Regional Foreign Direct Investment Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PROMOTING INDUSTRIAL ZONES AND INVESTMENT MOBILIZATION USAID WB/G SO1: EXPANDING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES CONTRACT NO. 294-C-00-00-00071-00 Regional Foreign Direct Investment Review SUBMITTED ON MAY 20, 2002 TO THE USAID MISSION TO THE WEST BANK AND GAZA MARGOT ELLIS, CTO BY THE SERVICES GROUP (TSG) SUTHERLAND MILLER III, SENIOR CONSULTANT 2300 CLARENDON BOULEVARD 1110 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22201 USA WWW.TSGINC.COM USAID PRIZIM Project Regional Foreign Direct Investment Review Table of Contents Executive Summary i Chapter 1: Introduction and Methodology 1 Chapter 2: Regional Foreign Direct Investment Overview 7 Chapter 3: Sectoral Focus on Information Technology 24 Chapter 4: Sectoral Focus on Apparel and Textiles 48 Chapter 5: Sectoral Focus on Stone and Marble 59 Chapter 6: Conclusion 69 Annex A.1: Top 1,000 Companies in Pre-packaged Software A1-1 Annex A.2: Top 1,000 Companies in Computer Programming A2-1 Annex A.3: Top 1,000 Companies in Apparel Manufacturing A3-1 Annex A.4: Top Companies in Dimension Stone A4-1 The Services Group USAID PRIZIM Project Regional Foreign Direct Investment Review Executive Summary This report summarizes the available data on foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows into the Middle East region, and provides information that can help the Palestinian Investment Promotion Agency (PIPA) target firms for investment promotion. The goal of this document is to better inform PIPA about regional FDI trends and guide their strategic planning for active and successful investment promotion activities. For this analysis regional investment activity was reviewed in detail for three sectors - information technology (IT), apparel manufacturing, and stone and marble - based on the previously completed Investor Targeting Strategy (ITS) completed by The Services Group in 1999. While general trends in the broader Middle East are reflected in this analysis, the review focused on group of countries in the region that represent a range of levels of economic development. These countries can be seen as both competitors for FDI in the sectors chosen as well as potential partners in business ventures and sources of FDI. The countries examined in detail for this review are Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, West Bank and Gaza (WBG), and Yemen. I. National-Level Analysis: Global Trends in Foreign Direct Investment As elaborated later in this review, factors that affect FDI at three levels - national, industry, and corporate - are analyzed to determine investment trends. The first level focuses on individual countries as factors in attracting or producing FDI flows. Since the early 1990s foreign direct investment has grown substantially worldwide, but some countries and regions fare better at capturing this FDI than others. At the same time, more and more countries are competing for FDI, making competition increasingly intense. Inflows of foreign direct investment reached US $1.3 trillion by the end of 2000, but when final the data is compiled FDI is expected to show a decline for 2001. Developed countries captured approximately 70% of foreign direct investment in 1998 and over 75% in 2000. The United Kingdom and the United States have consistently led all other countries as both sources of and hosts for foreign direct investment, and in 2000 they along with France, Belgium/Luxembourg, and the Netherlands were among the world's top five sources of FDI. Thus, when considering where to turn to for investment capital, PIPA cannot ignore the traditional capital exporting countries, including those of the European Union as well as the U.S. Although developed countries receive a greater share of investment capital than the rest of the world, over the past 15 years more countries have received FDI and at greater amounts than in the mid-1980s. The number of developing countries that received US $1 billion or more in FDI increased from 6 in 1985 to 23 by 1999.1 The United Nations' latest estimates are that the Arab world attracts approximately 1% of total world FDI, or almost US $9 billion. The majority of this FDI comes from developed countries, and much of it is targeted toward the hydrocarbon sector. Indeed, historical trends suggest that compared to most other regions the Middle East captures less intra-regional FDI and has had difficulty attracting investment in non-extractive industries. Given the specific economic and political difficulties that presently beset the West Bank and Gaza - and the relative lack of oil and natural gas reserves - these trends suggest that PIPA's investment promotion efforts will be challenging. 1 United Nations Trade and Development Agency, World Investment Report 2001: Promoting Linkages, pg. xv. The Services Group Page i USAID PRIZIM Project Regional Foreign Direct Investment Review But knowing what the regional landscape is like for FDI - and what factors are likely to deter or attract would-be investors - will inform PIPA's investment promotion strategy. Furthermore, there are some positive signs for the Middle East's prospects of attracting FDI. As table E.1 suggests, most of the countries considered for this study have witnessed an average annual growth in FDI of over 10% year-on-year from 1986-2000. Table E.1: Average Annual FDI Growth Rate, 1986-2000 30%+ Growth 20-29.9% 10-19.9% 0-9.9% Growth Declining Growth Growth Growth Jordan Israel Turkey Egypt UAE Lebanon Yemen Syria Source: UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2001: Promoting Linkages, pg. 10. The Arab League reported that between 1985-1998, pan-Arab FDI totaled US $11 billion and US $2.25 billion in 1998 alone. Hence, while the developing countries of the West and Japan should be considered as primary targets for investment promotion activities, PIPA should also continue to look for FDI from the Arab world. Not only is there considerable sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians and greater familiarity with the West Bank and Gaza and the regional market, but the growth in pan-Arab investment is encouraging. National Policy Context for Attracting Foreign Direct Investment There are several reasons for the trends noted above. As a general rule, the countries in the region continue to maintain polices that inhibit inflows of private investment, including supporting a large amount of public ownership of economic activity, maintaining trade regimes with high and uneven tariffs, keeping sectors of their economies closed to private investment, and imposing relatively high bureaucratic costs to doing business. The World Bank suggests that there is a direct correlation to the progress of macroeconomic reforms and the inflow of FDI, and notes that overall foreign investment rose noticeably in the Middle East and North Africa during the 1990s as many states solidified reform efforts. Those countries that have liberalized most completely, all things being equal, have received more FDI than countries that remain closed. But openness for foreign investment is only one consideration in analyzing the region's relative paucity of FDI. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) recently ranked several Middle Eastern countries toward the lower end of the spectrum in terms of the attractiveness of the overall business environment. Table E.2 summarizes the performance of several Middle Eastern countries in the EIU’s survey in terms of ranking (with a score of 1 being the best of 60 countries and 60 being the worst) and value within a corresponding ten-point scale (with 1 being the worst business environment and 10 being the best). In the EIU’s model risk – which includes political, financial, legal, and administrative dimensions – is a major weakness of the region as a whole. The EIU’s projections through 2004 are based on a qualitative assessment of each country’s sincerity and progress in making pro-business macroeconomic reforms, general economic stability (including such projections as future inflation rates and ability to pay down national debt), and political stability. The Services Group Page ii USAID PRIZIM Project Regional Foreign Direct Investment Review Table E.2: EIU Business Environment Rankings for Selected Middle Eastern Countries Country Overall Ranking (out of 60 Index Value (from 1 to 10) Countries) 1995-99 2000-04 1995-99 2000-04 Israel 27 25 6.50 7.49 Turkey 37 41 5.54 6.06 Egypt 41 42 5.44 5.98 Saudi Arabia 42 45 5.39 5.92 Algeria 56 55 3.79 4.95 Iran 58 59 3.09 3.74 Iraq 60 60 1.82 2.04 Source: EIU Country Forecasts. There are conflicting conclusions about how strongly and precisely GDP growth follows increases in FDI, but both indicators attest to the dynamism of an economy. Most Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan and Syria, experienced higher growth rates in the last decade than was recorded in the 1980s, but a few like Egypt and Turkey saw overall declines compared to growth during the previous decade. In the West Bank and Gaza, GDP declined precipitously during the first intifada in the late 1980s and also from 1993-97. The main reasons for this were direct disruptions caused by civil unrest, Israeli retaliations and border closings, the loss of remittances from Palestinians expelled from the Gulf for supporting the Iraqis in the Gulf War, and a 30% reduction in the number of Israeli work permits issued.2 In 2000, the WBG’s GDP was estimated at US $4-4.5 billion. World Bank estimates suggest that the oil producing economies grew at average rates of 2.5— 3.0% in 2001, whereas the more diversified economies, including Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey, should see higher rates of economic growth in the range of 4.0%. Figure E.1 summarizes GDP growth in selected Middle Eastern countries over the past three years, with projections through 2004.3 Figure E.1: GDP Growth in the Middle East through 2004 8.00% 6.00% Egypt 4.00% Jordan 2.00% Lebanon 0.00% Syria -2.00% 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 UAE -4.00% Yemen -6.00% Source: The World Bank.