Eastward, Ho - Global Recession and Foreign Direct Investment in Central and East Europe

READ THIS: Scroll down to review a complete list of the articles - Click on the blue-coloured text!
Bookmark this Page - and SHARE IT with Others!

In reality, the picture was mixed. Forecasts prepared in November 2002 by the United Nations Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) showed marked declines in FDI in Moldova, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Macedonia and Ukraine. Flows rose in Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia, and remained unchanged in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Romania and Russia, said UNCTAD.

Some countries fared better than others. Slovakia sold, in March 2002, 49 percent of its gas transport company for $2.7 billion. Slovenia booked yet another record year in 2002 due to the long-deferred privatization of its banking sector and to the sale to foreign investors of assets originally privatized to cronies, insiders and communist-era managers. The Slovenian Business Weekly correctly expected the country to draw in more than $600 million in 2002 - up 50 percent on 2001.

In the western Balkans, only Croatia stood out as an inviting and modernization-bent prospect. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) reawakened, too. It has privatized cement companies and rationalized the banking sector with a view to becoming a preferred FDI destination. In the first 6 months of 2002, it garnered $100 million in realized deals and another $60 million in commitments.

Ironically, during the brief global recession, Romania and Bulgaria (both of which joined the European Union - EU - in 2007) were laggards, though intermittent privatization in both countries was counterbalanced by cheap and skilled workforces in their growing and labor-intensive economies. Macedonia spent those years futilely reviewing, with a view to annulling, at least 30 suspect privatization deals. This did not endear its kleptocracy to anyhow reluctant multinationals.

Per capita, FDI stock is highest in the Czech Republic ($3000), Estonia ($2600) and Hungary ($2400). These are followed by Slovenia ($2000), Slovakia ($1800), Croatia ($1700) and Poland ($1200). All, with the curious exception of Croatia, have joined the EU in 2004.

The total realized FDI in 2000-2002 in central Europe amounted to more than $50 billion, with Poland and the much smaller Czech Republic attracting the most ($14 billion each), followed by the Slovak Republic ($7 billion) and Hungary ($5 billion). The regional FDI stock comes to a respectable $100 billion.

Southeastern Europe (the politically correct name for the Balkans), excluding Greece and Turkey, attracted rather less - c. $12 billion in realized FDI in 2000-2. Croatia topped the list with $3.8 billion, followed by Romania ($3.3 billion), Bulgaria ($2.3 billion), Macedonia ($1.1 billion), Yugoslavia ($0.7 billion) and Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina ($0.5 billion each).

Yet, the Balkans, impoverished and war-scarred as it is, accumulated a surprising $22 billion in FDI stock. According to the 2003 Investment Guide for Southeast Europe, published by the Bulgarian Industrial Forum, the share of FDI per GDP is much higher in the Balkans than it is, for example, in Russia. In 2001, the ratio was c. 5 percent in Bulgaria, 7.5 percent in Croatia and about 12 percent in Macedonia.

The former USSR as a whole enjoyed $57 billion in FDI between 1991-2002. The bulk of it went to Russia ($23 billion) and the Baltic states ($8 billion). In 1999-2002, Ukraine absorbed $1.9 billion in FDI flows - one half the receipts of the puny Baltic trio: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Belarus and Moldova scarcely registered, each of them with barely above three fifths the FDI in Albania, or ravaged and precariously balanced Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The weight of FDI in the local economies cannot be overstated. Two fifths of the exports of countries as disparate as the Czech Republic and Romania are produced by foreign affiliates. In some countries - like Romania - 40 percent of all sales are generated by foreign-owned subsidiaries. The banking sectors of many - including Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic and Macedonia - are mostly owned by outside financial institutions.

Foreigners bring access to global markets, knowledge and management skills and techniques. They often transfer technology and train a cadre of local executives to take over once the expats are gone. And, of course, they provide capital - their own, or gleaned from foreign banks and investors, both private and through the capital markets in the west.

Initially, foreign investors provoked paranoid xenophobia almost everywhere in these formerly hermetically sealed polities. Deficient legal and regulatory frameworks, rapacious insiders, venal politicians, militant workers, opaque and politically compromised institutions, disadvantageous tax regimes and a hostile press obstructed their work during the first half of the 1990s.

Yet, gradually, the denizens of these countries came to realize the advantages of FDI. Workers noticed the higher wages paid by foreign-owned plants and offices. The emergent class of shareholders, invariably members of the powerful nomenclature, having sucked their firms dry, sought to pass the carcasses to willing overseas investors. Currently - with a few notable exceptions, such as Belarus - multinationals and money managers are actively courted by eager governments and keen indigenous firms.

FDI is a good proxy for a country's integration with the global economy. It is an important component in A.T. Kearney and Foreign Policy Magazine's Globalization Index. The Czech Republic made it in 2002 to the 15th place (of 62 countries), higher than New Zealand, Germany, Malaysia, Israel and Spain, for instance.

Croatia in 22nd rung and Hungary in the 23rd slot compare to Australia (21) and outflanked the likes of Italy (24), Greece (26) and Korea (28). Slovenia was not far behind (25), followed by Slovakia (27), Poland (32) and Romania (40). Even hidebound Ukraine made it to the 42nd place, ahead of Sri Lanka (44), Thailand (47), Argentina (48) and Mexico (49). Russia lagged the rest at the 45th location.

A.T. Kearney's Global Business Policy Council - a select group of corporate leaders from the world's largest 1000 corporations - publishes the FDI Confidence Index. It tracks FDI intentions and preferences. Its September 2002 edition ranked 60 countries which, together, account for nine tenths of global FDI flows. The companies interviewed were responsible for $18 trillion in sales and seven out of every ten FDI dollars.

Revealingly, central and east European countries made it to the first 25 places. Poland, right after Australia, preceded Japan, Brazil, India and Hong-Kong, for instance. The Czech Republic, Hungary and Russia - closely grouped together - were found more alluring than Hong-Kong, the Netherlands, Thailand, South Korea, Singapore, Belgium, Taiwan and Austria. Russia - whose economy improved dramatically since 1998 - leaped from beyond the pale (i.e., below the top 25) to 17th place. Hungary moved from 21 to 16.

"Russia ... could well be a target for almost as many first-time investments as the United States ... China, Russia, Mexico and Poland combined ... are expected to accumulate about one quarter of all proposed new investment commitments."

"Europe has become the most attractive destination for first time investments. More than one third of global executives are expected to commit investments for the first time in Europe over the next three years 2003-6 (especially in) Russia, Poland and the Czech Republic."

A relatively new phenomenon is cross-border investments by one country in transition in another's economy and enterprises. At four percent of Slovene FDI stock, the Czech Republic has invested in Slovenia as much as the United States, or the United Kingdom. Slovenes and Bulgarians have ploughed capital into the banking, industrial and food processing sectors in Macedonia. Hungarians in Serbia, Czechs in Romania, Croats in Slovenia - are common sights.

Traditional FDI destinations feel threatened by the surging reputation of central and, to a lesser extent, east Europe. In a series of articles he published on radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty prior to the EU's enlargement eastwards, Breffni O'Rourke summed up Irish anxieties expressed by his interviewees thus:

"There's a certain unease developing in Ireland as the 10 Central and Eastern European candidate countries move toward full membership in the European Union. The Irish are not unaware that the Czechs are heirs to a fine tradition of precision manufacturing; that the Poles are considered quick-thinking and innovative; that Bulgarians have a way with computers; that the Baltic nations have powerful Scandinavian supporters; and that Romania has extraordinarily low costs to offer investors. In fact, rising costs - in comparison to the Eastern candidate nations - are one of Ireland's main worries. The question troubling the Irish is: Could incoming Eastern member states prove so attractive for foreign investment that the country would find itself eclipsed?"

According to UNCTAD, global FDI flows amounted to a record 1.5 trillion USD in 2007. Southeast Europe and the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) enjoyed robust, record-setting inflows, the seventh year in a row (up 41% on 2006 to a new record of 98 billion USD), emanating mainly from transnational corporations. Capital went to both extraction industries and privatization deals.

But 2007 appears to have been the swan song of FDI. Cross-border M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions) activity - the locomotive of FDI - virtually collapsed in the last quarter of 2007. Increasing risk aversion throughout the global financial system may result in the drying up of credit. Inflation - or, rather, stagflation - is again rearing its ugly head. Wildly fluctuating exchange rate won't help, either.

Ever since its reluctant declaration of independence in 1991, Macedonia occupied the bottom of the list of countries in transition from Communism, as far as absolute dollar figures of FDI go. At 80.6 million USD, FDI in 2003 barely budged from previous years. In 2004, FDI reached 139.5 million USD, only to shrink to 116.2 million USD in 2005. Discounting the sale of ESM, the electricity utility, FDI remained static in 2006 (total FDI was 350.7 million USD or 124.7 million USD, without ESM).

Yet, this is a misleading picture. Macedonia was and is no worse off than other countries in Eastern Europe.

According to UNCTAD's World Investment Report 2007, FDI in Macedonia, as a percentage of gross fixed capital formation, shot up from 9.7% in the decade of the 1990s to 32.4% in 2006 (compared to 36.4%, the southeast European average; 20.8% the average of all countries in transition; and 12.6% the global average figure).

Macedonia's FDI stock reached 2.437 billion USD, or 39% of GDP (compared to 42.2% as the southeast European average; 25.3% the average of all countries in transition; and 24.8% the global average figure).

Macedonia's Inward FDI Performance Index, based on 12 economic and policy variables, climbed from the 86th to the 64th place out of 141 economies surveyed. Its Inward FDI Potential Index also improved from 115 to 106.

Throughout this period, foreign enterprises, profitable overall, consistently hired new employees and wages in the sector stabilized at c. twice the average salaries in local businesses.

Thus, as far as FDI goes, Macedonia's performance, though far from stellar, was and is above the regional and global averages. The World Bank put it succinctly, as it summarized the period PRIOR to the assumption of power by the new government:

"Macedonia's rankings either improved or stayed steady for all available scored rankings, and it tracked closely with the regional averages for all rankings. According to the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report for 2006-07, the three most problematic factors for doing business are inefficient government bureaucracy, access to financing, and corruption. Macedonia was one of the top 10 Doing Business reformers, jumping up 21 places. The most significant improvements were in the following indicators: Starting a Business (where the paid-in minimum capital requirements were dropped from 111% to 0% of GNI per capita), Dealing with Licenses, and Trading Across Borders."

Other indicators lead to the same conclusion: while Macedonia's image and perception as a business destination and the business climate have improved considerably under Gruevski's government, in reality, not much else has changed.

Consider the following numbers, pertaining to Macedonia:

Control of Corruption Indicator, published by the World Bank: 113 (2006) vs. 111 (2007)

Country Credit Rating, published by Institutional investor: 85 (2006) vs. 84 (2007)

Index of Economic Freedom, published by The Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal: 75 (2006) vs. 71 (2007)

Quality of National Business Environment Ranking, issued by the World Economic Forum in its Global Competitiveness Report: 87 out of 121 countries.

Only the World Bank's Doing Business Ranking jumped from 96 (2006) to 75 (2007). Yet, even this indicator hides some unpalatable truths: Macedonia has deteriorated in certain respects. It is more difficult and cumbersome to hire workers, to register property, to obtain credit, to protect investor rights, and to enforce contracts. In any case, this indicator has more to do with public relations, expectations, and psychology, rather than with the hard facts on the ground.

And the hard facts are:

Macedonia is not ready to absorb and accommodate foreign investors and their capital. It still has a long way to go. This government has put the cart before the horses;

The youthful, populist, and inexperienced administration is overwhelmed and ill-equipped to deal with its obligations towards and promises to foreign investors. Decision-making bottlenecks (especially in the office of Vice-Premier Zoran Stavreski) conspire with red tape and blatant favoritism to render nightmarish both greenfield and brownfield ventures.

In a long-running arbitration, the country was slapped with multimillion dollar damages payable to the Greek investors in Okta. This did not deter the government from conflicting vocally and publicly with Macedonia's other large investor, the Austrian EVN, owner of the electricity utility;

To its credit, the government has reformed the tax system, introduced a flat tax, and reduced the tax rates, all laudable. But it is still illegal for foreigners to own land and real estate (as individuals) and all but impossible to trade in the local stock exchange. The government has only now resorted to tackling these archaic limitations;

The country is dysfunctional. No institution works properly: the cadastre, the courts, law enforcement agencies, the civil service are all in chaotic disarray. Even the banking system, despite a decade of FDI, is rudimentary. Infrastructure of all sorts is dismal, though improving. The government's anti-corruption drive is much lauded but highly politicized and one-sided, aimed as it is exclusively at the hapless politicians of the opposition. Macedonia's laws are not geared to welcome and assimilate foreign investment, foreigner businessmen, and foreign workers;

Macedonia lacks skilled manpower. The education deficit is pervasive. More than half the adult population has eight years of schooling or less. A multi-generational brain drain saps the country's vitality and prospects in the global information economy of the 21st century. Contrary to the government's claims in its "Invest in Macedonia" campaign, costs and taxes associated with wages are among the highest in the world.

The country suffers from other problems: a huge informal economy, skyrocketing consumer and enterprise indebtedness, ominous asset bubbles in both the stock exchange and the real estate market, a crippled middle class and crippling poverty and unemployment rates, an unmanageable and increasing trade deficit (c. 20% of GDP), and a whopping current account deficit offset only by remittances from Macedonian workers abroad. The global credit crunch constitutes a major threat to polities with such precarious finances.

Geopolitical instability (in Kosovo) is exacerbated by the current Macedonian regime's jingoism, its overt and manipulative religiosity, and greenhorn fickleness. Within the last year, Macedonia has considerably retarded its chances to enter NATO and the European Union (EU), having clashed unnecessarily and spectacularly with Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, and the Albanian minority at home.

Despite a slew of expensive PR and advertising campaigns; the appointments of two ministers and the formation of a special agency to deal with FDI; incessant trips abroad by every functionary, from the prime minister down; and innovative marketing initiatives - FDI figures for 2007, at c. 180 million USD (c. 3% of GDP), are a major disappointment. Moreover, a sizable part of Macedonia's FDI is in construction, retail, financial services, and trade, economic sectors with minimal contribution to future growth.

In comparison, FDI doubled in decrepit, post-bellum Serbia, to 4.5 billion USD in 2006. Croatia garnered 3.6 billion USD (2.7 billion euro) - twice the 2005 figure. Even strife-torn Bosnia-Herzegovina, under a EU peacekeeping mission, attracted 2.9 billion USD (2 billion euros). Bulgaria absorbed 6.5 billion USD. FDI amounted to 10% of Balkan GDP in 2006.

The conclusion is inescapable: Macedonia has failed in its bid to attract FDI. This is not the first time that Macedonian politicians and their downtrodden and destitute people prefer the fantasy of foreign saviors to the hard slog of painful and much-needed reforms at home. The current prime minister, Gruevski, served in the government of Ljubco Georgievski, whose nostrum and panacea to Macedonia's economic woes was dollops of money, supposed to be funneled via illusive Taiwanese investors. The person most identified with this policy, Vasil Tupurkovski, now faces criminal charges.

Gruevski can learn many lessons from the debacles wrought by his predecessors. It is not too late to get his priorities straight: reforms, education, domestic investment, and employment first, and only then an open invitation to foreigners to come and invest in Macedonia.

Title of Book: The Way Out: Foreign Direct Investment, Economic Development, and Employment
Author: Nikola Gruevski
Publisher: Evropa 92 Kochani
Month, Year of publication: October 2007

# of pages: 210

Nikola Gruevski, the youthful and dynamic Prime Minister of Macedonia, has just published his Master's Thesis in the form of a book, titled "The Way Out". In an earlier book, co-authored with the author of this review and titled "Macedonia at a Crossroads" (1998), Gruevski expounded on the same themes and suggested very much the same remedies. Though, surprisingly, his earlier book is not mentioned anywhere in his new tome, it is instructive to study it and to discover that Gruevski had the same vision for Macedonia in 1998 as he does in 2007. And this is precisely the source of my disagreement with some of his work: in the intervening 10 years, the world has changed and economic research has advanced.

Macedonia is not known as a bastion of economic studies. Most of its professors were educated and trained under Tito's socialist regime and find the transition to capitalism baffling. Many of them don't even know English. It is, therefore, to Gruevski's great credit that he succeeded to produce a comprehensive, erudite, and thought-provoking review of issues tackled in his thesis. As an introduction to the topic of foreign direct investment and its role in emerging, developing, and transition economies, Gruevski's book is more than adequate. It measures up to many textbooks on the topic that it so aptly covers.

Alas, the two pillars of his proposed way out for Macedonia's economy are somewhat shaky. Macedonia cannot be compared to Ireland, Singapore, or even Romania and Poland. These countries have advantages that Macedonia can only dream of: proximity to mega-markets, knowledge of foreign languages, or a huge domestic population. Their experience is inapplicable to Macedonia: a landlocked, tiny polity with a xenophobic and poorly-educated population.

More importantly: the role of foreign direct investment (FDI) in promoting growth and sustainable development has never been substantiated. There isn't even an agreed definition of the beast. In most developing countries, other capital flows - such as remittances - are larger and more predictable than FDI and ODA (Official Development Assistance).

Several studies indicate that domestic investment projects have more beneficial trickle-down effects on local economies. Be that as it may, close to two-thirds of FDI is among rich countries and in the form of mergers and acquisitions (M&A). All said and done, FDI constitutes a mere 2% of global GDP.

FDI does not automatically translate to net foreign exchange inflows. To start with, many multinational and transnational "investors" borrow money locally at favorable interest rates and thus finance their projects. This constitutes unfair competition with local firms and crowds the domestic private sector out of the credit markets, displacing its investments in the process.

Many transnational corporations are net consumers of savings, draining the local pool and leaving other entrepreneurs high and dry. Foreign banks tend to collude in this reallocation of financial wherewithal by exclusively catering to the needs of the less risky segments of the business scene (read: foreign investors).

Additionally, the more profitable the project, the smaller the net inflow of foreign funds. In some developing countries, profits repatriated by multinationals exceed total FDI. This untoward outcome is exacerbated by principal and interest repayments where investments are financed with debt and by the outflow of royalties, dividends, and fees. This is not to mention the sucking sound produced by quasi-legal and outright illegal practices such as transfer pricing and other mutations of creative accounting.

Moreover, most developing countries are no longer in need of foreign exchange. "Third and fourth world" countries control three quarters of the global pool of foreign exchange reserves. The "poor" (the South) now lend to the rich (the North) and are in the enviable position of net creditors. The West drains the bulk of the savings of the South and East, mostly in order to finance the insatiable consumption of its denizens and to prop up a variety of indigenous asset bubbles.

Still, as any first year student of orthodox economics would tell you, FDI is not about foreign exchange. FDI encourages the transfer of management skills, intellectual property, and technology. It creates jobs and improves the quality of goods and services produced in the economy. Above all, it gives a boost to the export sector.

All more or less true. Yet, the proponents of FDI get their causes and effects in a tangle. FDI does not foster growth and stability. It follows both. Foreign investors are attracted to success stories, they are drawn to countries already growing, politically stable, and with a sizable purchasing power.

Foreign investors of all stripes jump ship with the first sign of contagion, unrest, and declining fortunes. In this respect, FDI and portfolio investment are equally unreliable. Studies have demonstrated how multinationals hurry to repatriate earnings and repay inter-firm loans with the early harbingers of trouble. FDI is, therefore, partly pro-cyclical.

Far from it. Foreign-owned projects are capital-intensive and labor-efficient. They invest in machinery and intellectual property, not in wages. Skilled workers get paid well above the local norm, all others languish. Most multinationals employ subcontractors and these, to do their job, frequently haul entire workforces across continents. The natives rarely benefit and when they do find employment it is short-term and badly paid. M&A, which, as you may recall, constitute 60-70% of all FDI are notorious for inexorably generating job losses.

FDI buttresses the government's budgetary bottom line but developing countries invariably being governed by kleptocracies, most of the money tends to vanish in deep pockets, greased palms, and Swiss or Cypriot bank accounts. Such "contributions" to the hitherto impoverished economy tend to inflate asset bubbles (mainly in real estate) and prolong unsustainable and pernicious consumption booms followed by painful busts.

Austria’s Foreign Direct Investment in Central and Eastern Europe:‘Supply-Based’or ‘Market Driven’? - W Altzinger - thInternational Atlantic Economic Conference, Vienna, 1999

Blessing Or Curse?: Domestic Plants' Survival and Employment Prospects After Foreign Acquisition - S Girma, H Görg - 2001 - opus.zbw-kiel.de

Competition for Foreign Direct Investment: a study of competition among governments to attract FDI - CP Oman - 2000 - books.google.com

(The) Contribution of FDI to Poverty Alleviation - C Aaron - Report from the Foreign Investment Advisory Service - 1999 - ifc.org

Corruption and Foreign Direct Investment - M Habib, L Zurawicki - Journal of International Business Studies, 2002

Determinants Of, and the Relation Between, Foreign Direct Investment and Growth - EG Lim, International Monetary Fund - 2001 - papers.ssrn.com

Direct Investment in Economies in Transition - K Meyer - Cheltenham and Northampton (1998), 1998

(The) disappearing tax base: is foreign direct investment (FDI) eroding corporate income taxes? - R Gropp, K Kostial - papers.ssrn.com

Does Foreign Direct Investment Accelerate Economic Growth? - M Carkovic, R Levine - University of Minnesota, Working Paper, 2002

Does Foreign Direct Investment Crowd Out Domestic Entrepreneurship? - K De Backer, L Sleuwaegen - Review of Industrial Organization, 2003

Does Foreign Direct Investment Increase the Productivity of Domestic Firms? - BS Javorcik - American Economic Review, 2004

Does foreign direct investment promote economic growth? Evidence from East Asia and Latin America - K Zhang - Contemporary Economic Policy, 2001

The Economics of Foreign Direct Investment Incentives - M Blomstrom, A Kokko - 2003 - NBER

The effects of foreign direct investment on domestic firms Evidence from firm-level panel data - J Konings - The Economics of Transition, 2001

Effects of foreign direct investment on the performance of local labour markets–The case of Hungary - K Fazekas - RSA International Conference, Pisa, 2003

(The) Effects of Real Wages and Labor Productivity on Foreign Direct Investment - DO Cushman - Southern Economic Journal, 1987

Employment and Foreign Investment: Policy Options for Developing Countries - S Lall - International Labour Review, 1995

Export Performance and the Role of Foreign Direct Investment - N Pain, K Wakelin - The Manchester School, 1998

Exports, Foreign Direct Investment and Employment: The Case of China - X Fu, VN Balasubramanyam - The World Economy, 2005

Facts and Fallacies about Foreign Direct Investment - RC Feenstra - 1998 - econ.ucdavis.edu

FDI and the labour market: a review of the evidence and policy implications - N Driffield, K Taylor - Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2000

Foreign Direct Investment and Capital Flight - C Kant - 1996 - princeton.edu

Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Development - T Ozawa - Transnational Corporations, 1992 - unctad.org

Foreign Direct Investment and Employment: Home Country Experience in the United States and Sweden - M Blomstrom, G Fors, RE Lipsey - The Economic Journal, 1997

Foreign Direct Investment and Income Inequality: Further Evidence - C our FAQ, R Zone - World Development, 1995

Foreign Direct Investment and Poverty Reduction - M Klein, C Aaron, B Hadjimichael, World Bank - 2001 - oecd.org

Foreign Direct Investment as a Catalyst for Industrial Development - JR Markusen, A Venables - 1997 - NBER

Foreign Direct Investment as an Engine of Growth - VN Balasubramanyam, M Salisu, D Sapsford - Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 1999

Foreign Direct Investment, Employment Volatility and Cyclical Dumping - J Aizenman - 1994 - NBER

Foreign Direct Investment in Central and Eastern Europe: Employment Effects in the EU - H Braconier, K Ekholm - 2001 - snee.org

Foreign Direct Investment in Central Europe since 1990: An Econometric Study - M Lansbury, N Pain, K Smidkova - National Institute Economic Review, 1996

Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries: A Selective Survey - Luiz R. de Mello Jr. - NBER

Foreign Investment, Labor Immobility and the Quality of Employment - D Campbell - International Labour Review, 1994

Foreign direct investment-led growth: evidence from time series and panel data - L de Mello - Oxford Economic Papers, 1999

Home and Host Country Effects of FDI - RE Lipsey - 2002 - NBER

How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth? - E Borensztein, J De Gregorio, JW Lee - Journal of International Economics, 1998

The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment Inflows on Regional Labour Markets in Hungary - K Fazekas - SOCO Project Paper 77c, 2000

(The) Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Wages and Employment - L Zhao - Oxford Economic Papers, 1998

(The) link between tax rates and foreign direct investment - SP Cassou - Applied Economics, 1997

Location Choice and Employment Decisions: A Comparison of German and Swedish Multinationals - SO Becker, K Ekholm, R Jäckle, MA Muendler - Review of World Economics, 2005

Much Ado about Nothing? Do Domestic Firms Really Benefit from Foreign Direct Investment? - H Gorg - The World Bank Research Observer, 2004

Should Countries Promote Foreign Direct Investment? - GH Hanson - 2001 - r0.unctad.org

Taxation and Foreign Direct Investment: A Synthesis of Empirical Research - RA de Mooij, S Ederveen - International Tax and Public Finance, 2003

Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and International Technology Transfer: A Survey - K Saggi - The World Bank Research Observer, 2002

Troubled Banks, Impaired Foreign Direct Investment: The Role of Relative Access to Credit - MW Klein, J Peek, ES Rosengren - The American Economic Review, 2002

Vertical foreign direct investment, welfare, and employment - W Elberfeld, G Gotz, F Stahler - Topics in Economic Analysis and Policy, 2005

Volatility, employment and the patterns of FDI in emerging markets - J Aizenman - 2002 - NBER

Who Benefits from Foreign Direct Investment in the UK? - S Girma, D Greenaway, K Wakelin - Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 2001

Why Investment Matters: The Political Economy of International Investments - Singh, Kavaljit - FERN (UK and Belgium)

This material is copyrighted. Free, unrestricted use is allowed on a non commercial basis.
The author's name and a link to this Website must be incorporated in any reproduction of the material for any use and by any means.