Search

More than 110 Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), many of them developing countries and least-developed countries (LDCs), are negotiating a plurilateral Agreement on Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD). In contract to existing bilateral investment treaties that establish sweeping rules on investment protection and liberalisation, the IFD Agreement aims at increasing the transparency, predictability and efficiency of investment frameworks as well as improving inter-governmental coordination and international cooperation on investment matters. In view of the fact that WTO Members aim at concluding the negotiations by mid-2023, discussions are under way on how the IFD Agreement can successfully be implemented in developing countries, and LDCs in particular. The IFD Agreement includes a comprehensive section on Special and Differential Treatment, which grants developing countries and LDCs longer timeframes as well as technical assistance and capacity development to support implementation. The Agreement also foresees so-called needs assessments at the country level to evaluate countries' readiness and support needs to implement the IFD Agreement. While such needs assessments have been extensively used in the context of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), we lack insights into how such needs assessments can be operationalised in the context of investment facilitation and what kind of implementation challenges are prevalent, in particular in LDCs. To assess implementation gaps, barriers to successful implementation as well as national and international support actions, we conducted pilot needs assessments covering a selected group of IFD Agreement measures with a broad range of stakeholders in three LDCs, namely Lao People's Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), Togo and Zambia. Our pilots indicate that 13 selected provisions of the IFD Agreement have not been sufficiently implemented across the three LDCs. In particular, 64 per cent of analysed provisions have only partially been implement, while the rest have not been implemented at all. These findings underline that, in order to benefit from the IFD Agreement, LDCs need substantial implementation support from the international community. The most striking, commonly identified barriers hindering the full implementation are lack of cooperation and coordination among investment-competent agencies, poor information management for investors as well as limited digitalisation and automatisation. To overcome these barriers, nationally identified actions may focus mainly on the creation of a single information portal for foreign investors and a single-window system to improve authorisation procedures, as well as a clarification of mandates and functions of relevant ministries and institutions. Our research also underlines the importance of a whole-of-government and multi-stakeholder approach. The establishment of a National Investment Facilitation Committee may prove to be an effective instrument to ensure coordination and communication between involved stakeholders. International support should complement national actions with technical assistance and capacity development in investment-related topics, improving information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructures and digitalised processes, as well as fostering the international exchange of best practices. Our pilot needs assessments emphasise that the WTO Secretariat and the negotiating Members should strengthen outreach activities to promote knowledge about the WTO IFD Agreement among national-level stakeholders. In general, our pilots underline that needs assessments are an important instrument for identifying persistent implementation gaps and tailoring technical assistance and capacity development to the demands of Members, especially LDCs.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) flows are at a low point as a result of not only the COVID-19 pandemic but also restrictive FDI policies adopted in recent years. Investment facilitation has gained in importance as a set of practical measures to increase the transparency and predictability of investment frameworks and promote cooperation to advance development. Investment facilitation can help to reduce the transactional and administrative costs faced by foreign investors and contribute to a resilient and sustainable economic recovery. Discussions on a distinct set of investment facilitation policies and measures have gained momentum in recent years. Negotiations are undertaken at the bilateral and regional levels, for example, in the context of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) or the Sustainable Investment Protocol of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA). Another important initiative is underway among members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which are negotiating an Investment Facilitation Framework for Development. This article develops a set of key recommendations for policy-makers on how investment facilitation frameworks can be designed to help attract sustainable FDI for sustainable development and recovery in general. These recommendations can be summarized in three guiding principles: contribute directly to sustainable development, focus on conflict prevention and management, and learn from experiences from other processes such as trade facilitation.

Over the last decade, only a single projection of foreign direct investment (FDI) flows by the United Nations influential "World Investment Report" has proposed a negative outlook in the medium term. Based partly on surveys of business executives, these forecasts reflect expectations of investment growth which, however, have repeatedly failed to materialise. In fact, FDI flows to developing countries have remained stagnant over the past decade. Such wishful thinking is nurtured by a long series of positive narratives and facts about foreign investment. FDI has been one of the pillars of international development efforts for over 70 years. Its promise has not been limited to critical finance, but extends to longer term competitiveness through access to better technology, managerial know-how and, above all, prosperity through more and better paid jobs in the formal sector. From the old prescriptions of the so-called Washington Consensus to the hopeful Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the dominant development narrative has therefore favoured a rather indiscriminate pursuit of investment volume. This brief calls for rethinking of narratives and policies that help to improve the impact of FDI, based on secular trends that challenge our expectations. Four such trends stand out: First, while other sources of finance for development have grown considerably over the last decades, foreign investment has not followed the trend. Second, the kind of investment that is associated with stronger gains and longer term commitment in host economies – greenfield FDI – has also been in consistent decline as a share of total investment, while mergers and acquisitions and project finance have gained in importance. Third, the top 100 multinational enterprises (MNEs), accounting for nearly a quarter of global FDI stock, rely less on employment today than they used to in order to grow their foreign presence. Job creation, knowledge transfer and spillovers are therefore less likely to materialise through the presence of mega-firms and their corresponding investment at scale. Fourth, the growth of Chinese outward FDI within a strategic expansionary political agenda stands to change rules and attitudes towards foreign investment moving forwards. We argue that, collectively, these trends invite a renewed conversation around the kind of foreign investment we want and expectations of this source of finance for development. These facts obscure neither the broad benefits of FDI to developing countries, nor the value proposition of FDI attraction. Rather, they raise questions about expectations, priorities and the alignment of investment policy with the realities experienced across developing countries. To that end, we propose four priorities that stand to make a difference in the current context. We call for policy-makers to: 1) Place additional emphasis on retention of investment and linkages with the domestic economy. 2) Try new approaches for FDI attraction that focus on improving domestic investment facilitation frameworks. 3) Be selective as to investment sources and activities in order to mitigate political risks and align inward investment better with sustainable development. 4) Add evidence to improve our understanding of investment and inform decision-making. Overall, it is critical to engage in a serious multi-stakeholder conversation around expectations, actors and solutions that respond to the investment reality of today., Briefing Paper

The China-EU comprehensive investment agreement (CAI) addresses important issues of market access, regulatory cooperation and sustainable development, but does not include sections on investment protection and ISDS. The ratification of the CAI could be difficult in the EU. Additional efforts are needed in further negotiating the CAI in the future.

This article introduces a new and unique dataset for measuring the adoption of investment facilitation measures at country level. The Investment Facilitation Index (IFI) covers 117 individual investment facilitation measures, clustered in six policy areas, and maps their adoption for 86 countries. This article presents the conceptual and methodological background of the IFI and provides a first analysis of the level of adoption of investment facilitation measures across countries participating in the investment facilitation for development negotiations in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Our dataset reveals novel insights. Countries which have lower levels of adoption belong to the low-income and lower-middle-income country group and are often located in Africa, the Middle East and to some extent Latin America and the Caribbean. The strong correlation between FDI and the IFI score shows that countries with the lowest levels of FDI, and thus in need of policy tools to attract FDI, have the lowest levels of adoption when it comes to investment facilitation measures. Our dataset has direct relevance for current policy discussions on investment facilitation for development in the WTO but also for domestic-level policy-making. Furthermore, the IFI provides the basis for a future research agenda to assess the design and impact of a future WTO agreement., Discussion Paper

In recent years, the Group of Seven (G7) and Group of Twenty (G20) have placed increasing emphasis on gender equality. As part of this focus, the member states of both institutions have set out a series of objectives aimed at advancing gender equality. This report examines the degree to which these goals have been implemented in Germany. First, the gender equality goals that both institutions have set out since 2009 are presented and systematised. The report then investigates the current state of progress in Germany and describes measures that have already been undertaken to implement the goals., Discussion Paper

Für die Umsetzung der Agenda 2030 für Nachhaltige Entwicklung sind enorme Investitionen auf globaler Ebene nötig, dennoch bleiben Entwicklungsländer oftmals von globalen Flüssen ausländischer Direktinvestitionen (ADI) ausgeschlossen. Neben wirtschaftlichen Determinanten, wie Marktgröße, Infrastruktur oder Arbeitsmärkten, spielen die Vorhersagbarkeit, Effizienz und Transparenz der regulatorischen Rahmenbedingungen eine zentrale Rolle. Steuerliche Anreize und internationale Investitionsabkommen (IIAs) haben dagegen kaum Auswirkungen auf ADI (Weltbank, 2018). Vor diesem Hintergrund fordern die Agenda 2030 für nachhaltige Entwicklung und die Aktionsagenda zur Entwicklungsfinanzierung von Addis Abeba einen geeigneten internationalen Rahmen, der Investitionen in Entwicklungsländern befördert und deren Beitrag zu nachhaltiger Entwicklung stärkt. In diesem Zusammenhang ist es von Bedeutung, dass im Rahmen der 11. Ministerkonferenz der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) im Dezember 2017 eine Ministererklärung verabschiedet wurde, die Aufnahme sogenannter "Structured Discussions" mit dem Ziel fordert, ein "multilaterales Rahmenwerk für Investment Facilitation zu errichten". Investment Facilitation ist ein neuer Ansatz, der verschiedene praktische Maßnahmen umfasst, die darauf abzielen, nationale Investitionssysteme transparenter und vorhersehbarer zu machen, die Verfahren für ausländische Investoren zu vereinfachen und die Koordination und Kooperation der wichtigsten Akteure zu verbessern. Die seit März 2018 laufenden Structured Discussions zeigen, dass eine Reihe von Mitglieder die WTO nachwievor als geeignetes Forum zur Verhandlung neuer Themen sehen. Während es zuvor Industrieländer waren, die vor 20 Jahren in der WTO ein multilaterales Investitionsabkommen durchzusetzen versuchten, geht die Initiative zur Verhandlung eines internationalen Rahmens Investment Facilitation (Investment Facilitation Framework - IFF) heute vor allem von Schwellen- und Entwicklungsländern aus. Viele dieser Länder haben sich in den vergangenen Jahren zu Gast- und Heimatländern für ADI entwickelt. Ihre gestärkte Rolle hat dazu geführt, dass nunmehr praktische Investment Facilitation-Maßnahmen zur Förderung von ADI in Entwicklungsländern auf der Agenda stehen und strittige Punkte, wie die Liberalisierung und der Schutz von Investitionen sowie die Investor-Staat-Schiedsklauseln außen vor gelassen werden. Das vorliegende Paper gibt einen Überblick über die Debatte über ein internationales Rahmenwerk für Investment Facilitation. Wir skizzieren vier zentrale Herausforderungen bei der Aushandlung eines Rahmenwerks für Investment Facilitation innerhalb der WTO, das auf eine nachhaltige Entwicklung ausgerichtet ist: Die genaue Konzeptionalisierung von Investment Facilitation, als Vorrausetzung für empirische Untersuchungen der potentiellen Auswirkungen eines IFF. Der Schutz des Politikspielraums von Entwicklungsländern und der Aufbau ihrer Verhandlungskapazitäten. Die Unterstützung von Governance-Mechanismen auf nationaler Ebene für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Transparenz gegenüber den Ländern, die noch nicht an den Gesprächen teilnehmen und gesellschaftlichen Akteuren als zentrale Voraussetzung für einen erfolgreichen Ausgang des Prozesses., Analysen und Stellungnahmen

A WTO framework for investment facilitation can contribute to sustainable development if it strengthens developing countries’ capacities, respects policy space, allows for longer implementation periods, enhances responsible business conduct and supports multi-stakeholder cooperation., Briefing Paper

While global investment needs are enormous in order to bolster the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, developing countries are often excluded from global foreign direct investment (FDI) flows. Beyond economic fundamentals like market size, infrastructure and labour, the impediments to FDI in developing countries relate to the predictability, transparency and ease of the regulatory environment. In contrast, tax incentives and international investment agreements (IIAs) have been found to be less important (World Bank, 2018). To harness the advantages of FDI, it is critical that governments have policies and regulations in place that help to attract and retain FDI and enhance its contribution to sustainable development. The 2030 Agenda and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, thus, call for appropriate international frameworks to support investments in developing countries. In this context, the Joint Ministerial Statement on Investment Facilitation for Development adopted at the 11th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in December 2017 called for the start of “structured discussions with the aim of developing a multilateral framework on investment facilitation”. Investment facilitation refers to a set of practical measures concerned with improving the transparency and predictability of investment frameworks, streamlining procedures related to foreign investors, and enhancing coordination and cooperation between stakeholders, such as host and home country government, foreign investors and domestic corporations, as well as societal actors. Despite the deadlock in the WTO’s 17-year-old Doha Round negotiations, the structured discussions on investment facilitation, which have been under way since March 2018, show that the members of the WTO take a strong interest in using the WTO as a platform to negotiate new international rules at the interface of trade and investment. In contrast to previous attempts by developed countries to establish multilateral rules for investment, the structured discussions are mainly driven by emerging and developing countries. Most of them have evolved over the past years into FDI host and home countries reflecting the changing geography of economic power in the world. Their increased role has led to a shift of policy agendas, focusing on practical measures to promote FDI in developing countries while excluding contentious issues such as investment liberalisation and protection, and investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS). This policy brief provides an overview of the emerging policy debate about investment facilitation. We highlight that four key challenges need to be tackled in order to negotiate an investment facilitation framework (IFF) in the WTO that supports sustainable development: There is a need to properly conceptualise the scope of investment facilitation as a basis for empirical analyses of the potential impact of a multilateral IFF. Many less- and least-developed countries do not yet participate in the structured discussions. It is necessary to enhance their capacity to participate in the structured discussions and address their specific concerns. In order to enhance the contribution of FDI to sustainable development it is necessary to support the development of governance mechanisms at the domestic level. It is key to ensure transparency towards countries not yet participating in the discussions, the business sector and societal actors to support a successful policy process., Briefing Paper

Information blir mer lättillgängligt och marknadsföringen är under ständig förändring. Det leder till att företag kan utöka sina konkurrensfördelar om man ligger i framkant inom dessa områden. Företag kan nå detta genom snabbare tillväxt som kan ske med hjälp av att outsourca vissa arbetsprocesser. Denna studie undersöker 217 Gasellföretags val av marknadsföringsstrategi åren innan den tilldelade listplatsen av Dagens Industri år 2017. Empirin är inhämtat via en digital enkätundersökning som skickades till företagen per e-post. Resultatet av studien visar att marknadsföring som hanterats in-house kombinerat med outsourcing av vissa arbetsprocesser genererat högst tillväxt. Vidare har tjänsteföretag högst tillväxt och den bransch som uppvisat högst tillväxt är ​media följt av ​bygg​. Orsakerna till att behålla arbetsprocesser in-house är högst relaterat till ekonomiska skäl och minst associerat till säkerhet och integritet. Marknadsföring online är den kanal som används mest där hemsida var främst framträdande. Högre tillväxt är dock inte alltid associerat till större marknadsandelar på internationell nivå.

With a collective responsibility for 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions, while representing 80% of global wealth, it is imperative that the countries of the G20 throw their weight behind the implementation of both the Paris Climate Agree-ment and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In the past, the G20 has demonstrated that it can do that. The G20 Summit in November 2015 in Antalya, Turkey, provided strong support for the climate agreement signed a month later at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris. In 2016 in Hangzhou, China, the G20 adopted an Action Plan on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and committed to “further align its work” with the 2030 Agenda. Even though both agendas have emerged in the multilateral context of the United Nations system, the G20 is expected to exert strong political leadership to address global climate change and to achieve sustainable development. Yet, since 2017 the G20 has struggled to provide such leadership, as support for multilateral commitments, especially those involving ambitious climate actions, appears to be fading. Crucially, opposition to strong multilateral climate policy in the US and Brazil resorts to outright climate denialism at the highest levels of government. These developments are challenging the G20, and BRICS and the G7 for that matter, to sustain support for multilateral commitments on climate and sustainable development. The rise of populist and unilaterally minded parties in European club members may further the risk of side-lining climate and sustainability-related issues in the G20 process. This does not bode well at a time when the G20’s support could be a vital ingredient for the success of the United Nations’ summits on climate action and sustainable development, both scheduled to convene in New York in September 2019 – less than three months after the Osaka G20 Summit in Japan. Following our analysis, we identify four ways forward that should be conducive to harnessing the G20’s economic weight and political clout to push more ambitious global action towards climate-friendly sustainable development, in spite of apparent discrepancies between domestic agendas and global understandings: Strive for strong political declarations in support of the multilateral commitments on climate and sustainable development. Yet, focus at the same time on advancing specific issue-centred initiatives that are palatable to domestic audiences and compatible with the objectives of the Paris Agreement and 2030 Agenda, without framing them as “climate policy” or “sustainability policy”. Embrace non-state and subnational actors as strategic partners to safeguard continuity in times of antagonistic member governments and volatile policies, as well as to build capacities and strengthen implementation of pertinent policies. The so-called G20 Engagement Groups representing business, labour, civil society, women and think tanks are key partners in this respect. G20 workstreams should strive to co-produce specific climate- and sustainability-related initiatives across G20 workstreams as a means to overcome policy silos and to increase ownership and uptake beyond the “usual suspects”. The Think20 (T20) should concentrate – rather than further expand – pertinent expertise and policy advice to leverage crosscutting action by G20 workstreams. Furthermore, detaching its working approach from the official G20 calendar could improve its ability to inform strategic agenda setting., Briefing Paper

Investment-facilitation discussions have been dynamic recently in international forums such as the G20 and the WTO. Interestingly, this agenda is pursued by developed and developing countries alike. While multilateral rules would be preferable, a plurilateral agreement negotiated among a group of like-minded countries seems most promising – at least for now.