| ||||||||||||
|
Foreign Direct Investment: New Trends in Transition CountriesIn 1998 the flow of foreign direct investment (FDI) into Central and Eastern Europe reached $23.7 billion, 5.9 percent higher than the previous year. Portfolio investments in the region declined after the Asian financial crisisand declined further still after the Russian and Brazilian crises. However, flows of FDI capital, which tend to aim for longer-term opportunities and make more careful distinctions between regions and countries, increased in Central Europe and Ukraine in 1998, declining only in Russia and Belarus. As the Report of the Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) points out, the regions share of global FDI fell from 4 percent to 2.7 percent; the lions share of last years rise was absorbed by the United States and the EU. FDI to Asias developing economies fell by 11.5 percent, to African countries by 12 percent.General Trends Keeping track of FDI is no simple matter. The latest analysis from UNCTAD differs considerably from other assessments, including that of FIAS (see table page 5). For Poland, for example, UNCTAD calculates that FDI last year was a mere $5.1 billion, whereas the EIU puts the total at $8 billion and Oxford Analytica puts it at $7 billion. Polands own foreign investment agency estimates the total at $11 billion. Despite the differing numbers, there is little dispute that Poland leads the region in absolute numbers. Several other trends can also be seen: · The inflow of FDI to the 10 Eastern Europe countries that have applied for EU membership was $16.5 billion, $5 billion higher than in 1997. · FDI inflows increased significantly over the previous year. · Hungary is making the regions first successful shift to post-privatization FDI; 94 percent of investment went into greenfield projects last year, against 34 percent in 1995. Such investments support restructuring and economic growth more directly than takeovers. · The regions prospects are becoming increasingly dependent on the longer-term development of demand in Western Europe, primarily Germany. The motivation for new FDI in Hungary has shifted from local-market activity to export-oriented ventures. In Poland, tooalthough the large and expanding domestic market attracts an increasing amount of investmentsmany new projects aim to export to the European Union. · Southeast Asia is not a serious competitor of Eastern Europe in attracting FDI. While the main foreign market for Eastern Europe is Western Europe, multinationals settled in Southeast Asia concentrate their export activities on the U.S. and Japanese markets. Competition between European and Asian production sites is confined to Europe-oriented activities. However, this competition has intensified with the emergence of some Eastern European producers as viable alternatives to Asian firmsin the electronics industry, for instance.The highest per capita inflow of FDI was registered in Estonia ($401) followed by the Czech Republic and Lithuania (around $250). Croatia, Hungary, and Poland came next with sums below $200 per capita. In Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovakia per capita FDI was below $100, and in Russia and Ukraine that number remained at around $15. 1999 Trends Investment volumes in the first half of 1999 were generally higher than a year earlier, although this may reflect significant one-off privatization deals rather than a continuous trend: · First-quarter Czech data show a boom in FDI with $608 millionalmost three times more than in the first quarter of 1998. · The Polish balance of payments registered an inflow of $1.14 billion in the first quarter, 13 percent more than last year. · In Hungary $853 million was invested in the first six months, 23 percent more than in the same period of 1998. · In Slovenia five-month data show a doubling of FDI to $45 million. · Bulgaria reported some decrease and Romania an increase of FDI in the first four months of 1999, although these figures do not reflect the negative impact of the Yugoslav crisis. Several investment projects in Bulgaria and Croatia were delayed in May and June. However, a recovery of foreign investment activity in the Balkans might be expected in connection with increasing political stability since June and the progress of reconstruction plans. If Western European economies recover in the second half of this year, FDI in Eastern Europe may surpass the level of 1998.FDI Stocks As a result of an inflow of new capital, methodological changes, and exchange rate fluctuations, the stock of FDI in the region increased by 33 percent in 1998. Methodological differences make stock data less comparable across countries and years than flow data. FDI stocks in countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union reached $104.4 billion, $14.8 billion of it invested in Russia and $72.1 billion in the 10 EU-associated countries. Poland has the highest amount of FDI: $24.8 billion, if the estimation for the 1998 inflow of $7 billion proves to be correct. Hungary comes second with $18.3 billion. For the Czech Republic, revised data include not only equity capital but reinvested profits and inter-company loans, leading to a jump in FDI stocks to $13.5 billion. The size of the FDI stock relative to GDP is generally used to assess the comparative attractiveness of countries to foreign investors. In this respect, Hungary, with FDI stocks at 38.5 percent of GDP, and Estonia, at 35.0 percent of GDP, are far ahead of other Eastern European countries. Indeed, they are among the leading FDI recipients worldwide. The Czech Republic and Latvia have more than the world average of 15 percent of GDP, while Lithuania and Slovenia are near the world average. In the western Balkans the stock of FDI is about 56 percent of GDP. These data broadly reflect the progress of each country in terms of transformation, pace of economic development, and progress of privatization. The lack of basic economic stability in most of the western Balkans has been a major obstacle to investment. Countries bordering the EU are more attractive, owing to their stronger economies and faster transformation, as well as their geographic and cultural proximity. In the more stable Central European region, the choice of privatization method and speed of privatization sales have also been important. Fast sales of state-owned enterprises to the highest bidder allowed foreign investors to take a controlling position over most of the Hungarian manufacturing, financial, and retail sectors. Sales to foreigners were more selective in other countries, where voucher methods and leveraged sales to management dominated. FDI Sources Germany is the largest investor in Central Europe, followed by the United States. The stronger European capital-exporting countriessuch as France, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdomhave a significant presence in almost all Eastern Europe states. Japan shows weak interest in the region. Like the Republic of Korea, Japan is involved in a small number of large projects. U.S. investors prefer larger than average-size investments, with Poland the number one target. Austria has a prominent role in this region, with its proximity compensating for the countrys small size. In tiny Slovenia, for instance, Austrian investors rank number one, surpassing U.S. and German investors. Austria also plays a major role in Slovakia. Neighborly ties to Bulgaria and Romania lead to high levels of FDI support from Turkey and Greece. Russia is not a significant direct investor in the region, except in Poland. FDI in manufacturing is concentrated in car production, electronics, and construction materials. In countries where telecommunications or banking privatization lags behind, manufacturing accounts for more than 50 percent of FDI. Only in Hungary is the manufacturing sector less than a 40 percent share, owing to the progress of privatization in all sectors of the economy, including utilities. Information for this article was excerpted from Oxford Analytica, the Oxford (UK)-based International Research Group. |
| ||||||||||