Here (unrated version here) is an abstract from a fascinating paper on fiscal decentralization and international direct investment in India and China. Yong Wang argues, “Endogenous procedures toward FDI are advantageous only once both central and local government authorities advantage”. Fiscal decentralization has a non-monotonic and significant effect on FDI. A political-economy model is developed to explain why fiscal decentralization may have a non-monotonic effect on FDI inflows through endogenous policies.

Too much fiscal decentralization hurts central government incentives, whereas inadequate fiscal decentralization makes the local governments vulnerable to capture by the protectionist special interest groups. Moreover, the neighborhood government’s preference for FDI can be endogenously polarized; therefore, a small change in fiscal decentralization across certain threshold ideals may lead to a dramatic difference in equilibrium FDI inflows. Empirical investigations support that the difference in fiscal decentralization is an important reason behind the nine-fold difference in FDI per capita between China and India.

• Forgoing restaurant appointments
• Verify the deletion of the new consumer
• Disposal of an element of an entity and extraordinary, uncommon, or infrequently occurring items
• 7 years ago from South Carolina
• Money market mutual fund shares; and other mutual fund stocks if a cost is quoted daily
• Advanced Single Page Leverage Buyout Analysis (LBO)

Cross-country regression results also support the inverted-U romantic relationship. Inverted-U relationship between FDI per capita and fiscal decentralization (assessed by sub-national government’s overall income share). China’s central and local government authorities are more intense in appealing FDI inflows than India’s. China’s central government motivates FDI inflows by offering fiscal bonuses (tax vacations and tariff waiver on imported inputs to foreign-invested companies). Furthermore, the local government authorities as well offer favorable policies (simple license software, lower fees for land use, provision of infrastructure, etc).

Taking baby steps. As always, it depends on the business and its prospects for the future among other factors, but you get the idea. And that’s all folks. Hope you liked this post! If you are currently investing – whether you started 2 hours ago or 20 years ago – I’d love to know what is the best lesson you’ve learned up to now.

Not charging enough for what you do. This challenge seems to arise for individuals who sell services especially. Either we feel embarrassed to require the amount we want, or we simply accept less overall than we are in need of – so we get “some cash” rather than “no money”. But beware, after some time, working for too little can leave you exhausted and resentful, not to mention the impact it is wearing your profitability. You do not need to defend a rise in your fees either.

It is normal business strategy to review fee structures, make changes, and suggest customers. And unlike our fears, it is the case that business levels improve after fees are increased often. It seems that we attract a complete different class of customer when our fees reflect the value we provide. Not making enough use of technology which could save time and effort.