Going Global

Author(s):  
Rhys Jenkins

The chapter documents the growth of Chinese outward direct foreign investment (OFDI) and overseas projects carried out by Chinese contractors. The chapter discusses some of the problems in measuring Chinese OFDI. It shows the continuing importance of state-owned enterprises in China’s Go Global policy and discusses whether the international expansion of Chinese firms is primarily state driven or market driven. It shows that although political objectives played a role in the early expansion of Chinese firms, strategic economic factors and commercial objectives have played the most important roles in recent years. Resources and markets have been major drivers of the internationalization of Chinese firms. Chinese firms have also been involved in strategic-asset-seeking investment in developed countries.

1991 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward M. Bilek ◽  
Paul V. Ellefson

Two hundred foreign investments (wholly-owned subsidiaries and joint ventures) were identified for 12 of the nation's 1981 top 20 sales-leading transnational wood-based companies. Investments were scattered over much of the world with a significant preference for developed countries (135 of the 200 foreign investments). Company executives agreed that the ability to compete in world markets would be key to a company's long-term success. Only three companies indicated foreign investments were of growing importance. Factors influencing company decisions about type of foreign investment included length of investment, developed versus developing country, social and political conditions in host country, foreign pressure to reduce equity, control of profit remittances and share of financial burden.


1972 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 763-784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Covey T. Oliver

Signs of inadequacy and crisis in general international law as to the economic ownership interests of aliens have been numerous since World War II. The pages o f the J ournal have recorded and analyzed a number of situations in which the existing legal order is not working well: ineffectual resorts to international adjudication; unilateral disregard of arbitral commitments; national decisions made in the name of international law but of dubious international acceptability; professional frustrations so intense as to have directed prime attention to happenstantial “salvage” operations. In a phase now apparently ended, groups in capital exporting countries have tried time after time to put forward normative formulations of investment codes as new positive law, only to have their efforts ignored in developing countries. Now we seem to be in a new phase, one in which direct investment-receiving, or host, countries, organized into groups or regional arrangements, compact among themselves that a comprehensive normative system shall prevail in each of them as to the legal relationships between foreign investors and each of those countries. Although foreign investment codes for particular states, including systems of prior restraints on entry in some developed countries, are not new, the Andean Foreign Investment Code is, indeed, a new juristic phenomenon. The Editors of the Journal have wished, therefore, to record and analyze preliminarily this new development in transnational investment law, one whose text has been carried in International Legal Materials and considered as to its possible impact in Research Panels organized by the American Society of International Law.


The phenomenal story of China’s ‘unprecedented disposition to engage the international legal order’ has been primarily told and examined by political scientists and economists. Since China adopted its ‘open door’ policy in 1978, which altered its development strategy from self-sufficiency to active participation in the world market and aimed at attracting foreign investment to fuel its economic development, the underlying policy for mobilizing inward foreign direct investment (IFDI) remains unchanged to date. With the 1997 launch of the ‘Going Global’ policy, an outward focus regarding foreign investment has been added, to circumvent trade barriers and improve the competitiveness of Chinese firms, typically its state-owned enterprises (SOEs). In order to accommodate inward and outward FDI, China’s participation in the international investment regime has underpinned its efforts to join multi-lateral investment-related legal instruments and conclude international investment agreements (IIAs). China began by selectively concluding bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with developed countries (major capital exporting states to China at that time), signing its first BIT with Sweden in 1982. Despite being a latecomer, over time China’s experience and practice with the international investment regime have allowed it to evolve towards liberalizing its IIAs regime and balancing the duties and benefits associated with IIAs. The book spans a broad spectrum of China’s contemporary international investment law and policy: domestic foreign investment law and reforms, tax policy, bilateral investment treaties, free trade agreements, G20 initiatives, the ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative, international dispute resolution, and inter-regime coordination.


1989 ◽  
Vol 21 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 221-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Paus

Since 1982, most Latin American countries have witnessed slow economic growth and a persistent net transfer of funds to the rest of the world as a result of sharply reduced inflows of private international bank lending and large debt payment obligations. Against this background direct foreign investment (DFI) has received increasing attention as one important element in overcoming the present stagnation-cum-debt crisis as well as in contributing to renewed economic growth. This article explores the possible contributions of DFI to the future economic growth and development of the region.1


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document