IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jda/journl/vol.49year2015issue4pp341-353.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does FDI lead to a deterioration of income distribution? Evidence from Malaysia

Author

Listed:
  • Mukaramah-Harun
  • Siti Hadijah Che Mat
  • Zalina-Zainal

    (Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia)

Abstract

Income inequality has long been a frustrating feature of Malaysian economic development. The country income inequality, represented by the Gini Coefficient has decreased only slightly to 0.41 in 2014 from 0.51 in 1970. This income inequality, however, was accompanied by rapid economic growth. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown by an average of more than 7 percent per year for 25 years or more. The expectations that the high economic growth would accompany low income inequality as hypothesized by the inverted ‘U-shaped’ Kuznets curve have not come true for Malaysia. Why did it occur? Unlike many other conventional studies which look at the relationship between growth and income inequality to explain this phenomenon; this study intent to looks at the foreign direct investment (FDI) relationship with income inequality. Since 1990s, FDI has been an important source of economic growth for Malaysia, bringing in capital investment, technology and management knowledge needed for economic growth. FDI had increased almost thirty-fold during 1970s to 2000s. There is a heated debate on the effects of FDI on income distribution. While FDI may have been good for development this masks the facts that not all types of workers necessarily gain from FDI to some extent. FDI induced skill specific technological change where it can be associated with skill-specific wage bargaining or skill-intensive sectors. This study presents an attempt to evaluate the impact of foreign direct investment (FDI) on income distribution among labors. The Malaysia’s Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) is constructed as a framework for the analysis. In this SAM the detail framework of the component of FDI in various sectors, production sectors and labor groups are essential to analyse different effects from different component of FDI on the labor’s income distribution among different labor group. This structure of SAM would answer the question of either and which component of FDI will benefit the most to the low income. The study finds that the FDI expansion has impacted negatively on the distribution of income across different labor groups, where it has increased the high-low or skilled-unskilled income inequality. It also indicates that there are differences in the composition of the FDI that impacts income distribution among labor. The apparent differences in the magnitude of the effects of the different FDI components suggests that variations in the FDI allocations among sectors should be considered as a possible policy variable to achieve income equality goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Mukaramah-Harun & Siti Hadijah Che Mat & Zalina-Zainal, 2015. "Does FDI lead to a deterioration of income distribution? Evidence from Malaysia," Journal of Developing Areas, Tennessee State University, College of Business, vol. 49(4), pages 341-353, October-D.
  • Handle: RePEc:jda:journl:vol.49:year:2015:issue4:pp:341-353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_developing_areas/v049/49.4.mukaramah-harun.html
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Foreign direct investment; income distribution; Social Accounting Matrix;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H5 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
    • O15 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Economic Development: Human Resources; Human Development; Income Distribution; Migration

    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:jda:journl:vol.49:year:2015:issue4:pp:341-353. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Abu N.M. Wahid (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbtnsus.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.