The Effect of Institutional Factors on the Geographical Distribution of Foreign Capital: Panel Data Analysis

Abstract

It is seen that the heterogeneity in foreign direct investment (FDI) and foreign portfolio investment (FPI) inequality between countries contributes to the developments in financial development. However, it is unclear through what causal mechanism capital flows flow. However, the causal mechanisms through which capital flows operate always are not clearly stated (Kohler, 2022: 1511). FDI and FPI are financial transactions between residents of different geographical units with different institutions. Considering that capital, by its nature, belongs to any place and has a corporate identity, the institutional economic geography approach will constitute a productive starting point in the evaluation of international capital movements. Institutional economic geography; It will evaluate the systematic relationship between FDI and FPI uneven development processes by analyzing and developing markets through spatial economic interaction, within the formal and informal institutional framework appropriate to global-local dynamics. When we look at the literature, it can be seen that issues such as the types of international capital movements, their causes, their results, their determinants, and the causality relationship and development between economic growth have been studied. However, no study has been found on the prediction of international capital movements or the motivations that cause capital movements to differ. While this study tries to explain unequal spatial development with an institutional economic geography approach, it will also help us understand the long-term dynamics of international capital movements. In the study in question, panel data analysis was applied using FDI and FPI data from the long-term capital movements of 20 countries covering the period between 2006 and 2020, in order to evaluate the asymmetric international capital distribution from the perspective of institutional economic geography. In the study, it was determined that the series were heterogeneous with the Swamy-S Homogeneity test. Afterwards, cross-sectional dependence and unit root tests were examined, and as a result of the test using Westerlund (2007) as the co-integration test, the existence of a long-term relationship between the variables was determined. The coefficients of the long-term cointegration relationship determined by testing with the panel DMOLS test were estimated. The error correction model was estimated with the extended mean group (AMG) estimator developed by Bond and Eberhardt (2009) and Bernhard and Teal (2010). According to the estimation results, it was determined that the effect of independent variables on the dependent variable was different for each country.

Keywords

• Institutional economic geography
• International capital movements
• Panel data analysis

Yabancı Sermayenin Coğrafi Dağılımına Kurumsal Unsurların Etkisi: Panel Veri Analizi

Abstract

Ülkeler arasındaki doğrudan yabancı yatırım (DYY) ve yabancı portföy yatırımı (YPY) eşitsizliğindeki heterojenliğin finansal gelişmedeki farklılıklara katkıda bulunduğu görülmektedir. Ancak, sermaye akışlarının hangi nedensel mekanizmalar aracılığıyla kesin işleyişi her zaman açıkça dile getirilmemiştir (Kohler, 2022: 1511). DYY ve YPY, farklı kurumlara sahip farklı coğrafi birimlerin sakinleri arasında gerçekleştirilen finansal işlemlerdir. Sermayenin doğası gereği herhangi bir mekâna ait olması ve kurumsal bir kimliğe sahip olması göz önünde bulundurulduğunda kurumsal ekonomik coğrafya yaklaşımı uluslararası sermaye hareketlerinin değerlendirilmesinde verimli bir hareket noktasını oluşturacaktır. Kurumsal ekonomik coğrafya; DYY ve YPY eşitsiz gelişme süreçleri arasındaki sistematik ilişkiyi, küresel-yerel dinamiklere uygun resmi ve gayrı resmi kurumsal çerçevede, mekânsal ekonomik etkileşimle oluşarak gelişen piyasalarla birlikte analiz ederek değerlendirecektir. Literatüre bakıldığı zaman, uluslararası sermaye hareketlerinin türleri, nedenleri, sonuçları belirleyicileri ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi, gelişimi gibi konuların çalışılmış olduğu görülmektedir. Ancak, uluslararası sermaye hareketlerinin tahminlenmesine ya da sermaye hareketlerinin nedenlerinin farklı olmasına sebep olan güdülerin neler olduğuna dair herhangi bir çalışmaya rastlanmamıştır. Bu çalışma eşit olmayan mekânsal kalkınmayı, kurumsal ekonomik coğrafya yaklaşımı ile açıklamaya çalışırken aynı zamanda uluslararası sermaye hareketlerinin uzun vadeli dinamiğini anlamamıza da yardımcı olacaktır. Söz konusu çalışmada asimetrik uluslararası sermaye dağılımını kurumsal ekonomik coğrafya perspektifinde değerlendirmek için 2006-2020 yılları arasını kapsayan 20 ülkenin uzun dönemli sermaye hareketlerinden, doğrudan yabancı yatırım ve yabancı portföy yatırımı verileri kullanılarak panel veri analizi uygulanmıştır. Çalışmada Swamy-S Homojenlik testi ile serilerin heterojen olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Sonrasında yatay kesit bağımlılığı ve birim kök testleri incelenmiş ve eş bütünleşme testi olarak Westerlund (2007) kullanılarak yapılan test sonucunda değişkenler arasında uzun dönemli ilişkinin varlığı tespit edilmiştir. Panel DMOLS testi ile sınanarak tespit edilen uzun dönem eş bütünleşme ilişkisinin katsayıları tahmin edilmiştir. Hata düzeltme modeli, Bond ve Eberhardt (2009) ile Bernhard ve Teal (2010) tarafından geliştirilmiş genişletilmiş ortalama grup (AMG) tahmincisi ile tahmin edilmiş ve tahmin sonuçlarına göre her ülke için, bağımsız değişkenlerin bağımlı değişken üzerindeki etkisinin farklı olduğu saptanmıştır.

Keywords

• Kurumsal ekonomik coğrafya
• Uluslararası sermaye hareketleri
• Panel veri analizi

References

1. Ahlquist, J. S. (2006). Economic Policy, İnstitutions and Capital Flows: Portfolio and Direct İnvestment Flows in Developing Countries. International Studies Quarterly, 50(3), 681-704. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2006.00420.x.
2. Akın, C. S., & Aytun, C. (2014). Sosyal Sermayenin İşgücü Piyasası Üzerine Etkileri: Panel Nedensellik Analizi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, Ağustos 2014, 9(2), 65‐ 80.
3. Avram, Loura, E., Lucian, S., Avram, & Ignat, K., & Vancea, A. B., & Horja, S., & Ioana, M. (2009). Investment Decision and its Appraisal, Daaam International, Vienna, Austria. Annals of Daaam & Proceedings, Graph. (Jan 2009, 2p. 1), 1905-1906.
4. Baltagi, B. H. (2008). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data (Fourth Edition), West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
5. Breitung, J. (2005). A Parametric approach to the Estimation of Cointegration Vectors in Panel Data. Econometric Reviews 24(2), 151-173. DOI:10.1081/ETC-200067895.
6. Clark, G. L., & Wójcik, D. (2002). How and Where Should We Invest in Europe? An Economic. Geography Of Global Finance, Available At. Ssrn: Https://Ssrn.Com/Abstract=308539 Or Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.2139/Ssrn.308539,1-33.
7. Choi, I. (2001). Unit Root Tests for Panel Data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20, 249-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5606(00)00048-6.
8. Dobler, C. (2011). The Impact of Formal and Informal Institutions on Economic Growth: A Case Study on the MENA Region. Hohenheimer volkswirtschaftliche Schriften. No. 65, ISBN 978-3-65300883-8, Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, Frankfurt a. M. http://dx.doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-00883-8.

9. Eberhart, M., & Bond, S. R. (2009). Cross-sectional dependence in non-stationary panel models: A novel estimator. Nordic Econometric Meetings, MPRA Paper 17692, University Library of Munich, Germany.
10. Eberhart, M., & Teal, F. (2010). Productivity analysis in the global manufacturing production. Department of Economics, United University of Oxford, Kingdom.
11. Engle, R., & Granger, J. (1987). Co-Integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing. Econometrica, 55(2), 251-27.
12. Evans, K. (2002). Foreign Portfolio and Direct İnvestment: Complementarity, Differences and İntegration. İn Paper Prepared on the Global Forum on İnternational İnvestment in Shanghaivol, 20(1), 1905-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.15(1).2018.27.
13. Grinblatt, M., & Keloharju, M. (2000). The Investment Behavior and Performance Ofvarious Investor-Types: A Study Of Finland’s Unique Data Set. Journal Offinancial Economics, 55(1), 43-67.
14. Hadri, K. (2000). Testing for Stationarity in Heterogeneous Panel Data. The Econometrics Journal, 3, 148-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/1368-423X.00043.
15. Harvey, D. (2012). Sermayenin Mekanları, Eleştirel Bir Coğrafyaya Doğru. (B. Kıcır, K. Tanrıyar, S. Yüksel, Çev.), Kitabın Özgün Adı: Spaces of Capital/Towards Acritical Geography, (1-485). İstanbul: Sel Yayıncılık.
16. Hee-Kyung, K. (1991). Capıtal Accumulatıon and the Spatıal Dıvısıon of Classes: Wıth Specıal Reference to the New Mıddle Class in Korea and Taıwan. Korea Journal of Populatıon and Development. (July 1991), 20(1), 101-119.
17. Hurlin, C. (2010). What would Nelson and Plosser Find had They Used Panel Unit Root Tests? Applied Economics, 42(10-12), 1515-1531.
18. Hutzschenreuter, T., Johannes C., & Voll, J. C. (2008). Performance Effects of Added Cultural Distance in the Path of İnternational Expansion: The Case of German Multinational Enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1), 53-70. Doi: 10.1057/Palgrave.Jibs.8400312.
19. International Monetary Fund. (2021). FPI, Interest rate. Retrieved, September 30, 2021. www.imf.org.
20. Kang, H. K. (1991). Capıtal Accumulatıon and the Spatıal Dıvısıon of Classes: Wıth Specıal Reference to the New Mıddle Class In Korea and Taıwan. Korea Journal Of Populatıon and Development, 20(1), 101-118.
21. Kaygalak, İ. (2020). Mekân ve Ekonomi, Ekonomik Coğrafyada Yeni Yaklaşımlar. 1. Baskı, İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları.
22. Ketterer, T. D. & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2016). Institutions vs. ‘First-Nature’ Geography: What Drives Economic Growth in Europe's regions? London School of Economics & Political Science (LSE) Papers in Regional Science. 1056-8190.
23. Kušar, S. (2011). The Institutional Approach in Economic Geography: an Applicative View. Hrvatskı Geografskı Glasnık, 73/1, 39-49.
24. Kohler,K.(2022). Capital flows and geographically uneven economic dynamics: A monetary perspective, EPA: Economy and Space 2022, Vol. 54(8) 1510–1531. DOI: 10.1177/0308518X221120823.
25. Lane, P. R, & Milesi-Ferretti, G. M. (2005). A Global Perspective on External Positions. IIIS Discussion Paper No. 79.
26. Levin, A., Lin, C. F., & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7.
27. Lucas, R. (1990). Why Doesn’t Capital Flow from Rich to Poor Countries? American Economic Review, 80(2), 92–96.
28. Mackinnon, D., Cumber, A., & McMaster, R. (2003). Institutions, Power and Space: Assessing The Limits To Institutionalism İn Economic Geography. DOI: 10.1177/09697764030104003 European Urban and Regional Studies, 10, 325, Published by Sage.
29. Maddala, G. S. & Wu, S. (1999). A Comparatıve Study of Unıt Root Tests Wıth Panel Data and a New Sımple Test. Oxford Bulletın of Economıcs and Statıstıcs. Special Issue, 61:631-652.
30. Martin, R. (2015). İnstitutional Approaches in Economic Geography, a Companion to Economic Geography. Blackwell Publishing. Chapter 6, 77-94.
31. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2007). Complexity Thinking and Evolutionary Economic Geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 7, 573-601. Doı:10.1093/Jeg/Lbm019,1-30.
32. Mátyás, L. & Sevestre, P. (2008). The Econometrics of Panel Data Fundamentals and Recent Developments in Theory and Practice. Third Edition, 46, Germany: Springer.
33. Micthell, J. (2002). England and the Centre. Regional Studies. 36, 757-765.
34. North, D. C. (1990). Kurumlar, Kurumsal Değişim ve Ekonomik Performans. Sena Ofset, (G. Çağalı-Güven, Çev.) Güven Kitabın Özgün Adı: Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University. Press, 1990-1999, 2010, İstanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi.
35. Pedroni, P. (2001). Purchasing Power Parity Tests in Cointegrated Panels. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 727-731.
36. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence In Panels. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, 435.
37. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A-Bias Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross Section Independence. Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
38. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross-Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951.
39. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
40. Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon Press.
41. PRS Group. (2021). The International Country Risk Guide. Retrieved. www.prs.group.com. Shin, Y., Pesaran, M. H. & Ima, K. S. (2003). Testing or Unit Root in Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115, s. 54.
42. Sokol, M. (2011). Economic Geographies of Globalisation. Edward Elgar Publishing, Ireland: Trinity College Dublin. Swamy, P. A. (1970). Efficient Inference in a Random Coefficient Regression Model. Econometrica: Journail of the Econometric Society, 311-323.
43. The Heritage Foundation. (2020). Economic Freedom Index, Retrieved, November 13, 2021. https://www.heritage.org/china-transparency-project/indexes-rankings.
44. Thrift, N., & Olds, K. (1996). Refiguring the Economic in Economic Geography. Progress in Human Geography, 20(3), 311-337. Doi.Org/10.1177/030913259602000302.
45. Trkulja, J. (2005). Geographic Factors as Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in Eastern Europe’s. Senior Honors Thesis, Geography Department Macalester College, 1-75.
46. Unctad (2002). World Investment Report 2022, Transnational Corporations and Export Competitiveness. Nctad, New York and Geneva. Sales N° E.02.II.D.4.
47. Virlics, A. (2013). Investment Decision Making and Risk. Procedia Economics and Finance, 6(2013), 169–177. DOI10.1016/S2212-5671(13)00129-9.
48. Westerlund, J. & Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economic Letters, 97(3), 185-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.03.003.
49. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for Error Correction in Panel Data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748.
50. Wilkins, M. (1999). Two Literatures, Two Story-Lines: İs a General Paradigm of Foreign Portfolio and Foreign Direct İnvestment Feasible? Transnational Corporations, 8(1), 53.
51. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2021). FDI, Trade openness, Growth rate. Retrieved September 20. Per Capita National Income of Countries. Retrieved July, 10 2023. https:// unctad.org.
52. World Bank. (2021). Lojistik Performans Endeksi. Ease of doing business index, Retrieved October 10. https://data.worldbank.org.
53. World Intellectual Property Organization (2021). Global Innovation Index. Retrieved October 15, https://www.wipo.int/global_innovation_index.