Search

Begin New Search Topic Investment Publication Year within 5 Years

91. Why Columbia Should Invest in Vietnam and Vietnamese Studies: Conversation with Peter Mach

Author:
Peter Mach and Lien-Hang T. Nguyen
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University
Abstract:
Born and raised in Vietnam, Peter Mach graduated from Columbia University with a BA in 1995 and a Master’s degree in 1996 after migrating to the United States as part of the Amerasian Homecoming Act. He worked in finance as an Executive Director at Goldman Sachs in New York and Hong Kong between 1996 and 2002 and as a Managing Director at Credit Suisse in Hong Kong between 2002 and 2007. In 2007, Peter co-founded Vietbridge Capital, a fund management company that specialized in investing in equities and real estate development projects in Vietnam. In 2011, Peter was a partner at the hedge fund HDH Capital Advisors in Singapore, which specializes in M&A and investing with event-driven strategies across many sectors and instruments (equities, high-yield bonds, equity derivatives, etc.). In 2012, Peter established a non-profit educational organization called AMA Vietnam Ltd in Singapore, helping underprivileged students and teachers in Vietnam with scholarships and motivational work. In 2014, he co-founded Tanzanite International Ltd to invest in and develop luxury resort and residential properties in Vietnam. In 2022, Peter was a featured speaker at WEAI’s conferences in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, “Understand the Past/Transform the Future”. Peter is also a member of the Global Advisory Board of Fulbright University of Vietnam, as well as a board member of an educational foundation in Vietnam called “Technology For All,” which provides full scholarships and internships to underprivileged students at the prestigious Ho Chi Minh University of Technology. Peter will engage in a conversation with WEAI Director Lien-Hang Nguyen on the importance of Vietnam for Columbia on the higher education geopolitical landscape.
Topic:
Geopolitics, Investment, Higher Education, and Columbia University
Political Geography:
Vietnam and Southeast Asia

92. How to Curb Investments in Chinese Technology: Initiatives and Debates in the United States

Author:
Mathilde Velliet
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
In a continuation of U.S. efforts to slow China's development and acquisition of strategic technologies, Washington has imposed new restrictions on American investment in Chinese technology sectors such as artificial intelligence (AI), quantum, and semiconductors. On August 9, 2023, President Biden issued an unprecedented executive order, announcing notification requirements and prohibitions for U.S. tech investments in China. Three sectors are targeted: semiconductors, quantum information technology, and artificial intelligence. Washington’s main concern is that these investments are accompanied by technology transfers and “intangible benefits” contributing to the development of Chinese military capabilities. This concern, first voiced in the 1980s, has received a heightened political response since 2018. Considering the emerging consensus in Congress and the multiplication of bills, further measures are likely to be adopted in the coming months. The European Union and certain Member States are beginning to reflect on the consequences of U.S. measures, and on the relevance of adopting their own tools to control investment in China.
Topic:
Science and Technology, European Union, Investment, Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Computers, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
China, Europe, Asia, and United States of America

93. Is the Devil in the Details? A Rare Look into a BRI Contract in Kyrgyzstan

Author:
Michael Schroeder
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
This analysis delves into the concerns surrounding debt-trap diplomacy in Kyrgyzstan by examining a leaked loan contract of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) for the construction of the Alternative North-South Road. This unique occasion—as contracts are usually shrouded in confidentiality—sheds light on the dynamics of BRI lending in the region and on a global level. The analysis considers the political and economic implications of China's investments in Kyrgyzstan, aiming at investigating whether the investment is geared toward exerting political influence, as has been suggested by the active political debate around the narrative of debt-trap diplomacy. While acknowledging the limited data available, this analysis neither finds application for debt-trap diplomacy nor an active attempt by Chinese entities to utilize contractual provision, even though on paper the contract could allow for the latter. Despite the lack of hard evidence, the paper contributes to the academic debate by shifting attention from broader geopolitical considerations and the debt-trap narrative, to increased scrutiny of contractual provisions in large-scale infrastructure projects, in which BRI lending indeed appears to differentiate itself.
Topic:
Debt, Diplomacy, Infrastructure, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and Investment
Political Geography:
Central Asia and Kyrgyzstan

94. Who Finances Energy Projects in Africa?

Author:
Oyintarelado Moses
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Public and private energy finance to Africa from countries in the Group of Twenty (G20) and multilateral development banks (MDBs) from 2012 to 2021 totaled $345.76 billion, according to this paper’s findings. Amounting to an average of about $35 billion per year, this finance was within the estimated $31.5–$45 billion range necessary to address Africa’s annual energy finance gap. However, it was distributed unevenly, with ten countries receiving 77 percent of all finance over the ten-year period. Some inequity may be a consequence of differing domestic energy demands, investment environments, or natural resource endowments across countries. However, the resulting distribution of energy finance over the past decade was such that many African countries—home to hundreds of millions of people—were left with substantial gaps in their financing necessities. This paper also shows that only a few countries and multilateral financing entities—including China, France, Italy, the United States, and the World Bank Group—supplied the majority of energy finance to Africa between 2012 and 2021. In many ways, this finding is unsurprising; however, it serves as a reminder that significant amounts of energy finance are subject to the policies and priorities of a small number of countries and institutions. To that point, this paper demonstrates a near total retrenchment of funding for coal projects beginning around 2018, reflecting the policy priority among these major funders to stop financing overseas coal projects. Most of the $345.76 billion in energy finance for African countries went to projects with gas/liquefied natural gas (LNG), mixed fossil fuels, and solar energy sources. Of the total energy finance, $197.17 billion (57 percent) came from public institutions, while $148.59 billion (43 percent) came from private corporations. The paper identifies some important similarities and differences between public and private finance. Both streams were highly concentrated in terms of senders and recipients, though the recipients differed slightly. For both streams, gas/LNG projects received the most or nearly the most finance. Public finance was directed to projects with more diverse energy sources, but less of the financing was directed to solar and wind projects. Most of the private finance was directed to fossil fuel projects, but when compared to public finance, a higher proportion of private finance supported solar and wind projects. Overall, the average amount of energy finance commitments that flowed to Africa from 2012 to 2021 may have been within the range of estimated need, but the unequal distribution of this finance risked leaving many countries behind. The small number of major players on the supply side of energy finance also created the potential for volatility, as internal guidance on funding priorities among these senders could evolve over the coming years and decades. Policymakers in financing countries could therefore prioritize finance distribution based on annual demands from historically low-level recipients, diversify financiers by redirecting financing to African regional banks and investors, and use public finance to crowd in private finance to projects with high potential for energy access in Africa.
Topic:
Development, Finance, Investment, and Energy
Political Geography:
Africa

95. The Belt and Road Initiative and the Mega Infrastructure Investments in Africa

Author:
Amabilly Bonacina and Mamoudou Gazibo
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
Institution:
Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Abstract:
This article seeks to analyze the Sino-African relations and in particular the Belt and Road Initiative investments through the study of deviant cases. Using the cases of interrupted cooperation agreements in Sierra Leone and Tanzania under the initiative, this article argues that the interruption is caused mainly by the nature of the projects which make them vulnerable to changes in domestic politics. To explain this, we propose the concept of presidential megaprojects.
Topic:
Development, Treaties and Agreements, Infrastructure, Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and Investment
Political Geography:
Africa, China, Tanzania, and Sierra Leone

96. MIT X TAU Series: Africa's New Data

Author:
Kenfield Griffith and Claude Grunitzky
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The sixth webinar in the third annual webinar series focused on various aspects of sustainable development in Africa. Featuring: Kenfield Griffith is the CEO and co-founder at Tappi.
Topic:
Development, Investment, Sustainability, and Data
Political Geography:
Africa

97. Korea faces opportunities as well as risks under the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework

Author:
Jeffrey J. Schott and Megan Hogan
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
South Korea participates in several regional trade and investment arrangements, including the bilateral Korea-China Free Trade Agreement, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP); it has also joined the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA) and is considering following China’s example and applying for membership in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). All these initiatives are complementary and open to a broad range of countries and separate customs territories. The US-led Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) would largely reinforce Korea’s benefits from other economic integration pacts, but in key respects it could build barricades instead of bridges to nonmember countries. The authors examine the progress in building IPEF, how the four IPEF pillars would advance and/or constrain Korean policy, and what the impact could be on Korea’s economic relations with major trading nations in the region, including China, which shares membership with Korea in important pacts like RCEP. The key challenge for Korea in IPEF will be to balance its relationships with China while deepening its economic and security ties with the United States.
Topic:
Economics, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Investment, and Trade
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, and Indo-Pacific

98. Construction productivity and global inequality

Author:
Saumik Paul and Kunal Sen
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
United Nations University
Abstract:
Two well established stylized facts of economic development are a strong correlation between investment and income, and large differences in investment rates across countries. Construction is the largest component of investment. This paper examines the implications of heterogeneity in construction productivity on cross-country income disparity. We estimate the 10:1 spread in construction productivity among 145 countries in 2005 as a factor of 61.7-fold. Based on a general equilibrium model with input–output linkages, we find that the 10:1 spread in income per capita declines by 45 per cent when the construction productivity gap is eliminated. Sectoral characterization of the aggregate effect of a change in construction productivity shows heterogeneous sectoral contributions to income convergence. Electrical equipment, metals, and transport equipment play stronger roles in transforming the effect of a change in construction productivity to the aggregate level in China compared with other countries.
Topic:
Inequality, Investment, Productivity, Construction, and Income
Political Geography:
China and Global Focus

99. Online Platform Regulation and Investment Attractiveness: A Look at the EU, the UK and Impacts on Small Open Economies

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Vanika Sharma, and Oscar du Roy
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
Small trade- and investment-oriented economies like the United Kingdom (UK) should carefully consider whether to regulate online platform services based on presumptions rather than evidence that consumers are being harmed. Flimsily enforced platform regulation can have a chilling effect on investments in business expansion and innovation, particularly in technology-adopting industries. Several countries around the world are designing new competition policies that specifically target large digital platforms. The theory behind these policies is grey. There are political concerns about the impact of various aspects of platforms on society, especially regarding the collection and safety of data. However, practices that harm consumers – traditionally a key motivation of competition enforcement – are very rare. Indeed, the success stories of large tech platforms demonstrate that they offer strong benefits and conveniences to millions of business users across a wide range of industries. Marginal costs of supply, high-quality services, continuous technological advancements, and platforms’ ability to drive productivity growth have enabled especially small businesses to thrive and compete in domestic and international markets. Against this background, it is highly questionable why some governments, with the backing of power-seeking competition regulators, are aiming to legally interfere in services provided by large technology companies. An important consequence that has so far received little attention from policymakers and competition authorities is the impact of platform regulation on a country’s investment attractiveness. It is obvious that bans and restrictions on corporate conduct cause regulated companies to abstain from investments and establish new business elsewhere. What is less clear is the effect of regulation on investments by companies that extensively adopt platform services to reduce costs, speed-up innovation, and expand market opportunities. In this policy brief, we argue that access to integrated and internationally traded platform services is increasingly important for a country’s investment attractiveness, even more so for smaller countries. Access to advanced technologies and the utilisation of network effects create a virtuous cycle of economic opportunities, investments, value creation, and trade. Discretionary and presumption-based competition enforcement, as adopted in the EU, risks hurting smaller countries in particular. The EU has chosen the path of proscriptive and protective policymaking with the DMA to achieve industrial and trade policy goals rather than defending competition in the Single Market. UK competition policy risks being driven by institutional interests and ideological considerations, which could potentially lead to the adoption of a regulatory landscape that is even more restrictive than that of the EU, undermining Britain’s ambitions for economic and innovation leadership.
Topic:
Markets, European Union, Regulation, Economy, Investment, Trade, and Online Platforms
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

100. Merger Policy, Competition and Innovation Leadership: Implications for the UK’s Investment Attractiveness

Author:
Matthias Bauer, Oscar du Roy, and Vanika Sharma
Publication Date:
10-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The UK’s competition regulator has adopted hard-sitting views in its assessment of transnational mergers and acquisitions. Since 2019, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has blocked a historic 59% of all mergers that were under investigation, which is double compared to the previous five years. With increased competence to set conduct requirements for large technology companies, aggressive enforcement by the CMA risks undermining Britain’s ambitions to become a leader in global trade, technology, and innovation.[1] Acquisitions in the technology sector have increasingly been scrutinised by competition authorities over the past decade, often based on the hypothesis that transactions involving large multinational companies tend to be anti-competitive. Authorities’ concerns are based on theories about post-acquisition market structures and the impacts of “killer acquisitions”. While their theories lack empirical justification, competition authorities have increasingly quoted them to assess cases through an ideological lens. Indeed, investigations into acquisitions show that competition authorities can come to markedly distinct conclusions when assessing the impacts on competition over time, especially in technology-intensive industries. The premise that acquisitions of small rivals by large tech companies inherently result in decreased competition lacks solid empirical evidence. Competition authorities often fail to adequately consider efficiency criteria and the resultant benefits for consumers. The proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard, a video game maker, by Microsoft is a case in point. The UK CMA had initially found that the acquisition would reduce competition in gaming markets. EU and US competition regulators, by contrast, have cleared the transaction, highlighting the uncertain nature of merger review results for international transactions. Large multinational technology companies are major sources of innovation and productivity growth. The services they provide are increasingly pervasive across developed market economies, promising large productivity gains. Small, medium, and young companies in high-tech sectors are also important sources of innovation and productivity growth and, therefore, major targets for investment. Ideologically charged competition enforcement would have a negative impact on the UK’s investment attractiveness. The prospect of an innovative and commercially successful company being taken over by another company is an important precondition for investors to make early-stage and continued seed capital investments. Acquisitions also play an important role in driving investments in business growth and internationalisation. By contrast, there is no hard evidence to support the presumption that acquisitions by major tech companies result in decreased competition. A continuation of aggressive merger enforcement by the UK CMA would undermine investments in innovation-driven UK businesses and reduce access to funding for British venture capital-backed start-ups.
Topic:
Digital Economy, Leadership, Investment, Innovation, and Economic Competition
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe