Skip to main content

Direction of Outward FDI of Indian Manufacturing Firms: Influence of Technology and Firm Productivity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Globalization of Indian Industries

Part of the book series: India Studies in Business and Economics ((ISBE))

Abstract

This chapter deals with India’s outward foreign investment (OFDI) flows, investigating econometrically whether the direction of OFDI of Indian manufacturing firms is related to their technical competence and level of productivity. The theoretical model of Aw and Lee (J Int Econ 76:403–415, 2008) is taken as the basic framework for the analysis. Data for about 2400 Indian manufacturing firms are used for the analysis. The data relate to the year 2007–08 or thereabout. The econometric results indicate that a firm with a relatively high level of productivity is more likely to invest abroad than a firm with relatively low productivity. However, the type of relationship between firm productivity and direction of FDI that is expected on the basis of the Aw-Lee model and their empirical findings for Taiwanese electronics firms is not found in the analysis of data on Indian manufacturing firms. The econometric results do not show that the Indian firms that invest in industrialized countries have significantly higher productivity than the firms that invest in developing countries, which is a prediction of the Aw-Lee model. The results for the technology related variables, on the other hand, do provide some support to the Aw-Lee model. There are indications from the econometric results that a relatively greater engagement with technology acquisition activities among Indian firms is associated with investment in industrialized countries. One interpretation of this empirical finding is that the technical competence of a firm is an important factor determining whether it will invest in an industrialized country.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to RBI data (Address delivered by Shri. Harun R Khan, Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India at the Bombay Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Mumbai on March 2, 2012, available at the RBI website, http://rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_SpeechesView.aspx?Id=674, accessed March 25, 2012), India’s outward FDI was US$ 18.8 billion in 2008–09, US$ 13.7 billion in 2009–10, US$ 16.8 billion in 2010–11 and US$ 8.9 billion in 2011–12 (April to February). This does not include ‘Guarantee Issued’, which was about US$ 27 billion in 2010–11. Thus, after including ‘Guarantee issued’, the total outward FDI flow of India in 2010–11 was about US$ 44 billion. This is much higher than the amount of OFDI reported by UNCTAD.

  2. 2.

    According to a report of Pricewaterhouse Coopers (Emerging Multinationals: The rise of new multinational companies from emerging economies, April, 2010), India is likely to become the largest source of emerging market multinational enterprises (overshadowing China) by 2024. Over 2200 Indian firms are expected to invest overseas in the next 15 years. The Report also mentions that there are expectations that there will be shifts away from intra-regional investment in other emerging nations and towards a greater share of new multinationals going directly to the advanced countries.

  3. 3.

    Investment in industrialized countries may be regarded as superior in quality since it requires higher technological capabilities of the investor and there are higher technological gains from the investment.

  4. 4.

    As mentioned earlier, Sauvant and Pradhan (2010) observe that during 1990–2007 almost 62 % of Indian outward FDI went to developed countries. Similarly, Milelli and Hay (2008) observe that about 36 percent of India’s OFDI stock is in Europe (in 2006), and 20 % of the stock is in North America. The pattern of investment observed for the period since 2007 is quite different. Does this mean that in the more recent period 2007–2012, Indian OFDI has shifted away from developed to developing countries? This issue needs further investigation (not attempted in this study).

  5. 5.

    This has the advantage that the investment data relate to a period later than that for productivity. The possibility of productivity getting influenced by OFDI and the two variables becoming inter-dependent in the model is therefore avoided.

  6. 6.

    Although the dataset prepared for the study contains about 2400 manufacturing firms, the econometric analysis is based on a smaller number of observations. A number of firms had to be dropped from the analysis because the reported sales are not positive or the reported values of certain variables are too high compared to the average or beyond the plausible range.

  7. 7.

    The 150 cases are distributed as follows. Investment only or predominantly in industrialized countries, 53 cases; investment only or predominantly in developing countries, 79 cases, and investment in both industrialized and developing countries, 18 cases. In the process of data cleaning for estimation of econometric models, some of these cases get dropped from the dataset.

  8. 8.

    The ratio of exports to sales ranges mostly from zero to 55 % (about three-fourths of the sample firms). Yet, there are a number of firms (16 % of the sample) in which exports reported is more than sales. In such cases, export intensity has been taken as 100 %.

  9. 9.

    There is substantial literature on the estimation of technical efficiency using a stochastic frontier production function. Hence, the details of the methodology are not provided here. Interested reader may see Forsund et al. (1980), Greene (1997), among others. Given the estimate of the frontier production function, it is possible to derive firm specific estimates of efficiency under certain assumptions. This study used the STATA software for estimating the frontier production function. The software package has the option of getting observation specific estimates of technical efficiency.

  10. 10.

    One may question the inclusion of export intensity as an explanatory variable in the model on the ground that the decision to export and the decision to set up plants abroad may be interlinked. Indeed, the Aw-Lee study does not use export intensity as an explanatory variable. The inclusion of export intensity in the model estimated for this study on Indian manufacturing may not, however, face a problem of interdependence between the two variables because the data on the two variables relate to different time periods. The data on export intensity relates to a period prior to the period in which foreign investments were made. It may be added here that exclusion of the export intensity variable from the estimated multinomial logit model does not cause any major change in the results for other variables.

References

  • Aw BY, Lee Y (2008) Firm heterogeneity and location choice of Taiwanese multinational. J Int Econ 76:403–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen VZ (2012) Puzzles and truths about Indian outward FDI: toward a more relevant and nuanced research agenda on emerging market MNEs. Acad Int Bus Insights 12:11–14

    Google Scholar 

  • De Beule F (2010) Locational determinants of acquisitions from China and India: the role of human capital. Paper presented at the annual conference of IASSI and the knowledge forum, hosted by Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai. http://www.hss.iitb.ac.in/FGKS_IITB_2010/papers/Filip.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2014

  • De Beule F, Duanmu J (2012) Locational determinants of internationalization: a firm-level analysis of Chinese and Indian acquisitions. Eur Manage J 30:264–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Demirbas D, Patnaik I, Shah A (2013) Graduating to globalisation: a study of Southern multinationals. Indian Growth Dev Rev 6:242–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsund F, Lovell C, Schmidt P (1980) A survey of frontier production function and their relationships to efficiency measurement. J Econometrics 13:5–25

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Greene W (1997) Frontier production functions. In: Hasheem Pesaran M, Schmidt P (ed) Handbook of applied econometrics, vol II. Blackwell, UK, pp 81–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Helpman E, Melitz M, Yeaple S (2004) Export Versus FDI with heterogeneous firms. Am Econ Rev 94:300–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milelli C, Hay F (2008) Chinese and Indian firms’ entry into Europe: characteristics, impacts and policy implications. Working Paper no. 2008-35, University of Paris West-Nanterre la Défense, EconomiX

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnenkamp P, Sosa Andrés M, Vadlamannati KC, Waldkirch A (2012) What drives India’s outward FDI? Kiel Working Paper No. 1800, October, Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Kiel, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan JP (2011) Emerging multinationals: a comparison of Chinese and Indian outward foreign direct investment. Int J Institutions Economies 3:113–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan JP, Singh N (2011) Business group affiliation and location of Indian firms’ foreign acquisitions. J Int Commer Econ Policy 2:19–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauvant KP, Pradhan JP (2010) Introduction: the rise of Indian multinational enterprises: revisiting key issues. In: Sauvant KP, Pradhan JP (eds) The rise of Indian multinationals: perspectives on Indian outward foreign direct investment. Palgrave MacMillan, New York, pp 1–24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Satyanand PN, Raghavendran P (2010) Outward FDI from India and its policy context. Columbia FDI Profiles. Vale Columbia Center, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank Dr. Isha Chawla and Ms. Meera Bhalla for the contributions they have made to this study. Dr. Chawala has prepared the tables of Sect. 4.4 of the paper. She has processed the month-wise RBI (Reserve Bank of India) data on foreign investments made by India companies to prepare a database on cumulative investments made by different companies during July 2007–January 2012 segregated by destination countries, which has been used for the econometric analysis presented in Sect. 4.6 of the paper. Ms. Bhalla has worked with company-level data of Capitaline database and helped in making estimates of firm-level productivity. Earlier versions of the paper were presented at a conference held in 2012, organized by the Center for International Trade and Development, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, and at the conference organized by the Forum for Global Knowledge Sharing in Mumbai in 2013.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bishwanath Goldar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

4.1.1 Multinomial Logit Model

Consider a situation where a firm decides among J + 1 choices. The choices available to the firm are 0, 1,..J. The base choice is zero. The choice made by the firm (which is denoted by Y) depends on a set of explanatory variables, denoted by x. Under the multinomial logit model, the probability of making choice j is specified as:

$$ {\text{Prob}}(Y_{i} = j) = \frac{{e^{{\beta_{j}^{'} x_{i} }} }}{{\sum\nolimits_{k = 0}^{J} {e^{{\beta_{k}^{'} x_{i} }} } }},\quad j = 0,\;1,..J $$
(4.1)

Note that there is one parameter vector associated with each choice. There is indeterminacy in the model above because if a vector q is added to each of the β vectors, then an identical set of probabilities emerge. To solve this problem, the convenient normalization done is to take the parameters for choice 0 as zero, i.e. β0 = 0. With this normalization, the probabilities of the choices are obtained as:

$$ {\text{Prob}}(Y_{i} = j) = \frac{{e^{{\beta_{j}^{'} x_{i} }} }}{{1 + \sum\nolimits_{k = 1}^{J} {e^{{\beta_{k}^{'} x_{i} }} } }},\quad j = 1,..J\quad ) $$
(4.2)
$$ {\text{Prob}}(Y_{i} = 0) = \frac{1}{{1 + \sum\nolimits_{k = 1}^{J} {e^{{\beta_{k}^{'} x_{i} }} } }} $$
(4.3)

For each firm i, the J log-odds ratios vis-à-vis the base choice is given by:

$$ \ln \left[ {\frac{{P_{ij} }}{{P_{i0} }}} \right] = \beta_{j}^{'} x_{i} $$
(4.4)

The log-odds ratio between choices j and k can be obtained as:

$$ \ln \left[ {\frac{{P_{ij} }}{{P_{ik} }}} \right] = x_{i}^{'} [\beta_{j} - \beta_{k} ] $$
(4.5)

The model described in Eq. (4.1) above is estimated by the maximum likelihood method given firm-wise observations on x and the choices actually made by them. Further details of the multinomial logit model and its limitations are available in standard econometrics textbooks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Goldar, B. (2016). Direction of Outward FDI of Indian Manufacturing Firms: Influence of Technology and Firm Productivity. In: De Beule, F., Narayanan, K. (eds) Globalization of Indian Industries. India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0083-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics