Number of results to display per page
Search Results
42. Chinese Investment in Critical U.S. Technology: Risks to U.S. Security Interests
- Author:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Publication Date:
- 10-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- Chinese firms, both private and state-owned, have in recent years invested billions of dollars in the U.S. technology industry, raising concerns that a powerful rival has gained or could soon gain access to sensitive and, in some cases, critical technologies that underpin American military superiority and economic might. At the workshop entitled “Chinese Investment in Critical U.S. Technology: Risks to U.S. Security Interests,” held in San Francisco, on July 18, 2017, CFR convened nearly thirty current and former government officials, academics, bankers, investors, and corporate executives to explore whether the large and growing early-stage Chinese investment in critical U.S. technology poses a threat to U.S. national security, and, if so, to outline policies that mitigate the risks of unbridled Chinese investment and to bolster U.S. competitiveness.
- Topic:
- Security, Science and Technology, Foreign Direct Investment, and Cybersecurity
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, Asia, and North America
43. Writing New Rules for the U.S.-China Investment Relationship
- Author:
- Jennifer M. Harris
- Publication Date:
- 12-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- Chinese outbound investment is on the rise, and much of it is finding its way into the United States. Be- tween 2010 and 2015, China’s foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows to the United States grew by an average of 32 percent annually.1 Within the past two years alone, Chinese foreign investment inflows to the United States increased four-fold, and available data suggests 2017 will see the second highest annual investment on record, after 2016.2 This is not a two-way street: the United States and other foreign investors do not enjoy similar open market access in China. China maintains a dizzying assortment of formal and informal barriers to for- eign investment—from outright restrictions and quotas to mandatory joint ventures, forced localization measures, and domestic licensing regimes. Despite years of negotiations, these barriers are, if anything, growing more cumbersome in many sectors. U.S. firms paint a darkening picture of the business climate they face in China. U.S. FDI in China has slowed considerably in recent years: after growing roughly 180 percent from 2002 to 2007 (albeit from a low baseline), U.S. FDI flows into China have declined since 2012.3 The one-way surge of Chinese investment into the United States comes against a backdrop of strategic mistrust between Washington and Beijing. Ongoing accusations of state-sponsored cyber predation of U.S. firms, Beijing’s increasing aggressiveness over territorial disputes, its systematic efforts to under- mine the U.S. alliance system in Asia, and mounting tensions over North Korea all contribute to a dark- ening mood in the U.S.-China relationship. And, like so much involving China, this investment is simply different. Rarely, if ever, has the United States seen an increase in investment of this magnitude—espe- cially from a non-ally and especially from one where the lines between state ownership and private own- ership are so inherently blurred. For all the concern surrounding Japanese investment in the United States in the 1980s—coming as it did amid fierce economic competition—those debates ultimately re- mained under the umbrella of the U.S.-Japan military alliance. All of this raises questions about whether the United States needs to tighten its stance on Chinese in- bound investment; proposals to that effect have bipartisan support in the Congress. The Donald J. Trump administration has signaled its desire for a tougher approach in its economic dealings with China, which U.S. businesses seem to welcome. One foundation for such an approach is the principle of reciprocity. Roughly two dozen sectors in China—construction, mining, banking, insurance, and so on—remain effectively off-limits to American investment, because the Chinese government protects its domestic companies through regulations and financial subsidies. Even in sectors that technically allow foreign investment, discriminatory industrial policies tilt the playing field in favor of Chinese firms. Until this changes, Washington would be justi- fied—even obligated—to limit Chinese investment in the U.S. market. However, U.S. policymakers do not have a consensus on what a policy of reciprocity would entail, and different policy interpretations could spell quite different economic and foreign policy consequences for the United States. The United States should aim for a version of reciprocity that allows it the flexibility to maximize pressure on the broad range of Chinese industrial policy concerns while leaving a clear route to negotiations. The United States should also encourage European and other Western countries, many of which are seeing similar increases in Chinese investment, to adopt this new approach.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, International Trade and Finance, and Foreign Direct Investment
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, Asia, and North America
44. Zambia’s Bilateral Investment Treaties Review and Evaluation
- Author:
- Joseph Simumba
- Publication Date:
- 11-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR)
- Abstract:
- Zambia attracts foreign direct investments (FDI) from many countries that vary in terms of income levels and geographical location. In the last two decades, the country witnessed a rapid increase in bilateral investment treaty (BIT) activities triggered by massive economic liberalisation of the early 1990s. From a single ratified BIT with Germany prior to 1990, there are now 31 BITs locally called Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (IPPAs) of which two (2) are ratified, eleven (11) are signed and eighteen (18) exist in draft form. However, BIT activities in Zambia have plummeted in line with a post 2010 global slowdown, a situation linked to rising uncertainty caused by a surge in the number of investment treaty-based cases at international tribunals. Foreign investors are suing host states over disputes ranging from direct expropriation to claims of adverse business regulation especially in the energy and extractives sectors. This study reviews Zambia’s BITs and evaluates their impact on the accumulation of FDI stocks using data collected from the Private Investment and Investor Perception Surveys conducted by Bank of Zambia, Central Statistical Office and Zambia Development Agency for the period 2007-2014 were data is publicly available. The findings show that BITs significantly matter for accumulation of FDI stocks in Zambia. The group of countries with a ratified BIT (Germany and Switzerland) maintain 1.6 times more FDI stocks than the corresponding group with only signed BITs controlling for income groups and geographical location and their interactions based on the World Bank classification. The groups of countries with a draft or without a BIT maintain FDI stocks that are less than four times lower than FDI stocks maintained by the group of ratified BITs countries. This evidence is robust to several potential confounders of the relationship between BITs and FDI stocks. Therefore, ratified BITs work for Zambia’s FDI stocks, a result that challenges some pessimism against IPPAs in Zambia.
- Topic:
- Treaties and Agreements, Foreign Direct Investment, Economy, and Investment
- Political Geography:
- Africa and Zambia
45. Nation-Branding: the Case of Russia
- Author:
- Anna Velikaya
- Publication Date:
- 08-2017
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Rethinking Russia
- Abstract:
- Russia seems to have finally realized in recent years that nation branding, seen as a set of actions to improve country’s image abroad, is a form of investment, not a cost. In order to analyze the Russian approach to nation branding, it is necessary to highlight several dimensions: economic, scientific, cultural, sport, media, and development.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Foreign Direct Investment, Public Opinion, Economy, Soft Power, and Cultural Diplomacy
- Political Geography:
- Russia and Eurasia
46. A Deeper Look at China’s “Going Out” Policy
- Author:
- Hongying Wang
- Publication Date:
- 03-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Centre for International Governance Innovation
- Abstract:
- In recent years, the world has seen rapid growth in China’s financial reach beyond its borders. Following the announcement of a “going out” strategy at the turn of the century, many Chinese enterprises have ventured to invest and operate abroad. After three decades as primarily a recipient of foreign direct investment (FDI), China has now emerged as a major FDI-originating country as well. Much of China’s foreign aid is closely entangled with its outgoing FDI, and it has also been rising. Since 2013, the Chinese government has been pushing for a new One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative, aiming to connect China with countries along the ancient Silk Road and a new Maritime Silk Road via infrastructure investment. In addition, since 2009, China has actively promoted the internationalization of its currency, the renminbi (RMB). There has been a great deal of anxiety about the motivations behind China’s going out policy and its possible international consequences. Many view it as an expression of China’s international ambition and a strategy that threatens the existing international order; however, that is not the whole story. An equally important but often less understood issue is the role of China’s domestic politics and political economy in shaping its new activism in foreign financial policy. Moreover, it is unclear how successful the going out policy is. The complexity of China’s going out policy was the topic for a recent round table discussion hosted by the Centre for International Governance Innovation and the Foreign Policy Institute at the School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC.[1] Participants discussed a number of issues around two broad themes: the impact of domestic political economy on China’s foreign economic policy and the challenges for China’s external financial strategy — in particular, its OBOR initiative.
- Topic:
- Markets, Political Economy, Monetary Policy, Infrastructure, Foreign Direct Investment, and Financial Markets
- Political Geography:
- China
47. Costa Rica and the United States: An Enduring Partnership
- Author:
- S. Fitzgerald Haney
- Publication Date:
- 04-2016
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The Ambassadors Review
- Abstract:
- The United States’ strong partnership with Costa Rica has deep roots: our countries established diplomatic relations in 1851, when Costa Rican Minister Felipe Molina presented his credentials in Washington, and a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation was finalized the following year. This early cooperation provided a strong foundation for a bilateral relationship that has only gained depth and breadth, and which continues to grow, evolve, and reveal new sources of strength. Today, the United States is Costa Rica’s largest trading partner and greatest source of foreign investment. Costa Rica’s stability, natural beauty, and proximity to the United States make it a favorite destination for US citizens—tourists, investors, and residents alike—further deepening the connections between our countries. Our shared values, long history of close cultural and commercial ties, and growing cooperation on regional initiatives make Costa Rica a valued strategic partner as the United States promotes prosperity, good governance, and security—the three pillars of the US Strategy for Engagement in Central America (the Strategy)—throughout the region.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Bilateral Relations, Foreign Direct Investment, and Governance
- Political Geography:
- Costa Rica and United States of America
48. Journal of Public and International Affairs 2016
- Author:
- Megan Campbell, Geoff Cooper, Kathryn Alexander, Aneliese Bernard, Nastasha Everheart, Andrej Litvinjenko, Kabira Namit, Saman Rejali, Alisa Tiwari, and Michael Wagner
- Publication Date:
- 05-2016
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Woodrow Wilson School Journal of Public and International Affairs
- Institution:
- Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
- Abstract:
- It is rare to find a journal that examines women’s participation in South Sudan in one chapter and the exploitation of outer space resources in the next; that dissects the effects of Chinese investment in Sub-Saharan Africa and demystifies the Ferguson effect. But the Journal of Public and International Affairs is not your average journal. It represents the very best of what graduate-level public policy students have to contribute to the pressing policy debates of today. It is wide-ranging in subject matter and trenchant in its recommendations. Founded in 1990, but with an ancestor publication dating back to 1963, the JPIA is based on the notion that students of public policy have important things to say about public affairs and that careful analysis and targeted critique can pave the way for meaningful change and progress. The graduate students published in this year’s JPIA combine practical experience from around the world with intensive academic study. They have spent the last year diving deep into the issues they are passionate about and have all been challenged by the need to move past descriptive analysis and towards concrete solutions. These papers represent the best of their scholarship.
- Topic:
- Security, Gender Issues, Government, Regional Cooperation, International Affairs, Foreign Direct Investment, Counter-terrorism, Women, Inequality, Protests, Policy Implementation, Rural, and Sanitation
- Political Geography:
- China, Iran, Middle East, India, Central America, West Africa, North America, South Sudan, Sahel, and United States of America
49. Brazilian Foreign Policy and Investments in Angola
- Author:
- Pietro Carlos De Souza Rodrigues and Sonia Delindro Goncalces
- Publication Date:
- 06-2016
- 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:
- The literature has given increasing attention to the role played by Brazilian transnational companies in its international insertion. In this context, special attention has been given to Brazilian private activities in Africa and, in particular, in Angola. Some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are understood as potential markets for investments, especially given the similarities of the challenges for development and expertise of some of the Brazilian firms in sectors as agriculture, mining and civil construction. The objective of this paper is to try to capture possible relations between Brazil-Angola bilateral relations over the international operations of Brazilian firms. Our argument is that the business environment to investments has been favoured by a simultaneous international political alignment, as a consequence of the changes in the Brazilian foreign policy orientation.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Agriculture, International Cooperation, Foreign Direct Investment, Mining, and transnationalism
- Political Geography:
- Africa, Brazil, South America, and Angola
50. Japanese Investment in the United States: Superior Performance, Increasing Integration
- Author:
- Theodore H. Moran and Lindsay Oldenski
- Publication Date:
- 02-2015
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Peterson Institute for International Economics
- Abstract:
- Japan is reemerging as the most important source of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States. In 2013 Japanese firms were the largest source of new inflows of FDI into the United States for the first time since 1992, injecting almost $45 billion of fresh investment into the US economy in that year alone. Moran and Oldenski show how Japanese investment in the United States differs from that of other countries along several dimensions. These differences not only make FDI by Japanese firms especially valuable but point to some important policy goals for attracting it. Although the automotive sector is the single largest industry for Japanese investment in the United States, the focus should not be on competing to attract the auto industry in particular nor should any active industrial policy of "picking winners" be pursued. Japanese investment is unique because of its research and development intensity, manifested across a number of industries in which Japanese multinationals invest other than automobiles. US policy should focus on reinforcing and expanding the factors that attract high-performing firms and high-value production stages to the United States, regardless of industry.
- Topic:
- Development, Economics, Foreign Direct Investment, and United States
- Political Geography:
- Japan