Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 106, Issue 2, pp 323–331 | Cite as

Foreign Direct Investment and Trade Openness: The Case of Developing Economies

  • Panagiotis G. LiargovasEmail author
  • Konstantinos S. Skandalis
Article

Abstract

This paper examines the importance of trade openness for attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows, using a sample of 36 developing economies for the period 1990–2008. It provides a direct test of causality between FDI inflows, trade openness and other key variables in developing regions of the world: Latin America, Asia, Africa, CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) and Eastern Europe. Trade openness is measured by using eight different indicators. The main empirical findings of the panel regression analysis reveal that in the long run, trade openness contributes positively to the inflow of FDI in developing economies.

Keywords

FDI Trade openness Developing economies 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank an anonymous reviewer and the editor of this journal for helpful comments and suggestion on previous version of this paper. All errors remain in our responsibility.

References

  1. Asiedu, E. (2002). On the determinants of foreign direct investment to developing countries: If Africa different? World Development, 30, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biglaiser, G., & DeRouen, K. (2006). Economic reforms and inflows of foreign direct investment in Latin America. Latin American Research Review, 41(1), 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloningen, B. A. (2005). A review of the empirical literature on FDI determinants. NBER working papers no. 11299. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, K. C., & Joaquin, D. C. (1998). A note on political risk and the required return on foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(3), 599–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chakrabarti, A. (2001). The determinants of foreign direct investment: Sensitivity analyses of cross-country regressions. KYKLOS, 54, 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunning, J. H. (1993). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Ferrieri, G. (2006). A method for measuring international openness. Social Indicators Research, 77, 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frankel, J. A. (2000). Assessing the efficiency gains from further liberalization, KSG Faculty Paper No. RWP01-030. http://ssrn.com/abstract=284009. Accessed 2 March 2010.
  9. Furceri, D., & Borelli, S. (2008). Foreign direct investments and exchange rate volatility in the EMU neighborhood countries. Journal of International and Global Economic Studies, 1(1), 42–59.Google Scholar
  10. Gastanaga, V. M., Nugent, J. B., & Pashamova, B. (1998). Host country reforms and FDI inflows: how much difference do they make? World Development, 7(26), 1299–1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldberg, L. S., & Klein, M. W. (1998). Foreign direct investment, trade and real exchange rate linkages in Southeast Asia and Latin America. In R. Glick (Ed.), Managing capital flows and exchange rates: Perspectives from the pacific basin (pp. 73–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Grosse, R., & Trevino, L. J. (1996). Foreign direct investment in the United States: An analysis by country of origin. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(1), 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hsiao, C. (2003). Analysis of panel data (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klevmarken, N. (1989). Panel studies: What can we learn from them? Introduction. European Economic Review, 33(2/3), 523–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kosteletou, L., & Liargovas, P. (2000). Foreign direct investment and real exchange rate interlinkages. Open Economies Review, 11(2), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kumar, N. (2002). Globalization and the quality of foreign direct investment. Oxford: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  17. Markusen, J. R., & Maskus, K. E. (2002). Discriminating among alternative theories of the multinational enterprise. Review of International Economics, 10(4), 694–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Omisakin, O., Adeniyi, O., & Omojolaibi, A. (2009). Foreign direct investment, trade openness and growth in Nigeria. Journal of Economics Theory, 3, 13–18.Google Scholar
  19. Raff, H. (2004). Preferential trade agreements and tax competition for foreign direct investment. Journal of Public Economics, 88(12), 2745–2763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Seim, T. (2009). FDI and openness: Differences in response across countries line, Chr. Michelsen Institute. http://www.nek.lu.se/ryde/NordicEcont09/Papers/seim.pdf. Accessed 2 March 2010.
  21. Squalli, J., & Wilson, K. (2009). Openness and access. Applied Economics, 41(3), 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tallman, S. B. (1988). Home country political risk and foreign direct investment in the United States. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(2), 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Trevino, L. J., Daniels, J. D., Arbelaez, H., & Upadhyaya, K. P. (2002). Market reform and foreign direct investment in Latin America: Evidence from an error correction model. International Trade Journal, 16(4), 367–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Trevino, L. J., & Mixon, F. G., Jr. (2004). Strategic factors affecting foreign direct investment decisions by multi-national enterprises in Latin America. Journal of World Business, 39, 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. UNCTAD. (2009). Training manual on statistics for FDI and the operations of TNCs volume I FDI flows and stocks. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/diaeia20091_en.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2010.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Panagiotis G. Liargovas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Konstantinos S. Skandalis
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of PeloponneseTripolisGreece
  2. 2.School of Politics and EconomicsClaremont Graduate UniversityClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations