netary Fund, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and World Bank’s World Development Indicators) suggests that FDI has helped to reduce income inequality in Malaysia from 1970 through 1999.

In fact, it did more to reduce inequality levels than Gross Domestic Investment.

One of the

The UTIP project should be highly commended for making this data accessible online at no cost. At a glance, it appears that when FDI inflows increase, inequality decreases in Malaysia.

Economists claim that FDI is both good and bad for income inequality, depending on the type of FDI that a nation attracts. FDI improves income inequality if much of the flows create employment for the masses, especially the low-skilled, thus boosting their income.

FDI tends to worsen inequality when it flows into industries that are high-tech and it does not create much employment for the masses.

Some economists attribute increasing income inequality in Thailand in the late 1980s to FDI inflows into capital-intensive and relatively skill-intensive chemical, machinery and electrical manufacturing sectors.

This suggests that FDI was unlikely to have reduced wage inequality, which would have resulted in lower income inequality since wages are a large part of income.

The neo-liberal camp argues that FDI is good for improving income inequality while the neo-Marxist camp argues that FDI has a negative impact on income distribution in the long run.

My model (using data from sources including UTIP, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and World Bank’s World Development Indicators) suggests that FDI has helped to reduce income inequality in Malaysia from 1970 through 1999.

In fact, it did more to reduce inequality levels than Gross Domestic Investment.

One of the

s. FDI improves income inequality if much of the flows create employment for the masses, especially the low-skilled, thus boosting their income.

FDI tends to worsen inequality when it flows into industries that are high-tech and it does not create much employment for the masses.

Some economists attribute increasing income inequality in Thailand in the late 1980s to FDI inflows into capital-intensive and relatively skill-intensive chemical, machinery and electrical manufacturing sectors.

This suggests that FDI was unlikely to have reduced wage inequality, which would have resulted in lower income inequality since wages are a large part of income.

The neo-liberal camp argues that FDI is good for improving income inequality while the neo-Marxist camp argues that FDI has a negative impact on income distribution in the long run.

My model (using data from sources including UTIP, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and World Bank’s World Development Indicators) suggests that FDI has helped to reduce income inequality in Malaysia from 1970 through 1999.

In fact, it did more to reduce inequality levels than Gross Domestic Investment.

One of the

ibute increasing income inequality in Thailand in the late 1980s to FDI inflows into capital-intensive and relatively skill-intensive chemical, machinery and electrical manufacturing sectors.

This suggests that FDI was unlikely to have reduced wage inequality, which would have resulted in lower income inequality since wages are a large part of income.

The neo-liberal camp argues that FDI is good for improving income inequality while the neo-Marxist camp argues that FDI has a negative impact on income distribution in the long run.

My model (using data from sources including UTIP, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and World Bank’s World Development Indicators) suggests that FDI has helped to reduce income inequality in Malaysia from 1970 through 1999.

In fact, it did more to reduce inequality levels than Gross Domestic Investment.

One of the

quality since wages are a large part of income.

The neo-liberal camp argues that FDI is good for improving income inequality while the neo-Marxist camp argues that FDI has a negative impact on income distribution in the long run.

My model (using data from sources including UTIP, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and World Bank’s World Development Indicators) suggests that FDI has helped to reduce income inequality in Malaysia from 1970 through 1999.

In fact, it did more to reduce inequality levels than Gross Domestic Investment.

One of the

netary Fund, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and World Bank’s World Development Indicators) suggests that FDI has helped to reduce income inequality in Malaysia from 1970 through 1999.

In fact, it did more to reduce inequality levels than Gross Domestic Investment.

One of the reasons for attracting FDI is to "balance" development in Malaysia. My model suggests that the FDI is having this effect.

But since my research lumps both public and private investment together, I am unable to offer reasons Gross Domestic Investment does so poorly in promoting an egalitarian Malaysia.

I can only say that where the capital comes from makes a difference in leveling incomes in Malaysia.

UNCTAD data shows that much of FDI flows have been to the secondary or industrial sector and more specifically, the electrical and electronics sector, as Malaysians have long suspected.

Although increasing FDI flows are seen to improve income inequality, concentration in the electrical and electronics sector could create skewed economic development.

You could liken this type of development to putting all of one’s eggs in one basket. A softening of demand in the electrical and electronics markets has had a negative impact on our economy.

It is no secret that the electrical and electronics sectors have long depended heavily on the backs of women.

Hence, boosting the income levels of this segment of the population would do much to reduce inequality in Malaysia in the long run.

So would l