See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/256642689

A Panel Data Analysis of Sectoral Allocation of FDI in India: Where Does

Construction (including Infrastructure Activities) Stand?

Article · June 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 212

3 authors:

Seshanwita Das Tapas Das

Amity University JSS Academy of Technical Education
15 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS 16 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Makarand Upadhyaya
University of Bahrain
70 PUBLICATIONS 395 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pester power effect of advertising View project

Research Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tapas Das on 26 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 2, No. 6, June 2013
A Panel Data Analysis of Sectoral Allocation of FDI in India:
Where Does Construction (including Infrastructure Activities)
Stand?
Seshanwita Das, Assistant Professor, Galgotia‟s Institute of Management & Technology, Greater Noida, Uttarpradesh,
India
Tapas Das, Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, JSS Academy of Technical Education, Noida,
Uttarpradesh, India
Dr. Rajiv Upadhyaya, Professor, Department of Economic Administration & Financial Management, University of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
ABSTRACT
Although it may seem natural to argue that foreign direct
investment (FDI) can convey great advantages to host
countries, it is generally seen that the benefits of FDI vary
greatly across sectors. Allocation of FDI into different
sectors, enjoying differential knowledge spillovers or
technology spillovers, is an important aspect to be
considered due to its variable impact on the overall
growth of the economy. This study empirically examines
the allocation of FDI into select sectors during 2004-2010
in the post-reforms era. With the help of log-lin panel
regression model, we have seen that allocation of FDI
into different sectors over the years has experienced
heterogeneity effect. That is to say, growth rate of FDI
into different sectors over the years has been different and
this heterogeneity is the cause of such fixed factors across
all sectors as, low level of development in the economy
encompassing all the sectors, bureaucratic delays and
widespread corruption and such random variables, which
vary over cross-section but are fixed over time as
government policy regarding FDI across different sectors.
Keywords:
Sectoral allocation of FDI, Panel Data Analysis, FDI in
infrastructure
1. Introduction:
Inward FDI is conjectured to bring about increases in
productivity levels. More importantly, it acts as a conduit
for the transfer of technology, leading to technological
spillovers or knowledge spillovers and also increases
economic growth in host countries by increasing the level
of investment. Blomstrom and Kokko (1997) have
identified a number of ways through which technological
diffusion can occur, such as, licensing, joint ventures and
goods-trade. But, needless to say, FDI has always
remained a dominating channel for spreading technology.
Though it seems natural to argue that FDI can augur gains
to host countries, such gains might differ across primary,
i-Xplore International Research Journal Consortium
ISSN: 2319-4421 83
manufacturing and services sectors. UNCTAD World
Investment Report (2001, pp 138), for instance, argues
that in the primary sector, often the scope for linkages
between foreign affiliates and local suppliers is limited.
The manufacturing sector has a broad variation of linkage-
intensive activities. In the tertiary sector, the scope for
dividing production into discrete stages and sub-
contracting out large parts to independent domestic firms
is also limited.
The capacity for FDI to serve as a channel of
technological spillover might differ by sectors. For
instance, secondary sector could rely more upon imports
than FDI as an avenue of technological transfer, as the
importance of FDI as a channel of technological transfer
might not be so important in the secondary sector
compared to the tertiary sector due to the fact that services
are less trade-able than manufactured goods. Moreover,
knowledge is created by R&D, which itself is classified
under the tertiary sector. Nevertheless, according to
UNCTAD (2005), the largest R&D expenditure is
concentrated in the IT hardware, Automotive,
Pharmaceuticals and Biotech industries, which are mostly
in the manufacturing sector. Crowding-out effect of
domestic suppliers as a result of competition from the
entry of MNCs could also vary by sector. By and large,
higher tendency has been observed in tertiary sector
UNCTAD (2004). Now the question is if sectoral
allocation of FDI matters for growth, then the shift of FDI
from the primary and manufacturing sectors towards the
tertiary sector could have important growth effects.
Relatively few scholars (for instance Wheeler and Mody,
1992; Loree & Guisinger, 1995; Richaud et al, 1999;
Asiedu, 2002; Sekkat, 2004) have acknowledged the
crucial role of infrastructure in stimulating FDI by arguing
that good infrastructure is a necessary pre-requisite for
foreign investors to operate successfully. Poor
infrastructure or unavailability of public inputs increase
costs for firms. A freeway is faster than a washed out dirt
road, email is faster than the post-office and obviously
www.irjcjournals.org
International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 2, No. 6, June 2013
time is money. Public input is non-excludable and non-
congestible and it will lower the costs of doing business
for multinational and indigenous firms alike.
Multinationals are in fact profit-seeking entities that seek
to minimize the costs of doing business. If locating in a
developing economy to take advantage of lower labor
costs means, on the other hand, losing patent protection to
imitators, higher transport costs due to inadequate
transportation or missed supply shipments due to
communication and transport problems, then they will
refrain from doing business there. Infrastructure and
public inputs, or the lack thereof, contribute to firms cost
structures and should be included in a model that explains
the multinational‟s as well as the host government‟s
decisions for investment. Infrastructure should thus
improve the investment climate for FDI by subsidizing the
cost of total investment by foreign investors and thus
raising the rate of return. Availability of crucial
infrastructure, such as roads, highways, ports,
communication networks and electricity should increase
productivity and thereby attract higher levels of FDI. As
Wei and al. (2000) said that a location with good
infrastructure is more attractive than the others.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW:
Theoretical work of Findlay (1978) and Wang &
Bloomstrom (1992) that models the importance of FDI as
a conduit for transferring technology relates to the foreign
investment inflows to manufacturing or service sectors
rather than to the primary sector. In addition, FDI‟s
potential to create linkages to domestic firms might also
vary across sectors, as Albert Hirschman (1958) described
in his seminal book on economic development. Hirschman
(1958) emphasized that not all sectors have the same
potential to absorb foreign technology or to create
linkages with the rest of the economy. He noted, for
example, that linkages are weak in agriculture and mining.
He warned that in the absence of linkages, foreign
investments could have limited effect in spurring growth
in an economy. The grudge against what has become
known as the „enclave‟ type of development, he wrote, “is
due to this ability of primary products from mines, wells,
and plantations to slip out of a country without leaving
much of a trace in the rest of the economy.” About the
consequences in potential linkages effects differences in
manufacturing and agriculture, Hirschman (1958) wrote,
“the absence of direct linkage effects of primary
production lends these views (enclaves) a plausibility that
they do not have in the case of foreign investment in
manufacturing.”
More recently, the theoretical work on linkages, by
Rodiguez-Clare (1996), shows that multinationals‟
intensive use of intermediate goods enhances production
efficiency in host economies. In this framework, increased
i-Xplore International Research Journal Consortium
ISSN: 2319-4421 84
demand for inputs leads to a positive externality to other
producers owing to an increase in variety. Greater
varieties of inputs, however, seem to be more relevant to
the manufacturing than to the agricultural sector.
Likewise, Markusen and Venables (1999) analyze the
effect of foreign firms on the development of domestic
firms in the industrial sector. In their model, foreign
companies compete with domestic producers while
creating additional demand for domestically produced
intermediate goods through linkages with local suppliers.
This can lead to domestic firms entering into the
intermediate goods sector, which can result in lower costs
that, reflected in lower final prices that increase demand,
can benefit domestic firms producing final goods.
Most of the micro studies on FDI spillovers, as Lipsey
(2002) points out, tend to use manufacturing data and
have regressed local firm productivity on within sector
FDI. Although such studies find no horizontal technology
transfer, the empirical work at the intra-industry level
might not be suitable for capturing wider spillover effects
on the host economy, such as those created by backward
and forward linkages with domestic firms. One of the
main reasons to examine productivity spillovers from
foreign-owned to domestically owned firms, as Lipsey
(2002) mentions, is to understand the contribution of
inward FDI to host country economic growth. If foreign
firms at the expense of lower productivity in domestic
firms achieve higher productivity, there might be no
implications for aggregate output or growth. However,
there might be growth effects without spillovers just from
the operation of foreign firms, which can be analyzed in
terms of the impact of FDI on a country‟s output or
growth. Moreover, because multinationals seek to
minimize technology leakages to competitors while
improving the productivity of suppliers by transferring
knowledge, were FDI to generate spillovers they would
more likely be vertical than horizontal.
Park Jongsoo (2004) conducted a study on “Korean
Perspective on FDI in India: Hyundai Motors‟ Industrial
Cluster” indicates that industrial clusters are playing an
important role in economic activity. The key to promoting
FDI inflows into India may lie in industries and products
that are technology–intensive and have economies of scale
and significant domestic content. Sharma EAS (2005) in
his paper “Need for Caution in Retail FDI” examines the
constraints faced by traditional retailers in the supply
chain and give an emphasis on establishment of a package
of safety-nets as Thailand has done. India should also
draw lessons from restrictions placed on the expansion of
organized retailing, in terms of sourcing, capital
requirement, zoning etc, in other Asian countries. The
article comments on the retail FDI report that as
commissioned by the Department of Consumer Affairs
and suggests the need for a more comprehensive study.
www.irjcjournals.org
International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR) ISSN: 2319-4421 85
Volume 2, No. 6, June 2013

Gonzalez J.G (1988) in his study “Effect of Foreign Direct
Investment in the presence of sector specific
unemployment” extends the work done by Srinivasan
(1983) “International factor movements, commodity trade
and commercial policy in a specific factor model”, by
making an analysis of the welfare effects of foreign
investment. The study shows that if there are no
distortions, foreign investment enhances the social uplift
of the people. The study strongly favours import
substitution policies since such a strategy provides greater
job opportunities to the people and consequently improves
their standards of living. But the study finds that welfare
effects of foreign Investment do not explain the pattern of
trade in the economy. Thus, both Srinivasan (1983) and
Gonzalez (1998) concluded that foreign direct investment
and distortions of the labour market results in social uplift
of the people.
Sharma Rajesh Kumar (2006) in his article “FDI in
Higher Education: Official Vision Needs Corrections”,
raises four issues which need critical attention: the
objectives of higher education, its contextual relevance,
the prevailing financial situation and the viability of
alternatives to FDI. The conclusion of the article is that
higher education needs long-term objectives and a broad
vision in tune with the projected future of the country and
the world. Higher education will require an investment of
Rs. 20,000 to 25,000 crore over the next five or more
years to expand capacity and improve access. For such a
huge amount, the paper argues, we can look to FDI.
3. MOTIVATION:
Empirical researches suggest that capacity for FDI to
serve as a channel of technological spillover might differ
by sectors. But, relatively few scholars like Wheeler and
Mody (1992), Loree & Guisinger (1995), Richaud et al.
(1999), Asiedu (2002) and Sekkat (2004) have
acknowledged the important role of infrastructure in
stimulating FDI by arguing that availability of crucial
infrastructure, such as roads, highways, ports,
communication networks and electricity increases
productivity and thereby attracts higher levels of FDI.
This sheer fact of positive of impact of roads, bridges &
highways development on economic growth motivated us
to evince special interest to look into the sectoral
allocation of FDI in construction (including
infrastructure), which invariably encompasses FDI in
roads & bridges development during our study period
2004-2010.
4. OBJECTIVE:
To see, in terms of growth rate, the relative growth of
construction (including infrastructure activities) in
sectoral allocation of FDI into select sectors of the
economy over the period 2004-2010.
5. METHODOLOGY:
We have collected sectoral FDI data for select nine sectors
from the factsheet of foreign direct investment (FDI),
August 1991-Feb 2011, DIPP (Department of Industrial
Policy & Promotion)
(dipp.nic.in/english/publication/fdi_statistics/fdi_statitistic
s.aspx). We have taken data for seven years (2004-2010),
as data for construction (including infrastructure) before
that period is not available.

Sectoral Allocation of FDI (Rs. Crore)

Sectors 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Services Sector (Financial & Non-
financial) 1,986 2,399 21,047 22,054 28,516 20,776 14,958
Computer Software & Hardware 2,441 6,172 11,786 5,476 7,329 4,351 3,490
Telecommunication 570 2,776 2,155 4,846 11,727 12,338 6,398
Housing & Real Estate 20 171 2,121 7,186 12,621 13,586 5,070
Construction(including Infrastructure
Activities) 696 667 4,424 6,119 8,729 13,516 4,839
Automobile Industry 559 630 1,254 2,204 5,212 5,754 5,962
Power 241 386 713 2,003 4,382 6,908 5,639
Metallurgical Industries 836 6,540 7,866 3,856 4,157 1,935 4,783
Chemicals (Other than fertilizers) 909 1,731 930 868 3,427 1,707 1,746
Source: Factsheet on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), August 1991-Feb 2011, DIPP

Here the data is of panel nature, where if log of FDI is pooled regression of log of FDI on year, which is
regressed on year/time period will give growth rate of FDI equivalent to estimation with neither fixed nor random
over the period (2004-2010). In order to see the allocation effects, as given in the following equation. The Eviews 6
of FDI into different sectors over the period, first we run a output is also shown below;

i-Xplore International Research Journal Consortium www.irjcjournals.org

International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR) ISSN: 2319-4421 86
Volume 2, No. 6, June 2013

LFDIit = ß1+ ß2*YEARi+ uit

𝐿𝐹𝐷𝐼 it = -768.8856 + 0.387100*YEARi
t = (-5.646245)*** (5.705170)***
SE = (136.1765) (0.067851)
(F-Statistics = 32.54897) *** (R2 = 0.347935),

Here we see that both, the intercept and the regressor, are
statistically significant at below 5% (***). Since FDI is in
logarithmic form (i.e., the model being a log-lin panel
regression model), so the slope estimate of 0.387100
corresponds to an approximately 38.71% growth-rate in
FDI over the years. But this pooled regression assumes
that the intercepts are the same for each sector, which
could be an inappropriate assumption. Instead, we can
estimate a model with cross-section fixed, which is also
known as Least Square Dummy Variable Model (LSDV),
which will allow us to capture the latent sector-specific
heterogeneity, as given in the following equation. The
Eviews 6 output with effects specification cross-section
fixed (dummy variables) is also shown below;

LFDIit = ß1i+ ß2*YEARi+ uit

𝐿𝐹𝐷𝐼 it = -768.8856 + 0.387100*YEARi
t = (-6.522545)*** (6.590615)***
SE = (117.8812) (0.058735)
(F-Statistics = 7.982221***) (R2 = 0.347935),

Here also we see that allocation or growth rate of FDI into significant. We can also see the sector-specific
different sectors over the years is positive and statistically heterogeneity from the table below;

Cross-section Specific Heterogeneity

Sectors Effect
Services Sector-Financial & Non-financial 1.282600
Computer Software & Hardware 0.539875
Telecommunication 0.260380
Housing & Real Estate -0.571298
Construction ( including infrastructure activities) 0.152224
Automobile Industry -0.379072
Power -0.670193
Metallurgical Industries 0.135460
Chemicals (other than fertilizers) -0.749976

Actual Differential Intercept Values of Nine Sectors

Sectors Intercepts
Services Sector-Financial & Non-financial -770.1682
Computer Software & Hardware -769.4255
Telecommunication -769.1460
Housing & Real Estate -768.3143
Construction ( including infrastructure activities) -769.0378
Automobile Industry -768.5065
Power -768.2154
Metallurgical Industries -769.0210
Chemicals (other than fertilizers) -769.6355

Form the above tables, we see that heterogeneity in terms
of allocation of FDI across different sectors over the years
has been captured and this contribution has been obtained
to be the highest in case of Services Sector-Financial &
Non-financial, followed by Computer Software &
Hardware, Telecommunication, Construction Activities
and Metallurgical Industries whereas the same has been
obtained to be negative in case of Housing & Real Estate,
Automobile Industry, Power and Chemicals (other than
fertilizers).
Next we go in for random effects (cross-section) model,
which is sometimes also known as error component
model. Under random effects model, the intercept for each
cross-sectional unit are assumed to arise from a common
intercept, which is same for all cross-sectional units and

i-Xplore International Research Journal Consortium www.irjcjournals.org

International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR) ISSN: 2319-4421 87
Volume 2, No. 6, June 2013

over time, plus a random variable that varies over cross- cross-section random and idiosyncratic random is shown
section but is constant over time, as given in the following below;
equation. The Eviews 6 output with effects specification

LFDIit = ß1+ ß2*YEARi+ 𝜀𝑖 + uit

Or, 𝐿𝐹𝐷𝐼𝑖𝑡 = ß1+ ß2*YEARi+ Wit
LFDIit = ß1+ ß2*YEARi+ 𝑊𝑖𝑡
t = (-6.522536)*** (6.590615)***
SE = (117.8814) (0.058735)
(F-Statistics = 43.43621***) (Weighted R2 = 0.415911), (Un-weighted R2 = 0.347935)

Simultaneously, it is also worth determining that whether fixed effects are necessary or not, as shown in Eviews 6 output
below;

Redundant Fixed Effects Tests

Effects Test Statistic d.f.
Cross-section F 3.550472*** (8,53)
Cross-section Chi-square 27.035176*** 8

Redundant fixed effects test has been employed to see
whether fixed effects are necessary or not, each in both χ2
and F-test versions, restricting cross-section fixed effects
to zero. From the above output, we see that cross-section
fixed effects restrictions are not supported by data,
meaning thereby that a pooled sample could not be
employed. Next we see whether fixed effect model is
preferred over random effect model or not, using
Hausman test, as shown below in Eviews 6 output;

Correlated Random Effects - Hausman Test

Test Summary Chi-Sq. Statistic Chi-Sq. d.f
Cross-section random 0.000000*** (1)

Cross-section random effects test comparisons

Variable Fixed Random Var(Diff.) Prob.
LFDI 0.387100 0.387100 -0.000000 NA

From the above output, we see that Hausman test is not
significant. Therefore, it can be concluded that though
random effect model is preferred over fixed effect model
but there is no significant difference between them, which
is shown in the cross-section random effects test
comparisons of the Correlated Random Effects - Hausman
Test. This means that heterogeneity in terms of allocation
or growth-rate of FDI into different sectors over the years
could be arising from two legs. One is the common
intercept, which is constant over cross-section and over
time periods. This invariably emerges out of low level of
development in the economy encompassing all the sectors,
bureaucratic delays and widespread corruption, which
could not attract considerable amount of FDI, resulting in
an initial negative growth rate. The other is the random
variable, which is constant over time but varies over
cross-section, which is invariably government policy
regarding FDI across different sectors. Now, we can
compare three models, such as, Pooled OLS Model, Fixed
Effect (LSDV) model and Random Effect Model (Error
Component Model) in a tabular form, as given below;

Dependent Variable: LFDI

Coefficient (t-ratio) [Standard Error]
Independent Variable OLS FEM REM
YEAR 0.387100 0.387100 0.387100
(5.705170)*** (6.590615)*** (6.590615)***
[0.067851] [0.058735] [0.058735]
Observations 63
R2 0.347935 0.575457 0.415911
***Significant at 1%

i-Xplore International Research Journal Consortium www.irjcjournals.org

International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR)
Volume 2, No. 6, June 2013
6. CONCLUSION:
Form the above results, we see that during the study
period 2004-2010, the growth-rate of FDI has found to be
positive and statistically significant. But allocation of FDI,
during these years, into different sectors has experienced
heterogeneity, which arises from two legs. One is the
common intercept, which is negative and constant over
cross-section and over time periods. This invariably
emerges out of extant low level of development in the
economy encompassing all the sectors, bureaucratic
delays and widespread corruption, which could not attract
considerable amount of FDI, resulting in an initial
negative growth rate. The other leg is the random variable,
which varies over cross-section but constant over time,
which is invariably government policy regarding FDI
across different sectors. Moreover, the contribution to this
heterogeneity in sectoral allocation of FDI has been
obtained to be the highest in case of Services Sector-
Financial & Non-financial, followed by Computer
Software & Hardware, Telecommunication, Construction
Activities (including Infrastructure) and Metallurgical
Industries whereas the same has been obtained to be
negative in case of Housing & Real Estate, Automobile
Industry, Power and Chemicals (other than fertilizers).
Thus, we see that though construction activities (including
infrastructure) had a positive contribution in the
heterogeneity in sectoral allocation of FDI, but is poorly
placed in the cross-section specific heterogeneity table,
which should have been other way round for attracting
more FDI and subsequent economic growth.
REFERENCES:
[1] Asiedu, E. (2002). On the Determinants of Foreign
Direct Investment to Developing Countries: Is
Africa Different?. World Development, Vol. 30(1),
pp. 107-118.
[2] Alfaro, L. (2003). Foreign Direct Investment and
Growth: Does the Sector Matter? Harvard Business
School. Boston.
[3] Billington, Nicholas, (1999). The location of
foreign direct investment: an empirical analysis.
Applied Economics, Vol. 31, pp. 65-76.
[4] Blomstrom, M. and A. Kokko (1997). "The Impact
of Foreign Invest- ment on Host Countries: A
Review of the Empirical Evidence." World Bank
Policy Research Working Paper(No. 1745).
[5] Blomstrom, M., S. Globerman, et al. (1999). The
Determinants of Host Country Spillovers from
Foreign Direct Investment: Review and Syn- thesis
i-Xplore International Research Journal Consortium
ISSN: 2319-4421 88
of the Literature. Working Paper No. 76, The
European Institute of Japanese Studies.
[6] Borensztein, J., J. De Gregorio and J-W. Lee
(1998). How does foreign direct investment affect
economic growth?. Journal of International
Economics, Vol. 45, pp.115-135.
[7] Dunning, J. D. (1981). Explaining the international
direct investment position of countries toward a
dynamic or development approach.
Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, vol. 117, pp. 30-64.
[8] Goodspeed T, Martinez-Vazquez J and Zhang L
(2006). Are Government Policies More Important
Than Taxation in Attracting FDI. ISP Working
Paper Number 06-14, International Studies
Program working paper series.
[9] Haughwout, AF., (2001). Infrastructure and Social
Welfare in Metropolitian America. Economic
Policy Review, Vol. 7, No.3
[10] Holtz-Eakin, D. and Schwartz, A. E., (1995).
Spatial productivity spillovers from public
infrastructure: Evidence from state highways.
NBER Working Paper Series, No 5004, NBER.
[11] Kokko, A. (1994). "Technology, market
characteristics and spillovers." Journal of
Development Economics vol. 43 pp. 279-93.
[12] Loree D. W. and S. E. Guisinger (1995). Policy and
non-policy determinants of U.S. equity foreign
direct investment. Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 26 (2), pp. 281-299.
[13] Limao N, and A, J, Venables (2001). Infrastructure,
geographical disadvantage, transport costs and
trade. World Development Economic Review, Vol.
15, pp.451-479
[14] Mencinger, J. (2003). "Does Foreign Direct
Investment Always Enhance Economic Growth?"
Kyklos 56(4): 491-508.
[15] Morrison, C J. and A E Schwartz., (1996). State
Infrastructure and Productive Performance‟.
American Economic Review, Vol 86, Issue 5.
[16] Richaud, C., K. Sekkat and A. Varoudakis (1999).
Infrastructure and Growth Spillovers: A Case for a
Regional Infrastructure Policy in Africa. Mimeo,
University of Brussels.
[17] Schneider, F. and Frey, B. (1985). Economic and
Political Determinants of Foreign Direct
www.irjcjournals.org
 International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR) ISSN: 2319-4421 89
Volume 2, No. 6, June 2013

Investment. World Development, Vol. 13(2), pp.

161-175.

[18] Sekkat K and Veganzones-Varoudakis, M. (2004).

Trade and foreign exchange liberalisation,
investment climate and FDI in the MENA
countries. Working Papers DULBEA, Université
libre de Bruxelles, Department of Applied
Economics (DULBEA)

[19] Tsai, P. (1994). Determinants of Foreign Direct

Investment and Its Impact on Economic Growth.
Journal of Economic Development, Vol 19, pp.
137-163.

[20] Wei, S. (2000). How Taxing is Corruption on

International Investors?. Review of Economics and
Statistics, Vol. 82 (1), pp. 1-11.

[21] Wheeler, D. and A. Mody (1992), International

investment location decisions: The case of U.S.
firms. Journal of International Economics, Vol.33,
pp. 57-76.

[22] UNCTAD World Investment Report (2001, pp

138).

i-Xplore International Research Journal Consortium www.irjcjournals.org

View publication stats