سرمایه گذاری مستقیم خارجی، سرمایه گذاری داخلی و رشد اقتصادی در کشورهای جنوب صحرای آفریقا

The study analyzes the impact of foreign direct investment (FDI) and domestic investment (DI) on economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa for the period 1990–2003. The results show that DI is positive and significantly correlated with economic growth in both the OLS and fixed effects estimation, but FDI is positive and significant only in the OLS estimation. The study also found that FDI has an initial negative effect on DI and subsequent positive effect in later periods for the panel of countries studied. The sign and magnitude of the current and lagged FDI coefficients suggest a net crowding out effect. The review of the literature and findings of the study indicate that the continent needs a targeted approach to FDI, increase absorption capacity of local firms, and cooperation between government and MNE to promote their mutual benefit.

Globalization of capital and especially of foreign direct investment (FDI) has increased dramatically in the past two decades. In the developing world, FDI has become the most stable and largest component of capital flows. Consequently, FDI has become an important alternative in the development finance process (Global Development Finance, 2005). Many reasons have been given for the importance of FDI inflows, including employment creation, technological know-how, and enhanced competitiveness (Kobrin, 2005). In light of the expected benefits of FDI, many studies have been conducted to examine the impact of FDI on growth, but only a few studies have considered the impact of FDI in the context of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This paper fills the void in examining the impact of FDI on economic growth in SSA. The paper contributes to the literature on FDI in three main ways. First, the focus on SSA with similar social, economic, and political conditions may help to reduce any bias due to sample selection. Second, many authors have noted that FDI has differential effects and that it has been more productive in some regions than others (Agosin and Mayer, 2000, Kumar and Pradhan, 2002 and Sylwester, 2005). Kumar and Pradhan (2002) and Sylwester (2005), for example, claim that FDI is less effective in SSA than in Latin America. The results of these studies, however, cannot be generalized. For example, the Sylwester (2005) study sample is made up of 29 countries with only two countries (Tanzania and South Africa) from SSA, and Fry (1993) had only one country (Nigeria) from Sub-Saharan Africa. Consequently, the use of a large data set of 42 Sub-Saharan African countries will help to better explain the impact of FDI on economic growth in SSA. Finally, the study examined the effect of FDI on domestic investment to examine whether FDI crowds in or crowds out domestic investment. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses the theoretical and empirical literature on the relationship between FDI and economic growth. Section 3 describes the data and measures used. Section 4 presents the empirical results and discusses the findings. Section 5 offers managerial and policy implications, suggestions for future research, and concluding remarks.

The study shows that though the flow of FDI increased for SSA countries in the 1990s, the increase did not lead to a proportionate positive impact of FDI on economic growth. However, domestic investment and institutional infrastructure are positive and significantly correlated with economic growth. Further, the crowding out effect of domestic investment suggests that any positive effect of FDI on economic growth may be due to increase in total factor productivity rather than augmentation of domestic capital. The results of the study have policy implications. First, is the idea of targeted approach to FDI, which suggests that some types of FDI projects are better than others (Alfaro & Charlton, 2007). Policy makers should therefore focus on promotional resources to attract some types of FDI and regulate others. Agosin and Mayer (2000) and Mwilima (2003) have noted that FDI has been more productive in Asia (especially China, Taiwan, and South Korea) than all the regions of the developing world because of the targeted approach, which involved screening of investment applications and granting differential incentives to different firms. Further, China, for example, permits repatriation of profits only out of net foreign exchange earnings (Keshava, 2008). In the case of Africa, Ndikumana and Verick (2008) have noted that the limited effect of FDI could be attributed to the lack of synergies between FDI and domestic investment. Similarly, Dupasquier and Osakwe (2005) assert that unlike Africa that receives FDI mostly in primary sectors, most Asian FDI went into the secondary sector thereby contributing to the diversification of the export base. The UNCTAD report (2007) indicates the negative effect of FDI in Africa derives from the fact that most FDI is targeted at the primary sector, a lack of competition and a distorted regulatory and incentive framework. The problem with tax incentives or rebates, for example, is that it benefits short-term investments in footloose industries such as banking and general services that can easily quit one jurisdiction for another (Pigato, 2000). Second, the level of technological spillover to the host country is dependent on the absorptive capacity of its citizens, which is related to the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990 and Marcin, 2007). Lumbila (2005) claims that Africa will be able to take advantage of FDI only if meets some basic conditions since the impact of FDI on economic growth is constrained by AC in terms of trained workforce, basic infrastructure network, and depth and efficiency of the financial system. Similarly, Ayanwale (2007) asserts that the lack of significant effect of FDI on economic growth in Nigeria could be attributed to the low level of education. It is of interest to note that the most important recipient of FDI in SSA in the 1990s in terms of GDP (22%) was Lesotho, but economic growth decelerated over the same period. More importantly, FDI flows to Botswana declined over the same period, but the economy continued to grow (Ajayi, 2006). This is not to suggest that FDI is not needed in the SSA region, but rather that FDI's growth enhancing effect is possible only when it stimulates AC of the host country's citizens (Carkovic and Levine, 2002 and Makki and Somwaru, 2004). It is important to note that even in China and other Asian countries where FDI has been known to be more effective, Keshava (2008) has shown that domestic investment is more effective than FDI in promoting growth. Finally, FDI has both costs and benefits. Thus, MNEs can be agents of both development and underdevelopment of the host country depending on what types of investment and what the profits from the investments are used for. Though we do appreciate Tandon's (2002) assertion that the foreign investor is in business for profit and not for development, the peculiar case of SSA (the poorest region of the world) points to the fact that MNEs in the region must be development oriented to be able capture the hearts and minds of the people (and consequently their money). The assumption is that in the long run, the growth of the economies would lead to a higher level of income and therefore higher purchasing power of the citizens and subsequently market expansion for the MNEs. A win–win situation for both MNE and host country. On the part of the SSA countries, governments must take the issue of regional integration more seriously than it is being currently pursued. The UNCTAD report (2005), for instance, has noted that the way forward for SSA countries to attract quality FDI is to begin to think regionally. The review and findings of the study have some implications for future research. First, the many different findings suggest that country-specific studies may provide more information as to the real effect of FDI. Second, there is the need to ascertain how the various types of FDI (resource seeking, efficiency seeking, and market seeking) affect economic growth. We conclude by stating that FDI is not inherently virtuous—its impact depends on the overall incentive and capability structure of the host country. Thus, attracting FDI is only one part of the story. The other is how FDI impacts on the wider local economy. In this respect, we have argued that SSA countries need to be cautious and critical in the kind of FDI they attract; that the open door policy to attract all kinds of FDI will not yield the desired benefits. Like Loungani and Razin (2001) and Albuquerque (2000), however, we argue that no matter what the effect of FDI on the host economy, without it, there is a possibility that the host country could be poorer. In the end, the extent to which a country can take advantage of FDI depends on its initial conditions, which we describe here as AC in terms of the level of education, basic physical infrastructure, and appropriateness of institutions. This is consistent with the UN's Monterrey Consensus recognition that however globalized the world might be; development as well as financing it starts from home or within. What makes the difference then is the policy space that notes that FDI is necessary but not sufficient for economic growth.