DEPENDENCE OF SERBIAN ECONOMIC..DEVELOPMENT ON FOREIGN DIRECT..INVESTMENT FLOWS

0

Abstract
The aim of the paper is to identify, based on the analysis of relevant theoretical
findings, the effects of foreign direct investment (FDI) on economic development
and export growth of the Republic of Serbia. First, the characteristics of global
FDI flows are presented. What follows is the analysis of FDI flows in the Republic
of Serbia in the period from 2006 to 2016, and assessment of their real long-term
effects. Finally, the relationship between FDI and export of the Republic of Serbia
is examined.
Key words: foreign direct investment, gross domestic product, globalization,
economic development, export
JEL classification: O16, O52, G20
ЗАВИСНОСТ ЕКОНОМСКОГ РАЗВОЈА СРБИЈЕ ОД ТОКА
СТРАНИХ ДИРЕКТНИХ ИНВЕСТИЦИЈА
Апстракт
Циљ рада је да на основу анализе релевантних теоријских налаза утврди
ефекте страних директних инвестиција (СДИ) на економски развој и раст
извоза Републике Србије. Прво су представљене карактеристике глобалних
токова СДИ. Следи анализа токова СДИ у Републици Србији у периоду од
2006. до 2016. године и процена њихових реалних дугорочних ефеката. На
крају, разматра се однос између СДИ и извоза Републике Србије.
Кључне речи: директне стране инвестиције, бруто домаћи производ,
глобализација, економски развој, извоз.
1
goran.milovanović@eknfak.ni.ac.rs
2
radisavljevic.goran1964@gmail.com
3
gordanadkc048@gmail.com
ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE
doi:10.5937/ekonomika1802033M
Received December, 11, 2017
Accepted: March, 15, 2018
P. 33-42
©Друштво економиста “Економика” Ниш http://www.ekonomika.org.rs
34 ЕКОНОМИКА
Introduction
Foreign direct investment (FDI) has become one of the most important factors in
global economic development over the last few decades. Most developing countries as
well as countries in the transition process lack their own (domestic) capital. By attracting
FDI, as an additional source of financing, these countries can successfully change
economic structure and adapt to the requirements of the world market.
Due to the lack of its own capital, the Republic of Serbia needs foreign capital too,
primarily in the form of FDI. FDI is expected to encourage restructuring of the economy,
increase exports, as well as economic growth and development. Until the growth of
domestic investment is achieved, FDI will be the primary production driver, primarily
referring to production aimed at foreign markets.
The government of the Republic of Serbia has to work even further in the coming
period to attract FDI, which will contribute to export growth, without increasing its
indebtedness to foreign countries. Increasing the FDI inflow increases the chances of
transferring modern technology from abroad, brings employment growth, increases
export and, consequently, economic growth and development of the Republic of Serbia.
In order to demonstrate the FDI impact on economic growth and development as
well as the export growth of the Republic of Serbia, we will first present the characteristics
of global FDI flows. We will try to identify the importance of FDI for GDP growth. Then
we will show the real short-term and long-term effects of FDI. Finally, we will present
the effects of FDI on export of the Republic of Serbia.
1. Foreign direct investment as a global phenomenon
Foreign direct investment is a complex phenomenon, with a decisive influence
on the economic development of each country. In addition to its economic effects, FDI
exerts different social, political, and technological impacts. Although strong competition
coming with foreign investors prevents growth and development of the domestic
economy to keep it easier in colonial slavery, these investors become an increasingly
powerful factor in society, as opposed to the state. Under such conditions, FDI cannot be
a fundamental factor in the sustainable development of the national economy.
FDI today mostly occurs in underdeveloped and transition countries. This is
mainly investment with a low level of technological intensity, which these countries
accept because of insufficient domestic accumulation and high unemployment. In
contrast, developed countries mainly exchange FDI in the field of high technology,
which is a requirement for the production of technologically sophisticated and globally
competitive products. Over the past three decades, FDI has mostly been channeled
through transnational corporations, and, therefore, can be considered as the main carrier
of the globalization process.
Although the global economic crisis has significantly contributed to the global
reduction in FDI, it remains a key instrument through which national economies
encourage production, import know-how, develop infrastructure, increase export and
employment. In addition, FDI positively impacts the payment and trade balance, as well
as the collection of direct and indirect taxes.
ЕКОНОМИКА 35
©Друштво економиста “Економика” Ниш http://www.ekonomika.org.rs
ЕКОНОМИКА
Globalization stimulates growth and flow of FDI between countries, primarily in
the service sector where they are the most represented. Global integration of financial
markets has significantly reduced FDI barriers. All these factors increase the chances of
growth and development both of developed and developing countries.
Official organizations’ data on the value of global FDI varies. For example, OECD
experts report that in 2016 global FDI amounted to $1.613 billion, being less by 7%,
compared to 2015. Nevertheless, global FDI in 2016 was higher than in some years
in the period from 2009 to 2014. The share of FDI in GDP, in global terms, was 2.2%
in 2007, well below the level of the global economic crisis (3.6% of GDP) (Foreign
Direct Investment Statistics: Data, Analysis and Forecasts). According to UNCTAD, due
to the low growth rate of the world economy (about 2.4%) and trade (around 1.7%,
the lowest level since the financial crisis) (World trade growth likely at 1.7% in 2016:
Azevedo), global FDI inflow in 2016 amounted to $ 1.52 trillion, which is by even 13%
less than in 2015. The decline in FDI inflow was not the same in all regions and reflected
the heterogeneous current impact of the economic environment on countries around the
world (Global FDI Flows Slip in 2016, Modest Recovery Expected in 2017, 2017, pp.
1-7).
The inflow of FDI in 2016 in developing countries amounted to about $600 billion
and was down by 20%, compared to 2015, while in developed countries it reached $872
billion and was down by about 9%, compared to 2015. The lowest FDI inflow ($52
billion) in 2016 was recorded in transition countries and increased by 38%, compared
to 2015. Foreign direct investment inflows to developing Asia shrank by 15 percent to
$443 billion in 2016, the first decline since 2012 (World Investment Report 2017).
FDI inflow into Europe in 2016 amounted to $385 billion, a decrease of about 29%
compared to the previous year. Some European countries recorded large fluctuations in
FDI inflow. This decline was due to modest growth in investment flows in North America
(6%) and significant increase in investment in other developed countries, primarily in
Australia and Japan.
The slowdown in economic growth in countries of Asia, Latin America, and the
Caribbean, on the one hand, and the decline in commodity prices, on the other hand, led
to a global reduction in FDI inflows in developing countries in 2016, compared to 2015,
by about 20% (about $ 600 billion). However, these countries continue to account for
half of the 10 most important countries by FDI inflow.
In 2016, FDI inflows to transition countries increased by 38%, compared to
2015, reaching around $52 billion, which largely reflected the increase in FDI inflows
in Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation (Kazakhstan: Foreign investment). FDI in
2016 reached $20.6 billion in Kazakhstan, which was by about 40% higher, compared
to 2015. In the Russian Federation, after reaching a record level in 2013, FDI inflow
rapidly diminished since 2014. This was caused by geopolitical tensions between
Russia, Ukraine, and Western countries, as well as the current economic crisis in the
Russian Federation itself. Thus, in 2015, the inflow of FDI into the Russian Federation
decreased by 92%, compared to 2014. Nevertheless, FDI inflow in 2016 increased by
62%, compared to 2015, reaching $19 billion, mainly as a result of the privatization of
the oil company Rosneft (Russia: Foreign investment).
©Друштво економиста “Економика” Ниш http://www.ekonomika.org.rs
36 ЕКОНОМИКА
UNCTAD experts predict the growth of FDI in 2017 by about 10% (Global FDI Flows
Slip in 2016, Modest Recovery Expected in 2017, 2017, pp. 1-7), but it is quite uncertain. One
should expect faster growth of the world economy and the volume of global trade. Economic
activity in developed countries, on the one hand, and between emerging economies and
developing countries, on the other hand, should encourage investment activities. However,
differences between countries in terms of economic development and the presence of
uncertainty in the implementation of economic policy can significantly limit such activities.
2. Characteristics of FDI in the Republic of Serbia in the period
from 2006 to 2016
Net FDI is very important for the economic development of the Republic of
Serbia. To prove this, we will first analyze the relationship between net FDI and real
GDP growth over the eleven-year period (2006 to 2016), and then the distribution of FDI
by sector.
Net FDI in the Republic of Serbia in the period from 2006 to 2016 amounted to
€16.939 billion (see Table 1). Due to the accelerated process of privatization of social and
state enterprises in the period from 2006 to 2009, net FDI of €8.340 billion was recorded,
which is 49.23% of all net FDI in the Republic of Serbia in the period from 2006 to 2016.
Nevertheless, the total amount of net FDI in the Republic of Serbia in this period was
significantly lower than in more developed transition economies. The problem is also
that FDI occurred mainly in the sector of non-tradable goods – telecommunications,
banking, insurance, energy, real estate, and retail. Distributed in this way, FDI can also
cause negative consequences if it does not generate foreign exchange inflows.
Growth of net FDI, as a rule, should contribute to real GDP growth or a decrease in
oscillation rates of real GDP growth. In the period from 2006 to 2008, the average annual
real GDP growth rate was 5.4%, while the average annual growth rate of net FDI was
40.2%. Nevertheless, in the period from 2009 to 2016, the average real GDP growth rate
was significantly lower (0.3%) than the average growth rate of net FDI (36.4%).
Table 1 FDI and GDP trends in the period from 2006 to 2016
Years Net FDI
(in 000 000 €)
GDP
(in 000 000 €)
Real GDP growth
(in %)
Net FDI growth
(in %)
FDI/GDP
(in %)
2006 3.323 24.435 4,9 165,84 13,6
2007 1.821 29.452 5,9 -45,20 8,6
2008 1.824 33.705 5,4 0,20 7,4
2009 1.372 30.655 -3,1 -24,77 6,7
2010 860 29.766 0,6 -37,33 3,8
2011 1.827 33.424 1,4 112,40 9,9
2012 242 31.683 -1,0 -86,76 2,4
2013 769 34.263 2,6 217,75 3,8
2014 1.236 33.319 -1,8 60,86 3,7
2015 1.804 33.491 0,7 45,90 5,4
2016 1.861 34.098 2,8 3,10 5,5
Total 16.939
ЕКОНОМИКА 37
©Друштво економиста “Економика” Ниш http://www.ekonomika.org.rs
ЕКОНОМИКА
Source: Data for the period from 2006 to 2015 taken from: Public Finances
Bulletin, (2016) 148 (12), Belgrade: Ministry of Finance, pp. 16-18. Data for 2016 taken
from: “Economic activity. Job market. Balance of Payments and Foreign Trade”. (2016)
Quarterly Monitor of Economic Trends and Policies in Serbia, No. 47 (10-12), Belgrade:
Foundation for the Advancement of Economics, pp. 11-29.
The total inflow of net FDI in the period 2013-2016 amounted to €5.670 billion.
The increase in net FDI inflows in 2014, 2015, and 2016 was the result of a gradual
recovery of the world economy, especially the eurozone economy, as well as strong
stimulating economic policy measures.
Data in Table 1 provides an opportunity to analyze the relationship between the
relative real GDP growth and the relative net FDI growth in the sixteen-year period. The
results of the analysis are the following:
– In 2006, there were high real GDP growth rates and net FDI growth, compared
to 2005;
– GDP in real terms increased by 1% (from 4.9 to 5.9%) in 2007, compared to
2006, while net FDI declined by 45.2%, compared to net FDI in the previous
year;
– In 2008, there was a mild fall in real GDP in relation to the previous year
(from 5.9% in 2007 to 5.4% in 2008), but also a rise in net FDI by 0.2%
relative to the level of net FDI in 2007;
– Real GDP decline of 3.1% was registered in 2009, while net FDI dropped by
even 24.77%, compared to the level of net FDI in 2008.
In the period from 2010 to 2016, there were drastic net FDI fluctuations (growth
and fall), as well as slight fluctuations in the trend (real growth and real fall) of GDP.
Data in Table 1 shows that, in certain periods, there was a rise in net FDI and
real GDP growth. However, real GDP growth rates did not follow net FDI rates. Real
GDP growth was based on increased consumption, generated from realized privatization
revenues.
FDI inflow into the Republic of Serbia in 2016 amounted to €1.861 billion.
However, foreign companies took about €1.4 billion from the Republic of Serbia in 2016.
Approximately €700 million were taken out of the country untaxed under the so-called
intercompany borrowings. This is due to the inadequate taxation of foreign investors and
other benefits offered to them. Some investors get large subsidies, avoid paying tax on
profits, limit workers’ rights, and pay low salaries. In addition, some foreign companies
give loans to their branches in the Republic of Serbia. Although the investment model
in the form of loans is represented in international business, it is not always entirely
justified. It is arguable whether loan can be treated as investment, because it must be
repaid (with interest).
Government investment is now about 3% of GDP, while domestic investment is
10% of GDP and, together with foreign investment, accounts for around 15% of GDP.
Both public and private investment is now less than it should be. In the structure of
total investment, FDI share is relatively high – over 5.5% of GDP or about 30% of total
investment. To achieve high economic growth rates, domestic private investment should
increase to around 15% of GDP, government to 4-5% of GDP, while FDI should continue
©Друштво економиста “Економика” Ниш http://www.ekonomika.org.rs
38 ЕКОНОМИКА
to be over 5% of GDP. With this, the Republic of Serbia would approach the desired level
of total investment of 25% of GDP, where investment in infrastructure would be a key
factor in accelerating economic growth and development.
The Government of the Republic of Serbia must constantly work to strengthen
macroeconomic stability and improve the investment environment so that foreign
investors are motivated to invest even without large state subsidies. If there is
macroeconomic stability and legal certainty in the country, citizens are more willing to
save in order to spend more in the future. This is indicated by the experience of Bulgaria,
where domestic savings rate is about 25% of GDP. Bulgaria’s growth is similar to the
growth of the Republic of Serbia, but Bulgaria’s growth is more sustainable because it
relies more on country’s own resources. The Republic of Serbia still largely finances
projects with foreign funds, which can cause major problems in the balance of payments
in the future.
In order to recognize the real effects of FDI in the Republic of Serbia, it is necessary
to identify the ways in which foreign companies take profit abroad and return it to their
central offices. Taking profit is legal when foreign companies pay dividends to owners.
However, there is also a matter of illegal profit taking. Foreign companies achieve this
by “inflating” the prices of import materials, which reduces their profit in the Republic
of Serbia. Regardless of the fact that this problem has existed for several years and that
contracts have been terminated with many foreign investors, the attitudes of Serbian state
authorities towards these investors have not changed. For example, even two thirds of
the total subsidies have been given to foreign investors, which is why the indebtedness
of our country has increased by about €165 million.
The real effects of FDI should not be overestimated. In the long run, in addition
to numerous benefits, FDI also has some consequences. Therefore, the final evaluation
of the benefits that the FDI provides to the Republic of Serbia should not be linked for a
period of 3 to 5 years, but for a period of 15 to 20 years. Since foreign investors do not
stay in the Republic of Serbia for too long, it is difficult to identify the total real effects
of their investment.
3. Contribution of FDI to Serbian export
Thanks to FDI, the Republic of Serbia has improved the technological structure of
export in the last decade. Although the share of commodities of lower processing phases
in total export is still high, export has increased significantly to countries from which
large FDI inflows came, such as Italy and Germany, primarily referring to products from
newly-founded companies.
The inflow of FDI into the Republic of Serbia by 2008 mainly focused on the
purchase of local monopolies (or oligopolies) in the fields of finance, retail trade, energy
products, cement and cigarette production, which had a negative effect on its balance
of payments. After that, there was an increase in investment into more sophisticated
production capacities, primarily due to the arrival of companies such as: FIAT, Jura,
Panasonic, and Ball Packaging. This confirmed the rule, which is often encountered in
economic literature and business practice, that FDI contributes to export only if there
is an absorption capacity for the application of advanced technology. In the Republic
ЕКОНОМИКА 39
©Друштво економиста “Економика” Ниш http://www.ekonomika.org.rs
ЕКОНОМИКА
of Serbia, since the crisis, the focus has shifted to attracting FDI in the manufacturing
industry. There are tax incentives when hiring new workers, as well as a free offer of
infrastructure necessary for the operation of the company, reflected in technological
parks. It is encouraging that the share of FDI in industry in recent years was almost
two fifths on average, which is twice the average for the first decade of the 21st century
(Nikolić, 2017, pp. 137-138).
Table 2 shows a comparative overview of the growth of exports of goods and
services in the GDP of the Republic of Serbia and selected countries. It is evident that the
Republic of Serbia has made significant progress as it increased the share of its exports of
goods and services in GDP from 32.9% in 2010 to 50.9% in 2016. In 2016, the Republic
of Serbia managed to achieve a higher share of exports of goods and services in GDP,
compared to almost all Western Balkan countries. Exports of goods and services grew
in the observed period mainly due to the recovery of global demand, especially in the
countries of the European Union, which are the largest export markets of companies
from the Republic of Serbia. Nevertheless, compared to Bulgaria, and especially the
Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, and Hungary, the Republic of Serbia is still
significantly lagging behind them, judging by the value of the observed indicator. Over
50% of Serbian export is realized on the EU market (Krstić, Stanišić, Stojanović, p. 359).
Table 2. Share of exports of goods and services in % of GDP
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Albania 32,4 34,0 33,4 35,5 28,2 27,3 28,7
B&H 29,7 32,1 32,4 33,8 34,1 34,6 /
Bulgaria 50,2 59,1 60,8 64,7 65,0 64,1 63,6
Montenegro 37,0 42,3 43,7 41,3 40,1 42,5 42,2
Czech Republic 66,2 71,3 76,2 76,9 82,6 83,0 80,3
Croatia 37,7 40,4 41,6 43,0 46,4 50,0 51,4
Macedonia 39,8 47,1 45,3 43,4 47,7 48,8 49,2
Hungary 82,2 87,2 86,8 86,0 88,7 90,7 92,5
Republic of Slovakia 76,3 85,0 91,4 93,8 91,8 93,5 93,8
Republic of Serbia 32,9 34,0 36,9 41,2 43,4 46,7 50,9
Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS.
Table 3 gives a comparative analysis of the relative share of net FDI in GDP.
In the period from 2013 to 2015, the relative share of FDI in the GDP of the Republic
of Serbia was low, compared to most of the countries observed. The reasons are the
following: unstable political situation, frequent elections, government reconstruction,
and high budget deficit and public debt. All this gave investors an indication of an
unstable environment. During 2015 and 2016, there was a slight increase in the relative
share of net FDI in GDP. This increased chances of GDP growth and expors of the
Republic of Serbia.
©Друштво економиста “Економика” Ниш http://www.ekonomika.org.rs
40 ЕКОНОМИКА
Table 3. Share of net FDI in % in GDP
Year
Countries 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average
2012-2016
Albania 7,5 9,8 8,7 8,7 9,2 8,8
B&H 2,3 1,7 2,8 1,8 1,6 2,0
Bulgaria 3,3 3,6 3,6 5,5 2,4 3,7
Montenegro 15,2 10,0 10,8 17,4 5,4 11,8
Czech Republic 4,5 3,5 3,9 0,9 3,4 3,2
Croatia 2,6 1,6 6,9 0,3 1,9 2,7
Macedonia 3,5 3,7 0,5 3,0 5,3 3,2
Hungary 8,3 -2,8 9,3 -4,4 -7,3 0,6
Republic of Slovakia 1,9 1,0 -0,4 1,3 4,0 1,6
Republic of Serbia 2,4 3,8 3,7 5,4 5,5 4,2
Source: Public Finance Bulletin (2017) 154 (6), Belgrade: Ministry of Finance, p. 9;
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.WD.GD.ZS?location.
In order to contribute significantly to GDP growth, the Government of the Republic
of Serbia should work to increase the FDI inflow to the real sector, with selective
targeting of branches that can contribute to export growth. This investment expands the
possibilities for transfer of modern technology into different segments of the national
economy.
In the Serbian economy sector of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs),
plays an important role. The share of this sector in Republic of Serbia in the total number
of enterprises is 99.8% and in the total number of employees 65%. SMEs accounted for
54.1% of total gross value added of non-financial sector and for 43.2% of total exports of
non-financial sector in 2013. Also, only 4.4% of all Serbian SMEs recorded net income
from exports. (Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs 2016). FDI enables the integration of
domestic SMEs with foreign companies. By manufacturing parts, assemblies, and subassemblies, as well as providing services for companies in developed countries, primarily
in the countries of the European Union, the SMEs sector can increase commodity export
of the Republic of Serbia.
The structure of net FDI in the last few years shows that most new FDI was
in the manufacturing sector. The interest of the Republic of Serbia is that the future
foreign investment is directed mainly to the manufacturing sector (manufacturing and
construction industry), in which the tradable goods will be produced. The Government
of the Republic of Serbia should continuously work to improve the investment climate,
in order to increase FDI that would improve the production structure and increase
international competitiveness of products.
Conclusion
In conditions of high external indebtedness of the Republic of Serbia, FDI is
an important supplement to domestic sources of financing. Nevertheless, FDI in the
observed period (from 2006 to 2016) did not significantly contribute to GDP growth
of the Republic of Serbia. This was due to the fact that the government followed an
inadequate model of transition and a very bad model of privatization.
ЕКОНОМИКА 41
©Друштво економиста “Економика” Ниш http://www.ekonomika.org.rs
ЕКОНОМИКА
FDI led to the improvement of the technological base of Serbian companies, as
well as to the growth of production, export, and GDP. However, before any foreign
investment, the Government of the Republic of Serbia should carefully examine
investors’ programs and evaluate their long-term plans. By developing FDI flow control
mechanisms, the government could limit foreign investors’ influence on regulation and
economic policy, as well as the possibility that their investment becomes an instrument
of “colonization”.
Unfortunately, the state authorities of the Republic of Serbia are still using state
subsidies as the main tool for attracting investment. In the observed period (from 2006
to 2016), the Government offered foreign investors large subsidies, but this had little
effect on economic and export growth. It has been shown that subsidies can help in a
particular case, but they do not provide equal conditions for doing business for all. On
the contrary, state aid attracts those investors from the labor-intensive branches, who
count on cheap labor and a large volume of production, but do not bring higher capital. If
money for subsidies was invested in infrastructure, roads, education, and a high-quality
information system, the entire economy would benefit, business costs would be reduced,
and opportunities for new investment created.
References
“Economic activity. Job market. Balance of Payments and Foreign Trade”. (2016)
Quarterly Monitor of Economic Trends and Policies in Serbia, No. 47 (10-12),
Belgrade: Foundation for the Advancement of Economics.
Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs 2016. (2016). An OECD Scoreboard.
Foreign Direct Investment Statistics: Data, Analysis and Forecasts. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/statistics.htm. [22.05.2017]
Global FDI Flows Slip in 2016, Modest Recovery Expected in 2017. (2017) Global
Investments Trend Monitor, UNCTAD, No. 25, 1(2): 1-7.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.WD.GD.ZS?location.
[19.10.2017.]
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS. [22.11.2017]
Kazakhstan: Foreign investment. Available at: https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/
establish-overseas/kazakhstan/investing. [13.06.2017]
Krstić, B., Stanišić, T., Stojanović, M. (2012) ANALYSIS OF STATE AND
DEVELOPMENT FACTORS OF SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISE
SECTOR IN SERBIA. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS Series: Economics and
Organization 9 (3): 355-368.
Nikolić, G. (2017) Razbijanje ekonomskih mitova. Beograd: Arhipelag i Institut za
evropske studije.
Public Finance Bulletin (2017) 154 (6), Belgrade: Ministry of Finance.
Public Finances Bulletin, (2016) 148 (12), Belgrade: Ministry of Finance.
©Друштво економиста “Економика” Ниш http://www.ekonomika.org.rs
42 ЕКОНОМИКА
Russia: Foreign investment. Available at: https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/
establish-overseas/russia/foreign-investment. [23.05.2017]
World Investment Report 2017. (2017) UNCTAD.
World trade growth likely at 1.7% in 2016: Azevedo. Available at: http://www.
thehindubusinessline.com/economy/world-trade-likely-to-grow-17-in-2016-
azevedo/article9531800.ece. [12.06.2017]

ЕКОНОМИКА Vol. 64, april-june 2018, № 2
ISSN 0350-137X, EISSN 2334-9190, UDK 338 (497,1)
©Друштво економиста “Економика” Ниш 33
http://www.ekonomika.org.rs
Goran Milovanović1
Faculty of Economics, University of Niš
Goran Radisavljević2
Financial Advisor, Municipality of Sokobanja
Gordana Đukić3
Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade
DEPENDENCE OF SERBIAN ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT ON FOREIGN DIRECT
INVESTMENT FLOWS
Abstract
The aim of the paper is to identify, based on the analysis of relevant theoretical
findings, the effects of foreign direct investment (FDI) on economic development
and export growth of the Republic of Serbia. First, the characteristics of global
FDI flows are presented. What follows is the analysis of FDI flows in the Republic
of Serbia in the period from 2006 to 2016, and assessment of their real long-term
effects. Finally, the relationship between FDI and export of the Republic of Serbia
is examined.
Key words: foreign direct investment, gross domestic product, globalization,
economic development, export
JEL classification: O16, O52, G20
ЗАВИСНОСТ ЕКОНОМСКОГ РАЗВОЈА СРБИЈЕ ОД ТОКА
СТРАНИХ ДИРЕКТНИХ ИНВЕСТИЦИЈА
Апстракт
Циљ рада је да на основу анализе релевантних теоријских налаза утврди
ефекте страних директних инвестиција (СДИ) на економски развој и раст
извоза Републике Србије. Прво су представљене карактеристике глобалних
токова СДИ. Следи анализа токова СДИ у Републици Србији у периоду од
2006. до 2016. године и процена њихових реалних дугорочних ефеката. На
крају, разматра се однос између СДИ и извоза Републике Србије.
Кључне речи: директне стране инвестиције, бруто домаћи производ,
глобализација, економски развој, извоз.
1
goran.milovanović@eknfak.ni.ac.rs
2
radisavljevic.goran1964@gmail.com
3
gordanadkc048@gmail.com
O

ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE
doi:10.5937/ekonomika1802033M
Received December, 11, 2017
Accepted: March, 15, 2018

اترك رد

لن يتم نشر عنوان بريدك الإلكتروني.