FDI and Development Where do We Stand

1
FDI and DevelopmentWhere do We Stand?

• Kiichiro Fukasaku Tokyo, 4 December 2001

2
Structure of the Presentation

• Introduction
• Some stylised facts
• Putting theory at work
• Empirical evidence
• Main conclusions

3
Introduction

• FDI is one of the defining features of
  globalisation over the last two decades.
• Heterogeneity of FDI (by sector, by destination
  and by motivation of investors)
• Renewed interest in the development dimension of
  FDI
• Further trade and investment liberalisation
• New growth theory
• Data and measurement

4
Some Stylised Facts
5
Trends in World Merchandise Exports and FDI
Outflows (average annual growth rates)
6
Trends in FDI Inflows, Cross-border MAs and
Privatisation( billion)
7
Share of Manufacturing in Total FDI Stock- the
United States, 1986 and 2000
8
Net FDI Source and Recipient Countries (Billion,
three year average 1998-2000)
9
Net FDI Source and Recipient Countries (Billion,
three year average 1991-1993)
10

Five Main Areas of Interest

• FDI-growth nexus
• FDI-trade linkages
• FDI and technology transfer
• FDI, privatisation and corporate governance
• Host-government policies for attracting FDI

11
A Critical Question forEmpirical Analysis

• Why are some developing countries more able to
  take advantage of the gains from trade and
  investment liberalisation than others?

12
Putting theory at work
13
Benefits of FDI for Host Countries

• FDI brings financial resources for domestic
  capital formation.
• FDI increases production, employment and trade,
  quantitatively and qualitatively.
• FDI transfers technologies, hard and soft.

14
International transfer oftechnology through

• Imports of new capital and differentiated
  intermediate goods
• Learning by exporting
• Trade in technology (patents, licensing)
• FDI

15
FDI transfers technologies through

• Intra-firm spillovers within a MNE
• Intra-industry spillovers in a host country
• Vertical linkages
• Horizontal linkages (reverse engineering,
  competition)
• Training workers, investing in human resources
  and RD
• Inter-industry spillovers in a host country

16
Growth impact of FDI

• Short-term impact of KF on Y (FF gt 0)
• Crowding in or out ? (FHF gt 0 or lt 0)
• Long-term impact of KF on Y through
• A,?H,?F and ?

17
Empirical evidence
18
FDI-growth nexus (1)

• A majority view FDI does make a positive
  contribution to both income growth and TFP in
  host countries.
• Reverse causality, omitted variables,
  heterogeneity.
• Threshold externalities Developing countries
  need to have reached a certain threshold of
  development before being able to capture the
  benefits associated with FDI (see next).

19
FDI-growth nexus (2)

• Income level (Blomström et al. 1994)
• Educational attainment (Borenzstein et al. 1998)
• Local technological capabilities (de Mello 1999,
  Xu 2000)
• Local financial markets (Alfaro et al. 2001,
  Hermes-Lensink 2000)
• Crowding in or out (Asia vs. other areas,
  Agosin-Mayer 2000)

20
FDI-trade linkages (1)

• A majority view FDI and trade are more
  complementary than substituting in the
  North-South context.
• Data constraints (US, Japan and Sweden)
• Aggregation, causality and endogeneity
• Conceptual issues (volume vs. price)

21
FDI-trade linkages (2)

• Aggregation (product, industry and macro)
• product-level substitution (Blonigen 1999)
• industry-level complementarity (Kawai-Urata 1995)
• Causality (time precedence, inconclusive)
• Endogeneity (FDI-exports both endogenous)
• Costs of operating abroad (Amiti-Wakelin 2000,
  Clausing 2000, Fukasaku-Kimura 2001).

22
FDI-trade linkages (3)

• Horizontal FDI tends to substitutes exports,
  depending on the degree of scale economies
  relative to trade costs. On the other hand,
  vertical FDI tends to complement exports, as the
  home country supplies headquarters services
  and/or intermediate products to the host country
  (the knowledge-capital model of the MNE).

23
FDI and technology transfer (1)

• Intra-firm technology transfer the host-country
  conditions matter (e.g. income level, past
  experience on industrialisation - Urata-Kawai
  2000)
• Efficiency gains from technological spillovers to
  local firms would not occur automatically.
• Competition matters in local markets (Okamoto,
  1999)

24
FDI and technology transfer (2)

• Blomström-Persson (1983, Mexico 1970)
• Haddad-Harrison (1983, Morocco 1985-89)
• Blomström-Sjöholm (1998, Indonesia 1991)
• Kokko et al. (1996/2001, Uruguay 1988)
• Aitken-Harrison (1999, Venezuela 1976-89)
• Djankov-Hoekman(1999, Czech, 1992-96)
• Haskel et al. (2001, UK 1973-92)

25
FDI and technology transfer (3)

• Both relative and absolute technological
  capabilities - Perez (1998, Italy 1989-91)
• Foreign presence affects positively the
  productivity growth of domestic firms in
  specialist and scale-intensive sectors (e.g.
  chemical, machinery, metal, automobile), but not
  in science-based sectors (e.g. pharmaceutical,
  IT/electronic).

26
Privatisation

• Privatisation have provided a major channel of
  FDI inflows in both E. Europe and Latin America
  in the 1990s.
• Initial assessment in both OECD and non-OECD
  countries overall positive.
• But, implementation and regulatory challenges are
  great.
• Power crisis in California, railway crisis in UK.
  

27
Host-government policies (1)

• The importance of host-government policies for
  attracting FDI and reaping full benefits
  associated with FDI is clear.
• Motives of foreign investors and host-country
  fundamentals
• Costs of investment incentives

28
Host-government policies (2)

• A comparative survey of FDI regimes in Asia and
  Latin America
• Legal and policy framework for FDI appears to be
  more open in Latin America than in Asia.
• Wide differences across countries in Asia in
  terms of control at the entry phase and negative
  lists as well as the approach to IPRs

29
Main conclusions (1)

• Host-government policies matter.
• More discussion is needed as to how policies work
  (or do not work).
• Traditional incentive-based measures are costly
  for developing countries facing severe resource
  constraints.

30
Main conclusions (2)

• The establishment of a multilateral framework of
  rules on FDI helps increase the collective
  welfare of host countries (prisoners dilemma).
• A regional approach to taking more constructive,
  rules-based policies to FDI EU, NAFTA, MERCOSUR,
  FTAA, ASEAN Investment Area, APEC.