1 Alfaro, L & Chen, M. (2012). Surviving the global financial crises: foreign ownership and establishment performance, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, 4(3), 30–55.
• Referans2 Blonigen, B.A. (2005). A Review of the Empirical Literature on FDI Determinants. Atlantic Economic Journal, 33, 383–403.
• Referans3 Blomstrom, M. & Lipsey, R.E. (1991). Firm size and foreign operation of multinationals. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 93, 101–107.
• Referans4 Blomstrom, M. & Kokko, A. (1998). Multinational Corporations and Spillovers. Journal of Economic Surveys, 12(2), 1-31.
• Referans5 Bond, S., Elston, J.A., Mairesse, J. and Mulkay, B. (2003). Financial factors and investment in Belgium, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom: A comparison using company level panel data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(1), 153–165.
• Referans6 Deichmann, J., Karidis, S. and Sayek, S. (2003). Foreign direct investment in Turkey: Regional determinants. Applied Economics, 35, 1767–1778.
• Referans7 Dow, J.K. and Endersby, J.W. (2004). Multinomial probit and multinomial logit: a comparison of choice models for voting research. Electoral Studies, 23, 107-122.
• Referans8 Dunning, J.H. (1993). Multinational enterprises and the global economy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
• Referans9 Dunning, J.H. (2000). Eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity. International Business Review, 9(2), 163–90.
• Referans10 Erdal, F. & Tatoglu, E. (2002). Locational Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in an Emerging Market Economy: Evidence from Turkey. Multinational Business Review, 10(1).
• Referans11 Erdilek, A. (2003). A comparative analysis of inward and outward FDI in Turkey. Transnational Corporations, 12(3), 79–105.
• Referans12 Greene, W. (1997). Econometric Analysis, Third edition, Prentice-Hall International, Inc: US.
• Referans13 Hill, H. & Jongwanich, J. (2009). Outward Foreign Direct Investment and the Financial Crisis in Developing East Asia, Asian Development Review, 26(2), 1-25.
• Referans14 Karagöz, K. (2007). Determining Factors of the Foreign Direct Investments in Turkey: 1970-2005. Journal of Yasar University, 8(2), 929–948.
• Referans15 Kaya, H. (2005). A Neglected Research Area: the Internalization of Turkish Firms via Outward Foreign Direct Investment. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2, 137–154.
• Referans16 Kayam, S. & Hisarcıklılar, M. (2009). Türkiye’den çıkan doğrudan yatırımları belirleyen etmenler, 1992-2005. İktisat, İşletme ve Finans, 280(24), 47–70.
• Referans17 Keane, M. (1992). A Note on Identification in the Multinomial Probit Model. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10(2), 193-200.
• Referans18 Lall, S. (1980). Monopolistic advantages and foreign involvement by US manufacturing industry. Oxford Economic Papers, 32, 102–122.
• Referans19 Lin, F-J. (2010). The determinants of foreign direct investment in China: The case of Taiwanese firms in the IT industry, Journal of Business Research, 63(5), 479-485.
• Referans20 Siddharthan, N.S. & Nollen, S. (2004). MNE affiliation, firm size and exports revisited: a study of information technology firms in India. Journal of Development Studies, 40(6), 146–68.
• Referans21 Tatoglu, E. & Glaister, K.W. (1998). An analysis of motives for western FDI in Turkey. International Business Review, 7, 203–230.
• Referans22 Taymaz, E. & Yılmaz, K. (2009). Foreign Direct Investment and Productivity Spillovers: Identifying Linkages through Product-based Measures, mimeo.
• Referans23 Trevino, L.J. & Grosse, R. (2002). An analysis of firm-specific resources and foreign direct investment in the United States. International Business Review, 11(4), 431–52.
• Referans24 UNCTAD (2007), World Investment Report, United Nations, New York and Geneva.
• Referans25 UNCTAD (2009). World Investment Report 2009, ‘Transnational corporations and the infrastructure challenge’, United Nations, Geneva.
• Referans26 UNCTAD (2010). World Investment Report 2010, ‘Investing in a Low-Carbon Economy’, United Nations, Geneva.