IZVIRNI ZNANSTVENI ČLANEK - ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PARER
Prejeto/Received: November 2013 Popravi jeno/Revised: Januar 2014 Sprejeto/Accepted: Februar 2014
FISCAL POLICY LED BY TAX INCENTIVES: CROATIAN EXPERIENCES
Vodenje fiskalne politike z davčnimi spodbudami - izkušnje iz Hrvaške
Jasna ßogovac
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law jbogovac@pravo.hr
Sabina Hodzic
University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management sabinah@fthm.hr
Abstract
Multinational enterprises play an important role in the field of foreign direct investment activity. However, investments that are desirable from the standpoint of the host country might be rejected by the strategic management of multinational enterprises due to other, more important aspects of the tax system, such as tax risks. This paper examines how important tax incentives are for Croatian multinational enterprises as a fiscal instrument for attracting foreign direct investment. We found that tax incentives play an important role during the strategic decision-making process of multinational enterprises, in which the decisive factors are unpredictable tax risks and costs.
Keywords: multinational enterprises, foreign direct investment, tax incentives
Izvleček
Multinacionalne korporacije imajo pomembno vlogo na področju neposrednih investicij v tujini. Čeprav bi bile investicije multinacionalk za državo prejemnico kapitala zaželene, se menedžment multinacionalk lahko odloči, da ne bo investiral v to državo zaradi drugih, pomembnejših vidikov davčnega sistema, kot so npr. davčna tveganja. V prispevku ugotavljamo, koliko so za hrvaške multinacionalke pomembne davčne spodbude kot fiskalni instrument za pritegnitev tujih investicij. Ugotovili smo, da so davčne spodbude zelo pomembne pri sprejemanju strateških odločitev multinacionalnih korporacij, kljub temu pa sta odločujoča dejavnika nepredvidljivost davčnih tveganj in stroški.
Ključne besede: multinacionalne korporacije, neposredne investicij v tujini, davčne spodbude
1 Introduction
Naše gospodarstvo / Our Economy Vol. 60, No. 1 -2, 2014 pp. 62-71
DOI: 10.7549/ourecon.2014.1-2.06
UDK: 336.74:336.225.53(497.5) JEL: H 25, H 30
From the governmental perspective, tax incentives are defined as a kind of tax expenditure that is "a transfer of public resources that is achieved by reducing tax obligations with respect to a benchmark tax, rather than by a direct expenditure" (Kraan, 2010, p. 14). In addition to the possible choice between direct or indirect expenditures, the country can benefit from the spillover effect of investments. Although foreign direct investment is not an exclusive medicine for all economic ills, it surely has substantial symbiotic support for all parties concerned. It can be attracted by tax incentives due to both the better use of its resources and the introduction of new processes on the domestic market.
On the other hand, multinational enterprises deciding to invest in another country with the aim of lowering costs simultaneously increase efficiency and produce different positive externalities for the host country. Multinational enterprises, as the main catalysts of globalization, continue to play a pivotal role, not
62
J asm Bo;.' ;vac, Sanm. Hod?'":: Flsca Poii< r L; i> ;>.v Tax Im> ■ i-inC- :ai an Ek uh n' :■
only in the area of industrial progress, but also in (lie field of foreign direct investment activity, following the pattern of dynamic developments. The potential contribution of multinational enterprises' affiliates to innovatory capability of the countries in which they operate is therefore central to the contemporary policy debate on Ihc development impact of foreign direct investment (Alhukorala & Kohpaiboon. 2010).
National policymakers aiming lo support investment activity in their economies should facc complex policy challenges by improving the development of the financial sector and raising Ihc overall quality of governance. This is not surprising as attractive fiscal incentive might be limited by local and administrative conditions well known to the investors and management of multinational enterprises.
By improving the policy environment for cross-border investments, some fiscal instruments become more desirable for multinationals, making thein more efficient for fiscal policy than others. In addition to the comprehensive analysis regarding Croatian managers' views of the legal and economic aspccts of mult ¡national enterprises' taxation (Bogovac. 2012). our paper examines how important tax incentives arc as a fiscal instrument for attracting foreign direct investment in Croatian multinational enterprises. The data were collected via supplementary answers during interviews supporting conclusions from the basic research.
The paper is divided into four sections. The introduction is followed by an overview of investments in Croatia during the last decades. The third section describes the research (i.e.. interv iews with lop managers of multinational enterprises in Croatia) regarding the importance of fiscal instruments—more precisely, lax incentives—for decisions on foreign direct investment. The final scction concludes and provides recommendations for fiscal policymakers.
2 Investment in the Republic of Croatia
Due to the instability of warfromthe early 1990s. Croatia was an unattractive country for investments. Its economic downturn was more pronounced than in other transition countries. In the early 1990s, annual investments amounted to barely 100 million EUR. The underlying causes included war, a poor economic situation, and slow privatization. Ma-croeconomic stability was ensured in 1996, resulting in an increase in foreign direct investments. Foreign investments reached their peak in 1999 when the inflow of foreign investments amounted to approximately 1.4 million EUR.
Inclusion in the world and European integration Hows, harmonization with European legislation, successful privatization of certain companies, the implemented structural reforms, a stable political and economic environment, and the harmonization of relations in the region have made Croatia an attractive destination for foreign investment. According to Raff and Srinivasan (1998). lo attract foreign direct investment, the government might therefore have to signal a positive investment environment lo foreign firms.
Stimulating investment in general and in most developing countries to attract foreign direct investment in particular is usually the primary motivation for granting lax incentives (Zee. Slot sky. & Lev, 2002).
2.1 Possibilities for financing: Foreign direct investments
Multinational enterprises in Croatia liavc three basic possibilities for financing development: bank loans, capital market, and foreign direct investments. Each foreign direct investment in the Republic of Croatia delivers a combination of different influences, thereby making it difficult lo predict all their influences and consequences. The impact of foreign direct investment's presence is stronger if it produces effccts beyond the enterprises where foreign direct investment takes place. In other words, it is stronger if foreign direct investment can be translated into direct as well as indirect effects (Hanousek, Kocenda. & Maurel, 2011). They can have significant benefits for the host country, including knowledge and technology transfer to domestic firms and the labor force, productivity spillovers, enhanced competition, and improved access for exports—notably, to the source country—while also providing a significant non debt-creating source of foreign financing (Deinckas cl al., 2007). Research and development investment and foreign direct investment arc often found to be a significant determinant of innovation performance.
Foreign direct investment contributes to regional innovation in four ways. First, research and development and other forms of the innovation industry generated by foreign firms and research and development labs of multinational enterprises directly increase the innovation outputs in Ihc region. Second, spillovers emanating from foreign innovation activities can affect the innovation performance in the respective region. Third, foreign direct investment can affect the regional innovation capacity through the competition effect. Finally, in addition to greater research and development investments by multinational enterprises and their affiliates, foreign direct investments might conlri-bute to regional innovation capabilities through advanced pracliccs and experiences in innovation management, thereby resulting in greater efficiency in innovation. The productivity of innovation is crucially important, especially for developing counlrics whose resources for innovation arc limited. Foreign direct investment contributes not only to the outputs of a regional innovation system, but also to the productivity of innovation in developing countries (Fu, 2008). The main economic effects of foreign direct investment desired and anticipated by a host government typically include advancement of the domestic industrial structure, expert enhancement, foreign exchange reserve increase, employment creation, and regional expansion (Buckley & Casson, 1985; I.itn. 2005; Nunncnkamp, 2004).
63
NG, st. 1 -2/2014 Izvirni znanstveni članki/Original scientific papers
2.2 Analysis of foreign direct investments in Croatia
The rise in foreign direct investment and multinational firm activity has been one of the most pronounced trends in the world's economy during the last two decades (Kind, Midelfart, & Schjelderup, 2005). Foreign direct investments are a very important element that seeks to improve the competitiveness of the national economy and overall investment. They play an important role in the development of the Croatian economy. Such investments can increase production capacities, which could have a positive impact on skills and technology improvement. Table 1 shows investment in Croatia during the 12-year period.
Table 1. International Investment in Croatia, 2000-2012 (million EUR)
Year	Amount
2000	1.141
2001	1.467
2002	1.138
2003	1.762
2004	950
2005	1.468
2006	2.765
2007	3.683
2008	4.246
2009	2.404
2010	318
2011	1.101
2012	1.054
TOTAL	23.496
Source: Croatian National Bank (2013)
Table 1 shows that Croatia has received 23.496 million EUR over a period of 12 years, making it one of the most successful countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Especially important are foreign direct investments realized in the 2005-2008 period (i.e., in the years preceding the economic crisis). The economic and financial crisis that affected all countries, including Croatia, resulted in a sharp decrease in investment. Compared to 2008, in 2009 a drop of nearly 2 billion EUR in foreign direct investment (i.e., 43%) was recorded. Compared to 2008, in 2010 a drop of 4 billion EUR (i.e., 94%) in foreign direct investment was recorded. The situation improved in 2012, when foreign direct investment was 3 billion EUR lower than in 2008, which is a 75% drop. This shows that the negative trend slowed somewhat after the crisis. Figure 1 highlights the flows of foreign direct investment in Croatia according to the investment type in the 2000-2012 period are also shown (million EUR).
Figure 1 shows movements of the foreign direct investment in Croatia during the 12-year period. Investment flows include equity capital and reinvested earnings as well as other capital. Equity capital and reinvested earnings reached the highest value in 2007, over 26 million EUR, while the lowest value was recorded in 2000, just above 2 million EUR. When it comes to other capital, the highest value, above 7.7 million EUR, was recorded in 2010 while the lowest value, just above 600 million EUR, was recorded in 2000. Due to the economic crisis, whose impacts were first felt at the end of 2007, 2008 saw a sharp downturn in equity investment and retained earnings for 10 million EUR compared to 2007. The small amount of foreign direct investment confirms foreign investors' restraint stemming from Croatia's rating as a high-risk country. Some of the reasons for the weak foreign investment attraction include complex administration, legislation, tax system, the poorly developed financial market in Croatia, and a low level of domestic savings.
Figure 1. Flows offoreign direct investment in the Republic of Croatia according to investment type, 2000-2012 (million EUR)
30000,00
25000,00
Equity capital and reinvested earnings
Other capital
Source: Croatian National Bank (2013)
64
Jasna Bogovac, Saeina Hodzic: Fiscal Policy Led by the Tax Incentives - Croatian Experiences
Capital inflows in 2014 and 2015 will probably recover slightly. Just like in recent years, most funds will be provided by the general government. Accession to the European Union might contribute to the slight recovery of foreign direct investments and capital transfers. Their flow will mostly depend on the process of economic restructuring and the improvement of the overall investment climate. It is also interesting to observe the structure of foreign direct investment in the Republic of Croatia, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 confirms that foreign direct investments are mostly directed to service and highly profitable sectors, while investments in the production sector are significantly lower. Most investments in 2011 were directed to real estate (89%) and recreational, cultural, and sporting activities (32%). A very similar situation occurred in 2012, when more than 164 million EUR (47%) was invested in real estate investments and more than 111 million EUR (32%) in recreational, cultural, and sporting activities. The biggest downturn was recorded in 2011 and 2012 in the extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas, amounting to -49.1 million EUR (30 %) in 2011 and -48.1 million EUR (14%) in 2012. The underlying reason for the sharp downturn was the privatization of one of the largest Croatian multinational enterprises in the oil industry.
Comparing 2011 and 2012 demonstrates that the overall investment in activities increased by 200%. From the European perspective, this is just one piece of evidence that the economic and financial crisis has ended and that Croatia has become interesting to foreign investors. In addition, investments in service sectors are mainly oriented toward the domestic market, which will significantly contribute to the development of the Croatian economy.
Although the deviation in data from the Croatian National Bank and Eurostat can be attributed to the use of different methodology, it can be concluded from Table 3
Table 2. Structure of Foreign Direct Investment in Croatia, 2011-2012, Divided by Activities (million EUR)
ACTIVITY	2011	2012
Real estate investments	148.9	164.1
Hotels and restaurants	-25.0	42.8
Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas	-49.1	-48.1
Manufacture of food products and beverages	-2.9	1.3
Recreational, cultural, and sporting activities	53.1	111.8
Construction	-42.1	47.8
Agriculture, hunting, and related service activities	35.3	2.6
Manufacture of textiles	32.3	1.0
Manufacture of rubber and plastic products	1.1	4.1
Publishing, printing, and reproduction of recorded media	0.8	-0.2
Electricity, gas, steam, and hot water supply	10.4	6.4
Computer and related activities	8.4	18.6
Manufacture of machinery and equipment n. e. c.	-4.3	-6.2
Total	167.1	346.0
Source: Croatian National Bank (2013)
(see Appendix 1) that, in 2012, foreign direct investment decreased in most of the transitional countries (except the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Bulgaria). In 2012, a decline was recorded in Croatia, Poland, Slovenia, and Slovakia, while the most positive increase was recorded in Hungary (8.4% of GDP). It is interesting to mention that, in 2012, Hungary was the only transition country where foreign investments rose (by 247% of GDP).
In order to attract foreign investments, Croatia needs an active policy in the area that would offer it the possibility to compete with the rest of Europe and the world for this type of quality investments, as defined by Becker, Fuest, and Riedel (2010). That requires the development of an infrastructure in line with international standards, a more favorable tax system for multinational companies, a positive government policy toward foreign investment, and awareness and readiness to adopt new technologies and comply with innovative requirements of multinational companies (see also Hassett & Hubbard, 2002).
Research concerning the effectiveness of tax incentives in attracting foreign direct investment has yielded conflicting results (Tung & Clio, 2000). Some studies (Grubert & Mutti, 1991; He & Guisinger, 1993; Hines, 1996; Swenson, 1994) have found tax incentives to be an important factor in attracting foreign direct investment and in making regional investment decisions, whereas others (Carlton, 1983; Lim, 1983; Moore, Steece, & Swenson, 1987; Yelpaala, 1984) have come to the opposite conclusion.
In addition, as already discussed, volatile investments in Croatia, together with the small amounts of foreign direct investment, show that it is hard to come to conclusions regarding factors influencing concrete ratios. In order to identify characteristics of a desirable tax system that would boost foreign direct investments, the following section explains research on the importance of tax incentives that have the capacity to attract foreign direct investment.
3 Importance of Fiscal Instruments for
Croatian Multinational Enterprises:
Experience from the field
The aim of the research is to prove the third-level importance (Bogovac, 2012; Graham, 2003; Hanlon & Heitzman, 2010; Myers et al„ 1998) of tax factors in the decision-making process within multinational enterprises as well as describe the fiscal instruments considered eligible for top management. Therefore, we prepared results from additional questions from the field research conducted during 2011 that have not been previously analyzed and compared them with the mainfindings of the basic research (Bogovac, 2012). Although only a small number (i.e., eight) of top managers were willing to extend their interviews and answer additional questions, their answers are very important for the conclusions due to their significant experience at the largest Croatian multinational enterprises. Therefore, these managers were the most qualified to answer precise and insightful questions.
65
3.1	Methodological framework and main findings regarding tax incentives within the basic research
The research goal was lo identify the importance of tax incentives, risks, and costs in making strategic décisions by multinational enterprises and systematically processing knowledge and experience in international business and management as well as competition in the global market. The goal was also to generate awareness about regional creators of taxation policies as well as entrepreneurs starling lo operate across the borders to tax incentives. By utilizing semi-structured interviews, aspects of decisions in international investment and financing were examined, including (i) tax incentives, (ii) business and tax risks and costs, and (iii) views on tax analysis in general.
Research participants were the owners, presidents, and members of the supervisory board and management of Croatian multinational enterprises. A narrowly defined circlc of participants contributed lo the quality of the research given that only the real makers of strategic decisions can objectively reflect on the significance of individual factors (such as lax aspects). The average duration of the 24 interviews was 57 minutes. Results of the basic research (Bogovac. 2012) showed that:
-	Tax incentives arc important, but arc not decisive factors in making strategic décisions about financing and investment by multinational enterprises:
-	Unpredictable tax risks and costs (non-transparent procedures. inconsistency in actions by tax authorities and court practices) are accepted with much difficulty with regard to choosing the state in which lo invest;
-	Tax risks and costs arc imposed as primary factors in making decisions while benefits of tax incentives are neglected; and
-	Uniformity ofattitudes and demonstrated similarity of Croatian managers with their American and European counterparts prove that the attitude toward the tax system is universal, meaning the results of this study are applicable beyond regional boundaries (Brounen. dc Jong. & Kocdijk. 2004).
Some of the research results are explained in more detail and liaised with the analysis of additional questions with regard to tax allowances, costs, and risks and tax analysis
3.2	Impact of tax allowance on making investment decisions
The basic research results indicated that tax factors were determined to be third-rated when making investment decisions. Here, the simplicity and security of the tax system and tax allowance arc emphasized as the most important tax variables. The most important factor is the calculation of profitability on investment. It is important to note, however, that legal certainty ranks second, preceding even market compatibility.
In addition, the importance of lax incentives when making strategic decisions about investments was examined by behavioral intent. Despite the possibility of higher earnings, the majority of respondents chose investment in the state with lower earnings and risks. Explaining the reasons for the lower-lhan-cxpcctcd utilization of tax incentives in practice, strategic managers extensively offered answers and suggested improvements in the system of incentives. None of the managers mentioned disagreeing with the statement about not using the benefits. This confirms that obstacles exist when using tax incentives; in addition, respondents have strong opinions on what the obstacles arc and how lo rcducc their impact.
The results of the analysis of additional questions show that the most important expectations that the management takes into account when making strategic decisions (Das. Martinez-Jerez, & Tufano. 2005: Doukas, Kim. & Pantzalis, 2008; Rappaport, 2006; Rcinmann, 1987) are those of the shareholders of the company (Figure 2). Despite the fact that employees are another important group whose expectations arc recognized, the significance of shareholders' opinions is emphasized by the fact that shareholders are rated as the first choice (with zero-va-lucd standard deviation). Keeping in mind that the basic research results (Bogovac. 2012) show that more than 72% of the respondents believe that by adopting a decision to rcducc tax risks (as opposed to reducing the tax liability) they arc acting in accordance with the requirements of the owner: thus, it is obvious that managers strongly believe that they have to deal primarily with tax risks before any tax benefit is offered by the government.
By linking these views with comments and results, it can be concludcd that—because of the focus on the primary goals of entrepreneurs" activities (management primarily deals with business issues, not tax planning) or bccausc of the fear of uncertain tax systems (lack of confidence of entrepreneurs in their actual usability due to complex procedures and records)—there is a lack of understanding of the possibilities offered by the tax system in terms of tax allowances.
Wc expand these results with additional questions about the regular monitoring of the lax slalus of the company as well as about the influence of the current tax status of the company on decisions. The majority of the respondents (88%) answered that they always measure it during the valuation of strategic projects and that the tax status of the company is an important (80%) aspect of the decision-making process. This leads us to the conclusion that fiscal instruments and the tax system play an important role in top management decision making, especially in the case of foreign dirccl investment, which implies a high level of tax risks.
During strategic decision making, management and shareholders consider the most important business aspects, but these decisions invoke reactions in the environment.
66
Figure 2. Survey evidence on the importance of the opinions of different groups
120
3,50 -3,00 2,50 -2,00 -1,50 ■1,00 -0,50 -0,00
100 80 60 40 20 0
JL

EE
I
Analysts Public and Political Sharehold- Employees Colleagues,	Auditors Family Creditors Credit Customers
media parties and ers formal	and friends (banks, ratings
current and other	bond agencies
authorities association	owners)
fellows
Importance
St. Deviation
Source: Authors" calculations
While shareholders and employees both have high importance index, standard deviation shows that shareholders are the first to be considered.
We report the importance that top manegement bestows upon opinions of different interest groups. Importance is calculated as the opposite rank of the answer multiplied by the number of choices given to a particular answer. The figure is based on Table 4 shown in Appendix 2 of this paper.
3.3 Impact of tax risks and costs of decision making by multinational enterprises
Multinational enterprise managers are most likely to tolerate the tax rate amount. In contrast, complex and unavailable procedures (i.e., differences in instructions, opinions, and procedures of tax administration), and non -transparent and inequitable tax court practices, the unavailability of court judgments and tax arguments are tax risks and costs that managers are least willing to tolerate when choosing the state in which they will operate. In the largest multinational enterprises, the aversion to the risks of non -transparent procedures and processes is emphasized when selecting a new state in which to invest.
The analysis of the additional questions shows that, when asked to choose between several options (ranging from "accept the offered tax planning scheme as soon as it is proved to be realizable and safe" to "we will not accept any change in our behavior regardless tax savings"), 86% of the managers chose the first answer, with a few comments, which highlights the importance of a stable and reliable tax system. Similarly, top managers showed a willingness
to endure higher tax amounts in return for a stable tax system (83%), but they are not keen (83%) to endure higher tax amounts in return for an increase of financial accounting earnings. When answering direct questions on the importance of (i) the tax position in financial reports, (ii) cash tax payable, or (iii) tax risks when making strategic decisions, 67% of the managers chose tax risks. Hence, additional research regarding tax risks leads us to the same conclusions as the basic research (see also Graham, Hanlon, & Shevlin, 2010; Hanlon & Heitzman, 2010; Wallace, 2002).
3.4 Influence of results of tax analysis on making strategic decisions by multinational enterprise management
In everyday business, strategic management encounters different tax systems characterized, to a greater or lesser extent, by the simultaneity of tax incentives and opposing tax risks and costs; thus, a tax analysis as a comprehensive report on tax aspects of a country was analyzed separately. When making decisions, management relies first on financial analysis, strategic goals and market analysis, and business requirements. Tax analyses have incomparably less importance.
The examination of the additional questions related to the importance of the head of the tax department proved the moderate importance of the tax analysis. The majority of top managers emphasized that tax directors should be well educated with considerable knowledge as well as trustworthy, but that their responsibilities and authorizations are more similar to the middle/lower management as well
67
as llicir remuneration schemes. These facts on the position of the head of corporate taxation support the previously mentioned third-level importance of overall lax issues for the corporation.
It is also interesting to mention one comment made by the president of the management board of a large multinational enterprise:
The Croatian tax system is very simple; it is far simpler than the American one. While vvc need several people in the USA to deal with taxes, here in Croatia we need only one. But. what vvc need here is to be sure what we can expect in the future: How will different lax officcs in Croatia classify our transactions and how shall tax inspectors act when they arc confronted with complicated structures of the multinational enterprise?
4 Conclusion
Foreign direct investments arc a critical element that seeks to improve the competitiveness of the national economy and overall investment. They should also play an important role in the development of the Croatian economy. A thorough reform of both the investment policy and legislation on foreign investments would further encourage foreign investment in Croatia. However, the most important issue is to change the investment climate in order to attract both foreign and national investors for what the government needs in order to have a quality fiscal policy. The fiscal policy should include a fiscal instrument (i.e.. tax incentive), which can have a signaling role in attracting foreign investment in multinational enterprises
Despite the positive effect of tax incentives on strategic management's decisions by multinational enterprises, when faced with risks that arc not predictable because they originate from unequal and arbitrary actions of the tax authorities, corporations decide to do business 111 other states in which they will quantify the tax liabilities and secure the limitation of tax risks within acceptable levels Therefore, if fiscal policymakers want to implement more effective fiscal instruments that arc to be useful parts of the investment policy, it is essential to provide entrepreneurs with taxation law security in utilizing tax incentives that they can understand without investing loo many additional efforts and risks in their interpretation and implementation into ihc business. In such a manner, the application and sustainabilily of fiscal instruments might be assured.
References
1.	Atliukorala. P. C.. & Kohpaiboon. A. (2010). Globalization of R&D by US-based multinational enterprises.
Research Policy, 39, 1335-1347. http://dx.doi.org/IO. 1016/j. respol.2010.09.004
2.	Becker. J.. Fucst. C.. & Ricdcl. N. (2010). Corporate tax effects on the quality and quantity of FDl. Oxford University Centre for Business Taxation. [Working Paper 10131.
3.	Bogovac. J. (2012). Legal and economic factors of taxation of multinational corporations (Doctoral dissertation). University of Zagreb: Faculty of Law.
4.	Brouncn. D.. Dc Jong. A.. & Kocdijk. K. (2004). Corporate finance in Europe: Confronting theory with practice.
Financial Management. Winter. 71-101.
5.	Buckley, P. J.. & Casson. M. C. (1985). The economic theory of the multinational enterprises. New York: Martin Press.
6.	Carlton. D. W. (1983). The location and employment choices of new firms: An econometric model with discrete and continuous endogenous variables. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 65, 440-449. http://dx.doi. org/10.2307/1924189
7.	Croatian National Bank. (2013). Foreign direct investment in the Republic of Croatia. Retrieved from www.hnb.hr
8.	Das. S.. Marlincz-Jcrcz. A.. & Tufano. P. (2005). cln-formation: A clinical study of investor discussion and sentiment. Financial Management, 34(3). 103-137. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1755-053X.2005.tb00112.x
9.	Demekas. D. G. et al. (2007). Foreign direct investment in European transition economics—The role of policies.
Journal of Comparative Economics, 35, 369-386. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2007.03.005
10.	Doukas, J. A, Kim. C. F.. & Pantzalis, C. (2008). Do analysts influence coiporatc financing and investment?.
Financial Management. Summer. 303-339. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j. 1755-053X.2008.00014.x
11.	Eurostat. (2013). Foreign direct investments. Retreived from http://cpp.curostat.cc.curopa.cu/tgm/tablc.doVla-b=tablc&i nit = l&plugi n=l&languagc=cn&pco -de=tec00046.
12.	Fu. X. (2008). Foreign direct investment, absorptive capacity and regional innovation capabilities: Evidcncc from China. Oxford Development Studies, 3(5(1), 89-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.l080/l3600810701848l93
13.	Graham, J. R. (2003).Taxes and corporate finance: A review. The Review- of Financial Studies, 16(A), 1075-1129. http://dx.doi.org/l0.l093/rfs/hhg033
14.	Graham. J. R.. Hanlon. M.. & Shevlin. T. (2010). Barriers to mobility : The lockout effect of U.S. taxation of worldwide corporate profits. Motional Tax Journal, 63(4.2). 1111-1144.
15.	Grubcrt. H., & Mutti, J. (1991). Taxes, tariffs and transfer pricing in multinational corporate decisions making.
Review of Economics and Statistics. 73(2), 285-293. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/2109519
16.	Hanlon. M.. & Heitzman S. (2010). A review of tax research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50(2-3), 127-178. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jacccco.2010.09.002
68
17.	Hanousek, J., Kocenda, E.. & Maurel, M. (2011). Direct and indirect effects of FDI in emerging European markets: A survey and meta-analysis. Economic System, 35, 301-322. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2010.ll.006
18.	Hassett, K. A., & Hubbard, R. G. (2002). Tax policy and business investment. In A.J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (Eds.), Handbook of Public Economics (3, pp. 1293-1343).
19.	He, X., & Guisinger, S. (1993). Taxation of U.S. foreign direct investment abroad: Effective tax rates and tax policy competition in developed and developing countries. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing & Taxation, 2(2), 215-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1061-9518(93)90007-G
20.	Hines, J. R. (1996). Altered states: Taxes and the location of foreign direct investment in America. American Economic Review, 86, 1076-1094.
21.	Lim, D. (1983). Fiscal incentives and direct foreign investment in less developed countries. Journal of Development Studies, January, 207-212. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/00220388308421859
22.	Lim, S. H. (2005). Foreign investment impact and incentive: A strategic approach to the relationship between the objectives of foreign investment policy and their promotion. International Business Review, 14,61-76. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2004.12.004
23.	Kind, H. J., Midelfart, K. H„ & Schjelderup, G. (2005). Corporate tax systems, multinational enterprises and economic integration. Journal of International Economics, 65, 507-521. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j. jinteco.2004.06.002
24.	Kraan, D. J. (2010). Tax expenditures in OECD countries. Retrieved from http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset -Management/oecd/governance/tax-expenditures-in-oecd -countries_9789264076907-en#pagel
25.	Moore, M. L„ Steece, B. M„ & Swenson. C. W; (1987). An analysis of the impact of state income tax rates and bases on foreign investment. The Accounting Review, L.I7/(4), 671-685.
26.	Myers, S„ et al. (1998). Vandcrbilt University roundtable on the capital structure puzzle. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 11, 8-24. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j. 1745-6622.1998.tb00073.x
27.	Nunnenkamp, R (2004). To what extent can foreign direct investment help achieve international development goals?. The World Development, 27(5), 657-677.
28.	Raff, H„ & Srinivasan, K. (1998). Tax incentives for import-substituting foreign investment: Does signaling play a role?. Journal of Public Economics, 67, 167-193. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(97)00055-8
29.	Rappaport, A. (2006). Ten ways to create shareholder value. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http:// www.valueconsult.dk/Artikler/tenways%20to%20 create%20shv_rappaport.pdf
30.	Reimann, B.C. (1987). Managing for value: A guide to value-based strategic management. Oxford: Planning Forum.
31.	Sw enson. D. L. (1994). The impact of U.S. tax reform on foreign direct investment in the United States. Journal of Public Economics, 54{2\ 243-266. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/0047-2727(94)90062-0
32.	Tung, S, & Cho, S. (2000). The impact of tax incentives on foreign direct investment in China. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing & Taxation, 9(2), 105-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1061-9518(00)00028-8
33.	Wallace, C. D. (2002). The multinational enterprise and legal control. The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
34.	Yelpaala, K. (1984). The efficacy of tax incentive within the framework of the neoclassical theory of foreign direct investment: A legislative policy analysis. Texas International Law Journal, 19, 365-414.
35.	Zee, H. H„ Stotsky, J. G„ & Ley, E. (2002). Tax incentives for business investment: A primer for policy makers in developing countries. World Development, 30(9), 1497-1516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00050-5
Appendix 1.
Table 3. Direct Investment Flows as % of GDP in Several Transition Countries, 2010-2012
	2010	2011	2012
Czech Republic	0,6	0,5	0,7
Croatia	-0,3	0,1	-0,2
Hungary	1,0	3,4	8,4
Poland	1,5	1,4	-0,2
Slovenia	-0,4	0,2	-0,2
Slovakia	1,1	0,5	-0,1
Bulgaria	0,5	0,4	0,4
Source: Eurostat, Foreign direct investments, 2013.
69
Appendix 2.
Table 4. Importance and Descriptive Statistics of Stakeholders' Expectations
The answer to the interview question: During the strategic decision making proces you consider the most important business aspects, but these decisions shall cause reactions in you environment. How important are expectations of (please select and rank 4 groups)
	Int. 1	Int. 2	Int. 3	Int. 4	Int. 5	Int. 6	Int. 7	Int. 8	Importance	Mean	St. Dev.	Min	Max	Median
Analysts				4	2				8	3	1,4142	2	4	3
Public and media	4		4		4			4	16	4	0	4	4	4
Political parties and current authorities									0			0	0	
Shareholders		1	1	1	1			1	100	1	0	1	1	1
Employees	3	2	3	2	3			2	96	2,5	0,5477	2	3	2,5
Colleagues, formal and other association fellows		3							2	3		3	3	3
Auditors									0			0	0	
Family and friends									0			0	0	
Creditors (banks, bond owners)		4	2	3	4			3	40	3,2	0,8367	2	4	3
Credit ratings agencies									0			0	0	
Customers	1;2		4						16	4	1,7678	4	4	4
70
Jasna Bogovac, Ph.D., works at the Chair of the Financial Law and Financial Science of the Faculty of Law in Zagreb. She earned her degree in economics, master's degree (dividend taxation), and doctorate degree (MNE taxation) at the University of Zagreb. With her experience in taxation issues of multinational corporations, both domestic and international, she has acquired knowledge of the tax aspects of the dynamic business environment and has participated in various government projects related to taxation. She is the author of several scientific and expert articles and has participated in Croatian and international conferences as well as scientific and expert projects (financial law, public finance, corporate taxation).
Dr. Jasna Bogovac je zaposlena na Katedri za finančno pravo in finančne znanosti na Pravni fakulteti v Zagrebu. Diplomirala je iz ekonomije; magistrirala (obda\>-čitev dividend) in doktorirala (obdavčitev AINE) je na Univerzi v Zagrebu. Znanje o domačih in tujih obda\>čit\>ah je pridobila z dolgoletnim delom in izkušnjami v multinacionalki, sodelovala pa je tudi pri različnih projektih vlade na področju obdavčevanja. Napisala je številne znanstvene in strokovne članke, sodelovala na hrvaških in mednarodnih konferencah ter pri znanstvenih in strokovnih projektih (finančno pravo, javne finance, obdavčevanje podjetij).
Sabina Hodžič was born in Rijeka, Republic of Croatia. She earned her master's degree in economics in 2007 at the Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management in Rijeka. She is currently an assistant at the Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management in Rijeka, where she is also earning her doctorate degree. Her main field of research, and the topic of her doctorate dissertation, is public financing and tax incentives for research and development. She has been acquiring knowledge in this field by attending different professional seminars, workshops, and conferences as well as through professional practice. She is the author of several works published in local and foreign scientific journals and has presented at international conferences.
Sabina Hodžic je bila rojena v Reki na Hrvaškem. Leta 2007 je na Fakulteti za menedžment v turizmu in gostinstvu magistrirala iz ekonomije. Na tej fakulteti je zaposlena kot asistentka, svoje znanje pa izpopolnjuje na bolonjskem podiplomskem doktorskem študiju. Področje njenega dela in tudi doktorske disertacije so javne finance ter davčne olajšave za raziskovanje in razvoj. Svoje znanje dopolnjuje tudi na različnih strokovnih seminarjih, delavnicah, konferencah in v strokovni praksi. Je avtorica nekaj del, objavljenih v domačih in tujih znanstvenih časopisih, ter prispevkov na mednarodnim konferencah.
71