Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Student’s Name:
Course:
University:
City (State):
Date:
Foreign Direct Investment 2
Table of Contents
Foreign Direct Investment and the Spanish Economy.................................................................... 3
Cross-Country FDI.......................................................................................................................... 3
Profitability ..................................................................................................................................8
A General Perspective........................................................................................................... 16
References ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Foreign Direct Investment 3
The past thirty years of the Spanish economy have been prodigal with intensive growth and
production, particularly due to the escalating inflows of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). In
1986, Spain went into accord with the European Community (EC) which resulted in noteworthy
improvement in FDI. This was also reflected in the promising forecasts of the future of Spain’s
economy. However, limited empirical evidence is available despite the significant contribution
Capital movements have been increased internationally over the past couple of decades with the
liberalization of business activities. According to OECD (2011), the flows of FDI have grown
tremendously despite the global financial crisis of 2008. Economic growth is considered to be
driven by FDI. According to UNCTAD (2014), around 54% of global FDI flows are received by
the developing countries. 39% and 7% of the FDI flows are received by the developed countries
and the countries in transition, respectively. As suggested by Roca (2010), Spain has been
attracting inward FDI since the mid-80s, with unequal distribution among the regions.
Cross-Country FDI
FDI across countries is determined by various factors who empirical analyses retain a multitude
of econometric specifications. Gravity equation has been mainly used in various studies
examining the cross-country flows of FDI. The gravity equation considers the geographic
distance between the two countries, alongside the sizes of their economies, and some relevant
proxies. Theoretical models have been developed by the researchers, that are based on the FDI
decisions of the multinational corporations (MNC’s) (Carr, Markusen & Maskus 2001;
Foreign Direct Investment 4
Bergstrand & Egger 2007). These models suggest that the patterns of FDI are also determined by
According to these studies, the gravity model must be modified to explain the patterns of FDI
accurately. The variables used in the gravity model explain that firms engage in FDI to outsource
their operations to other markets so that more consumers can be attracted. Additional controls are
indispensable so that firms are able to find low-cost labor at inexpensive locations to boost
production. These studies imply that MNC’s make complicated decisions regarding FDI that the
two variables, endowments of skilled labor and GDP, must be used to account for their impact on
the patterns of FDI. On the contrary, the researchers have modelled FDI as a result of MNCs’
A substantial growth in FDI has been observed since the 80s, particularly from the developing
countries found in South Asia, Southeast, and the East. The outflows of FDI are linked with
massive levels of foreign reserves, household savings, export orientation, Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) and the inflows of FDI in source countries. The development level of each factor
determines its significance and strength. FDI was once assumed to have been flowing to
countries with a dearth of capital and industrialization, from more industrialized countries, rich
in capital. In the contemporary era, FDI has been flowing in the reverse direction. In simple
words, FDI has been flowing into the developed and developing countries, from other
developing countries. The major flow of FDI is found amongst developed countries (UNCTAD
2012).
However, researchers have now become attracted to the idea of reverse FDI due to its increasing
popularity and significance. Reverse FDI is an ancient concept that originated in Japan, during
Foreign Direct Investment 5
the 60s and 70s. Japan’s economy was the first amongst the Asian economies to have
experienced steady economic growth and industrialization. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and
South Korea were the first Asian dragons to have welcomed investment from Japan. Japanese
investment then flowed to the Asian countries in Southeast, North America and the European
Union (EU). Towards the end of the 20th century, the Asian tigers retraced the footsteps of
FDI in Spain
Spain has not only been receiving FDI, but has also become its source, particularly since the
2000s. Increased FDI in Spain has helped the economy to expand into other markets. The
mounting flows of FDI can well be explained by globalization. Developed countries, particularly
the EU have maintained their lead in FDI, now followed by an ever-increased participation of the
developing countries. The Spanish economy ranks third amongst the European economies in
case of outward FDI as a proportion of GDP. Spain ranks second in case of inward FDI. The
MNCs in Spain usually drive outward FDI and the services sector of the economy consumes
most of the inward FDI. Spain receives investments mainly from the US and Europe.
The outward FDI driven by Spain flows towards Latin America and Europe. Outward FDI from
and inward FDI in Spain has turned out to be profitable with regards to employment, growth in
the GDP and exports. In addition, firms in Spain have become more efficient. Spain has been
investing abroad, especially in research and development (R&D) and human resources.
Policies must consider attracting FDI into the Spanish economy, and also encourage the
diversification of Spanish FDI. The inflow of FDI in Spain has led to the development of MNCs.
These are owned by the non-residents. It is through the outward FDI that Spanish companies
develop their branches abroad. On the contrary, investments are made by the subsidiaries of
Foreign Direct Investment 6
foreign MNCs from within the Spanish territory. Myro’s (2015) analysis considers the variable,
foreign direct investment position (FDIP). It measures the FDI stock. The FDIP data is collected
through two sources; the foreign investments register and the balance of payments. Trends seem
alike upon the comparison of both the sources. However, higher values have always been
For the next three decades starting from the 80s, the world economy has greatly developed
through the swift growth of FDI. However, the recent recession has adversely impacted the
growth of FDI. However, the progress of FDI has been on track since the figures recorded in
2012 were still higher than those of 2007. The trend observed in the decade of 2000s is
noteworthy because the FDI stock increase by more than threefold. However, the growth rate
started to boost even before the commencement of the decade, particularly towards the end of the
90s.
FDI flows have been mainly received and issued by the European Union, implying that the
developed countries are the key players in FDI. However, since 2007, developing countries have
also been actively partaking in the FDI flows. In 2012, the developing countries acquired 1/3rd of
the global aggregate direct investment. This exceeds the figure recorded in 2005 by ten
percentage points. According to Guillén and García-Canal (2011), the emerging market MNCs
have traits distinct from the traditional MNCs. Consequently, this has posed many difficulties in
the analysis of the MNCs. In the perspective of Helpman (2011), mounting globalization and its
impact on the world economy play a key role in explaining the FDI expansion.
According to Myro (2015), Spain has contributed a lot to the expansion of FDI. It first received
inward foreign investment, and later, since the 2000s, became a source of FDI. It was in 1990
when the foreign investments started to escalate. They accounted for about 3.2% of the global
aggregate. This percentage started to decline with the expansion of international flows before its
recovery in 2007. Foreign investments by the Spanish firms rose to 3% of the global investments
in the same year. It happened in 2000s that Spain turned into a foreign investor, from being
Between 2004 and 2006, Spain turned into a buyer of businesses, having a share of 385 in
European cross-border acquisitions. Spain aspires to retrace the footsteps of France and the
United Kingdom, being both the sources and destinations of FDI. Germany issues FDI more than
it receives. This is particularly due to the fact that its share of inward FDI in relation to GDP is
poor. It is because of the present crisis that Spain currently ranks low in world FDI. However, the
volumes of inward and outward FDIs have significantly grown, in comparison to other European
countries. This can be explained through the decline of the shares of outward and inward FDIs of
the developed countries, relative to the ascent of those of the developing countries (Myro 2015).
Presently, Spain has around 9,000 subsidiaries of foreign MNCs, of which 4,000 are owned
directly. The empirical studies suggest that subsidiaries are being set up in Spain because of the
rapid expansion of the market. These subsidiaries are mainly found in the services sector,
particularly in the operations requiring low capital and in businesses mainly relying on imports.
These include metal, chemicals, motor vehicles, pharmaceuticals and ICT manufacturing. Spain
could draw in more FDI by integrating into the European Union. As a result, MNCs found Spain
attractive as it had open policies with its partners in the European Union.
Foreign Direct Investment 8
Two other incentives include steady growth and macroeconomic stability. This infers that inward
FDI could be attracted through economic recovery, competitive markets, and innovation. Large
and profitable Spanish companies take on the process of investing abroad, by strongly
establishing themselves in the target markets. The companies that invest abroad tend to be more
productive than those that do not invest abroad, roughly by 18%. It is through the expansion of
these companies abroad that they are able to reap the benefits of economies of scale and
maximize their profitability, especially in the countries that are both culturally and
geographically close. These include Latin America and the northern neighbors of Spain.
Europe is rather significant for Spain’s inward FDI than outward. US invests intensely in Spain.
Italy has gained significance since 2011, with its companies holding the largest volume of the
investments’ stock. Argentina, Portugal, Israel, Brazil, UAE and Mexico have been penetrating
extensively. Europe has been specialized with outward FDI. Latin America is a major recipient
of FDI because of its linguistic and cultural association with Spain. However, Spain pulled out
its investments from Latin America to diversify them, immediately after the European Union
integration. Spain is still on the way to penetrate into Asia (Myro 2015).
Profitability
The returns on Spanish investments abroad and those on the investments in Spain by the foreign
MNCs are parallel to those of Germany. In other words, the returns rank below those of the UK
but higher than those of Italy and France. Although the returns declined amid the crisis, the
foreign investments of Spain remained acceptable. When the returns on investment are strong,
the strength the strategies of domestic and foreign MNCs, and the investment activity continues
to rise. Between 2003 and 2007, the returns on Spanish investments abroad reached to up to
Foreign Direct Investment 9
17%. The global financial crisis of 2008 changed the situation and the figures were cut down by
According to the earlier researches, the economy of Spain improved with the establishment of
the subsidiaries of foreign MNCs within the country. Not only an upward trend in the GDP has
been observed, but exports and employment have also increased. Myro (2015), during 2006-
2013, assessed the effects of inward FDI in the Spanish economy. A general equilibrium model
was used for this purpose that estimated how the employment rate increased by 5.25%, with a
decline in the unemployment rate by 3.15%. Real salaries increased by 1.89%, increasing the
Spanish firms that invested abroad also casted positive impacts. A positive impact on
employment and labor skills was observed, alongside increased technological developments and
exports. Companies not having their subsidiaries in Spain had six times as many people working
in R&D that companies not having their subsidiaries anywhere else in the world. The research
also estimated that firms tend to spend around 5,000 euros for every employee’s training on an
annual basis after investing abroad. According to Huertas and Salas (2014), this intensity of the
human capital is more like dependent upon higher quality business management.
Globalization in the economy of Spain has been greatly shaped by FDI. FDI has proven
significant to the balance of payments of a country, alongside its productive capacity. In fact,
investments received by a country cast a substantial impact onto the structure of business
FDI in Spain has determinants that pursue two different approaches. The first approach revolves
around the aggregate investment for the entire country. The second approach is based on
studying the regional distribution of FDI on multiple investment levels. The techniques of the
panel data derive favorable econometric outcomes that can be taken advantage of, through the
latter approach. These advantages are maximized by analyzing the determinants of FDI in Spain
through the analysis of the breakdown of 28 sectors found in the economy of Spain. The study
covers a period between 1993 and 2002. Investments are analyzed regionally through the use of
gross effective investment, forming the dependent variable. As per the Spanish Ministry of
Economy (SME), the greatest indicator of FDI is the Gross Effective Foreign Investment
Theoretical Approaches
The dependent variable, RFDI, was thoroughly analyzed by the researchers, Singh and Jun
(1999) to study some variables associated with the FDI of the developing countries. RFDI was
tested under certain conditions to study how the market size of the developing countries,
alongside the costs of labor, private restructuring, exchange rate, and debt equity swaps were
impacted. The researchers also analyzed the developing countries’ home country and
interregional characteristics. This thorough and meticulous study later revealed that FDI is
mainly determined by the level of political risk. In addition, the researchers also disclosed that
the investment flows are negatively affected by the sociopolitical instability. Where the FDI is
Another research by Lizondo (1990) was based on studying how diversified the risk is, alongside
the size of the market, rates of return, and technical developments. To test the determinants of
FDI, the researcher also took oligopolistic competition, strength of the currency, liquidity
position, market failure, tax policies, instability in the political system and government
regulation into account. According to the findings of the study, the phenomenon of FDI is rather
vast and there is no one definition to attach a clear meaning to the concept of FDI. However, the
factors pertaining to microeconomics and macroeconomics are associated with FDI, as proven by
various hypothesis.
In the perspective of Nonnenberg and Mendonca (2004), the determinants of FDI are related to
the firms and to source country factors, as well as to the location factors. The two researchers
based their research in about 33 countries in the developing world between 1975 and 2000, and
selected nine variables to study the determinants of FDI in the developing countries. The
2. G5PIB: This variable analyzes the average rate of how much the GNP has grown over the
past 5 years;
4. ABERT: This variable analyzes how open and liberal the trade is;
9. PIBOECD: This variable analyzes the aggregate GNPs of the exporters of the largest
Log Foreign Direct Investment (LFDI) was the dependent variable used by the researchers in
their study. Asiedu (2002) studied the 71 developing countries in Africa and the findings
revealed that Africa could not benefit in any way despite its commendable and endless efforts at
attracting investment. In other words, the continent of Africa could not reap the benefits of
elevating flows of investment to the developing countries. In studying the determinants of FDI,
Lim (2001) analyzed Portugal, Spain, Mexico, Argentina and Brazil, collecting data between
1981-1998. The findings reported that market size and economic growth are the most efficient
between 1980 and 2000. The findings of the study revealed that FDI flows are mainly
determined by the per capita GDP of the host country, sizes of the host and the source countries,
Campos’s and Kinoshita’s (2003) study of 25 transitional economies, Baltic and East European
countries during 1990-1998 revealed some of the primary determinants of FDI. These
During 1984-2003, up to 83 countries in the developing world were studied by Busse and
Heffeker (2007). The findings of their study revealed that foreign investment flows into these
developing countries when the internal conflict is minimum, and there are no ethnic differences.
Besides, the stability of the authoritative system and the government, alongside ensuring the
steady state of law and order ensure that these 83 developing countries become an attractive
The findings of a study headed by Buch and Kickulenz (2010) shed light onto the some of the
determinants of FDI. Developing countries tend to receive increased remittances especially when
the age-dependency ratio and the literacy rates are high. In addition, increased participation of
women in the working sector also increases the remittances received by the developing countries.
However, the remittances received by developing countries remain unaffected by certain factors.
Malaysia seemed to be an attractive location for Fazidah (2013) to conduct a study in, in order to
identify the FDI determinants. The findings of the study initiated by the researcher revealed that
FDI inflows and outflows in Malaysia were determined by the size of the market and the
infrastructure of the country. The exchange rate, however, did not cast any statistical impact on
the inflows or the outflows of FDI in Malaysia. MINT and BRICS were studied by Akpan, Isihak
and Asongu (2014) during 2001-2011. According to the findings, the availability of
infrastructure, size of the market, and openness to trade were the key determinants of FDI flows
into MINT and BRICS. Basu and Srinivasan (2002) initiated a research in Uganda, Mauritius,
Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland, Namibia and Mozambique between 1980 and 2002. As per their
findings, stability in the political and economic system, and sound macroeconomic policies were
the main determinants of FDI. Kinoshita (1998) suggested that domestic market, infrastructure
UK, Sweden, Portugal, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Austria, Greece,
Belgium, Germany, Italy, France, Spain and Netherlands were studied during 1983-2002 by
Foad (2005). The findings revealed that correlation exists between FDI and exchange rate.
Olapido (2010) initiated a study in Nigeria to determine the FDI determinants. According to the
Foreign Direct Investment 14
findings, the primary determinants of FDI in Nigeria are the size of the country’s market, human
resources, level of exports, stability of the country into the macroeconomic system, and facilities
associated with the infrastructure. Between 2003 and 2006, a study was conducted in Africa by
Braga de Macedo, Pereira and Lopes (2009). It was found that stability of the macroeconomic
system and size of the economy were the positive indicators of FDI flows. However, the
complementarities alluding to FDI-aid, law and accountability, forming the three institutional
According to Broadman and Recanatini (2001), the development of infrastructure, size of the
market and other factors regarding the environmental policies were the major determinants of
foreign investment flows across Russia. Of all the capital flows into the countries found in Latin
America, FDI has the greatest share especially when the countries are risky and geographically
distant. The flows of FDI into countries found in Latin America tend to be rich in resources and
weak. These countries also tend to be underdeveloped, as studied by Hausmann and Fernandez-
Aria (2000). The economy tends to grow when FDI flows are high and frequent (Carkovic &
Levine 2005).
Total Factor Productivity has substantially increased in the coastal region of China, according to
Graham and Wada (2001). According to Singh (2005), FDI flows have proven to be favorable
for the Indian economy. Not only the growth rate of tele-density has been the greatest, but the
number of people using the Internet has reached its acme. Tariffs have been reduced and there is
no dearth of bandwidths for software exports. In the perspective of Har, Teo and Yee (2008),
there is a strong association of Malaysian FDI inflows with the growth of the economy.
Foreign Direct Investment 15
In the analysis of the period 1961-1988, Bajo-Rubio (1991) found the the unit labor costs and the
size of the market are linked to FDI. In addition, the location of FDI in the manufacturing sector
is greatly determined by the skills of the workforce. The researcher analyzed the period through
co-integration, and found a long-term association of FDI inflows with distinct variables. These
variables comprise of the inflation rate, the real GDP, foreign capital stock and the trade barriers.
Egea and López-Pueyo (1991a) suggest that substantial dynamics in exports, internal demand
and production are found in areas the receive most of the FDI, during the period 1986-1989.
Martín and Velázquez (1996) studied the factors that determined the FDI flows between OECD
The researchers concluded that foreign capital can be attracted through the availability of quality
transport facilities and infrastructure, a dynamic market, liberal FDI regulations, and skilled
workforce. FDI flows into Spain with regards to the market size, costs and qualifications of
workforce. The regional perspective has also gained significant attention. Egea and López-Pueyo
(1991b) carried out a cluster analysis between 1985 and 1989. The researchers identified that
human capital, per capital, productive structure and per employee income are the major
determinants of the location of FDI. However, the rate of unemployment, subsidies and
infrastructure endowment are of no significant use. The researchers have also used distinct
techniques of estimation to reveal that the size of the market, qualifications of the workforce, aid
and other incentives cast a positive influence on the FDI flows’ regional location. However, FDI
According to Pelegrín and Bolancé (2008), FDI can be manufactured through increased R&D
and agglomeration economies. However, each industry values the determinants of FDI location
Foreign Direct Investment 16
differently. In the perspective of Rodríguez and Pallas (2008), FDI is attracted by the demand
factors, the export potential of each sector in the economy, cost of labor workforce, and the
differential between the productivity of labor, during the period between 1993 and 2002. A
methodological approach was adopted by Villaverde and Maza (2012) who analyzed how the
FDI was distributed across the regions in Spain. An explanatory factor analysis was performed
by the researchers that led labelled the four factors as competitiveness, market size, labor
FDI is attracted mainly by the labor conditions, economic potential and competitiveness, as
revealed by the econometric analysis. FDI is both attracted at the sectorial level, as well as the
aggregate level. In addition, when the analysis was extended to consider the spatial effects, there
were some negative topographical spillovers linked with the two factors; competitiveness and
economic potential. There are mixed results of the empirical evidence. However, there are some
factors that are common amongst all the empirical studies. Inward FDI flows into Spain through
various resource-seeking and market-seeking FDI factors. In other words, these factors include
the market size, labor conditions, human capital and physical infrastructure endowment.
Regional Distribution
A General Perspective
FDI has grown tremendously over the last decades, hence, the determinants of FDI have become
a very interesting topic for the academicians and experts to research upon. A lot of empirical
studies have examined this topic at a national level. The primary focus of these studies is riveted
at the classical determinants of FDI. These include taxes, trade effects, exchange rates,
institutions, political risks, etc. According to Mullen and Williams (2005), this issues has been
addressed very little at a regional level. Therefore, the variables mentioned above are irrelevant
Foreign Direct Investment 17
because of their similarity across the regions of a country. The “eclectic paradigm,” as suggested
spillovers mainly drive these economies. The horizontal FDI is determined primarily by the
suggest that vertical FDI is determined by the availability of the input and differences in the costs
of the input (transport, labour, energy, etc.). There are many empirical studies that analyze how
the agglomeration approach and the comparative advantage approach summarize the regional
characteristics.
Many researchers have now turned their focus to China since the country has become one of the
frequent recipients of FDI. FDI determinants have also been analyzed traditionally by a group of
researchers. The researchers conclude that the largest chunk of FDI is received by those
provinces that engage a lot more in international trade in relation to other provinces, have more
R&D manpower and low wage rates, are rapidly advancing in agglomeration and contribute to
higher growth rates in GDP. In contrast, the researchers have also shown that realized FDI is
driven by only some of these variables. The location of FDI was studied by Hong, Sun and Li
(2008) in the provinces of China. Considering the significance of spatial interdependence, the
researchers concluded that FDI in host province is significantly affected by the FDI is the
neighboring provinces.
Boermans, Roelfsema and Zhanh (2011) achieved their conclusions through the amalgamation of
the factor-based approach and the panel approach. FDI has been spatially distributed in the US,
Foreign Direct Investment 18
which has become the subject of interest. Many papers that focus the flow of FDI into the
characteristics, per capita income, etc. cast an impact on the FDI distribution amongst the states.
These determinants also highlight how the manufacturing density can be favorable. According to
Bobonis and Shatz (2007), the state distribution of FDI is affected significantly by the presence
of agglomeration economies.
The situation in Spain is more are less the same as the other countries. Egea and Lo´pez (1991c)
has presented a thorough analysis of the regional distribution of FDI. FDI location is primarily
determined by the human capital, market size and public incentives. On the contrary,
infrastructures become insignificant when the coefficient of the labor costs is positive.
Foreign Direct Investment 19
References
Akpan, U., Isihak, S. & Asongu, S., 2014. Determinants of foreign direct investment in fast-
growing economies: a study of BRICS and MINT. s.l.: African Governance and
Arribas Huerta, E. & Fumás Salas, V., 2014. Tamaño de las empresas y productividad de la
Asiedu, E., 2002. On the determinants of foreign direct investment to developing countries: is
Bano, S. & Tabbada, J., 2015. Foreign Direct Investment Outflows: Asian Developing
Basu, M.A. & Srinivasan, M.K., 2002. Foreign direct investment in Africa: Some case studies (No.
Bobonis, G. J., & Shatz, H. J., 2007. Agglomeration, adjustment, and state policies in the location
of foreign direct investment in the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1),
pp. 30–43.
Boermans, M., Roelfsema, H., & Zhanh, Y., 2011. Regional determinants of FDI in China: A
factor-based approach. Journal of Chinese Economics and Business Studies, 9(1), pp. 23–
40.
Braga de Macedo, J., Pereira, L.B. & Lopes, J.M., 2009. Drivers of China’s foreign direct
Broadman, H.G. & Recanatini, F., 2001. Where has all the foreign investment gone in Russia?
Buch, C.M. & Kuckulenz, A., 2010. Worker remittances and capital flows to developing countries.
Busse, M. & Hefeker, C., 2007. Political risk, institutions and foreign direct investment. European
Campos, N.F. & Kinoshita, Y., 2003. Why does FDI go where it goes? New evidence from the
transition economies.
Carkovic, M. & Levine, R., 2005. Does foreign direct investment accelerate economic growth?
Carr, D., Markusen, J. & Maskus, K., 2001. Estimating the knowledge-capital model of the
Dunning, J. H., 2001. The eclectic (OLI) paradigm of international production: Past, present and
Egea, M. P., & López-Pueyo, C., 1991a. Comportamiento sectorial de la inversión extranjera
Egea, M. P., & López-Pueyo, C., 1991b Un estudio sobre la distribución geográfica de la inversión
Egea, M. P., & Lo´ pez, C., 1991c. Un estudio sobre la distribucio´n geogra´fica de la inversio´n
105–118.
Graham, E.M. & Wada, E., 2001. Foreign direct investment in China: effects on growth and
economic performance.
Guillén, M. & García-Canal, E., 2011. Las nuevas multinacionales, las empresas españolas en el
mundo.
Hallward-Driemeier, M., 2003. Do bilateral investment treaties attract foreign direct investment?
Only a bit… and they could bite. s.l.: The World Bank.
Har, W.M., Teo, K.L. & Yee, K.M., 2008. FDI and economic growth relationship: an empirical
study on Malaysia.
Hausmann, R. & Fernandez-Arias, E., 2000. Foreign direct investment: good cholesterol?
Foreign Direct Investment 22
Helpman, E., 2011. Understanding global trade. s.l.: Harvard University Press.
Hong, E., Sun, L.-X., & Li, T., 2008. Location of foreign direct investment in China: A spatial
dynamic panel data analysis by country of origin. Discussion Paper 86, The Centre for
International capital flows: Structural reforms and experience with the OECD Code of
Liberalisation of Capital Movements., 2011. Report from the OECD to the G20 SubGroup
Kinoshita, Y., 1998. Firm size and determinants of foreign direct investment. ceRGe-eI working
Lim, M.E.G., 2001. Determinants of, and the relation between, foreign direct investment and
growth: a summary of the recent literature (No. 1-175). International Monetary Fund.
Martín, C., & Velázquez, F. J., 1996., Factores determinantes de la inversión directa en los países
de la OCDE: Una especial referencia a España, Papeles de Economía Española, 66, pp.
209-219.
Mullen, J. K., & Williams, M., 2005. Foreign direct investment and regional economic
Nonnenberg, M. & Mendonca, M., 2004. The determinants of direct foreign investment in
developing countries.
Foreign Direct Investment 23
Oladipo, O.S., 2010. Foreign direct investment (FDI): determinants and growth effects in a small
open economy.
Pelegrín, A., & Bolancé, C., 2008: Regional foreign direct investment in manufacturing. Do
Roca, A., 2010. El estado del mercado único: un relanzamiento necesario. Balance y desafíos
Rodríguez, X. A., & Pallas, J., 2008. Determinants of foreign direct investment in Spain, Applied
Singh, K., 2005. Foreign direct investment in India: A critical Analysis of FDI from 1991-2005.
Singh, H. & Jun, K., 1999. Some new evidence on determinants of foreign direct investment in
Villaverde, J., & Maza, A., 2012. Foreign direct investment in Spain: Regional distribution and
World Investment Report, 2014. Investing in the SDGs: An action plan. s.l.: New York and Geneva:
United Nations.