Foreign Direct Investment in Agriculture: Land Grab or Food Security Improvement?

“Large-scale acquisition of land by foreign investors” is the correct term for a process where the verdict of guilt is often quicker than the examination. But is there something really new about land grab except in its extent? In comparison with colonial and post-colonial plantation operations, should foreign investors today behave differently? We generally accept coffee and banana exports as pro-growth and pro-development, just as for cars, beef and insurance. What then is wrong with an investment contract allowing the holder to buy a farm and to export wheat to Saudi Arabia, or soybeans and maize as cattle feed to Korea, or to plant and process sugar cane and palm oil into ethanol for Europe and China? Assuming their land acquisition was legal, should foreigners respect more than investment contracts and national legislation? And why would they not take advantage of the legal protection offered by international investment law and treaties, not to speak of concessional finance, infrastructure and technical cooperation by a development bank, or the tax holidays offered by the host state? Remember Milton Friedman’s often-quoted quip: “The business of business is business!” And why would the governments signing those contracts not know whether and which foreign investment projects are best for their country, and how to attract them? This chapter tries to show that land grab, where it occurs, is not only yet another symptom of regulatory failures at the national level and a lack of corporate social responsibility by certain private actors. National governance is clearly the most important factor. Nonetheless, I submit that there is an international dimension involving investor home states in various capacities. The implication is that land grab is not solely a question whether a particular investment contract is legal or not. This chapter deals with legal issues which seem to have largely escaped the attention of both human rights lawyers and, especially, of investment lawyers. I address this fragmentation between different legal disciplines, rules, and policies, by asking two basic questions: (i) Do governments and parliaments in investor home countries have any responsibility in respect of the behaviour of their investors abroad? (ii) What should they and international regulators do, if anything?

Motifs slaves dans les lettres autrichiennes du XIXe siècle: tentative de compréhension et de synthèse dans le cas de Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach (1830-1916) was born and grew up in Moravia. Despite the fact that her very first language was Czech, all her literary work was written in German ; despite of her Czech origins from her fatherside, all the references to be found in her work concerning the social and national development of the Czech society of that time express, if not animosity, at least a total lack of understanding. Everthing happens as if the author just wanted to confirm and uphold the official views of the Austrian Monarchy. In this article, I’d like to show, mainly on the example of the novel Božena (1876), that a more careful reading which would take into account not only the textual statements of the writer, but as well the composition of the plot and the various behaviors of the Czech and German protagonists, could allow to bring nuances to Ebner-Eschenbach’s position towards the Czech – namely to see that she was perfectly aware and respectful of the cultural diversity and complexity of the Czech lands and that she felt a deep compassion for the claims of the minorities asking for the transformation of the Habsburg Empire into a Federation of free nations.

Why do Countries Enter into Preferential Agreements on Trade in Services? Assessing the Potential for Negotiated Regulatory Convergence in Asian Services Markets

More than a third of the World Trade Organization (WTO)-notified services trade agreements (STAs) in effect over January 2008 - August 2015 have involved at least one (South or Southeast) Asian trading partner. Drawing on Baier and Bergstrand's (2004) determinants of preferential trade agreements and using the World Bank's database on the restrictiveness of domestic services regimes (Borchert et.al. 2012), we examine the potential for negotiated regulatory convergence in Asian services markets. Our results suggest that countries within Asia with high levels of pre-existing bilateral merchandise trade and wide differences in services regulatory frameworks are more likely candidates for STA formation. Such results lend support to the hypothesis that the heightened "servicification" of production generates a demand for the lowered service input costs resulting from negotiated market opening.

Why do countries enter into preferential agreements on trade in Services? assessing the potential for negotiated regulatory convergence in asian Services markets

Presentation made by Pierre Sauvé and Anirudh Shingal at the Asian International Economists Network (AIEN) Workshop, Asian Development Bank, Manila.