Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
net/publication/24111130
Factors Affecting the Choice of Location: A Survey of Foreign and Local Firms in
the Philippines
CITATIONS READS
0 323
2 authors:
All content following this page was uploaded by Alejandro Herrin on 17 January 2017.
by
Alejandro N. Herrin
University of the Philippines
and
Ernesto M. Pernia
International Labour Organization
October 1986
_______________
The views expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect those of the Institute.
Abstract
The paper addresses the following questions: is the locational behavior of foreign
firms systematically different from that of local enterprises; what are the more important
determinants of industrial location, in general and by specific type of firms; how effective
are direct government influences in the choice of location? The analysis is based on data
from a survey of 100 firms – 50 local and 50 foreign – drawn from the top 1,000
corporations in the Philippines.
The overall finding is that out of 34 factors that are commonly thought to
influence location decision, only seven are considered as decisive by the majority of
firms. These determinants are largely of the social overhead capital (SOC) type and
include: (a) closeness to major customers; (b) easy road access; (c) reliable electrical
power; (d) adequate telephone/telex services; (e) availability of a suitable plot of land; (f)
availability of a suitable building; and (g) adequate space for expansion. These can
probably be distilled into four critical location determinants, namely: access or transport
(a) and (b), power (c), information and communications (d), and physical plant
requirements (e, f and g). These factors apply to local and foreign firms, implying that
there is hardly any difference in their location behavior. Another significant finding is
that direct government interventions are generally not considered as either decisive or of
major importance in location choice, supporting the results of earlier studies in
developing countries.
Just as the current geographic location of firms has been shaped largely indirectly
by public policy in the past, the influence of policies on future firm location will also tend
to be indirect. It seems that basic SOC has to be in place before direct government
influences can work, as may be suggested by a comparative evaluation of these
interventions in developing countries vis-à-vis more developed countries. Also, policies
aimed to correct for unintended distortions and biases in the composition of firms to be
established could indirectly shape their spatial structure in view of the finding that the
importance of certain location factors tends to be firm-specific. When these unwanted
distortions and biases are rectified, it may be possible to see the emergence of a more
spatially dispersed industrial structure to the extent that, by virtue of location criteria,
certain establishments may tend to locate in the regions. Given the desired composition
of industries, policies to make certain regions outside Metro Manila attractive as
alternative centers could then be pursued more efficiently to reinforce the natural pull of
these areas.
FACTORS AFFECTING THE CHOICE OF LOCATION:
A SURVEY OF FOREIGN AND LOCAL FIRMS IN THE PHILIPPINES*
by
I. INTRODUCTION
developing country still live in the less developed regions. These regions are poor
because in most cases they are not functionally integrated into the national space-
economy. Often, the flows of resources are uni-directional – from the outer regions to
the core region. True economic integration, however, entails a two-way geographic and
sectoral mobility of factors. This has been recognized as essential for the efficiency and
scarcities of technical and managerial inputs, antiquated social institutions and practices,
uncertainties, imperfect information, and lack of infrastructure and basic social services
(Alonso, 1968). Many of these problems have their roots in the colonial history of
*
Research underlying this paper originated in the East-West Population Institute, East-West Center, and
was subsequently carried on at the University of the Philippines and the International Labour Organisation,
Bangkok. Financial support from the East-West Center and the Philippine Institute for Development
Studies is gratefully acknowledged.
2
An increasing amount of research effort has gone into the analysis of urbanization
and spatial development, but the focus has largely been on the internal dynamics of the
phenomenon. That is to say, scant attention has been given to external economic forces,
such as trade, foreign aid and investment, or at least no distinction has been made
between the roles of foreign and domestic forces in regional development. Given the
development (e.g., Snyder and Kick, 1979; Forbes and Thrift, forthcoming).
foreign direct investment (FDI) in relation to the issue of spatial concentration. The
systematic, independent bias toward the metropolitan region. More specifically, is the
that of local enterprises? What are the more important determinants of industrial
location, in general, and by specific type of firms? How effective are direct government
suggests that locational considerations of foreign investors tend to differ little from those
forthcoming). This result would seem to be quite logical, considering the handicaps of
foreign investors in terms of the uncertainties and costs of information they have to
confront if they would have to make independent choices. Hence, it appears that the
3
The present paper tries to find out to what extent the cross-national result is borne
out at the level of the firm in the Philippine setting. The issue of differential locational
behavior of foreign vis-à-vis local firms is significant for policy and planning because of
the contribution that foreign investments can make to unbalanced spatial development.
While there has been a continuing scholarly and policy debate about the social and
distribution, social values and so on, the spatial dimensions of these concerns have
largely been ignored. It would seem desirable from the policy standpoint that, in
scrutinizing the social and economic consequences of foreign investments, due attention
Dispersed regional development has been an avowed major policy objective in the
Philippines since the mid-60s. Policy measures to pursue this objective has taken on
various forms, such as investment incentives, industrial ban from Metro Manila,
development and urban growth centers (Paderanga and Pernia, 1983). Ex-post
evaluations of these measures, however, have indicated, inter alia, that the industrial ban
was fundamentally unsound, to start with; that inspite of the investment incentives, more
than 70 percent of new industries registered with the Board of Investments during the
1
“Probabilistic rationality” is well explained by Alonso (1968: 25) as follows: “… the know advantages of
the distant location will have to be very large to offset the probable, but unknown, disadvantages. In other
words, uncertainty or possible error is not symmetrical about the most probable estimate of costs, but rather
is strongly skewed in the positive direction. The probable profits, therefore, are strongly skewed in the
negative direction, and any sort of strategy for minimizing losses or maximizing profits will tend against
situations with higher uncertainty.”
4
1970-77 period were located in Metro Manila (Reyes and Paderanga, 1983); that the
choice of location for export processing zones was based not on economic grounds but
rather on political considerations; that integrated area development projects may take
more time to have an impact; and that sufficient resources may not have been allocated to
designated growth centers. Then, too, the desire to make Manila a “metropolis of
international stature” may have diverted scarce investible funds away from the regions,
making Metro Manila more attractive to migrants and industries (NEDA, 1982).
It is also argued that Metro Manila’s long-developed central place functions (as a
center of education, communications, modern facilities and services, and so forth) explain
macroeconomic policies, are shown to have exerted a potent spatial bias since the 50s,
which have rendered explicit dispersal policies in the late 60s and 70s largely ineffective
(Pernia, Paderanga, Hermoso et al., 1983). Thus, the policy goal of regional development
combined with the virtual inefficacy of corresponding policy instruments have kept
The paper is organized as follows. Section II gives a brief description of the data
collection procedure and presents the main characteristics of the sample firms. Section
III discusses the survey results concerning reasons for choice of current location, and
Section IV touches on factors affecting future location. Section V provides the summary
Data Collection
The survey gathered data from a sample of 100 firms – 50 local and 50 foreign –
to determine the relative importance various firms attach to a pre-selected set of factors in
their choice of location, retrospectively as well as prospectively. The sample firms were
selected from the top 1,000 corporations, listed in 1983, of which 836 were local firms
and 164 foreign firms. The sample of 50 firms in each ownership category was randomly
selected proportional to size in each industrial type. Of the 100 firms originally drawn,
22 did not wish to participate in the survey; these were replaced by other firms, following
the same random procedure. Table 1 presents the number of firms by ownership and
industry category for the top 1,000 corporations and for the final sample.
A personal interview was requested of the highest ranking executive officer of the
sample firms; in almost all cases, however, the interview was delegated to other officers.
The actual respondents included a director, six vice-presidents, seven assistant vice-
general services, operations, plants, planning, office, marketing, etc.), and five project
engineers. The rest of the respondents were senior officers under the supervision of their
commonly known to influence the choice of industrial location. These factors relate to
labor supply, access to principal supply and demand markets, presence and adequacy of
urban/public services, suitability of site, direct government influences, and other factors.
In addition, the survey attempted to assess the weight firms would attach to several policy
6
measures designed to decentralize prospective firm location outside Metro Manila. The
industrial location survey form is given as Annex I. It is largely patterned after a similar
Of the 100 sample firms, 38 are wholly locally-owned while another 38 wholly
foreign-owned. Of the remaining firms, 12 are locally-owned but with foreign equity
participation averaging 19 percent of total equity, while another 12 are foreign-owned but
with local equity participation averaging 15 percent. The ownership structure can be
summarize as follows:
Local firms 50
Wholly locally-owned 38 0
Foreign firms 50
Of the 100 firms, 49 are manufacturing firms – 20 local and 29 foreign. A more
All 50 of the foreign firms in the sample have their main offices in Metro Manila
compared with 44 of the local firms. The other 6 local firms are based in the Visayas.
Metro Manila 82 39 43
Other Luzon 9 4 5
Visayas 6 6 0
Mindanao 3 1 2
As the data indicate, the location of firms is predominantly in Metro Manila. The firms
wholesale and retail trade enterprises, all of the 20 service enterprises, 3 of the 4
With respect to market orientation, 60 percent of the firms (56 out of 93 which
gave specific information) sell their output/services solely to the domestic market. The
percentage for local firms is 76 (35 out of 46) while that for foreign firms is 45 (21 out of
47) – reflecting the relative import-substituting character of local firms. On the other
hand, of the 82 firms that provided the necessary information, only 30 percent obtained
their inputs/raw materials solely from domestic sources. The percentage for local firms is
54 (21 out of 39) while that for foreign firms is 9 (4 out of 43). It thus appears that
foreign firms compared with local firms represented in this sample are characterized by
relatively lower interindustry linkages with the rest of the economy. The relevant data
Market Orientation
(Percent Foreign Market All Firms Local Foreign
to Total Market)
Domestic
0 56 35 21
1-50 19 4 15
Foreign
51-99 8 3 5
100 10 4 6
N.R. 7 4 3
Total 100 50 50
Domestic
0 25 21 4
1-50 18 7 11
Foreign
51-99 26 7 19
100 13 4 9
N.R. 18 11 7
Total 100 50 50
9
About half of the sample firms have been established in their current location since only
Before 1950 7 3 4
1950-1959 13 9 4
1960-1969 23 13 10
1970-1979 38 17 21
N.R. 5 3 2
Total 100 50 50
of the government around the mid-60s. If 1967 is taken as a benchmark year, a total of
64 out of the 95 responding firms have been established in their current location since
Key officers of the sample firms were asked to rate the importance of pre-selected
factors in their choice of current location. These factors concern labor supply, access to
suppliers and customers, presence and adequacy of urban/public services, suitability and
cost of site, and other factors. In addition, the respondents were asked to assess the
alternatively by a mean index score and by the percentage of firms indicating that a factor
was either “decisive” or “of major importance” in their location decision. The mean
index score was calculated using the following scoring procedure: 4 = decisive; 3 = of
choices of current location are those factors with a mean index score of 2.0 or greater and
for which 50 percent or more of the respondent firms indicated them to be decisive or of
major importance. Factors of secondary importance include all those with mean index
In general, we find from Table 3 that for all firms, only 7 out of the 34 pre-
selected factors can be regarded as critical in the choice of current location. Seven other
factors may be considered of secondary importance. The data in Table 3 are summarized
below, showing the mean index scores and percentages of firms (in parentheses)
2
The mean scores and percentages (in parentheses) calculated for “All Firms” took account of the sampling
weights used in the study.
11
This result seems strikingly consistent with that from a similar survey in Brazil where
practically the same factors were considered decisive or important (Townroe, 1983). We
also note from the above that none of the direct government influences are considered
sufficiently important in location decision by a majority of the firms. The same finding
was obtained for Brazil and is, as well, supportive of an earlier study on the Philippines
many projects were significantly affected by regional incentives and a high proportion
would not have gone ahead without these incentives (McGreevy and Thomson, 1983).
We note, furthermore, that both local and foreign firms regard essentially the
same factors as “critical” or “of secondary importance.” This result seems to substantiate
an earlier study which indicates that, by and large, foreign firms base their location
decision on much the same criteria as local firms (Fuchs and Pernia, forthcoming). Two
“decisive” criteria especially stand out for both local and foreign firms: reliable electrical
power and telephone/telex services. The other factors are slightly more or less important
for local firms or for foreign firms. Apart from factors of critical or secondary
importance, a few factors can be read off from Table 3 which have appreciably different
12
scores for local firms vis-à-vis foreign firms. For example, cheap labor, limited local
It is generally known from the literature on location theory that the critical value
of factors tends to vary according to different types for firms.3 For example, firms
catering mainly to domestic final demand may consider closeness to major customers as a
more important location factor than other factors, while firms relying mainly on imported
inputs may consider closeness to major air or maritime ports more crucial. It is
location factors more closely. These characteristics include market orientation, input
supply orientation, and type of production activity. The results are presented in the
“important” if 50 percent or more of the sample firms in the relevant category consider
The data in Table 4 concerning market orientation of firms are distilled below.
The data suggest that firms with essentially foreign market orientation adopt a different
set of location criteria from firms with domestic market orientation. For example, while
3
Hoover (1948), for example, distinguishes among three main types of industries in terms of spatial
preference: market-oriented, materials-oriented, and footloose.
13
Market Orientation
Domestic Foreign
Factors Considered "Important" Total Local Foreign Total Local Foreign
on the Average by All Firms (n=75) (n=39) (n=36) (n=18) (n=7) (n=11)
However, it appears that certain cost-related factors are important in location decision to
be able to effectively compete in the international market. Prominent among these are
factors relating to cheap labor of given skills, access to air and maritime ports, access to
plant site, and low cost of land. A further observation is that among foreign market-
oriented firms, foreign firms appear to adopt a broader set of criteria than do local firms.
As regards input supply orientation of firms, the data in Table 5 are summarized
below. On the whole, foreign supply-oriented (or import-dependent) firms tend to attach
greater importance to factors related to transportation cost and land cost compared with
14
domestic supply-oriented firms. Within each broad firm category, we also note
differential emphasis placed by local versus foreign firms on factors other than the given
different types of firms, a further disaggregation is done into the following four
categories according to both market and input supply orientations: (a) firms catering
mainly to the domestic market and relying mainly on domestic inputs; (b) firms catering
mainly to the domestic but relying mainly on foreign inputs; (c) firms catering mainly to
the foreign market but relying mainly on domestic inputs; and (d) firms catering mainly
to the foreign market and relying mainly on foreign inputs. Because of limited sub-
15
sample sizes, it is not possible to distinguish between local and foreign firms for each
category. The data are presented in Table 6 and distilled below for easier inspection.
Firm Category
Domestic Market Foreign Market
Domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign
Factors Considered "Important" Input Input Input Input
on the Average by All Firms (n=36) (n=27) (n=6) (n=12)
The data show a clearer differentiation in the factors affecting choice of location
follow the basic pattern depicted on the average for all firms. Foreign market-oriented
firms, on the other hand, tend to adopt a different set of criteria, emphasizing less those
factors adopted by all firms on the average but more those factors related to labor, land
and transport costs. This pattern is especially evident for firms catering mainly to the
foreign market and relying mainly on imported inputs. However, foreign market-oriented
firms of either input source constitute a relatively small proportion of total firms; hence,
the factors affecting their choice of location may not be sufficiently reflected in the
16
average pattern characterizing all firms. These firms are mainly fabricated metal
broad industrial type, i.e., manufacturing versus non-manufacturing. The data are
Manufacturing Non-Manufacturing
Factors Considered "Important" Total Local Foreign Total Local Foreign
on the Average by All Firms (n=49) (n=20) (n=29) (n=51) (n=30) (n=21)
The data suggest that, in addition to the seven basic factors considered
“important” by all firms in general, local manufacturing firms place greater importance to
factors related to labor, site suitability, transportation and infrastructure than do foreign
orientation as was done earlier for all firms. Although the small sample sizes constrain
17
different types of manufacturing firms attach to specific location factors. These are worth
Manufacturing Firms
Domestic Market Foreign Market
Domestic Foreign Domestic Foreign
Factors Considered "Important" Input Input Input Input
on the Average by All Firms (n=10) (n=19) (n=5) (n=10)
As mentioned above, the second half of the 60s can be considered a watershed in
goal. If we set 1967 as the demarcation year, we could determine if there was any
difference in location decisions before and after that year. The data are tabulated
It appears that the more recently established firms based their location decision on
much the same set of factors as did the older firms, whether local or foreign. More
do not seem to have mattered at all, thus confirming our earlier observation.
Of the 100 sample firms, 82 are located in Metro Manila. These firms put much
weight on the seven basic location factors that have figured prominently. It is of interest
to see what factors firms located outside Metro Manila consider important, and how their
behavior differed from Metro Manila-based firms. The results are given in Table 10 and
Location
Metro Manila Outside Metro Manila
Factors Considered "Important" Total Local Foreign Total Local Foreign
on the Average by All Firms (n=82) (n=39) (n=43) (n=18) (n=11) (n=7)
location criteria quite different from those followed by Metro Manila firms. These firms
are mainly natural resource-based firms (as shown in Table 2b) and they place much
value mainly on social overhead capital (SOC), which is oftentimes wanting in the
regions.
“important” only to foreign firms which located outside Metro Manila (n=7) or to
manufacturing firms catering mainly to foreign markets but relying on domestic inputs
(n=5); “financial incentives” was considered “important” only by the latter type of
market (n=29).
20
What about prospective location decisions? The respondents were asked to rate
locate outside Metro Manila in the future. Of the seven policy measures, only one –
“government bans” – stands out as “important” to the majority of firms, both in the
aggregate and in more specific firm categories. Among specific firm categories,
domestic input source (n=5), and by foreign firms outside Metro Manila (n=7). These
This paper has examined, through a sample survey of 100 local and foreign firms
drawn from the top 1,000 corporations in the Philippines, the factors that have a critical
goal. The overall finding is that out of 34 factors that are commonly thought to influence
location decision, only seven are considered as decisive by the majority of firms. These
determinants are largely of the social overhead capital (SOC) type and include: (a)
closeness to major customers; (b) easy road access; (c) reliable electrical power; (d)
availability of a suitable building; and (g) adequate space for expansion. If (a) and (b) as
well as (e), (f) and (g) are combined, as seems logical, then there are only four critical
location determinants, which can be characterized as access or transport (a and b), power
21
(c), information and communication (d), and physical plant requirements (e, f and g).
These factors apply (more or less equally) to local and foreign firms, implying that there
is hardly any difference in their location behavior. It may be noted that, contrary to
common perception, cheap labor is not among the critical considerations for location
Because specific types of firms may have particular location needs, the data were
disaggregated, as far as can be permitted by the small sample size, by major firm
characteristics. The results indicate that manufacturing firms, especially those relying on
either foreign markets or imported inputs, generally consider a different set of location
criteria from other firms. For example, factors related to the cost of transport (closeness
to air and maritime ports, and adequacy of public transportation to plan site) are given
general, and by manufacturing firms in particular, both local and foreign. Also,
manufacturing firms, both local and foreign, appear to be quite sensitive to government
In assessing the results of this study in the context of public policy, it is important
to bear in mind that the data are for the most part ex post; that is, the responses on the
relative importance of various location determinants were obtained from firms of given
22
characteristics that have already decided to locate in their current sites. In effect, the data
tell us what factors were considered important by the firms represented in the sample
which have located mostly in Metro Manila. As has been pointed out, the importance of
some location factors tend to be firm-specific. Thus, if the composition of firms were in
fact different from those represented in the sample, then the set of location factors that
Policies designed to influence the location of firms must therefore weigh not only
the factors considered most important by the composition of firms in this study but also
the relevant industrial structure. It would be too simplistic to suggest that to encourage
firms to locate outside Metro Manila, public policy measures should be geared towards
making the regions more attractive in terms of, say, just the seven (or four) factors
singled out. Such a view assumes that the present composition of firms, which is heavily
studies have already shown that such industrial structure has not been conducive to
Just as the current geographical location of firms has been shaped largely
indirectly by public policy in the past, the influence of policies on future firm location
will also tend to be indirect. We have seen that direct policies have had very little
influence on location decisions. It seems that basic SOC has to be in place before direct
Policies aimed to correct for unintended distortions and biases in the composition
of firms to be established could indirectly shape their spatial structure in view of the
When these unwanted distortions and biases are rectified, we might gradually see
the emergence of a more spatially dispersed industrial structure to the extent that, by
virtue of location criteria, certain establishments would tend to locate in the regions.
Given the desired composition of industries, policies to make certain regions outside
Metro Manila attractive as alternative centers, could then be pursued more efficiently to
Table 1
Classification of the Top 1,000 Firms in the Philippines
By Type of Ownership and By Industry:
Universe and Sample
Universe Sample
Industry Total Local Foreign Total Local Foreign
(n=1,000) (n1=836) (n2=164) (n=100) (n1=50) (n2=50)
Table 2a
Distribution of Sample Firms By Industry and By Location of Plant/Major
Activity, and Year of Establishment, 1985
Total 82 39 43 18 11 7 31 18 13 64 29 34
Table 2b
Distribution of Firms By Industry and By
Market and Supply Orientations, 1985
Total 75 39 36 18 7 11 43 28 15 39 11 28 37 27 6 12
T = All firms; L = Local firms; F = Foreign firms; DS = Domestic supply orientation; FS = Foreign supply orientation
27
Table 3
Reasons for Choice of Location: Local and Foreign Firms, 1985
Index of Importance a/
Factors Totalb/ Local Foreign
(n=100) (n=50) (n=50)
(B) Accessibility
b/ Index of importance and percentage in parentheses are obtained after appropriate sampling
weights. The sub-sample of local and foreign firms, respectively, are self-weighing. Weighted indices and
percentage subject to rounding errors.
28
Table 3 (cont.)
Index of Importance a/
Factors Totalb/ Local Foreign
(n=100) (n=50) (n=50)
(D) Site
Table 3 (cont.)
Index of Importance a/
Factors Totalb/ Local Foreign
(n=100) (n=50) (n=50)
Table 4
Reasons for Choice of Location: Local and Foreign Firms By Market Orientation, 1985a/
(B) Accessibility
(3) Close to major suppliers 1.96(35) 1.85(23) 1.95(33) 1.71(14) 2.00(42) 2.27(45)
(4) Close to major customers 2.82(69)* 1.63(28) 2.82(69)* 1.57(29) 2.81(69)* 1.82(27)
(5) Close to airport 1.52(17) 1.95(39) 1.53(18) 1.71(29) 1.42(11) 2.73(73)*
(6) Close to maritime port 1.77(23) 2.43(57)* 1.79(23) 2.43(57)* 1.61(19) 2.45(55)*
(7) Easy road access 2.67(62)* 2.67(61)* 2.72(64)* 2.71(57)* 2.39(50)* 2.55(73)*
(8) Easy rail access 1.25(7) 1.04(2) 1.26(8) 1.00(0) 1.19(6) 1.18(9)
(9) Quality of local basic schools 1.19(5) 1.46(4) 1.18(5) 1.43(0) 1.28(3) 1.55(18)
(10) Locally available technical training 1.62(17) 1.93(19) 1.64(18) 1.86(14) 1.50(11) 2.18(36)
(11) Technical/maintenance services 1.75(24) 2.00(26) 1.74(23) 2.00(29) 1.78(28) 2.00(18)
(12) Consulting, computing, accounting 1.78(23) 2.09(39) 1.79(23) 2.14(43) 1.69(19) 1.91(27)
(13) Employment agencies 1.27(8) 1.22(4) 1.26(8) 1.14(0) 1.33(8) 1.45(18)
(14) Reliable electric power 2.81(63)* 2.76(72)* 2.77(62)* 2.71(71)* 3.06(72)* 2.91(73)*
(15) Public water supply 2.27(39) 1.89(41) 2.26(38) 1.86(43) 2.33(42) 2.00(36)
(16) Disposal of waste 1.94(33) 1.65(19) 1.95(33) 1.57(14) 1.89(33) 1.91(36)
(17) Public transportation to plant site 2.33(43) 2.43(57)* 2.34(44) 2.43(57)* 2.17(39) 2.45(55)*
(18) Telephone/telex services 2.75(68)* 2.48(37) 2.74(67)* 2.43(29) 2.81(75)* 2.64(64)*
(19) Health facilities 1.88(31) 1.80(17) 1.87(31) 1.71(14) 1.94(33) 2.09(27)
(D) Site
(20) Suitable plot of land 2.80(71)* 2.89(63)* 2.90(78)* 2.86(57)* 2.28(53)* 3.00(82)*
(21) Suitable building 2.55(59)* 1.41(13) 2.56(59)* 1.14(0) 2.44(58)* 2.27(55)*
(22) Space for expansion 2.59(60)* 2.91(72)* 2.64(62)* 3.00(71)* 2.31(53)* 2.64(73)*
(23) Property available for lease 2.26(49) 2.09(37) 2.31(51)* 2.00(29) 2.00(36) 2.36(64)*
(24) Low cost of land 2.11(43) 2.74(78)* 2.15(46) 2.86(86)* 1.86(28) 2.36(55)*
Table 4 (cont.)
(30) Limited local competition for products 1.76(27) 1.19(4) 1.85(31) 1.14(0) 1.28(8) 1.36(18)
(31) Presence of related industries 2.01(31) 1.52(11) 2.03(31) 1.43(14) 1.92(31) 1.82(0)
(32) Local tradition 1.20(6) 1.09(2) 1.21(6) 1.00(0) 1.17(3) 1.36(9)
(33) Attractive living environment for 1.82(28) 1.67(28) 1.82(26) 1.57(29) 1.83(28) 2.00(27)
managers/administrative staff
(34) Personal or family reasons of 1.48(13) 1.52(13) 1.54(15) 1.57(14) 1.14(3) 1.36(9)
owners/managers
Table 5
Reasons for Choice of Location: Local and Foreign Firms By Input Supply Orientation, 1985a/
(B) Accessibility
(3) Close to major suppliers 2.05(37) 1.93(30) 2.04(36) 1.91(27) 2.20(53)* 1.96(36)
(4) Close to major customers 2.63(62)* 2.32(54)* 2.61(61)* 2.27(55)* 2.80(73)* 2.43(54)*
(5) Close to airport 1.32(8) 2.11(48) 1.32(7) 2.18(55)* 1.33(13) 1.96(26)
(6) Close to maritime port 1.73(29) 2.15(47) 1.71(18) 2.27(55)* 1.87(27) 1.89(22)
(7) Easy road access 2.67(62)* 2.58(59)* 2.71(65)* 2.55(55)* 2.20(40) 2.64(68)*
(8) Easy rail access 1.18(4) 1.19(8) 1.18(14) 1.18(9) 1.20(7) 1.21(7)
(9) Quality of local basic schools 1.30(8) 1.29(1) 1.29(7) 1.27(0) 1.40(13) 1.32(4)
(10) Locally available technical training 1.61(15) 1.89(23) 1.61(14) 2.00(27) 1.67(20) 1.68(14)
(11) Technical/maintenance services 1.74(21) 1.99(31) 1.75(21) 2.09(36) 1.60(20) 1.79(21)
(12) Consulting, computing, accounting 1.86(28) 1.90(23) 1.89(29) 2.00(27) 1.53(27) 1.71(14)
(13) Employment agencies 1.10(1) 1.36(10) 1.07(0) 1.36(9) 1.40(13) 1.36(11)
(14) Reliable electric power 2.61(61)* 3.15(80)* 2.57(61)* 3.18(82)* 2.93(67)* 3.07(75)*
(15) Public water supply 2.17(41) 2.28(47) 2.14(38) 2.36(55)* 2.47(53)* 2.11(32)
(16) Disposal of waste 1.94(37) 1.98(33) 1.93(36) 2.09(36) 2.07(47) 1.75(25)
(17) Public transportation to plant site 2.36(48) 2.46(59)* 2.39(50)* 2.55(64)* 2.07(27) 2.29(50)*
(18) Telephone/telex services 2.69(68)* 2.60(49) 2.68(68)* 2.54(36) 2.80(67)* 2.71(75)*
(19) Health facilities 1.77(28) 1.89(28) 1.75(29) 1.91(27) 1.93(27) 1.86(29)
(D) Site
(20) Suitable plot of land 2.92(74)* 2.65(63)* 2.96(75)* 2.73(64)* 2.53(67)* 2.50(61)*
(21) Suitable building 2.37(56)* 2.08(38) 2.39(57)* 1.91(27) 2.13(47) 2.43(61)*
(22) Space for expansion 2.44(57)* 2.95(75)* 2.46(57)* 3.18(82)* 2.20(53)* 2.50(61)*
(23) Property available for lease 2.26(49) 2.02(41) 2.29(50)* 1.91(36) 2.00(40) 2.25(50)*
(24) Low cost of land 2.08(43) 2.35(58)* 2.07(43) 2.55(63)* 2.13(47) 1.96(29)
Table 5 (cont.)
(30) Limited local competition for products 1.85(29) 1.49(2) 1.93(32) 1.55(18) 1.07(0) 1.39(14)
(31) Presence of related industries 2.05(30) 1.73(20) 2.07(32) 1.64(18) 1.80(13) 1.93(3)
(32) Local tradition 1.23(7) 1.17(1) 1.21(7) 1.18(0) 1.40(7) 1.14(4)
(33) Attractive living environment for 1.71(25) 1.84(27) 1.71(29) 1.82(27) 1.67(20) 1.89(25)
managers/administrative staff
(34) Personal or family reasons of 1.44(13) 1.62(21) 1.46(14) 1.82(27) 1.20(0) 1.21(7)
owners/managers
Table 6
Reasons for Choice of Location: Market and Input Supply Orientations of Firms, 1985a/
(B) Accessibility
(D) Site
Table 6 (cont.)
(30) Limited local competition for products 1.84(30) 1.68(22) 1.28(0) 1.14(7)
(31) Presence of related industries 2.06(28) 1.89(31) 1.67(28) 1.43(0)
(32) Local tradition 1.26(8) 1.22(0) 1.11(0) 1.07(4)
(33) Attractive living environment for 1.75(25) 1.91(25) 1.61(28) 1.71(29)
managers/administrative staff
(34) Personal or family reasons of 1.39(11) 1.51(20) 1.05(0) 1.82(21)
owners/managers
Table 7
Reasons for Choice of Location: Local and Foreign Firms by Type of Establishment, 1985 a/
(B) Accessibility
(3) Close to major suppliers 2.18(43) 1.86(27) 2.25(45) 1.80(28) 1.93(34) 2.29(52)*
(4) Close to major customers 2.26(51)* 2.83(70)* 2.20(50)* 2.83(70)* 2.45(55)* 2.81(71)*
(5) Close to airport 1.84(36) 1.39(9) 1.80(35) 1.40(10) 1.97(39) 1.29(5)
(6) Close to maritime port 2.11(44) 1.77(18) 2.10(45) 1.83(20) 2.14(41) 1.29(5)
(7) Easy road access 2.59(60)* 2.65(59)* 2.60(60)* 2.70(60)* 2.55(62)* 2.29(43)*
(8) Easy rail access 1.29(10) 1.15(3) 1.30(10) 1.17(3) 1.28(10) 1.05(0)
(9) Quality of local basic schools 1.43(13) 1.20(4) 1.45(15) 1.20(3) 1.38(7) 1.24(5)
(10) Locally available technical training 1.67(19) 1.73(19) 1.65(20) 1.77(20) 1.76(17) 1.43(14)
(11) Technical/maintenance services 1.86(27) 1.80(25) 1.90(30) 1.77(23) 1.66(13) 2.05(38)
(12) Consulting, computing, accounting 1.79(26) 1.89(27) 1.85(30) 1.90(27) 1.59(14) 1.86(29)
(13) Employment agencies 1.26(10) 1.22(4) 1.25(10) 1.20(3) 1.31(10) 1.38(10)
(14) Reliable electric power 3.16(78)* 2.47(46) 3.15(90)* 2.43(43) 3.21(79)* 2.71(62)*
(15) Public water supply 2.26(44) 2.23(40) 2.25(45) 2.23(40) 2.31(41) 2.19(38)
(16) Disposal of waste 2.10(43) 1.77(24) 2.15(45) 1.77(23) 1.93(38) 1.81(29)
(17) Public transportation to plant site 2.39(50)* 2.30(48) 2.40(50)* 2.33(43) 2.34(48) 2.10(33)
(18) Telephone/telex services 2.61(57)* 2.78(68)* 2.60(55)* 2.77(67)* 2.66(66)* 2.90(81)*
(19) Health facilities 1.99(29) 1.81(30) 2.00(30) 1.80(30) 1.97(28) 1.90(33)
(D) Site
(20) Suitable plot of land 2.86(72)* 2.78(69)* 2.85(70)* 2.90(73)* 2.90(79)* 1.90(30)
(21) Suitable building 1.98(38) 2.61(61)* 1.90(35) 2.60(60)* 2.24(48) 2.67(71)*
(22) Space for expansion 2.92(78)* 2.38(48) 3.00(80)* 2.43(50)* 2.62(69)* 1.95(33)
(23) Property available for lease 1.83(32) 2.39(53)* 1.65(25) 2.50(57)* 2.45(55)* 1.52(24)
(24) Low cost of land 2.44(57)* 1.91(37) 2.50(60)* 1.97(40) 2.24(45) 1.52(14)
Table 7 (cont.)
(30) Limited local competition for products 1.68(26) 1.74(25) 1.80(30) 1.80(27) 1.28(10) 1.29(10)
(31) Presence of related industries 1.82(30) 2.03(29) 1.85(35) 2.00(27) 1.72(10) 2.24(48)
(32) Local tradition 1.19(2) 1.18(6) 1.15(0) 1.20(7) 1.34(7) 1.00(0)
(33) Attractive living environment for 1.69(20) 1.81(27) 1.65(20) 1.80(27) 1.83(21) 1.86(33)
managers/administrative staff
(34) Personal or family reasons of 1.71(24) 1.46(9) 1.85(30) 1.50(13) 1.21(3) 1.14(5)
owners/managers
Table 8
Reasons for Choice of Location by Market and Supply Orientations of Manufacturing Firms, 1985 a/
(B) Accessibility
(D) Site
Table 8 (cont.)
(30) Limited local competition for products 1.67(33) 1.80(3) 1.00(0) 1.22(11)
(31) Presence of related industries 2.30(53)* 1.89(28) 1.15(0) 1.38(0)
(32) Local tradition 1.13(3) 1.28(0) 1.15(0) 1.11(5)
(33) Attractive living environment for 1.70(23) 1.75(14) 1.35(39) 1.55(16)
managers/administrative staff
(34) Personal or family reasons of 1.37(17) 1.61(23) 1.08(0) 2.01(34)
owners/managers
Table 9
Reasons for Choice of Location: Local and Foreign Firms by Year of Establishment, 1985 a/
(B) Accessibility
(3) Close to major suppliers 2.32(49) 1.76(23) 2.39(50)* 1.66(17) 1.85(38) 2.23(46)
(4) Close to major customers 2.58(56)* 2.57(64)* 2.61(56)* 2.55(66)* 2.38(62)* 2.63(60)*
(5) Close to airport 1.54(21) 1.51(17) 1.56(22) 1.44(14) 1.46(15) 1.77(3)
(6) Close to maritime port 2.14(38) 1.73(23) 2.17(39) 1.76(24) 1.92(31) 1.63(20)
(7) Easy road access 2.65(66)* 2.59(53)* 2.67(67)* 2.62(52)* 2.54(62)* 2.49(57)*
(8) Easy rail access 1.20(7) 1.13(1) 1.17(6) 1.14(0) 1.46(15) 1.09(3)
(9) Quality of local basic schools 1.43(15) 1.20(4) 1.44(17) 1.17(3) 1.31(0) 1.31(9)
(10) Locally available technical training 1.85(29) 1.62(15) 1.89(33) 1.62(14) 1.54(0) 1.63(20)
(11) Technical/maintenance services 1.75(21) 1.85(28) 1.78(22) 1.83(28) 1.54(15) 1.94(31)
(12) Consulting, computing, accounting 1.85(26) 1.81(27) 1.89(28) 1.83(28) 1.62(15) 1.74(23)
(13) Employment agencies 1.34(11) 1.11(2) 1.33(11) 1.07(0) 1.38(8) 1.26(9)
(14) Reliable electric power 2.90(67)* 2.69(61)* 2.89(67)* 2.62(59)* 3.00(69)* 2.97(71)*
(15) Public water supply 2.32(44) 2.15(38) 2.33(44) 2.14(38) 2.23(38) 2.20(37)
(16) Disposal of waste 2.20(45) 1.70(22) 2.22(44) 1.69(21) 2.08(46) 1.74(26)
(17) Public transportation to plant site 2.45(53)* 2.26(39) 2.50(56)* 2.24(38) 2.08(38) 2.34(46)
(18) Telephone/telex services 2.84(71)* 2.62(57)* 2.89(72)* 2.55(52)* 2.46(62)* 2.89(77)*
(19) Health facilities 1.94(28) 1.77(25) 1.94(28) 1.72(24) 1.92(31) 1.94(29)
(D) Site
(20) Suitable plot of land 3.08(78)* 2.67(66)* 3.11(78)* 2.76(69)* 2.85(77)* 2.31(54)*
(21) Suitable building 2.00(35) 2.47(59)* 2.00(33) 2.45(59)* 2.00(46) 2.54(60)*
(22) Space for expansion 2.54(61)* 2.61(59)* 2.56(61)* 2.69(62)* 2.46(62)* 2.26(49)
(23) Property available for lease 1.84(28) 2.27(50)* 1.83(28) 2.31(52)* 1.92(31) 2.09(43)
(24) Low cost of land 2.16(41) 2.06(44) 2.11(39) 2.14(48) 2.54(54)* 1.71(26)
Table 9 (cont.)
(30) Limited local competition for products 1.90(35) 1.55(18) 2.00(39) 1.62(21) 1.23(80) 1.26(90)
(31) Presence of related industries 1.92(27) 1.94(33) 1.94(28) 1.93(34) 1.77(24) 2.00(29)
(32) Local tradition 1.17(5) 1.18(4) 1.17(6) 1.17(3) 1.23(0) 1.20(6)
(33) Attractive living environment for 1.67(21) 1.82(28) 1.67(22) 1.79(28) 1.69(15) 1.91(31)
managers/administrative staff
(34) Personal or family reasons of 1.53(11) 1.52(20) 1.56(11) 1.62(24) 1.38(7) 1.11(3)
owners/managers
Table 10
Reasons for Choice of Location: Local and Foreign Firms by Location of Firms, 1985 a/
(B) Accessibility
(3) Close to major suppliers 2.02(35) 1.92(29) 2.00(33) 1.91(27) 2.09(42) 2.00(43)
(4) Close to major customers 2.77(68)* 1.87(37) 2.79(69)* 1.82(36) 2.65(65)* 2.29(43)
(5) Close to airport 1.64(21) 1.36(18) 1.62(21) 1.36(18) 1.74(26) 1.29(14)
(6) Close to maritime port 1.86(25) 2.11(45) 1.90(26) 2.09(45) 1.70(23) 2.29(43)
(7) Easy road access 2.77(65)* 2.08(37) 2.82(67)* 2.09(36) 2.51(51)* 2.00(43)
(8) Easy rail access 1.21(5) 1.24(8) 1.21(5) 1.27(18) 1.21(7) 1.00(0)
(9) Quality of local basic schools 1.27(7) 1.44(10) 1.26(8) 1.45(9) 1.33(5) 1.29(14)
(10) Locally available technical training 1.75(22) 1.53(10) 1.77(23) 1.55(9) 1.65(16) 1.43(14)
(11) Technical/maintenance services 1.84(26) 1.76(24) 1.82(26) 1.83(27) 1.91(30) 1.29(0)
(12) Consulting, computing, accounting 1.84(27) 1.89(24) 1.85(28) 2.00(27) 1.81(23) 1.00(0)
(13) Employment agencies 1.22(6) 1.32(8) 1.18(5) 1.36(9) 1.40(12) 1.00(0)
(14) Reliable electric power 2.88(66)* 2.32(56)* 2.85(64)* 2.27(55)* 3.05(73)* 2.71(71)*
(15) Public water supply 2.22(39) 2.32(52)* 2.21(38) 2.36(55)* 2.30(42) 2.00(29)
(16) Disposal of waste 1.86(27) 2.13(52)* 1.85(26) 2.18(55)* 1.91(35) 1.71(29)
(17) Public transportation to plant site 2.46(48) 1.89(34) 2.49(49) 1.91(36) 2.33(47) 1.71(14)
(18) Telephone/telex services 2.56(69)* 2.13(42) 2.85(67)* 2.18(45) 2.93(81)* 1.71(14)
(19) Health facilities 1.90(29) 1.86(32) 1.87(28) 1.91(36) 2.02(35) 1.43(0)
(D) Site
(20) Suitable plot of land 2.74(67)* 3.08(82)* 2.82(69)* 3.09(82)* 2.40(58)* 3.00(86)*
(21) Suitable building 2.42(54)* 2.00(40) 2.38(51)* 2.09(45) 2.60(67)* 1.29(0)
(22) Space for expansion 2.65(60)* 2.45(63)* 2.72(62)* 2.45(64)* 2.33(53)* 2.43(57)*
(23) Property available for lease 2.07(41) 2.45(55)* 2.08(41) 2.45(55)* 2.02(40) 2.43(57)*
(24) Low cost of land 2.25(49) 1.71(31) 2.33(54)* 1.64(27) 1.88(28) 2.29(57)*
Table 10 (cont.)
(30) Limited local competition for products 1.67(23) 1.89(33) 1.74(26) 2.00(36) 1.33(12) 1.00(0)
(31) Presence of related industries 1.97(29) 1.84(32) 1.95(28) 1.91(36) 2.05(30) 1.29(0)
(32) Local tradition 1.15(3) 1.32(10) 1.15(3) 1.27(9) 1.12(2) 1.71(14)
(33) Attractive living environment for 1.71(22) 1.94(34) 1.67(21) 2.00(36) 1.91(28) 1.43(14)
managers/administrative staff
(34) Personal or family reasons of 1.45(13) 1.96(32) 1.51(15) 2.09(36) 1.19(5) 1.14(0)
owners/managers