Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Authors
  • Keywords
  • Date
  • Type

Search results

Number of results: 7
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Systemic transformation in Polish surface transport: An evaluation. The purpose of this paper is to provide some insight into the processes of restructuring and privatisation among rail, road, urban-transport, and inland shipping companies after 1989. Where freight is concerned, carriage on standard- and broad-gauge railways can be evaluated as partly deregulated, while where the carriage of passengers is concerned – all carriers up to mid-2005 had originated within the PKP Group. The most common form of transformation of passenger carriers is communalisation of existing companies. The first private operator (the present-day Arriva) appeared as late as 2007. The disintegration of national road carrier (PKS) resulted in the founding of c. 40 new freight firms, the majority of which were closed-down soon. The most common form of privatisation of the PKS passenger enterprises has involved leasing by workers. The privatisation has involved not only Polish investors but also foreign ones (Veolia, later on taken over by Arriva, and Israeli Egged Holding via its affiliate Mobilis). However, the share of public-capital ownership remains substantial, resulting often in final bankrupcy of road transport companies. Among the operators in urban transport public owership remains dominant in various forms (local authorities, municipal, budgetary companies). On the opposite, in inland shipping small private firms are dominant. Moreover, systemic transformation plus Poland’s EU accession have given rise to the conditions underpinning the emergence of Europe’s largest shipowners (OT Logistics).
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Zbigniew Taylor
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

In this paper we study the relationship between foreign firm ownership and innovation activities in a wide group of West European and Central and East European countries. Based on a dataset including more than 100,000 firms covered by the 2014 edition of the Community Innovation Survey, we examine the role of home- and host country effects in firms’ decisions to introduce various forms of innovation. In addition, we identify a group of foreign-owned firms that specialize in exporting and interpret them as participants of hierarchic global value chains organized by multinational enterprises. We show that while foreign direct investment, especially from Germany, is positively associated with innovation, the opposite effect is observed in the case of hierarchic global value chains’ participants. The negative impact of within-multinationals global value chains on innovation is more pronounced in the affiliates located in the Central and East European countries.
Go to article

Bibliography

[1] Aghion P., (2004), Growth and development: A Schumpeterian approach, Annals of Economics and Finance 5, 1–25.
[2] Aghion P., Howitt P., (1992), A model of growth through creative destruction, Econometrica 60, 323–351.
[3] Aghion P., Howitt P., (1998), Endogenous growth theory, MIT Press, Cambridge.
[4] Amador J., Cabral S., (2016), Global value chains: A survey of drivers and measures, Journal of Economic Surveys 30(2), 278–301.
[5] Amador J., Cabral S., Mastrandrea R., Ruzzenenti F., (2018), Who’s who in global value chains? A weighted network approach, Open Economies Review 29(5), 1039–1059.
[6] Ambroziak Ł., (2018), The CEECs in global value chains: The role of Germany, Acta Oeconomica 68(1), 1–29.
[7] Antràs P., (2020), Conceptual aspects of global value chains, The World Bank.
[8] Andersson T., (2005), Linking national science, technology and innovation policies with FDI policies, [in:] Proceedings of UNCTAD Expert Meeting on the Impact of FDI on Development, Geneva.
[9] Bair J., Gereffi G., (2001), Local clusters in global chains: The causes and consequences of export dynamism in Torreon’s blue jeans industry, World Development 29(11), 1885–1903.
[10] Bazan L., Navas-Aleman L., (2004), The underground revolution in the Sinos Valley: A comparison of upgrading in global and national value-chains, [in:] Local Enterprises in the Global Economy: Issues of Governance and Upgrading, [ed.:] Schmitz H., Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 110–140.
[11] Bedi A. S., Cieslik A., (2002), Wages and wage growth in Poland: The role of foreign direct investment, Economics of Transition 10(1), 1–27.
[12] Benkovskis K., Masso J., Tkacevs O., Vahter P., Yashiro N., (2019), Export and productivity in global value chains: Comparative evidence from Latvia and Estonia, Review of World Economics, 1–21.
[13] Berger M., Diez J. R., (2008), Can host innovation systems in late industrializing countries benefit from the presence of transnational corporations? Insights from Thailand’s manufacturing industry, European Planning Studies 16(8), 1047–1074.
[14] Birkinshaw J., (1996), World mandate strategies for Canadian subsidiaries, Industry Canada Working Paper 9.
[15] Birkinshaw J., (1998), Foreign owned subsidiaries and regional development: the case of Sweden, [in:] Multinational Corporate Evolution and Subsidiary Development, [eds.:] Birkinshaw J., Hood N., McMillian, London, 268–298.
[16] Birkinshaw J., Hood N., (1998), Multinational subsidiary evolution: capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies, Academy of Management Review 23(4), 773–95.
[17] Birkinshaw J., Hood N., (2001), Unleashing innovation in foreign subsidiaries, Harvard Business Review 79(3), 131–137.
[18] Blomstrom M., Kokko A., (2002), FDI and human capital: A research agenda, OECD Development Centre, Working Paper no. 195.
[19] Brancati E., Brancati R., Maresca A., (2017), Global value chains, innovation and performance: firm-level evidence from the Great Recession, Journal of Economic Geography 17(5), 1039–1073.
[20] Cieslik A., Hagemejer J., (2014), Multinational enterprises, absorptive capacity and export spillovers: evidence from Polish firm-level data, Review of Development Economics 18(4), 709–726.
[21] Cieslik A., Michałek J. J., Szczygielski K., (2019), What matters for firms’ participation in Global Value Chains in Central and East European countries?, Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy 14(3), 481– 502.
[22] Cohen W. M., Levinthal D. A., (1990), Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 128–152.
[23] Costa I., Filippov S., (2007), A new nexus between foreign direct investment, industrial and innovation policies, UNU-MERIT Working Paper #2007-030.
[24] De Marchi V., Giuliani E., Rabellotti R., (2018), Do global value chains offer developing countries learning and innovation opportunities?, The European Journal of Development Research 30(3), 389–407.
[25] D’Este P., Rentocchini F., Vega-Jurado J., (2014), The role of human capital in lowering the barriers to engaging in innovation: evidence from the Spanish innovation survey, Industry and Innovation 21(1), 1–19.
[26] Dolan C., Humphrey J., (2000), Governance and trade in fresh vegetables: The impact of UK supermarkets on the African horticulture industry, Journal of Development Studies 37(2), 147–176.
[27] Fagerberg J., Martin S., Mark K., (2007), The competitiveness of nations: Why some countries prosper while others fall behind, World Development 35, 1595– 1620.
[28] Fagerberg J., Srholec M., (2017), Capabilities, economic development, sustainability, Cambridge Journal of Economics 41(3), 905–926.
[29] Foss N. J., Pedersen T., (2004), Organizing knowledge processes in the multinational corporation: an introduction, Journal of International Business Studies 35, 340–349.
[30] Furman J. L., Porter M. E., Stern S., (2002), The determinants of national innovative capacity, Research Policy 31, 899–933.
[31] Gereffi G., Humphrey J., Sturgeon T., (2005), The governance of global value chains, Review of International Political Economy 12(1), 78–104.
[32] Geroski P. A., (1989), Entry, innovation and productivity growth, Review of Economics and Statistics 71, 572–578.
[33] Ghoshal S., Nohria N., (1989), Internal differentiation within multinational corporations, Strategic Management Journal 10(4), 323–337.
[34] Giuliani E., Pietrobelli C., Rabellotti R., (2005), Upgrading in global value chains: Lessons from Latin American clusters, World Development 33(4), 549– 573.
[35] Grilliches Z., (1990), Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey, Journal of Economic Literature 28, 1646–1661.
[36] Hashi I., N. Stojcic, (2013), The impact of innovation activities on firm performance using a multi-stage model: Evidence from the Community Innovation Survey 4, Research Policy 42(2), 353–366.
[37] Hayter R., Han S., (1998), Reflections on China’s open policy towards direct foreign investment, Regional Studies 32, 1–16.
[38] Helpman E., (1984), A simple theory of trade with multinational corporations, Journal of Political Economy 92, 451–471.
[39] Helpman E., (1985), Multinational corporations and trade structure, Review of Economic Studies 52, 443–458.
[40] Helpman E., Krugman P. R., (1985), Market structure and foreign trade: Increasing returns, imperfect competition and the international economy, MIT Press, Cambridge.
[41] Holm U., Malmberg A., and Sölvell Ö., (2003), Subsidiary impact on hostcountry economies: the case of foreign-owned subsidiaries attracting investment into Sweden, Journal of Economic Geography 3(4), 389–408.
[42] Katz J. M., Bercovich N. A., (1993), National systems of innovation supporting technical advance in industry: the case of Argentina, [in:] National Innovation Systems: A comparative analysis, [ed.:] Nelson R. R., 451–475.
[43] Kolasa M., (2008), How does FDI inflow affect productivity of domestic firms? The role of horizontal and vertical spillovers, absorptive capacity and competition, Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 17(1), 155–173.
[44] Krugman P. R., (1983), The “New Theories” of international trade and the multinational enterprise, [in:] The multinational corporation in the 1980s, [eds.:] Kindleberger Ch. P., Audretsch D. B., MIT Press, Cambridge, 57–73.
[45] Lacasa I. D., Giebler A., Radoševic S., (2017), Technological capabilities in Central and Eastern Europe: an analysis based on priority patents, Scientometrics 111(1), 83–102.
[46] Lall S., (1992), Technological capabilities and industrialization, World Development 20(2), 165–186.
[47] Lema R., Pietrobelli C., Rabellotti R., (2019), Innovation in Global Value Chains, [in:] Handbook of Global Value Chains, [eds.:] Gereffi G., Ponte S., Raj-Reichert G., Edward Elga, Cheltenham and Lyme, 370–384.
[48] Lema R., Quadros R., Schmitz H., (2015), Reorganising global value chains and building innovation capabilities in Brazil and India, Research Policy 44(7), 1376– 1386.
[49] Marin A., Bell M., (2006), Technology Spillovers from Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): an Exploration of the Active Role of MNC Subsidiaries in the Case of Argentina in the 1990s, Journal of Development Studies 42(4), 678–697.
[50] Morrison A., Pietrobelli C., Rabellotti R., (2008), Global value chains and technological capabilities: a framework to study learning and innovation in developing countries, Oxford Development Studies 36(1), 39–58.
[51] Pearce R., (2001), Multinationals and industrialisation: the bases of ’inward investment’ policy, International Journal of the Economics of Business 8(1), 51– 73.
[52] Pearce R., (2005), The globalization of R&D: key features and the role of TNCs, [in:] Proceedings of UNCTAD Expert Meeting on the Impact of FDI on Development, Geneva.
[53] Pearce R., Papanastassiou M., (2006), Multinationals and national systems of innovation: strategy and policy issues, [in:] Multinationals, clusters and innovation, [eds.:] Tavares A. T., Teixeira A., Palgrave Macmillan.
[54] Pedersen T., (2006), Determining factors of subsidiary development, [in:] Multinationals, clusters and innovation, [eds.:] Tavares A. T., Teixeira A., Palgrave Macmillan.
[55] Penrose E. T., (1956), Foreign investment and the growth of the firm, Economic Journal 66, 220–236.
[56] Pietrobelli C., Rabellotti R., (2011), Global value chains meet innovation systems: are there learning opportunities for developing countries?, World Development 39(7), 1261–1269.
[57] Rigo D., (2020), Global value chains and technology transfer: new evidence from developing countries, Review of World Economics, 1–24.
[58] Romer P. M., (1993), Idea gaps and object gaps in economic development, Journal of Monetary Economics 32, 543–573.
[59] Romer P. M., (1990), Endogenous technological change, Journal of Political Economy 98, 71–102.
[60] Schmitz H., (2007), Transitions and trajectories in the build-up of innovation capabilities: Insights from the global value chain approach, Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 15(2), 151–160.
[61] Szczygielski K., Grabowski W., Pamukcu M. T., Tandogan V. S., (2017), Does government support for private innovation matter? Firm-level evidence from two catching-up countries, Research Policy 46(1), 219–237.
[62] Tavares A. T., (2002), Multinational subsidiary evolution and public policy: two tales from the European periphery, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 2(3), 195–213.
[63] Varsakelis N. C., (2006), Education, political institutions and innovative activity: A cross-country empirical investigation, Research Policy 35, 1083–1090.
[64] Taglioni D., Winkler D., (2016), Making Global Value Chains Work for Development. Trade and Development, World Bank, Washington.
[65] World Bank, (1999), World Development Report, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
[66] WTO, (2019), Global Value Chain Development Report 2019: Technological Innovation, Supply Chain Trade, and Workers in a Globalized World.
[67] Yokota K., Tomohara A., (2010), Modeling FDI-Induced Technology Spillovers, International Trade Journal 24(1), 5–34.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Andrzej Cieślik
1
ORCID: ORCID
Jan Jakub Michałek
1
ORCID: ORCID
Krzysztof Szczygielski
1
ORCID: ORCID
Jacek Lewkowicz
1
ORCID: ORCID
Jerzy Mycielski
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. University of Warsaw, Faculty of Economic Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The purpose of this empirical study is to find the relationship between economic growth and foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) using endogenous technological change model. First, we combine the CIS and CEECs into one group to test our hypothesis, and then we test each group separately to account for heterogeneity and draw a conclusion whether FDI is indeed a driving force of the economy. Panel data have been used from 2003 to 2014 and different panel estimation methods have been applied. Additionally, we use the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) panel estimator to control for endogeneity problem. The present study finds that FDI is an important factor explaining economic growth in the pooled group and CEECs, although it is not significant in the case of CIS.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Latif Khalilov
Chae-Deug Yi
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

On 19 March 2019 the European Union (EU) adopted the Regulation establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the EU (the “Regulation”). Four years later, the geopolitical situation changed completely as a result of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. Since February 2022 the EU has successively expanded its sanctions imposed against Russia. In parallel – on 6 April 2022 – the European Commission published the Guidance to the Member States concerning foreign direct investment from Russia and Belarus in view of the military aggression against Ukraine and the restrictive measures laid down in recent Council Regulations on sanctions.
The aim of the article is to draw attention to selected aspects of the Regulation which may be relevant in face of the threats to the European and national security and public order posed by the actions of the regimes of Russia and Belarus, following the invasion of Ukraine. In the perspective of the ongoing war in Ukraine, the issues discussed in this article may be points that are worth considering when amending the Regulation in view of the announced revision of the Regulation in Autumn 2023.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Dominika Pietkun
1 2
ORCID: ORCID

  1. CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang Pośniak i Bejm sp.k.
  2. Legal Doctoral Seminars at the PAS Institute of Legal Sciences
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The article presents aspects of the legal characterization and regulation of the natural resource’s treatment that are under the joint tenancy of two or more states. The scientific novelty of the study is determined by that fact that shows the aspects of international interaction and the formation of the practice of legislative regulation of the use of natural resources, not only in the field of state and legal regulation but also within the context of private-public partnership. The relevance is determined by the fact that the main problem of the development of energy resources is an opportunity to determine and accordingly implement certain provisions for international business enterprises. The purpose of this article is to study the question of how representatives of international business can implement projects for the extraction of natural resources across boundary areas and under various conditions within the framework of cross-border cooperation. In the work, the methods of mathematical statistics, historical and legal methods were used. A three-level model was presented. This model determines the possibility of ensuring cooperation, then it forms its legal and regulatory framework and then determines instruments of an economic and legal nature that can be implemented in this field. The final point of the model is the finding of opportunities for investing in the development of natural energy resources on a parity basis, as well as the formation of an integrated environment that determines the possibility of integrating the subjects of international business into the economic environment of the state.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Oksana D. Hnatkovych
1
ORCID: ORCID
Volodymyr V. Hoblyk
2
ORCID: ORCID
Olena V. Lazarieva
3
ORCID: ORCID
Vasyl V. Burba
4
ORCID: ORCID
Yevhenii Ye. Hrechin
4
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Department of Culture and Arts, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Ukraine
  2. Department of Management and Economic Processes, Mukachevo State University, Ukraine
  3. Department of the Landed Resources Management, Petro Mohyla Black Sea National University, Ukraine
  4. Department of Anti-Corruption and Combating Organized Crime, National Academy of Security Service of Ukraine, Ukraine
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This paper investigates the relationship between energy use and economic development in five South-Asian countries using national-level panel data from 1990 to 2014. Although many studies have already addressed the nexus between energy consumption and economic growth, there is a mixed finding. According to many researchers, South Asian countries have expanded energy consumption since the 1990s. Therefore, energy consumption as a variable for a specific period is considered for the countries of Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Furthermore, foreign direct investment (FDI) and international trade (IT) are also considered to be related variables in this study. Pooled ordinary least squares, random effects, and fixed effects estimation techniques are used to provide a reliable estimation, offsetting the country fixed effects. The fixed effect model is the most effective model that reveals the association between electricity usage and growth factors, as per the specification test and Hausman test. A statistically significant correlation was found between international trade, FDI, economic growth, and power usage. FDI has the highest impact on the rising power demand, followed by global commerce and per capita GDP (gross domestic product). More specifically, the study findings reveal that increased power consumption causes more investment, which results in increased economic growth in South Asian countries. The findings of the study further show that FDI significantly impacted upon power consumption and the area of SAARC’s energy demand, resulting in the entry of new technology and an increase in both economic growth and energy consumption. Future policies may focus on investment in the energy sector to promote economic development.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Sabrina Akter Nishat
1
ORCID: ORCID
Zobayer Ahmed
1 2
ORCID: ORCID
Omar Faruque
3
ORCID: ORCID
Kamrul Hasan
1
ORCID: ORCID
Arafat Hossain
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Department of Economics & Banking, International Islamic University Chittagong, Bangladesh
  2. Department of Economics, Selcuk University, Turkey
  3. Department of Economics, Stamford University Bangladesh, Bangladesh
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This study introduces a robust strategy for regulating output voltage in the presence of false data injection (FDI) attacks. Employing a hierarchical approach, we disentangle the distributed secondary control problem into two distinct facets: an observer-based resilient tracking control problem and a decentralized control problem tailored for real systems. Notably, our strategy eliminates the reliance on global information and effectively mitigates the impact of FDI attacks on directed communication networks. Ultimately, simulation results corroborate the efficacy of our approach, demonstrating successful voltage regulation within the system and proficient management of FDI attacks.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Rongqiang Guan
1
ORCID: ORCID
Jing Yu
1
ORCID: ORCID
Siyuan Fan
2
ORCID: ORCID
Tianyi Sun
2
ORCID: ORCID
Peng Liu
2
ORCID: ORCID
Han Gao
2
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Jilin Engineering Normal University, Changchun, 130000, China
  2. Northeast Electric Power University, Jilin, 132000, China

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more