7
Table 3
Short-run estimated results
Variable
LJFDI
Δ
(1.5)
LUSFDI
Δ
(1.6)
LEUFDI
Δ
(1.7)
Constant
t
LGDP
Δ
t
LTWR
Δ
1
−
Δ
t
LTWR
t
LTUC
Δ
1
−
Δ
t
LTUC
t
LRER
Δ
1
ˆ
−
it
u
-0.02
(-0.20)
0.67
(4.79***)
-0.99
(-1.73*)
-
-
-0.02
(-0.52)
-
-
0.50
(1.58)
-0.70
(-3.71***)
-0.57
(-0.77)
0.87
(4.11***)
-1.41
(-2.32**)
-0.08
(-2.95***)
-0.02
(-1.89*)
-
-
6.03
(2.44**)
-0.66
(-2.60**)
0.10
(1.55)
0.69
(3.34***)
-2.45
(-5.64***)
-
-
-
-
-0.05
(-2.21**)
1.52
(2.09**)
-0.67
(-3.24***)
2
R
F
-values
δ
DW
2
χ
LM
Bera
Jarque
−
2
χ
RESET
Nob
0.60
13.42***
0.42
2.02
0.47
1.176
0.20
23
0.78
18.24***
0.34
1.91
0.02
1.556
1.24
23
0.74
14.43***
0.29
1.77
1.02
0.26
0.05
23
Note: ***, ** and * depict t-statistical significance at the 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively.
Diagnostic tests on the short-run estimated equations indicate that there is no evidence of
serial correlation, heteroscedasticity and non-normality of residuals, and that the functional form is
appropriate for all models.
As illustrated in Table 3, regarding the short-run, FDI from developed countries is
stimulated by the market growth of Thailand. Similar to the long-run results, the influence of
economic growth is strongest for FDI from the US. This confirms our argument made in the previous
section that investment from the US is considered as market-oriented. For FDI from Japan and the
EU, their responses to the market growth variable are broadly similar in which a 1 percent increase
