Democracy, Authoritarianism and the Inflow of Foreign Direct Investments: A Critical Examination of a Debate and its Associated Consequences for Social Science Research

Abstract

Are debates of value to social science research? To what extent has the debate on the preconditions and determinants of foreign direct investments (FDI) helped in the understanding of the totality of the forces, factors, and processes of international capitalism? How does the knowledge of the preconditions and determinants present themselves as the knowledge of the debate on how best to attract and stimulate FDI? To what degree/extent do regimes necessarily influence and shape the determinants and preconditions of FDI attractions and stimulations? How can the research on the preconditions and determinants of FDI be designed in such a way and manner that the purpose of the scholarship is best served? What are the associated consequences of the choice and technique of the research design? The article attempts a review of the significant initiatives that give meaning to the debate on the affinities of FDI to either democracy or authoritarianism and presents the debate within the intellectual foundation stones of the understanding and grasp of international political economy. The method of data collection is qualitative and scattered in the diverse sources of information on the subject of study. The objective is to contribute meaningfully to understanding the debate and chart future research directions. The study finds out that while the debate on the subject matter is scintillating, it is, however, convoluted by three interrelated failures and shortcomings: (i) lack of clear specification of the research period, (ii) lack of detailed examination of the domestic economy of study, and (iii) lack of comparative study of the periods, which altogether compound the likelihood of in-depth knowledge and generalization, the ultimate goal of academic debates.