Investment Screening before, during, and after COVID-19

Gertz, Geoffrey

doi:10.1525/gp.2021.24538

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Paradoxically, now that the neoliberal pro-globalization consensus of the 1990s and 2000s seems to be unravelling, the disconnect between discursive and material developments in the world economy may be moving to the other extreme. Over the past years, growing tensions between the US and China, in particular, have led to a gradual (re-)securitization of economic policy discourses, as narratives about the need to "decouple" or "derisk" the world's largest two economies have taken a hold in global economic policy circles (Babic, 2021;Bauerle Danzman & Meunier, 2024;Gertz, 2021;Meunier & Nicolaidis, 2019). While the strategies proposed by different actors vary, they share a renewed emphasis on geoeconomics, understood as an increased "securitization of economic policy and economization of strategic policy" (Wesley, 2016, p. 4).…”

Section: Discourses Of (Hyper-)globalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Myth of Deglobalization: Multinational Corporations in an Era of Growing Geopolitical Rivalries

Linsi,

Gristwood

2024

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globalization is past its peak, we are told. The rise of populist anti-globalization movements and the return of geopolitical rivalries among great powers in the 2010s has put an end to free-wheeling corporate global capitalism. Or has it? This article summons available data on cross-border corporate investments at the level of countries (balance of payments), firms (subsidiaries and affiliates), and corporate managers (industry surveys). It pays special attention to the period between 2015 and 2021, which spans the election of President Trump and the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic that have unsettled global politics. We analyze global patterns in foreign direct investment positions and in particular the evolution of investments by US corporations in China, arguably a “most likely case” for deglobalization. Our analyses find no evidence that economic cross-border integration is in decline. The global allocation of corporate investments across the world’s major economic regions has remained stable. US corporations have not notably reduced their global activities. If anything, their aggregate investment position in China has increased during the Trump administration’s trade war. Overall, the results cast empirical doubts on prominent narratives about the state of the global economy. Geoeconomic transformations in world economic infrastructures may well be underway, but they are better understood as new and adapted forms of internationalization rather than the end of globalization.

show abstract

Section: Discourses Of (Hyper-)globalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Myth of Deglobalization: Multinational Corporations in an Era of Growing Geopolitical Rivalries

Linsi,

Gristwood

2024

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, US diplomatic pressure to implement and technical assistance to support investment screening created further pressure to develop ISMs 10 . And, Covid‐19 exposed supply chain fragilities that made it easier for countries to secure popular support to quickly pass ISM legislation and made it more challenging for business groups to launch effective counter‐lobby campaigns (Gertz, 2021).…”

Section: Investment Screening and The Blurring Of Economic And Nation...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Naïve no more: Foreign direct investment screening in the European Union

Danzman

Meunier

2023

Global Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper asks what explains the creation and comparative features of national Investment Screening Mechanisms (ISMs) in Europe. After providing a brief history and definition of ISMs, we provide descriptive patterns about the similarities and differences in the investment screening features of national ISMs in EU member states. We then explain differences in national screening policies by focusing on the role of public debt, Chinese investment, R&D expenditures and various geographic groupings. Finally, we make three policy arguments about the rise of ISMs in Europe: (1) ISMs have not been designed as protectionist instruments, (2) the politics of inward investment screening reflects a shift from economic to security logic in addressing the fundamental tension between the benefits and vulnerabilities of open markets and (3) the EU can use the 'commercialisation' of security to extend its own competence in the security sphere. We conclude by considering how the rapid expansion of investment screening in Europe could affect economic openness, as well as the role of the EU as a global actor.

show abstract

“…As the findings show, taking legitimacy seriously can lead to a more complete account of the remarkable transformation in the international investment policy regime over the past decades. At the same time, it promises to help us better understand the return of investment restrictions in most recent years (Babić & Dixon, 2022;Danzman & Meunier, 2021;Gertz, 2021;Linsi, 2021), which has gone hand in hand with an anti-globalist movement in which discursive strategies tapping into themes of earlier economic statist narratives have played a prominent role. The remainder of the article is organized as follows: The argument is briefly situated in the literature, followed by an elaboration of the empirical strategy and the presentation of key findings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Narratives and the Legitimacy of Foreign Direct Investments

Linsi

2022

PaG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the 1990s, the primary focus of the international investment regime shifted from the restriction and regulation towards the promotion and attraction of foreign companies. Dominant accounts in the international political economy literature emphasize the role of interests and institutions in explaining this policy shift but pay little attention to their legitimation. This article argues that transformations in dominant economic discourses—and in particular the rise of the competitiveness narrative—played an important role in granting legitimacy to this U-turn in international economic affairs. To test the argument, the article focuses on the impact of the differential changes in the portrayal of greenfield and mergers and acquisitions (M&A) inward foreign direct investments (IFDI) in economic discourses in the UK before and after the rise of the competitiveness narrative. In line with the theoretical argument, findings indicate that individuals who passed their early adulthood in a period in which the narrative of economic statism was still prevalent hold notably more skeptical views of M&A IFDI even though they are otherwise not more opposed to investments from abroad. A causal mediation analysis lends further empirical support to the argument.

show abstract

Investment Screening before, during, and after COVID-19

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

The Myth of Deglobalization: Multinational Corporations in an Era of Growing Geopolitical Rivalries

The Myth of Deglobalization: Multinational Corporations in an Era of Growing Geopolitical Rivalries

Naïve no more: Foreign direct investment screening in the European Union

Economic Narratives and the Legitimacy of Foreign Direct Investments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About