Key drivers of FDI location: Theoretical perspectives and recent global trends
Key highlights
- Canada is at a crossroads, with international trade relationships changing quickly. This paper takes a step back to explore why firms choose to invest abroad, offering insights that could help guide policies to better attract and keep foreign investment in Canada during this important time.
- The literature highlights that foreign direct investment (FDI) location decisions are shaped by a combination of firm-level, country-level, strategic, and sector-specific factors, reflecting the complex and multi-dimensional nature of international investment choices.
- A well-established survey of CEOs reveals that in 2025, the most important factors influencing FDI location choices were the efficiency of legal and regulatory processes and the domestic economic performance.
- Compared to 2021, investors placed greater emphasis on economic fundamentals and supply chain resilience, while factors related to governance - such as corruption control and tax policy - lost prominence.
- High-quality infrastructure and strong economic performance are the top two FDI location factors motivating investors to consider Canada in 2025, followed by technological innovation and ease of doing business. Given that these factors are almost equally cited by CEOs, it suggests that the country has a broad-based appeal and is perceived as a stable, advanced, and business-friendly destination for FDI.
- Over the past five years, Canada stands out with a strong and stable performance in the FDI Confidence Index, ranking second after the United States in four of the five years, while other major economies such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, and France show more variability, reflecting shifting investor perceptions and confidence levels.
Theoretical perspectives for FDI location
Understanding the factors that influence FDI location choices is critical for policymakers and stakeholders aiming to attract and retain international capital. Drawing on various theoretical perspectives, the literature identifies a wide range of determinants that shape investment decisions.
Based on Abu Bakar et al. (2022) literature review, six theoretical frameworks have been identified for influencing/explaining FDI location choices: i) capital market theory, ii) transaction cost theory, iii) product life cycle theory, iv) internationalization theory, v) the eclectic paradigm, and vi) entry mode theory (see Table 1).
Table 1: Theories explaining FDI location decisions
| Theory | Summary of key concepts |
|---|---|
| Source: Abu Bakar et al. (2022) literature review | |
| Capital market theory | Explains FDI decisions based on exchange rates and interest rates. Firms are more likely to invest abroad when their home currency is strong, while those in countries with weaker currencies are less inclined to expand (Aliber, 1971; Moosa, 2002; Faeth, 2009). |
| Transaction cost theory | Suggests that firms engage in FDI to minimize the costs of international operations - such as negotiating, monitoring, and enforcing contracts (Buckley, 1985). When market transactions become costly due to asset specificity, uncertainty, or high frequency, firms prefer internalizing operations through FDI. If production abroad is cheaper and transaction costs are high, establishing a foreign subsidiary becomes the most efficient choice (Hennart, 1982; Baumol, 1986). |
| Product life cycle theory | Explains that FDI is used by companies to adapt as their products evolve. As a product moves through four stages — innovation, growth, maturity, and decline — firms shift from exporting to producing directly in foreign markets through FDI. Location decisions depend on the needs at each stage: innovation requires advanced infrastructure, maturity involves diversifying production sources, and standardized products seek lower production costs to reach new markets. (Vernon, 1979; Vernon, 1992). |
| Internationalisation theory | Offers a different perspective on FDI by emphasizing the role of intermediate inputs and technology. According to this theory, firms expand their operations abroad to overcome market failures (especially in the transfer of intermediate goods and technology) and improve their monopolistic advantage (Kang and Jiang, 2012). |
| The eclectic paradigm (OLI Model) | Explains FDI through three key advantages: Ownership (firm-specific assets like copyrighted technology or branding), Location (benefits tied to a particular country such as tax incentives, lower costs and lower risk), and Internalisation (gains from keeping operations within the firm to reduce transaction costs). Together, these factors determine why and where multinational corporations invest abroad (Dunning, 1980). |
| Entry mode theory | Building on the eclectic paradigm, Dunning (1993) identifies four types of FDI based on firms' motivations. (i) Resource-seeking FDI targets natural resources or low-cost labor, especially in resource-rich or labor-intensive sectors (Kang & Liu, 2016). (ii) Market-seeking FDI aims to expand into new markets to sell surplus output and adapt products to local preferences (Franco, 2013). (iii) Efficiency-seeking FDI involves investments aimed at improving operational efficiency by exploiting cross-border differences in costs, policies, and market conditions (Dunning & Lundan, 2008), while benefiting from economies of scale and scope. (iv) Strategic asset-seeking FDI focuses on acquiring local firms or assets to strengthen global competitiveness and counter rivals, particularly in oligopolistic markets (Wadhwa & Reddy, 2011; Hoenen & Hansen, 2009). |
These theories provide the foundation for understanding how firms evaluate and select FDI destinations. Building on this theoretical base, various studies categorize the drivers of FDI location decisions into four groups: micro, macro, strategic and sector-specific factors (Wang & Swain, 1997; Liu et al., 1997; Zhang, 2000; Wei & Liu, 2001; Zhang, 2002; Liu, 2009; Agustina & Flath, 2020).
Micro factors refer to firm-specific advantages — including knowledge and experience in foreign markets, firm size, technological capabilities, and product differentiation — that influence multinational enterprises’ (MNEs’) decisions on where to invest. These factors shape a firm’s ability to reduce cost and uncertainty of operating in a foreign market, leverage economies of scale and scope, maintain innovation advantages, and strategically position its products across markets.
Macro factors relate to country-level characteristics that shape the attractiveness of a host country for FDI, including market size, human capital, well-developed infrastructure facilities, government’s commitment to contracts, political stability, control of corruption, trade openness, ease of doing business, tax policy and rate, inflation rate, exchange rate, location advantages to benefit on agglomeration effect, developed financial system, FDI attraction policies and socio-cultural factors.
Strategic factors refer to long-term considerations influencing MNEs’ FDI decisions, primarily aimed at maintaining or strengthening their global market position. These include defending existing foreign markets from competitors, diversifying business operations to reduce market-specific risks, and engaging in exchange-of-threat strategies by investing abroad in response to foreign competitors entering their domestic market.
Sector-specific factors highlight that certain industries may prioritize particular elements, such as low labor and transportation costs or access to research and development (R&D) resources, which are not necessarily relevant to all sectors.
This multi-dimensional framework illustrates the complexity of FDI decision-making and underscores the importance of context - both at the firm level and across industries and countries - in shaping investment strategies.
Recent global trends for FDI location (2021–2025)
To monitor the recent global trends, we rely on the Kearney FDI Confidence Index (FDICI), an annual survey of global business executives that (i) ranks markets based on the likelihood of attracting the most investment over the next three years and (ii) highlights key factors that companies consider when deciding where to invest.
Compared to the grouping of 'micro’, ‘macro’, ‘strategic’, and ‘sector-specific' factors, the Kearney FDICI is more closely aligned with macro-level factors, and several connections can be established between the two. For instance, inflation and exchange rates—typically categorized as macroeconomic factors—are reflected in the Kearney FDICI through the dimension of domestic economic performance. Similarly, human capital is captured in the Kearney FDICI via indicators such as talent and skill levels, labor costs, and technological and innovation capabilities (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Matching Kearney FDICI factors to macro factors from the empirical literature
Text version - Figure 1
| Kearney FDICI factors | Macro factors |
|---|---|
| General security environment | Political stability |
| Infrastructure quality | Well-developed infrastructure facilities |
| Availability of land/real estate | Well-developed infrastructure facilities |
| Domestic market size | Market size |
| Availability of raw materials and other inputs | Location advantages to benefit on agglomeration effect |
| Diversified supply chain | Location advantages to benefit on agglomeration effect |
| Lack of corruption | Control of corruption |
| Ease of moving capital into and out of the market | Developed financial system |
| Talent/skill level of labor pool | Human capital |
| Cost of labor | Human capital |
| Technological and innovation capabilities | Human capital |
| Domestic economic performance | Exchange rate |
| Domestic economic performance | Inflation rate |
| Market's participation in regional/bilateral trade agreements | Trade openness |
| Tax rates and ease of tax payment | Tax policy and rate |
| Strength of investor and property rights | Government’s commitment to contracts |
| Government incentives for investors | FDI attraction policies |
Data: 2025 Kearney FDICI and Abu Bakar et al. (2022)
Source: Office of the Chief Economist, Global Affairs Canada
Moreover, the Kearney FDICI organizes its determinants into two overarching categories: i) governance and regulatory factors, and ii) market asset and infrastructure factors.
Governance and regulatory factors refer to the institutional and policy environment of the host country. They include the efficiency of legal and regulatory processes, the ease of moving capital into and out of the market, tax rates and ease of tax payment, government incentives for investors, the market's participation in regional/bilateral trade agreements, the strength of investor and property rights, and the lack of corruption.
Market asset and infrastructure factors, on the other hand, reflect the economic and physical characteristics that support investment. These include domestic economic performance, technological and innovation capabilities, infrastructure quality, diversified supply chain, cost of labor, domestic market size, talent/skill level of labor pool, the availability of raw materials and other inputs, the general security environment, and the availability of land or real estate.
What drives companies to choose specific FDI locations
According to the 2025 Kearney FDICI, the two most critical factors guiding investors’ FDI location decisions are i) the efficiency of legal and regulatory processes, and ii) the domestic economic performance, both ranked equally at the top. They are followed closely by iii) technological and innovation capabilities, and iv) the ease of moving capital into and out of the market. (Figure 2)
Compared to 2021, the factors that increased the most are domestic economic performance (which doubled in importance – from 8% to 16%), infrastructure quality (from 8% to 13%), and availability of raw materials and other inputs (from 6% to 10%). This rise in importance of these factors indicates that investors are placing greater emphasis on economic indicators when deciding where to allocate FDI.
In light of the numerous shocks that have affected the global economy in recent years, investors seem to be paying closer attention to how individual markets are reacting and adapting.
In addition, a new factor has been added compared to 2021 – the diversified supply chain – which has been included since 2023. This inclusion may reflect growing investor concern over escalating geopolitical risks and the potential supply chain disruptions that could result in higher commodity prices.
Figure 2: Most important factors that companies consider when choosing where to make FDI (%)
Text version - Figure 2
| Important factors | 2025 | 2021 |
|---|---|---|
| Efficiency of legal and regulatory processes* | 16% | 13% |
| Domestic economic performance** | 16% | 8% |
| Technological and innovation capabilities** | 15% | 15% |
| Ease of moving capital into and out of the market* | 14% | 11% |
| Tax rates and ease of tax payment* | 13% | 16% |
| Infrastructure quality** | 13% | 8% |
| Government incentives for investors* | 13% | 12% |
| Market's participation in reg./bilat. trade agreements* | 12% | 9% |
| Diversified supply chain** | 11% | |
| Cost of labor** | 11% | 11% |
| Domestic market size** | 11% | 10% |
| Strength of investor and property rights* | 10% | 12% |
| Talent/skill level of labor pool** | 10% | 8% |
| Availability of raw materials and other inputs** | 10% | 6% |
| General security environment** | 9% | 11% |
| Availability of land/real estate** | 8% | 6% |
| Lack of corruption* | 5% | 13% |
* Governance and regulatory factors
** Market asset infrastructure factors
Data: 2021 and 2025 Kearney FDICI
Source: Office of the Chief Economist, Global Affairs Canada
Conversely, the factors that saw the largest declines were lack of corruption, which dropped sharply from 13% to 5%, and tax rates and ease of tax payment, which fell from 16% to 13%; in 2021, these two factors ranked 5th and 1st respectively. Strength of investor and property rights and general security environment also experienced slight decreases over the period (they ranked 6th and 10th respectively in 2021, while in 2025 they were 12th and 15th). Meanwhile, from 2021 to 2025, technological and innovation capabilities (15%) and cost of labor (11%) remained stable, reflecting consistent importance to investors.
Changing investor focus: market infrastructure vs. regulatory and governance
When considering the cumulative percentages for both categories, we see that in 2021 and 2022, governance and regulatory factors were prioritized slightly more than market-related factors, with the largest difference (7 percentage points) observed in 2022. Despite these differences, the gap between the two categories remained relatively moderate from 2021 to 2024, with both following a similar trajectory and converging closely in 2023 and 2024. However, a noticeable divergence emerged in 2025: market asset and infrastructure factors surged sharply to 114%, while governance and regulatory factors dropped significantly to 83%. (Figure 3)
Indeed, the three largest increases in importance were recorded among market asset and infrastructure factors, confirming the rising relevance of economic fundamentals and infrastructure in investors' decision-making. In contrast, three out of the four largest decreases were observed within the governance and regulatory factors category, suggesting a relative decline in investor emphasis on institutional and regulatory conditions during this period.
Figure 3: Evolution of investor priorities: Market asset infrastructure vs. Governance and regulatory factors (2021–2025)
Text version - Figure 3
| Investor priorities | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Governance and regulatory factors | 86% | 104% | 100% | 95% | 83% |
| Market asset and infrastructure factors | 83% | 97% | 99% | 94% | 114% |
Data: 2021 - 2025 Kearney FDICI
Source: Office of the Chief Economist, Global Affairs Canada
This marked shift suggests a reorientation of investors’ focus toward market-oriented and infrastructure-related elements, potentially reflecting changing global conditions around market access, supply chain diversification, and economic fundamentals.
Canada holds a top position in the Kearney FDICI
With respect to the FDI confidence index global rankings, the United States consistently holds the top position throughout the last five-year period, underscoring its enduring appeal to foreign investors. Canada also demonstrates strong and stable performance, maintaining the second position in four of the five years, with a brief drop to third place in 2022. Germany shows more fluctuation, rising to second place in 2022 before steadily declining to fifth place in 2024 and 2025. The United Kingdom experienced a dip in 2022 and 2023 but gradually climbed back to third place by 2025, indicating a rebound in investor confidence. Japan presents the most volatility, peaking to third place in 2023 before plunging to seventh place in 2024 and bouncing back to fourth place in 2025. France remained relatively stable in sixth place until 2024, before slipping slightly to seventh place in 2025, overtaken by China (incl. Hong Kong). (Figure 4)
Figure 4: Canada maintains a strong ranking in Kearney FDICI (2021 – 2025)
Text version - Figure 4
| Country | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Canada | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Germany | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Japan | 5 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 4 |
| France | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 |
Note: The 7th place in 2021, 2022 and 2023 was occupied by Australia, Italy and China (incl. Hong Kong) respectively, while the 3rd place in 2024 and the 6th place in 2025 were held by China (incl. Hong Kong), up from 12th in 2021.
Data: 2021 - 2025 Kearney FDICI
Source: Office of the Chief Economist, Global Affairs Canada
Overall, Figure 4 highlights the United States’ and Canada’s solid and resilient performance in attracting FDI, while other countries exhibit more dynamic changes in investor perception over time.
Investment motivations differ across markets
Investor motivations for choosing where to invest vary significantly across countries, reflecting the diverse strengths and priorities of each market. In 2025, while technological innovation is dominant reason in countries like Japan, United States, and China (incl. Hong Kong), others are recognized for labor talent (India) or natural resources (Brazil). These differences underscore the strategic lens through which investors assess and select FDI destinations.
In Canada’s case, the top motivation for FDI location is its infrastructure quality (33%), emphasizing the country's modern and reliable transportation, communication, and utility networks. This strong infrastructure base is essential for reducing operational risks and enabling efficient business activity (Figure 5). The second most important factor is economic performance (30%), highlighting investor confidence in Canada’s macroeconomic stability, growth outlook, and overall market potential. Technological Innovation (28%) emerges as the third significant driver, underscoring Canada’s strength in its thriving tech ecosystem.
Taken together, these findings indicate that Canada’s attractiveness to investors is well diversified. It offers not only solid economic fundamentals but also a conducive business climate and innovation-driven growth, making it one of the most balanced and attractive destinations for FDI in 2025.
Figure 5: Reasons for investing vary by market, 2025 (%)
Text version - Figure 5
| Country | Technological innovation | Ease of doing business | Transparent governance/lack of corruption | Infrastructure quality | Talent/skill of labor pool | Economic performance | Natural resources | None |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 45 | 23 | 14 | 23 | 21 | 40 | 16 | 1 |
| Canada | 28 | 26 | 24 | 33 | 22 | 30 | 17 | 1 |
| United Kingdom | 27 | 26 | 22 | 30 | 26 | 32 | 17 | 2 |
| Japan | 46 | 21 | 16 | 30 | 27 | 31 | 13 | 1 |
| Germany | 37 | 21 | 20 | 29 | 24 | 35 | 13 | 1 |
| China (including Hong Kong) | 42 | 20 | 16 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 18 | 1 |
| France | 28 | 25 | 18 | 31 | 28 | 31 | 18 | 1 |
Data: 2025 Kearney FDICI
Source: Office of the Chief Economist, Global Affairs Canada
Analyzing the top FDI reasons for considering Canada in 2025 Kearney FDICI provides an opportunity to assess how well they align with the economic theories that explain FDI behavior mentioned in Table 1.
While all these motivations can broadly be interpreted as location-specific advantages – and therefore fall under the "L" component of the OLI (Ownership – Location – Internalization) model – this analysis goes a step further. Although several theories may apply to each factor, we focus here on identifying the single theory that most directly explains how each of the motivations drives FDI into Canada. To ensure a more concise and relevant analysis, this discussion focuses only on the four highest-ranked motivations reported for Canada in the 2025 Kearney FDICI.
- High-quality infrastructure (33%) and Technological innovation (28%) may be aligned most closely with the Product Life Cycle Theory. According to this theory, companies adjust their international strategies based on the stage of their product’s development. In the early stages (innovation and growth), firms seek locations that offer advanced infrastructure to support research, development, and specialized production. Canada’s high-quality infrastructure and technological innovation make it an attractive destination for such high-value activities.
- Strong economic performance (30%) may partly be explained by the Capital Market Theory, particularly through the interest rate. Indeed, strong economic performance is often associated with predictable inflation and interest rate policies, which reduces uncertainty and can support long-term investment planning.
- Ease of doing business (26%) may be aligned with the Transaction Cost Theory. When a country offers a transparent and efficient legal and regulatory environment, the costs associated with negotiating, monitoring, and enforcing contracts are reduced. Canada's business-friendly climate makes such internalization strategies more attractive.
Thus, each of Canada’s key FDI attractiveness drivers in 2025 can be meaningfully linked to a specific economic theory, highlighting the rationales behind why multinational firms choose to invest in Canada and how they aim to optimize their global strategies.
Conclusion
This paper brings together key theoretical and empirical insights to better understand the location determinants of FDI. The theorical framework offers different lenses through which we can assess why and where multinational enterprises choose to invest abroad. Complementing this theoretical foundation, the empirical literature further categorizes FDI location drivers into four broad groups – micro, macro, strategic, and sector-specific – highlighting the multifaceted nature of investment decisions.
Recent trends captured by the 2025 Kearney FDICI provide timely insights into how global investors' priorities are evolving. The most important factors shaping FDI location choices in 2025 are the efficiency of legal and regulatory processes and domestic economic performance, followed closely by technological innovation and the ease of capital mobility. Compared to 2021, there has been a noticeable shift toward prioritizing economic fundamentals, including infrastructure quality and access to inputs, possibly in response to evolving global dynamics related to market access, supply chain diversification, and core economic conditions.
Within this changing global context, Canada has maintained a strong and resilient performance in attracting FDI, consistently ranking among the top destinations over the past five years. In 2025, its main FDI drivers – high-quality infrastructure, strong economic performance, technological innovation, and ease of doing business – reflect a well-diversified investment profile. Together, these advantages position Canada as one of the most balanced and attractive destinations for FDI, combining solid economic fundamentals with a business-friendly and innovation-driven environment.
References
Abu Bakar, A. H., Sinnappan, P., Salim, F. A. A., & Teo, P-C., 2022. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Location Selection: A Review of the Literature. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(7), pp. 1271-1291.
Agustina, A., & Flath, D., 2020. Agglomeration and Location Decision of Foreign DirectInvestment (FDI) in Indonesia [Aglomerasi dan Penentuan Lokasi Penanaman Modal Asing (PMA) di Indonesia]. Jurnal Ekonomi & Kebijakan Publik, 10(2), pp. 87-98.
Aliber, R. Z., 1971. The multinational enterprise in a multiple currency world. In: The Multinational Enterprise. London: George Allen & Unwin, pp. 49-56.
Baumol, W. J., 1986. Williamson’s the economic institutions of capitalism. Rand Journal of Economics, 17(2), pp. 279-286.
Buckley, P. J., 1985. A critical view of theories of the multinational enterprise. In: The economic theory of the multinational enterprise. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1-19.
Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M., 2008. Multinational enterprises and the global economy. 2nd ed. Cheltenham; Northampton MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Dunning, J. H., 1980. Toward an eclectic theory of international production: Some empirical tests. Journal of International Business Studies, 11(1), pp. 9-31.
Dunning, J. H., 1993. Multinational enterprises and the global economy. New York: Addison Wesley.
Faeth, I., 2009. Determinants of foreign direct investment–a tale of nine theoretical models. Journal of Economic Surveys, 23(1), pp. 165-196.
Franco, C., 2013. Exports and FDI motivations: Empirical evidence from US foreign subsidiaries. International Business Review, 22(1), pp. 47-62.
Hennart, J. F. M. A., 1982. A theory of multinational enterprise. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Hoenen, A. K., & Hansen, M. W., 2009. Oligopolistic Competition and Foreign Direct Investment: (Re) Integrating the Strategic Management Perspective in the Theory of Multinational Corporations, Copenhagen: Department of Intercultural Communication and Management, Copenhagen Business School.
Kang, Y., & Jiang, F., 2012. FDI location choice of Chinese multinationals in East and Southeast Asia: Traditional economic factors and institutional perspective. Journal of World Business, 47(1), pp. 45-53.
Kang, Y., & Liu, Y., 2016. Natural resource-seeking intent and regulatory forces: Location choice of Chinese outward foreign direct investment in Asia. Management Research Review, 39(10), pp. 1313-1335.
Kearney, 2021. Kearney Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Confidence Index. [Online]
Available at: The 2021 Kearney Foreign Direct Investment Confidence Index®: On shaky ground | Kearney [Accessed 18 09 2025].
Kearney, 2022. Kearney Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Confidence Index. [Online]
Available at: The 2022 Kearney Foreign Direct Investment Confidence Index®: Optimism dashed | Kearney [Accessed 18 09 2025].
Kearney, 2023. Kearney Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Confidence Index. [Online]
Available at: The 2023 Kearney Foreign Direct Investment Confidence Index®: Cautious optimism | Kearney [Accessed 18 09 2025].
Kearney, 2024. Kearney Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Confidence Index. [Online]
Available at: The 2024 Kearney Foreign Direct Investment Confidence Index®: Continued optimism in the face of instability | Kearney [Accessed 18 09 2025].
Kearney, 2025. Kearney Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Confidence Index. [Online]
Available at: The 2025 Kearney Foreign Direct Investment Confidence Index®: World at inflection | Kearney [Accessed 18 09 2025].
Liu, X., Song, H., Wei, Y., & Romilly, P., 1997. Country characteristics and foreign direct investment in China: A panel data analysis. Review of World Economics, 133(2), pp. 313-329.
Liu, Y., 2009. Factors determining location choice of foreign direct investment in China: A perspective from an inland province, Auckland: Doctoral dissertation, Massey University.
Moosa, I. A., 2002. Foreign direct investment: Theory, evidence and practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Vernon, R., 1979. The product cycle hypothesis in a new international environment. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 41(4), pp. 255-267.
Vernon, R., 1992. International investment and international trade in the product cycle. International economic policies and their theoretical foundations (Second Edition), pp. 415-435.
Wadhwa, K., & Reddy, S. S., 2011. Foreign direct investment into developing Asian countries: the role of market seeking, resource seeking and efficiency seeking factors. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(11), p. 219.
Wang, Z. Q., & Swain, N., 1997. Determinants of inflow of foreign direct investment in Hungary and China: Time‐series approach. Journal of International Development: The Journal of the Development Studies Association, 9(5), pp. 695-726.
Wei, Y., & Liu, X., 2001. Foreign direct investment in China: Determinants and impact. Cheltenham; Northampton, MA : Edward Elgar Publishing.
Zhang, K. H., 2000. Why is US direct investment in China so small?. Contemporary Economic Policy, 18(1), pp. 82-94.
- Date modified:
