“一带一路”背景下巴基斯坦投资环境及区位选择

doi:10.13284/j.cnki.rddl.003190

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

“一带一路”倡议以及中巴经济走廊建设为中国同巴基斯坦的经贸合作带来新的机遇,从发展趋势看,中国企业在巴基斯坦投资空间呈逐渐扩大之势;中国企业在巴基斯坦如何进行有效的区位选择,是文章要解决的问题。首先,从基础竞争力、核心竞争力、辅助竞争力3个维度,计算了巴基斯坦2000—2018年整体投资环境。结果显示：整体投资环境年均增长率36.05%,其中基础竞争力年均增长率28.32%,最为显著;表明巴基斯坦投资环境不断改善,特别是基础设施领域适合中国企业投资。其次,梳理了现有中国企业进入巴基斯坦投资的区位选择。结果表明,目前中国企业在信德省和旁遮普省的投资项目较多。最后,分别从趋于经济中心区、边界地区、社会联系密切区和安全形势良好区4个角度,分析了该国的主要省区和城市投资区位。结果表明,从趋于经济中心区的角度,信德省和旁遮普省存在经济上的优势;从趋于边界地区的角度,开伯尔-普什图省和瓜达尔港具有优势;从趋于社会联系密切地区角度,卡拉奇、拉合尔和伊斯兰堡具有优势;从趋于形势安全的角度,旁遮普省和信德省存在投资安全的优势。

关键词: 投资环境, 区位, 对外直接投资, 一带一路, 巴基斯坦

Abstract:

The People’s Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan have made a joint statement establishing an all-weather strategic partnership between the two parties. Accordingly, Pakistan has become China’s only all-weather strategic partner. The China-Pakistan economic corridor, focusing on the industrial cooperation of energy sources and the transportation infrastructure of Gwadar Port, will be built into the major project of “the Belt and Road” initiative. “The Belt and Road” initiative and the China-Pakistan economic corridor have brought new opportunities for economic and trade cooperation between the two countries. Judging from its development trend, the investment space of Chinese enterprises in Pakistan is gradually expanding. The present paper focuses on effective location choices for Chinese enterprises in Pakistan. It first investigates the overall investment environment of Pakistan from 2000 to 2018, along the dimensions of basic competitiveness, core competitiveness, and auxiliary competitiveness. The average annual growth rate of the overall investment environment was determined as 36.05%, mostly contributed by the average annual growth rate of basic competitiveness (28.32%). Therefore, Pakistan’s investment environment is constantly improving, especially in the infrastructure industry which is a favored investment choice by Chinese enterprises. Second, the study investigates the locations of existing Chinese enterprises invested in Pakistan. Most of the investment projects of Chinese enterprises are located in Sindh and Punjab. Finally, the investment locations in the main provinces and cities are divided into four groups: economic centers, border areas, areas with close social connections, and areas with high security. Punjab and Sindh are economically viable economic centers, whereas Khyber-Pashtun Province and Gwadar Port are advantageous for border areas. Areas with close social connections are best located in Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad. Finally, Punjab and Sindh offer advantages of investment security. This paper is expected to provide a reference for Chinese enterprises choosing their future investment locations in Pakistan.

Key words: investment environment, location, Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI), the Belt and Road, Pakistan

中图分类号:

K901.4

董晔, 师心琪. “一带一路”背景下巴基斯坦投资环境及区位选择[J]. 热带地理, 2019, 39(6): 901-910.

Dong Ye, Shi Xinqi. Investment Environment and Location Selection in Pakistan under the Background of “the Belt and Road”[J]. Tropical Geography, 2019, 39(6): 901-910.

图/表 5

表1

巴基斯坦投资环境指标体系"

竞争能力	构成因素	子因素	量化指标
基础竞争力	自然地理环境	自然资源禀赋	石油探明储量、天然气探明储量
		自然资源禀赋	煤炭探明储量、可再生内陆淡水资源总量
		区域面积与发展空间	土地面积、森林面积、农业用地
		环境保护	环境绩效指数
	基础设施环境	交通与运输	公路总里程、铁路总里程、机场数量
		交通与运输	全国货运总量、物流绩效指数
		信息通讯设施	移动用户、互联网用户、互联网使用率
		能源供应	发电量、人均可再生内陆淡水资源
		环境卫生	经过改善的卫生设施、改善的水源
		生活基础设施	医院床位数、高等院校数量
核心竞争力	政治法律环境	政治稳定程度	政府信用评级、腐败指数
		社会治安	故意谋杀犯罪率、武装部队人员
		社会治安	恐怖主义指数
		国家政策和制度评估	社会包容性/公平政策集群平均值
			公共管理质量评级
			公共部门透明度/问责性评估
		法律完善程度	与中国投资有关的法律数量
		法律完善程度	法律权利力度指数
	经济发展环境	经济稳定性	通货膨胀率、失业率、外汇储备、外债规模
		社会经济发展程度	人均GDP、人均能源消耗量、非农产业占GDP比例
		市场发育程度	全国平均月工资、居民消费指数、GDP平减指数
		对外贸易程度	出口总额、进口总额、外商直接投资净额
		产业环境发展程度	第二三产业就业人员比重
		产业环境发展程度	第二、三产业增加值
		外汇管理程度	外国人出入境时携带金额须向海关申报的数额
		外汇管理程度	外国投资者利润汇出代扣税
辅助竞争力	社会文化环境	教育文化水平	识字率、高等院校入学率
		适合工资的劳动力供应	就业率、最低工资标准
		生活服务环境	民业用气费、民用汽油费
		生活服务环境	水费、通电率
		科技发展程度	研发支出占GDP的比重、专利申请量
		科技发展程度	全球创新指数、效率指数

表1

表2

表3

表4

图1

参考文献 15

[16]	刘海飞, 许金涛 . 2017. 基于改进主成分的省域投资环境竞争力评价指标体系研究. 经济问题,( 3):12-18.
	[ Liu Haifei and Xu Jintao . 2017. The Competitiveness Evaluation Research for Provincial Investment Environment in China Based on Modified Principal Component Analysis. On Economic Problems, ( 3):12-18. ]
[17]	刘晓宁 . 2018. 企业对外直接投资区位选择——东道国因素与企业异质性因素的共同考察. 经济经纬, 35(3):59-66.
	[ Liu Xiaoning . 2018. Location Choice of Outward Foreign Direct Investment-A Study on Host Country Factors Heterogeneity Factors. Economic Survey, 35(3): 59-66. ]
[18]	田晖, 宋清, 楚恬思 . 2018. 制度因素与我国对外直接投资区位关系研究“一带一路”倡议的调节效应. 经济地理, 38(12):32-39.
	[ Tian Hui, Song Qin and Chu Tiansi . 2018. Institutional Factors and China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment: The Adjustment Effect of the Belt and Road Initiative. Economic Geography, 38(12):32-39. ]
[19]	田晖, 宋清, 黄静 . 2019. 东道国制度质量、“一带一路”倡议与我国对外直接投资区位选择. 统计与决策,( 11):148-152.
	[ Tian Hui, Song Qin and Huang Jing . 2019. Host Country’s Institutional Quality, Belt and Road Initiative and China’s OFID Location Selection. Statistics & Decision, ( 11):148-152. ]
[20]	田原, 李建军 . 2018. 中国对“一带一路”沿线国家OFDI的区位选择——基于资源与制度视角的经验研究. 经济问题探索,( 1):79-88.
	[ Tian Yuan and Li Jianjun . 2018. China’s Location Choice for OFDI Countries along the Belt and Road Initiative Line: An Empirical Study from the Perspective of Resources and Institutions. Inquiry into Economic Issues, ( 1):79-88. ]
[21]	王金波 . 2018. 制度距离、文化差异与中国企业对外直接投资的区位选择. 亚太经济,( 6):83-90.
	[ Wang Jinbo . 2018. Institutional Distances, Culture Difference and the Location Choice of China’s ODI. Asia-pacific Economic Review, ( 6):83-90. ]
[22]	王培志, 潘辛毅, 张舒悦 . 2018. 制度因素、双边投资协定与中国对外直接投资区位选择——基于“一带一路”沿线国家面板数据. 经济与管理评论,( 1):5-17.
	[ Wang Peizhi, Pan Yixin and Zhang Shuyue . 2018. Institutional Factors, Bilateral Investment Treaties and China’s OFDI Location Selection-Based on the Panel Data of Countries along “The Belt and Road”. Review of Economy and Management, ( 1):5-17. ]
[23]	王元京, 叶剑峰 . 2003. 国内外投资环境指标体系的比较. 经济理论与经济管理,( 7):14-21.
	[ Wang Yuanjing and Ye Jianfeng . 2003. Comparing Chinese and Foreign Index Systems on Investment Environment. Economic Theory and Business Management, ( 7):14-21. ]
[1]	陈升, 张俊龙 . 2019. 东道国制度水平对我国对外直接投资的影响——综合运用全球治理指标和“一带一路”沿线国家数据的实证. 产经评论, 10(3):56-66.
	[ Chen Shen and Zhang Junlong . 2019. Influence of Institutional Level of Host Country on China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment-Empirical Analysis Based on the WGI Data of Countries Along “One Belt and One Road”. Industrial Economic Review, 10(3):56-66. ]
[24]	张任重 . 2018. 瓜达尔港——中巴经济走廊的璀璨明珠. (2018-08-26)[2019-01-10]. http://www.xinhuanet.com//world/2018-08/26/c_1123331199.htm .
	[ Zhang Renzhong. 2018. Gwadar Port-the Bright Pearl of China Pakistan Economic Corridor. (2018-08-26)[ 2019-01-10]. http://www.xinhuanet.com//world/2018-08/26/c_1123331199.htm ]
[2]	陈勇志 . 2018. 中国对欧盟直接投资区位选择研究. 济南:山东师范大学.
	[ Chen Zhiyong . 2018. Research on Location Choice of China’s Direct Investment in EU. Jinan: Shandong Normal University.]
[25]	张瑞良 . 2018. 中国对“一带一路”沿线国家OFDI区位选择研究——基于制度距离视角. 山西财经大学学报, 40(3):25-38.
	[ Zhang Ruiliang . 2018. A Study on Chinese OFDI Location Selection of Nations along the “One Belt One Road”. Journal of Shanxi Finance and Economics University, 40(3):25-38. ]
[3]	陈兆源, 田野, 韩冬临 . 2018. 中国不同所有制企业对外直接投资的区位选择——一种交易成本的视角. 世界经济与政治,( 6):108-130.
	[ Chen Zhaoyuan, Tian Ye and Han Donglin . 2018. Ownership Types and the Location Choice of Chinese Enterprises’ Outward Direct Investment: A Transaction Cost Perspective. World Economics and Politics, ( 6):108-130. ]
[26]	张闪闪, 孙少岩 . 2017. “一带一路”背景下我国未来经济增长潜力研究. 云南财经大学学报, 186(4):55-63.
	[ Zhang Shanshan and Sun Shaoyan . 2017. Study on the Growth Potential of China’s Economy under the Background of “the Belt and Road”. Journal of Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, 186(4):55-63. ]
[4]	程衍生 . 2019. 影响中国对外直接投资区位选择因素研究. 华东经济管理, 33(5):91-97.
	[ Cheng Yansheng . 2019. A Study on the Factors Influencing the Location Choice of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment. East China Economic Management, 33(5):91-97. ]
[27]	赵伟 . 2018. 东道国政府治理对中国企业对外直接投资区位选择的影响研究. 南昌:江西财经大学.
	[ Zhao Wei . 2018. The Research on the Impact of Government Governance of the Host Country on the Location Choice of Outward Foreign Direct Investment of Chinese Enterprise. Nanchang: Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics. ]
[28]	中华人民共和国商务部. 2018. 对外投资合作国别(地区)指南(巴基斯坦). (2018-01-15)[2019-01-10]. .http://fec.mofcom.gov.cn/article/gbdqzn/
	[ Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China. 2018. Guidelines for Foreign Investment Cooperation (Regions) Countries (Pakistan). (2018-01-15)[ 2019-01-10]. http://fec.mofcom.gov.cn/article/gbdqzn/ ].
[5]	崔功豪, 钱清泉, 刘科伟, 翟国方 . 2018. 区域分析与区域规划. 3版. 北京: 高等教育出版社.
	[ Cui Gonghao Qian Qingquan Liu Kewei and Zhai Guofang . 2018. Regional Analysis and Regional Planning. 3rd Edition. Beijing: Higher Education Press. ]
[6]	邸玉娜, 由林青 . 2018. 中国对“一带一路”国家的投资动因、距离因素与区位选择. 中国软科学,( 2):168-176.
[29]	中华人民共和国外交部. 2019. 巴基斯坦国家概况. (2019-01-15)[2019-02-10]. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/gjhdq_676201/gj_676203/yz_676205/1206_676308/1206x0_676310/.
	[ Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. 2019. (2019-01-15) [2019-02-10]. Profile of Pakistan. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/gjhdq_676201/gj_676203/yz_676205/1206_676308/1206x0_676310/. ]
[6]	[ Di Yuna and You Linqing . 2018. Investment Motives, Distances Factors and Location Choice of China’s Investment along the Belt and Road. China Soft Science, ( 2):168-176. ]
[7]	都基阳 . 2018. 中国企业对外投资区位选择、投资模式的影响因素研究. 长春:吉林大学.
	[ Du Jiyang . 2018. Research on the Influencing Factors of Chinese Enterprises’ Foreign Investment Location Selection and Investment Model. Changchun: Jilin University. ]
[8]	高文晔 . 2017. 城市商业地产投资环境竞争力研究——基于我国35个大中城市的面板数据. 上海:华东师范大学.
	[ Gao Wenye . 2017. Research on Urban Commercial Real Estate Investment Environment Competitiveness: Based on the Panel Data of 35 Large and Medium-sized Cities in China. Shanghai: East China Normal University. ]
[9]	何曼青 . 2004. 我国区域投资环境评估及监测指标体系与模型的构建. 中国外资,( 11):30-33.
	[ He Manqing . 2004. Evaluation of China’s Regional Investment Environment and Establishment of Monitoring Index System and Model. Foreign Investment in China, ( 11):30-33. ]
[10]	侯文平, 苏锦红 . 2018. 中国对外直接投资区位选择影响因素研究. 商业研究,( 1):79-86.
	[ Hou Wenping and Su Jinhong . 2018. Research on The Factors Influencing China’s OFDI Location Choice. Commercial Research, ( 1):79-86. ]
[11]	黄玉 . 2018. 中国对“一带一路”沿线国家直接投资的区位选择. 济南:山东师范大学.
	[ Huang Yu . 2018. China’s Choice of Location for Direct Investment in Countries along the “One Belt and One Road” Route. Jinan: Shandong Normal University. ]
[12]	李警锐, 常红 . 2015. 巴基斯坦今日向中国移交瓜达尔港自贸区租期43年.(2015-11-11)[2019-01-15]. http://world.people.com.cn/n/2015/1111/c1002-27802443.html .
	[ Li Jingrui and Chang Hong . 2015. Pakistan Hands over the Lease Term of Gwadar Free Trade Zone to China Today for 43 Years. (2015-11-11)[ 2019-01-15]. http://world.people.com.cn/n/2015/1111/c1002-27802443.html ]
[13]	李小建, 李国平, 曾刚, 覃成林, 张文忠 . 2018. 经济地理学. 3版. 北京: 高等教育出版社出版.
	[ Li Xiaojian Li Guoping Zeng Gang Qin Chenglin and Zhang Wenzhong . 2018. Economic Geography. 3rd Edition. Beijing: Higher Education Press. ]
[14]	李晓, 杨弋 . 2018. “一带一路”沿线东道国政府质量对中国对外直接投资的影响——基于因子分析的实证研究. 吉林大学社会科学学报, 58(4):53-65.
	[ Li Xiao and Yang Yi . 2018. The Influence of the Host Government Quality on China’s Direct Investment along “the Belt and Road”: An Empirical Analysis. Jilin University Journal Social Sciences Edition, 58(4):53-65. ]
[15]	梁育填, 周政可, 刘逸 . 2018. 东南亚华人华侨网络与中国企业海外投资的区位选择关系研究. 地理学报, 73(8):1449-1461. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201808005
	[ Liang Yutian, Zhou Zhengke and Liu Yi . 2018. Relationship between the Location Choices of Chinese Outbound Enterprises and Overseas Chinese Networks the Case Study of Southeast Asia. Acta Geographica Sinica, 73(8):1449-1461. ] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201808005

成分	初始特征值			提取平方和载入			旋转平方和载入
成分	合计	方差贡献率%	累计方差贡献率%	合计	方差贡献率%	累计方差贡献率%	合计	方差贡献率%	累计方差贡献率%
F₁	11.317	70.729	70.729	11.317	70.729	70.729	9.06	56.623	56.623
F₂	2.641	16.502	87.230	2.641	16.502	87.232	4.040	25.252	81.875
F₃	1.041	6.501	93.731	1.042	6.501	93.731	1.897	11.856	93.731
F₄	13.704	54.816	54.816	13.704	54.816	54.816	11.909	47.637	47.637
F₅	3.680	14.718	69.535	3.680	14.718	69.535	4.415	17.659	65.296
F₆	2.651	10.602	80.137	2.651	10.602	80.137	2.806	11.224	76.521
F₇	1.362	5.448	85.585	1.362	5.448	85.585	1.718	6.87	83.391
F₈	6.658	60.525	60.525	6.658	60.525	60.525	6.602	60.016	60.016
F₉	2.588	23.531	84.056	2.588	23.531	84.056	2.644	24.04	84.056

年份	基础竞争力			核心竞争力				辅助竞争力
年份	F₁	F₂	F₃	F₄	F₅	F₆	F₇	F₈	F₉
2000	-81.134	-12.303	-5.384	-41.314	8.937	-0.363	-14.176	-94.430	-39.649
2001	-90.079	-4.024	-4.562	-43.277	4.609	-11.515	-2.337	-92.107	-29.152
2002	-100.663	5.333	-2.228	-38.769	7.886	-8.564	1.441	-88.095	-24.618
2003	-100.780	11.214	0.195	-37.116	4.197	-9.299	2.370	-58.229	-1.101
2004	-79.977	5.288	3.236	-43.246	-11.816	-5.700	13.707	-40.702	2.666
2005	-21.122	-16.848	-1.109	-34.570	-5.578	5.648	12.233	-36.926	10.147
2006	8.134	-22.389	-1.486	-17.248	0.055	22.188	-0.288	-39.025	34.027
2007	19.687	-20.851	0.674	-4.325	-1.447	20.060	5.329	-24.933	37.601
2008	42.791	-37.740	0.741	-0.136	-14.894	19.501	-0.139	-19.408	39.279
2009	48.811	-33.684	2.890	22.860	-19.017	3.048	-15.183	-4.574	33.867
2010	55.971	-28.337	4.496	21.401	-26.984	-1.222	-0.644	22.978	28.023
2011	43.701	-12.551	5.671	27.065	-24.221	0.424	-1.489	34.615	-8.831
2012	45.045	-1.850	8.083	26.022	-8.684	-11.863	0.595	51.935	-3.129
2013	44.376	10.303	10.181	30.412	-10.928	-14.900	-2.289	50.625	-7.357
2014	40.930	25.297	14.009	30.163	-9.096	-9.533	1.958	59.676	-10.634
2015	44.013	34.535	14.157	18.343	23.041	-10.364	3.043	52.534	-14.951
2016	31.233	47.912	7.607	13.225	39.711	4.844	1.465	61.334	-16.007
2017	86.727	4.707	-37.015	34.920	22.629	5.997	-3.516	73.351	-19.098
2018	47.609	45.990	-20.157	35.587	21.599	1.613	-2.079	91.380	-11.083

年份	基础竞争力得分	核心竞争力得分	辅助竞争力得分	整体投资环境得分
2000	-49.686	-19.117	-66.205	-135.008
2001	-52.562	-21.255	-62.287	-136.104
2002	-55.916	-17.938	-58.789	-132.643
2003	-54.210	-17.821	-35.211	-107.242
2004	-43.566	-22.386	-23.787	-89.739
2005	-16.346	-15.979	-19.722	-52.047
2006	-1.224	-5.736	-15.241	-22.201
2007	5.962	0.302	-5.925	0.339
2008	14.787	-0.516	-2.205	12.066
2009	19.475	6.831	5.396	31.702
2010	25.070	5.248	20.527	50.845
2011	22.248	8.561	18.652	49.460
2012	25.997	9.572	30.417	65.986
2013	28.936	10.728	28.614	68.278
2014	31.225	11.827	33.259	76.310
2015	35.321	11.853	27.935	75.108
2016	30.686	13.957	32.962	77.605
2017	45.908	21.062	39.431	106.401
2018	36.181	20.805	52.178	109.164