Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Geographical Proximity with Foreign Investors? Evidence from the Privatization of the Czech Glass Industry

Contents:

Author Info

Abstract

This paper analyzes the effects of geographical proximity and agglomeration of foreign direct investors on domestic firms in the privatized glass sector in the Czech Republic. The motivation for this research is based on the scant evidence in Central and Eastern Europe of the effects of geographical proximity and agglomeration on the productivity of domestic firms. This study aims to explain how spillovers are transferred from foreign direct investors to domestic firms in an industrial sector. The econometrical analysis, using original panel data from 1990 to 2006, provides evidence that the geographical proximity to foreign direct investors has a negative and significant effect on the productivity of domestic firms in the glass sector. The effect of agglomeration of foreign direct investors is significant, too. The results support the importance of geographic proximity and the agglomeration of foreign direct investors as a channel of spillovers and it conforms with the evidence that shows that fore ign direct investors have produced negative spillovers on domestic firms in transition countries. The analysis shows, however, that spillovers do not play a dominant role for the performance of privatized domestic firms in the glass sector and the importance of taking into account the industrial sector in the study of spillovers.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://auco.cuni.cz/mag/article/download/id/58/type/attachment
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies in its journal AUCO Czech Economic Review.

Volume (Year): 3 (2009)
Issue (Month): 1 (March)
Pages: 026-047

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:fau:aucocz:au2009_026

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Opletalova 26, CZ-110 00 Prague
Phone: +420 2 222112330
Fax: +420 2 22112304
Email:
Web page: http://ies.fsv.cuni.cz/
More information through EDIRC

Order Information:
Email:
Web: http://auco.cuni.cz/

Related research

Keywords: FDI; agglomeration economies; panel data; regional location; glass industry;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Damijan, Joze P. & Knell, Mark & Majcen, Boris & Rojec, Matija, 2003. "The role of FDI, R&D accumulation and trade in transferring technology to transition countries: evidence from firm panel data for eight transition countries," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 189-204, June.
  2. Rachel Griffith & Stephen Redding & Helen Simpson, 2003. "Productivity Convergence and Foreign Ownership at the Establishment Level," CEP Discussion Papers dp0573, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  3. Alessandro Sembenelli & Georges Siotis, 2002. "Foreign Direct Investment, Competitive Pressure and Spillovers. An Empirical Analysis on Spanish Firm Level Data," Development Working Papers 169, Centro Studi Luca d\'Agliano, University of Milano.
  4. Glaeser, Edward Ludwig & Kallal, Hedi D. & Scheinkman, Jose A. & Shleifer, Andrei, 1992. "Growth in Cities," Scholarly Articles 3451309, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  5. Francesco Caselli, 2004. "Accounting for Cross-Country Income Differences," NBER Working Papers 10828, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  6. Elisa Galeotti & Stanley Nollen, 2008. "How foreign influence and local managers affect the successful transition of the firm: the case of AGC Flat Glass Czech," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 77-95.
  7. Nguyen Van P. & Laisney F. & Kaiser U., 2004. "The Performance of German Firms in the Business-Related Service Sector: A Dynamic Analysis," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22, pages 274-295, July.
  8. Fredrik Sjoholm, 1999. "Technology gap, competition and spillovers from direct foreign investment: Evidence from establishment data," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 53-73.
  9. Djankov, Simeon & Hoekman, Bernard M, 2000. "Foreign Investment and Productivity Growth in Czech Enterprises," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 14(1), pages 49-64, January.
  10. James D. Adams & Adam B. Jaffe, 1996. "Bounding the Effects of R&D: An Investigation Using Matched Establishment-Firm Data," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(4), pages 700-721, Winter.
  11. Jeffry M. Netter & William L. Megginson, 2001. "From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 321-389, June.
  12. Susan M. Collins & Barry P. Bosworth, 1996. "Economic Growth in East Asia: Accumulation versus Assimilation," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 27(2), pages 135-204.
  13. Mihir Desai & Paul Gompers & Josh Lerner, 2003. "Institutions, Capital Constraints and Entrepreneurial Firm Dynamics: Evidence from Europe," NBER Working Papers 10165, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. Mead, Donald C. & Liedholm, Carl, 1998. "The dynamics of micro and small enterprises in developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 61-74, January.
  15. Djankov, Simeon & Murrell, Peter, 2002. "Enterprise Restructuring in Transition: A Quantitative Survey," CEPR Discussion Papers 3319, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  16. Koen De Backer & Leo Sleuwaegen, 2003. "Does Foreign Direct Investment Crowd Out Domestic Entrepreneurship?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 67-84, February.
  17. Jan Svejnar & Miroslav Singer, 1994. "Using vouchers to privatize an economy: the Czech and Slovak case," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 2(1), pages 43-69, 03.
  18. Wolfgang Keller, 2000. "Geographic Localization of International Technology Diffusion," NBER Working Papers 7509, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  19. Ray Barrell & Dawn Holland, 2000. "Foreign Direct Investment and Enterprise Restructuring in Central Europe," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 8(2), pages 477-504, July.
  20. Callois, Jean-Marc, 2008. "The two sides of proximity in industrial clusters: The trade-off between process and product innovation," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 146-162, January.
  21. Sleuwaegen, Leo & Goedhuys, Micheline, 2002. "Growth of firms in developing countries, evidence from Cote d'Ivoire," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 117-135, June.
  22. Gorodnichenko, Yuriy & Svejnar, Jan & Terrell, Katherine, 2007. "When Does FDI Have Positive Spillovers? Evidence from 17 Emerging Market Economies," CEPR Discussion Papers 6546, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  23. James D. Adams, 2001. "Comparative Localization of Academic and Industrial Spillovers," NBER Working Papers 8292, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  24. Koen de Backer, 2002. "Does foreign direct investment crowd out domestic entrepreneurship?," Economics Working Papers 618, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
  25. Weiss Andrew & Nikitin Georgiy A, 2004. "Foreign Portfolio Investment Improves Performance: Evidence from the Czech Republic," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-49, June.
  26. Ann E. Harrison & Brian J. Aitken, 1999. "Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 605-618, June.
  27. Nandini Gupta & John Ham & Jan Svejnar, 2000. "Priorities and Sequencing in Privatization: Theory and Evidence from the Czech Republic," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1580, Econometric Society.
  28. Edward C. Prescott, 1997. "Needed: a theory of total factor productivity," Staff Report 242, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  29. Torlak, Elvisa, 2004. "Foreign Direct Investment, Technology Transfer, and Productivity Growth in Transition Countries Empirical Evidence from Panel Data," Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research Discussion Papers 26, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
  30. Ke, Shanzi & Luger, Michael I., 1996. "Embodied technological progress, technology-related producer inputs, and regional factors in a firm-level model of growth," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 23-50, February.
  31. Elisa Galeotti & Eva Ryšavá, 2008. "The endogeneity problem and fdi in transition: evidence from the privatized glass sector," Prague Economic Papers, University of Economics, Prague, vol. 2008(4), pages 319-339.
  32. N. De Liso & G. Filatrella, 1999. "On technology competition," Working Papers 337, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
  33. Iraj Hashi, 1997. "Mass Privatisation and Corporate Governance in the Czech Republic," Working Papers 003, Staffordshire University, Business School.
  34. Eric von Hippel, 1994. ""Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 429-439, April.
  35. Jan Hanousek & Evzen Kocenda & Jan Svejnar, 2005. "Origin and Concentration: Corporate Ownership, Control and Performance," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp259, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economic Institute, Prague.
  36. Joze P. Damijan & Mark Knell & Boris Majcen & Matija Rojec, 2003. "Technology Transfer through FDI in Top-10 Transition Countries: How Important are Direct Effects, Horizontal and Vertical Spillovers?," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 549, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  37. Agarwal, Rajshree & Gort, Michael, 1996. "The Evolution of Markets and Entry, Exit and Survival of Firms," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 78(3), pages 489-98, August.
  38. Galina Hale & Cheryl Long, 2006. "What Determines Technological Spillovers of Foreign Direct Investment: Evidence from China," Working Papers 934, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fau:aucocz:au2009_026. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lenka Stastna).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.