Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
FDI is an important source of capital for economic growth in developing countries. It provides a
package which constitutes new technologies, management techniques, finance and market access
for the production and movement of goods and services. However, attracting FDI is a major
challenge for host countries as it faces the challenge of identifying the major factors that motivate
and affect the FDI location decision. The main FDI location factors are cost factors, market
factors, infrastructure, technological factors, political and legal factors and social and cultural
factor. Despite several conflicting circumstances, Nepal is attempting to sort out overarching
issues of FDI concerning with economic development. That's why Nepal is at a point wherefrom it
can excel for economic goals via FDI. The set trends illustrate that various indicators pertaining
to FDI in the country has been improving since peace process was begun in 2006. This analysis
comes to conclusions that the country owns unique advantages and, thereby, opportunities of FDI
useful for the countrys prosperity. Yet FDI in the country is not free of challenges, thus, that
need to be timely addressed with prudent measures.
Introduction
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is generally considered as a useful means so as to
energize an economy. One common view is that FDI helps accelerate the process of
economic development in host countries (Hanson, 2001, p1).However; FDI is not free of
disputes. Despite of all controversy, FDI has been a major economic policy issue for the
great majority of nations around the world. The increasing mobility of international firms
and the gradual elimination of barriers to global capital flows have stimulated
competition among governments to attract foreign direct investment. FDI per se is one
manifestation of globalization and the world economy over the past two decades. FDI is
an important indicator to boost the economic growth of Nepal. FDI was identified as a
medium in order to acquire skills, knowledge, technologies and to internationalize
1
Mr Poudel is a Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance Privatization cell /GoN in Kathmandu. A gold Medalist in
M.Phil in management. P.Hd Scholar in Faculty of Management Tribhuvan University , Kathmandu, Nepal
1
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2128969
business and at the same time to reduce debts.McKern (1996), Kathuria (1998, 2000 and
2001) and Noorbakhsh et al., (2001) believed that foreign direct investment does not take
place automatically in a nation. Whereby, inflow of foreign direct investment should be
encouraged.
FDI, also known as (international) direct investment, forms part of the capital account of
the balance of payments. Direct Investment is defined as an investment that adds to,
deducts from, or acquires a lasting interest in an enterprise operating in an economy other
than that of the investor where the purpose is to have an effective voice in the
management of the enterprise. According to the IMF, FDI is the category of international
investment that reflects the objective of obtaining a lasting interest by a resident entity in
one economy, in an enterprise resident in another economy.
Foreign direct investment was considered as a medium for acquiring skills, technology,
organizational and managerial expertise. Unfortunately, the recent bulk of the inflow has
been directed to only a limited number of countries. Mohd Ridauddin Masud et al (2009)
claimed there were four elements that encouraged the inflow of foreign direct investment
to the host country, which was the component of investment, origin of foreign investor,
economic sectors and investment income generated. The openness of the economy with
the rest of the world has significant liberalization in terms of trade. The open economic
encouraged more confident investment. Other than trade liberalization, financial
liberalization was also important to sustain capital inflows.
Countries do welcome FDI for its various potential benefits. These include employment
creation, capital accumulation, transfer of technology, improved provision of services and
increased competition (UNCTAD, 2006: p1). Contrary to such positive views, skeptical
views run against FDI. Skepticism suggests inward FDI can also impose costs in the form
of displacement of local firms and workers and possible monopolistic practices, and there
can be valid economic rationales for restricting inward FDI (ibid, p1). Staying away from
economic rationales, political and social views do hold high handedness in denouncing
2
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2128969
FDI. There may also be non-economic reasons for limiting foreign ownership and
control, relating to national security or economic nationalism (ibid, p1).
Current financial and economic crises erupted since 2008 have downplayed the agenda of
investment attraction through liberalization and protecting foreign investors. With this
respect, Nepalese case per se is a unique as its agenda for economic transformation has
been shadowed in a hazy and hostile political situation. This process emerged when the
country posed years of internal war which shattered the mission of inviting FDI. The
situation is further complicated by protracted transition in which major two tasks constitution making and peace process - are not concluded yet.
At a time the country is striving for strengthening its infant republican democratic
system, political and economic agenda should go hand-in-hand. Whatever the nature or
size of system the country is going to switch over to, the future state will have to
ultimately deliver in economic term to common people. If delivered the peace dividend,
the system-in-design will sustain and vice-versa. Keeping it in mind, a sound
preparedness is a must in the direction of economic prosperity. Alleviating poverty in a
period of ten years in Nepal may require at least 8 per cent of sustained growth in GDP.
On top, growth has to be converted into inclusive growth as long as possible. Such
quantum and nature of growth is attainable only when FDI boosted investment will come
true.
It is an irony that the size of FDI to Nepal has been a meager for a long time, on one
hand. On the other, China and India have been enjoying one of the highest chunks of
global FDI. Now the time has come for Nepal to make an honest introspection and
retrospection so that a set of prudent and pragmatic measures could be designed
accordingly for both policy as well as operational levels in the times ahead.
Like trade, foreign direct investment (FDI) has occurred throughout history. From the
merchants of Sumer around 2500 BCE to the East India Company in the 17th century,
investors routinely entered new markets in foreign dominions. In 1970 global FDI totaled
$13.3 billion. By 2007 it was nearly 150 times higher, peaking at $1.9 trillion. The
economic crisis slashed global FDI flows by about 40% in 2009, affecting all economies,
sectors, and forms of investment. FDI in developing economies fell 35% in 2009,
compared with 41% in high-income economies. Most indicators signal that FDI will be
higher in 2012 than in 2011. The recovery in FDI is good news for economies suffering
from the global economic downturn and seeking to stimulate economic growth.Statistical
data shows that the level of FDI was continuously increasing during 1990-2008, but the
directions and amount of such inflows differs significantly between the countries.
European countries proved to be successful in attracting FDI. According to UNCTAD
(2007) total FDI inflow in the world was 945.8 billion USD, of which developed
countries received 590.3 billion USD which is 62.4 % of the total FDI inflow in the
world, whereas in the same year developing countries received FDI only 314.3 billion
USD. It was only 38.6 % of the total FDI inflow in the world. Even that one can observe
a slight drop in total amount of FDI inflows in the world in 2008 developed countries
continuously dominate over the developing countries in attracting the FDI.
Statistical data shows that the level of FDI was continuously increasing during 20032007, but the directions and amount of such inflows differs significantly between the
countries. European countries proved to be successful in attracting FDI. According to
UNCTAD (2007), in 2005 total FDI inflow in the world was 945,8 billion USD, of which
developed countries received 590,3 billion USD which is 62,4 percent of the total FDI
inflow in the world, whereas in the same year developing countries received FDI only
314,3 billion USD. It was only 38,6 percent of the total FDI inflow in the world. Even
that one can observe a slight drop in total amount of FDI inflows in the world in 2008
(Table 1) developed countries continuously dominate over the developing countries in
attracting the FDI.
Foreign direct investment has grown dramatically worldwide over the last decade.
Inflows of foreign direct investment into developing countries grew by an average of 23
percent a year during 1990-2000 (IMF, 2003). In addition, foreign direct investment was
now the largest and the most stable source of private capital for developing countries and
also economies in transition, which accounting for nearly 50 percent of all capital flows
(Kraay, 1998). However, less developed countries have greater expectation on foreign
direct investment.
Global foreign direct investment (FDI) flows rose moderately to $1.24 trillion in 2010, in
(table 2) but were still 15 per cent below their pre-crisis average. This is in contrast to
global industrial output and trade, which were back to pre-crisis levels. UNCTAD
estimates that global FDI recovered its pre-crisis level in 2011, increasing to $1.41.6
trillion, approaching its 2007 peak in 2013. This positive scenario holds, barring any
unexpected global economic shocks that may arise from a number of risk factors still in
play.
Year
2005/07
2007
2008
2009
2010
For the first time, developing and transition economies together attracted more than half
of global FDI flows. Outward FDI from those economies also reached record highs, with
most of their investment directed towards other countries in the South. Furthermore,
interregional FDI between developing countries and transition economies has been
growing rapidly. In contrast, FDI inflows to developed countries continued to decline.
Some of the poorest regions continued to see declines in FDI flows. Flows to Africa, least
developed countries, landlocked developing countries and Small Island developing States
all fell, as did flows to South Asia. At the same time, major emerging regions, such as
East and South-East Asia and Latin America, experienced strong growth in FDI inflows.
International production is expanding, with foreign sales, employment and assets of
transnational corporations (TNCs) all increasing. TNCs production worldwide generated
value added of approximately $16 trillion in 2010 about a quarter of global GDP.
Foreign affiliates of TNCs accounted for more than one-tenth of global GDP and onethird of world exports. State-owned TNCs are an important emerging source of FDI.
There are some 650 State-owned TNCs, with 8,500 foreign affiliates across the globe.
While they represent less than 1 per cent of TNCs worldwide, their outward investment
accounted for 11 per cent of global FDI in 2010. The ownership and governance of Stateowned TNCs have raised concerns in some host countries regarding, among others, the
level playing field and national security, with regulatory implications for the international
expansion of these companies.
The global financial crisis and subsequent economic downturn led in 2008-2009 to rapid
and significant contraction in international trade and investment. But the first half of 2010
has seen a gradual though cautious upswing in global consumer demand, investor
confidence, and economic activity. The resurgence of international commerce and
investment is creating new opportunities for companies and countries alike. The factors
driving investment decisions by multinational corporations are changing. When seeking
business opportunities, companies are now more concerned about financial and political
risks, with a focus on stable and predictable business environments. In response,
governments everywhere recognize that their chances of attracting more foreign
investment depend on making their investment climates more competitive.
The Investing across Border (IAB) indicator measures FDI regulation in 4 specific policy
areas. They aim to complement existing measures of the quality of business
environments. A company seeking to expand its global presence will assess its options
before deciding on a location for its investment. One of the first determinants of location
is whether the company is allowed to enter and operate in a specific market. Though most
economies have liberalized and opened most sectors to foreign investment, some
industries continue to be protected from foreign competition. IABs investing across
sectors indicators find that while primary and manufacturing sectors are mostly open,
some industries such as media, transportation, energy, and telecommunications remain
restricted in many economies. Some of the more restrictive economies include large ones
such as China, Mexico, the Philippines, and Thailand.
Even if a foreign company can enter a particular sector, it may face other barriers to
market access and operations. Onerous start-up procedures, excessive licensing and
permit requirements, and time-consuming export and import processes are among the
factors that can make an economy less attractive to foreign investors. IABs starting a
Foreign Business indicators show that in some economies foreign companies must
complete lengthy procedures to obtain investment approvals, adding weeks and
sometimes months to the start-up time. In other economies the procedures can be done
online and take only a few days.
1999-00
2005
2006
2007
2008
1999-00
2006
2007
2008
India
1705
7606
20336
25127
41554
1.9
6.9
6.5
9.6
Pak
463
2201
4273
5590
5438
5.1
16.1
18.3
18.3
Sri Lanka
159
272
480
603
752
6.8
7.5
7.3
Bangladesh
218
845
793
666
1086
2.9
5.3
5.9
Maldives
14
15
15
2.8
2.9
2.5
Nepal
-7
0.9
-0.3
0.2
NA
73
30
0.4
1.2
10.9
3.9
Bhutan
Apart from India, the other big countries in South Asia namely Pakistan, Bangladesh and
Sri Lanka have also benefitted from FDI flows. Yet investment flows into Nepal, Bhutan
and Maldives have so far been meager.
Trends in Nepal
This analysis observes following trends mainly seen in recent FDI of Nepal.
1. Increasing number of FDI related projects
The table 1 shows that till the year 2002 the number of FDI induced projects
witnessed series of ups and downs. However, a steadily growth was observed since
2005 and that trend continued till 2009. In the subsequent years, the number of FDI
related projects slightly plummeted to Rs 179 from Rs 205 million. By and large,
since 2005 the line of trend has shown a new hope which was lost amidst conflict run
in the country.
2. Rolling back the cost of projects
The table 1 highlights that the year 1993 was the period when one of the largest
amounts invested ever. On the contrary to that, the following years except 1997 saw
series of downfall in the investment. The momentum again rolled back in 2008, 2009
and 2010. The situation of later years seems to be encouraging.
3. Rising the total fixed cost
Just like the acceding case of total project cost, 1993 was the year when a big surge in
fixed cost was witnessed. Similarly, 2008 and afterwards a rising trend in the fixed
cost was seen. But the data shows a distressing situation in between the year 1993 and
2008. However, a happy note is that since 2008 a rising fixed cost is in effect.
4. Growing foreign investment
Except the year 1993 the rest all years covered in this study witnessed a constant
fluctuation in foreign investment, including little ups and downs. However, since
2007 onwards an encouraging course has substituted the situation.
5. Slow going employment opportunity
The year 1993 is marked as the highest scoring period with respect to generating
employment opportunities as an outcome of FDI in the country. However, it remained
short-lived as the following years failed to sustain the gained momentum. Breaking
the embarrassment continued till 2005, the year 2006 brought back once again the
hope. The largest number ever of employed man power was in 2008 when employed
figure grew up to 12480.
Table 4: Foreign Investment Projects in Nepal up to 2067/09/28 BS (Rs. in millions)
============================================================================
Fiscal Year
Total Project
Total Foreign Employment
In AD
No.
Est Cost
Fixed Cost
Investment
============================================================================
Up to 1990
95
7722.98
6549.23
868.92
20658
1991
24
1179.16
965.27
501.57
4130
1992
58
7101.33
6120.28
1110.25
7219
1993
55
15379.89
13822.37
3350.14
12716
1994
22
2258.47
2025.34
515.10
2890
1995
39
8910.55
8202.26
2208.23
6177
1996
46
3815.16
3356.29
757.16
5949
1997
88
11647.93
9712.39
3315.98
9246
1998
66
2933.73
2581.25
1150.86
2750
1999
52
4868.00
3820.63
2178.98
2521
2000
95
5094.39
4061.94
1494.33
6792
2001
94
7228.00
4345.59
3136.62
6434
2002
60
2876.81
2446.66
1361.40
3065
2003
81
4562.68
3133.24
1773.13
2072
2004
68
3206.98
2726.72
2108.95
5833
2005
106
2644.02
1791.11
2398.64
4955
2006
130
4371.04
3694.91
3377.54
7649
2007
194
8213.65
6385.36
6541.95
7532
2008
225
18038.82
14761.09
8389.33
12480
2009
205
9168.45
8170.48
4057.60
8824
2010
179
12568.18
13461.91
9295.75
8999
=====================================================================
Total
1986
143847.72
122180.13
59923.76
149109
=====================================================================
Source: Department of Industry, Nepal 2011
6. Urban-centric FDI
Table 5 shows that FDI in Nepal varies district wise. The table of up to fiscal year
067/068 depicts a very uneven picture of FDI hosted by various administrative districts.
In a case of hosting FDI above Rs 2000million, Kathmandu is the front-runner which is
followed by seven other countries. The others include Lalitpur, Kaski, Rupandehi, Parsa,
Makawanpur, Dhading and Bara. In quantum, a huge variance was observed between the
districts located in the KathmanduValley and the other districts. Out of the total FDIalone
Kathmandu based two districts scores 44.93 per cent, while the later group possesses only
55.07 per cent.Likewise the stated eight districts invited 68.38 per cent whereas the rest
10
other districts could attract the remaining 31.62 per cent of the total FDI.By and large, the
FDI is glued with a certain urban centers that cater a huge number of customers.
Table 5: Districts hosting FDI up to 2067/068
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
District
Kathmandu
Lalitpur
Kaski
Rupandehi
Parsa
Makawanpur
Dhading
Bara
Others
Total
7. Source of FDI
Source wise Nepal has India, China, South Korea, Japan and Canada in the list of such
five countries which account 67 per cent share in the total invested FDI, while 22 per cent
was invested from the group of traditional OECD countries. India and China, amongst the
five countries, are the countries having much greater share than the rest three countries.
Having compared to the case of other SAARC countries, location factor seems to be
strong in practices. Location factor in the FDI is an interesting part to be studied over.
Table 6: Sources of FDI
Share of 5 top investors in Individual South Asian Countries (%)
Host Country
India
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Year
Top 5 Countries
2006 &
Mauritius, UK,
2007
2005 &
US,UK,Egypt,
2006
UAE,Norway
2006-7
US,UK,
& 2007-
UAE,Netherlands,
Switzerland
Nepal
2005-08
Sri Lanka
2002
Share of top 5
Share of traditional
No of identified
countries (%)
source countries
66.1
27
100
68
51.2
31
64.1
60.5
33
67
22
25
62
NA
NA
11
India, USA
Sources: BOI: Pakistan and Bangladesh; DOI Nepal; SIA India; ESCAP (2003): Srilanka
12
committed fixed cost, size of foreign investment and employment opportunities all were
arisen. These vividly signal that the prospects for FDI in the country is getting more and
more optimistic day by day as peace process is gradually consolidated. By this, one
assumption seems to be pretty valid that once peace process concludes, FDI will bring in
multiple positive implications. Thus, the undergoing peace process and prospects for FDI
are interlinked.
Nepals economy is badly crippled over the last one decade; however, a big opportunity
is awaiting the country at its door-step. Despite the size of its own market is limited for
surging its volume of trade, two giant markets of the world, i.e. Indian and Chinese, are
just in arm reach. To access the markets, because of the proximity the transaction cost for
Nepalese goods and services is lowered that of the other countries. Besides, being Nepal
a Least Developed Country (LDC) Nepalese goods and services are granted zero-tariff
market access in those markets. With the advantage of this General System of
Preferences (GSP) facility, Nepalese goods and services do enjoy better cost
competitiveness. It is an obvious hypothesis that lower cost is meant higher trade
prospects.
One recent phenomenon is that in the current era business and investment is gradually
shifting to East and South countries from West and North countries. The North countries
represent developed and the South countries represent developing as well as LDC group
of countries like Nepal. Part of the reason for this shift is lower labor cost in the South
vis--vis that of the North countries where it has always been on rise due to hit-syndrome
to be appeared in economy. Besides, chance of trickle down in investment from China
and India to Nepal seems to be encouraging in the years ahead. By these virtues, Nepal
could greatly entice FDI in the forthcoming times.
As the Law of Comparative Advantages, as propounded it by a classical economist
David Ricardo (1772-1823), argues every country has look at its own prime advantages.
Ricardo insisted there is mutual benefit from trade (or exchange) even if one party (e.g.
resource-rich country, highly skilled artisan) is more productive in every possible area
13
than its trading counterpart (e.g. resource-poor country, unskilled labourer), as long as
each concentrates on the activities where it has a relative productivity advantage
(Wikipedia).While applied the law in the Nepalese case, natural endowment is such one
example wherein the country is blessed with many advantages. As Nepal Trade
Integration Strategy (NTIS) 2010 has succinctly identified, there are 19 areas in which
the country is much richer than other competing countries. This list includes cardamom,
ginger, honey, lentils, tea, noodles, medicinal herbs/ essential oils from agro food
category. Similarly, handmade paper, silver jewelry, iron and still, pashmina and wool
products are included from craft and industrial goods category. Likewise, tourism, labor
services, IT and BPO services, health services, education, engineering, hydro-electricity
are selected from services sector. Finally, transit trade services between Tibet and India,
sugar, cement, dairy products and transformers are picked up as other potential export
sectors (MoCS, 2010, p.10). In these sectors, Nepal could excel provided that suggested
matrix of the NTIS 2010 are implemented to ensure competitiveness.FDI can be easily
attracted to invest in these sectors since that are salable in destination markets.
Policy wise Nepal has already been a liberalized economy. Accession to WTO in 2004,
membership of BIMSTEC, becoming a part of SAFTA, new Trade Policy 2009, new
Industrial Policy 2010, Nepal Trade Integration Strategy 2010 are some instances of a
liberalized economy. In recent days, at high level the country has held Bilateral
Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPPA) and Double Taxation
Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) agreements with India in 2011 during the visit of Nepals
PM to India. One more agreement Nepal signed on Trade and Investment Framework
Agreement (TIFA) with the United States in 2010. Such arrangements are potential in
sending around good gesture and instilling confidence in prospective foreign investors so
as to feel them stepping into the country. They themselves are self-explanatory stating to
what extent Nepal is opened up along with treasury of tremendous opportunities. In terms
of tariff rates in-effect, the country is more liberal vis--vis many developing world. With
these credentials, foreign investors have leverage enough for profitability.
In institutional front, in the later days Government of Nepal (GoN) is underway of some
headway. The major initiatives include:
14
PMO Secretary
FNCCI President
15
1. Financial instability
2. War and political instability
3. Change in investment regime
4. Global economic downturn
5. Perceived corruption
Very important
27
55
28
27
24
Contextualizing the same factors into Nepalese case, data depicts that conflict and
turmoil political situation turned Nepal began sliding down its once rising FDI. This
situation per se seems self-evident that FDI in the country is hugely challenged by war
and political instability factor.
2. Transitional politics
Ending more than a decade long war, Nepal in 2006 stepped into new republican system.
However, its peace process is taking longer time than it had been expected at its outset.
As it happens elsewhere in a situation of big transition, the total environment in the
country is not yet out of fragility for the same reason. Obviously, in such times political
agenda vis--vis economic agenda gets smaller space while prioritizing public policies.
The government seems to have beheld a great amount of passion for economic agenda; as
a result, positive message is spread up to prospective investors. However, they are still
concerned with the amount of uncertainty associated with the transitional politics. In such
a circumstance, feeling of insecurity is stemmed from uncertainty.
4. Good governance
16
For years and years, the countrys governance has been rated one of the low performing.
Several global indices; such as being undertaken by Transparency International on
corruption issue, the World Bank on Doing Business related issue, and Global Economic
Forum on Global Competitiveness; all consistently echo the voices painting the country
as a least merit holder. There are many studies that iterate good governance as basic
condition to lure possible investment. This argument is further strengthened by
globalization of investment for the reason that the investors enjoy boarder less world so
as to flyany distance. In such backdrop, one has to be competitive enough with better
governance vis--vis other countries competing for the same opportunity.
5. Implement ability of the policies
Policies and institutional bases alone are not sufficient condition of attaining the set goals
for FDI. Many internationally carried out implementation research works have come to a
conclusion that a big part of success largely depends on a country specific implement
ability. From this vintage, bureaucratic attitude and readiness to cope the agenda, their
capacity to perform, coordination between different ministries and agencies involved,
resource commitment are some instances relevant to Nepalese case. In this, a happy
marriage between government-to-government (G2G) and business-to-business (B2B)
approaches can be extra mileage to go for. On top of these all, a persistent and visionary
leadership, which is business friendly, is the highest order of implement ability. In short,
implement ability is what Nepalese in dire need of.
7. Labor unrest and law and order
In the past, the situation associated with the issue had been very daunting for the FDI in
Nepal; however, speedy progress in this regard would better enable the FDI. Besides, no
anymore occurrence of similar case will have to be allowed to repeat. By this, a positive
signal about FDI-friendly environment the country could set forward and spread around.
8. Higher transaction cost in trade
Nepal, as being a Least Developed Country (LDC), is suffered from difficult geographical
terrain, uncompetitive transport sector, unreliable transport infrastructure and weak
telecommunication services, weak industrial infrastructures, i.e. Special Economic Zone
(SEZ), ICDs (Inland Container Depot)/ Container Freight Station (CFS). These have
17
cumulatively made the transaction costs in Nepal far greater than that of other neighboring
countries.
Conclusion
Despite various inter-locked issues, controversies and transitional political circumstances,
Nepal is well positioned among low-income economies to move emphatically on
development policy and spending priorities during the next decade. The country is
bountiful of numerous positive attributes. Trade policy and Trade Strategy has succinctly
identified sectors having comparative advantages. Prudent monetary, fiscal and trade
policies have created a modern and stable macroeconomic framework with the potential
to create a dynamic, competitive, and investment attracting economy in the decade ahead.
Above all, conclusion of political settlement, labor unrest and power crisis are the critical
factors. However, political agenda and economic agenda have to move in a best
synchronized way. Provided the conditions, a potential influx of FDI is at the countrys
door step but due to knock its door. Towards end this, political, business, bureaucratic
leaders are required to come closer and act in a business-friendly chorus. The whole
gambit of course ends with aggressive marketing that Nepal is ripe for hosting FDI.
References
Bhusnurmath, Mythili (2009), FDI in South Asia, in Issue Paper, December 2009,
Kathmandu: SAWTEE
DoI (2011), Industrial Statistics Fiscal Year 2010/2011, Kathmandu: GoN/DoI
Fu, M., & Li, T. (2010), Human capital and technological spillovers from FDI in the
Chinese regions: a threshold approach, in The Rise of Technological Power in the South,
Xiaolan Fu and Luc Soete (eds.), Palgrave Macmillan
Garelli, Stephane (2002), Competitiveness of Nations: The Fundamentals, Hanson, H.
Gordon (2001), Should Countries Promote Foreign Direct Investment? G-24 Discussion
Paper Series, No 9 Feb 2001, New York and Geneva: UNCTAD and Center for
International Development Harvard University http://www02.imd.ch/wcy/fundamentals/
Hill, Michael and Peter Hupe (2006), Implementing Public Policy: Governance in
Theory and in Practice, London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications
18
Joseph, A., Park, D., & Wang, P. (2009), The Impact of Exchange Rate on FDI and the
interdependence of FDI over time, The Asian Development Bank (ADB)
Kathuria, V. (2001). Foreign Firms, Technology Transfer and Knowledge Spillover to
Indian Manufacturing Firms: A Stochastic Frontier Analysis, inApplied Economics, (33),
625-642
Keller, W.,& Yeaple,S. (2009),Multinational Enterprises, International Trade, and
Productivity Growth: Firm Level Evidence from the United States,in The Review of
Economics and Statistics, 91 (4)
Kevin, G. (2010), Rethinking Foreign Investment for Sustainable Development: Lessons
from Latin America. London, Anthem
Kraay, A. (1998),In Search of the Macroeconomic Effects of Capital Account
Liberalization, The World Bank Group
Masud, Ridauddin,M., Yusoff, Zuraini, M., Hamid, Hisham A. and Yahaya,N.
(2009),Foreign Direct Investment in Malaysia findings of the Quarterly Survey of
International Investment and Services
MoCS (2009), Trade Policy, Kathmandu: GoN/MoCS
MoCS (2010), Nepal Trade Integration Strategy 2010, Kathmandu: GoN/MoCS
MoICS (2009), Foreign Investment Opportunities, Kathmandu: GoN/MoICS
Noorbakhsh, F., Paloni, A., & Youssef, A. (2001),Human Capital and FDI inflows to
Developing Countries: New Empirical Evidence,In World Development,29(9), 15931610
OECD (2002), Foreign Direct Investment in Asia: How to Maximize Its Benefits?, in
Global Forum on International Investment: Attracting Foreign Direct Investment for
Development, 5-6 Dec 2002
UNCTAD (2003), Investment Policy Review Nepal, UNCTAD/ITE/IPC/MISC/2003/1
New York and Geneva: United Nations
UNCTAD (2006), Measuring Restrictions on FDI in Services in Developing Countries
and Transition Economies, New York and Geneva: United Nations
UNCTAD (2007), World Investment Prospects Survey 2007-2009, New York and
Geneva: United Nations
UNCTAD (2009), Foreign Direct Investment in Landlocked Developing Countries:
Trends, Policies and the Way Forward, New York and Geneva: United Nations
19
UNCTAD (2010), World Investment Prospects Survey 2010-2012, New York and
Geneva: United Nations
UNCTAD (2009), World Investment Report 2009, New York and Geneva: United
Nations
20
Annexure
Annex 1: Industries Approved for FDI Districtwise( Upto F.Y. 2067/68)(Rs. mln.)
21
No. of
Total
Total
Foreign
Total No. of
Industries
Project Cost
Fixed Cost
Investment
Employment
District
Dhankuta
46.62
37.62
0.00
120
Ilam
145.00
117.90
145.00
188
Jhapa
13
1036.14
663.90
278.35
3284
Morang
26
3403.83
2687.41
1661.47
4795
Okhaldhunda
250.00
245.00
19.00
122
Sankhuwasabha
500.00
488.00
500.00
250
Saptari
410.00
384.00
282.40
144
Siraha
2494.00
2230.07
1913.20
702
Solukhumbu
2959.17
2856.59
926.13
198
10
Sunsari
20
2324.17
1693.97
1252.25
3111
11
Taplejung
12.10
10.14
11.90
44
12
Bara
43
7265.35
5752.70
2072.08
4424
13
Bhaktapur
46
1958.25
1213.12
762.23
3739
14
Chitwan
48
3440.17
2752.25
1128.36
7581
15
Dhading
2405.89
2351.70
2171.00
721
16
Dhanusha
291.04
249.71
165.52
292
17
Dolkha
5800.20
5281.03
1505.73
325
18
Kathmandu
1176
53018.67
43890.58
23477.00
67891
19
Kavre
51
1780.94
1493.79
1121.92
4472
20
Lalitpur
261
10250.57
8047.69
7101.97
14422
21
Makwanpur
49
4720.38
3594.07
2321.73
4355
22
Nuwakot
220.58
193.65
110.70
665
23
Out Of Valley
24.34
21.22
24.34
70
24
Parsa
41
3393.32
2387.50
2052.85
5586
25
Ramechhap
291.34
237.89
262.21
200
26
Rasuwa
2622.40
2522.28
1236.43
176
27
Rautahat
559.18
509.18
44.06
589
28
Sindhuli
9.00
7.70
9.00
105
29
Sindhupalchowk
6832.73
6603.59
1292.08
2892
30
Terai Region
60.00
55.00
16.00
97
31
Arghakhachi
1342.09
199.27
449.60
331
32
Gorkha
704.09
648.32
75.23
758
33
Kalikot
0.00
1800.00
1520.00
125
34
Kapilbastu
421.71
206.42
307.81
300
35
Kaski
116
12308.46
11665.90
4130.58
5145
36
Lamjung
343.93
311.25
124.15
513
37
Manang
915.00
898.00
203.00
289
38
Manang,Tanah
75.00
69.75
47.01
635
39
Mustang
461.74
449.11
1.07
115
22
No. of
Total
Total
Foreign
Total No. of
Industries
Project Cost
Fixed Cost
Investment
Employment
District
40
Nawalparasi
21
2771.18
2373.76
513.40
2904
41
Palpa
330.00
183.38
304.90
136
42
Parbat
1100.00
1089.00
1.50
2614
43
Rupandehi
29
5630.09
4603.14
2958.59
3104
44
Tanahu
89.02
73.20
37.50
237
45
Undefined
251.67
154.37
37.00
146
46
Banke
16
513.83
404.44
152.43
1393
47
Bardiya
57.88
50.96
29.14
264
48
Dang
259.90
218.40
199.90
1078
49
Humla
41.00
37.20
19.24
96
50
Rolpa
32.22
28.31
29.00
156
51
Surkhet
3587.00
2819.40
2187.00
229
52
Achham
571.18
550.68
418.18
411
53
Baitadi
80.00
71.80
65.00
365
54
Darchula
34.00
32.00
2.94
60
55
Doti
10.00
7.20
10.00
33
56
Kailali
919.04
868.81
192.80
929
57
Kanchanpur
13
776.37
695.11
147.72
1466
58
Kavrepalanchock
30.00
28.00
20.40
40
2108
152181.75
129116.39
68049.97
155432
Total
District
Ilam
Jhapa
Morang
Siraha
Sunsari
Taplejung
Bara
Bhaktapur
Chitwan
Dhanusha
Dolkha
Kathmandu
Kavre
Lalitpur
Makwanpur
No. of
Industries
2
2
3
1
5
1
1
6
1
1
1
122
3
35
4
Total
Project Cost
145.00
50.00
1314.98
1800.00
210.00
10.00
8.30
133.77
10.00
206.48
200.00
3763.87
495.00
598.95
314.50
Total
Fixed Cost
117.90
32.00
1179.93
1570.00
134.20
9.10
5.50
116.60
9.00
188.01
195.00
3222.82
411.50
448.09
236.77
Foreign
Investment
145.00
50.00
1314.98
1800.00
205.00
10.00
8.30
65.32
10.00
103.24
200.00
3623.38
495.00
486.15
314.50
(Rs. mln)
Total No. of
Employment
188
188
62
194
214
44
23
158
36
125
100
5979
282
1943
268
23
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Nuwakot
Parsa
Kapilbastu
Kaski
Manang
Nawalparasi
Palpa
Bardiya
Dang
Baitadi
Drcula
TOTAL
1
2
1
8
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
209
10.00
561.54
10.00
81.90
915.00
8.50
300.00
6.00
2.40
60.00
34.00
11250.19
8.90
249.75
9.10
71.94
898.00
7.00
160.00
5.40
1.95
55.00
32.00
9375.46
5.00
561.50
10.00
76.00
203.00
8.00
300.00
6.00
2.40
45.00
2.94
10050.71
34
54
31
269
289
20
112
30
21
163
60
10887
24
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bermuda
Bhutan
Brazil
Bri.Virg.Is
Canada
Category
Agriculture
Energy Based
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Service
Tourism
Total
Agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Manufacturing
Tourism
Total
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Energy Based
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Agriculture
Energy Based
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
No. of
Total
Total Fixed
Industries Project Cost
Cost
3
51.60
47.00
1
131.00
125.00
6
53.84
43.84
17
162.46
124.15
7
65.02
60.12
34
463.91
400.11
5
128.44
88.37
4
30.48
26.47
6
46.64
43.62
15
205.56
158.46
1
7.40
6.70
1
2.50
1.90
2
9.90
8.60
1
10.00
7.50
1
9.88
7.44
9
430.09
195.05
9
47.01
37.91
6
23.17
15.21
26
520.15
263.10
1
9.00
4.60
8
34.10
24.12
2
10.67
9.38
11
53.77
38.10
4
1987.96
1687.68
2
7.29
6.35
6
1995.25
1694.03
1
5.10
2.10
1
5.00
2.52
1
17.16
15.96
3
27.26
20.58
1
500.00
488.00
2
21.07
7.50
1
10.00
9.00
1
10.00
8.70
5
541.07
513.20
1
415.15
358.45
1
48.22
22.08
1
2276.41
2255.65
3
2739.78
2636.19
1
10.00
9.10
3
4265.05
4192.15
5
722.61
629.29
10
52.91
36.67
6
31.30
25.56
Foreign
Investment
42.59
131.00
28.34
134.73
58.57
395.22
32.61
27.98
20.78
81.36
7.40
2.50
9.90
5.00
9.88
199.02
33.26
17.50
264.66
9.00
25.65
7.19
41.84
113.62
4.65
118.27
0.50
1.68
1.43
3.61
500.00
4.43
6.40
10.00
520.83
28.87
22.00
910.57
961.43
10.00
1445.00
642.92
37.61
31.01
(Rs. mln)
Total No. of
Employment
108
22
408
301
135
974
366
87
108
561
27
23
50
100
20
3310
202
534
4166
88
199
48
335
1415
59
1474
0
12
86
98
250
221
30
23
524
108
0
910
1018
44
469
966
325
122
25
Country
Category
Total
Agriculture
Construction
Energy Based
Manufacturing
China
Mineral
Service
Tourism
Total
Tourism
Colombia
Total
Service
Congo
Total
Service
Croatia
Total
Service
Cyprus
Total
Service
CzechRepublic
Total
Agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing
Denmark
Service
Tourism
Total
Service
Dutch
Total
Manufacturing
Ecuador
Total
Manufacturing
Egypt
Service
Total
Manufacturing
Finland
Tourism
Total
Agriculture
Construction
Manufacturing
France
Service
Tourism
Total
Agriculture
Construction
Energy Based
Germany
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Service
Ghana
Total
Guatemala
Manufacturing
No. of
Total
Total Fixed
Industries Project Cost
Cost
25
5081.87
4892.78
17
193.30
163.84
7
361.21
257.71
8
4754.68
4498.31
126
4760.23
2997.89
29
651.60
559.10
106
2008.13
1716.67
108
818.39
705.79
401
13547.54
10899.31
1
2.40
1.50
1
2.40
1.50
1
2.50
2.10
1
2.50
2.10
1
2.50
2.10
1
2.50
2.10
1
1000.00
974.00
1
1000.00
974.00
1
3.50
2.50
1
3.50
2.50
1
110.00
98.00
1
42.00
34.60
7
558.02
491.38
5
12.40
9.20
6
38.27
33.38
20
760.69
666.56
1
18.90
13.90
1
18.90
13.90
1
2.50
1.30
1
2.50
1.30
1
10.00
6.00
1
10.00
8.50
2
20.00
14.50
2
10.00
6.86
3
15.00
12.90
5
25.00
19.76
1
7.00
4.90
2
65.04
51.24
15
299.68
247.45
8
45.31
36.82
23
179.82
157.35
49
596.85
497.77
4
111.42
98.09
2
59.25
43.90
6
1361.00
1302.90
15
234.12
147.70
28
274.36
233.04
24
324.17
299.00
79
2364.31
2124.64
1
6.50
6.18
1
6.50
6.18
1
10.00
5.00
Foreign
Investment
2166.54
181.08
336.93
1072.94
2454.49
640.60
1545.08
805.05
7036.17
2.40
2.40
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
304.00
304.00
3.50
3.50
44.00
4.10
99.59
12.40
33.27
193.36
18.90
18.90
2.50
2.50
10.00
2.00
12.00
4.55
10.00
14.55
7.00
18.33
144.74
27.23
112.55
309.85
14.24
58.90
452.30
101.63
106.62
193.02
926.72
1.95
1.95
2.50
Total No. of
Employment
1926
627
431
530
10336
3993
4279
3129
23325
7
7
28
28
15
15
235
235
12
12
50
74
566
84
156
930
80
80
45
45
98
0
98
91
58
149
27
169
1004
210
626
2036
287
137
207
1293
1140
784
3848
0
0
84
26
Country
Holand
Hong Kong
Hungeri
India
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Kazakistan
Kyrgystan
Lebnon
Category
Total
Tourism
Total
Construction
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Tourism
Total
Agriculture
Construction
Energy Based
Manufacturing
Mineral
Service
Tourism
Total
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Agriculture
Construction
Energy Based
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Service
Total
Manufacturing
Service
Total
Service
Tourism
Total
No. of
Total
Total Fixed
Industries Project Cost
Cost
1
10.00
5.00
1
7.00
0.00
1
7.00
0.00
2
83.88
39.85
5
387.72
262.58
7
430.03
202.25
5
959.91
933.67
19
1861.54
1438.34
1
10.00
8.90
1
10.00
8.90
7
792.91
343.06
17
2246.19
1614.33
12
8336.00
9810.31
296
29492.51
21023.28
6
4477.02
3632.50
112
12355.13
10016.43
51
5025.25
4678.73
501
62725.01
51118.64
1
4.80
3.00
3
6.90
5.55
3
12.50
6.80
7
24.20
15.35
1
5.00
1.00
3
14.50
11.20
2
704.40
668.40
6
723.90
680.60
2
603.00
501.88
5
44.80
34.21
5
33.40
30.55
12
681.20
566.64
6
156.54
119.97
3
21.00
18.75
10
1246.16
1161.73
19
1423.69
1300.45
4
176.60
157.85
1
30.45
22.20
1
275.00
270.00
31
560.04
347.11
52
600.24
491.65
65
1552.69
1424.68
154
3195.03
2713.48
3
15.40
13.03
3
15.40
13.03
1
5.00
2.80
3
31.50
29.25
4
36.50
32.05
1
2.00
1.60
1
5.00
3.90
2
7.00
5.50
Foreign
Investment
2.50
1.79
1.79
59.55
155.58
279.17
246.54
740.84
5.00
5.00
416.81
1876.32
5146.55
14687.28
2260.70
6485.21
1517.43
32390.31
4.80
6.90
8.00
19.70
1.50
14.00
325.47
340.97
72.50
35.45
31.30
139.25
139.98
11.45
113.20
264.63
44.50
10.98
21.00
147.21
219.69
727.87
1171.24
15.40
15.40
3.00
19.50
22.50
2.00
5.00
7.00
Total No. of
Employment
84
0
0
236
852
609
919
2616
29
29
784
830
1222
36142
1521
11781
4127
56407
32
49
51
132
40
76
204
320
68
218
119
405
188
83
245
516
454
348
0
1800
1353
2728
6683
67
67
50
125
175
15
34
49
27
Country
Libiya
Malaysia
Mauritius
Mexico
N. Korea
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Russia
Category
Manufacturing
Total
Agriculture
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Energy Based
Manufacturing
Total
Tourism
Total
Service
Tourism
Total
Agriculture
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Agriculture
Construction
Energy Based
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Manufacturing
Total
Agriculture
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Energy Based
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Service
Portugal
Agriculture
Manufacturing
No. of
Total
Total Fixed
Industries Project Cost
Cost
1
5.00
2.80
1
5.00
2.80
1
5.00
4.20
2
70.59
51.64
6
456.31
441.08
4
159.34
148.30
13
691.24
645.22
3
900.00
879.00
2
2080.00
2030.87
5
2980.00
2909.87
2
17.93
16.35
2
17.93
16.35
1
44.82
41.20
2
20.00
17.60
3
64.82
58.80
2
59.45
41.10
3
984.59
816.26
17
119.55
85.09
12
145.83
133.62
34
1309.42
1076.07
1
248.46
200.00
4
14.18
10.76
4
33.99
28.94
9
296.63
239.71
1
6.00
5.10
1
158.55
154.01
3
7580.00
6292.41
2
236.11
185.05
1
60.93
60.93
4
75.00
69.30
12
8116.59
6766.80
7
282.24
201.02
5
1866.62
1665.03
3
20.59
17.72
15
2169.45
1883.77
1
83.28
65.17
1
83.28
65.17
1
10.00
9.00
5
1154.18
989.53
1
2.50
2.00
4
14.43
9.15
11
1181.12
1009.68
1
84.94
84.00
1
4.78
1.55
1
2.50
2.00
4
46.00
41.00
7
138.22
128.55
1
2.50
2.00
1
2.50
2.00
1
8.00
7.00
4
93.08
54.87
Foreign
Investment
5.00
5.00
1.50
64.24
20.10
159.34
245.18
765.00
2080.00
2845.00
15.33
15.33
12.55
20.00
32.55
18.27
386.08
93.73
90.81
588.89
0.00
12.74
17.33
30.07
6.00
62.46
933.23
10.94
54.70
68.50
1135.83
118.29
25.32
6.13
149.73
24.98
24.98
10.00
72.35
2.50
12.43
97.28
5.00
2.39
2.50
45.50
55.39
2.50
2.50
6.00
42.23
Total No. of
Employment
80
80
33
184
109
118
444
558
334
892
35
35
71
76
147
428
405
1760
453
3046
1851
73
145
2069
50
25
394
119
0
138
726
2288
57
58
2403
121
121
35
1452
40
106
1633
16
23
38
117
194
23
23
15
412
28
Country
S. Africa
S. Korea
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tchad
Thailand
Category
Service
Tourism
Total
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Agriculture
Construction
Energy Based
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Agriculture
Energy Based
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Service
Total
Construction
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Service
Total
Agriculture
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Agriculture
Energy Based
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Service
Total
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Service
Total
Energy Based
Manufacturing
Service
No. of
Total
Total Fixed
Industries Project Cost
Cost
9
135.42
111.55
4
18.30
15.77
18
254.80
189.19
1
10.00
7.20
2
27.50
22.00
2
9.80
8.64
5
47.30
37.84
3
19.95
15.55
4
243.49
209.83
2
5388.12
5370.99
31
1879.44
1593.85
57
517.25
406.35
52
295.31
244.25
149
8343.56
7840.81
1
7.50
6.50
1
530.00
518.00
4
44.86
31.70
8
276.37
242.70
9
2057.60
1989.44
23
2916.32
2788.34
1
4.19
3.94
1
4.19
3.94
2
75.40
37.50
2
10.00
5.20
2
7.60
6.40
7
61.02
53.94
13
154.02
103.04
4
89.15
65.10
4
89.15
65.10
1
3.30
0.99
1
1.50
1.01
4
16.70
14.76
2
8.90
6.50
8
30.40
23.26
1
6.00
4.50
1
23.44
22.94
9
365.48
311.51
8
44.78
29.20
12
294.77
296.89
31
734.48
665.05
1
2.50
2.10
1
2.50
2.10
4
106.60
72.10
1
50.11
40.83
4
258.04
247.50
9
414.75
360.43
1
2.50
1.86
1
2.50
1.86
1
70.00
65.00
6
410.12
290.68
2
6.25
4.61
Foreign
Investment
59.25
18.30
125.78
10.00
27.50
9.80
47.30
19.95
196.38
2278.84
1051.73
435.48
338.51
4320.89
7.50
530.00
21.04
109.45
837.40
1505.39
4.19
4.19
53.98
6.25
7.60
39.40
107.23
47.41
47.41
3.30
1.50
13.90
8.90
27.60
4.20
0.25
58.65
29.85
238.30
331.25
2.50
2.50
35.15
10.50
128.97
174.62
2.50
2.50
21.00
90.64
2.66
Total No. of
Employment
279
87
793
33
25
79
137
65
463
242
1797
2436
1229
6232
45
110
82
483
1245
1965
0
0
138
38
46
143
365
99
99
35
12
105
71
223
52
8
124
129
315
628
17
17
206
0
390
596
18
18
22
666
16
29
Country
Category
Tourism
Total
Agriculture
Service
Tourism
Total
Manufacturing
Mineral
Service
Tourism
Total
Agriculture
Construction
Energy Based
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Service
Total
Agriculture
Energy Based
Manufacturing
Service
Tourism
Total
Manufacturing
Total
Tourism
Total
Total
Turkey
UAE
UK
Ukraine
USA
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
No. of
Total
Total Fixed
Industries Project Cost
Cost
2
546.00
524.50
11
1032.37
884.79
1
10.00
9.00
6
28.20
22.12
2
10.00
7.20
9
48.20
38.32
2
278.54
87.24
1
34.00
32.00
1
823.20
170.00
1
500.00
444.50
5
1635.74
733.74
2
12.50
11.75
2
230.00
210.50
2
1800.00
1782.00
27
1966.55
1563.34
30
254.70
201.12
40
420.60
381.83
103
4684.35
4150.54
2
91.70
83.25
2
91.70
83.25
6
63.90
51.58
1
4760.00
4680.00
50
3413.36
2603.34
76
3704.20
3363.65
41
1951.00
1861.91
174
13892.46
12560.48
1
10.00
7.50
1
10.00
7.50
2
24.60
22.80
2
24.60
22.80
2108
152181.75
129116.39
Foreign
Investment
2.00
116.29
10.00
28.20
22.50
60.70
80.00
2.94
403.37
400.00
886.31
12.50
75.00
145.66
857.40
205.09
244.06
1539.71
16.40
16.40
28.85
1071.00
1475.87
1930.00
450.17
4955.90
10.00
10.00
24.60
24.60
68049.97
Total No. of
Employment
455
1159
50
114
61
225
398
60
139
124
721
52
145
2657
3276
1188
1260
8578
52
52
156
1240
4885
3168
2838
12287
52
52
55
55
155432
Category
Fixed
Capital
Foreign
Investment
(Rs. mln)
Total No. of
Employment
Construction
52.71
43.81
6.00
103
Manufacturing
39
4702.74
3921.64
347.36
7894
32.36
22.37
13.58
1297
Tourism
11
314.99
283.78
82.63
1292
Total
58
5102.80
4271.60
449.56
10586
Construction
42.00
34.60
4.10
74
Manufacturing
16
750.11
570.65
84.03
6415
Mineral
826.80
755.10
28.70
1111
2046/47
Authorized
No. of Industry
Capital
30
Fiscal Year
2047/48
2048/49
2049/50
2050/51
2051/52
2052/53
2053/54
No. of Industry
Authorized
Capital
Fixed
Capital
Foreign
Investment
Total No. of
Employment
Service
85.97
73.55
9.54
1162
Tourism
733.32
705.69
272.14
753
Total
30
2438.19
2139.60
398.51
9515
Energy Based
23.44
22.94
0.25
Manufacturing
18
800.33
631.06
398.84
2679
Service
3.52
3.51
0.70
29
Tourism
36.27
33.23
6.49
258
Total
23
863.56
690.74
406.28
2974
Agriculture
10.94
9.98
5.43
35
Manufacturing
23
2672.77
2086.08
362.75
4485
Service
124.03
117.36
31.94
128
Tourism
700.43
688.68
197.72
967
Total
38
3508.17
2902.10
597.84
5615
Energy Based
6100.00
5589.00
736.50
2664
Manufacturing
38
4950.22
3963.69
779.92
8182
Service
3548.57
3427.77
1150.56
1012
Tourism
15
3287.44
3230.35
416.68
2015
Total
64
17886.22
16210.81
3083.67
13873
Agriculture
181.56
162.32
28.19
368
Construction
30.45
22.20
10.98
348
Manufacturing
20
2781.16
2328.39
980.90
3033
Service
241.04
189.13
61.56
233
Tourism
499.02
473.63
297.13
752
Total
38
3733.23
3175.66
1378.76
4734
Agriculture
28.40
22.75
12.80
65
Manufacturing
14
973.22
624.18
411.92
1774
Service
31.89
31.00
31.36
31
Tourism
593.77
569.93
21.51
516
Total
19
1627.28
1247.85
477.59
2386
Agriculture
74.90
67.16
26.97
270
Energy Based
4760.00
4680.00
1071.00
1240
Manufacturing
24
3040.07
2586.22
698.08
3102
Service
176.18
150.41
54.52
1690
Tourism
13
1996.32
1914.76
369.30
1730
Total
47
10047.47
9398.54
2219.86
8032
Agriculture
34.33
32.26
1.39
73
Construction
168.43
161.45
72.34
45
Manufacturing
28
2574.33
2006.74
773.88
5739
Category
31
Fiscal Year
2054/55
2055/56
2056/57
2057/58
2058/59
2059/60
No. of Industry
Authorized
Capital
Fixed
Capital
Foreign
Investment
Total No. of
Employment
Mineral
3.22
3.00
0.00
18
Service
27
3442.79
2398.57
1079.57
1957
Tourism
18
2336.15
2090.13
468.35
1515
Total
77
8559.25
6692.15
2395.54
9347
Manufacturing
25
1200.45
993.58
394.70
1855
Service
24
1031.08
898.54
431.54
598
Tourism
28
3337.85
3250.20
1174.04
1883
Total
77
5569.38
5142.32
2000.28
4336
Agriculture
11.40
10.00
4.70
Energy Based
2923.11
2766.61
525.65
108
Manufacturing
19
1566.61
867.37
734.20
1291
Service
15
487.53
445.83
201.95
187
Tourism
13
335.78
290.36
199.93
560
Total
50
5324.42
4380.17
1666.42
2146
Energy Based
146.96
141.88
22.04
27
Manufacturing
31
1306.60
722.12
490.98
3567
Service
22
846.29
702.19
736.51
498
Tourism
17
369.24
344.04
168.08
611
Total
71
2669.09
1910.24
1417.61
4703
Agriculture
10.00
9.75
10.00
31
Energy Based
2105.00
2047.91
395.60
352
Manufacturing
54
4024.02
2555.85
1816.01
5234
Service
19
883.28
672.32
343.08
579
Tourism
19
895.31
836.66
537.87
684
Total
96
7917.62
6122.49
3102.56
6880
Agriculture
76.62
60.99
4.90
144
Construction
90.00
81.00
69.00
285
Energy Based
84.94
84.00
5.00
16
Manufacturing
37
2643.94
1036.93
893.57
2285
Service
21
318.93
210.87
144.45
684
Tourism
13
104.10
85.80
92.73
317
Total
77
3318.53
1559.59
1209.65
3731
Construction
538.52
404.04
345.44
464
Energy Based
2574.45
1767.85
448.68
344
Manufacturing
27
660.67
442.04
335.66
1279
Category
32
Fiscal Year
2060/61
2061/62
2062/63
No. of Industry
Authorized
Capital
Fixed
Capital
Foreign
Investment
Total No. of
Employment
Service
12
987.19
858.36
565.61
944
Tourism
24
161.00
135.96
98.38
541
Total
74
4921.82
3608.25
1793.77
3572
Construction
53.88
14.69
53.88
Energy Based
734.40
719.28
41.43
Manufacturing
22
1179.59
841.06
925.05
276
Service
31
2241.56
2084.40
1622.35
1603
Tourism
23
114.31
116.43
122.09
261
Total
78
4323.74
3775.86
2764.80
2144
Agriculture
12.00
10.00
7.38
37
Construction
88.28
53.85
63.95
18
Manufacturing
25
887.09
527.49
1181.98
2072
Service
24
756.54
513.85
348.93
3195
Tourism
11
52.20
44.29
33.53
237
Total
63
1796.10
1149.49
1635.77
5559
Construction
81.30
63.00
28.23
112
Energy Based
251.00
223.00
156.00
136
Manufacturing
33
1472.62
944.70
924.47
2974
Service
40
2082.49
1876.57
1332.93
2739
Tourism
38
233.67
189.68
164.68
1397
Total
116
4121.08
3296.95
2606.31
7358
Agriculture
5.00
4.20
5.00
20
Construction
82.50
52.36
78.22
290
Energy Based
111.00
107.30
30.30
Manufacturing
44
1911.20
1333.73
1897.95
2796
Mineral
10.00
5.00
10.00
128
Service
81
990.79
898.25
938.20
2669
Tourism
55
315.08
249.72
267.12
1486
Total
188
3425.57
2650.56
3226.79
7389
Agriculture
11
127.20
99.79
107.35
377
Construction
13
2118.71
1584.80
1803.71
1143
Energy Based
7346.12
7287.59
2867.60
967
Manufacturing
51
3028.52
1920.23
1244.06
3775
Mineral
3630.00
2852.85
2230.00
722
Category
2063/64
2064/65
33
Fiscal Year
2065/66
2066/67
2067/68
No. of Industry
Authorized
Capital
Fixed
Capital
Foreign
Investment
Total No. of
Employment
Service
55
3370.03
2454.24
813.29
1513
Tourism
67
783.30
696.77
744.99
2180
Total
212
20403.88
16896.27
9811.00
10677
Agriculture
618.70
204.79
302.07
671
Construction
88.57
31.61
56.97
Energy Based
3519.77
3440.51
2244.72
1011
Manufacturing
48
1464.42
895.37
1178.26
2396
Mineral
17
479.00
417.20
474.00
2635
Service
78
2273.88
1645.70
1235.97
2587
Tourism
70
973.55
894.84
763.11
1800
Total
231
9417.89
7530.02
6255.09
11108
Agriculture
10.00
8.60
10.00
69
Construction
20.00
15.70
20.00
36
Energy Based
9961.05
9765.15
4747.00
493
Manufacturing
37
3751.50
3420.93
2605.35
1994
Mineral
100.00
87.85
94.00
514
Service
72
976.05
760.37
906.11
3205
Tourism
50
1035.17
929.39
717.53
1537
Total
171
15853.78
14987.98
9100.00
7848
Agriculture
23
473.36
393.03
367.12
1337
Construction
150.00
120.00
150.00
90
Energy Based
2018.00
1738.00
1227.00
577
Manufacturing
39
6269.01
5135.46
6135.92
3312
Mineral
113.60
102.60
67.54
446
Service
88
1020.92
783.33
918.81
3555
Tourism
47
1205.30
1103.05
1184.33
1570
Total
209
11250.19
9375.46
10050.71
10887
2108
152181.8
129116.4
68049.97
155432
Category
Grand Total
34
Total
Fixed Cost
Foreign
Investment
(Rs. mln)
Total No. of
Employment
58
5102.80
4271.60
449.56
10586
2046/47
30
2438.19
2139.60
398.51
9515
2047/48
23
863.56
690.74
406.28
2974
2048/49
38
3508.17
2902.10
597.84
5615
2049/50
64
17886.22
16210.81
3083.67
13873
2050/51
38
3733.23
3175.66
1378.76
4734
2051/52
19
1627.28
1247.85
477.59
2386
2052/53
47
10047.47
9398.54
2219.86
8032
2053/54
77
8559.25
6692.15
2395.54
9347
2054/55
77
5569.38
5142.32
2000.28
4336
2055/56
50
5324.42
4380.17
1666.42
2146
2056/57
71
2669.09
1910.24
1417.61
4703
2057/58
96
7917.62
6122.49
3102.56
6880
2058/59
77
3318.53
1559.59
1209.65
3731
2059/60
74
4921.82
3608.25
1793.77
3572
2060/61
78
4323.74
3775.86
2764.80
2144
2061/62
63
1796.10
1149.49
1635.77
5559
2062/63
116
4121.08
3296.95
2606.31
7358
2063/64
188
3425.57
2650.56
3226.79
7389
2064/65
212
20403.88
16896.27
9811.00
10677
2065/66
231
9417.89
7530.02
6255.09
11108
2066/67
171
15853.78
14987.98
9100.00
7848
2067/68
209
11250.19
9375.46
10050.71
10887
TOTAL
2108
152181.75
129116.39
68049.97
155432
Fiscal Year
No. of
Industries
35
Country of Origin
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bermuda
Bhutan
Brazil
Bri.Virg.Is
Canada
China
Colombia
Congo
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Repbul
Denmark
Dutch
Ecuador
Egypt
Finland
France
Germany
Ghana
Guatemala
Holand
Hong Kong
Hungeri
India
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Kazakistan
Kyrgystan
Lebnon
Libiya
Malaysia
No. of
Industries
34
15
2
26
11
6
3
5
3
25
401
1
1
1
1
1
20
1
1
2
5
49
79
1
1
1
19
1
501
7
6
12
19
154
3
4
2
1
13
Total
Project Cost
463.91
205.56
9.90
520.15
53.77
1995.25
27.26
541.07
2739.78
5081.87
13547.54
2.40
2.50
2.50
1000.00
3.50
760.69
18.90
2.50
20.00
25.00
596.85
2364.31
6.50
10.00
7.00
1861.54
10.00
62725.01
24.20
723.90
681.20
1423.69
3195.03
15.40
36.50
7.00
5.00
691.24
Total Fixed
Cost
400.11
158.46
8.60
263.10
38.10
1694.03
20.58
513.20
2636.19
4892.78
10899.31
1.50
2.10
2.10
974.00
2.50
666.56
13.90
1.30
14.50
19.76
497.77
2124.64
6.18
5.00
0.00
1438.34
8.90
51118.64
15.35
680.60
566.64
1300.45
2713.48
13.03
32.05
5.50
2.80
645.22
Foreign
Investment
395.22
81.36
9.90
264.66
41.84
118.27
3.61
520.83
961.43
2166.54
7036.17
2.40
2.50
2.50
304.00
3.50
193.36
18.90
2.50
12.00
14.55
309.85
926.72
1.95
2.50
1.79
740.84
5.00
32390.31
19.70
340.97
139.25
264.63
1171.24
15.40
22.50
7.00
5.00
245.18
(Rs. mln)
Total No of
Employment
974
561
50
4166
335
1474
98
524
1018
1926
23325
7
28
15
235
12
930
80
45
98
149
2036
3848
0
84
0
2616
29
56407
132
320
405
516
6683
67
175
49
80
444
36
S.N.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Country of Origin
Mauritius
Mexico
N. Korea
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Russia
S. Africa
S. Korea
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tchad
Thailand
Turkey
UAE
UK
Ukraine
USA
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
No. of
Industries
5
2
3
34
9
12
15
1
11
7
1
18
5
149
23
1
13
4
8
31
1
9
1
11
9
5
103
2
174
1
2
Total
Project Cost
2980.00
17.93
64.82
1309.42
296.63
8116.59
2169.45
83.28
1181.12
138.22
2.50
254.80
47.30
8343.56
2916.32
4.19
154.02
89.15
30.40
734.48
2.50
414.75
2.50
1032.37
48.20
1635.74
4684.35
91.70
13892.46
10.00
24.60
Total Fixed
Cost
2909.87
16.35
58.80
1076.07
239.71
6766.80
1883.77
65.17
1009.68
128.55
2.00
189.19
37.84
7840.81
2788.34
3.94
103.04
65.10
23.26
665.05
2.10
360.43
1.86
884.79
38.32
733.74
4150.54
83.25
12560.48
7.50
22.80
Foreign
Investment
2845.00
15.33
32.55
588.89
30.07
1135.83
149.73
24.98
97.28
55.39
2.50
125.78
47.30
4320.89
1505.39
4.19
107.23
47.41
27.60
331.25
2.50
174.62
2.50
116.29
60.70
886.31
1539.71
16.40
4955.90
10.00
24.60
Total No of
Employment
892
35
147
3046
2069
726
2403
121
1633
194
23
793
137
6232
1965
0
365
99
223
628
17
596
18
1159
225
721
8578
52
12287
52
55
2108
152181.75
129116.39
68049.97
155432
Total
Annex 7: Foreign Investment and Technology Transfer by Type and Scale (up to
2067/68)
Category
Manufacturing
No. of
Industries
Equity
Invest.
Type
Eqt. Invest.
& Tech. Tran
714
631
41
Scale
Technology
Transf.
Small
Medium
Large
42
505
130
77
37
Agro Based
60
59
50
Energy Based
47
46
34
Construction
42
40
23
13
Mineral Based
36
35
28
Service
648
637
571
54
25
Tourism
561
549
493
30
38
Total
2108
1997
53
58
1675
248
185
Total Fixed
Cost
Foreign
Investment
Employment
3696.06
2900.17
1975.78
7452
715
58291.54
44271.56
27321.65
78844
106
10887.32
9188.94
3499.65
11375
256
13209.06
8739.66
6304.69
40544
19
425.06
292.14
457.42
2006
42
2070.78
1702.50
541.56
1513
122
9190.72
6965.88
4762.30
9737
33
11661.02
8789.68
6451.42
4195
26
1930.86
1158.71
729.72
2134
88
8011.22
6790.03
4339.78
5833
Other Manufacturing
Units
23
905.50
644.02
235.12
1507
50
38718.70
38220.83
13579.55
7953
Construction
79
6124.92
4044.52
4815.41
5943
Sector
Agriculture & Forestry
Manufacturing
No. of
Indus.
91
38
565
21318.54
19993.66
8688.95
25227
82
4575.34
3205.48
2060.50
6688
25
1136.13
443.94
339.38
2234
Service Industries
501
18320.53
16036.22
9268.75
21091
Total
2108
152181.75
129116.39
68049.97
155432
To
ur
ism
ce
Se
rv
i
in
er
al
M
ur
in
g
an
uf
ac
t
Ba
se
d
En
er
gy
ct
io
n
Co
ns
tru
Ag
ric
ul
tu
re
39
Total Fixed
Cost
Foreign
Investment
Employment
Large
185
115318.14
104128.39
47401.19
42841
Medium
248
18083.29
12686.87
8321.21
31455
Small
1675
18780.33
12301.12
12327.58
81136
2108
152181.75
129116.39
68049.97
155432
Category
Total
Total Project
Cost
Total Fixed
Cost
Foreign
Investment
(Rs. mln)
Total No. of
Employment
Agriculture
60
1674.42
1095.61
893.29
3497
Construction
42
3605.34
2683.10
2762.81
3016
Energy Based
47
40759.24
40381.02
14518.77
7947
Manufacturing
712
54611.18
40355.50
25595.87
78409
Mineral
36
5162.62
4223.60
2904.24
5574
Service
650
25955.40
21220.18
12974.65
32127
Tourism
561
20413.55
19157.38
8400.34
24862
2108
152181.75
129116.39
68049.97
155432
Category
Total
40