ECON 1313: BASIC ECONOMETRICS

SEMESTER 1, 2021
Empirical Project Individual
Report

Student name: Nguyen Hoai Uyen Phuong

Student ID: S3817690
Lecturer: Vu Thi Hong Nhung
Word count:2480
Group: 5
1
2
ABREVIATIONS

FDI: Foreign Investment Inflows

NresGDP: the share of natural resources in GDP

BoP: Balance of Payment

GDP: GDP with ages 15-64

Table of Contents
I. Overview and data collection..................................................................................................3

1. Overview of topic...........................................................................................................................3

2. Data collection................................................................................................................................3

3
II. Descriptive statistics and revelant tests of checking OLS assumptions...................................4

1. Descriptive Statistics......................................................................................................................4

2. Popuplation Regression model.......................................................................................................6

3. Check potential multicollinearity....................................................................................................6

III. DISCUSSION RESULTS..........................................................................................................7

1. Sample multiple linear regression...................................................................................................7

2. Interpret Godness-of-Fit – R2..........................................................................................................7

3. Hypothesis of F-test........................................................................................................................8

4. Hypothesis of T-test........................................................................................................................8

5. Dicussion......................................................................................................................................11

IV. FURTHER DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................12

1. Dummy Variable..........................................................................................................................12

2. Hypothesis and T-test...................................................................................................................12

3. Interaction term............................................................................................................................13

4. Hypothesis & t-test Results of Interaction Term in Model 3.........................................................13

5. Square Term & Model 4...............................................................................................................14

6. Hypothesis & Marginal Effect Of Square Term In Model 4.........................................................14

V. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................15

VI. REFERENCES......................................................................................................................17

I. Overview and data collection

1. Overview of topic

In recent decades, foreign direct investment is a significant factor in economic growth and global
economic globalization (Wang et al. 2021 & Blomstrom & Co. Wang, 1989). Ansongu et al.

4
(2018) use panel data analysis from 2001 to 2011 to examine the determinants of FDI inflows
into fast-growing economies (BRICS and MINT). Additionally, this conducted demonstrates that
market size, NResGDP, infrastructure, inflation, and trade openness influence FDI. There are
positive and significant signs for market size, infrastructure availability, and trade openness,
while the sign for NResGDP is negative but insignificant, implying that BRICS and MINT
countries are less dependent on natural resources and more likely to receive FDI. The study
shows that the inflation coefficient is positive and insignificant, implying that it has less impact
on the investment decisions of multinational corporations.
BRICS MINT
Brazil Mexico
Russia Indonesia
China Nigeria
South Africa Turkey
Table 1: Details countries in BRICS and MINT

2. Data collection
 Data collection and data cleaning process
The data are cross-sectional collected from the World Bank through 30 countries throughout the
Americas region in 2010 with the aim of understanding the five determinants of FDI inflows,
including exports and imports of goods and services, population with ages 15-64, GDP per capita
and inflation.
During the data cleaning process, missing values in the determinants of foreign direct investment
will be replaced with data from other reliable sources. For instance, The World Data Atlas
inflation for 2010 for Argentina and Belize was collected from The World Data Atlas. In
addition, exports and imports of goods and services in Guyana, St. Lucia, and Trinidad and
Tobago in 2010 were gathered from Countries data. Furthermore, Excel's Conditional Formatting
function is used to highlight and remove countries with no data.

 Take natural logarithm

In this case, data of both the dependent variable (FDI) and the independent variable (population
and GDP per capita) are assumed to be always positive; therefore, log-transformed would be
applied in both variables. Using logarithms provides a more precise measurement because it

5
provides the estimated percentage change for specific variables (Benoit 2011). Additionally, the
natural logarithmic transform is convenient to convert a highly skewed variable to a more
approximate than normal variable (Changyong et al. 2014).

II. Descriptive statistics and revelant tests of checking OLS assumptions

1. Descriptive Statistics

  N Mean Std.Deviation Maximum Minimum

LnFDI 30 20.95179168 2.189228478 26.29936266 17.91684499
EXP 30 32.9874471 16.4970305 79.58755308 6.880918311
IMP 30 39.12465028 17.0958397 78.23187943 11.90659334
LogPOP 30 14.95297698 2.272201959 19.14664386 11.00419764
LogGDP 30 8.898077426 0.903274409 10.78863137 7.06655145
Inflatio
n 30 5.133593038 5.209449233 28.18746471 0.747109026
Table 1: Summary of descriptive statistics of all variables
The characteristics of the sample are summarized in the analysis table below (Table 1). The
average exports of goods and services in the Americas region is 33 while imports of goods and
services have an average of 40, which shows that the importing goods and services are more than
exports. In terms of inflation, the average reached 5%, implying that a stable inflation rate can
signal that the country has a stable economy. For logarithmic transformation, the mean of both
dependent and independent variables is not informative, so the actual data is considered to
explain the meaning of the variables (figure 2). The average FDI in 2010 of the Americas is
15,508,000,000 BoP (current US$). Moreover, the average population is 20,051,879 million
people, and the average GDP per capita is 10,800 US$.

Standard
  N Mean deviation Maximum Minimum
15,508,173,69 264,039,000,00
FDI
30 2 49,696,901,227 0 60,420,861
Population
with ages 15-
64 30 20,051,879.53 44,419,608.42 206,672,064 60,126

6
 GDP per capita 30 10,905 11,590 48,467 1,172
Table 2: Descriptive result (actual value) in FDI, population and GDP per capita

Types of variable Name Definition Values used

Dependent variable Ln_FDI Foreign Direct Investment Natural
Inflows (BoP, current US$) logarithms of
the data
Independent variable EXP Exports of goods and services Original
(% of GDP)
IMP Imports of goods and services Original
(% of GDP)
Log_POP Population with ages 15-64, Natural
total logarithms of
the data
Log_GD GDP per capita (current US$) Natural
P logarithms of
the data
INF Inflation rate Original
Table 3 : Choice of model specification
2. Popuplation Regression model

𝐿𝑜𝑔𝐹𝐷𝐼=𝛽0+ 𝛽1𝐸𝑋𝑃+ 𝛽2𝐼𝑀𝑃+𝛽3𝐿𝑜𝑔 𝑃𝑂𝑃+ 𝛽4𝐿𝑜𝑔𝐺𝐷𝑃+𝛽5𝐼𝑁𝐹+𝜀(1)

3. Check potential multicollinearity

LnGDP LnPOP EXP IMP INF

LogGD
P 1
LogPO
P 0.079074317 1
EXP -0.0070586 -0.45081715 1
IMP -0.308380294 -0.700891393 0.714494757 1
INF 0.062352492 0.154280557 -0.065913778 -0.26266132 1
Table 4 : Pearson Correlation table

7
 coeff std err vif
Intercept -1.366856948 2.424292245
LogGDP 1.101408218 0.159885069 1.32656717
LogPOP 0.840894751 0.080577078 2.13201815
EXP 0.001154627 0.0119186 2.45887287
IMP 0.00731912 0.015763028 4.61885341
INF -0.074040345 0.025546997 1.126516
Table 5: Collinearity Statistic

To satisfy Hypothesis 3, our aforementioned independent variables need not be perfectly

correlated. The correlation coefficient and value of VIF are used in this Model to verify
Multicollinearity. The study of Dohoo et al. 1997 stated that Multicollinearity could occur in the
case of including independent variables that are correlated with each other. The correlation value
between all independent variables is lower than 0.8 (table 4). Based on Figure 4, the VIF values
for all variables are below the critical value of 10 (Lin 2008). Therefore, we chose to estimate the
Model that combines all the factors affecting FDI inflows mentioned above.

III. DISCUSSION RESULTS

1. Sample multiple linear regression

coeff std err t stat p-value

Intercept -1.366856948 2.424292245 -0.563816904 0.578109725
LogGDP 1.101408218 0.159885069 6.88874966 4.00166E-07
LogPOP 0.840894751 0.080577078 10.43590531 2.12257E-10
EXP 0.001154627 0.0119186 0.096876017 0.923629317
IMP 0.00731912 0.015763028 0.464321933 0.6466016
INF -0.074040345 0.025546997 -2.898201437 0.007893471

Table 6: Result of model 1

The sample MLR of Model 1 can be written as below:

𝐿𝑜𝑔𝐹𝐷𝐼=1.366+0.001𝐸𝑋𝑃+0.007𝐼𝑀𝑃+0.84𝐿𝑜𝑔𝑃𝑂𝑃+1.101𝐿𝑜𝑔𝐺𝐷𝑃−0.074𝐼𝑁𝐹+𝜀1

2. Interpret Godness-of-Fit – R2

8
 Regression
Analysis

OVERALL FIT
Multiple R 0.959826712
R Square 0.921267317
Adjusted R Square 0.904864675
Standard Error 0.675245956
Observations 30

Table 7: Result of R square

Goodness-of-Fit describes how well the sample data fits a set of observations and is measured as
R-squared, representing the proportion variation in the dependent variable associated with
explanatory variables. The R-square of our final model is 0.92, indicating that 92% of the
variation in the natural logarithms of FDI in 2010 is explained by all explanatory variables
including in the model while 8% is due to other factors not included in model (table 7).

3. Hypothesis of F-test

In regression, the F-Test determines whether your linear regression model fits the data better
than a model without explanatory variables. The significant level chosen is 𝛼=1%.
The null hypothesis 𝑯𝟎:𝜷𝟏=𝜷𝟐=…=𝜷𝒌=𝟎 (The explanatory variables are not useful at all in
explaining the dependent variable)
The alternative hypothesis 𝑯𝟏:𝜷𝒌≠𝟎 (At least one independent variable is statiscally significant
to dependent variable)

ANOVA Alpha 0,01

  df SS MS F p-value
Regression 5 128.0459481 25.60918962 56.16578739 1.83742E-12
9
 Residual 24 10.94297044 0.455957102
Total 29 138.9889186      
Table 8: Hypothesis of F-test

Based on illustrated table 8, the p-value of F-test in Anova area is lower 0.000, which is lower
than the significant level of 0.01. Thus, we will reject the null hypothesis of F-test; in other
words the explanatory variables are useful in explaining the dependent variable.

4. Hypothesis of T-test

Independent Variable Coefficient

s
Exports of goods and services (EXP) β1
Imports of goods and Services (IMP) β2
Natural logarithm of Population with ages 15-64 β3
Natual logarithm of GDP per capita β4
Inflation (INF) β5
Table 9: Coefficient for independent variable

^
βj se ¿ df t-critical t-critical t-critical
value ( value ( value
α =1 % ¿ α =5 % ¿ (α =10 %)
EXP 0.001 0.011 24 2.492 1.7108 1.3178

IMP 0.007 0.015 24 2.492 1.7108 1.3178

Log(PoP) 0.84 0.080 24 2.492 1.7108 1.3178

Log(GDP) 1.101 0.159 24 2.492 1.7108 1.3178

INF -0.074 0.025 24 2.492 1.7108 1.3178

Table 10: Results of t-statistic and t-critical

a) Exports of goods and services

 Define hypothesis
The null hypotheis 𝐻0:𝛽1=0 (There is no effect of exports on FDI)

10
The alternative hypothesis 𝐻1:𝛽1>0

 Given 𝛼=1% and df=24

Since t-statistic=0.09<C0.01=2.492, therefore the null hypothesis is failed to reject at 𝛼=1%
Therefore, we check significance of individual coefficients with the significant level of 5% and
10%.

 𝛼=5% and df=24

T-statistic=0.09 < C0.05=1.7108; therefore the null hypothesis is failed to reject at siginificant
level of 5%.

 𝛼=10% and df=24

T-statistic=0.09 < C0.1=1.3178, therefore the null hypothesis is failed to reject at siginificant level
of 10%.
We conclude that exports of goods and services influence that is insignificantly at significant
level of 1%, 5% and 10%

b) Imports of goods and services

 Define hypothesis
The null hypotheis 𝐻0:𝛽2=0 (There is no effect of imports on FDI)
The alternative hypothesis 𝐻1:𝛽2>0

 𝛼=1% and df=24

Since t-statistic=0.467 < C0.01=2.492, therefore the null hypothesis is failed to reject at
siginificant level of 1%. Therefore, we check significance of individual coefficients with the
significant level of 5% and 10%.

 𝛼=5% and df=24

T-statistic=0.467 < C0.05=1.7108; therefore the null hypothesis is failed to reject at siginificant
level of 5%

11
 𝛼=10% and df=24
T-statistic=0.467 < C0.1=1.3178; ; therefore the null hypothesis is failed to reject at siginificant
level of 10%
We conclude that exports of goods and services influence that is insignificantly at significant
level of 1%, 5% and 10%.

c) Log(Population)

 Define hypothesis
The null hypotheis 𝐻0:𝛽3=0 (There is no effect of population on FDI)
The alternative hypothesis 𝐻1:𝛽3>0

 𝛼=1% and df=24

Since t-statistic=10.5 > C0.01=2.492; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and the population
with ages 16-64 is significant at significant level of 1%. As H0 has been rejected for 𝛼 =0.01, it
will also be rejected for 𝛼=5%, 10%.

 Interpretation of significant coefficient

Log(population) = 0.84 indicates that for every additional 1% increase in the percentage of
population with ages 15-64, the foreign direct investment will increase by 0.84%, holding all
otther factors constant.

d) Log (GDP)
 Define hypothesis
The null hypotheis 𝐻0:𝛽4=0 (There is no effect of GDP per capita on FDI)
The alternative hypothesis 𝐻1:𝛽4>0

 𝛼=1% and df=24

12
Since t-statistic=6.924 > C0.01=2.492; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and the GDP per
capita is significant at significant level of 1%. As H0 has been rejected for 𝛼 =0.01, it will also be
rejected for 𝛼=5%, 10%.

 Interpretation of significant coefficient

Log(GDP) per capita =1.101: This means that GDP per capita increase by 1%, the probability
that foreign direct investment inflows will rise by 1.101%, holding all otther factors constant.

e) Inflation rate
 Define hypothesis
The null hypotheis 𝐻0:𝛽5=0 (There is no effect of inflation rate on FDI)
The alternative hypothesis 𝐻1:𝛽5<0
 𝛼=1% and df=24
Since t-statistic=-2.96 < C0.01=-2.492; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and the inflation
rate is significant at significant level of 1%. As H0 has been rejected for 𝛼 =0.01, it will also be
rejected for 𝛼=5%, 10%.

 Interpretation of significant coefficient

Inflation_rate= -0.074 implies that if for every one unit of inflation rate increases, the foreign direct
investment inflows will decline by 7.4%, holding all otther factors constant.

5. Dicussion

Reflecting the regression results with part 1, there are many differences that need to be
considered because of different data analysis methods. First, the most obvious difference that can
be seen is the effect of the inflation rate on the dependent variable, a previous study has shown a
negligible relationship between the inflation rate and FDI inflows. This is inconsistent with our
results. However, the market size positively impacts the FDI inflows, which matched with our
model because market size proxied by GDP per capita, which was supported by a study of Azam
and Lukman (2010). Population aged 15-64 years is defined as the working-age population
(Fazekas 2005) demonstrating a positive relationship with FDI inflows, which is also consistent
with our Model 1.

13
IV. FURTHER DISCUSSION

1. Dummy Variable

With the calculation median of an independent variable which is GDP per capita by Excel and
resulting in the median value of $7,760.093. As intructed in the requirement, GDP per capita is
transformed into dummy varible, in which the high-living standard (larger than the median) is
recorded as 1 and otherwise is recorded as 0. Based on regression results (Appendix 3), the
sample MLR of Model 2 can be written as:

LogFDI=9.856 +0.002 exp−0.011 IMP+0.744 log ( POP ) −0.107 INF+1.7925 Highlivingstandard +ε (2)

  coeff std err t stat p-value

1.68443489
Intercept 9.856404383 3 5.851460585 4.91489E-06
High living
standard 1.792556836 0.303 5.912503089 4.22685E-06
LogPOP 0.74459767 0.08611447 8.646603388 7.76088E-09
0.01316174
EXP 0.002133385 7 0.162089834 0.872592042
0.01620858
IMP -0.011533986 5 -0.71159738 0.483574069
0.02810230
INF -0.107907793 7 -3.839819791 0.000789029
Table 11: Results of dummy variable

2. Hypothesis and T-test

The null hypothesis 𝐻0:𝛽𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝐿𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑=0 (There is no difference in FDI inflows of
living standard levels)
The alternative hypothesis 𝐻1:𝛽𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝐿𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 ≠0
The p-value is 0.0000 (table 11), which is lower than the given significant level of 0.01. Thus,
we reject the null and the effect of variable High Living Standard in Model 2 is statistically
significant at 1%.
Interpret coefficient

14
𝛽𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝐿𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑=1.7925, which means that the percentage change in FDI inflows is
higher 179% for the dummy variable high living standard than for the reference group, holding
other factors constant.

3. Interaction term

We constructed an interaction term as instructed, of which detail results can be found in table 12.
The sample MLR of Model 3 can be written as:
LogFDI=12.322+0.008 exp−0.016 IMP+ 0.577 log ( POP )−0.1105 INF−2.042 High Living Standard+ 0.2546 lo
(3)

  coeff std err t stat p-value

Intercept 12.32288637 1.990587664 6.19057708 2.57462E-06
LogPOP 0.57716194 0.115160874 5.011788484 4.53002E-05
EXP 0.008412902 0.012744711 0.660109309 0.515740544
IMP -0.016025337 0.015389729 -1.041300733 0.308558754
INF -0.110543135 0.026440559 -4.180816919 0.000358776
High living standard -2.042714928 1.8982562 -1.076100754 0.29304102
LogPOP.Highlivingstandar
d 0.254641822 0.124606487 2.043567945 0.052614376
Table 12: Results of interaction term

4. Hypothesis & t-test Results of Interaction Term in Model 3

The null hypothesis 𝐻0:𝛽log𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛.𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝐿𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑=0 (The additional population

effect on FDI inflows is similar into two groups: countries with high living standard and others)
The alternative hypothesis 𝐻1: 𝛽log𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛.𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝐿𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑≠ 0 (The relationshiop
between population and FDI inflows varies by level of living standard)
The p-value is 0.05 (table 12), which is lower than given significant level of 0.01. Thus, we do
not reject the null and the effect of interaction term in Model 3 is not statistically significant at
α =1 %.
However, p-value is 0.05 ≤ given significant level alpha is 5%; therefore, we reject the null
hypothesis at significant level of 0.05
Interpret coefficient

15
∂ LogFDI
= 0.577 + 0.354.Highlivingstandard
∂ LogPop
𝛽log𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛.𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ 𝐿𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 = 0.254 means that the living standard increases, the
additional effect of population on the FDI inflows will be larger for the countries with high living
standard compared to other groups. If the population with ages 15-64 increase by one unit, the
FDI inflows in countries will change by 0.577 + 0.354.Highlivingstandard, holding other
factors constant.

5. Square Term & Model 4

As instructed, we calculated square term of GDP per capita and estimated Model 4, of which
detail results can be found in Appendix 5. The sample MLR of Model 4 can be written as:
LogFDI=4.817−0.007 exp+0.018 IMP+0.943 log ( POP )−0.097 INF+0.0002 GDP per capita−0.0000 GDP per
(4)

  coeff std err t stat p-value

Intercept 4.817863764 1.959439068 2.45879744 0.021889918
LogPOP 0.943680828 0.09468009 9.967046169 8.13558E-10
GDP per capita (current US$) 0.000299062 5.33344E-05 5.607295296 1.04778E-05
GDP per capita^2 -4.88278E-09 1.07405E-09 -4.546144662 0.000144273
EXP -0.00785714 0.012744467 -0.616513795 0.543610103
IMP 0.018845288 0.017067963 1.104132209 0.280953735
INF -0.097700502 0.026587425 -3.67468837 0.001257167
Table 13: Results of quadratic term

6. Hypothesis & Marginal Effect Of Square Term In Model 4

The statistical significant is used to check the significance of square term’s coefficient in the
multiple linear regression model. In our model, the significance level of 𝛼=1% is chosen to
confirm that Ln(FDI) can be associated with the square term.

16
The null hypothesis H 0 : βGDP per capita =0 (There is no non-linear relationship between GDP per
2

capita and FDI inflows)

The alternative hypothesis H 1 : β GDP per capita ≠ 0(There is an evidence of quadratic relationship)
2

The p-value is 0.0001 (tbale 13), which is lower than significant level of 0.01. Thus, we reject
the null meaning that the non-linear relationship between GDP per capita on FDI inflows is
statistically significant at 1% significance level.
The marginal effect of GDP per capita on FDI inflows can be described as:
0.0002−2∗4 . 88278 e−09 GDP per capita
Interpret significant coefficience
In other words, the first one unit increase in GDP per capita would result in an increase of 0.02
percentage points in FDI inflows. GDP per capita increase in the second one unit, FDI inflows
will increase by 0.0002-2*4.88278e−09×(2) percentage points and so forth.

V. CONCLUSION

Our model studies FDI determinants using cross-sectional data on 30 countries in the Americas
region in 2010. Using multiple linear regression models (1) and OLS assumption 3, 5
determinants including exports and imports of goods and services, population, GDP per capita
and inflation rate do not correlate. Based on the R-squared of the output, 92.12% of the R-
squared, very close to 1, indicates that the regression model is Good is Fit. The F test shows that
the selected group of independent variables has significance for the dependent variable.
Moreover, the T test also shows that 3 independent variables are significant for FDI at 1%
significance level. We find that the increase in working age population and GDP per capita
significantly affect FDI with a positive sign. However, the inflation rate have a negative impact
on FDI inflows. Notably, our models' dummy high standard of living and the squared term are
significant at the α = 1% level; while the terms of interaction are significant at α = 5%.

More countries are attempting to attract FDI, resulting in increased competition between
countries (El Banna et al. 2017). As a result, recommendations have been made to support
critical policies aimed at increasing FDI attraction. Hossain (2017) demonstrated that developing
countries with economic freedom has a positively significance with FDI. Governments can
promote economic freedom by establishing a regulatory framework that safeguards owners'

17
property rights (Lawson n.d). Furthermore, governments allow households and businesses to
manage a larger share of income and wealth for their own use. Also, governments limit the
financial burden on economic activity through taxation to enable households and businesses to
manage a larger share of income and wealth (Hayek n.d)

Our model uses cross-sectional data analysis, so it cannot generate a comprehensive relationship
between all the independent variables and FDI inflows. Therefore, future research should prefer
using panel data collected from several periods to observe data trends through the same group of
units. When it comes to the actual construction of a regression model, errors can arise from
omitting irrelevant variables or the inclusion of irrelevant variables. Therefore, the model needs
to follow the theory, and then includes all the variables available under the theory and then
excludes the least theoretically important and least added variables (Azubuike & Chinaka 2020)

For further study, infrastructure availability as a new independent variable will be considered in
this model. Based on the evidence gathered from the previous study (Ansongu et al. 2018), it can
be seen that infrastructure plays an important role in FDI attraction. Host countries with highly
developed infrastructure tend to increase investment productivity, thereby attracting higher levels
of FDI (Armah 2016, Wheeler & Mody 1992). Furthermore, human capital is a factor associated
with foreign direct investment, often represented by education (Miyamoto 2003). Bhaumik and
Dimova (2013) demonstrate that government expenditure increases in investing in human capital
in developing countries. This leads to an increase in FDI and can contribute to efficient economic
growth.

18
VI. REFERENCES

Armah, M.K., 2016. Infrastructure and foreign direct investment inflows: Evidence from Ghana.
Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 7(1), pp.57-66.

Asongu, S., Akpan, U.S. and Isihak, S.R., 2018. Determinants of foreign direct investment in
fast-growing economies: evidence from the BRICS and MINT countries. Financial Innovation,
4(1), pp.1-17.

Azam, M., Lukman, L. (2010). Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in India, Indonesia
and Pakistan: A Quantitative Approach, Journal of Managerial Sciences, 4 (1), pp. 31-44.

Benoit, K 2011, ‘Linear regression models with logarithmic transformations’, London School of
Economics, vol. 22, iss.1, pp. 23-26

Bhaumik, S.K. and Dimova, R., 2013. Does Human Capital Endowment of Foreign Direct
Investment Recipient Countries Really Matter? Evidence from Cross‐country Firm Level Data.
Review of development economics, vol. 17, iss. 3, pp. 559-570.

Changyong, F, Hongyue, W, Naiji, L, Tian, C, Hua, H, Ying, L & Xin, MT 2014, ‘Log-
transformation and its implications for data analysis’, Shanghai archives of psychiatry, vol. 26,
iss. 2, pp. 105.
Countryeconomy, n.d, ‘Guyana - Merchandise Exports’, Country Economy, viewed 13 August
2021, < https://countryeconomy.com/trade/exports/guyana>

Countryeconomy, n.d, ‘Guyana - Merchandise Imports’, Country Economy, viewed 13 August

2021, < https://countryeconomy.com/trade/imports/guyana?
fbclid=IwAR10kMJnyJXvNGJawGQpFIrGAm_3lGsk9HyVVsIJgdmuW7pqsnFc0ZlGQJU>

19
Countryeconomy, n.d, ‘Trinidad - Tobago - Merchandise Exports’, Country Economy, viewed
13 August 2021,< https://countryeconomy.com/trade/exports/trinidad-tobago>

Countryeconomy, n.d, ‘Trinidad - Tobago - Merchandise Exports’, Country Economy, viewed

13 August 2021, < https://countryeconomy.com/trade/imports/trinidad-tobago>
Dohoo, I, Ducrot, C, Fourichon, C, Donald, A and Hurnik, D (1997), “An overview of
techniques for dealing with large numbers of independent variables in epidemiologic studies”,
Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 221-239.

El Banna A., Hamzaoui-Essoussi L., and Papadopoulos N. (2017), “A Comparative Cross-

National Examination of Online Investment Promotion”, Journal of Euromarketing, 25(3-4):
131-146.

Fazekas, K., 2005. Effects of FDI inflows on regional labour market differences in Hungary.
Economie internationale, vol. 2, pp.83-105.

Hayek, FA n.d, ‘ECONOMIC FREEDOM: POLICIES FOR PROSPERITY’, The Heritage

Foundation, Chapter 1, viewed 20 August 2021, <
https://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2018/book/chapter1.pdf>

Knoema n.d, ‘Argentina – Average consumer prices inflation rate’, World Data Atlas, viewed 12
August 2021, < https://knoema.com/atlas/Argentina/Inflation-rate>

Knoema n.d, ‘Belize – Average consumer prices inflation rate’, World Data Atlas, viewed 12
August 2021, < https://knoema.com/atlas/Argentina/Inflation-rate>

Lawson, RA n.d, ‘Economic Freedom’, The Library of Economics and Liberty’, viewed 20
August 20210, < https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/EconomicFreedom.html>

Lin, FJ (2008), “Solving multicollinearity in the process of fitting regression model using the
nested estimate procedure”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 417-426.

Miyamoto, K. (2003). Human capital formation and foreign firect investment in developing
dountries. Working paper No.211,< http://www.oecd.org/dev/5888700.pdf >

20
The World Bank 2021, DataBank World Development Indicators, viewed 13 August 2021,
<https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=2&series=AG.LND.AGRI.ZS&country>.

UNDP n.d., Developing regions, viewed 13 August 2021,

<http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/developing-regions>

Wang, J.Y. and Blomström, M., 1992. Foreign investment and technology transfer: A simple
model. European economic review, vol. 36, iss, 1, pp.137-155.

Wang, X, Xu, Z, Qin, Y and Skare, M 2021, ‘Foreign direct investment and economic growth: a
dynamic study of measurement approaches and results’, Economic Research-Ekonomska
Istraživanja, pp.1-24.

Wheeler, D & Mody, A 1992. "International investment location decisions : The case of U.S.
firms," Journal of International Economics, vol. 33, iss.1-2, pp. 57-76.

21