Foreign Direct Investment and Growth Causality in the EU Countries and in the Transition Economies

Author(s):  
Nikolaos Apostolopoulos ◽  
Zacharias Dermatis ◽  
Panagiotis Liargovas
2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 83-98
Author(s):  
Janina Witkowska

The aim of this paper is to discuss new trends that have occurred in the policies of the EU and China towards foreign direct investment (FDI), to examine some implications of the EU‑China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) – which is currently being negotiated – for their bilateral relations, and to assess the role which China’s “One Belt One Road’ (OBOR) initiative might play in its relations with the new EU Member States. The EU established freedom of capital movement with third countries; however, the introduction of the common investment policy has encountered some obstacles. These are related to investor protection and ISDS issues. In turn, China is carrying out an independent state policy towards foreign investment with limited liberalization of FDI flows. The negotiated EU‑China CAI is expected to create conditions conducive to bilateral foreign investment flows, and it might bring positive effects for their economies in the future. However, the progress made thus far in the negotiations is still limited. The relations between China and the new EU Member states (CEE countries) are characterized by common interests in the field of FDI flows. The new EU countries are interested in attracting Chinese FDI and seem not to show the fears that have arisen in the old EU countries.


Author(s):  
Miloš Parežanin ◽  
Dragana Kragulj ◽  
Sandra Jednak

The aim of this chapter is to analyse the effects of the economic crisis on the trade among the Southeastern European (SEE) countries. The countries were divided into two groups: the EU countries and non-EU countries. Macroeconomic performances and international trade indicators of the 11 observed countries were analysed for the period 2007-2019, and the effects of the economic crisis were present in all the observed countries, particularly the effects on the export performances. The crisis also affected the entire import of the non-EU countries. The EU countries recovered from the crisis faster than the non-EU countries. However, the non-EU countries achieved a more significant inflow of foreign direct investment in the post-crisis period, which significantly improved the position of the balance of payments in these countries. The observed countries had managed to stabilise their trade flows all until the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. The impact of the current crisis on these countries remains to be estimated in the future.


2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 1226-1241
Author(s):  
Monica Roman ◽  
Vasile Alecsandru Strat

Abstract The answer to the following question summarizes the research presented in this manuscript: “Are Romanian immigrants in the EU countries enhancing the foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows towards Romania?”, and as a consequence it makes the results of the paper a useful tool for all Romanian authorities dealing with one of the two topics: migration and foreign investments. To our knowledge, the paper provides the initial evidence supporting the hypothesis that Romanian immigrants in the EU countries can be regarded as “ambassadors” of the Romanian economy in attracting FDI (to Romania) from their adoption countries. The methodological approach relies on econometric modelling which reveals a positive and statistically significant relationship between the stock of immigrants and the number of FDI firms located in Romania and sourced from 15 EU economies, when controlling for several variables. The results could be useful both for companies and for Romanian policymakers that should target as source for potential foreign capital the economies which attract important flows of Romanian immigrants.


2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 1928-1947
Author(s):  
Svitlana Shevelova ◽  
Svitlana Plaskon

Purpose Despite an increasing volume of literature focussed on foreign direct investment (FDI) in transition economies, there has been little research into FDI in Ukraine. The relationship between the inflows of FDI (IFDI) and absorptive capacity (AC) has been under-researched in the peripheral transition countries like Ukraine. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the appropriateness of the Ukrainian economy’s AC to attract IFDI and facilitate economic growth with a particular focus on AC factors, such as the potential of human resources to absorb innovation and benefit from research and development (R&D) expenditure. Design/methodology/approach This study presents a thoughtful research design: there is an analysis of the AC framework for justification and selection factors that allows a measurement of the potential of Ukraine’s AC to attract and exploit IFDI. The study uses data from 25 regions in Ukraine for the 1996–2015 period. To estimate the effects of IFDI on Ukrainian economic growth, a Cobb–Douglas production function is used. As an appropriate instrumentation technique for dynamic panel data, the Generalised Method of Moments is used to provide unbiased and efficient estimates of the results. The application of the interactive term in this study allows the authors to indicate the existence of complementarities between IFDI and human capital, in particular with higher education, that afford opportunity to absorb new technologies and benefit from IFDI. Findings The resulting model indicates that R&D expenditure benefited very significantly in evolving country’s innovation system due to economic growth. Physical and human capital has not been used effectively in Ukraine to facilitate economic growth and attract IFDI. The number of patents is not significant in all of the regression models. Moreover, IFDI in Ukraine for the 1996–2015 period did not significantly impact on economic growth. However, the AC of human capital, in particular those with a higher education, is relatively relevant to benefit from IFDI. Practical implications The findings have important implications for governmental policy, which should be based on improving the business climate, a strategy for digital development, innovation, migration, institutional and regional policies aimed at the achievement of country’s sustainable economic growth. The government should increase R&D expenditure as an important factor of gross domestic product growth and introduce grants, loans and other financial supports for encouraging students to continue university education. Originality/value The originality and value of this paper is empirical and methodological. The empirical results of this study enable a conclusion about the appropriate level of the country’s absorptive capability required to benefit from IFDI. The paper also contributes to the existing academic debate and proves that despite the well-established theoretical framework for the IFDI–AC economic impact context, a new theorisation is needed to explore the full complexity of the country’s explicit relationship between AC and IFDI. Future research should be focussed on examining not only groups of countries but also distinctly the country’s explicit relationship between AC and IFDI with the particular attention for the under-researched countries: the peripheral transition economies to discover new research niches for theory building. This study presents an original methodological approach with a careful justification of the theoretical framework for hypothesis development, an appropriate sample and an original application of seminal research methods based on the Cobb–Douglas production function. This study proves that the interactive term, which allows indication of the existence of complementarities between IFDI and other variables, is appropriate for measuring AC in countries with smaller amounts of IFDI.


2018 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Rumiana Yotova

ON 16 May 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its Opinion 2/15 concerning the competence of the EU to conclude the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore (EUSFTA) (ECLI:EU:C:2017:376). The Opinion was requested by the Commission which argued, with the support of the European Parliament (EP), that the EU had exclusive competence to conclude the EUSFTA. The Council and 25 of the Member States countered that the EUSFTA should be concluded as a mixed agreement – that is, by the EU and each of its members – because some of its provisions fell under the shared competence of the organisation or the competence of the Member States alone.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volodymyr Olefir ◽  

The benefits and costs of the implementation of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) between Ukraine and the EU have been studied. The study aimed to find out to what extent the implementation of DCFTA has helped increase exports and attract foreign direct investment into Ukraine’s economy. A comparison method was used to conduct the study. The period of implementation of the DCFTA (2016-2020) was compared with the period before the implementation of the DCFTA (2010- 2014). Due to trade liberalization, exports of Ukrainian goods to the EU and imports of goods from the EU to Ukraine have increased. Trade liberalization has not contributed to further attracting foreign direct investment from the EU to Ukraine’s economy. The urgent task of the Government of Ukraine is to create a business regulatory environment according to European standards and protect foreign investment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document