IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifwkdp/380.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Foreign direct investment in developing countries: What policymakers should not do and what economists don't know

Author

Listed:
  • Nunnenkamp, Peter

Abstract

Since recent financial crises in Asia and Latin America, developing countries have been strongly advised to rely primarily on foreign direct investment (FDI) in order to promote economic development on a sustainable basis. Even harsh critics of rash capital account liberalization argue in favor of opening up towards FDI. Yet, economists know surprisingly little about the driving forces and the economic effects of FDI. There are few undisputed insights on which policymakers can rely. Globalization through FDI has become significantly more important since the early 1990s. Various groups of developing countries have participated to a strikingly different degree in the FDI boom. However, the distribution of FDI does not support the widely held view that FDI is concentrated in just a few developing countries. Considered in relative terms, various small and less advanced countries have been attractive to FDI. Policymakers should be aware that various measures intended to induce FDI, including the liberalization of FDI regulations and business facilitation, are unlikely to do the trick. Promotional efforts will help little to attract FDI if economic fundamentals are not conducive to FDI. Fiscal and financial incentives offered to foreign investors may do more harm than good by giving rise to costly “bidding wars.” The importance of traditional determinants of FDI, notably the size of local markets, can no longer be taken for granted. Globalization tends to induce a shift from purely market-seeking FDI to new types of FDI, for which the international competitiveness of local production is highly relevant. The challenge for policymakers in developing countries then is to create immobile domestic assets that provide a competitive edge in the competition for FDI. This task has various dimensions, ranging from local capacity building and the provision of efficient business-related services to trade liberalization with regard to capital goods and intermediate products. Policymakers should not expect too much from FDI inflows. Capital formation continues to be a national phenomenon in the first place. FDI is superior to other types of capital inflows in some respects, particularly because of its risksharing properties, though not necessarily in all respects. The nexus between FDI and overall investment as well as economic growth in host countries is neither self-evident nor straightforward, but remains insufficiently explored territory

Suggested Citation

  • Nunnenkamp, Peter, 2001. "Foreign direct investment in developing countries: What policymakers should not do and what economists don't know," Kiel Discussion Papers 380, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkdp:380
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/2616/1/kd380.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Siebert, Horst, 2000. "The paradigm of locational competition," Kiel Discussion Papers 367, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Kamps, Christophe & Scheide, Joachim, 2001. "End of the upswing in Euroland: No reason to cut interest rates," Kiel Discussion Papers 374, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Thiele, Rainer, 2000. "East Timor's transition to independence: Building up an economy from scratch," Kiel Discussion Papers 368, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Neu, Axel D., 2000. "Eine Zwischenbilanz zum Einsatz und zur Förderung erneuerbarer Energie in Deutschland," Kiel Discussion Papers 363, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    5. Dohse, Dirk, 2000. "Regionen als Innovationsmotoren: zur Neuorientierung in der deutschen Technologiepolitik," Kiel Discussion Papers 366, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    6. Diehl, Markus & Nunnenkamp, Peter, 2001. "Lehren aus der Asienkrise: wirtschaftspolitische Reaktionen und fortbestehende Reformdefizite," Kiel Discussion Papers 373, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter Nunnenkamp, 2004. "To What Extent Can Foreign Direct Investment Help Achieve International Development Goals?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(5), pages 657-677, May.
    2. Destek, Mehmet Akif & Okumus, İlyas, 2018. "Does pollution haven hypothesis hold in newly industrialized countries? Evidence from ecological footprint," MPRA Paper 106959, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Gilroy, Bernard Michael & Lukas, Elmar, 2002. "The New Agenda for FDI: Evidence from South Korea and Germany," MPRA Paper 17970, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Nunnenkamp, Peter, 2003. "Ausländische Direktinvestitionen in Lateinamerkia: Enttäuschte Hoffnungen trotz attraktiver Standortbedingungen?," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 3104, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    5. Humaira Raffat & Danish Ahmed Siddiqui, 2020. "Does Openness, and Productivity Matters for FDI: A Global Interactive Analysis Based on the Complementary Role of Institutions," Issues in Economics and Business, Macrothink Institute, vol. 6(2), pages 1-21, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nunnenkamp, Peter, 2002. "IWF und Weltbank: trotz aller Mängel weiterhin gebraucht?," Kiel Discussion Papers 388, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Siebert, Horst, 2002. "The stalling engine in Wirtschaftswunder-Land: Germany's economic policy challenges," Kiel Discussion Papers 386, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    3. Siebert, Horst, 2001. "How the EU can move to a higher growth path: some considerations," Kiel Discussion Papers 383, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Stehn, Jürgen, 2002. "Leviathan in cyberspace: how to tax e-commerce," Kiel Discussion Papers 384, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    5. Gern, Klaus-Jürgen & Kamps, Christophe & Scheide, Joachim, 2002. "Euroland: recovery is under way," Kiel Discussion Papers 385, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    6. Gern, Klaus-Jürgen & Kamps, Christophe & Scheide, Joachim, 2001. "European economic outlook: general report presented at the AIECE meeting in Paris, May 9 - 11, 2001," Kiel Discussion Papers 376/377, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    7. Buczkowska, Sabina & de Lapparent, Matthieu, 2014. "Location choices of newly created establishments: Spatial patterns at the aggregate level," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 68-81.
    8. Nunnenkamp, Peter, 2007. "Internationale Finanzpolitik," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 4321, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    9. Eerma, Diana & Sepp, Jüri, 2009. "Estonia in transition under the restrictions of European institutional competition," Discourses in Social Market Economy 2009-02, OrdnungsPolitisches Portal (OPO).
    10. Andreas Fier & Dietmar Harhoff, 2002. "Die Evolution der bundesdeutschen Forschungs– und Technologiepolitik: Rückblick und Bestandsaufnahme," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 3(3), pages 279-301, August.
    11. Balz R. Bodenmann, 2011. "Modelling firm (re-)location choice in UrbanSim," ERSA conference papers ersa11p1091, European Regional Science Association.
    12. Guth, Michael & Jakobs, Susanne & Kodré, Petra & Mühlenfeld, Claudia & Noetzel, Roman, 2007. "Erfolgsdeterminanten für eine sozialintegrative regionale Innovationspolitik: Vergleichende Analyse von 15 Fallbeispielen," Study / edition der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf, volume 127, number 180, March.
    13. Rosenschon, Astrid, 2001. "Familienförderung in Deutschland: Eine Bestandsaufnahme," Kiel Discussion Papers 382, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    14. Sell, Friedrich L., 2001. "Braucht es monetäre und reale Konvergenz für eine (in einer) Währungsunion? Anmerkungen zu einer aktuellen Debatte," Working Papers in Economics 2001,1, Bundeswehr University Munich, Economic Research Group.
    15. Dohse, Dirk, 2002. "The changing role of the regions in German technology policy," ERSA conference papers ersa02p023, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Berthold, Norbert & Fricke, Holger, 2009. "Die Bundesländer im Standortwettbewerb," Discussion Paper Series 106, Julius Maximilian University of Würzburg, Chair of Economic Order and Social Policy.
    17. Dohse, Dirk, 2002. "The geography of new market firms in Germany," ERSA conference papers ersa02p199, European Regional Science Association.
    18. Sichelschmidt, Henning, 2001. "Das Projekt eines deutschen Tiefwasser-Containerhafens und seine Rolle im Standortwettbewerb," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 2610, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    19. Nunnenkamp, Peter, 2001. "Umbaupläne und Reparaturarbeiten an der internationalen Finanzarchitektur: eine Zwischenbilanz aus deutscher Perspektive," Kiel Working Papers 1078, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    20. Buch, Claudia M. & Heinrich, Ralph P. & Pierdzioch, Christian, 2001. "Globalisierung der Finanzmärkte: Freier Kapitalverkehr oder Tobin-Steuer?," Kiel Discussion Papers 381, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkdp:380. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iwkiede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.