Foreign Direct Investment Relations between Myanmar and ASEAN

Myanmar highly appreciates foreign direct investment (FDI) as a key solution reducing the development gap with leading ASEAN countries. Accordingly, it is welcomed by the government. Myanmar's Foreign Investment Law was enacted in 1988 soon after the adoption of a market-oriented economic system to boost the flow of FDI into the country. Foreign investors positively responded to these measures in the early years and FDI inflow into Myanmar gradually increased during the period from 1989 to 1996. However, after 1997, FDI inflow was dramatically reduced and markedly declined until 2004. In 2005, FDI inflow increased at an unprecedented rate and reached the highest level in the country's history. However, this growth was not sustainable in the subsequent years, as it declined again and turned stagnant at the previous level. In terms of source regions, ASEAN is a major investor in Myanmar, which investment is significantly exceeds the combined investment of other regions of the world. Among top ten countries, Thailand's investment alone is significantly more than combined total investments of the other nine countries. Next to Thailand in terms of investments in Myanmar are Singapore and Malaysia among ASEAN, at second and third places, respectively. The combined total FDI inflows into the power and oil and gas sector represent about 65 percent of the total investment. There are many opportunities for foreign investment in other sectors, which are not, yet exploited. ASEAN countries will certainly be source countries of Myanmar FDI in the future, and Myanmar should expand to other Asian countries like Japan, India, China, Korea, and Hong Kong where its FDI portfolio is concerned. To effectively attract FDI into the country, Myanmar needs to minimize the effect of policy while opening and encouraging other potential sectors of FDI to foreign investors in ASEAN and Asian countries.

Tax differentials and inflow of foreign direct investments : evidence from foreign operations of U.S. multinational companies

This paper concerns the measurement of the impact of tax differentials across countries on inflow of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) by using comprehensive data on the foreign operations of U.S. multinational corporations that has been collected by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the U.S. Department of Commerce. In particular, this research focuses on examining: (1) how responsive FDI locations are to tax differentials across countries, (2) how different the tax effect on FDI inflow is between developed and developing countries, and (3) whether investment location decisions have become more or less sensitive to tax differences between countries over time ranging from the late 1990s to the early 2000s. Estimation results suggest that high rates of corporate income taxation are associated with reduced foreign assets of U.S. multinational firms in all industries by decreasing the return to foreign asset investment. Further, foreign assets of U.S. multinationals in all industries have become more responsive to non-income tax differentials across countries than to income tax differences from 1999 to 2004. Empirical estimates also indicate that foreign investment by American firms is associated with higher tax sensitivity more in developed countries than in those that are developing.

Location choice in low-income countries : evidence from Japanese investments in East Asia

Unlike most existing studies, this paper examines the location choices of MNEs in developing countries. Specifically, we investigate the location choices of Japanese MNEs among East Asian developing countries by estimating a four-stage nested logit model at the province level. Noteworthy results of location elements are as follows. As is consistent with the mechanics of cheap labor-seeking FDI, Japanese MNEs are more likely to invest in locations with low income and low tariff rates on products from Japan. Also, accessibility to other locations and/or ports matters in attracting Japanese MNEs because it is crucial in importing materials and exporting their products. In addition, WTO membership and bilateral investment treaties are important because these contribute to the settlement of trade and investment disputes, which is more likely to be necessary in developing countries.