The
impact of the FDI on the economic growth of the United States has been investigated
by the past studies according to the various approaches. The resultswhich are
conducted from the previous studies, that are unclear that’s why this study has
conducted to finding the impact of the FDI on the economic growth of the United
States by using the various indicators as inflation and gross capital. The FDI
is expected as positive and significant impact for the economic growth of the
United States. Because it is proved by the several studies the FDI has positive
significant relation with the economicsgrowth of the all countries as well as
for the United States.
According
to the Nuno Carlos (2013), economic growth of the country is highly effected by
the capital formation. The growth can increase only in short run by the FDI and
it proved by the several theories. Technology, labor growth, inflation rate and
capital formation have high effect on the economy growth in long run. Due to
the some deficiencies of the models it depends on the particular assumption of
the technological constant rate and the marginal return for the capital can be diminishing
by it. Technology assumed as endogenous feature according to the growth of the
endogenous theories. This research study
is tried prove the relationship of the FDI with economic growth of the United
States (LEITÃO, 2013).
It
is investigated by the studies of the Blomstrom, M. (2014) the economic growth is highly influenced by
the FDI and many other economic indicators. The intrinsic endow genetics can be
measured by using the system methodology and significance of institution can
also examine buy using this. It didn’t
shows only the growth of the countries it’s also showed the relationship of the
various sources of growth and institutions. Foreign capital have founded the overall
impact of the growth either it’s positive or negative or many research studies
discusses the FDI has positive significant relationship with the economy of the
country (Blomstrom, 2014).
According
to theJ Jones (2016), for national security there are few
exceptions like as policy for the foreign investment according to the end of
the World War II. The Foreign direct investment has been promoted and supported
by it. It also includes the internal external investment of the United States
just likes foreign and abroad direct investment of the United States. For
several countries investment policies few issues which are related to national
securities they are become more prominent according to the previo9s studies and
past decades. It has also investigated by the United Nations investment
policies has few issues related to national securities (Jones, 2016).
According to the studies of the Forte (2013)
many countries have been adopted new standards for restricting the investment
of the foreign traders and it has existing laws amendment for concerned with
the reviews of the issues related to national security and investment. It has
recognized by the top ten international organizations for the legitimating
concerns to the nations in confining foreign investment for their economies certain
sectors. The previous increment in such type of the restrictions which has
raised policy issues in number of terms. According to the framework of the
research study it has proved efficiency of the FDI is higher than the domestic
investment. This also proved by this study inflation rate and capital formation
also has not significant positive relation with economic of the United States.
References of Foreign Direct Investment, Inflation Rate, Gross capital formationImpacts on Economic Growth in United States
Blomstrom, M. 2014. . Foreign Investment and
Spillovers . (Routledge Revivals). Routledge.
Jackson, James K. 2017. Foreign Direct Investment
in the United. Specialist in International Trade and Finance.
Jones, J., & Wren, C. 2016. . Foreign direct
investment and the regional economy. Routledge.
LEITÃO, Nuno Carlos. 2013. "The impact of
foreign direct investment on economicgrowth: the Portuguese experience." Theoratical
and applied economics 1 (58): . 51-62.