The relationship between trade openness and FDI inflows: Evidence-based insights from ASEAN region

Albahouth, Abdulrahman A.; Tahir, Muhammad Article The relationship between trade openness and FDI inflows: Evidence-based insights from ASEAN region Economies Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Albahouth, Abdulrahman A.; Tahir, Muhammad (2024) : The relationship between trade openness and FDI inflows: Evidence-based insights from ASEAN region, Economies, ISSN 2227-7099, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 12, Iss. 8, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12080208 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/329134 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Albahouth, Abdulrahman A., and Muhammad Tahir. 2024. The Relationship between Trade Openness and FDI Inflows: Evidence-Based Insights from ASEAN Region. Economies 12: 208. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/economies12080208 Academic Editors: E. M. Ekanayake and Bruce Morley Received: 7 June 2024 Revised: 8 August 2024 Accepted: 15 August 2024 Published: 19 August 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). economies Article The Relationship between Trade Openness and FDI Inflows: Evidence-Based Insights from ASEAN Region Abdulrahman A. Albahouth 1,* and Muhammad Tahir 2,* 1Department of Economics, College of Business and Economics, Qassim University, P.O. Box 6640, Buraydah 51452, Saudi Arabia 2Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad, Abbottabad Campus, Abbottabad 22020, Pakistan *Correspondence: [email protected] (A.A.A.); [email protected] (M.T.) Abstract: This research paper focuses on figuring out the impact of trade openness on FDI inflows, which has received relatively less attention in the literature, specifically in the context of ASEAN economies. The ASEAN region, which is relatively more open in terms of both trade openness as well as FDI inflows, is chosen as a sample. Annual data are gathered from “World Development Indicators (WDI)” and “World Governance Indicators (WGI)”. Reported results and findings are based on “Fixed Effect (FE) Modeling”, and the “Generalized Least Square (GLS)” is utilized for the robustness check. The results indicated that trade openness matters significantly for attracting FDI inflows. Similarly, institutional quality has also exerted a positive and significant influence on the inflows of FDI. The disaggregated analysis shows that five aspects of institutional quality, such as rule of law, regulatory quality, control of corruption, voice and accountability, and political instability and absence of violence, have positively and significantly impacted the FDI inflows in the case of selected ASEAN economies. The results demonstrated that exchange rate depreciation is harmful for the inflows of FDI. Moreover, FDI inflows responded positively to market size. Furthermore, the results showed that the impact of natural resources and inflation on FDI inflows is insignificant statistically. The present study suggests that the ASEAN policymakers manage their exchange rate effectively, improve the quality of institutions, and adopt vigorous trade liberalization policies to attract more FDI inflows. Keywords: trade openness; FDI; institutional quality; ASEAN; panel data 1. Introduction Foreign Direct Investment (FDI, hereafter) has played a dominant and significant role in uplifting the growth process of numerous economies and regions during the last several decades. FDI inflows have increased in all parts of the world since 1980 enormously (Wang et al. 2022). Following the reopening of the global economy after the COVID pandemic, global FDI flows surged to USD 1815 billion in 2021, marking an impressive increase of nearly 37 percent above the pre-pandemic levels (OECD 2022). Despite economic uncertainties and higher interest rates impacting global investments, recent reports indicate sustained trends in FDI (fDi Markets 2023). The ASEAN region is remarkably successful in attracting FDI inflows. Report by the “United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN.ESCAP 2023)” shows that ASEAN is successful in attracting a massive share of intraregional FDI flows. Among the ASEAN members, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Malaysian were successful in attracting 25, 14.4, and 13.7 billion US dollars of FDI, respectively. In 2023 alone, there were significant inflows, including USD 68 billion in India, USD 120 billion in Southeast Asia, and USD 65.1 billion in East and Northeast Asia, specifically for Greenfield investments according to (UN.ESCAP 2023). Several benefits are associated with the inflows of FDI, particularly for the developing and emerging economies. Dang and Nguyen (2021) documented that FDI inflows promote Economies 2024,12, 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12080208 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/economies Economies 2024,12, 208 2 of 19 competition in the host economy and further generate employment opportunities for the domestic population. FDI inflows also provide access to advanced technologies and essential inputs of production, promote healthy competition among the producers, and further complement domestic investment in the recipient economies. FDI is shown to be a crucial element for enhancing local productivity, stimulating innovations, and maintaining sustainable economic growth, as discussed in (Bergougui and Murshed 2023;Tahir et al. 2019). The ASEAN economies share several similar characteristics and economic conditions that effectively stimulate international investments. These factors include political stability and economic stability, high institutional quality, an abundance of natural resources, and a strong commitment to trade liberalization and regional integration. Sharma et al. (2022) also documented that ASEAN economies have favorable geographic, economic, and demographic conditions for international investors. Further, the trade war between the US and China has created a lot of opportunities for ASEAN economies. The ASEAN economies also performed well in terms of trade liberalization policies. The ASEAN free-trade agreement was quite successful in promoting the trade liberalization process (Ishikawa 2021). Le et al. (2023) investigated the impact of political stability on FDI inflows in 25 Asia–Pacific countries and show that deterioration on political stability has an adverse effect inflow of FDI. Work by Sabir et al. (2019) evaluated FDI inflows to both developed and developing economies, including ASEAN region countries, and show that indicators of institutional quality, government effectiveness, and political stability have positive and significant impacts on FDI inflow in developing countries. These elements collectively create an attractive and conducive environment for FDI in ASEAN region economies. The primary question of what fundamentally determines the inflows of FDI still lacks a convincing answer. Prior work has identified various factors responsible for FDI inflows. For instance, the study of Imran and Rashid (2023) and Aziz and Mishra (2016) provided sound evidence behind the positive influence of institutional quality on increased FDI inflows. Similarly, Dua and Garg (2015) demonstrated that the depreciation of currency is vital for attracting FDI inflows, while Ullah and Khan showed that economic size of the host economy matters for attracting FDI inflows. Other studies have reported that trade openness may also impact the inflows of FDI (Ho and Rashid 2011;Rathnayaka Mudiyanselage et al. 2021;Aziz and Mishra 2016). Taken together, this work shows that the effect of institutional quality, exchange rate and trade openness is crucial in investigating determinants of FDI variabilities in the ASEAN region economies. The influence of trade openness is central to work that investigates the determinants of FDI inflows in an economy. Indeed, several works of research were carried out with the prime goal of evaluating the impact of trade openness, in particular on FDI. Sabir et al. (2019) highlighted the importance of trade openness to FDI inflows to both developed and developing economies. Their work shows that a 1% increase in trade openness leads to an approximately 3.7% increase in FDI inflows in “low-income countries”, and nearly a 2.1% increase in “lower-middle-income countries”. Moraghen et al. (2023) also show that FDI grows by nearly one-to-one, with higher level of openness in case of Mauritian. Work by Furceri and Borelli (2008) highlighted the interaction between exchange rate and openness, in which they show that the extent to which exchange rate volatility affects FDI essentially relies on the degree of openness in a country. Empirical evidence on the subject shows that Latin American economies experienced a significant surge in FDI inflows by adopting free-trade agreements, as endorsed by Liargovas and Skandalis (2012). Other studies that emphasized the positive influence of trade openness on FDI include (Asiedu 2002) in sub-Saharan Africa; (Liargovas and Skandalis 2012) in developing economies, (Aziz and Mishra 2016) in the case of Arab economies, (Güri¸s and Gözgör 2015) for Turkey, and (Donghui et al. 2018) in India, Iran, and Pakistan. However, empirical findings are not consistent regarding the influence that trade has on FDI inflows, and a body of the literature claims that trade does not stimulate FDI in absolute terms. Rathnayaka Mudiyanselage et al. (2021) investigate this question and show that a higher level of trade openness reliefs has a negative impact on FDI inflows, Economies 2024,12, 208 3 of 19 and it is less likely to attract FDI in the long run. Erdogan and Unver (2015) show that their findings on the influence of openness are mixed based on the model specifications. Indeed, Kimino et al. (2007), assert the same in an earlier work that utilized panel data and conclude that the notion that trade openness has a positive impact on FDI inflows suffers from the unobserved characteristics bias, and the effect of openness on FDI turned out to be insignificant when controlling for these unobserved characteristics. This shows that derived conclusions on the impact of trade openness on FDI inflows remain controversial, which leaves room for further investigations. Therefore, further empirical investigation is needed to establish an explicit relationship between trade openness and FDI inflows. The current study is motivated by the inconsistent and inconclusive findings present in the existing literature. This research paper contributes to literature in four ways. First, we are investigating the influence of openness to trade openness on FDI inflows. Prior limited literature has provided conflicting results. Second, this work explores the direction of the relationship between trade and FDI, as prior literature has not yet established a consensus on whether higher FDI inflows impact trade openness or vice versa. Third, we also attempt to provide detailed evidence about the role of institutional quality in attracting FDI inflows. To do so, we have considered all dimensions of institutional quality separately reported by “World Governance Indicators (WGI)” to see which aspect is more important for attracting FDI inflows. Fourth, we are focusing on the members of “Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)” which are relatively more open in terms of trade and FDI inflows. Although there are studies on the impact of trade openness on growth, the impact of FDI on growth in the context of ASEAN economies has yet to be studied. However, specific studies on the impact of trade openness on FDI are very rare in the context of ASEAN economies. In the ASEAN context, our study will contribute to some new insights in the literature. We divided the rest of the article into several interconnected sections. Commentary on the relevant literature is shown in Section 2. Section 3presents key statistics for the ASEAN region as well as individual members of ASEAN. Section 4includes modeling, data, and estimation methods. Section 5comprises the Results and Discussion section. The Granger causality findings are shown in Section 6. Section 7includes the concluding remarks, implications, and limitations. 2. Literature Review FDI inflows have contributed to the economic performance of numerous economies and regions over the last few decades, as evident from the literature. Theoretically, it is possible that openness to trade may influence the FDI inflows both positively as well as negatively. Looking into the positive impacts of FDI, various researchers have conducted studies to identify what really determines the inflow of FDI. Recent research (Sarker and Serieux 2023), endorsed that the decision to invest abroad is mainly determined by regional level, country level, and firm level factors. Anyanwu (2011) provided comprehensive evidence about the driving forces of FDI inflows, articulating that FDI inflows positively respond to trade and market size. The growth-enhancing benefits of trade openness are well documented and researched in the literature. However, the important role of trade openness in attracting FDI inflows is largely ignored by the prior literature. Empirically, Aziz and Mishra (2016), utilized data for Arab economies for the period 1984–2012, demonstrating that economic size measured by GDP has a significant influence on FDI inflows. Ho and Rashid (2011) also demonstrated that trade openness enhances FDI inflows. However, there are some studies where evidence is provided as to the negative impact of trade openness on FDI inflows. For instance, Kimino et al. (2007) showed that trade openness has negatively impacted FDI inflows in the case of Japan. Dua and Garg (2015) have focused on the Indian economy and reported that trade openness has negatively influenced FDI inflows. These findings imply that trade openness and FDI are substitutes for each other instead of complements. Vijayakumar et al. (2010) demonstrated empirically that trade openness is irrelevant in Economies 2024,12, 208 4 of 19 explaining FDI inflows in the context of BRICS economies. In other words, it is still unclear whether trade openness accelerates or decelerates FDI inflows. These observed differences in the literature about the impact of trade openness on FDI inflows are the prime motivation behind the current study. Another important factor for the increased FDI inflows is the improved quality of domestic institutions. There is ample empirical evidence which believes that institutional quality explains differences in FDI inflows across countries. Economies with poor institutions are unable to attract FDI inflows, as the cost of doing business in those economies is higher (Sabir et al. 2019;Mengistu and Adhikary 2011). Sabir et al. (2019) highlighted the determinants of FDI inflows and concluded that the quality of institutions matters the most in attracting FDI inflows in the case of developed economies. Busse and Hefeker (2007) endorsed the importance of institutional factors in attracting FDI inflows by focusing on 83 developing countries over the period 1984–2003. Their findings show that institutional factors matter the most in attracting FDI inflows in the case of developing economies. Moreover, Aziz and Mishra (2016) reported empirically that FDI inflows respond positively to improved institutional quality. Similarly, the recent study of Imran and Rashid (2023) also demonstrated that institutional quality enhances FDI inflows in the case of developing countries. FDI inflows also respond to the level of inflation in the host economies. Frequent ups and downs in prices shatter the confidence of both local and foreign investors (Tahir and Azid 2015). However, a moderate level of inflation, preferably in single digits, may provide some incentives to investors for further investment. Imran and Rashid (2023), using data for 50 developing countries for the period 1990–2018, provided evidence about the positive influence of domestic inflation rate on FDI inflows. Similarly, in the case of Thailand, Ho and Rashid (2011) also showed that inflation rate has improved FDI inflows. Using the data of 74 economies, Agudze and Ibhagui (2021) demonstrated that inflation rate impacts FDI inflows above the threshold level in the case of industrialized economies, while in the case of developing economies, inflation rate hurts FDI inflows even before reaching the threshold level. Sabir et al. (2019) demonstrated that inflation rate negatively impacts FDI inflows in developed economies. The economic size of economies is generally an important factor for FDI inflows. Using the data of different regions, Ullah and Khan (2017) employed the GMM estimator and provided significant evidence that economic size has played a dominant role in attracting FDI inflows both in South Asia and Central Asian regions. Ayomitunde et al. (2020) provided evidence based on Nigerian data that economic size positively contributes to FDI inflows. Petrovi´c-Ran ¯ delovi´c et al. (2017) concluded a positive relationship between market size and FDI inflows by focusing on Balkans’ economies. However, in the context of ASEAN economies, the findings of Ullah and Khan (2017) indicated that economic size has negatively impacted FDI inflows, which is surprising. These surprising regional results cast doubt on the universal role of market size in attracting FDI inflows. The exchange rate could also impact inflows of FDI, especially in developing and emerging economies. Using the data of the Indian economy, Dua and Garg (2015) illustrated a positive influence of exchange rate on FDI inflows. Nyarko et al. (2011) concluded no noticeable impact of exchange rate on FDI Inflows by focusing on Ghana. Muhammad et al. (2018) endorsed that the devaluation of exchange rate impacts FDI positively; however, the volatility of exchange rate could reduce FDI inflows. Conversely, some studies have reported that the exchange rate is negatively connected with FDI inflows (Sasana and Fathoni 2019). This implies that a clear relationship between the exchange rate and FDI inflows is yet to be established. Specifically in the context of ASEAN economies, some researchers have conducted studies to explore the potential determinants of FDI inflows. For instance, Dang and Nguyen (2021) have focused on the ASEAN region and showed that economic institutions have a favorable influence, while political institutions have a worse influence on FDI inflows. Similarly, Sasana and Fathoni (2019) found that the integrity of the government and market size have improved FDI inflows into ASEAN economies. Moreover, the recent Economies 2024,12, 208 5 of 19 study of Dewi and Septriani (2023) demonstrated that growth, interest rate, and inflation rate have positively impacted the inflows of FDI into ASEAN economies. In summary, the determinants of FDI have been researched extensively worldwide. However, there are still disagreements among the researchers about the universal determinants of FDI inflows. Very little is known about the potential influence of trade openness on FDI inflows. Specifically, in the ASEAN context, the available research literature is not very rich as far as the relationship between trade openness and FDI inflows is concerned. Similarly, the available literature is also silent on the issue of Granger causality between trade openness and FDI inflows. Therefore, the current study is an attempt to fill the gaps in the literature by assessing the effect of trade on FDI for the ASEAN members. 3. Key Statistics on Selected Variables in ASEAN Table 1presents statistics on FDI inflows, trade openness and other macroeconomic variables during the study period (2002–2022). Data are converted to averages for the start year as well as for the end year of the panel. The last column of Table 1presents the percentage change. The statistics show that FDI inflows have increased by 3.578% between 2002 and 2022. FDI inflows, which were about 2.857% of GDP on average in 2002, have increased to 6.435 percent in 2022. Similarly, openness to trade (trade as % of GDP) has increased by 6.022% on average for the selected ASEAN economies. The trade openness index for ASEAN economies was 141.295%, which is an indication of excellent performance. It is possible that this high degree of trade openness may be responsible for the higher FDI inflows in ASEAN economies. Table 1. ASEAN statistics. VARIABLES 2002 2022 CHANGE FDI 2.857 6.435 3.578 OPEN 135.487 141.509 6.022 NR 6.649 4.295 −2.354 EXR 4295.673 6261.67 45.766% INF 3.232 6.749 3.517 GDP 1.39 ×1011 3.51 ×1011 151.989% INSTQ −0.113 0.063 156.45% Note: Authors calculations using WDI and WGI Data. The statistics further highlighted that the reliance on natural resources has decreased by − 2.354%. The observed decrease in natural resources rents, measured in GDP, is an indication that the ASEAN economies have found new sources of income for the long-term growth process. It is an undeniable fact that natural resources will deplete soon. Therefore, economic diversification is a rational policy for achieving long-term growth. Economic diversification is the right way forward for resource-rich economies to achieve and maintain their growth performance. Moreover, the exchange rate figures show that the currency of selected ASEAN economies has depreciated by 45%. The depreciation of the domestic currency normally reduces the inflow of FDI due to an increased production cost and higher volatility. Hence, the observed depreciation may have some undesirable repercussions as far as the inflows of FDI are concerned. The inflation rate has increased by 3.517% between 2002 and 2022. However, the inflation rate is still stable and well managed, as it is still 6.749% on average. It is generally believed that moderate inflation, preferably in single digits, is important for growth, as it provides positive signals to potential investors (Tahir and Azid 2015). In terms of GDP, the ASEAN economies have performed well over the years. The statistics show that the GDP of ASEAN economies have increased by almost 151 percent between 2002 and 2022. This remarkable improvement in GDP has helped the region Economies 2024,12, 208 6 of 19 to save millions of people from poverty. Finally, the institutional quality has improved significantly over the years. The institutional quality index based on the six indicators has shown remarkable improvement between 2002 and 2022. This improved institutional quality could be one of the reasons behind overall improved macroeconomic variables in ASEAN economies. Country-Wise Statistics of ASEAN Country-wise statistics for the selected variables are displayed in Table A1 ( Appendix A ). The statistics show that FDI inflows have increased in all ASEAN economies except Brunei and Thailand. According to the statistics, Brunei witnessed a decline of − 0.949% in FDI inflows, while the economy of Thailand experienced a reduction of − 0.430% in FDI inflows between 2002 and 2022. Both these economies need to re-think their existing policies, as a decline in FDI is associated with numerous adverse consequences, including unemployment and industrial production. The highest increase in FDI inflows is recorded by the economy of Singapore among the ASEAN members. The statistics show that FDI inflows has increased by 23.520% for the economy of Singapore. The current statistics show that FDI inflows are still highest in Singapore, among the ASEAN members. Similarly, FDI inflows have increased in Cambodia by 9.073%, while the economy of Laos witnessed an increase of 3.161%. All the other economies of the ASEAN region have also shown an improvement in FDI inflows. The country-related statistics of trade openness are mixed. For some economies like Brunei, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam and Laos, the degree of trade openness has increased significantly. The highest increase in trade openness is experienced by Vietnam (69.034%), followed by Brunei (38.226%) and Thailand (18.907%). Laos recorded an increase of 15.223%, while Cambodia witnessed a marginal increase of 3.495%. On the other hand, the trade openness index declined for Malaysia ( − 52.693%), Indonesia ( − 13.686%), Singapore ( − 12.884%) and Philippines ( − 11.428%). The statistics of 2022 show that Singapore is the most open economy in ASEAN, as its openness index is (336.863%), followed by Vietnam (185.730%), Brunei (146.974%), Malaysia (146.663%). Indonesia is the most closed economy among the ASEAN economies, as its degree of trade openness is only 45.393%. Overall, the ASEAN economies are much more open compared to the developing countries as well as the South Asian economies. In term of natural resources, the statistics show that the contribution of natural resources towards GDP has decreased for all the selected economies except the Philippines. The contribution of natural resources has decreased by ( − 5.982%) for Brunei, ( − 5.139%) for Vietnam, ( − 3.929%) for Malaysia, ( − 3.675%) for Indonesia, ( − 1.766%) for Cambodia, ( − 1.042%) for Laos, ( − 0.265%) for Thailand and ( − 0.0003%) for Singapore. The statistics of 2022 show that the contribution of natural resources towards GDP is highest in Brunei (19.627%) and lowest in Singapore (0.0001%). The statistics for the exchange rate show that some of the currencies have appreciated against the USD, while others depreciated during the study period. For example, the currency of Brunei, Singapore and Thailand have appreciated significantly against the USD. The currency of Singapore appreciated by 23.004%, and the currency of Brunei appreciated by 22.988%, while the currency of Thailand appreciated by 18.386% against the USD. On the other hand, the Indonesian currency lost its value by 59.483%, followed by Vietnam, where a reduction of 52.303% is observed. Further, the currency of Laos depreciated by 39.303%, while the currencies of Malaysia, Philippines and Cambodia marginally depreciated between 2002 and 2022. As far as inflation is concerned in ASEAN, the statistics presented in Table A1 show some mixed evidence. Among the ASEAN members, inflation declined in Indonesia by − 7.691% and by − 0.674% in Vietnam. Inflation in all other economies increased, as evident from the statistics provided. The highest rise in inflation of 12.325% is observed in Laos, followed by Singapore, where an increase of 6.512% is recorded between 2002 and 2022. In the case of Brunei, inflation also rose by 5.996%, followed by Thailand, where an increase of Economies 2024,12, 208 7 of 19 5.380% is observed. The current statistics show that among the ASEAN members, Laos has the highest inflation rate (22.956%) while Vietnam has the lowest inflation rate (3.156%). The market size statistics show that all countries have done well in improving the size of their economies. Among the ASEAN economies, Cambodia achieved the highest rise in GDP (266.220%), followed by Laos, where an increase of (250.729%) is witnessed in GDP. Similarly, the GDP of Vietnam has increased by 239.899%, followed by Philippines (167.129%), Indonesia (162.323%), Singapore (162.305%), Malaysia (146.301%), and Thailand (85.114%). Brunei showed the lowest increase in GDP between 2002 and 2022, which is slightly above 7%. Finally, the statistics on institutional quality shows that except Thailand, the quality of institutions has improved in all ASEAN members. The institutional quality has worsened by 186.001 percent in Thailand, which is indeed surprising. The quality of institutions has increased by 94.633% in Indonesia, 68.486% in Brunei, 42.944% in Vietnam, 27.870% in Laos, 21.504% in Malaysia, 13.001% in Philippines, 11.687% in Singapore and 2.263% in Cambodia. The statistics of 2022 show that the quality of institutions is stronger in Singapore, followed by Brunei. Finally, among the ASEAN economies, Cambodia has the lowest quality of institutions. 4. Modeling and Estimation 4.1. The Modeling In this section, we specify the model. Our proposed modeling framework is based on the seminal work of Liargovas and Skandalis (2012), who assessed the influence of trade openness on FDI inflows by focusing on developing economies. FDI inflows to the ASEAN region could be influenced by several determinants, including trade openness. For instance, the size of the domestic market measured by GDP plays an important role in attracting FDI inflows (Mottaleb and Kalirajan 2010). Similarly, using the data of Arab economies, Aziz and Mishra (2016) showed that institutional quality plays a decisive role in attracting FDI inflows. Natural resources, inflation rate and exchange rate are also included among the independent variables based on prior literature (Anyanwu 2011;Dua and Garg 2015;Dewi and Septriani 2023). Expression (1) represents the functional form specified for building the model. FDI = F (OPEN, MSIZE, NRS, EXGR, INFL, INSTQ) (1) The function form presented by Expression (1) indicated that FDI inflows are explained by the degree of trade openness, the size of the market, natural resources, exchange rate, inflation rate and institutional quality. Assuming the potential non-linearities, we transform Expression (1) as shown below. FDIit =β0+β1LNOPENit +β2MSIZEit +β3NRESit +β4EXGRit +β5INFLit +β6INSTQit +Uit (2) In Model 2, “FDI inflows as a % of GDP” are used for the measurement of dependent variable. Trade openness is captured through “trade as % of GDP” while for market size, real GDP is used. Natural resources rent as % of GDP is taken for measuring the influence of natural resources on FDI inflows. For approximating inflation, the present study used “the annual growth of the consumer price index”, while the exchange rate is measured by taking “local currency units per US $”. Finally, for measuring institutional quality, we used the average value of six dimensions of institutional quality published by WGI. In addition, we have also considered the individual dimension of institutional quality to provide comprehensive evidence about the influence of institutional quality on FDI inflows. Table 2includes information about variables. Initially, we considered all members of ASEAN. However, at a later stage, we dropped the economy of Myanmar, due to its inconsistent data on several variables, including trade openness. A list of ASEAN members is provided in Table A2 (Appendix A). Economies 2024,12, 208 8 of 19 Table 2. Variables and data. Variables Def. “Source” FDIit “Foreign direct investment, net inflows (% of GDP)” “WDI” OPENit “Trade (% of GDP)” “WDI” NRESit “Total natural resources rents (% of GDP)” “WDI” EXGRit “Official exchange rate (LCU per US$, period average)” “WDI” INFLit “Inflation, consumer prices (annual %)” “WDI” MSIZEit “GDP (constant 2015 US$)” “WDI” INSTQit “Six components of institutional quality (−2.5 to 2.5)” “WGI” 4.2. Estimation Methods To extract results from the data, we have sourced panels from credible sources, as discussed earlier. The data is constructed using a panel structure, with both cross-country and time dimensions. Over the years, researchers have suggested several relevant econometric tools for panel data. The “Fixed Effects (FE)” and “Random Effects (RE)” tools have received significant recognition from researchers due to their efficiency in handling panel data (Dewan and Hussein 2001;Tahir et al. 2019;Burki and Tahir 2022). According to Tahir and Azid (2015), the FE modeling is superior, as it can effectively address the problem of most likely serial correlation. RE modeling is effective in taking care of time-invariant factors. However, the RE modeling is ineffective in addressing the problem of serial correlation. The typical forms of FE and RE could be represented by the following expressions, (3) and (4) (Park 2011;Tahir et al. 2019). zit =(α+ui)+X/ itβ+vit (3) zit =α+X/ itβ+(ui+vit)(4) The FE and RE modeling are used in numerous research studies. The choice between the FE and RE could be made by employing the Hausman test (1980). This test is specifically designed to adopt the most suitable estimator. The Hausman test procedure is presented by the following expressions, (5) and (6). L.M =(βLSDV −βRandomL)Wˆ−1(βLSDV −βRandomL)∼χ2(k)(5) Wˆ=Var [(βLSDV −βRandomL]= Var (βLSDV)−Var (βRandomL)(6) To provide robust results, we have also used the “Generalized Least Square (GLS, hereafter)” for the estimation purpose. In the literature, the GLS estimator is used by researchers to address the robustness of findings (Burki and Tahir 2022;Tahir and Alam 2022;Chen and Gupta 2009). Therefore, we also used the GLS technique. 4.3. Preliminary Testing In the first step, we have conducted the Hausman test. The results of the Hausman test are provided in Appendix A, Table A3. The results rejected the use of RE model for all specifications, as the probability values are less than five percent for all specifications. Therefore, models are estimated by employing the FE estimator. The results of the cross-sectional dependency tests provided in Table A4 (Appendix A) confirmed the cross-sectional independence, as the p-values exceed 10 percent for all tests considered. The cross-sectional independence test is the most important test, as it leads researchers to select the appropriate estimating tool (Tugcu 2018). Finally, the correlation matrix confirmed the absence of a strong correlation among the independent variables (Table A5). Most of the variables are moderately correlated with each other. Finally, the results of the “variance inflation factor (VIF)” reported in Table A6 (Appendix A) confirmed the absence of multicollinearity. Economies 2024,12, 208 15 of 19 Table A1. Cont. Country Variables 2002 2022 Change Indonesia FDI 0.074 1.624 1.550 OPEN 59.079 45.393 −13.686 NR 7.285 3.610 −3.675 EXR 9311.192 14,849.85 59.483% INF 11.900 4.209 −7.691 GDP 4.28 ×1011 1.12 ×1012 162.323% INSTQ −0.865 −0.046 94.633% Malaysia FDI 3.166 3.617 0.451 OPEN 199.356 146.663 −52.693 NR 9.815 5.886 −3.929 EXR 3.8 4.401 15.817% INF 1.807 3.378 1.571 GDP 1.57 ×1011 3.87 ×1011 146.301% INSTQ 0.354 0.431 21.504% Philippines FDI 2.098 2.275 0.177 OPEN 83.844 72.416 −11.428 NR 0.559 1.174 0.615 EXR 51.603 54.477 5.569% INF 2.722 5.821 3.099 GDP 1.53 ×1011 4.08 ×1011 167.129% INSTQ −0.325 −0.283 13.001% Singapore FDI 6.653 30.173 23.520 OPEN 349.746 336.862 −12.884 NR 0.0004 0.0001 −0.0003 EXR 1.790 1.378 −23.004% INF −0.391 6.121 6.512 GDP 1.44 ×1011 3.810 ×1111 162.805% INSTQ 1.439 1.607 11.687% Thailand FDI 2.488 2.058 −0.430 OPEN 114.969 133.876 18.907 NR 1.744 1.479 −0.265 EXR 42.960 35.061 −18.386% INF 0.697 6.077 5.380 GDP 2.43 ×1011 4.5 ×1011 85.114% INSTQ 0.212 −0.182 −186.001% Economies 2024,12, 208 16 of 19 Table A1. Cont. Country Variables 2002 2022 Change Vietnam FDI 3.992 4.378 0.386 OPEN 116.696 185.73 69.034 NR 7.425 2.286 −5.139 EXR 15,279.5 23,271.21 52.303% INF 3.830 3.156 −0.674 GDP 1.06 ×1011 3.59 ×1011 239.899% INSTQ −0.589 −0.336 42.944% Laos PDR FDI 0.253 3.414 3.161 OPEN 67.254 82.477 15.223 NR 4.810 3.768 −1.042 EXR 10,056.33 14,035.23 39.566% INF 10.631 22.956 12.325 GDP 5.58 ×1091.96 ×1010 250.729% INSTQ −0.972 −0.701 27.870% Note: Authors’ own calculation using WDI and WGI data. Table A2. List of countries. Brunei Darussalam Malaysia Philippines Cambodia Laos PDR Thailand Indonesia Singapore Vietnam Table A3. Hausman test results. Models Chi-Sq Decision “Model-1” 62.499 *** “The FE is preferred” “Model-2” 56.218 *** “The FE is preferred” “Model-3” 51.617 *** “The FE is preferred” “Model-4” 43.001 *** “The FE is preferred” “Model-5” 50.216 *** “The FE is preferred” “Model-6” 54.183 *** “The FE is preferred” “Model-7” 78.831 *** “The FE is preferred” Note: (***) represent 1 % significance level. Table A4. CD testing. Test Value d.f. p “Breusch-Pagan LM” 42.32888 36 0.2166 “Pesaran scaled LM” 0.745865 0.4557 “Bias-corrected scaled LM” 0.520865 0.6025 “Pesaran CD” 0.527156 0.5981 Economies 2024,12, 208 17 of 19 Table A5. Correlation analysis. FDIit OPENit MSIZEit NRESit EXGRit INSTQit INFLit FDIit 1 0.774 −0.130 −0.329 −0.147 0.529 −0.113 OPENit 0.774 1 −0.131 −0.246 −0.246 0.758 −0.192 MSIZEit −0.130 −0.131 1 −0.328 0.198 0.082 0.023 NRESit −0.329 −0.246 −0.328 1 −0.064 0.105 −0.072 EXGRit −0.147 −0.246 0.198 −0.064 1 −0.464 0.421 INSTQit 0.529 0.758 0.082 0.105 −0.464 1 −0.422 INFLit −0.113 −0.192 0.0231 −0.072 0.421 −0.422 1 Table A6. “Multicollinearity Testing (VIF)”. “Variables” “Coefficient” “Centered” “Variance” “VIF” OPENit 0.111399 1.062062 MSIZEit 0.027707 1.479360 NRESit 0.002436 1.223110 EXGRit 0.142912 1.226806 INFLit 0.000175 1.145815 INSTQit 0.147069 1.549798 C 27.16155 NA References Agudze, Komla, and Oyakhilome Ibhagui. 2021. Inflation and FDI in industrialized and developing economies. International Review of Applied Economics 35: 749–64. [CrossRef] Anyanwu, John Chukwudi. 2011. Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment Inflows to Africa, 1980–2007. Abidjan: African Development Bank Group, pp. 1–32. Asiedu, Elizabeth. 2002. On the determinants of foreign direct investment to developing countries: Is Africa different? World Development 30: 107–19. [CrossRef] Ayomitunde, Aderemi Timothy, Adeniran Busari Ganiyu, Gbenro Matthew Sokunbi, and Bako Yusuf Adebola. 2020. The determinants of foreign direct investment inflows in Nigeria: An empirical investigation. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Œconomica 16: 131–42. Aziz, Omar G., and Anil V. Mishra. 2016. Determinants of FDI inflows to Arab economies. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 25: 325–56. Bergougui, Brahim, and Syed Mansoob Murshed. 2023. Spillover effects of FDI inflows on output growth: An analysis of aggregate and disaggregated FDI inflows of 13 MENA economies. Australian Economic Papers 62: 668–92. [CrossRef] Bhatt, Padmanabha Ramachandra. 2008. Determinants of foreign direct investment in ASEAN. Foreign Trade Review 43: 21–51. [CrossRef] Buchanan, Bonnie G., Quan V. Le, and Meenakshi Rishi. 2012. Foreign direct investment and institutional quality: Some empirical evidence. International Review of Financial Analysis 21: 81–89. [CrossRef] Burki, Umar, and Muhammad Tahir. 2022. Determinants of environmental degradation: Evidenced-based insights from ASEAN economies. Journal of Environmental Management 306: 114506. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Busse, Matthias, and Carsten Hefeker. 2007. Political risk, institutions and foreign direct investment. European Journal of Political Economy 23: 397–415. [CrossRef] Chen, Pei-pei, and Rangan Gupta. 2009. An investigation of openness and economic growth using panel estimation. Indian Journal of Economics 89: 483. Crowley, Patrick, and Jim Lee. 2003. Exchange rate volatility and foreign investment: International evidence. The International Trade Journal 17: 227–52. [CrossRef] Dang, Van Cuong, and Quang Khai Nguyen. 2021. Determinants of FDI attractiveness: Evidence from ASEAN-7 countries. Cogent Social Sciences 7: 2004676. [CrossRef] Dewan, Edwin, and Shajehan Hussein. 2001. Determinants of Economic Growth (Panel Data Approach). Suva Fiji: Economics Department, Reserve Bank of Fiji. Economies 2024,12, 208 18 of 19 Dewi, Ferra Destiana, and Septriani Septriani. 2023. Analysis of factors affecting foreign direct investment in ASEAN countries. ISAR Journal of Economics and Business Management 1: 36–40. Donghui, Zhang, Ghulam Yasin, Shah Zaman, and Muhammad Imran. 2018. Trade openness and FDI inflows: A comparative study of Asian countries. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences 7: 386. Dua, Pami, and Reetika Garg. 2015. Macroeconomic determinants of foreign direct investment: Evidence from India. The Journal of Developing Areas 49: 133–55. [CrossRef] Dumitrescu, Elena-Ivona, and Christophe Hurlin. 2012. Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling 29: 1450–60. [CrossRef] Erdogan, Mahmut, and Mustafa Unver. 2015. Determinants of foreign direct investments: Dynamic panel data evidence. International Journal of Economics and Finance 7: 82. [CrossRef] fDi Markets. 2023. Available online: https://fdimarkets.com (accessed on 5 June 2024). Furceri, Davide, and Sara Borelli. 2008. Foreign direct investments and exchange rate volatility in the EMU neighborhood countries. Journal of International and Global Economic Studies 1: 42–59. Güri¸s, Selahattin, and Kutay Gözgör. 2015. Trade openness and FDI inflows in Turkey. Applied Econometrics and International Development 15: 53–62. Ho, Catherine S., and Ahmad Husni Mohd Rashid. 2011. Macroeconomic and country specific determinants of FDI. The Business Review 18: 219–26. Imran, Muhammad, and Abdul Rashid. 2023. The empirical determinants of foreign direct investment episodes. Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies 15: 409–35. [CrossRef] Ishikawa, Koichi. 2021. The ASEAN Economic Community and ASEAN economic integration. Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies 10: 24–41. [CrossRef] Kimino, Satomi, David S. Saal, and Nigel Driffield. 2007. Macro determinants of FDI inflows to Japan: An analysis of source country characteristics. World Economy 30: 446–69. [CrossRef] Le, Ai Ngoc Nhan, Ha Pham, Dung Thi Ngoc Pham, and Khoa Dang Duong. 2023. Political stability and foreign direct investment inflows in 25 Asia-Pacific countries: The moderating role of trade openness. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10: 1–9. [CrossRef] Liargovas, Panagiotis G., and Konstantinos S. Skandalis. 2012. Foreign direct investment and trade openness: The case of developing economies. Social Indicators Research 106: 323–31. [CrossRef] Masron, Tajul Ariffin, and Hussin Abdullah. 2010. Institutional quality as a determinant for FDI inflows: Evidence from ASEAN. World Journal of Management 2: 115–28. Mengistu, Alemu Aye, and Bishnu Kumar Adhikary. 2011. Does good governance matter for FDI inflows? Evidence from Asian economies. Asia Pacific Business Review 17: 281–99. [CrossRef] Moraghen, Warren, Boopen Seetanah, and Noor Ul Haq Sookia. 2023. The impact of exchange rate and exchange rate volatility on Mauritius foreign direct investment: A sector-wise analysis. International Journal of Finance & Economics 28: 208–24. Mottaleb, Khondoker Abdul, and Kaliappa Kalirajan. 2010. Determinants of foreign direct investment in developing countries: A comparative analysis. Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research 4: 369–404. [CrossRef] Muhammad, Saidu D., Nnanna P. Azu, and Ngozi F. Oko. 2018. Influence of real exchange rate and volatility on FDI inflow in Nigeria. International Business Research 11: 73–82. [CrossRef] Nyarko, Philip Asiamah, Edward Nketiah-Amponsah, and Charles Barnor. 2011. Effects of exchange rate regimes on FDI inflows in Ghana. International Journal of Economics and Finance 3: 277–86. [CrossRef] OECD. 2022. FDI in Figures. Paris: Organisation for European Economic Cooperation. Park, Hun Myoung. 2011. Practical Guides to Panel Data Modeling: A Step by Step Analysis Using Stata. Niigata: Public Management and Policy Analysis Program, Graduate School of International Relations, International University of Japan, pp. 1–52. Peres, Mihaela, Waqar Ameer, and Helian Xu. 2018. The impact of institutional quality on foreign direct investment inflows: Evidence for developed and developing countries. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 31: 626–44. [CrossRef] Petrovi´c-Ran ¯ delovi´c, Marija, Vesna Jankovi´c-Mili´c, and Ivana Kostadinovi´c. 2017. Market Size as a Determinant of the Foreign Direct Investment Inflows in the Western Balkans Countries. Facta Universitatis, Series: Economics and Organization. Niš: University of Niš, pp. 93–104. Rathnayaka Mudiyanselage, Malsha Mayoshi, Gheorghe Epuran, and Bianca Tesca s , iu. 2021. Causal links between trade openness and foreign direct investment in Romania. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 14: 90. [CrossRef] Sabir, Samina, Anum Rafique, and Kamran Abbas. 2019. Institutions and FDI: Evidence from developed and developing countries. Financial Innovation 5: 1–20. [CrossRef] Sarker, Bibhuti, and John Serieux. 2023. Multilevel determinants of FDI: A regional comparative analysis. Economic Systems 47: 101095. [CrossRef] Sasana, Hadi, and Salman Fathoni. 2019. Determinant of foreign direct investment inflows in ASEAN Countries. Jejak 12: 253–66. [CrossRef] Sharma, Somesh, Manmohan Bansal, and Ashish Kumar Saxena. 2022. A Study of FDI Inflow to ASEAN Economies (2022–2030). Paper presented at 2022 International Conference on Data Analytics for Business and Industry (ICDABI), Virtual Conference, October 25–26; Piscataway: IEEE, pp. 320–25. Economies 2024,12, 208 19 of 19 Tahir, Muhammad, Abdulrahman A. Albahouth, Mohammed Jaboob, and Umar Burki. 2024. The Consumption of Natural Resources and its Effects on Environmental Quality: Evidence from the OECD Countries. Sustainable Futures 8: 100248. [CrossRef] Tahir, Muhammad, and Md Badrul Alam. 2022. Does well banking performance attract FDI? Empirical evidence from the SAARC economies. International Journal of Emerging Markets 17: 413–32. [CrossRef] Tahir, Muhammad, and Toseef Azid. 2015. The relationship between international trade openness and economic growth in the developing economies: Some new dimensions. Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies 8: 123–39. [CrossRef] Tahir, Muhammad, Munshi Naser Ibne Afzal, Muhammad Asim Afridi, Imran Naseem, and Bilal Bin Saeed. 2019. Terrorism and its determinants in the sub-Saharan Africa region: Some new insights. African Development Review 31: 393–406. [CrossRef] Tri, Ho Thanh, Vo Thi Nga, and Vu Hoang Duong. 2019. The determinants of foreign direct investment in ASEAN: New evidence from financial integration factor. Business and Economic Horizons 15: 292–303. Tugcu, Can T. 2018. Panel data analysis in the energy-growth nexus (EGN). In The Economics and Econometrics of the Energy-Growth Nexus. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp. 255–71. Ullah, Irfan, and Muhammad Arshad Khan. 2017. Institutional quality and foreign direct investment inflows: Evidence from Asian countries. Journal of Economic Studies 44: 1030–50. [CrossRef] UN.ESCAP. 2023. Foreign Direct Investment Trends and Outlook in Asia and the Pacific 2023/2024. Bangkok: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Vijayakumar, Narayanamurthy, Perumal Sridharan, and Kode Chandra Sekhara Rao. 2010. Determinants of FDI in BRICS Countries: A panel analysis. International Journal of Business Science & Applied Management (IJBSAM) 5: 1–13. Wang, Xinxin, Zeshui Xu, Yong Qin, and Marinko Skare. 2022. Foreign direct investment and economic growth: A dynamic study of measurement approaches and results. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 35: 1011–34. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.