What's the Risk? Bilateral Investment Treaties, Political Risk and Fixed Capital Accumulation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2012
This article argues that the political risk associated with foreign direct investment (FDI) is primarily a function of investment in fixed-capital, and not a homogeneous feature of FDI. As such, empirical tests of a political institution's ability to mitigate political risk should focus directly on investments in fixed capital and not on more highly aggregated measures of multinational corporation (MNC) activity, such as FDI flow and stock data that are affected by the accumulation of liquid assets in foreign affiliates. We apply this to the study of bilateral investment treaties (BITs). We find that BITs with the United States correlate positively with investments in fixed capital and have little, if any, correlation with other measures of MNC activity.
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012
Department of Political Science, University of Michigan (email: email@example.com); Department of Political Science, Emory University. The authors would like to thank seminar participants at the University of Michigan and those who attended the relevant session at the 2010 APSA convention for their advice.
1 R. Vernon, R. (1971). Sovereignty at Bay (New York: Basic Books, 1971)Google Scholar
Duque, Mario E. Bergara, Henisz, Witold J. and Spiller, Pablo T., ‘Political Institutions and Electric Utility Investment: A Cross-Nation Analysis’, California Management Review, 40:2 (1998), 18–35Google Scholar
2 Vernon, ‘Sovereignty at Bay’.
3 Yackee, Jason Webb, ‘Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Promote Foreign Direct Investment? Some Hints from Alternative Evidence’, Virginia Journal of International Law, 51 (2010), 397–439Google Scholar
Jensen, Nathan M., ‘Democratic Governance and Multinational Corporations: Political Regimes and Inflows of Foreign Direct Investment’, International Organization, 57 (2003), 587–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Nathan M., Nation-States and the Multinational Corporation: A Political Economy of Foreign Direct Investment (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006)Google Scholar
4 Tobin, Jennifer and Rose-Ackerman, Susan, ‘When BITs Have Some Bite: The Political-Economic Environment for Bilateral Investment Treaties’, Review of International Organizations, 6 (2010), 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkins, Zachary, Guzman, Andrew T. and Simmons, Beth A., ‘Competing for Capital: The Diffusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties, 1960–2000’, International Organization, 60 (2006), 811–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allee, Todd and Peinhardt, Clint, ‘Contingent Credibility: The Reputational Effects of Investment Treaty Disputes on Foreign Direct Investment’, International Organization, 65 (2011), 401–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Aisbett, Emma, ‘Bilateral Investment Treaties and Foreign Direct Investment: Correlation versus Causation’, in Karl Sauvant and Lisa Sachs, eds, The Effect of Treaties on Foreign Direct Investment: Bilateral Investment Treaties, Double Taxation Treaties and Investment Flows (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 395–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driemeier, Mary Hallward, ‘Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Attract FDI? A Bit, and They Could Bite’ (Washington, D.C.: World Bank Working Paper, No. 3121, 2003)Google Scholar
8 Tobin and Rose-Ackerman, ‘When BITs Have Some Bite’.
9 Tobin, Jennifer and Rose-Ackerman, Susan, ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Business Environment in Developing Countries: The Impact of Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (Yale Law School Center for Law, Economics and Public Policy, Research Paper No. 293, 2005)Google Scholar
10 We use the term ‘foreign affiliate’ to mean any enterprise in which a foreign investor owns a controlling interest.
11 Lest we be accused of erecting straw men, our reading of the literature suggests that most extant work assumes that BOP data are sufficient for the purpose of testing the impact of institutions on MNC behaviour, not necessarily that these data are ideal.
12 Lipsey, Robert E., ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Operations of Multinational Firms: Concepts, History, and Data’, in E. Kwan Choi and James Harrigan, eds, Handbook of International Trade (Oxford: Blackwell Handbooks in Economics, 2003), pp. 287–319Google Scholar
13 Duce, M., ‘Definitions of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): A Methodological Note’, (unpublished: Banco de Espana, 2003)Google Scholar
14 UNCTAD, ‘Methods of Data Collection and National Policies in the Treatment of FDI’ http://www.unctad.org/templates/Page.asp?intItemID=3157&lang=1 (2002).
15 International Monetary Fund, working paper on the measurement of international capital flows (1992): Report on the Measurement of International Capital Flows (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund, 2000)Google Scholar
16 Dunning, Thad and Lundan, Sarianna, Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy (Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar, 2008)Google Scholar
17 IMF, ‘Foreign Direct Investment Statistics: How Countries Measure FDI’.
19 Lipsey, ‘Foreign Direct Investment and the Operations of Multinational Firms’.
Ibarra, Marilyn and Koncz, Jennifer, ‘Direct Investment Positions for 2007: Country and Industry Detail’, Survey of Current Business (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2008)Google Scholar
21 UNCTAD, ‘Methods of Data Collection and National Policies in the Treatment of FDI’.
22 Ibarra and Koncz, ‘Direct Investment Positions for 2007’.
23 Beugelsdijk et al., ‘Why and How FDI Stocks Are a Biased Measure’.
25 Mataloni, Raymond, ‘A Guide to BEA Statistics on U.S. Multinational Companies’, Survey of Current Business (March 1995), 38–53Google Scholar
26 We identify holding companies as affiliates whose industry is noted as ‘Management of non-bank companies and enterprises’.
27 More precisely, we take the log of (1 + data) for logged variables. Adding 1 to the data allows for the log of a zero value. Total Assets is conceptually similar to commonly used stock variables, except that it accounts for assets acquired through local fundraising.
28 Investments in illiquid assets are likely to beget increases in liquid assets, so a positive relationship between BITs and non-PPE and Total Assets might be expected. However, investments in illiquid capital might be financed by reallocating capital away from liquid forms without any new capital actually being introduced into the foreign affiliate. This would suggest a negative relationship between BITs and non-PPE and a non-relationship with Total Assets. We do not have a theory to guide our expectations on these matters.
29 Hoechle, David, ‘Robust Standard Errors for Panel Regressions with Cross-Sectional Dependence’, Stata Journal, 7:3 (2007), 281–312Google Scholar
31 In unreported robustness tests we experimented with various definitions of ‘developing country’ that exclude Mexico and Turkey. The results are nearly identical.
32 Much of this remaining missing data results from the BEA not being able to disclose financial information for country-year pairings in which a single MNC was operating as doing so would violate confidentiality.
33 The quickest a BIT with the United States has moved from signing to entry into force is 358 days (Kyrgyzstan), and the vast majority of BITs enter into force within 2–5 years of signing. Even when entry into force in the near future is practically assured, the process through which that happens typically takes several months to a year. A signed US BIT must be transmitted to the US Senate, receive a hearing in the Committee on Foreign Relations, move back to the Senate for a resolution of advice and consent to ratification, have its instruments of ratification signed by the president and then wait thirty days before it enters into force. The US–Honduras BIT, which is typical in this regard, had been ratified by the Honduran government by 1999 and was submitted to the US Senate for ratification on 23 May 2000. Hearings on the treaty were held on 13 September 2000, and the vote for ratification was taken on 18 October 2000. The treaty finally entered into force on 11 July 2001. There is occasionally the additional step of reconciling divergent translations across versions of the treaty ratified in each country. This process took an additional two years in the case of the US–Jordan BIT. See http://www.jordanembassyus.org/new/aboutjordan/uj4.shtml.
34 The results of these models are available from the authors on request.