- Athukorala, P-C. (2009). Trends and Patters of Foreign Direct Investment in Asia: A Comparative Perspective. Margin- The Journal of Applied Economic Research. 4, 365-408
- Ayub, M.(2017). “Infrastructure development, CPEC and FDI in Pakistan: is there any connection?â€, TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS REVIEW,
- Barro, R., & Sala-I-M. X. (1997). Technological Diffusion, Convergence, and Growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 2(1), 1-26.
- Choi, Y., & Baek, J. (2017). Does FDI Really Matter to Economic Growth in India? Economies, 5(2), 20.
- Chun, H. L. (2008). Role of Foreign Direct Investment in Telecommunication Industries: A Developing Countries’ Perspective. Contemporary Management Research, 4, 29-42. DOI:10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.16.11.1205 0
- Fahad, A., Benish, K., Umar, Y., Imran, S. R., Abdul, R. G. & Muhammad, B. J. (2010). Telecommunication Sector, Its Role, Contribution To FBR Revenue, Problems And Issues.
- Grossman, G., & Helpman, E. (1990). Comparative Advantage and Long-Run Growth. The American Economic Review,80 (4), 796-815.
- Gulam, H., Mohamed, A., & Abou, S. S. (2013). “ Foreign Direct Investment, Human Capital and Economic Growth in Malaysia.â€, Online at
- Hassan, M. A., Muhammad, A. & Zahid, I. (2017). “The Terrorism And Foreign Direct Investment: The Case Of Pakistan†Journal of Research Society of Pakistan,54(1).
- Kanwal, Z., Pervez, A., & Afzal, M. (2008). Telecommunication Infrastructure Development and Economic Growth: A Panel Data Approach. The Pakistan Development Review, 711-726.
- Khalid, A., & Chaudhry, S.A. (2017). “Factors Affecting FDI in Pakistanâ€, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research 8(10),
- Khalid, M. L. (2017). Tax Incentives and Impact on Investment In Pakistan. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, 10(1).
- Lily, J., Kogid, M., Mulok, D., Thien Sang, L., & Asid, R. (2014). Exchange Rate Movement and Foreign Direct Investment in Asean Economies. Economics Research International, 2014, 1–10.
- Mahmood, P., & Qaisar.(2010). Factors Influencing FDI in the Pakistan Telecom Sector. Masters of Business Administration, School of Management Blekinge Institute of Technology.
- Mehdi, B. (2012). Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth: Evidence from Southern Asia. Atlantic Review of Economics. 2nd Volume
- Mehmood, K. A. & Faridi, M.(2015). “Effects of privatization on economic performance in Pakistan.†Middle East Journal of Scientific Research 16 (11), 1566-1580
- Muhammad, A., Saleem, K., Zalina, B. Z., Namasivayam, K., & Farah, K. (2015). “Foreign direct investment and human capital: evidence from developing countriesâ€, Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 12(3-1),
- Muhammad, I., Javaid, A.,Yasir, K., & Sumayya, N. A. (2009). The Causal Link Between Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) And Economic Growth In Pakistan Economy. The Journal of Commerce, 4, ISSN: 2220-6043
- Muhammad, o., Chaudhry, & Kalsoom, A. (2016). “The impact of trade liberalization on economic growth in pre and post financial liberalization era: a case study of pakistanâ€, The Government: Research Journal of Political Science 5,
- OECD. (2000). Main Determinants and Impacts of Foreign Direct Investment on China’s Economy, Working papers on International Investment. PTA Annual report 2013-14
- Papori, B., & Rashmi, B. (2014). “ Telecom Sector in India: Past, Present and Futureâ€, International Journal of Humanities & Social Science Studies (IJHSSS), 1(3), 147- 156
- Qazi, M., Adnan, H. & Shahida, W.(2013).“ Impact Of Financial Liberalization On Economic Growth: A Case Study Of Pakistanâ€, Asian Economic and Financial Review,3(2):270-282
- Qazi, M., Adnan, H. & Lau, W. Y. (2017). "Economic Liberalization and Economic Growth: An Empirical Analysis of Pakistan," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society,7(12), 1256-1302.
- Rivera-Batiz, L. A. & Romer, P.M. (1991). International trade with endogenous technological change. European Economic Review, 35(4), 971-1001.
- Romer, P. (1994): The Origins of Endogenous Growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 3-22.
- Syed, Y. I., Mahmood, A. K. & Mustafa, S. (2015). Telecom sector of Pakistan: Potential, challenges and business Opportunities. Telematics and Informatics, 32, 254–258
- Zulfiqar, B., Fareed, Z., Shehzad, U., Shahzad, F., & Nabi, S. (2014). The Impact of Terrorism on FDI inflow in Pakistan. European Journal of Economic Studies, 10(4), 279–284.
Abstract
Foreign direct investment and telecommunications development are essential for the economic development of a country. Pakistan, although being an underdeveloped country, has managed to excel in the telecommunications sector by manifold since 2001. An increasing number of telephony and cellular subscribers along with the broadband and 3G/4G users, have created an enchanting market for foreign investors. The purpose of this study is to explain the casual relationship between foreign direct investment and economic factors that attract FDI in Pakistan. Among the many economic factors here is telecom infrastructure, market size and trade openness, whereas FDI is taken as the dependent variable. A time series analysis is carried out to determine the growth trend while an ordinary least square test is applied to determine the coefficient of correlation between the variables. The result of the study specifies a positive relationship is observed between the per capita GDP and openness to trade and influx of FDI.
Key Words
Foreign Direct Investment, Telecommunications Sector, Determinative Approach
Introduction
Telecommunication Sector in Pakistan
The telecommunications sector is among some of those industries that will never retire from innovation. Each day new dimensions are being explored in the telecommunications sector encompassing better local loop services to superfast 3G & 4G technology. The telecom sector remains a vulnerable portion of the economy, comprising the national security and control over the local market. It is certain that FDI in the telecom sector is a gateway for foreign funding, new technical skills and development of the sector, but some countries' strict trade and legal polices do not allow a liberalized entry into the telecom sector in order to protect their economic identity. Chun Hung Lin, (2008)
Pakistan's Telecom sector has played a vital role in economic, social, educational and business development. Advancement in the Telecom sector is the top priority of any government as it has created a number of job opportunities along with ease of operations. From landline services to the broadband, from mobile services to mobile banking, the options are unlimited. Pakistan has largely shifted its focus from Industrial growth & agricultural sector to the development and expansion of the service sector.
The telecom sector is one of the major contributors to Pakistan's growing economy. From taking over PTCL over Pakistan telecom and telegraph to Induction of Cellular companies and 3G/4G services; the contribution of the telecom sector to GDP is noticeable. Estimated revenue of Rs. 449,546 million is reported by the telecom sector in 2014-15; while its contribution to the National exchequer is recorded as Rs. 243.3 billion. (PTA sources). Market size has grown substantially from 2003 to 2015, as per PTA annual fixed line, cellular, Broad band and 3G/4G subscribers’ data indicates (Fig.1), especially cellular and the broadband sector proving to be emerging fields after 2005-06.
Figure 1
Annual Telecom Market Size of Pakistan
Source: PTA
Privatization era of Telecommunication in Pakistan
After the 1990s a global evolutionary escalation has been observed with an enlarged growth of Information and Communication Technologies. A large number of private telecom service providers have jumped into the field, providing live broadcasting, satellite communication, public telephony, IP networking and mobile internet. After the dissolution of British Telecom and AT&T business merger in 1994 and the privatization of British Telecom backed a new era of telecom sector's liberalization and deregulation was introduced but the trend of privatization was slowly followed in developing countries as compared to underdeveloped countries.>In 1991, under the act of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation of 1991, Pakistan Post & Telegraph department was taken over by the PTC. Pakistan welcomed the private sector's participation in telecom and a number of cellular licenses were issued along with the regularization of card operating payphone companies to improve telecom services in Pakistan. In 2006 a Dubai-based company "Etisalat Telecommunications Company," purchased 26% shares of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited with management rights. >
>Role of Foreign Direct Investment in Pakistan's Economy
>Foreign direct investment has emerged as a major global economic contributor in the past few decades; it has served the developed and underdeveloped countries in the private sector as well as in the Government sector. DI usually works as a two-way bridge of economic development; MNCs, in return of expanding their business in host country, produce extensive economic benefits to that country in the shape of bringing excess foreign capital, advanced business techniques and technology, trade development and foreign exchange opportunities. A correlation between investment in telecommunications and economic development is proven empirically. (Chun Hung Lin, March 2008).>Openness to trade servers is a critical factor to allure FDI, but increased FDI may pose a threat to local businesses, creating a demand and supply gap for the host country. Government can control the FDI influx by imposing limits on FDI, laws for the MNCs operation in the country, bounding the investing company to employ domestic human resources etc. Creating a balance between the economic benefits from an FDI with the control over national economic dominion is a substantial historical problem in many countries; however, it has been empirically proven through discussion that a more liberalized foreign investment environment does not always disturb national economic control. (Chun Hung Lin, March 2008). >The study intends to measure the potency of the influence of economic variables on the FDI (Telecom) influx in Pakistan and its contribution to the growth of overall GDP. The study will help in identifying the factors having a positive effect on the FDI (Telecom) influx. Table 1.2 shows the foreign direct investment in the telecommunication sector of Pakistan from 2001.
>Table 1. Country wise FDI Inflow in $ millions border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
Country
width="69">2008-09
width="66">2009-10
width="62">2010-11
width="59">2011-12
width="63">2012-13
width="70">2013-14
width="63">2014-15
USA
width="69">869.9
width="66">468.3
width="62">238.1
width="59">227.7
width="63">227.1
width="70">212.1
width="63">223.9
UK
width="69">263 .4
width="66">294.6
width="62">207.1
width="59">205. 8
width="63">63.3
width="70">157
width="63">169.6
U.A.E
width="69">17S.1
width="66">242.7
width="62">284.2
width="59">36.6
width="63">22.5
width="70">-47.1
width="63">213.6
Japan
width="69">74.3
width="66">26. 8
width="62">5.2
width="59">29.7
width="63">30.1
width="70">30.1
width="63">71.1
Hong kong
width="69">156 1
width="66">9.9
width="62">125.6
width="59">8O.5
width="63">2426
width="70">228.5
width="63">136.2
Switzerland
width="69">227.3
width="66">1706
width="62">110.5
width="59">127.1
width="63">149
width="70">209. 8
width="63">-6.5
Saudi Arabia
width="69">-92.3
width="66">-155.S
width="62">6 5
width="59">-79.9
width="63">3.2
width="70">-40.1
width="63">-64. 8
Germany
width="69">76.9
width="66">53
width="62">21.2
width="59">27.2
width="63">5.5
width="70">-5.7
width="63">-18.2
Korea (South)
width="69">2.3
width="66">2.3
width="62">7.7
width="59">25.4
width="63">25.S
width="70">24 4
width="63">14.5
Norway
width="69">101.1
width="66">0.4
width="62">-45
width="59">-275
width="63">-25 S.4
width="70">-21.6
width="63">2.7
China
width="69">-101.4
width="66">-3.6
width="62">47.4
width="59">126.1
width="63">90.6
width="70">695. 8
width="63">319.1
Others
width="69">1.964.20
width="66">1.019.60
width="62">631.5
width="59">2S9.7
width="63">2S5.5
width="70">255.4
width="63">-73.1
Total including
width="69" rowspan="2">5.7 10.90
width="66" rowspan="2">2,150.80
width="62" rowspan="2">1,634 80
width="59" rowspan="2">820.7
width="63" rowspan="2">1.456_50
width="70" rowspan="2">1.693.60
width="63" rowspan="2">987.9
pvt. Proceeds
Privatization Proceeds
width="69">0
width="66">0
width="62">0
width="59">0
width="63">0
width="70">0
width="63">0
FDI Excluding
width="69" rowspan="2">3.719.90
width="66" rowspan="2">2.150.8O
width="62" rowspan="2">1.634.8O
width="59" rowspan="2">820.7
width="63" rowspan="2">1.456.50
width="70" rowspan="2">1.698.60
width="63" rowspan="2">987.9
Excluding
Sector
width="65">2003-09
width="66">2009-10
width="60">2010-11
width="66">2011-12
width="58">2012-13
width="60">2013-14
width="60">2014-15
Gil & Gas
width="65">775
width="66">741
width="60">512
width="66">629
width="58">560
width="60">502
width="60">301
Financial Bu
width="65">707
width="66">163
width="60">310
width="66">64
width="58">314
width="60">193
width="60">256
Textiles
width="65">37
width="66">28
width="60">25
width="66">30
width="58">10
width="60">0
width="60">44
Trails
width="65">167
width="66">117
width="60">53
width="66">25
width="58">6
width="60">-3
width="60">51
Construction
width="65">93
width="66">102
width="60">61
width="66">72
width="58">46
width="60">29
width="60">54
Power
width="65">131
width="66">-121
width="60">156
width="66">-85
width="58">28
width="60">71
width="60">282
Chemicals
width="65">74
width="66">112
width="60">31
width="66">96
width="58">72
width="60">95
width="60">60
Transport
width="65">93
width="66">132
width="60">105
width="66">19
width="58">44
width="60">3
width="60">6
Communication
width="65">879
width="66">291
width="60">-34
width="66">-313
width="58">-386
width="60">434
width="60">40
Others
width="65">763
width="66">586
width="60">416
width="66">282
width="58">766
width="60">375.2
width="60">-106
Total Including
width="65">3.720
width="66">2.151
width="60">1.635
width="66">821
width="58">1,457
width="60">1.699
width="60">988
Privatization
width="65">width="66">
-
width="60">-
width="66">-
width="58">-
width="60">-
width="60">-
FDI Exclude
width="65">3,720
width="66">2.151
width="60">1.635
width="66">821
width="58">1,457
width="60">1,699
width="60">988
Factors affecting FDI Influx
>Different countries have their own FDI policy devised determining in which sectors foreign investors may put their investment. For example, in India, a business sector can receive FDI in two ways.> >Automatic Route
>In some sectors, a permissible amount of FDI in different sectors can directly be employed without prior approval of the Government. Such sectors include advertising sectors, Hoteling, Forex brokerage houses, house financing etc.> >Government Route
>Other sectors that are not permissible for FDI under automatic routes requires prior government approvals and such proposal for FDI are enquired by the Department of economic affairs, Ministry of Finance and Foreign investment promotion board.>Factors affecting the influx of FDI in a country are identified in the following categories.>1. Government policies >2. Privatization >3. Potential economic growth>4. Tax rates>5. Exchange rates>6. Terrorism> >Government Polices
>Liberalization of trade policy brings new opportunities for investors. Studies have shown that statically speaking, trade liberalization has positively impacted Pakistan's economic growth from 1974 to 2015 as trade openness and economic growth are positively co-related. The more the openness to trade is found the more positive impact will be observed on economic growth. An overview of imports and exports and the trade openness of Pakistan can be estimated from the following table.
>Table 3. Trade Openness of Pakistan ($ Million) border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
Years
width="84">GDP
width="102">Imports
width="126">Exports
width="141">Openness to trade
2001
width="84">72,310
width="102">11,361
width="126">10,600
width="141">30%
2002
width="84">72,307
width="102">11,073
width="126">11,008
width="141">31%
2003
width="84">83,245
width="102">13,424
width="126">13,918
width="141">33%
2004
width="84">97;97S
width="102">14,337
width="126">15,350
width="141">30%
2005
width="84">10'9,502
width="102">21,423
width="126">17,180
width="141">35%
2006
width="84">137,264
width="102">29,577
width="126">19,401
width="141">36%
2007
width="84">152,386
width="102">30,136
width="126">20,137
width="141">33%
2008
width="84">170,078
width="102">39,478
width="126">21,060
width="141">36%
2009
width="84">168,153
width="102">33,086
width="126">20,844
width="141">32%
2010
width="84">177,407
width="102">34,333
width="126">23,979
width="141">33%
2011
width="84">213,587
width="102">40,524
width="126">29,831
width="141">33%
2012
width="84">224,384
width="102">45,794
width="126">27,816
width="141">33%
2013
width="84">231,219
width="102">46,374
width="126">30,699
width="141">33%
2014
width="84">244,361
width="102">45,594
width="126">29,916
width="141">31%
Privatization
>During the 1970s and 1980s Pakistan government took solid measures to put checks and balances on rest distribution of national assets from the private sector to state owned sector. The reason behind this is stated to bring national wealth to the masses instead of constraining it to some families. This strategy was intended to support the interests of the poor was an attempt to replicate the success of the Soviet Union and the socialist economic model.>Privatization mainly includes selling- off of the State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) along with contracting out of State services to other foreign and local bidders like in the case of PTCL. Pakistan, despite being a developing country with strong geographical importance, has not participated in extensive privatization of government assets till a certain time. A study conducted by Mehmood, K.A. & Faridi, Muhammad (2013) attempts to explore the effects of privatization on the economic growth of Pakistan. Data for the study is taken from 1992 to 2008 and the study concludes that there is a persistent and gradual rise in the economic growth & GDP of Pakistan, whereas the idea of privatization remains unstable. (Mehmood, K.A. & Faridi, Muhammad, 2013)> >Potential Economic Growth
>Potential Economic growth enriches the investment opportunities for foreign investors in the form of in-house resources, experiences human capital, potential market size and per capita income level. After 2000, as market orient reforms were launched, Pakistan emerged as one of the fast paced growing countries in southeast and offered open opportunities to foreign investors. Pakistan's trade liberalization and potential economic growth have played a robust role in attracting FDI influx. Total trade in 2005 was recorded as 23.5 times higher with respect to 1986 and the total FDI influx in Pakistan from 2001-2005 was about 13 times greater as compared the to 1988-2000 periods, and more over a high growth rate in GDP of 7.5% was recorded annually. >In case of Pakistan, certain measures need to be taken in order to boost the FDI influx as much as possible. FDI influx in Pakistan can increase due to its competitiveness as a potentially high returning investment location as compared to other countries. In Pakistan, many MNCs working in the consumer goods sector have taken a good share of profit while other major industries like the pharma industry have winded up their businesses due to a lack of intellectual property rights protection. According to a State bank of Pakistan's 2017 report, FDI has increased gradually with a net increase in FDI influx of 4.4% i.e. $2.1 billion, from July-March 2017-18. Whereas a major contributor to this investment in China, with 55% of the overall influx, other countries including UK and Malaysia have also invested in Pakistan's economy.> >Taxation >It is a difficult question to answer as to how FDI the influx will react to a new tax policy in the host country. FDI investors carry out cost & benefit analysis of investing, tax relief provided, potential economic growth of the host country, potential tax policy reforms and impact of tax reforms on earnings after taxes. >In Pakistan, Corporate tax is inversely related to FDI influx both in the short run and long run. Higher the rates, the lower the influx. Discounted CTR has a positive impact on domestic investment too. (Khalid Mahmood Lodhi, 2017).>In 1990 Government of Pakistan supported liberalizing trade and investment to attract foreign investors by providing great tax relations, easy credit, tariff reduction and easy forex controls. (Mahmood Pannu, Qaisar. 2010).>In order to attract more FDI, Pakistan needs to promote itself as an emerging company that caters the local businesses through relaxed taxation, so they are able to compete in the national and international markets and create an attractive competitive field for foreign investors. A flat, low rated and predictable tax regime is the most suitable option for Pakistan to attract foreign investors and facilitate its major investor that is China. > >Exchange Rates fluctuation
>Exchange rate fluctuations are another enticing factor for MNCs' to prioritize their investment options; they are more likely to fund the country when the country is on a growth route and its currency is expected to boom. However, studies have shown different relationship outcomes between FDI and exchange rate. Even FDI and exchange rate relations can work backward, where an increase in the influx of FDI can influence the local exchange rate. Hence the direction of the relationship between FDI and exchange rate remains an enigma now. >Studies have shown that appreciation in Malaysian ringgit, Philippine peso and Singapore dollar the appreciation of Singapore dollar has a significant positive impact on the foreign, direct influx in these countries. (Lily,Kogid,Mulok, Lim, Sang & Asid, 2014).> >Terrorism
>Terrorism has been an unresolved issue for long throughout the world. Terrorists not only affect the life & property of a host country, but they also sabotage the economic growth and ability to attract foreign investment to that country in the long run. >Investors look for a safer business environment for their investment and seek economic stability to ensure their returns on the risk taken but terrorism withdraws all these facilities for investors as written in an Economist article, "This fear of defenselessness is mainly destructive to trade or foreign direct investment (FDI) influx because investors always prefer to invest in countries lesser prone to terror." >Following is the list of 12 countries that were the main target of terrorist activities from 2001 to 2012. These countries mainly faced almost 79% of the global terror incidents.
>Table 4. Terrorism Incidents, 2001-2012 border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
Country
width="156">Total Incident
width="156">Domestic Incidents
width="156">Transnational Incidents
Pakistan
width="156">3,048
width="156">2,737
width="156">191
India
width="156">2,438
width="156">2,229
width="156">78
Thailand
width="156">1,027
width="156">985
width="156">21
Nigeria
width="156">842
width="156">712
width="156">92
Somalia
width="156">810
width="156">708
width="156">91
Russia
width="156">722
width="156">670
width="156">21
Philippines
width="156">702
width="156">621
width="156">51
Colombia
width="156">620
width="156">540
width="156">37
Israel
width="156">546
width="156">482
width="156">42
Nepal
width="156">323
width="156">282
width="156">27
Turkey
width="156">321
width="156">264
width="156">32
Yemen
width="156">313
width="156">261
width="156">42
World
width="156">14,820
width="156">12,899
width="156">1,296
History of Foreign Direct Investment in the Telecom Sector of Pakistan
>It's a proven fact that the telecommunication sector is one of the major enticers for foreign investors. Investment in telecommunications not only helps in technology transfer but also injects more abundant capital from foreign money markets into the host country. This also increases the market competition and fosters a national telecommunication market. >Pakistan growing telecom sector has managed to attract a noticeable amount of FDI in past years. During 2005-06 Telecom sector of Pakistan grabbed a 54% share of the total FDI influx in the country, but this influx decreased to the point that in 2001-12 Telecom sector's share in total FDI was calculated as negative 44%. >The main reason behind this massive decline is deemed as the political instability in the country. However, this trend has changed and a huge increase in FDI is observed in the shape of 3G/4G in Pakistan. Moreover, banking, mobile marketing and mobile e-payment services are providing opportunities for further FDI. Table 1.1 (PTA Annual report 2013-14) depicts a clearer picture of FDI in the Pakistan Telecommunication Sector.
>Table 5. Foreign Direct Investments in 3G/4G border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
Applicant
width="228" valign="top">Winner in 2100 MHz Band
width="219" valign="top">Winner in 1800 MHz Band
Zong
width="228">2x10 MHz (US$ 306,920,000)
width="219">2x10 MHz (US$210,000,000)
Mobilink
width="228">2x10 MHz (US$ 300,900,000)
width="219">-
Ufone
width="228">2x5 MHz (US$ 147,500,000)
width="219">-
Telenor
width="228">2x5 MHz (US$ 147,500,000)
width="219">-
Total
width="228">USS 902,820,000
width="219">US $210,000,000
Thus the auction produced a total of US$ 1,112,820,000.
Recently telecommunication sector has achieved a record influx of FDI. It was assumed that this investment trend might go along for the next 5 years as a huge business potential exists for all telecom operators due to the demand and supply gap for quality telecommunication services. But the overall FDI level has substantially decreased in the current year. According to the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), the overall influx of FDI was recorded at $120 million in the first half of the financial year 2015-16 as compared to the handsome influx of $876 million recorded in the similar period of last financial year. The overall FDI after outflows of investment is $76 million because local investors and companies invested $43.7 million outside Pakistan in different projects and businesses related to the telecom sector (SBP data, 2016).
>Table 6. SBP figures for FDI in telecom in Pakistan border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
Foreign Direct Investment in Telecom Sector (US $ million)
FY
width="134" valign="top">FDI in Telecom
width="134" valign="top">Total FDI
width="134" valign="top">Telecom (%) Share
2001-02
width="134">6.1
width="134">484.7
width="134">1.26%
2002-03
width="134">13.5
width="134">798
width="134">1.69%
2003-04
width="134">207.1
width="134">949.4
width="134">21.80%
2004-05
width="134">494.4
width="134">1,524.00
width="134">32.40%
2005-06
width="134">1,905.10
width="134">3,521.00
width="134">54.10%
2006-07
width="134">1,824.20
width="134">5,140.00
width="134">35.50%
2007-08
width="134">1,438.60
width="134">5,410.00
width="134">26.60%
2008-09
width="134">815
width="134">3,720.00
width="134">21.90%
2009-10
width="134">373.62
width="134">2,199.44
width="134">17.00%
2010-11
width="134">79.2
width="134">1,574.00
width="134">5.00%
2011-12
width="134">-361.4
width="134">820.6
width="134">-44.00%
2012-13
width="134">-404.1
width="134">1,576.00
width="134">-25.60%
2013-14
width="134">429.9
width="134">1,667.60
width="134">16.30%
2014-15
width="134">121
width="134">529
width="134">21.00%
But this investment paid off in the form of extra revenue for the country. It’s an important source of taxes for the Government over the past ten years, as shown in Table 2.
Table 7. Telecom Revenue
| Telecom Revenues (Rs. Millions) | > FY width="75" valign="top">Cellular width="74" valign="top">L. Loop width="60" valign="top">LDI width="54" valign="top">WLL width="126" valign="top">VAS (Estimated) width="75" valign="top">Total | > 2003-04 width="75">27,840 width="74">76,444 width="60">1,336 width="54">1,152 width="126">10,056 width="75">116,827 | > 2004-05 width="75">48,880 width="74">78,828 width="60">3,672 width="54">275 width="126">12,570 width="75">144,226 | > 2005-06 width="75">89,896 width="74">71,186 width="60">7,199 width="54">12,453 width="126">13,827 width="75">194,562 | > 2006-07 width="75">133,132 width="74">68,368 width="60">15,567 width="54">2,645 width="126">15,901 width="75">235,613 | > 2007-08 width="75">182,122 width="74">63,693 width="60">23,396 width="54">2,704 width="126">8,048 width="75">279,964 | > 2008-09 width="75">212,423 width="74">62,568 width="60">47,969 width="54">2,670 width="126">8,179 width="75">333,809 | > 2009-10 width="75">236,047 width="74">61,464 width="60">44,964 width="54">2,880 width="126">10,202 width="75">355,557 | > 2010-11 width="75">262,761 width="74">58,342 width="60">34,195 width="54">4,978 width="126">7,052 width="75">367,327 | > 2011-12 width="75">298,510 width="74">63,805 width="60">32,675 width="54">5,861 width="126">11,175 width="75">412,026 | > 2012-13 width="75">311,145 width="74">80,661 width="60">38,572 width="54">5,617 width="126">3,526 width="75">439,521 | > 2013-14 width="75">322,683 width="74">88,512 width="60">43,901 width="54">6,278 width="126">4,123 width="75">463,497 | > 2014-15 width="75">317,016 width="74">80,813 width="60">40,765 width="54">3,874 width="126">7,078 width="75">449,546 | ||||||
Source: PTA
Trade liberalization has attracted huge FDI in recent years, as shown in Table 3.
Table 8. Annual Trade %age of GDP of Pakistan
| YEAR width="270" valign="top">Trade (% of GDP) | > 2001 width="270">30.37 | > 2002 width="270">30.54 | > 2003 width="270">32.S4 | > 2004 width="270">30.3 | > 2005 width="270">35.25 | > 2006 width="270">35.68 | > 2007 width="270">32.99 | > 2008 width="270">35.59 | > 2009 width="270">32.07 | > 2010 width="270">32.87 | > 2011 width="270">32.94 | > 2012 width="270">32.81 | > 2013 width="270">33.34 | > 2014 width="270">31 |
Source: World Development Indicators
Table 9. Annual GDP per Capita (Current US $)
| Year width="270">GDP Per Capita (Current US $) | > 2001 width="270">510.66 | > 2002 width="270">499.86 | > 2003 width="270">563.59 | > 2004 width="270">649.8 | > 2005 width="270">711.47 | > 2006 width="270">950.43 | > 2007 width="270">873.77 | > 2008 width="270">1,039.31 | > 2009 width="270">1,006.60 | > 2010 width="270">1,040.14 | > 2011 width="270">1,226.22 | > 2012 width="270">1,261.21 | > 2013 width="270">1,272.44 | > 2014 width="270">1,316.98 |
Source: World Development Indicators
Figure 2
GDP growth, GDP per capital, Trade % age of GDP 1985 to 2015
Source: World Development Indicators
Literature Review
FDI and the Host country perspective
Foreign investment can be beneficial to the host country and harmful to its domestic business at the same time. Most of the time, investors choose to invest in such countries that offer cheap resources in the form of labor, raw material, and poor interest rates on loans or technology. The government's degree of wiling to induce FDI in the host country plays a significant part in the FDI influx.
A country's Technological advancement is a widely accepted essential element for economic growth. (Romer, 1994). FDI plays a critical role in developing infrastructure through upgrading the technological framework that supports the host country's technological base. (Ramesh & Samal, 2015).
During the last two decades, India has made itself the most suitable host for FDI with policies such as openness to privatization, trade, economic and financial liberalization. Since 2013, the Indian Government has revised FDI limits for the telecom sector up to 100% in order to increase the influx of FDI. The Indian government is paving the way to building a lucrative telecommunication sector and making the business environment more investor friendly. (Papori & Rashmi, 2014)
Domestic profitable sectors are monopolized by foreign investors as they tend to invest more in machinery and intellectual property than in increasing the salaries of locals. Terrorism affects a country's overall economy and business, resulting in security issues for foreign investors and reducing the speed of overall business growth. (Mobeen, Akram & Zahid, 2017)
Determinants of Global FDI
There have been a number of experiential studies carried out to find the link between foreign direct investment and a variety of macroeconomic variables. An Ownership Location Internalization (OLI) paradigm was introduced by him to explain FDI by Multinational Enterprises. The theory is based on a framework that classifies
a significant set of variables influencing FDI. The major categories of variables are cultural, social, economic and political in nature.
The infrastructure of Host Country
Infrastructure development is significantly vital for economic growth; a world bank study suggests that purchasing power parity is higher in countries with developed infrastructure as compared to that underdevelopment. Economists classified infrastructure as logistics, communication, administration, markets, and innovations.
FDI influx can be allured into the economy by the provision of usable infrastructure. Infrastructure serves are the foundation for the economic growth of a country. It encourages
agriculture and industry while providing support for operations. This support comes in
the shape of health and education services, power supply, transportation, telecom, irrigation etc. (Ramesh & Samal, 2015).
The study suggests that in the case of Pakistan: the host country's development via public sector enterprise is not suitable due to insufficient funds and bad governance; however, the Foreign influx of individual investment in financial equities or bonds is more suitable but this requires greater financial liberalization from the government. Infrastructure improvement can be achieved through initial funding from foreign investments, mainly from China, in the form of CPEC. (Ayub Mehar,2017)
Human Capital of Host Country
Human capital is another important factor that has a close relations ship with FDI influx and economic growth of a country, creating a continuous trio for growth where a change in one factor leads to change in other. FDI influx promotes exports of the host country by creating new jobs and enhancing productivity.
There are a number of factors that economic growth; however, Human Capital and FDI have gained a lot of attention in the recent era. Mix results are observed using these two sources. Due to a lower supply of skilled labor Malaysia should shift focus on these two factors, especially human capital. (Gulam Hassan, Mohamed Aslam and Abou Sakar, Sameer, 2013)
An increased work remittance increases the ratio of enrollment in schools to produce skilled human capital and hence FDI is positively correlated with human capital. Also, it was found that the FDI influx promotes the education level in these 34 countries and hence contributes to the development of human capital. (Azam, Saleem, Zainal, Karuppiah and Farah Khan, 2015)
Trade openness of Host Country
Trade openness or trade liberalization also showed its positive and negative effects on the economic growth of a country, restating from FDI. It has been observed that FDI does not always have a positive effect on the host country as expected. Cheap human capital, loose trade policy, and easy access to unimpaired and worthy resources can actually be the sole motives of a multinational for foreign direct investment.
Thus, creating a small relationship between economic growth and FDI. In a study by Dr. M. Umer Chaudhry and Kasloom Akther, it has been highlighted that there exists a positive effect of Trade liberalization or trade openness on the economic growth of Pakistan meanwhile showing the significantly negative effect of same Trade liberalization in post-financial liberalization era. (Umer & Kasloom, 2016).
A study concludes that Pakistan's GDP is still not mature enough to play its role in manipulating the interest of foreign investors. The economic instability is the main deciding factor as due to this instability, the foreign investors are not attracted to invest in Pakistan (Irfan, Kamal & Sumayya, 2009).
Determinants of FDI in the Telecom Sector of Pakistan
A large number of telecom subscribers are not in favor of handing over the tax levy rights to the provincial or local government due to their low confidence in provincial government for tax collection rather than the FBR. According to a survey conducted by the Directorate General of Training and Research (IR), Lahore an average of 67.6% of the population was of the opinion that the telecommunication sector is heavily taxed, that not only affects the daily living expenses but also increases of cost of doing the business. (Fahad & Umar, 2010)
Another study by Khalid & Chaudhry (2017) concludes that major factors affecting FDI influx in a country can be Political stability and Dictatorship, GDP/PC, gross national income, fluctuation in the exchange rate and openness to trade. Time series data for study and Autoregressive-Distributed Lag (ARDL) technique for data analysis. The study reveals that served that during the Dictatorship the FDI influx reached to the maximum in the history of Pakistan. This mainly depicts the relationship between Government's relaxed policies and openness to trade. (Khalid & Chaudhry, 2017)
Methodology
Theoretical Framework
>The study identifies and explains the casual relationship, using the multiple regression analysis, between the influx of FDI in the telecommunications sector of Pakistan and the macro-economic variables affecting the influx of Foreign Direct Investment in the country.>Data of FDI in Pakistan is taken from 2001 to 2014 (PTA), while the data for Telecom infrastructure in Pakistan, Market size of the country and Trade %age of GDP are taken for 2001 to 2014 from PTA and World Development Indicators respectively. For in-depth analysis, quarterly data is used. Data is on the next pages. Variables are defined as:> >Dependent Variable
>1. Foreign Direct Investment in the Telecom Sector of Pakistan>Independent Variables
>1. Telecom infrastructure in Pakistan (Fixed land line and mobile cellular users)>2. The market size of the country. Determined by the GDP per capita of the country>3. Openness to trade. Represented by the Trade %age of GDP>For this purpose, following regression model is used.>FDI tele = ?o+ ?1INF + ?2 MKT + ?3OT + e>Where>FDI tele = Foreign Direct Investment Influx in Telecommunication Sector of Pakistan>INF = Total infrastructure of the Telecommunication users (Mainly comprised of Fixed land line and mobile cellular users)>MKT = Market size of the country (Represented by the GDP per capita of country)>OT = Openness to trade by the Government (Represented by the Trade %age of GDP)
e = residual/error for the regress > >Table 10. Data used for Analysis border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
Quarters
width="84">Exp Goods
width="74">FDI In Telecom
width="72">GDP US *
width="85">Imp Goods
width="46">INFRA
width="55">MKT Size
width="40">OT
2001Q1
width="84">2_.748.73
width="74">11.01
width="72">18,676.04
width="85">3,011.66
width="46">0.36
width="55">132.75
width="40">7.69
2001Q2
width="84">2_.656.83
width="74">2.75
width="72">18,163.00
width="85">2,869.95
width="46">0.35
width="55">128.58
width="40">7.6
2001Q3
width="84">2,604.15
width="74">-2.61
width="72">17,820.92
width="85">2,769.47
width="46">1.05
width="55">125.58
width="40">7.55
2001Q4
width="84">2,590.51
width="74">-5.05
width="72">17,649.78
width="85">2,710.23
width="46">1.14
width="55">123.74
width="40">7.52
2002Q1
width="84">2,615.33
width="74">-4.59
width="72">17,649.60
width="85">2,692.21
width="46">1.22
width="55">123.07
width="40">7.54
2002Q2
width="84">2,680.54
width="74">-1.22
width="72">17,820.37
width="85">2,715.43
width="46">1.3
width="55">123.56
width="40">7.58
2002Q3
width="84">2,784.21
width="74">5.06
width="72">18,162.09
width="85">2,779.88
width="46">1.33
width="55">125.21
width="40">7.66
2002Q4
width="84">2,926.38
width="74">14.25
width="72">18,674.76
width="85">2,885.56
width="46">1.45
width="55">128.03
width="40">7.77
2003Q1
width="84">3,264.33
width="74">29.36
width="72">19,637.52
width="85">3,191.68
width="46">1.43
width="55">134.05
width="40">8.18
2003Q2
width="84">3,423.11
width="74">43.53
width="72">20,380.44
width="85">3,316.14
width="46">1.53
width="55">138.38
width="40">8.25
2003Q3
width="84">3,558.81
width="74">58.56
width="72">21,182.66
width="85">3,418.15
width="46">1.66
width="55">143.07
width="40">8.25
2Q03Q4
width="84">3,671.42
width="74">75.05
width="72">22,044.17
width="85">3,497.70
width="46">1.32
width="55">148.1
width="40">8.16
2004Q1
width="84">3,687.63
width="74">52.78
width="72">23,238.56
width="85">3,257.59
width="46">1.88
width="55">155.33
width="40">7.52
2004Q2
width="84">3,783.43
width="74">88.29
width="72">24,109.24
width="85">3,411.12
width="46">2.16
width="55">160.33
width="40">7.48
2Q04Q3
width="84">3,885.33
width="74">141.35
width="72">24,929.78
width="85">3,661.10
width="46">2.52
width="55">164.95
width="40">7.55
2004Q4
width="84">3,993.56
width="74">211.97
width="72">25,700.19
width="85">4,007.50
width="46">2.36
width="55">169.19
width="40">7.75
2005Q1
width="84">4,108.25
width="74">402.29
width="72">25,660.84
width="85">4,649.67
width="46">3. T9
width="55">165.16
width="40">8.53
2005Q2
width="84">4,228.74
width="74">467.15
width="72">26,634.82
width="85">5,109.21
width="46">3.32
width="55">171.79
width="40">8.76
2005Q3
width="84">4,355.33
width="74">508.71
width="72">27,862.52
width="85">5,585.46
width="46">4.87
width="55">181.18
width="40">8.93
2Q05Q4
width="84">4,488.01
width="74">526.96
width="72">29,343.93
width="85">6,078.42
width="46">6.02
width="55">193.34
width="40">3.03
2006Q1
width="84">4,700.01
width="74">475.54
width="72">32,207.09
width="85">6,926.58
width="46">7.66
width="55">227.53
width="40">9
2006Q2
width="84">4,815.61
width="74">465.72
width="72">33,744.71
width="85">7,317.55
width="46">9.11
width="55">237.54
width="40">8.98
2Q06Q3
width="84">4,308.01
width="74">451.14
width="72">35,084.82
width="85">7,589.82
width="46">10.66
width="55">242.61
width="40">8.91
2006Q4
width="84">4,977.22
width="74">431.8
width="72">36,227.43
width="85">7,743.40
width="46">12.31
width="55">242.75
width="40">3.79
2007Q1
width="84">4,958.00
width="74">405.1
width="72">36,578.37
width="85">7,138.40
width="46">14.42
width="55">216.17
width="40">8.29
2007Q2
width="84">5,006.92
width="74">377.28
width="72">37,563.63
width="85">7,310.55
width="46">16.12
width="55">215.16
width="40">8.21
2007Q3
width="84">5,058.76
width="74">345.74
width="72">38,589.06
width="85">7,619.95
width="46">17.76
width="55">217.94
width="40">8.2
2007Q4
width="84">5,113.50
width="74">310.48
width="72">39,654.66
width="85">8,066.62
width="46">19.36
width="55">224.5
width="40">8.28
2008Q1
width="84">5,222.88
width="74">255.09
width="72">41,627.11
width="85">9,608.34
width="46">21.44
width="55">252.05
width="40">8.89
20Q8Q2
width="84">5,262.74
width="74">218.97
width="72">42,426.35
width="85">9,946.40
width="46">22.73
width="55">259.3
width="40">8.96
20Q8Q3
width="84">5,284.82
width="74">185.69
width="72">42,919.07
width="85">10,038.60
width="46">23.75
width="55">263.45
width="40">8.93
20Q8Q4
width="84">5,289.12
width="74">155.25
width="72">43,105 28
width="85">9,884.94
width="46">24.52
width="55">264.51
width="40">8.81
20D3Q1
width="84">5,100.29
width="74">129.04
width="72">41,78198
width="85">8,572.35
width="46">24.49
width="55">252.13
width="40">8.18
2003Q2
width="84">5,139.16
width="74">103.75
width="72">41,836.34
width="85">8,292.19
width="46">24.35
width="55">251.12
width="40">8.03
2003Q3
width="84">5,230.39
width="74">80.76
width="72">42,065.37
width="85">8,131.40
width="46">25.35
width="55">251.15
width="40">7.34
2003Q4
width="84">5,373.97
width="74">60.06
width="72">42,463.08
width="85">8,089.37
width="46">25.7
width="55">252.21
width="40">7.32
2010Q1
width="84">5,594.65
width="74">53.11
width="72">42,432.33
width="85">8,273.18
width="46">25.63
width="55">250.93
width="40">8.17
2010Q2
width="84">5,833.04
width="74">32.43
width="72">43,431.43
width="85">8,428.38
width="46">26.06
width="55">255.41
width="40">8.21
2010Q3
width="84">6,113.89
width="74">9.46
width="72">44,851.27
width="85">8,660.83
width="46">26.5
width="55">262.23
width="40">8.24
2010Q4
width="84">6,437.20
width="74">-15.8
width="72">46,691.83
width="85">8,970.55
width="46">27.01
width="55">271.52
width="40">8.25
2011Q1
width="84">7,216.43
width="74">-64.59
width="72">50,996.50
width="85">9,586.67
width="46">27.7
width="55">235.01
width="40">8.24
2011Q2
width="84">7,459.27
width="74">-85.31
width="72">52,861.16
width="85">9,959.23
width="46">28.31
width="55">304.28
width="40">8.24
2011Q3
width="84">7,579.18
width="74">-101.01
width="72">54,323.18
width="85">10,317.39
width="46">28.96
width="55">311.19
width="40">8.24
2011Q4
width="84">7,576.17
width="74">-103.9
width="72">55,400.57
width="85">10,661.15
width="46">29.64
width="55">315.74
width="40">8.23
2012Q1
width="84">6,951.59
width="74">-131.27
width="72">55,238.50
width="85">11,137.68
width="46">30.56
width="55">312.95
width="40">8.19
2012Q2
width="84">6,902.19
width="74">-120.24
width="72">55,851.37
width="85">11,393.76
width="46">31.22
width="55">314.77
width="40">8.19
2012Q3
width="84">6,929.32
width="74">-95.51
width="72">56,402.34
width="85">11,576.56
width="46">31.83
width="55">316.21
width="40">8.2
2012Q4
width="84">7,032.98
width="74">-57.08
width="72">56,891.42
width="85">11,686.09
width="46">32.39
width="55">317.28
width="40">8.23
2013Q1
width="84">7,547.73
width="74">73.93
width="72">56,917.48
width="85">11,592.29
width="46">32.83
width="55">315.76
width="40">8.4
2013Q2
width="84">7,670.64
width="74">108.2
width="72">57,443.22
width="85">11,607.30
width="46">33.31
width="55">316.93
width="40">8.39
2013Q3
width="84">7,736.27
width="74">124.61
width="72">58,067.51
width="85">11,601.06
width="46">33.77
width="55">318.72
width="40">8.33
2013Q4
width="84">7,744.61
width="74">123.16
width="72">58,730.35
width="85">11,573.57
width="46">34.2
width="55">320.38
width="40">8.22
2014Q1
width="84">7,695.66
width="74">103.85
width="72">53,611.75
width="85">11,524.84
width="46">34.61
width="55">323.77
width="40">8.07
2014Q2
width="84">7,583.42
width="74">66.63
width="72">60,531.70
width="85">11,454.86
width="46">35
width="55">327.07
width="40">7.87
2014Q3
width="84">7,425.30
width="74">11.67
width="72">61,550.20
width="85">11,363.63
width="46">35.36
width="55">330.3
width="40">7.63
2014Q4
width="84">7,205.10
width="74">-61.21
width="72">62,667.25
width="85">11,251.15
width="46">35.69
width="55">335.24
width="40">7.34
Hypothesis
>Based on the question of interest following hypotheses are developed.>H0: FDI Influx in the Telecommunication Sector of Pakistan is unaffected by Infrastructure, Market size and Openness to trade>H1: FDI Influx in the Telecommunication Sector of Pakistan is affected by Infrastructure, Market size and Openness to trade OR>Ho: b1=b2=b3=0 (There is no correlation between the variables)>H1: At least one beta is not zero or b?0 (There is a correlation between the variables)> > > >Level of significance
>The level of significance is taken as ? = 0.05> >Test Statistics
>§ The multiple regression technique, has opted for testing if any correlation exists between the independent and dependent variables of the study.>§ ANOVA and F test further clarify the relationship.>§ F ratio is simply the ratio between the Mean Squares of regression and residual.>§ The degree of freedom for regression is one less than the number of parameters being tested. In our study, this is 3.>§ The degree of freedom for Residual is simple the difference between the sample size and the number of parameters being estimated. i.e. >§ df(Residual) = n - k – 1>§ so In our study it is>§ df(Residual) = 56 - 3 - 1= 5> >Estimates & Discussions
>After running the regression test following estimates are found.> >Descriptive Statistics
>§ Descriptive results of the time series data of independent and dependent variables are as under and define the mean and the standard deviation..
>Table 11. Descriptive Statistics border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="545">
width="120">
Mean
width="127">Std. Deviation
width="87">N
FDI in Telecom
width="120">123.9679
width="127">183.76496
width="87">56
Infrastructure
width="120">17.2193
width="127">12.95462
width="87">56
Market Size
width="120">230.7589
width="127">71.51462
width="87">56
Openness to Trade
width="120">8.1875
width="127">.45914
width="87">56
Correlation Estimates
>§ Correlation between dependent and independent variables is a statistical measure of how well they are related to each other. Pearson Correlation is the commonly used correlation measure. Pearson correlation coefficients amongst the independent variable i.e. FDI & the dependent variables i.e. Infrastructure (Telephone and Mobile users), Market Size of the country ( per capital GDP) and Openness to trade (Trade %age of GDP) are respectively -0.317, -0.192 and 0.635>§ The results conclude that there is a negative correlation between the influx of FDI in the telecom sector of the country and its infrastructure when taken as only the fixed landline users along with the mobile users of the country. This result contradicts some of the studies such as Zahra, Azim & Mahmood (2008). This could be because my study focus is only on the combination of fixed landline and mobile cellular users; however other studies might have included the numbers of transmission boaster, users per boaster, broadband user, broadband width etc. (Table 11)
Table 11. Correlation Statistics border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
width="126" valign="top">
width="54">
FDI
width="72">INFRA
width="84">MKT SIZE
width="111">OPENESS_TRDE
Pearson Correlation
width="126">FDI
width="54">1
width="72">-0.317
width="84">-0.192
width="111">0.635
INFRA
width="54">-0.32
width="72">1
width="84">0.966
width="111">0.144
MKT_SIZE
width="54">-0.19
width="72">0.966
width="84">1
width="111">0.272
OPENESS_TRADE
width="54">0.635
width="72">0.144
width="84">0.272
width="111">1
Sig. (1 tailed)
width="126">FDI
width="54">.
width="72">0.009
width="84">0.078
width="111">0
INFRA
width="54">0.009
width="72">.
width="84">.
width="111">0.144
MKT_SIZE
width="54">0.078
width="72">0
width="84">width="111">
0.021
OPENESS_TRADE
width="54">0
width="72">0.144
width="84">0.021
width="111">56
N
width="126">FDI
width="54">56
width="72">56
width="84">56
width="111">56
INFRA
width="54">56
width="72">56
width="84">56
width="111">56
MKT_SIZE
width="54">56
width="72">56
width="84">56
width="111">56
OPENESS_TRADE
width="54">56
width="72">56
width="84">56
width="111">56
§ The correlations results of the Market size of the country i.e. GDP per capita, shows a mild negative tendency towards the influx of FDI in the telecom sector of Pakistan. As the GDP per capita defines the ability of the targeted market to afford the service industry and the potential amount that can be saved in comparison with the country's consumer price index, this measure gives a glimpse of the potential. >§ The real effect on the FDI in telecom in Pakistan is observed from the Trade openness by the country. As measured by the Trade percentage of GDP a strong positive correlation exists between the influx of FDI and openness to trade in the country. This indicates that as the Government liberalizes its trade policies new opportunities arise for the MNCs and more trade activity is observed in every >sector of the economy, which boosts the economy of the host country by creating competition but also is beneficial for the funding country to generate more and more business. The results coincide with the study conducted by Shumai, Munir, & Khan (2008).> >
Model Summary
>§ As R2, called the determination coefficient of multiple regression, basically measures the nearness of the data to the regression line. As the resulted value gets nearer to 100% or 1, the better, the model explains the data variation around its Mean value. In my study, the resulted value of R2=0.584 and Adj R2=0.560 clearly depicts that the model is partially fit and explains about 56.0% of the total variation of the regression line.
>Table 12. Model Summary b border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="539">
Model
width="67">R
width="90">R2
width="84">Adjusted R2
width="190">Standard Error of the Estimate
1
width="67">.764a
width="90">.584
width="84">.560
width="190">121.95764
a. Predictors: (Constant), Openness to Trade, Infrastructure, Market Size>b. Dependent/Criterion Variable: FDI in the Telecommunication sector>
ANOVA
>§ The value of the F-ratio in the ANOVA table> is 24.291 indicating a linear relationship among the Model’s variables. (Table 13)>§ Either positively or negatively; the selected independent variables do affect the dependent variables.>§ As the p < 0.05, hence the model suggests a good prognostic ability
Table 13. ANOVA a border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left" width="540">
Model
width="109">Sum of Squares
width="33">Df
width="125">Mean Square
width="69">F
width="90">Sig.
1
width="74">Regression
width="109">1083895.172
width="33">3
width="125">361298.391
width="69">24.291
width="90">.000b
Residual
width="109">773430.612
width="33">52
width="125">14873.666
width="69">width="90">
Total
width="109">1857325.784
width="33">55
width="125">width="69">
width="90">
a. Dependent/Criterion Variable: FDI in Telecommunication sector>b. Predictors: (Constant), Openness to Trade, Infrastructure, Market Size>
Coefficients
>§ The regression model for the study is>FDI tele = ?o+ ?1INF + ?2 MKT + ?3OT + e>FDI tele = -2014.140+(-0.286) INF + 1.189MKT + 253.137OT>§ Hence from the following results it is interpreted: a single unit increase in value of independent/predictor variables: infrastructure, market size and OT will bring a combined average variation in the value of outcome/dependent variable: FDI in telecom with the values -0.286, 1.189 & 253.137 respectively.>§ Here the actual p-values determine the acceptance or rejection of H0.>§ As the p-values of constant is zero, less than 0.05 for infrastructure and zero for openness to trade but is greater than 0.05 i.e. 0.263 for market size thus this concludes that we reject H0 and accept the alternative hypothesis inferring that there is an acceptable relationship between the influx of foreign investment in telecom sector of Pakistan and infrastructure, market size and openness to trade combined.
border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left" width="540">
Model
width="98" colspan="2">Unstandardized Coefficients
width="73">Standardized Coefficients
width="43" rowspan="2">T
width="30" rowspan="2">Sig.
width="110" colspan="3">Correlations
width="107" colspan="2">Collinearity Statistics
B
width="49">Std. Error
width="73">Beta
width="40">Zero-order
width="41">Partial
width="28">Part
width="59">Tolerance
width="47">VIF
1
width="77">(Constant)
width="49">-2014.140
width="49">296.285
width="73">width="43">
-6.798
width="30">.000
width="40">width="41">
width="28">
width="59">
width="47">
Infrastructure
width="49">-12.132
width="49">5.634
width="73">-.855
width="43">-2.154
width="30">.036
width="40">-.317
width="41">-.286
width="28">-.193
width="59">.051
width="47">19.696
Market Size
width="49">1.189
width="49">1.049
width="73">.463
width="43">1.133
width="30">.262
width="40">-.192
width="41">.155
width="28">.101
width="59">.048
width="47">20.823
Openness to Trade
width="49">253.137
width="49">42.402
width="73">.632
width="43">5.970
width="30">.000
width="40">.635
width="41">.638
width="28">.534
width="59">.714
width="47">1.402
a. Dependent Variable: Foreign Direct Investment in Telecom> >
Plots
>§ The normal P-P plot of regression (Fig 3.1) shows the normality statement of regression error. As the errors are normally distributed around the diagonal reference line hence, it is assumed that the normality assumption exists in the regression model.
Table 15. Estimated Distribution Parameters
Figure 5,6
Figure 5: Normal P-P Plot for Market Size
Figure 6: Normal P-P Plot for Openness to Trade
Figure 7
Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual
Conclusion
Foreign direct investment and telecommunications development are vital for the financial development of any country. Pakistan, although being an underdeveloped country, has managed to excel in the telecommunications sector manifold since 2001. An increasing number of telephony and cellular subscribers, along with broadband and 3G/4G users, have created an enchanting financial marketplace for FDI investors. This study intends to explain the casual relationship between FDI influx and economic factors that attract FDI in Pakistan. Among the many economic factors here are telecom infrastructure, market size and trade openness, whereas FDI is taken as a dependent variable. A time series analysis is carried out to determine the growth trend while an ordinary least square test is applied to determine the coefficient of correlation between the variables. The results of the study help us in concluding that there is a negative correlation observed between the influx of foreign direct investment in the telecom sector and telecom infrastructure when confined only to the number of users of landline and cellular mobiles in the country. However, a positive relationship is observed between the per capita GDP and openness to trade and the influx of foreign direct investment in the telecom sector of Pakistan. Here Pakistan Government ought to focus on improving the per capita GDP to make it mature to upgrade the living standard of people and hence create an alluring market for the MNCs. Also, openness to trade, tariff agreements, quota and short & long term development contracts with the foreign countries will bring more foreign investors to the country. Here it must be mentioned that liberalization of the trade policy is only effective if MNCs are given a business friendly environment with relaxed tax levels, low barrier to entry and safety & security of their capital to ensure return.
References
Cite this article
-
APA : Ali, B., Gul, N., & Aziz, S. (2022). Foreign Direct Investment in Telecommunications Sector of Pakistan: A Determinative Approach. Global Regional Review, VII(II), 52 - 70. https://doi.org/10.31703/grr.2022(VII-II).06
-
CHICAGO : Ali, Babar, Nagina Gul, and Saba Aziz. 2022. "Foreign Direct Investment in Telecommunications Sector of Pakistan: A Determinative Approach." Global Regional Review, VII (II): 52 - 70 doi: 10.31703/grr.2022(VII-II).06
-
HARVARD : ALI, B., GUL, N. & AZIZ, S. 2022. Foreign Direct Investment in Telecommunications Sector of Pakistan: A Determinative Approach. Global Regional Review, VII, 52 - 70.
-
MHRA : Ali, Babar, Nagina Gul, and Saba Aziz. 2022. "Foreign Direct Investment in Telecommunications Sector of Pakistan: A Determinative Approach." Global Regional Review, VII: 52 - 70
-
MLA : Ali, Babar, Nagina Gul, and Saba Aziz. "Foreign Direct Investment in Telecommunications Sector of Pakistan: A Determinative Approach." Global Regional Review, VII.II (2022): 52 - 70 Print.
-
OXFORD : Ali, Babar, Gul, Nagina, and Aziz, Saba (2022), "Foreign Direct Investment in Telecommunications Sector of Pakistan: A Determinative Approach", Global Regional Review, VII (II), 52 - 70
-
TURABIAN : Ali, Babar, Nagina Gul, and Saba Aziz. "Foreign Direct Investment in Telecommunications Sector of Pakistan: A Determinative Approach." Global Regional Review VII, no. II (2022): 52 - 70. https://doi.org/10.31703/grr.2022(VII-II).06