FDI Pros & Cons - Asian Countries

The Role of Foreign Direct Investment in

International Economics

FDI & Domestic Income Inequality in 7 largest FDI recipient countries in Asia

(China, Singapore, India, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippine)

by Sofyan, Lury (4009R046-8)

Jan 2010

International Economics – Sofyan, Lury

2 | P a g e

FINAL PAPER

FDI & DOMESTIC INCOME INEQU ALITY IN 7 LARGEST FDI RECIPIENT COUNTRIES IN

ASIA

Graduate School of Asia Pacific Studies (GSAPS) – Waseda University

Students’ Perspectives

SOFYAN, LURY

ソフヤン, ルリ

January 2010

Abstract

One aspect of Heckscher-Ohlin analysis - Samuelson Theorem & Factor Price Equalization Theorem - agreed that trade would contribute to the increasing in wage level. This argument is also applied to Foreign Direct Investment (Appleyard & Field, 2001, P.235). Having more significant role of FDI in international economics, this paper tries to elaborate the role of FDI in increasing wage level issue to the impact of income inequality. This paper emphasize on the impact of FDI towards domestic Income Inequality. Focusing on 7 largest FDI recipient countries in Asia (China, Singapore, India, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippine) this paper found that in short run FDI doesn’t have a significant effect towards income inequality. However, in the longer run, it is found that FDI would contribute to wider gap of income inequality. In the final part, this paper depicts this issue by focusing only on Indonesia.

The graph shows supportive finding that in the long run, FDI contributes to income inequality.

Keywords: International Economics, Foreign Direct Investment, Income Inequality


3 | P a g e

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...............................................................................................................................3

I. Background.................................................................................................................................4

II. Review Literature ........................................................................................................................5

A. FDI & the Big Push Theory ........................................................................................................5

B. FDI & Factor Price Equalization .................................................................................................6

C. FDI & Stolper – Samuelson Theorem .........................................................................................6

D. More: Pros & Cons of FDI .........................................................................................................7

1. Stimulation of National Economy .............................................................................................7

2. Stability of FDI ........................................................................................................................8

3. Social development.................................................................................................................8

4. Infrastructure development and technology transfer ................................................................9

5. “Crowding in” or “Crowding out”? .........................................................................................10

6. Scale and pace of investment ................................................................................................10

7. Skewed distribution ..............................................................................................................11

D. Question to be addressed: Relationship between FDI & Domestic Income Inequality? ..................12

Pros ..........................................................................................................................................12

Cons .........................................................................................................................................12

Neutral .....................................................................................................................................13

E. Specific Study of FDI & Income Inequality ..................................................................................13

III. Empirical Study......................................................................................................................14

Methodology ................................................................................................................................14

Result & Findings ..........................................................................................................................16

General.....................................................................................................................................16

Variable FDI ..............................................................................................................................16

FDI & Income Inequality – Indonesia more closer............................................................................17

E. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................17

References .......................................................................................................................................19


4 | P a g e

I. Background

When one learns international economics, it is a must to cover the issue of Foreign Direct Investment

since the role of FDI in international economics is becoming more and more significant. As it is shown

in the figure below, the amount of FDI, in particular, in Asia & Africa has increasing rapidly.

Figure 1

(Source: OECD DAC)

Knowing the important of FDI, it is interesting to study the effect of FDI. Having FDI in an economic will

eventually affect various factors both positively and negatively. In relation to the economic growth,

almost all studies agree that FDI can boost the growth; however, in accordance to other factors such as

environmental issue, income inequality issue, there still exist pros and cons.


5 | P a g e

Most importantly, this paper will elaborate some pros and cons of FDI in Asian countries,

particularly on large FDI recipient countries focusing on income inequality issue. This is important

because trade theories agreed that trade and FDI would increase wages rate. The important question

under this paper concern is that how about the role of FDI in increasing wage rate? Does it accelerate

the increase of wage rate? Furthermore, does it contribute to income inequality?

In addition, this paper conducted an empirical study about the relationship between FDI and

income inequality

II. Review Literature

To answer those question above, In this part, the relationship between FDI & some prominent theories

will be elaborated to see reveal the issue of FDI and its impact on income inequality. Basically these

theories below agreed that trade would increase wages rate.

A. FDI & the Big Push Theory

The figure below shows the huge amount of FDI compare to other source of money flows to developing

countries. In this case, the huge amount of FDI together with the fully support policy by the host

government could be considered as one of the Implementation of the big push theory. The theory of

Big Push was proposed by Paul Rosenstein – Rodan back in 1943 in which they emphasized on how a

country able to escape from the coordination failure. The big push model is a model of how the

presence of market failures can lead to a need to a concerted economywide and probably-policy-led

effort to let the long process if economic development under way or to accelerate it (Todaro, 2009).

Having FDI in an economic would impacts to the increase of wage rate.


6 | P a g e

Figure 2

Total net resource flowsa to developing countriesb, by type of flow, 1990-2005

(Billions of dollars)

B. FDI & Factor Price Equalization

The theory of Factor Price Equalization argued that when home & foreign trade, the relatives price of

goods is converge. This convergence, in turn, causes of the relative price of land & labor. Thus there is

clearly a tendency toward equalization of factor prices (Krugman, P. & Obstfeld, M. ;2003). In addition,

the existence of FDI allows pushing the economy to factor price equalization. The emergence of FDI

could bring industrialization and subsequently could lift the wage rate in the host country whi ch in the

end, it will accelerate the wage equalization between countries, or in other words, FDI it narrows

international income gap.

C. FDI & Stolper – Samuelson Theorem

Stolper – Samuelson Theorem clearly stated that: with full employment both before and after trade take

place, the increase in the price of abundant factor and the fall in the price of the scarce factor because of


7 | P a g e

trade imply that the owners of abundant factor will find their real incomes rising and the owners of the

scarce factor will find their income decreasing. In this theorem, it is clear that for instance, in

developing country in which labor factor is abundant, trade will increase wages rate.

Furthermore, this theory also argued about the magnification effect, this is because the

percentage change in price of scarce factor is higher than the percentage change in price of abundant

factor. This argument is also in line with argument about the role of FDI in increasing wage rate.

D. More: Pros & Cons of FDI

In this part, I will elaborate a paper titled Foreign Direct Investment: A lead Driver for Sustainable

Development? (Gardiner.R; 2000). This paper showed some views about pros & cons of FDI. Basically,

this paper highlighted 7 important issues of FDI as followed:

1. Stimulation of National Economy

FDI is thought to bring certain benefits to national economies. It can contribute to Gross Domestic

Product (GDP), Gross Fixed Capital Formation (total investment in a host economy) and balance of

payments. There have been empirical studies indicating a positive link between higher GDP and FDI

inflows (OECD a.), however the link does not hold for all regions, e.g. over the last ten years FDI has

increased in Central Europe whilst GDP has dropped. FDI can also contribute toward debt servi cing

repayments, stimulate export markets and produce foreign exchange revenue. Subsidiaries of Trans -

National Corporations (TNCs), which bring the vast portion of FDI, are estimated to produce around a

third of total global exports. However, levels of FDI do not necessarily give any indication of the

domestic gain (UNCTAD 1999). Corporate strategies e.g. protective tariffs and transfer pricing can

reduce the level of corporate tax received by host governments. Also, importation of intermediate

goods, management fees, royalties, profit repatriation, capital flight and interest repayments on loans


8 | P a g e

can limit the economic gain to host economy. Therefore the impact of FDI will largely depend on the

conditions of the host economy, e.g. the level of domestic investment/savings, the mode of entry

(merger & acquisitions or Greenfield (new) investments) and the sector involved, as well as a country’s

ability to regulate foreign investment (UNCTAD 1999).

2. Stability of FDI

FDI inflows can be less affected by change in national exchange rates as compared to other private

sources (portfolio investments or loans). This is partly because currency devaluation means a drop in the

relative cost of production and assets (capital, goods and services) for foreign companies and thereby

increases the relative attraction of a “host” country. FDI can stimulate product diversification through

investments into new businesses, so reducing market reliance on a limited number of sectors/products

(UNCTAD 1999). However, if international flows of trade and investment fall globally and for lengthy

periods, then stability is less certain. New inflows of FDI are especially affected by these global trends,

because it is harder for a foreign company to de-invest or reverse from foreign affiliates as compared to

portfolio investment. Companies are therefore more likely to be careful to ensure they will accrue

benefits before making any new investments. Examples of regional stability are mixed, whilst FDI growth

continued in some Asian countries e.g. Korea and Thailand, during the 1996/97 crisis, it fell in others e.g.

Indonesia. During Latin America’s financial crisis in the 80’s many Latin American countries experienced

a sharp fall in FDI (UNGA 1999), suggesting that investment sensitivity varies according to a country’s

particular circumstances.

3. Social development

FDI, where it generates and expands businesses, can help stimulate employment, raise wages and

replace declining market sectors. However, the benefits may only be felt by small portion of the


9 | P a g e

population, e.g. where employment and training is given to more educated, typically wealthy elites or

there is an urban emphasis, wage differentials (or dual economies) between income groups will be

exacerbated (OECD a). Cultural and social impacts may occur with investment directed at non-traditional

goods. For example, if financial resources are diverted away from food and subsistence production

towards more sophisticated products and encouraging a culture of consumerism can also have negative

environmental impacts. Within local economies, small scale and rural businesses of FDI host countries

there is less capacity to attract foreign investment and bank credit/loans, and as a result certain

domestic businesses may either be forced out of business or to use more informal sources of finance

(ECOSOC 2000).

4. Infrastructure development and technology transfer

Parent companies can support their foreign subsidiaries by ensuring adequate human resources and

infrastructure are in place. In particular “Greenfield” investments into new business sectors can

stimulate new infrastructure development and technologies to host economies. These developments

can also result in social and environmental benefits, but only where they “spill over” into host

communities and businesses (ECOSOC 2000). Investment in research & development (R&D) from parent

companies can stimulate innovation in production and processing techniques in the host country.

However, this assumes that in-house investment (in R&D, production, management, personnel training)

will result in improvements. Foreign technology/organisational techniques may actually be

inappropriate to local needs, capital intensive and have a negative affect on local competitors, especially

smaller business that are less able to make equivalent adaptations. Similarly external changes in

suppliers, customers and other competing firms are not necessarily an improvement on the original

domestic-based approaches (UNCTAD 1999).


10 | P a g e

5. “Crowding in” or “Crowding out”?

“Crowding in” occurs where FDI companies can stimulate growth in up/down stream domes tic

businesses within the national economies. Whilst “Crowding out” is a scenario where parent companies

dominate local markets, stifling local competition and entrepreneurship. One reason for crowding out is

“policy chilling” or “regulatory arbitrage” where government regulations, such as labour and

environmental standards, are kept artificially low to attract foreign investors, this is because lower

standards can reduce the short term operative costs for businesses in that country. Exclusive production

concessions and preferential treatment to TNCs by host governments can both restrict other foreign

investors and encourage oligopolistic (quasi-monopoly) market structure (ECOSOC 2000, UNCTAD 1999).

Empirical data for these scenarios is variable, but crowding out is thought to be more common in

specific sectors. For example, in industries where demand or supply for a product or service is highly

price elastic (market sensitive) and capital intensive. Hence regulation brings additional costs of

compliance and is therefore much more likely to influence a company’s decision to invest in that country

(OECD b).

6. Scale and pace of investment

It may be difficult for some governments, particularly low income countries, to regulate and absorb

rapid and large FDI inflows, with regard to regulating the negative impacts of large-scale production

growth on social and environment factors (WWF 1999). Also a high proportion of FDI inflows in

developing economies are commonly aimed at primary sectors, such as petroleum, mi ning, agriculture,

paper-production, chemicals and utilities. Primary sectors are typically capital and resource intensive,

with a greater threshold in economies of scale and therefore slower to produce positive economic “spill

over” effects (OECD a). Thus, in the short term, low income economies will have less capacity to mitigate


11 | P a g e

environmental damages or take protective measures, imposing greater remediation costs in the long

term, as well as potentially irreversible environmental losses (WWF 1999, OECD b).

7. Skewed distribution

FDI inflows are still highly concentrated in certain countries and regions. TNCs are the largest source of

FDI (about 95% of total inflows) and the majority of these are based in industrialised countries. The vast

proportion of FDI flows go to other developed countries, especially the “Triad” of USA, UK, Japan, but

also countries such as Germany, France, Canada, Netherlands.

Figure 2

Regional FDI inflows in 1998, as % of total global inflow US$ 644 billion

(Source: UNCTAD 1999)

In 1998, 92% of total FDI outflows came from developed countries and 72% of the total inflows returned

to these economies (UNCTAD 1999). Of the proportion that went to low-middle income countries, the


12 | P a g e

highest percentage went to Asia and Latin America (42% and 38% respectively), 14% to Central Europe &

East Asia, whilst only 6% was invested in Africa (World Bank 1999). Over half of the FDI that does reach

developing countries is concentrated in 5 countries. This is also true transitional countries, for example

in Eastern Europe 75 % of FDI inflows is directed toward 5 countries (WTO 1999, OECD b., ECOSOC 2000).

D. Question to be addressed: Relationship between FDI & Domestic Income

Inequality?

As it is elaborated above that trade theories support that the trade will have impacted on wage rate t

increase, and so does FDI, one positive impact of FDI is the increase of wage. In this part of this review

literature, to be more focus, I will the focus mainly on the effect of FDI towards income inequality. As

the increase of FDI, concern into the effect that would FDI brought into income inequality become

heightens. There are also pros and cons towards this issue and the following list are some relevant

studies toward the relation between FDI & Domestic Inequality:

Pros

1. FDI helps to reduce income inequality when implemented to utilize abundant low-income unskilled

labor (Deardorff and Stern,1994)

2. FDI helps to reduce income inequality when capital, domestic or foreign, stimulates economic

growth and its benefits eventually spread throughout the whole economy (Tsai, 1995).

Cons

1. Inward FDI deteriorates income distribution by raising wages in the corresponding sectors in

comparison with traditional sectors (Girling, 1973; Rubinson, 1976; Bornschier and Chase-Dunn,

1985; Tsai, 1995)


13 | P a g e

2. Based on Mexican 1975 to 1988 data, Feenstra and Hanson (1997) found that rising wage inequality

in Mexico is associated with foreign capital inflows

3. Mah (2002) investigated the impact of changes in trade values and FDI inflows on the Gini

coefficients in Korea and concluded that globalization tends to deteriorate the income distribution

there.

4. Taylor and Driffield (2004) also found that inward flows of FDI contributed to increasing wage

inequality based on an empirical analysis with the three-digit industry level for UK manufacturing

sectors over the period 1983 to 1992

5. Zhang and Zhang (2003) argued that foreign trade and FDI in China are important factors

contributing to the widening regional inequality.

6. D.W. Velde and O. Morrisey (2002) found that FDI has raised wage inequality in Thailand.

Neutral

1. Lindert and Williamson (2001) and Milanovic (2002) did not find any significant relationship

between FDI and income inequality

2. After comparing models with and without geographical dummies – such as Asia and Latin America –

over the period from 1967 to 1981, Tsai (1995) argued that the statistically significant correlation

between FDI and income inequality might capture more of the geographical difference in inequality

than the deleterious influence of FDI.

E. Specific Study of FDI & Income Inequality

One of the most recent studies about FDI & income inequality is Chankyu Choi (2006) titled does foreign

direct investment affect domestic income inequality? Using a pooled ordinary least squares regression,

this study constructed a model:


14 | P a g e

Giniit = β0 + β1INTENSITYit + β2PGDPit + β3GDPit + β4PGDPRit + β5ASIA + β6LAC + β2PGDPit YEARj + Uij

Note: Subscript i represents a country and subscript t represents year t. GINI represents the Gini coefficient of a country. INTENSITY stands for foreign direct investment (FDI) stock as a percentage of GDP. PGDP, GDP and PGDPR stand for country i’s per capita GDP, GDP and real per capita GDP growth rates respectively. ASIA is a dummy variable set to one for countries in Asia and zero otherwise.1 LAC is a dummy set to one for Latin American and Caribbean countries and zero otherwise. Dummy variable YEARj is one if j=t and zero if j≠t.

This study concluded that the increase in the FDI intensity measured by inward, outward and total FDI

stock as a percentage of GDP proved to increase the income inequality. Especially outward FDI rather

than inward FDI has more detrimental effect on income distribution. Rich countries and fast growing

countries turned out to have a more even income distribution. Bigger countries tend to have a less equal

income distribution. Latin American and Caribbean countries have unequal income distribution.

III. Empirical Study

Based on previous study above, this paper tries to give an empirical work contends the relationship

between FDI & income inequality. This paper examines 7 Asian countries which are Indonesia, Malaysia,

Singapore, Philippine, Thailand, China and India. The recent of choosing those countries is those

countries are mainly countries that attract most world FDI in Asia (FDI recipients).

Methodology

This paper uses multi regression analysis from panel data across from 1965 to 2007. The data is

obtained from various sources, mainly from World Development Index – World Bank. Since it is difficult

to obtain Gini Coefficient data annually for all those countries, the average five years data is calculated

so that the regression analysis can be run and tested statistically. Furthermore, putting some additional


15 | P a g e

important variables, this paper uses the model from Chankyu Choi (2006) and basically redesign the

model becomes:

Giniit = β0 + β1 FDIi t + β2 FDIi t-5 + β3 GDPGROWTHi t + β4 GDPGROWTHi t-5 + β5 GDPPERCAPi t + β6

GDPPERCAPi t-5 + β7 EDUCEXPENDi t + β8 EDUCEXPENDi t-5 + β9 UNEMPLOYi t + β10 WORKERREM&COMi t + β11 WORLDCRISIS + β11 ASIANCRISIS + Uij

Variable Name Important Notice

FDIi t Foreign direct investment, net inflows (% of GDP)

FDIi t-5 Foreign direct investment, net inflows (% of GDP) lag 5 years *) GDPGROWTHi t GDP growth (annual %)

GDPGROWTHi t-5 GDP growth (annual %) Lag 5 Years *) GDPPERCAPi t GDP per capita, PPP (constant 2005 international $)

GDPPERCAPi t-5 GDP per capita, PPP (constant 2005 international $) lag 5 years *) EDUCEXPENDi t Adjusted savings: education expenditure (% of GNI)

EDUCEXPENDi t-5 Adjusted savings: education expenditure (% of GNI) lag 5 years *)

UNEMPLOYi t Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) WORKERREM&COMi t Workers' remittances and compensation of employees, paid (current US$)

WORLDCRISIS Dummy Variable (1 refer to world economic crisis, 0 otherwise) **) ASIANCRISIS Dummy Variable (1 refer to Asian economic Crisis, 0 otherwise) **)

Note:

*) The usage of 5 years lag is to make a consistent average data with the Gini Coefficient Data that

already explained above

**) The criteria of crisis whether it refers to a world economic crisis or regional economic crisis are

based on World Economic Outlook April 2009 – IMF.


16 | P a g e

Result & Findings

General

After applying the proposed model above, the outcome mostly statistically insignificant in 5% level (see

appendix 2 for overall result). To give alternative models, this paper simulates 6 scenarios of model and

the Model 6 is chosen as the final model since all the independent variables are statistically significant.

Variable EducExpend (Adjusted savings: education expenditure (% of GNI)) and variable

UNEMPLOYi t (Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) are excluded since the data is quite small and

it decreased the total number of observation. Both dummy variables which are WORLDCRISIS & ASIAN

CRISIS are also excluded from the model since those variables are statistically insignificant for all the

scenarios.

The final model is:

Giniit = β0 + β1 FDIi t-5 + β2 GDPGROWTHi t + β3 GDPGROWTHi t-5 + β4 GDPPERCAPi t-5 + β10 WORKERREM&COMi t Uij

Variable FDI

When including FDI variable into the model, the result is varied (Model 1 to Model 5), but basically the

result shows a negative correlation towards Gini Coefficient for all the models from 1 to 5 and

statistically insignificant. However, when adding the FDI lag variable into the model the result shows

differently. The correlation between FDI Lag is become positive towards Gini Coefficient and statistically

significant in all models 1 to 6.


17 | P a g e

FDI & Income Inequality – Indonesia more closer

To have a supportive finding, focusing on Indonesia data, the following discussion will depict the

relationship between FDI Inflow & Gini Coefficient in Indonesia.

Figure 3 Indonesia Case

(source: Badan Pusat Statistik & WDI World Bank)

The figure above shows a positive correlation between FDI & Gini Coefficient. Although the

curve is not perfectly match one to another, however, in general this two variables show the tendency

of a positive correlation. Positive correlation means that the increasing of variable FDI will also affect

the variable Gini Coefficient to increase (Higher Gini coefficient refers to higher income inequality).

E. Conclusion

Foreign direct investment (FDI) has been played a significant role in boasting economic growth. It is no

doubt that every country in the world, especially developing countries, is racing to welcoming FDI. FDI

contributes positives effect such as: providing more employment opportunities, raising wage, allowing

debt servicing repayments, promoting export markets, stimulating product diversification, gaini ng more


18 | P a g e

foreign exchange revenue, developing infrastructure, transferring technology, promote higher education,

and stimulating up/down stream domestic economy. However, FDI also contribute negative effects

such as: increasing income inequality, environmental damages, stimulating “Crowding out” and stifling

local competition and entrepreneurship, encouraging a culture of consumerism. Among Those pros and

cons, this paper found and interesting result toward FDI & Income Inequality.

Focusing on 7 ASIA FDI recipient countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippine, Thailand,

India & China), this paper found that FDI has a negative insignificant impact towards income inequality

in short term. But again, this relation is statistically insignificant. In longer term, it is found that FDI has

a positive significant impact towards income inequality. This is means that having more FDI inflow, it

could lead to more income inequality. This paper found that in 5 years time would be an av erage time

for FDI inflow to increase income inequality.

In addition, emphasizing in Indonesia case, this paper tries to have another perspective towards

the FDI role by depicting the relationship between FDI & income inequality (Gini Coefficient). From the

chart, it is clearly noticed that the increasing of FDI is always followed by the increasing of Gini

Coefficient. Therefore, it can be concluded that FDI has a positive impact toward Gini Coefficient. This

second finding has support the first finding.

One important reason to justify this empirical finding is that FDI can promote raising wage that

consequently establishing gap wages. Another important thing is the present of FDI only in a certain

area; therefore, the positive effect of FDI could not be gained by other areas. This will bring the

different speed of development which, accordingly, promotes more income inequality.


19 | P a g e

References Bornschier, V. and Chase-Dunn, C. (1985) Transnational Corporations and Underdevelopment, Praeger Press,

New York. Carneiro, F. G. and Arbache, J. S. (2003) Assessing the impacts of trade on poverty and inequality, Applied Economics Letters , 10, 989–94. Chakrabarti , A. (2000) Does trade cause inequality? Journal of Economic Development, 25, 1–21.

Choi , C. (2004) Foreign direct investment and income convergence, Applied Economics , 36, 1045–9.

Deardorff, A. and Stern, R. (1994) The Stolper–Samuelson Theorem: A Golden Jubilee , University of Michigan Press , Ann Arbor, NI.

Feenstra , R. C. and Hanson, G. H. (1997) Foreign direct investment and relative wages : evidence from Mexico’s maquiladoras, Journal of International Economics, 42, 371–93.

Girling, R. (1973) Dependency and persis tent income inequali ty, in Structures of Dependency (Eds) F. Bonilla and R. Girling, Insti tute of Poli tical Studies, Stanford, CA, pp. 83–101.

International Monetary Fund . (2009). World Economic Outlook April 2009 Kuznets, S. (1955) Economic growth and income inequality, American Economic Review, 45, 1–28. Lindert, P. H. and Williamson, J. G. (2001) Does globalization make the world more unequal?, NBER Working Paper 8228.

Mah, J. S. (2002) The impact of globalization on income dis tribution: the Korean experience, Applied Economics Letters , 9, 1007–9.

Milanovic, B. (2002) Can we discern the effect of globalization on income distribution? Evidence from household budget surveys , World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 876.

Rubinson, R. (1976) The world economy and the distribution of income within s tates : a cross -national s tudy, American

Economic Review, 41, 638–59. Taylor, K. and Dri ffield, N. (2004) Wage inequali ty and the role of multinationals: evidence from UK panel data ,

Labour Economics , forthcoming. Todaro & Smith (2009) Economic Development. Pearson Education

Tsai, P.-L. (1995) Foreign direct investment and income inequality: further evidence, World Development, 23, 469–83.

Thornton, J. (2001) The Kuznets inverted-U hypothesis:panel data evidence from 96 countries , Applied Economics Letters , 8, 15–16.

Wei, S.-J. and Wu, Y. (2001) Globalization and inequality:evidence from within China, NBER Working Paper 8611.

Zhang, X. and Zhang, K. H. (2003) How does globalization affect regional inequali ty within a developing country?

Evidence from China, Journal of Development Studies, 39, 47–67.


20 | P a g e

Appendix 1

Summary of Data

Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

Countryid 70 4 2.014441 1 7

Year 70 1983.5 14.4651 1961 2006

Gc 54 40.24727 6.745066 24.03 50.54

Fdi 58 3.071579 3.783106 0.010177 16.54

fdi5 51 2.823778 3.532859 0.010177 14.31

Ecog 69 6.480757 2.510352 0.64 12.76

ecog5 62 6.360926 2.497151 0.64 12.76

Gdppercap 49 7130.282 10098.42 523.3093 46184.45

gdppercap5 42 6412.237 8920.717 523.3093 39022.52

Educexp 35 6.90E+08 1.33E+09 2500000 5.97E+09

educexp5 30 3.79E+08 7.88E+08 2500000 3.73E+09

Unemploy 59 2.899634 1.256029 0.586309 5.511266

Workerrem 43 4.374771 2.363626 0.89 9.69

Ecocrisis 70 0.5 0.50361 0 1

Asiancrisis 70 0.1 0.302166 0 1

Loggc 54 1.59819 0.077987 1.38073 1.703621

Logfdi 58 0.101838 0.727036 -1.99237 1.218506

logfdi5 51 0.040843 0.746278 -1.99237 1.155518

Logecog 69 0.767173 0.226455 -0.19142 1.106015

logecog5 62 0.756894 0.232953 -0.19142 1.106015

loggdppercap 49 3.576202 0.465356 2.718758 4.664496

loggdpperc~5 42 3.535348 0.461407 2.718758 4.591315

Logeducexp 35 7.961096 0.981892 6.39794 9.776133

Logunemploy 59 0.417392 0.210935 -0.23187 0.741251

Appendix 2

Result

Panel Data (Dependent: GINI COEFFICIENT) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

FE FE FE

Coefficient SE t Coefficient SE t Coefficient SE t

Foreign direct investment, net inflows (% of GDP)

-0.04 0.027 -1.7 -0.013 0.019 -0.67 -0.012 0.023 -0.44

Foreign direct investment, net inflows (% of GDP) Lag 5 Years

0.09 0.021 4.44 0.043 0.016 2.6 0.06 0.021 2.91

GDP growth (annual %) -0.14 0.073 -1.94 0.038 0.029 1.33 0.075 0.04 1.89

GDP growth (annual %) Lag 5 Years -0.22 0.037 -6.01 0.007 0.027 0.24 0.053 0.034 1.54

GDP per capita, PPP

(constant 2005 international $)

1.18 0.37 3.16 -0.091 0.177 -0.51 -0.004 0.226 -0.02

GDP per capita, PPP (constant 2005 international $) Lag 5 Years

-1.26 0.436 -2.09 0.293 0.184 1.6 0.123 0.237 0.52

Adjusted savings: education expenditure (% of GNI)

0.036 0.014 2.6

Adjusted savings: education expenditure (% of GNI) Lag 5 Years

Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) 0.087 0.144 0.61 -0.407 0.112 -3.64

Workers' remittances and compensation of

employees, paid (current US$)

0.39 0.075 5.29 0.157 0.034 4.65 0.09 0.043 2.07

World Crisis 0.1 0.016 6.03 0.017 0.011 1.52 0.012 0.016 0.79

Asian Crisis -0.0009 0.008 -0.11 0.009 0.015 0.61 0.006 0.022 0.27

Const 0.94 0.19 4.93 1.03 0.261 3.94

Groups 6 7 7

N 18 29 30


22 | P a g e

Appendix 2

Result (continued)

Panel Data (Dependent: GINI COEFFICIENT)

Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

FE FE FE RE

Coefficient SE t Coefficient SE t Coefficient SE t Coefficient SE Z

Foreign direct investment, net inflows (% of GDP)

-0.012 0.026 -0.48 -0.012 0.025 -0.49

Foreign direct investment, net inflows (% of GDP) Lag 5 Years

0.06 0.019 3.05 0.053 0.017 3.13 0.051 0.016 3.19 0.055 0.013 3.99

GDP growth (annual %) 0.075 0.035 2.18 0.078 0.027 2.91 0.073 0.023 3.06 0.066 0.023 2.82

GDP growth (annual %) Lag 5 Years 0.052 0.031 1.7 0.064 0.026 2.43 0.063 0.026 2.46 0.056 0.025 2.3

GDP per capita, PPP (constant 2005

international $)

GDP per capita, PPP (constant 2005

international $) Lag 5 Years 0.119 0.069 1.71 0.134 0.065 2.08 0.121 0.058 2.18 0.101 0.039 2.61

Adjusted savings: education expenditure (% of GNI)

Adjusted savings: education expenditure

(% of GNI) Lag 5 Years

Unemployment, total

(% of total labor force)

Workers' remittances and compensation of employees, paid (current US$)

0.089 0.041 2.17 0.078 0.037 2.1 0.079 0.036 2.18 0.061 0.036 1.7

World Crisis 0.012 0.015 0.82

Asian Crisis 0.006 0.021 0.28

Developing Countries

Const 1.028 0.252 4.08 0.98 0.234 4.19 0.21 4.86 1.107 0.149 7.41

Groups 30 30 7 7

N 7 7 30 30

Documents

FDI Pros & Cons - Asian Countries