European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
56
IMPACT OF FDI ON ECONOMIC GROWTH: AN
OVERVIEW OF THE MAIN THEORIES OF FDI AND
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Selma Kurtishi-Kastrati, PhD
Faculty of Business and Economy, South East European University, Macedonia
Abstract
After the Second World War the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has gained a
significant role in the international economy. The paper explains the theoretical and
empirical literature on FDI, it further identifies the main trends in FDI theory and highlight
how these theories were developed, the motivations that led to the requirement for new
approaches to enrich economic theory of FDI. Furthermore, it provides a list of theoretical
determinants of FDI as well the impact of FDI on economic growth and international trade.
Moreover, the theoretical studies on FDI have led to a better understanding of the economic
mechanism and the behavior of economic agents, both at micro and macro level allowing the
opening of new areas of study in economic theory. In addition using the Eclectic Paradigm
we identify factors that motivate foreign companies to invest abroad relatively than export or
outsource production to national firms. Finally we cannot say that there is one commonly
accepted theory, nevertheless every new one attaches some new basics and disapproval to the
previous ones.
Keywords: FDI, Economic Growth, internalization theory, OLI paradigm
Introduction
The different aspects related to FDI have been explored and evaluated long time ago.
Nevertheless, in the past the determinants and impacts related to FDI were explained
theoretically without giving empirical evidence. As time passed econometric models
equations and indices were used to find out the empirical results. The review given below
covers both the theoretical and empirical studies on the subject following different
approaches. It provides a list of theoretical determinants of FDI as well the impact of FDI on
international trade and economic growth.
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
57
Theories of FDI
The early concept of foreign direct investments can be regarded as the development of
classical theories of international trade and is originally rooted in economics. The first
attempt to explain the FDI was considered a Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage.
Heckscher-Ohlin (1933) theory is on the pillars for the development of the concept of
international movements of capital for international trade due to the variety of resource
endowments between the counties. It builds on David Ricardo’s theory of comparative
advantage by predicting patterns of commerce and production based on the factor
endowments of a trading region. The model essentially says that countries will export
products that utilize their abundant and cheap factor(s) of production and import products that
utilize the countries’ scarce factor(s). However, FDI cannot be explained by Ricardo’s theory,
since it is based on two countries, two products and a perfect mobility of factors at local
level. Such model could not even allow FDI.
The microeconomic theory of international production in 1960 was introduced by
Stephen Herbert Hymer (1960 published in 1976). His work is considered to be a landmark
in the study of FDI. According to Hymer the reasons for internationalization of companies
are of two kinds: variables associated to the company’s dimension and ownership of specific
assets and variables resulting from the existence of market failures. Hymer demonstrated that
FDI only takes place when the benefits of exploiting firm-specific advantages (FSAs) across
borders allow overcoming the additional costs of doing business overseas. According to
Hymer’s ideas, it has been argued that MNEs have firm specific advantages allowing them to
operate profitably in foreign countries. However, four disagreements noted by Heledd
Straker (Understanding the Global Firm) were also distinguished by Hymer:
1. According to the older theory it was suggested that flow of capital was one
directional, from developed toward underdeveloped countries, however in reality after the
war period, FDI was two-way among developed countries;
2. A country was supposed to engage either in outward FDI or receive inward FDI only.
Hymer noticed that MNEs moved in either direction across national boundaries in
industrialized countries, that means countries received inward and engaged in outward
FDI;
3. The level of outward FDI was found to vary between industries, meaning that if
capital availability was the driver of FDI, then there should be no variation, as all
industries would be equally able and motivated to invest abroad;
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
58
4. As foreign subsidiaries were financed locally, it did not fit that capital moved from
one country to another.
Furthermore, according to Hymer (1960) and as quoted by Aliber (1969) there are two
reasons for companies becoming MNEs:
I. Market imperfections13; companies became MNEs since they possess competitive
advantages, and they use this competitive advantage in different countries in order
to maximize their productivity

Nevertheless, these advantages must not be available to host country companies on
the same prices and terms as to the source-country companies. Caves (1971) consider the
diversification of products as the main influencing factor. According to Caves FDI can be
classified as vertical, horizontal and conglomerate. The vertical type can be further
subdivided into forward and backward.
Vertical FDI involves a geographical decentralization of the firm’s production chain,
where foreign affiliates in poorer countries typically produce labor-intensive intermediates
that are shipped back to high-wage countries, often to the parent company itself. Vertical FDI
is sometime referred to as “efficiency seeking” FDI, since the main motive for the investment
is to improve the cost of effectiveness of the firm’s production. Furthermore, vertical FDI can
take two forms. There is backward vertical FDI into an industry abroad that provides inputs
for a firm’s domestic production process. Historically most backward vertical FDI has been
in extractive industries (e.g. oil extraction). A second form of vertical FDI is forward vertical
FDI in which an industry abroad sells the outputs of a firm’s domestic production process.
Horizontal FDI produce the same product in multiple plants, and service local markets
through affiliate production rather than through exports from the home country of the MNE.
This kind of FDI is sometimes referred to as “market seeking” FDI. The FDI inflows to
developed countries are usually horizontal investments driven by market seeking strategies
and they tend to increase the labor intensity of the home country domestic production
(Mariotti, S; Mutinelli, M; Piscitello, L., 2003). Horizontal investments replicate the
complete production process of the home country in a foreign country. The horizontal FDI
13 Market imperfection can be defined as anything that interferes with trade. According to Hymer, market
imperfections are structural, arising from structural deviations from perfect competition in the final product
market due to exclusive and permanent control of proprietary technology, privileged access to inputs, scale
economies, control of distribution systems, and product differentiation, but in their absence markets are
perfectly efficient.
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
59
seeks to take advantages of a new large market, which is considered as traditional motive for
the FDI (Botric,V; Skulic. L, 2005).
Multinationals involved in extraction or use of natural resources are yet another case
of FDI where there is no alternative to the local presence of the firm. Endowments of oil, gas,
minerals, forests and waterfalls may be the most important attraction for international
investment in a number of poor countries.
Buckley and Casson (1976) conceptualized the internalization theory. In the
international business literature, the market imperfections approach to FDI is typically
referred to as internalization theory. Market imperfections created the opportunity to
internalize transactions within a firm. Instead of conducting business externally between two
firms- in separate countries, it made sense to instead maximize profits by doing business
internally across national boundaries. Two things are essential at this point, firstly firms
would choose the least cost location and secondly firms would internalize until the cost
outweighed the benefits.
Nonetheless, in reality, cost is not the only crucial factor of success since companies
must also consider other factors such as cultural, regulatory and other environmental factors
(Jigme, 2006). A weakness with the Internalization Theory lies in its choice of industryspecific factors as the primary emphasis with respect to the internalization decision. The
theory does not inevitably clarify the decision by entrepreneurs to set up enterprises in
locations as a function of personal preference for a particular environment. Sometimes,
certain locations are more suitable for religious, linguistic or cultural reasons.
Another existing theoretical development analyzing the origin and form of
internationalization is based on the product life cycle (Vernon, 1966). This theory was
initially proposed by Raymond Vernon in the mid 1960s. Vernon argued that often the same
firms that pioneer a product in their home markets undertake FDI to produce a product for
consumption in foreign markets. The PLC Theory suggests that firms go through different
stages in the development of their output. Products pass through an introductory phase,
followed by growth, maturity and then decline phases. The length of time, during which a
product remains in certain stages, is a function of a variety of factors. Vernon’s view is that
companies undertake foreign direct investment at particular stages in the life cycle of a
product they have pioneered. Many companies launch old products in new markets. They
invest in other advanced countries when local demand in those countries grows large enough
to support local production. As a result in the early stage FDI is local market oriented. They
subsequently shift production to developing countries when product standardization and
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
60
market saturation give rise to price competition and cost pressures. Investment in developing
countries, where labor costs are lower is seen as the best way to reduce costs. Thus, FDI in
the latter phase of the product cycle will be export oriented, motivated predominantly by
cheap labor considerations. In the decline stage of PLC, the product innovating country
becomes the net importer of the products. However, PLC theory fails to explain why it is
profitable for a firm to undertake FDI at such times, rather than continuing to export from its
home base and rather than licensing a foreign company to produce its product. Vernon’s
theory is applicable for some products but it is not applicable for the vertically integrated
MNEs. Some critics say that sometimes entrepreneurs purchase foreign assets prior to
actually launching the products (Jigme, 2006).
Knickerbocker (1973) introduced “oligopolistic reaction” to explain why firms follow
rivals into foreign markets. According to the theory FDI flows are a reflection of strategic
rivalry between firms in the global marketplace. In oligopolistic industries there is an
interdependence of the major players, i.e. what one firms have had an immediate impact on
the major competitors. Similarly, in FDI there is an imitative behavior, i.e. if an oligopolistic
firm expands to a certain market, most likely its competitors will knock out their export
business to the same competitive asset.
According to the famous OLI paradigm put forward by the British economist John
Dunning (1993), investors choose FDI because of its three determinants: O – ownership, L –
location, and I – internalization advantages.
Ownership specific advantages (OSA)
OSA refers to certain types of knowledge and privileges, which a firm possesses but
which are not available to its competitors. The ownership advantage occurs when superior
technology and management knowledge allow the firm to compete on a foreign market in
spite of the transaction costs.
Location specific advantages (LSA)
LSA refers to certain advantages, which the firm has because it locates its production
activities in a particular area. Location advantages will accrue if the host economy can
provide large markets or the possibility of creating them through trade liberalization, low cost
inputs or good infrastructure.
Internalization specific advantages (ISA)
These occur when international market imperfections make market solutions too
costly. Thus, whenever transactions can be organized and carried out more cheaply within the
firm than through the market, they will be internalized and undertaken by the firm itself.
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
61
FDI will take place when three advantages come together. MNEs are guided by OLI
regarding investment, ‘why’,’ where’ and ‘how’. The ownership advantage mostly
determines the “why” decision, internalization advantages mostly determine the “how”
decision and the location advantage mostly determine the “where” decision. Dunning’s
model for key factors determinants internalization process is shown in the figure below:
In this sense, and according to the reasoning of Hennart and Park (1994) and Buckley
and Casson (1998), all the advantages are interrelated and affect in particular the likewise
consistent decisions of “why”, “how”, and “where” to internationalize.
Meyer (1995) introduced structural change FDI as another development approach to
FDI. Companies in business that are endangered by a loss of competitiveness are faced with
the need to restructure due to the cost pressure. Moving into production facilities overseas is
one potential way of restructuring. This way, companies continue to develop their existing
industry specific assets, but switch the expensive home country’s labor force with the cheaper
one in the host country (Meyer, Klaus E., 1995). Structural change FDI is centered on factor
cost differentials i.e. around export-oriented FDI as stated earlier.
Traditional Explanation of FDI
FDI can also be categorized based on the motive behind the investment from the
perspective of the investment firm:
Resource seeking or supply oriented – Investments which seek to acquire
factors of production that are more efficient than those obtainable in the home
economy of the firm. In some cases, these resources may not be available in
the home economy at all (e.g. cheap labor and natural resources). This typifies
FDI into developing countries, for example seeking natural resources in the
Middle East and Africa, or cheap labor in Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe.

European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
62
Market seeking or demand oriented – Investments which aim at either
penetrating new markets or maintaining existing ones. FDI of this kind may
also be employed as defensive strategy 14 it is argued that businesses are more
likely to be pushed towards this type of investment out of fear of losing a
market rather than discovering a new one (Dunning, 1993).
Efficiency seeking or rationalized – Investments which firms hope will
increase their efficiency by exploiting the benefits of economies of scale and
scope, and also those of common ownership. It is suggested that this type of
FDI comes after either resource or market seeking investments have been
realized, with the expectation that it further increases the profitability of the
firm (Dunning, 1993).
Strategic asset seeking – FDI designed to protect or expand the existing
specific advantages of the investing firms and/or to reduce those of their
competitors
Motives behind FDI
At micro-level, a simple respond why companies go global is profit motive mainly
maintained by lower labor cost. However this is not always accurate. Every company is
seeking to maximize the profit by using the overseas recourses, by exploiting the ownership
specific advantages through internalization. Nevertheless, the opportunities they seek in a
foreign country may be determined by the nature of the MNEs. A case study regarding
Bulgaria disclosed that foreign investors in Bulgaria were mostly market hunter followed by
factor hunters and location hunters (Bitzenis, 2004).
Another study done by Shatz and Venables (2000) emphasize that companies would
like to better serve the local market and get lower-cost inputs hence they are the main motives
why they want to become global corporations. According to them they say that the reason for
going global is due to “horizontal” or “market seeking” and “vertical” or “product cost
minimizing” reasons.
It is very important to recognize that a significant determinant of FDI in developing
countries may not be relevant for developing countries or under developing countries. Some
authors are concerned about generalizing the findings of FDI studies related to developing
countries as relevant for developing countries too.
14 Knickerbocker identified this phenomenon in his ‘follow-my-leader’ hypothesis in: Knickerbocker, F. T.
(1973). Oligopolistic reaction and multinational enterprise. Boston(Mass.), Division of Research Graduate
School of Business Administration Harvard University
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
63
The literature related to FDI identifies three most common motivations: resource
seeking; market seeking and efficiency seeking (Dunning, 1993). Resource-seeking activities
are promoted by the availability of natural resources, cheap unqualified or semi-skilled labor,
creative assets and physical infrastructure. In the past, the availability of natural resources,
such as minerals, raw materials and agricultural products have been the most important host
country determinant of FDI. Even at that time the presences of natural resources by itself
were not satisfactory for FDI to take place.
Comparative advantage in natural resources usually gave rise to trade rather than to
FDI. Investment took place when resource-abundant countries either lacked the large
amounts of capital typically required for resource-extraction or did not have the technical
skills needed to extract or sell raw materials to the rest of the world. In addition,
infrastructure facilities for getting the raw materials out of the host country and to its final
destination had to be in place or needed to be created (UNCTAD, 1998).
Labor-seeking investment is usually undertaken by manufacturing and service MNEs
from countries with high real labor costs, which set up or acquire subsidiaries in countries
with lower real labor costs to 4 supply labor intensive intermediate or final products.
Frequently, to attract such production, host countries have set up free trade or export
processing zones (Dunning, 1993).
Market-seeking investment is attracted by factors like host country market size, per
capita income and market growth. For firms, new markets provides a chance to stay
competitive and grow within the industry as well as achieve scale and scope economies.
Traditionally, market size and growth as FDI determinants related to national markets for
manufacturing products sheltered from international competition by high tariffs or quotas that
triggered “tariff-jumping” FDI (UNCTAD, 1998, 107). Apart from market size and trade
restrictions, MNEs might be prompted to engage in market-seeking investment, when their
main suppliers or customers have set up foreign producing facilities and in order to retain
their business they need to follow them overseas (Dunning, 1993, 58).
The motivation of efficiency seeking FDI is to rationalize the structure of established
resource based or market-seeking investment in such a way that the investing company can
gain from the common governance of geographically dispersed activities. The intention of the
efficiency seeking MNE is to take advantage of different factor endowments, cultures,
institutional arrangements, economic systems and policies, and market structures by
concentrating production in a limited number of locations to supply multiple markets
(Dunning, 1993, 59). In order for efficiency seeking foreign production to take place, cross
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
64
border markets must be both well developed and open, therefore it often flourishes in
regionally integrated markets (Dunning, 1993, 59).
It is worth note that many of the larger MNEs are pursuing pluralistic objectives and
most engage in FDI that combines the characteristics of each of the above categories. The
motives for foreign production may also change as, for example, when a firm becomes an
established and experienced foreign investor (Dunning, 1993, 56)
However, identification of determining factors of FDI is a complex problem, which
depends upon several uniqueness specifics for each country, sector and company. According
to the research done by Valerija Botrić and Lorena Škuflić, (2005)15 all those factors could be
clustered in three broad categories:
• Economic policy of host country
• Economic performance and
• Attractiveness of national economy
On unified level FDI depends on size and potential growth of national economy,
natural resources endowments and quality of workforce, openness to international trade and
access to international markets, quality of physical, financial and technological infrastructure.
In general, the investor motivation for FDI is to acquire:
• Better access to markets – nationally, regionally and globally;
• Competitive labor costs and productivity as well as skills availability;
• Access to raw materials at competitive cost;
• Acceptable risk, linked to a supportive policy environment and with essential
infrastructure (utilities, telecommunications and transport).
Another justification why companies expand globally is explained by proactive and
reactive motivational factors. In business activities, varieties of stimuli push and pull firms
along the international path:
• Proactive motivations represent stimuli to attempt strategic change.
• Reactive motivations influence firms that respond to environmental shifts by
changing their activities over time.
15Valerija Botrić & Lorena Škuflić “Main determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in the South East
European Countries” – Paper prepared for the 2nd Euroframe Conference on Economic Policy Issues in the
European Union “Trade, FDI and Relocation: Challenges for Employment and Growth in the European
Union?”, June 3rd, 2005, Vienna, Austria
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
65
Proactive motivational factors include profit advantages, economies of scale, unique
products, technological advantage, restricted information and tax benefits. Whereas reactive
factors are forced by overproduction, overcapacity, competitive pressure, decline domestic
sale, closeness to customers and ports, and saturated domestic markets (Czinkota, M.R and
Ronkainen, I.A, 2007).
Location Choice of FDI
The theory of FDI needs to examine what is the mechanism that foreign companies
use when they decide to invest abroad. Until now, no theory can explain the rule of
international investment’s location choice.
According to Gilomre, O’s Donnel, Carson and Cummins (2003) there are eight
factors that are influencing the choice of host market. They are as follows:
• Knowledge and experience of foreign market
• Size and growth of the foreign market
• Government emphasis on FDI and financial incentives
• Economic Policy
• Transportation material and labor cost
• Availability of resources
• Technology
• Political Stability
Foreign companies who want to minimize total cost might chose the appropriate
countries that can bring minimized cost, such as the investment on labor-hunter will choose
the country having enough labor force and cheap labor cost; investment on technology-hunter
will choose the country having higher technical level; investment on resource-seeker will
choose the country having abundant natural resource; investment on lower information and
transportation-cost hunter will choose the close and familiar country having convenient
communication; investment on avoiding or policy-seeker will choose the country having
preferential tax revenue policy or relative policies; and investment on maximizing the price
of product and service will choose the country having higher salary level, enough purchasing
power and large market capacity.
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
66
According to the literature (Buckey, J.P; Devinney, M.T and Louviere, .J.J, 2007) the
location and control decision of multinational enterprise are at the core of managerial
decision-making and academic theorizing in international business. For each activity the
company undertakes, it has two critical decisions: firstly they need to decide where should
the activity be located? And secondly, how should it be controlled? (Buckley, 2004).
According to Aharoni (1966) in his book “The Foreign Direct Investment Decision Process”,
it is underlined that FDI is not a point of time “go/no-go” decision but a rather an important
process to be considered well in advance.
The research done by Bertrand et al (2004) during the period of 1990-1999 among
OECD countries underlined the determinants of cross-border M&A location choice.
According to them it was found that the geographic distribution of M&A is not determined
only by the availability of domestic assets. The market size, the labor cost, the market access
and financial openness matters as well. Barkema et al (1996), emphasize that cultural
distance is a prominent factor in entry, especially where another company is involved, in a
joint venture for instance. Hinisz (2000) in his research finds that host country institutions are
important, and that joint ventures are preferred when vulnerabilities in the host country are
greatest. Another research done by Chung (2001) finds technology factors to be important;
both transfer and accession of technology show up as determinants in different context.
Moreover Chung and Alcacer (2002) observe location within the USA, and find that, in
addition to traditional location factors, knowledge seeking motivations may operate through
laboratories and manufacturing facilities. Another study done by Mitra and Golder (2002)

Source: Foreign Direct Investment Survey, a study conducted by the Multilateral Investment
Guarantee Agency (MIGA) with the assistance of Deloitte & Touche LLP, January 2002
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
67
underline that cultural distance from the home market is not a significant factor, but
knowledge about nearby market can have a significant effect.
Impact of FDI on Economic Development: Literature Review
Economic development is an all-inclusive concept; its main focus is on economic and
social progress, in addition involves many different aspects that are not easily calculated,
such as political freedom, social justice, and environmental reliability16.Without a hesitation,
all these matters bond together to contribute to an overall high standard of living. However,
empirical evidence has sufficiently demonstrated that all these varied elements of economic
development associate with economic growth. That is, as a general rule, countries with faster
economic growth have more rapid improvement in health and education outcomes,
progressively freer political system, increasingly more equitable distribution of wealth, and
enhanced capacity for environmental management. Therefore, while economic growth does
not bring about automatically other aspects of social, institutional and environmental
improvements, without economic growth, there is a limited prospect for such achievements.
The literature on FDI and economic growth in general points to a positive relationship
between the two variables and recommends few explanations for it. In theory, economic
growth may encourage FDI inflow when FDI is seeking consumer markets, or when growth
leads to greater economies of scale and therefore increased cost efficiency. On the other hand
FDI may affect economic growth through its impact on capital stock, technology transfer,
skill acquisition or market competition. There are many empirical studies in studying the
impact of FDI. Most of them show that FDI can stimulate economic growth through different
channels. As a starting point we have taken the traditional neo-classical growth model
followed by recent theories and empirical contributions. According to Solow (1956) he
argued that from increase in the amount of capital that each worker is set to operate results
the productivity growth. On the other hand, the marginal productivity of capital declines as
capital per worker increases. Eventually, the capital labor ratio approaches a constant and
productivity growth ceases. In this long run equilibrium GDP, the capital and labor force all
grew at the same exogenously determined rate. At this point the technological progress came
into play. If technology growth is present than the long run rate growth of GDP per worker is
equal to the rate of technology growth. To the degree that capital is internationally mobile
and moves to the countries where the prospects for profit are highest, this trend should be
significantly reinforced. Consequently, counties no matter how poor or rich are, the gaps in
income levels between them should be expected to narrow and eventually disappear.
16 The United Nation Charter of 1944
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
68
Countries where capital is scarce compared to labor or where capital labor ratio is low should
be expected to have a higher rate of profit on capital, a higher rate of capital accumulation
and higher per capita growth, as it was concluded by Solow.
Cost and benefits related to foreign direct investment for the host economies were
analyzed by MacDougall (1960). He used marginal productivity theory to examine income
effects and assessed the balance of costs and benefits accruing to the different sectors of the
host economy. Basically, MacDougall’s work was an income distribution analysis based upon
the assumption of perfect competition. According to MacDougall, while the capitalist sector
in the host country suffers a loss of income because of decreasing marginal productivity of
capital as the capital stock in the host country increases thanks to foreign investment, the
labor sector in the host country benefits from higher wages because higher marginal returns
to labor there. Since the gain to the labor sector exceeds the loss to the capitalist sector, it
follows that FDI yields net positive income effects to the host country. One limitation in
MacDougall’s analysis is that it is based on the assumption that FDI takes place in the
traditional sectors such as production of primary commodities or basic industrial
manufacturing. Since FDI activities have started to venture into new sectors that are
technology or knowledge-based or into more modern capital-intensive manufacturing, hence
this assumption can lose its significance.
Moreover, Kemp (1961) examined FDI and the advantages that the national economy
receives from this type of external financing. According to Diamond (1965) the prospect of
people in the countries which import capital is bright, and vice verse for people in the
countries which export capital, their prospect is depressing. He placed special emphasis on
the productivity of foreign investment. If not, the countries receiving it might not get real
benefits. From these analyses or in other words from the early literature of the 1960s it is
revealed that in the short run the effect of foreign investment on economic growth are
positive, but in the long run the benefits are not sustainable.
As mentioned previously, the world economy is changing very rapidly. Many
countries in 60s and 70s were hostile toward foreign investment; however their attitude
toward FDI has changed since they perceive this kind of investment as making a positive
contribution to their development. Stoneman (1975) analyzed the power of FDI on the
economic growth of the developing countries and found that foreign investments increases
the productivity levels due to higher capital stock and at the same time improves the balance
of payment position. The effects of FDI regarding economic growth are examined for
different regions. According to the date gained only Africa has improved its economic growth
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
69
via FDI. However, the evaluations for other regions to confirm a positive relationship were
not significant.
Findlay (1978) verifies the influence of foreign investments on host country’s
technological progress rate, which takes place through a contagion effect involving factors
employed by foreign firms such as more advanced technology and management practices.
The impact of FDI with special reference to international trade was analyzed by
Bhagwati (1978). According to him, countries actively pursuing an export led growth strategy
can reap enormous benefits from foreign investment. Export led policy is one which connects
average effective exchange rate on exports to the average effective exchange rate on imports.
Whereas, import substitution policies are worked out in such a way that the two exchange
rates are not equal. The previous policy favors free trade and emphasizes the need to boost
export, while the latter underlines self-sufficiency through import substitution.
The impact of FDI on the economy along with the determinants for the first time was
analyzed by Santiago (1987). The study explains various determinants of FDI in the field of
exports for Puerto Rice for the year 1979. According to the study it was found that low cost
labor17 is not a major determinant of FDI. It is also revealed that the larger the size of the
firm, the bigger the volume of foreign investments in that industry. Other than that, the
course of foreign investments in the host country is strongly influenced by macro-economic
performance of the country. Moreover, another important finding of this study is that it is
tremendously vital to explain the pattern of variations of FDI in Puerto Rico is industry
specifics and location specific determinants.
The work done by Srinivasan was expended by Gonzales (1988); he made an analysis
of the welfare effect of foreign investments. According to Gonzales, FDI enhances the social
uplift of the people, if there are no distortions. Import substitution policies are strongly
favored in the study in view of the fact that such a strategy provides greater job opportunity
of the people and as a result their standard of living is improved. However, the study
uncovers that the welfare effects of FDI do not explain the pattern of trade in the economy.
As a consequence, both Srinivasan (1983) and Gonzalez (1988) concluded that FDI results in
social uplift of the people without distortions of the labor market. In addition Gonzalez
(1988) holds that FDI affects national incomes via the benefits accruing to the people of
urban and rural sector. Therefore, at least in the Harris – Tadoro (1970)18 economy national
17 At least for Puerto Rice
18 The Harris–Todaro model, named after John R. Harris and Michael Todaro, is an economic model used in
development economics and welfare economics to explain some of the issues concerning rural-urban migration.
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
70
income is improved by inflows of foreign capital and in turn the standard of living of the
people separately of the pattern of international trade. At the end Gonzalez concluded that if
the tariff is low and the absolute value of the elasticity of rural wage is high, there is a larger
probability that foreign investment leads to higher national income.
The impact of MNEs behavior through FDI on international trade and vise verse was
revised by Zhang et al. The Granger causality co integration approach was used to examine
the direction of FDI and trade linkage of Chinese economy in 1980-2003. According to them,
it was found that more import lead higher level of FDI, additional FDI leads to more exports
and more exports leads to more FDI.
Balasubramanyam et al. (1996) used cross-section data and OLS regressions for 46
developing countries over the period 1970 to 1985, in order to estimate how FDI affects
economic growth. According to them it was found that FDI has positive spillover19 effects
on economic growth, but that its effects are limited to host countries that adopt exportpromoting policies. On the other hand, for import substituting economics positive effects
were weaker.
In the same way, Borensztein et al (1998) used cross-section data for 69 developing
countries during the period 1970 to 1989, though they used seemingly unrelated regression
methods for their estimations. Mainly they found that FDI has a positive effect on economic
growth, but the magnitude of the relationship depends on the quality of the human capital of
the host country. They observed that a major reason for the positive effects seems to be
technology diffusion.
Another research made by Olofsodotter (1998) applied the standard OLS method to
cross-section data for 50 developing and developed countries over 1980 to1990. Based on her
work it was found that the FDI stock has a positive effect on the economic growth rate, due to
technology spillovers. In addition, the effect is stronger for host countries with a higher level
of institutional capability as measured by the degree of property rights protection and
bureaucratic efficiency in the host country.
In addition, De Mello (1999) in his research used both time series and panel data
fixed-effects estimations for a sample of 32 developed and developing nations. He estimates
The main assumption of the model is that the migration decision is based on expected income differentials
between rural and urban areas rather than just wage differentials. This implies that rural-urban migration in a
context of high urban unemployment can be economically rational if expected urban income exceeds expected
rural income.
19 FDI spillovers are defined as an increase in the productivity of domestic firms as a consequence of the
presence of foreign firms in the domestic economy. Spillovers can come in many forms, such as technologies,
working methods, and management skills, but they have one thing in common – they boost productivity.
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
71
the impact of FDI on capital accumulation and output growth in the recipient economy. In
contrast to previous studies, he found that FDI can lead to better technology and enhanced
management in the host country; on the other hand, the evidence was relatively weak on
whether FDI essentially creates economic growth.
Carkovic and Levine (2002) used a panel dataset covering 72 developed and
developing countries in order to analyze the relationship between FDI inflows and economic
growth. The study performed both a cross-sectional OLS analysis as well as a dynamic panel
data analysis using GMM. They found that there is no strong link running from inward FDI
to host country economic growth.
Bengoa and Sanchez-Robles (2003) using panel data for Latin America, examined the
relationship between FDI, economic freedom and economic growth. Comparing fixed and
random effects estimations, they conclude that FDI has a significant positive effect on host
country economic growth but similar to Borensztein et al (1998) the magnitude depends on
host country conditions.
Choe (2003) analyzed 80 countries by using the traditional panel data causality testing
method developed by Holtz-Eakin et al. (1988). His results points toward bi-directional
causality between FDI and growth, even though he found the causal impact of FDI on growth
to be weak.
Basu, Chakraborty and Reagle (2003) using a panel of 23 countries from Asia, Africa,
Europe and Latin America, found a co-integrated relationship between FDI and GDP growth.
Trade openness was emphasized as a crucial determinant of the impact of FDI on growth.
They found two-way causality between FDI and GDP growth in open economies, both in the
short and the long run, whereas the long run causality is unidirectional from GDP growth to
FDI in relatively closed economies.
Trevino and Upadhyaya (2003) find a similar result, based on their study of five
developing countries in Asia, that the positive impact of FDI on economic growth is greater
in more open economies.
Johnson (2006) assumed that FDI should have a positive effect on economic growth
as a result of technology spillovers and physical capital inflows. To test his assumption he
used a panel of 90 countries and by performing both panel and cross-section analysis, he
found that FDI inflows improve economic growth in developing economies, but not in
developed economies. In addition, he also provides an outstanding review of the existing
empirical literature on FDI and economic growth that summon macroeconomic data.
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
72
Moreover, Chowdhury and Mavrotas (2006) took a different route by testing for
Granger Causality using the Toda and Yamamoto (1995) specification, thereby overcoming
possible pre-testing problems in relation to tests for co-integration between series. Using data
from 1969-2000, according to their findings, FDI did not “Granger-cause” GDP in Chile,
whereas there is a bi-directional causality between GDP and FDI in Malaysia and Thailand.
Hansen and Rand (2006) found strong causal link from FDI to GDP for a group 31
developing countries during 1970-2000. Bloomstrom, Lipsey and Zejan (1994) found
evidence that FDI Granger caused economic growth. However, FDI’s positive contribution is
conditional. According to the authors, FDI is growth enhancing if the country has sufficiently
reached measured in term of high per capita income.
Hsiao and Hsiao (2006) has examined the Granger causality relations between GDP,
exports, and FDI among eight rapidly developing East and Southeast Asian economies using
panel data from 1986 to 2004. For the individual country time series causality tests, they did
not find systematic causality among GDP, exports, and FDI variables. However, the panel
data causality results reveal that FDI has unidirectional effects on GDP directly and indirectly
through exports, and there also exists bidirectional causality between export and GDP for the
group.
Jyun-Yi, Wu and Hsu Chin-Chiang (2008) they analyzed whether the FDI promote
the economic growth by using threshold regression analysis. According to their analysis it
shows that FDI alone play uncertain role in contributing to economic growth based on a
sample of 62 countries during the period observed from 1975 to 2000 and find that initially
GDP and human capital are important factor in explaining FDI. Further, FDI is found to have
a positive and significant impact on growth when host countries have a better level of initial
GDP and human capital.
Nuzhat Falki (2009) examined the impact of FDI on economic growth of Pakistan,
using data from 1980 to 2006 with variables of domestic capital, foreign owned capital and
labor force. She concluded that FDI has negative statically insignificant relationship between
GDP and FDI inflows in Pakistan by employing the endogenous growth theory and applying
the regression analysis.
In general, the effect of FDI apart from the size of the market will depend on a variety
of other characteristics of the host economy. These include the general wage level, level of
education, institutional environment, tax laws, and overall macroeconomic and political
environment. The impact of host country wage level or education level on FDI depends on
the skill intensity of the particular production process in question and, hence, may vary from
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
73
case to case. The impact of institutional quality, physical infrastructure, import tariffs,
macroeconomic stability, and political stability on FDI inflow is usually positive (see (Wei,
1997); (Mallampally, P. and Sauvant, K.P., 1999); (Trevino, Len. J.; Daniels, J.D.; Arbelaez,
H. and Upadhyaya, K.P, 2002); (Biswas, 2002), whereas that of corporate taxes tends to be
negative (see (Wei, 1997); (Gastanaga, V.M.; Nugent, J.B. and Pashamova, B., 1998);
(Hsiao, 2001). Turning to economic growth, the standard determinants include the rate of
capital accumulation and variables that raise total factor productivity, such as education level,
institutional quality, macroeconomic stability, political environment, and, potentially, trade
openness. In studying the direct, causal relationship between FDI and economic growth in
this research, we examine the importance of some of these economic variables just stated
above.
References:
Aharoni, Y. (1966). The Foreign Investment Decison Process. Boston,MA: Harvard
University Press.
Aliber, R. (1969). The International Corporation. Massachusetts US: The MIT Press.
Balasubramanyam, V.N; Salisu, M; Sapsford,D. (1996). Foreign Direct Investment and
Growth in EP and IS countries. The Economic Journal , 106, 92-105.
Bangoa, M.; Sanchez-Robles,B. (2003). Foreign direct investment, economy freedom and
growth: new evidence from Latin America. European Journal of Political Economy , 19, 529-
545.
Barkema, H.G; Bell, J.H.J; and Pennings, J.M. (1996). Foreign entry, cultural barriers and
learning. Strategic Managment Journal , 17 (2), 151-166.
Basu, P.; Chakraborty, C.; and Reagle, D. (2003). Liberalization, FDI and Growth in
Developing Countries: A Panel Cointegration Approach. Economic Inquiry , 41 (3), 510-516.
Bertrand, O; Mucchielli, J.L; and Zutauna, H. (2004). Location Choice of Multinational
Firms: The Case of Mergers and Acquisitions. HWWA Discussion paper 274 . Hamburg:
Hamburg Institure of International Economics.
Bhagwati, J. (1978). Anatomy and Consequences of Exchange Control Regimes. Studies in
International Economic Relations , 1.
Biswas, R. (2002). Determinants of foreign direct investment. Review of Development
Economics , 6 (3), 492-504.
Bitzenis, A. (2004). Explanatory Variables for Low Western Investment Interest in Bulgaria.
Eastern European Economics , 42 (6), 5-38.
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
74
Blomstrom, M., Lipsey, R.E. and M. Zejan, M. (1994). What Explains Developing Country
Growth. Cambridge, MA: NBER: NBER Working Paper No. 4132.
Borensztein, E; De Gregorio,J; Lee,J.W. (1998). How does foreign direct investment affect
economic growht? Journal of International Economics , 45, 115-135.
Botric,V; Skulic. L. (2005). Main Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in the South
East European Countries. Trade, FDI and Relocation: Challenge for Employment and Growth
in the European Union. Vienna: 2nd Euroframe Conference on Economic Policy Issues in the
European Union.
Buckey, J.P; Devinney, M.T and Louviere, .J.J. (2007). Do managers behave the way theory
suggests? A choice-theoretic examination of foreign direct investment location decisonmaking. Journal of International Business Studies (38), 1069-1094.
Buckley, P. (2004). The role of China in the global strategy of multinational enterprises.
Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies , 1-25.
Buckley,P.J and Casson,M. (1976). The Future of the Multinational Enterprise. London:
Macmillan.
Carkovic, M; Levine, R. (2002, August 28). Does foreign direct investment accelerate
economic growth? University of Minnesota Department of Finance working Paper.
Carkovic, M; Levine,R. (2002, August 28). Does foreign direct investment accelerate
economic growth? University of Minnesota Department of Finance working Paper.
Caves, R. (1971). International Corporations: The industrial economics of foreign investment.
Economica, 38(149) , 1-27.
Chih-Chiang, W. J.-Y. (2008). Does Foreign Direct Investment Promote Economic Growth?
Evidence from a Threshold Regression Analysis. Economics Bulletin , 15 (12), 1-10.
Choe, J. I. (2003). Do Foreign Direct Investment and Gross Domestic Investment Promote
Economic Growth? Review of Development Economics (7), 44-57.
Chowdhury ,A. and Mavrotas, G. (2006). FDI ang Growth: What Causes What? World
Economy , 29 (1), 9-19.
Chung, W. (2001). Identifying technology transfer in foreign direct investment influence of
industry contiotions and investing firm motive. Jurnal of International Business Studies , 32
(2), 211-229.
Chung, W., & Alcacer, J. (2002). Knowlege seeking and location choice of foreign direct
invesment in the United States. Management Science , 48 (12), 1534-1554.
Czinkota, M.R and Ronkainen, I.A. (2007). International Marketing (Vol. 8). Mason, OH:
Thomson South-Western.
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
75
De Mello, L. (1999). Foreign Direct Investment-led growth: evidence from time series and
panal data. Oxford Economic Papers , 51, 133-151.
Diamond, P. A. (1965). National Debt in a Neoclassical Growth Model. American Economic
Review 55(5) , 1126-50.
Dunning, J. (1993). Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy. Wokingham:
Addison-Wesley.
Falk, N. (2009). Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Economic Growth in Pakistan.
International Review of Business Research Papers , 5 (5), 110-120.
Findlay, R. (1978). “Relative Backwardness, Direct Foreign Investment and The Transfer of
Technology: A Simple Dynamic Model”. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 92, 1-16.
Gastanaga, V.M.; Nugent, J.B. and Pashamova, B. (1998). Host country reforms and FDI
inflows: How much difference do they make? World Development , 22, 1299-1314.
Gilmore, A., O’Donnel, a., Carson, D., & Cummin, D. (2003). Factor influencing foreign
direct investment and international joint venture. International Marketing Revie , 20 (2), 195-
215.
Gonzalez, J. (1988). Effects of Foreig Direct Investment in the Presence of Sector-Specific
Unemployment. International Economic Journal 2 , 15-25.
Hansen, H. and Rand, J. (2006). On the Causal Links Between FDI and Growth in
Developing Countries. The World Economy , 29 (1), 21-41.
Harris, J.R; Todaro, M.P. (1970). Migraton, Unemployment and Development: A Two-Sector
Analysis. American Economic Review , 60 (1), 126-142.
Heinsz, W. (2000). The institutional environment for multinational investment. Journal of
Law, Economics and Organization , 16 (2), 334-364.
Holtz-Eakin, D.; Newey, W.; and Rosen, H.S. (1988). Estimating Vector Autoregressions
with Panel Data. Econometrica , 6 (56), 1371-95.
Hsiao, C. (2001). Efficient estimation of dynamic panal data models with an application to
the analysis of foreign direct investment in developing countries. Far East Economic Society
Meeting. Kobe, Japan.
Hsiao, F. S. T. and M. C. W. Hsiao. (2006). FDI, Exports, and GDP in East and Southeast
Asia Panel Data versus Time Series Causality Analysis. 17, 1082 – 1106.
Jigme, S. (2006). Determinants Affecting Foreign Direct Investment in Bhutan: Perception of
Government Officers in “BIMST-EC” Member countries. Masters Thesis . University of Thai
Chamberr of Commers.
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
76
JN, B. (1978). Anatomy and Consequences of Exchange Control Regimes, vol.1,. Studies in
International Economic Relations. Ney York: NBER.
Johnson, A. (2006). The Effects of FDI Inflows on Host Country Economic Growth. CESIS
Working Paper Series . Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology.
Kemp, M. (1961). Foreign Investment and National Advantage. Economic Record , 28, 56-
62.
Knickerbocker, F. (1973). Oligopolistic Reaction and Multinational Enterprise. Cambridge,
MA : Harvard University Press.
MacDougall, G. (1960). The Benefits and Cost of Private Investment from Abroad: A
Theoretical Approach. Economic Record , 36, 13-35.
Mallampally, P. and Sauvant, K.P. (1999). Foreing Direct Investment in developing
countries. Finance and Development , 36 (1), 36.
Mariotti, S; Mutinelli, M; Piscitello, L. (2003). Home Country Employment and Foreign
Direct Investment: Evidence from the Italian Case. Cambridge Journal of Economics , 27 (3),
419-431.
Meyer, Klaus E. (1995, 09). “Foreign direct investment in the early years of economic
transition: a survey” The Economics of Transition. 3 (3) , 301-320. The European Bank for
Reconstructure and Development.
Mitra, D., & Golder, P. (2002). Whose culture matter? Near-market knowledge and its impact
on foreign market entry timing. Journal of Marketing Reaserch , 39 (3), 350-365.
Olofsdotter, K. (1998). Foreign direct investment, country capabilities and economic growth.
Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv , 134 (3), 534-547.
Santiago, C. (1987). The impact of foreign direct investments on export structure and
employment generation. World Development 15(3).
Solow, R. M. (1956). A contiribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of
Economics , 65-94.
Srinivasan, T. (1983). International factor movements, commodity trade and commercial
policy in a specific facto model. Jurnal of International Economics , 289-312.
Toda, H. and Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical Inference in Vector Autoregressions with
Possible Integrated Processes. Journal of Econometrics (66), 225-250.
Trevino, Len. J. and Upadhyaya, K. P. (2003). Foreing aid, FDI and Economic growth:
Evidence from Asian countries. Transnational Corporations , 16 (4), 119-135.
European Scientific Journal March 2013 edition vol.9, No.7 ISSN: 1857 – 7881 (Print) e – ISSN 1857- 7431
77
Trevino, Len. J.; Daniels, J.D.; Arbelaez, H. and Upadhyaya, K.P. (2002). Market reform and
foreign direct investment in Latin America: Evidence from an error correction model.
Interantional Trade Journal , 16 (4), 367-392.
Vernon, R. (1966, May). International Investments and International Trade in the Product
Life Cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 190-207.
Wei, S.-J. (1997). Why is corruption so much more taxing than tax? Arbitrariness kills.
NBER Working Paper No. 6255.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.