Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean 2015

In previous editions of Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean, the year given on the cover and in the title was the year for which data were presented. Starting with this edition, however, the title carries the year in which the report is published, consistently with the practice for the other flagship reports published by ECLAC. As a result, there is no 2014 edition of Foreign Direct Investment.

Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean 2016

The 2016 version of Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean is the most recent edition of an annual series published by the Unit on Investment and Corporate Strategies of the Division of Production, Productivity and Management of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

International openness in transition countries: further evidence on foreign direct investment

The thesis focuses on the process of international openness of Transition Countries. This study provides a theoretical analysis based on reference literature, and an empirical analysis which is aimed at estimating some main effects of Foreign Direct Investment. Transition has represented a highly complex phenomenon, characterized by several aspects, whose interaction has shaped the developmental path of each country involved. Although the thesis focuses on economic issues it is outstanding to underline that Transition implies political, institutional, and even social deep changes, which must be taken into consideration in the general overview of the contex. The empirical part has been developed along two different ways: a country analysis and a firm analysis, thus allowing to widen the study and delve deeper into the use of econometric instruments. More specifically, in the first empirical stage both static (Fixed Effects) and dynamic (LSDV Corrected) methodologies have been implemented, whereas in the second stage the Cox Proportional Function has been chosen in order to handle with censored data.

Running Hot and Cold: Economic Liberalization and Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America by Sector

This article examines the effects of market–oriented economic reforms on foreign direct investment (FDI) flows to Latin America from 1985 to 2006. In contrast with most existing scholarship, we disaggregate FDI into its destination in the primary resource, manufacturing, and service sectors allowing us to determine that different kinds of investments exhibit distinct behavior. Notably, manufacturing FDI appears to be erratic; previous investment is not a predictor of current investment. FDI across sectors is associated with varying policy environments, with service and primary resource investment attracted to hosts with policies associated with more stable economic and political contexts. Overall, manufacturing FDI appears to function more like “hot” portfolio investment and is less likely to provide some of the positive spillover effects thought to be associated with more permanent FDI. These findings have an array of implications for economic, development, and industrial policies throughout Latin America and the developing world.

The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Economic Growth

Over the past four decades, the number of democracies in the world has increased exponentially. This project considers how democracy and FDI affect economic growth as well as whether the impact of FDI depends on the level of democracy in a country. Thus, I explore two major research questions: 1) Whether increased FDI speeds up economic growth, controlling for political regime type, urbanization and other developmental indicators; and 2) Whether an increase in political freedom helps or hinders economic growth, and specifically whether the impact of FDI varies depending on the political regime in the recipient country. To examine these questions, this paper used data from 150 countries over a period between 1980 and 2010 and utilized several models, testing variables such as institutions, agglomerations, urbanization, FDI and type of political regime, among others, for their impact on economic growth. I found that FDI does have a positive impact on economic growth, and that this impact is often magnified when it interacts with other relevant factors. I also found that, after controlling for other variables, FDI inflows do not have a different impact on economic growth in autocracies than they do in democracies. This may be partially explained by autocratic outliers such as China and the OPEC states, which have recently experienced rapid export-led growth. This suggests that factors such as education could have a greater impact on a country¿s economic growth than does its political system.

Food Security and Agri-Foreign Direct Investment in Weak States: Finding the Governance Gap to Avoid ‘Land Grab’

Food security is important. A rising world population coupled with climate change creates growing pressure on global world food supplies. States alleviate this pressure domestically by attracting agri-foreign direct investment (agri-FDI). This is a high-risk strategy for weak states: the state may gain valuable foreign currency, technology and debt-free growth; but equally, investors may fail to deliver on their commitments and exploit weak domestic legal infrastructure to ‘grab’ large areas of prime agricultural land, leaving only marginal land for domestic production. A net loss to local food security and to the national economy results. This is problematic because the state must continue to guarantee its citizens’ right to food and property. Agri-FDI needs close regulation to maximise its benefit. This article maps the multilevel system of governance covering agri-FDI. We show how this system creates asymmetric rights in favour of the investor to the detriment of the host state’s food security and how these problems might be alleviated.

Foreign Direct Investment in Agriculture: Land Grab or Food Security Improvement?

“Large-scale acquisition of land by foreign investors” is the correct term for a process where the verdict of guilt is often quicker than the examination. But is there something really new about land grab except in its extent? In comparison with colonial and post-colonial plantation operations, should foreign investors today behave differently? We generally accept coffee and banana exports as pro-growth and pro-development, just as for cars, beef and insurance. What then is wrong with an investment contract allowing the holder to buy a farm and to export wheat to Saudi Arabia, or soybeans and maize as cattle feed to Korea, or to plant and process sugar cane and palm oil into ethanol for Europe and China? Assuming their land acquisition was legal, should foreigners respect more than investment contracts and national legislation? And why would they not take advantage of the legal protection offered by international investment law and treaties, not to speak of concessional finance, infrastructure and technical cooperation by a development bank, or the tax holidays offered by the host state? Remember Milton Friedman’s often-quoted quip: “The business of business is business!” And why would the governments signing those contracts not know whether and which foreign investment projects are best for their country, and how to attract them? This chapter tries to show that land grab, where it occurs, is not only yet another symptom of regulatory failures at the national level and a lack of corporate social responsibility by certain private actors. National governance is clearly the most important factor. Nonetheless, I submit that there is an international dimension involving investor home states in various capacities. The implication is that land grab is not solely a question whether a particular investment contract is legal or not. This chapter deals with legal issues which seem to have largely escaped the attention of both human rights lawyers and, especially, of investment lawyers. I address this fragmentation between different legal disciplines, rules, and policies, by asking two basic questions: (i) Do governments and parliaments in investor home countries have any responsibility in respect of the behaviour of their investors abroad? (ii) What should they and international regulators do, if anything?

The Value of Waiting: Foreign Direct Investment with Uncertainty and Imperfect Local Knowledge

This paper examines the role of uncertainty and imperfect local knowledge in foreign direct investment. The main idea comes from the literature on investment under uncertainty, such as Pindyck (1991) and Dixit and Pindyck (1994). We empirically test .the value of waiting. with a dataset on foreign direct investment (FDI). Many factors (e.g., political and economic regulations) as well as uncertainty and the risks due to imperfect local knowledge, determine the attractiveness of FDI. The uncertainty and irreversibility of FDI links the time interval between permission and actual execution of such FDI with explanatory variables, including information on foreign (home) countries and domestic industries. Common factors, such as regulatory change and external shocks, may affect the uncertainty when foreign investors make irreversible FDI decisions. We derive testable hypotheses from models of investment under uncertainty to determine those possible factors that induce delays in FDI, using Korean data over 1962 to 2001.

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.

Improving the Foreign Direct Investment Capacity of the Mountainous Provinces in Viet Nam

The main purpose of this research is to suggest policies to improve the foreign direct investment attraction capacity in Northern Mountainous Provinces of Vietnam in short and medium-term. Though this region has huge potentials to develop, but poor infrastructure, remote location and bad FDI climate have hindered the FDI inflows. This research focuses on FDI climate factors, pays attention on region’s constraints, and suggests policy for three levels consisting of national, regional and provincial levels.

How does country risk matter for foreign direct investment?

In this paper, we aim to identify the political and financial risk components that matter most for the activities of multinational corporations. Our paper is the first paper to comprehensively examine the impact of various components of not only political risk but also financial risk on inward FDI, from both long-run and short-run perspectives. Using a sample of 93 countries (including 60 developing countries) for the period 1985-2007, we find that among the political risk components, government stability, socioeconomic conditions, investment profile, internal conflict, external conflict, corruption, religious tensions, democratic accountability, and ethnic tensions have a close association with FDI flows. In particular, socioeconomic conditions, investment profile, and external conflict appear to be the most influential components of political risk in attracting foreign investment. Among the financial risk components, only exchange rate stability yields statistically significant positive coefficients when estimated only for developing countries. In contrast, current account as a percentage of exports of goods and services, foreign debt as a percentage of GDP, net international liquidity as the number of months of import cover, and current account as a percentage of GDP yield negative coefficients in some specifications. Thus, multinationals do not seem to consider seriously the financial risk of the host country.

Export platform foreign direct investment : theory and evidence

This paper proposes a model that accounts for “export platform” FDI – a form of FDI that is common in the data but rarely discussed in the theoretical literature. Unlike the previous literature, this paper’s theory nests all the typical modes of supply, including exports, horizontal and vertical FDI, horizontal and vertical export platform FDI. The theory yields the testable hypothesis that a decrease in either inter-regional or intra-regional trade costs induces firms to choose export platform FDI. The empirical analysis provides descriptive statistics which point to large proportions of third country exports of US FDI, and an econometric analysis, whose results are in line with the model’s predictions. The last section suggests policy implications for nations seeking to attract FDI.

Did Japanese direct investment in Korea suppress indigenous industrialization in the 1930s? : evidence from country-level factory entry patterns

Foreign direct investment (FDI) can deliver both positive and negative spillovers to the local economy. Negative effects such as crowding-out or entry-barrier effects might outweigh the positive ones when the technological gap between foreign and local firms is significant. This paper examines the impact of Japanese direct investment into Korea under colonization in the 1930s on the entry of Korean-owned factories. By using the census of manufacturing factories in Korea, we exploit variations in the share of Japanese factories and their entry rates across counties within the same subsectors. We find that within a subsector, entry rates of Korean factories were higher in counties with higher presence and entry of Japanese factories. Positive correlations are also found between subsectors. The results imply that Japanese direct investment did not suppress the entry of Korean factories and that FDI could exert positive entry spillovers on indigenous firms, even at a very early stage of industrialization.