literature review on fdi and economic growth

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Exploring the nexus between FDI inflows and economic growth: A sectoral level analysis

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Economics, Lanzhou University, Gansu, Lanzhou, China

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations School of Economics, Lanzhou University, Gansu, Lanzhou, China, Faculty of Business & Entrepreneurship, Department of Business Administration, Daffodil International University, Daffodil Smart City, Ashulia, Dhaka

Affiliation Faculty of Business & Entrepreneurship, Department of Business Administration, Daffodil International University, Daffodil Smart City, Ashulia, Dhaka

Roles Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Public Administration, Comilla University, Cumilla, Bangladesh

Roles Investigation, Resources, Software, Writing – review & editing

Roles Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – review & editing

Roles Software, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation College of Business Administration, IUBAT University, Dhaka, Bangladesh

• Guo ai-jun, 
• A. K. M. Mohsin, 
• Sayed Farrukh Ahmed, 
• Mst. Shumshunnahar, 
• Arifur Rahman, 
• Ebrahim Abbas Abdullah Abbas Amer, 
• Hasanuzzaman Tushar

• Published: May 17, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301220
• Reader Comments

This study investigates the relationship between Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows and economic growth at sectoral levels in Bangladesh, employing a panel study framework. Utilizing sectoral-level panel data spanning six sectors from 2007–08 to 2018–19, the analysis is conducted using Panel Vector Error Correction Model (Panel VECM). Results from panel unit root tests confirm that all variables are integrated of order one I (1) , indicating stationarity. The Pedroni panel co-integration test further supports the presence of co-integration among the variables. Notably, the Panel VECM reveals evidence of a unidirectional causal relationship from Real Gross Domestic Product (RGDP) to Real Foreign Direct Investment (RFDI) across all six sectors of Bangladesh. The findings underscore the significance of formulating pragmatic policies and implementing them effectively to attract FDI across sectors, thereby contributing to the overall economic growth of Bangladesh.

Citation: ai-jun G, Mohsin AKM, Ahmed SF, Shumshunnahar M, Rahman A, Amer EAAA, et al. (2024) Exploring the nexus between FDI inflows and economic growth: A sectoral level analysis. PLoS ONE 19(5): e0301220. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301220

Editor: Nikeel Nishkar Kumar, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, AUSTRALIA

Received: August 6, 2023; Accepted: March 12, 2024; Published: May 17, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 ai-jun et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is the investment from one country (home country) into another country (host country) in an attempt to ensure a substantial degree of influence or control on the enterprises of the host country [ 1 ]. Countries with ample capital resources constantly look for opportunities to enter into foreign markets to get maximum return from investment in host countries [ 2 – 4 ] with sustainable consumption. On the other hand, countries, suffering from capital shortages, are inclined to attract FDI to fill-up their saving-investment gap, increase knowledge as well as technological spillovers, and enrich their economic development as well as non-linear effects [ 5 – 7 ].

In addition to supply of capital in the host countries, FDI provides advanced technology and managerial know-how to the host economies, contributing to the host country’s development endeavor [ 8 – 12 ]. Moreover, some studies have documented that countries having superior growth rates are in an advantageous position to attract larger amounts of FDI [ 2 , 13 – 17 ]. Furthermore, countries with established financial structures, stable political conditions, bureaucratic efficiency, improved infrastructures, efficient human capital and stable economic situation can attract substantial amount of FDI [ 13 , 18 ].

Empirically, a good number of studies [ 19 – 28 ] have focused their attention on the relationship between FDI and host country’s economic growth at sectoral-level in a panel study framework. Some studies [ 19 , 21 – 27 ], using sectoral level data, have suggested that the FDI’s effect on economic growth differ across various sectors. This study is an attempt to fill the gap in the extant literature with a contribution in the area of the relationship between FDI and economic growth at sectoral level.

Since after independence, Bangladesh has attracted FDI in major sectors of economy including Agriculture and Fishing; Power; Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals; Gas and Petroleum; Textiles and Wearing; Fertilizer; Cement; Food Products; Leather Products; Trade and Commerce; Services; Transport, Storage and Communications; Construction etc. During the fiscal year (FY) 2020–21, major sectors of Bangladesh that attracted FDI inflows (Net) include Power (US$456.62 million), Textiles and Wearing (US$376.78 million), Food Products (US$307.31 million), Telecommunication (US$243.10 million), Banking (US$240.56 million), and Gas and Petroleum (US$150.09 million) which accounted for 18.2%, 15%, 12.3%, 9.7%, 9.6% and 6%, respectively of total FDI inflows (Net) of US$2507.31 million [ 29 ].

It is interesting to note that the economic studies on the relationship between total FDI and aggregate growth were predicated on the shaky premise that FDI in various sectors would have an equal influence on economic growth and would have homogeneous features [ 22 ]. It is not reasonable to expect FDI to have the same economic effects throughout an economy’s sectors. This is because each of these sectors has a distinct technological foundation, investment absorption capacity, and regulatory environment, among other factors [ 21 ]. The effect of FDI can therefore differ depending on sectoral specification for obvious reasons. Consequently, it would be beneficial to investigate the relationship between FDI and Bangladesh’s economic growth using sector-level data, as each sector has unique characteristics and, therefore, a significantly varied ability to generate influence from FDI.

While Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has been drawn into various sectors of Bangladesh over an extended period, the specific effects of FDI on economic growth across different sectors remain largely unexplored. Notably, there is a scarcity of studies examining the relationship between FDI and economic growth using sectoral level data within the context of Bangladesh. Consequently, policymakers are confronted with the absence of a definitive answer regarding the extent of FDI’s impact on the economic growth of Bangladesh at the sectoral level. Although a solitary study [ 30 ] has addressed the effect of FDI on sectoral economic growth in Bangladesh, utilizing data from 1995–2005, there remains an opportunity to conduct research using the latest sectoral data to glean fresh insights into the sector-specific effects of FDI on Bangladesh’s economic growth.

This study aims to bridge this gap by investigating the relationship between FDI and economic growth in Bangladesh using sectoral level data. The unique focus on this individual, country-specific study, particularly at the sectoral level, is expected to make a significant contribution to empirical research on the relationship between FDI and economic growth using sectoral level panel data. The study is motivated by the potential findings regarding the relationship between FDI and economic growth at the sectoral level, which can contribute to the growing literature in this area and provide valuable insights for policymakers in formulating targeted policies to attract FDI into specific sectors.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews relevant empirical literature. Section 3 outlines the data and methodology employed. Section 4 presents the results and provides discussion. Finally, Section 5 concludes the study with pertinent policy implications.

2. Literature review

Several empirical studies [ 19 – 28 , 31 ] have delved into the relationship between Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and economic growth at the sectoral level. Some of these studies [ 19 , 21 – 27 ], utilizing sectoral level data, have highlighted variations in the impact of FDI on economic growth across different sectors. Additionally, certain studies [ 20 , 25 – 27 ] have pointed out challenges related to the reliability and availability of sectoral level data, which can hinder empirical research in this area.

For instance, [ 32 ] employed the 2SLS approach to analyze the impact of sectoral FDI on economic growth across 85 developing countries from 1996 to 2019. Their findings underscored the significant role played by sectoral FDI inflows in driving economic growth in these countries. Specifically, they found that while services and manufacturing FDI have limited growth-promoting effects in low-income nations, industry and agriculture FDI are more impactful. Moreover, FDI inflows were found to stimulate economic growth across all sectors in high-income nations, except for services.

[ 33 ] used panel data estimate methodologies and data from 2011 to 2019 to study the effects of FDI sectors on the economic growth of 10 ex-socialist Asian and European nations. The study found that FDI inflows into the industrial sector significantly affect growth. Interestingly, not all FDI inflows into the manufacturing sector boost economic growth, according to the empirical study conducted at the subsector level. In particular, the findings demonstrated that, out of 13 subsectors, only 6 subsectors had statistically significant and favorable effects on growth from FDI inflows.

In the case of an emerging economy such as India, [ 34 ] investigated, using data from 1995 to 2016, how sector-wise FDI inflows can influence the growth of respective sectors. As per the VECM findings, inward FDI did not contribute to the growth in agricultural output. Nevertheless, a reverse causal relationship is observed, whereby more FDI in the agricultural sector is drawn to agricultural output. FDI inflow is observed to have a favorable impact on the manufacturing sector’s output. The study also confirmed a bidirectional causal relationship between FDI and growth in the service sector both in long run and short run.

[ 35 ] used sector-specific data from 2007 to 2016 to investigate the sectoral analysis of FDI on Nepal’s economic growth. The results suggested that FDI in the agriculture, tourism, and industry sectors have positive influence on Nepal’s economic growth over the given period.

In a recent study, employed Generalized Methods of Moments (GMM) estimation technique to examine the impacts of sectoral FDI on the economic growth of Egypt by using panel data of 26 Egyptian governorates over the period 1992–2007. The study found no evidence of significant effect of manufacturing FDI on the economic growth of the selected Egyptian governorates. The authors suggested that the Egyptian policymakers should focus on improvement of investment infrastructure and financial reforms to attract more FDI in various sectors.

In addition to these studies, research by [ 36 ] delved into the asymmetric effects of FDI on tourism demand in China over the period 1982–2017. Their study employed advanced methodologies including non-linear autoregressive distributed lag analysis and identified structural breaks using the Bai-Perron test. The results unveiled an asymmetric association between FDI and tourism demand, with declines in FDI having a more pronounced impact on tourism demand compared to increases. This research provides crucial insights for policymakers managing FDI in the tourism sector, emphasizing the need for nuanced strategies to navigate the fluctuations in FDI and their implications for tourism demand.

The study of [ 21 ] investigated the relationship between FDI and sectoral growth of Indian economy by using data of seven sectors (automobiles, telecom, services, metallurgy, chemical, pharmaceuticals and drugs, tourism) over the period from 2001 to 2014. Empirical findings of the study indicated that FDI exerts no significant effect on gross output of the entire sectors chosen, whereas gross output has positive and significant effect on FDI for the entire sectors chosen. With respect to the panel Granger causality test, the study revealed the evidence of bidirectional causal relationship between FDI and gross output. The authors further suggested that the Indian policymakers should focus on the development of financial sector, macroeconomic stability, and relaxation of the regulations for attracting higher FDI inflows into India.

[ 22 ] investigated the sector-specific impact of FDI on economic growth for Turkey by using panel data of 10 sectors between 2000 and 2009. The study concluded that there is long-run cointegrating relationship between FDI and GDP in Turkey and there exists unidirectional causality running from FDI to GDP which means that FDI has planted in first period, and then, GDP has exhibited an improved growth rate in second period. At the sectoral level, FDI facilitates growth rate of Turkey most in the manufacturing, power, gas and water, electricity, wholesale, and retail trade sectors.

[ 23 ] applied panel cointegration framework to investigate the empirical relationship between FDI and output at sectoral levels for Pakistan by using panel data of 23 industries for a period of 1981–2008. Their results found one-way causality running from GDP to FDI in long-run and two-way causality between FDI and GDP in short-run. Moreover, the study also suggested that the impact of FDI on growth differs broadly across diverse sectors. They indicated that in the primary and service sectors, growth is caused by FDI, while in the manufacturing sector, it is growth that stimulates FDI.

[ 24 ] applied random effect model and weighted least squares (WLS) method to examine the heterogeneous effects of sector-level inflows of FDI on the economic growth of host country by using data of 12 Asian countries over the years from 1987 to 1997. The study showed that FDI in various sectors does have diverse effects on the economic growth of host country. Specifically, the study revealed that manufacturing FDI has significant and positive impact on the economic growth of host countries chosen for study, whereas non-manufacturing FDI does not play important role in enhancing growth. The author suggested to adopt favorable investment-friendly policies for attracting substantial amount of FDI in specific sectors.

The study of [ 30 ] endeavored to examine the effect of FDI on the sectoral economic growth of Bangladesh by considering sectoral data (industry, agriculture, and service) from 1995 to 2005. The study found correlation between FDI in the service sector with service sector growth, whereas, in case of FDI in the industrial sector and FDI in the agricultural sector, the study found no correlation.

[ 26 ] investigated the role of sectoral composition of FDI inflows on economic growth by using data of 33 countries over the period from 1990 to 2002. The findings of the study confirmed that the composition of FDI inflows influence the economic growth of host country. The study revealed growth effects when FDI in manufacturing sector captures a significant portion, but negative growth effects when FDI in primary or service sector is very high.

In their study, [ 27 ] applied fixed effect model to explore the effects of FDI on the economic growth at different sectoral levels of Indonesia by using data of 12 sectors over the period from 1997 to 2006. The study revealed that FDI appears to have positive impact on economic growth at aggregate level of Indonesia, while the impacts of FDI on growth at sectoral level differ across sectors. In addition, the authors emphasized on appropriate sectoral composition of FDI in host country and further suggested to formulate effective policies for ensuring maximum benefits from inflows of FDI.

In a study, [ 19 ] empirically explored the impact of FDI on economic growth by considering sectoral data of 47 countries over the period 1981–1999. The study revealed that the effect of FDI differ significantly across sectors (primary, services, manufacturing) for the countries chosen for the study. In addition, FDI in manufacturing sector tends to have positive impact on growth, evidence from primary sector is negative one, whereas FDI in services sector tends to have no significant contribution to economic growth.

The existing literature utilizing panel data has yielded diverse findings concerning the effects of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) on economic growth across various sectors and countries. While some sectors experience growth due to FDI inflows, others witness a reverse causality where growth stimulates FDI. Conversely, certain studies have found no discernible causal relationship between FDI and economic growth in specific sectors. Moreover, conflicting results have been observed, with some studies reporting positive effects of FDI on growth while others highlight negative impacts across multiple sectors.

Despite the extensive research in this field, there is a notable scarcity of empirical studies investigating the relationship between Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and economic growth at the sectoral level, especially in developing countries like Bangladesh. Despite Bangladesh’s consistent attraction of FDI across various sectors, policymakers are still uncertain about the presence and characteristics of this relationship at the sectoral level. By analyzing this relationship using sectoral-level data, we can not only clarify how FDI impacts Bangladesh’s economic growth in specific sectors but also assist policymakers in crafting precise FDI policies tailored to each sector’s needs.

Therefore, it is imperative to explore the relationship between FDI and economic growth in Bangladesh using sectoral level data. Such research has the potential to make a distinctive contribution not only to the literature on Bangladesh but also to the global understanding of FDI’s impact on economic growth at the sectoral level. The findings can provide valuable insights into the real impact of FDI on economic growth and inform policymakers in designing effective policies to attract FDI to specific sectors.

3. Data and methodology

In the study, sectoral level panel data of six different sectors (Agriculture and Fishing; Manufacturing; Power; Construction; Transport, Storage and Communication; Financial Intermediations) of Bangladesh over the period from 2007–08 to 2018–19 have been used. The selection of six sectors and time periods of twelve years is driven by data availability on the relevant variables. Due to the unavailability of data on the relevant variables of the mentioned time period, data of some sectors (such as gas and petroleum, trading, services) could not be considered for the study. In the study, the period of twelve years may not be a problem as the period of twelve years or less had been used in several panel studies [ 22 , 27 , 28 , 37 , 38 ].

Over the study period from 2007–08 to 2018–19, FDI net inflows brought by six sectors was about 86%, on average [ 29 ]; whereas six sectors contributed about 65% to real GDP (constant 2005–06 BDT), on average [ 39 ]. The study is limited to the bivariate relationship between FDI and economic growth in a panel study framework in the context of Bangladesh. In the relevant literatures of panel study, this restriction is fairly common. In similar types of study, [ 25 , 38 , 40 ] had used the bivariate approach. The detailed description of the variables used in the study is provided in Table 1 below.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301220.t001

In the study, all the variables have been transformed in logarithmic forms for avoiding the scaling problem. It may help to avoid the sharpness as well as the variations in the data so that coefficients are not affected by the extreme values or outliers [ 44 ].

3.2. Methodology

The study regarding the relationships between FDI inflows and economic growth of Bangladesh at sectoral levels in a panel study framework follows the three-step procedure as suggested by [ 25 , 42 ]. First, panel unit root of each variable used in the study has been tested. Second, upon getting the confirmation that the studied variables are integrated order, I(1) , panel co-integration test suggested by [ 45 ] has been used to test the long-run co-integration relationship between the studied variables. Finally, given the existence of co-integration, the Panel Vector Error Correction Model (VECM) has been applied to investigate the causal relationship between the variables.

Upon getting the confirmation that all of the variables, based on the outcomes of panel unit root tests, are integrated order, I(1) , panel co-integration test proposed by [ 45 ] has been used to detect the long-run co-integration relationship between the studied variables.

[ 45 ] proposes seven statistics that test the null hypothesis of no co-integration against co-integration in the panel data. Of these seven statistics, four are called panel co-integration statistics (within dimension-based statistics) and three are referred to as group-mean panel co-integration statistics (between dimension-based statistics).

Given the existence of co-integration between the studied variables, the panel VECM has been applied to examine the causal relationship between the variables which not only identifies the sources of causation but also differentiates between the long-run and the short-run relationship in the series. Panel VECM fails to provide individual sector test output for which sector-wise result cannot be shown [ 25 , 42 ].

In the present study, the panel VECM has been used which has numerous benefits. It allows for the interpretation of both long-term and short-term equations. Using VECM, the first differenced variables and error correction term could be determined. Coefficient estimates in the VAR that results from the VECM representation are more accurate [ 25 , 42 ].

In Eqs ( 6 ) and ( 7 ), two coefficients φ 1 i and φ 2 i denote the speeds of adjustment along the long-run equilibrium path. Failing to reject H 0 : φ 1 i = 0 for all i ( i = 1, 2, …, 6), indicates that RFDI does not Granger cause RGDP for any of the sectors included in the panel in the long run. On the other hand, failing to reject H 0 : φ 2 i = 0 for all i ( i = 1, 2, …, 6), means that RGDP does not Granger cause RFDI for any of the sectors included in the panel in the long run. Besides, failing to reject H 0 : β 1 ik = 0 for all i ( i = 1, 2, …, 6) and k ( k = 1,2,…‥, k ) suggests that RFDI does not Granger cause RGDP for any of the sectors included in the panel in the short run. Moreover, failing to reject H 0 : α 2 ik = 0 for all i ( i = 1, 2, …, 6) and k ( k = 1,2,…‥, k ) indicates that RGDP does not Granger cause RFDI for any of the sectors included in the panel in the short run.

4. Results and discussion

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the variables. It is apparent that average RGDP is US$9151.67 million. It ranges from US$790.84 million to US$27316.69 million. On the other hand, average RFDI is US$131.19 million. It ranges from US$0.14 million to US$472.73 million.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301220.t002

The standard deviations indicate higher variation in the data across sector and over time of the variable RGDP compared to RFDI. Table 3 shows descriptive statistics (within and between variations) of the variables of the study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301220.t003

From Table 3 , it can be concluded that average RGDP for each sector varies between US$1144.81 million and US$18,952.16 million. The calculated standard deviation indicates that the variation in RGDP across sectors is US$6772.60 million and the variation in RGDP within a sector over time is US$2077.20 million. On the other hand, average RFDI for each sector varies between US$4.89 million and US$339.86 million. The calculated standard deviation shows that the variation in RFDI across sectors is US$127.56 million and the variation in RFDI within a sector over time is US$79.77 million. The results of various panel unit root tests of LRFDI and LRGDP are shown in Table 4 below.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301220.t004

Table 4 shows that most of panel unit root tests fail to reject the null hypothesis of unit root at levels, meaning that LRFDI and LRGDP are non-stationary at levels, but the results of panel unit root tests in the first difference suggest that all the variables are stationary after the first difference because most of these tests reject the null hypothesis of unit root in the first difference. That is to say, the variables are integrated of order one, I(1) .

With the confirmation that all of the variables, based on the results of panel unit root tests, are integrated order, I(1) , panel co-integration test as proposed by has been applied to check the long-run co-integration relationship between the variables.

Before applying the Pedroni panel co-integration test, the optimal lag length has to be specified.

As is apparent from Table 5 , the optimal lag of two has been selected on the basis of AIC, SC, LR, FPE and HQ.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301220.t005

Table 6 shows the results of Pedroni panel co-integration test. All Pedroni statistics, except Panel v-statistic, Panel rho-statistic, and Group rho-statistic, reject the null of no co-integration, thereby indicating the co-integration between LRFDI and LRGDP.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301220.t006

Thus, the results of Pedroni panel co-integration test support the co-integration between LRFDI and LRGDP as majority of the statistics suggest the rejection of null of no co-integration. With the affirmation that LRFDI and LRGDP are cointegrated based on the results of Pedroni panel co-integration test, the panel VECM can be applied for identifying the sources of causation as well as distinguishing between the long-run and the short-run relationship of the series. As mentioned in the methodology part, Panel VECM fails to provide individual sector test output for which sector-wise result cannot be shown [ 25 , 42 ].

Table 7 shows the result of panel VECM for RGDP equation ( Eq 6 ). From Table 7 , it is apparent that the coefficient of the ECT (ECT t-1 ), is negative (-0.00016) but not statistically significant, thereby indicating no long-run causality running from RFDI to RGDP. The possible reason may be that FDI in Bangladesh, particularly at the sectoral level, could not contribute to the sectoral economic growth. The outcome is consistent with the results of similar types of previous panel studies [ 20 , 21 , 23 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301220.t007

Moreover, the null hypothesis that there is no short-run causality is not rejected indicating that there is no evidence of short-run causal relation running from RFDI to RGDP when considering the entire panel of 6 sectors. The finding is consistent with the results of [ 21 ].

Bottom panel of Table 7 shows the results of different diagnostic tests. Panel data models could show cross-sectional dependence in the errors resulting from the common shocks as well as unobserved components [ 52 ]. Ignoring cross-sectional dependence in estimation may result in invalid test statistics and estimator efficiency loss [ 50 ]. The Residual Cross-section Dependence Test indicates no cross-section dependence in residuals. The residuals are not found normally distributed as suggested by the Jarque-Bera (JB) test for normality.

Table 8 shows the result of panel VECM for RFDI equation ( Eq 7 ). From Table 8 , it is evident that the coefficient of the ECT (ECT t-1 ) is negative (-0.201) and statistically significant at 1 percent level, indicating the long-run equilibrium relationship between RFDI and RGDP. More specifically, it can be said that there is the evidence of long-run causality from RGDP to RFDI. It means that 20.1 percent of disequilibrium in the long-run relationship is corrected each period into its equilibrium or the whole system is getting back to long-run equilibrium at the speed of 20.1 percent annually or it requires about 4.98 years to reach the long-run equilibrium.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301220.t008

Moreover, the null hypothesis of no short-run causality is rejected at 5 percent level of significance indicating the short-run causal relation running from RGDP to RFDI when considering the entire panel of 6 sectors. It may happen that rapid economic growth requires more investments including FDI for further development. The host country’s better economic performance may create higher opportunities for making profits from investment which may encourage foreign investors to invest more in expectation of greater profit. The outcome is consistent with the results of [ 21 ]. Bottom panel of Table 8 shows the results of different diagnostic tests. The Residual Cross-section Dependence Test finds no cross-section dependence in residuals. The residuals are found to be normally distributed as indicated by the JB test for normality.

Thus, the research results recommend the evidence of unidirectional causal relation running from RGDP to RFDI when considering the entire panel of 6 sectors of Bangladesh. The probable reason may be that perhaps rapid economic growth may give favorable signal to the foreign investors about the country’s economic progress, thus encourage them to invest more in expectation of higher expected profits. This outcome is similar to the ones of [ 21 ]. Policymakers may need to devise and implement effective policies for ensuring sectoral economic growth with the help of FDI allocated in specific sectors. Policymakers not only have to set pragmatic policies but also implement those policies efficiently for inviting FDI in the sectors, keeping in mind the importance of the sectors in the economy. The probable effects of FDI projects on specific sectors (i.e., expected benefits from these FDI projects) may need to be evaluated before allowing FDI into those sectors.

5. Conclusion, implications, limitations and future research direction

The key contribution of the study is the examination of the relationship between FDI inflows and economic growth of Bangladesh at sectoral levels in a panel study framework by using sectoral level panel data of six different sectors (Agriculture and Fishing; Manufacturing; Power; Construction; Transport, Storage and Communication; Financial Intermediations) of Bangladesh over the period from 2007–08 to 2018–19. Firstly, various panel unit root tests have been performed and the results indicate that all the variables (LRFDI and LRGDP) are integrated of order one, I(1) . Secondly, the results of Pedroni panel co-integration test support the existence of co-integration between LRFDI and LRGDP. Finally, with the affirmation that LRFDI and LRGDP are cointegrated based on the results of Pedroni panel co-integration test, the panel VECM has been applied which suggests the evidence of long-run causality from RGDP to RFDI and unidirectional short-run causal relation running from RGDP to RFDI when considering the entire panel of 6 sectors.

The contribution of the study and empirical findings lead to significant policy implications for RFDI and economic growth (RGDP) of Bangladesh at sectoral levels which is consistent to the prior study [ 30 ]. The evidence of unidirectional causal relation running from RGDP to RFDI indicates the fact that perhaps rapid economic growth may give favorable signal to the foreign investors about the country’s economic progress, thus encourage them to invest more in expectation of higher expected profits. It may be worthwhile for the policymakers to evaluate the pros and cons of each of the FDI projects and its probable impact on specific sectors (i.e., expected benefits from these FDI projects) before allowing FDI into those sectors [ 9 , 12 ]. Special attention may need to be given to the improvement of business environment (i.e., ease of doing business index), implementations of necessary sectoral reforms, specialization in production process, good governance, and human-capital development along with attracting foreign investment for ensuring economic development at sectoral levels.

However, the study suffers from some limitations. The selection of six sectors and time periods of twelve years is driven by data availability on relevant variables. Inclusion of more sectors with extended time periods may bring diversified outcomes and make the study more exhaustive. Besides, analysis of sector-wise disaggregation including sector-specific causality test, subject to the availability of data, may be conducted in further study to understand the nature of causal links between FDI and economic growth across various sectors. Future research may focus on the big data analytics, mixed methodology analysis and cross-country analysis in various time periods.

Supporting information

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301220.s001

• 1. UNCTAD, editor. Transnational corporations and export competitiveness. New York: United Nations; 2002.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 11. OECD. 2002 [cited 19 Jul 2023]. Available: https://www.oecd.org/investment/investmentfordevelopment/foreigndirectinvestmentfordevelopmentmaximisingbenefitsminimisingcosts.htm
• 29. Bangladesh Bank, 2021. Available: https://www.bb.org.bd/pub/halfyearly/fdisurvey/fdisurveyjuldec2021.pdf
• 39. Bangladesh Economic Review. 2023 [cited 19 Jul 2023]. Available: https://mof.gov.bd/site/page/44e399b3-d378-41aa-86ff-8c4277eb0990/http:%2F%2Fmof.gov.bd%2Fsite%2Fpage%2F44e399b3-d378-41aa-86ff-8c4277eb0990%2FBangladeshEconomicReview
• 50. EViews Help. 2023 [cited 19 Jul 2023]. Available: http://www.eviews.com/help/helpintro.html#page/content%2Fpanel-Panel_Equation_Testing.html%23ww191025

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Author Biographies
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A simulation of the necessary total factor productivity growth and its feasible dual circulation source pathways to achieve china’s 2035—economic goals: a dynamic computational general equilibrium study.

1. Introduction

2. theoretical mechanism and literature review, 2.1. theoretical mechanism analysis, 2.1.1. theoretical foundation in new growth theory, 2.1.2. middle-income trap as a theoretical basis, 2.1.3. restructuring large-scale cge model, 2.2. literature review, 2.2.1. consumption-driven independent innovation approaching the technological frontier, 2.2.2. technological progress through international investment: threshold effects and forward and reverse spillovers, 2.2.3. technological progress through international trade: threshold effects and forward and reverse spillovers, 3. methodology, 3.1. model and innovation, 3.1.1. threshold effect, 3.1.2. final goods trade technology spillover, 3.1.3. intermediate goods trade technology spillover, 3.1.4. factor-strengthening technology spillover brought about by global value chains, 3.2. summary of aggregations and indexes, 3.2.1. aggregation of countries (regions), 3.2.2. aggregation of industries, 3.2.3. summary of technological threshold indexes and spillover coefficients, 3.3. baseline treatment, 3.3.1. china–us trade friction, 3.3.2. consideration of the covid-19 pandemic, 3.3.3. base tfp growth of country groups except for china, 3.4. shocks and scenario settings, 3.4.1. shock variables.

• avareg (r): Represents internal circulation. Simulates the local technological advances brought about by the consumption growth in the region.
• aintall (a,r): Represents the spillover type of local macro TFP growth (including forward and reverse) brought about by foreign capital in the external circulation.
• aoall (a,r): Represents the final goods trade productivity spillover effect (both forward and reverse). Country r and the trading partner f are connected by the final goods trade technology spillover coefficient; a o a l l ( a , r ) = D i r e c t K a f r ∗ a f ( a , f ) .
• afall (c,a,r): Represents the intermediate goods trade productivity spillover effect (including forward and reverse). Country r and trading partner f are connected by the intermediate trade technology overflow coefficient; a f a l l ( c , a , r ) = I n d i r e c t K a f r ∗ a f ( c , a , f ) .
• afelabact (a,r): Represents factor enhancement from trade (transforming factor reinforcement (lab-biased)); a f e l a b a c t ( a , r ) = γ ∗ a f ( c , a , f ) .

3.4.2. Scenario Settings and Amplitude of Shocks

5. sensitivity analysis and results discussion, 5.1. sensitivity analysis and reasonable basic growth interval of china, 5.2. results discussion, 5.2.1. relatively scale-steady and independent internal circulation, 5.2.2. as for fdi, 5.2.3. in terms of factor-strengthening effects, 5.2.4. when talking about trade partners, 5.2.5. china’s productive sectors, 5.2.6. decoupling, 5.3. main findings.

• Internal circulation works independently with external circulation. And since all external circulation will face the stability issue of the international geopolitical atmosphere, whereas internal circulation requires only domestic consumption and its total factor productivity growth, it is obviously more controllable and reliable, for the central government to stimulate with policies. This is why the CCP emphasizes that domestic circulation is the mainstay. This “mainstay” does not refer to the majority in quantity but rather to the foundation and cornerstone for stable and secure economic development. But, the most practical and realistic choice for China is to keep its opening-up trade policy and avoid collisions that could break those trade ties between China and the rest of the world, therefore more easily obtaining the growth limit interval of 5.08% and 5.71%.
• FDI may not play as crucial a role in increasing China’s TFP as it did when China fist opened up previously. But, domestic capital as a factor can still learn from international trade and develop the potential to provide additional growth effects. The intermediate goods trade can play a slightly more significant role than the final goods trade for the unskilled labor factor.
• RCEP is the most important trade partner to China now in terms of technological spillovers. Except RCEP, maintaining good relations with the US is perhaps the most realistic choice for China as it is almost impossible to obtain technology spillover effects from EU groups. The Belt and Road Initiative has not assumed the strategic position that it was expected to have for China yet; a lot of work should be carried out in this area.
• China’s productive service capacity is severely lacking compared to other countries, and it has to rely on imports, thereby increasing economic uncertainty. The realistic choice for China is to open the productive services market more widely to stimulate domestic competition, facilitate domestic market efficiency, and thus increase domestic productive sector contribution.
• When “decoupling”, the United States would be the country to suffer the most. China will suffer a colossal loss only under the scenarios of a relatively large TFP increase in the US no matter the lasting length of this change, but not in the event of a relatively mild TFP increase. Moreover, China will be one of the countries that benefits from this change happening in the long term in the US. This benefit is rooted in the re-structuring of the world global value chain map, since when changes in TFP in the US are mild, in addition to the North American countries benefiting, the new global value chain will also require those OBOR countries that are connected to RCEP and Hong Kong (representative of China) to join and formulate the whole chain. When this change is sustained over a long period, China and the developed countries in RCEP, as well as other European OBOR countries, are also needed.

5.4. Policy Implications

5.4.1. promoting comprehensive consumer spending is a key focus of china’s internal circulation: it is essential to identify and address the current bottlenecks and challenges in expanding consumption in china and implement corresponding policies to promote it.

• The impact of the real estate market: The downturn in the real estate market has either damaged household balance sheets or led to increased precautionary savings. The most affected are those who took out loans to buy homes at high prices during the market’s peak and have not yet paid off their mortgages. This group predominantly includes low-income and young individuals who tend to have a higher marginal propensity to consume. As the real estate market weakens and the returns on liquid assets fail to cover borrowing costs, the willingness of residents to save more and prepay loans has significantly increased. For young people who have not yet purchased a home, the rigid demand for housing creates expectations of large future expenditures, further boosting their savings tendencies and constraining the release of their consumption potential.
• Incomplete consumption scenarios: There is severe competition between online and offline consumption channels, and the service consumption system is underdeveloped. In terms of goods consumption, with the rapid development of the internet, online and offline consumption channels have become noticeably divided. Online channels have gradually increased, including platform consumption and live-streaming sales, but at this stage, online and offline channels are more competitive than collaborative, lacking a healthy model of synergy. Regarding service consumption, industries such as childcare, healthcare, and elderly care are underdeveloped. The main contradiction in society has shifted to one between the people’s growing need for a better life and unbalanced and inadequate development (Xi Jinping, Report at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, 27 October 2017).
• Insufficient high-end consumption hotspots: there is a lack of significant high-end consumption drivers.
• In terms of housing, stabilize the housing market to enhance residents’ confidence in the long-term stable development of real estate prices and alleviate their concerns about asset depreciation; accelerate the market-oriented reform of mortgage interest rates, support commercial banks in dynamically lowering long-term loan interest rates, and increase support for first-time homebuyers through the housing provident fund; promote the repair of residents’ balance sheets; establish a multi-entity, multi-channel housing supply system to improve the housing market mechanism across various aspects, including rental housing, first-time homebuyer housing, upgrading housing, non-local consumption housing, and mid-to-high-end housing; andccelerate the renovation of old urban residential areas.
• In terms of businesses, enhance the brand awareness and influence of online businesses; help individual businesses expand their online sales channels; accelerate the digital transformation and upgrading of traditional offline consumption industries and regulate the healthy development of the platform economy; promote the transformation and upgrading of the consumption structure and vigorously advance the development of modern service industries; accelerate the coordinated and healthy development of the elderly public service system and the elderly care industry to tap into the potential of the silver economy; encourage local governments to improve public service levels and reduce the burden of family care; and continue to promote the balanced development of compulsory education and reduce the burden of family education.
• Use green consumption vouchers, green consumption subsidies, and trade in programs for old products to encourage residents to upgrade to green, low-carbon durable goods such as home appliances and automobiles and enhance the supply capacity of mid-to-high-end consumption. While improving innovation capabilities requires substantial investment in research and development funding and personnel, leveraging the advantages of the large domestic consumer market is crucial for understanding user needs, promoting technological upgrades, and tackling key core technologies. This demand-driven, application-oriented approach not only helps to break through “bottleneck” technologies but also contributes to the development of internationally leading original technologies.

5.4.2. China’s Main Channel for Obtaining Technological Spillover from External Circulation Has Shifted from Foreign Investment, When It First Joined the World Trade Organization, to the Trade of Final Goods—As Such, Emphasis Should Be Placed on Formulating Final Goods Encouragement Policies of How to and What to Import

• Maintain control over imports: Ensure that import trade policies are aligned with domestic industrial policies and that the types and scale of imported products are integrated with the country’s industrial development plans. It is advisable to increase the import of medium-tech-intensive manufactured goods, as these products often play a crucial role in the research of high-tech products. For high-tech manufactured goods that China is not yet capable of producing, focus on the technology spillover effects of such products and consider providing incentives or conveniences at various stages of the import process.
• Increase strategic imports: In recent years, due to growing issues such as trade friction and resource constraints, China needs to strategically increase the import of certain resource-based goods from countries where anti-China sentiments have risen as a result of export shocks. This approach can help mitigate the impact of China’s exports on these countries and foster a mutually beneficial and win–win trade model.

5.4.3. Strengthen Ties with RCEP [ 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 ]

• Flexibly utilize rules of origin: Provide in-depth guidance to enterprises on the flexible application of the rules of origin accumulation. By first sourcing intermediate products to lower import costs, and then processing them domestically into finished products for export to markets within the region, businesses can benefit from the “double reduction” of tariffs on both imported raw materials and exported finished goods. This approach encourages local participation in RCEP’s regional industrial and supply chain cooperation.
• Focus on local advantageous industries and RCEP market opportunities: Identify and compile three key lists—RCEP members’ immediate zero-tariff imports, immediate zero-tariff exports, and potential advantageous products. These lists will help enterprises from both sides precisely identify and optimally match the best applicable tariff rates under the agreement, providing guidance on selecting import and export countries.
• Expand cooperation in emerging cross-border e-commerce: Promote the development of new models such as “cross-border e-commerce + international transportation” aimed at RCEP members through cross-border e-commerce comprehensive pilot zones. Attract high-quality enterprises to build a logistics supply chain system for cross-border e-commerce and support the establishment of overseas warehouses targeting the RCEP market, actively expanding market reach within the RCEP region.
• Continuously improve financial services to align with RCEP: enhance and align the financial service system to better match RCEP needs, encouraging the increased use of RMB settlement in trade and investment activities within the RCEP region.

5.4.4. The Realistic Choice for China to Improve Its Productive Activities Area Is to Open the Productive Services Market More Widely [ 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 ]

• Relax market access: Gradually expand the openness of productive service industries such as accounting and legal services, moderately lower standards for foreign investment entry, and ease restrictions on personnel mobility to create a favorable policy environment for fostering competitiveness in productive services. At the same time, fully implement a negative list for cross-border trade in services, advance comprehensive pilot demonstrations of service sector opening, and promote the cross-border flow of resources such as talent, capital, technological achievements, and data.
• Optimize regulatory approval processes: Pilot and prioritize policy innovations in areas such as international mergers and acquisitions, foreign exchange control, customs clearance, investment and financing, and cross-border data flows for enterprises within the region. Streamline the regulatory approval processes related to the international expansion of service sector enterprises.
• Provide tax and financing incentives: Offer tax and financing incentives for emerging service industries venturing abroad, such as cross-border e-commerce logistics and warehousing services and the export of short-form video content. Support the identification of “specialized, refined, unique, and innovative” enterprises, using targeted policies to strengthen business entities and promote the development of new productive capacities.
• Leverage the policy advantages of free trade zones and ports: Utilize the policy advantages of free trade zones and ports to encourage qualified enterprises, especially state-owned enterprises, to expand overseas, while moderately favoring domestic service enterprises. This approach aims to break the “no experience, no business” vicious cycle.

5.4.5. Strive to Avoid Decoupling and Strengthen Ties with the Belt and Road Initiative (OBOR)

6. conclusions.

• The vision goal of sustainable economic growth rate by 2035 can be achieved as long as China maintains its trade opening policy. The final product technological spillover in the global value chain is the main channel through which China can achieve TFP increases, thus making external circulation more important than the internal kind for China, although “internal” has been defined as the “mainstay”.
• The economic growth impacts of external and internal circulation operate relatively independently. FDI itself has a limited effect but does provide a synergistic effect for all forms of external trade circulation. And all external trades are more friendly to domestic “capital” as one of the production factors.
• As for international trade partners, we find that the RCEP is the most important strategic partnership for China. OBOR has the potential to explore this side.
• It appears that FDI is not an effective way to lift the productive services sector’s TFP, and, since the productive services sector relies heavily on importation, a realistic option for China is to open up the productive services market more widely.
• China–US decoupling has a highly significant global impact; in all the scenarios we considered, the United States is always the country that loses the most, and Europe would be the group to benefit when a large increase in TFP occurs in the US. China will be one of the countries that benefits from long-term TFP change happening in the US.
• CGE models analyze problems within the framework of general equilibrium [ 130 , 131 , 132 ] even after going dynamic, this characteristic will not disappear. General equilibrium means that, under the influence of trend lines, economic growth will be slowly absorbed and dissipated by the economic system, as long as enough time has passed. This framework results in the model’s negative handling of shocks during recursive analysis. This may not be consistent with non-equilibrium phenomena in economic reality.
• Stochastic economic phenomena happen always. Further research can be conducted and incorporated with DSGE elements as needed, for example by considering non-equilibrium phenomena and divergent shocks near the steady state for some coefficient estimations.
• The extrapolation algorithm used here assumes equilibrium in growth, following Kaldor’s stylized facts. However, economic reality also encompasses Kuznets’s insights, highlighting structural changes beyond the growth changes outlined by Kaldor’s facts.
• Further research is needed to clarify and explore the various factors behind the trade structure and international capital flows discussed in this paper by considering integrating more endogenous theoretical elements, such as (1) combining the D-S model, which can incorporate increasing returns to scale and monopolistic competition into general equilibrium models to add and set parameters and variables, and (2) introducing the Melitz model involving micro-industry and firm efficiency.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest, appendix a. e c r e c f represents the share of all commodities “c” exported from country “f” that are destined for country “r” (china).

Appendix B. M d a r P a r M d a f P a f Represents the Proportion of Imported Intermediate Goods “d” Used in the Production of the Same Product in Both Country “r” (CHINA) and the Exporting Country “f”

Appendix C. β Represents the Share of Imports from Country “f” in the Total Imports of Production Sector “a” in Country “r”, Where “r” Refers to CHINA in This Paper

• International Monetary Fund. World Economic Outlook Database, April 2024. Available online: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2024/April (accessed on 1 August 2024).
• XINHUA News. January, 2024. Available online: http://www1.xinhuanet.com/politics/20240401/e3128814c4b54502af755e706801250c/c.html (accessed on 1 August 2024).
• Gao, S. China’s Current Market Situation and Long-Term Growth Prospects. 17 July 2022. Available online: https://www.163.com/dy/article/HCG7JKI70519x10F.html (accessed on 1 August 2024).
• Solow, R.M.; Swan, T.W. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Q. J. Econ. 1956 , 70 , 65–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hsieh, C.T.; Klenow, P.J. Development accounting. Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 2010 , 2 , 207–223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hall, R.E.; Jones, C.I. Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? Q. J. Econ. 1999 , 114 , 83–116. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cass, D. Optimum growth in an aggregative model of capital accumulation. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1965 , 32 , 233–240. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koopmans, T.C. On the concept of optimal economic growth. In The Economic Approach to Development Planning ; North-Holland Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1963; pp. 225–287. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frank, P. Ramsey (1903–1930). In The Palgrave Companion to Cambridge Economics ; Cord, R.A., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 649–671. [ Google Scholar ]
• Romer, P.M. Increasing returns and long-run growth. J. Political Econ. 1986 , 94 , 1002–1037. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Romer, P.M. Endogenous technological change. J. Political Econ. 1990 , 98 , S71–S102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lucas, R.E. On the mechanics of economic development. J. Monet. Econ. 1988 , 22 , 3–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Howitt, P. A model of growth through creative destruction. Am. Econ. Rev. 1992 , 80 , 46–51. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117357 (accessed on 1 August 2024).
• Grossman, G.M.; Helpman, E. Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy ; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barro, R.J.; Sala-i-Martin, X. Economic Growth ; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barro, R.J.; Lee, J.W. Sources of economic growth. Carnegie-Rochester Conf. Ser. Public Policy 1994 , 40 , 1–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gill, I.; Kharas, H.; Bhattasali, D. An East Asian Renaissance: Ideas for Economic Growth ; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; Available online: https://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-CN&lr=&id=yLPfJx5PEZ4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=+Gill,+I.%3B+Kharas,+H.%3B+Bhattasali,+D.+An+East+Asian+Renaissance:+Ideas+for+Economic+Growth%3B+World+Bank:+Washington,+DC,+USA,+2007.+&ots=_Wr1ZZ_hXw&sig=62s5-w6M6Zl1xIP8hJ9VsU6I4EE#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 9 September 2024).
• Gill, I.; Kharas, H. The Middle-Income Trap: A New Perspective on the Challenges of Growth ; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eichengreen, B.; Park, D.; Shin, K. Is the middle-income trap real? World Bank Econ. Rev. 2017 , 31 , 285–308. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jones, C.I. The facts of economic growth. In NBER Working Paper No. 20215 ; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, H.K.; Park, D. Middle income trap and the export sophistication: The case of MENA countries with reference to Korea. J. Int. Trade Commer. 2017 , 13 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spence, M. The Next Convergence: The Future of Economic Growth in a Multipolar World ; Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ozturk, A. Examining the economic growth and the middle-income trap from the perspective of the middle class. Int. Bus. Rev. 2016 , 25 , 726–738. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Felipe, J.; Kumar, U.; Abdon, A.; Bacate, M. Product complexity and economic development. Struct. Change Econ. Dyn. 2012 , 23 , 36–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eichengreen, B.; Park, D.; Shin, K. Growth slowdowns redux: New evidence on the middle-income trap. Jpn. World Econ. 2014 , 32 , 65–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aiyar, S.; Duval, R.; Puy, D.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, L. Growth Slowdowns and the Middle-Income Trap ; IMF Working Paper No. 13/71; International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2013; Available online: https://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-CN&lr=&id=1UEZEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=Aiyar,+S.%3B+Duval,+R.%3B+Puy,+D.%3B+Wu,+Y.%3B+Zhang,+L.+Growth+Slowdowns+and+the+Middle-Income+Trap.+IMF+Working+Paper+No.+13/71%3B+International+Monetary+Fund:+Washington,+DC,+USA&ots=ngT9WPyVdj&sig=CzpGgzP6X7E3AFHaz1ZaFXWLFIc#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 9 September 2024).
• Johansen, L. A Multi-Sectoral Study of Economic Growth ; North-Holland Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1960. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leontief, W.W. Quantitative input and output relations in the economic systems of the United States. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1936 , 18 , 105–125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dixon, P.B. Prospects for Australian Industries and Occupations, 1985–1990. Aust. Econ. Rev. 1986 , 19 , 3. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aguiar, A.; Corong, E.; van der Mensbrugghe, D. The GTAP Recursive Dynamic (GTAP-RD) Model ; Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corong, E.L.; Hertel, T.W.; McDougall, R.A.; Tsigas, M.E.; van der Mensbrugghe, D. The standard GTAP model, version 7. J. Glob. Econ. Anal. 2017 , 2 , 1–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haddad, S.; Escobar, N.; Bruckner, M. Subsidizing extensive cattle production in the European Union has major implications for global agricultural trade and climate change. J. Clean. Prod. 2024 , 448 , 141074. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kosuge, N.; Shibasaki, R.; Sanui, K. Impact of Cambodian international logistics policies on container cargo flow in a comprehensive intermodal transport network. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2024 , 27 , 386–410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akintola, A.; Boughanmi, H.; Antimiani, A. Deeper Integration or Open Regionalism in the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA). J. Econ. Integr. 2022 , 37 , 705–733. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuhn, A.; Britz, W. Long-Term Scenarios for Sub-Saharan Africa’s Agro-Food Markets with Varying Population, Income and Crop Productivity Trends. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2021 , 46 , 20–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shibasaki, R.; Abe, M.; Sato, W.; Otani, N.; Nakagawa, A.; Onodera, H. Predicting African trade considering uncertainty by scenario planning. Marit. Bus. Rev. 2022 , 7 , 351–369. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Foellmi, R.; Zweimüller, J. Income distribution and demand-induced innovations. Rev. Econ. Stud. 2006 , 73 , 941–960. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Foellmi, R.; Zweimüller, J. Structural change, Engel’s consumption circulations and Kaldor’s facts of economic growth. J. Monet. Econ. 2008 , 55 , 1317–1328. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brunnermeier, M.; Palia, D.; Sastry, K.A. Feedbacks: Financial markets and economic activity. Am. Econ. Rev. 2021 , 111 , 1845–1879. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, X.; Xu, S. Consumption-Led Industrial Upgrading. 2022. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4389758 (accessed on 1 August 2024).
• Beerli, A.; Weiss, F.J.; Zilibotti, F.; Zweimüller, J. Demand forces of technical change: Evidence from the Chinese manufacturing industry. China Econ. Rev. 2020 , 60 , 101157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tian, Y.; Lu, S.; Li, W. Changes and improvement of China’s total factor productivity growth rate: Based on industrial perspective. Economics 2021 , 3 , 445–464. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hymer, S.H. The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Direct Foreign Investment ; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1976. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson, H. Economic growth with foreign capital. Rev. Dev. Econ. 2008 , 12 , 694–701. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borensztein, E.; De Gregorio, J.; Lee, J. How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? J. Int. Econ. 1998 , 45 , 115–135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Azman-Saini, W.N.W.; Baharumshah, A.Z.; Law, S.H. Foreign direct investment, economic freedom and economic growth: International evidence. Econ. Model. 2010 , 27 , 1079–1089. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cooray, A.; Mallick, S.; Dutta, N. Gender-specific human capital, openness, and growth: Exploring the linkages for South Asia. Rev. Dev. Econ. 2014 , 18 , 107–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Slesman, L.; Baharumshah, A.Z.; Wohar, M.E. Capital inflows and economic growth: Does the role of institutions matter? Int. J. Financ. Econ. 2015 , 20 , 253–275. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eaton, J.; Kortum, S. Trade in ideas: Patenting and productivity in the OECD. J. Int. Econ. 1996 , 40 , 251–278. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, B. Multinational enterprises, technology diffusion, and host country productivity growth. J. Dev. Econ. 2000 , 62 , 477–493. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Caselli, F.; Coleman, W.J. Cross-country technology diffusion: The case of computers. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. 2001 , 91 , 328–335. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, X.; Liu, X. Foreign direct investment and economic growth: An increasingly endogenous relationship. World Dev. 2005 , 33 , 393–407. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Woo, J. Productivity growth and technological diffusion through foreign direct investment. Econ. Inq. 2009 , 47 , 226–248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baltabaev, B. Foreign direct investment and total factor productivity growth: New macro-evidence. World Econ. 2014 , 37 , 311–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Görg, H.; Greenaway, D. Much ado about nothing? Do domestic firms really benefit from foreign direct investment? World Bank Res. Obs. 2004 , 19 , 171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saggi, K. Trade, foreign direct investment, and international technology transfer: A survey. World Bank Res. Obs. 2002 , 17 , 191–235. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fosfuri, A.; Motta, M.; Rønde, T. Foreign direct investment and spillovers through workers’ mobility. J. Int. Econ. 2001 , 53 , 205–222. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Javorcik, B.S. Does foreign direct investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages. Am. Econ. Rev. 2004 , 94 , 605–627. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abramovitz, M.A. Catching up, forging ahead and falling behind. J. Econ. Hist. 1986 , 46 , 385–406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baumol, W.J.; Blackman, S.A.B.; Wolff, E.N. Productivity and American Leadership: The Long View ; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coe, D.T.; Helpman, E.; Hoffmaister, A.W. North-South R&D spillovers. Econ. J. 1997 , 107 , 134–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, X.; Liu, X.; Parker, D. Foreign direct investment and productivity spillovers in the Chinese manufacturing sector. Econ. Syst. 2001 , 25 , 305–321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, X.; Parker, D.; Vaidya, K.; Wei, Y. The impact of foreign direct investment on labour productivity in the Chinese electronics industry. Int. Bus. Rev. 2001 , 10 , 421–439. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wei, Y.; Liu, X. Productivity, spillovers from R&D, exports, and FDI in China’s manufacturing sector. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2006 , 37 , 544–557. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buckley, P.J.; Clegg, J.; Wang, C. The impact of inward FDI on the performance of Chinese manufacturing firms. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2002 , 33 , 637–655. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, A.G.; Jefferson, G.H. FDI impact and spillover: Evidence from China’s electronic and textile industries. World Econ. 2002 , 25 , 1063–1076. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, T. Spillover from Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau investment in Chinese industries. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2002 , 22 , 13–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Z. Foreign direct investment and technology spillover: Evidence from China. J. Comp. Econ. 2002 , 30 , 579–602. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meyer, K.E.; Sinani, E. When and where does foreign direct investment generate positive spillovers? A meta-analysis. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2009 , 40 , 1075. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, H.H.; Lee, H.; Lee, J. Technology diffusion and host–country productivity in South-South FDI flows. Jpn. World Econ. 2015 , 33 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mastromarco, C.; Simar, L. Globalization and productivity: A robust nonparametric world frontier analysis. Econ. Model. 2018 , 69 , 134–149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barro, R.J.; Lee, J.W. International comparisons of educational attainment. J. Monet. Econ. 1993 , 32 , 363–394. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barro, R.J.; Lee, J.W. A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010. J. Int. Educ. Bus. 2018 , 11 , 158–176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cohen, D.; Soto, M. Growth and human capital: Good data, good results. J. Econ. Growth 2007 , 12 , 51–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Herzer, D.; Klasen, S. In search of FDI-led growth in developing countries: The way forward. Econ. Model. 2008 , 25 , 793–810. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Potterie, B.P.; Lichtenberg, F. Does foreign direct investment transfer technology across borders? Rev. Econ. Stat. 2001 , 83 , 490–497. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dunning, J. Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy ; Addison-Wesley Publishing Company: Boston, MA, USA, 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baldwin, R. Trade and Industrialisation after Globalisation’s 2nd Unbundling: How Building and Joining a Supply Chain Are Different and Why It Matters ; NBER Working Paper, No. 17716.2011; National Bearue of Economic Research: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• van Meijl, H.; van Tongeren, F. Endogenous international technology spillovers and biased technical change in agriculture. Econ. Syst. Res. 1999 , 11 , 31–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luo, Y.; Zeng, T. The impact of import structure of intermediate goods on China’s technological innovation: Evidence from provincial panel data. J. Econ. Res. 2017 , 22 , 87–109. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, L. R&D spillovers from imports of industrial manufactured goods and technological progress in China: An empirical study based on VECM. China Econ. Rev. 2015 , 34 , 12–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, B. The relationship between imports of manufactured goods and primary products and economic growth in China: An empirical analysis from 1980 to 2005. Int. Trade Issues 2008 , 2 , 45–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Qiu, Y. The impact of intra-industry trade on technological progress in China. J. Int. Trade 2007 , 13 , 78–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Das, G.G. How does trade-mediated technology transfer affect interregional and intersectoral competition? Exploring multi-sectoral effects in a global trade model. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2009 , 5 , 5871–5886. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coe, D.T.; Helpman, E.; Hoffmaister, A.W. International R&D spillovers and institutions. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2009 , 53 , 723–741. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bournakis, I.; Christopoulos, D.; Mallick, S. Knowledge spillovers and output per worker: An industry-level analysis for OECD countries. Econ. Inq. 2018 , 56 , 1028–1046. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coe, D.T.; Helpman, E. International R&D spillovers. Eur. Econ. Rev. 1995 , 39 , 859–887. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sjölholm, F. Technology gap, competition and spillovers from direct foreign investment: Evidence from establishment data. J. Dev. Stud. 1999 , 36 , 53–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Navaretti, G.B.; Tarr, D.G. International knowledge flows and economic performance: A review of the evidence. World Bank Econ. Rev. 2000 , 14 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Keller, W. Are international R&D spillovers trade-related? Analyzing spillovers among randomly matched trade partners. Eur. Econ. Rev. 1998 , 42 , 1469–1481. [ Google Scholar ]
• Das, G.G. Trade, technology and human capital: Stylized facts and quantitative evidence. World Econ. 2002 , 25 , 257–281. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Das, G.G. Information age to genetic revolution: Embodied technology transfer and assimilation—A tale of two technologies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2007 , 74 , 819–842. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hicks, J.R. Marginal productivity and the principle of variation. Economica 1932 , 35 , 79–88. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Meijl, H.; Van Rheenen, T.; Tabeau, A. The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006 , 114 , 21–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Meijl, H.; van Tongeren, F. Trade, technology spillovers, and food production in China. Weltwirtschaftliches Arch. 1998 , 134 , 443–449. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon, P.B.; Rimmer, M.T. USAGE-ITC: Theoretical structure. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Taipei, Taiwan, 5–7 June 2002; Center for Global Trade Analysis: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2002. Available online: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331009 (accessed on 1 August 2024).
• Jorgenson, D.W.; Goettle, R.J.; Ho, M.S. Energy, the environment and US economic growth. In Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; Volume 1, pp. 477–552. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roson, R.; van der Mensbrugghe, D. Assessing Long Run Structural Change in Multi-Sector General Equilibrium Models. In EcoMod ; No. 10257; University of Ljubljana: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• van Meijl, H. Measuring intersectoral spillovers: French evidence. Econ. Syst. Res. 1997 , 9 , 27–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernstein, J.I.; Mohnen, P. International R&D spillovers between US and Japanese R&D intensive sectors. J. Int. Econ. 1998 , 44 , 315–338. [ Google Scholar ]
• van Meijl, H.; van Tongeren, F.W. Endogenous International Technology Spillovers and Biased Technical Change in the GTAP Model. In Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) Technical Papers ; No. 15; Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johansson, Å.; Guillemette, Y.; Murtin, F.; Turner, D.; Nicoletti, G.; de la Maisonneuve, C.; Bagnoli, P.; Bousquet, G.; Spinelli, F. Long-Term Growth Scenarios ; No. 1000; OECD Economics Department Working Papers; Economics Department of OECD: Paris, France, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dellink, R.; Chateau, J.; Lanzi, E. Long-term economic growth projections in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017 , 42 , 200–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chappuis, T.; Walmsley, T.L. Projections for world CGE model baselines. In GTAP Research Memorandum No. 22 ; GTPA: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, M.; Balistreri, E.J.; Zhang, W. The US–China trade war: Tariff data and general equilibrium analysis. J. Asian Econ. 2020 , 69 , 101216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, J.; He, L. Empirical research on factor allocation, productivity, and economic growth: Empirical research from the perspective of the whole industry. Ind. Econ. Res. 2016 , 3 , 11–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Qi, Z. The 2035 vision goal for China based on a CGE model. South Financ. 2022 , 11 , 3–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang, Q. The relationship between China’s import of producer services and the technological structure of manufactured exports: Evidence from provincial panel data. Int. Trade 2012 , 25 , 105–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shao, J. The impact of technological complexity of imports on economic growth: Evidence from 197 economies. Int. J. Econ. Res. 2017 , 14 , 45–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bai, C.; Zhang, Q. Prediction of China’s economic growth potential: Supply-side analysis of considering transnational productivity convergence and characteristics of China’s labor force. Econ. Dly. 2017 , 4 , 23–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feng, M. A study on the medium-and long-term potential growth rate of China’s economy: Progress, consensus and differences. Financ. Think Tank 2020 , 5 , 29–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang, S.; Chang, T.P.; Liao, L.C. A dual challenge in China’s sustainable total factor productivity growth. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 5342. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, Q.; You, W. Evaluating the International Competitiveness of RCEP Countries’ Biomass Products in the Context of the New Development Paradigm. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 4102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, F.; Jin, M.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, J. Profound Impact of Economic Openness and Digital Economy towards a Sustainable Development: A New Look at RCEP Economies. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 13922. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yan, B.-R.; Dong, Q.-L.; Li, Q.; Li, M. A Study on Risk Measurement of Logistics in International Trade: A Case Study of the RCEP Countries. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 2640. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, F.; Choi, Y.; Lee, H. Convergence or Divergence? Emission Performance in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Countries. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 10135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, Y.; Hong, Y.; Cheng, B.; Xiong, L. The Spatial Correlation and Driving Mechanism of Wood-Based Products Trade Network in RCEP Countries. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 10063. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jung, J. Economic Transformation and Sustainable Development through Multilateral Free Trade Agreements. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 2519. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zainuddin, M.R.K.V.; Sarmidi, T.; Khalid, N. Sustainable Production, Non-Tariff Measures, and Trade Performance in RCEP Countries. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 9969. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, W.; Su, Q.; Li, C.; Yan, C.; Gozgor, G. Urbanization, Disasters, and Tourism Development: Evidence from RCEP Countries. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 1221. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xi, Q.; Sun, R.; Mei, L. The impact of special economic zones on producer services productivity: Evidence from China. China Econ. Rev. 2021 , 65 , 101558. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, F.F.; Yeh, A.G.O.; Wang, J. Regional effects of producer services on manufacturing productivity in China. Appl. Geogr. 2018 , 97 , 263–274. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, Y.; Deng, J.; Wang, M. Can agricultural productive services promote agricultural environmental efficiency in China? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 9339. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dong, X.; Chen, Y.; Zhuang, Q. Agglomeration of productive services, industrial structure upgrading and green total factor productivity: An empirical analysis based on 68 prefectural-level-and-above cities in the Yellow River Basin of China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 11643. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, Y.; Lyu, J.; Xue, Y. Does the agricultural productive service embedded affect farmers’ family economic welfare enhancement? An empirical analysis in black soil region in China. Agriculture 2022 , 12 , 1880. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cai, P. Understanding China’s Belt and Road Initiative ; Lowy Institute: Sydney, Australia, 2017; pp. 1–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen, Y.; Xu, C.; Yi, M. Does the Belt and Road Initiative reduce the R&D investment of OFDI enterprises? Evidence from China’s A-share listed companies. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 1321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hou, J.; Chen, S.C.; Xiao, D. Measuring the benefits of the One Belt, One Road initiative for manufacturing industries in China. Sustainability 2018 , 10 , 4717. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kang, L.; Peng, F.; Zhu, Y.; Pan, A. Harmony in diversity: Can the One Belt One Road Initiative promote China’s outward foreign direct investment? Sustainability 2018 , 10 , 3264. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Armington, P.A. A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production. IMF Staff. Pap. 1969 , 16 , 159–178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hertel, T.W.; Tsigas, M.E. Structure of the standard GTAP model. In Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications ; Hertel, T.W., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997; Chapter 2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fontagné, L.; Perego, E.; Santoni, G. MaGE 3.1: Long-term macroeconomic projections of the world economy (No. 2021-12-May 2022). CEPII Working Paper. Int. Econ. 2022 , 172 , 168–189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Qi, Z. A Simulation of the Necessary Total Factor Productivity Growth and Its Feasible Dual Circulation Source Pathways to Achieve China’s 2035—Economic Goals: A Dynamic Computational General Equilibrium Study. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 8237. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188237

Qi Z. A Simulation of the Necessary Total Factor Productivity Growth and Its Feasible Dual Circulation Source Pathways to Achieve China’s 2035—Economic Goals: A Dynamic Computational General Equilibrium Study. Sustainability . 2024; 16(18):8237. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188237

Qi, Zike. 2024. "A Simulation of the Necessary Total Factor Productivity Growth and Its Feasible Dual Circulation Source Pathways to Achieve China’s 2035—Economic Goals: A Dynamic Computational General Equilibrium Study" Sustainability 16, no. 18: 8237. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188237

Article Metrics

Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Global Imperative, Local Realities: Unveiling Drivers of Industrial Robotization in Russian Manufacturing

• Published: 21 September 2024

Cite this article

• Anna Fedyunina   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2405-8106 1 ,
• Liudmila Ruzhanskaya   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1490-779X 1 &
• Yuri Simachev   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3015-3668 1  

The urgent imperative for policymakers globally is the widespread adoption of industrial robots, yet a consensus on the critical factors driving this adoption remains elusive. This paper investigates the determinants of robotization in manufacturing, uniquely examining both conventional and artificial intelligence–based (AI-based) robots. We emphasize the role of foreign direct investments (FDIs) and the state as key stakeholders in the robotization process. Specifically, we assess state ownership, government financial and organizational support, and public procurement. Our database is derived from a survey of 1716 manufacturing firms in Russia, and our empirical analysis employs probit and multinomial logit techniques. For the first time in the empirical literature, we demonstrate that conventional and AI-based robotization are characteristic of different enterprises. We find that state-owned and foreign-owned firms are more likely to use conventional robots. In contrast, AI-based robotization is prevalent among firms receiving public orders and financial support, whereas organizational support is more common among firms with conventional robotization. Our findings have significant policy implications, highlighting the importance of FDI and the state’s role through various instruments—ownership participation, financial support, and demand provision via state procurement—in advancing robotization in countries lagging in this domain. A key limitation of our study is the focus on correlations rather than causal relationships, as well as the use of data from 2018, before the shocks of the pandemic and extensive sanctions, which may have altered the drivers of robotization. Nonetheless, our results broaden the understanding of robotization determinants across different economic contexts and underscore the differences in determinants for conventional versus AI-based robots.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Data Availability

The dataset used in the study is available at: https://iims.hse.ru/en/rfge/ .

The data for the EU averages were calculated by the authors based on Eurostat data. The data for Russia were derived from (Abdrakhmanova et al., 2023 ), using a methodology consistent with that of Eurostat.

(Data of International Federation of Robotics, 2018 )

All-Russian Classifier of Economic Activities ( https://eng.rosstat.gov.ru/ ). Classifier section codes are similar to Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community ( https://showvoc.op.europa.eu/#/datasets/ESTAT_Statistical_Classification_of_Economic_Activities_in_the_European_Community_Rev._2.1._%28NACE_2.1%29/data?resId=http:%2F%2Fdata.europa.eu%2Fux2%2Fnace2.1%2FA ).

Abdrakhmanova G., Demidkina O., Demyanova A. et al. (2023). Digital economy: 2023: Pocket data book [Electronic Resource]. National Research University Higher School ofEconomics. – Electronic text data (4.1 MB) (p. 120). Мoscow: HSE. https://publications.hse.ru/pubs/share/direct/806965973.pdf . https://doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-2810-5

Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2005). Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth. Handbook of Economic Growth, 1 , 385–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3

Article   Google Scholar  

Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of Political Economy, 128 (6), 2188–2244. https://doi.org/10.1086/705716

Aerts, K., & Schmidt, T. (2008). Two for the price of one?: Additionality effects of R&D subsidies: A comparison between Flanders and Germany. Research Policy, 37 (5), 806–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.011

Afcha, S., & García-Quevedo, J. (2016). The impact of R&D subsidies on R&D employment composition. Industrial and Corporate Change , 25 (6), 955–975. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtw008

Aghion, P. & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 323–351. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3223

Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19 (4), 645–670. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1994.9412190214

Alguacil, M., Turco, A. L., & Martínez-Zarzoso, I. (2022). Robot adoption and export performance: Firm-level evidence from Spain. Economic Modelling, 114 , 105912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2022.105912

Aljanabi, A. R. A. (2018). The mediating role of absorptive capacity on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and technological innovation capabilities. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24 (4), 818–841. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2017-0233

Almus, M., & Czarnitzki, D. (2003). The effects of public R&D subsidies on firms’ innovation activities: The case of Eastern Germany. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 21 (2), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1198/073500103288618918

Anderson, G. (2016). The economic impact of technology infrastructure for advanced robotics. US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved September 1, 2023, from https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/eab/NIST.EAB.2.pdf

Anzolin, G., Andreoni, A., & Zanfei, A. (2020). Robot adoption and FDI driven transformation in the automotive industry. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 20 (2), 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJATM.2020.108586

Anzolin, G., Andreoni, A., & Zanfei, A. (2022). What is driving robotization in the automotive value chain? Empirical evidence on the role of FDIs and domestic capabilities in technology adoption. Technovation, 115 , 102476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102476

Armanios, D. E., & Eesley, C. E. (2021). How do institutional carriers alleviate normative and cognitive barriers to regulatory change? Organization Science, 32 (6), 1415–1438. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1434

Aschhoff, B., & Sofka, W. (2009). Innovation on demand—Can public procurement drive market success of innovations? Research Policy, 38 (8), 1235–1247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.06.011

Austvik, O. G. (2012). Landlord and entrepreneur: The shifting roles of the state in Norwegian oil and gas policy. Governance, 25 (2), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2011.01549.x

De Backer, K., DeStefano, T., Menon, C., and Suh, J. R. 2018. “Industrial robotics and the global organisation of production.” OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2018/03, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/18151965

Bai, J. H. (2011). Are government R&D subsidies efficient in China? Evidence from large and medium enterprises. China Economic Quarterly, 10 (4), 1375–1400.

Google Scholar  

Bal, R., & Gill, I. S. (2020, September 25). Policy approaches to artificial intelligence based technologies in China, European Union and the United States. Duke Global Working Paper Series No. 26. Retrieved November 23, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3699640

Ballestar, M. T., Díaz-Chao, Á., Sainz, J., & Torrent-Sellens, J. (2020). Knowledge, robots and productivity in SMEs: Explaining the second digital wave. Journal of Business Research, 108 , 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.017

Barham, B. L., Foltz, J. D., Jackson-Smith, D., & Moon, S. (2004). The dynamics of agricultural biotechnology adoption: Lessons from rBST use in Wisconsin 1994-2001.  American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61–72.

Barba-Sánchez, V., Arias-Antúnez, E., & Orozco-Barbosa, L. (2019). Smart cities as a source for entrepreneurial opportunities: Evidence for Spain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148 , 119713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119713

Bartus, T. (2005). Estimation of marginal effects using margeff. The Stata Journal , 5 (3), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0500500303

Bastani, S., & Waldenström, D. (2024). Ai, automation and taxation. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4811796

Baum, J.A. & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative science quarterly, 187–218. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393353

Belloc, F. (2014). Innovation in state-owned enterprises: Reconsidering the conventional wisdom. Journal of Economic Issues, 48 (3), 821–848. https://doi.org/10.2753/JEI0021-3624480311

Bessonova, E., & Gonchar, K. (2019). How the innovation-Competition link is shaped by technology distance in a high-barrier catch-up economy. Technovation, 86 , 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.01.002

Bianchini, S., Llerena, P., & Martino, R. (2019). The impact of R&D subsidies under different institutional frameworks. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 50 , 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2019.04.002

Blind, K., Pohlisch, J., & Rainville, A. (2020). Innovation and standardization as drivers of companies’ success in public procurement: An empirical analysis. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45 (3), 664–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09716-1

Boyer, K. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2002). Competitive priorities: Investigating the need for trade-offs in operations strategy. Production and Operations Management, 11 (1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2002.tb00181.x

Cano-Kollmann, M., Hamilton, R. D., III., & Mudambi, R. (2017). Public support for innovation and the openness of firms’ innovation activities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26 (3), 421–442. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtw025

Cantwell, J. (2017). Innovation and international business. Industry and Innovation, 24 (1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1257422

Capron, H. & de la Potterie, B. V. P. (1997). Public support to R&D programmes: An integrated assessment scheme. OCDE: Policy evaluation in innovation and technology towards best practices OCDE París, 35–47. From https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a95c51d70dc12a05fd92a5fee85b0ddfa114515a

Carboni, O. A. (2017). The effect of public support on investment and R&D: An empirical evaluation on European manufacturing firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 117 , 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.017

Castillo, V., Figal Garone, L., Maffioli, A., Rojo, S., & Stucchi, R. (2020). Knowledge spillovers through labour mobility: An employer–employee analysis. The Journal of Development Studies , 56 (3), 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2019.1605057

Catozzella, A., & Vivarelli, M. (2016). The possible adverse impact of innovation subsidies: Some evidence from Italy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12 , 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0342-3

Chapman, G., & Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2018). The effect of public support on senior manager attitudes to innovation. Technovation, 69 , 28–39.

Chen, L., & Yang, W. (2019). R&D tax credits and firm innovation: Evidence from China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146 , 233–241.

Cheng, H., Jia, R., Li, D., & Li, H. (2019). The rise of robots in China. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33 (2), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.2.71

Choi, S. B., Lee, S. H., & Williams, C. (2011). Ownership and firm innovation in a transition economy: Evidence from China. Research Policy, 40 (3), 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.004

Cui, L., & Jiang, F. (2012). State ownership effect on firms' FDI ownership decisions under institutional pressure: A study of Chinese outward-investing firms. Journal of International Business Studies , 43, 264–284. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.1

Czarnitzki, D., Hünermund, P. & Moshgbar, N. (2018). Public procurement as policy instrument for innovation. ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper, (18–001). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3106609

Czarnitzki, D., Ebersberger, B., & Fier, A. (2007). The relationship between R&D collaboration, subsidies and R&D performance: Empirical evidence from Finland and Germany. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22 (7), 1347–1366. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.992

Dauth, W., Findeisen, S., Suedekum, J., & Woessner, N. (2021). The adjustment of labor markets to robots. Journal of the European Economic Association, 19 (6), 3104–3153. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvab012

David, P. A., Hall, B. H., & Toole, A. A. (2000). Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Research Policy, 29 (4–5), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00087-6

Delgado, J. M. D., Oyedele, L., Ajayi, A., Akanbi, L., Akinade, O., Bilal, M., & Owolabi, H. (2019). Robotics and automated systems in construction: Understanding industry-specific challenges for adoption. Journal of Building Engineering, 26 , 100868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100868

Deng, L., Plümpe, V., & Stegmaier, J. (2024). Robot adoption at German plants. Jahrbücher Für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 244 (3), 201–235.

Dhanabalan, T., & Sathish, A. (2018). Transforming Indian industries through artificial intelligence and robotics in Industry 4.0. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 9 (10), 835–845. https://doi.org/10.56726/irjmets45102

Dinlersoz, E., & Wolf, Z. (2024). Automation, labor share, and productivity: Plant-level evidence from US manufacturing. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 33 (4), 604–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2023.2233081

Djankov, S. (2015). Russia’s economy under Putin: From crony capitalism to state capitalism (No. PB15–18). Washington DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Dumont, M. (2017). Assessing the policy mix of public support to business R&D. Research Policy, 46 (10), 1851–1862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.001

Edler, J., Corvers, S. & Xielin, L. (2007). Public procurement and innovation in China. Status Quo, lessons from abroad and ways forward. Report to the OECD, Manchester, Paris.

Edler, J. (2009). Demand policies for innovation in EU CEE countries . Manchester Business School Research Paper (p. 579). From https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1509473

Edler, J. (2010). Demand-based innovation policy . Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849804424.00020

Book   Google Scholar  

Edler, J., & Georghiou, L. (2007). Public procurement and innovation—Resurrecting the demand side. Research Policy, 36 (7), 949–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.03.003

Edler, J., & Yeow, J. (2016). Connecting demand and supply: The role of intermediation in public procurement of innovation. Research Policy, 45 (2), 414–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.10.010

Eom, B. Y., & Lee, K. (2010). Determinants of industry–Academy linkages and their impact on firm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization. Research Policy, 39 (5), 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.015

Fan, H., Hu, Y., & Tang, L. (2021). Labor costs and the adoption of robots in China. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 186 , 608–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.11.024

Fernandez-Macias, E., Klenert, D., & Anton, J. I. (2021). Not so disruptive yet? Characteristics, distribution and determinants of robots in Europe. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 58 , 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2021.03.010

Foltz, J. D., & Chang, H. H. (2002). The adoption and profitability of rbST on Connecticut dairy farms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 84 (4), 1021–1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.00364

Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114 , 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019

Fu, X. M., Bao, Q., Xie, H., & Fu, X. (2021). Diffusion of industrial robotics and inclusive growth: Labour market evidence from cross country data. Journal of Business Research, 122 , 670–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.051

García-Quevedo, J. (2004). Do public subsidies complement business R&D? A meta-analysis of the econometric evidence. Kyklos, 57 (1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-5962.2004.00244.x

Georghiou, L. & Secretariat, E.C. (2006). Innovation policies for Europe: The missing demand-side. In Globalisation challenges for Europe (pp. 173–194). Prime Minister's Office Publications.

Georghiou, L., Edler, J., Uyarra, E., & Yeow, J. (2014). Policy instruments for public procurement of innovation: Choice, design and assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 86 , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.018

Geroski, P. A. (2006). Procurement policy as a tool of industrial policy. International Review of Applied Economics, 4 (2), 182–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/758523673

Gershman, M., Gokhberg, L., Kuznetsova, T., & Roud, V. (2018). Bridging S&T and innovation in Russia: A historical perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 133 , 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.03.014

Goel, R., & Gupta, P. 2020. “Robotics and Industry 4.0.” In A Roadmap to Industry 4.0: Smart production, sharp business and sustainable development (pp. 157–169). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14544-6_9

Görg, H., & Strobl, E. (2007). The effect of R&D subsidies on private R&D. Economica, 74 (294), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2006.00547.x

Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis, 71e . New York University.

Haapanen, M., Lenihan, H., & Mariani, M. (2014). Government policy failure in public support for research and development. Policy Studies, 35 (6), 557–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2014.971728

Hermelo, F. D., & Vassolo, R. (2010). Institutional development and hypercompetition in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (13), 1457–1473. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.898

Hoffmann, J. P. (2016). Regression models for categorical, count, and related variables: An applied approach. University of California Press.

Horváth, D., & Szabó, R. Z. (2019). Driving forces and barriers of Industry 4.0: Do multinational and small and medium-sized companies have equal opportunities? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146 , 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.021

Hsu, P.-F., Ray, S., & Li-Hsieh, Y.-Y. (2014). Examining cloud computing adoption intention, pricing mechanism, and deployment model. International Journal of Information Management, 34 (4), 474–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.04.006

Ingaldi, M. & Ulewicz, R. (2019). Problems with the implementation of Industry 4.0 in enterprises from the SME sector. Sustainability , 12 (1), 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010217

International Federation of Robotics. (2018). World robotics-industrial robots 2018: Statistics, market analysis, forecasts and case studies. VDMA Verlag.

Jefferson, G. H., Huamao, B., Xiaojing, G., & Xiaoyun, Y. (2006). R&D performance in Chinese industry. Economics of Innovation and New Technology , 15 (4–5), 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590500512851

Kalyuzhnova, Y., Azhgaliyeva, D., & Belitski, M. (2022). Public policy instruments for procurement: An empirical analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 176 , 121472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121472

Kattel, R., & Lember, V. (2010). Public procurement as an industrial policy tool: An option for developing countries? Journal of Public Procurement, 10 (3), 368–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-10-03-2010-B003

Khanna, T., Palepu, K.G. & Sinha, J. (2015). Strategies that fit emerging markets. In International Business Strategy (pp. 615–631). Routledge.

Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (1999). The right way to restructure conglomerates in emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 77 (4), 125–125.

Koch, M., Manuylov, I., & Smolka, M. (2021). Robots and firms. The Economic Journal, 131 (638), 2553–2584. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueab009

Kolesnikov, S., Woo, S., Li, Y., Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. (2019). Mapping the emergence of international university research ventures. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44 (4), 1134–1162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9640-6

Kravtsova, V., & Radosevic, S. (2012). Are systems of innovation in Eastern Europe efficient? Economic Systems, 36 (1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2011.04.005

Kromann, L., Malchow-Møller, N., Skaksen, J. R., & Sørensen, A. (2020). Automation and productivity—A cross-country, cross-industry comparison. Industrial and Corporate Change, 29 (2), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtz039

Li, Y., Georghiou, L. & Rigby, J. (2015). Public procurement for innovation elements in the Chinese new energy vehicles program. In Public procurement for innovation (pp. 179–208). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783471898.00014

Li, X., Hui, E. C. M., Lang, W., Zheng, S., & Qin, X. (2020). Transition from factor-driven to innovation-driven urbanization in China: A study of manufacturing industry automation in Dongguan City. China Economic Review, 59 , 101382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2019.101382

Liljeblom, E., Maury, B., & Hörhammer, A. (2020). Complex state ownership, competition, and firm performance–Russian evidence. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 15 (2), 189–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-08-2017-0287

Lin, D., Lee, C. K. M., Lau, H., & Yang, Y. (2018). Strategic response to Industry 4.0: An empirical investigation on the Chinese automotive industry. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 118 (3), 589–605. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2017-0403

Lopez-Acevedo, G.C. (2002). Determinants of technology adoption in Mexico (No. 2780). The World Bank.

Luan, F., Qi, W., Zhang, W., & Chang, V. (2024). Do industrial robots matter for corporate environmental governance? Evidence from Chinese firms. Information Technology & People. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2022-0963

Luco, J., Mestre, S., Henry, L., Tamayo, S. & Fontane, F. (2019). Industry 4.0 in SMEs: A sectorial analysis. In Advances in production management systems. Production Management for the Factory of the Future: IFIP WG 5.7 International Conference, APMS 2019, Austin, TX, USA, September 1–5, 2019, Proceedings, Part I (pp. 357–365). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30000-5_45

Mamai, O. V., Mamai, I. N., & Kitaeva, M. V. (2020). Digitization of the agricultural sector of economy as an element of innovative development in Russia. In Digital age: chances, challenges and future 7 (pp. 359–365). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27015-5_43

Mayer, J. (2018). Robots and industrialization: What policies for inclusive growth. Intergovernmental group of twenty four. Group of 24 and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung New York. Retrieved November 23, 2023, from https://www.g24.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mayer_-_Robots_and_industrialization.pdf

Meng, J. H., Wang, J., & Liu, Y. (2023). How is government embedded in innovation process for breakthroughs? A meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194 , 122735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122735

Michaels, G., & Graetz, G. (2018). Robots at work. Review of Economics and Statistics, 100 (5), 753–768. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00754

Mir, U. B., Sharma, S., Kar, A. K., & Gupta, M. P. (2020). Critical success factors for integrating artificial intelligence and robotics. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 22 (4), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-03-2020-0032

Molas-Gallart, J., & Tang, P. (2006). Ownership matters: Intellectual Property, privatization and innovation. Research Policy , 35 (2), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.017

Montmartin, B., & Massard, N. (2015). Is financial support for private R&D always justified? A discussion based on the literature on growth. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29 (3), 479–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12067

Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1998). Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: Implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Research Policy, 27 (5), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00066-3

Müller, J. M. (2019). Business model innovation in small-and medium-sized enterprises: Strategies for Industry 4.0 providers and users. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30 (8), 1127–1142. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-01-2018-0008

Murphy, R. R. (2019). Introduction to AI robotics . MIT Press.

Narula, R. & Guimón, J. (2010). The R&D activity of multinational enterprises in peripheral economies: Evidence from the EU new member states. UNU-MERIT, Maastricht Economic and Social Research and Training Centre on Innovation and Technology. UNU-MERIT Working Papers No. 048.

Nazarenko, A., Vishnevskiy, K., Meissner, D., & Daim, T. (2022). Applying digital technologies in technology roadmapping to overcome individual biased assessments. Technovation, 110 , 102364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102364

Odei, S. A., & Stejskal, J. (2018). The influence of knowledge sources on firm-level innovation: The case of Slovak and Hungarian manufacturing firms. Central European Business Review, 7 (2), 61–74.

Oliveira, T., Thomas, M., & Espadanal, M. (2014). Assessing the determinants of cloud computing adoption: An analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors. Information and Management, 51 (5), 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.03.006

Papanastassiou, M., Pearce, R., & Zanfei, A. (2020). Changing perspectives on the internationalization of R&D and innovation by multinational enterprises: A review of the literature. Journal of International Business Studies, 51 , 623–664. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00258-0

Park, J. H., & Kim, Y. B. (2021). Factors activating big data adoption by Korean firms. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 61 (3), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2019.1631133

Pertuze, J. A., Reyes, T., Vassolo, R. S., & Olivares, N. (2019). Political uncertainty and innovation: The relative effects of national leaders’ education levels and regime systems on firm-level patent applications. Research Policy, 48 (9), 103808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103808

Phuyal, S., Bista, D., & Bista, R. (2020). Challenges, opportunities and future directions of smart manufacturing: A state of art review. Sustainable Futures, 2 , 100023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2020.100023

Pillai, R., Sivathanu, B., Mariani, M., Rana, N. P., Yang, B., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2022). Adoption of AI-empowered industrial robots in auto component manufacturing companies. Production Planning & Control, 33 (16), 1517–1533. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1882689

Ponomariov, B., & Toivanen, H. (2014). Knowledge flows and bases in emerging economy innovation systems: Brazilian research 2005–2009. Research Policy, 43 (3), 588–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.09.002

Prasanna, R. P. I. R., Jayasundara, J. M. S. B., Naradda Gamage, S. K., Ekanayake, E. M. S., Rajapakshe, P. S. K., & Abeyrathne, G. A. K. N. J. (2019). Sustainability of SMEs in the competition: A systemic review on technological challenges and SME performance. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5 (4), 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc5040100

Proskuryakova, L., Meissner, D., & Rudnik, P. (2017). The use of technology platforms as a policy tool to address research challenges and technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42 (1), 206–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9373-8

Quintana-Garcia, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. A. (2004). Cooperation, competition, and innovative capability: A panel data of European dedicated biotechnology firms. Technovation, 24 (12), 927–938. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00060-9

Radas, S., Anić, I. D., Tafro, A., & Wagner, V. (2015). The effects of public support schemes on small and medium enterprises. Technovation, 38 , 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.08.002

Rasiah, R. & Gachino, G. (2004). Productivity, export and technological differences in Kenya. In R. Rasiah, Foreign firms, technological capabilities and economic performance (pp.30–50). Edward Elgar.

Ren, L., Krabbendam, K., & de Weerd-Nederhof, P. (2006). Innovation practices success in China: The use of innovation mechanisms in Chinese SOEs. Journal of Technology Management in China, 1 (1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/17468770610642768

Rodrigo, R. 2022. “Robot adoption, organizational capital, and the productivity paradox.” Working Paper.

Rojko, A. (2017). Industry 4.0 concept: Background and overview. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 11 (5), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v11i5.7072

Rose, D. C., & Chilvers, J. (2018). Agriculture 4.0: Broadening responsible innovation in an era of smart farming. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2 (87), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00087

Roud, V. (2018). Understanding the heterogeneity of innovation modes: Performance effects, barriers, and demand for state support. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 133 , 238–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.025

Shakina, E., Parshakov, P., & Alsufiev, A. (2021). Rethinking the corporate digital divide: The complementarity of technologies and the demand for digital skills. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162 , 120405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120405

Sharma, C., Bharadwaj, S. S., Gupta, N., & Jain, H. (2023). Robotic process automation adoption: Contextual factors from service sectors in an emerging economy. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 36 (1), 252–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-06-2021-0276

Sheridan, T. B. (2016). Human–robot interaction: Status and challenges. Human Factors, 58 (4), 525–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872081664436

Shleifer, A. & Vishny, R.W. (1998). The grabbing hand: Government pathologies and their cures. Harvard University Press.

Simachev, Y. V., Fedyunina, A., Yurevich, M., Kuzyk, M., & Gorodny, N. (2021). New strategic approaches to gaining from emerging advanced manufacturing markets. Foresight and STI Governance, 15 (3), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2021.3.6.21

Simachev, Y. V., Fedyunina, A., Yurevich, M., Kuzyk, M., & Gorodny, N. (2021). New strategic approaches to gaining from emerging advanced manufacturing markets. Foresight and STI Governance., 15 (3), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2021.3.6.21

Sjödin, D. R., Parida, V., Leksell, M., & Petrovic, A. (2018). Smart factory implementation and process innovation: A preliminary maturity model for leveraging digitalization in manufacturing moving to smart factories presents specific challenges that can be addressed through a structured approach focused on people, processes, and technologies. Research-Technology Management, 61 (5), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2018.1471277

Statista (2023). Industrial Robotics - Russia. (n.d.). Retrieved October 23, 2022, from https://www.statista.com/outlook/tmo/robotics/industrial-robotics/russi a

Steinfeld, E. S. (2004). China’s shallow integration: Networked production and the new challenges for late industrialization. World Development, 32 (11), 1971–1987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.04.003

Stiglitz, J. (2008). Government failure versus market failure: Principles of regulation (Vol. 144). IPD Working Paper.

Stornelli, A., Ozcan, S., & Simms, C. (2021). Advanced manufacturing technology adoption and innovation: A systematic literature review on barriers, enablers, and innovation types. Research Policy, 50 (6), 104229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104229

Sun, Y., & Du, D. (2010). Determinants of industrial innovation in China: Evidence from its recent economic census. Technovation , 30 (9–10), 540–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.05.003

Sun, Z., Xiao, L. P., & Liu, L. H. (2017). The changes of industrial ownership structure and innovation: Is the state-owned enterprise dominant in favor of innovation. Nankai Economic Studies, 2017 (06), 3–19.

Szalavetz, A. (2017). The environmental impact of advanced manufacturing technologies: Examples from Hungary. Central European Business Review, 6 (2), 18–29.

Tang, Y., Motohashi, K., Hu, X., & Montoro-Sanchez, A. (2020). University-industry interaction and product innovation performance of Guangdong manufacturing firms: The roles of regional proximity and research quality of universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45 , 578–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09715-2

Tõnurist, P. (2015). Framework for analysing the role of state owned enterprises in innovation policy management: The case of energy technologies and Eesti Energia. Technovation, 38 , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.08.001

Uyarra, E., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., Flanagan, K., & Magro, E. (2020). Public procurement, innovation and industrial policy: Rationales, roles, capabilities and implementation. Research Policy, 49 (1), 103844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103844

Vanino, E., Roper, S., & Becker, B. (2019). Knowledge to money: Assessing the business performance effects of publicly-funded R&D grants. Research Policy , 48 (7), 1714–1737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.001

Vickers, J., & Yarrow, G. (1988). Privatization, an economic analysis . The MIT Press.

Vuksanović Herceg, I., Kuč, V., Mijušković, V. M., & Herceg, T. (2020). Challenges and driving forces for Industry 4.0 implementation. Sustainability , 12 (10), 4208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104208

Wang, C., Hong, J., Kafouros, M., & Wright, M. (2012). Exploring the role of government involvement in outward direct investment from emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (7), 655–676. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.18

Wang, L., Zhou, Y., & Chiao, B. (2023). Robots and firm innovation: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing. Journal of Business Research, 162 , 113878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113878

Wang, P., & Li, F. (2021). Science, technology and innovation policy in Russia and China-Mapping and comparisons in objectives, instruments and implementation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162 , 120386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120386

Williams, R. (2012). Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. The Stata Journal, 12 (2), 308–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x1201200209

Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT press.

Xie, Z., Xie, L., & Li, J. (2021). Direct subsidies or tax credits? The effects of different R&D policy tools. International Journal of Technology Management, 86 (1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2021.115759

Yi, J., Hong, J., Chung Hsu, W., & Wang, C. (2017). The role of state ownership and institutions in the innovation performance of emerging market enterprises: Evidence from China. Technovation, 62 , 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.04.002

Yi, J., Wang, C., & Kafouros, M. (2013). The effects of innovative capabilities on exporting: Do institutional forces matter? International Business Review, 22 (2), 392–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2012.05.006

Zaichenko, S. (2018). The human resource dimension of science-based technology transfer: Lessons from Russian RTOs and innovative enterprises. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43 (2), 368–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9567-y

Zhang, F. (2020). EMNC technological knowledge flow patterns: An overview of the US patents granted. Multinational Business Review, 28 (1), 129–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-03-2019-0021

Zhang, Y., Wei, Y., & Zhou, G. (2018). Promoting firms’ energy-saving behavior: The role of institutional pressures, top management support and financial slack. Energy Policy, 115 , 230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.003

Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. L., & Xu, S. (2006). The process of innovation assimilation by firms in different countries: A technology diffusion perspective on e-business. Management Science, 52 (10), 1557–1576. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0487

Download references

Acknowledgements

The article has been prepared with the support of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (Ural Federal University Program of Development within the Priority-2030 Programme).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Ural Federal University, 19, Mira Str., 620002, Yekaterinburg, Russian Federation

Anna Fedyunina, Liudmila Ruzhanskaya & Yuri Simachev

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Fedyunina .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Fedyunina, A., Ruzhanskaya, L. & Simachev, Y. Global Imperative, Local Realities: Unveiling Drivers of Industrial Robotization in Russian Manufacturing. J Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02304-1

Download citation

Received : 05 January 2024

Accepted : 10 August 2024

Published : 21 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02304-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Industrial robotization
• Russian manufacturing firms
• Advanced manufacturing technologies (AMTs)
• Conventional robotization
• AI-based robotization
• Foreign ownership
• State ownership
• Government policy

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research