Article

Which Countries Export FDI, and How Much?

SSRN Electronic Journal 02/2004; DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1009013
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT The paper provides a reconciliation of Lucas' paradox, based on fixed setup costs of new investments. With such costs, it does not pay a firm to make a "small" investment, even though such an investment is called for by marginal productivity conditions. Using a sample of 45 developed and developing countries we estimate jointly the participation equation (the decision whether to invest at all) and the FDI flow equation (the decision how much to invest). We find that countries which are more likely to serve as source for FDI exports than their characteristics project export lower flow of FDI than is predicted by their characteristics. This negative correlation suggests that the source countries with relatively low setup costs are also those with high marginal productivity of capital

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Assaf Razin, Jun 19, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
73 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract The paper examines the impact of source country characteristics on the inflow of FDI into Saudi Arabia using a gravity-type model including economic, distance and socio-political variables. A unique database listing all new investments involving foreign ownership is used to construct a panel of 33 countries in the period 1980-2005. To account for many country-year observations with zero FDI, the negative binomial regression, the Tobit regression and the Heckman selection procedure are used. The conclusions drawn from the analysis employing panel-based techniques differ from the results obtained from pooled regression models. Also, the determinants of FDI differ depending on whether foreign investment is measured in terms of investment expenditure or the number of individual foreign projects. The Heckman selection results reveal that there are a large number of factors affecting the decision to invest in Saudi Arabia, compared with relatively few determinants of the actual size of investment. Traditional size and distance characteristics hold to a great extent but the relationship between FDI and bilateral trade is unclear and there is some evidence that the countries that export to Saudi Arabia do not invest there. In terms of scope for possible spillovers, there is mixed evidence on whether the investment comes from more technologically advanced economies but volume-wise important investments originate from countries characterised by high income per capita. Copyright 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
    World Economy 12/2009; 32(12):1730-1746. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9701.2009.01205.x · 0.76 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In a global context, foreign direct investment (FDI) and migration substitute one another in the matching process between workers and firms. Yet, migrants provide information about future investment opportunities in their country of origin. Evidence from U.S. data is consistent with contemporaneous substitutability and dynamic complementarity between migration and FDI.
    Economics Letters 02/2007; 94(2):155-162. DOI:10.1016/j.econlet.2006.06.023 · 0.45 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Unlike trade flows, there has been little to no detailed examination of foreign direct investment (FDI) flows between Asian economies. This paper uses bilateral FDI flows data to investigate trends in intra-Asian FDI flows over the period 1990-2005. It employs an augmented gravity model to identify the main determinants of intra-Asian FDI flows. Possible drivers of FDI flows, including transactional and informational distance (proxied by distance), real sector variables, financial variables and quality of institutions are examined. Copyright © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Crawford School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd..
    Asian-Pacific Economic Literature 11/2009; 23(2):73-93. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8411.2009.01232.x · 0.41 Impact Factor