Next Article in Journal
Impact of COVID-19 on Organizational Support in Financial Technology
Previous Article in Journal
The Influence of E-HRM on Modernizing the Role of HRM Context
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sources of Financial Development and Their Impact on FDI Inflow: A Panel Data Analysis of Middle-Income Economies

1
School of Finance, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing 100081, China
2
Department of Commerce, University of Gujrat Hafiz-Hayat Campus, Gujrat 50700, Pakistan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Economies 2022, 10(8), 182; https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10080182
Submission received: 18 June 2022 / Revised: 19 July 2022 / Accepted: 20 July 2022 / Published: 28 July 2022

Abstract

:
The present research aimed to investigate the long-run and short-run effects of different sources of financial development on FDI inflow for middle-income economies during the period of study, 1980 to 2020. An annual frequency of data was obtained for the required set of variables from WDI and the IMF. The estimations revealed no cross-sectional dependence, a significant cointegration, and the stationarity of FDI inflow at first difference, while the explanatory and controlled variables were as mixed level. It validated the panel ARDL estimations methods such as mean group, pooled mean group, and a dynamic fixed effect for testing the required set of hypotheses. The Hausman test confirmed the consistency and efficiency of the dynamic fixed effect as the method of estimations. The panel estimations revealed the significance of financial market development, inflation rate, trade openness, and real economic growth as the most critical factors for FDI inflow in middle-income economies. The policymakers should consider these factors for making their policies regarding FDI inflow in their economies. Future research may consider time series ARDL for each independent middle-income country. The findings of the study are generalized only to middle-income economies rather than higher-income and lower-income countries.
JEL Classification:
C55; E44; F21

1. Introduction

The word “FDI inflow” refers to a commercial purchase decision, a significant stake inside or purchase of a multinational entity completely, in a plan to enlarge its activities to a new territory (Zhao 2003). In recent decades or so, foreign direct investment has attracted considerable attention from academic and policy-making experts, thus becoming very important across a country, especially in developing and less developed countries (Dal Bianco and Loan 2017). FDI inflows are indeed a substantial source of foreign financing for many developing nations, and hence provide an effective element for achieving sustainability and private industry growth (Asongu et al. 2018). For developing and advanced nations, FDI is crucial (Asamoah et al. 2019). Developing-country businesses require global finance and skills in their plan to enlarge, organize, and lead their worldwide sales (Khan and Khan 2019).
According to Collison et al. (2017), the classical theories related to FDI emerged during the 1960 to 1980 period, and the FDI flows from devolved and underdeveloped nations have strongly advanced these theories. They argued that FDI in developing nations is a newer phenomenon; therefore, they suggested that these theories were insufficient to explain the recent spike in investment from developing markets due to their unique investment characteristics. However, Vasyechko (2012) argued that there was no doubt that FDI theory contributed significantly to our knowledge of FDI in emerging markets. The study required to test two components of financial developments: financial institution development and financial market development. Therefore, the study required to test the resource-based theory (for financial market development) and institutional theory (for institutional development) for the target population. The resource-based theory states that international corporations consider the following resources for making their investment in host countries: strategic assets, the efficiency of sourcing global FDI, markets, and their resources (Behrman 1972). Furthermore, in the institutional theory, companies operate in a complex context (Meyer and Rowan 1977). As a result, the company’s decisions are influenced by institutional influences in its society. Tax systems, subsidies, access to finance, and other economic and financial considerations all influence the corporations’ strategic decisions.
The study of FDI inflow has become a puzzle as its determining factors have been studied for many decades (Acquah and Ibrahim 2020). Some of the factors are significant in one region, while the others are significant in other regions and time zone. However, financial development is considered one of the important factors for attracting foreign investment to any country (Dimitrova et al. 2020). Based on income level, the countries are divided into three major categories: low-income, middle-income, and high-income economies. The higher-income economies are already in a position to invest their funds in the development of their economies (Islam et al. 2020). The low-income economies are unable to attract much foreign investment (Lee et al. 2020). However, middle-income economies are in a position to attract an increasing level of foreign investment in their economies if they consider an appropriate level of financial development (Osei and Kim 2020). Financial development is a universal strategy used for attracting foreign investment in middle-income countries (Yusuf et al. 2020).
Financial development not only requires the development of the overall financial system but also requires the development at an institutional and market level in these middle-income economies (Ahmed and Jahanzeb 2021). As a result, it enhances the overall inflow of foreign investment in these economies. The role of financial development as an important factor in enhancing the FDI inflow in any economy is well established in previous research studies (Ahmed and Jahanzeb 2021; Islam et al. 2020; Chen et al. 2020; Khan and Khan 2019; Sirag et al. 2018). However, the FDI inflow based on sources of financial development is still a puzzle, especially in the middle-income economies (Smith 2021; Shahbaz et al. 2021; Nguyen and Lee 2021; Asamoah et al. 2022). Financial development is based on two sources: institutional financial development and market financial development. The past studies, especially in the case of middle-income economies, could not consider which source of financial development had a greater impact on attracting foreign investment for short-term and long-term tenure.
The trend analysis for the FDI inflow in middle-income countries is reported in Figure 1. It indicates that FDI inflow was lowest in the year 1989 with 19% of GDP on average in middle-income economies. The same was highest in the year 2009 at 412% of GDP on average for the same group of economies. Figure 1 indicates two major phases of FDI inflow in middle-income economies: 1990–2008 with an average increasing trend and 2009–2020 with an average decreasing trend. Similarly, the trend analysis of major categories of financial development is reported in Figure 2. IFD stands for institutional financial development as a percentage of GDP. Similarly, MFD stands for market financial development as a percentage of GDP. Finally, the OFD stands for overall financial development as the aggregate of IFD and MFD. All three sources of financial development show an increasing trend. However, market financial development reports its highest level in the year 2008 with an average MFD of 18.88 as a percentage of GDP. However, with a decline for a short period, it started to increase again in 2014. On the other hand, IFD and OFD have an increasing trend during the period of study while reporting some temporary and short-term declines.
The study is meant to explore the impact of two leading sources of financial development, financial institutions and financial market development, on the FDI inflow for middle-income economies. Therefore, the specific aims of the study are as follow
  • To investigate the role of financial institutions’ development in determining the FDI inflow for the panel of middle-income economies.
  • To explore the impact of the financial market’s development on FDI inflow for the panel of middle-income economies.
  • To examine the impact of overall financial development on FDI inflow for the panel of middle-income economies.
  • To evaluate the role of other macroeconomic and control variables, such as inflation rate, trade openness, and economic growth, in determining the FDI inflow for the panel of the target population.
The study focuses on achieving the primary and secondary research objectives using the following research questions.
(i) 
What is the role of financial institutions’ development in determining the FDI inflow for the panel of middle-income economies?
(ii) 
How does the financial market’s development impact the FDI inflow for the panel of middle-income economies?
(iii) 
How does the overall financial development impact the FDI inflow for the panel of middle-income economies?
(iv) 
How do other macroeconomic and control variables such as inflation rate, trade openness, and economic growth determine the FDI inflow for the panel of middle-income economies?
Keeping in view the literature, theoretical evidence, and requirements of the study, the following hypotheses need to be tested
H1:
There is a significantly positive impact of financial institutions’ development on FDI Inflow.
H2:
There is a significantly positive impact of the financial market’s development on FDI Inflow.
H3:
There is a significantly positive impact of the overall market’s development on FDI Inflow.
H4a:
There is a significantly negative relationship between inflation rate and FDI Inflow.
H4b:
There is a significantly positive t relationship between trade openness and FDI Inflow.
H4c:
There is a significantly positive relationship between economic growth and FDI Inflow.
The outcomes of this research are important for policymakers in middle-income economies. The outcomes may enhance the careful consideration of financial development, institutional, financial market, and overall, as important determinants of FDI inflow along with inflation, trade openness, and economic growth as the other macroeconomic/control variables for the same, in the middle-income region at the aggregate level.
Yuxiang and Chen (2011) concluded that financial development plays a strong and statistically significant role in determining the FDI inflow in Brics nations. Özmen (2007) found a positive role of financial development in explaining the FDI inflow. It was inferred from the study that foreign direct investment could be attracted with the positive flow of financial development in an economy. Furthermore, Aghion et al. (2009) also concluded there was similar evidence of an optimistic link between financial development with FDI inflow. However, some studies concluded with either a negative link (Ang 2009) or a weak relationship (Ersoy (2011)) or sometimes, with a strong inverse relationship (Lin and Ye 2011). The positive link between financial development and FDI inflow is also confirmed in many studies, e.g., (Choong 2012; Caglayan et al. 2013; Asongu 2014).
Because of the transfer of technology embedded in FDI, as well as the massive amount of foreign capital involved, host markets are expected to profit from capital flows (Mijiyawa 2015). The infusion of foreign capital into the host nation may contribute to the development of capital stock, while staff training may contribute to the nation’s professional development (Sahin and Ege 2015). To put it another way, FDI can help any country to develop by increasing financial development—natural and institutional capital—or by increasing overall productivity levels (Aziz and Mishra 2016). According to the latest era of investigations, FDI inflows should be between various industries because multinationals want to avoid unauthorized access to prospective competitors yet gain from technology transfer to potential suppliers (Fauzel 2016). Limitations in these domains may limit the domestic firms’ ability to absorb emerging innovations and react to foreign players’ risks and solutions (Boateng et al. 2017). Similarly, positive relationships were discovered between financial development and FDI inflow from some research studies (Bayar and Gavriletea 2018b; Nkoa 2018; Henri et al. 2019; Canh et al. 2020; Olorogun 2021; Nguyen and Lee 2021; Shahbaz et al. 2021). An adverse and statistically significant influence on financial development was reported for the source of the FDI inflow use (Gitone 2014). On the contrary, a significant and statistically positive influence for the above relationship was reported by (Mehrara et al. 2015), (Belaid et al. 2019), and (Eren et al. 2019; Asamoah et al. 2022; Smith 2021).
Inflation is a significant financial factor. High inflation is considered a marker of macroeconomic unsteadiness, as it may prompt depreciation of money, which decreases the estimation of genuine income and buying influence inside the host nation for speculators and makes investment unattractive for the host nation. A study revealed a negative and statistically significant link between the inflation rate with FDI inflow (Desbordes and Wei 2017). A similar negative impact on the inflation rate was discovered in the studies of (Asamoah et al. 2019; Camarero et al. 2020; Smith 2021; Gopalan et al. 2019; Arif et al. 2020; Canh et al. 2020; Dimitrova et al. 2020; Gao et al. 2021; Hoang et al. 2021; Nguyen and Cieślik 2021; Rafidi and Verikios 2021).
Trade openness is considered to significantly affect FDI, as government trade liberalization arrangements make business conditions helpful for foreign investments, and foreign financial specialists are more pulled in towards a host nation that has the least or no capital control and financial amicable methods (Taylor 2000). The findings of previous studies highlighted an adverse statistically significant connection between the trade openness and the use of FDI inflow (Azad et al. 2014); (Belaid et al. 2019) and (Ergun et al. 2019). On the contrary, a positive and statistically significant influence on the said relationship was found by (Omri and Nguyen 2014), (Omri et al. 2015), (Akar 2016), (Akarsu and Gümüşoğlu 2017), (Chen 2018), and (Yahya and Rafiq 2019; Smith 2021; Maryam and Mittal 2020).
Generally, the gross domestic product (GDP) as a measure of economic growth is defined as the value of all market and some nonmarket goods and services produced within the geographic borders of a given country. The influence of economic growth was found negatively significant for FDI inflows by (Marques et al. 2011); (Mehrara et al. 2015); (Akar 2016); (Abdullahi and Maji 2019); (Ergun et al. 2019); (Khan et al. 2019). On contrary, a positive relationship was found to be statistically significant between economic growth and the FDI inflow use (Azad et al. 2014), (Omri et al. 2015), (Akarsu and Gümüşoğlu 2017), (Papież et al. 2018), (Chen 2018), (da Silva et al. 2018), (Belaid et al. 2019), (Alola et al. 2019), (Mengova 2019), (Khan et al. 2019), (Damette and Marques 2019), (Yahya and Rafiq 2019), and (Eren et al. 2019; Zeytoonnejad Mousavian et al. 2021; Siddikee and Rahman 2020). Moreover, Table 1 summarized the previous studies for detail review.

2. Methodology

The present study requires estimating the long-run and short-run impact of three sources of financial development, institutional financial development, market financial development, and overall financial development, on FDI inflow for a panel of 53 middle-income countries in 1980–2020. Additionally, the study controls the impact of inflation, trade openness, and real growth rate for the FDI inflow in the target population. For achieving the basic objective of the study, the panel data estimation procedure in general, and more specifically, the panel ARDL method, was applied by reviewing the past literature for this purpose. The panel data ARDL model requires N > 25, and T > 25 as the first condition. The second condition for the confirmation of this model is that a cross-sectional dependence should not be present in the data. The final and the most important condition for the application of panel ARDL is the existence of stationarity in the data at the first difference for the dependent variable and at level/first difference/mixed for the independent and control variables.
The application of the panel ARDL method requires some steps. The first step for this purpose consists of descriptive statistics which are used to summarize the data of the study. The second step is to estimate the Pearson correlation. The third step is to estimate the cross-sectional dependency. Similarly, the fourth step is to estimate the panel unit root tests. Furthermore, the fifth step is to estimate the optimal lag length for the 53 middle-income economies. Additionally, the sixth step requires estimating the panel cointegration. The final step is to estimate the panel ARDL using mean group (mg), pooled mean group (pmg), and dynamic fixed effect (dfe) along with the Hausman specification test for choosing between them. The reason for choosing the panel ARDL estimation methods was because the basic objective of the study was to estimate the long-run and short-run impact of sources of financial development on the FDI inflow for a panel of middle-income economies. The panel ARDL as a method of estimation requires estimating the long-run and short-run impact of the independent variable(s) on the dependent variable.
The dependent variable of the study was the FDI inflow, which is measured as the net inflow of FDI as a percentage of GDP. The data for this variable were available on the World Development Indicators (WDI) website in annual frequency from 1970 to 2020. Similarly, the main independent variables of the study were institutional financial development, market financial development, and overall financial development as a percentage of GDP. The data for these sources of financial development were available on the International Monetary Fund website (IMF) from 1980 to2020. The control variables of the study were the inflation rate (with GDP deflator as an annual percentage), trade openness (trade as a percentage of GDP), and the real growth rate (real GDP in percentage). The data for these variables were available from World Development Indicators (WDI) on an annual frequency from 1960 to 2020. However, for the common basis of analysis, the data were taken from 1980 to 2020 on an annual frequency.
The basic panel data model was used in the study by following the econometric modeling as in Nguyen and Lee (2021), which examined the long-run relationship between financial development and FDI inflow at the global level.
F D I   I n f l o w = β 0 + β 1 ( F i n a n c i a l   d e v e l o p e m e n t ) + β 2 ( I n f l a t i o n   r a t e ) + β 3   ( T r a d e   O p e n n e s s ) + β 4 ( R e a l   G r o w t h   R a t e ) + ε
To create the uniformity and normality in the data, the basic model was transformed into a log model as follows:
L n F D I   I n f l o w = β 0 + β 1 ( L n F i n a n c i a l   d e v e l o p e m e n t ) + β 2 ( L n I n f l a t i o n   r a t e ) + β 3   ( L n T r a d e   O p e n n e s s ) + β 4 ( L n R e a l   G r o w t h   R a t e ) + ε
The model was then transformed into a panel data model by adding “it” as the subscripts, where “i” refers to the cross-section (countries), and “t” refers to the time dimension. The model was as follows:
L n F D I   I n f l o w i t = β 0 + β 1 ( L n F i n a n c i a l   d e v e l o p e m e n t ) i t + β 2 ( L n I n f l a t i o n   r a t e ) i t + β 3   ( L n T r a d e   O p e n n e s s ) i t + β 4 ( L n R e a l   G r o w t h   R a t e ) i t + μ i t
Finally, the model was transformed into a panel ARDL model to fulfill the basic requirement of the study to estimate the long-run and short-run impact of financial development sources on the FDI inflow for a panel of 53 middle-income economies.
The general panel ARDL model (p, q,q,q,q,q,q) was:
Y i t = J = 1 p λ i j Y i , t j + J = 0 q δ i j X i , t j + μ i + ε i t
Here, Y i t = FDI inflow, X i t = K × 1 vector of independent and control variables such as financial development (overall, institutional, and market), inflation rate, trade openness, and real growth rate. The independent and controlled variables are purely allowed to be stationary at level, first difference, or both. Similarly, p = optimal lag order for the dependent variable, while q = optimal lag order for the independent and controlled variables. λ i j = the slope to measure the changes in the lagged dependent variables, δ i j = K × 1 slope coefficient for the independent and controlled variables. However, μ i = fixed effect in the panel. Finally, ε i t = error term.
The parameterized panel ARDL model (P, q,q,q,q,q,q) was:
Δ Y i t = i Y i , t 1 + β i X i , t + J = 1 p 1 λ * i j Δ Y i , t j + J = 0 q 1 δ * i j Δ X i , t j + μ i + ε i t
The methods of estimations under the panel ARDL model are mean group, pooled mean group, and dynamic fixed effect. Pesaran et al. (1999) stated that panel ARDL estimations can be executed by considering the mixed-order stationarity for independent variables and the first-order stationarity for the dependent variable. The complete measure, data source, symbol, data availability, and reference for the measurement of this variable are reported in the following Table 2.

3. Results

Table 3 indicates the summary statistics of this study in the form of mean, standard deviation, kurtosis, skewness, minimum, maximum, and the number of observations for the panel of 53 middle-income countries. The table reports that the FDI inflow had an average value of 2.04 as a percentage of GDP for the 53 middle-income economies from 1980 to 2020 with a standard deviation of 0.53. Similarly, the financial development as indicated by overall financial development, institutional financial development, and market financial development reported an average value for the study period for the target population of 0.22, 0.29, and 0.14, respectively. Furthermore, the average inflation rate from 1980 to 2020 for the target middle-income economies was 14.16 with a standard deviation of 3.23. Additionally, the trade openness estimated on average during the study period for the target population was 66.72 with a standard deviation of 40.07 as a percentage of GDP. Finally, the real growth rate indicated an average value of 3.11 with a standard deviation of 4.19.
Table 4 reports the correlation analysis for the variables of the study. It indicates a positive and statistically significant association between OFD and FDII, and between FID, and FDII. However, the table does not support the significance of a positive association between market financial development and FDI inflow in middle-income economies during the period of study. Additionally, the inflation rate was negatively and significantly associated with FDI inflow. Furthermore, the trade openness and real growth rate were positively and significantly associated with FDI inflow from 1980 to 2020 for middle-income economies.
An important assumption of panel data is testing the cross-sectional dependency to decide on the generation of the panel unit root test (De Hoyos and Sarafidis 2006, Sarafidis and Wansbeek 2012). If the cross-sectional dependency is present, the second generation of panel unit root is required, otherwise, the first-generation unit root such as LLU and IPS panel tests are required (Sarafidis and Wansbeek 2012). The LM test is required in case T > N, however, the LM test is not desirable in the case of T < N (Pesaran 2021). The present study indicated T = 41 and N = 53; therefore, the LM test was not recommended. Table 5 indicates the types of tests as recommended by Pesaran (2021), as per the requirement of this study. The null hypothesis was “cross-sectional dependence”. Table 5 indicates that all three types of tests rejected the null hypothesis and we concluded that there was no cross-sectional dependency.
Table 6 reports the first-generation panel unit root test using the Levin–Lin–Chu, Im–Pesaran–Shin, and Breitung tests. The first-generation unit root tests assumed that individuals (countries) were independent of each other, and some amount of heterogeneity was accepted across these individuals (countries). The null hypothesis of these tests was that the panels contained a unit root, while the alternative hypothesis stated that the panels were stationary. The table reports that the FDI inflow, overall financial development, and financial market development were not stationary at level using the three types of panel unit root tests. However, the financial institutional development, inflation, trade openness, and real growth rate were stationary at level. Similarly, all the variables were stationary at first difference. The stationarity of the dependent variable (FDI inflow) at first difference while the stationarity of independent variables at level, and at first difference (mixed) validates the application of the panel ARDL method for the estimation of the hypothesis of the study.
The optimal lag for each sampled country from the middle-income economies is reported in Table 7 as per each variable (p, q,q,q,q,q,q). The most frequent/common optimal lag between the 53 middle-income economies was chosen based on the AIC. The optimal and most frequent lag for the dependent variable FDI inflow was 1, while the lag for the OFD, FID, FM, INF, and TOP variables was also 1. The optimal and most frequent lag for the growth rate was 0.
A panel cointegration test is required to avoid spurious regression estimates. If the test shows cointegration, it means the estimates are stable. The null hypothesis is there is no co-integration. The study used Pedroni and Westerlund tests for assessing the cointegration of the panel data. Table 8 reports significant estimates for both Pedroni and Westerlund, which confirm the cointegration of the panel data.
Table 9 reports the panel ARDL estimations using pmg, mg, and dfe. The table reports the short-term and long-term impact of financial development sources (OFD, IFD, and MFD) on FDI inflow for a panel of 53 middle-income economies from 1980 to 2020. The Hausman test confirmed the consistency and efficiency of the dynamic fixed effect as the model of estimation using the panel ARDL method.
Table 9 reports a positive but insignificant long-run as well as the short-run impact of financial institutions’ development on FDI inflow for a panel of 53 middle-income economies using pmg, mg, and dfe. This finding rejected the first hypothesis and concluded that institutional financial development did not significantly contribute toward attracting the FDI inflow in the target population. The table also reports a positive and highly significant long-run impact of market financial development on FDI inflow for the target population using pmg and dfe only. However, the same could not significantly impact the FDI inflow in the short run using any of the three approaches. The long-run positive and significant impact of the financial market development on FDI inflow accepted the second hypothesis. Therefore, it was inferred from the findings that the development of the financial market strongly contributed to attracting the FDI inflow in middle-income economies during the period of study. Similarly, a positive but insignificant impact in the long run and short run on FDI inflow for a panel of 53 middle-income economies using pmg, mg, and dfe. From the findings, we rejected the third hypothesis and we concluded that aggregate financial development did not significantly contribute to attracting FDI inflow for the target population neither in the long nor in the short run.
Table 9 also reports a negative and significant long-run impact using mg and dfe and the same negative and significant short-run impact using all three approaches of the panel ARDL method. We accepted the fourth hypothesis with the same negative and statistically significant impact in the short run and long run. From the finding, we concluded that an increase in the rate of inflation caused a decrease in the FDI inflow for the panel of 53 middle-income economies for the period of study. Furthermore, the table reports a positive and statistically highly significant impact of trade openness on FDI inflow in the long run, using pmg, mg, and dfe as the methods of estimation for the panel of 53 middle-income economies. However, the trade openness impacted positively with a weak significance in the short run on FDI inflow using pmg and dfe as the methods of estimation in the panel ARDL method. We accepted the fifth hypothesis and concluded that increasing the level of trade openness could strongly contribute to attracting FDI inflow for the target population for the period of study more strongly in the long run and weakly in the short run. Finally, the table reports a positive but weak impact of the real growth rate in the long run on FDI inflow using the pmg, mg, and dfe approaches in the panel ARDL method. However, the same impacts were positively significant using dfe in the short run on the FDI inflow. We accepted the sixth hypothesis with the same positive and significant impact of the real growth rate on FDI inflow. We concluded that the real growth rate had a weak impact in the short run and a significant impact in the long run, using dfe as the method of estimation of the FDI inflow for the selected 53 middle-income economies for the period of study.

4. Discussion

The findings from the panel ARDL estimations confirmed a positive and statistically significant impact of financial market development for attracting FDI inflow in middle-income economies from 1980 to 2020 in the long run as well as in the short run. We accepted the relevant hypothesis showing the same positive and significant relationship between both variables. However, the financial institutional development and aggregate financial development could not significantly contribute to attracting the FDI inflow in the target population. This finding of a positive and significant impact of financial market development on FDI inflow is consistent with similar evidence from several studies (Smith 2021; Nguyen and Lee 2021). It infers that financial market development can have a significant role in increasing the level of FDI inflow in middle-income economies in the short run and the long run as well.
The panel ARDL method further indicated a negative and statistically significant impact of the inflation rate on FDI inflow in the long run as well as in the short run for the middle-income economies during the period of study. We accepted the relevant hypothesis showing the same negative and statistically significant relationship between both variables in the study. These findings of a negative and statistically significant impact of the inflation rate on FDI inflow is consistent with similar evidence from some studies (Azam and Haseeb 2021; Nguyen and Lee 2021; Smith 2021; Asamoah et al. 2022). It infers that an increasing level of inflation can discourage foreign investors to invest in any host economy in the case of middle-income countries during the period of study.
The estimations also revealed a positive and highly significant impact of trade openness in the long run and a positive but weak impact in the short run on FDI inflow. We accepted the relevant hypothesis indicating a similar positive relationship between the variables of the study. These findings of a positive and significant impact, in the long run, are consistent with similar evidence from many studies (Paul and Jadhav 2020; Azam and Haseeb 2021; Asamoah et al. 2022; Smith 2021). It infers that an increasing level of trade openness can strongly impact FDI inflow in middle-income economies in the long run. However, the same can weakly attract FDI inflow for the target population in the short run.
Finally, the estimations confirmed a weak significant positive impact on the real growth rate in the short run but a strong positive and highly significant impact in the long run on FDI inflow for the target population using the dynamic fixed effect. We accepted the relevant hypothesis and concluded that the real growth rate could strongly attract FDI inflow in middle-income economies from 1980 to 2020 in the long run. However, the same can weakly attract FDI inflow during the short run. This finding is consistent with similar findings from several studies (Asamoah et al. 2022; Zeytoonnejad Mousavian et al. 2021; Smith 2021; Nguyen and Lee 2021; Paul and Jadhav 2020).

5. Conclusions, Recommendations, and Limitations

This study aimed to examine the long-run and short-run impact of three different sources of financial development on FDI inflow controlling the inflation rate, trade openness, and real growth rate for middle-income economies from 1980 to 2020. The data were collected from the World Development Indicators and International Monetary Fund using an annual frequency and the period of 1980–2020. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, a correlation analysis, a cross-sectional dependency test, a first-generation unit root test, a cointegration test, an optimal lag, and panel ARDL estimations. The estimations revealed that there was no cross-sectional dependency, with stationarity of dependent variable at first difference and independent variables at level and first difference, which validated the estimations using the panel ARDL approaches (mg, pmg, and dfe). Furthermore, the cointegration was confirmed using the Pedroni and Westerlund approaches. The optimal lag was selected using the most frequent lag length for all 53 economies in the middle-income group. The Hausman test confirmed the consistency and efficiency of the dynamic fixed effect model as the method of estimation using the panel ARDL method. The findings concluded that financial market development can have a significant role in increasing the level of FDI inflow in middle-income economies in the short run and the long run as well. It validated the resource-based theory for middle-income economies. However, financial institutional development and aggregate financial development could not significantly contribute to attracting FDI inflow in the target population. It infers that the institution-based theory of financial development is not valid for middle-income economies. Similarly, the increasing level of inflation could strongly discourage foreign investors to invest in middle-income countries as host economies during the period of study. Furthermore, an increasing level of trade openness could strongly impact the FDI inflow in middle-income economies in the long run. However, the same could weakly attract FDI inflow for the target population in the short run. Finally, the real growth rate could strongly attract FDI inflow in middle-income economies from 1980 to 2020 in the long-run period.
The findings of the study have greater practical implications for middle-income economies. The policymakers in the target population should enhance and develop their financial markets to attract foreign direct investment. Additionally, they need to make some policy guidelines for decreasing the rate of inflation and enhancing the trade openness and real economic growth for increasing the level of foreign investment in their economies. Future researchers are recommended to estimate time series ARDL for each country to critically evaluate the sources of financial development for attracting FDI inflow to middle-income nations. Additionally, the future study may also enhance the number of control variables to boost the amount of variation in the FDI inflow. Furthermore, the institutional development theory still needs to be tested and is open for further research on each individual country using a time series analysis. The findings of this study are generalized to middle-income economies due to their specific level of income. The findings can neither be applicable to higher-income economies nor lower-income economies due to a greater heterogeneity of their income dynamics.

Author Contributions

(M.A.H.): Conceptualization, Written the original draft, Data Collection, Data analysis, Design the methodology, and revision. (Z.B.): Supervision, Conceptualization and Editing. (M.U.A.): Data analysis, Design the methodology, Editing and Revision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study have been taken from the WDI and IMF, and made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We thank all editorial board members and anonymous reviewers for reviewing and improving the paper through their valuable suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdouli, Mohamed, and Sami Hammami. 2020. Economic Growth, Environment, FDI Inflows, and Financial Development in Middle East Countries: Fresh Evidence from Simultaneous Equation Models. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 11: 479–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Abdullahi, Muhammad Mustapha, and Kabiru Ibrahim Maji. 2019. Renewable Energy, Regulation, Employment and Environmental Sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa. Renewable Energy 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Acquah, Abraham Mensah, and Muazu Ibrahim. 2020. Foreign direct investment, economic growth and financial sector development in Africa. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 10: 315–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Aghion, Philippe, Philippe Bacchetta, Romain Rancière, and Kenneth Rogoff. 2009. Exchange rate volatility and productivity growth: The role of financial development. Journal of Monetary Economics 56: 494–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Ahmed, Khalid, and Agha Jahanzeb. 2021. Does financial development spur environmental and energy-related innovation in Brazil? International Journal of Finance & Economics 26: 1706–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Akar, Basak Gul. 2016. The determinants of renewable energy consumption: An empirical analysis for the Balkans. European Scientific Journal 12: 594–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Akarsu, Gülsüm, and Nebile Korucu Gümüşoğlu. 2017. What Are the Main Determinants of Renewable Energy Consumption? A Panel Threshold Regression Approach. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 19: 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Alola, Andrew Adewale, Uju Violet Alola, and Seyi Saint Akadiri. 2019. Renewable energy consumption in Coastline Mediterranean Countries: Impact of environmental degradation and housing policy. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26: 25789–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Ang, James B. 2009. Financial development and the FDI-growth nexus: The Malaysian experience. Applied Economics 41: 1595–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Arif, Ankasha, Misbah Sadiq, Malik Shahzad Shabbir, Ghulam Yahya, Aysha Zamir, and Lydia Bares Lopez. 2020. The role of globalization in financial development, trade openness and sustainable environmental -economic growth: Evidence from selected South Asian economies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Asamoah, Lawrence Adu, Emmanuel Kwasi Mensah, and Eric Amoo Bondzie. 2019. Trade openness, FDI and economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa: Do institutions matter? Transnational Corporations Review 11: 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Asamoah, Michael Effah, Imhotep Paul Alagidede, and Frank Adu. 2022. Exchange rate uncertainty and foreign direct investment in Africa: Does financial development matter? Review of Development Economics 26: 878–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Asongu, Simplice A. 2014. Linkages between investment flows and financial development. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies 5: 269–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Asongu, Simplice, Uduak S. Akpan, and Salisu R. Isihak. 2018. Determinants of foreign direct investment in fast-growing economies: Evidence from the BRICS and MINT countries. Financial Innovation 4: 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Azad, A. K., M. G. Rasul, Mohammad Masud Kamal Khan, Anis Omri, M. M. K. Bhuiya, and M. A. Hazrat. 2014. Modelling of renewable energy economy in Australia. Energy Procedia 61: 1902–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Azam, Muhammad, and Muhammad Haseeb. 2021. Determinants of foreign direct investment in BRICS- does renewable and non-renewable energy matter? Energy Strategy Reviews 35: 100638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Aziz, Omar G., and Anil V. Mishra. 2016. Determinants of FDI inflows to Arab economies. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 25: 325–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bayar, Yilmaz, and Marius D. Gavriletea. 2018a. Foreign Direct Investment Inflows and Financial Development in Central and Eastern European Union Countries: A Panel Cointegration and Causality. International Journal of Financial Studies 6: 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Bayar, Yilmaz, and Marius Dan Gavriletea. 2018b. Peace, terrorism and economic growth in Middle East and North African countries. Quality & Quantity 52: 2373–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Behrman, Jack N. 1972. The role of international companies in Latin American integration. The International Executive 14: 18–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Belaid, Fateh, Ahmed H Elsayed, and Fateh Belaid. 2019. What Drives Renewable Energy Production in MENA Region? Investigating the Roles of Political Stability, Governance and Financial Sector. Giza: Economic Research Forum (ERF). [Google Scholar]
  22. Boateng, Elliot, Mary Amponsah, and Collins Annor Baah. 2017. Complementarity effect of financial development and FDI on investment in Sub-Saharan Africa: A panel data analysis. African Development Review 29: 305–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Caglayan, Mustafa, Omar S. Dahi, and Firat Demir. 2013. Trade Flows, Exchange Rate Uncertainty, and Financial Depth: Evidence from 28 Emerging Countries. Southern Economic Journal 79: 905–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Camarero, Mariam, Laura Montolio, and Cecilio Tamarit. 2020. Determinants of FDI for Spanish regions: Evidence using stock data. Empirical Economics 59: 2779–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Canh, Nguyen Phuc, Nguyen Thanh Binh, Su Dinh Thanh, and Christophe Schinckus. 2020. Determinants of foreign direct investment inflows: The role of economic policy uncertainty. International Economics 161: 159–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chen, Hao, Duncan O. Hongo, Max William Ssali, Maurice Simiyu Nyaranga, and Consolata Wairimu Nderitu. 2020. The Asymmetric Influence of Financial Development on Economic Growth in Kenya: Evidence From NARDL. SAGE Open 10: 2158244019894071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, Yulong. 2018. Factors influencing renewable energy consumption in China: An empirical analysis based on provincial panel data. Journal of Cleaner Production 174: 605–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Choong, Chee-Keong. 2012. Does domestic financial development enhance the linkages between foreign direct investment and economic growth? Empirical Economics 42: 819–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Collison, Phoebe, Louis Brennan, and Ruth Rios-Morales. 2017. Attracting Chinese foreign direct investment to small, developed economies: The case of Ireland. Thunderbird International Business Review 59: 401–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. da Silva, Patrícia Pereira, Pedro André Cerqueira, and Wojolomi Ogbe. 2018. Determinants of renewable energy growth in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from panel ARDL. Energy 156: 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dal Bianco, Silvia, and Nguyen C. Loan. 2017. FDI Inflows, Price and Exchange Rate Volatility: New Empirical Evidence from Latin America. International Journal of Financial Studies 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Damette, Olivier, and Antonio C Marques. 2019. Renewable energy drivers: A panel cointegration approach. Applied Economics 51: 2793–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. De Hoyos, Rafael E., and Vasilis Sarafidis. 2006. Testing for Cross-Sectional Dependence in Panel-Data Models. The Stata Journal 6: 482–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Desbordes, Rodolphe, and Shang-Jin Wei. 2017. The effects of financial development on foreign direct investment. Journal of Development Economics 127: 153–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Dimitrova, Anna, Tim Rogmans, and Dora Triki. 2020. Country-specific determinants of FDI inflows to the MENA region. Multinational Business Review 28: 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Eren, Baris Memduh, Nigar Taspinar, and Korhan K Gokmenoglu. 2019. The impact of financial development and economic growth on renewable energy consumption: Empirical analysis of India. Science of the Total Environment 663: 189–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ergun, Selim Jürgen, Phebe Asantewaa Owusu, and Maria Fernanda Rivas. 2019. Determinants of renewable energy consumption in Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26: 15390–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ersoy, İmre. 2011. The Impact of Financial Openness on Financial Development, Growth and Volatility in Turkey: Evidence From the ARDL Bounds Tests. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 24: 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Fauzel, Sheereen. 2016. Modeling the relationship between FDI and financial development in small island economies: A PVAR approach. Theoretical Economics Letters 6: 367–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Gao, Runda, Glauco De Vita, Yun Luo, and Jason Begley. 2021. Determinants of FDI in producer services: Evidence from Chinese aggregate and sub-sectoral data. Journal of Economic Studies 48: 869–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gitone, ISAAC. 2014. Determinants of Adoption of Renewable Energy in Kenya. Unpublished Research Project. Nairobi: University of Nairobi. [Google Scholar]
  42. Gopalan, Sasidaran, Ramkishen S. Rajan, and Luu Nguyen Trieu Duong. 2019. Roads to Prosperity? Determinants of FDI in China and ASEAN. The Chinese Economy 52: 318–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Henri, Njangang, Nembot Ndeffo Luc, and Nawo Larissa. 2019. The long-run and short-run effects of foreign direct investment on financial development in African countries. African Development Review 31: 216–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Hoang, Hong Hiep, Cong Minh Huynh, Nguyen Minh Huy Duong, and Ngoc Hoe Chau. 2021. Determinants of foreign direct investment in Southern Central Coast of Vietnam: A spatial econometric analysis. Economic Change and Restructuring 55: 285–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Islam, Mollah A., Muhammad A. Khan, József Popp, Wlodzimierz Sroka, and Judit Oláh. 2020. Financial Development and Foreign Direct Investment—The Moderating Role of Quality Institutions. Sustainability 12: 3556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Khan, Hameed, and Umair Khan. 2019. Financial Development and FDI Inflows in China. Economics Discussion Papers, No 2019–54. Kiel: Kiel Institute for the World Econom, pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  47. Khan, Muhammad Waris Ali, Shrikant Krupasindhu Panigrahi, Khamis Said Nasser Almuniri, Mujeeb Iqbal Soomro, Nayyar Hussain Mirjat, and Eisa Salim Alqaydi. 2019. Investigating the Dynamic Impact of CO2 Emissions and Economic Growth on Renewable Energy Production: Evidence from FMOLS and DOLS Tests. Processes 7: 496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Kumari, Reenu, and Anil Kumar Sharma. 2017. Determinants of foreign direct investment in developing countries: A panel data study. International Journal of Emerging Markets 12: 658–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kurtović, Safet, Nehat Maxhuni, Blerim Halili, and Sead Talović. 2020. The determinants of FDI location choice in the Western Balkan countries. Post-Communist Economies 32: 1089–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lee, Chien-Chiang, Chi-Chuan Lee, and Chih-Yang Cheng. 2020. The impact of FDI on income inequality: Evidence from the perspective of financial development. International Journal of Finance & Economics 27: 137–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lin, Shu, and Haichun Ye. 2011. The role of financial development in exchange rate regime choices. Journal of International Money and Finance 30: 641–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Malarvizhi, Chinnasamy Agamudai Nambhi, Yashar Zeynali, Abdullah Al Mamun, and Ghazali Bin Ahmad. 2018. Financial Development and Economic Growth in ASEAN-5 Countries. Global Business Review 20: 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Marques, António C., José A. Fuinhas, and José P. Manso. 2011. A quantile approach to identify factors promoting renewable energy in European countries. Environmental and Resource Economics 49: 351–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Maryam, Javeria, and Ashok Mittal. 2020. Foreign direct investment into BRICS: An empirical analysis. Transnational Corporations Review 12: 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mehrara, Mohsen, Sadeq Rezaei, and Davoud Hamidi Razi. 2015. Determinants of renewable energy consumption among eco countries; based on Bayesian model averaging and weighted-average least square. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences 54: 96–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Mengova, Evelina. 2019. What Determines Energy Production from Renewable Sources? Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability 14: 83–100. [Google Scholar]
  57. Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Mijiyawa, Abdoul’Ganiou. 2015. What drives foreign direct investment in Africa? An empirical investigation with panel data. African Development Review 27: 392–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nasir, Muhammad Ali, Toan Luu Duc Huynh, and Huong Thi Xuan Tram. 2019. Role of financial development, economic growth & foreign direct investment in driving climate change: A case of emerging ASEAN. Journal of Environmental Management 242: 131–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Nguyen, Anh T. N., and Andrzej Cieślik. 2021. Determinants of foreign direct investment from Europe to Asia. The World Economy 44: 1842–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Nguyen, Canh Phuc, and Gabriel S. Lee. 2021. Uncertainty, financial development, and FDI inflows: Global evidence. Economic Modelling 99: 105473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Nkoa, Bruno Emmanuel Ongo. 2018. Determinants of foreign direct investment in Africa: An analysis of the impact of financial development. Economics Bulletin 38: 221–33. [Google Scholar]
  63. Olorogun, Lukman A. 2021. The nexus between FDI inflows and economic development in Ghana: Empirical analysis from ARDL model. Journal for Global Business Advancement 14: 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Omri, Anis, and Duc Khuong Nguyen. 2014. On the determinants of renewable energy consumption: International evidence. Energy 72: 554–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Omri, Anis, Saida Daly, and Duc Khuong Nguyen. 2015. A robust analysis of the relationship between renewable energy consumption and its main drivers. Applied Economics 47: 2913–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Osei, Michael J., and Jaebeom Kim. 2020. Foreign direct investment and economic growth: Is more financial development better? Economic Modelling 93: 154–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Özmen, Erdal. 2007. Financial development, exchange rate regimes and the Feldstein–Horioka puzzle: Evidence from the MENA region. Applied Economics 39: 1133–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Papież, Monika, Sławomir Śmiech, and Katarzyna Frodyma. 2018. Determinants of renewable energy development in the EU countries. A 20-year perspective. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 91: 918–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Paul, Justin, and Pravin Jadhav. 2020. Institutional determinants of foreign direct investment inflows: Evidence from emerging markets. International Journal of Emerging Markets 15: 245–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pesaran, M. Hashem. 2021. General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics 60: 13–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pesaran, M. Hashem, Yongcheol Shin, and Ron P. Smith. 1999. Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association 94: 621–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pradhan, Rudra P., Mak B. Arvin, John H. Hall, and Sara E. Bennett. 2018. Mobile telephony, economic growth, financial development, foreign direct investment, and imports of ICT goods: The case of the G-20 countries. Economia e Politica Industriale 45: 279–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rafidi, Zac, and George Verikios. 2021. The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment: A Review and Re-Analysis of Evidence from Australia. Australian Economic Review 55: 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Rjoub, Husam, Mehmet Aga, Ahmad Abu Alrub, and Murad Bein. 2017. Financial Reforms and Determinants of FDI: Evidence from Landlocked Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Economies 5: 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Sahin, Serkan, and Ilhan Ege. 2015. Financial Development and FDI in Greece and Neighbouring Countries: A Panel Data Analysis. Procedia Economics and Finance 24: 583–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Saini, Neha, and Monica Singhania. 2018. Determinants of FDI in developed and developing countries: A quantitative analysis using GMM. Journal of Economic Studies 45: 348–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sarafidis, Vasilis, and Tom Wansbeek. 2012. Cross-Sectional Dependence in Panel Data Analysis. Econometric Reviews 31: 483–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Shahbaz, Muhammad, Miroslav Mateev, Salah Abosedra, Muhammad Ali Nasir, and Zhilun Jiao. 2021. Determinants of FDI in France: Role of transport infrastructure, education, financial development and energy consumption. International Journal of Finance & Economics 26: 1351–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Shahbaz, Muhammad, Thi Hong Van Hoang, Mantu Kumar Mahalik, and David Roubaud. 2017. Energy consumption, financial development and economic growth in India: New evidence from a nonlinear and asymmetric analysis. Energy Economics 63: 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Siddikee, Md Noman, and Mohammad Mafizur Rahman. 2020. Foreign Direct Investment, Financial Development, and Economic Growth Nexus in Bangladesh. The American Economist 66: 265–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sirag, Abdalla, Samira SidAhmed, and Hamisu Sadi Ali. 2018. Financial development, FDI and economic growth: Evidence from Sudan. International Journal of Social Economics 45: 1236–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Smith, Francois. 2021. Uncertainty, Financial Development and FDI Inflows: France Evidence. Asian Business Research Journal 6: 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Taşdemir, Fatma. 2020. Endogenous thresholds for the determinants of FDI inflows: Evidence from the MENA countries. International Journal of Emerging Markets 17: 683–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Taylor, John B. 2000. Low inflation, pass-through, and the pricing power of firms. European Economic Review 44: 1389–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Vasyechko, Olga. 2012. A review of FDI theories: An application for transition economies. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics 89: 118–137. [Google Scholar]
  86. Yahya, Farzan, and Muhammad Rafiq. 2019. Unraveling the contemporary drivers of renewable energy consumption: Evidence from regime types. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Yimer, Addis. 2017. Macroeconomic, Political, and Institutional Determinants of FDI Inflows to Ethiopia: An ARDL Approach. In Studies on Economic Development and Growth in Selected African Countries. Edited by Almas Heshmati. Singapore: Springer Singapore, pp. 123–51. [Google Scholar]
  88. Yusuf, Hammed Agboola, Waliu Olawale Shittu, Saad Babatunde Akanbi, Habiba MohammedBello Umar, and Idris Abdulganiyu Abdulrahman. 2020. The role of foreign direct investment, financial development, democracy and political (in)stability on economic growth in West Africa. International Trade, Politics and Development 4: 27–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Yuxiang, Karl, and Zhongchang Chen. 2011. Resource abundance and financial development: Evidence from China. Resources Policy 36: 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zeytoonnejad Mousavian, Seyed Reza, Seyyed Mehdi Mirdamadi, Seyed Jamal Farajallah Hosseini, and Maryam Omidi NajafAbadi. 2021. Determinants of foreign direct investment inflow to the agricultural sector: A panel-data analysis. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhao, Hongxin. 2003. Country factor differentials as determinants of FDI flow to China. Thunderbird International Business Review 45: 149–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Trend line for FDI inflow in middle-income countries.
Figure 1. Trend line for FDI inflow in middle-income countries.
Economies 10 00182 g001
Figure 2. Trend line for financial development in middle-income countries.
Figure 2. Trend line for financial development in middle-income countries.
Economies 10 00182 g002
Table 1. Summarized Findings from Various Studies.
Table 1. Summarized Findings from Various Studies.
Sr #AuthorsVariablesPopulationPeriodEstimation MethodsMain Findings
1Kumari and Sharma (2017)Determinants of FDI20 countries1990–2012Static panelTrade openness (positive and significant).
2Rjoub et al. (2017)Financial reforms and FDI determinantsSub-Saharan countries1995–2013Static panelTrade openness and GDP (positive and significant).
3Yimer (2017)Political, macroeconomic, and institutional factors of FDIEthiopia1970–2013ARDLTrade openness (positive and significant).
4Pradhan et al. (2018)Financial development, FDI, and control variablesG-201990–2014Static ARDLFinancial development, economic growth (positive and significant).
5Saini and Singhania (2018)FDI determinants20 countries (developed and developing)2004–2013GMMTrade openness and economic growth (positive and significant).
6Sirag et al. (2018)FDI, financial development, and economic growthSudan1970–2014OLS and DOLSFinancial development, economic growth (positive and significant).
7Nasir et al. (2019)FDI, financial development, economic growth, and climateASEAN region1982–2014Ols, DOLS, and FMOLSFinancial development (positive and significant).
8Canh et al. (2020)Uncertainty and FDI21 economies2003–20132 SLS panel estimationEconomic policy uncertainty (negative and significant).
9Kurtović et al. (2020)FDI determinantsPostcommunist economies2007–2017GMMEconomic growth (positive and significant).
10Abdouli and Hammami (2020)FDI, financial development, economic growth, and environmentMiddle-East countries1980–2014Simultaneous equation modelsEconomic growth, financial development, and institutional quality (positive and significant).
11Taşdemir (2020)FDI determinantsMENA region1995–2017Static panelFinancial depth, and trade openness (positive and significant).
12Shahbaz et al. (2021)FDI determinants, financial development, transport infrastructure, education, and consumptionFrance1965–2017ARDLFinancial development (negative and significant).
13Smith (2021)FDI inflow, financial development, and uncertaintyFrance2014–2020ARDLFinancial development (positive and significant), and uncertainty, inflation (negative and significant).
14Nguyen and Lee (2021)FDI inflow, financial development, and uncertaintyGlobal1996–2017GMMFinancial development (positive and significant), and uncertainty and inflation (negative and significant).
15Asamoah et al. (2022)FDI, uncertainty, and financial development40 African countries1990–2018GMMFinancial development, exchange rate, and trade openness (positive, sig), uncertainty (negative, sig).
Table 2. Variable Measurement.
Table 2. Variable Measurement.
TypeSymbolVariable TitleMeasurements and (Data Source)Data AvailabilityReferences
OutcomeFDIIForeign direct investment FDI net inflow as a percentage of GDP (WDI)1970–2020(Nguyen and Lee 2021)
InputFIND
OFD
FID
MFD
Financial development
  • Overall financial development
  • Financial institution
  • Financial market
Overall financial development index
(FD-IMF)
Financial institution index (FD-IMF)
Financial market index (FD-IMF)
1980–2020(Rjoub et al. 2017; Shahbaz et al. 2017; Bayar and Gavriletea 2018a; Malarvizhi et al. 2018; Nguyen and Lee 2021).
ControlINFRInflation rateInflation with GDP deflator as an annual percentage (WDI)1960–2020(Azam and Haseeb 2021; Nguyen and Lee 2021).
TOPTrade opennessTrade as a percentage of GDP (WDI)1960–2020(Azam and Haseeb 2021; Nguyen and Lee 2021).
RGREconomic growthThe growth rate of real GDP at an annual percentage (WDI)1960–2020(Azam and Haseeb 2021; Nguyen and Lee 2021)
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics.
MeanStdKurtosisSkewnessMinMaxN
FDI inflow2.040.532.410.60−9.7715.592173
OFD0.220.141.121.250.030.742173
IFD0.290.131.181.120.040.762173
MFD0.140.170.711.260.000.742173
INFR14.163.234.271.20−3.2096.152173
TOP66.7240.071.260.860.00274.972173
RGR3.114.196.16−0.22−26.3434.862173
Table 4. Correlation Matrix.
Table 4. Correlation Matrix.
FDIIOFDFIDFMDINFRTOPRGR
FDII1
OFD0.06971
0.0012
IFD0.09820.86061
0.00000.0000
MFD0.00510.80250.48661
0.81320.0000.000
INF−0.2037−0.0992−0.1573−0.02211
0.00000.00000.00000.3023
TOP0.30720.03720.09350.0474−0.26981
0.00000.08280.00000.02730.0000
RGR0.04350.01720.01560.01510.0182−0.00981
0.04240.42250.46770.48240.39680.6479
Table 5. Cross-Sectional Dependency.
Table 5. Cross-Sectional Dependency.
TestTest Statisticsp-ValueDecision
Pesaran24.840.000No cross-sectional dependence
Frees4.0760.000No cross-sectional dependence
Friedman244.9430.000No cross-sectional dependence
Table 6. First Generation Panel Unit Root Tests.
Table 6. First Generation Panel Unit Root Tests.
VariablesAt LevelsAt First Difference
Levin–Lin–ChuIm–Pesaran–ShinBreitungLevin–Lin–ChuIm–Pesaran-ShinBreitung
FDI inflow−1.49−1.98−1.30−4.21 ***−4.11 ***−5.14 ***
OFD−1.84−1.500.04−5.19 ***−5.93 ***−4.16 ***
FID−3.04 **−2.79 *−0.46−4.85 ***−3.35 ***−3.14 **
FMD−2.29−2.930.32−4.82 ***−5.81 ***−8.96 ***
INF−5.99 ***−13.17 ***−9.53 ***−8.40 ***−26.12 ***−23.13 ***
TOP−2.62 *−0.95−2.48 *−7.87 ***−5.94 ***−15.05 ***
RGR−5.84 ***−2.74 *−1.78−7.94 ***−3.47 ***−4.96 ***
*** Significance at 1% level. ** Significance at 5% level. * Significance at 10% level.
Table 7. Optimal Lag (1,1,1,1,1,1,0).
Table 7. Optimal Lag (1,1,1,1,1,1,0).
CountriesFDIIFDFIFMINFTOPGRT
Algeria1221134
Bangladesh3221110
Bolivia1111213
Botswana1441113
Brazil1331313
Cameroon2441010
Colombia1112214
Congo, Rep.1111020
Costa Rica2111323
Côte d’Ivoire1114011
Dominican Republic2111340
Ecuador2441210
Egypt, Arab Rep.1131120
El Salvador2222113
Eswatini2231211
Fiji2111110
Gabon0111130
Ghana1413111
Guatemala1111311
Guyana1221111
Honduras3311121
India3211110
Indonesia4312111
Iran, Islamic Rep.1112430
Iraq2311120
Jamaica2114412
Jordan2111120
Kenya4121110
Malaysia0332021
Mauritania2111232
Mauritius1212421
Mexico3312211
Morocco2111310
Myanmar1114140
Nicaragua2221110
Nigeria2441111
Pakistan1434110
Panama1221121
Papua New Guinea1142012
Paraguay2113210
Peru1121341
Philippines1143422
Senegal2213120
Solomon Islands1334312
South Africa3141212
Sri Lanka1111010
Sudan2221112
Suriname3221111
Syrian Arab Republic3111111
Thailand1141110
Tunisia1313213
Turkey3111110
Zambia1111111
Mode1111110
Table 8. Panel Cointegration Test.
Table 8. Panel Cointegration Test.
Pedroni TestStatisticWesterlund TestStatistic
PanelGroup
v0.2241 Gt−3.100 ***
Rho−5.139 ***−3.145 ***Ga−5.884 ***
t−15.43 ***−16.18 ***Pt−19.573 ***
Adf−10.99 ***−9.375 ***Pa −5.343 ***
*** Significance at 1% level.
Table 9. Panel ARDL Estimations.
Table 9. Panel ARDL Estimations.
Pooled Mean GroupMean GroupDynamic Fixed Effect
Long run
OFD0.147−8.7150.683
(0.393)(31.78)(0.748)
IFD0.2697.8340.275
(0.307)(30.50)(0.624)
MFD0.451 ***0.9400.442 **
(0.116)(2.092)(0.198)
INF−0.0311−0.201 **−0.152 **
(0.0444)(0.0808)(0.0750)
TOP0.665 ***1.247 ***0.557 ***
(0.131)(0.412)(0.141)
RGR0.0139 *0.0429 *0.0275 *
(0.0455)(0.0682)(0.0895)
Short run
EC−0.431 ***−0.741 ***−0.392 ***
(0.0294)(0.0358)(0.0174)
Δ O F 22.8334.430.0467
(20.37)(25.37)(0.583)
Δ I F D 25.2336.230.190
(19.40)(23.95)(0.521)
Δ M F D 2.6801.7770.233
(2.503)(3.140)(0.158)
Δ I N F −0.0526 **−0.0479 **−0.00348 **
(0.0279)(0.0270)(0.0012)
Δ T O P 0.655 *0.2270.0608 *
(0.269)(0.289)(0.0389)
Δ R G R 0.03170.01690.0355 **
(0.0265)(0.0322)(0.0178)
Constant−0.191 **−4.8850.168 ***
(0.0754)(11.95)(0.0325)
Hausman test (MG and PMG)3.72 (0.7142)
Hausman test (DFE and PMG) 14.27 ** (0.0267)
Observations212021202120
Note: Standard errors in parentheses. *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. Estimations of panel ARDL approaches (mg, pmg, and dfe) were executed using the xtmp command in Stata. The optimal lag structure was (1,1,1,1,1,1,0) with the order of variables as FDI inflow, overall financial development (OFD), institutional financial development (IFD), market’s financial development (MFD), inflation rate (INFR), trade openness (TOP), and real growth rate (RGR). The Hausman test indicates the acceptance of a dynamic fixed effect (DFE) as the final approach in the panel ARDL method. A total number of 53 middle-income economies with an annual data range of 1980–2020 were included as a panel in the estimations.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Haque, M.A.; Biqiong, Z.; Arshad, M.U. Sources of Financial Development and Their Impact on FDI Inflow: A Panel Data Analysis of Middle-Income Economies. Economies 2022, 10, 182. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10080182

AMA Style

Haque MA, Biqiong Z, Arshad MU. Sources of Financial Development and Their Impact on FDI Inflow: A Panel Data Analysis of Middle-Income Economies. Economies. 2022; 10(8):182. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10080182

Chicago/Turabian Style

Haque, Mohammad Anamul, Zhang Biqiong, and Muhammad Usman Arshad. 2022. "Sources of Financial Development and Their Impact on FDI Inflow: A Panel Data Analysis of Middle-Income Economies" Economies 10, no. 8: 182. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10080182

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop