Foreign Aid’s Effect on Political Risks for Foreign Direct Investment: A Literature Review

IF 0.2 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS MGIMO Review of International Relations Pub Date : 2023-11-13 DOI:10.24833/2071-8160-2023-5-92-155-188
V. I. Bartenev
{"title":"Foreign Aid’s Effect on Political Risks for Foreign Direct Investment: A Literature Review","authors":"V. I. Bartenev","doi":"10.24833/2071-8160-2023-5-92-155-188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The last decade has seen an increasing focus on the involvement of the private sector in international sustainable development, particularly in high-risk jurisdictions. This involvement encompasses a broad spectrum, incorporating innovative private sector instruments—now acknowledged as ODA-eligible by the OECD—as well as traditional tools of external official support to developing countries, which remain the primary contributors to ODA flows. This literature review aims to consolidate the academic exploration of the enduring classic foreign aid tools' impact on the political risks associated with foreign direct investment (FDI), and identifies prevalent limitations while suggesting approaches to overcome these challenges.The first section delineates the central theme and rationale behind the literature selection process, utilizing the Google Scholar database to contextualize the research within a comprehensive framework. The subsequent section categorizes and compares the most relevant studies based on formal criteria and methodological parameters. Sections three and four critically assess the scholarly contributions in conceptualizing the mitigating influence of foreign aid in general, focusing on its impact on specific political risks such as expropriation, terrorism, and corruption. The concluding section delves into studies that explore foreign aid and foreign direct investment flows from China, the largest non-Western donor.A bibliometric analysis reveals a noteworthy disparity between research attention and policymaking focus on the subject matter. Notably, the selected papers fail to comprehensively cover the full spectrum of primary extra-legal and legal-governmental political risks for transnational businesses. Scholars' assessments of foreign aid's mitigating effect often lack differentiation between grants and loans or between flows directed to different sectors, as well as the distinction between aid routed through public institutions and bypassing them. Notably absent is a comprehensive analysis encompassing the complete range of 'established' Western and emerging non-Western aid providers, or an exploration of aid flows from non-OECD countries other than China. Most research focuses on Africa and fails to differentiate between recipients based on fragility, income levels, or other relevant categorizations. Moreover, the researchers have yet to delve into data post the COVID-19 outbreak, a critical period that significantly altered perceptions of political risk, foreign aid, and FDI flows. The literature review illuminates a research gap awaiting substantial exploration.","PeriodicalId":42127,"journal":{"name":"MGIMO Review of International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MGIMO Review of International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2023-5-92-155-188","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The last decade has seen an increasing focus on the involvement of the private sector in international sustainable development, particularly in high-risk jurisdictions. This involvement encompasses a broad spectrum, incorporating innovative private sector instruments—now acknowledged as ODA-eligible by the OECD—as well as traditional tools of external official support to developing countries, which remain the primary contributors to ODA flows. This literature review aims to consolidate the academic exploration of the enduring classic foreign aid tools' impact on the political risks associated with foreign direct investment (FDI), and identifies prevalent limitations while suggesting approaches to overcome these challenges.The first section delineates the central theme and rationale behind the literature selection process, utilizing the Google Scholar database to contextualize the research within a comprehensive framework. The subsequent section categorizes and compares the most relevant studies based on formal criteria and methodological parameters. Sections three and four critically assess the scholarly contributions in conceptualizing the mitigating influence of foreign aid in general, focusing on its impact on specific political risks such as expropriation, terrorism, and corruption. The concluding section delves into studies that explore foreign aid and foreign direct investment flows from China, the largest non-Western donor.A bibliometric analysis reveals a noteworthy disparity between research attention and policymaking focus on the subject matter. Notably, the selected papers fail to comprehensively cover the full spectrum of primary extra-legal and legal-governmental political risks for transnational businesses. Scholars' assessments of foreign aid's mitigating effect often lack differentiation between grants and loans or between flows directed to different sectors, as well as the distinction between aid routed through public institutions and bypassing them. Notably absent is a comprehensive analysis encompassing the complete range of 'established' Western and emerging non-Western aid providers, or an exploration of aid flows from non-OECD countries other than China. Most research focuses on Africa and fails to differentiate between recipients based on fragility, income levels, or other relevant categorizations. Moreover, the researchers have yet to delve into data post the COVID-19 outbreak, a critical period that significantly altered perceptions of political risk, foreign aid, and FDI flows. The literature review illuminates a research gap awaiting substantial exploration.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
外援对外国直接投资政治风险的影响:文献综述
在过去十年中,越来越注重私营部门参与国际可持续发展,特别是在高风险司法管辖区。这种参与涉及范围广泛,包括创新的私营部门手段- -现已被经合发组织承认有资格获得官方发展援助- -以及向发展中国家提供外部官方支助的传统手段,这些手段仍然是官方发展援助的主要来源。本文献综述旨在巩固对经典外援工具对与外国直接投资(FDI)相关的政治风险影响的学术探索,并确定普遍存在的局限性,同时提出克服这些挑战的方法。第一部分描述了文献选择过程背后的中心主题和基本原理,利用谷歌学术数据库在一个全面的框架内将研究背景化。随后的部分根据正式标准和方法参数对最相关的研究进行分类和比较。第三节和第四节批判性地评估了在总体上概念化外国援助减轻影响方面的学术贡献,重点关注其对特定政治风险的影响,如征用、恐怖主义和腐败。最后一部分深入研究了来自中国的外国援助和外国直接投资流动,中国是最大的非西方捐助国。文献计量分析揭示了研究关注和政策制定对主题的关注之间的显著差异。值得注意的是,所选论文未能全面涵盖跨国企业的主要法外和法律-政府政治风险的全部范围。学者们对外国援助缓解效果的评估往往缺乏对赠款和贷款的区分,也缺乏对直接流向不同部门的援助的区分,也缺乏对通过公共机构提供援助和绕过公共机构提供援助的区分。值得注意的是,报告没有对“成熟的”西方和新兴的非西方援助提供者进行全面的分析,也没有对中国以外的非经合组织国家的援助流动进行探索。大多数研究集中在非洲,未能根据脆弱性、收入水平或其他相关分类区分受援国。此外,研究人员尚未深入研究新冠肺炎疫情爆发后的数据,这是一个对政治风险、外国援助和外国直接投资流动的看法发生重大变化的关键时期。文献综述揭示了一个有待深入探索的研究空白。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
MGIMO Review of International Relations
MGIMO Review of International Relations INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Biopolitical Strategies in Media Discourses: Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Russia, Germany, and France The Entente’s Support for the White Armies in Southern Russia (Late 1918–1919) The Eurasian Space in Chinese Official and Academic Discourses The Origins of the Idea of “Civilizational” Multipolarity in Russian Religious Thought (from 19th to First Half of 20th Century) Diplomatic Geography of Xi Jinping: What the Statistics of the Chinese Leader’s Foreign Visits Reveal
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1