Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Direct Investment Political Geography Asia

1. The European Screening Mechanism and Its Implications for Chinese FDI

Author:
Emanuele Ballestracci
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
The European Commission has recently proposed a revision of the EU foreign direct investment (FDI) screening mechanism, originally established in 2020. The aim is to further strengthen the EU’s economic security within the framework of its “de-risking” policy, which aims to manage risks coming from the economic and technological engagement with China.[1] The new proposal aims to address major shortcomings in the current screening mechanism, expanding its scope to greenfield investments and European outward FDI. However, this could conflict with the EU’s goal of encouraging Chinese greenfield investment and joint ventures, particularly in the electric vehicle (EV) sector.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Foreign Direct Investment, European Union, and Economic Security
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and Asia

2. The Future of the Belt and Road in Europe: How China’s Connectivity Project is Being Reconfigured across the Old Continent – and What It Means for the Euro-Atlantic Alliance

Author:
Nicola Casarini
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has entered the twilight zone in the old continent, following a deterioration of bilateral relations between the EU member states and China over the last years. Italy’s official exit from the BRI at the end of 2023 was a further blow to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy. Yet, the BRI in Europe is being reconfigured rather than being terminated. In Western Europe, the BRI is moving away from physical infrastructure projects and investment in industrial assets – the latter being increasingly protected from Chinese takeovers by both national and EU legislation – to financial and monetary connectivity. This shift is welcomed by various European actors, including some policymakers at the national level, eurozone institutions and major banks. Concurrently, most of Eastern European countries continue to promote BRI projects and seek to attract Chinese investments, suggesting that there is a two-speed Europe when it comes to China, both in terms of geography and sectors.
Topic:
Infrastructure, Foreign Direct Investment, European Union, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and Currency
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and Italy

3. Europe’s De-risking from China: Dead on Arrival?

Author:
Nicola Casarini
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
De-risking ties from China has become a buzzword in European policy circles, amid growing tensions between the West and the Asian giant. While US policymakers and experts continue to focus on the need to decouple ties from Beijing, the concept of de-risking has been largely fashioned in Brussels to avoid the decoupling debate and find a common transatlantic ground. While EU member states have reduced critical dependencies on China to varying degrees, their efforts are resisted by some large companies, local authorities and civil society actors eager to boost ties with Beijing. Recently, several EU governments have been promoting industrial cooperation with China, opening doors to Chinese investments in their territories to boost production of electric vehicles and green technologies. While this form of cooperation brings benefits to Europe’s industrial capacity and competitiveness, it however risks increasing the level of dependency on Beijing, undermining the de-risking strategy being put in place by the European Commission, as well as deepening the rift with the US on how to deal with the Asian giant. Going forward, there is a need for a thorough and frank debate about the EU’s de-risking strategy and its future prospect, also considering a possible return of Trump to the White House.
Topic:
Foreign Direct Investment, European Union, Trade, Transatlantic Relations, Industry, and De-Risking
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and Asia

4. The European China Strategy to Enhance Economic Security

Author:
Hyun Jean Lee
Publication Date:
11-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
The recent strategy change of the European countries toward China has identifiable triggering factors such as the continuation of high growth in the Chinese economy, rising status of China in the international community, and China’s FDI expansion. The West has criticized the Chinese Communist Party’s dealing with human rights issues and media control, which was further aggravated by China’s pro-Russian stance upon the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian war. Eventually, the European countries responded with confrontational strategies against China. This study analyzes these recent de-risking methods of the EU and four European countries – i.e., Germany, France, United Kingdom, and Poland – regarding economic relations with China. Finally, the Brief concludes with an assessment of the impact of the recent changes in Europe’s China strategy on Korea and policy recommendations.
Topic:
Human Rights, Foreign Direct Investment, International Community, Economic Security, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and Asia

5. A More Strategic Approach to Foreign Direct Investment Policy

Author:
Markus Jaeger
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Abstract:
Cross-border investment and trade give rise to both economic gains and economic vulnerabilities. As geopolitical competition is intensifying, governments increasingly resort to restricting cross-border investment and trade. Policies are informed by a desire to limit security risks and secure technological advantages rather than pursue efficiency gains.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Foreign Direct Investment, Strategic Competition, and Geoeconomics
Political Geography:
Europe, Asia, and Americas

6. Does Institutional Quality Matter to Korean Outward FDI? A Gravity Model Analysis

Author:
Muhammad Akhtaruzzaman
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
According to Korea’s Ministry of Knowledge Economy (currently the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy), foreign investment has now become one of the major economic pillars driving the Korean economy over the past 15 years (Tang 2022). The Korean economy started to open up to rest of the world following the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and was the biggest FDI policy reformer among 40 developed and emerging economies over the period from 1997 to 2010 (Nicolas et al. 2013). Over the last decade, Korea’s outward FDI grew much faster than inward FDI (See Figure 1) and Korea is now a net capital exporter to the world. In 2021, Korea’s outward FDI flows totaled $76.64 billion and a total of 2323 Korean enterprises invested in overseas countries (Korea EXIM Bank 2022). Due to this increased amount of outward FDI, a large number of studies (Kim and Rhee 2009; Park and Jung 2020) investigated what determines Korea’s outward FDI (OFDI). Institutional quality is found to be a major determinant in FDI literature in general. It suggests that political risk (lack of/poor institutional quality) not only deters FDI inflows to host countries but also can lead FDI to countries with higher risks and to ‘pollution heaven’ which might have an adverse impact on long term growth and development in both host and home countries. There are strong empirical evidences in literature that lack of institutional quality or good governance is associated with lower FDI inflows. An extensive literature (Alfaro et al. 2008; Ali et al. 2010; Akhtaruzzaman et al. 2017; Bénassy‐Quéré et al. 2007) investigated FDI response to various types of institutional quality in FDI host countries. Over the last 20 years data evidenced that Korea’s OFDI flowed to developing countries with a sustained large gap existing in institutional quality between host countries and Korea (See, Fig 2 top panel); however; those countries had been offering a higher degree of capital account openness. A sharp increase in capital account openness since the early 2000s coincides with sharp increase in Korea’s OFDI to those host countries. For example, Peru was the least open economy and started to initiate measures to open capital account since the mid-90s and early 2000s. The degree of openness in Peru is now similar to that of developed countries. On the other hand, Peru is one of the least progressed countries in terms of institutional quality over the same period of time. This slow or no progress in institutional quality is a common pattern of institutional improvement for a large sample of host countries of Korea’s OFDI (see, Figure 2). However, those developing countries including Peru are regular destinations of a substantial amount of Korea’s OFDI. Does this suggest that institutional quality of host country does not matter to Korean investors, or is there a 3rd factor mitigating the impact of institutional quality on Korea’s OFDI? Few studies on Korea’s OFDI considered institutional quality of host country as a control variable instead of main determinant of FDI (Park and Jung 2020). However, existing studies do not explain why Korea’s OFDI flowed to countries with a large gap in institutional quality between Korea and host countries. This research fills the gap in the literature of Korea’s OFDI. The findings of this research suggest that high degree of capital account openness (a factor that ensures profit repatriation of investors) weakened the negative impact of poor institutional quality in host countries on Korea’s OFDI. The remaining of this paper is organised as follows. Section II reviews relevant literature of FDI and identifies major determinants for Korea’s OFDI from existing studies; Section III discusses research method and empirical issues; Section IV presents the research findings; Section V concludes the research, points to the research limitations, and provides policy recommendations.
Topic:
Economics, Foreign Direct Investment, Institutions, and Knowledge Economy
Political Geography:
Asia and South Korea

7. Time to say goodbye? The impact of environmental regulation on foreign divestment

Author:
Haiou Mao, Holger Görg, and Guopei Fang
Publication Date:
09-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW)
Abstract:
We look at divestments by foreign firms – a topic that has received comparatively little attention in the literature – and investigate how changes in the regulatory environment in the host country may impact on such divestment decisions. We use the implementation of China’s Two Control Zone (TCZ) policy as a “quasi-natural experiment”, using detailed firm level combined with city level data for the empirical analysis. Our results show that the implementation of TCZ policy has led to higher probabilities of divestments by foreign firms in targeted TCZ cities and industries. The mechanism behind this seems to be a TCZ-induced increase in discharge fees and efforts to reduce SO2 emissions. Allowing for heterogeneity of effects, we find that the effect is particularly strong for firms from source countries with less stringent environmental regulation, and those using less advanced technology. We furthermore show that firms using intermediates from polluting industries also experience a higher probability of divestment.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, Foreign Direct Investment, Regulation, Business, and Divestment
Political Geography:
China and Asia

8. The Great Supply Chain Shift from China to South Asia?

Author:
Ganeshan Wignaraja
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations
Abstract:
Global supply chains connect world industry and international trade in manufactures. East Asia’s dominance with China as the preferred assembly hub in global supply chains has brought unprecedented regional prosperity, but South Asia remains a latecomer. However, pandemic-related and post-pandemic continuing disruptions to supply chains and slowing growth are being keenly felt, dampening China’s attractiveness. In an uncertain global economy, increasingly footloose foreign investors are looking for alternative production locations. Is it South Asia’s turn to prosper through supply chains in this uncertain world? This is the topical public policy question facing India and the others in South Asia. This paper discusses the concept of global supply chains, the industrial rise of East Asia, drivers of supply chain relocation from China, South Asia’s prospects, India as a complementary hub and policy lessons from East Asia’s industrial success. For the purposes of this paper, South Asia is broadly defined as the India and its contiguous countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Topic:
Industrial Policy, Monetary Policy, Foreign Direct Investment, Industrialization, COVID-19, Supply Chains, and Geoeconomics
Political Geography:
China, South Asia, Asia, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

9. Timing Is Everything: Italy Withdraws from the Belt and Road Initiative

Author:
Aurelio Insisa
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
After months of rumours and speculations, on 6 December 2023, the Italian newspaper of record, the Corriere della Sera, broke the news that Rome had finally withdrawn from China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), via a note sent to Beijing three days earlier.[1] In the absence of an explicit request to withdraw before the end of December, the memorandum of understanding (MoU) instrumental to Italy’s participation in the BRI would have automatically been renewed for another five years starting from March 2024. Italy’s subdued withdrawal from the BRI marked the epilogue of a long, laborious, yet ultimately successful diplomatic process that reflected a reassessment of its bilateral relations with China. The origins of this reassessment can be traced back to the government led by Mario Draghi between 2021 and 2022. In June 2021, during the first post-pandemic, post-Trump G7 Leaders’ Summit in Carbis Bay, Draghi stated that his government would “examine […] carefully” the MoU.[2] Draghi’s words reflected a deeper awareness of the broader implications of Beijing’s assertiveness in international politics and a close alignment with the Biden administration in Rome. This shift also reflected the absence of tangible economic benefits from BRI membership for Italy, although this was also due to the devastating effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the designed trajectory of Sino-Italian economic relations.[3] Furthermore, the security-driven decision of the Draghi government to repeatedly exercise its “golden power” to veto Beijing’s investments in Italy’s strategic sectors contributed to shaping the MoU’s outcome.[4] This course correction in Rome’s China policy survived the fall of the Draghi government in July 2022 and the victory of the centre-right coalition led by Giorgia Meloni and her Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy, FdI) party in the legislative elections of September that year. After all, Meloni and her party had consistently opposed the MoU with China from the very beginning, a decision arguably also linked to the perceived need to bolster the party’s credentials as a reliable partner in the eyes of Washington – as in the case of the clear support for Ukraine well before the September electoral victory.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Foreign Direct Investment, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and International Politics
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and Italy

10. Mekong Subregion-RoK Cooperation to Build Stable Supply Chains in Southeast Asia

Author:
Sungil Kwak, Jaewan Cheong, Mingeum Shin, and Jegook Kim
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP)
Abstract:
The Mekong subregion has emerged as a key hub in the global value chain (GVC), driven by a surge in foreign direct investment (FDI). This development is rooted in the Mekong subregion's robust economic growth, positioning it strategically amid the ongoing competition between the United States and China for global hegemony. The RoK recognizes the strategic significance of the Mekong subregion and has embarked on cooperative efforts in this context. We delve into the potential of harnessing the Mekong subregion to enhance RoK's supply chain diversity. While it may pose challenges for the Mekong subregion to promptly function as a target for RoK's supply chain diversification due to its developmental and infrastructural status, we proactively explore potential avenues of RoK-Mekong cooperation to determine feasibility.
Topic:
Foreign Direct Investment, Economic Growth, Global Value Chains, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, and Southeast Asia