Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Direct Investment Political Geography North America Content Type Working Paper Publication Year within 10 Years Publication Year within 25 Years

1. Reshuffling Value Chains - South Korea as a Case Study

Author:
Françoise Nicolas
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
Despite all the talks about the reshuffling of value-chains and the trend to a form of industrial “Desinicization” (or decoupling/disengagement from China), the example of South Korea does not vindicate such assertions. The expansion of Korean direct investment in neighboring countries such as China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) remains a reality and it has not changed in any fundamental way over the past two decades. South Korean companies’ decisions to locate in one country rather than another are still very much based on cost factors, even if security considerations are increasingly factored in. Similarly, reshoring, which has been high on the South Korean government’s agenda for a long time, remains a marginal phenomenon for South Korean companies, despite the incentives provided. Rather than the relocation of production (in the form of reshoring or nearshoring) South Korean companies have turned to more unexpected options, such as the development of complementarity-based partnerships or vertically-integrated production networks with commodity suppliers, as in the case of the production of rare earth-based magnets. Such a strategy is likely to become more popular in the future, as it nicely combines economic and security considerations. Without a doubt, due to the highly politicized nature of the technology involved, the semiconductor industry is the one undergoing the most significant changes. In a context of rising Sino-US rivalry, the US has ramped up pressures on China with far-reaching consequences, leading South Korean semiconductor companies (with the support of the government) to engage in a strategy combining relocation to the US and onshoring in South Korea. While the economic logic is likely to prevail in most sectors thus limiting the scope for supply chain reshuffling, the examples of the semiconductor and rare earth-based magnets suggest that important changes can still be expected in the future in industries that are deemed strategic.
Topic:
Foreign Direct Investment, Supply Chains, Value Chains, and Semiconductors
Political Geography:
China, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

2. Cooperation Between the United States and Pakistan: What is the Future?

Author:
Riaz A. Khokhar
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Within the Indo-Pacific region, the United States and Pakistan have sharply divergent strategic objectives. While American objectives have changed over time, focusing in recent years on rivalry with China, Pakistan’s strategic objective has remained constant—to maintain a balance of power with India. Yet Pakistan retains close strategic and economic ties with China, and the United States considers India an important strategic partner. Nevertheless, the two countries have worked together for nearly two decades toward two tactical goals—achieving a political settlement in Afghanistan and eliminating terrorism in South Asia. There is potential for them to cooperate more broadly, for example, increasing direct foreign investment to Pakistan and helping Islamabad balance its relations with the United States and China. Washington’s willingness to expand such cooperation will depend on Pakistan’s cooperation in fighting terrorism in the region.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Terrorism, Power Politics, Foreign Direct Investment, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, South Asia, India, North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

3. Sustainable Energy through Green bonds in India

Author:
Olaf Weber and Vasundhara Saravade
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations
Abstract:
India’s energy future needs to be low-carbon, climate-resilient and protected against price fluctuation. It can meet these needs by investing in Canadian oil companies, given the country’s political stability and rule of law. India can also attract greater foreign direct investment at home through the issuance of green bonds, a climate finance debt instrument that addresses environmental and climate-related challenges. This paper explores the regulatory perspective of the green bond market.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, Foreign Direct Investment, Rule of Law, and Renewable Energy
Political Geography:
South Asia, Canada, India, and North America

4. Could a Bridge between the EU and Latin America Boost Innovation “Sovereignty” in a Multipolar World?

Author:
Nicola Bilotta and Alissa Siara
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
The economic ramifications of COVID-19 will accentuate the technological innovation gap between Latin America and the rest of the world. In a region already suffering from chronic underinvestment in research and development, the strain placed on government budgets by the pandemic-induced economic crisis will push innovation further back down the agenda. The region has compensated for a lack of domestic resources with foreign capital and technology imports from China and the United States. As the US–China relationship becomes more adversarial in the face of COVID, however, Latin America will emerge as a geopolitical battleground whose countries may be forced to choose sides and potentially lose out on capital inflows or technology imports. Navigating this potential storm will involve the region in a search for other options. Public–private partnerships with European Union firms represent one valuable possibility, but Europe and Latin America should first align their innovation agendas.
Topic:
International Relations, Science and Technology, Sovereignty, Foreign Direct Investment, European Union, Institutions, Coronavirus, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
China, South America, Latin America, North America, and United States of America

5. 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 Relations
Political Geography:
China, Asia, Latin America, North America, and United States of America

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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