She recommends a shift in emphasis from the "global" legal reform agenda to a country-specific approach, based on a rigorous formulation of the common ground where the expectations of investors and the countries in question meet.
The crux of this "ideal paradigm" approach resides in the generally accepted belief that a Western-style market-oriented, rule-bound legal system is the sine qua non of successfully attracting and supporting FDI. However, through a wide-ranging survey of Sri Lankan and foreign business people, lawyers, non-legal advisers, NGO workers, diplomats, development workers, and government officials, Perry shows that this is far from the case.
Investors are generally insensitive to the nature of the host state legal system when making the decision to invest, and their perceptions and expectations of the host state legal system may be significantly affected by such factors as their nationality, export orientation and size. Perry suggests that the conclusions drawn from this detailed analysis from Sri Lanka, applied on a global scale, have the potential to greatly improve the quality of many developing countries' participation in the world economy.
|Update Frequency||As Needed|
|Product Line||Kluwer Law International|
- List of Abbreviations
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Charts
Part 1: Introduction: Objectives, Importance and Method of the Research
1. Selection of case study
2. Overview of research methods
5. Research problems
6. Structure of the study
Part 2: Review of Theoretical Positions on Legal Systems as a Determinant of FDI
1. The Determinants of FDI
2. Legal Systems as a Factor in Investment Decisions
3. An Ideal Institutional Paradigm for FDI?
Part 3: Case Study of Sri Lanka
1. Foreign Investment in Sri Lanka
2. The Legal System as a Factor in the Decision Making Process of Foreign Investors
3. The Ideal Paradigm and Attracting FDI to Sri Lanka decisions
4. The Possible Role of Investor and Investment Characteristics
Part 4: Reappraisal of Theory and Conclusions
1: Questions Around which Interviews Were Conducted
3: Ratings Allocated to Questionnaire Responses
4: Interviewees. 5: Characteristics of Respondent Companies
6: 'Non Responses' to Questionnaire