OPENNESS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OUTPUT, INWARD FDI, AND TRADE E.M. Ekanayake Bethune-Cookman College Daytona Beach, FL Richard Vogel Bala Veeramacheneni Farmingdale State University of New York Farmingdale, NY Abstract The relationship between openness and economic growth in developed and developinf? countries has been of continuing interest in both the theoretical and empirical literature. In this paper. we employ a vector autoref?ressive (VAR) model and error correction techniques to testfof the existence and nature afthe causal relationship between output level, inward FDI and exports across a cross-section ofboth developed and developinf? countries using datafrom 1960- 2001. Our main objective is to analyze the extent and sources of international linkages between openness and economic performance. The evidence supports hi-directional causality between exports growth and economic growth; the eco- nomic growth and FDI relationship has mixed results. Introduction The relationship between export growth, foreign direct investment (FDI), and economic growth in both developed and developing countries is a question that continues to be of considerable theoretical and empirical interest. Cross-country trade and capital flows, and interpreting the importance of these activities towards economic growth lie at the heart of the debate on economic develop- ment policy since the early literature on import-substitution to the current litera- ture on openness and economic growth. Recent literature has highlighted the role of both exports and FDI on eco- nomic growth. On the one hand, the export led growth (ELG) hypothesis states that exports are the main determinants of overall growth. At the heart of the ELG model are beliefs that (a) the export sector generates positive externalities on non-export sectors in the economy through more efficient management and production techniques (Feder, 1983); (b) export expansion increases productiv- 60 Journal of Business Strategies Vol. 20, No.1 ity by creating scale economies (Helpman and Krugman, 1985; Krugman 1997); (c) exports help to alleviate foreign exchange constraints and thus provide greater access to international markets (Esfahani, 1991). Endogenous growth theory extends this analysis by emphasizing the role of exports on technological innovation and dynamic learning (Romer, 1986; Lucas, 1988; Grossman and Helpmann, 1995; Alisana and Rodrick, 1999). On the other hand, empirical evidence in the last few decades indicates that FOI flows have been growing at a pace far exceeding the volume of international trade. Between 1975 and 1995, the aggregate stock of FOI rose from 4.5% to 9.7% of world GDP, with sales of foreign affiliates of multinational enterprises substantially exceeding the value of world exports (Barrell and Pain, 1997). The effect of FDI on economic growth appears to have become quite explicit with multinational enterprises acting as the primary vehicle for the international transfer of technology (OEeD, 1991). Blomstrom and Persson (1983) and Blomstrom (1986) find that FOI has created significant positive spillover effects on the labor productivity of domestic firms. It is argued that FDI plays a central role in the technological progress of recipient countries through the generation of productivity spillovers (Borensztein, De Gregorio, and Lee, 1998; Lim 2001). However, empirical work from both the ELG literature and the FOI and growth literature when studied in isolation show mixed results. This is mainly, due to the omission of a relevant mechanism through which open- ness or the re-structuring of an economy promotes growth. Liberalization, in particular, is expected to increase not only trade but also FOI. If a comple- mentary relationship between FOI and exports exists, then foreign invest- ment may increase the volume of exports in specific and international trade in general. Direct investment may encourage export promotion, import sub- stitution, or greater trade in intermediate inputs, especially between parent and affiliate producers (Goldberg and Klein, 1998). Along the same lines, Blomstrom, Globerman and Kokko (2000) argue that the beneficial impact of FDI is only enhanced in an environment characterized by an open trade and investment regime and macroeconomic stability. In this environment, FOI can playa key role in improving the capacity of the host country to respond to the opportunities offered by global economic integration. In the absence of such an environment, POI may impede rather than promote growth by enhancing the private rate of return to investment for foreign firms while exerting little impact on social rates of return in the recipient economy (Balasubramanyam, Salisu and Sapsford, 1996). Early studies supporting the ELG hypothesis such as those by Balassa (1978), Heller and Porter (1978) and Tyler (1981) examined the simple correlation coeffi- cient between export growth and economic growth, and based their conclusions based upon the high degree of correlation between the two variables. Other studies, characterized by Voivades (1973), Feder (1983), Balassa (1985), Ram (1987), Sprout and Weaver (1993) and Ukpolo (1994) find support for ELG based upon growth and output regressions drawn from a growth accounting framework. These Spring 2003 Ekanayake, et al: Openness and Economic Growth 61 studies make the 'a priori' assumption that export growth causes output growth without considering the direction of the causal relationship. A third group of studies has emphasized the issue of causality between export growth and economic growth. In this approach, exemplified by lung and Marshall (1985), Darrat (1987), and Serletis (1992), the Granger or Sims causality test is applied to growth and export data to test the ELG hypothesis. The causality tests are only valid if the original time series underlying the analysis are cointegrated. For a complete study on economic growth, the focus has to be not only on ELG but FDI as well. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to investigate the causal relationship between export growth, inward FDI and economic growth (measured as output growth) in developed and developing countries using the cointegration and error-correction models. These techniques, as successfully applied in studies by Serletis (1992), Bahmani-Oskooee and Alse (1993), Dutt and Ghosh (1996), Rahman and Mustafa (1998), Islam (1998), Cuadros, arts and Alguacil (2001) and Trevino, Daniels, Arbelaez, and Upadhyaya (2002), demonstrate their econometric robustness and their ability to root out spurious relationships. So far, only a few studies have used this methodology to study the causality relation between export growth, economic growth, and FDI in both developed and developing countries. Given the small number of studies conducted using this methodology, it is expected that this paper will contribute to this expanding body of literature. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 explains the method- ology of the cointegration and error-correction models and a description of the data sources. Section 3 contains the empirical results and comparison of our results with previous studies. Finally, Section 4 provides a discussion about the implication of the results and some summary conclusions. Methodology and Data Methodology This paper uses the cointegration and error-correction models, to test the causal relationship between FDI, exports, and economic growth. We start by considering the three-variable vector autoregressive (VAR) model comprised of foreign direct investment 0, exports 0, and gross domestic product 0, all expressed in natural logs. As shown in equation (1), all variables are systemati- cally and endogenously considered at first. where Ao is a vector of constant terms, are all matrices of parameters (i = 1,2, ... , s), and c, ~ IN (0,1). 62 Journal of Business Strategies Vol. 20, No.1 In order to analyze the causal relationship it is necessary to first check whether the variables are stationary. According to Granger (1988), standard tests for causality are valid only if there exits cointegration. Therefore, a necessary precondition to causality testing is to check the cointegrating properties of the variables under consideration. The cointegration and error-correction method- ology is briefly outlined below. Testing for cointegration among the three variables, real FOI, real exports, and real GOP (expressed in logarithmic form), is accomplished in two steps. First, following Engle and Granger (1987), the time series properties of each variable are examined by unit root tests. In this step, it is tested whether FOI, exports, and GOP are integrated of order zero, or in other words, that the three series are stationary. This is accomplished by performing the augmented Oickey- Fuller (AOF) test. The AOF test is based on the regression equation with the inclusion of a constant and a trend of the form r AXt = f3n + f..U + 8,X1 ] + Lf3jL1Xlj + £( j=] (2) where AX, = X, - XI] and X is the variable under consideration, p is the number oflags in the dependent variable (chosen so as to induce a white noise term), and £t is the stochastic error term. The stationarity of the variable is tested using the null hypothesis of Iell = 1 against the alternative hypothesis of 18 1 1< I. If the null hypothesis cannot be rejected, it implies that the time series is non-stationary at that level and therefore it requires taking first or higher order differencing of the level data to establish stationarity. The optimum lag length (p) in the ADF regression is selected using the minimum final prediction error (FPE) criterion developed by Akaike and then the results were confirmed by the Schwarz criterion. Having tested the stationarity of each time series, the next step is to search for cointegration between InFDI, InEXP, and InGDP. This step investigates whether the stochastic trends in InFDI, InEXP, and InGDP that contained unit roots have a long-run relationship. In order to show that exports and economic growth have any type of causality, it is necessary to demonstrate that they are cointegrated in the Granger sense. This is accomplished by using the Johansen-Juselius cointegration technique (Johansen and Juselius, 1990). Since the Johansen cointegration test is now well known it is not discussed here. Engle and Granger (1987) have shown that if variables such as InFDI. InEXP, and InGDP are integrated of order one, 1(1), and the stochastic error terms are both integrated of order zero, 1(0), then lnFDI, InEXP, and InGDP are said to be cointegrated. When the variables are found to be both integrated of degree I( I), and cointegrated, then either unidirectional or bi-directional Granger causality must exist in at least the 1(0) variables. If the variables are cointegrated then there must exist an error-correction representation that may take the following form: Spring 2003 Ekanayake, et al: Openness and Economic Growth 63 k k k I1lnFDIt = 'XI + JV,_J + L~il1lnFDItl + L'i;,AlnEXP1_1+ LyiI.I11nGDPti + £/, (3) i~J i~1 k k k I1lnEXPt = eo + g~_1 + L el,.I11nEXP,_ 1+ L e2,AlnGDPti + Le3,.I11nFDI'I + £21 (4) i~1 ;=1 ;=1 k k k 111nGDP, = Jt;) + hPt.1+ L7l'I,AlnGDP,_1 + L7l'2~lnEXPI'1 + ~>3I.111nFDI'_1 + £3' (5) ;=1 ;=1 ;=1 where v l . I ' °/. 1 , and P t . J are the error-correction terms. The inclusion of error- correction terms in equations (3), (4) and (5) introduces an additional channel through which Granger causality can be detected. However, in the absence of cointegration, a vector auto regression (VAR) in first-differences form can be constructed. In this case, the error-correction terms will be eliminated from equations (3), (4) and (5). If the series are cointegrated, then the error-correction models given in equations (3), (4) and (5) are valid and the coefficientsf, g, and h are expected to capture the adjustments of 111nFDI t , 111nEXPt' and 111nGDP/ towards long-run equilibrium, while 111nFDI'.J' 111nEXPtl , and .I11nGDP, J and are expected to capture the short-run dynamics of the modeL Data Annual data for the period 1960-2001 are used for estimation. Data on inward FDI, exports, and gross domestic product (GDP) for the selected developed and developing countries are from several issues ofthe UNCTAD, World Investment Report, and International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics Yearbook. The sample of countries consists of Brazil, Canada, Chile, Mexico, and United States. The choice of countries and span of data reflects data avail- ability. Nominal figures of foreign direct investment, exports, and GDP were deflated by the GDP deflator (1990= 100) for each country to express them in real terms. The GDP deflator was collected from the International Monetary Fund's International Financial Statistics Yearbook. Empirical Results In the light of econometric methodology presented in the previous section, the cointegrating properties of the variables involved are examined and the empirical results are discussed in this section. Table 1 presents the results of unit root tests obtained using the augmented Dickey-Fuller test. The results support the presence of unit roots in all of the series for all countries. This is confirmed by the fact that the null hypothesis that the series are non-station- ary is not rejected at the levels for all variables. However, the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis that the series are stationary when the first difference of the variables is taken. Thus, their first difference 64 Journal of Business Strategies Vol. 20, No.1 is found to be stationary and hence, are all integrated of order one. In all cases, the null hypothesis that the series has unit roots cannot be rejected. The tests of unit roots support the unit root hypothesis at the 1%, 5 % or 10% levels of significance for all data series. Having confirmed the existence of unit roots for all the data series, the next step involves applying the Johansen-Juselius cointegration test to check whether the three variables are cointegrated for each of the five countries. The optimum lag lengths are determined using the Akaike final prediction error (FPE) crite- rion. The results of Johansen-Juselius cointegration tests are presented in Table 2. The Johansen-Juselius cointegration test provides evidence for the existence of one cointegration vector implying that the three variables are cointegrated in these five cases. Thus, the results of Johansen-Juselius cointegration test imply a long-run association between real exports, real FOI, and real GOP. Therefore, equations (3), (4) and (5) have been estimated for these five countries including the error-correction terms. The empirical results of the estimated error-correction models are presented in Table 3. Beyond the analysis of the long-run relationship among the three variables in the system for each country, the short-run dynamics is also explored performing multivariate Granger causality tests for the vector error-correction model. The F-statistics and probability (in parentheses) for the Granger causal- ity tests are presented in columns 2-4 in Table 3. It also includes the t-statistics for error-correction terms for each of the three equations. For each variable in the system, at least one channel of Granger causality is active, either in the short- run through the joint tests of the lagged-differences or in the long run through statistically significant ECT. Our results are consistent with past time-series work with regards to the export-growth relationship. However, the results for FOI-growth and FOI- Exports relationships are mixed (Table 4). In each of the five countries considered, there is evidence for the ELG hypothesis in the short-run, al- though only Canada provides evidence for ELG in the long run. In the cases of Canada and Mexico, there is evidence for short-run growth-led exports Granger causality. In fact, both Canada and Mexico show bi-directional causality between exports and growth. The evidence regarding the positive impact of FOI on growth is limited. FOI plays a significant role in Brazil, Mexico, and the United States. In the cases of Canada and Chile, the F- statistic on the lagged-FOI variable is not statistically significant. However, Chile and Brazil show growth led FOI. This is consistent with the fact that only since the mid-eighties have these countries attempted to improve their economies by stabilizing and opening up their economies to the world. Brazil is the only country in the sample that showed bi-directional causality for FOI and growth. Similar to Goldberg and Klein (1998) and Rodrik (1999) our analysis shows mixed results with regard to a complementary relationship between FOI and trade. Only the USA displayed bi-directional causality between FOI and trade. Spring 2003 Ekanayake, et al: Openness and Economic Growth 65 Table 1 Augmented Dickey-Fuller Unit Root Test Level InEXP InGDP InFDI Country ADF 1 ADF 2 ADF) ADF 2 ADF j ADF 2 Brazil -0.1209 -1.4922 -0.8987 -1.9952 -0.6923 -1.7541 Canada -2.2528 -\.8608 -2.5698 -1.6612 -1.5515 -2.2133 Chile -0.6840 -2.0577 -0.0561 -2.5097 -2.0557 -2.2679 Mexico -0.7783 -\.8174 -0.2364 -2.0089 -0.3787 -2.1714 United States -1.3562 -2.7512 -1.0569 -2.7381 -0.7934 2.0634 First Difference !J.lnEXP !J.lnGDP !J.lnFDI Country ADF 1 ADF 2 ADF) ADF 2 ADF j ADF 2 Brazil -2.6416* -3.2112* -3.4621 ** -4.0748** -2.8572* -4.9763*** Canada -3.9361 *** -5.0946*** -2.8029* -3.9252** -4.3171*** -7.6965*** Chile -4.1105*** -4.4926*** -3.5015** -3.4508* -4.4627*** -7.3178*** Mexico -2.7181* -3.2041 * -3.0718** -3.2082* -3.9286*** -3.8777** United States -3.9069*** -4.6362*** -3.1874** -3.8792** -4.0381 *** -4.6104*** Notes: m ADF I tests Hn : Ell =:; 0 in i1lnX, =:; f3n + 8 11nX,r + Di'J.lnX,J + £, m ADF2 tests Hn : El 2 =:; 0 in i1lnX, =:; rpo + rpllnX,.r + L~1'.lnX'_J + ~1 1=1 (6) (7) *, **, and *** denote statistical significance at the 10% 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. The critical values of ADF) statistics as reported in Engle and Yoo (1987), for 50 observations are -3.58, -2.93, and -2.60 at 1%,5%, and 10% levels of significance respectively. The critical values of ADF 2 statistics as reported in Engle and Yoo (1987), for 50 observations are -4.15, -3.50, and -3.18 at 1%,5%, and 10% levels of significance respectively. In the cases of Brazil and Mexico there are indications of a positive causal relationship for Export led FDI. However, for Canada and Chile there is no evidence of causality. The findings of this study are consistent with the findings of selected studies (Goldberg and Klein, 1998; Rodrik, 1999; Cuadros, Orts, and Alguacil, 2001). However, since the coverage of countries varies from study to study no direct comparison can be made. In general, the differences in outcomes of these studies could be due to a number of reasons including different time periods, different sample intervals and different methodologies. 66 Journal of Business Strategies Vol. 20, No. I Table 2 Johansen Multivariate Cointegration Tests Trace Test Null Hypothesis Brazil Canada Chile Mexico United States r=O 31.01 30.94 44.54 33.05 35.32 r? I 12.91 11.07 12.03 9.59 16.73 r~ 2 0.16 0.28 0.02 0.10 0.87 Maximum Eigenvalues Test Null Hypothesis Brazil Canada Chile Mexico United States 18.10 19.87 32.51 23.46 18.59 12.75 10.79 12.01 9.49 15.86 0.16 0.28 0.02 0.10 0.87 Cointegration Equations Normalized on 1nEXPt Null Hypothesis Brazil Canada Chile Mexico United States Constant -2.7645 -6.0122 -1.2124 -5.1818 -2.8392 InGD? 0.1032 1.1797 0.7831 4.4062 0.8779 r (0.389) (0.189) (0.024) (2.042) (0.310) InFDI 0.8628 0.2474 0.2611 5.4206 0.1904 I (0.497) (0.097) (0.060) (2.931) (0.069) Log Likelihood 65.44 105.43 125.78 58.76 115.69 Note: The 5% critical values r = 0, r 2. I, and r -;, 2 are 29.68, 15.41, and 3.76, respectively. Figures in parentheses are standard errors. Summary and Conclusions The co integration and error-correction modeling techniques used in this paper have revealed that there is a bi-directional causality between export growth and economic growth in two of the five countries considered, FDI and economic growth and exports growth and FDI for just one country each. While there is evidence for export-led growth in all countries, the evidence for FDI led exports and economic growth or economic growth led FDI or exports is mixed. For the central question of this paper, whether FDI increases exports or vice versa, results are not consistent. The results in both developed and developing countries when studied separately have been mixed, indicating that the reasons Spring 2003 Ekanayake, et al: Openness and Economic Growth 67 Table 3 Results of Error Correction Models Brazil Source of causation (short run) EC /-1 Ocp. Variable t1EXP ~GDP ~FD/ Coefficient t-valuc ~EXP 4.9136 4.7632 -0.1647** -2.3587 (0.426) (0.442) ~GDP 21.8269 7.9080 -0.0595 -0.6666 (0.000) (0.047) ~FDl 16.8877 12.2614 -0.5085*** -2.9966 (0.004) (0.031 ) Canada Source of causation (short run) EC'.I Ocp. Variable ~EXP ~GDP ~FDI Coefficient t-value ~EXP 34.8140 8.3517 -0.1672** -2.3858 (0.000) (0.137) ~GDP 47.3521 2.5499 -0.1226** -2.3612 (0.000) (0.2794) ~FDl 6.6171 6.9968 -2.7663*** -3.1242 (0.250) (0.220) Chile Source of causation (short run) Ee, 1 Oep. Variable ~EXP ~GDP ~FDl Coefficient t-value ~EXP 3.3778 1.4044 -0.2069* -1.8380 (0.582) (0.923) tliGDP 7.8829 5.2077 -0.2485 -0.2160 (0.049) (0.391 ) tliFDl 2.9948 17.0230 -0.5529* -1.8680 (0.559) (0.004) Mexico Source of causation (short run) EC/ I Oep. Variable t1EXP ~GDP ~FD/ Coefficient t-valuc tliEXP 21.3171 4.5136 -0.0507 -0.7972 (0.000) (0.478) ~GDP 17.7278 11.7008 -0.0485 -0.7398 (0.003) (0.039) tliFD/ 10.4815 6.8381 -0.1843** -2.4650 (0.062) (0.232) United States Source of causation (short run) EC'_I Dep. Variable ~EXP ~GDP ~FDI Coefficient t-value ~EXP 5.2552 13.7511 -0.3710** -2.5276 (0.385) (0.017) ~GDP 9.6034 6.3666 -0.0464 -1.2472 (0.022) (0.094) tliFD/ 16.1757 7.2796 -2.0845*** -3.0745 (0.006 ) (0.201 ) Notes: EC denotes the error-correction term. *, ** and *** indicate the statistical significance at the 10%,5% and 1% levels of significance respectively. Figures in parentheses are p-values. 68 Journal of Business Strategies Vol. 20, No. I Table 4 Comparative Evaluation of Major Findings (Short·Run Causality) Country BDC-EG ELO OLE BDC-FG FLO OLF BDC-EF ELF FLE Brazil ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ Canada ./ ./ ./ Chile ./ ./ Mexico ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ USA ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ Notes: BOC-EO denotes bi-directional causality for exports and growth, ELG denotes export-led growth, and GLE denotes growth-led exports. BOC-FG denotes bi-directional causality for FOI and growth, FLG denotes FOI-led growth and GLF denotes growth-led FOI. Similarly, BOC-EF denotes bi-directional causality for exports and FOI, ELF denotes export-led FOI, and FLE denotes FOI-Ied Exports. -/ denotes the presence of causality and blank spaces indicate no evidence of causality. for the historical levels of development between nations should be observed elsewhere. New evidence from Trevino et al. (2002), shows that FOI is a func- tion of current account balance, inflation, real exchange rate, market size, capi- tal market liberalization and privatization values. Therefore, the weak results between FOI and exports are plausible. However, observing export led FOI for Brazil, Mexico and USA would confirm that most multinational firms of the USA invest in these countries as export-oriented investment. In so doing, FDI has served to integrate national markets into the regional and world economy far more effectively than could have been achieved by traditional trade flows. The liberalization process in Brazil, Chile and Mexico has increased not only trade but FOI flows as well. This is particularly true in the Latin American region, a major recipient of FOI. Therefore, due to the increasing importance of FDI, focusing only on trade as a proxy for openness may be misleading. Also at a time when the countries of the Western Hemisphere are all set to form a trade block in the name of FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) analyzing both the ELG hypothesis and the FOI-growth hypoth- esis for both the developed and developing countries, especial1y those that have been the main recipient countries of FDI in the Western Hemisphere, makes this study al1 the more interesting. Spring 2003 Ekanayake, et al: Openness and Economic Growth References 69 Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. AC-19, 716-723. Alisana, A., & Rodrik, D. (1999). Distributive politics and economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol.I09, 443-465. Bahmani-Qskooee, M., & Alse, J. (1993). Export growth and economic growth: An application of co integration and error-correction modeling. Journal of Developing Areas. 27(4), 535-542. Balassa, B. (1978). Exports and economic growth: Further evidence. Journal of Development Economics. 5, 181-189. Balassa, B. (1985). Exports, policy choices and economic growth in developing countries after the 1973 oil shock. Journal of Development Economics. l8(2), 23-25. Balasubramanyam, Y.N., Salisu, M., & Sapsford, D. (1996). Foreign direct investment and growth in EP and IS countries. The Economic Journal, 106,92-105. Barrell, R., & Pain, N. (1997). Foreign direct investment, technological change, and economic growth within Europe. The Economic Journal, 107, 1770-1786. Blomstrom, M., & Persson, H. (1983). Foreign investment and spillover efficiency in an underdeveloped economy: Evidence from the Mexican manufacturing industry. World Development. 11, 493-501. Blomstrom, M. (1986). Foreign investment and productive efficiency: the case of Mexico. Journal ofIndustrial Economics. 15, 97-110. Blomstrom, M., Globerman, S., & Kokko, A. (2000). The determinants of host country spillovers from foreign direct investment. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2350. Borensztein, EJ., De Gregorio, J., & Lee, J.W. (1998). How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? NBER Working Paper No. 5057. Cuadros, A., Orts, Y., & Alguacil, M.T. (2001). Openness and growth: Re-examining foreign direct investment, trade and output linkages in Latin America. CREDIT Research Paper No. 01/04, University of Nottingham. Darrat, A.F. (1987). Are exports an engine of growth? Another look at the evidence. Applied Economics. 19,277-283. Dutt, S.D., & Ghosh, D., (1996). The export growth-economic growth nexus: A causality analysis. Journal of Developing Areas, 30, 167-182. 70 Journal of Business Strategies Vol. 20, No.1 Engle, R.F., & Granger, C.W.J. (1987). Cointegration and error-correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica, 55, 251-276. Engle, R.E, & Yoo, B.S. (1987). Forecasting and testing in cointegrated systems. Journal of Econometrics, 35,143-159. Esfahani, H.S. (1991). Exports, imports and economic growth in semi-industrial countries. Journal of Development Economics 35, 93-116. Feder, G. (1983). On exports and economic growth. Journal of Development Economics, .u.. 59-73. Goldberg, S., & Klein, W. (1998). Foreign direct investment, trade, and real exchange rate linkages in developing countries. In Reuven Glick (Eds.) Managing capital flows and exchange rates: Lessons from the pacific basin. Cambridge University Press. Granger, C.W.J. (1988). Some recent developments in a concept of causality. Journal of Econometrics, 39, 199-211. Grossman, G., & Helpman, E. (1995). Technology and trade. In G. Grossman, & K. Rogoff, (Eds) Handbook of international economics, Vol rII, (pp. 1279-1337) Elsevier Science, B.Y. Heller, P.S., & Porter, R.C. (1978). Exports and growth: An empirical re-investigation. Journal of Development Economics, 5, 191-193. Helpman, E., & Krugman, P.R. (1985). Market structures and foreign trade, Cambridge: MIT Press. International Monetary Fund (IMF): International Financial Statistic Yearbook. Various issues: 1981 - 200 I. Washington, D. C. Islam, M. N. (1998). Export expansion and economic growth: Testing for cointegration and causality. Applied Economics, 30,415-425. Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration with application to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economic and Statistics, 52, 169-210. Jung, W.S. & Marshall, P.J. (1985). Exports, growth and causality in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics, 18, 1-12. Krugman, P.R. (1997). The age of diminished expectation, Cambridge: MIT Press. Lim, Ewe-Ghee. (200 I). Determinants of, and the relation between, foreign direct investment and growth: A summary of recent literature. IMF Working Paper WPI 011l75: International Monetary Fund. Spring 2003 Ekanayake, et at: Openness and Economic Growth 71 Lucas, R.E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22, 3-44. OECD, (1991). Technology and productivity: The challenge for economic policy. Paris. Rahman, M., & Mustafa. M. (1998). Dynamics of real exports and real economic growth in 13 selected Asian countries. Journal of Economic Development. 22(2), 81-95. Ram, R. (1987). Exports and economic growth in developing countries: Evidence from time-series and cross-section data. Economic Development and Cultural Change, .3.QU.1. 51- 72. Rodrik, D. (1999). The new global economy and developing countries: Making openness work. Policy Essay No. 24, Overseas Development Councils, Washington, D.C. Romer, P.M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94,1002-37. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461- 464. Serletis, A. (1992). Export growth and Canadian economic development. Journal of Development Economics, 38, 133-145. Sprout, R.Y.A., & Weaver, J.H. (1993). Exports and economic growth in a simultaneous equations model. Journal of Developing Areas, 27(3), 289-306. Trevino, L. J., Daniels, J. D., Arbelaez, H., & Upadhyaya, K. P. 2002. Market reform and foreign direct investment in Latin America: Evidence from an error correction model. The International Trade Journal, 16(4), 367-392. Tyler, T. W. (1981). Growth and export expansion in developing countries: Some empirical evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 9( I ), 121-130. Ukpolo, Y. (1994). Export composition and growth of selected low-income African countries: Evidence from time-series data. Applied Economics, 26(5), 445-449. United Nations Council for Trade and Development (UNCTAD). World Investment Report Yearbook. Various issues: 1991 - 2001. New York. Voivodas, C.S. (1973). Exports, foreign capital inflows and economic growth. Journal of International Economics, 22, 337 -349. 72 Journal of Business Strategies Vol. 20, No. I Ekanayake, E. M., is currently Assistant Professor of Business and Economics at the Bethune Cookman College in Daytona Beach, Florida. He received his Ph.D. from Florida International University, Miami, Florida. Previously he served as Chief Economist at Enterprise Florida - an economics research unit of the Florida and USA Government. His research interests include development economics, international trade, and econometric issues. Bala Veeramacheneni is currently Associate Professor of Economics at Farmingdale State University of New York. He received his Ph.D. from Florida International University, Miami, Florida. Previously he served as CEO of EcomData, Inc. a multinational technology consulting and research firm and prior to that he was the President of Compufinance, Inc. a computer economics- consulting firm. His research interests include development economics, interna- tional trade, network economics, and technology related issues. Richard Vogel is currently Associate Professor of Economics at Farmingdale State University of New York. He received his Ph.D. from Florida International University, Miami, Florida, and previously served as a Visiting Assistant Profes- sor at the University of West Florida. His research interests include development economics, regional economic development, and natural hazards analysis. Publication Guidelines The Editorial Review Board of the Journal of Business Strategies invites the submission of manuscripts to be considered for publication. These manuscripts should be concise, direct analyses of current problems and issues of interest to business decision makers. The emphasis of these papers is expected to be on new interpretations of, fresh insights about, or clearly stated solutions to problems faced by decision makers. The papers should be of practical value to business people and business educators. It should not be assumed that readers are completely familiar with the concepts and terminology of the specific subject under study. Directness and clarity of presentation are desired. An Editorial Review Board referees all manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Business Strategies ensuring that articles appearing in the Journal are consistent with its goals. All submis- sions are blindly refereed by at least three reviewers. Style Guidelines: Four copies of double-spaced typed manuscripts should be submitted. The length of the papers should not exceed 25 pages, including tables, figures, appendices, and references. Papers of less than 8 pages will be considered as a "Note." A separate cover sheet indicating the title of the manuscript, as well as the name, affiliation, position, and address of the author should accompany each submission. An abstract of less than 100 words should be included. To facilitate blind review, the body of the text should include the title but not the author's name. The number of tables and figures should be kept to a minimum, stated simply as possible, and be placed on separate pages which indicate their corresponding number and title. The text should include notes suggesting the placement of the table or figure if it is not clear from the text. For example, "Insert Table 1 About Here." Should the paper be accepted for publication, the author will be asked in the Editor's acceptance letter to supply a copy of the disk(s) containing the paper, tables, and figures in Microsoft Word or Corel WordPerfect. References: An alphabetical list of references cited in the text should be included on a separate page at the end of the manuscript. Books: Journals: Cascio, W. F. (1995). Managing human resources 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Lane, J. C. (1995). Ethics of business students: Some marketing perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 571-580. Two or More Authors: Kvanli, A. H., Guynes, C. S. & Pavur, R. J. (1986). Introduction to business statistics- A computer integrated approach. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. Article in a Book Edited by Another Authorls: Halbert, M. H. (1986). The requirements for theory in marketing. In Sheth, J. N. & Garrett, D. E. (eds.). Marketing theory: Classic and contemporary readings. (pp. xx) Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Co. Address for Submission: Submissions Editor Journal of Business Strategies Gibson D. Lewis Center for Business and Economic Development Sam Houston State University Huntsville, Texas 77341-2056 Journal of Business Strategies Editor Editorial Assistant Copy Editors JoAnn Duffy Eric J. Thomas Elsie Ameen, Donald Bumpass, Linda Duvall, Alice Ketchand Editorial Board Syed T. Anwar, West Texas A&M University Stanley M. Atkinson, Universitv of Central Florida Ed Blackburne, Sam Houston State University Dalton E. Brannen, Augusta State University Russell Briner, University of Texas at San Antonio Stephen Bushardt, University of Southern Mississippi Shawn M. Carraher, Texas A&M Univ. - Commerce Branko Cavarkapa, Eastern Connecticut State Univ. Sudhir K. Chawla, AnRe/o State University Daniel S. Cochran, Mis!;issippi State University Roy A. Cook, Fort Lewis College R. Mike Cudd, Southeastern Louisiana University Ashay B. Desai, Universitv of Wisconsin at Oshkosh Darla Domke-Damonte, Coastal Carolina University Derrick E. Dsouza, University of North Texas Dennis J. Duchon, University of Texas at San Antonio Dean Elmuti, Eastern Illinois University Joyce Falkenberg, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration Gary Frankwick, Oklahoma State University Donald Freeman, Sam Houston State University James E. Groff, Universitv of Texas ill San Antonio Robert D. Gulbro, Athens State University William A. Hailey, Universitv of North Alabama Ernest H. Hall, Jr., University (!f Southern Alabama James L. Harbin. Texas A&M University - Texarkana Michael Harvey, Univerl;ity of Mi.\sissippi J. David Hunger. lowa State University Lawrence R. Jauch, Univ. of Louisiana at Monroe Norman Kangun, Clemson Universitv William E. Kilbourne, Sam Houston Slate University Douglas Kline, Univ. otNorth Carolina at Wilmington Mark J. Kroll, Louisiana Tech Universitv Mark Lengick-Hall, Univ. f!t Texas at San Antonio Juliana Lilly, Sam Houston State University Thomas J. Lipscomb, Southeastern Louisiana Univ. Franz T. Lohrke, University o/'Alabama Granger Macy, lthaca College Farrokh G. Mamaghani, St. John Fi.\her College Steven J. Maranville, Univ. of Houston - Downtown Edward K. Marlow, Eastern Illinois University Samia Massoud, Texas A&M at Prairie View Ruth C. May, University of Dallas John P. McCray, University o/Texas at San Antonio Abagail McWilliams, University of Illinois ill Chicag Sanjay S. Mehta, Sam Hou.l'!on State University Grant Miles, University of North Texas Tim H. Mills, Eastern lllinois Univer.\ity Joseph L. Morris, Southeastern Louisiana University Rebecca J. Morris, University ofNebmska at Omahu Jaideep G. Motwani, Grand Valley State University Matthew B. Myers, University of Tennessee John J. Newbold, Sam Houston State University John A. Parnell, Univ. f!f North Carolina - Pemhroke Barbara Parrish, University of Central Oklahoma Ralph W. Parrish, University of Central Oklahoma David P. Paul III, Monmouth University Marshall K. Pitman, Univ. o,fTexas at San Antonio Shane R. Premeaux, McNeese State University A.K.M. Matiur Rahman, McNeese State University Alan Reinstein, Wayne State University D. Christopher Risker, Wehster University Michael Savoie, University of Dallas Jeffrey P. Slattery, Northeastern Slate University Denise T. Smart, Southwest Texas State University Victor Sower, Sam Houston State University Albert Spalding, 1¥ilyne State University Robert E. Stevens, University (Jf uJUisiana at Monro, Wayne H. Stewart, Jr., Clemson University Kelly C. Strong, Michigan Technological University Bruce Swindle, McNeese State University LewisA. Taylor, University of North Texas Mary S. Thibodeaux, Univasity 01' North Texas V.K. Unni, Bryant College David D. Van Fleet, Arizona State Universitv West Bruce Walters, Louisiana Tech University Peter Wright, Memphis State University $ > u r n a l o f f!1Ju sin ess 9 J tra te g ie s G IB S O N D . LE W IS C E N T E R FO R B U S IN E S S A N D E C O N O M IC D E V E LO P M E N T S A M H O U S T O N S T A T E U N IV E R S IT Y B ox 2 0 5 6 H U N T S V ILLE T X 7 7 3 4 1 ·2 0 5 6 N O N -P R O F IT O R G A N IZ A T IO N U .S . P O S TA G E P A ID H U N T S V IL L E , T E X A S P E R M IT N O . 26 Openness and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence on the Relationship Between Output, Inward FDI, and Trade