Abstract

Since the early 1970s foreign direct and portfolio equity investment flows into developing countries, although continuing to increase in absolute terms, have been relatively less important than in previous years, as foreign private capital flows have been dominated by debt-creating bank credit.

Appendix I Measuring Foreign Investment

The Fund’s Balance of Payments Manual defines foreign direct investment as investment made to acquire a lasting interest in a foreign enterprise with the purpose of having an effective voice in its management. Establishing a borderline to set direct investment apart from other types of capital flow can be difficult, since the difference basically depends on the motives of the investor. Many countries set a minimum proportion of foreign ownership of the voting stock (generally between 10 and 25 percent) as evidence of direct investment; sometimes several percentages are set, depending on how dispersed foreign ownership is.37 Equity investments in enterprises that do not have these minimum proportions of foreign ownership are classified as portfolio investment. All other term liabilities, that is, all other obligations that have a predetermined schedule of repayment, are classified as external debt.38

In principle, foreign direct investment flows include all funds provided by the direct investor, either directly or through affiliates. This includes equity capital, reinvested earnings, and net borrowing from the direct investor or its affiliates. Third-party loans guaranteed by the direct investor are not included, even though the investor assumes a potential liability and the loan might not have been possible without the existence of the direct investment in the subsidiary by the parent company. In practice, many developing and some industrial countries do not collect information on reinvested earnings, while borrowing by a subsidiary from a parent company is sometimes included in external debt statistics.

Statistics on direct investment flows to developing countries can be derived from either the source or the recipient country; both types of data are used in this report.

Source country data: direct investment flows from the principal capital-exporting industrial countries (i.e., members of the Development Assistance Committee) to developing countries are collected by the OECD. In principle, the flows include reinvested earnings, al-though in practice these are partly estimated and cannot always be allocated to individual recipient countries. Direct investment flows from the major oil exporting countries, or between other developing countries, are not included.

Recipient country data: direct investment flows into each developing country are reported to the Fund as part of its balance of payments statistics and are published in its annual Balance of Payments Statistics Yearbook. However, many countries do not report information on reinvested earnings. Current data on direct investment flows, sometimes based partially on Fund staff estimates, are also collected by the staff of the Fund in the course of regular consultations with member countries, and these are used in preparing the World Economic Outlook. Data used in the WEO do not give a breakdown between reinvested earnings and other components of direct investment.

Even for countries that do report reinvested earnings, there are often significant differences between statistics derived from source and recipient countries. These discrepancies are partly due to differences in coverage, since the data from source countries only cover capital-exporting industrial countries, but are also partly because of differences in accounting conventions, timing, and incomplete reporting. Discrepancies are not confined to data from developing countries—there are substantial differences between U.S. and U.K. statistics on direct investment flows between the two countries, for instance—and indicate that too much emphasis should not be placed on small fluctuations in recorded flows.

The statistics on direct investment flows to developing countries have, where necessary, been adjusted to exclude the effects of borrowing and other net capital flows between U.S. parent companies and their financial affiliates in the Netherlands Antilles. Such borrowing, which is substantial (amounting to over $9.5 billion in 1982) largely consists of Euromarket borrowing by the U.S. parent companies that is routed through their financial affiliates for tax purposes.

Although the detailed presentation of the Fund’s Balance of Payments Statistics makes provision for entries on portfolio investment in corporate equities, in practice recipient developing countries rarely collect separate data on such flows; if recorded at all, they are usually grouped with other categories of portfolio investment such as public sector bonds.39

Classification of Countries

The classification of countries in this report is that adopted by the Fund in December 1979 and used in its International Financial Statistics for the March 1980 and subsequent issues. Industrial countries comprise:

  • Australia

  • Austria

  • Belgium

  • Canada

  • Denmark

  • Finland

  • France

  • Germany, Federal Republic of

  • Iceland

  • Ireland

  • Italy

  • Japan

  • Luxembourg

  • Netherlands

  • New Zealand

  • Norway

  • Spain

  • Sweden

  • Switzerland

  • United Kingdom

  • United States

The developing countries are divided into two groups: oil exporting countries and non-oil developing countries. Oil exporting countries are:

  • Algeria

  • Indonesia

  • Iran, Islamic Republic of

  • Iraq

  • Kuwait

  • Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

  • Nigeria

  • Oman

  • Qatar

  • Saudi Arabia

  • United Arab Emirates

  • Venezuela

Non-oil developing countries include all Fund members (on December 31, 1983) except those listed above as being industrial countries or oil exporting countries, together with certain essentially autonomous dependent territories for which adequate statistics are available.

The classification of developing countries used by the OECD differs from that of the IMF; the principal differences are that the OECD classification does not include South Africa but does include Spain.

Among the developing countries, a subgroup of major borrowers is discussed in the text. This comprises those seven developing countries with total outstanding external indebtedness at the end of 1983 of at least $30 billion, or outstanding indebtedness to private creditors on the same date of at least $20 billion. These countries are: Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, the Philippines, and Venezuela.

It should be noted that the term “country” used in this document does not in all cases refer to a territorial entity that is a state as understood by international law and practice. The term also covers some territorial entities that are not states but for which statistical data are maintained and provided internationally on a separate and independent basis.

Appendix II Restrictions and Regulations Concerning Foreign Investment in the 25 Major Developing Country Borrowers

The following table lists a number of restrictions and regulations concerning foreign direct and portfolio investment, as well as repatriation of profits and capital from such investment, that were in effect at the end of 1983. Various fiscal incentives and disincentives affecting direct investment are not included; and a few restrictions (such as limits on foreign investments in national security and defense sectors) that are common to most countries are not mentioned specifically. The Annual Report on Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions of the International Monetary Fund was one of the principal sources for the table; as in that publication, it is not implied that any particular regulation necessarily constitutes an exchange restriction.

Restrictions and Regulations for 25 Major Borrowers

article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image
article image

Appendix III Income Payments on Direct Investment and External Debt, and Ability to Pay

Any attempt to compare movements in rates of return on foreign direct investment and interest rates on external debt with measures of host countries” ability to support such payments is made difficult by the poor quality of much of the data on direct investment, and its returns, in many developing countries. There are two key problems. First, adequate time series on reinvested earnings are only available for a few developing countries. Second, no measure of the true rate of return on direct investment is available, since data on the stock of direct investment are reported at book value rather than current market prices. It is not clear whether this leads to an under- or overestimation of the rate of return on direct investment. It will be overestimated to the extent that the book value of the stock of investment is less than its true value at current market prices, but is underestimated to the extent that no account can be taken of the fact that, unlike debt instruments, the value of direct investment assets is likely to rise with inflation. Consequently, all comparisons between estimated rates of return on direct investment and market interest rates can only be approximate.

The two simplest measures of movements in a host country’s ability to service its external liabilities are the rates of growth of its GDP and its exports. The greater the association between movements in income payments on external liabilities and movements in output, then the less expenditures will need to be reduced to generate resources to meet the payments. Similarly, the greater the association between movements in income payments on external liabilities and movements in export earnings, the fewer the resources that will need to be transferred between traded and nontraded sectors of the economy to generate the necessary foreign exchange for income payments. This latter connection is less strong, however, because the need for expenditure-switching policies is also affected by the scope for import substitution. Indeed, for many developing countries, particularly in Latin America, much of the external debt and foreign direct investment was accumulated in connection with import substitution rather than promotion of exports.

For a group of 12 non-oil developing countries (Brazil, Bolivia, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Israel, Jamaica, Mexico, Morocco, and Sierra Leone) with sufficiently long time series on reinvested earnings, rates of return on direct investment and average interest rates on external debt were compared with rates of growth of GDP and exports (both in dollar terms). Average rates of return and rates of growth were calculated for the group as a whole, on a GDP-weighted basis. The annual rate of return on direct investment was calculated as total income payments on direct investment (i.e., dividend and net interest payments plus reinvested earnings) as a percentage of the mean of the estimated stock of direct investment outstanding at the beginning and end of each year. The average interest rate on external debt was calculated as scheduled interest payments as a percentage of the mean of the stock of external debt outstanding at the beginning and end of each year.

The average rate of return on direct investment was positively associated with the rate of growth of GDP. An above- (or below-) average rate of growth of GDP was associated with an above- (or below-) average return on direct investment in all but one year between 1974 and 1982 (Chart 4). By contrast, there was little association between the rate of growth of GDP and the average interest rate paid on external debt (Chart 5). Over the entire period, however, the estimated average return on direct investment, which—for the reason mentioned above—can only be used as a rough guide, was higher than the average interest rate on external debt (at around 11 percent and 8½ percent, respectively), so that there may have been some positive trade-off between the risks and returns associated with equity and debt instruments.

Chart 4.
Chart 4.

Selected Non-Oil Developing Countries: Nominal GDP Growth and Rates of Return on Foreign Direct Investment, 1974–821

(In percent)

1 This chart plots the GDP-weighted estimated annual rate of return on foreign direct investment against the GDP-weighted rate of growth in nominal GDP (in U.S. dollar terms) for a group of 12 non-oil developing countries for which sufficient data were available: Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Israel, Jamaica, Mexico, Morocco, and Sierra Leone.2Calculated as direct investment-related payments (i.e., dividend and interest plus reinvested earnings) as a percentage of the mean of the estimated stock of direct investment outstanding at the beginning and end of each period.
Chart 5.
Chart 5.

Selected Non-Oil Developing Countries: Nominal GDP Growth and Interest Rates on Outstanding External Debt, 1974–821

(In percent)

1 This chart plots the GDP-weighted estimated annual interest rate on outstanding external debt against the GDP-weighted rate of growth in nominal GDP (in U.S. dollar terms) for the same group of developing countries as in Chart 4.2Scheduled interest payments as a percentage of the mean of the stock of external debt outstanding at the beginning and end of each period.

These trends can also be illustrated by simple least squares regressions of rates of return to direct investment (R.FDI) and to external debt (R.DEBT) against rates of growth of GDP (g), in dollar terms, in the host countries between 1973 and 1982 (all time series are GDP-weighted averages for the group of 12 countries). The regressions are not intended to be full models of the determinants of returns on direct investment or on external debt, but simply to illustrate the differences in their association with rates of economic growth.

R.FDI=9.8(21.4)+0.069*g(2.72)R2=.51D.W.=1.71R.DEBT=9.7(7.1)0.088(1.15)gR2=.16D.W.=0.43
app03

where the figures in parentheses are t-statistics and * denotes significance at the 5 percent level. There was a significant positive association between growth of GDP and returns on direct investment, but no such association with interest payments on external debt. The choice of growth rate as the independent variable should not be taken as implying a single direction of causation since growth rates are also likely to be higher as a result of successful investments, as well as contributing to them. The return on direct investment appears to be less closely related to the rate of growth in exports of goods and services (g.exp).

R.FDI=10.5(17.7)+0.019g.exp(1.21)R2=.17D.W.=1.72R.DEBT=9.1(6.60)0.037(0.60)g.expR2=.05D.W.=0.28
app03

However, this is not surprising since direct investment in many countries used in the sample tended to be largely oriented toward import substitution rather than exports. In particular, it was not possible to include any countries from Asia, because of lack of information on reinvested earnings.

More comprehensive information is available for rates of return of direct investment from the United States in the manufacturing sectors of developing countries.40 For this investment, there appears to be a positive association between rates of return on direct investment in manufacturing (US.ROR) and growth rates in non-oil GDP and non-oil exports of goods and services of developing countries (g and g.exp, respectively) over the period 1973–82:

US.ROR=8.57(6.97)+0.309(3.98)**gR2=0.69D.W.=2.46US.ROR=10.70(6.58)+0.118(1.58)g.expR2=0.26D.W.=2.00
app03

where the figures in parentheses are t-statistics and ** denotes significance at the 1 percent level. Rates of return on direct investment were again more closely related to developments in non-oil GDP than in non-oil exports of goods and services. Regressions (not reported) of London interbank offer rate (LIBOR) on growth rates of non-oil GDP and exports yielded negative, and insignificant, coefficients.

Appendix IV Statistical Tables

Table A.1.

Net Flow of Financial Resources from Industrial Countries to Developing Countries, 1960–82

(In billions of U.S. dollars)

article image
Sources: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Development Assistance, 1961–71 issues; Development Cooperation, 1972–83 issues.Note: Industrial countries include all members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee. Classification of developing countries is that of the OECD, which differs somewhat from that of the Fund. See Appendix I.

Figures prior to 1972 exclude flows from New Zealand and Finland.

Excluding short-term flows.

Table A.2.

Developing Countries: Stock of Foreign Direct Investment, 1973, 1983

article image
Source: Fund staff estimates.

The 1983 end-of-year stock figures equal the estimated book value of the stock of direct investment from industrial countries at the end of 1978, plus total direct investment flows during 1979–83.

End-of-year; includes short-term debt, but not reserve-related liabilities.

Total gross external liabilities are defined as stock of foreign direct investment plus total outstanding external debt.

Excludes short-term debt.

Table A.3.

Industrial Countries: Stock of Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries, 1970, 1982

article image
Sources: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Investing in Developing Countries, 1983; Development Cooperation, 1983.Note: This table uses end-of-year figures, and the OECD definition of developing countries, which differs from Fund classification. See Appendix I.

Excludes official support for private investment (estimated at over $6 billion).

Austria, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, and Norway.

Table A.4.

Non-Oil Developing Countries: Net Recorded Foreign Direct Investment Abroad, 1973–82

(In millions of U.S. dollars)

article image
Source: International Monetary Fund, Balance of Payments Yearbook, various issues.Note: This table shows the capital movements resulting from the overseas direct investment activities of residents of non-oil developing countries. Positive data imply a net accumulation of overseas direct investment by residents, while negative figures imply a net repatriation.

Many non-oil developing countries (including Hong Kong and Singapore) do not report data on direct investment outflows.

Table A.5.

Four Industrial Countries: Composition of Foreign Direct Investment Stock in Developing Countries, 1967, 1980

(In percent)

article image
Sources: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Stock of Private Direct Investments by DAC Countries in Developing Countries, End-1967; for U.S. data, U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, various issues; for U.K. data, Trade and Industry, Nov. 15, 1973, Business Monitor, May 1978 Supplement; for Japanese data, Ministry of International Trade and Industry and Economic Survey of Japan, 1980–81, Economic Planning Agency; for data on the Federal Republic of Germany, Monthly Report of the Deutsche Bundesbank, August 1982.

1969 for Japan.

1978 for the United Kingdom.

Mainly services, but also agriculture, public utilities, transport, and construction.

Excludes investment in petroleum sector.

1

Real growth of direct investment flows is measured by nominal growth deflated by the index of wholesale prices in the United States.

2

Gross external liabilities are defined as total external debt plus the stock of foreign direct investment.

3

Survey of Current Business, U.S. Department of Commerce(Washington), Vol 64 (No. 6, 1984), p. 75, Table 1.

4

These figures do not include outflows of direct investment from Hong Kong and Singapore, which do not collect regular statistics on these. The stock of Hong Kong- and Singapore-based direct investment in East Asian countries is estimated to have been around $1 billion and over $1/3billion, respectively, by the late 1970s. See Louis T. Wells, “Multinationals from Asian Developing Countries” in Research in International Business and Finance (London: Jai Press, Vol. 4, 1984).

5

Data for the United States exclude the overseas borrowing of U.S. parent companies channeled through their financial affiliates in the Netherlands Antilles.

6

Charles Oman, New Forms of International Investment in Developing Countries, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Paris: OECD, 1984), p. 32.

7

C. Oman. ibid.

8

Complete information for 1983 is not yet available.

9

Gross remittances are calculated before deduction of the host countries” withholding taxes on dividends.

10

World Economic Outlook, Occasional Paper No. 21 (Washington, May 1983), Appendix A. Supplementary Note 7, pp. 140–44.

11

Bohn-Young Koo, “New Forms of Foreign Investment in Korea” and Pang Eng Fong, “Foreign Indirect Investment in Singapore” in Charles Oman, New Forms of International Investment in Developing Countries, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Paris: OECD, 1984).

12

R. Vernon, Storm Over the Multinationals; the Real Issues (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 72, based on data from the Harvard Multinational Enterprise Project.

13

David J. Goldsbrough, “International Trade of Multinational Corporations and its Responsiveness to Changes in Aggregate Demand and Relative Prices,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 28 (September 1981).

14

G.K. Helleiner, Intra-Firm Trade and the Developing Countries (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981).

15

Oman, op. cit.

16

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Declaration by the Governments of OECD Member Countries and Decisions of the OECD Council: On Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, National Treatment, International Investment Incentives and Disincentives, and Consultation Procedures (Paris: OECD, 1976); Declaration by the Governments of OECD Member Countries and Decisions of the OECD Council: On International Investment and Multinational Enterprises (Paris: OECD, 1984).

17

A brief description of various restrictions and regulations concerning foreign direct and portfolio investment in effect at the end of 1983 in 25 of the largest borrowers among developing countries is given in Appendix II.

18

“Presentation by the International Finance Corporation on Portfolio Investment in the Third World Through a Third World Equity Fund,” a mimeographed paper given at a seminar organized by Salomon Brothers and the International Finance Corporation, September 16, 1981.

19

The information on Turkey comes from Hans Hammersbach, Manfred Werth, and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Foreign Investment in Turkey; Changing Conditions under the New Economic Program (Paris: OECD, 1983), pp. 8 and 15.

20

Much of the discussion in this section is based on S. Guisinger, “Investment Incentives and Performance Requirements: A Comparative Analysis of Country Foreign Investment Strategies” (mimeo), World Bank, July 1983, Table 2, p. 9. This study also contains a more detailed analysis of some of the effects of various incentive policies.

21

In a survey of foreign direct investment decisions of major multinational companies conducted by the Group of Thirty, only 13 percent of respondents ranked host-country incentives among the top three factors affecting direct investment in developing countries in 1983. See Foreign Direct Investment, 1973–87 (New York: Group of Thirty, 1984).

22

International Monetary Fund, International Capital Markets; Recent Developments and Short-Term Prospects, Occasional Paper No. 1 (Washington, September 1980), Table 35 and International Capital Markets: Developments and Prospects, 1984, Occasional Paper No. 31 (Washington, August 1984), Table 43.

23

Ned G. Howenstine, “Growth of U.S. Multinational Companies, 1966–77,” Survey of Current Business, U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington), Vol. 64 (April 1982).

24

See I.M. Mantel, “Sources and Uses of Funds of Majority-Owned Foreign Affiliates of U.S. Companies, 1973–76,” Bureau of Economic Analysis Staff Paper, U.S. Department of Commerce, May 1979.

25

However, this was not always the case. The U.S. Foreign Direct Investment Program was in effect, with varying degrees of stringency, from the beginning of 1965 to mid-1973 (on a voluntary basis until 1968, and mandatory thereafter). Its aim was to limit the strain on the U.S. balance of payments resulting from direct investment outflows, and it imposed quantitative controls on U.S.-parent financing of foreign affiliates. The quotas took the form of a proportion of the firm’s direct investment in a geographic area during a specified benchmark period, but more liberal quotas were allowed for investments in developing countries. The program caused a large increase in affiliates” foreign borrowing from sources outside the multinational company, particularly during 1968 to 1970.

26

See S. Surrey, “United Nations Model Convention for Tax Treaties between Developed and Developing Countries: A Description and Analysis,” Harvard Law School, Selected Monographs on Taxation, Vol. 5 (Amsterdam: International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, 1980).

27

Eugen Jehle, “Tax Incentives of Industrialized Countries for Private Undertakings in Developing Countries,” Bulletin for International Fiscal Documentation, International Fiscal Association (Amsterdam), Vol. 36 (No. 3, 1982). In addition, the Fiscal Affairs Department of the Fund has prepared a survey of the tax treatment of investment income in the major industrial countries: “Survey of Tax Treatment of Investment Income and Payments in Selected Industrial Countries,” by Jitendra R. Modi (unpublished, Washington: International Monetary Fund, Mar 1983).

28

Tax deferral also means that the investment decisions of “mature” subsidiaries (i.e., those that do not require new capital inflows from the parent company) are independent of the rate of home-county tax on income from foreign sources. See David G. Hartman, Tax Policy and Foreign Direct Investment, Working Paper No. 689 (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, June 1981).

29

A description of the programs of individual countries is given in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Investing in Developing Countries: OECDIDAC Member Countries” Policies and Facilities with Respect to Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries (Paris: OECD, 5th revised ed., 1982).

30

See Ibrahim Shihata, “Increasing Private Capital Flows to LDCs,” Finance & Development, World Bank and International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 21 (December 1984).

31

The difference between the two means is statistically significant at the 1 percent level, on the basis of the Mann-Whitney test. The 28 countries that rescheduled their debt were: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil. Central African Republic, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Sudan, Togo, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire, and Zambia.

32

Some hypothetical examples of the possible effects of various changes in real exchange rates on the earnings of direct investment enterprises in selected Latin American countries are given in Rudolph R. Rhomberg, “Private Capital Movements and Exchange Rates in Developing Countries,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 13 (March 1966).

33

David J. Goldsbrough, “The Role of Foreign Direct Investment in the External Adjustment Process,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 26 (December 1979).

34

International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook, Occasional Paper No. 27 (Washington, April 1984) and World Economic Outlook, September 1984, Occasional Paper No. 32 (Washington, September 1984).

35

In comparison, the survey of the intentions regarding direct investment of major multinational companies by the Group of Thirty suggests that the real increase in direct investment flows to developing countries during 1983–87 may be slower than during the previous ten years, although it will still be significant. See Foreign Direct Investment, 1973–87 (New York: Group of Thirty, 1984).

36

Group of Thirty (1984), op. cit.

37

A survey of member country concepts and practices concerning direct investment flows is given in International Monetary Fund, Balance of Payments Manual (Washington: IMF, 4th ed., 1977), Appendix E. See also Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Detailed Benchmark Definition of Foreign Direct Investment (Paris: OECD, 1983).

38

A detailed discussion of the conceptual and statistical aspects of measuring external debt is included in International Monetary Fund, External Indebtedness of Developing Countries, Occasional Paper No. 3 (Washington, 1981).

39

See International Monetary Fund, Balance of Payments Statistics Yearbook, 1983 (Washington: IMF, 1983), Part I, p. xvii.

40

U.S. Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business, various issues.

Occasional Papers of the International Monetary Fund

*1. International Capital Markets: Recent Developments and Short-Term Prospects, by a Staff Team Headed by R.C. Williams, Exchange and Trade Relations Department. 1980.

2. Economic Stabilization and Growth in Portugal, by Hans O. Schmitt. 1981.

*3. External Indebtedness of Developing Countries, by a Staff Team Headed by Bahram Nowzad and Richard C. Williams. 1981.

*4. World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. 1981.

5. Trade Policy Developments in Industrial Countries, by S.J. Anjaria, Z. Iqbal, L.L. Perez, and W.S. Tseng. 1981.

6. The Multilateral System of Payments: Keynes, Convertibility, and the International Monetary Fund’s Articles of Agreement, by Joseph Gold. 1981.

7. International Capital Markets: Recent Developments and Short-Term Prospects, 1981, by a Staff Team Headed by Richard C. Williams, with G.G. Johnson. 1981.

8. Taxation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Part I: Tax Policy and Administration in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Carlos A. Aguirre, Peter S. Griffith, and M. Zuhtu Yucelik. Part II: A Statistical Evaluation of Taxation in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Vito Tanzi. 1981.

9. World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. 1982.

10. International Comparisons of Government Expenditure, by Alan A. Tait and Peter S. Heller. 1982.

11. Payments Arrangements and the Expansion of Trade in Eastern and Southern Africa, by Shailendra J. Anjaria, Sena Eken, and John F. Laker. 1982.

12. Effects of Slowdown in Industrial Countries on Growth in Non-Oil Developing Countries, by Morris Goldstein and Mohsin S. Khan. 1982.

13. Currency Convertibility in the Economic Community of West African States, by John B. McLenaghan, Saleh M. Nsouli, and Klaus-Walter Riechel. 1982.

14. International Capital Markets: Developments and Prospects, 1982, by a Staff Team Headed by Richard C. Williams, with G.G. Johnson. 1982.

15. Hungary: An Economic Survey, by a Staff Team Headed by Patrick de Fontenay. 1982.

16. Developments in International Trade Policy, by S.J. Anjaria, Z. Iqbal, N. Kirmani, and L.L. Perez. 1982.

17. Aspects of the International Banking Safety Net, by G.G. Johnson, with Richard K. Abrams.1983.

18. Oil Exporters” Economic Development in an Interdependent World, by Jahangir Amuzegar. 1983.

19. The European Monetary System: The Experience, 1979-82, by Horst Ungerer, with Owen Evans and Peter Nyberg. 1983.

20. Alternatives to the Central Bank in the Developing World, by Charles Collyns. 1983.

21. World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. 1983.

22. Interest Rate Policies in Developing Countries: A Study by the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1983.

23. International Capital Markets: Developments and Prospects, 1983, by Richard Williams, Peter Keller, John Lipsky, and Donald Mathieson. 1983.

24. Government Employment and Pay: Some International Comparisons, by Peter S. Heller and Alan A. Tait. 1983. Revised 1984.

25. Recent Multilateral Debt Restructurings with Official and Bank Creditors, by a Staff Team Headed by E. Brau and R.C. Williams, with P.M. Keller and M. Nowak. 1983.

26. The Fund, Commercial Banks, and Member Countries, by Paul Mentre. 1984.

27. World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. 1984.

28. Exchange Rate Volatility and World Trade: A Study by the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1984.

29. Issues in the Assessment of the Exchange Rates of Industrial Countries: A Study by the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1984

30. The Exchange Rate System—Lessons of the Past and Options for the Future: A Study by the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1984

31. International Capital Markets: Developments and Prospects, 1984, by Maxwell Watson, Peter Keller, and Donald Mathieson. 1984.

32. World Economic Outlook, September 1984: Revised Projections by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. 1984.

33. Foreign Private Investment in Developing Countries: A Study by the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1985.

International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. 20431, U.S.A.

Telephone number: 202 473 7430

Cable address: Interfund

  • View in gallery

    Selected Non-Oil Developing Countries: Nominal GDP Growth and Rates of Return on Foreign Direct Investment, 1974–821

    (In percent)

  • View in gallery

    Selected Non-Oil Developing Countries: Nominal GDP Growth and Interest Rates on Outstanding External Debt, 1974–821

    (In percent)