I have found some related topics for you. Maybe this will help you. 

http://www.ijtra.com/special-issue-view/role-of-interest-rate-in-attracting-the-fdi-study-on-asean-5-economy.pdf

http://www.webmeets.com/files/papers/IEA/2014/925/FDI%20TO%20AFRICA-%20REGIONAL%20COMPARISON.pdf

http://www.usc.es/economet/journals1/aeid/aeid14110.pdf

The multinationals’ behaviour might seem paradoxical to host countries’ FDI not only from this point of view, but equally from several others. On the one hand, it is true that the underdeveloped or developing country’s situation might favour multinationals as investors, e.g. wages and not only are lower than world-wide averages, due to that so their local costs could correspondingly lower. The same underdeveloped situation for ensuring to multinationals a local ground for exercising the power they internationally have and also exercise, here including their necessary negotiating force against the local Government and so on.

On the other hand, the same multinationals would like to have the same technical and economic circumstances to move within like in their home countries and in the whole Western world, e.g. roads and highways infrastructure for their transport facilities, banks to work with by advantageous crediting, here including a central bank that makes no so tough monetary policy and so lets the international money market to act inside the same host FDI country.

The basic aspect to be here taken into account is that FDI means, on the one hand, cross borders working and money flows directing – and these are more highly resented by the host country – and on the other a unitary management for all the company’s establishments, be they abroad and all over the world.

Or, a non-convertible local currency, and not only, will basically embarrass the multinationals’ free movement for all amounts of money among abroad and overseas establishments. For instance, they would like to move profits amongst these last according to local taxations and to other circumstances in favour of maximizing total accounting profit of the company, and this is among the most usual maneuvers they do. But this isn’t a singular aspect. Multinationals are likely to move equally productions among local areas (that are also different host countries), costs, even personnel and all kinds of components among the same establishments for central managerial reasons and these finally ‘translate’ into other money inter-country flows that they like to be smooth enough and off all restrictions for them.

Finally, what does currency convertibility mean, i.e. for multinationals and international investors ? It means the currency issuer, that here is the host State-country, takes some international currency-related commitments, here including for all capitals’ security ensured and here including that the host country would be part of the international money and financial market without any doubt and any time term limit.

Let me be back just for a few precision made. That is because this question is as interested for a whole presumable round table as FDI themselves are a large topic.

I said already that multinationals’ behaviour is likely to be paradoxical. I can here add that their ‘wishes’ might seem at least sometimes contradictory enough, a fact that is itself likely to translate into the host countries’ frustration.

But what still is for me to add here is rather related to the same host country’s (for FDI) behaviour against multinationals. Let me mention that I live myself in a country that used to wish to see FDI coming, but currently those multinationals do even interfere in the domestic politics.

I here like to mention what other scholars already discerned previously than me. It is about what could be expected (as favourable impact) from FDI, i.e. this would be much less for results like external balance of payments’ improvement (of course, by flows entering as FDI), for competition in the home market and/or home life standard similar improvements. It is to expect some economic growth in a certain measure. But what really is the good impact and for longer terms is two consequences. The one consists in putting into value home resources that couldn’t be made otherwise on a transparent time horizon The other might be related to some labour (to be) skilled on previously not available specialties.

Thanks all , especially mister Liviu Catalin Andrei, thanks to accord me your time, it was very helpful!

FDI flows themselves cannot be perceived as an elixir for domestic economy but the policy towards foreign investors should be perceived as an important part of the overall economic policy and strategy of the country. .... I would recommend some literature for you

Jindra, B. et al . (2009) Subsidiary Roles, Vertical Linkages and Economic Development: Lessons from Transition Economies, Journal of World Business, Vol. 44, No.2, pp. 167-17.

Chowdhury, A., Mavrotas. G. (2006). FDI and growth: What causes what? World economy, Vol 29, No.1, pp 9-19.

UNCTAD (2012). World Investment Report 2012: Towards a New Generation of Investment Policies. New York and Geneva: United Nations.

UNCTAD (2013). World Investment Report 2013: Global value Chains: Investment and Trade for Development. New York and Geneva: United Nations.