Table 1: Regional Distribution of FDI
|
1970-1980 |
1980-1990 |
1990-2000 |
2000-2006 | |
|
Developing economies (millions) |
5922 |
20580 |
118185 |
255648 |
|
Africa |
15.9 |
6.4 |
3.9 |
4.7 |
|
Nigeria |
5.4 |
2.1 |
1.3 |
1.0 |
|
South Africa |
1.6 |
0.1 |
0.7 |
0.9 |
|
Latin America |
47.6 |
31.8 |
35.6 |
29.6 |
|
Argentina |
2.2 |
2.8 |
5.8 |
1.7 |
|
Brazil |
21.4 |
8.4 |
8.4 |
7.5 |
|
Mexico |
7.6 |
11.6 |
7.2 |
7.9 |
|
Asia |
29.3 |
43.3 |
56.2 |
53.8 |
|
East Asia |
7.5 |
22.4 |
35.6 |
38.2 |
|
China |
0.0 |
7.9 |
24.6 |
22.1 |
|
Hong Kong |
4.5 |
10.4 |
7.6 |
12.3 |
|
South Korea |
1.8 |
1.6 |
2.1 |
2.3 |
|
South Asia |
1.1 |
1.2 |
2.0 |
3.5 |
|
South-East Asia |
20.8 |
19.7 |
18.6 |
12.0 |
|
Indonesia |
7.4 |
1.6 |
1.8 |
0.4 |
|
Singapore |
5.1 |
9.3 |
7.2 |
6.1 |
|
Thailand |
___________1.3 |
___________2.5 |
__________2.7 |
___________2.3 |
Note: Shows FDI as a share of total FDI going to developing countries.
Source: FDI data is from the UNCTAD database (constant 2000 US Dollars).
Table 2: Panel Data Models: Regional Dummies
|
Africa |
South Asia |
East Asia |
Latin America | |
|
Noorbakhsh and Youssef (2001) |
(+/-) |
(+/-) | ||
|
Edwards (1990) |
(+) |
(+/-) | ||
|
Asiedu (2002) |
(-) | |||
|
Jaspersen et al. (2000) |
(-) | |||
|
Ancharaz (2002) |
(+/-) | |||
|
Gani (2007) |
(-) | |||
|
Wilhelms and Witter (1998) |
(-) |
(+) | ||
|
Addison and Heshmati (2003) |
(+/-) |
(-) |
(+) |
(+) |
|
Yang (2007) |
(-) | |||
|
Hein (1992)____________________ |
_______(+/-) |
________________(+/-) |
Note: (-), (+) and (+/-) indicate a significant negative, a significant positive and an insignificant
regional dummy at a 10% significance level, respectively.
17
More intriguing information
1. Land Police in Mozambique: Future Perspectives2. Surveying the welfare state: challenges, policy development and causes of resilience
3. The name is absent
4. Estimation of marginal abatement costs for undesirable outputs in India's power generation sector: An output distance function approach.
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN FARM PRICE AND INCOME POLICY PROGRAMS: PART I. SITUATION AND PROBLEM
8. Changing spatial planning systems and the role of the regional government level; Comparing the Netherlands, Flanders and England
9. TOWARD CULTURAL ONCOLOGY: THE EVOLUTIONARY INFORMATION DYNAMICS OF CANCER
10. The name is absent