Impacts of foreign direct investment on vietnam’s economy in a relation to natural environment

Nội dung text: Impacts of foreign direct investment on vietnam’s economy in a relation to natural environment

1. IMPACTS OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT ON VIETNAM’S ECONOMY IN A RELATION TO NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Dr. Ngo Thi Ngoc Anh ngocanhngo.npa@gmail.com MA. Nguyen Lan Huong nguyenlanhuong.npa@gmail.com Institution of Economics, Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics Abstract Recently, foreign direct investment (FDI) has been a vital contributor to Vietnamese national economy. A rapid increase of FDI flows has brought various benefits to the economy such as increasing GDP growth rate, creating jobs, increasing export value, However, the rapid increase of FDI flows in Vietnam recently has also been leading to many environmental issues that requires more society’s focuses on to figure out suitable solutions. This paper assesses the role of FDI in Vietnam’s economy in a relation with the environment problems through answering two research questions: What are the economic effects of FDI to Vietnam’s economy? And How does FDI related to environmental issues in Vietnam? Qualitative research method was employed to analyze secondary data sources to examine these research questions. Basing on research findings, this paper proposes several recommendations to attract more FDI and to ensure environment protection. Keywords: Foreign direct investment, Vietnam, Pollution, Environment. 1. Introduction Along with the deeper economic integration into the world economy, Vietnam has signed a plenty of economic agreements, and established free trade relationships with more than 57 countries over the world. The FDI, therefore has been increasing recently. There has been no argument for economic contributions of FDI to Vietnam, but a focus trend of FDI attraction for growth targets based on industries seems to increase a capable of large polluting, over exploitation of natural resources without paying attention to environmental protection of both state management and FDI enterprises. The depletion of natural resources, air pollution, water pollution, environmental degradation, biodiversity reduction in Vietnam nowadays is increasing seriously. Consequently, these environment issues will affect negatively back to the economic growth of Vietnam. According to the forecast of the World Bank, due to the impacts of environmental pollution, Vietnam's GDP will be fell 2.5% each year (Doan Tranh & Nguyen Thi Hoa, 2016). It therefore needs more studies on the impacts of FDI 977
2. on the economy and environment in Vietnam to suggest effective strategies for attracting FDI. This study thus aims at investigation effects of FDI to Vietnam with economic and environmental aspects. It answers two research questions: What are the economic effects of FDI to Vietnam’s economy? And How does FDI related to environmental issues in Vietnam? 2. Literature review Definition of FDI According to the definition given by the UNCTAD, "FDI is an investment involving a long-term relationship and reflecting a lasting interest and control by a resident entity in a given economy (foreign direct investor or parent enterprise) in an enterprise resident in an economy other than that of the foreign direct investor (FDI enterprise or affiliate enterprise or foreign affiliate)" (UNCTAD, 2007: 245). FDI occurs when an investor in one country acquires an asset in another country with the intent to manage that asset. The desire to manage that asset distinguishes FDI from other portfolio investment, such as investing in foreign stocks, bonds and other financial instruments1. FDI is an activity, which is normally run by Multinational Corporations (MNCs), and FDI is considered as the main motivation of their activity. The FDI dynamic involves the transfer of various elements (financial capital, technology, labor skills, etc.) from a country (the source of the investment) to another (the destination or recipient of the investment). This process implies the rise of costs and benefits for the countries involved. Effects of FDI According to the review by Moosa (2002), the effects of FDI on an investment host country can be observed on four following aspects: economic, political, social and a hidden one, environmental. The social issue mainly concerns the changes of cultural and behavioral as a consequence of a sort of “contamination” resulting from the contact between the foreign and local entities. The political effects refer to the question of national sovereignty, particularly true in Less Developed Countries (LDCs), because the management of MNCs can be a threat for the national political autonomy of the host country. In terms of economic effects, they are distinguished in macro and micro effects as shown in Figure 1. In terms of economic impacts, (1) FDI promotes economic growth and increases the size of the economy and contributes greatly to economic restructuring. FDI capital increases the scale of social investment and promotes economic 1 (1996), WTO, “Trade and foreign direct investment, 978
3. restructuring towards industrialization. The fact has proved that the proportion of industrial sector is increasing due to the large contribution of FDI, especially in manufacturing. (2) Through foreign direct investment, many new sectors and industries have emerged such as oil and gas, information technology, chemicals, automobiles, motorcycles, steel, electronics and consumer electronics, industrial processing agricultural products, footwear, textiles FDI helps quickly promote the technical - technological level in many economic sectors, contributing to increase labor productivity in these sectors and increase the its proportion in the economy. (3) FDI creates millions of direct jobs and indirect jobs, including tens of thousands of highly qualified engineers, managers and skilled workers with increasing incomes as well as bringing advanced labor ways, business and management. In addition, foreign investment plays an important role in improving the quality of labor through the spillover effect for stakeholders. (4) FDI promotes exports and improves the trade balance. FDI contributed significantly to boosting Vietnam's exports through export growth, product diversification and the diversification of export markets. Thereby, FDI also contributes to reducing pressure on exchange rates and improving the balance of payments. (5) FDI also contributes to increasing state budget revenues and causing positive spillover effects on domestic enterprises through backward linkages. Through production linkages between FDI enterprises and domestic enterprises, domestic enterprises have the opportunity to access technology transfer activities. Besides, through the relationship with FDI enterprises, domestic enterprises apply similar manufacturing technologies to produce alternative products or services and other products or services to avoid competition. At the same time, it has the effect of creating other industries and services in the country to support the operation of FDI enterprises (CIEM, 2006) Figure 1: FDI, economic issues and natural environment Source: built and adapted from Moosa’ s (2002) discussion. 979
4. In terms of the effects of FDI on the host country’s environment, it can be said that FDI may boost economic growth, generate structural efficiency together with other positive effects, it can also generate environmental degradation as well (CIEM, 2006). There exists a simple hypothesis that foreign investors bring new technologies to receiving countries, and this would enable receiving countries to implement environmental protection projects and actions. In theory, the economic expansion driven by FDI may also generate a generalized improvement in the environmental sphere. However, the fact is that FDI can spread industrial activity, stimulate the production and consumption of industrial polluting goods, all this resulting in an increase of the sources and forms of pollution. For instance, FDI in resource-intensive industry sector are normally expected to be detrimental and negative to the environment. Additionally, we have also learned that FDI often goes with a “hidden aspect”, which is not always taken into proper consideration. According to some of the last available reports of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), it can be appreciated that FDI has always traditionally and significantly relied on the use of natural resources (especially in agriculture, mineral extraction, fuel and chemical production). It can be observed that a relevant amount of FDI is still priority to developing countries, especially those sectors primarily based on the use of natural resources. The fact is that, in the last decades, the environmental degradation has also been increasing and accelerating, which are widely referred to in a number of scientific reports and studies. The global warming generated by greenhouse gas emissions seems to be just the result of a variegated series of environmental problems from deforestation and biodiversity loss to ice melting and the change in sea levels (UNEP, 2007). This environmental degradation is recognized and claimed to be the result of widespread economic activities worldwide. It is also recognized that FDI partly contributes to this significant raises. It leads to some concerns on the relationship between FDI and environmental effects, which is one of crucial factors in identifying and implementing appropriate governmental policies. Indeed, there exist a two-way linkage between FDI and environment: the impact of environmental standards on the location of firms’ investment decisions and the environmental effects of international countries’ competition for FDI The first group basically tries to understand whether the existence of different environmental regulations and standards can be a reason for firms relocating their activity. The latter group analyses the FDI - environment nexus which occurs when countries modify 980
5. their environmental regulatory systems by lowering environmental standards to attract more FDI or by increasing them to gain a competitive advantage in the longer term. Those works deal with various phenomena associated with theories, whose existence is based on the existence of the following hypothesis: 1) “pollution havens”; 2) “race to the bottom”. Associate with the “pollution haven” hypothesis, investors relocate their industries in those countries, which have weaker or even absent environmental regulation, thus gaining the maximum advantage from producing at the lowest cost in light of environmental regulatory requirements. The search for pollution havens has widened the debate and has diversified the literature on the FDI-environment relationship. In fact, the published scientific works are still unable to empirically show systematic evidence of the existence of pollution havens, while reaching contradictory results. Studies indicate evidence supporting the pollution havens hypothesis include the following studies. According to U.S.Congress (1991), a number of manufacturers in the wood furniture industry moved from the region of Los Angeles to Mexico between 1988 and 1990, because here they could use their solvents without considering any air pollution constraint (cited in WWF 1998). By using a statistical test to measure the effect of tighter environmental regulations on financial capital movement, a study which analyzed the FDI outflow from various high and less- polluting US industries (chemicals, primary metals, electrical machinery, non- electrical machinery, food products and transportation equipment) to seven developing and 15 developed countries between 1985 and 1990, found a significantly higher and positive correlation between those host countries with a more lenient environmental regulation and the US outflow of FDI. The similar evidences which support the existence of the pollution heavens hypothesis for highly pollutant industrial sector such ass chemical, primary metals sector, printing, dyeing, electroplating, even pesticides production were observed and reported by Xing & Kolstad (2002) and some works about FDI flow in China by Guoming et Al (1999) and Yofou (1995). In further researches, among his various analysis focuses and conclusions, He (2006) provides convincing evidence of the existence of the pollution haven hypothesis. He observed that the location and composition of the inward stock of Chinese FDI were highly motivated by pursuing a “production platform” with lower compliance costs of pollution regulation. In the same direction, another study by Spatareanu (2007) observed how firms in industries 981
6. with higher abatement costs tend to invest more abroad to avoid high environmental compliance costs. Meanwhile, one of the earliest works on this issue was an investigation to assess the relationship between the location of heavy-polluting industries in the United States and the dynamic of trade and investment data. As the result, no evidence confirming the existence of firms that moved their investments to pollution havens in less developed countries was found in the study. Then, this evidence was confirmed even for the case of the mineral processing sector, whose average FDI flow was much higher in developed than in developing countries by Leonard in 1988 which was cited in OECD in 1997. In 1990, according to McConnell & Schwab (1990), a study focusing on how regional differences in environmental regulation can affect the car industry location decision did not reach any significant evidence with the exception of those countries characterized by heavy incompliance with air quality standards (cited in Gray, 2002). At the same time, another survey of Sanchez found that 26% of Maquiladora operators in Mexicali cited Mexico's lax environmental enforcement as an important reason for their location there (cited in WWF, 1998). A milestone often recalled in the literature refers to an analysis of the United States Direct Investment Abroad (USDIA) data in 1992. In this work, it is observed how in the considered year developing and transitional economies received 45% of the total flow. However, a very small quota of this flow (5%) went to environmentally sensitive industries, such as those related to petroleum and gas, primary or fabricated metals, and chemical sectors, while a more significant proportion (24%) reached already developed countries with tighter environmental standards. Hence, the conclusion supported the non-existence of the evidence that advanced countries export their “dirty” industries to less developed economies (Repetto, 1995). In a recent analysis carried out to understand whether or not ASEAN countries can be considered pollution havens for Japanese high-polluting industries, Elliot and Shimamoto (2008) provides indication of the non-existence of the pollution havens hypothesis. The "race to the bottom" hypothesis can be considered as a subset of the “pollution haven” phenomenon. If the "pollution haven" hypothesis exists, then countries might think that by lowering their environmental standards they would result more competitive in FDI attraction. And in fact, the "race to the bottom" phenomenon happens when a country’s government undertakes positive actions to lower its environmental standards with the final aim of bringing in FDI. 982
7. According to Revesz (1992), some empirical evidence had highlighted that it seems unlikely that countries purposely proceed to lower their environmental standards. In addition, the existence of some factors playing the role of countervailing forces in the race to the bottom should be considered. These might be basically related to the pressure arising from local communities, whose reasoning may follow the "Not in My Backyard" principle (Swire, 1996 cited in OECD, 2002) and a number of other varying factors among which education and income levels can be seen among the most relevant aspects (Zarsky, 1999). Another study empirically testing "the race to the bottom" hypothesis focuses on the trends of air quality – measured in terms of suspended particulate matter – in the United States and in the three largest recipient countries of FDI in the developing world (Brazil, China and Mexico). The result shows how the globalization era has brought about a decline of the considered pollutant in major cities of all analyzed countries, thus contradicting the theoretical foundation of the “race to the bottom” hypothesis. However, there also exists evidence confirming the existence of the “race to the bottom” hypothesis, which can be observed, especially with regard to case studies from specific sectors. In developing countries with abundant natural resources, where the regulatory experience may be very limited, a preference for foreign investment is often shown. In Zimbabwe, for example, the dominant presence of foreign investors in the mining sector is explained by the national “Mines and Mineral Act” which takes over any other regulation including those related to norms of environmental protection (Gray, 2002). Similar situations can also be observed in Indonesia and Papa New Guinea where, especially in the mining sector, governments have considerably relaxed environmental controls over mining operations in a range of areas. As is referred, in these two countries all mining operations are run under special conditions which require minimal or no regulation thus permitting an extensive detrimental effect on the environment. In Indonesia, mining corporations operate under special Contracts of Work (COW) are being exempt from respecting environmental laws. In Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and the Philippines, governments have provided general or specific exemptions from existing environmental and other laws with the aim of attracting higher flows of FDI (Mabey & McNally, 1998). Some further observations in Canada and Germany also show that governments have simplified their environmental regulation by relaxing its enforcement, and implementing a more business-friendly context for investors (Esty & Geradin, 1998). Another analysis supporting the existence of the hypothesis was about the Costa Rica case study, where 983
8. the government actively pursued investment projects in particular polluting sectors by skipping legal requirements, also including environmental aspects. The impacts of FDI on host country are always expressed in the international literature and especially in those works published by international organizations such as the OECD. It must be highlighted, however, that the issue of the economic effects of FDI has very often failed to consider those associated to the natural environment. It seems that the environmental reflection within the FDI issue has generally suffered from a lack of adequate attention and has often been left aside and unconsidered. Only a few people paid attention to the relationship between international capital flow and the environment. Their aim was to understand the extent to which the huge amount of international finance flown to the countries of that developing region destabilized the ecological foundations of these emerging economies. 3. Research method This study majorly employs qualitative research methods that use secondary data sources. By analyzing related data from GSO of Vietnam, information about FDI released via government websites, and previous research outcomes. A technique used to analyze the secondary data collected is content analysis that helps to figure out common themes of FDI impacting Vietnam’s economy and environment. Through this content analysis, this study attempts to answer the two research questions and then provide a comprehensive picture about FDI and its economic and environmental effects on Vietnam. 4. FDI and natural environment in Vietnam Contributions of FDI to Vietnam economy Foreign direct investment into Vietnam rose by 6.2 percent year-on-year to USD 4.12 billion in the first three months of 2019. In addition, FDI pledges for new projects, increased capital and stake acquisitions - which indicate the size of future FDI disbursements - surged 86.2 percent from a year earlier in the January-March period to USD 10.8 billion. The manufacturing and processing industry is set to receive the largest amount of investment (77.7 percent of total pledges), followed by real estate (7.2 percent) and professional activities, science and technology (3.5 percent). Hong Kong was the biggest source of FDI pledges in the first three months of 2019 (47 percent of total pledges), followed by Singapore (13.5 percent) and South Korea (12.2 percent). Foreign Direct Investment in Vietnam averaged 6.31 USD Billion from 1991 until 2019, reaching an all-time high of 19.10 USD Billion in December of 2018 and a record low of 0.40 USD Billion in January of 2010. 984
9. Graph 1: FDI in Vietnam 2018, 2019 FDI has contributed significantly to the economic achievements of Vietnam recently. The contribution of FDI to GDP growth rate has been high since 2000s, especially in the period 2010-2014, this contribution was 24.4% to Vietnam's GDP growth rate (Table 1). The FDI sector plays an important role in the development of investment capital in Vietnam. In the 2005-2015 period, FDI capital accounted for 22.8% of the total social investment capital (GSO, 2016). Total realized social investment capital in 2017 at current prices reached an estimate of 1667.4 trillion dongs, up 12.1% over 2016 and equaling 33.3% of GDP, of which the State sector’s capital gained 594.9 trillion dongs, accounting for 35.7% of the total capital and increasing by 6.7% from the previous year; the non-State sector’s capital obtained 676.3 trillion dongs, taking 40.5% and growing by 16.8%; the FDI sector’s capital attained 396.2 trillion dongs, representing 23.8% and moving up by 12.8% (GSO, 2018). From the beginning of the year to December 20, 2017, FDI attracted 2591 newly licensed projects with the total registered capital of US$ 21.3 billion, up 3.5% in the number of projects and 42.3% in the registered capital against the similar period in 2016. Besides, there were 1188 times of license-granted projects from previous years registered to adjust investment capital with the additional capital of US$ 8.4 billion, a rise of 49.2% from the same period last year, bringing the total of newly registered capital and additional capital in 2017 to US$ 29.7 billion, increasing by 44.2%. Realized FDI capital in 2017 was estimated to reach US$ 17.5 billion, going up by 10.8% compared with that in 2016. In 2017, there were 5002 times of capital contribution and share purchase of foreign investors with a total capital contribution of US$ 6.2 billion, moving up by 45.1% over 2016 (GSO, 2018). 985
10. Foreign investment plays an important role in creating and improving labor quality through labor spillover effects for stakeholders. In the period from 1988-2014, the FDI sector generated more than 2.3 millions of direct jobs and millions of indirect jobs, including tens of thousands of highly qualified engineers, managers, skilled workers, with increasing income, labor and business practices. Table 1: Contribution of FDI to Vietnam’s GDP growth rate Sector 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 State- owned enterprises 1.58 1.29 1.67 1.38 1.16 1.54 Private enterprises 3.14 3.26 2.19 2.06 2.53 2.73 FDI enterprises 1.41 0.99 0.86 1.36 1.51 1.94 Source: GSO of Vietnam, 2016 The FDI sector is the key driver for Vietnam's export growth. The FDI sector contributed to trade surplus in the period of 2000-2014 that Vietnam reduced import surplus due to the trade surplus of FDI enterprises. Thereby it reduced the pressure on the exchange rate improving national accounts and the national payments balance. Another direct economic impact of FDI is the contribution to the state budget. Contribution to the state budget of FDI enterprises increased gradually over time. If in 2005, the proportion of state budget contribution is 8.4%, then by 2010 it will increase to 11% and 2014 to 13.9% (GSO, 2016). Through foreign direct investment, many new sectors and industries have emerged such as oil and gas, information technology, chemicals, automobiles, motorcycles, steel, electronics and consumer electronics, industrial processing agricultural products, footwear, textiles FDI helps quickly promote the technical - technological level in many economic sectors, contributing to increasing labor productivity in these sectors and increasing its proportion in economy. Impacts of FDI on natural environment in Vietnam Along with the positive contributions to the economy, FDI sector has been under debates on its negative impacts on the natural environment. Recently, there are a few FDI companies complying with the government requirements of environment protection. Data from Foreign Investment Department on the date 02/20/2016, it had 28 projects in the field of water supply and waste treatment investment in Vietnam (only 0.2% of all projects). The total registered capital of 28 projects is US$ 710,084,540 out of a total investment of US$ 199,703,267,764 of all projects in Vietnam, accounting for 0.36% (Dantri, 2016). Many serious environmental pollution cases of FDI projects that has caused bad consequences for the ecosystem and reduced sustainability of economic growth. For example, the Project Formosa in Ha Tinh causes 986
11. marine environmental incidents in 2016; Vedan Vietnam was found causing "death" of Thi Vai river; Vietnam Miwon was sanctioned for over discharging wastewater allowable technical regulations; Vietnam Mei Sheng Textiles Co., Ltd. was sealed its dying house for illegal construction and discharge emissions polluting the environment or Lee & Man Paper Factory is found to pollute the environment. There have been various causes considered for these environment issues. Currently, Vietnam has no system of tracking and updating statistics situation of waste, wastewater treatment, environmental protection measures, as well as stub Environmental pollution levels of FDI enterprises (including businesses) Industry, facility, individual in the country). Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate completely on the environmental impact of the FDI sector in current conditions (CIEM, 2017). It can be seen that Vietnam's low environmental standards are an important factor investment decision of foreign investors. Dinh Duc Truong (2015) conducted a survey with 80 FDI enterprises in highly polluting industries including Paper Production, Real Processing Products, Textiles / Dyeing, Tanning, Chemicals, Steel in three cities attracting the largest amount of FDI in Vietnam-Ho Chi Minh City, Dong Nai and Binh Duong. The study shows that low environment cost is a reason for FDI enterprises considered to invest in Vietnam. According o this study, 20% of enterprises are first investing in Vietnam to save less than 10% of environmental costs compared to mother countries, 68% 10-50% savings are expected and 12% is expected to save 50%. It is claimed that that environment issues caused by the local state management. Due to the competition of FDI attraction, the local government provided FDI investors many incentives and even preferential treatment frames that ignored environment requirements. It was also pointed that some local government lacks of capacity in appraising licensing with FDI projects, especially lack of environmental control and appraisal mechanisms formally, focusing heavily on pre-examination but not paying attention to post-check has caused many FDI projects to reveal inadequate. Besides, the level of foreign investment management is limited (especially with large-scale projects, complex technology), along with untighten control of the environment of localities, authorities have led to many business cases FDI enterprises cause serious and prolonged environmental pollution. Many localities, for the purpose of attracting investment, have been massively licensed for FDI projects to invest in production areas with high risk of environmental pollution (CIEM 2017). Moreover, it is said that, the link between the ministries, departments and local authorities in the management and supervision of the implementation of enterprises responsibility in the enforcement of environmental regulations is not synchronized and close cooperation. In some localities, the management board of industrial zones and economic zones have not made full powers and responsibilities, being manipulated by investors, 987
12. thereby breaking industry planning, territory, not ensuring the National Interest in FDI attraction (Doan Thanh & Nguyen Thi Hoa, 2016). This is considered as an important reason causing inefficient management of FDI of the government. The structure of FDI attracted unbalanced in the industries, of which focused on industry sectors such as manufacturing, metallurgy easy to pollute and use too many resources. According to a survey by VCCI and USAID/VNCI recently showed that 67% of FDI businesses currently operating in Vietnam related to manufacturing industries with low added value, 80% use of average technology, 14% use low-tech, much energy consumption and high emission capability. This is contrary to one of the top targets of Vietnam's FDI attraction that is attracting projects with strong capital, high-tech and modern. Additionally, FDI Partners from Asian countries, including China, Hong Kong, Taiwan which are claimed to majorly use old technologies polluting host countries. The present FDI projects accounted for 70% of investment coming is relatively high, not to mention to the projects from other countries but originated and driven from China (Doan Thanh & Nguyen Thi Hoa, 2016). 5. Discussions and conclusions Rising FDI has been a major trend over the world as a certain consequence of strong international integration among countries recently. It seems that host country governments, especially those are developing countries, have considered FDI as an important component for developing their economies. Given such expectations these countries governments are willing to offer foreign investors many incentives, one of those incentive is low environment standards to attracting them. The findings in this study are quite similar to the literature on effects of FDI to the host countries. To Vietnam economy, FDI plays vital roles to develop the country economy such as increasing GDP, creating jobs, and improving export values However FDI has been blamed for many environment issues in Vietnam recently, for example water pollution, sea pollution, and land pollution, In order to promote the positive effects and limit negative impacts on the environment of the FDI sector right from the beginning, the Government needs to manage FDI attraction based on a view of environmental protection. Specifically, there several solutions should be implemented in attracting FDI in the following years: It is necessary to complete the system of laws, policies and regulations on foreign investment. The Government needs to re-examine the entire legal system on investment in general and foreign investment in particular, to change appropriate contents to match the new contexts. In the coming years, it is necessary to make adjustments to amend the Investment Law and the Enterprise Law in order to create a synchronous, clear and regulated business environment. 988
13. It is time to adjust preferential policies and investment barriers oriented to attract FDI towards environmental protection. In the short term, it is necessary to amend investment incentive policies towards attracting "clean" FDI projects, but it still does not reduce the Vietnam’s competitiveness and investment attraction compared to other countries in the region. State management should take the lead in developing a preferential policy system to ensure consistency and transparency for attracting FDI from the viewpoint of national environmental protection. Moreover, it is necessary to complete the decentralization mechanism in the governance of foreign investment management. The decentralization of the state management aims to promote the local autonomy in managing FDI projects. With widespread and high pollution risks FDI projects it needs to be unified to manage from the Central to local. The competent authorities are responsible for strictly controlling the compliance with the planning for FDI projects. References 1. CIEM, 2006, “The impacts of FDI to economic growth in Vietnam”, truong_KTvietnamese_233.pdf 2. CIEM, 2017, Dau tu truc tiep nuoc ngoai: Mot so van de ve thuc trang va giai phap, Trung tam thong tin tu lieu 2017. 3. Dinh Duc Truong, 2015, Quan ly moi truong tai cac doanh nghiep dau tu nuoc ngoai (FDI) tai Vietnam, Tap Chi Khoa hoc DHQGHN, Issue 31, Vol 5(2015), pp.46-55. 4. Doan Thanh & Nguyen Thi Hoa, 2016, Impacts of FDI on Sustainable Development Objectives of Vietnam in International Economic Integration, Proceedings of the Annual Vietnam Academic Research Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance & Social Sciences (AP16Vietnam Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-92-1 Hanoi-Vietnam. 7-9 August, 2016. Paper ID: VL695. 5. Dantri, 2016, Ngay cang nhieu doanh nhiep FDI gay o nhiem o Viet Nam. nhiem-o-viet-nam 6. ELLIOT R.J.R., SHIMAMOTO K., 2008, Are ASEAN Countries Havens for Japanese Pollution-Intensive Industry?, World Economy, Vol. 31, Issue 2, pp. 236- 254 7. ESTY D.C., GERADIN D., 1998, Environmental Protection and International Competitiveness, Journal of World Trade, Vol. 32, Issue 3, pp. 5-47 8. GRAY K.R., 2002, Foreign Direct Investment and Environmental Impacts – Is the Debate Over?, Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, Vol. 11, Issue 3, pp. 306-313 989
14. 9. GUOMING X., CHENG Z., YANGUI Z., SHUNQI G., ZHAN J.X., 1999, The Interface Between Foreign Direct Investment and the Environment: the Case of China, Report as Part of the UNCTAD/DICM Project, Cross Border Environmental Management in Transnational Economies, Occasional Paper no. 3, Copenhagen Business School 10. HE J., 2006, Pollution Haven Hypothesis and Environmental Impact of Foreign Direct Investment: the case of Industrial Emission of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) in Chinese Provinces, Ecological Economics, Vol. 60, pp. 228-245 11. MABEY N., MCNALLY R., 1998, Foreign Direct Investment and the Environment. From pollution havens to sustainable development, WWF-UK Report 12. OECD, 1997, Foreign Direct Investment and the Environment: An Overview of the Literature, Document of the Negotiating Group on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), OECD Publishing, Paris, France 13. OECD, 2002[a], Environmental Issues in Policy-Based Competition for Investment: A literature Review, Document of the Working Party on Global and Structural Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, France 14. OECD, 2002[b], Environmental Benefits of Foreign Direct Investment: A Literature Review, Document of the Working Party on Global and Structural Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, France 15. REVESZ R.L., 1992, Rehabilitating Interstate Competition: Rethinking the ‘Race to the Bottom’ Rationale for Federal Environmental Regulation, New York University Law Review, Vol. 67, pp. 1210-1254 16. SPATAREANU M., 2007, Searching for Pollution Havens: the Impact of Environmental Regulations on Foreign Direct Investment, Journal of Environment and Development, Vol. 16, Issue 2, pp. 161-182 17. UNCTAD, 2007, World Investment Report 2007, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, Switzerland 18. XING Y., KOLST AD C.D., 2002, Do Lax Environmental Regulations Attract Foreign Investment?, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 21, pp. 1-22 19. WTO, 1996, “Trade and foreign direct investment”, 20. WWF, 2001, Preliminary Assessment of the Environmental and Social Effects of Liberalization of Tourism Services, WWF International Discussion Paper, May, Geneva, Switzerland 990