Foreign direct investment, exports, and economic growth in malaysia, thailand and vietnam

UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL STUDIES HO CHI MINH CITY THE HAGUE VIETNAM THE NETHERLANDS VIETNAM - NETHERLANDS PROGRAMME FOR M.A IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT, EXPORTS, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN MALAYSIA, THAILAND, AND VIETNAM A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS By BUI THI KIM HOANG Academic Supervisor: DR NGUYEN HOANG BAO HO CHI MINH CITY, DECEMBER 2012 Certification “I certificate that the substance of the thesis has not already been submitted for any degree and is not currently submitted for any other degree I certify that to the best of my knowledge and help received in preparing the thesis and all sources used have been acknowledged in the thesis.” Signature Bui Thi Kim Hoang Date: Acknowledgement First of all, I would like express my deepest gratitude my academic supervisor, Dr Nguyen Hoang Bao, Dean of Economic Development, HCM City University of Economics, for advice, critical, and helpful comments on the paper My dearest thanks to the lectures and staff of the project, who helped improve my knowledge and fulfill the programme I am deeply indebted to my parents, my elder brother and my husband for their love and support of me, keeping me in good condition for learning And finally, I am also grateful to my close friends for their warm encourgagement Abstract This study examines the causality relations between foreign direct investment, exports, and economic growth in the three countries including Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam of the Southeast region for the period of 19892010 The paper uses time series data for individual countries and panel data for the panel three countries The study estimate vector autoregression model (VAR) or vector error correction model (VECM) of the three variables to find Granger causal relationship for each of the three countries And then, using two different panel unit root tests it is found that all the panel variables are integrated in order one The cointegration is found for the panel variables from the Johansen Fisher panel cointegration and Kao tests The panel-Granger test support that there are bidirectional long run causal relations between the variables but there is only unidirectional from exports to foreign direct investment in the short run for the panel of three countries Contents ' jqi 1c;jtjt3jj .i Acknowledgement -. .ii Abstract iii Contents - i+ List of Tables vi List of Figures .vii List of Abbreviations viii Chapter 1: Introd uction 1.1 Problem statement 1.2 Research objectives .3 1.3 Research questions .4 1.4 Research methodology 1.5 Structure of the thesis Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.1 Theoretical Literature 2.1.1 Relationship between foreign direct investment and economic growth 2.1.2 Relationship between exports and economic growth .6 1.3 Relationship between FDI and exports 2.2 Empirical studies 2.3 Conceptual framework 17 Chapter 3: Foreign Direct Investment, exports, and economic growth in Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam: Descriptive and Comparative Analysis .19 3.1 Foreign direct investment, exports, and economic growth in Malaysia 19 and Thailand 19 3.2 Foreign direct investment, exports, and economic growth in Vietnam .26 Chapter 4: Research Methodology 40 4.1 Data sources 40 4.2 Model Specification 40 4.3 Estimation techniques .41 4.3 Individual economy’s Granger causality test 41 4.3 1.1 Unit root tests for stationary time series 41 4.3 1.2 Johansen cointegration technique 43 4.3.1.3 Granger causality analysis .45 4.3.2 Panel data Granger causality test 46 4.3.2 Panel unit root tests 47 4.3.2.2 Panel cointegration test 49 4.3.2.3 Panel causality test 50 Chapter Empirical Results 51 5.1 Unit root tests 51 5.2 Cointegration analysis 53 Chapter 6: Major Findings and Policy Implications 58 Major findings 58 6.2 Policy implications 60 6.3 Research limitations 60 References .62 Appendices 69 List of Tables Table 2.1: Summary of empirical studies on causality between FDI, exports, and economic growth .16 Table 3.1: The contribution of components of total demand to economic growth in Malaysia and Thailand, 1989-2010 (percentage) 20 Table 3.2: Correlation between the growth rates of the real GDP and its components in Malaysia and Thailand, 1989-2010 21 Table 3.3: Structural change in Malaysia and Thailand, 1989-2010 25 Table 3.4: The contribution of components of total demand to economic growth in Vietnam (percentage) 27 Table 3.5: Correlation between the growth rates of the real GDP and its components in Vietnam, 1989-2010 27 Table 3.6: GDP growth (g=AY/Y), Rate of investment (I/Y), AY/I, ICOR in Vietnam28 Table 3.7: Structural change in Vietnam, 1989-2010 (percentage) 29 Table 3.8: Exports and Imports in Vietnam (percentage of GDP) .30 Table 3.9: Export value index in Vietnam, 1989-2010 31 Table 3.10: Foreign direct investment inflows by Vietnam’s region and province 34 Table 3.11: Foreign Direct Investment by sector in Vietnam .35 Table 3.12: FDI in industry for Vietnam country 36 Table 3.13: Exports by foreign investment sector in Vietnam .37 Table 5.1: ADF and PP unit root tests on level series for the individuals 51 Table 5.2: ADF and PP unit root tests on the first difference series for the individuals 52 Table 5.3: Panel unit root tests 53 Table 5.4: Results of Johansen cointegration test for individual country 54 , Table 5.5: Panel cointegration test 54 Table 5.6: Granger causality test based on VECM for Thailand and Vietnam 55 Table 5.7: Granger causality test based on VAR model for Malaysia 56 Table 5.8: Panel Granger results 56 Table 5.9: The causality relations in this paper .57 List of Figures Figure 1: Conceptual framework in this study 18 Figure 3.1: GDP growth in Malaysia and Thailand, 1989-2010 (percentage) 19 Figure 3.2: Real GDP, Exports and FDI in Malaysia and Thailand ($US) 21 Figure 3.3: The contribution of FDI inflows in GDP in Malaysia and Thailand, 1989-2010 (percentage) .22 Figure 3.4: Export structure in Malaysia, 1989-2010 (percentage) .23 Figure 3.5: Export structure in Thailand, 1989-2010 (percentage) 24 Figure 3.6: Export price index in Malaysia and Thailand, 1989-2010 25 Figure 3.7: Vietnam GDP growth (%) 26 Figure 3.8: GDP, exports and investment in Vietnam, 1989-2010 (VND billion) 29 Figure 3.9: The growth of exports in Vietnam, 1990-2010 (percentage) 30 Figure 10: Export structure in Vietnam 32 Figure 3.11: FDI inflows in the Southeast countries ($US million) .32 Figure 3.12: Foreign direct investment in the period in Vietnam, 1989-2010 .33 Figure 3.13: Foreign direct investment, exports and real GDP growth (%) 38 List of Abbreviations ADF AIC AR ECT EX FDI GDP (Y) Augmented Dickey-Fuller Akaike’s Information Criterion Autoregression Error Correction Term Exports Foreign Direct Investment Gross Domestic Product Generalized Method of Moment cMM Investment I Incremental Capital-Output Ratio ICOR Inn, Pesaran, and Shin IPS Multinational Coporations MNCs Multinational Enterprises MNEs Phillips and Perron PP Schwarz’s Information Criterion SIC The United States dollar US$ Vector Autoregression VAR Vector Error Correction Model VECM Vietnam dong VND World Bank WB World Trade Organization WTO Chapter Introduction This chapter explains the reason for the carrying out the thesis, its objectives, and research questions The methodology is also mentioned in this part Finally, the structure of the thesis will be presented 1.1 Problem statement The role foreign direct investment and exports in promoting economic - growth have much recognized in many countries in the world throughout theoretical and empirical literature The new growth theories have showed the importance of investment and openness to trade in economic development Through these factors, the strategies for foreign direct investment and exports promotion are necessary proposed to promote economic growth especially for developing countries, so called ‘FDI-led growth’ or ‘export-led growth’ Theoretically, international free trade has been called “engine of growth”, which is proved clearly from the classical economists to the modern economists Moreover, many economic studies have indicated that countries adopt international free trade enjoy higher growth rates than those close their economies to trade (Sachs and Warner, 1997; Wacziarg and Welch, 2008) The application of an open economy and free trade, countries will be rewarded greater economic growth and leads to raise income levels and living standards (Frankel and Romer, 1999) As above, throughout trade, export sectors can be earned more profit and increased saving as well as create foreign exchange earnings and jobs opportunities for workers in export sector (Azam, 2010) Hence, the output growth can be generated not only by increasing the quantities of labor and capital in economy, but also by expanding exports Furthermore, the competitive of exports markets cause to give export-oriented policies contribute positively to economic growth and it also helps the countries integrate promptly into the world economy Therefore, the export-led growth hypothesis is in favor of exports expansion is one of the main determinants of economic growth However, output also has a positive impact on exports throughout productivity growth, Johansen, S and K Juselius (1990) Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration with applications to the demand for money Oxford Bulletin ofEconomics and Statistics, 52(2), pp 169-210 Johnson, A (2006) The Effects of FDI Inflows on Host Country Economic Growth CECIS Electronic Working Paper Series, No 58 , Kao, C., 1999 “Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data”, Journal ofEconometrics 90, pp 1-44 Kemal, A.R and L Fernando (2002) Exports and economic growth in South Asia A Study Prepared for the South Asia Network of Economic Research Institudes Kfinya, L 2002 Exports and Growth: Granger-Causality Analysis on OECD Countries with a Panel Data Test and Bootstrap Critical Values School of Applied Economics, Victoria University Krugman, P.R., 1984 Import protection as export promotion In: Kierzkowski, H (Ed.), Monopolistic Competition in International Trade Oxford University Press, Oxford Lim, Ewe-Ghee (2004) Determinants of and the Relation Between Foreign Direct Investment and Growth: A Summary of the Recent Literature IMF Working Paper 01/175 Lipsey, R.E (2004) Home and Host Country Effect of Foreign Direct Investment National Bureau of Economic Research Maddala, G S., and S Wu, 1999 A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 61, pp 631-652 Maneschiold, P (2008) A note on the export-led growth hypothesis: a time series approach Cuadernos de economia, Vol 45, pp 293-302 Mangir, F (2012) Export and economic growth in Turkey: cointegration and causality analysis Economic, Management, and Financial Markets, Vol.7, No.I, pp 67-80, ISSN 1842-3191 78 Makki, S.S and A Somwaru 2004 “Impact of Foreign Direct Investment and Trade on Economic Growth: Evidence from Developing Countries.” American Journal ofAgricultural Economics, N oI 86, No 3, pp 795-801 Majeed, M.T and E Ahmad (2006) Determinants of Exports in Developing Countries The Pakistan Development Review, Vol 45, No.4, pp 1265 1276 Medina-Smith (2001) Is the Export-led growth hypothesis valid for developing countries? A case study of Costa Rica UNCTAD, Policy Issues in International Trade and Commodities, Study Series, No.7 Mehrara, M and B.A Firouzjaee (2011) Granger Causality Relationship between Export Growth and GDP growth in Developing Countries: Panel Cointegration Approach International Journal of Humanities and Social S'cieuce, Vol 1, No 1, pp 223-231 Miankhel, A.K., S.M Thangavelu, and K.Kalirajan (2009) Foreign Direct Investment, Exports and Economic Growth in South Asia and Selected Emerging Countries: A Multivariate VAR Analysis CCAS Working Paper, No.23 Nguyen, T.T.A, X.N.H Vu, T.T Tran, and M.H Nguyen (2006) The Impacts of Foreign Direct Investment on the Economic Growth in Vietnam CIEM Njong, A.M (2008) Investigating the effects of foreign direct investment on export growth in Cameroon, UNECA Ad-hoc Expert Group Meeting Addis Ababa Pham, M.A (2008) Can Vietnam’s economic growth be explained by investment or export: a VAR analysis VDF Working Paper, No 0815 Phillips, P.C.B and P Pherron (1988) Testing for a unit root in time series regression Biometrika 75, No.2, pp 335-346 Ram, Y (2003) An Empirical Examination of the Export-led Growth Hypothesis in Fiji Economics Department Working Paper, Reserve Bank of Fiji Reinhardt, N (2000) Back to Basic in Malaysia and Thailand: The Role of Resource-Based Exports in Their Export-Led Growth World Development, Vol 28, No l, pp.57-77 Rudra, P and Pradhan (2009) The FDI led-growth hypothesis in Asean-5 countries: evidence from co-integration panel analysis International Journal , ofBusiness and Management, Vol 4, No 12 Sachs, J.D and A.M Warner (1997) Natural resource abundance and economic growth Center for International Development, Harvard University, Cambridge MA Safdari, M., M Mahmoodi, and E Mahmoodi (2011) The causality relationship between export and economic growth in Asian developing countries American Journal ofscientific Research, Issue 25, pp 40-45 Sinoha-Lopete, R (2004) Export-led growth in Southern Africa A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Mechanical College Sun, H (2011) Cointegration Study of Relationship between Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth International Business Research, Vol 4, No 4, pp 226-230 Tambunlertchai, S (2009) Foreign Direct Investment and Export Performance in Thailand Degree of Bacherlor of Arts with Departmental Honors in the Mathematics-Economics Program Wesleyan University Tekin, R.B (2011) Economic growth, exports and foreign direct investment in least developed countries: a panel Granger causality analysis Economic Modeling, 29, pp 868-878 Thomsen, S (1999) Southeast Asia: The role of Foreign Direct Investment Policies in Development Working Papers on International Investment OECD Todaro, M.P and S.C Smith (2003) Economic Development Tyler, W.G (1981) Growth and export expansion in developing countries Journal ofDevelopment Economics 9, pp 121-130 Wacziarg, R and K.H Welch, (2008) Trade liberalization and growth: new evidence Work Bank Economic Review, Oxford University Press, Vol 22, No 2, pp 187-231 Won, Y., F.S.T Hsiao, and D.Y Yang (2008) FDI Inflows, Exports and Economic Growth in First and Second Generation ANIEs: Panel Data causality , Analyses, KIEP Working Paper, 08-02: 11-86 Zhang, K.H (2001) Does Foreign Direct Investment Promote Economic Growth? Evidence from East Asia and Latin America Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol.19, Issue 2, pp 175-185 UNCTAD , (2002) World Investment Report 2002: Transnational Corporation and Export Competitiveness New York and Geneva World Bank, (2012) World Development Indicators Available at: http:/ tla tabank.w orlt1banl‹.ore/d‹Jp/h‹ime.do‘? Stcp= 12&it1=4&CNG—2, 6/9/2012 Vietnam General Statistics Office, (2012) Available http:/'iviv w’ usta.p‹i› x n/def ault.aspx‘? tabifl=228& ltem lD— 1915, 12/6/2012 68 at: Appendices Thailand 1996 25.61 l) Nominal exchange rate (average) (monetary unit of Thailand and Malaysia per one USD) Malaysia 1997 1996 1997 47.25 2.25 3.88 2) The total of bank are compared with the total of unsound banks (calculated from the fiscal year 1996 and 1997) 108 64 (59%) 60 41 (68%) 3) Number of enterprises went bankrupt na 4,000 489 6,583 4) Unemployment rates (%) 3.3 3.7 27 4.2 5) Real groMh rate of GDP (%) 5.5 - 1.2 20 Sources: WB Reports (1999) and Journal of Economic Development, HCM City University of Economics (December 2002) cited in Bao (2003, p.31) Source Eview Users Guide II Appendix 5.1.- Johansen colntegratlon test in Malaysia Date: I 2/17/12 Timc: 21 :54 Sample (adjusted): 1991 2010 Included observations: 20 after adjustments Trend assumption: No deterministic trend (restricted constant) Series: LNFDI LNEX LNGDP Lags interval (in first differences): I to Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test (Trace) Hypothesized No of CE(s) Eigenvalue None At most 0.488065 0.331897 At most 145929 Trace Statistic 0.05 Critical Value Prob ** 24.61226 11.22109 154825 35.19275 20.26184 9.164546 0.4240 0.5210 0.5522 Trace test indicates no cointegration at the 0.05 level * denotes rejection of the hypothesis at the 0.05 level **MacKinnon-Haug-Michelis (1999) p-values Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test (Maximum Eigenvalue) Hypothesized No of CE(s) Eigenvalue Max-Eigen Statistic 0.05 Critical Value Prob ** None At most l At most 0.488065 0.331897 0.145929 13.39117 8.066267 154825 22.29962 15.89210 9.164546 0.5190 0.5399 0.5522 Max-eigenvalue test indicates no cointegration at the 0.05 level * denotes rejection of the hypothesis at the 0.05 level *•MacKinnon-Haug-Michelis (1999) p-values Appendix 5.2.- Johansen cointegration test in Thailand Date: 12/ I 7/12 Time: 22:02 Sample (adjusted): 1991 20 10 Included observations: 20 after adjustments Trend assumption: No deterministic trend (restricted constant) Series: LNEX LNFDI LNGDP Lags interval (in first differences): I to Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test (Trace) No of CE(s) Eigenvalue Trace Statistic Critical Value Prob ** None * At most I 0.6237 10 0.440536 0.277797 37.67236 18 12448 6.508972 35 19275 20.26184 9.164546 0.0265 0.0959 1549 Prob ** Hypothesized At most 0.05 Trace test indicates cointegrating eqn(s) at the 0.05 level * denotes rejection of the hypothesis at the 0.05 level ••MacKinnon-Hang-Michel is (1999) p-values Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test (Maximum Eigenvalue) Hypothesized No of CE(s) Eigenvalue Max-Eigen Statistic 0.05 Critical Value None At most I At most 0.623710 0.440536 0.277797 19.54788 I I 6155 I 6.508972 22.29962 164546 159 0.2094 1549 0.05 Critical Value Prob •• 15.89210 Max-eigenvalue test indicates no cointegration at the 0.05 level * denotes rejection of the hypothesis at the 0.05 level •*MacKinnon-Hang-Michelis (1999) p-values Date: 12/25/12 Time: 21:55 Sample (adjusted): 1991 20 10 lncluded observations: 20 after adjustments Trend assumption: No deterministic trend (restricted constant) Series: LNEX LNFDI LNGDP Lags interval (in first differences): I to l Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test (Trace) Hypothesized No of CE(s) Eigenvalue Trace Statistic None * At most 0.708584 0.47 1083 At most 121539 39.99024 35 19275 0.014 l 5.330 2.591684 20.26184 164546 0.208 l 0.6594 Trace test indicates cointegrating eqn(s) at the 0.05 level * denotes rejection ot’the hypothesis at the 0.05 level **MacKinnon-Haug-Michelis (1999) p-values Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test (Maximum Eigenvalue) ‘ ” Hypothesized No of CE(s) Eigenvalue None * At most I 0.708584 0.471083 121539 At most Max-Eigen 0.05 Critical Value Statistic 24.66007 I 2.73849 Prob ** 22.29962 15.89210 164546 2.591684 0.0230 1471 0.6594 Max-eigenvalue test indicates I cointegrating eqn(s) at the 0.05 level • denotes rejection of the hypothesis at the 0.05 level *•MacKinnon-Haug-Michelis (1999) p-values Appendix :5.4.- Cointegration testfor the panel of three countries Johansen Fisher Panel Cointegration Test Series: LNEX LNFDI LNGDP Date: 12/25/12 Time: 21 :58 Sample: 1989 2010 lncluded observations: 66 Trend assumption: No deterministic trend (restricted constant) Lags interval (in first differences): I I Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test (Trace and Maximum Eigenvalue) Hypothesized No of CE(s) Fisher Stat * Fisher Stat • (from trace test) Prob (from max-eigen test) Prob 0.0076 1662 0.4517 13.17 193 5.750 0.0404 0.2243 0.4517 None l 7.51 At most I 134 At most 5.750 * Probabilities are computed using asymptotic Chi-square distribution Kao Residual Cointegration Test Series: LNEX LNFDI LNGDP Date: 12/25/12 Time: 22:01 Sample: 1989 2010 lncluded observations: 66 Null Hypothesis: No cointegration Trend assumption: No deterministic trend Lag selection: fixed at I Newey-West bandwidth selection using Bartlett kernel ADF Residual variance t-Statistic Prob - I 944707 0.0259 0.005268 0.006605 HAC variance Cointegrating Eq: Appendix S.S.- Granger based on VECM in Thailand Vector Error Correction Estimates Date: 09/29/12 Time: 09:57 Sample (adjusted): 1991 2010 lncluded observations: 20 after adjustments Standard errors in ( ) & t-statistics in [ ] CointEq I LNEX(- I) 1.000000 LNFDI(- I ) -0.496239 (0.13209) [-3.756851 LNGDP(- I) -0.081804 (0.37859) [-0.21608] - 12.36702 (8.05919) [-I 53452] Error Correction: D(LNEX) CointEq I -0.237916 D( (0.05208) [-4.56855] (0 [0 D(LNEX(-1)) -0.492445 (0.23867) [-2.06333] (1 [0 D(LNFDI(- I )) -0.055760 (0.04543) [-1.22729] (0 [0 D(LNGDP(-1)) 0.431693 (0.33460) [ 1.29016] (2 [0 0.390041 0.275674 0.065642 0.064052 3.410431 -0 0 28.81390 -10 -2.481390 -2.282243 0.074841 0.075260 1 0 R-squared Adj R-squared Sum sq resids S.E equation F-statistic Log likelihood Akaike AIC Schwarz SC Mean dependent S.D dependent 86 Determinant resid covariance (dot adj.) Determinant resid covariance Log I ikelihood Akaike information criterion Schwarz criterion l 8E-07 59.59591 -4.359591 -3.563005 Appendix J 6.- Granger based on VECM in Vietnam Vector Error Correction Estimates Date: I I /23/12 Time: 10:45 Sample (adjusted): 1991 2010 Included observations: 20 after adjustments Standard errors in ( ) & t-statistics in [ ] Cointegrating Eq: CointEq I LNEX(- I) LNFDI(-1) 0.419784 (0.04670) [ 8.988941 LNGDP(-1) -2.355430 (0.07390) [-31.8720] 24.63956 ( I 48145) [ 16.6320] Error Correction: D(LNEX) D(LNFDI) D(LNGDP) CointEq I -0.242243 (0.16595) [-1.459721 -1.666996 (0.36874) [-4.52077] -0.042281 (0.02112) [-2.00146] D(LNEX(- I)) 0.349920 (0.22867) [ 1.53022] -1.843123 (0.5081 l) [-3.62744] 0.036263 (0.02911) [ 1.24578] D(LN FDI(- I )) -0.002485 (0.03106) [-0.08000] -0.127483 (0.06902) [-1.84712] -0.004036 (0.00395) [-1.02083] D(LNGDP(- I )) 1.552297 (0.63616) [ 2.44010] 7.970570 (1.41353) [ 5.63876] 0.989614 (0.08098) [ 12.2204] 0.061649 -0 114292 0.114323 0.084529 0.350395 23.26579 -1.926579 -1.727433 0.684086 0.624852 0.564434 0.187822 11.54891 7.297866 -0.329787 -0.130640 0.378614 0.262105 0.001853 0.010760 3.249635 64.49073 -6.049073 -5.849927 0.147925 0.121272 0.071561 R-squared Adj R-squared Sum sq resids S.E equation F-statistic Log likelihood Akaike AIC Schwarz SC Mean dependent S.D dependent 0.080077 0.306652 012526 D e t e r m i n a n t r e s i d c o v a r ii i n i: e ( d o t a d j ) D e t e r m i n a n t r e s i d c o v a r i a n c e L o g l i k e l i h o o d A k a i k e i n f o r m a t i o n c r i t e r i o n S c h w a r z c r i terio n 1.74 E-08 E 0 0 8.423 002 7.626 416 A RP éhdix S 7.- Granger based on VAR in Malaysia V e c t o r A u t o r e g r e s s i o n E s t i m a t e s : afte r adj ust me nts Sta nda rd erro rs in ) tstat isti cs in ] D a t e : I / / T i m e : D(EX(- D(FDI(- 2 : Sample (adjust ed): 1991 2010 l n c l u d e d o b s e r v a t i o n s D(GDP(- R-squared Adj R-squared Sum sq resids S.E equation statistic Log likelihood Akaike AIC Schwarz SC Mean dependent S.D dependent Determinanti resid covariance k e adj.) Determinant l resid covariance i L h o o g o d l A ka ik e in fo r m ati on cr ite ri on Sc h w ar z cri ter io n 4.68E+56 2.39E+56 -1383.316 139.5316 140 1290 Appendix 5.8.- Granger in the panel of three countries V e c t o r E r r o r C o r r e c t i o n E s t i m a t e s D a t e : I / / T i m e : 2 : S a m p l e ( a d j u s t e d ) : 9 lncluded observations: 60 after adjustments Standard errors in ( ) & t-statistics in [ ] Cointegrating Eq: CointEq I LNEX(- I ) 1.000000 LNFDI(- I ) I 199316 (0.68001) [ I 76368] LNGDP(- I) I 051534 (0.82421) [ I 27581] -8 l 78155 (l 6.6736) [-4.90484] D(LNEX) D(LNFDI) D(LNGDP) -0.021276 (0.00326) [-6.51986] -0.110435 (0.02219) [-4.97746] -0.007257 (0.00168) [-4.332351 D(LNEX(- l)) 0.015482 (0.13854) [ 0.11175] -2.938834 (0.94192) [-3.12005) 0.016814 (0.07112) [ 0.236441 D(LNFDI(- l)) 0.004824 (0.01316) [0.36654] -0.167043 (0.08948) [-1.86689] -0.009362 (0.00676) [-1.38582] 9691 (0.25124) [-0.63562] -2.555164 (1.70815) [-1.49587] 0.307336 (0.12897) [ 2.38307] 0.333140 0.297415 0.275492 0.070139 9.325217 76.36989 -2.412330 -2.272707 0.099758 0.083678 0.326860 0.290799 12.73474 0.476871 9.064054 -38.63599 1.421200 1.560823 0.069385 0.566260 0.176610 0.132500 0.072592 0.036004 4.003840 116.3809 -3.746032 -3.606409 0.057143 0.038656 Error Correction: -0 15 D(LNGDP(- I )) R-squared Adj R-squared Sum sq resids S.E equation F-statistic Log likelihood Akaike AIC Schwarz SC Mean dependent S.D dependent Determinant resid covariancc (dot adj.) Determinant resid covariance Log likelihood Akaike information criterion Schwarz criterion 1.l1E-06 900E-07 162.2323 -4.874409 -4.31591 7 ... 3: Foreign Direct Investment, exports, and economic growth in Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam: Descriptive and Comparative Analysis .19 3.1 Foreign direct investment, exports, and economic growth. .. 3: Foreign Direct Investment, exports, and economic growth in Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam: Descriptive and Comparative Analysis This chapter presents the characteristics of foreign direct investment,. .. between foreign direct investment and economic growth, exports and economic growth Then, empirical literature for the causal relationship between foreign direct investment, exports, and economic growth