In this paper cointegration and error-correction models have been used to analyze the role of
remittance and FDI in economic development of Nepal. The cointegration analysis provides
existence of long-run relation among the variables. Remittance inflows and FDI both are
marginally significant and bear positive association with real GDP in the long-run. One percent
rise in remittance inflow changes GDP by 0.012 percent while that of FDI changes the real GDP
by 0.002 percent in the long-run. In the short-run, the impact of remittance inflow is 0.12 and
that of FDI is 0.013 on real GDP. In comparison, their influences are stronger in the short-run
than long-run. There exists bidirectional causality between real GDP and real remittance inflow.
There is also causality from GDP to FDI but the reverse does not hold true. In conclusion, the
role of remittance on the real GDP is found quite dominant over that of FDI in both short-run
and long –run. The impact of FDI has been found almost constant and does not change in the
short-run.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

479 views

In this paper cointegration and error-correction models have been used to analyze the role of
remittance and FDI in economic development of Nepal. The cointegration analysis provides
existence of long-run relation among the variables. Remittance inflows and FDI both are
marginally significant and bear positive association with real GDP in the long-run. One percent
rise in remittance inflow changes GDP by 0.012 percent while that of FDI changes the real GDP
by 0.002 percent in the long-run. In the short-run, the impact of remittance inflow is 0.12 and
that of FDI is 0.013 on real GDP. In comparison, their influences are stronger in the short-run
than long-run. There exists bidirectional causality between real GDP and real remittance inflow.
There is also causality from GDP to FDI but the reverse does not hold true. In conclusion, the
role of remittance on the real GDP is found quite dominant over that of FDI in both short-run
and long –run. The impact of FDI has been found almost constant and does not change in the
short-run.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Impact of Macro Economic Factor on Stock Market
- Role of Remittance in Economic Development of Nepal
- The Effect Of Macroeconomic Variables On Stock Market Performance: A Case Study of Ghana
- Role of Income Tax in Economic Development of Bangladesh
- Highlights of the Framework of Inclusive SR
- Economic Snapshots - First Quarter 2017
- Importance of International Management and Its Impacts
- India's Deindustrialisation
- Lecture 1 - MaketsChinaEuropeIndustrialRevolution
- Economic Growth and Poverty in Nigeria
- What-every-CEO-needs-to-know-about-superstar-companies-vF.pdf
- Cointegration Analysis of Oil Prices
- Dap Stem Cel Hospital
- Inclusive Growth
- Sustainability 07 05609
- Causal Relation between Trading Volume and Stock Returns.
- a3 Nymtc Rtp Forecasts
- Sustaining Rapid Growth in Korea Through Innovation
- Indian Paint Industry
- Measuring the Effect of Fixed Capital Formation in the Non-Oil Sector on Economic Growth and the Crowding-Out of Current Expenditure in the Public Budget in Ksaan Empirical Study for the Period (1974-2014)

You are on page 1of 10

-Shashi K. Chaudhary

Abstract

In this paper cointegration and error-correction models have been used to analyze the role of

remittance and FDI in economic development of Nepal. The cointegration analysis provides

existence of long-run relation among the variables. Remittance inflows and FDI both are

marginally significant and bear positive association with real GDP in the long-run. One percent

rise in remittance inflow changes GDP by 0.012 percent while that of FDI changes the real GDP

by 0.002 percent in the long-run. In the short-run, the impact of remittance inflow is 0.12 and

that of FDI is 0.013 on real GDP. In comparison, their influences are stronger in the short-run

than long-run. There exists bidirectional causality between real GDP and real remittance inflow.

There is also causality from GDP to FDI but the reverse does not hold true. In conclusion, the

role of remittance on the real GDP is found quite dominant over that of FDI in both short-run

and long –run. The impact of FDI has been found almost constant and does not change in the

short-run.

Keywords: cointegration, error correction model, economic growth, FDI, remittance

JEL Classification Code: O11, C22, E62

1. INTRODUCTION

Because of political instability and unfavorable climate for agriculture, the economic sector of

Nepal has been passing through the critical phase of low–level equilibrium trap circumscribed by

poverty, high inflation and tremendous imports. Real sectors are hard hit by the unionized strike,

blockade and increasing load-shedding causing rise in the cost of production. This has decreased

the export competitiveness of the Nepalese product in the international market. In such a gloomy

condition, the remittance has become a crucial component for Nepalese economy. The GDP has

also accounted remittance as one of the major sources of national income of the country. The

remittance has contributed much to maintain Nepal’s BOP position favorable. Not only this, it

has become one of the prime sources of foreign currency earning and mitigating ever growing

imports bills for Nepal. The expansion of banking and financial sector has been possible due to

presence of remittance in Nepal. The high inflow of remittance for Bangladesh since 1996 have

allowed foreign exchange reserves to increase and provided the confidence to float her currency.

It is quite noticeable that Bangladesh has attained an economic growth rate of more than 6

percent1 since 2004 onward mainly by increasing the flow of remittance and maintaining strong

production sector. Thus, remittance as a major source of foreign exchange earnings can improve

a country's creditworthiness and enhance its access to international capital markets.

FDI is considered beneficial in view of its contribution to technological transfers, enhancement

of managerial capability and new opportunities for market access. It includes the transfer of

intangible assets such as trademark, technology and business management as well as the

authorization given to the investor to control the investment. Increase in FDI is seen as leading

factor to increase exports by creating international markets through new marketing and

organizational skills. Therefore, it is not unusual for economists to emphasize the importance of

FDI in fueling economic growth. In fact, since the early 1950s, FDI has been recognized as the

most crucial factor in enhancing economic development and ensuring a reasonable standard of

living for countries which have been the recipient of FDI. South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan

have been examples of nations outside the OECD countries that have benefitted greatly from

FDI. In recent years, China and India have made remarkable progress in attracting FDI and in

realizing technological and economic successes.

In the light of the discussion mentioned above, it would surely be concluded that remittance and

FDI can play the role of lifeline and up lifter for the developing economies like Nepal. Of course,

Nepalese economy has been passing through serious structural constraints accompanied by

political turmoil and extremely limited internal resources in the recent decade, yet she has

enormous economic potentialities in terms of water resources, tourism, human resources and

biodiversity. Thus, in the situation of extremely limited internal resources, FDI is crucial to

sustain development activities and create employment opportunities.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Evidence on the increasing dependency on remittance is strengthen by the fact that after export

earnings, remittance inflows have become one of the largest and most stable sources of foreign

exchange for developing countries. Despite the significant size and stability of these inflows,

2

economists find it difficult to determine the effects of remittance on the growth of recipient

economies in the developing world. So far, empirical research on the relationship between

remittance and economic growth has yielded mixed results. Spatafora, Aggrawal and Cabugao

(2005:73-77) found no statistically significant relationship between remittance flows and per

capita income (quoted in Leon-Manlagnit, 2005: 4). Prior to this Chami, Fullenkamp and Jahjah

(2003: 77-78) found evidence of a significant negative relationship between the growth rates of

GDP and remittance. They argued that remittance tend to compensate recipients for bad

economic outcomes. So this creates incentives for recipients to be less productive and more

dependent on these inflows.

Conducting a comprehensive review of the theories on remittance for more than 30 years,

Rapoport and Docquier (2005:54-55) argued that remittance at the best could only be used to

overcome short-run liquidity constraints and had minimal long-term effects. They added

remittance were also purported to discourage labor supply and work effort among recipients

which resulted in increased dependency, lower productivity and thus delayed growth. Stark

(1991: 211-214) noted that because remittance were mainly in the form of cash, they were

fungible and could therefore be used to purchase both financial as well as physical assets. Such

assets, in turn, could be used in productive activities like farm investments and entrepreneurial

formation. In this way, remittance act more as a catalyst for growth rather than a direct input to

it. In the study about role of remittance in economic development of Nepal, Srivastava and

Chaudhary (2007:34) found that even less than eight percent of the total remittance was directed

towards the directly productive sectors in Nepal. Hereby concluding that in spite of its great

caliber, remittance was not flown in the right direction. They added that the coefficients of

growth of real remittance was found to be 0.002, 0.003 and 0.003 respectively showing the

marginal effect of the growth of remittance on the growth of real GDP, GNP and per capita real

income.

Therefore, in order to settle the issue of whether remittance contributes or not to long-run growth,

it is first important to determine how the remittance incomes are being used across different

remittance receiving economies. The pattern by which recipients allocate remittance between

consumption and saving will decide what policy should be employed to harness remittance as a

tool for growth.

3

2.2 Relationship between FDI and Economic Growth

According to neoclassical growth model, Foreign Direct Investments cause medium-term

temporary increases in economic growth in the countries where investments are made through

increasing the amount of investment and its efficiency. On the other hand, new endogenous

growth theories focus on the long-term growth as a function of technological processes.

Therefore; they claim that Foreign Direct Investments can continuously increase growth rate

through technology transfer and spillover effects. Ericsson and Irandoust (2001:122-132)

calculated the cause and effect relationships between FDI and economic growth by using the data

collected from four OECD countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) in 2001and failed

to find a causality relationship for Denmark and Finland. On the contrary, Makki and Somwaru

(2004:795-801) in their study found that FDI affects economic growth to a large extent together

with foreign trade, human capital and domestic capital.

3. METHODOLOGY

The present work follows a three step procedure. First, the stationarity of the data series have

been examined to determine the order of integration of the series. For this, Augmented Dickey

Fuller (ADF) test has been applied. In the second step, cointegration among the variables has

been tested using Engle – Granger2 and Johansen techniques. In the last step, the causality

dynamics among the variables has been tested through error correction model (ECM). All the

necessary computations have been made using Eviews 5.1 version.

The level of output in an economy is determined by the availability of factors of production. This

can be expressed as follows:

Y = f (K, L) (1)

where Y denotes the output level (real gross domestic product, GDPr), K denotes the amount of

capital, and L denotes the amount of labour. After adding remittance (Rm) and foreign direct

investment (FDI), equation (1) can be written as:

Y = f (K, L, Rm, FDI) (2)

2

It is a two step procedure. First, the time series properties of each variable are examined by unit root tests. Having

tested the stationarity of each time series, the cointegration regression between variables are estimated using the

OLS. The second step involves directly testing for the stationarity of error processes of the cointegration regression

estimated in first step.

4

In equation (2), it has been argued that the K and L coefficients are positively related to Y. For a

moment, if K and L are assumed to be given for an economy, then FDI itself can influence the

level of Y either through capital formation or changes in the level of technology. That’s why,

literature linking FDI to economic development is more consistent and this variable has been

expected to have a positive effect on the level of output. The effect of remittance on domestic

output (Y) cannot be confirmed as it has tendency to increase aggregate demand. So there are

possibilities for import to hike up as well. Thus, though its coefficient is expected to be positive,

if remittance recipients increase the demand for imported goods, its coefficient may become

negligible or negative too.

The series {lnGDPr}, {lnRmr) and {lnFDIr) have been investigated for stationarity where GDPr

stands for gross domestic product, Rmr stands for remittance inflows and FDI stands for foreign

direct investment, all measured in real terms.

To distinguish a unit root, we can run the regression

m

∆yt = b0 + ∑ bi ∆y t − i + βt + λyt-1 +μt (3)

i =1

The regression includes enough lags of ∆yt so that μt contains no autocorrelation. If there is a

unit root, differencing yt should result in a white noise series.

m

∆∆yt = b0 + ∑ bi ∆ ∆y t − i + λ∆yt-1 + μt (4)

i =1

If xt and yt are cointegrated, there is a long-run relationship between them. Furthermore, the

short-run dynamics can be described by the error correction model (ECM). This is known as the

Granger representation theorem.

If xt ~ I(1), yt ~ I(1) and zt = yt – βxt is I(0), then x and y are said to be cointegrated. The

Granger representation theorem says that in this case xt and yt may be considered to be generated

by ECMs of the form

∆xt = ρ1zt-1 + lagged (∆xt, ∆yt) + ε1t (5)

∆yt = ρ2zt-1 + lagged (∆xt, ∆yt) + ε2t (6)

where at least one of ρ1 and ρ2 is nonzero and ε1t and ε2t are white noise errors.

5

3.4. Testing for Causality

As per the Granger representation theorem, if xt ~ I(1) and yt ~ I(1), then the variables have the

error correction form

p p

∆xt = ρ1zt-1 + ∑ α1i ∆ x t − i + ∑ α 2i ∆y t − i + ε1t (7)

i =1 i =1

p p

∆yt = ρ2zt-1+ ∑ β1i ∆ x t − i + ∑ β 2i ∆y t − i + ε2t (8)

i =1 i =1

where ∆ is first difference operator on variables, ε1t and ε2t are white noise disturbances. The

residual zt-1 is the error correction term which is the lagged residuals from the cointegration

relations. Its magnitude, ρ1 or ρ2 implies the deviation from long run equilibrium in period (t-1).

The independent variables are said to long run ‘cause’ the dependent variable if the error

correction term, (ρt-1) is significant based on t-test statistics or short run ‘cause’ if the coefficients

of the lagged independent variables are jointly significant based on F-test statistic in their first

differences.

3.5. Data

The time series data for GDP, FDI and remittance has been used in this analysis covering the

period of 1990/91 to 2008/09. The data have been extracted from the Economic Survey (2005/06,

2006/07, 2007/08 and 2008/09) of MOF, G/N and A Handbook of Government Finance Statistics

(2008), NRB. The nominal figures of GDP, FDI and remittance have been deflated by the GDP

deflator (base year 2000/01) to express them in real terms.

4. EMPIRICAL RESULTS

Table 1 presents the results of unit root tests obtained using the ADF test on individual series.

The lag length selection was set automatic based on SIC (Schwarz Information Criterion), max

lag = 6. The absolute calculated values are less than the corresponding McKinnon critical values

at levels of the variables. Hence, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. However, the null

hypothesis can be rejected when the first difference of the variables are taken. Thus, their first

difference is found to be stationary and hence all the series are integrated of order one, I(1).

6

Table 1: Results of Unit Root Tests

ADF statistic

Series Degree of Integration

Level First difference

lnGDPr -3.24 -5.61* I(1)

lnRmr -2.13 -3.65ç I(1)

lnFDIr -3.66 -4.512** I(1)

*, ** &ç indicate 0.01, 0.0 5 and 0.06 level of significance based on Mackinnon’s critical values.

All the regressions with level and first difference have been done with trend and intercept criteria.

After confirming the existence of unit roots for the data series, the next step involves to test

whether the variables are cointegrated. This has been done by both the Engel-Granger and

Johansen techniques. The table 2 presents the test statistics for Engel-Granger technique while

table 3 presents the test statistics for Johansen technique.

The table 2 indicates that the estimated ADF statistics for the residuals are greater than their

corresponding critical values at one percent level except for model (2.2) which is significant at

five percent level. Thus, GDPr, Rmr and FDIr can be concluded to be cointegrated at five

percent level of significance. This finding is also confirmed by the CRDW statistic which is also

significant at one percent level. Thus, the stationarity of the residuals of cointegration equations

is confirmed and hence implies existence of a long-run association among variables.

Model Cointegration equation CRDW ADF statistic for Residuals

2.1 lnGDPr = f(lnRmr, lnFDIr)3 0.989* -2.71*

2.2 lnRmr = f(lnGDPr, lnFDIr)4 0.999* -2.54**

2.3 lnFDIr = f(lnRmr, lnGDPr)5 1.66* -3.80*

* & ** indicate the statistical significance at the 0.01 and 0.05 levels of significance based on

Mackinnon’s critical values. The critical value of the CRDW statistic is 0.511 at the 0.01 level of

significance.

3

lnGDPr = 0.2340359172 lnRmr - 0.005392027142 lnFDIr + 10.57496388 R2 = 0.936

(14.45)* (-0.194) (35.38)*

4

lnRmr = 3.96899825 lnGDPr - 0.01917154936 lnFDIr - 40.96337862 R2 = 0.936

(14.45)* (-0.167) (-10.51)*

5

lnFDIr = -0.09183735229 lnRmr - 0.4380388258 lnGDPr + 13.84787782 R2 = 0.113

(-0.167) (-0.194) (0.583)

7

The existence of cointegration is also confirmed by Johansen methodology and confirms one

long-run cointegrating equation (table 3).

Trace Max-Eigen Value

Hypothesized

No. of CEs Statistic 0.05 Critical Value Statistic 0.05 Critical Value

None* 62.61 42.91 46.12 25.82

At most 1 16.48 25.87 13.36 19.38

At most 2 3.11 12.51 3.11 12.51

Trace test indicates 1 cointegrating equation at the 0.05 level.

Max-eigen value test also indicates 1 cointegrating equation at the 0.05 level.

* denotes rejection of the hypothesis at the 0.05 level.

Next is the Ganger causality test with error correction terms from the cointegration equations.

The empirical results of the estimated error-correction models are presented in Table 4. It

presents the results of both the long run Granger causality test based on a standard t-test statistics

of the error terms, (zt-1) lagged one period as well as the short run Granger causality test based on

a standard F-test statistics for the jointly significance of the coefficients of the explanatory

variables in their first differences.

Based on the t- test statistic, models (2.1) and (2.2) are only significant for the analysis of the

long-run equilibrium. However, the coefficients are greater than unity indicating explosive

nature of the models, hereby suggesting need of suitable actions to bring it back to the long-run

equilibrium path. Further, the growth of one year lag remittance and FDI has established a

positive relationship with long-run real GDP growth6, but their impact is very marginal. The

findings suggest that one percent change in remittance influence real GDP by 0.012 percent

while that of FDI influence by merely 0.002 percent. Moreover, the bidirectional causality exists

between one year lagged real GDP and real remittance inflow in the long-run. Since the F-

statistics of both the models are significant at five percent level, the findings are considered to be

reliable. On this basis, I have excluded the model (2.3).

6

The long-run relation can be represented as lnGDPrt-1= 12.19 + 0.012 lnRmrt-1+ 0.002 lnFDIrt-1 + 0.05t + zt-1.

8

Table 4: Vector Error Correction Estimates

Dependent Variables

Independent Variables ∆lnGDPrt (Model 2.1) ∆lnRmrt (Model 2.2) ∆lnFDIrt (Model 2.3)

1.18 -36.25 -32.08

ECM (zt-1)

(1.55)*** (-4.50)* (-0.94)

-1.92 27.16 31.61

∆lnGDPrt-1

(-2.38)** (3.17)* (0.87)

-0.75 8.00 20.15

∆lnGDPrt-2

(-1.85)** (1.85)** (1.11)

0.12 -1.57 -0.94

∆lnRmrt-1

(3.50)* (-4.1)* (-0.58)

0.07 -0.93 -2.14

∆lnRmrt-2

(1.78)** (-2.04)** (-1.12)

0.013 -0.21 -0.49

∆lnFDIrt-1

(2.01)** (-3.09)* (-1.70)***

0.01 -0.12 -0.84

∆lnFDIrt-2

(1.65)*** (-1.43)*** (-2.36)**

0.17 -1.28 -2.51

Constant

(3.11)* (-2.22) (-1.03)

R-square 0.834 0.818 0.58

F-statistic 5.78** 5.14** 1.62

where zt-1 = (lnGDPrt-1 - 0.012 lnRmrt-1- 0.002 lnFDIrt-1 – 0.05t - 12.19), is the error correction term.

Figures in parentheses indicate t-statistic. *, ** & *** indicate statistically significant at the 0.01, 0.05

and 0.10 levels respectively.

Let us now examine the short run results, which can also be inferred from table 4. As mentioned

above that the F-statistics for the models (2.1) and (2.2) are significant, it means the lagged

independent variables cause the dependent variable in the short-run. The coefficients show that

impact of remittance in significant and positive in the growth of real GDP. One percent change

in remittance would bring 0.12 percent change in real GDP but this influence is decreasing over

time. The FDI is similarly associated with the real GDP. The intensity of FDI is 0.013 in the first

and second lags both, hereby indicating a constant contribution to real GDP (model 2.1).

In model (2.2), the change in real GDP has positive influence on remittance inflow and

association is quite strong. Further, the remittance and FDI are negatively associated. One

percent change in FDI would reduce the remittance inflow by 0.21 percent in the first lag while

reduces by 0.12 percent in the second lag.

9

5. CONCLUSION

This paper has examined the role of remittance and FDI with perspective to economic

development of Nepal through cointegration and error-correction models. The cointegration

analysis provides existence of long-run relation among the variables. The remittance inflow and

FDI, both have positive impact on growth of the real GDP, though intensities are marginal. There

exists bidirectional causality between real GDP and real remittance inflow. There is causality

from GDP to FDI but the reverse is not valid. In the analysis, the role of remittance on the real

GDP is found quite dominant over that of FDI in both short-run and long –run. The impact of

FDI has been found almost constant and does not change over time in the short-run.

REFERENCES

§ Afsar, M. (2007). The Causality Relationship between Economic Growth and Foreign Direct

Investment in Turkey. Retrieved on November, 21, 2009 from Business and Economics

Society International; website: www.besiweb.com/BESIP07.

§ Chami, R., Fullenkamp, C., & Jahjah, S. (2005). Are Immigrant Remittance Flows a Source

of Capital for Development? IMF Staff Papers, 52(1): 55-81.

§ Ericsson, J., & Irandoust, M. (2001). On the Causality Between foreign Direct Investment

and Output: A Comparative Study. The International Trade Journal, 15: 122-132.

§ Leon-Manlagnit, P.J.F. (2006). The Role of Remittance in the Growth of Developing

Recipient Economies. An unpublished Master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University.

§ Makki, S. S., & Somwaru, A. (2004). Impact of Foreign Direct Investment and Trade on

Economic Growth: Evidence from Developing Countries. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics, 86 (3): 795-801.

§ MOF (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009). Economic Survey. Kathmandu: G/N.

§ NRB (2008). A Handbook of Government Finance Statistics. Kathmandu: Research

Department, Government Finance Division.

§ Rapoport, H., & Docquier, F. (2005). The Economics of Migrants’ Remittance. Discussion

Paper No. 1531/March 2005. Institute for the Study of Labor.

§ Srivastava, N. L., & Chaudhary, S. K. (2007). Role of Remittance in Economic Development

of Nepal. The Journal of Nepalese Business Studies, 4(1): 28-37.

§ Stark, O. (1991). The Migration of Labor. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

ììì

10

- Impact of Macro Economic Factor on Stock MarketUploaded bySiddharth
- Role of Remittance in Economic Development of NepalUploaded bysaw_sea
- The Effect Of Macroeconomic Variables On Stock Market Performance: A Case Study of GhanaUploaded bysamdagdivine
- Role of Income Tax in Economic Development of BangladeshUploaded byBijoy Salahuddin
- Highlights of the Framework of Inclusive SRUploaded bysrinivasa434
- Economic Snapshots - First Quarter 2017Uploaded byStratbase ADR Institute
- Importance of International Management and Its ImpactsUploaded byShabbirAhmad
- India's DeindustrialisationUploaded byEduardo Rossi
- Economic Growth and Poverty in NigeriaUploaded byzakariamazumder
- Lecture 1 - MaketsChinaEuropeIndustrialRevolutionUploaded byinvisible_winter
- What-every-CEO-needs-to-know-about-superstar-companies-vF.pdfUploaded byRavi Babu
- Cointegration Analysis of Oil PricesUploaded byVictor Manuel
- Dap Stem Cel HospitalUploaded byKathryn Bianca Acance
- Inclusive GrowthUploaded byAina Singh
- Sustainability 07 05609Uploaded byTariq Mahmnood Ali
- Causal Relation between Trading Volume and Stock Returns.Uploaded bySamip Shrestha
- a3 Nymtc Rtp ForecastsUploaded byKrishna Saw
- Sustaining Rapid Growth in Korea Through InnovationUploaded byKorea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
- Indian Paint IndustryUploaded byPriyesh Wankhede
- Measuring the Effect of Fixed Capital Formation in the Non-Oil Sector on Economic Growth and the Crowding-Out of Current Expenditure in the Public Budget in Ksaan Empirical Study for the Period (1974-2014)Uploaded bytheijes
- AFE_Cook[1]Uploaded byarsalan1984
- training-reg-form-researchUploaded byapi-226306965
- 11.a Trivariate Causality Test Among Economic Growth, Government Expenditure and Inflation RateUploaded byAlexander Decker
- Co Integration SlidesUploaded bykaddour7108
- SAPM2Uploaded byfiiimpact
- 41406463.pdfUploaded byAsh Shakur
- Globalization Structural Change and Productivity Growth With an Update on Africa 2014 World DevelopmentUploaded byIsmael Valverde
- BIMBSec - 1Q2012 GDP - 20120528Uploaded byBimb Sec
- 14.pdfUploaded byFAHEEM
- 2012CapitalMarkets_CapitalMarkets_2012111420121114_152810Uploaded byAbdul Sattar

- Increasing government expenditure in Nepal: how effective it is?Uploaded bysaw_sea
- The New Concern of Inflation in NepalUploaded bysaw_sea
- Remittance Inflow to Nepal_ the Lifeline or Cause of Trade DeficitUploaded bysaw_sea
- Public Expenditure and Economic Growth in NepalUploaded bysaw_sea
- Modelling and Forecasting the Inbound Tourism,Uploaded bysaw_sea

- Little White Barbara by Eleanor S. MarchUploaded bydler9999
- JP Morgan Private Bank - Group 1Uploaded byGabriela Ashcallay
- Lisbon the Impact of Travel Tourism on Jobs AnUploaded byKartik Thakkar
- 1. Corporate Governance at Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia - Not a Good ThingUploaded bytom
- Afm Sem 4 Final Receivables ManagementUploaded byNits Ahuja
- 496_melina mercouri's legacy.pdfUploaded byAfasyr Amicale
- EconomicsUploaded byzairah
- Cap 8Uploaded byUver Jhon Terrones Leon
- Banking Related Frauds_Puneet MathurUploaded byPuneet Mathur
- WorldCom the Expense Recognition PrincipleUploaded bySvetlana Svetlichnaya
- Underground Stock Trading Blueprint, Bill PoulosUploaded bypaulth2
- Lloyds Bank IFRC - Franchising in Figures Jun 1996 - Franchising in Britain SeriesUploaded bySME_Research
- ACT 202 AssignmentUploaded byMoin Uddin Ahmed
- Part1 Brazil FightsUploaded bybajax_lawut9921
- internal analysisUploaded byAhmed Rauf
- Case Study of MalaysiaUploaded bySaba Pervez
- Revised QuestionnaireUploaded byPauline Keith Paz Manuel
- Combined Humanities: History Examination Package (Russia, Germany, Stalin, Hitler, Policy of Appeasement)Uploaded byJeremy Ang Wei Yao
- M&a Digest - Pfizer and Hospira MergerUploaded byMartin Li
- English HKSI LE Paper 3 Pass Paper Question Bank (QB)Uploaded byTsz Ngong Ko
- Fulltext ADB Thailand Education MuslimUploaded byZaki Roengsamut
- Timeline PresentationUploaded byJustin Mitchell
- leaveencashment-100721093319-phpapp01Uploaded bymonikasingh019
- Features of SchemeUploaded bysameers58
- The Ideology of AutonomyUploaded byMaiko Cheukachi
- A Balanced Scorecard ApproachUploaded byHenry Ruperto Seva
- Session 2-State of SP Financing in Asia_Michael Cichon.pdfUploaded byKristine Presbitero
- Trade PolicyUploaded byRamesh Bharathi
- liberalisationprivatisationandglobalisation-130725021039-phpapp02Uploaded bySravan Kumar Sharma
- LI & FUNGUploaded byKarthikeyan Krishnakumar