Jurnal Internasional PUSREFIL
Pusat Referensi Ilmiah
Bidang: Ilmu-Ilmu Ekonomi, Keuangan dan Administrasi
Edisi Maret 2012
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Aurangzeb
HOD, Business Administration, Dadabhoy Institute
of Higher Education
Anwar Ul Haq
Research Scholar
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of foreign capital
inflows on economic growth of Pakistan.
The data used in this study were collected from the period of 1981 to 2010.
Unit root test confirms the stationary of all variables at first difference.
The multiple regression analysis technique is used to identify the significance
of different factors. Results indicate that the all three independent variables
are having positive and significant relationship with economic growth (GDP).
The Granger-Causality test confirms the bidirectional relationship between
remittances and external debt, GDP and external debt, foreign direct investment
and external debt, and foreign direct investment and remittances. On the other
side we found unidirectional relationship from gross domestic production to foreign
direct investment. It is concluded that the foreign capital inflows are very
important for the growth of any economy. It is recommended that the policy
makers should focus on the foreign cash flows to increase the flow of money in
economy in the sense of investment and increasing consumption.
Keywords:
Foreign
Capital Inflows, Foreign Direct Investment, Remittances, Gross
Domestic
Production, External Debt
Introduction
Over the past few decades, the emphasis on foreign direct
investments has gained considerable attention, with even faster growth in
international transactions. The share of net FDI in world GDP has grown
five-fold through the eighties and the nineties. This paper attempts to make a
contribution in this context, by analyzing the existence and nature of
causalities, if any, between FDI and economic growth.
The literature on FDI and economic growth generally points
to a positive relationship between the two variables, and offers several,
standard explanations for it. In principle, economic growth may induce FDI
inflow when FDI is seeking consumer markets, or when growth leads to greater
economies of scale and, hence, increased cost efficiency. On the other hand,
FDI may affect economic growth, through its impact on capital stock, technology
transfer, skill acquisition, or market competition.
FDI and growth may also exhibit a negative relationship,
particularly if the inflow of FDI leads to increased monopolization of local
industries. Empirically, the positive effect of economic growth on FDI and also
the positive and negative effects of FDI on economic growth have been
identified in the literature.
On the one hand, FDI flows can be induced by host country
economic growth if the host country offers a sizeable consumer market, in which
case FDI serves as a substitute for commodity trade or if growth leads to
greater economies of scale and cost efficiency in the host country. On the other
hand, FDI itself may contribute to host country economic growth, by augmenting
the country’s capital stock, introducing complementary inputs, inducing
technology transfer and skill acquisition, or increasing competition in the
local industry. Empirically, the positive effect of host country economic growth
on FDI inflow has been confirmed by various studies (Barrell and Pain, 1996;
Taylor and Sarno, 1999; Trevino et al., 2002). The effects of FDI on subsequent
economic growth has been shown to be both positive (Ericsson and Irandoust,
2000; Trevino and Upadhyaya, 2003) and negative (Moran, 1998).
Overall, though, FDI turns out to be associated with greater
domestic investment, not
smaller. Moreover, this positive association between FDI and
domestic investment tends to be greater than that between foreign portfolio
investment and domestic investment (Bosworth and Collins, 1999, Rachidi &
Saidi,2011).
Recently the inflow of worker’s remittances has increased
many folds, since a large part of this has now been channelized via the banking
sector, this has help document the inflow more accurately and has resulted
significantly in improving the foreign reserves situations as well as
increasing the buying power of the peoples. So, theoretically this is an
indirect investment in the society as a whole.
Generally FDI decisions depend on a variety of
characteristics of the host economy, in addition to its market size. These
include the general wage level, level of education, institutional environment, tax
laws, and overall macroeconomic and political environment. Turning to economic
growth, the standard determinants include the rate of capital accumulation and
variables that raise total factor productivity, such as education level,
institutional quality, macroeconomic stability, political environment, and,
potentially, trade openness.
External debt plays duel role in shaping the economy, in
particular of developing countries. It act as a positive catalyst when used for
capital expenditures, but it can be a disaster if the same is wasted on non
developmental and person expenditures. Low level of external debt effects the
economic growth positively, which becomes negative with a high external debt.
External borrowing leads to a current account deficit and appreciation of real
exchange rate and sometimes to a balance of payments
crisis (if foreign resources are run down) or an external
debt crisis (if debt is too high).
It is important to highlight that the relation of these
variables is not simple, and each variable (GDP, FDI, exports etc) has a
theoretical foundation to effect the other. Without knowing about them properly,
will affect the policy making and hence hamper the economic growth. Therefore
it is important to investigate the relation between these variables for
effective policy making.
Literature Review
Atique et al, (2004) studied the effect of foreign direct
investment on economic growth of Pakistan. Five variables GDP, FDI
,labor, gross capital formation as percentage of GDP. Education expenditure as
a percentage of GDP and ratio of total merchandise trade to GDP are tested
using Engle-Granger and Hansen methods. Data for this study covers the period
from 1970-2001. The analysis concluded that the impact of FDI tends to be
greater for an export oriented trade regime than that of Import substitution
trade regime. Furthermore , Pakistan’s
capacity to progress more would depend upon how attractive its policies are
towards foreign investment.
Falki, (2009) studied the effect of FDI on economic growth
in Pakistan
for the period 1980-2006.A simple OLS methodology is adopted for this study.
Other variables that were tested include domestic capital, foreign aid capital,
and labor force. The results showed a negative and insignificant relation
between GDP and FDI for the period under review. This meant that FDI despite
showing an upward trend in Pakistan
has not been able to contribute meaningfully in the economic growth, in comparison
to other variables. It was recommended that Pakistan should do more in order to
attract
more
FDI for increasing the contribution of it in economic growth.
Carkovic and Levine, (2000) in their paper “Does FDI promote
development” studied 72 countries in a panel for a period 1960-1995.they used
two econometric methods in their study, first a simple OLS model and the second
is the use of dynamic panel procedure with data average over 5 years period.
The results concluded that the FDI inflows do not exert an independent
influence on economic growth. While sound economic policies may facilitate in
increasing both FDI and Economic growth. This result is inconsistent with the
findings that FDI exerts a positive impact on growth
independent of other growth determinants.
Chakraborty & NunnenKamp, (2006) analyzed the effect of
foreign direct investment and economic reforms in India. The study focused on
industry specific FDI and its growth, by using Granger Causality and panel
cointegration. The results showed that the growth effects of FDI vary widely
across different sector. There was no casual relationship found in case of
Primary sector. While only transitory effect of FDI on output was found In the
service sector. These differences in FDI growth relation suggests that FDI is
unlikely to make wonders in India
if only remaining regulations
are relaxed and still more industries are opened up.
Fortanier, (2007) studied the role of investor country in
the event of foreign investment and growth. A panel data comprising of six
major investor and 71 host countries for the period of 1989-2002 was used. The
results showed that growth consequence of FDI differs by country of origin, and
the effect of origin country also varies depending upon the host country
characteristics.
Rachidi & Saidi, (2011) analyzed the effect of foreign
direct investment and portfolio
investment for both developed and developing countries. The
panel data covers the period of 1999-2009 and comprises of 100 countries.
Popular methods of poled, random effect and fixed effect models have been used
in the study. Results suggested that FDI has a significant positive impact on
real per capita growth. Also no evidence was found that Portfolio Investment
enhances output growth in developing countries.
However this is positive and
significant for developed countries, when the GMM estimator is used. For random
effect the coefficient of FDI remains positive but statistically insignificant,
and the portfolio investment remains negative and insignificant for all the
countries.
Duasa, (2007) studied the relation of FDI and growth with
respect to stability in Malaysia.
Quarterly data from the first quarter of 1990 to fourth quarter 2002 is collected.
GARCH and causality are applied to analyze the impact of FDI on the stability
of economic growth, and examine any causal relationship between FDI and growth
respectively. The study didn’t find any strong causal relationship between FDI
and economic growth. However it was found that flow of FDI contributes towards
less volatility of economic growth and vice versa. This means that in Malaysia
FDI does not causes economic growth but it does provide stability to economic
growth.
Hameed et al, (2008) analyzed the impact of external debt on
economic and business growth in Pakistan.
By applying co integration and error correction model on the annual data from
1970-2003, the empirical results were analyzed. The results showed that debt
servicing has a negative relation with labor and capital hence affect economic
growth adversely. It was also concluded that a negative relation exists between
debt servicing and GDP, which in the long run reduces the debt servicing
ability
of the country. A short run and long run causal relation was also established
running from debt to service to GDP.
Yousuf et al, (2008) evaluated the economic impact of
foreign direct investment in Pakistan.
The research studied the impact of FDI on imports and exports of Pakistan. Time
series data from 1973-2002 is used in this paper. By applying cointegration and
error correction techniques, it was concluded that FDI positively impact real
demand for imports both in short and long run. The results for export model
showed that FDI has a negative relation in short run while in the long run it
impacts positively real exports.
Mohamed & Sidiropoulos, (2010) studied the effect of
workers remittance on economic growth. For this study data from seven MENA
countries were collected for the period of 1975-2006. Both fixed effect and
random effect models are used for empirical analysis. The results showed
support for fixed effect models, and proved that remittances have a positive
impact on economic growth both directly and indirectly through their interaction
with financial and institutional channels.
Malik et al, (2010) explored the relationship of external
debt and economic growth in Pakistan
for the period of 1972-2005. A simple OLS model was used for testing, the
results showed a negative and significant relation between external debt and
economic growth. Same stands good for the relation between debt servicing and
economic growth.
Tiwari & Mutascu, (2011) analyzed the relationship
between economic growth and FDI forAsian countries using Panel data approach.
The sample period for this purpose comprises 1986 to 2008, and it included data
of 23 countries .it was concluded from the study that both foreign direct investment
and exports enhances the growth process. In addition labor and capital also
play a significant role in economic growth.
Data & Methodology
Multiple regression analysis is used to find the long run
relationship between the variables. In this research we have focused on
secondary type of data, all data is collected from the official economic survey
of Pakistan.
In this study we have used the data of gross domestic production as a dependent
variable. The data of remittances, foreign direct investment and external debt
are collected as independent variables for the period of 1981 to 2010. After
selection of the above variables we can
describe the economic growth function of Pakistan in the
following way:
EG = f (REM, FDI, ED)
Where EG is the economic growth, f represents the function
of and REM, FDI, ED represent respectively, remittances, foreign direct
investment and external debt. After specifying the economic growth function in
linear form with an addition of error term, we can write in following way:
EG
= α + β1 REM + β2 FDI + β3 ED + ε
This
research is based on the following hypothesis that clearly defines the research
criterion.
H1:
External Debt has no significant impact on Economic Growth
H2:
Remittances has no significant impact on Economic Growth
H3: Foreign Direct Investment has no significant impact on
Economic Growth
Result Analysis
Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics
GDP
|
ED
|
FDI
|
REM
|
|
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
Observations
|
3182.31
6004.41
1346.38
1347.69
30
|
1024.64
3459.84
86.78
922.75
30
|
59.31
338.35
0.35
99.80
30
|
137.87
746.33
20.95
180.72
30
|
The table 4.1 represents the descriptive statistics of the
model. In the above table GDP is a dependent variable and FDI, REM and ED are
independent variables. The sample size comprises of 30 observations from the
period of 1981 to 2010. The minimum and maximum value of EG (1346.38) & (6004.41) respectively, whereas the mean
value is (3182.31) and standard deviation is (1347.69). ED having minimum value
(86.78), maximum value (3459.84), mean value (1024.64) and standard deviation
(922.75). FDI having minimum value (0.35), maximum value (338.35), mean value
(59.31) and standard deviation (99.80). REM having minimum value (20.95),
maximum value (746.33), mean value (137.87) and standard deviation (180.72).
Study in the mentioned subject of econometrics indicates
that various macroeconomics variables data are found non stationary. The
finding was drawn from regression (integrated in different order) proceeds non
sense or spurious regression. Thus it is essential to analysis the stationary
of the data before drawn the long run association among the variables.
Table 4.2: Stationary Test Results
Variables
|
Augmented Dickey Fuller test
|
Philips Perron test
|
||||||
Level
|
First Difference
|
Level
|
First Difference
|
|||||
Intercept
|
Trend & Intercept
|
Intercept
|
Trend
& Intercept
|
Intercept
|
Trend
& Intercept
|
Intercept
|
Trend
& Intercept
|
|
GDP (Gross
Domestic
Production) ED (External
Debt)
FDI (Foreign
Direct
Investment) REM
(Remittances)
|
1.685
-0.058
2.108
2.227
2.227
|
-0.540
-1.839
-1.876
-1.128
-1.128
|
-3.891
-4.567
-3.992
-3.893
-3.893
|
-4.531
-4.666
4.512
-4.472
-4.472
|
-0.866
-0.045
0.225
1.897
1.897
|
-1.571
1.284
0.877
-1.343
-1.343
|
-4.326
-4.758
-4.321
-3.893
-3.893
|
-4.740
-5.879
-5.214
-4.472
-4.472
|
Table 4.2 highlighted the finding of Augmented Dickey Fuller
(ADF) test and Philip Perron unit root test. The impacts of result shows that
the non stationary in all variables at level. Here equation is used to check
stationary in the data first with intercept and then with trend and intercept.
Here null hypothesis means non stationary in the data and alternative
hypothesis means stationary in the data. All the given variables are non
stationary at level. Analyzing the stationary in the data at level consequently
checking stationary at first difference the result indicates that all the
variables are stationary at first difference. All the variables are checked at
the lag length of one. All the given variables are integrated at order one.
Table 4.2: Results of OLS
Variable
|
Coefficient
|
Std. Error
|
t-Statistic
|
Prob.
|
C
REM
FDI
ED
R-Square
Adjusted R-squared
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
Durbin-Watson stat
|
1739.882
2.122
3.756
1.476
0.968
0.964
256.329
1708312.000
-206.815
1.682
|
76.996
0.707
0.855
0.127
|
22.597
-3.000
4.391
11.620
|
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.000
3182.309
1347.689
14.054
14.241
258.549
0.000
|
Mean dependent var
S.D. dependent var
Akaike info criterion
Schwarz criterion
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
|
In the above table EG is a dependent
variable and ED, REM and FDI are independent variables. Table 4.3 gives us the
R-value, which represents the correlation between the observed values and predicted
values of the dependent variable. R-Square is called the coefficient of
determination and it gives the adequacy of the model. Here the value of
R-Square is 0.968 that means the independent variable in the model can predict
97% of the variance in dependent variable. The p-value is given by 0.000 which
is less that 0.05, which shows the significance of our model. The values of
Durbin-Watson statistics for dependent variables in our case is very near to
2.00, this indicates that there is no autocorrelation exists in our study and
the regression models assume that the error deviations are uncorrelated.
The Beta value shows the relationship between the variables
in the model, if the value of coefficient is positive it means that independent
variables have positive relation with dependent variable i.e. increase in
dependent variable is caused by increase in independent variable and if the
value of coefficient is negative than independent variables are having negative
relation with the dependent variable i.e. decrease in dependent variable is
caused by increase in dependent variable. The values of coefficients beta and
constant are used to construct the regression model, the model is shown below:
GDP = 1739.88 + 1.48 (ED)
+ 2.12 (REM) + 3.76 (FDI)
Foreign direct investment (3.76) is having positive and
significant impact on economic growth (GDP), that’s mean if the FDI is increase
than gross domestic production will also increase.
Remittance (2.12) is having positive and significant effect
on GDP, that’s mean if remittance is increase then gross domestic production
will also increase. External debt (1.48) is having positive and significant
impact on the Economic Growth (GDP) because the p-value is less than 0.05,
that’s mean if ED is increase then the GDP will also increase. The findings of
remittances, foreign direct investment and external debt are very logical and
consistent with past studies & with economic theories. The increases in
foreign capital inflows positively affect the level of investment; the
consumption level is also increase because of foreign capital inflows. The
increase in investment and consumption is lead to increase the gross domestic
production.
Table 4.3: Results for Causality
Null Hypothesis:
|
Obs
|
F- Statistic
|
Probability
|
REM does not Granger Cause ED
ED does not Granger Cause REM
GDP does not Granger Cause ED
ED does not Granger Cause GDP
FDI does not Granger Cause ED
ED does not Granger Cause FDI
GDP does not Granger Cause REM
REM does not Granger Cause GDP
FDI does not Granger Cause REM
REM does not Granger Cause FDI
FDI does not Granger Cause GDP
GDP does not Granger Cause FDI
|
28
28
28
28
28
28
|
3.86300
2.81792
7.21934
4.46446
11.81730
3.56227
0.59773
1.93617
6.30215
9.38266
1.73827
8.35724
|
0.03577
0.08043
0.00369
0.02300
0.00029
0.04490
0.55838
0.16705
0.00657
0.00105
0.19814
0.00187
|
The Granger Causality approach to the problem of whether ‘x’
causes ‘y’ is to see how much of the current ‘y’ can be explained by past
values of ‘y’ and then to see whether adding lagged values of ‘x’ can improve the explanation. ‘Y’ is said
to Granger-Caused by ‘x’ if ‘x’ helps in the prediction of ‘y’ or equivalently, if the coefficients on
the lagged x’s are statistically significant.
After applying the causality test we found the bidirectional
relationship between remittances and external debt, GDP and external debt,
foreign direct investment and external debt, and foreign direct investment and
remittances. On the other side we found unidirectional relationship from gross
domestic production to foreign direct investment.
Conclusion
This study examines the impact of foreign capital inflows on
the economic growth of Pakistan
by using the yearly data for the period of 1981 – 2010. Multiple regression
technique is used to analyze the relationship between dependent variable (gross
domestic production) and independent variables (external debt, Remittances, and
foreign direct investment). It is concluded all independent variables have
positive and significant impact on economic growth of Pakistan. This
finding is consistent with theoretical literature because Pakistan is
developing country, so increases in foreign capital inflows positively affect
the level of investment; the consumption level is also increase because of foreign
capital inflows. The increase in investment and consumption is lead to increase
the gross domestic production.
This study provides in depth detail of relationship between
foreign capital inflows and economic growth. The policy makers should focus on
the foreign cash flows to increase the flow of money in economy in the sense of
investment and increasing consumption. Foreign direct investment is a key for
the growth of any economy. It is recommended that the government and policy makers
should make those policies which increase the foreign direct investment in Pakistan.*****
References
1] Atique, Z., Ahmad, M. H., &
Azhae, U. (2004). The impact of FDI on Economic Growth under Foreign Trade
Regimes: A Case Study of Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review. , 43 (4),
707-718.
2] Borensztein, E., J. Gregorio, and J.
Lee (1998) “How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth?” Journal
of International Economics, 45 (1), pp. 115-135.
3] Bosworth, B.P. and S. M. Collins
(1999) “Capital flows to developing economies: Implications for saving and
investment,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, no.
1, pp. 143-169.
4] Basu, P., C. Chakraborty, and D.
Reagle (2003) “Liberalization, FDI, and Growth in Developing Countries: A Panel
Cointegration Approach,” Economic Inquiry, 41, pp. 510-516.
5] Chakraborty, C., & Nunnenkamp,
P. (2006). Economic Reforms,Foreign Direct Investment and its Economic Effects
in India.
Kiel working papers , 1272, 1-45.
6] Duasa, J. (2007). Malaysian Foreign
Direct Investment and Growth: Does Stability Matters. Journal Of
Economic Corporation , 28 (2), 83-98.
7] Falki, N. (2009). Impact of Foreign
Direct Investment on Economic Growth in Pakistan. International
Review of Business Research Papers. , 5 (5), 110-120.
8] Fortanier, F. (2007). Foreign Direct
investment and host country economic growth:Does the investor country of origin
play's a role. Transitional Corporations. , 16 (2),
41-76.
9] Hameed, A., Ashraf, H., &
Chaudhary, M. A. (2008). External Debt and its Impact on Economic and Business
Growth in Pakistan.
International Research Journal Of Finance and Economics. , I (20),
132-140.
10] Mohamed, S. E., & Sidiropoulos,
M. G. (2010). Do Worker's Remittance Affect Growth:Evidence from Seven MENA
Labor Exporting Countires. International Research Journal of Finance
& Economics. , I (46), 181-194.
11] Malik, S., Hayat, M. U., &
Hayat, M. K. (2010). External Debt and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence from
Pakistan.
International Research Journal of Finance And Exonomics. (44),
88-97.
12] Phillips, P. (1987) “Time series
regression with unit roots,” Econometrica, 55 (2), pp.
277-301.
13] Phillips, P and P. Perron (1988)
“Testing for a unit root in time series regression,” Biometrika, 75,
pp. 335-346.
14] Rachdi, H., & Saidi, H. (2011).
The impact of Foreign Direct Investment and Portfolio Investment on Economic
Growth in Developing and Developed Economies. Interdisciplinary Journal
of Research in Business. , I (6), 10-17.
15] Taylor, M.P. and L. Sarno (1999) “Capital
flows to developing countries: Long and short-term determinants,” World
Bank Economic Review, 11, pp. 451-470.
16] Trevino, Len, J., J. D. Daniels, H.
Arbelaez, and K. P. Upadhyaya (2002) “Market reform and foreign direct
investment in Latin America: Evidence from an
error correction model,” International Trade Journal,
16 (4), pp. 367-392.
17] Trevino, Len J. and K. P. Upadhyaya
(2003) “Foreign aid, FDI and economic growth: Evidence from Asian countries,” Transnational
Corporations, 12 (2), pp.119-135.
18] Tiwari, A. K., & Mutascu, M.
(2011). Economic Growqth and FDI in Asia:A
Panel Data Approach. Economic Analysis and Policy. , 41 (2),
173-188.
19] Yousuf, M. M., Hussain, Z., &
Ahmad, N. (2008). Econmic Evaluation of Foreign Direct Investement in Pakistan. Pakistan
Economic and Social Review. , 46 (1), 37-56
No comments:
Post a Comment