ASSESSING INTERNATIONAL JOINT VENTURES
IN VIETNAM
by
Lai Xuan Thuy
A research study submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Business Administration
Examination Committee: Dr. Fredric William Swierczek (Chairman)
Dr. Truong Quang
Dr. Bettina Buchel
Nationality: Vietnamese
Previous Degree: Bachelor of Science (Econ.)
Economic University of Sofia, Bulgaria
Bachelor of English
Pedagogy University of Hue, Vietnam
Scholarship Donor: The Government of Switzerland
Asian Institute of Technology
School of Management
Bangkok, Thailand
April 1999
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author would like to express his deepest acknowledgement to the research advisor, Dr.
Fredric William Swierczek for his intensive supports, valuable suggestions, guidance and
encouragement during the time of the study.
Many sincere thanks are also due to Dr. Truong Quang and Dr. Bettina Buchel for their
valuable time, comments, and advice. Their constructive suggestions were of great help in
successfully completing this study.
The author would like to express his sincere gratefulness to Mr. Nguyen Minh, General
Director and Ms. Thu Nga, Director Assistant at HBC, Mr. Anh Hung, General Director,
Ms. Marilyn Glorioso, Chief Financial Controller, Ms. Thu Hang, Executive Secretary and
Mr. Le Bo, Human Resource Manager at Century Riverside Hotel, Mr. Nguyen Nam,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...................................................................................................................................II
ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................................................III
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................................................IV
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................................V
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................................VI
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................1
1.1.BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE...............................................................................................................1
1.2.STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM................................................................................................2
1.3.RESEARCH OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................2
1.4.SCOPE OF THE STUDY...............................................................................................................................3
1.5.ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT...............................................................................................................3
LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................................................................4
2.3.JOINT VENTURE CONCEPTS......................................................................................................................4
2.2.ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE JOINT VENTURE................................................................5
2.3.MOTIVATION OF CREATING A JOINT VENTURE.......................................................................................6
2.4.BASIC TYPES OF JOINT VENTURES..........................................................................................................7
2.5.PROBLEMS AND ISSUES OF INTERNATIONAL JOINT VENTURES................................................................8
2.6.MEASURING SUCCESS IN THE JOINT VENTURE.......................................................................................12
5.1.1.Problems in measuring success of joint ventures............................................................................................12
5.1.2.Theoretical aspects of measuring success in joint ventures.............................................................................12
FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS IN VIETNAM...................................................................................15
3.1.FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT..............................................................................................................15
3.2.IMPORTANT FEATURES OF FDI IN VIETNAM IN 1998.............................................................................18
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................20
4.1.ANALYTICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK......................................................................................20
4.2.ASSUMPTION AND CONCEPT EXPLANATION...........................................................................................22
4.3.METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION............................................................................................................23
4.4.METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS................................................................................................................23
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY...........................................................................................................................24
5.1.THE QUESTIONNAIRES RESULTS............................................................................................................24

LIST OF TABLES
v
TABLE TITLE
Table 2.1. Major reasons for joint ventures
Table 2.2. Basic types of joint ventures
Table 2.3. Areas of Problems in the Joint Venture
Table 3.1. Licensing new projects and capital raising in 1997-1998
Table 3.2. General information about FDI projects in 1998
Table 4.1. Framework for assessing joint ventures
Table 5.1. Respondents’ perceptions on the joint venture objectives
Table 5.2. Comparison between Vietnamese and foreign managers
Table 5.3. Overall Performance of the Joint Ventures
Table 5.4. Respondents’ Evaluation of the Joint Venture’s Performance
Table 5.5. Comparison of the respondents’ evaluation on the JV’s performance
Table 5.6. Partners’ Perceptions on the Input, Process, and Output
Table 5.7. Correlation Matrix of Input, Process, and Output
Table 5.8. Results of factor analysis
Table 5.9. Factor Scores: Comparison between Vietnamese and Foreign Partners
Table 5.10. Correlation Matrix of Success Factors and Operational Results
Table 5.11. Regression analysis of Success Factors on Operational Results
Table 5.12. Correlation Matrix of Factors and Input, Process, and Output
Table 5.13. Regression analysis of Factors on Input, Process, and Output
Table 5.14. Respondents’ views on decision-making, communication
Table 5.15. Major areas of the joint venture problems and issues
Table 5.16. Comparison between utility fees for SOEs and non-SOEs*
Table 6.1. Ranking success factors by level of partner’s satisfaction
PAGE
6
7
9

vii
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background and Rationale
Since 1988, Vietnam has been accelerating in the process of transformation from the centrally-
planned as having been for more than forty years to a freer market-oriented economic
mechanism and merging with the regional and global economies. The “Doi moi” policy of the
Government has actually been effective in pushing the economic development of this planned-
to-be-80-million-by-2000 nation. It has created more opportunities and favorable conditions for
exploiting the internal and external development factors, encouraging investments of different
forms, especially foreign direct investment under various modes, including joint venture as one
of the most important cooperative strategies for companies to enter and win this rigorously
competitive emerging market.
According to the information of the Ministry of Planning and Investment, in 1998, more than
260 foreign direct investment projects were licensed with a total registered capital of US$4.06
billion. In addition, 133 projects were approved to increase their investment capital with the
amount of US$769 million. Therefore, at the end of the year, a total of US$4.83 billion of
direct foreign investment capital were registered. The investment of these projects come from
32 countries around the world, leading by Russia with one project of US$1.3 billion and
Singapore with 36 projects and US$893.005 million. More than 70 percent of the projects are
joint ventures.
Although the renovation policy of the Government has created better environment for
investment, a trend of reducing foreign direct investment has been observed during the last
recent years. In comparison with 1997, the number of FDI projects licensed and newly
registered capital in 1998 was reduced by 21.5 % and 10% respectively. The number of failed
joint ventures has been growing, while others have been trying to change the ownership to
wholly owned foreign companies. Investors may start to rethink and adjust their strategies to
enter the Vietnamese market through joint venture.
On the other part of the landscape, the situation is more optimistic. Many international joint
ventures have actually found their position in this difficult market, namely Vinacpecial,

adjustments.
The research also helps potential investors to have more objective views on the situations of
the international joint ventures in Vietnam, which would be useful for them in preparing and
adjusting their entry strategies into the country. For the policy makers, the research would be
an important source of information to give them an insight into the current performance of the
joint ventures to have necessary policies for supporting the foreign direct investment
companies in general and joint ventures in particular to achieve their goals.
Specific objectives of the research can be stated as follows:
1. To develop an analytical framework for evaluating joint ventures;
2. Based on the survey, to evaluate the joint venture performance;
3. To identify the major success factors and how they affect the operational performance of
the joint venture; and
4. To make important recommendations for the joint venture managers, potential investors,
and policy makers in making necessary adjustments on the strategies and policies.
The author would also make a suggestion of further research in the fields of interest for a
deeper and more complete assessment of the joint ventures in the country.
2
1.4. Scope of the study
The study was focused only on the joint ventures in the Central part of Vietnam, mainly Thua-
Thien-Hue and Danang, the two major economic centers in the region. So it limits the
generality of the research findings.
The research did not deal with the issues of partner selection, negotiation, and termination
phases of the joint ventures. Instead, the study was focusing only on the joint venture
operational performance, based on the interviews and questionnaire data from the managers,
currently working in the joint ventures. Therefore, it limits the wholeness of the finding
information.
1.5. Organization of the report
The report is divided into six chapters. As principle, the first Chapter is an introduction to the
research study. The second Chapter is an extended literature review on the issues of joint
venture and joint venture success measuring. Understanding the joint venture and problems

the market leaders. Alliances thus formed are seen as part of a process of strengthen the firm’s
position in an industry and are essential for its survival (Hakansson and Johanson, 1988).
A joint venture is formed when two or more firms form a third entity to carry out a productive
economic activity (Harrigan, 1985). A joint venture has also been defined as an equity
arrangement between two or more independent firms. This definition includes equity alliances
between two firms to organize production and marketing on a regional rather than a country
level. Joint ventures have increased in various forms and have become more strategic rather
than tactical in nature.
According to Czinkota, Rivoli, and Ronkainen (1989) joint ventures can be defined as “the
participation of two or more companies jointly participating in an enterprise in which each
party contribute assets, owns the entity to some degree, and shares risks.”
For many developing countries, joint venture is a very important method of technology transfer
to acquire and build necessary technological capability for the national industries. One of the
most important reasons for forming joint venture companies is to reduce the exposure to risk
associated with the development of new products and technologies (Harrison, 1987).
Many researchers have emphasized the importance of the joint venture as an appropriate entry
strategy to go abroad. For the purpose of evaluating the international joint venture, the
definition of Zeira and Shenkar (1990) is suitable because it encompasses the unique
characteristics consistent with most other definitions. According to the authors, an international
joint venture is “a separate legal organizational entity representing the partial holdings of two
or more parent firms in which the headquarters of at least one is located outside the country of
operation of the joint venture”. And this entity “is subject to the joint-control of its parent
firms, each of which is economically and legally independent of the others”.
According to Lane and Beamish (1990), a successful joint venture is a stable, healthy, and
profitable business relationship based on cooperation and two-way communication that meets
the needs of both partners over a long term, mutual condition.
Buchel and other authors (Buchel et al., 1998) argue that joint ventures “are clearly becoming
more popular as a form of cooperative arrangement, not only between partners from different
countries but also between companies operating in the same business area”. According to the
authors, joint ventures “are a form of cooperation, which stand between the traditional

competitive practices.
Joint ventures have both advantages and disadvantages. They, on the one hand, may increase
rivalry while also eliminating competition among the participants of the venture. Joint ventures
can enable the participants to unify complementary technical and managerial capabilities to
perform projects whose requirements exceed the expertise and resources of any single firm. By
facilitating the transfer of know-how and technology, joint ventures also can improve the skills
of individual participants and thereby overcome barriers to entry and expansion in specific
markets.
Such collaboration may be particularly valuable in permitting firms to realize scale economies
for research and development by avoiding duplication of effort and assembling a critical mass
of resources and a higher level of investment in inventive activity.
Joint ventures also enable firms to spread the risk associated with financially ambitious
projects. If channeled in this manner, joint ventures can increase output and lower costs and
prices. For many companies in the developing countries, joint venture could help obtain also
investment capital and knowledge.
5
However, collaboration among direct rivals may discourage their independent pursuit of
promising approaches to enter new markets or develop new products. Such cooperation can
lead to direct price fixing or cause spillovers of cost, pricing and design information that
reduce the participants' inclination to compete aggressively against each other.
2.3. Motivation Of Creating a Joint Venture
The reasons for alliance of different partner companies may differ from each other. Harrison
divided the reasons by which a joint venture is formed into internal, competitive, and strategic
goals. These main reasons are summarized in Table 2.1
Table 2.1. Major reasons for joint ventures
Internal reasons:
• Spreading costs and risks.
• Safeguarding resources, which can not be obtained via the market.
• Improving access to financial resources.
• Benefiting from the economies of scale and advantage of size.

between its vast material resources and the technologies from the developed countries. Joint
ventures can be viewed as a means by which firms can learn to seek or retain their capabilities
of organizing a particular activity while benefiting the superior production technique of a
partner (Williamson, 1985).
2.4. Basic Types Of Joint Ventures
Theoretically, there are countless ways of using and constructing joint ventures. Based on the
existing literature and applications, which are common in practice, six types of joint venture
can be listed as in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2. Basic types of joint ventures
• Complementary technology: The partners combine their technologies to diversify their
product/market portfolios.
• Market technology: Combination of the market knowledge of one partner with the
production or product know-how of the other.
• Sales joint ventures: The producer and a local partner cooperate in an arrangement,
which is a mixture of independent representation and own branch.
• Concentration joint ventures: Competing partners cooperate to form larger and more
economical units.
• Research and development: The aim is to create synergy by making joint use of research
facilities and exploiting opportunities to specialize and standardize, combining know-how
and sharing risks.
• Supply joint ventures: Competitors with similar input need cooperate to safeguard supply,
reduces procurement costs or prevent the entry of new competitors.
Source: Buchel et al., International Joint Venture Management, John Wiley & Son (Asia) Pte.,
Ltd., 1998, pp. 17-18.
In terms of the equity participation by joint venture partners, joint ventures can be classified
into equity and non-equity joint ventures (Tomlinson, 1970). In practice, the equity form is
more common, which involves a financial investment by the partner companies.
Based on the relative strength of the partners involved in the joint venture’s mission, Lei and
Slocum (1991) classify joint ventures as specialization or shared value-adding ventures.
Specialization ventures are those, in which each partner brings and contributes a distinctive

structure. Or, there is technology already incorporated in a product to be manufactured and sold
by the JV. These technologies must be evaluated before becoming the joint venture’s common
assets.
Another kind of problems relates to the transparency of the negotiation terms and conditions.
The authors argue that getting accurate data upon which to base valuations and other decisions
can be very difficult in some countries and with some companies. For example, one side or the
other may be a family enterprise in which accounting standards might be quite different from
internationally acceptable rules. According to the authors, transparency is a particular problem
in joint ventures being established in former command economies where there have been no
real markets for outputs, for supplies or for financial instruments. Available accounting
information means very little in such circumstances, yet somehow the joint venture partners
have to come to some mutually agreeable method of assessing the value of assets each side is
contributing.
Table 2.3. Areas of Problems in the Joint Venture
8
Problems in Negotiations:
1. Valuation
2. Transparency
3. Conflict Resolution
4. Management Responsibility
5. Changes in Ownership
6. Financial Matters
Problems in Partner Relationships:
1. Multinationalities
2. Export Rights
3. Tax Issues
4. Dividend and Investment Policies
5. Difference in Partner Size
6. Ownership
7. Management

reason or another, wants to take full control.
After all, dividend policy and other financial matters are found to be controversial issues of the
joint venture. Dividend policy goes to the heart of the reasons why companies enter joint
ventures, with some companies hoping rapidly to expand and gain market share while others
strive to gain a quick cash flow to support other operations or, in the case of closely held
companies, possibly for personal reasons. A number of other financial issues come up in
negotiations, of course, some of which can be the cause of consternation on one or both sides.
The authors have also found key problems affecting the relationships between the joint
venture’s partners. According to them the main reason for problems of this kind was the
multinationality of the joint venture. The reality of many joint ventures in developing countries
is that they involve more often than not large multinational companies (MNCs) which have
under their purview a mix of other joint ventures and wholly owned subsidiaries elsewhere in
the world. This contrasts with the developing country firm, which may be quite large by local
standards, but not in comparison with its partner. The upshot of such differences is that the
business perspectives of the two (or more) companies can vary substantially, and this
variability can be at the root of relationship problems later in the joint ventures life.
The first problems of the joint venture relationship relate to the export right. Exporting
sometimes represents a fundamental difference between industrial and developing country
partners and, again, it is an issue difficult to reconcile satisfactorily. Not infrequently, the
industrial country company is a multinational corporation with operations and sales in a variety
of countries. Typically, it will not want to allow the joint venture to be free to export products,
possibly of inferior quality, into markets that may already be served from other manufacturing
points in its system. The MNC looks upon the joint venture as one piece of a complex global
web, and it is not likely to allow that single piece to dictate its own policies where other pieces
or, indeed, the web itself might be compromised. The rule in such situations is for the MNC to
put strict limitations on the rights of the joint venture to export.
The developing country partner, on the other hand, typically has much different ideas. Here the
expectation is that as new technology is brought in and the joint venture absorbs
product/process technologies, exports might provide a natural market for expansion. Indeed,
increased exports might be a primary reason for the developing country side to have entered

industrial country partner desires, for one reason or another, to limit the joint venture’s
operations in ways, which would make it roughly equivalent to a wholly owned subsidiary.
The authors argued that unless such an arrangement had been agreed to early on, it would
cause inevitable problems between the partners later in the joint venture’s life.
Related to ownership problems, but in some ways quite distinctive, are a series of difficulties
that can occur in controlling the enterprise. The research found that product line disputes are
among the more common of these problems. According to the researchers, these raised
generally because the conditions that existed when the JV was formed change and, because of
the change, alter the perspectives of one or the other partner
Another common source of disagreement has found to be when dealing with sourcing raw
materials, parts or components. In this case, the JV agreement can specify in detail that certain
materials are to be sourced from the industrial country partner. Aside from the transfer pricing
issues that such sourcing raises, the original conditions that made the sourcing provision in the
agreement seem logical can change. Over time and as economic development takes place, local
sources may become available which are, possibly, lower in cost and at least as high in quality.
These sources obviously would be attractive to the joint venture’s management. But, the
MNC’s view could be different, because it might benefit more from retaining the original
agreement and continuing to produce the materials for the joint venture.
Partly, the problems are caused by the obvious fact that the two (or more) partners come from
much different cultural backgrounds, and individuals may see the same set of circumstances in
quite different ways. But, there are other dimensions to this cultural gap that are important as
well. Corporations themselves have "cultures" which condition how people view their
environment and how they interpret issues. This factor is one of the primary reasons why joint
ventures established between industrial partners from the same country and even the same
industry often run into trouble.
Finally, joint ventures are exposed to ever-changing panoply of forces that shape and direct
outcomes. The changing environment within which the joint venture operates also alters
11
partner relationships in ways which can sometimes cause stresses that are difficult, and at times
impossible, to resolve. Summarized below are a few cases that arose repetitively in interviews.

The third obstacle is that many joint ventures face especially high levels of uncertainty with
regards to technologies, products or markets. This further reduces the meaning and validity of
short term, quantitative indices of success and puts obstacles in the ways of a traditional
success measurement based on the stable company performance.
5.1.2. Theoretical aspects of measuring success in joint ventures
There are different approaches to assessing the success or failure of an organization. Each
approach has its advantages and disadvantages. Geringer and Hebert (1991) examine joint
venture performance by objective and subjective measurements. Subjective performance
12
measures each parent’s satisfaction with the joint venture’s overall performance, while
objective performance is measured in three ways: survival, stability, and duration of the joint
venture.
Daft (1992) describes three major approaches to measure success based on results, processes or
the ability of an organization to acquire certain scarce resources.
The result-oriented success measurement is based on output dimension that is related to the
goals of the transformation process. The success of a joint venture is measured in terms of
whether, or how far, certain objectives are met. The most important of these are usually
profitability, growth, and market share, but other aims are also significant, for example quality
objectives, number of new products, research findings, stability, and satisfaction.
Process-oriented success measurement is based not on specified output goals, but on an
evaluation of the company’s internal transformation processes. The output and process
dimensions are usually closely related. Effective and efficient transformation processes often
enable a company to be successful in terms of results.
Resource-oriented measurement is based on the company’s ability to obtain scarce resources
from the environment. This approach is used primarily when output is difficult to define and
evaluate. Research institutions and universities, for example, often consider the level of
technological equipment or the number of well-known and respected scientists and professors
as their success criteria.
Picking out individual levels or viewpoints when trying to form a complete picture of the
success of a cooperation, however, is not adequate. On the other hand, it is neither feasible nor

Joint ventures are also expected to improve the relationship between partners. The behavioral
perspective emphasizes the behavior of the participants in their cooperative relationship. In
this point of view, the essential indicators include the development of a separate culture and
identity, the ability to deal with conflicts and continued survival versus premature dissolution
of the joint venture. Building the joint venture’s culture to increase trust, commitment and
sensemaking of the partners is very important for them so that they can make use of the full
synergy for the purpose of the joint venture. The behavioral perspective is, therefore, is
emphasizing the processes within the joint venture system, rather than the output criteria.
Generally, it can be said that the traditional approaches allow us to make relatively
comprehensive assessments of the success or failure of cooperative ventures. However, they
omit an aspect in which both company managers and business theoreticians are now paying an
increasing attention (Probst and Buchel, 1994). This is the concept of learning. Building a
learning organization that allows the company to consistently reviews its own weaknesses and
strengths and its prevailing patterns of activity, whether it acquires “implicit knowledge”, and
whether it increases its ability to learn, is very important for it to achieve the corporate mission.
The learning view of success and failure combines a result-oriented approach with a process
approach. It takes into account on the one hand the acquisition of knowledge and the
attainment of learning goals, and on the other, the learning processes which support these ends
(Buchel et al., 1998).
Chapter 3
14
FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS IN VIETNAM
3.1. Foreign Direct Investment
During the period from 1988 to 1998 foreign investors promised to invest $37 billion in
Vietnam, of which about $14 billion have actually been implemented. The growth of FDI into
the country was very high at the first half of the period after a legal framework for foreign
investment was put into practice since 1987, especially when the U.S. embargo was lifted in
1994, with an average rate of about 45-50 percent per year.
Figure 3.1. Trend of Foreign Direct Investment for the period 1988-1998
Source: Vietnam's Statistics Yearbook 1997

From these FDI investments, Industry, Oil & Gas, and Construction sectors accounted for
56.3% number of projects and 46.6% investment capital; Hotel, Office Space Business,
Transport and Communication, and Postal Service - 9.8% number of projects and 13.6%
invested capital; Agriculture, Forestry, and Aquaculture - 15.4% number of projects and 5.2%
capital investment. In general, FDI projects have been concentrated in highly profitable sectors
of the economy, such as Hotel & Tourism and Services, especially in Export-Processing Zones.
Although Agriculture is a sector, which has a high need of FDI, but in fact, the capital invested
there is very small, mainly food processing, shrimp plantation, reforestation, forage, and sugar
cane production projects.
Figure 3.2. Foreign Direct Investment Structure by Sectors (in percentage).
Source: VIR, VET, and MPI Annual Report, 1999.
The implementation of the FDI projects was also a problem, needed to be discussed. For the
period 1988-1998, more than 80 per cent of the projects have been implemented, but only one
third of the registered capital actually realized.
With the exception of Oil and Gas sector, which has the implemented capital exceeded the
registered amount, and Financial and Bank sector, which have implemented most of the capital
registered, other sectors have only implemented less than half of the capital originally licensed.
16
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
Agriculture
Fishery
Oil and gas
Heavy Industry
Light Industry

Capital
Total
Project
$U.S. million
Project
$U.S. million
Project
$U.S. million
Project
$U.S. million
Project
$U.S. million
Project
$U.S. million
$U.S. million
260
4058.6
86
3537.8
120
254.6
48
221.6
6
44.6
133
769
4827.6
331
4514.0

Vietnamese Government in encouraging FDI into the country.
17
In 1998, the local People’s Committees gave licenses for 120 FDI projects, increased 203% in
comparison with the number of projects they licensed in 1997. This reflects the
decentralization in the FDI licensing of the government. The more detail information about the
foreign direct investment in 1997 and 1998 is shown in Table 3.1.
3.2. Important features of FDI in Vietnam in 1998
In 1998, foreign direct investments in Vietnam have some important changes in terms of
structure, location, and investors.
The investment structure has considerably been changed to meet the requirements of the
industrialization and modernization process of the country. From the newly licensed project in
1998, one hundred and ninety three were in the manufacturing sectors, accounted for 74.5%,
with a capital of $2.828 billion, accounted for 71% of the total FDI in the year.
The investment location has also been improved. Number of projects in rural and remote areas
has considerably increased. Thirty-five projects with total capital of $102 million were invested
in agriculture and fishery in the year. These projects are mainly food processing, production of
seeds for export, flower, tea, forage, and shrimp production. This is important for creating
more jobs, developing and exploiting natural resources in rural Vietnam.
Due to the financial crisis in the region, FDI from the ASEAN countries have sharply reduced.
In 1998, these countries have 47 projects with total registered capital of $925 million,
accounted for 22.8%, of which, Singaporean companies promised to invest $893 million, while
all others countries invest less than $32 million.
Other countries in the region, less suffered by the financial crisis have maintained their
investments in Vietnam. In 1998, Taiwan has 67 investment projects in Vietnam with $253
million, the same level of 1997 and Hong Kong has 23 projects with $225.3 million, 91.14%
compared with the level of 1997. The direct investment from the European countries to
Vietnam has strongly increased in 1998. These countries have received investment licenses for
66 projects of $2.1 billion in the year, accounted for more than half of the total FDI in the
country.
The total revenue of the FDI projects in 1998 was about $3 billion, 27.7% increased in