Effects of FDI on Developing Nations Capital mobility is the ease at which money or capital can be moved from one country to another. In the current world there exist two types of worlds based on the economic power. These two worlds are; the developing or third world countries and the developed countries. The developed countries are economically powerful than the developed worlds. Developed countries include the United States of America and England while third world countries are mostly African countries. According to World Bank, a country is categorized as the third world based on a number of factors. The factors include; weak currency, the average wage per person in such a country being less than $1000 (Singh and Neelam,2016). More often the developed countries take advantage of developing countries because of their weak economic power and invest in the countries directly. There are four determinants of capital mobility. These factors include tax rates on capital, obstacles on capital movement, government policies and the flexibility of rates of exchange. Developing countries or third world countries benefit from the direct capital investment from the developed counties. Just like in any field where the weak have to heavily depend on stronger players, it's the same scenario when it comes to third world countries versus the developed countries when it comes to capital mobility. The developed countries greatly help developing countries up to a point where they determine the nature and direction of politics in such countries. It is a world where capitalism and imperialism is exhibited to its fullest. As a result do the developed countries dictate the nature of politics and economy of the developing countries in terms of policies and government regulations. In any business, there has to be something to trade with. The situation of third world countries in terms of economic power is desperate thus such countries have to play according to the rules of the direct investors. At the point when a financial specialist is choosing in which nation to invest its assets, there are a few variables which are to be considered. Direct investment in form of direct investment implies a lot of cash flow, for purposes of financial specialist's necessity survey the dogmatic and monetary circumstance of the third world nations of the decision before dispensing their assets in a business (UNDP, 2014). In South America, the biggest beneficiaries of direct investment are Colombia and Venezuela while in Africa it is Rwanda, Kenya, and Tanzania. Financial specialists consider the current assets and different elements that would make their venture productive. For instance, Kenya has a market of over a million tenants and it is defenseless against worldwide emergencies because of its broadened economy, while Colombia is rich in characteristic assets and has appreciated more prominent political adjustment on account of the demilitarization methodology of the FDI (Cha.

1. Effects of FDI on Developing Nations
Capital mobility is the ease at which money or capital can
be moved from one country to another. In the current world
there exist two types of worlds based on the economic power.
These two worlds are; the developing or third world countries
and the developed countries. The developed countries are
economically powerful than the developed worlds. Developed
countries include the United States of America and England
while third world countries are mostly African countries.
According to World Bank, a country is categorized as the third
world based on a number of factors. The factors include; weak
currency, the average wage per person in such a country being
less than $1000 (Singh and Neelam,2016). More often the
developed countries take advantage of developing countries
because of their weak economic power and invest in the
countries directly. There are four determinants of capital
mobility. These factors include tax rates on capital, obstacles on
capital movement, government policies and the flexibility of
rates of exchange.
Developing countries or third world countries benefit
from the direct capital investment from the developed counties.
Just like in any field where the weak have to heavily depend on
stronger players, it's the same scenario when it comes to third
world countries versus the developed countries when it comes to
capital mobility. The developed countries greatly help
developing countries up to a point where they determine the
nature and direction of politics in such countries. It is a world
where capitalism and imperialism is exhibited to its fullest. As
a result do the developed countries dictate the nature of politics
and economy of the developing countries in terms of policies
and government regulations.
In any business, there has to be something to trade with.
The situation of third world countries in terms of economic
power is desperate thus such countries have to play according to

2. the rules of the direct investors. At the point when a financial
specialist is choosing in which nation to invest its assets, there
are a few variables which are to be considered. Direct
investment in form of direct investment implies a lot of cash
flow, for purposes of financial specialist's necessity survey the
dogmatic and monetary circumstance of the third world nations
of the decision before dispensing their assets in a business
(UNDP, 2014). In South America, the biggest beneficiaries of
direct investment are Colombia and Venezuela while in Africa it
is Rwanda, Kenya, and Tanzania. Financial specialists consider
the current assets and different elements that would make their
venture productive. For instance, Kenya has a market of over a
million tenants and it is defenseless against worldwide
emergencies because of its broadened economy, while Colombia
is rich in characteristic assets and has appreciated more
prominent political adjustment on account of the
demilitarization methodology of the FDI (Chakrabarti, et al
2017). What is essential to get a handle on from this is creating
nations are exceptionally appealing goals for foreign
investment. As they hold promising prizes, yet there is
dependably a hazard to each business venture.
Kenya and Rwanda have turned out to be the ideal cases
for foreign investment turning out badly. The two nations
guarantee productive returns as each held particular highlights
that are exceptionally alluring for investors, yet because of the
choices taken by their heads of state, these countries now wind
up at economic cross roads, as they are presently constrained
with respect to their market conceivable outcomes. Sudan, for
instance, has huge oil reserves, a vast size of the local market
and further broad regular assets. However, because of its
unverifiable legitimate framework which enabled violations to
property rights, outside money controls and expanding
directions financial specialists never again need to allow direct
investment (Moss, Todd , Standley, and Birdsall,2004). The
same goes for Kenya which holds the world's biggest source of
Soda ash. Direct investments have turned out to be extremely

3. advantageous for a few nations, for example, Nigeria and Chad,
while Venezuela appears to have turned out in detriment,
however, there has to be a reason.
In view of this, in which case would these circumstances
emerge, and assist what could trigger these particular results?
Toward the day's end, everything comes down to the individual
in control and the manner in which they are running the capital
received from direct investments? It is possible that being
simply the economic power or the administration who arrange
the terms of an agreement for the foreign investment policies to
happen, the accomplishment of the economic deal, and further
the sort of impacts it will cause, depend to a great extent on the
goals and objectives of the public performing participants while
are the nations that at last choose the course that might be
considered. Via the confiscation of the disguised donations
which in fact are the direct investments, a few have been the
administrations of creating nations that have increased terrific
measures of pay to do however they see fit, since they hold this
sort of power and have characters that appear to hold use over
the determination of the conditions of exchange. Because of the
worldwide idea of the agreements being made concerning
foreign investments, third world countries need to comply with
the nearby legitimate framework and controls which not just
incapacitates the partnership from having the capacity to apply
universal guidelines.
Additionally, over the long term, dispossessed endeavors
oversaw by the host nation have a tendency to perform in a less
effective way and require persistent sponsorships to remain
above water. This implies subsequent to confiscating overseas
direct deal nations. Administration may profit by the transient
advantages, for example, the unexpected influx of resources,
however on the finality seizure appears null in the fitting of the
populace overall. Foreign investments suggest amazingly
positive outcomes if overseen accurately through agreeable
collaboration between the governments involved and the
speculators, however when nationalization happens governments

4. flounder to deal along with the economic treaty along the
agreed lines and thus causing negative impacts.
Thinking about the nuisance of seizure because of its
undesirable connotations, whatever are the motivations of a
head of state to lead the confiscation of direct foreign
investments? Depending upon the sort of government within
reach, the partisan wellbeing of the overseeing dogmatic
gathering, and additional time prospects needed by a leader of a
nation's command with purposes for an act of seizure of direct
investments from developed nations in third world countries
might be resolved. Notwithstanding a typical conviction that
authoritarian administration is more helpful for third world
countries because of better section bargains caused by the
absence of well-known weight, the restraint of worker's parties,
and general lower-cost workforces, truly vote based systems are
surely better alternatives for developing worlds. This is because
of a stable political condition which gives the country validity,
and friendlier global understandings and relations which will
cultivate a superior future for developing nations. Therefore, it
can be accepted that dictator administrations are less beneficial
for foreign investments in contrast with majority rule
governments because of the dangers of political insecurity and
confiscation.
The genuine motivating force for confiscation lies in the
time prospect of the leader of states' command. Over the long
term, developed nations' investments in developed countries’
ventures which have been confiscated have shown to perform in
a less proficient way in contrast with past stages in which they
were under the control of the third world nations. Along these
lines, when an investor chooses to dispossess his or her
investments, it is for the most part for short-run benefits. For
instance, if a president will be departing from office soon he
will probably confiscate the funds from developed nations
keeping in mind the end goal to give his political gathering
intends to win the following decision. Then again, if a pioneer
has a long skyline command, he will probably allow a foreign

5. investor to sit unbothered as an approach to ensure political and
financial dependability because of the long-run advantages of
said wanders. This economic deal is better clarified by the
investment's impact which says that dictator governments that
have a tight grasp on control need to remain in office for quite a
while and subsequently will secure property privileges of
developing nations as an approach to guarantee future increases
from their subjects. The motivations that can prime a crown of
government to seize or a foreign investment be contingent
generally on the partisan setting of his or her country and the
period they ought to leftward in place of work
All things considered so as to decide the impacts of
foreign investments from developed countries in developing
nations it is currently time to break down the real strategies
being taken by the legislatures considering their proclaimed
administration composes, their authentic and political
foundations, and further the level of defilement in their
frameworks ( Erhan, et al, 2015). Most importantly, numerous
of the third world nations that claim to be majority rule
governments, yet they don't act to the greatest advantage of
their populations and further damage their constitutions living
environment. Tanzania and Rwanda, for instance, are ideal
cases as both have encountered circumstances in which their
leaders have changed the constitutions and have been blamed
for controlling decision that result from FDI. At the end of the
day, in spite of being perceived as vote based systems a few
nations third world loath the validity factor normally ascribed
to this kind of administration because of their flighty works on
making their legislatures more inclined to seize developed
country's investments in contrast with genuine majority rule
governments.
Second, so as to better comprehend the motivating forces
of developed nations to dispossess direct investment capital, the
chronicled and political setting of their legislatures must be
considered. For instance, Kenya was a nation which got a lot of
capital from foreign countries amid the 90's. Because of

6. resentment held against the United States and remote forces
Kenya restricted any kind of global contribution in its economy
which prompted a defeat of the nation over the next years.
Zimbabwe encountered a comparative case after Robert Mugabe
sent away all the foreigners from his country. In light of
hostility to America, assumption blended with resentment
established since the season of colonization the creative
indigenous government obliged its business with general
personalities and incited a decrease in its market to appraise and
facilitate a destabilization of its economy (Bertrand, Olivier,
and Marie-Ann, 2016). These are clear representations which
delineate further goals and stimuli for the seizure of remote
associations in making nations being unquenchable and reprisal
which are segments display in a couple of expert remarks done
by these heads of state. Also, the most fundamental manner of
thinking and cause for seizure which has not been had a
tendency to is corruption. Making countries have been
tormented by corruption since they were surrendered
opportunity and even today corruption and faults are being
found in which governments are straightforwardly connected.
While dispossessing, foreign investors don't simply look for a
superior position for their political gatherings in the following
race, yet rather consider their very own advantages.
Conclusion
Generally speaking, direct investment from powerful
economies can be either to a great degree productive for third
world nations or especially unfavorable. There are innumerable
contrasts between third world countries that appreciate the
advantages of direct investment from foreign developed nations
in contrast with other nations which don't profit to such an
extent, however, toward the end, everything totals up to the
political approach got by the heads of state. Kenya and
Tanzania for example, have experienced clear cases of corporate
pollution basically like Senegal or Ghana; however the decision
to nationalize and grasp a protectionist position towards the
world market is the difference between a nation that

7. undertakings to create interestingly with one those game plans
with inside change and creating poverty ( Gorodnichenko,
Yuriy, Svejnar, and Terrel, 2014l). FDI can bring opportunity,
headway and cash inflow, however, through the seizure of this
favorable position issues surge due to the nonappearance of
fitting organization and human capital (Lin and Nan, 2015).
Remote direct wander is generally fitting for economies that
will keep up well-disposed associations with developing nations
as they will be beneficial and productive while countries that
choose to dispossess will confront negative results. The source
of FDI related issues in creating nations isn't simply the
nearness of the investing nation, but instead the administration's
choice to seize and embrace protectionist measures.
Works Cited
Moss, Todd J., Scott Standley, and Nancy Birdsall. "Double-
Standards, Debt Treatment, and World Bank Country
Classification:." (2004).
Singh, Neelam. Outward FDI Type and Ownership Mode: The
Effect on Home Country Exports. Focus: Journal of
International Business 3.2 (2016): 11-34.
Chakrabarti, Rajesh, Krishnamurthy Subramanian, and Sasha
Meka. Localization of FDI flows evidence on infrastructure as a
critical determinant. Journal of Law, Finance, and Accounting
2.1 (2017): 205-246.
AfDB, O. E. C. D. "UNDP.(2014)." African economic outlook
(2014).
Bertrand, Olivier, and Marie-Ann Betschinger. The Role of
Infrastructure Aid in the FDI Entry Decision in Developing and
Emerging Economies. Academy of Management Proceedings.
Vol. 2016. No. 1. Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of
Management, 2016.
Artuç, Erhan, et al. "A global assessment of human capital
mobility: the role of non-OECD destinations." World
Development 65 (2015): 6-26.
Gorodnichenko, Yuriy, Jan Svejnar, and Katherine Terrell.
When does FDI have positive spillovers? Evidence from 17

8. transition market economies. Journal of Comparative Economics
42.4 (2014): 954-969.
Lin, Nan. Building a network theory of social capital. Social
capital. Routledge, 2017. 3-28.
International Political Economy
LLB/BIR
IPE Essay Topic 17:In a world of high capital mobility, how do
foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows affect the domestic
politics and economics of developing countries?
Since the Age of Imperialism developing countries have
faced a number of hardships when it comes to setting up an
effective government to rule their populations, instigate
development, and become not just independent nations but
moreover sustainable. Over the last decades more developed
nations decided to invest in several developing nations, but to
their surprise faced obstacles being the risk of expropriation of
their investments. During the 70’s and 80’s there was a growing
trend of expropriation on behalf of host countries receiving
FDI, but this trend soon declined until quite recently when
Venezuela nationalized oil companies and Bolivia expropriated
the gas industry practically controlled by foreign investors in
2005 among other examples. With this in mind, we can come up
with several questions to explain said events. Why did these
governments decide to expropriate foreign direct investments,
and further what is the effect of FDI inflows in the domestic
politics and economies of host countries? Is it a possibility that
the sole presence of FDI was a cause for its expropriation? In
order to tackle these questions and ultimately address the
political and economic effects of FDI on developing countries it
is necessary to understand how it is allocated, present the
reasons for which a government would choose to expropriate
said investment, and analyze real life examples.
When an investor is deciding in which country to allocate
his resources there are several factors which are to be taken into
account. FDI connotes large amounts of capital, for which

9. investors must assess the political and economic situation of the
developing country of choice before allocating their funds in a
business. In Latin America the three greatest recipients of FDI
are Brazil, Chile, and Colombia while in Africa it is South
Africa, the Republic of Congo, and Mozambique. Investors take
into account the resources at hand and other factors that would
make their investment fruitful. For example, Brazil has a market
of nearly 210 million inhabitants and is less vulnerable to
international crises due to its diversified economy, while
Colombia is rich in natural resources and has enjoyed greater
political stabilization thanks to the disarmament procedures of
the FARC. What is important to grasp from this is that
developing countries are very attractive destinations for FDI as
they hold promising rewards, but there is always a risk to every
business venture. Bolivia and Venezuela have proven to be the
perfect examples for FDI going wrong. Both countries promised
fruitful returns as each held specific features that are very
attractive for investors, but due to the decisions taken by their
significant heads of state these nations now find themselves at a
limbo, as they are now limited in regards to their market
possibilities. Venezuela possesses large oil reserves, a large
size of domestic market and further extensive natural resources,
but due to its uncertain legal system which allowed
infringements to property rights, foreign currency controls and
increasing regulations investors no longer want to allocate FDI.
The same goes for Bolivia which holds the world’s largest
reserve of lithium. In short, FDI has proven to be very
beneficial for some countries such as Brazil and South Africa,
while Bolivia and Venezuela seem to have come out in
disadvantage, but why?
FDI can cause both positive and negative effects on the
political and economic spectrums of a nation. On one hand they
are beneficial as they provide capital, technology, managerial
expertise, global marketing networks, and employment to a
developing society and therefore stimulate its growth. On the
other hand, they may also provoke negative effects such as an

10. ambiguous effect on the balance of payments, the crowding out
of scarce local savings, the suppression of local competition,
and in some cases refusal to transfer technology. Out of those
various factors the most interesting one seems to be the effects
produced by balance of payments due to the fact that these can
be either extremely beneficial or catastrophic for a country. In
the best case scenario, a positive effect of balance of payments
will produce an inflow of capital, serve as a substitute for
imports, and consequently cause an inflow of payments from
export of goods and services. In the worst case scenario, after
an inflow of capital a reciprocal outflow develops from the
earnings of the FDI. Further, the FDI can lead towards an
increment in imports of inputs and intermediate goods from
abroad, transfer pricing and profit repatriation.
With this in mind, in which case would these situations arise,
and further what could trigger these specific outcomes? At the
end of the day, it all comes down to the person in charge and
the way in which they are running the FDI. Either it being the
elites or the government itself who negotiate the terms of a
contract for FDI to take place, the success of the venture, and
further the kind of effects it will produce, depend largely on the
interests and goals of the host actors as they are the ones who
will ultimately decide the route which will be taken. Through
the expropriation of FDI several have been the governments of
developing countries that have gained grand amounts of income
to do as they please, and because they hold this kind of power
host characters seem to hold leverage over MNCs. Due to the
international nature of the contracts being made concerning
FDI, MNCs have to abide by the local legal system and
regulations which not only disarms the corporation from being
able to apply international standards, but moreover provides the
host government with leverage enough to determine the
definition of property rights and their application within their
national territory. What’s worse is that neither expropriation nor
the standard of compensation for said action have been legally
addressed by international law which provides further coercive

11. power to the local government when it comes to deciding either
to expropriate FDI or not to (Easton & Gersovitz, 1983; Thomas
& Worrall, 1994). Moreover, in the long-run expropriated
ventures managed by the host country tend to perform in a less
efficient manner and require continuous subsidies to stay afloat
(Megginson & Netter, 2001; minor, 1994). This means that after
expropriating FDI a country’s government may benefit from the
short term benefits such as the sudden inflow of capital, but on
the long-run expropriation seems not to be advisable for the
population as a whole. FDI connotes extremely positive results
if managed correctly through friendly cooperation between the
local government and the investors, but when nationalization
takes place governments falter to take care of the venture
therefore causing negative effects.
Taking into consideration the undesirability of expropriation
due to its negative connotations, what are then the incentives of
a head of state to conduct the expropriation of FDI? Depending
on the type of government at hand, the political interests of the
governing political party, and further the time horizon of the
head of state’s mandate the reasons behind the action of
expropriation of FDI in developing countries can be determined
(Li, 2009). Despite a common belief that authoritarian regimes
are more beneficial for MNCs due to better entry deals caused
by the lack of popular pressure, the repression of labor unions,
and overall lower-cost workforces, in reality democracies are
indeed better options for MNC’s. This is due to a stable
political environment which gives the nation credibility, and
friendlier international agreements and relations which will
foster a better future for FDI expansion (Jensen, 2003).
Consequently, it can be assumed that authoritarian regimes are
less advantageous for FDI in comparison to democracies due to
the risks of political instability and expropriation.
At the end of the day, the real incentive for expropriation lies in
the time horizon of the head of states’ mandate. In the long-run,
FDI ventures which have been expropriated have demonstrated
to perform in a less efficient manner in comparison to previous

12. stages in which they were under the control of MNCs.
Therefore, when a leader decides to expropriate it is usually for
short-run benefits (Geddes, 1994). For example, if a president is
going to step down from office soon he is more likely to
expropriate FDI in order to provide his political party with
means to win the next election. On the other hand, if a leader
has a long horizon mandate, he is more likely to leave FDI
alone as a way to guarantee political and economic stability due
to the long-run benefits of said ventures. This phenomenon is
better explained by Olson’s stationary bandit effect which says
that authoritarian governments that have a tight grip on power
want to stay in office for a long time and therefore will protect
property rights of MNCs as a way to ensure future gains from
their subjects (McGuire & Olson, 1996; Olson, 1993). In short,
the incentives which will lead a head of state to expropriate or
non-nationalize depend mostly on the political context of their
nation and the time they have left in office.
With that said in order to determine the effects of FDI in
developing countries it is now time to analyze the actual
policies being taken by the governments considering their
declared regime types, their historical and political
backgrounds, and further the degree of corruption in their
systems. First of all, many are the developing countries that
claim to be democracies, yet they do not act in the best interest
of their populations and further violate their constitutions
frequently. Once again Bolivia and Venezuela are perfect
examples as both have experienced situations in which their
presidents have changed the constitutions and have been
accused of manipulating election results. In other words, despite
of being recognized as democracies several developing
countries do not enjoy the credibility factor typically attributed
to this type of regime due to their unpredictable practices
making their governments more likely to expropriate FDI in
comparison to real democracies.
Second, in order to better understand the incentives of leaders
to expropriate FDI the historical and political context of their

13. governments must be taken into account. For example,
Venezuela was a country which received a great deal of FDI
during the 90’s and was one of the world’s largest producers of
oil until Hugo Chavez took office and decided to nationalize
foreign oil companies. Due to a grudge held against the United
States and foreign powers Venezuela limited any sort of
international involvement in its economy which led to a
downfall of the country over the following years. Bolivia
experienced a similar case after Evo Morales took office in
2005. Based on an anti-American sentiment mixed with a
grudge founded since the age of colonization the novel
indigenous government limited its commerce with international
personalities and led to a decrease in its market size and further
a destabilization of its economy. These are clear examples
which portray deeper motives and incentives for the
expropriation of foreign companies in developing nations being
greed and revenge which are elements present in several official
remarks done by these heads of state. Moreover, the most
important motive and cause for expropriation which has not
been addressed is corruption. Developing countries have been
plagued with corruption since they were granted independence
and even today scandals are being discovered in which
governments are directly linked. When expropriating FDI
leaders do not just seek a better position for their political
parties in the next election, but rather take their own personal
interests into account.
Overall, FDI can be either extremely fruitful for developing
countries or particularly detrimental. There are countless
differences between developing nations that enjoy the benefits
of FDI in comparison to others countries which do not benefit
as much, but at the end it all sums up to the political approach
adopted by the heads of state. Brazil and South Africa have
experienced clear cases of corporate corruption just like
Venezuela or Bolivia, but the decision to nationalize and adopt
a protectionist stance towards the world market is the difference
between a nation that strives to grow in comparison to one that

14. deals with internal upheaval and growing poverty. FDI can
bring opportunity, development and cash inflow, but through the
expropriation of this asset problems surge due to the lack of
proper management and human capital. Foreign direct
investment is mostly advisable for economies that are willing to
maintain friendly relationships with MNCs as they will be
productive and fruitful whilst nations that decide to expropriate
will face negative outcomes. In short, the source of FDI related
problems in developing countries is not the presence of FDI
itself, but rather the government’s decision to expropriate and
adopt protectionist measures.
References
· Bolivia: Foreign investment. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2017,
from
https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-
overseas/bolivia/investing-3
· Brazil: Foreign investment. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2017,
from
https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-
overseas/brazil/foreign-investment
· Chile: Foreign investment. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2017,
from
https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-
overseas/chile/foreign-investment
· Colombia: Foreign investment. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17,
2017, from
https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-
overseas/colombia/investing
· Congo: Foreign investment. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2017,
from
https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-
overseas/congo/investing-3
· Easton, J., & Gersovitz, M. (1983). Country risk: Economic
aspects. In R. Herring
(Ed.), Managing international risk(pp. 75-108). Cambridge, UK:

15. Cambridge University Press
· Geddes, B. (1994). Politician’s dilemma: Building state
capacity in Latin America.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
· Jensen, N. M. (2003). Democratic Governance and
Multinational Corporations:
Political Regimes and Inflows of Foreign Direct Investment.
International Organization,57(03).
doi:10.1017/s0020818303573040
· Li, Q. (2009). Democracy, Autocracy, and Expropriation of
Foreign Direct
Investment. Comparative Political Studies,42(8), 1098-1127.
doi:10.1177/0010414009331723
· McGuire, M. C., & Olson, M., Jr. (1996). The economics of
autocracy and majority
rule: The invisible hand and the use of force. Journal of
Economic Literature, 34, 72-96.
· Megginson, W., & Netter, J. (2001). From state to market: A
survey of empirical
studies on privatization. Journal of Economic Literature, 39,
321-389.
· Mozambique: Foreign investment. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17,
2017, from
https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-
overseas/mozambique/investing-
3?actualiser_id_banque=oui&id_banque=1
· South Africa: Foreign investment. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17,
2017, from
https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-overseas/south-
africa/foreign-investment
· Venezuela: Foreign investment. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17,
2017, from
https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-
overseas/venezuela/investing

16. 1