Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Impact of Logistics Performance On Exports, Imports and Foreign Direct Investment
The Impact of Logistics Performance On Exports, Imports and Foreign Direct Investment
The Impact of Logistics Performance On Exports, Imports and Foreign Direct Investment
1, 2020 27
Tilo Halaszovich
Department of Business and Economics,
Jacobs University Bremen,
Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Email: t.halaszovich@jacobs-university.de
This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘The impact of
logistics on international trade and investment flows’ presented at Nofoma
2017, Lund, 8 June 2017.
1 Introduction
Both international trade and investment flows have continued to increase sharply in
recent years. This development poses significant challenges, particularly in the field of
logistics, and is inextricably linked to global trade and cross-border fragmentation of
production processes. Logistics is thereby not only challenged in a special way, but also
represents the necessary prerequisites and the driver for international trade and global
operations (Shepherd, 2013; Verhetsel et al., 2015). Straube et al. (2008) furthermore
argue that technological advances in transport and communication systems and the
removal of trade barriers are regarded as the most important drivers that may have led to
the expansion of international trade. Since the production of various products and
intermediate goods takes place in many different countries, the quality of physical
infrastructures is an important prerequisite for a country when participating in global
value chains or production networks. The outsourcing of production to countries with
poor transport infrastructure can be viewed critically if it cannot be guaranteed that
produced goods will reach international markets on time (Shepherd, 2013).
Efficient logistics facilitate the transportation of goods, ensure their safety and speed
and provide cost reductions when trading among countries. If a country has an inefficient
logistics performance (LP), this will result in higher costs in terms of time and money and
thereby affects a company’s performance and may also isolate a country from world
markets (Martí et al., 2014). Logistics connect companies to domestic and international
markets through reliable supply chain networks. These supply chains are complex and
their performance is largely dependent on country characteristics such as infrastructure.
The impact of logistics performance on exports, imports and FDI 29
Therefore Arvis et al. (2018) recognise LP as one of the most important indicators of a
country’s competitiveness. Due to this interrelationship between logistics, trade and
investment, we assume that the country’s LP operates as location advantage and thereby
helps to attract foreign direct investments (FDIs) from abroad.
The aim of this work is to analyse this relationship more deeply and to examine the
influence of LP on trade and investment. Our findings provide recommendations for
governmental decision makers to take action as we identify those areas which help
countries to better participate in international trade and become a more attractive
outsourcing location for foreign companies’ production facilities. Both can help countries
achieve a range of social and economic goals (see Section 2.3).
There are already studies that examine the influence of LP on economic growth
(D’Aleo and Sergi, 2017; Khan et al., 2017; Millán et al., 2013). Using the logistics
performance index (LPI), Millán et al. (2013) have found, for example, that an increase in
LP positively affects world economic growth. On the other hand, investigations as to
whether LP can explain the attractiveness of a country as a trading partner or as an
investment target have hardly been considered in research to date. Therefore, this article
offers an extension of classical research approaches on the factors influencing trade and
investment from a logistical perspective. Previous studies examine trade and investment
flows from a more exclusive and separate perspective (see Section 2.2.). However, as
these elements are directly related (Duval et al., 2008), it seems sensible to consider a
joint analysis. Furthermore, a macroeconomic view of logistics is underrepresented in the
literature. Many studies of LP focus on the factors that take place at a company level (see
Section 2.1.). Therefore, our approach offers an additional perspective on the topic of LP.
Finally, it should be noted that most studies rely exclusively on LPI data from the World
Bank to map LP. However, this restricts the analyses to just a few years. Our approach
also includes data from the World Economic Forum to describe LP so that it is possible to
study a longer period of time than just the years provided by the LPI (Arvis et al., 2018).
For the purpose of our research, LP is based on the LPI and the global
competitiveness index (GCI). The basic hypothesis of this paper states that good LP
positively affects FDI as well as the export and import volume of a country. A panel data
analysis will be carried out, covering 20 Asian countries over a period of 12 years
(2006–2017). We selected Asia as a research unit because the World Investment Report
highlights this region as the largest FDI recipient region in 2017 (UNCTAD, 2018).
There are also a large number of developing countries in this region which appear to be
of fundamental interest for such a study (see Section 2.3.).
After presenting the background of our research problem, research question and basic
hypothesis, we discuss our theoretical foundation in the second part of this article. This
includes a macro-economic perspective on logistics, an overview of studies on the link
between logistics, international trade and investment flows, as well as the role of
international trade and FDI for developing countries. These are the pillars of our
conceptual framework. Section 3 includes a thorough description of our methodological
approach in regards to data collection as well as data analysis. Section 4 shows the results
of our empirical analysis including a discussion of our hypotheses testing. The paper
concludes with a critical summary of our findings, implications and limitations as well as
an outlook for future research.
30 S. Luttermann et al.
2 Theoretical background
2.2 Studies on the link between logistics, international trade and investment
flows
It seems that research in this field does not have a long tradition. An early attempt was
conducted by Khadaroo and Seetanah (2009) who analysed the impact of transport
infrastructure on FDI through a panel data analysis. The study focused on twenty African
countries and reviewed data from 1986 to 2000. The fixed effect model shows a positive
and significant impact for transport infrastructure on FDI.
32 S. Luttermann et al.
Martí et al. (2014) examined the influence of LPI variables on international trade in
emerging markets for the years 2007 and 2012 by using a gravity model. Overall, the
impact of LP is more important for exports than for imports. All LPI categories have a
statistically significant impact, but the most important categories are ‘infrastructure’,
‘timeliness’ and ‘customs’.
Shah (2014) studied the influence of infrastructure on FDI flows to developing
countries through a panel of 90 developing countries over the period of 27 years
(1980–2007). A positive statistical effect of the ICT infrastructure on FDI was found, but
another infrastructure proxy (gross fixed capital formation) was not statistically
significant.
Blyde and Molina (2015) analysed the influence of logistics infrastructure on vertical
FDI with a gravity equation. They found that logistics infrastructure had a positive and
statistically significant influence on vertical FDI. The logistical infrastructure consists of
three components: the quality of ports, airports and an index for the ICT infrastructure of
the countries surveyed.
Lately, Gani (2017) investigated the influence of LP on exports and imports and
found a statistically significant influence. LPI data from four years was used to map the
LP and export and import data, to map international trade. Regression analysis shows that
all individual LPI categories have a statistically significant influence on exports, whereas
only ‘customs’ and ‘ease of arranging shipments’ have an impact on imports.
Taking the findings of these studies together, it becomes clear that so far, trade and
investments flows have only been analysed separately. This separation is surprising as
integration in global value chains includes both FDI and trade. Moreover, it is noteworthy
that most studies rely exclusively on LPI data from the World Bank to map LP. Contrary
to this, we are also going to use data from the World Economic Forum in order to
describe LP which allows us to examine a longer period of time than just the years
provided by the World Bank. Next, we will develop our argument on the need of
developing countries to improve their attractiveness for trade and FDI in order to realise
economic growth effects.
2.3 On the role of international trade and FDI for developing countries
A major characteristic of developing countries is their disadvantageous position when it
comes to their participation in global market activities. While the pace of global
integration continues to escalate, developing countries are increasingly competing in
terms of their capabilities to become linked to global as well as regional markets in an
efficient way (DiCaprio et al., 2017). Trade and transport infrastructure remain a serious
constraint in many developing countries. Many countries require significant investments
in basic infrastructure such as ports, airports, roads, and rail links (Shams, 2003). Also,
red tape and governance still remain serious issues facing importers and exporters in
many developing countries. It is the quality of infrastructure as well as institutional
frameworks which exclude countries from world trade as they are not able to integrate
with global production networks (Shepherd, 2013).
There is a wide range of literature dealing with the impact of international trade and
FDI on participating countries. Both FDI and international trade, under appropriate
conditions, influence a country’s development by encouraging it to achieve economic
and social goals (Dadush et al., 2015; Dunning and Lundan, 2008; Novik and
de Crombrugghe, 2018).
The impact of logistics performance on exports, imports and FDI 33
identify precisely those areas of LP through which countries can benefit from
international trade and investment flows.
The hypotheses that will be checked in this study are the following:
H1a LP affects the export flows of a country positively.
H1b LP affects the import flows of a country positively.
H2 LP affects the FDIs positively.
Figure 1 shows these considerations.
3 Methodology
The analysis refers to 20 countries of three Asian sub regions (East Asia, Southeast Asia
and South Asia) as the world investment report has indicated those three areas as being
significantly important for trade and FDI (UNCTAD, 2018) and the necessary amount of
data was available for this sample set (see Table 1). We excluded China as this country
has been identified as an extreme outlier that would have biased our results.
Most of these countries are classified by the OECD as developing countries and in the
past years their FDI has increased significantly (UNCTAD, 2015). Furthermore, this
group of countries is an interesting object of investigation, since the share of logistics
costs in total costs is twice as high in developing countries as in industrialised countries,
which has an impact on the overall performance of companies that operate in these
countries (Straube et al., 2008).
our approach, market size is represented by the proxies ‘total population’ and ‘GDP per
capita’. Personnel costs are an important component of total production costs and
personnel has a great influence on the productivity of the companies. We use ‘labour
force’ to include general labour supply as a control variable (Khadaroo and Seetanah,
2009).
Table 2 summarises the variables used in our work.
Table 2 Set of variables used for the analysis
3 ‘GCI rail’
4 ‘GCI water’
5 ‘GCI air’
6 The World Bank ‘Overall LPI score’
7 ‘LPI customs’
8 ‘LPI infrastructure’
9 ‘LPI Ease of arranging shipments’
10 ‘LPI quality of logistics services’
11 ‘LPI tracking and tracing’
12 ‘LPI timeliness’
13 UNCTAD ‘FDI inflows’ Dependent
14 ‘Exports’ variables
15 ‘Imports’
16 ‘Labour force’ Control variables
17 ‘Total population’
18 ‘GDP per capita’
19 The World Bank ‘Worldwide governance indicators’
• Third, we performed a panel data analysis by considering the control variables and
worked out individual timely effects of the logistical indicators on FDI and trade
volumes as well as the size of these effects. In contrast to static scatter diagrams,
panel data analysis can be seen as a dynamic analysis step. Equation (1) presents the
general description of a panel data analysis (Baltagi, 2005):
Yit = α + xit′ β + uit i = 1,… , N
(1)
t = 1,… , T
In our case, trade and investment data represent the dependent variable (Yit) while the
logistical factors as well as the control variables represent the independent variables(x’it).
The index i indicates the observation units and t indicates the time. α represents an
expression for a scalar axis intercept parameter that is invariant for time as well as for the
unit. uit represents an error term that includes individual effects that are not observable
(Baltagi, 2005). In order to analyse our data, we used the program ‘GNU regression,
econometric and time-series library’ (Cottrell and Lucchetti, 2019) and analysed the data
with an adequate panel estimator (e.g., fixed effect estimator). The interpretation of our
results is based on the sign as well as the significance level of the variables. A positive
sign of the independent variable describes a positive influence on the dependent variable
and a negative sign accordingly describes a negative influence. The significance-level is
documented by a p-value that should be smaller than 0.1 indicating a significant
relationship on a 10%-level (Schendera, 2014).
Figure 2 GCI development over time (see online version for colours)
7.00
6.00
Road
5.00
Rail
4.00
Water
3.00
Air
2.00
1.00
38 S. Luttermann et al.
Overall, it can be stated that the countries examined receive a mediocre evaluation with
regard to the GCI data. On a possible scale up to a value of 7, the observed values range
from 3 to a maximum of 4.7 which represents an overall average condition of the four
modes of transport.
This shows that there is still potential for improving the infrastructure within these
countries. Looking at the means of traffic on an individual basis, we can see that only
small improvements were observed. The best developed mode of transport is, according
to the GCI, the quality of airport infrastructure (mean value of 4.22 in 2017). On the other
hand, compared to all the other means of traffic, rail infrastructure represents the lowest
quality. However, rail infrastructure was first evaluated in 2009 with an average value of
3.09 and by 2017 this result had slightly improved. Road infrastructure showed the
highest growth with an increase of 0.88 points within the time period from 2006 to 2017.
However, with an average of 4.1 in 2017, road infrastructure can still be considered to be
of low quality. Sea ports also showed a minor increase within the observed time period
and were evaluated with a value of 3.99 in 2017. Singapore and Japan achieved the
highest values in our sample while Myanmar, Mongolia and Cambodia were the worst
performing countries. The biggest difference between these countries becomes apparent
with the quality of railroad infrastructure. Here, Japan achieved the maximum value of
6.58 in 2017 while Cambodia only reaches a value of 1.64 in 2017 and represents the
minimum.
Figure 3 shows the timely development of the six LPI categories.
Figure 3 LPI development over time (see online version for colours)
Also here, all categories were rated mediocre. The best category is ‘LPI timeliness’ with
a value of 3.49 in 2016, which describes the frequency with which shipments reach the
receiver within a given time window. The worst category was ‘LPI infrastructure’ with a
value of only 2.7 in 2016. However, this category as well as the category ‘LPI tracking
and tracing’ showed the highest improvement rates. With a value of 2.72 in 2016, the
category ‘LPI customs’ received a very low evaluation, as with all the other categories
too. Again, no positive development was visible. The remaining categories are ranked in
a medium position and only showed slight improvements in the evaluation over time.
Similar to the results of the GCI in most categories Singapore was the leading country in
our sample and Myanmar represented the most lagging country. For example, at the
The impact of logistics performance on exports, imports and FDI 39
category ‘LPI customs’, Singapore reached a value of 4.18 in 2016 while Myanmar could
only achieve 2.43 in 2016.
For both indices, GCI and LPI, we were able to observe similar patterns with only
slight positive improvements as well as evaluation values indicating mediocre results.
These results however are typical for developing countries and show potential for
improvements in all areas.
Our assumption is that increased LP will have a positive impact on trade and
investment flows. However, since LP is not generally at a good level in our research unit,
LP would rather represent a barrier to trade and investment. The further aim of this
analysis is to identify those areas which can have a positive impact on trade and
investment flows. Countries would then have to invest accordingly in these areas to
improve their LP in order to achieve positive effects on trade and investment.
Whether these improvements have positive effects on investments and trade flows
will be shown in the panel data analysis.
Figure 4 Scatter diagrams: logistics – exports (see online version for colours)
We were able to identify dependencies between logistics and trade flows as well as
investments in all figures (shown by the linear trend line). The figures show that the
average export and import flows as well as investment volume increases with LP. We are
thereby able to see that the LPI shows a more significant pattern than the GCI.
This visual representation is a first confirmation of the influence of LP on trade
volumes and FDI which supports our hypotheses. Although the correlation in investment
flows is not as pronounced as in trade flows, it generally shows that logistical factors can
play a role for companies in their investment decisions. This influence is further analysed
by the use of panel data analysis.
40 S. Luttermann et al.
Figure 5 Scatter diagrams: logistics – imports (see online version for colours)
Figure 6 Scatter diagrams: logistics – FDI inflows (see online version for colours)
significant influence for exports (p < .05) and for imports (p < .1) meaning that it is an
important prerequisite for a country’s capabilities in organising competitive transport
possibilities.
Table 3 Results from panel data analysis
FDI
Logistics variable Exports Sign Imports Sign Sign
inflows
‘GCI road’ *** + *** + * +
‘GCI rail’ 0 / 0 / ** +
‘GCI water’ *** + ** + ** +
‘GCI air’ 0 / 0 / 0 /
‘LPI customs’ 0 / 0 / 0 /
‘LPI infrastructure’ ** + ** + 0 /
‘LPI ease of arranging shipments’ ** + * + 0 /
‘LPI quality of logistics services’ 0 / 0 / 0 /
‘LPI tracking and tracing’ 0 / 0 / * +
‘LPI timeliness’ 0 / 0 / *** +
‘Labour force’ 0 / 0 / * +
‘Total population’ * + * + * +
‘GDP per capita’ *** + *** + * +
‘Worldwide governance indicators’ *** + *** + ** +
Notes: * significant on a 10 % level, ** significant on a 5 % level,
*** significant on a 1 % level, 0 = not significant.
Looking at the control variables, a statistical significance can be determined for the
variables ‘GDP per capita’ and for the ‘worldwide governance indicators’ (p < .01) and
sufficiently as well as for ‘Total population’ (p < .1).
Taking these results into consideration, we are able to partly confirm our first
hypothesis as our findings show that four out of ten LP indicators positively affect the
export and import flows of a country.
Our findings correspond with the explanations in the previous sections and confirm
the close links between logistics and international trade. Accordingly, we can recommend
that political decision-makers pay attention to the development of good transport
infrastructure, especially ports and roads.
Influence of LP on FDI
The findings of our research also show a significant impact of our logistical variables on
FDI. ‘LPI timeliness’ (p < .01), ‘GCI rail’ and ‘GCI water’ (p < .05) as well as ‘GCI
road’ and ‘LPI tracking and tracing’ (p < .1) show a significant influence at an acceptable
level. As with exports and imports, it is also the transport infrastructure that is highly
significant for investments from abroad.
Also, some of the control variables are statistically significant. Looking at the
variable ‘labour force’ (p < .1), we can provide enough proof to show that more
cost-effective production due to low labour costs is a significant factor. This is
particularly important for companies pursuing the so-called resource-seeking strategy
42 S. Luttermann et al.
(Dunning and Lundan, 2008). The main objective for companies in resource-seeking is to
acquire resources that are not available in their home environment or are available in the
host country at a lower price (Dunning and Lundan, 2008). The other effects of our
control variables ‘GDP per capita’ and ‘total population’ are of relevance for those
companies that opt for a market-seeking strategy. Market-seeking describes the plans of
multinational companies to open up new markets and thus reach new customer bases
(Dunning, 1998). This strategy can be supported by our results with ‘GDP per capita’ and
‘total population’ (p < .1).
Consequently, our hypothesis that LP indicators affect investment flows positively
can also be partially accepted. Five out of the ten logistics variables have a significant
influence on FDI inflows. Our findings support the results of a few studies that have
considered LP as a driver for FDI.
Our results on the influence of LP on international trade and FDI show new insights,
which further deepen the findings of previous studies such as Blyde and Molina (2015)
and Khadaroo and Seetanah (2009) as the influence of transport infrastructure on FDI can
be supported by ‘GCI road’ and ‘GCI rail’. Nevertheless, the studies by Martí et al.
(2017) and Gani (2017) show a significantly stronger influence of the LPI variables on
exports and imports. Only the categories ‘LPI infrastructure’ and ‘LPI Ease of arranging
shipments’ have a significant influence in our results. However, the comparison of our
results with the presented studies is not fully possible as we examined other countries,
different time periods and used different methods.
5.1 Conclusions
The purpose of our paper was to identify the influence of LP on trade and investment
flows. In order to test these relationships, we carried out an analysis in three steps. In the
first step we looked at the general development of the LP of the countries examined. The
research unit shows sufficient room for improvement in the six categories of the LPI and
the four categories of the GCI, as the data series are at a low to medium level.
Furthermore, only marginal changes in the LP of the countries could be detected over the
period under consideration. In a second step, we compared the data on the LP with those
on trade and investment. Here we were able to show that an increase in LP of a country
leads to an increase in trade volume and FDI volume. However, the LPI variables showed
better results than the GCI variables.
Our panel data analysis results show an acceptable influence of LP on exports and
imports. A total of four out of the ten logistical variables have a significant influence on
these volumes. In particular ‘GCI road’, ‘GCI water’ and ‘LPI infrastructure’ show
significance on the 1% level (respectively on the 5% level for ‘LPI infrastructure’),
demonstrating the particular importance of transport modes, ‘GCI road’ and ‘GCI water’
as well as ‘LPI infrastructure’ in general for developing countries. Significant values
regarding the influence of LP on FDI were also found. The influence of the transport
infrastructure should also be emphasised here, but ‘LPI timeliness’ and ‘LPI tracking and
tracing’ are statistically significant in contrast to our results regarding exports and
imports.
The impact of logistics performance on exports, imports and FDI 43
Overall, we can conclude that our hypotheses are partially accepted as LP influences
the trade performance of the countries in our sample and the amount of FDI.
5.3 Outlook
A suitable model for the LP of countries should be developed that considers more than
just the transport infrastructure. Here, for example, ICT or the supply environment could
play a greater role.
In the area of investments, approaches are needed which consider that different
aspects of LP may be more important, depending on the corporate strategy and
motivation for investment. The method presented can be extended by a sector-specific
analysis, as there are sectors that are more dependent on logistics than others. The state of
development of the countries studied can also be examined more closely, since the
influence of LP in industrialised countries is different from that in developing countries.
The fact that only slight positive improvements can be seen in our sample is an
indication that improving LP may be a long-term process. Therefore, in the case of a
growing importance of logistics for location decisions in emerging countries, as well as
44 S. Luttermann et al.
for strengthening international trade, the question may be raised as to what efforts can be
made for supporting the logistics sector.
References
Alam, A. and Bagchi, P.K. (2011) ‘Supply chain capability as a determinant of FDI’, Multinational
Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp.229–249.
Arvis, J-F., Ojala, L., Shepherd, B., Raj, A., Dairabayeva, K. and Kiiski, T. (2018) Connecting to
Compete 2018 Trade Logistics in the Global Economy The Logistics Performance Index and
Its Indicators, World Trade Organization, Washington, DC.
Arvis, J-F., Saslavsky, D., Ojala, L., Shepherd, B., Busch, C., Raj, A. and Naula, T. (2016)
Connecting to Compete 2016 Trade Logistics in the Global Economy The Logistics
Performance Index and Its Indicators, The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development/The World Bank.
Bagchi, P.K. (2001) ‘Measuring the supply chain competency of nations: the case of India’, Supply
Chain Forum: An International Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.52–59.
Baltagi, B.H. (2005) Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, 3rd ed., Wiley, Chichester.
Blomström, M., Kokko, A. and Globerman, S. (2001) ‘The determinants of host country spillovers
from foreign direct investment: a review and synthesis of the literature’, in Plain, N. (Ed.):
Inward Investment Technological Change and Growth, Springer, pp.34–65.
Blyde, J. and Molina, D. (2015) ‘Logistic infrastructure and the international location of
fragmented production’, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 95, No. 2, pp.319–332.
Bowersox, D.J. and Closs, D.J. (2011) Logistical Management: The Integrated Supply Chain
Process, Tata McGraw-Hill ed. 2000, 23. reprint, Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.
Chopra, S. and Meindl, P. (2013) Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and Operation,
5th ed., global ed., Pearson, Boston.
Cottrell, A. and Lucchetti, R.J. (2019) Gnu Regression, Econometrics and Time-Series Library
[online] http://gretl.sourceforge.net/ (accessed 26 February 2019).
D’Aleo, V. and Sergi, B.S. (2017) ‘Does logistics influence economic growth? The European
experience’, Management Decision, Vol. 55 No. 8, pp.1613–1628.
Dadush, U., Gardoqui, B.L., Logan, C., Manson, A., Schwab, S. and Thorstensen, V. (2015) ‘What
companies want from the world trading system, World Economic Forum.
DiCaprio, A., Santos-Paulino, A.U. and Sokolova, M.V. (2017) Regional Trade Agreements,
Integration and Development, UNCTAD, p.24.
Dunning, J.H. (1998) ‘Location and the multinational enterprise: a neglected factor? ‘, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.45–66.
Dunning, J.H. and Lundan, S.M. (2008) Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, 2nd
ed., [thoroughly updated and rev.]., Elgar, Cheltenham [u.a.].
Duval, Y., Bhattacharya, D., Jayawardhana, T., Khanal, D.R., Tahsina, T. and Shreshta, P.K.
(2008) Trade and Investment Linkages and Policy Coordination: Lessons from Case Studies in
Asian Developing Countries, Working Paper No. 5508, UNESCAP & IDRC, Canada, p.4.
Gani, A. (2017) ‘The logistics performance effect in international trade’, The Asian Journal of
Shipping and Logistics, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.279–288.
Gudehus, T. and Kotzab, H. (2012) Comprehensive Logistics, 2nd rev. and enl. ed., Springer,
Heidelberg, New York.
Hausladen, I. (2016) IT-gestützte Logistik: Systeme - Prozesse - Anwendungen, 3., aktualisierte und
erweiterte Auflage., Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Ihde, G.B. (1972) Logistik: physische Aspekte der Güterdistribution, Poeschel, Stuttgart.
The impact of logistics performance on exports, imports and FDI 45
Khadaroo, J. and Seetanah, B. (2009) ‘The role of transport infrastructure in FDI: evidence from
Africa using GMM estimates’, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP), Vol. 43,
No. 3, pp.365–384.
Khan, S.A.R., Qianli, D., SongBo, W., Zaman, K. and Zhang, Y. (2017) ‘Environmental logistics
performance indicators affecting per capita income and sectoral growth: evidence from a panel
of selected global ranked logistics countries’, Environmental Science and Pollution Research,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp.1518–1531.
Limão, N. and Venables, A.J. (2002) ‘Infrastructure, geographical disadvantage, transport costs,
and trade’, The World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.451–479.
Lu, Q., Cai, S., Goh, M. and De Souza, R. (2010) ‘Logistics capability as a factor in foreign direct
investment location choice’, Presented at the IEEE International Conference on Management
of Innovation & Technology, IEEE, Singapore, Singapore, pp.163–168.
Makki, S.S. and Somwaru, A. (2004) ‘Impact of foreign direct investment and trade on economic
growth: evidence from developing countries’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol. 86, No. 3, pp.795–801.
Martí, L., Martín, J.C. and Puertas, R. (2017) ‘A DEA-logistics performance index’, Journal of
Applied Economics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp.169–192.
Martí, L., Puertas, R. and García, L. (2014) ‘The importance of the logistics performance index in
international trade’, Applied Economics, Vol. 46, No. 24, pp.2982–2992.
Meixell, M.J. and Gargeya, V.B. (2005) ‘Global supply chain design: a literature review and
critique’, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 41,
No. 6, pp.531–550.
Memedovic, O., Ojala, L., Rodrigue, J-P. and Naula, T. (2008) ‘Fuelling the global value chains:
what role for logistics capabilities?’, International Journal of Technological Learning,
Innovation and Development, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.353–374.
Millán, P.C., Agüeros, M., Hontañón, P.C. and Pesquera, M.Á. (2013) ‘Impact of logistics
performance on world economic growth (2007–2012)’, World Review of Intermodal
Transportation Research, Vol. 4, No. 4, p.300.
North, D.C. (1991) ‘Institutions’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp.97–112.
Novik, A. and de Crombrugghe, A. (2018) Towards an International Framework for Investment
Facilitation, OECD.
Ojala, L. and Rantasila, K. (2012) Measurement of National-Level Logistics Costs and
Performance, Discussion Paper No. 2012/04, OECD/International Transport Forum [online]
https://doi.org/10.1787/5k8zvv79pzkk-en.
Önsel Ekici, Ş., Kabak, Ö. and Ülengin, F., (2016) ‘Linking to compete: logistics and global
competitiveness interaction’, Transport Policy, Vol. 48, pp.117–128 [online] https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.015.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009) OECD Insights International
Trade: Free, Fair and Open?., Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
Paris [online] http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=457340 (accessed 13
April 2017).
Pfohl, H-C. (2018) Logistiksysteme, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Schendera, C.F. (2014) Regressionsanalyse Mit SPSS, Walter de Gruyter, 2nd ed., Odenbourg.
Schieck, A. (2008) Internationale Logistik: Objekte, Prozesse Und Infrastrukturen
Grenzüberschreitender Güterströme, Oldenbourg Verlag, München Wien.
Shah, M.H. (2014) ‘The significance of infrastructure for FDI inflow in developing countries’,
Journal of Life Economics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.1–16.
Shams, R. (2003) Regional Integration in Developing Countries: Some Lessons Based on Case
Studies, HWWA Discussion Paper, Nr. 251.
Shepherd, B. (2013) Aid for Trade and Value Chains in Transport and Logistics, OECD/WTO.
46 S. Luttermann et al.
Straube, F., Ma, S. and Bohn, M. (2008) Internationalisation of Logistics Systems: How Chinese
and German Companies Enter Foreign Markets, Springer, Berlin.
UNCTAD (2018) World Investment Report 2018: Investment and New Industrial Policies, UN
[online] https://doi.org/10.18356/ebb78749-en (accessed 3 April 2019).
UNCTAD (Ed.). (2015) Reforming International Investment Governance, United Nations, New
York.
Verhetsel, A., Kessels, R., Goos, P., Zijlstra, T., Blomme, N. and Cant, J. (2015) ‘Location of
logistics companies: a stated preference study to disentangle the impact of accessibility’,
Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 42, pp.110–121.
Wong, W.P. and Tang, C.F. (2018) ‘The major determinants of logistic performance in a global
perspective: evidence from panel data analysis’, International Journal of Logistics Research
and Applications, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.431–443.