Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Review of Economic Perspectives

Národohospodárský obzor; The Journal of Masaryk University

4 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.50

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.262
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.516

Open Access
Online
ISSN
1804-1663
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 16, Issue 3 (Sep 2016)

Issues

Is Russia successful in attracting foreign direct investment? Evidence based on gravity model estimation

Oleg Mariev
  • Corresponding author
  • Ural Federal University, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Mira Ave 19, Yekaterinburg, Russian Federation
  • Email:
/ Igor Drapkin
  • Ural Federal University, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Mira Ave 19, Yekaterinburg, Russian Federation
  • Email:
/ Kristina Chukavina
  • Ural Federal University, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Mira Ave 19, Yekaterinburg, Russian Federation
  • Email:
Published Online: 2016-10-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/revecp-2016-0015

Abstract

The aim of this paper is twofold. First, it is to answer the question of whether Russia is successful in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI). Second, it is to identify partner countries that “overinvest” and “underinvest” in the Russian economy. We do this by calculating potential FDI inflows to Russia and comparing them with actual values. This research is associated with the empirical estimation of factors explaining FDI flows between countries. The methodological foundation used for the research is the gravity model of foreign direct investment. In discussing the pros and cons of different econometric methods of the estimation gravity equation, we conclude that the Poisson pseudo maximum likelihood method with instrumental variables (IV PPML) is one of the best options in our case. Using a database covering about 70% of FDI flows for the period of 2001-2011, we discover the following factors that explain the variance of bilateral FDI flows in the world economy: GDP value of investing country, GDP value of recipient country, distance between countries, remoteness of investor country, remoteness of recipient country, level of institutions development in host country, wage level in host country, membership of two countries in a regional economic union, common official language, common border and colonial relationships between countries in the past. The potential values of FDI inflows are calculated using coefficients of regressors from the econometric model. We discover that the Russian economy performs very well in attracting FDI: the actual FDI inflows exceed potential values by 1.72 times. Large developed countries (France, Germany, UK, Italy) overinvest in the Russian economy, while smaller and less developed countries (Czech Republic, Belarus, Denmark, Ukraine) underinvest in Russia. Countries of Southeast Asia (China, South Korea, Japan) also underinvest in the Russian economy.

Keywords: determinants of FDI; gravity model of FDI; Poisson Pseudo Maximum Likelihood method; potential values of FDI

References

  • ALI, F. A., N. FIESS, R. MACDONALD. (2010). Do Institutions Matter for Foreign Direct Investment? Open Economies Review, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp. 201-219.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • AFRICANO, A. (2005). FDI and Trade in Portugal: a gravity analysis. Research Work in Progress. №174. P. 1-24.Google Scholar

  • AZEEM, S., HUSSAIN, H., HUSSAIN, R. (2012). The determinants of foreign investment in Pakistan: a gravity model analysis. Log Forum. Scientific Journal of Logistics. 8 (2). P. 81-97.Google Scholar

  • BALDWIN, R., DI NINO, V. (2006). Euros and Zeros: The Common Currency Effect on Trade in New Goods. NBER Working Paper 12673.Google Scholar

  • BATTERSBY, B., EWING, R. (2005). International trade performance: The gravity of Australia's remoteness. Treasury Working Paper, 2005-03.Google Scholar

  • BÉNASSY-QUÉRÉ, A., COUPET, M., MAYER, T. (2005). Institutional Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment. CEPII Working Paper No. 2005-05. Paris: CEPII research center. P. 1-30.Google Scholar

  • BEVAN, A., ESTRIN, S. (2004). The determinants of foreign direct investment into European transition economics. Journal of Comparative Economics. 32. P. 775-787. DOI: 10.1016/j.jce.2004.08.006CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • BOBONIS, G., SHATZ, H. (2007). Agglomeration, Adjustment, and State Policies in the Location of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 30-43.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • BORMANN, C., JUNGNICKEL, R., KELLER, D. (2005). What gravity models can tell us about the position of German FDI in Central and Eastern Europe. HWWA discussion paper. P.1-34.Google Scholar

  • BRAINARD, S. (1997). An Empirical Assessment of the Proximity- Concentration Trade-off Between Multinational Sales and Trade. American Economic Review. 87(4). P. 520-44.Google Scholar

  • BROADMAN, H., RECANATINI, F. (2001). Where has all the foreign direct investment gone in Russia? Policy Research Working Paper No. 2640, Washington D.C., World Bank.Google Scholar

  • BROCK, G. (1998). Foreign direct investment in Russia’s regions 1993-95. Why so little and where has it gone? Economics of Transition 6 (2), 349-360. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0351.1998.tb00053.x CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • BUCCELLATO, T., SANTANGELO, F. (2009). Foreign direct investments distribution in the Russian Federation: Do spatial effects matter? Economics working paper No. 99, Centre for the Study of Economic and Social Change in Europe (CSESCE).Google Scholar

  • CASTIGLIONE, C., GORBUNOVA, Y., INFANTE, D., SMIRNOVA, J. (2012). FDI determinants in an idiosyncratic country. A reappraisal over the Russian regions during transition years. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 45, 1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.postcomstud.2012.02.006CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • ÇEVIS, I., ÇAMURDAN, B. (2007). The Economic Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries and Transition Economies. The Pakistan Development Review. 46(3). P.13-47.Google Scholar

  • CHENG, I-H., WALL, H.J.. (2005). Controlling for heterogeneity in gravity models of trade and integration. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 87, 1, 49-63.Google Scholar

  • COE, D., SUBRAMANIAN, A., TAMIRISA, N., BHAVNANI, R. (2002). The Missing Globalization Puzzle. IMF Working Paper 02/171, 1-30.Google Scholar

  • EGGER, P., 2002. An Econometric View of the Estimation of Gravity Models and the Calculation of Trade Potentials. World Economy 25(2), 297-312. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9701.00432CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • EGGER, P., PFAFFERMAYR, M. (2004). Distance, trade and FDI: a SUR Hausman- Taylor approach. Journal of Applied Econometrics. 19(2). P. 227-246. DOI: 10.1002/jae.721CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • FRANCOIS, J., MANCHIN, M. (2013). Institutions, Infrastructure, and Trade. World Development, 46, 165-175. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.02.009CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • FOLFAS, P. (2011). FDI between EU member states: gravity model and taxes. Working paper.Google Scholar

  • GROSSMAN, G., HELPMAN, E., SZEIDL, A. (2006). Optimal integration strategies for the multinational firm. Journal of international economics. 70 (1). P. 216-238. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2005.07.011CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • FUJITA, M. (2005). Expert Meeting on Capacity Building in the Area of FDI: Data Compilation and Policy Formulation in Developing Countries. DITE/UNCTAD. 21p.Google Scholar

  • HATTARI, R., RAJAN, R. (2009). What explains intra-Asian FDI flows: do distance and trade matter? Economic Bulletin. 29. P. 122-128.Google Scholar

  • HELPMAN, E. (1984). A Simple Theory of International Trade with Multinational Corporations. Journal of Political Economy. 92 (3). P. 451-471. DOI: 10.1086/261236 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • HELPMAN, E., KRUGMAN, P. (1985). Market Structure and Foreign Trade. Cambridge. MA. P. 342-376.Google Scholar

  • HELPMAN, E., MELITZ, M., RUBINSTEIN, Y. (2008). Estimating trade flows: Trading partners and trading volumes. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 123. P. 441-487. DOI: 10.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.441CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • HELPMAN, E., MELITZ, M., YEAPLE, S. (2004). Export Versus FDI with Heterogeneous Firms. American Economic Review. 94(1). P. 300-316. DOI: 10.1257/000282804322970814CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • IWASAKI, I., SUGANAMA, K.. (2005). Regional distribution of foreign direct investment in Russia. Post-Communist Economies 17 (2). P. 153-172. DOI: 10.1080/14631370500104828CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • KAYAM, S., M. HISARCIKLILAR. (2009). Revisiting the investment developing path (IDP): a nonlinear fluctuation approach. International Journal of Applied Econometrics and Quantitative Studies 6 (2). P. 63-82.Google Scholar

  • KLEINERT, J., F. TOUBAL. (2010). Gravity for FDI. Review of International Economics. 18(1). P. 1-13. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9396.2009.00869.x CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • KRISTJANSDOTTIR, H. (2004). Determinants of Exports and Foreign Direct Investment in a Small Open Economy. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Iceland. Faculty of Business and Economics.Google Scholar

  • LEDYAEVA, S. (2007). Spatial econometric analysis of determinants and strategies of FDI in Russian regions in pre- and post-1998 financial crisis periods. BOFIT discussion papers, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies of Transition.Google Scholar

  • LEDYAEVA, S., LINDEN, M. (2006). Testing for Foreign Direct Investment gravity model for Russian regions. Department of Business and Economics. University of Joensuu. Working paper No.32.Google Scholar

  • LEIBRECHT, M., RIEDL, A. (2012). Modeling FDI based on a spatially augmented gravity model: Evidence for Central and Eastern European Countries. Working Paper Series in Economics. 239.Google Scholar

  • MANAENKOV, D. (2000). What determines the region of location of an FDI project? An empirical assessment. Working Paper BSP/00/036R, Moscow: New Economic School.Google Scholar

  • MARKUSEN, J. (1984). Multinationals, multi-plant economies, and the gains from trade. Journal of International Economics. Vol. 16. P. 341-356. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1996(84)80001-X MARKUSEN, J. (2002). Multinational Firms and the Theory of International Trade. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • MARKUSEN, J., VENABLES, A. (1998). Multinational firms and the new trade theory. Journal of International Economics. 46. P. 183-203. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1996(97)00052-4 CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • MARTIN, W., PHAM, C. (2008). Estimating the gravity equation when zero trade flows are frequent. Technical report.Google Scholar

  • MÀTYÀS, L. (1998). The Gravity Model: Some Econometric Considerations. The World Economy. 21. P. 397-401. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9701.00136CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McKinsey Global Institute. (2003). Offshoring: Is it a win-win game? San Francisco: McKinsey.Google Scholar

  • MUNDELL, R. (1957). International Trade and Factor Mobility. American Economic Review. 47. P. 17-29.Google Scholar

  • PAGANO, M., VOLPIN, P. (2005). Managers, Workers and Corporate Control. Journal of Finance. 60 (2). P. 841-68. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00748.x CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • PANIAGUA, J. (2011). FDI Gravity Equation: Models, Estimations and Zeros. Catholic University of Valencia. Working Paper.Google Scholar

  • SHEPOTYLO, O. (2009). Gravity with Zeros: Estimating Trade Potential of CIS Countries. Working Paper.Google Scholar

  • SILVA, S., TENREYRO, J. (2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics. 2006. 88(4). P. 641-658.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • SOVA, R., ALBU, L., STANCU, I., SOVA, A. (2009). Patterns of foreign direct investment in the new EU countries. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting. 6. P. 42-51.Google Scholar

  • TALAMO, G. (2003). Institution, FDI and the Gravity Model. University of Palermo, Department of Political Studies. Working Paper.Google Scholar

  • TINBERGEN, J. (1962). An Analysis of World Trade Flows. Shaping the World Economy. New York. NY: Twentieth Century Fund.Google Scholar

  • TALAMO, G. (2013). Institution, FDI and the Gravity Model. Preliminary version. P. 1-24.Google Scholar

  • WANG, Z., WINTERS, L. (1991). The Trading Potential of Eastern Europe. CEPR Discussion Paper no. 610. London, Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar

  • WEI, Sh-J. (1996). Intra-national versus international trade: how stubborn are nations in global integration? NBER Working paper 5531.Google Scholar

  • WORLD INVESTMENT REPORT. (2011). Non-equity modes of international production and development. UNCTAD.Google Scholar

  • WORLD INVESTMENT REPORT. (2014). Investing in the SDGs: an action plan. UNCTAD.Google Scholar

  • YUKHANAEV, A., SHARMA S., NEVIDIMOVA A. (2014). Subnational determinants of foreign direct investments in the Russian Federation. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research Vol. 1, No. 2. P. 1-10. DOI: 10.15549/jeecar.v1i2.62 Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-06-24

Accepted: 2016-08-30

Published Online: 2016-10-13

Published in Print: 2016-09-01


Citation Information: Review of Economic Perspectives, ISSN (Online) 1804-1663, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/revecp-2016-0015.

Export Citation

© by Oleg Mariev. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in