“The largest 100 corporations hold 25 per cent of the worldwide productive assets, which in turn control 75 per cent of international trade and 98 per cent of all foreign direct investment. The multinational corporation … puts the economic decision beyond the effective reach of the political process and its decision-makers, national governments.
Typical FDI inflows entail capital facilitated by a foreign direct investor to a foreign affiliate, or capital received by foreign direct investment from a foreign affiliate. FDI outflows represent similar flows from the other economy’s perspective. Another consideration could be the ease of doing business in country B, whereas the foreign direct investor is domiciled in country A. Linked to that FDI ratio, is political stability. Institutions and high-net-worth individuals will typically invest capital and resources in stable political climates underpinned by policy constants.
FDIs can be established in numerous ways. These include taking major equity stakes via acquisitions, mergers or joint venture partnerships with a foreign company, creating a subsidiary or an affiliate company in an offshore jurisdiction. On the face of it, that provision is onerous and represents a veritable antithesis to the ease of doing business. But then again, should FDIs wittingly or unwittingly constitute a basis for the stifling of enterprise and local businesses? No! And this is where the provisions of section 80 and subsections , , and , intermediate, by seeking to facilitate FDIs whilst meeting the overarching policy aim of stimulating Nigeria’s economic landscape.
According to UNCTAD’s World Economic Report, the global value of foreign direct investments in 2021 was approximately $1.58 trillion. By the end of 2020, the world’s top 10 recipients of foreign direct investments were the United States, United Kingdom, China, Hong Kong , Singapore, Switzerland, Netherlands, Germany, Ireland and Luxembourg.