manufacturing sector only. Due to the superior technology of foreign owned enterprises and their
inclination into international production and distribution networks such a result could have been
expected.
Concerning studies on intra-firm trade of MNEs with FDI activities in the CEECs the empirical evidence
is rather tiny. However, LEMOINE (1997, 7) has shown that in Hungary and Poland the overall
contribution of foreign firms affiliates to foreign trade balance is negative. On an aggregated level
AGARWAL (1996, Table 1) shows furthermore that the balance of intra-firm trade is in favour of home
economies in the U.S. as well as Japan. For both countries increased outward FDI is accompanied by
higher reimports. But reimports are outstripped by exports to foreign affiliates. This is in particular the
case in the earlier stages of development of the affiliates. Particularly during such a ‘building-up’ period
the affiliates are heavily dependent on the supply of components from parent companies. Further,
Agarwal quotes a study of BERGSTEN, et al. (1978) which indicates that the complementarity between
FDI and exports of a parent firm lessens with the level of FDI development. Their argument is that during
an initial stage FDI is concentrated on marketing and assembling of parent’s products. As soon as the
affiliates start their own production, their imports from the parent firm decline. Hence the initial intra-
firm trade surplus of the parent firm declines. Hence, the stage of FDI seems to be of considerable
importance.
A number of empirical studies for Austria present the motives of FDI in the CEECs (ALTZINGER,
1997b; NEUDORFER, 1997; NEUDORFER and BACH, 1995; STANKOVSKY, 1995). Most of them
present the results from a survey that is based on the self-assessment of the investors. These studies
testify that the predominant motive of Austria’s FDI in the CEECs is „market access/to secure sales“.
However, it is noteworthy to mention that the relative share of investors with this motive in the total
sample as well as in the subsample of the CEECs and the EU is practically identical. The dominance of
'market potential' is also the general result of a survey carried out by the AUSTRIAN NATIONAL
BANK (1997). In its most recent publication the predominance of market access motivation is recorded
quite clearly. Weighted by capital for 82.2% of all investing enterprises market access is the main
motivation for their activities in Hungary, for 78.6% in the Czech Republic and for 80.0% in Slovenia.
The percentages of enterprises which listed (low) labour costs as the main motive for their investment are
6.4% for Hungary, 3.6% for the Czech Republic and 18.4% for Slovenia.
Concerning the trade patterns of Austria’s affiliates in the CEECs there is only limited empirical
evidence. The overall trade data show a staggering growth of Austria’s trade surplus with the CEECs
(ALTZINGER, 1997; NEUDORFER, 1997). The intra-firm trade data display that Austria’s parent firms
have achieved a surplus of ATS 0.4 bn in 1990 which has grown constantly to ATS 3.2 bn in 1994. This
surplus decreased to ATS 2.5 bn in 1995. However, it was the first time that this intra-firm trade surplus
had shrunk.
To summarise the empirical evidence above we can conclude that there are numerous studies which
investigate either investment motives or their respective trade patterns. Nevertheless, we cannot find any
study which deals with both of these issues simultaneously. Moreover, although it is stated several times
that FDI patterns are rather diverse we can rarely find an analysis at a sectoral level. The subsequent
sections try to provide such an analysis along the lines proposed by AGARWAL (1996).