Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Evidence on the impact of exchange rate regimes...
View graph of relations

Evidence on the impact of exchange rate regimes on foreign direct investment flows

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Evidence on the impact of exchange rate regimes on foreign direct investment flows. / Abbott, Andrew James; De Vita, Glauco.
In: Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 38, No. 3, 01.01.2011, p. 253-274.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Abbott AJ, De Vita G. Evidence on the impact of exchange rate regimes on foreign direct investment flows. Journal of Economic Studies. 2011 Jan 1;38(3):253-274. doi: 10.1108/01443581111152382

Author

Abbott, Andrew James ; De Vita, Glauco. / Evidence on the impact of exchange rate regimes on foreign direct investment flows. In: Journal of Economic Studies. 2011 ; Vol. 38, No. 3. pp. 253-274.

Bibtex

@article{bbe4d84858ba4307a7ee966a23a391e0,
title = "Evidence on the impact of exchange rate regimes on foreign direct investment flows",
abstract = "PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of a menu of country‐pair exchange rate regime combinations upon bilateral foreign direct investment (FDI) flows.Design/methodology/approachThe authors use panel data from 27 OECD and non‐OECD high income countries for the period 1980 to 2003. Instrumental variable estimation of a dynamic panel model within a system generalised methods of moments framework allows us to control for both potential correlation issues and endogeneity bias.FindingsThis paper finds that a currency union is the policy framework most conducive to cross‐border investment. Being a member of EMU also appears to spur greater FDI flows with countries floating their currency vis‐{\`a}‐vis the default regime of a double‐float. Country‐pair regime combinations involving one country fixing its currency and the other floating or being a member of EMU, are found not to be more pro‐FDI than the default regime combination. For country‐pairs fixing or pegging their currency to each other, the effect on bilateral FDI flows is the least consistent across alternative specifications and, hence, the most ambiguous.Originality/valueThe contribution is also distinguished by the comparative use of recently developed “natural” or de facto exchange rate regime classification schemes, in addition to the de jure classification published by the IMF.",
keywords = "Exchange rate regimes, Foreign Direct Investments, International Investments",
author = "Abbott, {Andrew James} and {De Vita}, Glauco",
year = "2011",
month = jan,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1108/01443581111152382",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "253--274",
journal = "Journal of Economic Studies",
issn = "0144-3585",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evidence on the impact of exchange rate regimes on foreign direct investment flows

AU - Abbott, Andrew James

AU - De Vita, Glauco

PY - 2011/1/1

Y1 - 2011/1/1

N2 - PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of a menu of country‐pair exchange rate regime combinations upon bilateral foreign direct investment (FDI) flows.Design/methodology/approachThe authors use panel data from 27 OECD and non‐OECD high income countries for the period 1980 to 2003. Instrumental variable estimation of a dynamic panel model within a system generalised methods of moments framework allows us to control for both potential correlation issues and endogeneity bias.FindingsThis paper finds that a currency union is the policy framework most conducive to cross‐border investment. Being a member of EMU also appears to spur greater FDI flows with countries floating their currency vis‐à‐vis the default regime of a double‐float. Country‐pair regime combinations involving one country fixing its currency and the other floating or being a member of EMU, are found not to be more pro‐FDI than the default regime combination. For country‐pairs fixing or pegging their currency to each other, the effect on bilateral FDI flows is the least consistent across alternative specifications and, hence, the most ambiguous.Originality/valueThe contribution is also distinguished by the comparative use of recently developed “natural” or de facto exchange rate regime classification schemes, in addition to the de jure classification published by the IMF.

AB - PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of a menu of country‐pair exchange rate regime combinations upon bilateral foreign direct investment (FDI) flows.Design/methodology/approachThe authors use panel data from 27 OECD and non‐OECD high income countries for the period 1980 to 2003. Instrumental variable estimation of a dynamic panel model within a system generalised methods of moments framework allows us to control for both potential correlation issues and endogeneity bias.FindingsThis paper finds that a currency union is the policy framework most conducive to cross‐border investment. Being a member of EMU also appears to spur greater FDI flows with countries floating their currency vis‐à‐vis the default regime of a double‐float. Country‐pair regime combinations involving one country fixing its currency and the other floating or being a member of EMU, are found not to be more pro‐FDI than the default regime combination. For country‐pairs fixing or pegging their currency to each other, the effect on bilateral FDI flows is the least consistent across alternative specifications and, hence, the most ambiguous.Originality/valueThe contribution is also distinguished by the comparative use of recently developed “natural” or de facto exchange rate regime classification schemes, in addition to the de jure classification published by the IMF.

KW - Exchange rate regimes

KW - Foreign Direct Investments

KW - International Investments

U2 - 10.1108/01443581111152382

DO - 10.1108/01443581111152382

M3 - Journal article

VL - 38

SP - 253

EP - 274

JO - Journal of Economic Studies

JF - Journal of Economic Studies

SN - 0144-3585

IS - 3

ER -