Eklektik paradigmanın gelişimi ışığında içe dönük ve dışa dönük doğrudan yabancı yatırımların incelenmesi

Öz

Globalleşmeyle artan aşırı rekabetçilik, uluslararasılaşma süreçlerini yeniden organize etmeye başlamıştır. Bu durum, açıklayıcı teorilerin zaman içinde yeniden düşünülmesi gerekliliğini ortaya koymuştur. Uluslararası ticaretin son evresi olan doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar kavramını tanımlamak ve paydaşlara etkilerini değerlendirmek için literatürde en çok atıf alan çalışma, eklektik paradigmadır. Eklektik paradigmanın bütüncüllüğünü oluşturan teoriler üzerinden açıklama yapılmaktadır. Çalışmanın amacı, yabancı literatürde yer alan doğrudan yabancı yatırımın türleri ve onu açıklamaya çalışan eklektik paradigmanın gelişim sürecini inceleyerek dışa dönük doğrudan yabancı yatırımların, yatırım geliştirme yolunda ifade edildiği gibi içe dönük doğrudan yabancı yatırımlardan sonra gelen bir süreç mi yoksa gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkeler için stratejik bir araç mı olduğunu karşılaştırma yaparak incelemektir. Sistematik literatür inceleme çalışması temelinde nitel teorik karşılaştırmalı inceleme yapılmıştır. Dunning’in eklektik paradigmasındaki avantajlara odaklanarak, içe dönük ve dışa dönük doğrudan yabancı yatırımların kişi başına gayrisafi yurtiçi hasıla üzerindeki etkilerini makro düzeyde karşılaştırmaktadır. Gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkeler arasındaki farklılıkları değerlendirmek için ampirik bulgular incelenmiştir. Artan global rekabetçilikle birlikte, ülkelerin gelişmişlik farkını kapatmak için, yabancı şirketlerin yerel ekosisteme bilgi aktarmasını beklemek yerine, yerel şirketlerin yabancı ülkelere stratejik varlık arayışıyla yatırım yaparak tersine bilgi yayılımı sağlamasının önemi ifade edilmiştir. Yatırım geliştirme yolunda ifade edildiği gibi dışa dönük doğrudan yabancı yatırımların içe dönük yatırımlardan sonra gelmesi gerektiği savı, gelişmekte olan ülkelerce genellikle benimsenmemektedir. Eklektik paradigma çerçevesinde içe dönük ve dışa dönük doğrudan yabancı yatırımların karşılaştırıldığı güncellenmiş bir çalışma mevcut değildir. Yatırım geliştirme yoluna vurgu yapılarak dışa dönük doğrudan yabancı yatırımların, içe dönükten sonra gelen bir süreç olarak tanımlanması yerine sıçrama tahtası özelliğiyle stratejik bir araç da olabileceği ifade edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Eklektik paradigma
• içe dönük doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar
• dışa dönük doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar
• teknolojik bilgi yayılımı
• sürdürülebilir kalkınma

An analysis of inward and outward foreign direct investments in the light of the development of the eclectic paradigm

Öz

Increasing hyper-competitiveness due to globalisation has started to reorganise internationalisation processes. This has necessitated a rethinking of explanatory theories over time. The most cited study in the literature to define the concept of FDI, which is the last stage of international trade, and to evaluate its effects on stakeholders is the eclectic paradigm. Explanations are made through the theories that constitute the holism of the eclectic paradigm. The aim of the study is to analyse the development process of the eclectic paradigm and to examine whether outward FDI is a process that comes after inward FDI or a strategic tool for developed and developing countries. A qualitative theoretical comparative analysis was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review. Focusing on the advantages of Dunning's eclectic paradigm, it compares the effects of inward and outward FDI on gross domestic product per capita at the macro level with empirical findings. With increasing global competitiveness, it has been stated that the needs of countries that want to gain or maintain a competitive advantage can be met through reverse knowledge spillovers after outward foreign direct invesments in search of strategic assets by planning the exclusion effect instead of waiting for foreign companies to invest in the home country and teach the local ecosystem. The argument that outward orientation is a process that follows inward orientation according to the way of investment development is not preferred in the practices of developing countries. There is no updated study comparing inward and outward FDI within the eclectic paradigm. By emphasising the investment development path, it has been stated that outward FDI can be a strategic development tool for developing countries.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Eclectic Paradigm
• Inward FDI
• Outward FDI
• Technological Knowledge Spillover
• Sustainable Development

Kaynakça

1. Alon, T. (2010). Institutional analysis and the determinants of Chinese FDI. Multinational Business Review, 18(3), 1-24. doi: 10.1108/1525383X201000013
2. Amann, E., ve Virmani, S. (2015). Is the evolution of India’s Outward FDI consistent with Dunning’s Investment Development Path sequence?. Economics Working Paper Series, Lancaster University, Department of Economics, Lancaster. Erişim adresi: www.dora.dmu.ac.uk/handle/2086/17658
3. Andreff, W. (2016). Outward foreign direct investment from BRIC countries: Comparing strategies of Brazilian, Russian, Indian and Chinese multinational companies. The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 12(2), 79-131. Erişim adresi: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01342391
4. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108
5. Casson, M. (2015). Coase and international business: The origin and development of internalisation theory. Managerial and Decision Economics, 36(1), 55-66. doi: 10.1002/mde.2706
6. Ciesielska, D., ve Kołtuniak, M. (2010). Internationalization and home country’s economic growth. Working Papers of Warsaw School of Economics. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34263.47520
7. Cuypers, I. R., Hennart, J. F., Silverman, B. S., ve Ertug, G. (2021). Transaction cost theory: Past progress, current challenges, and suggestions for the future. Academy of Management Annals, 15(1), 111-150. doi: 10.5465/annals.2019.0051
8. D'aveni, R. A. (2010). Strategic Supremacy: How Industry Leaders Create Spheres of Influence from Their Product Portfolios to Achieve Preeminence. New York: Simon and Schuster Publishing.

9. Dunning, J. H. (2001). 10. Globalization and fdi in asian developing countries. globalization and economic development: essays in honour of J. George Waardenburg. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
10. Dunning, J. H., ve Lundan, S. M. (2008). Institutions and the OLI paradigm of the multinational enterprise. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25, 573-593. doi: 10.1007/s10490-007-9074-z
11. Dunning, J. H., ve Narula, R. (1996). The investment development path revisited. Foreign direct investment and governments. London: Routledge Publishing.
12. Durham, J. B. (2003). Foreign portfolio investment, foreign bank lending, and economic growth. FRB International Finance Discussion Paper, 757, 1-35. doi: 10.17016/IFDP.2003.757
13. Gao, R. (2023). Inward FDI spillovers and emerging multinationals’ outward FDI in two directions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 40(1), 265-293. doi:10.1007/s10490-021-09788-4
14. Gaur, A. S., Ma, X., ve Ding, Z. (2018). Home country supportiveness/unfavorableness and outward foreign direct investment from China. Journal of International Business Studies, 49, 324-345.
15. Gereffi, G. (2002). International competitiveness in the global apparel commodity chain. International Journal of Business and Society, 3(1), 27-60. Erişim adresi: www.ijbs.unimas.my/volume-1-10/volume-3-no-1-2002
16. Ghosh, M., ve Wang, W. (2009). Does fdi accelerate economic growth? The OECD experience based on panel data estimates for the period 1980-2004. Global Economy Journal, 9(4), 1-23. doi: 10.2202/1524-5861.1496
17. Gilbert, R. (2006). Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: where are we in the competition--innovation debate?. Innovation policy and the economy. University of Chicago Press Journals, 6, 159-215. doi:10.1086/ipe.6.25056183
18. Globerman, S., ve Shapiro, D. M. (2008). Outward FDI and the economic performance of emerging markets, The rise of transnational corporations from emerging markets: threat or opportunity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
19. Gupta, S., Yadav, S. S., ve Jain, P. K. (2023). Does institutional quality matter for foreign direct investment flows? Empirical evidence from BRICS economies. International Journal of Emerging Markets. doi: 10.1108/IJOEM-11-2021-1713
20. Henderson, J. P. (1977). Adam Smith, Ricardo and Economic Theory. Centennial Review, 21 (2), 118-139. Erişim adresi: www.jstor.org/stable/i23736624
21. Hermelo, F. D., ve Vassolo, R. (2010). Institutional development and hypercompetition in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 31(13), 1457-1473. doi: 10.1002/smj.898
22. Herzer, D. (2010). Outward FDI and economic growth. Journal of Economic Studies, 37(5), 476-494. . doi: 10.1108/01443581011075424
23. Holmström, B. ve Milgrom, P. (1991), Multitask principal-agent analyses: incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 7, 24-51. doi: 10.1093/jleo/7.special_issue.24
24. Hymer, S. H. (1960). The international operations of national firms, a study of direct foreign investment (Doktora Tezi). Erişim adresi: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/27375
25. Jung, M. S., Yang, Y. S., ve Kim, D. Y. (2016). Global value chains perspective of Korea foreign direct investment (OFDI) and policy direction. Korea Trade Review, 41(4), 245-267. Erişim adresi: www.koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO201618053139368.page
26. Kurtovic, S., Halili, B., Maxhuni, N., ve Krasniqi, B. (2023). Outward foreign direct investment and the economic growth of Central, East and Southeast Europe: an asymmetric approach. International Journal of Emerging Markets. doi: 10.1108/IJOEM-09-2021-1388
27. Lee, C. G. (2010). Outward foreign direct investment and economic growth: Evidence from Japan. Global Economic Review, 39(3), 317-326. doi: 10.1080/1226508X.2010.513143
28. Lee, E. S., Liu, W., ve Yang, J. Y. (2023). Neither developed nor emerging: Dual paths for outward FDI and home country innovation in emerged market MNCs. International Business Review, 32(2), 101925. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101925
29. Lipsey, R. E., ve Sjöholm, F. (2005). The impact of inward fdi on host countries: why such different answers? Does foreign direct investment promote development. Institute for International Economics. Erişim adresi: www.piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/3810/02iie3810.pdf
30. Liu, X., Buck, T., ve Shu, C. (2005). Chinese economic development, the next stage: outward fdi?. International Business Review, 14(1), 97-115. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2004.12.003
31. Pedersen, K. (2003). The eclectic paradigm-a new deal. Journal of International Business and Economy, 4(1), 15-27. doi: 10.51240/jibe.2003.1.2
32. Rugman, A. M., ve Verbeke, A. (2003). Extending the theory of the multinational enterprise: internalization and strategic management perspectives. Journal of International Business Studies, 34, 125-137. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400012
33. Shahriar, S., Kea, S., ve Qian, L. (2020). Determinants of China’s outward foreign direct investment in the belt & road economies: a gravity model approach. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 15(3), 427-445. doi: 10.1108/IJOEM-03-2019-0230
34. Stoian, C., ve Mohr, A. (2016). Outward foreign direct investment from emerging economies: Escaping home country regulative voids. International Business Review, 25(5), 1124-1135. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.02.004
35. Surdu, I., Greve, H. R., ve Benito, G. R. (2021). Back to basics: behavioral theory and internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(6), 1047-1068. doi: 10.1057/s41267-020-00388-w
36. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., ve Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. Erişim adresi: www.jstor.org/stable/3088148
37. Verma, R., Arya, P., Saini, V. P. (2022). Relationship between outward fdi and home country exports: an empirical study of Bangladesh. Journal of Developing Economies, 7(2), 280-293. doi: 10.20473/jde.v7i2.38898
38. Vernon, R. (2015). In international business strategy. London: Routledge Publishing.
39. Wang, Y., Cheng, L., Wang, H., ve Li, L. (2014). Institutional quality, financial development and ofdi. Pacific Science Review, 16(2), 127-132. doi: 10.1016/j.pscr.2014.08.023
40. Williamson, O. E. (2009). In regulation, deregulation, reregulation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
41. World Economic Forum (2023), Chief Economist Outlook, Erişim adresi: www.weforum.org/publications/chief-economists-outlook-september-2023/pdf
42. Wu, Y., Song, Y., ve Deng, G. (2017). Institutional environment, ofdi, and tfp growth: evidence from China. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 53(9), 2020-2038. doi: 10.1080/1540496X.2017.1283612
43. Xu, C., Yao, F., Zhang, F., ve Wang, Y. (2020). An investigation of Confucius institute’s effects on China’s ofdi via cultural difference and institutional quality. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 14(3), 241-263. doi: 10.1108/JABS-10-2016-0145
44. Yüksel, E., ve Sarıdoğan, E. (2011). Uluslararası ticaret teorileri ve Paul R. Krugman’ın katkıları. Öneri Dergisi, 9(35), 199-206.
45. Zalke, H. (2020). Political risks of Chinese investments and the impact of the belt and road Initiative (Doktora Tezi) Erişim adresi: https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/items/4f6c0fff-0580-420b-83c0-f452756de73c