Search

This paper examines the source country determinants of FDI into Japan. The paper highlights certain methodological and theoretical weaknesses in the previous literature and offers some explanations for hitherto ambiguous results. Specifically, the paper highlights the importance of panel data analysis, and the identification of fixed effects in the analysis rather than simply pooling the data. Indeed, we argue that many of the results reported elsewhere are a feature of this mis-specification. To this end, pooled, fixed effects and random effects estimates are compared. The results suggest that FDI into Japan is inversely related to trade flows, such that trade and FDI are substitutes. Moreover, the results also suggest that FDI increases with home country political and economic stability. The paper also shows that previously reported results, regarding the importance of exchange rates, relative borrowing costs and labour costs in explaining FDI flows, are sensitive to the econometric specification and estimation approach. The paper also discusses the importance of these results within a policy context. In recent years Japan has sought to attract FDI, though many firms still complain of barriers to inward investment penetration in Japan. The results show that cultural and geographic distance are only of marginal importance in explaining FDI, and that the results are consistent with the market-seeking explanation of FDI. As such, the attitude to risk in the source country is strongly related to the size of FDI flows to Japan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the light of the importance of foreign direct investment (FDI) for the promotion of economic development, this paper examines the impact of the changes in the real exchange rate and its volatility on FDI. Examining Japan's FDI by industries, we found that the depreciation of the currency of the host country attracted FDI, while the high volatility of the exchange rate discouraged FDI. Our results suggest the need to avoid over-valuation of the exchange rate and to maintain stable but flexible exchange rate in order to attract FDI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trade openness, popularly measured as ( X + M)/ GDP in the hundreds of studies published to date, consistently considers the world's biggest trading countries such as the USA, the UK, Japan and Germany to be closed economies, irrespective of the data set used. This study suggests a composite trade share measure that more completely reflects reality by combining two important dimensions of trade openness: trade share and the relative importance of a country's trade level to total world trade. Robustness tests support the new proposed measure in lieu of the conventional measure of openness and suggest that the latter may not only be incomplete but may also overstate the impact of trade on such things as income and the environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We have used the Michigan Model of World Production and Trade to simulate the economic effects on the United States, Japan, and other major trading countries/regions of the Doha Round of WTO multilateral trade negotiations and a variety of regional/bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) involving the United States and Japan. We estimate that an assumed reduction of post-Uruguay Round tariffs and other barriers on agricultural and industrial products and services by 33 per cent in the Doha Round would increase world welfare by $686.4 billion, with gains of $164.0 billion for the United States, $132.6 billion for Japan, and significant gains for all other industrialised and developing countries/regions. If there were global free trade with all post-Uruguay Round trade barriers completely removed, world welfare would increase by $2.1 trillion, with gains of $497.0 billion (5.5 per cent of GNP) for the United States and $401.9 billion (6.2 per cent of GNP) for Japan. Regional agreements such as an APEC FTA, an ASEAN Plus 3 FTA, and a Western Hemisphere FTA would increase global and member country welfare but much less so than the Doha multilateral trade round would. Separate bilateral FTAs involving Japan with Singapore, Mexico, Chile and Korea, and the United States with Chile, Singapore and Korea would have positive, though generally small, welfare effects on the partner countries, but potentially disruptive sectoral employment shifts in some countries. There would be trade diversion and detrimental welfare effects on some non-member countries for both the regional and bilateral FTAs analysed. The welfare gains from multilateral trade liberalisation are therefore considerably greater than the gains from preferential trading arrangements and more uniformly positive for all countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]