Dr. Alejandro Diaz Bautista Conference FDI Mexico United States Canada NAFTA 2010


Published on

“Economic Growth, Foreign Direct Investment and International Trade during NAFTA".
Dr. Alejandro Díaz-Bautista
Investigador Nacional y Miembro del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, CONACYT, Nivel II.
Preparado para Seminario "El TLCAN: Crecimiento, Inversión Extranjera Directa, Desigualdad y Migración”, que se lleva a cabo el martes 16 de febrero de 2010, a las 10:00 horas (tiempo del centro de México), en Casa Colef, en la Calle Francisco Sosa No. 254, Coyoacán, en la Ciudad de México.

Published in: News & Politics, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • League of California Cities Los Angeles County Division April 5, 2007 LAEDC: Jack Kyser Global FDI inflows reached a new record level of $1,833 billion Inflows to developed countries rose by 33% ($1,248 billion). Developing economies recorded a 21% growth rate ($500 billion). Inflows to South-East Europe and CIS countries increased by 50% ($86 billion).
  • Dr. Alejandro Diaz Bautista Conference FDI Mexico United States Canada NAFTA 2010

    1. 1. “ Economic Growth, Foreign Direct Investment and International Trade during NAFTA" Dr. Alejandro Díaz-Bautista Investigador Nacional y Miembro del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, CONACYT, Nivel II. [email_address] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/alejandro-diaz-bautista/6/619/691 Profesor-Investigador de Economía, Departamento de Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. Preparado para Seminario "El TLCAN: Crecimiento, Inversión Extranjera Directa, Desigualdad y Migración”, que se llevara a cabo el martes 16 de febrero, a las 10:00 horas (tiempo del centro de México), en Casa Colef, en la Calle Francisco Sosa No. 254, Coyoacán, en la Ciudad de México.
    2. 2. FDI in Mexico during 2010 <ul><li>A rebound in Mexico’s foreign direct investment (FDI) is expected in 2010, after the fall of 50.8% in the fourth quarter of 2009. </li></ul><ul><li>Mexico raised its forecast for economic growth in 2010 to 3.9 percent, citing higher demand for exports such as automobiles and a rebound in consumer spending. </li></ul><ul><li>Mexico’s economy was hit by the U.S. slowdown. Mexico languished in Latin America’s deepest recession last year and had its debt downgraded. </li></ul><ul><li>Mexico sends about 80 percent of its exports to the United States. </li></ul><ul><li>During 2010, boosted by U.S. stimulus spending, demand for Mexican exports has recovered faster than government economists expected. </li></ul>
    3. 5. World Trade 2009 <ul><li>The World Trade Organization (WTO) expect a decline in world merchandise trade volume by 10 percent in 2009, according to World Trade Report 2009: Trade Policy Commitments and Contingency Measures which examines various trade agreement measures used by governments in times of economic crisis. </li></ul><ul><li>While annualized quarterly growth rates of world trade was dropping at a rate of more than 20%. </li></ul>
    4. 10. Foreign direct investment (FDI) <ul><li>Foreign direct investment (FDI) plays an extraordinary and growing role in global business and economics. It can provide a firm with new markets and marketing channels, cheaper production facilities, access to new technology, products, skills and financing. </li></ul><ul><li>For a host country or the foreign firm which receives the investment, it can provide a source of new technologies, capital, processes, products, organizational technologies and management skills, and other positive externalities and spillovers that can provide a strong impetus to regional economic growth. </li></ul>
    5. 11. History of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) <ul><li>After the Second World War, global FDI was dominated by the United States. </li></ul><ul><li>The US accounted for around 75% of new FDI between 1945 and 1960. </li></ul><ul><li>FDI has grown in importance in the global economy with FDI stocks now constituting 28 percent of global GDP. </li></ul>*Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data (2008)
    6. 12. Global FDI flows surpassed the peak of 2000 by 2006 ($ billion) FDI inflows, global and by group of economies, 1980-2007
    7. 15. FDI in Mexico <ul><li>NAFTA, proximity to the United States, and continued political and economic stability make Mexico an attractive location for foreign direct investment (FDI). </li></ul><ul><li>In recent years, Mexico has passed a tax, pension and energy reforms. </li></ul><ul><li>Additional reforms to improve competition, education and labor conditions within Mexico are needed to increase competitiveness and encourage more FDI. </li></ul><ul><li>Overall FDI in Mexico is expected to fall in 2009 as a consequence of the globaleconomic downturn. </li></ul>
    8. 16. FDI in Mexico <ul><li>Mexico received 21 billion US dollars in foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2008, down 16 percent from 2007, according to the UN report published by UNCTAD. </li></ul><ul><li>In its annual report, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) ranked Mexico 18th on its list of 20 major FDI destinations. This was far behind Brazil, Russia, India and China, generally considered to be Mexico's close competitors for such investment. </li></ul><ul><li>Mexico is falling down places in the ranking in the past few years. </li></ul>
    9. 17. FDI in Latin America <ul><li>FDI inflows to Brazil, Latin America's largest economy, rose by nearly 29 percent to 45 billion US dollars in 2008. </li></ul><ul><li>UNCTAD expects FDI to fall by as much as 45 percent in Latin America this year as a result of the financial crisis. </li></ul><ul><li>This economic crisis has hit private equity firms hard and caused big companies to cut their spending. </li></ul><ul><li>Mexico is expecting a decrease of around 23 percent in FDI inflows in 2009. </li></ul>
    10. 21. World's foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2009 <ul><li>The world's foreign direct investment (FDI) declined by almost 40 percent in 2009, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). </li></ul><ul><li>FDI decreased from 1.7 trillion U.S. dollars in 2008 to only slightly more than 1 trillion U.S. dollars in 2009, with the greatest drop during 2009' s first quarter. </li></ul><ul><li>Sectors vulnerable to cyclical changes, such as automobiles and luxury goods, have come down drastically, while others, such as natural resources, pharmaceuticals and agriculture, have decreased less substantially. </li></ul><ul><li>The United States and China were ranked as the top two recipients of FDI in 2009. </li></ul><ul><li>FDI to the United States decreased by 57 percent, from 316.1 billion to 135.9 billion U.S. dollars, and FDI to China fell by 2.6 percent, from 92.4 billion to 90.0 billion U.S. dollars. </li></ul>
    11. 22. Mexico´s FDI in 2009 <ul><li>Mexico has moved back into the world’s top-10 most attractive countries for foreign direct investment as U.S. companies seek low-cost production closer to home. </li></ul><ul><li>Mexico’s attractiveness for investment ranks 8th worldwide in 2009, up from 19th at the end of 2007. </li></ul><ul><li>Of the estimated $13 billion dollars Mexico received in foreign direct investment in 2009, 53% came from the U.S. and 6% came from Canada. </li></ul>
    12. 23. FDI in Baja California <ul><li>Baja California has had a foreign direct investment (FDI) accumulated from 1999 to 2009 equivalent to 4.6% share nationally. The accumulated FDI in a decade was 10 thousand U.S. $ 428.3 million. </li></ul><ul><li>Within the current situation in the economy of 2009, we note that the path is marked by the globalization of world economy, which stands out as one of the most salient features in regional economies such as Baja California. </li></ul><ul><li>Foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Northern Border of Mexico constitutes 24% of the total received from 1999 to 2009, states such as Baja California, Coahuila, Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Sonora and Tamaulipas. </li></ul>
    13. 24. Economic Integration in North America <ul><li>The economic relationship between Mexico and the U.S. is evident in the evolution of some of their economic indicators since 1993. For example, it is apparent that, since 1993, Mexico's GDP shares its trend behavior with the U.S. GDP. </li></ul><ul><li>Nevertheless, during the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s the synchronization of the real sectors of both economies was unclear. </li></ul>
    14. 26. Economic Synchronization Between Mexico and the U.S. <ul><li>Castillo, Fragoso Pastrana and Diaz-Bautista (2004) studied the synchronization between the economies of Mexico and the United States with special reference to the manufacturing sector. The authors examined the dependency between the assembly plant industry for export in Mexico and the performance of the economy of the United States. </li></ul><ul><li>Herrera (2004) found also synchronization of GDPs in Mexico and the U.S. became evident with the implementation of the NAFTA. </li></ul>
    15. 27. United States FDI in Mexico <ul><li>Overall US FDI flows into Mexico for 2008 were $8.9 billion coming from U.S. sources. The U.S. currently provides 41% of all FDI in Mexico, benefiting more than 21,139 companies. The U.S. provides up to 68% of the total investment in manufacturing and assembly plants, and 51% of the total investment in the financial and banking sector. </li></ul><ul><li>In 2008, FDI was the third largest provider of foreign currency income to the Mexican economy, behind petroleum and remittances. </li></ul><ul><li>In 2008, approximately 40% ($3.5 billion) of U.S. investment in Mexico was directed to the six Mexican border states. These states, the location of the majority of maquiladora firms, receive 58% of all U.S. manufacturing investment in Mexico. </li></ul>
    16. 28. Literature Review <ul><li>Foreign direct investment ( FDI ) is usually viewed as a channel through which for technology </li></ul><ul><li>is able to spread from developed countries to developing countries. </li></ul><ul><li>Does foreign direct investment ( FDI ) contribute to economic growth? </li></ul><ul><li>The answer to this is uncertain. </li></ul>
    17. 29. Literature Review <ul><li>Although the evidence on the relationship between FDI and economic growth is ambiguous, several studies argue that the host country’s absorptive capacity plays an important </li></ul><ul><li>role in explaining FDI . </li></ul><ul><li>Blomström et al. (1994) state that FDI is positive and significant only for higher income countries and that is has no impact in lower income countries. </li></ul><ul><li>Borensztein et al. (1998) point out that the contribution of FDI to economic growth is enhanced by its interaction with the level of human capital in the host country. </li></ul><ul><li>Balasubramanyam et al. (1996) argue that FDI plays different role in the growth process due to the differing trade policy regimes. </li></ul>
    18. 30. Literature Review <ul><li>In the theoretical literature, the role of FDI is that of a carrier of foreign technology that can boost economic growth like Findlay (1978) and Romer (1993). </li></ul><ul><li>In the empirical studies on FDI , however, the evidence is still divided. Aitken and Harrison (1999), for instance, find that the net effect of FDI on productivity is quite small. Borensztein et al. (1998) and Carkovic and Levine (2005) also arrive at similar results by finding FDI does not have an unmitigated and positive effect on economic growth. On the other hand, Haddad and Harrsion (1993), Kokko et al. (1996), and Alfaro et al. (2004) point out that FDI can increase the rate of growth in the host economy through technology transfer. </li></ul>
    19. 31. Literature Review <ul><li>Zhang (2001) and Choe (2003) analyses the causality between FDI and economic growth. Zhang uses data for 11 developing countries in East Asia and Latin America. Using co-integration and Granger causality tests, Zhang (2001) finds that in five cases economic growth is enhanced by FDI but that host country conditions such as trade regime and macroeconomic stability are important. </li></ul><ul><li>Choe (2003) mentions that causality between economic growth and FDI runs in either direction but with a tendency towards growth causing FDI ; there is little evidence that FDI causes host country growth. Rapid economic growth could result in an increase in FDI inflows. </li></ul><ul><li>Carkovic and Levine (2002) use a panel dataset covering 72 developed and developing countries in order to analyse the relationship between FDI inflows and economic growth. The study performs both a cross-sectional OLS analysis as well as a dynamic panel data analysis. The paper concludes that there is no robust link running from inward FDI to host country economic growth. </li></ul>
    20. 32. Literature Review <ul><li>Most FDI occurs between developed economies, and the country receiving the greatest inflow of FDI is the United States. </li></ul><ul><li>Attraye and Hendrick (2006) examined whether such FDI inflows have stimulated growth of the U.S. economy. They applied time-series data to a simultaneous-equation model that explicitly captures the bi-directional relationship between FDI and U.S. economic growth. FDI is found to have a significant, positive, and economically important impact on U.S. growth. The results imply that even a technologically advanced country such as the U.S. benefits from FDI, the gains from FDI are very substantial in the long run, and the sustainability of the U.S. current account deficit is enhanced by FDI's positive effect on productivity but undermined by the income inelasticity of FDI. </li></ul><ul><li>The results suggest that U.S. policies should focus on keeping the country attractive to foreign direct investors. </li></ul>
    21. 33. Literature Review <ul><li>As a major recipient of FDI among developing countries (alongside with China, India and Brasil), Mexico has been the subject of numerous studies that explored both the causes and implications of FDI flows that have increased in the wake of economic reforms it implemented beginning in the mid-1980’s, and more intensely, after the signing of the NAFTA Agreement. </li></ul>
    22. 34. Literature Review <ul><li>Numerous studies have explored the implications of foreign investment flows for growth, productivity, income inequality in Mexico. </li></ul><ul><li>Lopez-Cordova (2002) finds that increased competition </li></ul><ul><li>and foreign capital penetration had a positive impact on the Mexican productivity at the firm </li></ul><ul><li>Mollick, Ramos and Silva (2005) find that regional infrastructure (e.g. the network of paved roads and the number of telephone lines) is important in attracting foreign investments to a region. Chiquiar (2004) shows that FDI flows and international exposure have benefited northern states of Mexico to a larger extent than the central and southern ones and that the impact on </li></ul><ul><li>wages and returns to schooling is therefore different across the Mexican states. </li></ul>
    23. 35. Literature Review <ul><li>Waldkirch (2003) studies the impact of NAFTA formation on the distribution of investment flows into Mexico across the origin countries. Using aggregate data from 1980 to 1998 for FDI flows originating in 9 OECD countries, he finds that the case of Mexico supports the hypothesis that a developing country benefits from a FTA with a more developed country, since it becomes more attractive for international capital. The results show that FDI flows from Canada and the US have increased more than flows from non-NAFTA countries and estimates that the FDI coming from the US and Canada would have been 42% lower in the absence of NAFTA. </li></ul>
    24. 36. Literature Review <ul><li>Cuevas, Messmacher and Werner (2005) use Cross-country panel data are used to assess the effect of free-trade agreements on flows of foreign direct investment (FDI). Free-trade agreements are found to have a significant positive effect on FDI flows, and free-trade agreements are found to matter more for the smaller members of the agreement. For example, the North American Free-Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) effect on FDI flows into Mexico is much larger than its effect on flows into the United States. These cross-country results are used to assess NAFTA’s effect on FDI flows into Mexico. After controlling for a set of other factors—such as an increase in worldwide FDI flows—the trade agreement is found to generate FDI flows nearly 60 percent higher than they would have been without the agreement. </li></ul>
    25. 37. Mexico’s FDI in the NAFTA Era <ul><li>Díaz-Bautista (2006) claims that the FDI-induced export expansion accounts for more than half of the 3.5 million jobs created in Mexico during the first decade of NAFTA, specially in the Northern Border. </li></ul><ul><li>FDI may also have contributed to increasing economic and social disparities and North-South polarization in Mexico, like in Dussel (2003) and Hanson (2003). </li></ul>
    26. 38. FDI and Regional Economic Growth considering the Distance to the Northern Border of Mexico <ul><li>Diaz-Bautista (2006) reviewed different studies to explain the effects of the NAFTA agreement in regional FDI and regional economic growth. An empirical econometric model was used to analyze the relation between the FDI and economic growth at the regional level in Mexico, with an approach of the new economic geography and endogenous economic growth. </li></ul>
    27. 39. FDI and Regional Economic Growth <ul><li>The impulse caused by the opening of the economy and the signing of NAFTA in 1994 had a positive effect in the growth of regional northern border economies of Mexico and FDI in the northern border, where the maquiladora sector is one of the main motors of economic growth on the Northern Mexican Border. </li></ul><ul><li>In almost all the regions of the Northern Border, a process of economic growth is observed, and the impulse due to the commercial opening is apparent. The exporting sector being one of the most dynamic sectors of the Mexican economy. </li></ul>
    28. 40. FDI and Economic Growth <ul><li>By the year 2000, the companies that exported more than 80% of their production, paid 62% higher wages than other types of companies. In that same year, the maquiladora sector had wages 5 times greater than the average national minimum wage. Similarly, Mexico has diversified its export base. </li></ul><ul><li>By the year 2000, companies producing manufactured goods accounted for 87 % of Mexico’s export sales. </li></ul><ul><li>In one decade, the liberalization of trade and the macroeconomic policies in Mexico have increased exports from 41 trillion USD, in 1990, to 166 trillion USD in 2000. Similarly, Mexico increased its imports by 310% between 1990 and 2000. </li></ul>
    29. 41. NAFTA increased Trade in North America <ul><li>Since 1994, commercial trade between the member countries of NAFTA increased at an annual average rate of 11.8%, whereas the worldwide annual average rate of growth in trade was around 7%. The opportunities of trade for both Mexico and Canada within NAFTA have increased in the last few years. Mexico became the fourth most important commercial partner for Canada, whereas the bilateral commerce between Mexico and Canada tripled, reaching 12 trillions USD in 2000. </li></ul><ul><li>The integration of the intra industry trade is extremely high within NAFTA and shows how the region integrated not only in commercial terms but also in terms of the region’s productive systems. </li></ul>
    30. 42. FDI in the NAFTA Region <ul><li>The NAFTA region has created new opportunities of investment and trade for the companies of all 3 countries, and 50 % of FDI in NAFTA is between trade partners. For Mexico, the United States is the main source of FDI. </li></ul><ul><li>FDI is of great importance the Northern Border Mexican Region, and by the year 2004, FDI in the Northern Border States of Mexico represented 18.7% of total FDI at the national level. The Northern Border States that are considered in this study are Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas. </li></ul>
    31. 43. Economic Growth <ul><li>The economics of growth in Mexico has come a long way since it regained center stage for economists in the last few years. The early focus of economic growth in Mexico was based upon theoretical models that generated self-sustaining growth, but newer models of economic growth have been applied to Mexico, which have increasingly replaced older models, with an attempt to shed light on the factors affecting economic growth in Mexico. On the empirical front, the search for determinants of growth has gone from basic economic growth variables (such as physical and human capital) to newer determinants of economic performance such as trade and institutions. </li></ul>
    32. 44. Economic Growth Models <ul><li>A Major weakness of the neoclassical growth model has been detected by economists around the world and has not been overlooked in Mexico. Long-run growth in that model is exogenous. </li></ul><ul><li>Recent empirical studies have found a correlation between the rate of growth of FDI and economic growth. The direction of causality between the rate of growth of investment and the rate of economic growth has been analyzed by Carrol and Weil (1994), Blomström, Lipsey and Zedjan (1996) and Barro (1997), and found that the causality was from FDI to economic growth. </li></ul>
    33. 45. New Growth Theory <ul><li>In the endogenous growth models the increases in investment during a period of time, increases the rate of economic growth in the long run. In the endogenous growth models, FDI can affect growth endogenously if it generates increasing returns in production via externalities and productivity spillovers. Moreover, policy changes might induce permanent increases in output growth by providing incentives to host FDI. Specifically, FDI is thought to be an important source of human capital accumulation and technological change. </li></ul><ul><li>Helpman (1984) and Helpman and Krugman (1985) are also an important part of the analysis of FDI in the new growth theory. In those models, distance to the export market is an important determinant of economic growth and FDI. </li></ul>
    34. 46. Center Periphery and distance <ul><li>Krugman (1997) uses the model developed by Dixit and Stiglitz (1977) to have a unified spatial economic structure which is described by the new economic geography. </li></ul><ul><li>Fujita, Krugman and Venables (1999) assume that factors of production are less mobile between countries than between different regions of the same country,and analyzed the spatial order resulting from differing transport costs. </li></ul>
    35. 47. Derivation of the Model with FDI and Regional Economic Growth <ul><li>We assume a regional production function in the following form:Y = F(K, L, F, X) (1) where Y is the product, K is capital, L is human capital, F is FDI and X denotes the vector of observable variables that can affect the regional economic growth and the FDI. </li></ul><ul><li>A Cobb Douglas function is used to obtain the logarithms in time that gives us the following expression: </li></ul><ul><li>gy= ζgk+ ψgf+ γgL+ θgx (2) </li></ul><ul><li>The relation shows the empirical relationship between regional economic growth (gy) and the presence of FDI (gf), with other explicative factors (gx). From the conventional model of growth, the empirical model is developed using the economic growth ∆yjt in region j for time t, with the FDI represented by F, human capital represented by L, and other variables (X) like distance and urban agglomerations. </li></ul><ul><li>The empirical model has the following form: </li></ul><ul><li>∆ Yjt = β0+ β1Ljt+ β2Fjt+ β3Xjt+ ujt (3) </li></ul>
    36. 48. Sources of Information <ul><li>The sources of information for the study are varied. </li></ul><ul><li>Distance is measured by the number of kilometers on the road from the capital of a state to the nearest border crossing with the United States. Another distance variable is included and constructed by the number of kilometers on the road from the capital of a state to Mexico City. </li></ul><ul><li>The density per kilometer squared in each state of Mexico measures the level of cluster agglomeration in the economy. </li></ul><ul><li>Another variable is constructed by the number of businesses in the commercial, services or manufacturing sector per state. </li></ul><ul><li>The migration variable is measured by the net balance migration per state in Mexico provided by INEGI. The human capital variable is an indicator of the educational characteristics of the population in each state. It includes the percentage of the population 15 years of age or older that have more than elementary studies in each state of Mexico. </li></ul><ul><li>The regional economic growth is measured by the percentage annual increase in income per capita in the period 1994-2000. The initial level of income used in the study is the one provided by INEGI in 1994. Foreign direct investment is constructed from the data provided by the Ministry of Economy in Mexico from1994 to 2000. The econometric technique must take into account the endogeneity argument. </li></ul>
    37. 50. FDI and Growth in North America <ul><li>The literature on foreign direct investment (FDI) and economic growth generally points to a positive FDI-growth relationship. </li></ul><ul><li>We can offer direct tests of causality between the two variables. </li></ul><ul><li>We can use Granger causality tests to analyze the variation of the FDI-growth relationship across countries. </li></ul><ul><li>We can also see that the FDI - growth causality is strengthened by the presence of greater trade openness. </li></ul>
    38. 51. Positive and Negative Effects of FDI on Economic Growth <ul><li>Empirically, the positive effect of host country economic growth on FDI inflow has been confirmed by various studies (Veugelers, 1991; Barrell and Pain, 1996; Grosse and Trevino, 1996; Taylor and Sarno, 1999; Trevino et al., 2002). </li></ul><ul><li>The effects of FDI on subsequent economic growth has been shown to be both positive (Dunning, 1993; Borensztein et al., 1998; De Mello, 1999; Ericsson and Irandoust, 2000; Trevino and Upadhyaya, 2003) and also negative (Moran, 1998). </li></ul><ul><li>The positive growth effects of FDI have been more likely when FDI is drawn into competitive markets, whereas negative effects on growth have been more likely when FDI is drawn from countries with heavily protected industries. </li></ul>
    39. 52. GRANGER CAUSALITY <ul><li>In order to test for direct causality between FDI and economic growth, we perform a Granger causality test. </li></ul><ul><li>Since macroeconomic time-series data are usually non-stationary (Nelson and Plosser, 1982) and thus conducive to spurious regression, we test for stationarity of the data series before proceeding with the Granger causality test. </li></ul>
    40. 53. Stationarity Tests <ul><li>The unit root tests on the levels of each variable reveal the corresponding quarterly series from 1994 to 2009 to be non-stationary for Mexico, Canada and the U.S. Analogous tests on the first-difference measures of the variables, however, reveal both series to be integrated in the first order and, hence, stationary at the first-difference level. </li></ul><ul><li>We therefore proceed with the Granger causality tests using first-differences of the respective series. </li></ul>
    41. 54. Conclusions <ul><li>The results of the econometric analysis of the regional economic growth with the new economic geography perspective shows that the agglomeration variables are non significant, while the distance from the border is statistically significant, which is evidence in favor of the agglomeration models and the NEG models. </li></ul><ul><li>The distance from the border shows the importance of transport costs and trade to the United States in explaining regional economic growth in Mexico. </li></ul><ul><li>The migration variable is also important, showing the importance of migration in determining regional economic growth, due to repulsion and attraction forces that affect regions and agglomerations in Mexico. </li></ul><ul><li>On the other hand, the human capital variable, which is one of the most important variables is the endogenous growth models is non significant in the regression. </li></ul>
    42. 55. Conclusions <ul><li>In the empirical study, the importance of the distance to the Northern Border of Mexico as a determinant of regional economic growth in Mexico is shown. The commercial trends in the agglomeration of industry in the Mexican Northern Border and the transportation technology costs to the border region (which are proxied by the distance to the border) are an important factor driving Mexico first to regional concentration and then to regional dispersion of economic activity. The production of manufactures is subject to increasing returns to scale if the production activities take place in a single site close to the border and the selling market. </li></ul><ul><li>The recent advances in the field of NEG have increased our understanding of spreading and agglomerating forces in the Mexican economy. </li></ul>
    43. 56. Conclusions <ul><li>We analyze in this paper the causal relationship between economic growth and increased FDI in the NAFTA region. </li></ul><ul><li>The variation in the FDI-growth relationship indicates that causality between the two variables cannot be generalized for all the NAFTA region and must be considered more carefully. </li></ul><ul><li>The implication here is that policy makers should pay increased attention to the overall role and quality of the countries growth as a vital determinant of FDI along with openess and institutions. </li></ul><ul><li>The provision of an enabling a positive economic environment would provide a better incentive to attract FDI inflows than the usual piecemeal approaches such as petitioning via investment tours, organization of trade-expos and special initiatives aimed at attracting specific investments into the country. </li></ul>
    44. 57. Conclusions <ul><li>Some other important conclusions emerge. Regional integration has had a positive and significant effect on FDI, which shows a combination of investment creation and diversion. </li></ul><ul><li>FDI complements trade in the NAFTA region in the first 14 years of the agreement. After the 15th year everything changes in the NAFTA region, since trade, economic growth and FDI decline due to the global economic crisis. </li></ul>
    45. 58. “ Economic Growth, Foreign Direct Investment and International Trade during NAFTA&quot; Dr. Alejandro Díaz-Bautista Investigador Nacional y Miembro del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, CONACYT, Nivel II. [email_address] http://www.linkedin.com/pub/alejandro-diaz-bautista/6/619/691 Profesor-Investigador de Economía, Departamento de Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. Preparado para Seminario &quot;El TLCAN: Crecimiento, Inversión Extranjera Directa, Desigualdad y Migración”, que se llevara a cabo el martes 16 de febrero, a las 10:00 horas (tiempo del centro de México), en Casa Colef, en la Calle Francisco Sosa No. 254, Coyoacán, en la Ciudad de México.
    46. 59. References <ul><li>Díaz Bautista, Alejandro (2006), “An economic growth model of institutions, economic integration and foreign direct investment of Mexico with the United States”, Un modelo de crecimiento económico considerando a las instituciones, integración económica e inversión extranjera directa de México con los Estados Unidos”, Revista Convergencia, Revista de Ciencias Sociales, num. 41, ISSN 1405-1435, Nº. 41, pags. 117-139, mayo – agosto de 2006. </li></ul><ul><li>Díaz Bautista, Alejandro (2006), “Foreign Direct Investment and Regional Economic Growth considering the Distance to the Northern Border of Mexico” in Analisis Economico, UAM, Number 46, Vol. XXI, 2006.FDI and Regional Economic Growth. </li></ul><ul><li>Díaz Bautista, Alejandro (2005), “Regional Growth and Development, Clusters and FDI in Mexico”, prepared for the conference “ Desarrollo Regional y Competitividad”, organized by the Presidency of Mexico with Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, A.C. (CIDE), September, 2005. </li></ul><ul><li>Díaz Bautista, Alejandro (2005), “The Impact of Economies of Agglomeration, Clusters and networking in medium-sized Mexican Telecommunication firms”, Chapter in the Book “Industrial Development and Labor Markets in the United States–Mexico Border”, UCLA Latin American Center Publications (2005), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). </li></ul>