38. Bevan, AA, Estrin, S. (2000), “The determinants of Foreign Direct Investment into European transition economics”, Journal of Comparative Economics , 32 (2004), 775-787.
39. Blomstrom, M., Kokko, A. (1997), “Regional Integration and Foreign Direct Investment”, NBER Working paper.
40. Brown, DK, Deardorff, AV, Fox, AK, Stern, RM (1995), Computational Analysis of Goods and Services Liberalization in the Uruguay Round , Washington, DC, United States: The World Bank.
41. Buckley, P.J., Casson, M. (1976), The Future of the Multinational Enterprises , Macmillan, London.
Maybe you are interested!
-
The impact of economic globalization on foreign direct investment flows into Vietnam - 2 -
Identify Rating Levels and Rating Scales
zt2i3t4l5ee
zt2a3gstourism,quan lan,quang ninh,ecology,ecotourism,minh chau,van don,geography,geographical basis,tourism development,science
zt2a3ge
zc2o3n4t5e6n7ts
of the islanders. Therefore, this indicator will be divided into two sub-indicators:
a1. Natural tourism attractiveness a2. Cultural tourism attractiveness
b. Tourist capacity
The two island communes in Quan Lan have different capacities to receive tourists. Minh Chau Commune is home to many standard hotels and resorts, attracting high-income domestic and international tourists. Meanwhile, Quan Lan Commune has many motels mainly built and operated by local people, so the scale and quality are not high, and will be suitable for ordinary tourists such as students.
c. Time of exploitation of Quan Lan Island Commune:
Quan Lan tourism is seasonal due to weather and climate conditions and festivals only take place on certain days of the year, specifically in spring. In Quan Lan commune, the period from April to June and from September to November is considered the best time to visit Quan Lan because the cultural tourism activities are mainly associated with festivals taking place during this time.
Minh Chau island commune:
Tourism exploitation time is all year round, because this is a place with a number of tourist attractions with diverse ecosystems such as Bai Tu Long National Park Research Center, Tram forest, Turtle Laying Beach, so besides coming to the beach for tourism and vacation in the summer, Minh Chau will attract research groups to come for tourism combined with research at other times of the year.
d. Sustainability
The sustainability of ecotourism sites in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes depends on the sensitivity of the ecosystems to climate changes.
landscape. In general, these tourist destinations have a fairly high level of sustainability, because they are natural ecosystems, planned and protected. However, if a large number of tourists gather at certain times, it can exceed the carrying capacity and affect the sustainability of the environment (polluted beaches, damaged trees, animals moving away from their habitats, etc.), then the sustainability of the above ecosystems (natural ecosystems, human ecosystems) will also be affected and become less sustainable.
e. Location and accessibility
Both island communes have ports to take tourists to visit from Van Don wharf:
- Quan Lan – Van Don traffic route:
Phuc Thinh – Viet Anh high-speed boat and Quang Minh high-speed boat, depart at 8am and 2pm from Van Don to Quan Lan, and at 7am and 1pm from Quan Lan to Van Don. There are also wooden boats departing at 7am and 1pm.
- Van Don - Minh Chau traffic route:
Chung Huong high-speed train, Minh Chau train, morning 7:30 and afternoon 13:30 from Van Don to Minh Chau, morning 6:30 and afternoon 13:00 from Minh Chau to Van Don.
f. Infrastructure
Despite receiving investment attention, the issue of infrastructure and technical facilities for tourism on Quan Lan Island is still an issue that needs to be resolved because it has a direct impact on the implementation of ecotourism activities. The minimum conditions for serving tourists such as accommodation, electricity, water, communication, especially medical services, and security work need to be given top priority. Ecotourism spots in Minh Chau commune are assessed to have better infrastructure and technical facilities for tourism because there are quite complete and synchronous conditions for serving tourists, meeting many needs of domestic and foreign tourists.
3.2.1.4. Determine assessment levels and assessment scales
Corresponding to the levels of each criterion, the index is the score of those levels in the order of 4, 3, 2, 1 decreasing according to the standard of each level: very attractive (4), attractive (3), average (2), less attractive (1).
3.2.1.5. Determining the coefficients of the criteria
For the assessment of DLST in the two communes of Quan Lan and Minh Chau islands, the students added evaluation coefficients to show the importance of the criteria and indicators as follows:
Coefficient 3 with criteria: Attractiveness, Exploitation time. These are the 2 most important criteria for attracting tourists to tourism in general and eco-tourism in particular, so they have the highest coefficient.
Coefficient 2 with criteria: Capacity, Infrastructure, Location and accessibility . Because the assessment area is an island commune of Van Don district, the above criteria are selected by the author with appropriate coefficients at the average level.
Coefficient 1 with criteria: Sustainability. Quan Lan has natural and human-made ecotourism sites, with high biodiversity and little impact from local human factors. Most of the ecotourism sites are still wild, so they are highly sustainable.
3.2.1.6. Results of DLST assessment on Quan Lan island
a. Assessment of the potential for natural tourism development
For Minh Chau commune:
+ Natural tourism attractiveness is determined to be very attractive (4 points) and the most important coefficient (coefficient 3), so the score of the Attractiveness criterion is 4 x 3 = 12.
+ Capacity is determined as average (2 points) and the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of Capacity criterion is 2 x 2 = 4.
+ Exploitation time is long (4 points), the most important coefficient (coefficient 3) so the score of the Exploitation time criterion is 4 x 3 = 12.
+ Sustainability is determined as sustainable (4 points), the important coefficient is the average coefficient (coefficient 1), so the score of the Sustainability criterion is 4 x 1 = 4 points
+ Location and accessibility are determined to be quite favorable (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), the criterion score is 2 x 2 = 4 points.
+ Infrastructure is assessed as good (3 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Infrastructure criterion is 3 x 2 = 6 points.
The total score for evaluating DLST in Minh Chau commune according to 6 evaluation criteria is determined as: 12 + 4 + 12 + 4 + 4 + 6 = 42 points
Similar assessment for Quan Lan commune, we have the following table:
Table 3.3: Assessment of the potential for natural ecotourism development in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes
Attractiveness of self-tourismof course
Capacity
Mining time
Sustainability
Location and accessibility
Infrastructure
Result
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
CommuneMinh Chau
12
12
4
8
12
12
4
4
4
8
6
8
42/52
Quan CommuneLan
6
12
6
8
9
12
4
4
4
8
4
8
33/52
b. Assessment of the potential for humanistic tourism development
For Quan Lan commune:
+ The attractiveness of human tourism is determined to be very attractive (4 points) and the most important coefficient (coefficient 3), so the score of the Attractiveness criterion is 4 x 3 = 12.
+ Capacity is determined to be large (3 points) and the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Capacity criterion is 3 x 2 = 6.
+ Mining time is average (3 points), the most important coefficient (coefficient 3) so the score of the Mining time criterion is 3 x 3 = 9.
+ Sustainability is determined as sustainable (4 points), the important coefficient is the average coefficient (coefficient 1), so the score of the Sustainability criterion is 4 x 1 = 4 points.
+ Location and accessibility are determined to be quite favorable (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), the criterion score is 2 x 2 = 4 points.
+ Infrastructure is rated as average (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Infrastructure criterion is 2 x 2 = 4 points.
The total score for evaluating DLST in Quan Lan commune according to 6 evaluation criteria is determined as: 12 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 36 points.
Similar assessment with Minh Chau commune we have the following table:
Table 3.4: Assessment of the potential for developing humanistic eco-tourism in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes
Attractiveness of human tourismliterature
Capacity
Mining time
Sustainability
Location and accessibility
Infrastructure
Result
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Quan CommuneLan
12
12
6
8
9
12
4
4
4
8
4
8
39/52
Minh CommuneChau
6
12
4
8
12
12
4
4
4
8
6
8
36/52
Basically, both Minh Chau and Quan Lan localities have quite favorable conditions for developing ecotourism. However, Quan Lan commune has more advantages to develop ecotourism in a humanistic direction, because this is an area with many famous historical relics such as Quan Lan Communal House, Quan Lan Pagoda, Temple worshiping the hero Tran Khanh Du, ... along with local festivals held annually such as the wind praying ceremony (March 15), Quan Lan festival (June 10-19); due to its location near the port and long exploitation time, the beaches in Quan Lan commune (especially Quan Lan beach) are no longer hygienic and clean to ensure the needs of tourists coming to relax and swim; this is also an area with many beautiful landscapes such as Got Beo wind pass, Ong Phong head, Voi Voi cave, but the ability to access these places is still very limited (dirt hill road, lots of gravel and rocks), especially during rainy and windy times; In addition, other natural resources such as mangrove forests and sea worms have not been really exploited for tourism purposes and ecotourism development. On the contrary, Minh Chau commune has more advantages in developing ecotourism in the direction of natural tourism, this is an area with diverse ecosystems such as at Rua De Beach, Bai Tu Long National Park Conservation Center...; Minh Chau beach is highly appreciated for its natural beauty and cleanliness, ranked in the top ten most beautiful beaches in Vietnam; Minh Chau commune is also home to Tram forest with a large area and a purity of up to 90%, suitable for building bridges through the forest (a very effective type of natural ecotourism currently applied by many countries) for tourists to sightsee, as well as for the purpose of studying and researching.
Figure 3.1: Thenmala Forest Bridge (India) Source: https://www.thenmalaecotourism.com/(August 21, 2019)
3.2.2. Using SWOT matrix to evaluate Quan Lan island tourism
General assessment of current tourism activities of Quan Lan island is shown through the following SWOT matrix:
Table 3.5: SWOT matrix evaluating tourism activities on Quan Lan island
Internal agent
Strengths- There is a lot of potential for tourism development, especially natural ecotourism and humanistic ecotourism.- The unskilled labor force is relatively abundant.- resource environmentunpolluted, still
Weaknesses- Poorly developed infrastructure, especially traffic routes to tourist destinations on the island.- The team of professional staff is still weak.- Tourism products in general
quite wild, originalintact
general and DLST in particularalone is monotonous.
External agents
Opportunity- Tourism is a key industry in the socio-economic development strategy of the province and Van Don economic zone.- Quan Lan was selected as a pilot area for eco-tourism development within the framework of the green growth project between Quang Ninh province and the Japanese organization JICA.- The flow of tourists and especially ecotourism in the world tends toincreasing
Challenge- Weather and climate change abnormally.- Competition in tourism products is increasingly fierce, especially with other localities in the province such as Ha Long, Mong Cai...- Awareness of tourists, especially domestic tourists, about ecotourism and nature conservation is not high.
Through summary analysis using SWOT matrix we see that:
To exploit strengths and take advantage of opportunities, it is necessary to:
- Diversify products and service types (build more tourism routes aimed at specific needs of tourists: experiential tourism immersed in nature, spiritual cultural tourism...)
- Effective exploitation of resources and differentiated products (natural resources and human resources)
div.maincontent .p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; } div.maincontent p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; } div.maincontent .s1 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 13pt; } div.maincontent .s2 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 13pt; } div.maincontent .s3 { color: #0D0D0D; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s4 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s5 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s6 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -3pt; } div.maincontent .s7 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -2pt; } div.maincontent .s8 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -1pt; } div.maincontent .s9 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s10 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s11 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s12 { color: black; font-family:Symbol, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s13 { color: black; font-family:Wingdings; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s14 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; vertical-align: 5pt; } div.maincontent .s15 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; vertical-align: 5pt; } div.maincontent .s16 { color: black; font-family:Cambria, serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s17 { color: #080808; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s18 { color: #080808; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s19 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s20 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 10pt; } div.maincontent .s21 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s22 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s23 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s24 { color: #212121; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; tex -
The dark side of foreign direct investment in Vietnam - 11 -
Impact of foreign direct investment on socio-economic development of Vinh Phuc province - 2 -
Ensuring the interests of the Vietnamese side in attracting and managing foreign direct investment in Vietnam Posts and Telecommunications Corporation - 27
42. Buckley, P.J., Clegg, J., Forsan, N., Reilly, K.T. (2001), “Increasing the Size of the Country: Regional Economic Integration and Foreign Direct Investment in a Globalized World Economy”, MIR: Management International Review , 41(3), 251-274.
43. Cassing J., Trewin R., Vanzetti D., Truong DT, Nguyen AD, Le QL, Le
TD (2010), Impact assessment of free trade agreement on Vietnam's economy . Report in MUTRAP III project, Hanoi.
44. Caves, RE (1971), “International Corporations: The Industrial Economics of Foreign Investment”, Economica, Vol. 38, No. 149.
45. Chang, R., Katlani, L., Loayza, N. (2005), “Openness can be good for growth: The role of Policy Complementarities”, NBER Working Paper No. 11787, Cambridge, MA, United States: National Bureau of Economic Research.
46. Dee, P., Hanslow, K. (2000), “Multinational Liberalization of Services Trade”,
Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper, Ausinfo 34, Canberra.
47. Dunning, JH (1977), “Trade Location of Economic Activity and the MNE: A Search of an Eclectic Approach”, in Ohline, B., Hesselborn, PO and Wijkman, PJ (eds.), The International Allocation of Economic Activity, Macmillan, London.
48. Dunning, JH (1979), “Explaining Changing Patterns of International Production: In Definition of the Eclectic Theory”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics , Vol. 41, No. 4.
49. Dunning, JH (1988), “The Electic Paradigm of International Production: A Restatement and Some Possible Extensions”, Journal of International Business Studies , Vol. 19, 1-31.
50. Dunning, JH (1997), “The European Internal Market Program and Inbound Foreign Direct Investment”, Journal of Common Market Studies , 35 (1 and 2), 1-30, 189-223.
51. Egger, P., Pfaffermayr, M. (2004), “Foreign Direct Investment and European Integration in the 1990s”, World Economy , 27(1), 99-110.
52. Eicher, SM (2009), International Economics (7th Edition), Routledge, London and New York.
53. El-Agraa, AM (1999), Regional Integration: Experience, Theory and Measurement, Palgrave Macmilan, London.
54. EuroCham (2018), EVFTA Report 2018 - The EU – Vietnam Free Trade Agreement: Perspectives from Vietnam , https://www.eurochamvn.org/sites/default/files/uploads/180724_tax%20updat e/The%20EVFTA%202018%20Report.pdf , accessed on November 15, 2018.
55. Evans, D., Gasirex, M., Ghoneim, A., Haynes, P.M., Holmes, P., Iacovone, L., Jackson, K., Iwanow, S., Rollo, J. (2006), Assessing regional trade agreements with developing countries: Shallow and Deep Integration, Trade, Productivity and Economic Performance , Brightion: University of Sussex.
56. Feils, DJ, Rahman, M. (2008), “Regional Economic Integration and Foreign Direct Investment: the case of NAFTA”, Management International Review , 48 (2), 147 (117).
57. Frankel, M. (1965), “Home versus Foreign Investment: A case against capital exports”, Kylos, Vol. 18, No. 3.
58. Girma, S. (2001), “The Process of European Integration and the Determinants of Entry by Non-EU Multinationals in UK Manufacturing”, GEP Research Paper 2001/20, University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
59. Globerman, S. (2002). “Trade, FDI and Regional Economic Integration: Cases of North America and Europe”, Proceedings of the conference Enhancing Investment Cooperation in Northeast Asia, Hanolulu.
60. Hanslow, K. (2000), “The Structure of the FTAP Model”, Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Melbourne.
61. Hill, CW (2005), International Business: Competing in the global market place, McGraw Hill.
62. Hill, CW (2008), Global Business Today (5th edition), Univeristy of Washington, Washington.
63. Hymer, SH (1976), The International Operation of National Firms: A Study of Direct Foreign Investment , MIT Press, Cambridge.
64. IMF (2009), Balance of Payments and International Position Manual, sixth edition (BPM6) , https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/bop/2007/pdf/BPM6.pdf , accessed June 30, 2018.
65. Ismail, N., Smith, P., Kugler, M. (2009), “The Effect of ASEAN Economic Integration on Foreign Direct Investment” , Journal of Economic Integration , 24(3), 385.
66. Jaumotte, F. (2004), “Foreign Direct Investment and Regional Trade Agreements: The Market Size Effect Revisited” , IMF Working Paper No. 04/206.
67. Jensen, J., Rutherford, T., Tarr, D. (2004), Economy-wide and Sector Effects of Russia's WTO Accession to the WTO.
68. Jensen, J., Rutherford, T., Tarr, D. (2007), “The Impact of Liberalizing Barriers to Foreign Direct Investment in Services: The Case of Russian Accession to the World Trade Organization”, Review of Development Economics , 11(3), 482-506.
69. Kahnert, F., Richards, P., Stoutjesdijk , E., Thomopoulos, P. (1969), Economic Integration among Developing Counties , Development Center of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
70. Kemp, MC (1964), The Theory of International Trade , Prentice Hall, London.
71. Kindleberger, CP (1969), American Business Abroad , Yale University Press, New Haven.
72. Kitwiwattanachai, A. (2008), “Quantitative Impacts of Alternative East Asia Free Trade Areas: A CGE Assessment”, PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.
73. Knickerbocker, FT (1973), Oligopolistic Reaction and Multinational Enterprise , Harvard University, Cambridge.
74. Kojima, K. (1985), “Towards a Theory of Industrial Restructuring and Dynamic Comparative Advantage”, Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics , Vol.26, No.2.
75. Kojima, K. (2000), “The flying geese model of Asian economic development: Origin, Theoretical extensions, and regional policy implications”, Journal of Asian Economics , No. 11, 375-401.
76. Krueger, A. (1995), Free Trade Agreements versus Customs Union , National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
77. Lakatos, C., Fukui, T. (2013), “Liberalization of Retail Services in India: a CGE Model”, US International Trade Commission Office of Economics Working Paper , No. 2013-03A, 39.
78. Lall, S., Streeten, P. (1977), Foreign Investment, Transnationals and Developing Countries , Macmillan.
79. Latorre, MC, Bajo-Rubio, O., Gómez-Plana, AG (2009), “The Effects of Multinationals on Host Economies: A CGE Approach”, Economic Modeling, 26(5), 851-864.
80. Lederman, D., Maloney, W, Serven, L. (2005), Lessons from NAFTA for Latin America and Caribbean Countries: A Summary of Research Findings, Stanford University Press.
81. Lejour, A., Rojas-Romagosa, H., Verweij, G. (2008), “Opening Services Markets within Europe: Modeling Foreign Establishments in a CGE Framework”, Economic Modeling , 25(5), 1022-1039.
82. Li, Q. (2015), The Effects of East Asian Free Trade Agreements on Foreign Direct Investment , PhD thesis, The University of Auckland.
83. Lim, EG (2001), “Determinants of and the Relations between Foreign Direct Investment and Growth: A Summary of the Recent Literature”, International Monetary Fund Working Paper , 01/175.
84. López, A., Orlicki, O. (2006), Regional Integration and Foreign Direct Investment: The Potential impact of the FTAA and the EU-MERCOSUR Agreement on FDI flows into MERCOSUR countries.
85. MacDougall, GDA (1958), “The Benefits and Cost of Private Foreign Investment Abroad: A Theoretical Approach”, Economic Record, Vol. 36.
86. Matsushita, M. (2010), “Proliferation of Free Trade Agreements and Development Perspectives”, Law and Development Institute Inaugural Conference.
87. Medvedev (2012), “Beyond Trade: The Impact of Preferential Trade Agreements on FDI Inflows”, World Development , 40 (1), 49-61.
88. Monge-Naranjo, A. (2002), “The Impact of NAFTA on Foreign Direct Investment Flows in Mexico and the Excluded Countries”, Department of Economics, Northwestern University.
89. Moon, J. (2009), A Study of the Effects of Free Trade Agreements on Foreign Direct Investment , Doctoral thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, UMI.
90. Moosa, IA (2002), Foreign Direct Investment: Theory, Evidence and Practice , Palgrave Publishers.
91. Nakatomi, M. (2013), Pluriateral Agreements: A vibale alternative to the WTO? , JETRO, RIETI.
92. Nayak, D., Choudhury RN (2014), “A Selective Review of Foreign Direct Investment Theories”, ARTNeT Working Paper Series No. 143, March 2014, Bangkok, Thailand: ESCAP.
93. OECD (2008), OECD Benchmark Definition of Foreign Direct Investment (fourth edition), accessed March 18, 2019, https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investmentstatisticsandanalysis/40193734.pdf .
94. Ozawa, T. (1998), “M&A and greenfield investments in host countries”, Paper prepared for UNCTAD (1998): Trends and Determinants.
95. Pain, N. (1997), “Continental Drift: European Integration and the Location of
UK Foreign Direct Investment”, The Manchester School , 65(S) 94-117.
96. Pain, N., Lansbury, M. (1997), “Regional Economic Integration and Foreign Direct Investment: The Case of German Investment in Europe”, National Institute Economic Review, 160, 13.
97. Park, I., Park, S. (2008), “Reform Creating Regional Trade Agreements and Foreign Direct Investment: Applications for East Asia”, Pacific Economic Review, 13(5), 550-566.
98. Petri, PA (1997), “Foreign Direct Investment in A Computable General Equilibrium Framework”, Conference Proceedings of Making APEC Work: Economic Challenges and Policy Alternatives , Keio University, Tokyo.
99. Philip, MJ, Laurenza, E., Pasini, FL, Dinh Van An, Nguyen Hoai Son, Pham Anh Tuan, Minh, NL (2011), The Free Trade Agreement between Vietnam and the European Union: Quantitative and Qualitative impact analysis , Report in the MUTRAP project, Hanoi.
100. Plummer, M.G., Cheong, D., Hamanaka, S. (2010), Methodology for Impact Assessment of Free Trade Agreement, Asian Development Bank.
101. Salike, N. (2010), “Effect of Regional Integration Agreement on FDI: A Theoretical Perspective”, MPRA Paper No. 31859.
102. Salvatore, D. (2013), International Economics (11th edition), John Wiley and Sons, Inc., US
103. Simpson, PB (1962), “Foreign Investment and the National Economic Advantages: A Theoretical Analysis”, in Mikesell, R. (ed.), US Government and Private Investment Abroad , University of Oregon Books, Eugene.
104. Skulska, B. (2010). Economic Integration Process in Europe and Asia: Comparative analysis, Wroctaw University of Economics.
105. Tabachnick, G., B., Fidell, S., L. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics , Seventh edition, Boston: Pearson.
106. Thangavelu, S.M., Findlay, C. (2011), “The Impact of Free Trade Agreements on Foreign Direct Investment in the Asia-Pacific Region” , in Findlay, C. (editor), ASEAN+1 FTAs and Global Value Chains in East Asia , ERIA Research Project Report 2010-29, Jakarta: ERIA, p112-131.
107. Thomas, P. (2007), International Economics (13th edition), McGraw Hill.
108. Tinbergen, J. (1962), Shaping the World Economy: Suggestions for an International Economic Policy , New York.
109. UNCTAD (1998), World Investment Report 1998: Trends and Determinants, New York and Geneva: United Nations.
110. UNCTAD (2006), World Investment Report 2006: FDI from Developing and Transition Economies: Implications for Development , United Nations, New York and Geneva.
111. UNCTAD (2007), World Investment Report 2007: Transnational Corporations, Extractive Industries and Development , United Nations, New York and Geneva.
112. UNCTAD (2010), World Investment Report 2010: Investing in a Low-Carbon Economy , United Nations, New York and Geneva.
113. UNCTAD (2017), World Investment Report 2017: Investment and the Digital Economy, United Nations, Geneva.
114. UNCTAD (2018), World Investment Report 2018: Investment and New Industrial Policies, United Nations, New York and Geneva.
115. European Commission (2013a), Technical barriers to trade , http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/april/tradoc_150987.pdf , accessed 15/06/2018.
116. European Commission (2013b), Sanitary and phytosanitray (SPS) issues , trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/april/tradoc_150986.pdf, accessed 15/06/2018.
117. European Commission (2018), The Economic impact of the EU – Vietnam Free Trade Agreement , Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
118. Vernon, R. (1966), “International Investment and International Trade in the Product Cycle”, Quarterly Journal of Economics , Vol. 80, No. 2.
119. Narayanamurthy, V. (2010), “Determinants of FDI in BRICS Countries: A panel analysis”, International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management , 5 Issue 3, 1-13.
120. Viner, J. (1950), The Customs Union Issues , Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York.
121. Waldkirch, A. (2003), “The New Regionalism and Foreign Direct Investment: the Case of Mexico”, The Journal of International Trade and Economic Development , 12(2), 151-184.
122. WEF (2017), The Global Competitiveness Report 2017 – 2018 , Geneva.
123. WEF, Kearney, AT (2018), The Global Competitiveness Report 2019 , Geneva.
124. WEF (2019), The Global Competitiveness Report 2019 , Geneva.
125. World Bank (2019), Doing Business 2020: Economy Profile Vietnam.
126. WTO (1995), The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) .
127. WTO (2012), Trade and public policies: A closer look at non-tariff measures in the 21st century , accessed December 20, 2017 at