Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Direct Investment Political Geography China

11. Forty Years Development of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment: Retrospect and the Challenges Ahead

Author:
Tao Wang and Kailin Gao
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
Outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) has increasingly become an importantmethod for China to integrate into the world economy. This paper comprehensivelyreviews and analyses policy development and the changing pattern of China’s OFDIover the past 40 years. We divide the development into “restricted” (1978–1999), “relaxed” (2000–2016) and “regulated” (2017 onwards) stages. This paper alsoreviews literature on the impact of Chinese OFDI on China and host countries. Despite its generally positive ef ects, large-scale and unbalanced OFDI activitieshave alarmed Chinese policy-makers. Both developing and developed host countrieshave expressed their concern over national security and the misbehavior of someChinese overseas enterprises. Therefore, greater supervision and adjustment fromquantity to quality growth is necessary for the future development of China’s OFDI.
Topic:
Development, History, and Foreign Direct Investment
Political Geography:
China and Asia

12. China’s Recent Engagement in Latin America and the Caribbean: Current Conditions and Challenges

Author:
Enrique Dussel Peters
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Carter Center
Abstract:
Since the beginning of the 21st century, China’s presence in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) has been substantial in practically all socio-economic fields: cultural, bilateral and multilateral political issues, as well as trade, foreign direct investments, academic exchanges, and other areas. The main objective of this document is to analyze the effects of China’s presence in the region in terms of sustainable and long-term development, as well as its incidence in its relationship with the United States. Thus, the document will include a diagnostic to understand some of the specificities of the LAC-China socio-economic relationship, followed by the conclusion with a series of proposals. The first section of the paper will examine five issues that are relevant to understand general and specific topics about the China-LAC relationship: 1) general geostrategic and diplomatic topics to understand current tensions between the United States and China; 2) China’s proposal of a globalization process; 3) the concept of “new triangular relationships” and LAC’s challenges given increasing tensions between the United States and China; 4) particular developments and structures in trade, foreign direct investment, financing and infrastructure; and 5) the institutional framework between LAC and China. The second part of the paper focuses on a series of recommendations attempting to deepen and extend the China-LAC relationship and integrating the United States in it.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, Foreign Direct Investment, Culture, and Multilateral Relatons
Political Geography:
China, Asia, Latin America, North America, and United States of America

13. The three stages of China’s ODI development

Author:
Bijang Wang and Kailin Gao
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Abstract:
In 2016, China became the world’s second-largest outward investor after the United States, with US$196.2 billion of outward direct investment (ODI) flows. China’s foray into ODI developed in three stages, moving from a ‘restricted’ to a ‘relaxed’ and most recently to a ‘regulated’ approach. Today’s strengthened ODI regulations correct imbalanced ODI practices of earlier eras, but some challenges remain. Before 2000, capital shortages prompted China to invite capital inflows and restrict capital outflows. Chinese enterprises had to apply for approval to invest overseas on a case-by-case basis, which minimised overseas investment. By the end of 1999, China ranked 23rd in the world for outward investment with an ODI stock of US$27 billion, representing 0.4 per cent of the global total.
Topic:
Foreign Direct Investment, Investment, and Economic Development
Political Geography:
China and Asia

14. The Development of U.S.-China Trade and the Result of Conflict

Author:
Ma Tao
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The very success of globalization has flourished since World War II. The benefits of economic globalization are not evenly distributed among countries, especially among different groups within a country. Before the financial crisis in 2008, as the major promotors of globalization, developed countries intensified their internal contradictions. So populism, protectionism and isolationism are rising in many developed countries, which are the main features of anti-globalization. Brexit happened against the polls in 2016, in large part, because of the migrant crisis tipping the British towards protection of its borders. In the beginning of his presidency, Donald Trump declared to withdraw from TPP, build Mexican border wall, renegotiate NAFTA and so on. Trump’s protectionism policies may be gradually implemented in 2017. Going on like these, the tide of anti-globalization may be further strengthened in the future.
Topic:
Globalization, Bilateral Relations, Foreign Direct Investment, Trade Wars, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

15. Country-Risk Rating of Overseas Investment from China (2018)

Author:
CROIC-IWEP
Publication Date:
01-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
China's outbound direct investment hit a new high in 2016, reaching $196.15 billion, making the country the world's second-largest overseas investor. The volume of its outbound direct investment increased by 34.7% year-on-year in 2016 and accounted for 13.5% of the world's total — the first time it exceeded 10%. Since 2003, when the Ministry of Commerce joined hands with the National Bureau of Statistics and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange to start releasing authoritative investment data annually, China's outbound direct investment has kept increasing for 14 consecutive years. From 2002 to 2016, the annual average growth of its outbound direct investment reached 35.8%. In 2016, China's outbound direct investment once again exceeded the foreign direct investment it received, making it a net capital exporter for two consecutive years. Meanwhile, its outbound direct investment stock hit $1.35739 trillion at the end of 2016, the 6th largest in the world, two notches up compared with in 2015. In 2016, China had the most overseas M&A deals in history in terms of both number and value of M&A deals. In the future, China is expected to bring out more of its investment potentials and build a win-win cooperative relationship with other countries following its economic transition and upgrading, rising competitiveness of Chinese enterprises in overseas markets and steady advancement of the Belt and Road Initiative.
Topic:
Economics, Foreign Direct Investment, and Investment
Political Geography:
China and Asia

16. China’s Relationship with Chile: The Struggle for the Future Regime of the Pacific

Author:
Evan Ellis
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
Though superpower diplomacy dominated coverage of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) leaders summit in November, China’s upgrading of a free-trade agreement with Chile served to highlight the strength of an economic and political relationship that it has built with the country, and the influential position Chile currently occupies in shaping Chinese engagement with Latin America.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Treaties and Agreements, Bilateral Relations, Infrastructure, and Foreign Direct Investment
Political Geography:
China, Asia, South America, and Chile

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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