1. FDI Promotion: Why and How? Beata Smarzynska Javorcik University of Oxford beata.javorcik@economics.ox.ac.uk

2. Is FDI really good for growth? “One dollar of FDI is worth no more (and no less) than a dollar of any kind of investment” (D. Rodrik) Yet, 59 out of 108 countries surveyed in the World Bank’s census of investment promotion agencies offered FDI incentives in 2004

3. Outline 1. Why should we expect FDI to stimulate growth in host countries? 2. Evidence on knowledge transfer to FDI recipients 3. Effect of FDI on other firms within the industry 4. Effect of FDI on firms in the supplying industries 5. Is FDI promotion effective? 6. Does IPI quality matter?

4. Technology transfer through FDI => economic growth MNCs are responsible for most of the world’s R&D 700 multinational corporations accounted for 46% of the world’s total R&D expenditure and 69% of the world’s business R&D in 2002 (UNCTAD 2005) R&D budgets of large multinationals may exceed R&D spending of some countries

5. R&D budgets of some MNCs exceed R&D spending of transition countries (2003) CIS figure includes: Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan. New EU member states figure includes: Czech Rep, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Rep, Slovenia.

6. Outline 1. Why should we expect FDI to stimulate growth in host countries? 2. Evidence on knowledge transfer to FDI recipients 3. Effect of FDI on other firms within the industry 4. Effect of FDI on firms in the supplying industries 5. Is FDI promotion effective? 6. Does IPI quality matter?

7. Effect of FDI on recipient firms Key question: Is the superior performance of foreign affiliates due to some intrinsic advantage of foreign ownership or are foreign investors simply good at picking acquisition targets?

8. Arnold and Javorcik (2009) Examine this question using plant-level information on 400 new FDI recipients in Indonesia (1983-2001) Compare the differences in the paths of development between FDI recipients and the control group Control group: plants with similar observable characteristics before a foreign acquisition, operating in the same industry/year 1/n  1 to n [(Productivity FDI recipient, post-FDI - Productivity FDI recipient, pre-FDI ) - (Productivity control, post-FDI - Productivity control, pre-FDI )]

9. Foreign ownership improves performance Total factor productivity (in logs) Pre-acquisition Year Acquisition year One year later Two years later FDI recipients0.8641.0791.1421.215 Control group0.8670.9761.0221.083 Difference0.106***0.122***0.135*** (0.034)(0.045)(0.051)

10. Foreign ownership improves performance While best performers tend to receive FDI, foreign ownership also leads to increased productivity FDI recipients exhibit a 13.5% higher productivity growth by the end of the 3 rd year under foreign ownership

11. Foreign ownership improves performance Labor productivity (in logs) Pre-acquisition Year Acquisition year One year later Two years later FDI recipients4.284.504.604.62 Control group4.204.144.064.05 Difference 0.280***0.459***0.489*** (0.072)(0.074)(0.088)

12. FDI induces rapid changes

13. FDI leads to higher investment

14. FDI facilitates integration into global markets

15. Outline 1. Why should we expect FDI to stimulate growth in host countries? 2. Evidence on knowledge transfer to FDI recipients 3. Effect of FDI on other firms within the industry 4. Effect of FDI on firms in the supplying industries 5. Is FDI promotion effective? 6. Does IPI quality matter?

16. FDI affects domestic firms through multiple channels (Czech Rep.)

17. Competitors and non-competitors as sources of knowledge

18. Relative magnitudes of the effects differ by country

19. Outline 1. Why should we expect FDI to stimulate growth in host countries? 2. Evidence on knowledge transfer to FDI recipients 3. Effect of FDI on other firms within the industry 4. Effect of FDI on firms in the supplying industries 5. Is FDI promotion effective? 6. Does IPI quality matter?

20. Effect of FDI on firms in the supplying industries While MNCs have an incentive to prevent leakage of knowledge to their competitors, they may want to promote knowledge transfer to local suppliers FDI boosts productivity in the supplying industries Evidence from Lithuania (Javorcik 2004) Evidence from Indonesia (Gertler and Blalock 2007)

21. MNCs’ requirements vis a vis potential suppliers

22. Assistance received by Czech firms from MNCs

23. MNC suppliers Different from other firms: larger, with higher capital- labor ratio, paying higher wages and more productive High productivity firms are more likely to become suppliers Suppliers learn from their relationships with MNCs Javorcik and Spatareanu (2009)

24. Outline 1. Why should we expect FDI to stimulate growth in host countries? 2. Evidence on knowledge transfer to FDI recipients 3. Effect of FDI on other firms within the industry 4. Effect of FDI on firms in the supplying industries 5. Is FDI promotion effective? 6. Does IPI quality matter?

25. Why do investment promotion? Knowledge externalities as justification for policy intervention Information asymmetries between host countries and potential foreign investors are significant obstacles to investment flows across international borders What can aspiring FDI destinations do to reduce such barriers? Is investment promotion the answer?

26. Almost all countries are engaged in FDI promotion

27. Harding and Javorcik (2011) Conducted a Census of IPIs on behalf of the World Bank Point of departure Sector targeting considered best practice in investment promotion Information on sector targeting Standardized list of targeted sectors with dates when the policy was in place Data on FDI from the U.S. by country, sector and year (124 countries, 15 sectors, 1990-2004) Did FDI inflows to targeted sectors increase during targeting? (relative to non-targeted sectors)

28. Which sectors are targeted?

29. Estimation results Investment promotion generates higher FDI flows to developing countries and emerging markets: Targeting increases FDI by 155% Additional $17 mn dollars of FDI Investment promotion is more effective in countries… where information asymmetries are large with burdensome bureaucratic procedures

30. IP: an inexpensive way of overcoming information asymmetries Crude back-of-the-envelope cost-benefit exercises: Costs $90,000 spent on average per sector targeted Benefits Additional $17 mn of FDI in typical sector => $1 spent on investment promotion => $189 of FDI Additional 1,159 jobs in foreign affiliates => cost of $78 per job created

31. Outline 1. Why should we expect FDI to stimulate growth in host countries? 2. Evidence on knowledge transfer to FDI recipients 3. Effect of FDI on other firms within the industry 4. Effect of FDI on firms in the supplying industries 5. Is FDI promotion effective? 6. Does IPI quality matter?

32. Measuring IPI quality Global Investment Promotion Benchmarking (GIPB) assesses two aspects of IPIs: Web site quality: content, architecture, design and promotional effectiveness relevant, clear and credible information presented in an attractive and user-friendly way Mystery shopper: handling of direct project inquiries from investor competence and responsiveness of the agency’s staff timeliness, quality and credibility of informational content

33. Quality of IPIs varies widely across countries

34. GIPB 2006-2012 scores by region

35. Unconditional scatter plot: ln FDI flows and IPI quality

36. Unconditional scatter plot: ln FDI flows and Inquiry handling quality

37. Unconditional scatter plot: ln FDI flows and Website quality

38. Does IPI quality matter? Empirical approach Cross section analysis, 156 countries: Average IPI quality (GIPB06, GIPB09 and GIPB12) Average FDI inflows from all countries 2000-10 (IFS) Controlling for: GDP per capita GDP growth Population size Inflation Political stability in host country

39. Findings A one unit increase in the GIPB score associated with a 1.5% increase in FDI inflows Going from Sub-Saharan Africa to Latin America in GIPB performance => 35-40% more FDI (Harding and Javorcik 2013)

40. Results are robust to… 1. Focusing on developing countries only 2. Controlling for various aspects of the business climate 3. Using sector-specific information 4. Instrumenting for the quality of IPIs

41. Policy conclusions Evidence on knowledge externalities associated with FDI provides justification for public support of IPIs Successful investment promotion requires Professionalism, competence, effort and commitment to customer service Up-to-date, attractive and user-friendly web site Providing relevant and useful information in the site selection process makes a difference The GIPB initiative and results: valuable guiding-tool for IPIs The GIPB criteria specify what high quality of inquiry handling and Web sites mean Its assessment process can provides useful feedback on areas in need of improvement

42. Thank you

43. References Arnold, Jens and Beata S. Javorcik (2009). Gifted Kids or Pushy Parents? Foreign Acquisitions and Firm Performance in Indonesia. Journal of International Economics 79(1) Blalock, Garrick and Paul J. Gertler (2008). “Welfare Gains from Foreign Direct Investment through Technology Transfer to Local Suppliers” Journal of International Economics 74(2): 402-421 Harding, Torfinn and Beata Javorcik (2011). “Roll out the Red Carpet and They Will Come: Investment Promotion and FDI Inflows” Economic Journal 121(557) Harding, Torfinn and Beata Javorcik (2013). “Investment Promotion and FDI Inflows: Quality Matters” CESifo Economic Studies forthcoming Javorcik, Beata (2004). Does Foreign Direct Investment Increase the Productivity of Domestic Firms? In Search of Spillovers through Backward Linkages. American Economic Review 94(3): 605-627 Javorcik, Beata and Mariana Spatareanu (2009)."Tough Love: Do Czech Suppliers Learn from Their Relationships with Multinationals?“ Scandinavian Journal of Economics 111(4) UNCTAD (2005). World Investment Report: Transnational Corporations and the Internalization of R&D. New York and Geneva: United Nations