The reality behind falling net FDI 

Why in the News?

India’s net FDI has witnessed an extraordinary collapse, falling from almost $44 billion in 2020-21 to less than $1 billion in 2024-25, even as gross FDI inflows recovered to $94.6 billion. This sharp divergence has reignited debate over whether India is becoming a less attractive investment destination. 

Why has India’s net FDI declined so sharply despite strong gross inflows?

1. Net FDI Measurement: Net FDI under the Balance of Payments (BoP) framework is calculated after adjusting gross inflows for FDI-related outflows.
2. Sharp Decline: Net FDI fell from nearly $44.0 billion in 2020-21 to less than $1 billion in 2024-25.
3. Strong Gross Inflows: Gross FDI inflows recovered to $94.6 billion in 2025-26.
4. Misleading Interpretation: Weak net FDI is often interpreted as a sign of declining investor confidence, while strong gross inflows are presented as evidence of economic strength.
5. Underlying Reality: Both views overlook the changing composition of international capital flows and the mechanisms governing inflows and outflows.

Does the conventional FDI debate overlook important structural changes?

1. Incomplete Narrative: Public discourse focuses primarily on aggregate FDI numbers rather than the nature of investments.
2. Changing Policy Priorities: India’s post-1991 FDI policy initially emphasised technology acquisition, export promotion, and foreign exchange conservation.
3. Shift in Focus: Policy gradually prioritised attracting larger inflows, while concerns regarding future external payment obligations and investment quality received less attention.
4. Need for Assessment: Evaluating FDI requires examining investor categories, sectoral allocation, and associated outflows rather than focusing solely on inflow volumes.

What types of FDI are entering India and how do they differ in developmental impact?

Traditional or Real FDI

1. Source: Multinational enterprises investing directly in production and services.
2. Contribution: Brings technology, brands, managerial capabilities, and production know-how.
3. Impact: Supports long-term industrial development and employment generation.

Financial Investor FDI

1. Source: Private equity funds, venture capital funds, sovereign wealth funds, and asset managers.
2. Objective: Capital appreciation rather than production expansion.
3. Impact: Provides financial capital but contributes less to technology transfer and industrial capacity creation.

Diaspora and SPV-Based Investments

1. Mechanism: Capital raised abroad and channelled through offshore financial centres.
2. Instrument: Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs).
3. Characteristic: Frequently associated with round-tripping of domestic funds.

How has the composition of FDI changed in recent years?

1. Real FDI Share: Accounted for only 41.9% of effective inflows between 2022-23 and 2025-26.
2. Financial Investor Share: Contributed 40.5% of effective inflows.
3. Diaspora/SPV Share: Represented 17.6% of total inflows.
4. Developmental Concern: A rising share of financial investors and SPVs reduces the developmental gains usually associated with traditional FDI.
5. Technology Transfer: Becomes weaker when investments are motivated primarily by financial returns rather than production activity.

Why do rising investor exits matter for understanding net FDI trends?

1. Exit Signals: Business model of financial investors involves eventual exits through stake sales and disinvestment.
2. Large Exit Example: Singapore’s Temasek exited Schneider Electric India in 2025.
3. Scale of Exit: Exit generated approximately $6.4 billion.
4. Initial Investment: Around $637 million invested in 2020.
5. Return Multiple: Approximately 45 times the original investment.
6. PE and VC Exits: Foreign private equity and venture capital investors accounted for around $29 billion in outflows.
7. Implication: Such exits substantially increase capital outflows and depress net FDI.

Are gross FDI figures overstating actual fresh capital entering India?

1. Accounting Inclusion: Gross FDI statistics include intra-group ownership reorganisations.
2. Mergers and Acquisitions: Included even when no fresh capital enters the country.
3. Share Swaps: Recorded as FDI transactions despite limited resource transfer.
4. ECB Conversions: Conversion of external commercial borrowings into equity inflates inflow figures.
5. Blind Spot: Gross FDI figures often fail to distinguish between fresh investment and accounting transactions.
6. Illustrative Example: Large transactions involving Bosch and Mesee Technologies can significantly influence sectoral trends without necessarily bringing new productive capital.

Why can high gross FDI figures create a misleading picture of investment performance?

1. Gross FDI Recovery: Gross FDI inflows recovered to $94.6 billion, often cited as evidence of India’s continued attractiveness to foreign investors.
2. Accounting Transactions: Gross FDI statistics include intra-group ownership restructuring, mergers and acquisitions, share swaps, and conversion of external commercial borrowings (ECBs) into equity.
3. Limited Fresh Capital: Such transactions may alter ownership structures without necessarily bringing substantial new capital, technology, or productive capacity into the economy.
4. Sectoral Distortions: Large corporate restructuring exercises can inflate FDI numbers and create an impression of strong investment activity in particular sectors.
5. Developmental Concern: High gross inflows do not automatically translate into employment generation, manufacturing expansion, technology transfer, or export competitiveness.

Why is the decline in manufacturing FDI a major concern?

1. Four-Year Decline: Manufacturing FDI has fallen continuously for four consecutive years.
2. Low Share: Manufacturing accounted for only 10.6% of total effective inflows during the latest four-year period.
3. Industrial Consequences: Lower manufacturing investment weakens technology absorption and productive capacity creation.
4. Employment Implications: Reduces potential for large-scale job creation.
5. Strategic Concern: Limits India’s ambition to become a major global manufacturing hub.

Does rising outward FDI represent globalisation or capital flight?

1. Rapid Growth: India’s outward FDI has increased significantly.
2. Sectoral Concentration: Around 45% of outward investments during 2023-24 to 2025-26 flowed into financial services, insurance, and business services.
3. Destination Pattern: Singapore and the UAE accounted for approximately 27% and 11% respectively.
4. Corporate Example: Tata Motors-owned subsidiary in Singapore invested $405 million to acquire IVECO Group in Italy.
5. GIFT City Link: FDI routed through GIFT City increased from $246 million in 2023-24 to $1.8 billion in 2025-26.
6. Extended Route: Total inflows and outward FDI through this channel reached approximately $1.40 billion, indicating expanding two-way flows.
7. Dual Interpretation: Outward FDI may indicate both global expansion of Indian firms and relocation of capital across jurisdictions.

How are FDI-related outflows reshaping India’s external sector?

Disinvestment Outflows

1. Magnitude: Disinvestment and capital withdrawals totalled approximately $178.9 billion.
2. Drivers: Secondary sales, IPO exits, and share buybacks.

Dividend Remittances

1. Amount: Reached $118.9 billion.
2. Source: Profits paid by multinational subsidiaries and affiliates, excluding reinvested earnings.

Intellectual Property Payments

1. Amount: Totalled $46.6 billion.
2. Nature: Payments for intellectual property and royalty use.
3. Estimated Allocation: Around 75% of total IPR payments assumed to be attributable to multinational subsidiaries and affiliates.

Technical and Service Payments

1. Amount: Around $250 billion transferred through technical and service/consultancy payments.
2. Difficulty: Separation between foreign and domestic company payments remains challenging.

Overall Outflows

1. Adjusted Outflows: Even after excluding OFDI, technical service payments, dividends and IPR-related outflows, total outflows remained around $344.4 billion.
2. Deteriorating Ratio: For every dollar of fresh inflow (excluding reinvested earnings), approximately $1.50 flowed out.
3. Historical Comparison: Outflow per dollar of inflow rose from 56 cents (2014-15 to 2017-18) to 70 cents (2018-19 to 2021-22) before reaching the current high.

Why should policymakers focus on the quality rather than the quantity of FDI?

1. Technology Transfer: Real FDI contributes more effectively to technological upgrading.
2. Industrial Development: Manufacturing-oriented FDI strengthens domestic production capabilities.
3. External Sustainability: Excessive dependence on financial investors increases future outflow obligations.
4. Investor Diversity: Different investor categories generate different developmental outcomes.
5. Policy Evaluation: FDI performance should be assessed through technology gains, industrial capacity creation, employment generation, and external-sector implications rather than gross inflow figures alone.
6. Core Message: Headline FDI numbers conceal important changes in investor composition, entry modes, exit strategies, and developmental impact.

Conclusion

India’s falling net FDI highlights that the quality and composition of foreign investment matter more than headline inflow numbers. Rising disinvestment, profit repatriation, and financial-investor-led flows have weakened net inflows despite strong gross FDI. Going forward, policy must prioritise productive, technology-intensive, and manufacturing-oriented FDI that strengthens industrial growth and external sector sustainability.

Value Addition

Net FDI vs Gross FDI

Indicator	Meaning
Gross FDI	Total foreign investment entering the economy
Net FDI	Gross inflows minus disinvestment and related outflows
Effective FDI	Fresh capital inflows after excluding accounting and restructuring transactions

Why Does the Quality of FDI Matters?

1. Technology Spillovers: Enhances domestic productivity.
2. Export Competitiveness: Strengthens manufacturing exports.
3. Employment Effects: Creates direct and indirect jobs.
4. External Sustainability: Limits future pressure from profit repatriation.
5. Industrial Upgrading: Facilitates integration into Global Value Chains (GVCs).

Risks of Financialised FDI

1. Exit Risk: Generates large future outflows.
2. Limited Technology Transfer: Weakens developmental benefits.
3. Volatile Capital Flows: Increases external vulnerability.
4. Short-Term Orientation: Prioritises capital gains over industrial expansion.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2016] Justify the need for FDI for the development of the Indian economy. Why is there a gap between MOUs signed and actual FDIs? Suggest remedial steps to increase actual FDIs in India.

Linkage: The question examines not merely the volume of FDI but its effectiveness, actual realization, and developmental contribution to the economy. The article highlights why the quality and developmental impact of FDI matter more than headline inflow numbers.