Foreign direct investment and regional inequality in China

One downside effect of rapid economic growth in China has been the ever rising inter-regional inequality. Foreign direct investment (FDI) has been blamed for driving the Chinese regions apart. It is difficult to reconcile the positive effect of FDI on economic growth with its potential ‘negative’ effect on regional inequality. Using the largest panel dataset for the Chinese regions over 1979-2003 and employing an augmented Cobb-Douglas production function, this paper proves that FDI has been an important factor of economic growth in China. It also suggests that it is the uneven distribution of FDI instead of FDI itself that has caused regional growth differences.Foreign direct investment, regional inequality, China

Foreign Direct Investment and Regional Inequality in China

China?s economic miracle over the past three decades has been featured with its open-door policy, especially the absorption of foreign capital. One downside effect of economic reform has been the ever rising interregional inequality. As FDI is highly unevenly distributed across regions, many scholars and policymakers have blamed their inflows as one of the main factors driving the Chinese regions apart. If this logic were true, then controlling the scale of FDI could be a solution to reduce regional inequality. However, it is difficult to reconcile the positive effect of FDI on economic growth with its potential ?negative? effect on regional inequality. This is a controversial and provocative issue in the economic development literature. Using the largest panel dataset covering all the Chinese regions over the entire period 1979-2003 and employing an augmented Cobb-Douglas production function, this paper proves that FDI has been an important factor responsible for regional growth differences in China. However, it suggests that FDI cannot be blamed for causing regional inequality; it is the uneven distribution of FDI instead of FDI itself that has caused regional growth differences. The key policy issue is that FDI should be guided towards the inland areas with preferential policies in order to improve the spatial allocation of investments as a means to reduce regional inequality.foreign direct investment, regional inequality, China

The spatial heterogeneity and time-varying nature of FDI determinants : evidence from China

Funding This research is financially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (72173036) and the Natural Science Foundation of Hainan Province (721RC515). The authors are solely responsible for any errors or omissions herein.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

What explains Alibaba’s miraculous IPO success on the New York Stock Exchange?

Funding This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 72173036; the Natural Science Foundation of Hainan Province under Grant 721RC515. The authors are solely responsible for any error or omission herein. Funding Information: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 72173036; the Natural Science Foundation of Hainan Province under Grant 721RC515. The authors are solely responsible for any error or omission herein. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.Peer reviewe

Overall survival and cancer-specific survival were improved in local treatment of metastatic prostate cancer

BackgroundFor metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa), radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy (RT) may improve overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Compared with RT, RP shows significant advantages in improving patient outcomes. External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) even slightly elevates CSM with no statistical difference in OS compared with no local treatment (NLT).ObjectiveTo evaluate OS and CSS after local treatment (LT) (including RP and RT) versus NLT in mPCa.Design, setting, and participantsWithin the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2000-2018), 20098 patients with metastatic prostate cancer were selected in this study, of which 19433 patients had no local treatment, 377 patients with radical prostate treatment, and 288 patients with RT.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisMultivariable competing risks regression analysis after propensity score matching (PSM) was used to calculate CSM. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to identify the risk factors. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate OS.Results and limitationsA total of 20098 patients were included: NLT (n = 19433), RP (n=377) and RT (n=288). In a competing risk regression analysis after PSM (ratio 1:1), RP resulted in a significantly lower CSM (hazard ratio [HR] 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.45) than NLT, while RT showed a slightly lower CSM (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.95). In a competing risk regression analysis after PSM (ratio 1:1), RP led to a lower CSM (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41-0.76) versus RT. As for all-cause mortality (ACM), RP (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31-0.45) and RT (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.56-0.79). also showed a downward trend. In terms of OS, RP and RT significantly improved the survival probability compared with NLT, with the effect of RP being more pronounced. Obviously, older age, Gleason scores ≥8, AJCC T3-T4 stage, AJCC N1, AJCC M1b-M1c were all associated with higher CSM (P <0.05). The same results held true for ACM. The limitation of this article is that it is not possible to assess the effect of differences in systemic therapy on CSM in mPCa patients and clinical trials are needed to verify the results.ConclusionsFor patients with mPCa, both RP and RT are beneficial to patients, and the efficacy of RP is better than RT from the perspective of CSM and ACM. Older age, higher gleason scores and the more advanced AJCC TNM stage all put patients at higher risk of dying.Patient summaryA large population-based cancer database showed that in addition to first-line therapy (hormonal treatment), RP and radiotherapy can also benefit patients with mPCa

Research Paper No. 2008/94 Foreign Direct Investment and Regional Inequality in China

China’s economic miracle over the past three decades has been featured with its open-door policy, especially the absorption of foreign capital. One downside effect of economic reform has been the ever rising interregional inequality. As FDI is highly unevenly distributed across regions, many scholars and policymakers have blamed their inflows as one of the main factors driving the Chinese regions apart. If this logic were true, then controlling the scale of FDI could be a solution to reduce regional inequality. However, it is difficult to reconcile the positive effect of FDI on economic growth with its potential ‘negative ’ effect on regional inequality. This is a controversial and provocative issue in the economic development literature. Using the largest panel dataset covering all the Chinese regions over the entire period 1979-2003 and employing an augmented Cobb-Douglas production function, this paper proves that FDI has been an important factor responsible for regional growth differences in China. However, it suggests that FDI cannot be blamed for causing regional inequality; it is the uneven distribution of FDI instead of FDI itself that has caused regional growth differences. The key policy issue is that FDI should be guided towards the inland areas with preferential policies in order to improve the spatial allocation of investments as a means to reduce regional inequality