IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v11y2020i2p222-232.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Rise of Foreign Direct Investment Regulation in Investment‐recipient Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Anastasia Ufimtseva

Abstract

This research paper seeks to explain why investment‐recipient countries, like Australia and Canada, reject certain investments in strategic industries and shield some domestic business from foreign acquisitions. Existing studies suggest that the decision to restrict FDI is driven by national security concerns, which are often conceptualized as a catch‐all concept. This paper develops a novel theoretical construct – ‘FDI acceptability threshold’ (a maximum point of political tolerance for any given foreign investment) – to provide a more nuanced understanding of government decisions to reject FDI. This theoretical construct is based on four factors – nature of the domestic firm/industry, nature of the acquirer, external opposition, and domestic backlash. Drawing on two cases of Chinese SOEs’ investment in the energy sector in Australia and Canada, this paper demonstrates that investment‐recipient countries are more likely to protect a domestic business where foreign ownership threatens domestic industry by exceeding FDI acceptability thresholds. Given that these thresholds are often not directly identified in the host country’s policies, this paper proposes that host countries should clarify these conditions to ensure that they continue to attract FDI.

Suggested Citation

  • Anastasia Ufimtseva, 2020. "The Rise of Foreign Direct Investment Regulation in Investment‐recipient Countries," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 11(2), pages 222-232, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:11:y:2020:i:2:p:222-232
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12788
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12788
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.12788?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sophie Meunier & Brian Burgoon & Wade Jacoby, 2014. "The politics of hosting Chinese investment in Europe—an introduction," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 109-126, March.
    2. Sauvant, Karl P., 2009. "FDI protectionism is on the rise," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5052, The World Bank.
    3. Fernando Mistura & Caroline Roulet, 2019. "The determinants of Foreign Direct Investment: Do statutory restrictions matter?," OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2019/01, OECD Publishing.
    4. Salvatore,Dominick (ed.), 1993. "Protectionism and World Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521414555, September.
    5. Peter Drysdale, 2011. "A New Look at Chinese FDI in Australia," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 19(4), pages 54-73, July.
    6. Salvatore,Dominick (ed.), 1993. "Protectionism and World Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521424899, September.
    7. Fan He & Bijun Wang, 2013. "Chinese Interests in the Global Investment Regime," EABER Working Papers 23755, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    8. Kang, C. S. Eliot, 1997. "U.S. politics and greater regulation of inward foreign direct investment," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 301-333, April.
    9. Reich, Simon, 1989. "Roads to follow: regulating direct foreign investment," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(4), pages 543-584, October.
    10. Frédéric Wehrlé & Joachim Pohl, 2016. "Investment Policies Related to National Security: A Survey of Country Practices," OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2016/2, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Oliver McPherson‐Smith, 2021. "Diversification, Khashoggi, and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(2), pages 190-203, April.
    2. Jing Li & Daniel Shapiro & Anastasia Ufimtseva, 2024. "Regulating inbound foreign direct investment in a world of hegemonic rivalry: the evolution and diffusion of US policy," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(2), pages 147-165, June.
    3. Sarah Bauerle Danzman & Sophie Meunier, 2023. "Naïve no more: Foreign direct investment screening in the European Union," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(S3), pages 40-53, July.
    4. Yi-Chi Hsiao & Hsueh-Liang Wu & Chun-Ping Yeh, 2023. "An investigation of the bridging interface strategies used by Chinese MNE when undertaking FDI to Taiwan," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(4), pages 1485-1512, September.
    5. Anne Marie Thow & Wolfgang Alschner & Faisal Aljunied, 2023. "Public health clauses in international investment agreements: Sword or shield?," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(2), pages 260-269, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Oatley Thomas, 2010. "Real Exchange Rates and Trade Protectionism," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 1-19, August.
    2. repec:dgr:rugsom:01c48 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Enrico Colombatto, 2000. "An Explanation of the Dynamics of Protectionism," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 279-293, July.
    4. Salvatore, Dominick, 2002. "Relative taxation and competitiveness in the European Union: what the European Union can learn from the United States," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 401-410, July.
    5. Steven Samford, 2010. "Averting “Disruption and Reversal†: Reassessing the Logic of Rapid Trade Reform in Latin America," Politics & Society, , vol. 38(3), pages 373-407, September.
    6. Heboyan, Vahe & Ames, Glenn C.W. & Gunter, Lewell F. & Houston, Jack E., 2001. "U.S. - Mexico Sugar Dispute: Impact Of Nafta On The Sugar Market," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20730, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Ben Armstrong, 2022. "Response to Berglund Letter Regarding “Industrial Policy and Local Economic Transformation: Evidence from the Rust Beltâ€," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 36(1), pages 66-69, February.
    8. Cox, W. Michael & Ruffin, Roy J., 1998. "Country-bashing tariffs: Do bilateral trade deficits matter?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 61-72, October.
    9. Ben Armstrong, 2021. "Industrial Policy and Local Economic Transformation: Evidence From the U.S. Rust Belt," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 35(3), pages 181-196, August.
    10. Nathalie Aminian & K. C. Fung & Maurice K. S. Tse, 2016. "The Euro and the Yuan: Some Political Economy Considerations," China Economic Policy Review (CEPR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(01), pages 1-13, June.
    11. Warwick Mckibbin & Dominick Salvatore, 1995. "The global economic consequences of the Uruguay Round," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 111-129, April.
    12. H.P. Grãœner & C. Hefeker, 1995. "Domestic pressures and the exchange rate regime: why economically bad decisions are politically popular?," Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, vol. 48(194), pages 331-350.
    13. Nelson, Douglas & Puccio, Laura, 2021. "Nihil novi sub sole: The Need for Rethinking WTO and Green Subsidies in Light of United States – Renewable Energy," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 491-508, October.
    14. Dominick Salvatore, 2001. "The Problems of Transition, EU Enlargement, and Globalization," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 28(2), pages 137-157, June.
    15. Lane, Nathaniel, 2016. "Manufacturing Revolutions: Industrial Policy and Industrialization in South Korea," SocArXiv 6tqax, Center for Open Science.
    16. Christopher Coyne & Lotta Moberg, 2015. "The political economy of state-provided targeted benefits," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 28(3), pages 337-356, September.
    17. Dominick Salvatore, 1992. "Recent trends in U.S. protectionism," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 307-321, October.
    18. Heboyan, Vahe & Ames, Glenn C.W. & Gunter, Lewell F. & Houston, Jack E., 2001. "U.S.-Mexico Sugar Dispute: Impact Of Nafta On The Sugar Market," Faculty Series 16695, University of Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    19. Dominick Salvatore, 2010. "Globalisation, International Competitiveness And Growth: Advanced And Emerging Markets, Large And Small Countries," Journal of International Commerce, Economics and Policy (JICEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 1(01), pages 21-32.
    20. Maseland, Robbert & Vaal, Albert de, 2001. "How fair is fair trade?," Research Report 01C48, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    21. Witold J. Henisz & Edward D. Mansfield, 2015. "Votes and Vetoes: The Political Determinants of Commercial Openness," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Edward D Mansfield (ed.), THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, chapter 8, pages 145-167, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:11:y:2020:i:2:p:222-232. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.