6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment Inflows (FDI) in
Nigeria
Adaora Nwankwo, Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England
ABSTRACT
The success stories of India and China’s economic development highlights the benefits that a country can
get by utilizing a strategy that attracts and gains value from FDI. While FDI inflows have been increasing
in some developing countries, Africa has not been successful except in natural-resource exploitation.
Given the importance of FDI to Africa, an important question that arises is: How can Nigeria increase its
global share of FDI?
Nigeria has the potential to become Sub-Saharan Africa’s largest economy because of its rich human and
natural resources but in spite of this, Nigeria is considered to be one of the 20 poorest countries in the
world. About 70% of the population live below the poverty line and with an investment rate of barely
10% of GDP, Nigeria is below the minimum investment rate of about 30% of GDP required to reduce
poverty.
This paper uses data over the period 1962 - 2003 to identify the main determinants of FDI inflows in
Nigeria. An important implication of the result is that FDI in Nigeria is mainly affected by political
instability, macro-economic instability and the availability of natural resources.
INTRODUCTION
In the face of inadequate resources to finance long-term development in Africa and with poverty
reduction looking increasingly bleak, attracting FDI has assumed a prominent place in the strategies of
African countries. The experience of a small number of fast-growing East Asian newly industrialized
economies has strengthened the belief that attracting FDI could bridge the resource gap of low-income
countries and avoid further build-up of debt while directly tackling the causes of poverty (UNCTAD
2004).
While FDI has been flowing to different regions of the world in growing proportions, Africa has been
receiving the least of global FDI inflows. African countries, like many developing countries need a
substantial inflow of external resources in order to make up for the savings and foreign exchange gaps
associated with a rapid rate of capital accumulation. Africa also needs growth to overcome widespread
poverty and Africa’s development crisis is unique as it is the poorest region in the world and remains
mired in debt (Sachs 2004).
Since FDI can create employment and act as a vehicle of technology transfer, provide superior skills and
management techniques, facilitate local firm’s access to international markets and increase product
diversity, FDI can therefore be an engine of economic growth and development in Africa where its need
cannot be overemphasised (Ngowi 2001; Mckinsey 2005).
The evidence on growth and poverty reduction is best approached by looking at two countries that have
huge reduction in poverty; China and India. A vast majority of the world’s poor live in these countries
but both countries achieved significant reductions in poverty during 1980-2000 when they grew rapidly
by opening up to foreign investment (Bhagwati and Srinivasan 2002).
Sachs (2004) argues that Africa is actually suffering from poor governance as in Zimbabwe and
widespread war and violence as in Angola, Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Sudan. To overcome many
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
1
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
of the constraints on productivity, Africa will require a sustained program of targeted investments.
According to the 2005 World Development Report, governments need to improve their country’s
investment climate in order to increase the opportunities and incentives for enterprises, both domestic
and foreign, to invest productively (Snowdon 2005).
This paper is structured as follows. It proceeds by examining the background of the paper which gives a
brief account of the previous and current work of other scholars on FDI in Africa and Nigeria. This is
followed by a description of the methodology and data. The result of the empirical process follows and
the paper concludes with the summary of the paper.
Foreign Direct Investment in Africa
Africa’s natural resources account for the uneven spread of FDI inflows across the continent and the 24
countries in Africa classified by the World Bank as oil and mineral-dependent have on average accounted
for close to three-quarters of annual FDI flows over the past two decades (UNCTAD 2005). In spite of
the abundance of natural resources in Africa, the investment response has been poor even with the
economic reforms aimed at creating an investor-friendly environment. Collier and Patillo (1999) argue
that investment is low in Africa because of the closed trade policy, inadequate transport and
telecommunications, low productivity and corruption. Cantwell (1997) has suggested that most African
countries lack the skill and technological infrastructure to effectively absorb larger flows of FDI even in
the primary sector and Lall (2004) sees the lack of “technological effort” in Africa as cutting it off from
the most dynamic components of global FDI flows in manufacturing.
The low level of FDI to Africa is also explained by the reversible nature of liberalization efforts and the
abuse of trade policies for wider economic and social goals. Others have singled out unfavourable and
unstable tax regimes (Gastanaga et al. 1998), large external debt burdens (Sachs 2004; Borensztein
1990), the slow pace of public sector reform, particularly privatization (Akingube 2003) and the
inadequacy of intellectual property protection as erecting serious obstacles to FDI in Africa. However,
considering the importance of a good business climate, a study of African competitiveness found that, in
terms of business environment, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) does not fare badly relative to other
developing regions (Lall 2004) and also, corporate tax rates in Africa do not appear to be at variance with
those in other regions (Hanson 2001).
However, Lyakurwa (2003) has stressed macroeconomic policy failures as deflecting FDI flows from
Africa. According to Lyakurwa, irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies have generated unsustainable
budget deficits and inflationary pressures, raising local production costs, generating exchange rate
instability and making the region too risky a location for FDI. In addition, excessive levels of corruption,
regulation and political risk are also believed to have further raised costs, adding to an unattractive
business climate for FDI.
Ngowi (2001) points out that the main factors preventing an increased inflow of FDI in Africa is that
most countries are regarded as high risk because they are characterized by a lack of political and
institutional stability. Additional factors that are cited as hindrances to prospective FDI include poor
access to world markets, price instability, high levels of corruption, small and stagnant markets and
inadequate infrastructure. Morrisset (2000) suggests that the most important features of African countries
successfully attracting FDI are strong economic growth and aggressive trade liberalization. Other
important factors include privatization programs, the modernization of mining and investment codes, the
adoption of international agreements relating to FDI, a few large priority projects which have significant
multiplier effects, and a high-profile image-building exhibition involving the head of state.
Morisset emphasizes the need for policy coordination in attracting FDI and argues that the most
important factor in attracting significant levels of foreign investment is a stable macroeconomic and
political environment.
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
2
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
Foreign Direct Investment in Nigeria
Nigeria has the potential to become Sub-Saharan Africa’s largest economy and a major player in the
global economy because of its rich human and material resources. With its large reserves of human and
natural resources, Nigeria has the potential to build a prosperous economy, reduce poverty significantly,
and provide the health, education, and infrastructure services its population needs. However this has not
been achieved because all major productive sectors have considerably shrunk in size with the over
dependence on oil. Income distribution is so skewed that the country is one of the most unequal societies
in the world, with 50% of the population having only 8% of the national income (Chart 1).
Chart 1- Income Distribution 1970 - 2000
Source: Sala-i-Martin and Subramaniam 2003
The economy remains highly uncompetitive and with an average annual investment rate of barely 10% of GDP,
Nigeria is far behind the minimum investment rate of about 30% of GDP required to unleash a poverty-reducing
growth rate (Chart 2).
Chart 2 – Poverty Rates 1970-2000
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
3
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
Source: Sala-i-Martin and Subramaniam 2003
Most of the FDI in Nigeria goes into the oil and extractive sectors and the economic structure remains
highly undiversified, with oil accounting for 95% of exports (USAID 2003). However, the Nigerian
government has acted to stimulate non-oil businesses through the promotion of Small and Medium
Enterprise (SME). These efforts and the momentum provided to the nation by the return of a democratic
government are reflected in the “Improvement and Optimism Indexes” compiled by the World Economic
Forum’s Africa Competitiveness Report (2000–2001), which ranks Nigeria fourth among 12 African
countries in terms of improvement and first, in terms of “optimism” (AFDB/OECD 2003; Ariyo 2004).
Chart 3 Share of Petroleum in FDI Inflows to Four Major African
Countries in 2004
Share in %
100
80
60
% Share of Petroleum
40
% Share of other resources
20
0
Angola
Egypt
Nigeria
Equatorial
Guinea
Economy
Source: World Investment Report 2005
Overshadowing everything else are several problems facing all businesses; both domestic and foreign.
These are weaknesses in infrastructure provision, a lack of personal and property security, poor
governance and corruption. Without continued efforts in these areas, efforts on other fronts, however
sound, might have a limited impact. Reflecting such major constraints, Nigeria ranked below average in
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
4
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
the 2005Transparency International Business Confidence Survey among African countries surveyed.
Such a poor environment for business makes it difficult for Nigeria to increase the rate of FDI inflows.
While these factors are in a sense intangible in the business climate, their impact is real in terms of its
effect on foreign investment and consequently on the growth of the economy (Table 1).
Table 1 Assessment of market attractiveness in Sub-Saharan Africa
Strategic markets
Problematic markets
South Africa
Algeria
Angola
Cameroun
Cote d’Ivoire
Ghana
Kenya
Morocco
Nigeria
Tanzania
Tunisia
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Source: Beraho 1997
Other elements like the complex regulatory environment, policy instability, the predominance of state
owned enterprises, and layers of business regulation at the state and local level, all contribute to
corruption by providing opportunities for patronage and intervention in private business affairs
(AFDB/OECD 2003; World Bank 2002). In spite of this, the table below indicates that Nigeria still ranks
amongst the top FDI receiving countries in Africa.
Table 2 Africa: country distribution of FDI inflows, 2003-2004
2003
2004
Economy
Economy
More than $2.0 Angola, Morocco and Nigeria
Nigeria and Angola
billion
$1.0-1.9 billion
Equatorial Guinea and Sudan
Equatorial Guinea, Sudan and Egypt
$0.5-0.9 billion
South Africa, Chad, Algeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Tunisia and United Republic of Algeria, Morocco, Congo, Tunisia,
Tanzania
South Africa, and Ethiopia
$0.1-0.4 billion
Ethiopia, Botswana, Mozambique, Chad, United Republic of Tanzania,
Congo,
Egypt,
Mauritania, Cote d’Ivoire, Zambia, Gabon,
Uganda, Gabon, Zambia, Cote Mauritania, Namibia, Uganda, Mali,
d’Ivoire
Less than $0.1 Kenya,
Guinea,
Mauritius, Senegal, Swaziland, Mauritius, Benin,
billion
Seychelles,
Senegal,
Benin, Gambia, Togo, Seychelles, Zimbabwe,
Lesotho,
Togo,
Zimbabwe, Sao Tome and Principe, Lesotho,
Burkina Faso, Gambia, Eritrea, Botswana, Kenya, Madagascar
Cape Verde, Madagascar
Source: World Investment Report 2005
Listed in order of the magnitude of FDI inflows for each respective year.
However with the transition to democracy and intense competition for FDI by other developing
countries, the Nigerian administration now shows a welcoming attitude to investors. The government has
aimed its most generous incentives at the sectors that present the greatest obstacles to economic
development, particularly infrastructure. Nigeria is becoming investor-friendly, with some laws allowing
for 100% foreign ownership of businesses and unhindered repatriation of capital. In addition, the
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
5
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
government has put in place a range of incentives designed to lower the cost of doing business to offset
the higher-cost operating environment arising from factors such as deficient infrastructure.
Various industries have been afforded ‘pioneer status’, giving start-ups a five-year tax holiday. There are
69 industries benefiting from this incentive, including mining, large-scale commercialised agriculture,
food processing, manufacturing and tourism. Manufacturers that add value to imported inputs are eligible
for a five-year 10% local VAT concession. Manufacturers using a prescribed minimum level of local raw
materials, for instance, 70% for agro-allied industries and 60% for engineering industries, are entitled to
a five-year 20% tax concession.
Investors can take advantage of an infrastructure incentive that permits a 20% tax deduction of the cost
of providing infrastructure facilities that should have been provided by the government. Such facilities
include access roads, pipe-borne water and electricity supply. There is a generous tax allowance on
research and development (R&D), with up to 120% of expenditure being tax deductible, provided that
such R&D activities are carried out in Nigeria and are related to the business from which profits are
derived. In the case of research into the use of local raw materials, the tax-deductible allowance rises to
140%. The government is also targeting investment into some economically disadvantaged areas,
extending the tax holiday available to ‘pioneer status’ industries to seven years and adding a 5% capital
depreciation allowance. Additional tax breaks are available for labour-intensive modes of production.
(Financial Times 2005).
According to the World Bank, Nigeria’s macroeconomic performance over the last two years has been
commendable. The economic reform efforts are showing positive results including:







In 2005, growth continued to be strong at 7% for the economy as a whole and 8% for the non-oil
sector. In the first quarter of 2006, the Nigerian economy grew by 8.3%.
In January 2006, the country received its first credit rating (BB-) from Fitch and Standard and
Poor’s.
Year-on-year inflation fell from 28% in August to 12% by December 2005.
A Fiscal Responsibility Bill has passed critical second readings in both the Senate and House.
The National Assembly is discussing a Public Procurement Reform Bill.
A bank consolidation program was implemented strengthening the financial sector and enhancing
its ability to provide credit to the private sector.
The import tariff regime has been liberalized reducing the number of tariff bands from 19 to 5 and
lowering the average tariff from about 29% to 12%.
With the deregulation of the telecommunication sector, Nigeria’s telecommunications sector is now in a
rapid growth mode. According to the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), there’s enormous
growth potential in the market, as demand for telecom service has been high because of market
liberalization and massive telecom investments. Over recent years, all branches of the telecom industry
have generated considerable growth and the telecom industry has emerged as a main motor of the
country’s economy. It is only the oil sector that has seen more investment and telecom is now seen as the
most lucrative branch for investment in Nigeria’s economy.
As a result, Nigeria presently boasts Africa’s largest and most promising telecom market. Even though
Nigeria is trailing other countries in terms of providing phone technology at an affordable price and
doing so reliably, the market has taken significant strides in its development (Ariyo 2005).
Theoretical framework on Foreign Direct Investment
A number of theories have been developed to explain the determinants of FDI. Extensive reviews of the
main FDI theories and determinants of FDI range from the economic theories of Vernon (1966), the
internationalisation theories of Rugman (1981) and Dunning’s (1993) eclectic paradigm. However, the
main theory adopted in this paper are drawn from Dunning (1977; 1993) who suggested that the main
factors that drive FDI inflows have been the need to secure market access, the opportunities presented by
large scale privatization processes and the degree of political and economic stability.
The eclectic paradigm of Dunning, also known as OLI, proposes that the undertaking of FDI is
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
6
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
determined by the realization of three groups of advantages and they are:



Ownership – specific advantages – these arise from the firm’s size and access to markets and
resources, the firm’s ability to coordinate complementary activities like manufacturing and distribution
and the ability to exploit differences between countries.
Locational advantages – this includes differences in country natural endowments, transport costs,
macroeconomic stability, cultural factors and government regulations. These help to determine which
countries are host to MNEs foreign production.
Internationalisation incentives – this arises from exploiting imperfections in external markets. These
include the reduction of uncertainty and transaction costs in order to generate knowledge more efficiently
and the reduction of state – generated imperfections such as tariffs, foreign exchange controls and
subsidies.
Considering the objective of the research, an emphasis has been placed on the locational determinants of
FDI. According to Erdal and Tatoglu (2002), the locational determinants of FDI can therefore be
summarized as market size and market growth, raw materials and labour supply, political and legal
environment, host government policies, geographical proximity and host country infrastructure.
The Description of Data and Methodology
The research covers Nigeria over the period of 1962 -2003. The dependent variable is the rate of FDI
inflows in Nigeria. All the data was obtained from the International Financial Statistics Yearbook,
published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1992, 1996 and 2004.
The Independent variables used in this research are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Market Size- A rapidly growing economy provides better opportunities for making profits than the
ones growing slowly or not all (Lim 1983) and an impressive rate of economic growth will be taken as a
favourable signal by foreign investors when making investment decisions (Asiebu 2003; Erdal and
Tatoglu 2002). GDP can be used to capture the influence of proven economic performance (Obwona
2003), so the annual growth rate of real GDP is used as a measure of how attractive the market is.
Macroeconomic stability– Exchange rates are expected to affect FDI inflows because they affect a
firm’s cash flow, expected profitability and the attractiveness of domestic assets to foreign investors
(Erdal and Tatoglu 2002; Maniam 1998). Exchange rate fluctuations are used as a measure of
macroeconomic instability. The higher and more unstable it is, the less FDI inflows into a host country.
Political stability – Political stability is important for creating a climate of confidence for investors.
Political instability whether perceived or real could be a serious deterrent for FDI as it creates
uncertainties and increases risks and costs (Obwona 2003). The frequency of coup d'état in the country is
used as a measure of political instability and the transition to democracy would be used as an indicator of
political stability. Dummy variables would be used to capture these variables and their effect on FDI.
Availability of natural resources - According to Dunning, countries with an abundance of natural
resources would receive more FDI. While Asiebu (2003) used the share of total exports to show the
availability of natural resources, in this research, the exports of crude petroleum is used instead of total
exports because at least 95% of Nigeria’s exports is from crude petroleum.
The model is:







FDI     1 GDP   2 EXRA   3 COUP   4TRDE   5 EXCR   i
Table 3: Description of Data
Independent Variables
Expressed As
Testing
Real GDP
Exchange Rate fluctuations
Coup d’etat
Transition to Democracy
GDP
EXRA
COUP
TRDE
Market Growth
Macroeconomic Instability
Political Instability
Political Stability
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
7
Expected
Sign
+
+
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
Exports of Crude Petroleum
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
EXCR
Availability
Resources
of
Natural
+
The augmented Dickey – Fuller (ADF) unit root test was conducted to examine whether each series of
interest are stationary or not. The ADF test showed that all the series were stationary and a co-integration
test was also conducted to check if these variables have any long-run equilibrium relationship. The test
showed that there is a long –term relationship between FDI and the other series.
A simple regression test was also conducted to predict the value of the dependent variable given a value
of the independent variables. Table 2 and 3 shows that there is a significant relationship between FDI and
GDP, this confirms that an impressive rate of economic growth will be taken as a favourable signal by
foreign investors when making investment decisions (Asiebu 2003; Erdal and Tatoglu 2002). The tables
also indicate a positive relationship between FDI and a stable exchange rate, which also confirms the
literature that argues that exchange rates are expected to affect FDI inflows because they affect a firm’s
cash flow, expected profitability and the attractiveness of domestic assets to foreign investors (Erdal and
Tatoglu 2002; Maniam 1998). However, coup d’etat did not have a positive relationship with FDI which
indicates that political instability whether perceived or real could be a serious deterrent for FDI as it
creates uncertainties and increases risks and costs (Obwona 2003). Also, the transition to democracy
which is an indicator of political stability does not have a significant relationship with FDI, this could be
attributed to the few number of years that democracy has been in place in Nigeria.
Table 4: Simple Regression Test
Dependent Variable: LFDI
Method: Least Squares
Sample: 1963 2003
Method: Least Squares
Variable
Coefficient
C
0.685763
LGDP (-1)
0.623248
LEXCR(-1)
-0.358031
COUP
-0.865414
TRDE
-0.526096
LEXRA(-)
0.301720
R-squared
0.456126
Adjusted R-squared
0.371146
S.E. of regression
0.762464
Sum squared resid
18.60323
Log likelihood
-40.34890
Durbin-Watson stat
1.916260
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
Std Error
t-Statistic
2.698103
0.254165
0.325944
1.912135
0.226965
-1.577471
0.537745
-1.609338
0.599910
-0.876958
0.83348
3.620007
Mean dependent var
S.D. dependent var
Akaike info criterion
Schwarz criterion
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
8
Prob
0.8010
0.0648
0.1245
0.1174
0.3870
0.0010
5.243340
0.961489
2.439416
2.697982
5.367433
0.001078
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
Table 5: Simple Regression Test
Dependent Variable: LFDI
Method: Least Squares
Sample: 1963 2003
Method: Least Squares
Variable
Coefficient
C
-0.84036
LGDP (-1)
0.663968
LEXRA(-1)
0.333738
LEXCR(-1)
-0.479199
R-squared
0.382712
Adjusted R-squared
0.328245
S.E. of regression
0.788042
Sum squared resid
21.11436
Log likelihood
-42.75464
Durbin-Watson stat
1.772061
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
Std Error
t-Statistic
2.599274
-0.32330
0.321270
2.066699
0.076055
4.388137
0.197747
-2.423289
Mean dependent var
S.D. dependent var
Akaike info criterion
Schwarz criterion
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
Prob
0.9744
0.0464
0.0001
0.0209
5.243340
0.961489
2.460771
2.633148
7.026548
0.000842
Conclusion
This paper has looked at the determinants of FDI in Nigeria and it shows that a strong market and
macroeconomic stability and natural resource endowments promote FDI while political instability and
the transition to democracy have the opposite result. This suggests that a strong market and
macroeconomic stability encourages foreign investment in Nigeria while political instability discourages
foreign investment. However democracy, which was used as an indicator of political stability, suggests
that foreign investment which is primarily based geared towards the oil sector is not stimulated by the
presence of a democratic government.
Limitations of the research strategy and methods
Considering the role of corruption, the administrative process and the standard of infrastructure as a
major deterrent of FDI in Africa, the researcher did not use these variables as some of the independent
variables because of the unavailability of time series data for the 42 years under study.
References
African Economic Institute for Applied Economics (2003). Nigeria: Macroeconomic Assessment and Agenda for Reforms.
USAID/Nigeria Macroeconomic Assessment Contract.
Agosin, M. and Mayer, R. 2000, Foreign Investment in Developing Countries: Does itCrowd in Domestic investment? United
Conference on Trade and Development Discussion Papers, 146.
Akingube, O. (2003) Flow of Foreign Direct Investment To Hitherto Neglected Developing Countries. WIDER Discussion Paper,
January.
Ariyo, A ( ) Utility Privatisation and the Poor: Nigeria in Focus.
Asiedu, E. (2002) On The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment to Developing Countries: Is Africa Different? World
Development, 30(1), p.107-119.
Asiedu, E. (2003) Foreign Direct Investment to Africa: The Role of Government Policy, Governance and Political Instability.
University of Kansas Working Paper.
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
9
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
Bhagwati, J. and Srinivasan, T. N. (2002) Trade and Poverty. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings May.
Borensztein, E. (1990) Debt Overhang, Credit Rationing and Investment. Journal of Development Economics, 32, p.315-335.
Bosworth, B. and Collins, S. (2003) The Empires of Growth: An update. Brookings Institute, Washington DC.
Cantwell, J. (1997) Globalization and Development in Africa. In Dunning, J. and Hamdani, K. The New Globalism and Developing
Countries. UNU Press.
Collier, P. and Patillo, C. (1999), Reducing the Risk of Investment in Africa. Mcmillan.
De Mello, L. R. (1999) Foreign Direct Investment, International Knowledge, Transfers and Endogenous Growth: Time Series
Evidence. Department of Economics.
Dunning, J.H. (1977) Trade, Location of Economic Activity and The Multinational Enterprise: A search for an eclectic approach. in
Ohlin, B.,Hesselborn, P. O. and Wijkman, P.M, The international allocation of economic activity, London: Mcmillan.
Dunning, J.H. (1988), The Eclectic Paradigm of International Production: A Restatement and Some Possible Extensions. Journal of
International Business Studies, 19(1), p.1-31.
Dunning, J.H. (1993) Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Erdal, F. and Tatoglu, E.(2002) Locational Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment In An Emerging Market Economy: Evidence
from Turkey. Multinational Business Review, 10(1).
Farrell D; Remes J. K. and Schulz, H, (2005) The Truth About Foreign Direct Investment in Emerging Markets. Mckinsey Global
Quarterly.
Gastanaga, V.M., Jeffery, B.N. and Bistra, P. (1998) Host Country Reforms and Foreign Direct investment Inflows: How Much
Difference Do They Make? World Development, 26(7), p.1299-314.
Hanson, G.H. (2001) Should Countries Promote Foreign Direct investment? G-24 Discussion Paper 9.
International Monetary Fund (1992, 1996 and 2004) Balance of Payments Yearbooks. Directory of Trade Statistics, International
Finance Statistics.
Kobrin, S.J. (2004) The Determinants of Liberalization of Foreign Direct Investment Policy in Developing Countries: A Cross –
Sectional Analysis, 1992-2001. A Working Paper of Jones Centre.
Kumar, N. and Pradhan, J.P. (2002) Foreign Direct Investment, Externalities and Economic Growth in Developing Countries:
Some Empirical Explorations and Implications for WTO Negotiations on Investment. Research and Information System for the
Non-Aligned and Other Developing Countries. RIS Discussion Paper 27.
Lall, S. (2004) Is African Industry Competing? QEH Working Paper 121, Oxford: Queen Elizabeth House.
Lim, D. (1983) Fiscal Incentives and Direct Foreign Investment in Less Developed Countries. Journal of Development Studies,
19(2).
Maniam, B. (1998) Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in India: Implications and Policy Issues. Managerial Finance, 24(7).
Markusen, J.R. and Venables, A.J. (1999) Foreign Direct Investment as A Catalyst For Industrial Development. European
Economic Review, 43, p.335-356.
Morrisset, J. (2000) Foreign Direct Investment in Africa: Policies Also Matter. Transnational Corporations, 9(2), p.107-125.
Ndikumana, L. (2003) Capital Flows, Capital Account Regimes and Foreign Exchange Regimes in Africa. United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development, Management of Capital Flows: Comparative Experiences and Implications for Africa.
Ngowi, H.P. ( 2001) Can Africa Increase Its Global Share of Foreign Direct Investment? West Africa Review 2(2).
Nunnenkamp, P. (2004) To What Extent Can Foreign Direct Investment Help Achieve International Development Goals? Kiel
institute of World Economics, p.657-675.
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
10
6th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 0-9742114-6-X
Obwona, M. B. (2003) The Determinants of FDI and Their Impact on Economic Growth in Uganda. African Development Review,
13(1), p.46-81.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2001) Foreign Direct Investment and Sustainable Development.
Financial Market Trends, 79.
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (2004) Annual Statistics Bulletin. Vienna.
Panagariya, A. (2003) Miracles and Debacles: Do Free Trade Sceptics Have a Case? The World Economy, August.
Rugman, A. (1981) Inside the Multinationals: The Economics of Internal Markets. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sachs, J.D. (2004) Ending Africa’s Poverty Trap. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, p.117-240.
Saggi, K. (2000) Trade, Foreign Direct Investment and International Technology Transfer. World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper 2349.
Sala-i-Martin, X and Subramaniam, A (2003) Addressing the Natural Resource Curse: An illustration from Nigeria. National
Bureau of Economic Research , NBER Working Paper No. 9804.
Schneider, F. and Frey, B. (1985) Economic and Political Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment. World Development, 13(2),
p.161-175. 12.
Snowdon, B. (2005) A Global Compact To End Poverty: Jeffery Sachs on Stabilisation, Transition, and Weapons of Mass
Destruction. World Economics, 6(4).
United Nations Conference Trade and Development (2005) Economic Development of Africa: Rethinking the Role of Foreign
Direct Investment. New York and Geneva.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2004) Economic Development in Africa, Debt Sustainability: Oasis or
Mirage. New York and Geneva.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2000) Incentives for Foreign Direct Investment.
Vernon, R. (1966) International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80,
p.190-207.
OCTOBER 15-17, 2006
GUTMAN CONFERENCE CENTER, USA
11