David Michael Gould

Attracting Foreign Direct Investment

Like many other developing countries, South Asian nations have been experiencing increased foreign direct investment inflows over the past decade as developing countries get a larger share of cross-border investments that were once sent to developed countries. Nonetheless, South Asia’s inflows of foreign direct investment remain the lowest relative to gross domestic product among developing country regions. Why are South Asia’s foreign direct investment inflows so low and what lessons can be drawn for developing countries as a whole? The analysis in this article uses a novel empirical model that accounts for possible trends in convergence in the ratio of foreign direct investment to gross domestic product between countries and cross-sectional data for 78 countries from 2000 to 2011. The sample contains 52 developing countries. The analysis finds that two key factors are at work—high overall regulatory restrictions on foreign direct investment and specific restrictions placed on doing business with other countries. These factors include overall trade restrictiveness, which reduces the benefits to cross-border investments, and weak institutions to protect foreign investors and facilitate investment. Nonetheless, the potential for faster growth in intra- and inter-regional foreign direct investment flows is significant. The main factors leading to this conclusion are South Asia’s current low levels of foreign direct investment, the many unexploited opportunities for embodied knowledge transfer, and supply-chain linkages. The overall lessons for developing countries are that liberalizing policy constraints in both trade and foreign investment, keeping corporate tax rates modest, and improving governance and transparency could help to substantially improve foreign direct investment flows.

Attracting Foreign Direct Investment: What Can South Asia's Lack of Success Teach Other Developing Countries?

Like many other developing countries, South Asian nations have been experiencing increased foreign direct investment inflows over the past decade as developing countries get a larger share of cross-border investments that were once sent to developed countries. Nonetheless, South Asias inflows of foreign direct investment remain the lowest relative to gross domestic product among developing country regions. Why are South Asias foreign direct investment inflows so low and what lessons can be drawn for developing countries as a whole? The analysis in this paper uses a novel empirical model that accounts for possible trends in convergence in the ratio of foreign direct investment to gross domestic product between countries and cross-sectional data for 78 countries from 2000 to 2011. The sample contains 52 developing countries. The analysis finds that two key factors are at work -- high overall regulatory restrictions on foreign direct investment and specific restrictions placed on doing business with other countries. These factors include overall trade restrictiveness, which reduces the benefits to cross-border investments, and weak institutions to protect foreign investors and facilitate investment. Nonetheless, the potential for faster growth in intra- and inter-regional foreign direct investment flows is significant. The main factors leading to this conclusion are South Asias current low levels of foreign direct investment, the many unexploited opportunities for embodied knowledge transfer, and supply-chain linkages. The overall lessons for developing countries are that liberalizing policy constraints in both trade and foreign investment, keeping corporate tax rates modest, and improving governance and transparency could help to substantially improve foreign direct investment flows.

Risks and Returns

During the 1990s, Emerging Europe and Central Asia (ECA) chose a model of rapid financial development emphasizing bank credit expansion often funded by foreign capital. Although boosting financial inclusion of firms and households, the model was accompanied by lower efficiency and increased financial vulnerability. After two waves of crises, in the late 1990s and after 2008, ECA’s banking systems again face major stress. The crises and stresses have eroded trust in banks and job creation in credit-dependent fi rms. ECA’s shallow and illiquid capital markets offer no additional support. Stagnating income growth, particularly of middle- to lower-income earners, has led to increasing dissatisfaction with low productivity growth and limited opportunities. This frustration provides the impetus for reshaping financial policies. A healthy and balanced financial sector could strengthen structural adjustment in ECA’s eastern, oil-dependent economies and innovation in its western countries. Risks and Returns: Managing Financial Trade-Offs for Inclusive Growth in Europe and Central Asia argues for reaching beyond increasing access to credit. ECA countries must build integrated financial systems, enabling prudent financial inclusion in a region significantly lagging in the use of saving products. Striking the right balance across all dimensions of financial development (stability, efficiency, inclusion, and overall depth) is crucial for achieving and sustaining inclusive growth.

Multidimensional connectivity : benefits, risks, and policy implications for Europe and Central Asia

International connections through trade, foreign direct investment, migration, the Internet, and other channels are critical for the transmission of knowledge and growth and form macroeconomic linkages. But how much knowledge is transmitted to a country is not only the result of the overall level of connectivity, but also to whom a country is connected, as well as how these connections complement each other. For example, being well-connected to an economy with wide-reaching global connections is likely to be a stronger conduit for knowledge transfers than being connected to an isolated economy. Likewise, connections are likely to complement each other. For example, ecommerce is often seen as a benefit of Internet connectivity, but without transport connectivity, ecommerce may not amount to much. This wider definition of connectivity, referred to as multidimensional connectivity, is broadened and explored in this study as it applies to Europe and Central Asia. Focusing on countries from the Europe and Central Asia region, the paper shows that multidimensional connectivity is an economically and statistically important determinant of future economic growth. The paper further discusses the potential risks and transfer of shocks that can result from cross-country economic connectivity. Furthermore, it provides some examples of how policy tools can be designed to leverage the benefits of connectivity channels and mitigate their risks.