Arguments Used for Restricting International Real Property Transactions: Case Study of Latvia

Abstract

There is a wide range of factors - political, economic, legal, etc., which either limit or promote international real property transactions. It is considered that real property alienation to foreigners enhances foreign investment and economic development, however, some countries tend to limit such transactions. The current research provides a scientific view to reveal the reasons why certain countries impose different kinds of restrictions on international real property transactions. The objectives of this publication are: 1) to find out and analyse the existing arguments and reasons for limiting international real property transactions; 2) to determine the number and volume of international real property transactions in Latvia; 3) to identify the main argumentation for the current step and significant decline of international real property transactions in Latvia. Empirical analysis based on the review of scientific publications, statistical and comparative analysis of real property transactions are the main methods employed for this research.

Limiting the Program of Temporary Residence Permits for Foreigners Based on Real Property Investment in Latvia

“…There were a number of arguments used in 2014 regarding household growth, real property price increase, tax payments, impact on the labour market and business activities in different sectors of the economy (Siliņa-Osmane, Ieviņa, & Briede, 2014;Blūzma, 2015;Vanags & Usenieks, 2015) to limit the international real property transactions in Latvia; however, the argument "a threat to national security" prevailed (Viesturs, Auziņš, & Štaube, 2017).…”

“…The main arguments used by the governments to limit foreign investments in real property, according to the previous research (Viesturs, J., Auziņš, A., & Štaube, T. (2017). Arguments Used for Restricting International Real Property Transactions: Case Study of Latvia), are as follows: threat to national security (Vrountas, 1990;Hodgson, Cullinan, & Campbell, 1999;Gugushvili, 2016), protection of national resources (Lazarus, 1987;Hodgson et al, 1999;Wilson, 2012), threat to national ____________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5 249 sovereignty (Vrountas, 1990;Tirres, 2013;Qin, 2015), anti-immigration policy (Lazarus, 1987;Hodgson et al, 1999;Qin, 2015;Gugushvili, 2016), national and cultural identity protection (Vrountas, 1990;Hodgson et al, 1999;Wood, 2004;Gugushvili, 2016), nationalistic sentiment (Hodgson et al, 1999;Vrountas, 1990;Gugushvili, 2016), xenophobia and sentiment against foreigners (Lazarus, 1987;Wood, 2004;Tirres, 2013), prevention of land speculation (Lazarus, 1987;Vrountas, 1990;Hodgson et al, 1999), prevention of land price increase (Lazarus, 1987;Vrountas, 1990;Fairbairn, 2015), ethnic argument (Lazarus, 1987;Wood, 2004;Tirres, 2013), protection of native farmers (Lazarus, 1987;Tirres, 2013), and questionable allegiance …”