Foreign direct investment (FDI) is concerned with purchase
of physical assets or ownership rights of a company in another country. It can
take the form of a ‘greenfield investments’ which is a blank canvas approach to
the market in that the company will have to invest heavily in infrastructure.
In contrast managers could opt for international merger and acquisition
activity which could be seen as the easier option in that an infrastructure
base is already set up and ready to go. But why do companies choose to go down
the route of FDI anyway? After all other options in international trade are
available for example exporting.
Well in recent years changes to the global economy as a
whole have facilitated the use of FDI. Factors such as increased economic trade
and greater market integration have been a starting point and therefore countries
have recognised the need to reduce barriers to global trade. Transnational
companies (TNCs) have been the biggest beneficiaries of this trend of global
integration.
In turn this has led to a much greater number of TNCs
indulging in FDI. Governments have had a supporting role in this and have
helped put policies in place to encourage FDI projects. Examples include
bilateral trade agreements and double taxation treaties both of which are
positive indicators of world trade.
However it needs to be considered whether FDI is being
targeted at the correct markets? After all surely it’s the developing economies
who would receive the most out of such projects? It seems however that the
majority of FDI funds are being directed and received within developed
economies. This is likely to be down to TNC corporations being weary of
underdeveloped markets, infrastructure and stability to sustain successful
strategies in these countries.
Reflecting back on last week’s blog regarding corporate tax,
levels of taxation can also be a major influence on the location of FDI. After
London, Belfast is the most attractive city in the UK for FDI, particularly in
technology and financial services (BBC, 2010) – could this have anything to do
with the lower rate of corporate tax of 12.5% in comparison to the 28% faced by
companies based in London?
So how can countries in the emerging world attract FDI and
more importantly is attracting FDI something they regard as important for
future development? Factors which may be used to their advantage to attract FDI
include natural resources which may not be found in other locations, cost of
labour and taxation rates as highlighted by last week’s blog post.
FDI is often thought of as being extremely beneficial to the
host country bringing in much needed capital to the economy, expertise and
improvements to infrastructure, in turn improving the quality of living for the
population. However are these benefits so great in reality? It has been argued
potential costs can actually impact on the host country due to the presence of
the TNCs. These mainly derive from the power of such companies may yield. This
could have a negative impact on local competition due to the strength of their
brand recognition. Also TNCs can have an impact on the decisions of the host
country government due to them being reliant on the economic power of the TNC.
Issues such as environmental, human rights and corruption will also have to be
taken into consideration. After all, high profile companies such as Primark
have been in the spotlight with regards to child labour (the guardian, 2008).
Examples of FDI occurring within the emerging economies are
becoming more prominent though. North Korea for example has the potential to
attract FDI funds due to its vast natural resources such as timber, coal and
gold which China desires. The UN Conference on Trade and Development estimates
that FDI in 2010 was $38million (£24m) most of which comes from China (BBC,
2012).
It is also clear that emerging economies are seeking to
attract FDI. The Shanghai Commission of
Commerce yesterday released information yesterday regarding intentions of the
region to attract around US$10 billion in foreign direct investment annually by
2015. The city will attract this FDI through “its mature market system, skilled
workforce, efficient government and transparent laws to draw foreign investors
instead of using preferential policies to lure them” (Easyday, 2012). Surly
this shatters some of the misconceptions about FDI being damaging for emerging
economies? It would seem they are in reality going out of their way to attract
it as a means of development!
Although FDI appear to be directed towards developed countries, is the reason for this that the developing countries place restrictions on FDI? Why do you think that companies don't choose developing economies and opt for the developed countries which will probably be more expensive?
ReplyDeleteI think if anything developing countries are aiming to reduce any potential restrictions on FDI, they see it as a pathway to economic growth and development and so in many cases appear to be going out of their way to attract FDI funds to their country! As in the case of Shanghai who highlighted clear targets for FDI funds.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason why companies lean towards the more expensive developed world is for fear of instability of domestic markets and infrastructure in the developing market which could have a negative impact on strategic decisions and their sustainability.
FDI has dual implications, do you think United Kingdom is to further loosen policies to encourage and attract more FDI?
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question I came across an interesting article from the guardian back in 2010. It stated:
ReplyDelete“The UK fell from fourth to fifth place globally as a recipient of FDI inflows last year [2009] – with investment down to $46bn (£30m) from $91bn in 2008. The 49% drop compared with a global fall of 37%.”
Although this is disappointing, the UK economy still ranking highly in terms of FDI inflow. This dip in inflows has been linked to the economic recession facing the country at the time. With the UK relying hugely on its financial services industry the impact of the recession led to lower levels of merger and acquisition activity due to companies becoming weary of acquiring other companies during these uncertain times. Still,
"The UK is one of the most attractive destinations for inward investment with the largest industries in Europe for financial services, creative industries, life sciences and information and communications technologies"
This shows that we are obviously doing something right with the policies currently in place. Although I think the UK will constantly have to review its position in terms of attracting FDI as market conditions change and throughout recovery from the recession and the government has put in place policies for attracting investment as a means of facilitating this recovery.
It would seem from predictions made that FDI inflows to the UK will climb with hopes of $2tn this year. However we should never get too complacent, after all things could change quickly and uncertainties within the market will always exist.