Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in the Visegrad Group Countries After the Eu Enlargement

Su, Weihua; Zhang, Dongcai; Zhang, Chonghui; Abrhám, Josef; Simionescu, Mihaela; Yaroshevich, Natalya; Guseva, Valentina E.

doi:10.3846/tede.2018.5487

Cited by 30 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…: Boghean, State, 2015). Furthermore, Su et. al (2018) have analysed the V4 countries post-EU accession and identified a significant relationship between FDI and high-skilled labour force.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Determinants of Foreign Direct Investments in the Visegrad Group Countries

Wojciechowski

Makieła

2019

Folia Oeconomica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to investigate determinants of foreign direct investments (FDI) in the Visegrad Group countries. The theory indicates that FDI are mainly driven by market and efficiency seeking motives. Foreign investors are looking for a productive and relatively low‑cost business environment, which leads us to the assumption that productivity is one of key drivers of foreign capital. In order to verify this, we formulate a model based on a system of two equations: one for production to capture productivity and one for FDI to assess the influence of productivity on FDI. For robustness check, a number of macroeconomic and institutional factors are also considered. The study is conducted using a panel of 13 NACE industry sectors of the Visegrad Group countries in 2004-2013. The results indicate a positive, significant relationship between FDI and productivity as well as that market size, labour quality (and quantity), R&D expenditures and price changes over time are relevant FDI determinants at an industry level.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Determinants of Foreign Direct Investments in the Visegrad Group Countries

Wojciechowski

Makieła

2019

Folia Oeconomica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cicak & Soric (2015) found that FDI Granger has caused GDP growth in most of the ten European transition countries that were examined. For the period 2005-2016, Su et al (2018) found a significant relationship between FDI, the corruption index and a labour force with advanced education, but only in the long term in the Visegrad group countries (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia) after the EU enlargement. Stanisic (2008) did not find a positive correlation between FDI and economic growth using a sample of seven countries of Southeast Europe over the period [1997][1998][1999][2000][2001][2002][2003][2004][2005][2006].…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 96%

FDI and Economic Growth in EU13 Countries: Cointegration and Causality Tests

Bilas¹

2020

JOC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foreign direct investments are seen as a prerequisite for gaining and maintaining competitiveness. The research objective of this study is to examine the relationship between foreign direct investment (FDI) and economic growth in “new” European Union member countries using various unit root, cointegration, as well as causality tests. The paper employs annual data for FDI and gross domestic product (GDP) from 2002 to 2018 for the 13 most recent members of European Union (EU13): Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. An estimated panel ARDL (PMG) model found evidence that there is a long-run equilibrium between the LogGDP, LogFDI and LogFDIP series, with the rate of adjustment back to equilibrium between 3.27% and 20.67%. In the case of the LogFDI series, long-run coefficients are highly statistically significant in all four models, varying between 0.0828 and 0.3019. These coefficients indicate that a 1% increase in LogFDI increases LogGDP between 0.0828% and 0.3019%. Results of a Dumitrescu-Hurlin panel causality test indicated that a relationship between the GDP growth rate and FDI growth rate is only indirect. Finally, only weak evidence was shown that FDI had a statistically significant impact on GDP in the EU13 countries over the period 2002-2018. This report of findings contributes to the literature concerning FDI and economic growth, namely regarding the current understanding of the relationship between these two factors.

show abstract

“…FDI is also seen as a way to stimulate the economic growth of underdeveloped regions, e.g. : through the creation of new jobs by foreign investors (Petricevic & Teece, 2019;Su et al, 2018;Altomonte & Ottaviano, 2011).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macroeconomic stability and the level of competitiveness in EU member states: a comparative dynamic approach

Roszko‐Wójtowicz

Grzelak

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research background: The choice of the issue of international competitive-ness of economies as the research problem addressed in this paper has been mainly dictated by the changes observed in the nature of the development of EU economies and the need to assess the competitiveness of the Polish economy. It is time to evaluate and learn from the largest enlargement in the history of the EU which took place in May 2004. An assessment of changes in the state of EU economies, including the Polish economy, is in the centre of research interest of many scientists. National competitiveness is the subject of a great deal of research and economic studies. Integration and globalisation processes in the world economy are the main reasons for the popularity of this topic. The efficient use of sources and factors determining the competitiveness of economies, sectors and enterprises is associated with prosperity over the long term. One of the methods based on the observation of selected basic indicators of economic competitiveness is the method of analysis called the macroeconomic stabilisation pentagon. The method illustrates the extent to which the government achieves five macroeconomic objectives. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to meet all these objectives at the same time. The difficulty of meeting all these goals concurrently is due to the fact that they are more or less competitive rather than complementary. The proposed assessment of competitiveness based on the developed model of macroeconomic stabilisation pentagon is a unique approach in terms of discussion of country?s competitiveness. This approach significantly distinguishes the current study in comparison with standard international reports on competitiveness such as the Global Competitiveness Index or the EU Regional Competitiveness Index. Purpose of the article: The main aim of the paper is to assess the competitiveness of EU economies in the years 2005?2018, based on a selected set of diagnostic variables referring to the concept of macroeconomic stabilisation pentagon. The paper also formulates a detailed list of four research hypotheses. Methods: In order to characterise the competitiveness of the European Union economies, including the EU?15 and EU?13 groups, as well as the Visegrad group, six diagnostic variables affecting the economic situation of individual EU countries were analysed. The variables for analysis were chosen so as to reliably describe the competitive position of a given country, at the same time referring in a substantive sense to the concept of macroeconomic stabilisation pentagon. The linear ordering of objects was made using the reference Hellwig method. The selected method enabled the development of competitiveness rankings of EU Member States in the years 2005, 2009, and 2018. Findings & Value added: The comparative analysis of the main macroeconomic indicators conducted in the paper forms the basis for assessing the cur-rent state of the EU economy in relation to other countries. In the paper, the authors depart from the standard elaboration of ?magic pentagon.? Instead, they apply the variables used in the macroeconomic stabilisation pentagon analysis to develop competitiveness rankings of EU Member States. The con-ducted empirical study has confirmed that the 15th anniversary of EU member-ship had a decidedly positive impact on the level of economic development of the EU?13 countries.

show abstract

Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in the Visegrad Group Countries After the Eu Enlargement

Cited by 30 publications

References 50 publications

Determinants of Foreign Direct Investments in the Visegrad Group Countries

Determinants of Foreign Direct Investments in the Visegrad Group Countries

FDI and Economic Growth in EU13 Countries: Cointegration and Causality Tests

Macroeconomic stability and the level of competitiveness in EU member states: a comparative dynamic approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About