Investment promotion and facilitation is about creating a favorable
setting for private investment, not necessarily foreign investment only,
and about getting the message that such a setting exists across to
decision-makers in firms. A somewhat simplified view would suggest the
following sequence:
1. Create favorable investment conditions:
- allocate dedicated real estate (e.g. industrial estates)
- create a competitive infrastructure to develop and connect the
industrial estate
- make fiscal incentives and other subsidies available
- facilitate the investment by reducing and simplifying permits and
licenses, and streamlining the processing of permits (including the
creation of first-stop- or one-stop-agencies)
2. Communicate the investment conditions:
- publish advertisements in international trade journals
- send investment missions to potential countries of origin
- promote the location at trade fairs
- invite missions from potential countries of origin
- direct mailing to potential investors, as well as specialized
consultancy firms
3. Constantly upgrade the investment conditions:
- establish fora for frequent communication with investors
- establish feedback mechanism for investors
- adapt the investment conditions to the specific needs of investors
Proceeding in this way can establish the virtuous circle which is
depicted in the following figure.
This kind of approach is oriented at the typical set of criteria a
firm will apply when it selects a location for a new investment. The two
following tables give an overview of the kind of criteria a large
multinational manufacturing firm will apply in, first, selecting an
appropriate country, and, second, a location in that country.
Table 1: Criteria to Evaluate Countries in Investment Decisions
Table 2: Location-specific Criteria
However, before we take a more detailed look at this approach to
investment promotion and facilitation, it is essential to mention one
point: The basic attractiveness of a country is not defined by its
investment promotion policy. The basic attractiveness of a country is
determined by two other factors:
- The overall economic performance. Those countries attract most
investment which have attractive domestic markets. For instance, the
reason why FDI in China exploded since the 1980s is, first and
foremost, the fact that foreign firms perceived China as a very
promising market. The largest part of FDI is market-seeking, i.e.
firms set up factories in countries to produce for the local market.
The more attractive the local market is, the more firms will
consider to set up firms.
- The image of a country. If a country has, in the course of time,
established the perception among multinational firms that doing
business there is convenient, there will be a reinforcing effect.
FDI follows a certain herd effect. But there is more to it than
that. The more foreign investors are active in a given country, the
more political clout they have, in particular in terms of shaping
conditions to their favor. A firm will think twice before it is the
first to go to a given location. The image factor appears to be
particularly relevant when it comes to export-oriented investment.
These factors explain why FDI in developing countries is so massively
clustered in just two handfuls of countries: ten countries accounted for
88.2 % of FDI inflows in developing countries in the first half of the
1990s. Some of them, such as China, Brazil, and Indonesia, have large
domestic markets. Other ones, such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Hong
Kong, have established very positive images with foreign investors,
combined with and reinforced through competent investment promotion
policies.
What conclusion may we draw from this? We suggest that the most
useful conclusion would be to conceptualize investment promotion in the
context of the following force field.
Investment promotion activities alone do little to distinguish a
location. It can do nothing about the aggregate demand in a country, and
it has only limited effect in terms of building image since the image of
a country is a function of the other factors. The other factors are to a
certain extent mutually substitutable. Not all the countries which
attract a lot of FDI are famous for their stable and predictable
macroeconomic policy. Investors are, up to a point, willing to trade
stable macroeconomic conditions with the access to a large market. But
it is quite obvious that a country which ranks low regarding each or
most of the four factors will have little chance of attracting FDI.
The one factor which may not be immediately obvious is "Dynamic
private sector". In this regard, the argument goes like this. A
country which does not have a dynamic private sector (or a dynamic and
competitive sector of government-owned enterprises) may still attract
FDI, but only of a specific variety, namely extremely low value-added,
such as isolated steps of garments assembly. The income effect, as well
as the structural effect, of such FDI is limited. In all other
activities, a potential investor will look out for competent suppliers,
subcontractors, and service providers, and if he does not find them he
will look somewhere else. Accordingly, we would argue that attraction of
FDI and private sector development are complementary activities.
Specific instruments regarding investment promotion are the following:
top