1、中國的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)以及外國的直接投資摘要：有實(shí)證研究說明開展中國家采取知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)的措施對吸引外國直接投資有直接的影響，特別是經(jīng)濟(jì)大國在吸引外國直接投資中略顯匱乏。本文探討了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)對中國最近激增的外商直接投資所起的作用和奉獻(xiàn)。我們認(rèn)為，知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的替性代措施在經(jīng)濟(jì)開展水平不同的地區(qū)對外商直接投資的影響可能會有所不同。我們使用38個國家的貿(mào)易數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行研究，結(jié)果說明，在中國加強(qiáng)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)對外國直接投資有著積極和重要的作用。調(diào)查結(jié)果還顯示，來自香港和臺灣地區(qū)的外國直接投資的行為高于其他高收入國家。關(guān)鍵詞：知識產(chǎn)權(quán)；專利法;外國直接投資;中國;開展中國家正文：1、介紹在過去二十年里，中國的外商直接投

2、資FDI量有著迅猛的增長。雖然亞洲大局部外國直接投資流入到了開展中國家，其中中國占亞洲全球外國直接投資額幾乎一半見下列圖。中國的外國直接投資從1979年幾乎沒有增長至1998年的45.5億美元，而在隨后的不到十年，在2006年，其外國直接投資流入增加至695億美元，其數(shù)量已經(jīng)超過整個非洲大陸355億美元，但卻遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)落后于一個落后的拉丁美洲的總量約合838億美元見貿(mào)發(fā)會議，2007年。自1993年以來，中國已成為吸收外商直接投資最多的開展中國家和最受跨國公司歡送的首選目的地，僅次于美國。中國這么巨大和快速的的外商直接投資增量自然使人們提出一個問題：這么強(qiáng)大投資的背后動力是什么呢？中國是一個開展中國

3、家，特別適合作為知識產(chǎn)權(quán)改革對外國直接投資流入的影響分析和的案例研究。令人驚訝的是，中國在1985年以前沒有知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)。然而，在1985年第一部專利法和在1992年和2000年大幅修訂成立以來，中國經(jīng)歷了其專利制度的漸進(jìn)改革。于1992年，由于來自美國的壓力，中國的專利法大幅修訂，以適應(yīng)許多工業(yè)國家的要求。中國加強(qiáng)專利法律也是為了加速其參加世界貿(mào)易組織的步調(diào)，中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法律要求(如專利,版權(quán)和商標(biāo))也是為了更好的符合WTO的協(xié)議與貿(mào)易有關(guān)的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)(TRIPS)和其他主要的國際知識產(chǎn)權(quán)公約(Maskus,2004)。自1992年以來，外國專利保持在19%的年平均增長率見圖2。大多數(shù)的中國專

4、利創(chuàng)造專利申請，由外國公司提出，如日本，美國，歐盟成員國，以及韓國等。圖2 本文目的是為了探討中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法律對其吸收外資的影響 (19922005)。這篇文獻(xiàn)的奉獻(xiàn)在于有幾個方面。首先，這是第一個專注于大型和有影響力的經(jīng)濟(jì)開展，在過去二十年經(jīng)歷了其知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度的顯著變化的實(shí)證分析。因此，這種分析提供了一個可以替代以往通常從一個主要工業(yè)化國家如美國家長的角度強(qiáng)調(diào)不同群體的主辦國的外國直接投資流入的研究。其次，我們還探討知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)對外商直接投資的效果可能會有所不同的伙伴國家的經(jīng)濟(jì)開展水平史密斯，2001年的可能性。第三、從一個單一的一年的橫截面數(shù)據(jù)為根底的研究，這項(xiàng)研究使用的38個國家，涵蓋了

5、更多的擴(kuò)展時期1992-2005的數(shù)據(jù)，并允許考慮動態(tài)性質(zhì)的外商直接投資與知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度的政策變化。第四，本文適用于其他知識產(chǎn)權(quán)作為知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度的代理措施：作為每年衡量中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的保護(hù)強(qiáng)度。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)指數(shù)，即使用前人研究的根底上，用打分的方法，經(jīng)常被任意的選擇上的重要性權(quán)重各種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。雖然在某些情況下很有效果，但是以知識產(chǎn)權(quán)指數(shù)為根底的研究措施，可能無法充分反映以書本為法律的專利法的修改和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之間的相互間的動態(tài)影響作用，另外，隨著時間的推移，對其他經(jīng)濟(jì)變量的影響例如，外國直接投資也不能很好地表達(dá)出來。另外，我們使用實(shí)際數(shù)據(jù)，隨著時間的推移原始國家的專利申請數(shù)量。每年越來越多的外國專利申請可能是一個

6、很好的指標(biāo)，越來越多的外國公司在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)的法律和執(zhí)法提供在中國的信心。相對指數(shù)為根底的方法，這種跨越時間和措施，這一措施保護(hù)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的強(qiáng)度變化占更多星移斗轉(zhuǎn)、可能不易測量誤差。本研究的主要發(fā)現(xiàn)說明，中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)的加強(qiáng)，導(dǎo)致在其外國直接投資流入的增加。本文的實(shí)證結(jié)果進(jìn)一步支持這一假設(shè)，加強(qiáng)專利法具有一定的市場擴(kuò)張效果。此外，我們的研究結(jié)果還說明，外商直接投資來自香港和臺灣表現(xiàn)不同于源自其他高收入國家。因此，本研究提供了關(guān)于當(dāng)前有關(guān)政策改革在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度及技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓同對中國貿(mào)易有何影響的相關(guān)實(shí)證。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)和全球直接投資之間的聯(lián)系并不明確，一直是大量的辯論和爭議的來源。更強(qiáng)的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)是

7、否刺激或阻礙外國直接投資流向開展中國家的分歧依然存在。根據(jù)一個國家的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度，通過幾個選項(xiàng)之間進(jìn)行選擇：出口，外國直接投資，合資企業(yè)和許可，來為國外市場效勞。雖然一些理論研究說明，更強(qiáng)的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)能夠促進(jìn)創(chuàng)新，但是其對外國直接投資的影響既可以是積極也可以是消極的Chin等，1988和赫爾普曼，1993。更強(qiáng)的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)可以減少因當(dāng)?shù)仄髽I(yè)的模仿造成的威脅，從而確保外國公司直接投資的增加產(chǎn)生積極的影響和結(jié)果。相比之下，如果加強(qiáng)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)，那么它在外國公司的壟斷力量的增加可能會對外國直接投資產(chǎn)生負(fù)面影響。當(dāng)面對來自于本地生產(chǎn)的仿制品的競爭，跨國公司可能會嘗試以最大限度地減少子公司的產(chǎn)量和銷

8、售利潤的方式進(jìn)行競爭馬庫斯和本巴提1995，史密斯，1999和史密斯，2001。此外，更強(qiáng)的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)也阻礙跨國公司選擇增加外國直接投資，而不是許可。相反，技術(shù)含量低的生產(chǎn)者，在沉重的知識型產(chǎn)業(yè)投資公司可能產(chǎn)生更敏感的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)問題曼斯菲爾德，1995年，馬庫森，2001年和夾克瑞克，2004。因此，保護(hù)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)和外國直接投資之間的關(guān)系仍然是一個經(jīng)驗(yàn)性的尚未得到足夠重視的問題。近年來，有許多關(guān)于外國直接投資流入的影響因素的實(shí)證研究，如中歐和東歐國家和中國的經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型。以歐洲經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型為重點(diǎn)的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)有助于吸引外國直接投資卡斯特森和特拜耳傳統(tǒng)因素例如，市場潛力，生產(chǎn)要素本錢和距離和過渡的具體因素

9、例如，私有化和歐盟成員國的水平和方法，2004年，貝文和埃斯特林，2004年。相比之下，關(guān)注中國的實(shí)證研究將更加傾向于對根本經(jīng)濟(jì)因素，如市場規(guī)模，勞動力和投資本錢的重視。在重點(diǎn)研究了1978年至1992年進(jìn)入中國的外國直接投資的驅(qū)動程序后，王和斯溫1995年發(fā)現(xiàn)，GDP、工資和貿(mào)易限制措施都對外商直接投資具有積極的作用，而利率和匯率對外國直接投資卻有著負(fù)面影響。同樣，海德和里斯1996通過研究對外國直接投資的54個中國城市中的位置決定的因素發(fā)現(xiàn)，外國直接投資主要是吸引中國有雄厚的工業(yè)根底和優(yōu)良的根底設(shè)施的城市。在另一項(xiàng)研究中，孫等人分析了整個中國的從1986年到1998年30個省的外國直接投資

10、決定因素發(fā)現(xiàn)，外國直接投資的主要驅(qū)動力隨著時間的推移改變。蕭2004在研究了中國為什么能夠吸引這么多的外國直接投資后發(fā)現(xiàn)，中國的外國直接投資約50來源于香港和臺灣。張2005問：為什么前往中國的外國直接投資的很大一局部來自于香港和臺灣？研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，從主要興旺國家歐盟，美國和日本的外國直接投資和香港、臺灣不同。此外，一些探討了除中國外的外國直接投資的其他方面的研究和一些學(xué)者探討的生產(chǎn)性投入對外商直接投資的影響，推動中國近期的經(jīng)濟(jì)增長陳等人，1995年，吳，2000和姚明和偉，2007。雖然許多作者分析了各種經(jīng)濟(jì)因素外國直接投資的影響，但很少有研究知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的作用，因?yàn)樵谶@項(xiàng)研究中所提倡的。李和曼斯菲

11、爾德1996年的創(chuàng)作是有關(guān)一個開展中國家的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)體系和美國的外國直接投資數(shù)量之間聯(lián)系的第一個實(shí)證調(diào)查之一。他們的經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)說明，加強(qiáng)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)，對外國直接投資流入有積極的作用。在最近的研究中，夾克瑞克2004年，評價(jià)了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)在對東歐和前蘇聯(lián)的經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型中外國直接投資吸引的積極作用。該研究得出結(jié)論是，薄弱的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)對技術(shù)密集型行業(yè)的外商直接投資負(fù)面影響。同樣，奴凱姆和斯帕茨2004對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，外商直接投資聯(lián)動使以東道國分類部門為數(shù)據(jù)的的外國直接投資有促進(jìn)作用。在中國，對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)在經(jīng)濟(jì)上的擔(dān)任何種角色的分析比比皆是，但數(shù)據(jù)為根據(jù)的實(shí)證研究卻寥寥無幾。近日，杜等人研究了區(qū)域經(jīng)濟(jì)、

12、體制因素即產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)和合同執(zhí)行及美國跨國公司在區(qū)位選擇上之間的關(guān)系，他建議美國跨國投資在有更好的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)的地區(qū)，以便減少政府對企業(yè)的干預(yù)，從而更好地執(zhí)行合同。然而，他們使用由每個省作為一個知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)區(qū)域，從而代理政府批準(zhǔn)的專利數(shù)量的決定可能會有問題。雖然有可能在一些地區(qū)中經(jīng)濟(jì)開展水平和體制根底設(shè)施會有變化，但沒有這樣的變化就存在跨省的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)問題，因?yàn)橹袊薪y(tǒng)一的國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法律。統(tǒng)計(jì)推論強(qiáng)調(diào)，區(qū)域差異的影響會產(chǎn)生利用外商直接投資的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)代理變量時不改變跨區(qū)域的疑問。結(jié)束語本文探討了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)在中國對外直接投資內(nèi)流近期劇增中的奉獻(xiàn)。雖然一些研究探討了開展中國家的外國直接

13、投資的決定因素，其中知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的作用已相對忽略，但中國是一個有趣的案例研究，研究給出了其主要開展中國家的經(jīng)濟(jì)作用，呈現(xiàn)出跨國公司具有強(qiáng)大的威脅和模仿能力。在其試圖參加世貿(mào)組織的過去十年中中國經(jīng)歷了其知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度的顯著變化。實(shí)證證據(jù)說明，在在中國加強(qiáng)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)在吸引外國直接投資中具有積極和重要的作用。其結(jié)果也說明除了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)因素，市場規(guī)模，區(qū)域一體化，運(yùn)輸和貿(mào)易本錢也是中國吸引外國直接投資的重要因素。此外，這一結(jié)果是強(qiáng)大的替代型號規(guī)格和數(shù)據(jù)樣本的分割。總的來說，我們的結(jié)果說明，加強(qiáng)開展中國家在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)，特別是對于大型經(jīng)濟(jì)體國家而言，可能會對吸引外國直接投資起到積極的作用，從而促進(jìn)技術(shù)的轉(zhuǎn)讓。

14、附注：本文摘自?經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)?2021年6月第2期Intellectual property rights protection andthe surge in FDI in ChinaTitus O. AwokuseAbstract：There is scarcity of empirical studies focusing on the role of intellectual property rights (IPR) in attracting FDI into developing nations, especially large economies with relatively

15、 strong threat of imitation. This paper examines the contribution of IPR to the recent surge in Chinas inward FDI. We consider two alternative measures of IPR and explore the possibility that the effect of IPR protection on FDI may vary by the level of economic development. Using a panel data for 38

16、 countries, the empirical results indicate that the strengthening of IPR protection in China has a positive and significant effect on FDI. The results also show that FDI from Hong Kong and Taiwan behaves differently from the FDI originating from other high-income countries.Keywords：Intellectual prop

17、erty rights; Patent laws; FDI; China; Developing countriesChina has experienced a phenomenal surge in its inflow of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the past two decades. While Asia receives the bulk of FDI flows to the developing world, China accounts for almost half of Asias share of global FDI

18、(see Table 1). Chinas FDI grew from virtually nothing in 1979 to $45.5 billion in 1998; and less than a decade later in 2006, its FDI inflow increased to $69.5 billion. FDI flow into China accounts for more FDI than that of the entire African continent ($35.5 billion) and is just a bit behind all of

19、 Latin America ($83.8 billion) combined (see UNCTAD, 2007). Since 1993, it has become the largest recipient of FDI among developing countries and the most popular destination of choice for multinational firms, second only to the United States. This substantial volume and growth of FDI to China natur

20、ally raises the question: what is the driving force behind this growth?Among developing countries, China is particularly suitable as a case study for analyzing the impact of IPR reforms on FDI flows. Surprisingly, China had no IPR protection before 1985. However, since the establishment of its first

21、 patent law in 1985 and its substantial revision in 1992 and 2000, China has undergone a gradual reform of its patent systems. In 1992, mainly due to pressure from the United States, Chinas patent law was substantially amended to make it more aligned with those of many industrial nations (Allison an

22、d Lin, 1999). The strengthening of Chinas patent laws was also accelerated by its membership in the WTO that required that Chinese IPR laws (i.e. patents, copyrights and trademarks) be better aligned with the WTOs Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and other m

23、ajor international IPR conventions (Maskus, 2004). Since 1992, foreign patents have increased steadily with an annual growth rate of 19% (see follow picture) of Chinese patents (invention patent applications) were filed by foreign firms with the most important patentees coming from Japan, the US, EU

24、 member countries, and South Korea.The objective of this paper is to investigate the impact of Chinas IPR laws on its ability to attract FDI from 19922005. This paper contributes to the literature in several ways. First, this is the first empirical analysis focusing on a large and influential develo

25、ping economy that has experienced significant changes in its IPR systems in the past two decades. Thus, this analysis provides an alternative to most previous studies that usually emphasize FDI flows from the perspective of a major industrialized parent-nation (e.g., United States) to a diverse grou

26、p of host nations. Second, we also explore the possibility that the effect of IPR protection on FDI may vary by the level of economic development in partner countries (Smith, 2001). Third, in contrast to studies based on cross-sectional data from a single year, this study uses a panel data for 38 co

27、untries which covers a more extended time period (19922005) and allows for the consideration of the dynamic nature of the relationship between FDI and policy changes in IPR regimes. Fourth, this paper applies two alternative measures of IPR as a proxy for IPR regimes: Annual foreign patent applicati

28、ons as a measure of the strength of IPR protection in China The IPR index, used by most previous studies, is based on a scoring method that is often arbitrary in their choice of weights on the importance of various criteria. Although useful in some cases, the index-based measures of IPR, based on la

29、ws on the books, may not adequately capture the dynamic nature of the interaction between changes in patent laws and standards over time as well as their potential impact on other economic variables (e.g., FDI). Alternatively, we use actual data on the number of patent applications from parent count

30、ries over time. The growing number of foreign patents filed each year could be a good indicator of growing confidence of foreign firms in the IPR protection laws and enforcement offered in China. Relative to the index-based approach, this measure of IPR protection strength accounts for more variatio

31、n across time and may be less susceptible to measurement errors.The main finding from this study suggests that the strengthening of IPR protection in China led to an increase in its FDI inflows. This papers empirical results further support the hypothesis that the strengthening of patent laws has a

32、market expansion effect. Furthermore, our results also show that FDI from Hong Kong and Taiwan behaves differently from the FDI originating from other high-income countries. Thus, this study provides much needed empirical evidence on the current debate regarding policy reforms in IPR regimes and its

33、 effects on technology transfer and trade with China. The nature of the linkages between IPR protection and global direct investment is ambiguous and has been a source of much debate and controversy. Disagreements persist on whether stronger IPR protection stimulates or discourages FDI flows to deve

34、loping countries (for a review see Shatz et al. (2000). Depending on a nations IPR regime, multinational firms can serve a foreign market by choosing among several options: exports, FDI, joint ventures and licensing. While some theoretical studies have shown that stronger IPR protection stimulates i

35、nnovation, the effect on FDI could be either positive or negative ( Chin et al., 1988 and Helpman, 1993). Stronger IPR protection could have a positive effect and result in an increase in FDI by reducing the threat of imitation by local firms and thereby ensuring high returns to the investment in re

36、search and development of foreign firms.In contrast, the strengthening of IPR protection may have a negative effect on FDI if it results in an increase in the monopoly power of foreign firms. When faced with less competition from locally produced imitation products, multinational firms may attempt t

37、o maximize profits by reducing affiliate output and sales ( Maskus and Penubarti, 1995, Smith, 1999 and Smith, 2001). Furthermore, stronger IPR protection could also discourage FDI if multinational firms choose to license instead of increasing FDI. In contrast to low-tech producers, firms investing

38、in heavy knowledge-based industries may be more sensitive to IPR protection concerns ( Mansfield, 1995, Markusen, 2001 and Javorcik, 2004). Thus, the relationship between IPR protection and FDI remains an empirical question that has yet to receive adequate attention.In recent years, many empirical s

39、tudies have examined the factors influencing FDI flows to transition economies such as Central and Eastern European Countries and China. The studies focusing on European transition economies usually found that traditional determinants (e.g., market potentials, factor costs, and distance) and transit

40、ion-specific factors (e.g., levels and methods of privatization and EU membership) help to attract FDI ( Carstensen and Toubal, 2004 and Bevan and Estrin, 2004). Comparatively, empirical studies focusing on China tend to place more emphasis on fundamental economic factors such as market size, labor

41、and investment costs. In a study focusing on the drivers of FDI into China over 19781992, Wang and Swain (1995) found that GDP, wages, and trade restrictions have a positive effect while interest rates and exchange rates appear to have a negative effect on FDI. Similarly, Heid and Ries (1996) invest

42、igated the determinants of FDI location decision in 54 Chinese cities and found that FDI is mostly attracted to Chinese cities that have strong industrial base and excellent infrastructure.In another study, Sun et al. (2002) analyzed the determinants of FDI across Chinas thirty provinces from 1986 t

43、o 1998 and found that the key drivers of FDI have changed over time. Hsiao and Hsiao (2004) also examined why China has attracted so much FDI and found that about 50% of Chinas FDI originated in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Zhang (2005) asked why a very large portion of China-bound FDI comes from Hong Kong

44、 and Taiwan. They found that the characteristics of FDI from the major developed nations (EU, US, and Japan) are different from those of Hong Kong and Taiwan. Also, several studies have investigated other aspects of FDI in China. Some authors explored how FDI is a productive input spurring Chinas re

45、cent economic growth ( Chen et al., 1995, Wu, 2000 and Yao and Wei, 2007).Although many authors have analyzed the effect of various economic determinants of FDI, very few have examined the role of IPR as advocated in this study. Lee and Mansfield (1996) authored one of the first empirical investigat

46、ions of the possible linkage between a developing countrys IPR protection system and the volume and composition of US FDI in that country. Their empirical evidence indicates that the strengthening of IPR protection has a positive effect on FDI inflows. In a more recent study, Javorcik (2004) examine

47、d the effect of IPR on the composition of FDI for a group of transition economies in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The study concludes that weak IPR protection has a negative effect on FDI in technology-intensive sectors. Similarly, Nunnenkamp and Spatz (2004) investigated the IPR-FDI

48、linkage using sectorally disaggregated FDI data for a large sample of host countries and found that stronger IPR protection played a positive role in attracting FDI.In Chinas case, while qualitative analyzes on the role of IPR on its economy abound, data-driven empirical studies have been relatively

49、 scarce. Recently, Du et al. (2021) investigated the relationship between regional economic institutional factors (i.e., property rights protection and contract enforcement) and the locational choice of US multinational firms in China.1 Their results, based on a panel data set (19932001), suggest th

50、at US multinationals prefer investing in the regions that have better IPR protection, less government intervention in business, and better contract enforcement. However, their decision to use government-approved number of patents by each province as a proxy variable for regional IPR protection could

51、 be problematic. Although there may be some regional variations in the level of economic development and institutional infrastructures, no such variation exist for IPR protection across provinces since China has uniform national IPR laws.2 Thus, statistical inference emphasizing regional variations

52、in the effect of IPR on FDI may be questionable when the IPR protection proxy variable does not vary across regions.Concluding remarksThis paper examines the contribution of IPR protection to the recent surge in Chinas inward flow of FDI. While several studies have investigated the impact of various

53、 factors as determinants of FDI into developing nations, the role of IPR has been relatively ignored. China is an interesting case study given its role as a major developing economy, which presents multinational firms with a strong threat of imitation. In its attempt to obtain membership in the WTO,

54、 China has experienced notable changes in its IPR systems in the past decade. Using a panel data for 38 diverse countries from 1992 to 2005, the empirical evidence suggests that the strengthening of IPR protection in China has a positive and significant effect in attracting FDI. In addition to IPR,

55、the results also show that measures of market size, regional integration, and transportation and trade costs are important determinants of FDI in China. Furthermore, this result is robust to alternative model specifications and segmentation of the data sample. Overall, our results suggest that the s

56、trengthening of IPR in developing countries, particularly large economies, might play a positive role in attracting FDI and thus promote technology transfer.五分鐘搞定5000字畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯，你想要的工具都在這里!在科研過程中閱讀翻譯外文文獻(xiàn)是一個非常重要的環(huán)節(jié)，許多領(lǐng)域高水平的文獻(xiàn)都是外文文獻(xiàn)，借鑒一些外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯的經(jīng)驗(yàn)是非常必要的。由于特殊原因我翻譯外文文獻(xiàn)的時機(jī)比擬多，慢慢地就發(fā)現(xiàn)了外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯過程中的三大利器：Google“翻譯頻道、金山詞霸完整版本和CNKI“翻譯助手。具體操作過程如下：