This topic was a pet project of mine some years ago, resurrected for your consideration and analysis. I will deal with the first part of the series in this post, the rest following later on in the future as time permits.

Foreign Direct  Investment, or FDI for short, is just like any other investment except that it crosses international boundary lines. That is, international boundary lines describe political units, not economic units. If a producer can get raw materials cheaper from a foreign country than he or she can get anywhere in his or her own country, or if consumers want products sold by foreign producers,  international trade is the  (economical) answer.

According to Bowden, E. V. and Carlin, T. W. in 1977:

"....The only reason that foreign trade differs from domestic is because foreign trade crosses political boundary lines while domestic trade does not..."

Aliber, R. Z. stated as follows in 1977:

"One of the paradoxes of the mid-1970s is that both source-country governments and host-country governments have questioned the economic advantages attached to the activities of multinational firms...Either the source country or the host country may gain as a result of their activities, and both may gain; it is implausible that both source and host countries could be worse off...."

So, that's the secret of success of the numerous true multinationals. Long live the multinationals?