Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 1 No. 2 (2015)
September 2015: International Business and Global Economy

Articles

The impact of FDI and domestic business climate on local entrepreneurship in Transcaucasia: A case of Georgia in the years 2005 – 2015

Published 2016-10-12

  • Ucha Surmanidze

Ucha Surmanidze
Cracow University of Economics

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to examine the impact of FDI inflow on local entrepreneurship in Georgia. The secondary objective of the article is to determine what effects the business climate in the country has on the growth of local entrepreneurs. To verify the impact of foreign investments on domestic entrepreneurship, dynamics of active local enterprises in Georgia in the years 2005-2014 is used as a dependent variable. In regard with business climate, international business and credit rankings were selected to show how they are interrelated with foreign investments and how they affect domestic entrepreneurs. FDI has no significant effect on local entrepreneurship in Georgia, neither on their growth, nor on their fall, as Its share in the local economy is nominal. It is noteworthy, however, that inflow of foreign capital has positive impact on the country’s business climate, promoting its image and rising international recognition. The favorable business climate can help many local enterprises, especially SMEs, to benefit from liberal environment, financial and tax incentives, less regulation and bureaucracy. This paper intends to enrich relatively poor literature about FDI effects on Transcaucasian countries, providing a clear understanding to what extend the local entrepreneurship are under the influence of FDI and general business climate in the country.

Keywords

FDI, entrepreneurship, business climate, Transcaucasia, Georgia

PDF

References

  1. investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review, 89(3), 605 – 618.
  2. Ayyagari, M. & Kosova, R. (2010). Does FDI facilitate domestic entry? Evidence from the Czech Republic, Review of International Economics, 18(1), 14 – 29.
  3. Barrios, S., Görg, H., & Strobl, E. (2005). Foreign direct investment, competition and industrial development in the host country. European Economic Review, 49(7), 1761–1784.
  4. Barry, F., Görg, H.. & Strobl, E.(2003). Foreign direct investment, agglomerations, and demonstration effects: An empirical investigation, Review of World Economics, 139(4), 583 – 600.
  5. Bellak, C., Leibrecht, M., & Stehrer, R. (2008). Policies to attract Foreign Direct Investment: An industry – level analysis. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  6. Blanchard, P., Gaigne, C., & Mathieu, C. (2009). Multinationals and domestic firms in France: Who gains from productivity spillovers? Micro‐Dyn Working Paper, No. 01/09.
  7. Bulow, J., Geanakoplos, J., & Klemperer, P. (1985). Multimarket oligopoly: Strategic substitutes and complements, Journal of Political Economy, 93(3), 489 – 511.
  8. Caves, R. (1996). Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Christiansen, H. & Ogutcu, M. (2002): Foreign direct investment for development – Maximizing benefits, minimizing costs. Shanghai: OECD. Global forum on international investment.
  10. De Backer, K., & Sleuwaegen, L. (2003). Does foreign direct investment crowd out domestic entrepreneurship? Review of Industrial Organization, 22(1), 67 – 84.
  11. Djankov, S., & Hoekman, B. (2000). Foreign investment and productivity growth in Czech enterprises, World Bank Economic Review, 14(1), 49 – 64.
  12. Doytch, N., & Epperson, N. (2012). FDI and Entrepreneurship in Developing Countries. Global Science and Technology Forum Business Review, 1, 120 – 125.
  13. Dunning, H. J. (1980). Towards an eclectic theory of international production: some empirical tests. Journal of International Business Studies, 11(1), 9 – 31.
  14. Dunning, H. J. (1981). Explaining the International Direct Investment Positions of Countries: Towards a Dynamic or Development Approach. Review of World Economics, 117(1), 30 – 64.
  15. Dunning, H. J. (1986). The Investment Development Cycle Revisited. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, No. 122, 667 – 677.
  16. Dunning, H. J. (1993). Multinational enterprises and the global economy, Wokingham, Berkshire: Addison Wesley.
  17. Dunning, H. J. (1998). Location and the multinational enterprise: a neglected factor. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1), 45 – 66.
  18. Fosfuri, A., Motta, M., & Ronde, T. (2001). Foreign direct investment and spillovers through labor mobility, Journal of International Economics, 53(1), 205 – 222.
  19. Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1984). The fat‐cat effect, the puppy‐dog ploy, and the lean and hungry look. American Economic Review, 74(2), 361 – 366.
  20. Greenaway, D., Sousa, N., & Wakelin, K (2004). Do domestic firms learn to export from multinationals? European Journal of Political Economy, 20(4), 1027 – 1043.
  21. Grossman, G. (1984). International trade, foreign investment, and the formation of the entrepreneurial class, American Economic Review, 74(4), 605 – 614.
  22. Haskel, J., Pereira, S., & Slaughter, M. (2007). Does inward foreign direct investment boost the productivity of domestic firms? Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3), 482 – 496.
  23. Javorcik, B.S. (2004). Does foreign investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages. American Economic Review, 94 (3), 605 – 627.
  24. Javorcik, B., & Spatareanu, M. (2008). To share or not to share: Does local participation matter for spillovers from foreign direct investment, Journal of Development Economics, 85(1-2), 194 – 217.
  25. Jovanovic, B., & MacDonald, G. (1994). The Life Cycle of a Competitive Industry, Journal of Political Economy, 102(2), 322 – 347.
  26. Kim, P.. & Li, M. (2012). Injecting demand through spillovers: Foreign direct investment, domestic socio-political conditions, and host-country entrepreneurial activity, Journal of Business Venturing, 29(2), 210 – 231.
  27. Kokko, A. (1992). Foreign direct investment, host country characteristics, and spillovers. Stockholm: The Economic Research Institute.
  28. Konings, J. (2001). The Effects of Foreign Direct Investment on Domestic Firms: Evidence from Firm Panel Data in Emerging Economies, Economics of Transition, 9(3), 619–633.
  29. Mallampally, P., & Sauvant, K. (1999). Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries. Finance & Development, 36(1), 134 – 37.
  30. Markusen, J. R. & Venables, A. J. (1999). Foreign direct investment as a catalyst for industrial development. European Economic Review, 43(2), 335 – 356.
  31. Sabirianova, P., Svejnar, J. & Terrell, K. (2005). FDI Spillovers and Distance of Firms to the Frontier. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(2), 576 – 586.
  32. Wach, K., & Wojciechowski, L. (2014). The Factors of Outward FDI from V4 Countries from the Perspective of EU and EMU Membership: A Panel Gravity Model Approach, Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Oeconomica, 5(307), 157 – 170.
  33. Wach, K., & Wojciechowski, L. (2016). Determinants of Inward FDI into Visegrad Countries: Empirical Evidence based on Panel Data for the years 2000-2012, Economics and Business Review, 2(1), 64-52.
  34. Wilhelm, S., & Witter, M. (1998). Foreign Direct Investment and its Determinants in Emerging Economies. African Economic Policy Paper, Discussion Paper 9. Washington: United States Agency for International Development.
  35. Wojciechowski, L. (2013). The Determinants of FDI Flows from the EU-15 to the Visegrad Group Countries – A Panel Gravity Model Approach, Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 1(1), 7 – 22.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.