The McKinsey Quarterly

  • Recommend
  • Text Size
  • Print
  • Download PDF
  • Link to This

Hungary for reinvestment

In a study of investments in Hungary made by 38 foreign companies, McKinsey found many of these businesses ready to reinvest there, at least under a sympathetic government.

The privatization of government assets has supplied many developing countries with their main source of foreign direct investment in recent years. But that money is now drying up—a problem brought on by the very success of privatization. To an increasing extent, the most important channel for foreign direct investment in many countries is reinvestment by existing businesses (Exhibit 1).

chart_hufo00_01.gif

In a 1999 study of Hungarian investments made by 42 companies belonging to the Investors' Council, which represents foreign investors in Hungary, McKinsey found many companies ready to reinvest there, at least under a sympathetic government. Half of the fears mentioned by the companies related to government policy (Exhibit 2).

chart_hufo00_02.gif

These 42 companies have invested some $9 billion in Hungary, 41 percent in greenfield projects and 59 percent in assets obtained through privatization. About 70 percent of the companies said that they planned new invest- ments in the country—mostly fresh equity investments—in the next three to five years (Exhibit 3). But during that time, they expect their total annual reinvestment to reach only $500 million to $530 million, just 40 percent of what privatization spurred them to invest.

chart_hufo00_03.gif

The companies do believe that Hungary has progressed over the past two years (Exhibit 4): about half, for example, say that the legal framework now has greater stability. But a third feel that the government has become less consistent in its policies and commitments. For the future, the companies want such improvements as an investment code, greater openness in the way new business legislation is introduced (through such means as public hearings and expert testimony), and a mechanism to ensure that businesses keep their commitments.

chart_hufo00_04.gif

Participants in the survey were asked about alternatives to investing in Hungary. About 30 percent either saw none or regarded the country as a reasonable choice. A further 30 percent thought that other countries in the former Soviet bloc were good alternatives, while the remainder saw Western Europe or the world at large as alternative locations for investment.

About the Authors

Bruno Coppé and Anthony Radev are principals in the Budapest office, and Jason Lamb is a consultant in the Pacific Northwest office.

Recommend
Comments
Submit Your Comments

The user information you enter into this form will not update your site profile. To update your profile, please visit your profile page.

Subject Hungary for reinvestment

*Required

We may publish your comments online and in the print edition of McKinsey Quarterly. Those chosen, which may be edited for length and clarity, will appear along with your name and details, but not your e-mail address. We will use your e-mail address only to send you a confirmation copy of your comments and to notify you if we publish them online.

We value your feedback and will consider it carefully. Nonetheless, we receive so many comments that we cannot acknowledge all of them.

See also:
Preview

visit The McKinsey Quarterly on Facebook
New In:
Embed E-mail