|
Foreign Direct Investment in India – The Recent Beginning of a Rising Phase
Introduction
With a paradigm shift in
economic management after the
reforms began in the early 1990s,
there was a metamorphic change in
the perception of policy planners
regarding the role of external
trade and investment as well as
the system of exchange rate and
payments.
It was believed, contrary
to the past, that a liberalised
foreign trade, payments and
investment system opens up a
window on the world through which
vast types of benefits would flow:
exposure to new products, new
processes, advanced technology,
modern marketing and finance,
employees’ skill upgradation and
application of modern management
techniques. The experiences of
many high-performing Asian
economies were held out as
examples of success stories of
deriving such benefits of exposure
to global trade and investment
[which were achieved along with,
of course, those countries’
intensive focus on social sector
development as well as higher
levels of domestic savings and
investment; many of them also have
had land reforms which helped to
widen their domestic markets].
Drawing lessons from such
experiences and also as part of
the broader strategy of
liberalisation and globalisation,
this country too moved fast in
opening up the external sector.
It was also perceived that
apart from supplementing domestic
savings, non-debt capital flows
could provide a measure of
long-term sustainability to the
country’s balance of payments.
Therefore, the strategy
adopted was one of shifting the
weight of external sector
financing from borrowing to direct
equity investment inflow (and also
changing the composition of
commercial borrowing from sizeable
short-term and
government-guaranteed debt to
long-term debt with minimum
reliance on government
guarantees).
Subsequent
to the initial initiation of
reforms, liberalisation of
regulations regarding foreign
investment has passed through
several stages.
The basic approach adopted
has been one of steady but gradual
relaxation of regulations. To
begin with, in August 1991,
dispensing with the provisions of
the Foreign Exchange Regulation
Act (FERA) 1964, a system of
permitting automatic approval for
foreign investment up to 51%
equity in 35 industries was
introduced.
For industries not covered
by automatic approval, a Foreign
Investment Promotion Board (FIPB)
was set up in the government to
process the applications. There
were further relaxations from time
to time, but the second major step
taken was in January 1997 when,
for the first time, detailed
guidelines for the FIPB were
issued and the list of industries
eligible for automatic approval
was expanded to cover 48 of
general category allowing equity
up to 51%, 3 industries relating
to mining for automatic approval
up to 50% of foreign equity and
another set of 9 industries
eligible for 74% foreign equity.
Various procedural changes
effected during 1997 were also of
a substantive nature designed to
give a push to foreign direct
investment.
Finally,
as a result of the comprehensive
review of the FDI policy,
wide-ranging policy changes were
notified in 2006; these included
extending the scope of automatic
route, increasing equity caps,
removing restrictions, simplifying
procedures and extending the
horizon of FDI to vistas like
single brand product retailing and
agriculture. Of late, several
steps have been initiated to
facilitate FDI inflows which,
among other things, include:
raising the equity cap in civil
aviation; organizing Destination
India events in association with
CII and FICCI with a view to
attracting investments; activating
the Foreign Investment
Implementation Authority (FIIA)
towards speedy resolution
of investment-related problems;
setting up of National
Manufacturing Competitiveness
Council (NMCC) to provide a
continuing forum for policy
dialogue to energise the growth of
manufacturing; regular
interactions with
foreign investors through
bilateral/regional/international
meets and meetings with individual
investors; and making the website
of the Department of Industrial
Policy & Promotion
(www.dipp.nic.in) more
user-friendly with online chat
facility. The government has
indicated that about 4,500
investment-related queries have
been replied during just one year
2007-08 (Economic
Survey 2007-08, pp.202-03).
Thus,
with increased liberalisation,
equity caps on FDI now exist only
in a few limited sectors which are
regulated
on security or other
special considerations. These
are: FM radio broadcasting (up to
20 per cent); insurance, defence
production, petroleum refining in
the PSUs, print and electronic
media covering news and current
affairs (up to 26 per cent); air
transport services, asset
reconstruction companies, cable
network, direct to home (DTH),
hardware for uplinking, HUB, etc.
(up to 49 per cent); single brand
retailing (up to 51 per cent);
atomic minerals, private sector
banking, telecom services,
establishment and operation of
satellites (up to 74 per cent).
FDI is prohibited in retail
trading (except for single brand
product retailing), gambling and
betting, lottery and atomic
energy. Approval for proposals for
induction of equity of more than
24 per cent for manufacture of
items that are reserved for
small-scale sector and the
proposals where the foreign
investor has an existing joint
venture/technical
collaboration/trademark agreement
in the same field of activity and
where the provisions are not under
automatic route (Economic
Survey 2006-07, p.154).
FDI
Flows Did Not Yield Results on
Expected Lines Initially
When
external sector
liberalisation
was thus conceived and
implemented, there was a distinct
expectation, as hinted at earlier,
that there would be greater flow
of FDI as compared with portfolio
flows.
There were concerted
efforts towards that end, but they
did not yield the desired results
for quite some years.
No doubt, an environment of
substantial openness got created
in the economy.
A large number of foreign
collaboration approvals was
accorded in the initial years
themselves.
For instance, between
August 1991 and 1994, the
Government had approved 5,778
foreign collaboration proposals
including 2,806 foreign equity
proposals amounting to Rs 22,238
crore.
Earlier, for 15 years there
were very few such approvals under
the FERA.
As a consequent to the
amendments to the FERA and the
liberalisation of foreign
investment policy, many
multinational companies (MNCs)
could increase their equity
holdings beyond 51%.
Many companies like Coca
Cola and IBM, which had exited
from the Indian market in the
1970s, returned to the country.
Later on, by the end of
September 2004, the number of
fresh foreign collaborations
approved since liberalization had
increased by nearly 12,000.
|
|
|
Table
1: Foreign Investment Flows By
Different Categories
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1992-93
|
1993-94
|
1994-95
|
1995-96
|
1996-97
|
1997-98
|
1998-99
|
1999-00
|
|
A
|
|
Direct
Investment
|
315
|
586
|
1314
|
2144
|
2821
|
3557
|
2462
|
2155
|
|
|
a
|
RBI
automatic route
|
42
|
89
|
171
|
169
|
135
|
202
|
179
|
171
|
|
|
b
|
SIA/FIPb
route
|
222
|
280
|
701
|
1249
|
1922
|
2754
|
1821
|
1410
|
|
|
c
|
NRI
|
51
|
217
|
442
|
715
|
639
|
241
|
62
|
84
|
|
|
d
|
Acquisition
of shares $
|
|
|
|
11
|
125
|
380
|
4000
|
490
|
|
B
|
|
Portfolio
Investment
|
244
|
3567
|
3824
|
2748
|
3312
|
1828
|
-61
|
3026
|
|
|
a
|
FIIS
#
|
1
|
1665
|
1503
|
2009
|
1926
|
979
|
-390
|
2135
|
|
|
b
|
Euro
Equities &
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADRs/GDRs
@
|
240
|
1520
|
2082
|
683
|
1366
|
645
|
270
|
768
|
|
|
c
|
Offshore
funds & others
|
3
|
382
|
239
|
56
|
20
|
204
|
59
|
123
|
|
|
|
Total
(A+B)
|
559
|
4153
|
5138
|
4892
|
6133
|
5385
|
2401
|
5181
|
|
C
|
|
Growth
Scenario
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a
|
Real
GDP growth (%)
|
5.4
|
5.7
|
6.4
|
7.3
|
8
|
4.3
|
6.7
|
6.4
|
|
|
b
|
Manufacturing
GDP growth (%)
|
3.1
|
8.6
|
10.8
|
15.5
|
9.5
|
0.1
|
3.1
|
3.2
|
|
*Provisional
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
Relates to acqusition of shares of
Indian companies by non-residents
under section 29 of Fera
|
|
|
|
#
Represents fresh inflow/ outflow
of funds by FIIs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@.
Fiqures include GDRs/ADRs amounts
raised abroad by indian corporates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source
:Government of
India
: Economic Survey 2000-2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even
so, the FDI in terms of the
amounts of annual flows remained
meagre in the range of less than
$1 billion or thereabout per year
until 1994-95 and between $2 to $4
billion per year thereafter for 15
years until 2004-05 (Tables 1 and
2). This
happened because the amounts of
FDI involved in individual
collaboration and other approvals
were meagre, many of them giving
the impression of attempts being
made to formally enter the Indian
market and not for immediate
execution of investment projects.
The meagre nature of this
FDI flow stands out when we
compare them with two other
indicators.
First, the portfolio
inflows into
India
, had overtaken the FDI inflows in
the initial years of reforms
themselves.
For instance, FDI inflow in
1993-94 was $586 million, but
portfolio inflows had totalled
$3,567 million; investments by
foreign institutional investors (FIIs)
alone were $1,665 million in the
year.
In the next year 1994-95,
FDI totalled $1,314 million,
whereas portfolio investments
aggregated $3,824 million (Table
1).
|
Table 2:
FDI
by Host Region
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(US
$ million )
|
|
|
|
Country
|
1992
|
1993
|
1994
|
1995
|
1996
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999*
|
|
China
|
11156
|
27515
|
33787
|
35849
|
40180
|
44236
|
43751
|
40400
|
|
India
|
233
|
550
|
973
|
2144
|
2426
|
3577
|
2635
|
2168
|
|
Indonesia
|
1777
|
2004
|
210
|
4346
|
6194
|
4677
|
-356
|
-3270
|
|
Korea
Rep. Of
|
727
|
588
|
991
|
1357
|
2308
|
3088
|
5215
|
10340
|
|
Malaysia
|
5183
|
5006
|
4581
|
5816
|
7296
|
6513
|
2700
|
3532
|
|
Philippines
|
228
|
1238
|
1591
|
1459
|
1520
|
1249
|
1752
|
737
|
|
Thailand
|
2114
|
1805
|
1343
|
2000
|
2405
|
3732
|
7449
|
6078
|
|
All
Developing Countries
|
51108
|
78813
|
104920
|
111884
|
145030
|
178789
|
179481
|
207619
|
|
(including
China
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share
of
India
in Developing Countries
|
0.5
|
0.7
|
0.9
|
1.9
|
1.7
|
2.0
|
1.5
|
1
|
|
*
estimates
|
|
Note:
Figures for
India
in this Table may not be
comparable with those in other
tables because of differences in
coverage and
|
|
source
of information.
|
|
Source
:World Investment Report ,United
Nations 2000 (Cited in Economic
Survey 2000-01)
|
 Second,
the FDI inflow into
India
appeared unusually miniscule when
compared with the inflows in
favour of
China
and also many south-east Asian
economies (Graph A).
As we would explain
shortly,
China
’s is a special case containing
many peculiar features.
Even so, there is no gainsaying
that
China
’s achievements on the FDI front
has been phenomenal.
Even some of the other
countries like
Korea
,
Malaysia
,
Indonesia
and
Thailand
, have experienced much bigger
amounts of FDI inflows than that
of
India
(Table 2).
India
’s FDI share never crossed 2% of
the total FDI inflows of all
developing countries.
China
and the east-Asian countries did
experience a slight setback after
the Asian crisis of 1997 but it
was short-lived.
FDI inflow into
East Asia
recovered from $70 billion in 1999
to $105 billion in 2004 and $157
billion in 2007 (Table 3). In the
comparable period, the Chinese FDI
steadily increased from $40
billion to $60.6 billion and
finally to $83.5 billion.
An interesting story
forming part of this global FDI
flow is the sudden steep increase
in such flow into the Indian
economy after 2005. Incidentally,
as explained below, the data for
India
and
China
are not strictly comparable.
|
Table
3: Regional FDI Inflows
|
|
(In
Billion
US
$ )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year
|
East
Asia
|
India
|
China
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1995
|
48
|
2.14
|
35.85
|
|
1996
|
52
|
2.77
|
40.8
|
|
1997
|
60
|
3.62
|
45.3
|
|
1998
|
62
|
3.08
|
45.46
|
|
1999
|
70
|
2.44
|
40.32
|
|
2000
|
118
|
2.91
|
40.72
|
|
2001
|
70
|
4.22
|
46.88
|
|
2002
|
58
|
3.13
|
52.74
|
|
2003
|
60
|
2.63
|
53.51
|
|
2004
|
105
|
3.76
|
60.63
|
|
2005
|
116
|
5.55
|
72.41
|
|
2006
|
132
|
15.73
|
72.72
|
|
2007
|
157
|
24.58
|
83.52
|
|
2008
|
|
27.31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source
: UNCTAD:World Development
Reports
|
Quantum
Leap in FDI Since 2005-06
It
is this development of a sudden
surge in
India
’s FDI inflow that deserves to
be noted with some satisfaction
and it also calls for some
explanation.
As shown in Table 4, the
country’s FDI inflow has risen
from $3.78 billion in 2004-05 to
$5.55 billion in 2005-06 and
galloped thereafter to $24.58
billion in 2007-08 and to $27.31
billion in 2008-09.
It is found that for the
first time since the reforms began
that the FDI inflows in the form
of direct equity (i.e., excluding
reinvested earnings of FDI
companies operating in India) have
overtaken the portfolio inflows of
FIIs in 2006-07 and continued to
be so in 2007-08, while in
2008-09, there has been a steep
disinvestment by FIIs but FDI
flows have continued to expand
(Table 4).
A few global and domestic
factors have contributed to the
expansion in
India
’s FDI flow in recent years.
As UNCTAD’s annual
investment review of 2008 has
reported, contributing to this
robust growth of FDI inflows are
significant numbers of
cross-border mergers
and acquisitions (M&As)
and general improvements in
investment environment; these
improvements included further
liberalisation of FDI, better
economic integration, resilient
economic growth and strong
industrial investment and growth.
|
Table
4: Foreign Investment Inflows
|
|
(US
$ million)
|
|
Item
|
1995-96
|
1996-97
|
1997-98
|
1998-99
|
1999-00
|
2000-01
|
2001-02
|
2002-03
|
2003-04
|
2004-05
|
2005-06
|
2006-07
|
2007-08(P)
|
2008-09(P)
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
A.
|
Direct
Investment
|
2,144
|
2,821
|
3,557
|
2,462
|
2,155
|
4,029
|
6,130
|
5,035
|
4,322
|
6,051
|
8,961
|
22,826
|
34,362
|
33,613
|
|
|
(I+II+III)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.
Equity
|
2,144
|
2,821
|
3,557
|
2,462
|
2,155
|
2,400
|
4,095
|
2,764
|
2,229
|
3,778
|
5,975
|
16,481
|
26,867
|
27,807
|
|
|
(a+b+c+d+e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a.
Government
(SIA/FIPB)
|
1,249
|
1,922
|
2,754
|
1,821
|
1,410
|
1,456
|
2,221
|
919
|
928
|
1,062
|
1,126
|
2,156
|
2,298
|
4,677
|
|
|
b.
RBI
|
169
|
135
|
202
|
179
|
171
|
454
|
767
|
739
|
534
|
1,258
|
2,233
|
7,151
|
17,129
|
17,998
|
|
|
c.
NRI
|
715
|
639
|
241
|
62
|
84
|
67
|
35
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
—
|
|
|
d.
Acquisition of shares *
|
11
|
125
|
360
|
400
|
490
|
362
|
881
|
916
|
735
|
930
|
2,181
|
6,278
|
5,148
|
4,632
|
|
|
e.
Equity capital of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unincorporated
bodies #
|
..
|
..
|
..
|
..
|
..
|
61
|
191
|
190
|
32
|
528
|
435
|
896
|
2,292
|
500
|
|
|
II.
Reinvested earnings +
|
..
|
..
|
..
|
..
|
..
|
1,350
|
1,645
|
1,833
|
1,460
|
1,904
|
2,760
|
5,828
|
7,168
|
4,725
|
|
|
III.
Other capital ++
|
.
.
|
.
.
|
.
.
|
.
.
|
.
.
|
279
|
390
|
438
|
633
|
369
|
226
|
517
|
327
|
1,081
|
|
B.
|
Portfolio
Investment
|
2,748
|
3,312
|
1,828
|
-61
|
3,026
|
2,760
|
2,021
|
979
|
11,377
|
9,315
|
12,492
|
7,003
|
29,395
|
-13,855
|
|
|
(a+b+c)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a.
GDRs/ADRs # #
|
683
|
1,366
|
645
|
270
|
768
|
831
|
477
|
600
|
459
|
613
|
2,552
|
3,776
|
8,769
|
1,162
|
|
|
b.
FIIs **
|
2,009
|
1,926
|
979
|
-390
|
2,135
|
1,847
|
1,505
|
377
|
10,918
|
8,686
|
9,926
|
3,225
|
20,328
|
-15,017
|
|
|
c.
Offshore funds and others
|
56
|
20
|
204
|
59
|
123
|
82
|
39
|
2
|
—
|
16
|
14
|
2
|
298
|
—
|
|
Total
(A+B)
|
4,892
|
6,133
|
5,385
|
2,401
|
5,181
|
6,789
|
8,151
|
6,014
|
15,699
|
15,366
|
21,453
|
29,829
|
63,757
|
19,758
|
|
Source:
RBI (2009): RBI Bulletin,
May
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In
India
’s case, all of these factors
seem to have played a role. The
most significant, as brought out
in Table 5, has been the
economy’s growth momentum which
picked up after 2003-04 or
thereabout and continued until
2007-08. More noteworthy aspect of
the growth climate has
been
the historically high levels of
domestic saving and investment
rates attained during the period.
The increases of saving rate from
26.3% in 2002-03 to 37.7% in
2007-08 and investment rate from
25.2% to 39.1% during the same
period, have been truly
unprecedented.
They do reflect the overall
improvement in the economic
climate which has contributed to a
better attraction of FDI into the
country
|
|
Table
5:
India
's FDI Inflows and the Growth
Scenario
|
|
Year
|
Amount
of FDI
|
Growth
Indicators
|
|
|
Inflows
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
In
Rupees, Crore
|
In
US $ Million
|
Real
GDP
|
Domestic
Saving Rate
|
Investment
Rate
|
|
|
|
|
Growth
(%)
|
(%)
|
(%)
|
|
1991-2000
|
60,604
|
16698
|
|
|
|
|
(August
1991-March 2000)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2000-01
|
12646
|
2908
|
4.4
|
23.7
|
24.3
|
|
2001-02
|
19361
|
4222
|
5.8
|
23.5
|
22.8
|
|
2002-03
|
14932
|
3134
|
3.8
|
26.3
|
25.2
|
|
2003-04
|
12117
|
2634
|
8.5
|
29.8
|
27.6
|
|
2004-05
|
17138
|
3759
|
7.5
|
31.7
|
32.1
|
|
2005-06
|
24613
|
5546
|
9.5
|
34.2
|
35.5
|
|
2006-07
|
70630
|
15726
|
9.7
|
35.7
|
36.9
|
|
2007-08
|
98664
|
24579
|
9
|
37.7
|
39.1
|
|
2008-09
|
122919
|
27309
|
6.7
|
-
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Including
Advance Figures and do not cover
re-invested earnings.
|
|
|
|
Source:www.dipp.nic.in
and CSO: National Accounts Statistic(NAS)
|
|
|
In
addition, reports suggest that
some significant rationalisation
and simplification of government
procedures have taken place in
recent years.
Secondly, the interest
shown by some state governments in
attracting investments in their
respective states is indeed
noteworthy.
They have shown competitive
spirit including providing fiscal
concessions for investment
projects. In this respect, the
dynamic spirits shown by
Karnataka, Tami Nadu, Andhra
Pradesh and
Gujarat
stand out.
Next to
Delhi
and
Maharashtra
, they have attracted
the maximum amounts of FDI
in that order.
Finally, it is found that
there has occurred substantial
transformation in the spirit of
competitiveness and enterprise
amongst the Indian businessmen in
recent years, particularly after
the 1990s, which is reflected in
large numbers of mergers and
acquisitions and technological
tie-ups.
|
Table
6: Foreign
Direct
Investment
Flows
(FDI)
|
|
(Millions
of Dollars and Percentage)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As
Percentage of GrossFixed
Capital Formation (GFCF)
|
|
FDI
flows
|
1999-2000
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
1990-2000
|
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
|
|
|
(Annual
average)
|
|
|
|
|
(Annual
average)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
India
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inward
|
1705
|
5771
|
7606
|
19662
|
22950
|
1.8
|
3
|
6.6
|
5.8
|
|
|
Outward
|
121
|
2179
|
2978
|
12842
|
13649
|
|
1.2
|
4.3
|
3.5
|
|
China
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inward
|
30104
|
60630
|
72406
|
72715
|
83521
|
11
|
7.7
|
6.4
|
5.9
|
|
|
Outward
|
2195
|
5498
|
12261
|
21160
|
22469
|
1
|
1.3
|
1.9
|
1.6
|
|
United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inward
|
109513
|
135826
|
104773
|
236701
|
232839
|
7
|
4.3
|
9.1
|
9
|
|
|
Outward
|
92010
|
294905
|
15369
|
221664
|
313787
|
6.3
|
0.6
|
8.5
|
12.1
|
|
East Asia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inward
|
48834
|
106331
|
116177
|
131879
|
156706
|
8.8
|
9
|
8.7
|
8.6
|
|
|
Outward
|
29472
|
62924
|
49836
|
82301
|
102865
|
5.5
|
3.9
|
5.4
|
5.7
|
|
World
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inward
|
492605
|
717695
|
958697
|
1411018
|
1833324
|
7.7
|
9.7
|
12.9
|
14.8
|
|
|
Outward
|
492535
|
920151
|
880808
|
1323150
|
1996514
|
7.9
|
9
|
12.2
|
16.2
|
|
Source:
UNCTAD (2009): World Investment
Report 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also,
as cited earlier, the recent
period has such renewed intensity
of cross-border capital flows and
India
has benefited from that
phenomenon.
But, it is found that for
once,
India
’s
rate
of expansion in FDI flows
or even the absolute increases in
such FDI has been higher than that
of
China
.
India
added about $10 billion each in
2006 and 2007 to its flow of FDI,
but
China
added a little above $10 billion
in these two years together (Table
6). As a result,
India
’s inward FDI flow as percentage
of the country’s gross fixed
capital formation has touched the
corresponding ratio now obtaining
for
China
(Table 6).
In 2005, the ratio for
India
was 3.0% but it increased to 6.6%
in 2006 and 5.8% in 2007.
China
’s, on the other hand, was far
ahead at 7.7% in 2005 but fell
thereafter to 6.4% and 5.9% in the
subsequent two years,
respectively.
Even the stock of FDI as
percentage of GDP has almost
doubled from 3.7% in 2000 to 5.7%
in 2006 and 6.7% in 2007 in the
case of
India
.
In the case of China, on
the other hand, because of
continuously high rates of
economic growth followed by the
reduced pace of FDI flow, the
corresponding ratio has dipped
from 16.2 to 10.5% and 10.1%
during the above period (Table 7).
|
Table
7: Foreign
Direct
Investment
Stocks
(FDI)
|
|
(Millions
of Dollars and Percentage)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As
a Percentage of Gross domestic
Product(GDP)
|
|
FDI
Stocks
|
1990
|
1995
|
2000
|
2006
|
2007
|
1990
|
2000
|
2006
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
India
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inward
|
1657
|
5641
|
17517
|
52369
|
76226
|
0.5
|
3.7
|
5.7
|
6.7
|
|
|
Outward
|
124
|
495
|
1859
|
15900
|
29412
|
|
0.4
|
1.7
|
2.6
|
|
China
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inward
|
20691
|
101098
|
193348
|
292559
|
327087
|
5.1
|
16.2
|
10.5
|
10.1
|
|
|
Outward
|
4455
|
17768
|
27768
|
73330
|
95799
|
1.1
|
2.3
|
2.6
|
3
|
|
United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inward
|
394911
|
535553
|
1256867
|
1843885
|
2093049
|
6.8
|
12.8
|
14
|
15.1
|
|
|
Outward
|
430521
|
699015
|
1316247
|
2454674
|
2791269
|
7.4
|
13.4
|
18.6
|
20.2
|
|
East Asia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inward
|
240645
|
357419
|
710475
|
1213092
|
1691138
|
25.9
|
32.1
|
28.6
|
35
|
|
|
Outward
|
49032
|
149444
|
509637
|
927658
|
1348860
|
5.4
|
23.2
|
21.9
|
28
|
|
World
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inward
|
1941252
|
2914356
|
5786700
|
12470085
|
15210560
|
9.1
|
18.1
|
25.5
|
27.9
|
|
|
Outward
|
1785267
|
2941198
|
6148211
|
12756149
|
15602339
|
8.5
|
19.4
|
26.3
|
28.9
|
|
Source:
UNCTAD (2009): World Investment
Report 2008
|
|
|
|
|