Final answer:
Countries like Iran and India historically viewed FDI negatively due to concerns of exploitation and loss of control. Differences in their levels of conservatism, economic policies, and disparities in rural versus urban areas contribute to these views. Social satisfaction, political tensions, and the type of governance also play roles in shaping these positions.
Step-by-step explanation:
Historically, countries like Iran and India that are more conservative than liberal have favored the radical position that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is bad. In the 1950s and 1960s, and even into the 1970s, low- and middle-income countries were concerned that foreign trade and investment could result in economic exploitation by high-income trading partners and loss of domestic political control to business interests and multinational corporations.
These countries have had to balance their approach to economic growth, which often involves making aggressive policy decisions such as running very large budget deficits. The physical and human capital dynamics of these countries also come into play, as investments in capital deepening are believed to have larger marginal effects in such environments.
Both Iran and India exhibit characteristics such as large rural versus urban disparities, causing tension and economic inequality. Their citizens, while largely satisfied with their way of life, may still harbor distrust towards their leaders. Differences in the state of their democracies and the level of personal freedoms allowed are also notable. For instance, Iran is a religious state that has often had conflicts with its Middle Eastern neighbors, while India, on the other hand, is considered the world's largest democracy with a complex social and economic landscape.