IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Impact of government policies and investment agreements on FDI inflows

  • Rashmi Banga

    (Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations)

Registered author(s):

    The last two decades have witnessed an extensive growth in foreign direct investment (FDI) flows to developing countries. This has been accompanied by an increase in competition amongst the developing countries to attract FDI, resulting in higher investment incentives offered by the host governments and removal of restrictions on operations of foreign firms in their countries. This has also led to an ever-increasing number of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and regional agreements on investments. In this scenario, the question addressed by the study is: How effective are these selective government policies and investment agreements in attracting FDI flows to developing countries and do FDI from developed and developing countries respond similarly to developing host countries' policies? To answer this, the study examines the impact of fiscal incentives offered, removal of restrictions and signing of bilateral and regional investment agreements with developed and developing countries on FDI inflows to developing countries, after controlling for the effect of economic fundamentals of the host countries. The analysis is first undertaken for aggregate FDI inflows to fifteen developing countries of South, East and South East Asia for the period 1980-81 to 1999-2000. Separate analyses are then undertaken for FDI from developed and developing countries. The results based on random effects model show that fiscal incentives do not have any significant impact on aggregate FDI, but removal of restrictions attracts aggregate FDI. However, FDI from developed and developing countries are attracted to different selective policies. While lowering of restrictions attract FDI from developed countries, fiscal incentives and lower tariffs attract FDI from developing countries. Interestingly, BITs, which emphasize non-discriminatory treatment of FDI, are found to have a significant impact on aggregate FDI. But it is BITs with developed countries rather than developing countries that ar found to have a significant impact on FDI inflows to developing countries

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, India in its series Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi Working Papers with number 116.

    in new window

    Length: 47 pages
    Date of creation: Nov 2003
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ind:icrier:116
    Contact details of provider: Postal: India Habitat Centre, Core 6A, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003
    Phone: 91-11-4645218
    Fax: 91-11-462-0180
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Hines, James R, Jr, 1996. "Altered States: Taxes and the Location of Foreign Direct Investment in America," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1076-94, December.
    2. Kenneth A. Froot & Jeremy C. Stein, 1989. "Exchange Rates and Foreign Direct Investment: An Imperfect Capital Markets Approach," NBER Working Papers 2914, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Root, Franklin R & Ahmed, Ahmed A, 1979. "Empirical Determinants of Manufacturing Direct Foreign Investment in Developing Countries," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(4), pages 751-67, July.
    4. Rugman, Alan M, 1986. "New Theories of the Multinational Enterprise: An Assessment of Internalization Theory," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 101-18, May.
    5. Grubert, Harry & Mutti, John, 1991. "Taxes, Tariffs and Transfer Pricing in Multinational Corporate Decision Making," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(2), pages 285-93, May.
    6. Friedman, Eric & Johnson, Simon & Kaufmann, Daniel & Zoido-Lobaton, Pablo, 2000. "Dodging the grabbing hand: the determinants of unofficial activity in 69 countries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 459-493, June.
    7. Steven Globerman & Daniel M Shapiro, 1999. "The Impact of Government Policies on Foreign Direct Investment: The Canadian Experience," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 30(3), pages 513-532, September.
    8. Devereux, Michael P. & Griffith, Rachel, 1998. "Taxes and the location of production: evidence from a panel of US multinationals," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 335-367, June.
    9. Chakrabarti, Avik, 2001. "The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment: Sensitivity Analyses of Cross-Country Regressions," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 89-113.
    10. David W Loree & Stephen E Guisinger, 1995. "Policy and Non-Policy Determinants of U.S. Equity Foreign Direct Investment," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(2), pages 281-299, June.
    11. Douglas P Woodward & Robert J Rolfe, 1993. "The Location of Export-Oriented Foreign Direct Investment in the Caribbean Basin," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 24(1), pages 121-144, March.
    12. Thomas L Brewer, 1993. "Government Policies, Market Imperfections, and Foreign Direct Investment," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 24(1), pages 101-120, March.
    13. James R. Markusen, 1995. "The Boundaries of Multinational Enterprises and the Theory of International Trade," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 169-189, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ind:icrier:116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (G.K. Manjunath)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.