https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w5057/w5057.pdf

How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth

Many countries compete against one another in attracting foreign investors by offering ever more generous incentive packages and justifying their actions with the productivity gains that are expected to accrue to domestic producers from knowledge externalities generated by foreign affiliates. Despite this being hugely important to public policy choices, there is little conclusive evidence indicating that domestic firms benefit from foreign presence in their sector. It is possible, though, that researchers have been looking for foreign direct investment (FDI) spillovers in the wrong place. Multinationals have an incentive to prevent information leakage that would enhance the performance of their local competitors in the same industry but at the same time may want to transfer knowledge to their local suppliers in other sectors. Spillovers from FDI may be, therefore, more likely to take place through backward linkages - that is, contacts between domestic suppliers of intermediate inputs and their multinational clients - and thus would not have been captured by the earlier literature. This paper focuses on the understudied issue of FDI spillovers through backward linkages and goes beyond existing studies by shedding some light on factors driving this phenomenon. It also improves over existing literature by addressing several econometric problems that may have biased the results of earlier research. Based on a firm-level panel data set from Lithuania, the estimation results are consistent with the existence of productivity spillovers. They suggest that a 10 percent increase in the foreign presence in downstream sectors is associated with 0.38 percent rise in output of each domestic firm in the supplying industry. The data indicate that these spillovers are not restricted geographically, since local firms seem to benefit from the operation of downstream foreign affiliates on their own, as well as in other regions. The results further show that greater productivity benefits are associated with domestic-market, rather than export-oriented, foreign affiliates. But no difference is detected between the effects of fully-owned foreign firms and those with joint domestic and foreign ownership. The findings of a positive correlation between productivity growth of domestic firms and the increase in multinational presence in downstream sectors should not, however, be interpreted as a call for subsidizing FDI. These results are consistent with the existence of knowledge spillovers from foreign affiliates to their local suppliers, but they may also be a result of increased competition in upstream sectors. While the former case would call for offering FDI incentive packages, it would not be the optimal policy in the latter. Certainly more research is needed to disentangle these two effects. This paper - a product of Trade, Development Research Group - is part of a larger effort in the group to study the contribution of trade and foreign direct investment to technology transfer.

Does Foreign Direct Investment Increase the Productivity of Domestic Firms? In Search of Spillovers Through Backward Linkages

This study investigates the determinants of Chinese outward direct investment (ODI) and the extent to which three special explanations (capital market imperfections, special ownership advantages and institutional factors) need to be nested within the general theory of the multinational firm. We test our hypotheses using official Chinese ODI data collected between 1984 and 2001. We find Chinese ODI to be associated with high levels of political risk in, and cultural proximity to, host countries throughout, and with host market size and geographic proximity (1984 to 1991) and host natural resources endowments (1992 to 2001). We find strong support for the argument that aspects of the special theory help to explain the behaviour of Chinese MNEs.

/pdf/the-determinants-of-chinese-outward-foreign-direct-ug17cra671.pdf

The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment

The operations of multinational corporations continue to stir strong emotions, both in the home countries and abroad. In the major home countries, the debate on foreign direct investment has ranged from worries that outward FDI may substitute for domestic investment and erode technology leadership, to the argument that firms must invest abroad in order to stay competitive in an increasingly international environment. The attitudes towards MNCs have also been mixed in the host countries, although the proponents of FDI seem to have gained the upper hand since the late 1980s. Most host countries have liberalized their FDI regulations since the early 1980s — many are now actively trying to encourage foreign firms to invest — and the benefits of inward FDI on capital formation, employment, exports and technology are generally considered to dominate the costs of foreign ownership of local factors of production.

Multinational Corporations and Spillovers

The study develops an index of globalization covering its three main dimensions: economic integration, social integration, and political integration. Using panel data for 123 countries in 1970–2000 it is analysed empirically whether the overall index of globalization as well as sub-indexes constructed to measure the single dimensions affect economic growth. As the results show, globalization indeed promotes growth. The dimensions most robustly related with growth refer to actual economic flows and restrictions in developed countries. Although less robustly, information flows also promote growth whereas political integration has no effect.

/pdf/does-globalization-affect-growth-evidence-from-a-new-index-4vsnrtsy3u.pdf

Does Globalization Affect Growth? : evidence from a new Index of Globalization

Foreign Direct Investment

This paper examines shares of fixed capital formation in GDP and rates of economic growth for more than 100 countries over successive five-year periods between 1965 and 1985 to determine the direction of causality between them. Simple regressions and multiple regressions including several standard determinants of growth, as well as a simple causality test, provide more evidence that increases in growth precede rises in rates of capital formation than that increases in capital formation precede increases in growth. High rates of fixed capital formation accompany rapid growth in per capita income, but we find no evidence that fixed investment is the only or main source of ignition for economic growth.

Is Fixed Investment the Key to Economic Growth

Among developing countries, there was no gross relationship between real income per capita in 1960 and subsequent growth in per capita income However, once other significant influences, such as education, changes in labor force participation rates, inflows of foreign investment, price structures, and fixed investment ratios are taken into account, the lower the 1960 income level, the faster the income growth This "conditional" convergence was particularly strong among the poorest half of the developing countries, contradicting the idea of a "convergence club" confined to relatively well-off countries Inflows of direct investment were an important influence on growth rates for higher income developing countries, but not for lower income ones For the latter group, secondary education, changes in labor force participation rates, and initial distance behind the United States were all major factors

/pdf/what-explains-developing-country-growth-1zooejemxy.pdf

What Explains Developing Country Growth

This paper examines intra-industry spillovers from FDI in Uruguayan manufacturing plants in 1988, to determine whether differences in the technology gap between locally- owned plants and foreign affiliates have any impact on the relation between local productivity and foreign presence. We find a positive and statistically significant spillover effect only in a sub-sample of locally-owned plants with moderate technology gaps vis-a-vis foreign firms. Our interpretation is that there are firm-specific differences in the ability to absorb spillovers, and that these may explain some of the contradictory findings of earlier spillover studies.

/pdf/productivity-spillovers-from-fdi-in-the-uruguayan-1ztubhq2n9.pdf

Productivity spillovers from FDI in the Uruguayan manufacturing sector.

This paper examines shares of fixed capital formation in GOP and rates of economic growth for more than 100 countries over successive 5-year periods between 1965 and 1985 to determine the direction of causality between them. Simple regressions and multiple regressions including several standard determinants of growth, as well as a simple causality test, provide more evidence that increases in growth precede rises in rates of capital formation than that increases in capital formation precede increases in growth. High rates of fixed capital formation accompany rapid growth in per capita income, but we find no evidence that fixed investment is the only or main source of ignition for economic growth.

/pdf/is-fixed-investment-the-key-to-economic-growth-1l8qlrp8qq.pdf

Mario Zejan

Papers

Foreign Direct Investment

Is Fixed Investment the Key to Economic Growth

What Explains Developing Country Growth

Productivity spillovers from FDI in the Uruguayan manufacturing sector.

Is Fixed Investment the Key to Economic Growth