Public and private tools to encourage FDI

Transcrição

Public and private tools to
encourage FDI
The Case of the Czech Republic and the
Visegrad countries
Master’s Final Assignment in the form of Internship Report
presented to the Catholic University of Portugal
to achieve the degree of master in Finance
by
Ricardo Daniel Esteves Rodrigues
under the supervision of
Prof. Francisca Guedes de Oliveira
Católica Porto Business School
March 2016
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Católica Porto Business
School and to the Portuguese Embassy in Prague for the enriching international
experience provided.
I would like to thank my supervisor Francisca Guedes de Oliveira (PhD) for
presenting me research opportunities and for the continuous support on the
way.
My genuine thanks also go to Maria Manuela Franco (Amb.) for introducing
me several investigation topics and for making me aware of the social and
corporate atmosphere in the Czech Republic. I would also like to thank to the
Embassy staff for the reception and cooperation.
Also, I would like to thank the participants in my interviews, who have
volitionally shared their outstanding experiences and precious time.
I thank my family for encouraging me throughout my academic progress
and for providing me amazing experiences abroad.
Lastly, I would like to thank my friends for the motivational character and
for the indispensable amusing moments.
iii
Abstract
An important amount of capital inflows has been drawn to Central and
Eastern European (CEE) countries. The process initiated in the first half of the
nineteen nineties became particularly successful in the Visegrad countries,
boosting their catching-up period and increasing these markets prosperity and
competition levels. We look at the instruments governments and companies
count on to consolidate foreign direct investment dynamics and to strength
cooperation among
international
firms.
We
particularly
consider
the
contributions of Johanson & Mattsson (1988), Hall & Soskice (2001) and Hadley
& Wilson (2003). We find that the accessibility level that a new market
represents for an investor shows some dependence on the stability and
influence of corporate networks. We additionally conclude that incentive
programmes proposed by governments have a limited role when contrasted to
the processes described above.
Keywords: investments in the Czech Republic, investments in the Visegrad
countries, economic diplomacy, internationalization, agencies, incentives,
Portuguese
investment
abroad,
FDI
v
motivation,
investment
networks
Resumo
Fluxos de capital consideráveis foram canalizados para os países do centro e
leste da Europa (CEE). O processo, iniciado na primeira metade dos anos
noventa, foi particularmente bem-sucedido nos países do Grupo de Visegrád,
contribuindo para a sua fase de recuperação e elevando os seus níveis de
competitividade e prosperidade. Nesta investigação, procuramos instrumentos
que, ao dispor dos governos e das empresas, possam contribuir para a
consolidação do investimento direto estrangeiro e para o fortalecimento da
cooperação entre grupos empresariais internacionais. De forma particular,
consideramos as contribuições de Johanson & Mattsson (1988), Hall & Soskice
(2001) e Hadley & Wilson (2003). Concluímos que o nível de acessibilidade que
um investidor encontra num novo mercado revela alguma dependência
relativamente ao grau de estabilidade e influência de redes empresariais em
operação. Adicionalmente, constatamos que os programas de incentivos
propostos pelos governos têm uma relevância limitada quando comparados
com os processos acima descritos.
Palavras-chave: Investimentos na República Checa, investimentos nos países
do Grupo de Visegrád, diplomacia económica, internacionalização, agências,
incentivos, IPE, motivação para IDE, redes de investimento
vii
Contents
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... iii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... v
Resumo .......................................................................................................................... vii
Contents ......................................................................................................................... ix
Index of figures ............................................................................................................. xi
Index of tables ............................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter 1 - Introduction ............................................................................................. 15
Chapter 2 - Theoretical framework ........................................................................... 16
Chapter 3 - Macroeconomic climate within the Visegrad Group ......................... 21
Chapter 4 - Support to internationalization in the Czech Republic ..................... 28
Promotion agencies ................................................................................................ 28
European funds ....................................................................................................... 31
Financial backing .................................................................................................... 32
Support into practice: The Portuguese case ........................................................ 33
Chapter 5 - International settings .............................................................................. 36
The Portuguese network in Poland ..................................................................... 37
The Spanish network in the Czech Republic ...................................................... 40
Chapter 6 - Efficient promotion of FDI ..................................................................... 42
Chapter 7 - Conclusion ............................................................................................... 46
Bibliography ............................................................................................................... xlix
Attachment....................................................................................................................lix
Appendices .................................................................................................................. lxii
ix
Index of figures
Figure 1: 2015 2Q values for sectorial employment in the Czech Economy ....... 22
Figure 2: Czech exports, 2004 to 2013 (USD billions) ............................................. 23
Figure 3: Czech imports, 2004 to 2013 (USD billions) ............................................ 24
Figure 4: GDP growth rates, 2007 to 2016 (%) ......................................................... 25
Figure 5: Public budget balance, 2007 to 2016 (% of GDP) .................................... 26
xi
Index of tables
Table 1: HDI Ranking, 2015 (based on 2014 estimates) .......................................... 22
Table 2: Stock of inward FDI per capita, 2007 to 2014 (USD).................................. 27
Table 3: The national incentives scheme .................................................................. 29
Table 4: Counterparts asked by the Czech government ........................................ 30
Table 5: Year-end Portuguese FDI outward positions in the V4, 2014 ................ 38
xiii
Chapter 1
Introduction
This work explores the Czech market accessibility for foreign investors,
analysing incentives made available by national bodies and scrutinizing the
development of particular forms of cooperation between firms. We try to find
what can governments and companies do to increase foreign direct investment
dynamics and to ease cooperation, including knowledge sharing. Finally,
general guidelines are suggested, aiming to spread investments beyond borders
in a more efficient manner.
Results studied and reported were obtained after reviewing relevant
literature - we highlight the contributions of Johanson & Mattsson (1988), Hall
& Soskice (2001) and Hadley & Wilson (2003). Available quantitative data,
disclosed from national trade and investment bodies, statistical offices and
central banks is also explored. Additionally, interviews were held with
entrepreneurs
and
diplomatic
officers
responsible
for
business
internationalization. All these activities result of research developed during the
internship period at the Portuguese Embassy in Prague.
Although the research was driven by the study of Portuguese companies that
operate in the Czech Republic, trying to understand how we can foster
investment flows in this direction, our findings are likely to be applicable
among other European markets, with particular regard to the Visegrad Group
countries1.
1An
alliance of four Central European states: Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.
15
Chapter 2
Theoretical framework
Classical definitions for diplomacy were built on international politics
frameworks and don’t necessarily suggest the existence of businesses or
investment abroad. Bull (1995) highlights a wider sense of the concept, defining
diplomacy as “the conduct of relations between states and other entities, with
standing in world politics by official agents and by peaceful means”. Analysing
this classical view and criticizing some stereotypes that have narrowed the
concept, Bayne & Woolcock (2011) explore the economic part of the concept.
The authors suggest that not only international issues but also decisions about
domestic policies must be included in the definition’s range and keep the idea
that other actors, in addition to states, play a considerable role at the
international decision making level, just as business firms and civil society do
(Barston, 2014). Different instruments are used to chase Economic Diplomacy
goals beyond informal negotiation or voluntary cooperation, just as the ones
needed to establish and maintain binding rules (Bayne & Woolcock, 2011).
The current economic diplomacy may be seen as a set of international
economic activities pursued by state and non-state players, consisting of three
elements: (1) The use of political influence and relationships in order to
promote global economy goals such as international trade and investment, (2)
the use of economic assets and relationships to increase economic security and
(3) ways to consolidate the right political climate and international political
economic environment, including the work of supranational organizations and
institutions (van Bergeijk & Moons, 2009).
16
Two distinct levels may be considered while putting economic diplomacy
into practice, the microeconomic diplomacy and the macroeconomic diplomacy.
This perspective includes international organizations in the macroeconomic
level and firms in the microeconomic side (Mendes Leal, 2007). The author
argues that globalization provides increasing cooperation among companies
and governments, turning current economic diplomacy more concerned about
developing FDI levels, for instance among mergers and acquisitions, than about
empowering international trade flows.
Castro (2008) presents an historical perspective of what was the European
economic diplomacy like during the twentieth century, analysing the
progressive inclusion of economic issues into the diplomatic practices and
emphasizing the evolution of the concept. The author studies the Portuguese
case and the diplomatic models pursued by successive governments at a
structural level, pointing out, for instance, the positioning of the main national
agents within the economic diplomacy and its consequences given strategies
pursued by ministries, non-governmental organizations and public-private
partnerships.
After overviewing some literature on Economic Diplomacy, we may now go
through some considerations about foreign direct investment (FDI). The
International Monetary Fund defines it as an investment made to acquire a
lasting interest in or effective control over an enterprise operating outside of the
economy of the investor. The term “lasting interest” is evidenced when the
direct investor owns at least 10% of the voting power of the direct investment
enterprise (IMF, 2009). Furthermore, the percentage of the voting power held by
the direct investor allows one to distinguish between subsidiaries (over 50%) or
associates (between 10% and 50%). The case of quasi-corporations (enterprises
17
that produce goods and services in an economy other than their own, but do
not establish separate legal corporations in the host country) is also considered
for FDI purposes (OECD, 2009), an aspect that matters, considering corporate
branches. In fact, in an FDI context, the nature of the vehicle used by direct
investors depends, among other factors, on existing regulations in the host
country (Duce, 2003).
Theoretically, there are differentiations concerning several types of capital
flows. FDI net inflows are the value of inward direct investment made by nonresident investors in the reporting economy. At the same time, FDI net outflows
are the value of outward direct investment made by the residents of the
reporting economy to external economies (IMF, 2009). Horizontal FDI is
perceived as an activity expansion to other markets, while vertical FDI
(backward vertical or forward vertical) involves investing in a different
production stage (Protsenko, 2003). Additionally, it is relevant to distinguish
FDI flows from FDI position or stock. The FDI position is the result of
subsequent direct investment flows and has an impact on an economy’s
international investment position (Eurostat, 2016).
Popescu (2014) discusses FDI and International Trade role on the economic
output, linking them with productivity convergence in Central and Eastern
Europe (CEE) countries. The author argues that a few drivers conduct FDI
inflows to CEE economies, accentuating the relevance of factors such as a sound
macroeconomic environment, competitiveness in terms of labour costs, the
proportion of exports in GDP or even the potential EU membership. For this
last case, the author pursued Bevan & Estrin (2000), a work that investigates the
repercussion of EU accession process developments onto FDI flows,
considering the particular position of Visegrad economies and concluding that
18
physical and psychical closeness worked as a keystone during the last decade
prior to their entrance.
Finally, we may review some particular models which consider relevant
aspects discussed during our investigation. Blomström & Kokko (2003) argue
that the main motivation for state incentives, namely financial subsidies, to
inward FDI is the technologic and skills spillover to the local industry. These
authors point that although FDI incentives may turn out to be relevant to
strength the structural level of a given economy, its benefits are not
instantaneously achieved. FDI advantages only take place if established local
firms have the ability to absorb new technology and skills. The research
conclusion is that an efficient FDI policy sets incentive packages not exclusively
to foreign companies, but also to local investors, turning the private sector as a
whole able to be enhanced by foreign participation. As exposed later in this
work, current Czech model for investment incentives is not reservedly designed
to foreign investors, but rather for legal entities (Czech or foreign) engaged in
business.
Hall & Soskice (2001), explore the role of third parties like business
associations in the political economy. The authors defend these organizations
are regarded as a form of getting lower transaction costs when attempting to
coordinate private sector activities. The research suggests that some economies
enjoy the presence of “dense networks linking the managers and technical
personnel inside a company to their counterparts in other firms”, dynamics that
positively contribute to the spread of information among corporations. Hall &
Soskice (2001), argue as well that some of the effects enterprises get from
participating in the mentioned institutions wouldn’t have been reached solely
by market operations. Indeed, powerful cooperation networks, from employer
19
associations to trade unions, are designed not only to facilitate informationsharing but also to promote general collaboration.
Four corporate typologies are identified by Johanson & Mattsson (1988) to
distinguish among different internationalisation stages, concerning not only the
internationalisation
level
of
the
firm
itself,
but
also
the
market
internationalisation one (the micro dimension and the macro dimension). An
“early starter” firm presents low status in both the mentioned levels. A “late
starter” possesses a low degree of internationalisation, but resides in a highly
internationalised market. Adversely, the “lonely international” has a high
degree of internationalisation, but operates in an internationally immature
network. An “international among others” firm is a company which exhibits a
strong commitment to internationalisation processes and is positioned in a
highly internationalised market. The work reasoning basis rests “on a model
that describes industrial markets as networks of relationships between firms”,
emphasizing, among others, long-term interdependencies built between
suppliers and customers.
Hadley & Wilson (2003) follow the categorization described by Johanson &
Mattsson (1988) and test the relationship between the four typologies and the
level of experiential knowledge enjoyed by the firm and its network. The model
exhibits different results when accounting for firm size effects. In what regards
to the large firm sample, the authors conclude that there is a link between
experiential knowledge and internationalisation levels and that the network
internationalisation level (the macro dimension) may work “as some sort of
multiplier on the experiential knowledge levels residing in the firm”.
20
Chapter 3
Macroeconomic climate within the
Visegrad Group
As other eastern European nations, Czech Republic went through
considerable changes in its political economic framework by the end of the 20 th
century. The Velvet Revolution in 1989 paved the way for democracy and by
1991 Czechoslovakia signed together with Hungary and Poland - The Visegrad
Group (V4) - an alliance aiming to further cooperation between members,
leading to European integration (International Visegrad Fund, 2015). After that,
both the Czech and the Slovak Republic joined the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU). The V4 is often
considered for comparison purposes, as these four countries (after the 1993
peaceful dissolution into Czech Republic and Slovak Republic) share similar
geopolitical and economic structures (Bevan & Estrin, 2000). Briefly over
viewing the GDP growth behaviour, we generally observe that these
economies’ rates are higher than the European average – something that may be
explained by the liberalization process, including the catch-up effect, the group
initiated when the Communist Party was swept from power in 1989, which was
accelerated from 2004 on with the entrance to the EU (Central Intelligence
Agency, 2013).
21
TABLE 1
HDI Ranking, 2015 (based on 2014 estimates)
Rank
Country
HDI Value
GNI per capita, 2011 USD PPP (var. 2013/14)
28
Czech Republic
0.870
26 660 (+8.66%)
35
Slovakia
0.844
25 845 (+2.01%)
36
Poland
0.843
23 177 (+7.87%)
44
Hungary
0.828
22 916 (+7.9%)
Source: United Nations, 2015; Own calculations
The Czech Republic is the most developed economy among the former
Warsaw Pact communist league (United Nations, 2015). Its unemployment rate
is structurally one of the lowest in the EU, with a downward trend initiated in
2014 which is expected to prevail, according to the Ministry of Finance
(Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic, 2015) and European Commission
forecasts (European Commission, 2016). Although most of the new jobs are
offered within the manufacturing industry, where car making and electrical
engineering stand out, services also positively contribute for this tendency,
keeping the employment structure among activity sectores consistent from 2011
on, with a distribution that truly replicates GDP’s sectorial composition (Czech
Statistical Office, 2016).
FIGURE 1
2015 2Q values for sectorial employment in the Czech Economy
Agriculture (3,0%)
Industry (38,1%)
Source: Czech Statistical Office, 2015
22
Services (58,9%)
From the 2008/2009 economic slump on, the Czech Republic has shown an
economic growth trend similar to the EU 28. Its export-driven economy is
considered stable, prosperous and integrated in the European market.
Consequently, its main fragility is the sensitivity to external customers and
suppliers, Germany in particular, the main export and import partner, which
accounts for around 28% of the trading value. Globally considered, remaining
members of the V4 also have a relevant position, representing around 16% of
the trade with the Czech Republic.
China, the main non-European goods
provider is also relevant when studying the origin of products, with an 11%
share on the total imports (Centre for International Development at Harvard
University, 2014). The following graphics, elaborated by the Harvard Atlas of
Economic Complexity with data from 2004 (EU entrance) to 2013, show which
are the most powerful sectors amongst the country’s economy in terms of
exports and those in which Czech companies and families find more efficient to
import goods.
FIGURE 2
Czech exports, 2004 to 2013 (USD billions)
Source: Centre for International Development at Harvard University, 2014
23
FIGURE 3
Czech imports, 2004 to 2013 (USD billions)
Source: Centre for International Development at Harvard University, 2014
These maps allow us to identify a correspondence factor between imports
and exports. Indeed, a great part of imports are composed by raw materials,
such as electric and machinery components, parts and accessories of motors for
vehicles, plastics and rubbers or iron and steel, feedstock that Czech plants will
work on to produce vehicles (automotive sector truly is a powerful engine of
the economy), electrical machinery and nuclear reactors and boilers. In 2014, the
economy exported 8.72% more goods and services than what it imported
(European Commission, 2016).
After analysing international trade characteristics, we may now look at
economic growth features among the four countries, which have presented
higher rates than EU28 average.
24
FIGURE 4
GDP growth rates, 2007 to 2016 (%)
12,0%
10,0%
8,0%
6,0%
EU 28
4,0%
Czech Republic
2,0%
Hungary
0,0%
Poland
-2,0%
2007ᵃ 2008ᵃ 2009ᵃ 2010ᵃ 2011ᵃ 2012ᵃ 2013ᵃ 2014ᵃ 2015ᵇ 2016ᵇ
Slovakia
-4,0%
-6,0%
-8,0%
ᵃEurostat values; ᵇEuropean Commission Winter 2016 Economic Forecast values
Source: Eurostat, 2015; European Commission, 2016
Slovakian rates look somewhat outstanding compared to the Czech ones.
Successful transition to the capitalist system, including a range of major
privatizations, and a FDI boom, driven by business friendly politics since the
entrance to the EU, as well as the Euro adoption in 2009 are considered key
factors in this evolution. Some of these reforms may have failed or at least have
not been completely implemented by Czech governments, resulting in a better
Slovakian performance according to some economic studies (Prague Post, 2014).
The FDI boost after 2004 was a commonplace among the V4 and one of the
factors that, along with restrained public finances management and the
implementation of several reforms, backed the Polish economy against the
2008/2009 downturn, avoiding recession (Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). In
2014, Poland was voted the most attractive central and eastern European
country to establish operations in, Czech Republic was second (EY, 2014).
25
Hungary faced some peculiarities in what regards to public finances. Since
2005, Hungarian government gross debt has been above 60% of GDP and the
general government deficit was 9.4% of GDP in 2006 (Eurostat, 2015). This
country was the first EU member experiencing a bailout program after the 2008
financial crisis. Nevertheless, Hungary has relatively high FDI numbers, which
reflect the importance given to international business implementation (see table
2).
FIGURE 5
Public budget balance, 2007 to 2016 (% of GDP)
0,0%
-1,0%
2007ᵃ 2008ᵃ 2009ᵃ 2010ᵃ 2011ᵃ 2012ᵃ 2013ᵃ 2014ᵃ 2015ᵇ 2016ᵇ
-2,0%
EU 28
-3,0%
Czech Republic
-4,0%
Hungary
-5,0%
Poland
-6,0%
Slovakia
-7,0%
-8,0%
-9,0%
ᵃEurostat values; ᵇ European Commission Winter 2016 Economic Forecast values
Source: Eurostat, 2015; European Commission, 2016
Another feature that keeps making the Czech economy stand out from the
group is the strict policy concerning public deficit and the low debt condition.
In 2014, the general government deficit was 1.9% and the general government
debt was 42.7% of GDP (Eurostat, 2015). Apart from not being part of the
European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM – II), the Czech Republic virtually
meets all the Maastricht convergence criteria to join the Euro. Nevertheless, the
adoption of the single currency is not included in the short term political
agenda (Prague Post, 2016).
26
TABLE 2
Stock of inward FDI per capita, 2007 to 2014 (USD)
Country \ Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Czech Republic
12 069
12 283
11 497
12 993
12 750
11 561
Hungary
9 857
9 072
8 545
10 473
10 923
9 958
Poland
4 639
5 139
4 589
5 342
7 138
6 449
Slovakia
9 761
9 337
9 639
10 200
10 739
9 826
EU 28
14 244
14 127
14 687
14 820
19 550
18 095
Source: Own calculations with data from UNCTAD, 2015 and Eurostat, 2015
Professional services networks describe Czech Republic as a regional
champion for the inflow of FDI, praising the country’s skilled workforce,
infrastructures, cost competitiveness and education standards (KPMG, 2015). In
2015, a survey showed that 92% of local CEOs were expecting a growth in their
revenues in the following three years (PWC, 2015). Stable economic growth
rates, a well-educated workforce, social stability and favourable labour costs
seem to provide investors with good future perspectives (KPMG, 2015).
The automotive sector clearly represents comparative advantages: The Czech
Republic is one of the 15 largest global passenger car producers by volume and
the second largest passenger car producer per 1 million inhabitants globally
(KPMG, 2015). The Ministry of Industry and Trade lists nine industrial sectors
in which the country evidences potential for successful implementation of new
projects: Automotive, Aerospace, Business Support Services, Electronics &
Electrical Engineering, Energy & Environment, High-Tech Mechanical
Engineering, Information and Communication Technologies, Life Sciences and
Nanotechnologies & Advanced Materials (CzechInvest, 2015).
27
Chapter 4
Support to internationalization
in the Czech Republic
From the nineteen nineties on, the V4 countries sought to internationalize
and open their economies through trade and investment. As such, capital flows
growth between these countries and their main economic partners in recent
decades has been exponential. National governments and international
institutions designed several investment support programs. We analyse in some
detail the main programs that are currently in place in the Czech Republic,
being aware that very similar models are followed by the other three economies.
Promotion agencies
CzechInvest - Business and Investment Development Agency, was developed
by the Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade in 1992 and looks forward to
attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to the economy and to develop existing
domestic companies. Currently, an investment incentives manual elaborated by
the agency sets the framework in which the Government provides support
through incentives to national and foreign companies. In order to join the
program, the applicant entity must have a registered office within the Czech
territory (CzechInvest, 2015).
28
Valid from May 2015 on, the manual in a very straightforward manner
mentions three areas in which investors may be recipients of state incentives: (1)
Manufacturing Industry (MI), (2) Technology Centres (TC) and (3) Business
Support Services Centres (BS). Although the national incentives scheme is the
same for the three types of activity, counterparts requested by the Government
may vary (CzechInvest, 2015).
The scheme establishes an investment incentive ceiling, aiming to support
companies that invest outside of Prague region, which is a result of a given rate
(25% for large, 35% for medium-sized and 45% for small companies) times the
eligible cost (capital expenditure), as long as the portion invested in new
machinery comprehends at least 50% of this amount. Otherwise, the double
value of total investment in new machinery will be considered. Alternatively,
two years of wage costs of newly created jobs may serve as eligible cost. Data
centres have a specific rate, independent from dimension, of 6.25%.
TABLE 3
The national incentives scheme
Incentive Sphere
Incentive Description
Corporate income tax relief
Taxes
(up to ten years)
Property tax exemption (up
CZK 300K per new job)
Cash grants (25% to 50% of
eligible training costs)
Asset Acquisition
Site Support
SIZ*; Extent determined by the
municipality
Cash grants (CZK 100K to
HR Development
New companies; Existing companies
may apply for partial relief
to five years)
Job Creation &
Scope
Cash grants (10% to 12.5%
of eligible investment costs)
Districts where the unemployment
rate is at least 25% higher than the
national average and SIZs*
Districts where the unemployment
rate is at least 25% higher than the
national average
“Strategic investments” in MI or TC
Transfer of land for a price below the
Discount
market
*SIZ (Special Industrial Zone) is a specific zone designated as such by the Government.
Source: CzechInvest, 2015
29
Orange-shaded incentives in figure 5 represent values that sum up until the
mentioned incentive ceiling (maximum support level) is reached. The corporate
income tax relief has a residual character, i.e., after adding the job creation
grants and land price compensations, the difference to the ceiling will be
discounted on corporate taxes.
A special class of ambitious projects was created in what concerns the
Manufacturing Industry and Technology Centres, the so-called “strategic
investments”. Projects which fulfil requirements to obtain this classification are
qualified to be recipients, other than the standard incentives, of cash grants in
order to compensate for larger capital expenditures. Thereafter, these
investments are subject to more stringent commitments (see table 4).
TABLE 4
Counterparts required by the Czech government
Supported
Counterparts: Specific Conditions
Area
Min. CZK 100M within 3 years (reduction is special zones), of which at least
MI
50% in new machinery;
Creation of min. 20 new jobs
MI:
strategic
Min. CZK 500M within 3 years, of which at least 50% in new machinery;
investment
TC
TC:
strategic
Creation of min. 20 new jobs, 100 for SI
investment
Creation of min. 20 new jobs at software-development centres and data centres;
BS
min. 70 new jobs at shared-services centres and high-tech repair centres; min. 500
new jobs at call centres
Source: CzechInvest, 2015
30
The Czech Trade Promotion Agency (CzechTrade) was established by the
Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic in 1997. This agency aims
to promote international trade, providing potential buyers information about
Czech companies which export pretended goods or services and cooperating
with foreign importers interested in the Czech market. CzechTrade counts on its
delegations spread all over the world and on its free online information
platforms (CzechTrade, 2015).
European funds
Consequence of its inclusion in the European framework, the Czech Republic
benefits from access to grants intended both to the public and to the private
sectors, as a part of the 2014 - 2020 European programming period. In
particular, the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund and
the European Social Fund provide investment support through operational
programmes (OP) specifically designed for the Czech Republic, just like the
Enterprise and Innovation for Competitiveness OP, which “substantially
contributes to promoting the country´s ability to achieve a competitive and
sustainable economy based on knowledge and innovation” or the OP Prague –
Growth Pole, that “aims to boost economic growth in the region of Prague and
contribute to achieving the Europe 2020 targets for smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth” and which is expected to support 300 SMEs. Some of the EU
regional policy instruments, are specifically intended to support enterprises
operating in the country. Others may eventually be applicable only to
governmental, municipal or educational institutions (European Commission,
2015).
31
Companies may also consider international scope programmes like Horizon
2020, a research and innovation programme developed by the EU (European
Commission, 2015) or Eurostars, a joint programme “co-funded from the
national budgets of 34 participating states and partner countries and by the
European Union through Horizon 2020” that supports research & development
performing SMEs (Eurostars, 2015). Application guidelines for these projects
are the same throughout the territory for which they are developed. Since their
success or efficiency in attracting investment does not depend on national
investment support strategies, this work does not explore further details
concerning these support facilities.
Financial backing
Founded in 1995, The Czech Export Bank (CEB) is a state-owned financial
institution specialized in supporting exports, being an indispensable part of the
development policy of the Czech economic growth. The working model of this
institution is similar to that of commercial banks. CEB negotiates financial
support with foreign costumers, funding that is intended for the payment of
goods or services to Czech companies. Considering CEB's 100% state ownership
and the statutory unconditional and irrevocable guarantee provided by the
Czech Republic for all borrowings of CEB, Moody's Investors Service concludes
that the bank’s issuer and debt ratings are aligned at the same level as that of
the Czech Republic (Moody’s, 2015).
The Export Guarantee and Insurance Corporation (EGAP) was founded in
1992 and is also owned by the Czech state. The company provides credit
insurance on exports of goods and services from the Czech Republic, keeping
32
Czech creditors safe from political (administrative or legislative changes in the
country of the importer that may cripple payments, including political events as
revolutions, wars or general strikes) and commercial risks (insolvency or
procedures that will lead to the credits payment rejection) uninsurable by
ordinary commercial insurance schemes (EGAP, 2016). EGAP and CEB don’t
necessarily operate together. Normally, EGAP takes decisions on specific
applications for insurance cover (OECD, 2006). CEB does not impose as an ad
hoc condition the existence of insurance provided by EGAP, establishing that
other forms of insurance can replace protection offered by the state insurer
(Czech Export Bank, 2015).
Losses incurred by EGAP are covered by the state budget. Consequently, the
extent in which Czech taxpayers should be asked to sustain failures arising
from the normal operation of the bank is far from clear. In 2014, the loss
amounted to 5.92 billion crowns (around 219 million euros) and for 2015 a loss
of 5 to 8 billion crowns (between ca. 185 and 296 million euros) is expected
(Hospodárske Noviny, 2015).
Support into practice: The Portuguese case
Portuguese investments in the Czech Republic, despite the growing numbers
and industrial diversity, represent a relatively meagre position, even when
jointly considered. By December 2015, records at the Portuguese Embassy listed
nine corporate groups holding investments in this market (Portuguese Embassy
in Prague, 2015).
33
Although the Embassy of Portugal in Prague shares physical facilities with
AICEP, the workspace reserved for the agency is unoccupied, since the
responsible director resides and works in Poland. This circumstance limits the
ability to hold a closer contact with entrepreneurs in the Czech market and may
discourage potential investors from falling back more often while looking
forward to the first few steps settling their companies in the county. The
Embassy tries, despite its limited scope of action, to suppress this gap, trying to
approach Portuguese companies and looking forward to build a solid network
among them, something that will hopefully be boosted with the recent creation
of a Czech-Portuguese Chamber of Commerce (Portuguese Embassy in Prague,
2015).
Simoldes is a Portuguese group with relevant success in the production of
plastic injection moulds for the automotive industry, having received supplier
recognition awards from the Volkswagen Group, PSA Peugeot Citroen or
General Motors (Automotive Business, 2015; Simoldes, 2016). After eleven years
of operations in Poland (Simoldes, 2016), the company invested about EUR 30M
(over CZK 800M) in a new plant in the Czech Republic in 2015. Its strategic
location in Kvasiny enables the company to be physically close to one of the
three Škoda Auto production sites currently operating in the country.
Nevertheless, the administration believes the chosen spot endows the
connection to other automotive producers in Central and Eastern Europe
besides the Volkswagen Group (Prague Post, 2015).
For Simoldes' investment in Kvasiny, CzechInvest’s support resulted in the
provision of relevant market information and contact facilitation with
indispensable space suppliers. The agency channelled the Portuguese group to
CBRE services, an international real estate consultancy company. In what
34
regards to the application for income tax benefits, the contracted consultant
dealt directly with CzechInvest. Simoldes was, therefore, given no margin to
negotiate the incentives extension or methods. In a way, the group was tied to
these third-party services in order to be considered to get governmental
support (Angelo, 2015). The chosen location was an industrial park developed
by Panattoni Europe, an international space developer (Panattoni Europe, 2016),
and prepared by Accolade, a Czech group specialized in investments in
industrial properties for lease, which enjoys a privileged cooperation position
with the Panattoni Group (Accolade, 2016).
Enjoying a worldwide presence, Simoldes has experienced many processes
of internationalization from the second half of the nineteen nineties on. When
questioned about the overall effectiveness of the investment support
institutions operating in destination countries, Miguel Angelo, corporate
controlling officer, regrets that local entities solely show decision makers the
positive side of the implementation, lifting project advantages up and softening
the risks that investors will most likely have to burden if the project goes on.
Angelo also believes that current diplomatic targets considering investment
issues prioritize the implementation of foreign projects in Portugal, rather than
focusing on national companies’ internationalization potential via FDI (Angelo,
2015).
35
Chapter 5
International settings
According to the strategies used by government-funded allowance
organizations, models among the V4 for FDI attraction purposes do not
significantly differ in what concerns to strategy and operation guidelines. For
detailed information about investment incentives in the Visegrad countries
besides CzechInvest (2015), consult the Hungarian Investment Promotion
Agency (2015), the Polish Information and Foreign Investment Agency (2015)
and the Slovak Investment and Trade Development Agency (2015). In order to
get acquainted with particular projects receiving support from these agencies,
see the Jaguar Land Rover (The Slovak Spectator, 2015) or the Simoldes Group
(Prage Post, 2015) cases (the later has been mentioned above).
Along with the persecution of spillover effects (Blomström & Kokko, 2003),
we are able to identify some similar features between the supporting
programmes, regarding:

Regional disparities in the economy: More or less benefits are
proposed according to the need for convergence in terms of social
stability or wealth generated by the geographical areas. Special zones
may be designated for broader application of support programs. EU
funding regulations also consider these disparities;

Sectorial options: Define as target sectors those in which the country
has comparative advantages or that represent a political strategic
option in the long term;
36

Macroeconomic long term goals: Incentive programs may work as
economic instruments, since countries are able to choose their
priorities (e.g. a political decision maker may come across a trade-off
while choosing if a given program will mainly tackle unemployment,
making subsidies a function of the number of jobs created or if it will
emphasize capital accumulation, for instance through the settlement
of tax allowances).
Achieving support from a local government incentives program or from an
international fund (e.g. from the UE) often require getting into high levels of
bureaucracy and technical requirements that companies are not able to go
through, even with the support from government business supporting entities,
which operate limitedly in this regard. It becomes, therefore, a commonplace
for investors to resort to by third-party services (Hall & Soskice, 2001), for
whom reaching out to investment support providers is part of the core business.
In this regard, we mention the role of specialized consulting services (Angelo,
2015; Oficina Económica y Comercial, 2016), an industry which represents itself
an opportunity for multinational investors (Leite, 2016).
The Portuguese network in Poland
Studying time series data for FDI flows or year-end positions is not a simple
task, since data varies according to the source of information. Information
disclosed by the target country's national central bank differs from that made
available by the investor’s national central bank. A brief table is presented,
suggesting the different position of Portuguese investments among V4
countries.
37
TABLE 5
Year-end Portuguese FDI outward positions in the V4, 2014
Country \ Item
Stocks (EUR millions)
Stocks per capita (EUR)
Czech Republic
65.1942
6.186
Hungary
137.000
13.910
Poland
1 951.900
51.358
Slovakia
8.672
1.600
Source: Czech National Bank, 2015; Hungarian National Bank, 2015; National Bank of
Poland, 2015; National Bank of Slovakia, 2015; Own calculations with data from the previous
and from Eurostat, 2015
The successful implementation of Portuguese investments in Poland, an
economy with very similar features to the Czech, except in what regards to
market dimensions (Bevan & Estrin 2000; Popescu, 2014), may be explained
thanks to some factors that globally considered are able to work as investment
attraction triggers:

Presence of large Portuguese groups - that may have been “lonely
internationals” (Johanson & Mattsson, 1988) - investing in anchor
sectors
as
the
financial,
engineering
and
construction,
food
distribution or electric utility, that made possible new investments
within the IT, consulting or agro-food sectors (Hadley & Wilson, 2003;
Leite, 2016);

Groups operating in the market developed cooperation networks
(Johanson & Mattsson, 1988), including third-party facilities (Hall &
Soskice, 2001; Barston, 2014), which operation does not depend on
public funding or embassies (e.g. the Polish-Portuguese Chamber of
Commerce, overviewed below);
2
Year-end value was not available. We persecuted the methodology proposed by the Czech National Bank
(2015) for the purposes of rough calculation of preliminary stock data.
38

Cooperation with an AICEP delegation based on the offices of the
Portuguese Embassy in Warsaw, where a resident delegate may
develop assistance and lobbying actions within the business
community,
including
authorities
and
relevant
local
bodies
(Portuguese Embassy in Prague, 2015; Leite, 2016).
Poland is the most successful economy as target country among the V4 in
what concerns to Portuguese companies’ internationalization via FDI (see table
5). The Polish Information and Foreign Information Agency annually publishes
a list of major foreign investors in Poland, according to which existed on
December 31st 2014, 30 Portuguese groups operating in the country, with a wide
presence regarding the manufacturing, infrastructure and agri-food sectors
(Polish Information and Foreign Investment Agency, 2015).
From March 2008 on, with a network counting on circa 200 member
companies, the Polish-Portuguese Chamber of Commerce (PPCC) aims to
“promote and enhance the development of the private sector and the
relationships between companies and entrepreneurs with interests in the Polish
and Portuguese speaking markets”. Services provided by PPCC go further
beyond
business
contacts
exchange,
targeting
the
establishment
or
reinforcement of operations among participating or potential members. In fact,
from human resources databases or translation services to promotion channels
for products and business opportunities, PPCC supports both investors who
find themselves at an early stage and also companies with solid positions
(PPCC, 2015).
According to Nuno Leite, AICEP’s Managing Director holding office in
Warsaw, Poland and additionally in charge of operations in the Czech Republic
39
and Romania, considering its knowledge about the local economy and its
operation modes, AICEP’s office “should serve as an element that unites all the
Portuguese entrepreneurs and operates as their natural partner, accompanying
companies in their first steps towards the local market, regardless of the activity
sector or dimension.” These circumstances turn the relationship between
companies and the AICEP office closer. Concerning the lobbying platform for
FDI, “the local AICEP facility collaborates and officially supports PPCC in its
efforts to promote corporate interests of its members” (Leite, 2016).
The Spanish network in the Czech Republic
Spanish companies constitute a wide and diversified group in the Czech
Republic, with circa 80 groups holding investments in the market, including
particular exposure to the real estate and infrastructure sectors, and also a very
expressive presence in the clothing industry, due to the assets held by Inditex,
the world's largest fashion retailer (Industriall, 2014; ICEX, 2015).
ICEX – Spain Trade and Investment is the agency which represents the
diplomatic facility that empowers internationalization among Spanish
economic groups, through the operation of the Office for Economic &
Commercial Affairs in the Czech Republic (OECA), in close cooperation with
the
Spanish
Embassy.
Ideally,
OECA’s
presence
in
investment-target
destinations eases corporate actions through providing costless consultancy and
information sharing (Hall & Soskice, 2001; OECA, 2016). OECA encourages
Spanish firms which meet the defined requirements to apply for investment
support schemes but does not replace professional services companies which
provide technical support while pursuing successful applications (OECA, 2016).
40
The Hispanic-Czech Chamber of Commerce, also encourages and develops
cooperation, trade and cultural exchange between companies with interests
among both markets and results from the association of firms (Cámara de
Comercio Hispano-Checa, 2015), representing another business cooperation
scheme (Johanson & Mattsson, 1988; Hall & Soskice, 2001), established by the
market itself .
Although the number of Spanish companies operating in the market is large,
and the current investment climate is favourable - in part due to infrastructure
reforms planned by the Czech government, which represent new opportunities
to this industry (Vozpopuli, 2015) – We didn’t find here such a significant
expression of business cooperation networks, at least for a private level, as we
did for the Portuguese case in Poland. Hispanic-Czech Chamber of Commerce
total membership numbers reflect less than 30% of the Spanish groups in the
market - contrasting with more than 500% for the PPCC situation (Cámara de
Comercio Hispano-Checa, 2015; PPCC, 2015).
41
Chapter 6
Efficient promotion of FDI
Given the aspects exposed along this research, this last chapter of the work
aims to propose a model for FDI extension. Although this strategy looks
appropriate considering the current framework of Portuguese investments in
the V4 countries, it may be suitable for application within other frameworks.
Nevertheless, some adaptations might be necessary according to country
specific features.
Spreading out a well flourishing investment from a well succeeded market to
the target one with similar characteristics and structural behaviour, rather than
from the original country to the target, appears to foster more efficiency and to
represent fewer risks for investors. A practical example for this action would be
a list of Portuguese groups operating in Poland which gets contacted regarding
the launch of the Czech-Portuguese Chamber of Commerce (planned to take
place in 2016). Forasmuch as Poland and the Czech Republic show similar
consumer characteristics, indicating a desirable natural expansion to businesses
(Bevan & Estrin, 2000), this strategy will represent a breakthrough when
contrasted to seeking among Portuguese market players key enterprises that
would take the risk of implementing themselves in an unfamiliar country.
Globally considered, V4 countries represent a 64 million consumers market,
with similar features in what concerns to culture and recent economic past, but
especially proximity and consumption habits may be pointed as most
reasonable arguments for investment dissemination among these countries.
42
Pioneer enterprises walk through a new market, establishing their businesses
and making room for new projects both on the same business branch and on an
aligned range of services. These “dragged” enterprises will start by
complementing pioneer businesses and will eventually end up finding their
way to a solid presence in the country. These dynamics suggest that while
spreading national capital investments out from one country to another, plans
must consider potential sectorial links. An investment promotion policy would
therefore intend to pick influential companies among a handful of traditionally
successful key sectors regarding foreign investment and present their corporate
boards strategic guidelines for the implementation on the new market. In our
previous example, each of the so-called “key sectors” would ideally have a
representative company among the early investors group. Naturally, industrial
sectorial strength on the target country should also be attended. For the Czech
situation, the group would most likely include more than one vehicle
components manufacturer, a sector in which Portuguese companies seem to
enjoy some advantages and among which successful FDI implementation can
be found.
We believe, in addition and as described above, that the presence of an
AICEP resident delegate in Warsaw positively influences and contributes to the
stability and prosperity of the group of Portuguese companies operating in
Poland, a network that, as we have seen, seems to provide investors healthy
levels of cooperation, in an outstanding manner considering the Visegrad
frame. We may conclude, at this point, that long-term benefits of the
persecution of a similar strategy concerning the Czech Republic would
outweigh the costs. This suggestion’s rationality increases if we consider the
existing physical facilities available for this propose at the Portuguese Embassy
in Prague.
43
At a non-governmental level, efforts have been made in the Czech Republic
to consolidate business cooperation processes aiming to establish contact links
between enterprises and profit from network benefits (Hall & Soskice, 2001;
Hadley & Wilson, 2003). According to Libal (2016), one of the key agents behind
the Czech-Portuguese Chamber of Commerce, “there is currently a blank space
in what concerns to frame guidelines for investors holding interests on the
Czech market. The chamber will make the approach more straightforward,
creating ground rules designing who should investors get in touch with as a
function of their needs or aspirations” (e.g.: government incentives, European
funds, translation or other services). Although cooperation with the Portuguese
Embassy in Prague has been relevant enclosing and setting the chamber’s
operation scope, the commerce chamber aims to transcend the support
provided by an embassy. The chamber's range of ideally provided services
should be wider, once the embassy's limited recourses do not allow to provide
the desirable corporate assistance levels.
The essence of cooperation between foreign companies (that are either
experiencing
adaptation
processes
to
new
markets
or
seeking
new
opportunities to successfully proceed their businesses) acquires a dynamic
dimension, since the share of information and influences among companies
drives new projects to the market, positively influencing new investments and
increasing FDI flows (Johanson & Mattsson, 1988; Hadley & Wilson, 2003).
Associations arising from the fellowship of entrepreneurs holding interests in a
target economy, such as commerce chambers, are usually efficiently conducted
as their administrators also run companies that compete in the market and are
therefore bringing their private interests into the association’s agenda (Hall &
Soskice, 2001).
44
Finally, we would like to point out some brief details in our suggestion plan:

Companies with different dimensions and coming from varied
sectors should have a seat at the mentioned structures (e.g.
commerce chambers) decision bodies, preventing the associations
from approaching a cartel-like organization and guaranteeing that
every sector has its specific interests safeguarded.

Some abstraction is needed when contrasting the strength different
groups possess in the framework of a given market. French
investments in the Czech Republic include, for instance, assets from
largest bank in the country (via Société Générale), and from the third
largest automotive producer (via PSA Peugeot Citroën) (Deloitte,
2015). These projects don’t find themselves at the same development
stage as the average Portuguese one. Therefore, needs for the
establishment of a consistent stakeholder basis or for market
implementation are not the same;

The fact that companies settle these chambers by their own initiative
doesn’t mean that states may abstain from contributing and
cooperating with the internationalization process. Some costs may
discourage entrepreneurs from launching corporate associations
(e.g. office settlement, advertising, joining potential members, legal
recognition). A public agency enjoys an advantageous position in
this regard, since it assembles all the national entrepreneurs in the
market, regardless of their interest in taking part of an eventual
chamber and may easily reach eventual future stakeholders.
45
Chapter 7
Conclusion
Our investigation tried to find which strategies governments and companies
use to increase foreign direct investment and network cooperation processes. It
turned out to be relevant the consideration of existent dynamics in other
markets economically close to the Czech, as a manner of finding a comparison
term. In this regard, it is clear that the relative accessibility found by investors
while getting their companies internationalized to a specific market shows
some dependence on the strength and influence of corporate groups already
operating in the market (Johanson & Mattsson, 1988), particularly on the level
of cooperation - including experimental knowledge spreading - existent
between these groups (Hadley & Wilson, 2003). These dynamics often drive
companies to approach to trade and investment bodies or to establish new
facilities (as commerce chambers) that, working as third-parties, join the
cooperation networks (Hall & Soskice, 2001).
We are also up to conclude, that incentive schemes proposed by
governments may also work as FDI boosters, albeit limitedly, since these
programs don’t seem to theoretically differ among the studied countries. We
have analysed in some detail the Czech program. Exploration of others (e.g. the
Polish) was not contemplated to avoid exhaustion. Differences among these
schemes may rest in the number of special industrial zones designated by the
government or on the extension on the provision of cash grants. Nevertheless, it
is unlikely that entrepreneurs choose their investment target market based on
such differences (The Slovak Spectator, 2015).
46
Aspects pointed out during this investigation focus on current strategic plans
that support FDI flows and cooperation under the studied circumstances and
mention some guidelines that aim to contribute to the enrichment of
internationalization processes. Since results seem to be clearer when analysing
large companies’ influence (as in Hadley & Wilson, 2003), and their relevance is
emphasized when considering cooperation processes, a further research topic
would be to investigate in which manner could SMEs contribute to the analysed
networks and how could their internationalization ambitions be attended.
Additionally, considering that this work has explored in some detail
investment relations between Portugal and the Czech Republic (with extension
to the V4 group), it would be suitable to analyse how schemes and networks
apply to other parts of the globe.
47
Bibliography
Accolade. 2016. BTO Simoldes plasticos.
http://www.accolade.cz/en/projects/detail/bto-simoldes-plasticos, first
accessed March 10.
Angelo, M. 2015. Written interview to Simoldes' controlling officer. Available as
an appendix.
Automotive Business. 2015. Grupo Volkswagen premia Kurashiki e Maxion,
July 16.
Barston, R.P. 2014. Modern Diplomacy (4th Ed.). Routledge, United Kingdom.
Bayne, N. & Woolcock, S. 2011. The New Economic Diplomacy: Decisionmaking and Negotiation in International Economic Relations (3rd Ed.).
Ashgate Publishing, United Kingdom.
van Bergeijk, Peter A. G. & Moons, S. 2009. Economic Diplomacy and Economic
Security. In C. Guapo Costa (Ed.), New Frontiers for Economic Diplomacy:
37-54. Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas – Universidade de
Lisboa, Portugal.
Bevan, A. A. & Estrin S. 2000. The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in
Transition Economies. Working paper No. 342, William Davidson Institute,
United Kingdom.
Blomström, M & Kokko, A. 2003. The Economics of Foreign Direct Invenstment
Incentives. Working paper No. 168 - EIJS Working Paper Series, The
European Institute of Japanese Studies, Stockholm School of Economics,
Sweden.
xlix
Bull, H. 1995. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (2nd
ed.). Columbia University Press, United States of America.
Cámara de Comercio Hispano-Checa. 2015. Quiénes somos.
http://www.camaracomerciohispanocheca.eu/quienes-somos/, first accessed
January 15.
Castro, J. 2008. A Diplomacia Económica em Portugal. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Faculdade de Ciências Humanas e Sociais – UFP, Portugal.
Central Intelligence Agency. 2013. The World Factbook 2013-14.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html ,
first accessed September 20.
Centre for International Development at Harvard University. 2014. The Atlas of
Economic Complexity.
http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore/stacked/export/cze/all/show/2004.2013.2/,
http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore/tree_map/export/cze/show/all/2013/, first
accessed September 30.
http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore/stacked/import/cze/all/show/2004.2013.2
/, first accessed September 30.
http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore/tree_map/import/cze/show/all/2013/,
l
Czech Export Bank. 2016. What are the basic conditions for the provision of
financing by ČEB? http://www.ceb.cz/en/main-products/faq/, first accessed
January 10.
CzechInvest. 2015. About CzechInvest. http://www.czechinvest.org/en/aboutczechinvest, first accessed September 25.
CzechInvest. 2015. Fact Sheet No. 4 – Investment Incentives, CzechInvest,
Czech Republic.
CzechInvest. 2015. Investment Climate in the Czech Republic, CzechInvest,
Czech Reublic.
CzechInvest. 2015. Investment Incentives… Your Gateway to Prosperity.
CzechInvest, Czech Republic.
CzechInvest. 2015. The amendment to the Act on Investment Incentives,
CzechInvest, Czech Republic.
CzechInvest. 2015. Target Sectors. http://www.czechinvest.org/en/target-sectors,
Czech National Bank. 2015. Balance of payments statistics: Foreign direct
investment. https://www.cnb.cz/en/statistics/bop_stat/fdi/index.html, first
accessed December 13.
Czech National Bank. 2015. Foreign Direct Investment as of 31 December 2013.
Czech National Bank.
Czech National Bank. 2015. Foreign Direct Investment Inward Flows divided
into Assets and Liabilities. Czech National Bank.
li
Czech Statistical Office. 2015. Employment and Unemployment as Measured by
the Labour Force Survey – quarterly data – 2 quarter of 2015.
https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/employment-and-unemployment-asmeasured-by-the-labour-force-survey-quarterly-data-2-quarter-of-2015, first
accessed October 1.
Czech Statistical Office. 2016. Employment and unemployment as measured by
the LFS - 4. quarter of 2015. https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/ari/employmentand-unemployment-as-measured-by-the-lfs-4-quarter-of-2015, first accessed
February 10.
CzechTrade. 2015. About CzechTrade.
http://www.czechtradeoffices.com/about-czechtrade/ , first accessed
September 25.
Deloitte. 2015. Central Europe 2015 Top 500. Deloitte Central Europe.
Duce, M. 2003. Definitions of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): a
methodological note. Note prepared as background material for the BIS
Meeting of the CGFS Working Group on FDI in the financial sector, Bank of
Spain.
EGAP, Export Guarantee and Insurance Corporation. 2016. About company.
http://www.egap.cz/o-spolecnosti/index-en.php, first accessed January 10.
EY. 2014. Back in the Game – European attractiveness survey. EYGM Limited,
United Kingdom.
European Commission. 2015. Enterprise and Innovation for Competitiveness.
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/EN/atlas/programmes/2014-2020/czechrepublic/2014cz16rfop001, first accessed December 12.
lii
European Commission. 2015. OP Prague – Growth Pole.
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/atlas/programmes/2014-2020/czechrepublic/2014cz16m2op001, first accessed December 12.
European Commission. 2015. What is Horizon 2020?
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/what-horizon-2020, first
accessed December 12.
European Commission. 2016. European Economic Forecast Winter 2016. The
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Eurostars. 2015. What is Eurostars? https://www.eurostars-eureka.eu/abouteurostars, first accessed December 12.
Eurostat. 2015. General government deficit (-) and surplus (+) - annual data.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&pcode
=teina200&language=en, first accessed October 30.
Eurostat. 2015. General government gross debt (EDP concept), consolidated annual data.
=tipsgo10&language=en, first accessed October 30.
Eurostat. 2015. Population on 1 January.
=tps00001&language=en, first accessed December 13.
Eurostat. 2015. Real GDP growth rate – volume.
=tec00115&language=en , first accessed October 30.
liii
Eurostat. 2016. Glossary: Foreign direct investment (FDI).
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Glossary:Foreign_direct_investment_(FDI), first
accessed February 10.
Hadley, R. D. & Wilson, H. I. M. 2003. The network model of
internationalisation and experimental knowledge. Unpublished dissertation,
Department of International Business - The University of Auckland – New
Zealand.
Hall, P. A. & Soskice D. 2001. An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism. In P.
A. Hall & D. Soskice (Eds.), Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional
Foundations of Comparative Advantage: 1-68. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Hospodárske Noviny. 2015. EGAP očekává ztrátu až osm miliard korun.
Problémy má v Rusku a na Ukrajině, December 1.
Hungarian Investment Promotion Agency. 2015. About HIPA.
http://hipa.hu/en/our-services/about-hipa/, first accessed September 26.
Hungarian National Bank. 2015. Foreign direct investment position in Hungary,
broken down by countries: 2014. Hungarian National Bank.
ICEX, España Exportación e Inversiones. 2015. Spanish companies in the Czech
Republic. ICEX España Exportación e Inversiones.
Industriall. 2014. Inditex, July 11.
IMF, International Monetary Fund. 2009. Balance of Payments and
International Investment Position Manual (6th ed.). International Monetary
Fund, Publication Services.
liv
International Visegrad Fund. 2015. About the Visegrad Group.
http://www.visegradgroup.eu/about, first accessed September 20.
Johanson, J. & Mattsson, L-G. 1988. Internationalisation in industrial systems –
A network approach. In N. Hood & J-E. Vahlne (Eds.), Strategies in Global
Competition: 303-321. Croom Helm, New York.
KPMG. 2015. Investment in the Czech Republic. KPMG Czech Republic.
Leite, N. L. 2016. Written interview to AICEP's Trade and Investment
Commissioner to the Czech Republic, Poland and Romania. Available as an
appendix.
Libal, B. 2016. Dialogue with the PWC Legal / Prague managing partner.
Guidelines available as an appendix.
Mendes Leal, A. C. P. 2007. A Diplomacia Económica em Portugal no Século
XXI – Que papel no Investimento Direto Português no Exterior? Negócios
Estrangeiros, 11.1: 207-310.
Ministry of Finance: Financial Policy Department. 2015. Macroeconomic
Forecast of the Czech Republic October 2015. Ministry of Finance of the
Czech Republic.
Moody’s. 2015. Moody's affirms Czech Export Bank's A1/P-1 ratings; outlook
stable. https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-affirms-Czech-ExportBanks-A1P-1-ratings-outlook-stable--PR_341064, first accessed November 30.
National Bank of Poland. 2015 Foreign direct investment (inflows) in Poland in
2014 broken down by country and economic zone. National Bank of Poland.
National Bank of Slovakia. 2015. FDI Inward Positions 2014: Geographical
Zones, Countries. National Bank of Slovakia.
lv
OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2006.
Export Credit Financing Systems in OECD Member Countries and NonMember Economies (2005 Update). OECD Publishing.
OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2009.
OECD Benchmark Definition of Foreign Direct Investment 2008 (4th Ed.).
OECD Publishing.
OECA, Office for Economic & Commercial Affairs in the Czech Republic. 2016.
Dialogue with advisors from the Spanish office for economic & commercial
affairs in the Czech Republic. Guidelines available as an appendix.
Panattoni Europe. 2016. About us. http://www.panattonieurope.com/en/aboutus/ , first accessed January 8.
Polish Information and Foreign Investment Agency. 2015. Investment
incentives in SEZ.
http://www.paiz.gov.pl/investment_support/investment_incentives_in_SEZ,
Polish Information and Foreign Investment Agency. 2015. List of major foreign
investors in Poland.
http://www.paiz.gov.pl/publications/foreign_investors_in_poland, first
accessed November 19.
PPCC, Polish-Portuguese Chamber of Commerce. 2015. Who we are.
http://ppcc.pl/en/who-we-are, first accessed January 15.
Popescu, G. H. 2014. FDI and Economic Growth in Central and Eastern Europe.
Sustainability, 6: 8149-8163.
Portuguese Embassy in Prague. 2015. Strategy and action plan for 2016.
Portuguese Embassy in Prague.
Prague Post. 2014. Is the Czech Republic richer than Slovakia? September 8.
lvi
Prague Post. 2015. Simoldes Plasticos building Czech factory, August 15.
Prague Post. 2016. Prouza: Czech Republic is ready for euro, January 29.
PWC. 2015. Czech CEO Survey 2015. PricewaterhouseCoopers Czech Republic.
Protsenko, A. 2003. Vertical and Horizontal Foreign Direct Investments in
Transition Countries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, LudwigMaximilians-Universität München, Germany.
Simoldes. 2016. History. www.simoldes.com/plastics/history.html, first
accessed January 8.
Slovak Investment and Trade Development Agency. 2015. Investment
incentives. http://www.sario.sk/en/invest/investment-incentives, first
accessed September 26.
The Slovak Spectator. 2015. Slovakia set to get Land Rover plant, August 21.
UNCTAD, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 2015. World
Investment Report 2015 - Reforming International Investment Governance.
United Nations Publications, Switzerland.
United Nations. 2015. 2015 Human Development Report. United Nations
Development Programme, United States of America.
Vozpopuli. 2015. “Las empresas españolas tienen muchas oportunidades en las
infraestructuras de República Checa”, September 23.
lvii
Attachment
Proposta de estágio
Nome: Ricardo Daniel Esteves Rodrigues
Local: Embaixada de Portugal na República Checa
Duração do estágio: 4 Meses
Tema do estágio: O papel da embaixada/consulado (incluindo AICEP) na
identificação e angariação de potenciais investidores estrangeiros para a economia
portuguesa
Objetivos do estágio
1 – Posição Económica da República Checa

Acompanhamento e reporte da atividade económica e política na República
Checa;

Análise de documentos de previsão macroeconómica divulgados pelas
instituições mais relevantes;

Investigação sobre a posição da RC na moldura europeia considerando setores
que possam manifestar um particular interesse para o desenvolvimento da
atividade económica e, em particular, em sede de oportunidades de investimento
(exemplos: energia, construção, automóveis e componentes);
2 – Investimento Direto e Modelos de Internacionalização Empresarial

Acompanhamento de investimentos de grupos empresariais portugueses em
território checo (projetos atuais e/ou futuros), através de conversas ou reuniões
com quadros das empresas, com vista ao conhecimento dos modelos de
internacionalização usados bem como das dificuldades encontradas no processo
de internacionalização;
lix

Caracterização do sistema checo de apoio à internacionalização da economia e
benchmarking das práticas com mais sucesso no quadro da UE;

Exploração e caracterização dos métodos de trabalho da AICEP e da
CzechInvest (ou de outras agências a considerar, de acordo com o ponto
anterior), adoção de uma posição crítica e desenvolvimento de possíveis
mecanismos com vista à internacionalização das empresas portuguesas na
República Checa.
3 – Embaixada, Diplomacia e Promoção de Portugal no Exterior

Apoio na implementação da estratégia de diplomacia económica da Embaixada
de Portugal em Praga, incluindo colaboração na elaboração do Plano de ação
estratégica para 2016;

Presença, apoio e contribuição para a realização de eventos destinados à
promoção de Portugal, organizados pela Embaixada ou por outros organismos
promotores da cultura portuguesa (ex.: universidades, restaurantes ou feiras).
lx
Appendices
Breve relatório do estágio
Enquadramento geral
As mais remotas referências a relações diplomáticas entre Portugal e a República
Checa (na altura República da Checoslováquia) surgem na primeira metade da década
de 1920, mais precisamente, com uma proposta do Embaixador Checoslovaco em Paris
ao seu homólogo português a 15 de Outubro de 1920 e com o acordo comercial
assinado entre os dois países a 11 de Dezembro de 1922 em Lisboa. Na sequência da
ocupação territorial pela Alemanha nazi, em que o protetorado da Boémia e Morávia
coexistiu com o Estado fantoche da República Eslovaca, com a instabilidade europeia
naturalmente vivenciada durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial e as restrições de
cooperação internacional impostas pelo Estado Novo em Portugal, não se registaram,
neste período, avanços no que toca à aproximação entre os dois países, notando-se, pelo
contrário, algum distanciamento. Só a 27 de Junho de 1974 Portugal restabeleceu
relações diplomáticas com Praga. No contexto da sua adesão à União Europeia, em
2004, os governos da República Checa introduziram reformas, simplificaram
procedimentos e instituíram medidas que se refletiram numa maior abertura ao exterior
em termos políticos e económicos.
A Embaixada de Portugal em Praga situa-se em Praga 6, um dos distritos
administrativos da capital Checa, caracterizado pelos serviços e zonas residenciais.
Conforme o Decreto do Presidente da República n.º 23/2015, presente no Diário da
República, 1.ª série — N.º 45 — 5 de março de 2015, foi nomeada para o cargo de
Embaixador de Portugal em Praga Maria Manuela Ferreira Macedo Franco. No edifício
da Embaixada funciona também a Secção Consular da Embaixada de Portugal em
Praga, com jurisdição sobre a totalidade do território Checo, pela qual é responsável o
Chanceler José Luís Silva Riço. Os escritórios contam adicionalmente com dois
assistentes administrativos. Pontualmente, frequentam também as instalações estudantes
estagiários que procuram complementar os seus estudos com investigações apoiadas
pela Embaixada.
lxii
Desenvolvimento das tarefas propostas
Na persecução dos objetivos indicados na proposta de estágio, desenrolei
diversas atividades de investigação e caracterização, que tentei complementar com o
diálogo e discussão com instituições e/ou personalidades no terreno.
No que toca à concretização do primeiro ponto, relacionado com o dia-a-dia
económico do país, procurei manter-me atualizado diariamente, tendo acompanhado as
principais notícias do país, analisado previsões macroeconómicas publicadas pelo
Ministério das Finanças, pela Comissão Europeia ou por outras entidades de
consideração e participado em conferências ou brífingues cujos temas se revelavam
particularmente interessantes à luz da moldura europeia atual, como a questão da adesão
ao Euro, o orçamento do Estado ou as relações internacionais. Destas atividades
resultaram várias exposições escritas, que elaborei em forma de resumo da informação
recolhida e apresentando as principais conclusões a que cheguei.
O segundo ponto dos objetivos representa parte do foco do trabalho final de
mestrado (TFM), que desenvolvi partindo de uma listagem de empresas de capital
Português que operam na República Checa, entre as quais procurei encontrar lugares
comuns, causas que estas empresas partilhem e que tenham levado os seus decisores a
concretizarem os seus investimentos. Investiguei também o papel da CzechInvest e do
Czech Export Bank como agentes impulsionadores do comércio internacional e do
investimento. Foram levadas a cabo reuniões ou trocas de correspondência com
responsáveis da Mota-Engil, Simoldes, CzechInvest, AICEP ou com membros de
equipas de trabalho de outras embaixadas presentes em Praga. A um nível mais
informal troquei também impressões com outras entidades. Estes contactos ajudaramme a perceber o ambiente que se encontra o país em termos comerciais e de
investimento. Algumas das dinâmicas que desenvolvi e das conclusões a que cheguei
sobre estes tópicos foram incluídas no TFM.
Relativamente ao terceiro tópico descrito nos objetivos, a colaboração na
elaboração do Plano de ação estratégica da Embaixada para 2016 resultou na análise de
variada informação estatística relativa à evolução das relações entre os dois países
divulgada pelos dois bancos centrais ou pelos institutos nacionais de estatística (ex.
trocas comerciais, oportunidades para o futuro ou fluxos de IDE ou IPE), contando
também com o enquadramento histórico da República Checa. Em relação à promoção
da cultura portuguesa, destaco as apresentações que preparei e desenvolvi junto de
lxiii
instituições universitárias, a participação em eventos organizados pelo Instituto Camões
ou pela Embaixada e a colaboração ou integração em diversos grupos e atividades onde
tive a oportunidade de expor Portugal, a língua Portuguesa ou o modo de vida dos
Portugueses.
Conclusão
As tarefas perseguidas permitiram-me assimilar e consolidar conhecimentos
sobre a atmosfera económica não só na República Checa como na Europa em geral, já
que o trabalho que desenvolvi me levou a adaptar uma perspetiva abrangente sobre as
dinâmicas económicas e políticas que os vários países estabelecem entre si e, em
particular, sobre as circunstâncias em que operam os grupos económicos que investem
no exterior.
Parece-me muito positiva a integração deste tipo de oportunidades internacionais
nos programas de estudos universitários, da qual surgem vantagens tanto para os
estudantes como para as instituições de acolhimento. A realização deste estágio
permitiu também a minha integração em Praga ao longo dos meses previstos. Procurei
conhecer com algum detalhe as principais características sociais do país, ganhando
rotinas e descobrindo novos interesses, naturalmente a um nível que as vulgares visitas
turísticas não conseguem obter.
Referências bibliográficas para o enquadramento geral
Central
Intelligence
Agency.
2013.
The
World
Factbook
2013-14.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html,
primeira
visita a 20 de Setembro.
Decreto do Presidente da República n.º 23/2015 (2015.03.05). DIÁRIO DA
REPÚBLICA: I SÉRIE. N.º 45
Governo de Portugal. 2015. Embaixada de Portugal na República Checa.
http://www.embportugal.cz/pt/, primeira visita a 30 de Setembro.
Instituto Diplomático. 2015. República Checa http://idi.mne.pt/pt/inicio/31-relacoesdiplomaticas.html?start=78, primeira visita a 30 de Setembro.
lxiv
Written interview
December 19th 2015
Miguel Angelo, Simoldes' Controlling officer
1 - Com áreas de negócio que se estendem desde o trabalho com plásticos à produção
de componentes para automóveis passando pelas novas tecnologias, a Simoldes está
presente na Europa Central com investimentos na Polónia, na Roménia (no passado) e
mais recentemente na República Checa (RC). Estas economias, com crescimentos
previstos para os próximos três anos acima da média europeia, são normalmente
conhecidas pela mão-de-obra qualificada a baixo custo por um lado (apesar da
baixíssima taxa de desemprego na RC), e pela concorrência apertada e mercados price
oriented em vários sectores industriais por outro. Que fatores encontram nestes países
que poderão continuar a levar o grupo ao sucesso?
Resposta: O principal fator reside na aposta estratégica em novos tipos de produtos,
com maior valor acrescentado e tecnologia (caso: paineis de porta) e também na
integração na cadeia de valor do sequenciamento logístico. Esta evolução
técnica/tecnologica e de gestão, constituirá um “trampolim” de credibilidade para a
nossa empresa em todas as marcas automóveis de renome na europa. Sempre, aliado ao
princípio de “zero defeitos”, estes fatores são preponderantes no nosso sucesso. De fato,
não foi o custo da mão-de-obra que nos leva para este país, mas os clientes que aí estão,
bem como a oportunidade de “chegar primeiro” a um local em que o crescimento se
prevê exponencial.
2 - A informação que temos disponível indica que a atividade que o Grupo
desenvolve na Polónia e que será o foco da nova fábrica na RC é a produção de
componentes para automóveis que são fabricados nestes países. Existem projetos para
abraçar outros desafios dentro das especialidades do grupo?
Resposta: penso que esta questão já vem respondida acima. Apesar disso, sim, temos
um numero crescente de projetos, dentro e fora das especialidades atuais. A inovação no
produto, processos e materiais, poderá abrir ainda mais a nossa capacidade de
penetração do mercado dentro do sector automóvel.
3 - Durante o processo de implementação (ou desenvolvimento de novos projetos) na
Europa Central é/foi relevante o contacto com organismos institucionais ou de
lxv
promoção ao investimento como Embaixadas, a CzechInvest (RC) ou a PAIIZ
(Polónia)? Se sim, estão satisfeitos com o apoio obtido? Em que áreas houve um suporte
substancial (informação macroeconómica, acesso a incentivos, localização do escritório,
oportunidades de negócio nos V/ sectores)?
Resposta: O apoio da entidade local Czechinvest foi muito importante, no que
respeita ao suporte à nossa introdução no mercado. A disponibilização de contactos e
encontros físicos nas instalações cedidas pela Czechinvest foi muito importante, bem
como o seguimento da nossa escolha de localização. Podemos, no entanto, afirmar que
ficamos um pouco desapontados com o nível de suporte que deram. Ou seja, em
trabalho efectivo de suporte (consultoria avançada) não foram uma mais valia, nem
mesmo para ajudar a preencher formulários de candidatura. Ao invés, canalizaram-nos
logo de imediato para um leque de Consultoras acreditadas pela Czechinvest.
4 - A CzechInvest na RC e a PAIIZ na Polónia propõem-se a disponibilizar
programas de incentivos (alívios de impostos municipais e/ou s/ rendimentos, incentivos
à contratação, benefícios na aquisição de terrenos, subsídios ao investimento em Capex
ou em outros ativos) a empresas nacionais ou estrangeiras que invistam nestes países.
Por outro lado, estas agências, controladas pelos respetivos ministérios da Economia,
requisitam certas contrapartidas. Beneficiaram destes programas? Como descreve
(burocracia, eficiência, abertura, transparência) o acesso aos incentivos previstos?
Resposta: beneficiamos de benefício fiscal ao investimento, com o apoio da
Czehinvest. No entanto, como afirmamos acima, tivemos que contratar uma consultora,
para lidar diretamente com a Czechinvest neste sentido.
5 – Na V/ ótica que papel deve ser desenvolvido pelas representações portuguesas
nestes países (AICEP e Embaixadas)?
Resposta: Da nossa experiência relativamente à atuação das entidades locais de
incentivo ao investimento, há uma tendência (em todos os países) para mostrarem mais
as vantagens do que as desvantagens e riscos a ter em conta na implantação nesses
países. Normalmente o AICEP e embaixadas estão mais focadas em trazer a Portugal
investimento estrangeiro, do que em suportar a implantação de empresas portuguesas
noutros países. No nosso caso, contactamos a embaixada, mas o nível de interesse em
compreender o nosso negocio/investimento poderia ter sido superior.
O que pretendemos afirmar, no sentido da melhoria, é que a Embaixada portuguesa e
a AICEP, poderiam de forma mais isenta, suportar e aconselhar as empresas
lxvi
portuguesas quanto às oportunidades e aos riscos das implantações específicas noutros
países, já que são conhecedoras da realidade local, nomeadamente analisando os nossos
pressupostos e planos, juntamente com encontros e troca de experiências com
empresários portugueses que já tenham passado por essa experiência.
lxvii
Written interview
January 22nd 2016
Nuno Lima Leite, AICEP's Trade and Investment Commissioner to the Czech
Republic, Poland and Romania
1 – A rede de empresas Portuguesas a operar na Polónia é extensa e compreende
vários sectores industriais. De entre esses sectores encontram-se o financeiro e o de
engenharia e construção. A presença destes sectores no mercado funciona de alguma
forma como âncora no que diz respeito à implantação de mais investimentos no país
com a mesma origem, nomeadamente através do financiamento pela banca portuguesa a
novos projetos de capital português ou da concessão de projetos de engenharia a grupos
portugueses, com vista por exemplo à construção de novas fábricas?
Sem dúvida que na Polónia existem empresas portuguesas (IDPE) que têm
funcionado como âncora para a internacionalização de novas empresas no mercado.
Nesta conformidade, destaco o Grupo Jerónimo Martins (1º retalhista na Polónia),
EuroCash (1º Grossista na Polónia), EDPR (com o maior parque eólico na Europa
Central), Martifer Renewables, Mota Engil e o Millenikum Bank (5º maior banco em
termos de ativos).
Alguns exemplos concretos:
a) Empresas de IT e Consultoria portuguesas que entraram no mercado devido ao
Millennium Bank.
b) Empresas de consultoria, projeto e cofragens, que entraram no mercado devido à
MotaEngil.
c) Empresas de consultoria, engenharia e projeto que entraram no mercado devido
à Martifer R e EDPR
d) Empresas de agro-alimentar e bebidas que se estabeleceram no mercado devido
à relação comercial prévia com o GJM e EuroCash.
2 - As empresas que procuram implementação ou expansão na Polónia dispõem de
incentivos estatais (ex. subsídios, alívios fiscais, localização) fornecidos pela PAIIZ. Na
Rep. Checa constatei que muitas vezes as empresas investidoras (portuguesas ou não)
são encaminhadas para consultoras acreditadas para dirigir candidaturas a estes
incentivos (ou a outros como os provenientes da UE), adicionando ao processo mais
diligências e revelando contornos burocráticos que idealmente seriam evitáveis.
lxviii
O sistema de incentivos/benefícios fiscais na Polónia ao IDE é mais ambicioso que o
da República Checa. Para além dos incentivos no âmbito dos fundos estruturais da UE,
existem na Polónia as Zonas Económica Especiais que permitem aos investidores
beneficiar cumulativamente de incentivos, tanto europeus como nacionais, no IDE.
Relativamente à candidatura e toda a operacionalização para obtenção de fundos é
uma área de negócio que Portugal também está representado neste mercado como no
romeno através de empresas consultoras para o efeito. Tanto na Europa Central como
em Portugal, é normal que uma empresa/instituição que se candidate a um grande
projeto/fundo europeu, devido a toda a burocracia e requisitos técnicos, tenha que
recorrer a uma consultora. A AICEP e a Embaixada não se substituem às empresas, mas
sim apoiam os empresários na resolução dos seus problemas/ entraves detectados no
mercado.
Na Polónia os mecanismos são os mesmos? O facto de existirem mais empresas
portuguesas a operar e um delegado da AICEP residente permite a existência de uma
rede de cooperação que evite o recurso a terceiros ou que facilite o acesso aos
incentivos?
Na Polónia, como no resto de toda a Europa os mecanismos são exatamente os
mesmos. Quando referimos por exemplo candidatura a um projeto para a construção de
uma fábrica ( greenfiled ou browenfield), normalmente é aconselhável que a empresa
recorra aos serviços de uma empresa técnica para o efeito, caso contrário torna-se muito
difícil superar toda a burocracia processual. Em termos de projetos mais simples e de
dimensão reduzida é possível a AICEP dar algum apoio e acompanhamento, apesar de o
ónus estar sempre do lado da empresa interessada.
3 - Qual o papel ideal da AICEP no quadro de mediação e de solidificação de uma
rede empresarial considerável como é a que resulta de investimentos portugueses na
Polónia (ex. lobbying junto de entidades públicas, impulso nos contactos entre
empresários, …) e que tipo de relação mantem a AICEP com a Camara de Comércio
Polónia-Portugal?
O Escritório da AICEP deverá funcionar como um elemento que congrega todos os
empresários portugueses no mercado, bem como ser o parceiro natural para acompanhar
as empresas a dar os “primeiros passos” no mercado, independentemente do sector de
atividade e dimensão da empresa. Estas competências derivam de estarmos instalados
lxix
no mercado e conhecermos as suas características e modos de atuação, logo, nas várias
fases de atuação das empresas no mercado existir normalmente uma relação próxima
com a AICEP local.
Em termos de plataforma de lobby para o IDPE, colaboramos e apoiamos
oficialmente a Câmara de Comércio Bilateral nas suas iniciativas de promoção dos
interesses privados dos seus associados.
lxx
Dialogue guidelines
January 25th 2016
Spanish office for economic & commercial affairs in the Czech Republic:
Ana Lucia Gadella, Economic & commercial chief advisor
Sara Monreal, Commercial advisor
Fernando Gómez, International commercial advisor
1/1 – En un informe publicado recientemente con el apoyo de la Embajada de
España, 6 empresas están listadas en el sector inmobiliario y financiero operando en la
RC. Estos grupos tienen relevancia para financiar proyectos de inversión española aquí?
Negative answer.
1/2 - También el sector de la construcción es relevante porque las empresas pueden
construir fábricas, por ejemplo, para otros que pueden provenir del mismo país. En la
totalidad de los grupos económicos españoles hay estas dinámicas?
Evidence for this particular kind of cooperation is limited. Although it may happen
sometime, this can’t be seen as a rule.
2/1 - Durante el proceso de implementación empresarial en la República Checa es
pertinente el contacto con órganos institucionales o de promoción como el CzechInvest?
Si así es, están satisfechos con el apoyo prestado?
Positive answer. Although the office doesn’t get in touch with CzechInvest as
frequently as firms do, it formally supports Spanish companies that seek incentives and
support.
2/2 - En qué áreas hay ayuda sustancial)?
Typically, macroeconomic data, incentive appliance and getting in touch with
eventual suppliers and customers constitute the most requested information.
3 – Podéis comentar el papel de la oficina en comparación con otros proveedores de
servicios (CzechInvest o otros consultores) en la implantación de las empresas en el
mercado checo?
Consultancy and information sharing may be provided by many organizations. The
difference is that OECA is prepared to offer Spanish companies free information and
lxxi
consultancy. The officers are aware that many companies resource to professional
services consultants. Part of the information sought could eventually be given freely by
OECA.
4 - El CzechInvest propone hacer programas de incentivos disponibles (alivio de los
impuestos, beneficios en la adquisición de tierras, subsidios a la inversión) a las
empresas que invierten en la República Checa, solicitando determinadas contrapartes.
Es habitual que los grupos españoles beneficien de estos programas? ¿Cómo
describirías (burocracia, la eficiencia, la apertura, la transparencia) el acceso a los
incentivos?
It is frequent for firms to get these type of incentives. However, the office is not
aware of the details, which are negotiated directly between the companies and the
agency.
5 – Creéis que la Cámara de Comercio Hispano-Checa (CCHC) tiene también un
papel importante para el surgimiento y la evolución de proyectos de inversión extranjera
directa?
Positive answer. The chamber has the support of the Spanish Embassy, but its scope
is limited to the companies that subscribe its services and it operates as any other
private organization.
lxxii
Dialogue guidelines
January 26th 2016
Borivoj Libal, PWC Legal / Prague managing partner
1 – A Câmara de Comércio Checo-Portuguesa funcionará como uma associação de
empresas de carácter particular? Qual o papel da Embaixada a este nível?
Initially, our role will be identical to the one the embassy has: Bring companies
together and establishing a contact point.
2 – Que atividades seria desejável que a Câmara de Comércio oferecesse aos seus
sócios (procura de parceiros, promoção de produtos, recursos humanos, serviços de
tradução)?
In the long-term, all those services would be desirable. However, we find ourselves
at a very initial phase. Our main goal by now is to spread the idea among the
companies and develop contacts between investors.
3 - As empresas recorrem a consultoras especializadas ao candidatarem-se a apoios
comunitários e a subsídios da CzechInvest. Até que ponto pode a existência da Câmara
abreviar este processo?
Our role in this concern will be to ease diligences, turning every process more
straightforward and defining very clearly which organization or service provider
should be contacted, considering our associates goals.
4 – A Câmara de Comércio Polónia – Portugal tem cerca de 200 membros. Qual
seria uma boa meta para o projeto aqui na República Checa?
An accurate and ambitious target would be 50 members (max.).
5 – Que tipo de relação poderá existir entre a Câmara de Comércio e outras
instituições (Governo, CzechInvest, AICEP, outras câmaras) que possa ser benéfica
para os objetivos das empresas sócias serem atingidos?
We are ready to cooperate with the embassy and to create synergies with any public
body that turns out to be relevant in the development of our activities.
lxxiii

Public and private tools to encourage FDI

Transcrição

Documentos relacionados

Carolina Ladeira, Keep Focus, 2015, Aluminum, wood, cotton

É tempo de analisar e fazer uma completa reflexão sobre a vida

Page 1 Year 4 – Tarefa de Português (TUCANOS) Due to next

English: “My advice: If you have to leave a city that you love, leave it

Mas Que Nada Notes (01-02-15) 1. MIDIs for Individual parts are

SET LIST | INTERNATIONAL Hotel California

Passei do ponto lua virei em mil noites ,contei eu, na procura, em

Pedro Campos Costa, Paula Sousa, Louis Mariette, Benoit

Clique aqui | Click here

Extrasolar planets

Guide for consumers visiting the Czech Republic

Untitled - Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik