Sector-specific foreign direct investment, factor market distortions and non-immiserising growth

Mukherjee, Soumyatanu (2013): Sector-specific foreign direct investment, factor market distortions and non-immiserising growth.

Abstract

This paper explores a 3×3 full-employment H-O-S model with tariff-protection in the capital-intensive import-competing sector and inflows of FDI (foreign direct investment) to an export sector (using foreign capital as a specific input) within the ‘foreign enclave’ of a small open developing economy; whereas there are labour market distortion in the domestic organised tariff-protected import-competing sector and capital market distortion in the domestic unorganised sector of this typical economy. I have considered implications of sector-specific foreign capital inflows on national income (or social welfare, crudely however) of the economy under two different scenarios: when entire income from foreign capital is fully repatriated back to the source country; and when supply of FDI is a positive function of net return to foreign capital in the recipient country, coupled with labour-augmenting type technology transfer. It is found that the possibility of non-immiserising growth improves in the presence of labour market distortion in the organised sector while credit market imperfection in the unorganised sector deteriorates it. However in the presence of technology transfer, existence of labour market distortion is no longer a necessary condition for obtaining such result due to foreign capital inflows to the foreign enclave of this small open developing economy. Existence of output-generated increasing returns in the sector within the foreign enclave will not alter our results; while under the second scenario it will enhance the possibility of non-immiserising growth by raising the tax-revenue from foreign capital income in the host country through increasing the rental to foreign capital. These results are counter-intuitive with respect to the existing theoretical results suggesting immiserising growth owing to sector-specific foreign capital inflows using 3×3 or 2×3 full-employment models without any linkages.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Sector-specific FDI; Foreign Enclave; General Equilibrium; Labour Market Distortion; Technology Transfer.
• Subjects: F - International Economics > F1 - Trade > F11 - Neoclassical Models of Trade; F - International Economics > F1 - Trade > F12 - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies ; Fragmentation; F - International Economics > F1 - Trade > F13 - Trade Policy ; International Trade Organizations; F - International Economics > F1 - Trade > F16 - Trade and Labor Market Interactions; F - International Economics > F3 - International Finance > F35 - Foreign Aid; F - International Economics > F6 - Economic Impacts of Globalization > F66 - Labor

References

1. Beladi, H. and Marjit, S. (1992), ‘Foreign capital and protectionism’, Canadian Journal of Economics 25(1), pp. 233-238.

2. Besley, T. and Burgess, R. (2004), ‘Can Labor Regulation Hinder Economic Performance? Evidence from India’, The Quarterly journal of economics 119 (1), pp. 91-134.

3. Bhalotra, S. (2002), ‘The Impact of Economic Liberalisation on Employment and wages in India’, ILO, Geneva.

4. Chaudhuri, S. (2001), ‘Foreign Capital Inflow, Technology Transfer, and National Income’, Pakistan Development Review 40(1), pp. 49-56.

5. Chaudhuri, S. (2003), ‘How and how far to liberalize a developing economy with informal sector and factor market distortions’, J. Int. Trade & Economic Development 12(4), pp. 403-428.

5. Chaudhuri, S. (2005), ‘Labour Market Distortion, Technology Transfer and Gainful Effects of Foreign Capital’, The Manchester School 73(2), pp. 214–227.

6. Chaudhuri, S. and Mukhopadhyay, U. (2010), ‘Revisiting the Informal Sector: A General Equilibrium Approach’, New York: Springer, 33-35.

7. Din, M.-u. (1994), “Export Processing Zones and Backward Linkage,” Journal of Development Economics 43, pp. 369-385.

8. Findlay, R. (1978). ‘Relative Backwardness, Direct Foreign Investment and the Transfer of Technology: a Simple Dynamic Model’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 92, pp. 1–16.

9. Hamada, K. (1974), ‘An Economic Analysis of the Duty Free Zone’, Journal of International Economics 4, pp. 225–241.

10. Hamilton, C. and L. O. Svensson (1982), ‘On the Welfare Effects of a ‘Duty Free’ Zone’, Journal of International Economics 13, pp. 45–64.

11. Koizumi, T. and Kopecky, K. J. (1977), ‘Economic Growth, Capital Movements and the International Transfer of Technical Knowledge’, Journal of International Economics 7, pp. 45–65.

12. Koizumi, T. and Kopecky, K. J. (1980), ‘Foreign direct investment, technology transfer and domestic employment effects’, Journal of International Economics 10, pp. 1–20.

13. Mansfield, E. M. (1961), ‘Technical Change and the Rate of Imitation’, Econometrica 29, pp. 741–766.

14. Mansfield, E. M. (1968), Industrial Research and Technological Innovation, New York, Norton.

15. Mukherjee, Soumyatanu (2012), ‘Revisiting the Apparent Paradox: Foreign Capital Inflow, Welfare Amelioration and ‘Jobless Growth’ with Agricultural Dualism and Non-traded Intermediate Input’; Journal of Economic Integration, 27(1), pp. 123-133.

16. Mukherjee, Soumyatanu (2013), ‘Liberalization and 'Jobless Growth' - Some Extended Results’; forthcoming in Journal of Economic Integration.

17. Mukhopadhyay, U. (2008), ‘Desirability and Sequence of Liberalization and Structural Reform Policies in a Model with Informal Sector’, Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies 20(1), pp. 70-84.

18. Yabuuchi, S. (2000), ‘Export Processing Zones, Backward Linkages, and Variable Returns to Scale’, Review of Development Economics 4(3), pp. 268–278.