Small Business Economics

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 613–631 | Cite as

Does foreign direct investment stimulate new firm creation? In search of spillovers through industrial and geographical linkages

Article

Abstract

This paper examines the spillover effects of inward foreign direct investment (FDI) on the entrepreneurial activities of new firm creation through both industrial and geographical linkages. Using a dataset of 44,434 newly created small firms in 234 regions of South Korea in 2000–2004, this study finds that while the spillover impacts of FDI in the low-tech industry are positive and significant across almost all four possible combinations of the intra-/inter-regional and intra-/inter-sectoral channels, the impacts in the high-tech industry are largely intra-sectoral within the host region and across neighboring regions. Moreover, all statistically significant spillover effects follow an inverted ‘U’-shaped curvilinear trend.

Keywords

Inward foreign direct investment New firm creation Entrepreneurship Sectoral and spatial analysis 

JEL Classifications

F23 L26 M13 R12 

References

  1. Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. (2013). The knowledge spillover theory of entreprenurship. Small Business Economcis, 41(4), 757–774. doi: 10.1007/s11187-013-9505-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aitken, B. J., & Harrison, A. E. (1999). Do domestic firms benefit from foreign direct investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review, 89(3), 605–618. doi: 10.1257/aer.89.3.605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altomonte, C., & Pennings, E. (2009). Domestic plant productivity and incremental spillovers from foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(7), 1131–1148. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2008.99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at instrumental variable estimation of error-component models. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1), 29–52. doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-D.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Athukorala, P.-C. (2003). FDI in crisis and recovery: Lessons from the 1997–1998 Asian Crisis. Australian Economic History Review, 43(2), 197–213. doi: 10.1111/1467-8446.t01-1-00051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (2004). Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation. In V. Henderson & J.-F. Thisse (Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics: Cities and geography (Vol. 4, pp. 2713–2739). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  7. Audretsch, D. B., & Keilbach, M. (2007). The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1242–1254. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00722.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191–1202. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113–1122. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Audretsch, D. B., & Vivarelli, M. (1996). Determinants of new-firm startups in Italy. Empirica, 23, 91–105. doi: 10.1007/BF00925009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ayyagari, M., & Kosová, R. (2010). Does FDI facilitate domestic entry? Evidence from the Czech Republic. Review of International Economics, 18(1), 14–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9396.2009.00854.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barbosa, N., & Eiriz, V. (2009). The role of inward foreign direct investment on entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5(3), 319–339. doi: 10.1007/s11365-007-0050-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barrios, S., Görg, H., & Strobl, F. (2005). Foreign direct investment, competition and industrial development in the host country. European Economic Review, 49(7), 1761–1784. doi: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2004.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Berry, M. M. J., & Taggart, J. H. (1998). Combining technology and corporate strategy in small high tech firms. Research Policy, 26(7–8), 883–895. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00064-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bhat, C. R., Paleti, R., & Singh, P. (2014). A spacial multivariate count model for firm location decisions. Journal of Regional Science, 54(3), 462–502. doi: 10.1111/jors.12101.Google Scholar
  16. Blalock, G., & Gertler, P. J. (2008). Welfare gains from foreign direct investment through technology transfer to local suppliers. Journal of International Economics, 74(2), 402–421. doi: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2007.05.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  18. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. R. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brush, C. G., & Vanderwerf, P. A. (1992). A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining estimates of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(2), 157–170. doi: 10.1016/0883-9026(92)90010-O.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Buckley, P. J., Clegg, J., & Wang, C. (2006). Inward FDI and host country productivity: Evidence from China’s electronics industry. Transnational Corporations, 15(1), 13–37. http://unctad.org/en/Docs/iteiit20061_en.pdf
  21. Buckley, P. J., Clegg, J., & Wang, C. (2007). Is the relationship between inward FDI and spillover effects linear? An empirical examination of the case of China. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(3), 447–459. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Burke, A., Görg, H., & Hanley, A. (2008). The impact of foreign direct investment on new firm survival in the UK: Evidence for static versus dynamic industries. Small Business Economcis, 31(4), 395–407. doi: 10.1007/s11187-007-9065-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Caves, R. E. (1974). Multinational firms, competition and productivity in host country markets. Economica, 41, 176–193. doi: 10.2307/2553765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Caves, R. E. (1996). Multinational enterprise and economic analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Clark, D. P., & Highfill, J. (2011). FDI, technology spillovers, growth, and income inequality: A selective survey. Global Economy Journal, 11(2), 1–42. doi: 10.2202/1524-5861.1773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. doi: 10.2307/2393553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Covin, J. G., Slevin, D. P., & Covin, T. J. (1990). Content and performance of growth-seeking strategies: A comparison of small firms in high- and low-technology industries. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(6), 391–412. doi: 10.1016/0883-9026(90)90013-J.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. De Backer, K., & Sleuwaegen, L. (2003). Does foreign direct investment crowd out domestic entrepreneurship? Review of Industrial Organization, 22(1), 67–84. doi: 10.1023/A:1022180317898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Folta, T. B., Cooper, A. C., & Baik, Y. (2006). Geographic cluster size and firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 217–242. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fritsch, M., & Falck, O. (2007). New business formation by industry over space and time: A multidimensional analysis. Regional Studies, 41(2), 157–172. doi: 10.1080/00343400600928301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Garcia, F., Jin, B., & Salomon, R. (2013). Does inward foreign direct investment improve the innovative performance of local firms? Research Policy, 42(1), 231–244. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.06.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gilbert, B. A., McDougall, P. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (2008). Clusters, knowledge spillovers and new venture performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(4), 405–422. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2007.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Görg, H., & Strobl, E. (2002). Multinational companies and indigenous development: An empirical analysis. European Economic Review, 46(7), 1305–1322. doi: 10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00146-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Greene, W. H. (2008). Econometric analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Haddad, M., & Harrison, A. E. (1993). Are there positive spillovers from direct foreign investment? Journal of Development Economics, 42(1), 51–74. doi: 10.1016/0304-3878(93)90072-U.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Haskel, J. E., Pereira, S. C., & Slaughter, M. J. (2007). Does inward foreign direct investment boost the productivity of domestic firms? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3), 482–496. doi: 10.1162/rest.89.3.482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Helmers, C., & Rogers, M. (2011). Does patenting help high-tech start-ups? Research Policy, 40(7), 1016–1027. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Javorcik, B. S. (2004). Does foreign direct investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages American Economic Review, 94(3), 605–627. doi: 10.1257/0002828041464605.Google Scholar
  39. Jofre-Monseny, J., Marín-López, R., & Viladecans-Marsal, E. (2011). The mechanisms of agglomeration: Evidence from the effect of inter-industry relations on the location of new firms. Journal of Urban Economics, 70(2–3), 61–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2011.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jofre-Monseny, J., Marín-López, R., & Viladecans-Marsal, E. (2014). The determinants of localization and urbanization economies: Evidence from the location of new firms in Spain. Journal of Regional Science, 54(2), 313–337. doi: 10.1111/jors.12076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Keeble, D., & Walker, S. (1994). New firms, small firms and dead firms: Spatial patterns and determinants in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 28(4), 411–427. doi: 10.1080/00343409412331348366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kim, J.-D., & Hwang, S.-I. (2000). The role of foreign direct investment in Korea’s economic development: Productivity effects and implications for the currency crisis. In A. O. Krueger & T. Ito (Eds.), The role of foreign direct investment in East Asian economic development (pp. 267–294). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kirner, E., Kinkel, S., & Jaeger, A. (2009). Innovation paths and the innovation performance of low-technology firms—An empirical analysis of German industry. Research Policy, 38(3), 447–458. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.10.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kneller, R., & McGowan, D. (2012). Tax policy and firm entry and exit dynamics: Evidence from OECD countries. Bangor business school working paper BBSWP/12/006, Bangor University, UK.Google Scholar
  45. Korea, Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy. (2003). Performance of the attraction of inward FDI for the past 5 years: Special report to the Minister. Seoul: MOCIE.Google Scholar
  46. Lee, I. H., Hong, E., & Sun, L. (2014). Inward foreign direct investment and domestic entrepreneurship: A regional analysis of new firm creation in Korea. Regional Studies, 48(5), 910–922. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2012.690067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lee, I. H., & Rugman, A. M. (2009). Multinationals and public policy in Korea. Asian Business & Management, 8(1), 59–82. doi: 10.1057/abm.2008.24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Linder, S. (1961). An essay on trade and transformation. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells.Google Scholar
  49. Marshall, A. (1890). Principle of Economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  50. McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face to face groups. American Sociological Review, 52(3), 370–379. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095356
  51. Motohashi, K., & Yuan, Y. (2010). Productivity impact of technology spillover from multinationals to local firms: Comparing China’s automobile and electronics industries. Research Policy, 39(6), 790–798. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Murphy, K. M., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1989). Income distribution, market size, and industrialization. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(3), 537–564. doi: 10.2307/2937810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nicolas, F. (2003). FDI as a Factor of Economic Restructuring: The Case of South Korea. In A. Bende-Nabende (Ed.), International trade, capital flows and economic development in East Asia—The challenge in the 21st century. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  54. Nunes, P. M., Serrasqueiro, Z., & Leitão, J. (2012). Is there a linear relationship between R&D intensity and growth? Empirical evidence of non-high-tech vs. high-tech SMEs. Research Policy, 41(1), 36–53. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.08.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. OECD. (2000). Policy competition for foreign direct investment: A study of competition among governments to attract FDI. Paris: Development Centre of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
  56. Papke, L. E. (1991). Interstate business tax differentials and new firm location: Evidence from panel data. Journal of Public Economics, 45(1), 47–68. doi: 10.1016/0047-2727(91)90047-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ramezzana, P. (2000). Per capita income, demand for variety, and international trade: Linder reconsidered. Centre for Economic Performance Discussion Paper DP0460, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK.Google Scholar
  58. Roodman, D. (2009). A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 135–158. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2008.00542.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). University-incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Research Policy, 34(3), 305–320. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rugman, A. M. (2005). The regional multinationals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sorenson, O., & Stuart, T. E. (2001). Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venture capital investments. The American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1546–1588. doi: 10.1086/321301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stuart, T., & Sorenson, O. (2003). The geography of opportunity: Spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy, 32(2), 229–253. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00098-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sutaria, V., & Hicks, D. A. (2004). New firm formation: Dynamics and determinants. Annals of Regional Science, 38(2), 241–262. doi: 10.1007/s00168-004-0194-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thornhill, S. (2006). Knowledge, innovation and firm performance in high- and low-technology regimes. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(5), 687–703. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. UNCTAD. (2013). World investment report. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  66. Von Hipple, E. (1994). Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429–439. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.40.4.429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Windmeijer, F. (2005). A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. Journal of Econometrics, 126(1), 25–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.02.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Woodward, D. P. (1992). Locational determinants of Japanese manufacturing start-ups in the United Sates. Southern Economic Journal, 58(3), 690–708. doi: 10.2307/1059836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zaheer, S. (1995). Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 341–363. doi: 10.2307/256683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zahra, S., Ireland, D., & Hitt, M. (2000). International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 925–950. doi: 10.2307/1556420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–306. http://www.jstor.org/stable/116831

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geographical SciencesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Management, Quinlan School of BusinessLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.School of Finance and ManagementSOAS University of LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA)LaxenburgAustria

Personalised recommendations