Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
What are main factors attracting FDI in the context of ASEAN integrations - some empirical findings1 (Preliminary draft – please do not quote) Abstract: ASEAN's experience in the last three decades has shown that opening the economy, especially attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) help those countries quickly gained important socialeconomic achievements and become one of the promising dynamic regions in the worlds. FDI inflow is also strongly believed to play a major role in emerging market economies, thus could help ASEAN new members reduce development gaps with old members. Such development gaps among Southeast Asian nation could hinder the effort of building ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) by 2015. However, ASEAN seems to lose their "special advantages” of potentially new market, abundant labor force, cheap labor costs and preferential investment policies. Our paper assumes that in the process of regional integration ASEAN as a homogeneous region and the special advantage factors such as "cheap labor cost" in this region is assumed to be equal among its members. FDI inflows by country recognized in relation to the total amount of FDI flows into the region. With this assumption, using regression random effects model (REM), the paper measured a number of factors that influence FDI inflows in the region such as cheap labor force, economic growth, population size, political stability etc. The research results show that, beside traditional factors, institutional quality (e.g. control of corruption) need to be paid more attention in ASEAN region in the long-run. Key words: ASEAN integration, FDI inflows, FDI impact factors, institutional quality JEL Classification : O12, O19, 03, P2, P3, K4 1 Paper prepared for AEC , 28 – 30, October 2013. 1 Introduction Foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows have major impact on the economic development of ASEAN countries. Through FDI, the countries of Southeast Asia have rapidly gained important achievements and become one of the most dynamic regions in the world. Although there are some concern of negative effects (e.g. great competition for local businesses, adverse impacts on environment, sensitivity and economic instability involving foreign elements), but no one could deny the enormous benefits of FDI for the region. New FDI inflows could help ASEAN economic development with risk sharing, trade enhancement, easy access to foreign markets and technology transfer. Attracting FDI associated with multi-national business operations is one of fundamental goal of ASEAN members during the process of economic integration and also as the important objectives of the ASEAN Economic Community. ASEAN region is considered to be an attractive destination for foreign investors as the region has a lot of advantages to attract FDI (cheaper input factors, especially labor costs and natural material costs, economic growth at a fair-rapid rate and many preferential investment policies). However, considering long-term FDI attraction, based on low-cost incentives policy is not a smart choice due to a gradual loss of this advantage. Many evidence show that China economy is now also facing difficulties in attracting investment as its labor costs rise gradually2. At the same time, the investment incentives policy accounted for significant expenses in the state budget in the long term then threat macro stability 3. Therefore, promoting FDI based on labor quality, infrastructure and institutional quality (including contract enforcement, property rights protection, control of corruption ...) need to be paid more attention in the new era of economic development and integration in ASEAN. With such assumptions, the objective of this study was to assess the level of effecting factors to FDI inflows in ASEAN region during past two decades. The next part of our paper review factors effecting FDI in ASEAN region, then the methodology 2 The difficulty in finding work has pushed wages in some areas by 40% each year. Other costs such as compliance with environmental regulations and labor, and commodity prices also led to increased investment in China less attractive. 3 E.g. According to the research group of the Institute of Economic Research Central Management (CIEM), the cost incurred to implement preferential policies for foreign direct investment accounted for about 0.7% of GDP of Vietnam. "The cost of investment incentives" view 01/10/2011 (http://www.vssc.com.vn/News/2011/1/10/158601.aspx). 2 and data will be provided. Some empirical findings and discussion will be presented before we have some concluding remarks. Factors attracting foreign direct investment in ASEAN region Reviewing previous studies, there are many authors analyzing the determinant factors of the level of FDI inflows (Artige & Nicolinie 2006, Meon and sekkai 2007, Bevan & Estrin 2000 and Peter (2001). As the objective of our paper is to determine the specific factors that attract FDI in general and FDI in ASEAN, we use the approach of Peter (2001) to draw those factors as the basis for FDI competitiveness as below: Country indicators Market size The level of Openness Infrastructure Distance with home country Regional market link Natural resources Institution indicators Law and social norms Regulation enforcement FDI incentives related policies Education and human capitals Political stability Economic indicators Labor costs and productivity Macro economic stability Economic growth rate Level technology Balance of payments Inflation Sector indicators Scale industrial sectors Competitiveness 3 Level of subsidy for domestic sectors Many studies show that cost saving is the most important factors for the decision of FDI enterprises (Yoon, 2007) into the ASEAN region. In the past decades, international investors are attracted by the abundant large natural resources and cheap labor forces in the ASEAN countries. For example, considering a few case studies of Malaysia, the foreigners have been flocking to the country to exploit the abundance of oil, gas, rubber, wood, etc. (Nguyen Manh Toan, 2010). However, in recent years the trend seems to have faded. Natural resources factors appear weak compared to the other factors such as political stability, market potential, and preferential tax policies. Most ASEAN countries except Singapore and Burney are countries with relatively low or very low labor costs. For example, wages in the two major cities in Vietnam, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City respectively only about 60 and 70% of salary and wages in Beijing, China (Phuc, VH, 2005). Wages and salaries in Jakarta even half the amount of that in Beijing (JETRO, 2002). Therefore, compared with China (especially with the pace of rapid economic development of China) labor costs in Vietnam and Indonesia are now much cheaper. Some recent empirical studies did not only focus on low cost incentives but a set of factors attracting FDI in Southeast Asia. Normaz (2009) used a model of attraction factors to consider major factors attracting FDI inflows during the period 1995-2003. Using data of 18 countries to invest into 09 ASEAN countries (except Cambodia), Normaz shows that besides economic factors, market size, exchange rate, quality of infrastructure and labor costs affect FDI inflows. He also found other significant institutional factors such as trade policy and transparency contribute to FDI development in ASEAN. Tajul and Hussin (2010) carried out a study on the effect of institutional quality on FDI flows to ASEAN region from 1996-2008 also showed an improvement of institutional quality is an important factor to attract new FDI flows. Most recently, Hong Hiep Hoang (2012) reviewed FDI in ASEAN countries during the period of 1991-2009 and found that, beside the traditional factors as market size, openness of the economy, infrastructure and exchange rate, political risk and institutional quality also play an important role on attracting foreign investors. 4 Apart from above mentioned factors, market size with high purchasing power, abundant labor is an important advantage of ASEAN region which help attracting foreign direct investment (Benacek Gronicki, Holland, and Sass, 2000). A total population of 10% of the world population along with rapid economic growth (even during financial crisis period from 2008 to 2009, many countries in the ASEAN region remains a growth rate of 6% - 8 %)4 could make ASEAN to become an ideal investment location for any international company seeking to dominate new markets. Regarding policy incentives to attract FDI into ASEAN region, the policy of tax incentives, credit support with governmental guarantee, and free trade policies were among the most important strategy of ASEAN countries. Research by the World Bank also shows the same trend of improving investment incentives in all over the world (World Investment Report, 2012) in last decade. Especially, the WB researchers show the trends toward liberalization and promotion was always superior to the trends of regulation/restriction as in the diagram bellows: 4 According Finance and Macroeconomic Suveilance ASEAN and IMF World Economic Outlook Database (2009), the economic growth rate in 2008 of the entire ASEAN region which is 4.4% of Cambodia's growth is 6%, Indonesia 6.1%, Laos is 8.4%. 5 Figure 1: Investment regulatory change 2000 - 2011 Source: UNCTAD 2012. Such a trend of study focusing on institutional quality and environment could be explained by the fact that institutional conditions are important in order to minimize the risks when business operating in the region beyond the control of foreign investors. Any regulatory and policy instability as same as political conflict will also psychologically affect the decision of investors that could not only prevent new investment flows but also make the out flows of FDI to a better location. In recent years, ASEAN gain important development process toward common FDI policies with the foundation of ASEAN Investment Area (AIA) Agreement signed in October 1998. This agreement is a significant milestone to promote FDI in ASEAN member countries, from both internal and external sources. It also help to transforming ASEAN into the most competitive and attractive region for doing investment and business. Besides, ASEAN Free Trade Area Agreement (AFTA) is the most important and advanced tool of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) to strengthen economic integration and also increase incentives for FDI inflows. It is the fact that FDI inflows into ASEAN region increase dramatically recent years as shown as table below 6 Table 1: FDI net inflows to ASEAN region from selected partners Value Partner country/region 2009 2010 20112/ ASEAN 6,300.2 14,322.7 26,270.7 46,893.6 USA 5,704.3 12,771.6 5,782.7 24,258.5 Japan 3,789.9 10,756.4 15,015.1 29,561.4 European Union (EU) 8,063.1 17,012.1 18,240.5 43,315.7 China 1,852.6 2,784.6 6,034.4 10,671.6 Republic of Korea 1,794.0 3,764.2 2,138.3 7,696.5 Australia 993.0 2,584.9 1,338.0 4,915.9 India 616.4 3,351.5 (1,848.5) 2,119.4 Canada 720.3 1,393.0 985.4 3,098.8 Russian Federation 139.8 60.3 21.6 221.6 98.9 3.4 13.4 115.7 New Zealand 2009-2011 Pakistan Total selected partner countries/regions 14.3 30.0 13.5 57.9 30,086.7 68,834.8 74,005.1 172,926.6 Others 16,810.0 23,443.8 40,105.5 80,359.4 Total FDI inflow to ASEAN 46,896.7 92,278.6 114,110.6 253,286.0 Source: ASEAN FDI Statistics Database In each ASEAN countries, regulatory and policy framework was also very supportive for FDI inflows. Singapore is one best example where issued the investment legislation earliest in1965 to attract FDI inflows. The law was amended in 1967, 1971 in order to institutionalize policy incentives for foreign investors in the key industries. By the early 80s, Singapore was amended and supplemented laws to encourage large FDI investment and tax exemption for the loss7 making company. Thailand investment law was issued in 1970 and the government improved this law in 1986 with the exemption for corporate tax and export tax for FDI project having export oriented production. In order to encourage foreign investment, Malaysia has also set many referenced conditions and policies in its law during the years of 80s. Since 1987, when the first Law on Foreign Investment was promulgated, Vietnam has undergone five of its revisions (in 1990, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2005). Law on Foreign Investment in Vietnam has improved gradually, creating a legal framework based on the new guidelines and policy to open market economy into international economic integration of the Communist Party that significantly attracting foreign investment into Vietnam. Beside policy incentives, control of corruption became an important issue in research on institutional factors influencing FDI recently. Wei Research (2000a) considers the effects of tax and corruption to FDI flows using bilateral FDI data from 12 countries to 45 host countries. The author pointed out the high tax rate on multinational companies and high levels of corruption will decrease in FDI flows. Wei also pointed out that the decline of FDI inflows caused by corruption is greater than the negative impact of corruption on the other capital inflows (Wei, 2000b). Using data of 18 countries investing in 9 ASEAN countries (except Cambodia) Normaz (2009) concluded that besides economic factors, market size, exchange rate, quality of infrastructure and labor costs affecting FDI inflows to the region, there is also other factors such as trade policy and transparency (related with control of corruption) also encourage investment in ASEAN. Therefore to measure institutional quality that effect FDI in the long-term, it is rationale to consider control of corruption rather than policy and regulatory incentives that only have short-term impact. In general, a number ASEAN advantages such as market expansion, cost reduction, the availability of natural resources have play an important role in the past to motivate FDI inflows. That motivation could be explained by a set of factors attracting FDI flows into ASEAN region: political stability, market size, economic growth, abundant labor force, labor costs, and cheap input factors. In the next part of our paper, these factors will be considered as endogenous factors in the modeling explain FDI inflows in ASEAN region in comparison with regulatory and policy incentives as well as institutional quality with the focus of corruption control. 8 Research Methodology and Data Consideration of a set of factors that impact on the ability to attract foreign direct investment from countries with similar economic conditions in the ASEAN region, we adopt a model based on the panel data of the 7 countries in the region (including Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines) during the period of 1996 - 2011. Four countries in ASEAN namely: East-Timor, Brunei, Singapore and Myanmar are not included in the model due to the lack of data from East-Timor and Brunei. Singapore and Myanmar are the two countries with its characteristics relatively different compared to other countries in the region. Singapore is the country's with impressive economic conditions and is also the most developed countries that attracted nearly 50% of FDI inflows in ASEAN region. Figure 2: Share of FDI stock in ASEAN Sources: UNCTAD Statistic quoted in Hoang Hiep Hong (2012) Therefore, considering the extent of those countries with similar economic conditions in ASEAN, Singapore has a relatively large difference conditions. 9 With panel data, our paper use impact assessment model as follows: Log(FDI)it = β0 + β1 CCit + βj +uit In particular, i represent the unit of observation (7 countries in the ASEAN region), t represents time (from 1996 to 2011). The dependent variable is FDI in each country in each year are expressed as logarithm. As analyzed in above section, the most important factor reflecting institutional quality effecting long-run FDI inflows in ASEAN is Control of Corruption (CC). Therefore we use CC (Control of Corruption) as measured by the rank of the ability to control the country's corruption with level 0 is the lowest and 100 is the highest. With the assumption of a negative impact of corruption on FDI, CC is expected to have an impact with same direction with FDI inflows. To assess the authenticity of the impact of corruption on FDI inflows into ASEAN region especially with higher level of regional integration (e.g. with the establishment of AEC ), our study considers to control the impact of low-cost advantage by assuming that, in seven selected ASEAN countries, cheap-cost factors (including costs of labor and raw material) are identical. That means these countries are considered to have the same relative cheap-cost factors. Meanwhile, our paper also considered some other factors into our modeling as control variables namely: economic growth, size of population (population growth), the average longevity (variable representing a relative market size), labor force, openness of the economy (the ratio of export turnover/GDP), infrastructure (telephones per 100 people), labor quality (Enrolment of secondary school), and political stability. They are expected to have a positive impact (on the same way) to the scale of FDI inflows. We also considered inflation as a meaningful explanatory variable, especially in Vietnam situation, which causes macroeconomic instability and may increase uncertainty of business. Consequently, inflation is expected to have an impact on FDI flows in the opposite side. The ASEAN integration still keeps silent on an issue of having common currency so that the exchange rate also affects FDI at least in medium term. The increase in the exchange rate corresponding to the depreciation of the domestic currency in each selected ASEAN countries which lead to encourage export activities as well as stimulate foreign investment. Thus, the 10 impact of exchange rates on FDI flows is expected to be in the same way. Table below lists all considered factors and variables and its data sources being integrated into our model. Table 2: List of explanatory variables, expected signs and sources of data Variables Explaining of Variables Expectation of Data Sources variable sign (GDP) Economic Growth + WGI database Corruption (CC) Control of Corruption by P-Rank + WGI database + WGI database + WDI database + WDI database Infrasture (INFRAS) Telephone per 100 people + WDI database Inflation (CPI) Consumer price index - WDI database Labor skill School enrolment, secondary (% + WDI database + WDI database (Percentile rank among all countries (ranges from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest) rank) Political Stability Political Stability and Absence of (PS) Violence by P-Rank (Percentile rank among all countries (ranges from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest) rank) Labor force Total labor force (log(LAB)) Openness Total of export and import volume/ GDP Gross) Exchange rate (EX) Official Exchange Rate 11 Population Growth Life Population growth (annual %) expectation Life expectancy at birth, total (LIFEEX) + WDI database + WDI database (years) Source: compiled by the authors via WB and other Secondary data Regression of panel data is likely to remain group effects and/or time effects which may be fixed or random one. Our paper therefore conducted Hausman test to find whether to use the fixed effects model (FEM) or random effects model (REM). The results showed that the use of REM model is more appropriate than the FEM model with our research. Results and discussion With the method of estimating random effects model (REM), our regression results shown in Table 3 below: Table 3: Results of regression random-effects model (REM) Dependent variable: Log(FDI) Log FDI= F(GDP growth, CC,PS, log(LAB), Openness, Infras, log(EX), CPI, Population growth, Lifeex, labour skill) Random effect Economic Growth (GDPgrowth) 0.150614 (0.0001***) Control of Corruption (CC) 0.037985 (0.0048***) Political Stability (PS) 0.016729 (0.0247**) 12 Labor force total ( log(LAB)) 0.873525 (0.0000***) Openness 0.001805 (0.7579) Infasture (INFRAS)= Tell/100 people 0.087085 (0.0042***) Consumer price (CPI) 0.028018 (0.1227) Labor skill (school enrollment of secondary) -0.021487 (0.1781) Exchange rate (log(EX)) 0.000174 (0.0000***) Population growth 0.547872 (0.0444***) Life expectation (LIFEEX) 0.225472 (0.0309**) R2 = 0.84 * Significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 1% The table shows the results for the explaining variables included in the model is fairly good explanation for the dependent variable (R2 = 0.84 means that the variable FDI is explained of about 84% by the independent variables in the model). The factors like market scale (represented by GDP), economic openness (OPEN), and labor force (log (LAB)), political stability (PS) is on the same way with FDI inflows. Among them, labor force expressed the strongest impact on attracting FDI which is reflecting in the regression with relatively high coefficient. Total labor force increased 1% led to increased FDI growth rate average of 0.873525 percentage points. Variable representing the quality of human resources (Labor skill) is not statistically significant, meaning that human resources quality in ASEAN is less attractive to investors. It confirmed our previous argument that FDI inflow in ASEAN has 13 been motivated by cheap but low skill labor forces. Our result is also consistent with the results of some previous studies (e.g. PCI Vietnam Report, 2011). Our study pay attention on institutional quality with the focus of corruption control (CC) to the FDI in ASEAN and found that, higher level of corruption (i.e. ability to control of corruption fell 1 ranking) will lead decrease of FDI with an average of 0.037985 percentage points. This results well demonstrates our hypothesis that corruption negatively impacts on FDI inflows into the ASEAN region. The regional institutions as well as individual government in ASEAN thus should more actively control of corruption. Our research result is also entirely consistent with the work of Normaz Wana Ismail (2009) and Tajul Aiffin Masron and Hussin Abdullah (2010). Conclusion According to the OECD (2002), FDI is a major catalyst for economic development with the potential of contributing towards both economic growth and improved living standards. FDI Inflow has had a major impact on the economic development of the countries in the ASEAN region and ASEAN nowadays becomes one of the most dynamic economic regions in the world. However, the causal link that is often depicted between FDI inflows and economic development condition is not necessarily straight forward. Our study included a review of the impact of identical factors affecting the scale of FDI in the ASEAN region. Using regression random effects model (REM) for 7 selected ASEAN countries, our paper measured the negative impact of institutional quality represented by level of corruption on FDI inflows to ASEAN in nearly past two decades. We also confirmed that there are a number of factors that positively affect FDI in the region, most notably is the labor force, economic growth, population size, political stability. Our research results show that to attract FDI in the long-term, ASEAN need pay more attention to institutional quality rather than other traditional factors and policy incentives. In the process of ASEAN integration and as consequences of economic growth in the region, the advantages of cheap-cost factors and investment policy incentives will fade while the impact of institutional quality related to business transaction costs will increase more obviously. 14 References Artige L. and R. Nicolini (2008), Evidence on the Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment. The Case of Three European Regions, CREPP Working Papers. Bardhan P. (1997), “Corruption and Development: A Review of Issues”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 1320-1346. Beck P.J. and Maher M.W. (1986), “A Comparison of Bribery and Bidding in Thin Markets”, Economic Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 1-5. Benacek, V., Gronicki, M., Holland, D., Sass, M. (2000). The Determinants and Impact of Foreign Direct Investment in Central and Eastern Europe: A comparison of survey and econometric evidence, Transnational Corporations, Journal of United Nations, vol.9, no. 3, New York. Hoang Hiep Hong (2012), “Foreign direct investment in Southeast Asia: Determinants and spatial distribution”, Centre of Studies and Research on International Development University of Auvergn, CNRS. Jaumotte (2004), Foreign Direct Investment and Regional Trade Agreements: The Market Size Effect Revisited, IMF Working Paper, WP/04/206 JETRO (2002), Survey of Wage in Asian 3/2012, The Japan External Trade Organization. Lui Francis T. (1985), “An Equilibrium Queing Model of Bribery”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 93, No. 4, pp. 760-781. Mauro P. (1995), “Corruption and Growth”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 110, No. 3, pp. 681-712. Nguyễn Mạnh Toàn (2010), “Những yếu tố thu hút FDI vào các địa phương tại Việt Nam”, Tạp chí khoa học và công nghệ- Đại học Đà Nẵng, Số. 40, tập. 3, tr. 270-276. 15 Normaz Wana Ismail (2009), The Determinant of Foreign Direct Investment in ASEAN: a SemiGravity Approach. Transition Studies Review, 16, pp. 710-722. North, DC (1990), Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, University Press. Peter Nunnenkamp (2001), foreign direct investment in developing countries: What policymakers should not do and what economists don't know, Kieler Diskussionsbeiträge, No. 380,http://hdl.handle.net/10419/2616 Phuc, V.H. (2005), Interview with H.E. Minister Võ Hồng Phúc. Ministry of Planning anh Investment of Vietnam. Business in Asia. Com. May 26, 2005. Runkel & Associates (2005), Vietnam at a glance. Vietnam’s business Outlook for early 2005 Tanzi, V. (1998), Corruption around the world: causes, consequences, scope and cures, IMF Working Paper 98/63, Washington, International Monetary Fund Tajul Ariffin Masron and Hussin Abdullah (2010), Institutional Quality as A Determinant for FDI inflows: Evidence from ASEAN. World Journal of Management, 3, pp. 115 –128 Tanzi V. and Davoodi H. (1997), Corruption, Public Investment, and Growth, Fiscal Affairs Department, WP/97/139, International Monetary Fund. UNCTAD (2004), World Investment Report: The shift toward services, New York, United Nations Publication VCCI (2012), Provincial Competitiveness Index 2011, Policy Research Reports, USAID/VNCI, No. 16 Voyer and Paul (2004), “The Effect of Corruption on Japanese Foreign Direct Investment”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 221-224. Wei, S. (2000a), “How Taxing Is Corruption on International Investors.” Review of Economics and Statistics 82: 1-11. 16 ______ (2000b), “Local Corruption and Global Capital Flows.”Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 303-46 Voyer, P., and Beamish, P. (2004), “The Effect of Corruption on Japanese Foreign Direct Investment.” Journal of Business Ethics 50: 211-24 Yoon, D. R. (2007), Korea’s Outward FDI in Asia: Characteristics and Prospects. Paper presented at ICRIER Workshop on Intra- Asia FDI flows: Magnitude, Trends, Prospects and Policy Implications, April 25-26, New Delhi, India. 17