Blog Post

A European framework for foreign investment

Following the publication of Bruegel‘s Policy Brief on the same topic, Nicolas Véron and Lars-Hendrik Röller advocate a European legislative initiative on the review of inward foreign investment for national and European security purposes. European security concerns about foreign investment have produced opaque and inconsistent responses by national governments. This column makes the case for […]

By: and Date: December 5, 2008 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

Following the publication of Bruegel‘s Policy Brief on the same topic, Nicolas Véron and Lars-Hendrik Röller advocate a European legislative initiative on the review of inward foreign investment for national and European security purposes.

European security concerns about foreign investment have produced opaque and inconsistent responses by national governments. This column makes the case for establishing a EU authority to address the issue in an open, comprehensive and sustainable manner rather than allowing the proliferation of disparate national regulatory initiatives. The openness of the EU investment environment is at stake.

Europeans have long prided themselves of their ability to remove border signs. For themselves, they have achieved the EU’s own internal market, first for coal and steel and then for all other goods – even though the job remains to be finished on certain services – as well as, increasingly, for labour and capital. On the global scene, both EU institutions and EU participation in global institutions have been instrumental in pushing common norms to liberalise investment flows, as Rawi Abdelal has documented in his intriguing Capital Rules(1) A ‘world without borders’ is a mainstay of what world-war-scarred Europeans consider inspirational rhetoric.
But the same Europeans have also lately often displayed scepticism bordering on hostility towards foreign investment. Franz Müntefering, the German centre-left leader, in April 2005 famously compared (implicitly foreign) private equity funds to locusts. The slogan of ‘economic patriotism’ has been officially embraced by France in 2005 to promote the defence of ‘national champions’ against ‘foreign predators’. Nicolas Sarkozy has expanded this rhetoric since his election last year. In a series of highly publicised and often embarrassing cases, governments have attempted – sometimes successfully, sometimes not – to prevent iconic companies from being taken over by non-domestic players: names that spring to mind include Beiersdorf, Danone, Antonveneta, BNL, Arcelor, Suez, Autostrade, Endesa, or Société Générale. More recently, the emergence of sovereign wealth funds as global financial players, increasingly identified as a distinct category since the spring of 2007, has been met with concern in many European debates.
Is the defensive mood correlated with actual changes in patterns of investment? And what should Europeans do about it? In a paper(2) recently published by Bruegel, we use political regime analysis by Freedom House, a respected international NGO, to analyse which type of countries currently hold most investment capability.
Seen through this lens, there has been an astounding rise of countries with illiberal political regimes in terms of current-account balances over the past decade. Over a few years, these countries have become by far the largest holders of surpluses, and therefore the largest potential investors internationally.
This rise cannot continue indefinitely, but illiberal countries’ surpluses are likely to stabilise at a high level and to result in significant investments in the years to come, including in developed countries which hold about
four-fifths of global financial assets (3).
There are good reasons to think that the rise in defensive or protectionist attitudes, and the concern about sovereign wealth funds, is directly linked to this new dominance of countries with illiberal regimes on the global investment scene. The situation of the cold war and post-cold-war periods, when almost all inward investment into the EU came from countries which could be safely assumed to be long-term ‘friends’, no longer holds.
A rough indicator of public attitudes, the frequency of the word ‘protectionism’ in the press in three major European languages (measured from the Factiva database), illustrates a marked step up exactly at the same time when investment from illiberal countries started to emerge in the West, with a spike at the time of the Dubai Ports World controversy (early 2006) and a permanently high level since then.
 Under a rational risk analysis, there can indeed be situations in which foreign investment creates a security threat, either by wrecking entire economies – say, through a currency shock – or by leveraging the acquisition of a specific company. Conversely, inflated or misinformed perceptions of threat create the risk of a protectionist drift, especially in the EU where protectionist attitudes of individual countries can impair the integrity of the internal market as a whole.
Specifically looking at risks resulting from acquisitions and the corresponding possibility of protectionist backlash, the investment patterns resulting from the new global current-account landscape warrant a re-examination of existing policies that cover foreign investment.
To be sure, sovereign investment – including that from sovereign wealth funds but also other government controlled investment, e.g. by state-controlled enterprises or public bodies such as China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange or the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency – has been benign so far, and worries about security implications have not been substantiated. Such investment helps recipient countries by bringing much-needed capital, especially in the current context, and also creates beneficial economic interdependencies between different parts of the world.
Moreover, investing countries increasingly recognise the need to proactively allay the fears that their newfound wealth may stoke in recipient countries. In the most meaningful step so far, even though it remains unfinished business, 26 countries with sovereign wealth funds last month endorsed the so-called ‘Santiago principles’ or ‘generally accepted principles and practices’ prepared during the previous few months by an international working group under the aegis of the International Monetary Fund. Under this process, we will gradually know more about how sovereign wealth funds are governed and, to a limited extent, about the nature of their investments.
But such initiatives, constructive as they are, will not be sufficient to address Europe’s policy challenges. First, investment transparency can go only so far in countries where government is otherwise generally opaque and unaccountable. Brad Setser and Arpana Pandey at the Council of Foreign Relations have built a remarkable image of the correlation between the democratic nature of a political regime (measured by the Economist Intelligence Unit) and the transparency of corresponding sovereign wealth fund (measured by the gauge created by Ted Truman at the Peterson Institute for International Economics).
Second, while investing countries have strong economic incentives to ‘play by the rules’ of international investment as embodied in the Santiago principles, they can also be sometimes tempted to act otherwise, for a variety of political, economic or financial reasons. Third, the developed world’s leverage in this game is limited, as it generally needs the investing countries’ money and cannot realistically impose a specific behaviour upon them. Thus, relying on investing countries’ initiatives alone is not enough to respond to the emerging new picture of foreign investment.
Today, each EU member state has its own policy as regards the security consequences of foreign investment.
Some countries, such as the UK, or Germany following the recent adoption of new legislation, have adopted policies which, if reasonably implemented, provide the government with the means to mitigate the risks in the national space. In others, such as France, the existing regulatory framework covers only a limited sectoral scope, but the state sometimes intervenes outside of a formal process to ward off foreign acquirers. As a whole, this policy area is not dealt with consistently in the EU.
EU-level competencies such as competition and trade policies are unsuited to the consideration of security aspects. Nor is there an EU-level intelligence community that could support relevant security assessments. The upshot is policy instability at member state level, an inability to address certain risks on some member states, and an overall investment environment which offers insufficient clarity and predictability to foreign investors.
Twenty years ago, the US had a similar debate and created a policy framework for the assessment of foreign acquisitions for security purposes with the Exon-Florio amendment to the Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, which created a formal review process carried out by a Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS) chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury. Without copying CFIUS, which has shortcomings of its own, Europeans should develop a policy framework that is at least as open, comprehensive and sustainable. For this, it needs to provide a common legislative framework, while recognising that implementation, including individual security assessments of foreign acquisitions and the corresponding link with the intelligence community, has to remain national as it cannot be credibly carried out by the EU institutions in their current form.
Such legislation would include a common objective of defending national and European security, as well as a harmonised process to significantly reduce the legal uncertainty that may be associated with fragmented national approaches. It would also introduce exchanges of information and best practices at EU level, which does not currently exist. It would thus provide a more robust structure than that currently provided by the Treaty on the European Community, which in the current global context does not go far enough to anchor member states’ investment review policies and prevent a protectionist drift.
European debates have long focused on removing any controls of cross-border investment, and discussing such a review process beyond the national level would be something new. But in view of the rising prospect of investment from illiberal countries, the alternative is a proliferation of disparate national regulatory initiatives rather than a benign status quo. It is high time for Europeans to initiate serious discussions among themselves about security risks, if they are to maintain, and hopefully even improve, the openness of their investment environment.

References

1 Rawi Abdelal, Capital Rules: The Construction of Global Finance, Harvard University Press, 2007
2 ‘Safe and Sound: An EU Approach to Sovereign Investment’, Bruegel Policy Brief 2008/08, November 2008
(/9146)
3 McKinsey Global Institute, Mapping Global Capital Markets, January 2008

This comment was also published in VOX.eu.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.


Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/bruegelo/public_html/wp-content/themes/bruegel/content.php on line 449
View comments
Read about event

Upcoming Event

Jan
24
12:30

Corporate taxation in the digital era

How can we address digital taxation in the EU? Is the proposed "equalisation tax" on turnover the best policy to tackle the challeges posed by digital taxation?

Speakers: Johannes Becker, Dmitri Jegorov, Maria Demertzis, Stephen Quest, Stef van Weeghel and Georgios Petropoulos Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Blueprint

People on the move: migration and mobility in the European Union

Migration is one of the most divisive policy topics in today’s Europe. In this publication, the authors assess the immigration challenge that the EU faces, analyse public perceptions, map migration patterns in the EU and review the literature on the economic impact of immigration to reflect on immigration policies and the role of private institutions in fostering integration.

By: Uuriintuya Batsaikhan, Zsolt Darvas and Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 22, 2018
Read about event

Past Event

Past Event

A conversation with Jin Liqun, president of AIIB

We were pleased to host Jin Liqun, the president of Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank at Bruegel.

Speakers: Sven Biscop, Guntram B. Wolff and Jin Liqun Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: January 22, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Jan
29
09:30

Integration of migrants in the EU

This event will discuss the integration of migrants in the EU as well as the EU's response to the recent refugee crisis

Speakers: Manu Bhardwaj, Herbert Brücker, Jutta Cordt, Zsolt Darvas, Naika Foroutan, Marcel Fratzscher, Manjula M. Luthria and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Mohrenstraße 58, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Jan
30
12:30

Why think tanks matter in the era of digital and political disruptions

Bruegel is pleased to host this panel discussion as part of the global launch of the 2018 Global Go To Think Tank Index, published by the University of Pennsylvania’s Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program.

Speakers: Matt Dann, Shada Islam, Blanche Leridon and Hlib Vyshlinsky Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Feb
2
10:30

Europe’s immigration and integration challenges: Financial and labour market dimensions

The event, organised by Bruegel in cooperation with the Institute for International Affairs will discuss these and related questions and will also feature the launch in Rome of the study authored by Zsolt Darvas on the impact and integration of migrants in the European Union.

Speakers: Roberto Ciciani, Zsolt Darvas, Marcela Escobari, Tatiana Esposito, Manjula M. Luthria, Carlo Monticelli, James Politi and Nathalie Tocci Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Rome, Italy
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Remaking Europe

This instalment of the Sound of Economics features Bruegel fellows Reinhilde Veugelers, Simone Tagliapietra and J. Scott Marcus explain how European industries are adapting to new manufacturing, and what more can be done to help EU countries and companies keep pace with the burgeoning 'Industry 4.0'

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 19, 2018
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Policy Contribution

Risk reduction through Europe’s distressed debt market

The resolution of non-performing loans (NPLs), a stock of roughly €870 billion in the EU banking industry, is central to the recovery of Europe’s banking sector and the restructuring of the excess debt owed by private sector borrowers. Could the development of distressed debt markets be a new element of capital market deepening in Europe?

By: Alexander Lehmann Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: January 18, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Macroprudential policy: The Maginot line of financial stability

The ability of macroprudential policies to assure financial stability and thus leave central banks free to assign the interest rate tool exclusively to price stability is unproven. As the Maginot line did not protect France from a German invasion in WWII, so macroprudential policy may not be sufficient to counter financial instability. Central banks should prepare to deal with dilemmas in the use of the interest rate.

By: Francesco Papadia Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 17, 2018
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

External Publication

Reconciling risk sharing with market discipline: A constructive approach to euro area reform

This publication, written by a group of independent French and German economists, proposes six reforms which, if delivered as a package, would improve the Eurozone’s financial stability, political cohesion, and potential for delivering prosperity to its citizens, all while addressing the priorities and concerns of participating countries.

By: Agnès Bénassy-Quéré, Markus K. Brunnermeier, Henrik Enderlein, Emmanuel Farhi, Marcel Fratzscher, Clemens Fuest, Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, Philippe Martin, Jean Pisani-Ferry, Hélène Rey, Isabel Schnabel, Nicolas Véron, Beatrice Weder di Mauro and Jeromin Zettelmeyer Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 17, 2018
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

External Publication

Analysis of development in EU capital flows in the global context

The monitoring and analysis of capital movements is essential for policymakers, given that capital flows can have welfare implications. This report, commissioned by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, aims to analyse capital movements in the European Union in a global context.

By: Grégory Claeys, Maria Demertzis, Konstantinos Efstathiou, Inês Goncalves Raposo, Pia Hüttl and Alexander Lehmann Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: January 15, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Bad News and Good News for the Single Resolution Board

A first report on a key plank of the European Union’s banking union reflects on shortcomings thus far, but also suggests that recent improvements might ultimately lead the SRB to be successful in its critical missions.

By: Nicolas Véron Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: January 15, 2018
Load more posts