Printer Friendly

Foreign direct investment, exchange rate, and their roles in economic growth of developing countries: empirical evidence from Kazakhstan.

INTRODUCTION

Porter (1990a) proposed the national competitiveness "diamond" model and applied this method to consider a wide range of reasons as to why some nations can gain competitive advantages in international markets. He presented four factors that determine the creation of a nation's competitive advantages: factor conditions, demand conditions, relevant and supporting industries, and firm strategy and structure. Porter further discussed the four stages of competitive development: factor-driven, investment-driven, innovation-driven, and wealth-driven stages. Consequently, countries pass through these four stages in creating competitive advantage of the nation and in enhancing economic prosperity. However, this model has been criticized due to the inapplicability of the model to small and developing economies, and its overlooking the roles of multinational enterprises (MNEs) and foreign direct investment (FDI). Professor Porter did acknowledge the fact that, at least for developing countries, foreign owned MNEs may serve to seed industrial clusters and thus contribute to the upgrading of the national diamond.

Nevertheless, the notion of national competitiveness is debatable (see Thompson, 2004). Porter (1990a, 1990b) argued that the national competitiveness of a nation may not rely on the whole economy, but in specific industries. Such understanding emphasizes the distinct strengths of individual industries in leading industrial countries and their corresponding arrangement of national clusters in these industries. These patterns of industry specialization are well illustrated by the business profiles of the United States, Japan, and Germany. The United States appears to be strong, primarily in high-technology industries, especially information technology, life sciences, and in a number of service industries such as management consulting, financial services, and motion pictures. Japan has been particularly strong in the design and complex assembly manufacturing of consumer electronics, cameras, photocopiers, machine tools, and cars. The competitive advantage of Germany is quite similar to that of the Japanese profile, although it is particularly strong in the areas of design, manufacture and distribution of a variety of industries such as machinery, cars, and chemicals.

A brief overview of the above industry-specific competitive advantages highlights the significance of the concept of national competitiveness, however, this national competitiveness concept can be seen to indicate that the performance of firms can be related back toward the national conditions within which these firms operate (see Caspar, 2000; Haake, 2002). Successful development of major industries can be achieved through national policies directed toward achieving a sustainable growth in national productivity and enhancing the competitiveness of the nation's industries (see Hohenthal, Johanson, & Johanson, 2003). Despite the high level of interest in the role of leading industries in building national competitiveness, it is still not very clear what major industries can help in leveraging national economies into the global marketplace.

With this in mind, Kazakhstan has captured the attention of the world with extraordinary speed, particularly in terms of its development in leading industries during the last decade. However, a large portion of economic growth of Kazakhstan was contributed by its natural resources--oil and gas industries and the mining sector. Indeed, the oil and gas sector is now Kazakhstan's biggest export category and a vital force behind the nation's economic growth. Nevertheless, it is debatable whether the oil and gas industry alone can provide long-term economic development for this economy. Consequently, due to the rise in wages, shortage of professional and skillful labour, problems in exploring sufficient Greenfields, pressures of environmental protection and insufficient infrastructure, Kazakhstan is now facing new challenges. Against this backdrop, the ability to develop additional industries may be key in creating the long term economic growth of Kazakhstan. This paper discusses the role of FDI in achieving the economic growth and the national competitiveness of Kazakhstan. Accordingly, the two objectives of this research are: (1) To examine a relationship between FDI inflows and economic growth of Kazakhstan; (2) To discuss the role of FDI in enhancing economic growth of Kazakhstan.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Multinational Enterpreses (MNEs) and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

MNEs create one of the premier international entities of international business and their economic impact has significant consequences on the global economy. Furthermore, MNEs might be responsible for generating ever larger shares of global capital, employment and production in the global markets. In this regard, MNEs can be seen as a source of economic power, Therefore, their influence has grown precipitously over the last three decades (e.g. Hanvanich & Cavusgil, 2001). Indeed, their economic dominance affects not just the management of national economic systems, but has brought fundamental changes on the linkages between national economies.

Against this backdrop, economic globalization refers to the increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through trade, financial flows, the movement of the workforce, and technology that transcend international boundaries. The concept of globalization encompasses not only the internationalization of consumption through cross-border trade in goods and services, but also the global integration of capital markets and the internationalization of products through FDI. In recent years, globalization has been an issue of public dialog as international trade and investments have grown.

With this in mind, this phenomenon has not been confined to the developed world. We see international business shifting toward the large and developing economies such as Brazil, Russia, India and China. They have grown rapidly by acquiring new competencies and becoming more open toward foreign trade and investment. The effect of globalization has resulted in varied views on the benefits and costs (e.g. Bruff, 2005; Crenshaw & Robison, 2006; Ghani & Lockhart, 2006). On the other hand, some theorists worry that it may result in a race to the bottom, in which competition from low-wage countries results in reductions in wages and a loss of jobs, or in which measures to protect the environment lead to shifts in production to countries with permissive environmental regimes (e.g. Burkle Jr., 2006; Glaser, 2006). It is clear that the issue of globalization is a significant phenomenon, and therefore, cannot be underestimated.

In attempting to examine this concept, Landefeld and Whichard (2006) discussed some of the issues with respect to two major ways in which globalization manifested itself in terms of cross-border trade in goods and services, and foreign direct investment (see also Peleg & Arieli, 2006). Hence, in this paper, the authors consider the case of Kazakhstan in terms of the application of a variety of measures of FDI in relation to the economic activities of MNEs. As a consequence, the authors recognized the need to complement these data with statistics that describe the operations of the firms, in which there is direct investment.

In understanding the nature of FDI-based indicators for this study, these appear to be among the most widely available and commonly used measures of economic globalization. International guidelines for measuring FDI are given in the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) manual (IMF, 1993) and the OECD's manuals (OECD, 1996, 2005). The gross FDI inflows in Kazakhstan (Agency on Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2008) include the following factors:

1. Purchase not less than 10 percent share in Kazakhstan share-capital by non-residents, except sale by non-residents of their share in Kazakhstan share-capital to residents;

2. Reinvested earnings (a share of direct investors undistributed income or loss in Kazakhstan companies); and

3. Loans and commercial credits granted by direct investors both in cash and another form (as goods, services, intangible assets and so on) without amortization.

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Economic Growth of Developing Countries

The fixed capital investment in economic growth has been considered one of the basic principles in economics. FDI is of special interest for its supposed positive effects on growth (Hsiao & Shen, 2003; Kneller & Pisu, 2007; Qi, 2007; Tsang & Yip, 2007). There is a widely accepted view that FDI promotes growth not only directly by augmenting capital formation in the recipient economy, but also indirectly by inducing human capital development, helping technology transfers and strengthening competition. Mainly for the sake of these potential merits of FDI, both developing and developed countries have become more receptive to FDI inflows, and the global FDI flows have continued to increase, except for a short-lived decline at the beginning of 2000s.

Hsiao and Hsiao (2006) reported that using time-series and panel data from 1986 to 2004 of the eight rapidly developing East and Southeast Asian economies, China, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand, FDI has unidirectional effects on GDP growth of the economies. Chen, Chang, and Zhang (1995) reported that FDI has been positively associated with economic growth, and the increase of total fixed asset investment in China. Foreign direct investment has also forced an increasing number of domestic manufacturers to compete globally, in particular during the post-1978 period (see also Li & Liu, 2005; Tuan & Ng, 2007). Yao and Wei (2007) argued that FDI is a powerful driver of economic growth for a newly industrialising economy to catch up with the world's most advanced countries, due to its dual role as a mover of production efficiency and a shifter of the production frontier. Lloyd (1996) argued that FDI has played the roles as a source of savings to Asian economies and an agent of technology transfer and transformation of the structure of the economies, and has contributed much to building export-oriented industries in particular, since the mid-1980s.

Demekas, Horvath, Ribakova, and Wu (2007) reported that FDI inflows has been hugely positive for Southeast European countries. Marinov and Marinova (2000) also found that FDI has been extremely positive for Central and Eastern European countries, including Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia (see Akbar & McBride, 2004; King & Varadi, 2002 for the Hungarian economy). Altomonte and Guagliano (2003) found that FDI by European multinationals in Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean over the 1990-1997 period has been very positive for economic growth of the regions (see also Fabry & Zeghni, 2006). Carstensen and Toubal (2004) argued that FDI in Central and Eastern European countries was sought mainly for market potential, lower labor costs, a skilled workforce and relative endowments (see also Bevan & Estrin, 2004; Onaran & Stockhammer, 2008).

To the same extent, in view of the close connection between growth, total investment and FDI, it is justifiable to treat all three as a system and test the causal relationship between the three variables. Kim and Seo (2003) found that FDI had some positive but insignificant effect on GDP growth, while GDP growth had significant and highly persistent effects on the future level of FDI. In addition, Alguacil, Cuadros, and Orts (2004) found that FDI enhanced growth and reinforced the connection between growth and savings in Mexico. Qi (2007) suggested that the causal relationship between growth, total investment, and FDI inflow had mixed results. He claimed that the countries heavily dependent on petroleum export had more difficulties than other countries in benefiting from FDI, and also the role of total investment in growth would be weakened in oil-exporting countries. Using data on 80 countries from 1979 through 1998, Durham (2004) reported that FDI does not have direct, unmitigated positive effects on economic growth of host countries. Ishaq (1999) reported that FDI has a small and statistically insignificant effect on the economic growth of Ukraine, due to attracting very little foreign direct investment. Akinlo (2004) reported that FDI has a small and statistically insignificant effect on the economic growth of Nigeria for the period 1970-2001. Damijan, Knell, Majcen, and Rojec (2003) argued that FDI does not generate positive intra-industry spillovers for domestic firms of host countries using firm-level data for eight transition countries for the period 1994-1998.

Exchange Rate and Measures of Economic Growth

Schnabl (2005) examined the rationale for dollar and euro pegs in Russia and Commonwealth Independent States, and revealed that dollar pegging has been pervasive in the economies. Yousefi and Wirjanto (2003) examined the effects of changes in the exchange rate of the US dollar on the trade balances of three oil-exporting countries, namely Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. They suggested that while the three countries raised the price of their primary export (namely crude oil) in response to depreciation of the dollar, Saudi Arabia's long-run pricing strategy in securing a large market share stood in contrast to that of the two other OPEC members.

A deeper look at the empirical literature showed that the evidence for the impact of exchange rate volatility on trade corresponded quite well with the theoretical considerations. An overwhelming majority of the literature reports significantly negative effects (Byrne, Darby, & MacDonald, 2008; Choudhry, 2005; Sauer & Bohara, 2001; Schnabl, 2008). For example, Caporale and Doroodian (1994) found that exchange rate uncertainty had a negative and statistically significant effect on trade flows. Some empirical evidence has also found a negative effect on the real exports of the United States to Canada and Japan (Choudhry, 2005), and to European Union (Schnabl, 2008). They affirmed that there was a negative relationship between exchange rate volatility and growth for countries in the economic catch-up process with open capital accounts. On the contrary, McKenzie and Brooks (1997) analysed the effect of exchange rate volatility on Germany-US bilateral trade flows, and suggested that the effects of volatility were positive and statistically significant for the period under review (see also Franke, 1991).

However, there are many studies revealing insignificant influences (Belanger et al., 1992; Kroner & Lastrapes, 1993) or significant effects in both directions (Daly, 1998; McKenzie, 1998; Sercu & Uppal, 2003). For example, Belanger et al. (1992) indicated that exchange rate variability had not significantly depressed the volume of trade between Canada and the United States. Lastrapes and Koray (1990) also suggested that the effects were quantitatively small. To the same extent, Sercu and Uppal (2003) showed an ambiguous effect on trade depending on the underlying source of exchange rate volatility. For instance, more volatility of the endowments and higher costs to international trade both boost exchange risk; however, the first increases the expected volume of trade, while the second decreases trade. Mckenzie (1998) also suggested the impact of exchange rate volatility remained difficult in establishing the nature of the relationship (see also Daly, 1998). In summary, the effects of exchange rate uncertainty on trade are sometimes difficult to discern, and depend on model structure and estimation techniques. While some theoretical models suggest that an increase in the exchange rate volatility depresses trade, others report uncertain or even provide positive effects.

FDI Inflows and Its Role in Enhancing Economic Activities in Kazakhstan

In 1997, the government eliminated most of the obstacles of foreign direct investment regulations and promoted the implementation of FDI-friendly policies. In this regard, the Kazakhstan government has taken various measures after prior consultations and exchange of views with foreign investors, particularly, within the framework of the Foreign Investors' Council (FIC), which was set up by the President of Kazakhstan in June of 1998. Basic guidelines of social and economic policy pursued the principles of "improving standard basis aimed at boosting the influx of domestic and foreign capital in the sphere of investments" (The Administration of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2007).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

As a result, the aggregate foreign investments into Kazakhstan's economy during the ten-year period from 1997 to 2006 has exceeded 51 billion US dollars (National Bank of Kazakhstan, 2008). During this period, MNEs from the USA were the leading investors in Kazakhstan as measured by the level of gross FDI inflows. Specifically, US based MNEs had a 26.4 percent share (accumulated amount in total was approximately 13.5 billion US dollars) of Kazakhstan's gross FDI inflows as compared with other countries. Since 2000, European Union (EU) countries amongst United Kingdom (UK, total 5.2 billion US dollars), the Netherlands (total 7.8 billion US dollars), Italy (total 2.8 billion US dollars), Switzerland and France have accelerated their investments, and have become major players of FDI in Kazakhstan. Since 2003, East Asian countries of South Korea (total 2.1 billion US dollars), China (total 2 billion US dollars) and Japan accelerated their investments and became leading players of FDI in Kazakhstan. North America has a 30 percent share (total 15.5 billion US dollars), East Asian countries have an 11 percent share (total 5.5 billion US dollars), and European Union countries have a 50 percent share of the gross FDI inflows to Kazakhstan.

FDI inflows by economic activities show that the mining and quarrying industry makes up about 48 percent (total 24.6 billion US dollars); manufacturing industry is 10.8 percent (5.5 billion US dollars); wholesales and retail trade sector is 3.6 percent (1.8 billion US dollars); transport and communications sector is 2 percent (1 billion US dollars); and the real estate industry is about 29 percent, with 15 billion US dollars investments (Figure 1).

With this in mind, geological exploration and prospecting activities had more than 65% of the total FDI inflows in the service industries. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) indicated FDI in Kazakhstan is heavily biased toward the natural resources sector, which received over 85 per cent of FDI in 2000. The oil and gas sector has a number of major Greenfield projects sponsored by international consortia while Brownfield projects dominated the mining and industry sectors (EBRD, 2003, p.104).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Hypothesis Development

One of the primary objectives of this paper is to investigate a relationship between FDI inflows and economic growth of Kazakhstan. GDP growth should be related to those economic activities of FDI inflows, fixed capital investment, retail trade turnover, industrial production, exchange rate, and others. After a comprehensive review of the secondary data, the researchers initially selected seven variables (indicators): growth domestic production, FDI inflows, fixed capital investment, employment, retail trade turnover, industrial production, and exchange rate. In this regard, the authors initially employ a confirmatory approach to define the relationships between independent variables and a dependent variable in a regression model. Multiple regression techniques are applied to test a linear combination in explaining the dependent variable, the growth of gross domestic product.

The five predictors such as FDI inflows, fixed capital investment, employment, retail trade turnover, and industrial production should determine growth domestic production (as a proxy of economic growth). In addition, exchange rate should play a role in the relations. This leads to the following hypotheses.

H1: There is a relationship between FDI inflows and economic growth of Kazakhstan.

H2: There is a relationship between fixed capital investment and economic growth of Kazakhstan.

H3: There is a relationship between employment ratio and economic growth of Kazakhstan. H4: There is a relationship between retail trade turnover and economic growth of Kazakhstan. H5: There is a relationship between industrial production and economic growth of Kazakhstan.

Data and Correlation between Variables

The raw data in the model were the ten year time series data during the period from 1997 to 2006 (source: Agency on Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2008). Possible transformations of the data to remedy violations of various model assumptions, such as the normality on the shape of the distribution, linearity, and the relationships between independent variables, are examined. The size of the sample has a direct impact on the appropriateness as well as the statistical power of multiple regression analysis. Therefore, the authors developed 40 cases of sample data from the ten year time series data. In these applications, it is applied that the 0.05 significance level with one-tailed as the criterion in the test of statistical significance. Table 1 shows the relationships between variables.

Results of Data Analysis

After several regression runs, the multiple regression model includes the five independent variables: FDI inflows (X1), fixed capital investment (X2), employment ratio (X3), retail trade turnover (X4); industrial production (X5), and gross domestic product (Y) was tested empirically. The partial t-values were calculated and applied to test the statistical significance of the independent variables in the regression model (Table 2).

The final regression model and its specified equation that maximizes the explanation power are shown as follows:

Y = [alpha] + [beta]1X1 + [beta]2X2 + [beta]3X3 + [beta]4X4 + [beta]5X5

Where:

Y: gross domestic product, million tenge

X1: FDI inflows, million USD

X2: fixed capital investment, million tenge

X3: employees, thousand persons

X4: retail trade turnover, billion tenge

X5: volume of industrial production, billion tenge

The R-square of 0.994 suggests that 99 percent of the total variation in the amount of "gross domestic product" can be explained by the changes of the independent variables. The adjusted R square (0.993) takes into account of the sample size and the number of independent variables included in the regression equation. The F-value of 1139.702 is significant at the 95% confidence level.

The null hypothesis H1: there is no correlation between FDI inflows and economic growth of Kazakhstan, and can not be rejected (t-value = 0.699). This means FDI inflows do not have a direct effect on the economic growth of Kazakhstan. It supports an argument that natural resource seeking FDI may not have a direct effect in enhancing the economic growth of a developing country. The null hypothesis H2: there is no correlation between fixed capital investment and economic growth of Kazakhstan was rejected (t-value = 2.660). This result reinforces that fixed capital investment does have a direct effect in enhancing the economic growth of a developing country. The null hypothesis H3: there is no correlation between employment ratio and economic growth of Kazakhstan, and can not be rejected (t-value = 0.557). This means that the indicator of employment itself is reflected on the indicator of economic growth. The null hypothesis H4: there is no correlation between retail trade turnover and economic growth of Kazakhstan was rejected (t-value = 2.298). This result reinforces that retail trade turnover does have a direct effect in enhancing the economic growth of a developing country. The null hypothesis H5: there is no correlation between industrial production and economic growth of Kazakhstan, and was rejected (t-value = 6.780). This result reinforces that industrial production does have a direct effect in enhancing the economic growth of a developing country.

Though we applied a weighted least squares regression (weighted by dollar exchange rate) to investigate the effect of exchange rate in economic activities of Kazakhstan, the results show as much of the ordinary least squares. This means exchange rate did not significantly affect the economic activities of Kazakhstan during the period.

These measures indicate that the independent variables in the regression model are very useful in predicting the year-to-year variations of GDP. In view of the above results, this paper concludes that FDI by MNEs does not affect the GDP growth of Kazakhstan. It is noted that the economic resources controlled by MNEs and their investments make their investment decisions highly significant to the economic growth of small and/or developing countries. Emblematic of this is the fact that developing countries actively compete to attract MNEs' direct investment by promoting FDI advisory boards and various policy instruments. FDI in Kazakhstan had a minimal effect in achieving the economic growth and competitive advantages of the economy.

DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This paper argues that the government should take and implement only those industrial policies that can meaningfully contribute to the nation's rapid achievement of international competitiveness. As global practice tends to show that the attraction of foreign investments positively affects a country's economy, foreign investment can be seen to be one of the principal factors supporting accelerated economic growth. In particular, in developing countries like China and India, they consider attraction of foreign capital as a necessary means for their economic growth. Against the background of the developing states of the former Soviet Union, Kazakhstan's success in attracting inward investments for the past ten years has been extremely impressive, particularly as Kazakhstan is now recognized as a leading country among CIS countries in terms of attracting foreign direct investments per capita. For example, the EU and USA recognised Kazakhstan as a country with a market economy in 2001 and 2002 respectively. In the annual report of World Bank (2005), Kazakhstan is placed on the fifth level in investors' protection index along with Denmark, New Zealand, Switzerland, Singapore, and is the best amongst the former CIS states.

From this presentation, it should now be clear that currently the nation's investment potential is largely based on minerals and raw materials. Consequently, their exploitation creates more than a half of the nation's gross domestic product, quality and extent of deposits utilization, and the reproduction of raw material reserves, play pivotal roles in the economic growth of Kazakhstan. Aiming at attracting foreign direct investment, Kazakhstan carries out a policy of ensuring macroeconomic environment stability and realizes this through the monitoring of significant measures, which contribute toward an improving investment climate within the country. Here, Kazakhstan's investment policy must adhere to the principles of stability and predictability in terms of encouraging direct investments to such priority sectors of the economy as agriculture, manufacturing sector, industrial infrastructure, and tourism infrastructures. To the same extent, it is admirable that the government program contains a number of measures to attract multinational companies to the non-extractive sectors of the economy.

One of its priorities is the diversification and modernization of major industries, the growth of value added and high-tech components in the economy, hence its economy is becoming self-sustained and less-oil dependent. In order to turn out the disproportions in the nation's economy, the new "Innovative Industrial Development Strategy till 2015" was adopted in 2003 and the state investment strategy has been directed at promoting investments into less attractive fields, which were declared as priority (The Administration of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2007). Kazakhstan has also identified seven pilot cluster projects (tourism, metallurgy, textiles, construction, agriculture, food processing, oil and gas machinery building, logistics and transportation), which will establish the essence of the nation's competitiveness.

Consequently, the primary task of the government in the near and mid-term future has to be the continuation of structural and institutional reforms. This task should be aimed at developing competition, improvement of investment climate, strengthening of transparency, and liberalisation of the economy. Maintenance and development of favourable conditions for further development of the private sector should also remain a top priority. To the same extent, the nation's top priorities must be the promotion of FDI and MNE operations into industries of agriculture, innovation, and manufacturing sectors in order to reduce the dependence of the economy on energy and extracting sectors and to ensure sustainable growth of the nation's economy.

REFERENCES

Agency on Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2008). Statistical Yearbook of Kazakhstan. Astana, Kazakhstan.

Akbar, Y.H., & McBride, J.B. (2004). Multinational enterprise strategy, foreign direct investment and economic development: the case of the Hungarian banking industry. Journal of World Business, 39(1), 89-105

Akinlo, A.E. (2004). Foreign direct investment and growth in Nigeria: An empirical investigation. Journal of Policy Modeling, 26(5), 627-639

Alguacil, M., Cuadros, A., & Orts, A. (2004). Does saving really matter for growth quest: Mexico (1970-2000). Journal of International Development, 16(2), 281-290.

Altomonte, C., & Guagliano, C. (2003). Comparative study of FDI in Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean. Economic Systems, 27(2), 223-246

Belanger, D., Gutierrez, S., Racette, D., & Raynauld, J. (1992). The impact of exchange rate variability on trade flows: Further results on sectoral U.S. imports from Canada. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 3(1), 61-82

Bevan, A.A., & Estrin, S. (2004). The determinants of foreign direct investment into European transition economies. Journal of Comparative Economics, 32(4), 775-787

Bruff, I. (2005). Making sense of the globalization debate when engaging in political economy analysis. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 7(2), 261-280.

Burkle Jr., F.M. (2006). Globalization and disasters: issues of public health, state capacity and political action. Journal of International Affairs, 59(2), 241-265.

Byrne, J.P., Darby, J., & MacDonald, R. (2008). US trade and exchange rate volatility: A real sectoral bilateral analysis. Journal of Macroeconomics, 30(1), 238-259

Caporale, T., & Doroodian, K. (1994). Exchange rate variability and the flow of international trade. Economics Letters, 46(1), 49-54

Carstensen, K., & Toubal, F. (2004). Foreign direct investment in Central and Eastern European countries: a dynamic panel analysis. Journal of Comparative Economics, 32(1), 3-22

Caspar, S. (2000). Institutional adaptiveness, technology policy, and the diffusion of new business models: the case of German biotechnology. Organizational Studies, 21(5), 887-914.

Chen, C., Chang, L., & Zhang, Y-M. (1995). The role of foreign direct investment in China's post-1978 economic development. World Development, 23(4), 691-703

Choudhry, T. (2005). Exchange rate volatility and the United States exports: evidence from Canada and Japan. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 19(1), 51-71

Crenshaw, E.M., & Robison, K.K. (2006). Globalization and the digital divide: The roles of structural conduciveness and global connection in Internet diffusion. Social Science Quarterly, 87(1), 190-207.

Daly, K. (1998). Does exchange rate volatility impede the volume of Japan's bilateral trade?. Japan and the World Economy, 10(3), 333-348

Damijan, J.P., Knell, M., Majcen, B., & Rojec, M. (2003). The role of FDI, R&D accumulation and trade in transferring technology to transition countries: evidence from firm panel data for eight transition countries. Economic Systems, 27(2), 189-204

Demekas, D.G., Horvath, B., Ribakova, E., & Wu, Y. (2007). Foreign direct investment in European transition economies--The role of policies. Journal of Comparative Economics, 35(2), 369-386

Durham, J.B. (2004). Absorptive capacity and the effects of foreign direct investment and equity foreign portfolio investment on economic growth. European Economic Review, 48(2), 285-306

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (2003). Transition Report 2003: Integration and Regional Cooperation. London, UK: EBRD.

Fabry, N., & Zeghni, S. (2006). How former communist countries of Europe may attract inward foreign direct investment? A matter of institutions. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 39(2), 201-219

Franke, G. (1991). Exchange rate volatility and international trading strategy. Journal of International Money and Finance, 10(2), 292-307

Ghani, A., & Lockhart, C. (2006). An agenda for harnessing globalization. The Washington Quarterly, 29(4), 67-80.

Glaser, D. (2006). The limits to global redistribution: Thinking like an egalitarian labour movement. Global Society, 20(2), 137-154.

Haake, S. (2002). National business system and industry-specific competitiveness. Organizational Studies, 23(5), 711-736.

Hanvanich, S., & Cavusgil, S.T. (2001). Stock market reactions to international joint venture announcement: An event analysis. International Business Review, 10(2), 139-154.

Hohenthal, J., Johanson, J., & Johanson, M. (2003). Market discovery and the international expansion of the firm. International Business Review, 12(6), 659-672.

Hsiao, C., & Shen, Y. (2003). Foreign direct investment and economic growth: The importance of institutions and urbanization. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 51(4), 883-896.

Hsiao, F-S.T., & Hsiao, M-C.W. (2006). FDI, exports, and GDP in East and Southeast Asia-Panel data versus time-series causality analyses. Journal of Asian Economics, 17(6), 1082-1106

International Monetary Fund (1993). Balance of payments manual (5th ed.). Washington, DC.

Ishaq, M. (1999). Foreign direct investment in Ukraine since transition. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 32(1), 91-109

Kim, D.D., & Seo, J.S. (2003). Does FDI inflow crowd out DI in Koreaquest. Journal of Economic Studies, 30(5/6), 605-622.

King, L.P., & Varadi, B. (2002). Beyond Manichean economics: foreign direct investment and growth in the transition from socialism. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 35(1), 1-21

Kneller, R., & Pisu, M. (2007). Industrial linkages and export spillovers from FDI. The World Economy, 30(1), 105-134.

Kroner, K.F., & Lastrapes, W.D. (1993). The impact of exchange rate volatility on international trade: Reduced form estimates using the GARCH-in-mean model. Journal of International Money and Finance, 12(3), 298-318

Landefeld, J.S., & Whichard, O.G. (2006). The importance of and pitfalls in measuring globalization. Statistical Journal of the UN Economic Commission for Europe, 23(2-3), 127-142.

Lastrapes, W.D., & Koray, F. (1990). Exchange rate volatility and U.S. multilateral trade flows. Journal of Macroeconomics, 12(3), 341-362

Li, X-Y., & Liu, X-M. (2005). Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth: An Increasingly Endogenous Relationship. World Development, 33(3), 393-407

Lloyd, P.J. (1996). The role of foreign investment in the success of Asian industrialization. Journal of Asian Economics, 7(3), 407-433

Marinov, M.A., & Marinova, S.T. (2000). Foreign direct investment in the emerging markets of central and eastern Europe: Motives and marketing strategies. Advances in International Marketing, 10, 21-52

McKenzie, M.D. (1998). The impact of exchange rate volatility on Australian trade flows. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 8(1), 21-38

McKenzie, M.D., & Brooks, R.D. (1997). The impact of exchange rate volatility on German-US trade flows. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 7(1), 73-87

National Bank of Kazakhstan (2008). The gross FDI Inflows from abroad by countries and by economic activities. Retrieved October 29, 2009, from http://www.nationalbank.kz/?uid=594E7D13-2219-B830 8AE96D5947B79613&docid=469.

Onaran, O., & Stockhammer, E. (2008). The effect of FDI and foreign trade on wages in the Central and Eastern European countries in the post-transition era: A sectoral analysis for the manufacturing industry. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 19(1), 66-80

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1996). OECD benchmark definition of foreign direct investment. Paris, France.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005). OECD handbook on economic globalization indicators. Paris, France.

Peleg, S., & Arieli, S. (2006). Problems of measurement and analysis in the national accounts under rapidly growing globalization. Statistical Journal of the UN Economic Commission for Europe, 23(2-3), 143-153.

Porter, M.E. (1990a). The competitive advantage of nations, New York, NY: Free Press

Porter, M.E. (1990b). The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 73-93.

Qi, L. (2007). The relationship between growth, total investment and inward FDI: Evidence from time series data. International Review of Applied Economics, 21(1), 119-133.

Sauer, C., & Bohara, A.K. (2001). Exchange votality and exports: Regional differences between developing and industrial countries. Review of International Economics, 9(1), 133-152

Schnabl, G. (2005). International capital markets and exchange rate stabilization in the CIS. Journal of Comparative Economics, 33(3), 425-440

Schnabl, G. (2008). Exchange rate volatility and growth in small open economies at the EMU periphery. Economic Systems, 32(1), 70-91

Sercu, P., & Uppal, R. (2003). Exchange rate volatility and international trade: A general-equilibrium analysis. European Economic Review, 47(3), 429-441

The Administration of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2007). Foreign economic activities in Kazakhstan. Retrieved October 29, 2009, from http://www.fic.kz/content.asp?parent=6&lng=en&mid=26.

Thompson, E.R. (2004). National competitiveness: a question of cost conditions or institutional circumstances?. British Journal of Management, 15(3), 197-218.

Tsang, E.W.K., & Yip, P.S.L. (2007). Economic distance and the survival of foreign direct investments. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1156-1168.

Tuan, C., & Ng, L.F-Y. (2007). The place of FDI in China's regional economic development: Emergence of the globalized delta economies. Journal of Asian Economics, 18(2), 348-364

World Bank (2005). Doing Business in 2005: Removing obstacles to growth. Retrieved October 29, 2009, from http://www.doingbusiness.org/documents/DoingBusiness2005.PDF.

Yao, S-J., & Wei, K-L. (2007). Economic growth in the presence of FDI: The perspective of newly industrialising economies. Journal of Comparative Economics, 35(1), 211-234

Yousefi, A., & Wirjanto, T.S. (2003). Exchange rate of the US dollar and the J curve: the case of oil exporting countries. Energy Economics, 25(6), 741-765

Jung-Wan Lee, Boston University

Gulzada Baimukhamedova, Kazakh Academy of Transport & Communications

Sharzada Akhmetova, Kazakhstan Institute of Management
Table 1. Outputs of Pearson Correlation Coefficients (N = 40)

                       GDP          FDI       investment    employment

GDP                 1.000
FDI                  .948 ***    1.000
Fixed investment     .932 ***     .917 ***    1.000
Employment           .817 ***     .806 ***     .708 ***     1.000
Retail trade         .991 ***     .959 ***     .962 ***      .806 ***
Production           .996 ***     .943 ***     .941 ***      .803 ***
Exchange rate        .358 **      .416 ***     .653 ***      .046

                     retail      production    exchange

GDP
FDI
Fixed investment
Employment
Retail trade        1.000
Production           .992 ***    1.000
Exchange rate        .446 ***     .392 ***    1.000

** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001,
Coefficients are statistically significant at a 95%
confidence level, one-tailed.

Table 2. Outputs of Regression Analysis

Method of estimate                     Ordinary Least Squares

                                   Unstandardized
                                 Coefficients (S.E.)      t-value

(Constant)                           -254627.761          -0.513
H1: FDI inflows                    30.405 (43.523)         0.699
H2: Fixed capital investment        1.373 (0.516)        2.660 **
H3: Employment                    78.617 (141.250)         0.557
H4: Retail trade turnover        2184.994 (950.684)      2.298 **
H5: Industrial production        1072.280 (158.152)      6.780 ***

Method of estimate                    Weighted Least Squares #

                                   Unstandardized
                                 Coefficients (S.E.)      t-value

(Constant)                           -250889.663          -0.476
H1: FDI inflows                    27.304 (43.523)         0.617
H2: Fixed capital investment        1.212 (0.516)        2.248 **
H3: Employment                    68.144 (141.250)         0.425
H4: Retail trade turnover        2195.406 (950.684)      2.137 **
H5: Industrial production        1055.302 (158.152)      6.452 ***

Regression Model : Y = [alpha] + [beta]1X1 + [beta]2X2 + [beta]3X3
+ [beta]4X4 + [beta]5X5 Y: gross domestic product, million tenge

# Weighted least squares regression-weighted by exchange rate
(tenge for 1 US dollar) ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001, Coefficients
are statistically significant at a 95% confidence level.
R square = 0.994, Adjusted R square = 0.993, Durbin-Watson
statistics = 1.841 F-value = 1139.702, p = 0.000
COPYRIGHT 2010 The DreamCatchers Group, LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Lee, Jung-Wan; Baimukhamedova, Gulzada; Akhmetova, Sharzada
Publication:Journal of International Business Research
Geographic Code:9KAZA
Date:Jul 1, 2010
Words:6143
Previous Article:Monetary policy transmission and output: the Jordan experiment.
Next Article:An empirical test of the interest rate parity: does it hold between U.S.A and selected emerging Asian economies?
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters