Talk:List of countries by received FDI

Updated data

There is updated data for 2007 on The World Factbook site [1]. If someone could update to this it would be great. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Done! Mario1987 12:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest figures from December 2010 is available. So kindly help in Updating from [2].Madstat (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Data

Given that China received (actually utilized) only US$63,020.53 million in foreign direct investment in 2006, there is something seriously wrong with the data in this table. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange Numbers?

Are these numbers for total FDI received in the history of the country? If so, then it should be noted. However, I don't know if this is correct, take Russia for example- according to UN statistics (http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite_dir/docs/wir07_fs_ru_en.pdf) FDI inflows into Russia from 1990-2006 totaled about $80 billion, statistics for 2007 indicate an inflow of about $50 billion, that in no way comes even close to the $271 billion shown in this article- so what is going on? User: Olegious 29 August 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Other sources

For the US (both to and from) : BEA statistics. Protonk (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 12:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

FDI as a percentage of GDP

FDI as a percentage of GDP would make a good column. Big economies will have big FDI numbers but outstanding economies will have a better FDI/GDP ratio. Hong Kong should then top the columsn when sorted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

---

You can't be serious? Let's say a country's FDI/GDP were to be 0.9, then that would mean that 90% of its economy is in the hands of parent companies based in other countries; these parent companies are subject to the laws of the countries they are based in and experience influence of and exert influence on the nation they are located in (the senior management and bigwigs that is). Subsidiaries are controlled by their parent companies and hence are indirectly also controlled, to a degree, by countries different from where the subsidiaries are situated. On what planet would this be considered a good thing? Certainly not in a world that wants to be home to many a democracy. 2A02:1811:8D05:7100:49F5:AB99:9118:AA67 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)