relatively high contributions to national FDI inflows from the EPZ programs, despite low absolute levels of investment in the EPZs. This perhaps highlights that the relative failure of African EPZ programs to attract investment may be more attributable to a poor investment environment overall than to the failure of the zone programs per se.

**Table 2: EPZ investment statistics**<sup>**9**</sup>

|||**FDI statistics**||
|---|---|---|---|
||**Total EPZ FDI**<br>**stock (2008)**<br>**(US$m)**|**EPZ FDI per**<br>**capita (US$)**<br>**(2000‐08)**|**EPZ FDI as % of**<br>**total national**<br>**(2000‐08)**|
|**Bangladesh**|1,435|6|30|
|**DR**|2,611|141|18|
|**Vietnam**|36,760|325|100|
|**Ghana(Tema)**|68|3|48|
|**Ghana(single units)**|2,806|120||
|**Kenya (EPZs)**|162|||
|**Kenya (single units)**|155|6|20|
|**Nigeria**|N/A|<1|<1|
|**Tanzania**<sup>**10**</sup>|210|5|18|

Source: EPZ FDI author’s compilation from individual country EPZ authorities; national FDI data from UNCTAD How does this investment translate into actual firms operating on the ground in the EPZs? Figure 2 gives a perspective on the number of active firms operating in the zone programs in each country under study, distinguishing between those firms operating in spatially‐defined zones (or “enclaves”) and firms which operate as “single factory” units. Again, what is clearly apparent from Figure 3 is the gap in scale between the African and non‐African zones in the study. The zone program in the Dominican Republic supports more than 550 firms, in Honduras there are nearly 350 firms, and in Bangladesh nearly 300. Vietnam (whose data are not presented in the graph for scale reasons) supports 3,500 firms in its export processing and industrial zones. In contrast, excluding the single factory units, the African zones in the study have, on average, little more than 35 firms operating in them. Such small scale operations not only have financial implications on program outcomes but are also likely to restrict the potential for their host countries to leverage dynamic benefits through the programs.

Both Senegal and Ghana (with 300 and 180 firms respectively<sup>11</sup> ) have a large number of firms operating through “single unit” free zone programs. But even taking these into account, the scale of the African

> 9 Source: compiled from data provided by national zone authorities. Note that data on investment in most EPZs: 1) does not differentiate FDI from domestic investment and 2) reports only the cumulative value of annual investments and does not provide actual FDI flow data. As a result, we have determined annual “flows” by taking the difference in cumulative FDI from one year to the next. We have then compared this to FDI stocks data from UNCTAD and again taken the difference in reported stocks from one year to the next as a proxy for the annual FDI flow.

> 10 Data in columns 2 and 3 are the average over the period 2005‐2007.

> 11 In the case of Senegal, data is only available on the number of newly‐established “EFE” firms each year; no data is available on the number of these firms which are operating actively at any one time – thus the actual number of active firms will be somewhat smaller than what is reported here.

12