FDI-related Policy Instruments

  • Paul Fischer
Chapter

Abstract

Favourable legal, macroeconomic and political framework conditions alone cannot directly influence FDI inflows; they must be supplemented (Figure 16.1) by:

  • special incentives for FDI in designated industries and regions;

  • creation of special development zones to promote particular regions or technologies;

  • establishment of an investor information system;

  • promotion and image-building campaigns;

  • advisory services intended for the management of leading large (the world’s top 500) and medium-sized TNCs (hidden champions);

  • financial engineering; and,

  • creation of an FDI agency, which serves the regions.1

Keywords

Foreign Investor Venture Capital Policy Instrument Regional Authority Foreign Bank 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 19.
    M. Quellenec, L’industrie en France [Industry in France], 1997, pp. 48–9.Google Scholar
  2. 24.
    T. Meng, Business Opportunities in the Yangtse River Delta, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 26.
    By 1997, over 2000 SEZs were recorded worldwide. See also T.G. Morozova et al, Regionalnaya ekonomika [Regional economics], 1995, p. 294.Google Scholar
  4. 27.
    OECD, Economic Survey, Russian Federation, 1997, pp. 192–7.Google Scholar
  5. 28.
    T.G. Morozova et al, Regionalnaya ekonomika [Regional economics], 1995, p. 301.Google Scholar
  6. 43.
    Based on C. B. M. van Riel, Principles of Corporate Communication, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 47.
    As of today, only 18 per cent of bank loans in Russia reach domestic enterprises (industry, trade, services), which is extremely low compared with other industrialized economies. See D. Tscherkasov, ‘Banki ustakanivayutsya’ [Banks are getting back to normal], Kompaniya, 8 March 1998, p. 16.Google Scholar
  8. 55.
    World Bank, Mobilizing Domestic Capital for Infrastructure Financing, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 55.
    World Bank, Mobilizing Domestic Capital for Infrastructure Financing, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 62.
    D. Tytko, Grundlagen der Projektfinanzierung [Fundamentals of project finance], 1999;Google Scholar
  11. H. Rose, ‘Building on the Benefits of Project Financing’, in Mastering Finance, 1998, pp. 80–5.Google Scholar
  12. 68.
    Many utility, power and infrastructure projects in the G7 countries were financed on the basis of long-term bonds issued and guaranteed by regional governments; World Bank, Mobilizing Domestic Capital for Infrastructure Financing, 1997, pp. 7–11.Google Scholar
  13. 69.
    At the beginning of mass privatization, vouchers were distributed among citizens. By the end of 1994, 40 million Russians held shares in the newly established joint stock companies or voucher investment funds. A. Radygin, Residual Diverstiture Following Mass Privatization: The Russian Experience. Between State and Market, 1997, pp. 80–88.Google Scholar
  14. 71.
    Following continuously high FDI inflows and good industrial performance over the past 6 years, China recorded a savings rate of 44 per cent in 1997, which the government is now trying to use for domestic capital generation. See World Bank, Mobilizing Domestic Capital for Infrastructure Financing, 1997, pp. 41–59.Google Scholar
  15. 85.
    L. Brahm, Red Capital. Hong Kong 1997. China Money Takes Center Stage, 1997, pp. 44–7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Paul Fischer 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Fischer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations