Co dalej z inwestycjami zagranicznymi?

25 czerwca 2007 Wyłączono przez Jaworowski Karol

Economist Intelligence Unit opublikowała analizę dotyczącą rekordowego napływu inwestycji zagranicznych do krajów Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej w zeszłym roku. Artykuł zawiera dwie główne myśli, z którymi warto się zapoznać:

  • przewidywane jest trwałe zmniejszenie napływu inwestycji zagranicznych do regionu w kolejnych latach,
  • pozytywny wpływ Unii Europejskiej na poziom BIZ jest przeceniany.

Ponadto autorzy wymieniają 6 głównych czynników, które ich zdaniem niemal w pełni wyjaśniają fluktuacje strumieni inwestycji w regionie.

The Economist studzi zachwyty nad rekordowym poziomem BIZ w roku 2006, przewidując, że w kolejnych latach inwestycji zagranicznych będzie coraz mniej:

There are a number of reasons to believe, however, that FDI inflows into the region may have peaked in 2006. A modest decline is forecast for 2007 (in all subregions except he CIS), to a still very high US$100bn. Total FDI inflows are likely to continue to trend downwards after that over the medium term, both in absolute US dollar terms, as well as in terms of the percentage of the region’s GDP.

The main reason for this is the near-exhaustion of major privatisation opportunities in much of the region. But sharply increasing labour costs in many countries; continuing business environment problems and competition from other destinations will contribute to a tailing off of FDI inflows into many of the new EU member states. Although FDI inflows have increased significantly into many CIS states, political risk and business environment problems will keep inflows below potential.

Model, używany w tej analizie do prognozowania poziomu BIZ opiera się na 6 czynnikach, od których – zdaniem autorów – zależą zmiany napływu inwestycji do danego kraju. Te czynniki to:

  • wielkość rynku,
  • koszty płac,
  • zasoby naturalne,
  • metody prywatyzacji,
  • dystans geograficzny,
  • polityka i środowisko biznesowe.
READ  Tylnymi drzwiami do euro

Autorzy poddają w wątpliwość siłę korelacji pomiędzy wstąpieniem nowych krajów do Unii Europejskiej a napływem do nich inwestycji zagranicznych. Pozytywny związek ich zdaniem istnieje, ale nie jest tak bezpośredni i jednoznaczny, jak się powszechnie wydaje:

The conventional wisdom has been that EU membership will lead to a new surge of FDI into the EU’s new member sates (NMS) and that it will spark a massive intra-EU relocation of production from the West to the East. In fact, there was a sharp dip in FDI flows to the NMS in 2003. A good recovery followed from 2004. But it is difficult to ascribe this to the effect of EU membership as such, as flows in 2004-06 were influenced by a number of large privatisations. The recovery in FDI inflows has also been cyclical in the sense that the NMS benefited from the economic recovery in the euro area following very weak activity in the beginning of the decade.

EU membership has been accompanied by some FDI-enhancing aspects. There were some further reductions in risk ratings, and many small investors in particular were reassured. Although the bulk of trade liberalisation (which was an important driving force for FDI) occurred long before, some residual trade barriers were removed after membership. Further improvement occurred in some areas of the business environment, as practices became further aligned with EU norms. Access to EU structural funding is a point of attraction for some FDI. Ultimately, the adoption of the euro is likely to have a positive impact on FDI flows–although for most NMS this is still some years away.

However, there are also some significant caveats and the net impact of EU membership on FDI is by no means self-evident. The attainment of membership removed a reform anchor and the discipline of the accession process; this has been very evident in many countries of the region. It accentuated upward pressure on currencies and on labour costs. Some EU regulations reduce flexibility and impose costs on business. The elimination of special FDI incentives, required by EU membership, may be positive from an overall economic welfare point of view, but from the point of view of attracting FDI it is a negative. The experience of previous enlargements, the Nordic or the Southern ones, also suggests that the link between FDI and enlargement is much weaker than often supposed.