Foreign direct investment. Foreign direct investment is another factor that has been associated with economic growth. The majority of the existing evidence seems to suggest that there is a positive impact between foreign direct investment and economic growth. There are many reasons to expect such an impact. For example, foreign direct investment increases the rate of technical progress in the host country through a ‘contagion' effect from the more advanced technology, management practices, etc. used by the foreign firms. Xxxx incorporates this idea into a model more in line with the neoclassical growth framework, by assuming that the increase in ‘knowledge' applied to production is determined as a function of foreign direct investment (FDI).158 Theory on the impact of foreign direct investment on economic growth throws up conflicting arguments. The economic rationale for offering special incentives to attract foreign direct investment stems from the assumption that foreign investment produces externalities in the form of technology transfers and spill-overs. Xxxxx, for example, argues that important ‘ideas gaps’ exist between rich and poor countries.159 He notes that foreign investment can ease the transfer of technological and business know-how to poorer countries. According to this view, foreign direct investment can boost production of all firms – not just those receiving foreign capital. Thus, transfer of technology through foreign direct investment may have substantial spill-over effects on the entire economy. In contrast, however, Xxxx and 158 Xxxx, X-X. (1990), ‘Growth, technology transfer, and the long-run theory of international capital movements’. Journal of International Economics 29, pp. 255–271.
Foreign direct investment. The reasons for the US trade deficit with Mexico can be explained by the rapidly growing inves- tments in Mexico form private investors trying to take advantage of the duty free access to the US market as well as lower labor costs. According to Xxxxx (2011), NAFTA made Mexico a safer and attractive place for investors to outsource the US manufacturing production thanks to mechanisms for solving disputes that were part of the agreement. With NAFTA, investments in Mexico grew up at 2.9% a year, on average, almost three times the rate before the agreement. The US was the largest source of foreign direct investment in Mexico, going from $17 billion in 1994 to $97.9 billion in 2009, at a rate of 477% (Xxxxxxxxxx, 2011). And that was actually what Mexico was looking for by opening its markets. Most of these investments took place during the first years after the agreement was enforced. After that, the US investments in Mexico decreased as well as the trade as the result of the 2008 crisis, the increased violence in Mexico, especially at Northern Border States, and the increasing role of China in the international market (Xxxxxxxx, 2004). Most of these investments went to the manufactu- ring industry as maquilas9, whose number expan- ded from 1,920 in 1990 to 3,590 in 2000. In total, 5,245 export assembly plants (maquilas and other manufacturing) existed in Mexico by 2009, textile apparel and automotive industries being the main target. After all, key provisions of NAFTA encourage investment liberalization probably more than trade liberalization10. 9 Factories that import material and equipment on tariff free basis for manufacturing and re-export the products back to the country of origin.
Foreign direct investment. Any investment by the Bidder, which is a foreign company and not registered under Companies Act 1956/ 2013, shall comply with the latest Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policies as issued by Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India (GOI) and other rules and regulations as notified by GOI and Reserve Bank of India. The Bidder shall acquaint himself with all the policies and implications if any, for the proposed Proposal before submission of the Proposal.
Foreign direct investment. 1. Austria
Foreign direct investment. No Equityholder shall make any filing, take any position or take any other action (and each Equityholder represents that it has not made any such filing, taken any such position or taken any other such action) that is inconsistent with, or reasonably likely to result in a revocation of, the treatment of the Contributions (and/or any additional or subsequent investments in or contributions to the Company by the parties hereto) as a “foreign direct investment” under the Foreign Investment Promotion Act, the Commercial Code and the Special Tax Treatment Control Act, in each case of the Republic of Korea.
