Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers

Vol. 32, No. 2, Monsoon 2011

Regional Inequality in Foreign Direct Investment

Flows to India:
The Problem and the Prospects

Atri Mukherjee*
Following the liberalisation of the foreign direct investment (FDI) policy in India
in the early 1990s, FDI to India has increased significantly in the last decade. However, the
growth in FDI flows has been accompanied by strong regional concentration thereby depriving
a large number of Indian states from the benefits of a liberalised FDI regime. In view of
this, the paper examines what are the major determinants affecting regional distribution of
FDI flows in India. The analysis reveals that market size, agglomeration effects and size of
manufacturing and services base in a state have significant positive impact on FDI flows.
The impact of taxation and cost of labour is negative. While the impact of quality of labour is
ambiguous, infrastructure, however, has significant positive influence on FDI flows. With the
presence of a strong agglomeration effect, it is essential to have a conscious and coordinated
effort at the national and the state government level to make the laggard states more attractive
to FDI flows. The efforts may include special thrust on the manufacturing, services and
the infrastructure sectors, or direct policy efforts like in the case of China or a combination
of both.

JEL Classification : F21, R12, O14, O18,

Keywords : Foreign Direct Investment, Regional Inequality, Manufacturing and
Services, Infrastructure

Introduction
In the era of globalisation and financial integration, foreign
direct investment (FDI) has emerged as one of the most important forms
of capital flows to developing countries. FDI is often preferred over
other forms of capital flows by the policy makers as it is considered
to be of a more stable nature and also it does not form a part of the
host country’s external debt stock. Apart from constituting a mode of
finance, FDI also tends to enhance economic growth through spill over
* Atri Mukherjee is Assistant Adviser in the Department of Economic and Policy Research. The
paper reflects personal views of the author. The author is grateful to the anonymous referees for
their valuable comments.
 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OCCASIONAL PAPERS 100

of technology and knowledge in the host country. There is, however,

large inequality in the distribution of FDI flows within the emerging
market and developing economies. While some countries like China,
India and Brazil have attracted bulk of the FDI flows, most of the others
have failed to achieve the same.
FDI flows to India picked up in the 1990s, after the economic
reforms and liberalisation of the FDI policies. As per the IMF’s Global
Financial Stability Report, April 2012, India has emerged as one of the
major recipients of FDI flows among the emerging market economies in
the last few years. Composition of FDI flows to India reveals that over
the years automatic route has emerged as the most important channel
of FDI flows to India, followed by reinvested earnings and acquisition
of shares. FDI through government approval route, on the other hand,
has declined over time, which is in line with the policy reforms. The
sectoral composition of FDI to India has undergone significant changes
since the 1990s. The bulk of the FDI flows in the pre-liberalisation
period were directed towards the manufacturing sector. In the recent
years, however, much of the FDI flows have moved into the services
sector. Mauritius has emerged as the most important source of FDI to
India over the last decade.
Destination wise, economically advanced states have attracted
the lion’s share of FDI flows to India. The top six Indian states, viz.,
Maharashtra, Delhi, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Andhra
Pradesh together accounted for over 70 per cent of FDI equity flows
to India during the period April 2000 to June 2012 reflecting distinct
signs of FDI concentration at the state level. The FDI policy in India
was liberalised in the early 1990s as a part of economic reforms to
attract the foreign capital and also to take advantage of the spill over of
technology and knowledge. It is, therefore, essential to derive maximum
benefit from the FDI flows and ensure that the rising FDI flows do not
lead to an increase in regional inequality. In view of this, an attempt has
been made in this paper to examine the major determinants affecting
regional distribution of FDI flows to India. In light of the findings, the
paper also makes an attempt to list out the possible policy implications
for the national and the state governments.
101 Regional Inequality in Foreign Direct Investment Flows

The paper has been organised as follows: Section I sets out a

brief theoretical background relating to the reasons for inter-regional
differences in FDI flows. Section II provides a survey of select empirical
literature on the determinants of regional distribution of FDI flows in the
international as well as in the Indian context. Section III presents some
stylised facts on distribution of FDI flows in India. Section IV describes
the rationale behind selection of variables. The methodology and the
empirical results are furnished in Section V. The policy implications are
drawn in Section VI.
Section I
The Theoretical Background
Traditionally, the FDI has moved from developed to other
developed or developing countries preferably in sectors like mining,
tea, coffee, rubber, cocoa plantation, oil extraction and refining,
manufacturing for home production and exports, etc. Gradually their
operations have also included services such as banking, insurance,
shipping, hotels, etc. As regards location choice, the Multi National
Enterprises (MNEs) tend to set up their plants in big cities in the
developing countries, where infrastructure facilities are easily available.
Therefore, in order to attract FDI flows, the recipients countries/regions
were required to provide basic facilities like land, power and other public
utilities, concessions in the form of tax holiday, development rebate,
rebate on undistributed profits, additional depreciation allowance and
subsidised inputs, etc.
Dunning (1998) indicated that the strategies and location
choice of MNEs had undergone significant changes between the 1970s
and the 1990s. He identified some major developments in the world
economy which have been instrumental in changing location decision
of MNEs during this period. The first major development is the growth
of intellectual capital which was reflected in higher expenditure on
information technology, increase in the knowledge component of the
manufacturing goods and increase in the share of skilled workers in the
labour force. The growing significance of these non-material knowledge-
intensive assets was led by tremendous growth of the services sector,
particularly knowledge and information oriented services. Secondly,
the location of creation and use of these knowledge intensive assets
 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OCCASIONAL PAPERS 102

have been increasingly influenced by the presence of immobile clusters

of complementary value-added activities. Spatial bunching of firms
engaged in related activities have benefited from the presence of one
another and of having access to localised support facilities, shared
service centres, distribution networks, customised demand patterns and
specialised factor inputs. This has given rise to “alliance capitalism”,
in which the main shareholders in the wealth sharing process need to
collaborate more actively and purposefully with each other. Third, there
is increasing evidence that except for some labour or resource oriented
investment in developing countries, MNEs are increasingly seeking
locations which offer the best economic and institutional facilities for
core competence to be efficiently utilized. Fourth, the renaissance of
market economy and the consequent changes in the macroeconomic
policies and macro-organizational strategies of many national
governments have also contributed significantly to the economic and
political risk assessment of FDI by MNEs.
The “agglomeration” factor has emerged as one of the most
important determinants of regional distribution of FDI flows within a
country during the last two decades. Agglomeration economies emerge
when there are some positive externalities in collocating near other
economic units due to the presence of knowledge spillovers, specialised
labor markets and supplier network (Krugman 1991). Statistical results
from several studies focusing on developing economies strongly
buttress the argument that foreign investors are inclined to favour such
locations that could minimise information costs and offer a variety
of agglomeration economies (He Canfei 2002). A common finding in
recent studies is that regions with a relatively higher existing stock of
foreign investment are more likely to attract further investments, which
confirms the importance of positive agglomeration externalities.
Therefore, it emerges that while globalisation suggests that the
location and ownership of production should become geographically
more dispersed, other economic forces are working towards a more
pronounced geographical concentration of such activity both within
particular regions and countries. In the above theoretical backdrop,
a survey of the empirical literature has been carried out highlighting
select country experiences and the experiences in the Indian context.
103 Regional Inequality in Foreign Direct Investment Flows

Section II
Survey of Select Empirical Literature
Internationally, there is a host of literature analysing the inter-
country differences in FDI flows. Those studies have identified a
number of factors affecting the location choice of the foreign direct
investors. However, many of those determinants are country-specific
and would not apply to state/provincial level movement of FDI flows.
The literature on regional distribution of FDI flows within a country,
on the other hand, is relatively scarce. Most of the available studies
relating to FDI flows at the state/ provincial level relate to the US, the
European Union and China. There are few analytical studies on inter-
state differences in FDI flows in India.
In the context of the United States, Coughlin, Terza and Aromdee
(1989) found that the number of potential sites, state per capita income,
manufacturing density within a state, better transportation infrastructure,
higher unemployment rates and higher expenditures to attract FDI were
positively linked to FDI flows. On the other hand, higher wages and
higher tax rates had negative impact on FDI flows. Fisher and Peters
(1998) found that incentives offered by various states had a positive
impact on investment flows to the US. Incentives considered in their
study include job credits, property tax abatements, sales tax exemptions,
grants, loan guarantees, firm specific job training and infrastructure
subsidies. Within the European Union member states, the long term
trends point out the existence of a negative relationship between
taxation and FDI inflows. Santis, Mercuri and Vicarelli (2001) found
that FDI flows within the European Union member states were more
influenced by the total fiscal wedge on labour than corporate tax rates.
This suggests that multinationals, while making their location choices,
focus their attention more to the overall tax burden than on single
corporate tax rates, which provide only partial information. Apart from
tax burden, bilateral degree of trade openness and infrastructure also
play an important role to attract FDI. Wolff (2006) found that within
the European Union, the different sub-components of FDI (equity,
re-invested profits and other investments) react differently to taxes.
Contrary to the public belief that high corporate tax rates act as the key
 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OCCASIONAL PAPERS 104

reasons for low investment rates from abroad, the author found that
after controlling for unobserved country characteristics and common
time effects, the top statutory corporate tax rate of both, source and host
country, turned insignificant for total FDI and investment into equity.
There were, however, definite indications that high source country taxes
increased the probability of firms to reinvest profits abroad. However,
overall experience revealed that global companies give more importance
to the simplicity and stability of a country’s tax system than generous tax
rebates. Chidlow and Young (2008) found that Polish regions differed
substantially in attracting foreign capital and the regional characteristics
mattered in the selection of location. Using survey data from an online
questionnaire and a multinomial logit model incorporating investor
specific characteristics, they showed that knowledge-seeking factors
alongside market and agglomeration factors, acted as the main drivers
of FDI to Mazowieckie region (including Warsaw), while efficiency
(low input cost, availability of labour and resources) and geographic
factors encouraged FDI to the other areas of Poland.
In the Chinese context, based on panel data covering 98 hinterland
cities of China for the years 1999 to 2005, Luo et al (2008) found that
well established factors such as natural resources and low labour costs
were not important in determining FDI flows to China’s hinterland.
Instead, policy incentives and industrial agglomerates were the most
important determining factors for FDI flows. Using panel dataset of
the areas at provincial level in China during the period of 1998-2007,
Xu et al (2008) found that agglomeration economies influenced the
location choices of FDI in China, and cumulative FDI in an area had
crucial demonstration effect on the decision making of the new FDI
entrants. The study also indicated that although labour costs continued
to remain one crucial element for location choices of FDI, however,
labour quality was playing an increasingly important role in attracting
FDI from the US and the European countries. The analysis of core-
periphery framework suggested that the two mega cities of Hong Kong
and Shanghai as the cores of agglomeration had significant influence on
location choices of FDI in China. For FDI from different sources, there
exist country specific features. This implies that previous cumulative
foreign investments led to concentration of new investments from
105 Regional Inequality in Foreign Direct Investment Flows

same source country. Boermans et al (2009) found that in line with

the theoretical predictions, foreign investors preferred to invest more in
provinces with better institutions, lower labour cost and larger market
size. The effect of market size on FDI was larger in provinces with
better institutions. Sub-sample study confirmed the existence of a large
disparity between East and West. In the poorer large western provinces,
FDI was strongly driven by the geographical factors, in contrast to the
east of China, where institutions played a significant role to build up
the ‘factory of the world’. Robustness tests indicated that two sub-
dimensions of institutions, viz., infrastructure and governance, were
important to determine the location choice of FDI in China.
Siddharthan (2006) found that the determinants of regional
distribution of FDI flows in China and India were very similar to the
pattern influencing inter-country FDI flows. In those two countries,
much of the FDI flowed to relatively developed regions, while regions
that were poor in physical, institutional and social infrastructure received
very little FDI. In China, Eastern zone provinces with high per capita
income, better socio-economic indicators, better infrastructure facilities
in terms of electricity, road and rail network and higher international
orientation in terms of their per capita international trade, also attracted
higher FDI flows. Similarly, in India, the states with high per capita
income, high industrial output, and situated at the coasts attracted high
levels of FDI. Moreover, the regions that received low FDI flows were
also the regions that attracted lower domestic investment.
In the Indian context, Goldar (2007) found that by and large, the
same set of factors influenced the location decision of plants of local
companies as that of foreign companies. His econometric analysis of
plant location across 100 largest cities in 17 states of India revealed
that city-size was an important factor influencing location decisions of
industrial plants. The presence of a metropolitan city in a state also
had a favourable influence, which probably captured the advantage
in ‘headquartering’ the country operations of the MNEs. The location
decisions of plants of foreign companies were found to be influenced
by the investment climate and availability of educated workers in the
state, and the availability of civic amenities in the cities. Morris (2007)
argued that in India, the regions with the metropolitan cities had the
 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OCCASIONAL PAPERS 106

advantage in ‘headquartering’ the country operations of MNEs and

therefore, attracted bulk of the FDI flows. Nunnenkamp and Stracke
(2007) found significant positive correlation of FDI with per capita
income, population density, per capita bank deposits, telephone density,
level of education and per capita net value added in manufacturing
in India. FDI, on the other hand was negatively correlated with state
population, and had insignificant relation in respect of availability of
electricity and unemployment rate. Aggarwal (2005) found that rigid
labour markets in Indian states discourage FDI. The effect of labour
market rigidities and labour cost, however, was more pronounced
for the export-oriented as compared to the domestic market seeking
FDI. The study also pointed out that the presence of EPZ worked as
a relevant pull factor for export oriented FDI. Econometric evidence
found in the study suggested that infrastructure, regional development
and human development were also key factors in attracting higher FDI
both in the export and domestic market sectors. In a study on business
environment, clustering and industry location in the Indian Cities, using
firm level data collected in the 2003 round of the Investment Climate
Survey (ICS) for India, Lall and Mengistae (2005) found that the local
business environment had significant bearing on location decisions.
Predatory enforcement of business regulations reduced the probability
of a business locating in a city. In comparison, better access to finance
and land and greater availability of infrastructure attracted firms to a
city. However, firms were also attracted by agglomeration economies
from clustering of firms in their own industry. This means that new firms
will choose to locate production in areas that are already established
centers in their line of business.
Ramachandran and Goebel (2002) pointed out that Tamil Nadu
had emerged as one of the most favoured investment destination in
India on account of a number of advantages viz., strong and stable
government with pro-active government policies, investor-friendly
and transparent decision making process, sound diversified industrial
infrastructure, comfortable power situation, abundant availability
of skilled manpower, harmonious industrial relations and absence
of labour unrest, high quality of work culture and peaceful life, best
incentives package in the country, highly cosmopolitan composition
and high proportion of English speaking population. FDI in Tamil Nadu
is dominated by investments in the IT sector.
107 Regional Inequality in Foreign Direct Investment Flows

Overall, the theory and the empirical literature suggest that the
most important determinants of the regional distribution of FDI flows
within a country include the size and growth of the local market, the level
of industrial activity, the growth of the services sector, the availability
and quality of physical infrastructure, labour market conditions and
quality of labour, policy environment and tax incentives, business
climate and the presence of agglomeration economies.

Section III
FDI Flows to India: Some Stylised Facts
FDI flows to India have picked up significantly in the recent years.
India has emerged as the second largest recipient of FDI flows among the
emerging market economies after China in 2009 and 2010 (Table 1).
Table 1: Emerging Market External Equity Financing
(in million US dollars)
  2008 2009 2010 2011
Sub-Saharan Africa 884 1,237 2,841 1,476
Central and Eastern Europe 1,105 3,836 7,502 3,733
Commonwealth of Independent States 4,087 1,258 6,998 11,164
Russia 2,850 956 5,454 10,794
Developing Asia 21,441 61,078 86,923 38,013
China 11,974 39,854 45,448 23,499
India 6,008 16,223 26,179 7,016
Indonesia 2,213 1,286 6,317 2,229
Malaysia 660 3,604 5,818 2,972
Pakistan 109 — 93 —
Philippines 125 0 960 596
Thailand 257 111 1,991 1,554
Middle East and North Africa 3,832 917 1,695 182
Latin America and the Caribbean 12,719 15,416 27,139 18,983
Argentina — — 73 3,576
Brazil 10,435 12,963 24,633 9,029
Chile — 32 1,214 2,340
Colombia — 619 296 3,598
Mexico 2,127 1,567 662 441
Total FDI Flows 44,067 83,740 1,33,098 73,552
Note: — indicates that the figure is zero or less than half of the final digit shown
Source: Global Financial Stability Report, April 2012, International Monetary Fund
 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OCCASIONAL PAPERS 108

The rise in FDI flows to India has been accompanied by strong

regional concentration (Table 2 and Chart 1). The top six states, viz.,
Maharashtra, New Delhi, Karnataka, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Andhra
Pradesh accounted for over 70 per cent of the FDI equity flows to India
Table 2: FDI Equity Inflows to Indian States
  2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
  (US $ million) (Per cent to Total)
Maharashtra 12,431 8,249 6,097 9,553 45.5 31.9 31.4 26.2
Delhi 1,868 9,695 2,677 7,983 6.8 37.5 13.8 21.9
Karnataka 2,026 1,029 1,332 1,533 7.4 4.0 6.9 4.2
Gujarat 2,826 807 724 1,001 10.3 3.1 3.7 2.7
Tamil Nadu 1,724 774 1,352 1,422 6.3 3.0 7.0 3.9
Andhra Pradesh 1,238 1,203 1,262 848 4.5 4.7 6.5 2.3
West Bengal 489 115 95 394 1.8 0.4 0.5 1.1
Chandigarh 0 224 416 130 0.0 0.9 2.1 0.4
Goa 29 169 302 38 0.1 0.7 1.6 0.1
Madhya Pradesh 44 54 451 123 0.2 0.2 2.3 0.3
Kerala 82 128 37 471 1.3 0.5 0.2 1.3
Rajasthan 343 31 51 33 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1
Uttar Pradesh 0 48 112 140 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.4
Orissa 9 149 15 28 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1
Assam 42 11 8 1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bihar 0 0 5 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Region not 4,181 3,148 4,491 12,782 15.3 12.2 23.1 35.0
indicated
Total 27,332 25,834 19,427 36,504 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Top 6 States 22,113 21,757 13,444 22,340 80.9 84.2 69.2 61.2
Top 2 States 14,299 17,944 8,774 17,536 52.3 69.5 45.2 48.0
Note: 1. FDI equity inflows include ‘equity capital component’ only.
2. Maharashtra includes Maharashtra, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu.
3. Delhi includes New Delhi and part of UP and Haryana.
4. Tamil Nadu includes Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry.
5. West Bengal includes West Bengal, Sikkim, and Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
6. Chandigarh includes Chandigarh, Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.
7. Madhya Pradesh includes Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.
8. Kerala includes Kerala and Lakshadweep.
9. Uttar Pradesh includes Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal.
10. Assam includes Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland
and Tripura.
Source: Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce and
Industry, Government of India.
109 Regional Inequality in Foreign Direct Investment Flows

Chart 1: Cumulative FDI Inflows to Indian States

35 (April 2000-June 2012)
30

25

20
Per cent

15

10

0
Delhi

West Bengal
Andhra Pradesh

Chandigarh

Madhya Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh
Rajasthan
Maharashtra

Karnataka

Tamil Nadu

Kerala

Goa

Assam
Orissa
Gujarat

Bihar
between 2008-09 and 2011-12. The top two states, i.e., Maharashtra and
Delhi accounted for over 50 per cent of FDI flows during this period.
Maharashtra alone accounted for over 30 per cent of FDI flows to India
during the same period.
Despite impressive growth rates achieved by most of the Indian
states as well as aggressive investment promotion policies pursued by
various state governments, the concentration of FDI flows across a few
Indian states continues to exist.

Section IV
Selection of Variables
Market Size
The theory as well as the empirical literature revealed that the
size of the local market, generally represented by the scale and growth
of a region, acts as one of the most important determinants of location
choice of FDI as it provides an idea about the potential demand for a
foreign firm’s output. The attractiveness for large markets is related to
larger potential for local sales. Local sales are generally more profitable
than exports especially in large countries, where economies of scale
may be eventually reaped. Despite significant changes in the location
choice of MNEs in the recent period, large and growing domestic
 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OCCASIONAL PAPERS 110

market continues to remain a major determinant of market-seeking FDI

flows. Empirical studies conducted in the context of the US, European
Union, China and India have taken into account a number of variables
to represent the market size, viz., GDP, growth rate of GDP, per
capita income, personal income, population size, population density,
population growth, consumption level, number of potential sites in a
state, etc.
In view of this, in this study, an attempt has been made to test
the hypothesis that size of the local market has important implications
for regional distribution of FDI flows to India. In this paper, the ‘size of
the local market’ is represented by two most commonly used indicators,
viz., per capita net state domestic product (NSDP) and population
density of each state.
Industrial Linkages
Dunning (1993) suggested that natural resource seeking FDI
looks for foreign locations that possess natural resources and related
transport and communication infrastructure, tax and other incentives.
Natural resources include oil, mineral, raw materials and agricultural
products. It is also often argued that regions with a more established
industrial base are more attractive to foreign investment (Luo et al
2008). In the Indian context, Siddharthan (2006) found that the states
with higher industrial output have attracted high levels of FDI. The
location choice by MNEs in the 1990s, however, has been influenced to
a large extent by the availability of non-material knowledge-intensive
assets mainly driven by the tremendous growth of the services sector,
particularly knowledge and information oriented services (Dunning,
1998). The sectoral break-up of FDI flows in India also reveals that
the services sector has attracted a large share of FDI flows in the
recent period (Table 3). It may be observed from Table 3 that financial
and non-financial services alone accounted for 19 per cent of the
cumulative FDI flows to India since April 2000. Taking into account
telecommunication, computer hardware & software, construction and
other services activities, overall, the services sector in India has attracted
around 50 per cent of FDI flows during the same period.
111 Regional Inequality in Foreign Direct Investment Flows

Table 3: Sectoral Orientation of FDI Equity Flows to India

  2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- Cumulative Percentage of
09 10 11 12 Inflows Total Inflows
(April ’00 (April ’00
–April ’12) -April’12)
  (US $ million)  
Services Sector 6,138 4,353 3,296 5,216 33,428 19
(Financial & non-financial)
Construction Development 1,227 731 21,088 12
Telecommunications 2,558 2,554 1,665 1,997 12,560 7
Computer Software & Hardware 1,677 919 780 796 11,286 6
Drugs & Pharmaceuticals 213 209 3,232 9,659 6
Power 985 1,437 1,272 1,652 7,444 4
Automobile Industry 1,152 1,208 1,299 923 6,965 4
Metallurgical Industry 961 407 1,098 1,786 6,374 4
Total           62
Source: Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Government of India.

In view of the above, in this paper, an attempt has been made to

test the following three hypotheses:
• Indian states rich in natural resources are more attractive to FDI
flows;
• Indian states with strong industrial base tend to attract more FDI
flows;
• Indian states with higher services sector activity attract more FDI
flows.
The explanatory variables considered in this context are the per
capita mining output, per capita manufacturing output and per capita
services output of each state.
Infrastructure
It is commonly argued in the economic literature that development
and availability of superior infrastructural facilities have a positive effect
on the location choice of FDI firms. As argued by Dunning (1998),
that though much of the FDI in developing countries is prompted by
traditional factors, such as market-size, lower input/labour cost and
availability and prices of natural resources, yet even there, where the
 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OCCASIONAL PAPERS 112

firms have a choice, physical and human infrastructure, together with

the macroeconomic environment and institutional framework of the host
country tend to play a more decisive role. Availability of transportation
facilities to reach the nearest port or output markets have historically
been considered as an important determinant of setting a business in a
particular place. Most commonly used variables to represent transport
infrastructure includes the presence of major ports, close to the coast
location, availability and quality of road and rail network. Apart from
transport, physical infrastructure in the form of availability of power,
telephone density, access to finance, availability of civic amenities and
degree of urbanisation were also found to be important in the empirical
studies.
In order to test the hypothesis that “states with better infrastructure
attract higher FDI flows compared to others”, two indicators for
infrastructure, viz., road route density (road length per square kilo meter
of state area) and railway route density (railway length per square kilo
meter of state area) have been considered in this study.
Labour Conditions
The theory suggests that other things being equal, efficiency
seeking foreign firms are expected to prefer lower wage locations to
minimise their cost of production. Over time, however, foreign investors
have started attaching importance to local labour quality. Dunning
(1998) indicated that while labour cost was one of the major variables
influencing the location of MNEs in the 1970s, it was the availability
and the price of skilled and professional labour that influenced the
decision making of the MNEs in the 1990s. Since higher wage levels
reflect higher labour productivity or higher quality of human capital,
therefore an investing firm which is looking for high quality and skilled
labour may be attracted by the higher wage rate. It has been observed
that higher the production technology level and technological content
in the product, labour quality would assume higher importance.
In this paper, wages per worker in Indian states have been used
as an indicator of labour cost. Quality of labour is generally judged in
terms of educational qualification of the workforce. In order to assess
the quality of labour, literacy rate and per capita number of educational
institutions for higher studies (degree and above) in each state have
been considered in the analysis.
113 Regional Inequality in Foreign Direct Investment Flows

Policy Environment
The local policy environment is mainly characterised by
policies towards foreign direct investment, tax structure and investment
incentives provided by the local government to attract FDI. Over the
past few decades, many local governments all over the world have been
actively involved in improving the policy environment for promoting
their countries as attractive destination for foreign investors. Those
governments have adopted a host of measures viz., liberalisation of
laws and regulations for the admission and establishment of foreign
investment projects, provision of guarantees for repatriation of
investment and profits, establishing mechanism for the settlement of
investment disputes and extending tax incentives to facilitate and attract
foreign investment flows to their countries.
In India, as a part of economic reform, many of the states are
simplifying the rules and procedures for setting up and operation of the
industrial units. Single Window System is now in existence in most
of the states. In addition, most of the states provide various kinds of
incentives for attracting investment in the new industrial units as well
as the existing ones. The incentives may be sector-specific or region-
specific. While it is common among the Indian states to offer incentives
to the IT/ITeS, biotechnology, tourism and the micro, small and medium
enterprise (MSME) sectors, at times special incentives are also offered
in industries such as textile, food, fisheries, film, healthcare, electricity
generation, etc. Most of the sector-specific incentives in India take the
form of exemption from stamp duty, registration fee, electricity duty
and various types of taxes. Special Economic Zones (SEZ) also enjoy
various incentives mainly in the form of various duty exemptions.
The direct tax benefits include exemption from commercial tax, sales
tax, value added tax (VAT), entry tax, special entry tax, luxury tax,
entertainment tax, property tax, purchase tax, etc., depending on the
industry in concern. Exemption of entertainment taxes is common for
the tourism sector.
Empirical evidence in the context of European Union revealed
that multinationals, while making their location choices, focus their
attention to the overall tax burden rather than on single corporate tax
rates, which provide only partial information (Santis, Mercuri and
 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OCCASIONAL PAPERS 114

Vicarelli, 2001). In view of this, in this study, the state’s own tax revenue
as per cent of NSDP has been used to assess the impact of tax structure
on FDI flows.
Agglomeration Economies
As countries begin to industrialise, there is a tendency for
industries to concentrate initially in areas where physical infrastructure
is readily available and subsequently, for related industries, to gravitate
closer together, thereby taking advantage of inherent synergies. In the
process, industry clusters are formed, with each geographical area
specialising in certain activities, leading to spatial diffusion of industries.
This clustering of firms, which is also known as the “agglomeration”
factor has emerged as an important determinant of regional distribution
of FDI flows within a country during the last two decades. The reduction
in spatial transaction cost due to liberalisation of cross-border market
and the changing characteristics of the economic activity has favoured
the spatial bunching of firms engaged in related activities, so that each
may benefit from the presence of the others, and of having access to
localised support facilities, shared service centers, distribution networks,
customised demand pattern and specialised factor inputs (Dunning
1998). Statistical results from several studies focusing on developing
economies strongly buttress the argument that foreign investors are
inclined to favor such locations that could minimise information costs
and offer a variety of agglomeration economies (He Canfei 2002). The
presence of agglomeration economies is reflected in terms of prior
foreign investment presence, prior concentration of manufacturing
plants, number of enterprise in a region, presence of various economic
zones (SEZ, EPZ etc.), industrial parks, industrial clusters, etc.
In this study, one period lagged value of per capita stock of
FDI in a state has been considered as independent variable to capture
these agglomeration effects. A positive and significant coefficient of
this variable means the presence of agglomeration economies.
Based on the above analysis, a list of explanatory variables
selected for the study is presented in Table 4.
115 Regional Inequality in Foreign Direct Investment Flows

Table 4: List of Explanatory Variables Selected for the Study

Type of factor Variables Expected Sign

A. Market size 1. Per capita NSDP (PCY); +

2. Population Density (PD): +
B. Industrial Orientation 3. Per capita manufacturing output (MANP); +
4. Per capita mining output (MINP); +
5. Per capita services output (SERP); +
C. Infrastructure 6. Road route density (ROAD); +
7. Railway route density (RAIL); +
D. Labour Conditions 8. Wages per worker (WAGE); -
9. Literacy rate (LIT); +
10. Per capita number of higher educational
institutes (EDUP); +
E. Policy Environment 11. State’s own tax revenue as per cent of
NSDP (TAX) -
F. Agglomeration Effects 12. Per capita FDI stock (STOCKP) +

In addition to the above, there may be many other factors

having an influence on foreign firms’ investment decision. It has been
observed that multiple factors, viz., pro-active government policies,
transparent and investment friendly decision making process, political
and legal environment, harmonious industrial relations and the quality
of governance institutions together build the investment climate in a
state (Globerman and Shapiro, 2003; Lall and Mengistae, 2005; Ansari
and Ranga, 2010). The “Doing Business” Reports jointly published
by the World Bank and International Financial Corporation consider
seven parameters to determine the business environment in a state, viz.,
‘ease of starting business’, ‘ease of dealing with construction permit’,
‘ease of registering property’, ‘ ease of paying taxes’, ‘ease of enforcing
a contract’, ‘ease of trading across borders’ and ‘ease of closing a
business’. In addition to these, the legal structure, security of property
rights and level of corruption in a state, reflected in terms of the quality
of justice mechanism may also have some impact on FDI flows. The
regulation of labour and business is another factor, which is known
to have significant influence on foreign investors’ sentiments. The
number of strikes and industrial disputes that take place in the economy
portray the amount of control an entrepreneur has over his business.
The prevalence of strong labour unions and large number of industrial
disputes in the states of West Bengal and Kerala reflect the stringent
 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OCCASIONAL PAPERS 116

labour laws and pro-labour government policies in those states. Due

to such industrial disputes, large number of mandays are lost, which
seriously hampers the profitability of the manufacturer and, therefore,
has adverse impact on foreign investment.
It has also been observed that the countries or regions that are
politically risky with a history of expropriating FDI, endemic corruption,
autocratic governments, poor law and order situation or ethnic tension
tend to receive lower FDI flows. The Indian experience reveals that
various political factors such as political stability of a state or the state
government’s political relation with the central government have also
played an important role in attracting FDI flows. Political instability
resulting from naxalite movements, various corruption and scandals
has prevented FDI flows to certain states of India in the recent period.
However, in the absence of consistent and uniform cross-sectional as
well as time series data, these factors have been left out of the empirical
analysis carried out in the study.

Section V
The Methodology and Empirical Results
The empirical analysis carried out in this paper is based on state-
level panel dataset of India over the period 2000-01 to 2010-11 covering
31 states and Union territories, viz., Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Andhra
Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa,
Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand,
Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya,
Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Puducherry, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim,
Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal and West Bengal. The
dependent variable in this study is the per capita annual flow of FDI to
each of the 31 Indian states during the 10 years period of 2001-02 to 2010-
11. The annual state-level FDI flows data released by the Department
of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce and
Industry, Government of India, however, has certain limitations. First,
the state-level annual FDI flows data published by DIPP are available
only from 2008-09 onwards. Second, as noted in Table 2, the data on
FDI flows to certain states are not available at the disaggregated level.
In view of this, in this study, the help of Centre for Monitoring Indian
117 Regional Inequality in Foreign Direct Investment Flows

Economy (CMIE) database has been taken to calculate disaggregated

annual FDI flows data for each of the 31 Indian states which is important
to ensure one-to-one correspondence in definition of a ‘State’ in the
FDI statistics and the explanatory variables, while studying the regional
determinants of FDI. The data on annual FDI flows to Indian states
from 2008-09 onwards have been directly taken from the DIPP database
with CMIE data used for disaggregation. Annual FDI flows to Indian
states during the earlier years have been calculated based on the new
and outstanding foreign investment database of the CMIE consistent
with the cumulative FDI flows to those states as published by the DIPP.
The sample period of 2001-02 to 2010-11 has been chosen mainly on
account of the fact that FDI flow to India started picking up only in
the 2000s and also DIPP has published region-wise data on FDI flows
(cumulative) to Indian states only since April 2000. The annual data on
population of each state have been worked out based on the Census data
on state population and the average annual exponential growth rate of
population.
Multiple sources have been used to obtain the data on the various
explanatory variables used for the empirical analysis. Information
on per capita income and variables relating to economic structure is
obtained from the National Accounts Statistics (NAS) published by
the Central Statistics Office (CSO) of the Government of India (GoI)
and the Handbook of Statistics on the Indian Economy published by
the Reserve Bank of India. The data on the infrastructural variables
are obtained from the CMIE state-level database. The data on annual
wages per worker have been taken from the Annual Survey of Industries
(ASI) published by CSO, GoI. The data on literacy rates and population
density are worked out from the Census of India. The data on number of
higher educational institutes in a state has been compiled from various
issues of the Economic Survey of the GoI and the Indian Brand Equity
Foundation (IBEF) Reports. The data on tax revenue of the Indian states
have been taken from various issues of the Report on ‘State Finances: A
Study of Budgets’ published by the Reserve Bank of India. The sources
for state-level data on FDI stocks, which are measured in terms of
cumulative FDI flows, are the DIPP and CMIE state-level database.
 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OCCASIONAL PAPERS 118

Table 5: Regional Inequality among India States

States Per Area Per Population Rail Literacy Annual State’s
Capita (‘000 Capita Density Route Rate Wages Own Tax
FDI Sq NSDP (Persons Density (Per per Revenue
Flows Km) (Rs) per sq. (Km per cent) Worker as per
(Rs) km) 1000 sq. (Rs) cent to
km) NSDP
  2010-11 2011 2010-11 2011 2008-09 2011 2009-10 2010-11
A & N Island 0.0 8.2 76,883 46 0.0 86.3 65,831 Na
Andhra Pradesh 679.5 275.0 62,912 308 18.9 67.7 61,007 8.9
Arunachal Pradesh 0.0 83.7 55,789 17 0.0 67.0 Na 2.6
Assam 11.9 78.4 30,569 397 29.1 73.2 49,332 6.3
Bihar 2.4 94.1 20,708 1,102 37.3 63.8 43,362 5.2
Chhattisgarh 0.0 135.1 41,167 189 8.8 71.0 82,983 8.0
Delhi 7,274.0 1.4 1,50,653 11,297 123.7 86.3 69,820 6.7
Goa 9,424.7 3.7 1,68,572 394 18.7 87.4 1,26,788 7.3
Gujarat 545.5 196.0 75,115 308 27.2 79.3 76,316 7.8
Haryana 655.6 44.2 94,680 573 35.1 76.6 90,347 7.2
Himachal Pradesh 0.0 55.6 65,535 123 5.1 83.8 65,255 7.6
Jammu & Kashmir 0.0 222.2 37,496 124 1.1 68.7 57,579 8.3
Jharkhand 0.0 79.7 29,786 414 24.7 67.6 1,49,847 6.4
Karnataka 1,003.3 191.7 60,946 319 15.7 75.6 83,219 10.5
Kerala 50.0 38.8 71,434 859 27.0 93.9 54,994 8.9
Madhya Pradesh 288.3 308.2 32,222 236 16.1 70.6 82,730 8.8
Maharashtra 2,462.3 307.6 83,471 365 18.2 82.9 1,03,406 7.8
Manipur 0.0 22.3 29,684 122 0.0 79.9 35,356 3.0
Meghalaya 0.0 22.4 50,427 132 16.0 75.5 72,652 3.5
Mizoram 0.0 21.0 48,591 52 0.1 91.6 Na 2.1
Nagaland 0.0 16.5 52,643 119 0.8 80.1 19,880 2.0
Orissa 16.2 155.7 40,412 269 15.3 73.5 91,921 6.3
Puducherry 0.0 0.2 98,719 2,598 22.9 86.6 73,191 9.9
Punjab 83.0 50.3 69,737 550 42.4 76.7 59,388 8.5
Rajasthan 33.5 342.2 42,434 201 17.1 67.1 65,995 6.7
Sikkim 0.0 7.1 81,159 86 30.9 82.2 58,900 4.6
Tamil Nadu 847.7 130.0 72,993 555 31.6 80.3 68,422 10.0
Tripura 0.0 10.4 44,965 350 14.4 87.8 22,267 3.8
Uttar Pradesh 25.8 240.9 26,355 828 36.1 69.7 68,048 7.7
Uttarakhand 0.0 53.4 66,368 189 6.5 79.6 78,353 6.6
West Bengal 46.6 88.7 48,536 1,029 43.8 77.1 71,626 4.9
Note: Na indicates not available.
Source: The Census of India 2011; the CSO, GoI; the DIPP, GoI; the Reserve Bank of India; the CMIE; and
the author’s own calculations.
119 Regional Inequality in Foreign Direct Investment Flows

Significant regional inequality across the Indian states may be

observed in terms of per capita FDI flows and various geographic and
socio-economic indicators considered in the study (Table 5). The land
area across the states varies from 3,42,240 square km in the largest
state of Rajasthan to only around 300 square km in the union territory
of Puducherry. Population density in the national capital region of
Delhi is as high as 11,297 persons per square km as compared to only
17 persons per square km in the north eastern hill state of Arunachal
Pradesh. Per capita NSDP varies between Rs. 1,68,572 in Goa and Rs.
20,708 in Bihar reflecting wide regional disparity in income. Kerala has
the highest literacy rate of 94 per cent, whereas Bihar has a literacy rate
of only 64 per cent. While Delhi has the best rail connectivity in India
followed by West Bengal, there is hardly any railway network in the
north eastern hill states of India and the Andaman and Nicobar Island.
Wage rates also vary substantially across the states with annual wages
per worker being the highest in Jharkhand (Rs. 1,49,847) and the lowest
in Nagaland (Rs. 19,880). There is also significant difference across the
states in terms of taxation. The State’s own tax revenue as a per cent of
NSDP is the highest for Karnataka at 10.55 per cent and the lowest for
Nagaland at 2.03 per cent.
The estimation method used in this study is fixed effect pooled
least squares. Four model specifications have been considered in
this study and the estimation results are reported in Table 6. In all
the models, the dependent variable is per capita FDI flows to Indian
states. All regional characteristics as explained in terms of explanatory
variables are lagged by one year, given the reasoning that FDI flows in
particular year is determined by the economic conditions prevailed in
the previous year.
The estimation results indicate that the signs of estimated
coefficients for most of the explanatory variables are in accordance
with the a priori expectation with only a few exceptions. As regards
the market size, the coefficient of state per capita NSDP is positive
and significant at 1 per cent level in Model 1. Per capita NSDP has an
explanatory power both as an indicator of regional purchasing power
 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OCCASIONAL PAPERS 120

and the level of economic development in a state. The coefficient of

population density is positive and significant at 1 per cent level in
Model 1, Model 2 and Model 3. This clearly indicates that the FDI
flows to India are market seeking in nature. This is in confirmation with

Table 6: Regression Results

Explanatory Model Model Model Model
Variables Specification 1 Specification 2 Specification 3 Specification 4
C -597.49 -3249.58 ** -510.27 -5380.34 ***
(-0.58) (-1.98) (-0.13) (-4.59)
PCY 0.05 ***
(4.23)
PD 4.02 *** 3.83 *** 4.98 ***
(5.86) (5.79) (8.04)
MANP 0.14 ***
(2.69)
MINP 0.09
(1.58)
SERP 0.11 ***
(7.02)
ROAD 0.01
(0.02)
RAIL 128.86 ** 260.86 ***
(2.4) (4.99)
WAGE -0.03 ** -0.04 *** -0.01
(-2.54) (-3.97) -0.99
LIT -21.11
(-0.41)
EDUP 0.08
(0.05)
TAX -294.01 ** -286.44 ** -296.15 **
(-2.39) (-2.42) (-2.30)
STOCKP 0.27 ***
(17.83)
Total pool 310 310 310 310
(balanced)
observations
R-squared 0.56 0.60 0.55 0.73

Adjusted 0.50 0.55 0.49 0.70

R–squared
Note: Figures in the parentheses represent the respective t values. ***, ** and * denote
significance at 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.
121 Regional Inequality in Foreign Direct Investment Flows

the results of earlier studies by Kumar (2002), Banga (2003), Goldar

(2007), Nunnenkamp and Stracke (2007) and Dhingra and Sidhu
(2011), where market size was found to be an important determinant of
FDI flows to India.
The estimation results confirm the hypothesis that economic
structure of a state reflected in terms of industrial orientation plays
an important role in attracting FDI flows. For example, per capita
manufacturing output, which is an indicator of the level of industrial
activity in a state, has a strong positive influence on FDI flows (Model
3). This supports the view that new investments move to regions
with strong industrial linkages. Similarly, the coefficient of per capita
services output is positive and significant at 1 per cent level in Model
2 indicating states which have higher services sector activity attract
higher FDI flows. This is in confirmation with the trend observed
in the sectoral distribution of FDI flows to India. The impact of per
capita mining output on FDI flows is, however, insignificant though its
coefficient is positive in Model 4.
The impact of infrastructure on FDI flows to India is positive.
The railway connectivity has a strong positive impact on FDI flows in
Model 2 and Model 4. The positive contribution of road transportation,
however, lacks statistical significance in Model 1. The level of
infrastructure was found to play an important role by some of the
earlier studies, viz., Kumar (2002), Mukim and Nunnenkamp (2010)
and Dhingra and Sindhu (2011).
As regards labour conditions, wages seem to have a negative
impact on FDI flows, the coefficient of annual wages per worker being
significant in Model 1 and Model 2. This is in line with the theoretical
expectation that FDI flows are attracted by lower cost of labour. In
comparison to cost of labour, the impact of quality of labour on FDI
flows seems to be less important. The variable representing per capita
number of higher educational institutes in a state has a positive impact
on FDI flows but lacks statistical significance (Model 3). In the same
model, the coefficient of literacy rate is negative, indicating the level of
basic education in a state has little role to play in attracting FDI flows.
This reflects the fact that some of the states with very high literacy
 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OCCASIONAL PAPERS 122

rates viz., Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram,

Puducherry, Sikkim and Tripura do not attract much FDI flows.
The coefficient of state’s own tax revenue as per cent of NSDP
is negative and significant in Model 1, Model 2 and Model 3, which
supports the argument that FDI prefer states with lower tax rates. Earlier
Kumar (2002) found that a country’s ability to attract FDI is affected
by policy factors such as tax rates, investment incentives, performance
requirements, etc. Empirical evidence in the context of the US and the
EU also revealed that the regions with higher tax rates attract lower
FDI flows (Coughlin, Terza and Aromdee, 1989; Mercuri and Vicarelli,
2001).
One period lagged value of per capita FDI stock has a strong
positive impact on FDI flows, indicating the importance of agglomeration
effects (Model 4). This confirms the hypothesis that cumulative FDI
flows in a state has important demonstration effect on decision making
of new FDI entrants, i.e., new foreign investment tends to enter into
areas with already high levels of FDI flows. There are, however, cases,
where MNEs have shown investment interest in states with lower FDI
penetration, such as, POSCO and Arcelor-Mittal in Orissa and Bhatinda
refinery (a joint venture of Hindustan Petroleum Corp (HPCL) and
Mittal Energy Investment Pte Ltd) in Punjab.

Section VI
Policy Implications
FDI to India has increased significantly in the last decade.
However, the growth in FDI flows has been accompanied by strong
regional concentration. The findings of the study reveal that market
size, agglomeration effects and size of manufacturing and services base
in a state have significant positive impact on the regional distribution of
FDI flows in India. The impact of taxation and cost of labour is negative.
While the impact of quality of labour is ambiguous, infrastructure,
however, has a significant positive impact on FDI flows. Mining has a
positive influence on FDI flows, but lacks statistical significance.
The presence of strong agglomeration effect indicates that the
states already rich in FDI flows tend to receive more of them which
make it more difficult for the other states to attract fresh investments. In
123 Regional Inequality in Foreign Direct Investment Flows

view of this difficulty, a conscious and coordinated effort at the national

and the state government levels would be essential to make the laggard
states more attractive to FDI flows. The direct method to achieve this
objective may be to design the national FDI policy in such a way that a
sizable portion of FDI flows to India move into the laggard states. The
indirect way is to provide a boost to the overall economy of the less
advanced states, with special thrust on the manufacturing, services and
the infrastructure sectors so that they themselves become attractive to
foreign investors.
First, as regards the direct method, it has been observed in the
Chinese context, that after liberalising the FDI flows in the 1970s,
China faced with somewhat similar sort of experience like India. Since
the introduction of China’s coastal preference open door policy in 1978,
the regional disparity between the coastal belt and China’s interior had
increased (Luo et al 2008). This resulted into concentration of a few
world class industrial clusters located in five coastal Chinese provinces
at the expense of the Chinese hinterland. Subsequent FDI to China
has favoured regions that were opened earlier over the hinterland. In
view of this, one important policy changes enacted by the Chinese
government was to raise the entry requirements for FDI into coastal
belt designed to secure high value investments, while encouraging
labour intensive investments in the interior. Accordingly, since the
late 1990s, most MNEs in China have made fundamental changes to
their business strategies and operational policies to adjust to changes in
policy, market conditions and the regulatory environment. In view of
the Chinese experience, similar set of policies may be considered in the
Indian context to direct part of the FDI flows to the states, which are not
receiving much of FDI flows at present.
Second, as regards the indirect method, it has been observed
that size of the manufacturing sector has a significant positive impact
on FDI flows. This implies foreign investors’ preference for states with
a strong industrial base. Therefore, it is essential for the less industrially
developed states to catch up with the developed ones to attract larger
share of FDI flows. The National Manufacturing Policy (NMP), recently
announced by the Government of India is a welcome step and may help
 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OCCASIONAL PAPERS 124

in this direction if properly implemented. The equity and distributive

justice would be best fulfilled if under the NMP, the Government gives
top priority to the states with lower industrial base to give them a chance
of catching up with the others.
Third, the services sector has attracted a large share of FDI flows
to India in the recent period. The econometric analysis also reveals
that services sector has a significant positive impact on FDI flows. In
addition, growth of the services sector can create more employment for
skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled people. It has been observed that in
the recent period, it is the IT/BPO services which has created the largest
job opportunity in India and not the manufacturing industries. Therefore,
apart from providing a boost to the manufacturing sector, it is equally
important to provide a boost to the services sector, which spans the
value chain from low-end localised services to the most sophisticated
globally-competitive intellectual property based services. Accordingly,
the manufacturing policy in India needs to be complemented by a
compatible services policy.
Fourth, the impact of the mining sector on FDI flows was found
to be less important in the study. FDI in mining in the recent period has
confronted with a number of socio-economic problems. The operations
of two of the mega FDI steel projects - POSCO India and Arcelor Mittal
have been delayed due to seemingly intractable problems, mostly
surrounding socio-economic issues like acquisition of land, forest and
environment clearances, rehabilitation and resettlement of the project-
affected people, Naxalite movements in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa
and West Bengal, non-allocation of adequate captive mines, and supply
of raw materials. Given the large potential for FDI in mining due to the
Central Government’s thrust towards development of the infrastructure
sector, and with a number of large FDI projects in mining in the pipeline
(POSCO India steel projects in Orissa and Karnataka, Arcelor Mittal
steel projects in Orissa, Jharkhand and Karnataka, BP-Reliance oil and
gas project in Andhra Pradesh, Lafarage cement project in Himachal
Pradesh etc.), it is essential for the central and the state governments
to take coordinated policy efforts towards creating a more favourable
policy environment by simplifying the land acquisition procedure and
reducing the delay in the approval mechanism.
125 Regional Inequality in Foreign Direct Investment Flows

Finally, of late, there has been a lot of debate about the merits
and demerits in liberalising FDI in retail, insurance, pension and
aviation sectors in India. With the issue of FDI still hot, it is important
for the government to take due care in formulating its FDI policies so
as to reduce the regional disparity rather than aggravating it.

References:
Aggarwal, Aradhna 2005. “The Influence of Labour Markets on FDI:
Some Empirical Explorations in Export Oriented and Domestic Market
Seeking FDI across Indian States”. Paper presented at the competitive
section of the Global Conference on Business and Economics, held at
the Oxford University, London, 25-27 June, 2005
Ansari, Mohd. Shamim and Mukesh Ranga 2010. “India’s Foreign Direct
Investment: Current Status, Issues and Policy Recommendations”.
UTMS Journal of Economics, 1(2).
Banga, Rashmi 2003. “Impact of Government Policies and Investment
Agreements on FDI Inflows”. ICRIER Working Paper No. 16, New
Delhi.
Boermans, Martijn, Hein Roelfsema and Yi Zhang 2009. “Regional
Determinants of FDI in China: A new approach with recent data”.
Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute, Discussion Paper Series No.
09-23.
Chidlow, Agnieszka and Stephen Young 2008. “Regional Determinants
of FDI Distribution in Poland”. William Davidson Institute Working
Paper No. 943.
Coughlin, Cletus C., Joseph V. Terza and Vachira Aromdee 1989. “State
Characteristics and the Location of Foreign Investment within the
United States: Minimum Chi-Square Conditional Logit Estimation”.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Working Paper No.1987-006B
Dhingra, Neerja and H.S. Sidhu 2011. “Determinants of Foreign Direct
Investment Flows to India”. European Journal of Social Sciences,
25(1).
Dunning, John H. 1993. Multinational Enterprises and the Global
Economy. Addison Wesley.
 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OCCASIONAL PAPERS 126

Dunning, John H. 1998. “Location and the Multinational Enterprise: A

Neglected Factor?”. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1).
Fisher, Peter S., and Alan H. Peters 1998. “Industrial Incentives:
Competition among American States and Cities”. W.E Upjohn Institute
for Employment Research, Employment Research B fall 1998.
Globerman, Steven and Daniel Shapiro 2003. “Governance
Infrastructure and US Foreign Direct Investment”. Journal of
International Business Studies, 34(1).
Goldar, Bishwanath 2007. “Location of plants of foreign companies in
India”. Paper presented at the seminar on India and Globalisation: A
Seminar in Honour of Professor N.S. Siddharthan, New Delhi
He C. F. 2002. “Regional Decentralization and Location of Foreign
Direct Investment in China”. Post-communist Economies, 18(1).
International Monetary Fund 2012. Global Financial Stability Report,
April.
Krugman, Paul 1991. “Increasing Returns and Economic Geography”.
Journal of Political Economy, 99(3).
Kumar, N. 2002. Globalization and Quality of Foreign Direct Investment.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Lall, Somik V. and Taye Mengistae 2005. “Business Environment,
Clustering and Industry Location: Evidence from Indian Cities”. World
Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3675.
Luo, Laijun, Brennan Louis, Liu Chang and Luo Yuze 2008. “Factors
Influencing FDI Location Choice in China’s Hinterland.” China &
World Economy, 16(2).
Morris, Sebastian 2007. “A Study of the Regional Determinants
of Foreign Direct Investments in India and the Case of Gujarat”.
Indian Institute of Management (Ahmedabad), Working Paper No.
2004/03/07.
Mukim, Megha and Peter Nunnenkamp 2010. “The Location Choices
of Foreign Investors: A District-level Analysis in India.” Kiel Working
Papers No. 1628.
127 Regional Inequality in Foreign Direct Investment Flows

Nunnenkamp, Peter and Rudi Stracke 2007. “Foreign Direct

Investment in Post-Reform India: Likely to Work Wonder for Regional
Development?” Kiel Working Paper No. 1375.
Ramachandran, Vijaya and Jeffery Goebel 2002. “Foreign Direct
Investment in Tamil Nadu: Review and Comparison across Host
Sights”. Centre for International Development. Harvard University
Santis, Roberta D., M. Cristina Mercuri and Claudio Vicarelli 2001.
“Taxes and Location of Foreign Direct Investment: An Empirical
Analysis for the European Union Countries”. ISAE Istituto di Studi e
Analisi Economica, Rome.
Siddharthan, N.S. 2006. “Regional Difference in FDI Flows: China -
India Comparison”. Institute of Economic Growth.
http://www.esocialsciences.org/Download/repecDownload.aspx?fnam
e=Document12332006530.8437158.pdf&fcategory=Articles&AId=43
8&fref=repec
Sloan- Rossiter, Michael 2010. “FDI in Three Southern Indian States:
Determinants and Implications for Development”. World Outlook: An
Undergraduate Journal of International Affairs.
Wolff, Guntram B. 2006. “Foreign Direct Investment in the enlarged
EU: Do Taxes matter and to what Extent?” Deutsche Bundesbank,
Discussion Paper, Series 1: Economic Studies, No. 13/2006.
Xu, Kangning, Xiuyan Liu and Bin Qiu 2008. “Spatial Determinants
of Inwards FDI in China: Evidence from Provinces”. A Research
Supported by a grant from the Funds of China’s Social Sciences. http://
www.etsg.org/ETSG 2009/papers/xu.pdf