Spreadsheet: 0454f0e6-413c-46ad-8efc-804f4e113884
Sheet: Sheet1

Table 1: Regression Results for FDI Inflows into China | Unnamed: 1 | Unnamed: 2 | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Unnamed: 6 | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 | Unnamed: 11 | Unnamed: 12 | Unnamed: 13 | Unnamed: 14 | Unnamed: 15
 | 1984-1991 |  |  |  | 1992-2003 |  |  |  | 1992-1997 |  |  |  | 1998-2003
Dependent Variable: FDI Inflows (ln) | (1.1) | (1.2) | (1.3) |  | (2.1) | (2.2) | (2.3) |  | (3.1) | (3.2) | (3.3) |  | (4.1) | (4.2) | (4.3)
Independent Variable
Constant | -15.284 | -17.271 | -19.11 |  | -29.806 | -33.404 | -31.51 |  | -29.972 | -36.07 | -34.589 |  | -36.247 | -38.466 | -36.353
 | (-2.266)** | (-1.591) | (-1.281)) |  | (-4.044)*** | (-4.462)*** | (-4.103)*** |  | (-2.97)*** | (-4.524)*** | (-4.193)*** |  | (-3.574)*** | (-3.966)*** | (-3.711)***
GDP Sum (ln) | 2.202 | 2.188 | 2.134 |  | 2.675 | 2.569 | 2.661 |  | 2.622 | 2.512 | 2.593 |  | 2.89 | 2.729 | 2.841
 | (3.956)*** | (3.939)*** | (3.667)*** |  | (5.784)*** | (5.292)*** | (5.614)*** |  | (3.89)*** | (4.813)*** | (5.003)*** |  | (5.457)*** | (5.250)*** | (5.475)***
GDP [NAME] (ln) | -0.077 | -0.083 | -0.072 |  | 0.048 | -0.027 | -0.064 |  | 0.068 | -0.032 | -0.063 |  | 0.022 | -0.035 | -0.072
 | (-0.412) | (0.438) | (-0.375) |  | (0.480) | (-0.262) | (-0.539) |  | (0.46) | (-0.297) | (-0.504) |  | (0.230) | (-0.352) | (-0.674)
Per Capita GDP Difference (ln)a | 0.547 | 0.586 | 0.616 |  | 0.52 | 0.611 | 0.587 |  | 0.671 | 0.804 | 0.783 |  | 0.537 | 0.637 | 0.6
 | (4.500)*** | (3.355)*** | (2.639)** |  | (4.141)*** | (5.825)*** | (5.537)*** |  | (3.72)*** | (5.984)*** | (5.822)*** |  | (2.981)*** | (4.203)*** | (3.824)***
Distance (ln) | -1.676 | -1.454 | -1.25 |  | -1.255 | -0.461 | -0.624 |  | -1.408 | -0.277 | -0.408 |  | -0.815 | -0.17 | -0.372
 | (-2.669)** | (-1.329) | (-0.801) |  | (-3.472)*** | (-1.132) | (-1.342) |  | (-3.07)*** | (-0.640) | (-0.844) |  | (-1.343) | (-0.268) | (-0.531)
Share of Ethnic Chinese | 4.591 | 4.272 | 3.278 |  | 5.085 | 3.162 | 5.245 |  | 5.859 | 3.077 | 4.838 |  | 5.335 | 3.738 | 6.216
Population | (5.655)*** | (4.265)*** | (1.098) |  | (7.073)*** | (2.598)** | (2.230)*** |  | (3.50)*** | (2.274)** | (1.844)* |  | (4.835)*** | (2.123)** | (2.050)**
SE & E Asia Dummy |  | 0.477 | 0.833 |  |  | 2.237 | 1.851 |  |  | 3.257 | 2.941 |  |  | 1.838 | 1.354
 |  | (0.316) | (0.374) |  |  | (2.099)** | (1.481) |  |  | (2.912)*** | (2.266)** |  |  | (1.499) | (0.938)
[NAME] |  |  | 1.193 |  |  |  | -2.552 |  |  |  | -2.164 |  |  |  | -2.955
 |  |  | (0.418) |  |  |  | (-1.174) |  |  |  | (-0.893) |  |  |  | (-1.193)
Adjusted R2 | 0.701 | 0.692 | 0.681 |  | 0.688 | 0.711 | 0.71 |  | 0.645 | 0.686 | 0.682 |  | 0.611 | 0.622 | 0.621
SSR | 73.644 | 73.357 | 73.022 |  | 142.556 | 129.609 | 127.618 |  | 217.276 | 188.696 | 187.253 |  | 174.346 | 166.067 | 163.4
Number of Observations | 34 | 34 | 34 |  | 61 | 61 | 61 |  | 61 | 61 | 61 |  | 61 | 61 | 61
Notes: FDI inflows, GDP [NAME], GDP Difference Squared and Per Capita GDP Difference are annual averages of the indicated period. For the period 1984-1991 Share of Ethnic Chinese Population is for about 1990; for the periods 1992-2003, 1992-1997, and 1998-2003 share of ethnic Chinese population is for about 2000. Heteroskedasticity-consistent t-statistics are in parentheses. a Note that per capita difference is positive for all observations in 1984-1991. In the period 1992-2003 and its two sub-periods the difference is slightly negative for 6 countries (India, Laos, Hungary, Madagascar, Nigeria and Pakistan). Instead of setting the value to zero for those countries after logging the variable as [NAME] (2003) does, I take the absolute value of the difference and subsequentially log it. [NAME] (2003) replaces the value by zero because he is only interested in the how far this variable capture vertically motivated FDI. However, I am also interested in examining whether the similarity in per capita GDP increase FDI as suggested by the theory of horizontal FDI. Therefore, and because the difference for the negative values is very small I log the absolute value of the negative six observations. Although this does distort the interpration with regard to the horizontal model, I believe that this distortion is negligible.  *** ** * indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level