Advertisement

Abstract

The last decade has witnessed a dramatic change in attitude towards foreign direct investment (FDI) and significantly increased competition between governments to attract FDI as a result.1 Globalization, and especially the removal of national barriers to capital flows, has lead to a tremendous surge in foreign direct investment which reached a record high of almost US$1.3 trillion in 2000 — representing a growth rate of 18 percent, which is higher than those of any other global economic indicators including world production, trade or capital formation.2 This development has had a significant impact not only on economic processes but also on government policies aimed at attracting FDI. While still only a few Western countries would acknowledge investment promotion as an economic policy goal per se, all of them have set up specific policies and institutions that are aimed at attracting and regulating investment flows.3 The latter is easy to understand given that the overall distribution of FDI remains highly skewed — only 30 host countries in total account for about 95 percent of all FDI inflows, and less than 30 home countries account for 99 percent of all outward investment flows in 20024 — and competition is fierce.

Keywords

Foreign Direct Investment Foreign Direct Investment Inflow Accession Country Outward Investment Foreign Direct Investment Project 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See UNCTAD (2003), p. 124.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See UNCTAD (2001), p. 16.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See WELLS/ WINT (2000), p. 4.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See FDI data in WORLD BANK (2003), UNCTAD (2003).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    SIEBERT (2000), p.1.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See SIEBERT (2003); RAINES/ BROWN (1999) for differences between the two concepts.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See TIEBOUT (1956), p. 416.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    SINN (1992), p. 177. See also BRENNAN/ BUCHANAN (1980) for the discussion of the “Leviathan Model”. They argue that tax competition improves welfare as government size would be excessive (“Leviathan”) without competition.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See OATES (1972), p. 143: “The result of tax competition may well be a tendency towards less than efficient levels of output of local services. In an attempt to keep taxes low to attract business investment, local officials may hold spending below those levels for which marginal benefits equal marginal costs [...].”Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    See CHARLTON (2003), p. 13.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    DAVID (1984), p. 1.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    See OMAN (2000), p. 32.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    See OMAN (2000), p. 31.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    See CHARLTON (2003), p. 18.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    See RAINES/ BROWN (1999), p. 162.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    SIEBERT (2003), p. 18.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    NORTH (1992), p. 4.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    See UNCTAD (2003), p. 91.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    See UNCTAD (2003), p. 91.Google Scholar
  20. 22.
    See UNCTAD (2003), pp. 249–256.Google Scholar
  21. 23.
    In Europe, where subsidies to foreign companies have been know to reach up to fifty percent of the value of the FDI project, the European Commission has recently started to investigate and demand repayment of illegal state aid. Unhappy with local bidding wars, it recently slashed the proposed EUR41.7 million for a General Motors investment in Portugal, raising doubts about the cost-benefit analysis of locating to an alternative location in Poland. Similarly, the EU Commission decided to cut the proposed EUR418 million grant for BMW’s EUR1.2 billion investment in Leipzig by EUR55 million after evaluating the cost benefit structure of alternative sites (see PIGGOTT, 2003).Google Scholar
  22. 24.
    PIGGOTT (2003).Google Scholar
  23. 26.
    See UNCTAD (2003), p. 64; EU (2003), p. 122.Google Scholar
  24. 28.
    The 2002 EU Competition Report states that “Overall, where identified State aid measures have been deemed to be incompatible with the EU Acquis, the candidate countries have been required either to abolish these measures or to modify them into aid arrangements that are in close conformity with the principles of the acquis.” (EU, 2003, p. 121, paragraph 631).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2006

Personalised recommendations