The Economic and Social Impacts to India and Its Citizens from Inward Foreign Direct Investment


Appendix Five: Interview Consent Form



Download 2.15 Mb.
Page48/48
Date26.10.2016
Size2.15 Mb.
1   ...   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48

Appendix Five: Interview Consent Form



Appendix Six: Interview Questions and Schedule




  1. Could you summarise India's present development strategy? [Do you think the government balances the need for economic growth and social welfare development?]

  2. To what extent will current economic policies help to tackle poverty?

  3. How can the government best use FDI to help development?

  4. What are the key factors that are holding India's economy back?

  5. Why do you think TNCs are investing in India? [What type of FDI is India attracting?]

  6. What are the key benefits / problems for India that have resulted from attracting TNCs? [social and development consequences from FDI]

  7. How do you assess the spillover effects from TNCs into the domestic environment? [technology, management skills, research and development]

  8. What contribution do you think TNCs have made to India?

  9. What positive and/or negative aspects do you think there are for people working for a TNC? For example, are the wages better, working conditions better than domestic companies?

  10. What are the key problems that TNCs face in India?

  11. How would you describe the Indian state-business relationship? [Any changes following economic liberalization?]

  12. How do you asses the government’s ability to construct effective FDI policies? [Do you feel they are able to minimize harm while maximizing benefit?]

1 …“Most writers make no distinction between these terms and have settled for one terminology rather than another without any seeming reflection on the implications of these terms” (O’Brien and Williams, 2007, p. 177). O’Brien and Williams (2007) go further to explain that the use of the term multinational tends to refer to a merger of capital from more than one nation state for the investment in the host country. Whereas the term transnational reflects UN usage and denotes the idea that most of these international companies are usually owned and controlled by nationals of one country and conduct business operations in other countries; the business activity transcends borders but ownership does not (ibid). Thus, writers may opt for one nomenclature over another to either emphasise or negate a sense of nationality.

2 There are two other standardised definitions for FDI: The IMF’s Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual 6th edition (BPM6) and System of National Accounts, 2008(SNA, 2008). The Benchmark definition is fully compatible with both (OECD, 2008, p.1).

3 “There may be instances where non-resident investor, or investors acting in concert, acquire a resident enterprise (in whole or in part), with a view to asset stripping, or restructuring and then reselling the entity. The relationship between the investor(s) and the enterprise may not be “long lasting” but the direct investor’s(s’) influence will have a lasting effect. Indeed, in some instances, such purchasers could have no intention of retaining their equity holding for a year but they could have a profound impact on the entity” (OECD, 2008, p.22).

4 “However, for the sake of consistency and cross-country comparability of the FDI statistics, a strict application of a numerical guideline is recommended to define direct investment. Accordingly, direct investment is considered evident when the direct investor owns directly or indirectly at least 10% of the voting power of the direct investment enterprise. In other words, the 10% threshold is the criterion to determine whether (or not) an investor has influence over the management of an enterprise, and, therefore, whether the basis for a direct investment relationship exists or not” (OECD, 2008, p.23).

5 “Some compilers may argue that in some cases an ownership of as little as 10% of the voting power may not lead to the exercise of any significant influence while on the other hand, an investor may own less than 10% but have an effective voice in the management. Nevertheless, the recommended methodology does not allow any qualification of the 10% threshold and recommends its strict application to ensure statistical consistency across countries” (OECD, 2008, p.49).

6 “One of the differences between FDI by private equity funds and that by traditional TNCs relates to the fact that the investment horizon of the former lasts, on average, only 5-6 years, while, in theory, traditional TNCs have typically engaged in expanding the production of their goods and services to locations abroad and have longer investment horizons. But more recently, TNCs have also increasingly been driven by short-term performance targets to meet shareholders’ expectations for high and rapid returns” (UNCTAD, 2006, p.19).

7 It is important to note the figures for India’s FDI using this new methodology are not available for India at this time.

Download 2.15 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48




The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2020
send message

    Main page