Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean 2011

Includes bibliography

Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean 2012

Includes bibliography

Forum for East Asia-Latin America Cooperation (FEALAC): new biregional trade and investment relations in a changing world economic environment$c

Includes bibliography

Trade, direct investment and production policies

Includes bibliography

Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean 2013

Includes bibliography.

Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean 2015

In previous editions of Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean, the year given on the cover and in the title was the year for which data were presented. Starting with this edition, however, the title carries the year in which the report is published, consistently with the practice for the other flagship reports published by ECLAC. As a result, there is no 2014 edition of Foreign Direct Investment.

Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean 2016

The 2016 version of Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America and the Caribbean is the most recent edition of an annual series published by the Unit on Investment and Corporate Strategies of the Division of Production, Productivity and Management of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Securities: Its Conception and Protection of Interests of its Holders

Theoretical studies of the problems of the securities markets in the Russian Federation incline to one or other of the two traditional approaches. The first consists of comparing the definition of "valuable paper" set forth in the current legislation of the Russian Federation, with the theoretical model of "Wertpapiere" elaborated by German scholars more than 90 years ago. The problem with this approach is, in Mr. Pentsov's opinion, that any new features of the definition of "security" that do not coincide with the theoretical model of "Wertpapiere" (such as valuable papers existing in non-material, electronic form) are claimed to be incorrect and removed from the current legislation of the Russian Federation. The second approach works on the basis of the differentiation between the Common Law concept of "security" and the Civil Law concept of "valuable paper". Mr. Pentsov's research, presented in an article written in English, uses both methodological tools and involves, firstly, a historical study of the origin and development of certain legal phenomena (securities) as they evolved in different countries, and secondly, a comparative, synchronic study of equivalent legal phenomena as they exist in different countries today. Employing the first method, Mr. Pentsov divided the historical development of the conception of "valuable paper" in Russia into five major stages. He found that, despite the existence of a relatively wide circulation of valuable papers, especially in the second half of the 19th century, Russian legislation before 1917 (the first stage) did not have a unified definition of valuable paper. The term was used, in both theoretical studies and legislation, but it covered a broad range of financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, government bonds, promissory notes, bills of exchange, etc. During the second stage, also, the legislation of the USSR did not have a unified definition of "valuable paper". After the end of the "new economic policy" (1922 - 1930) the stock exchanges and the securities markets in the USSR, with a very few exceptions, were abolished. And thus during the third stage (up to 1985), the use of valuable papers in practice was reduced to foreign economic relations (bills of exchange, stocks in enterprises outside the USSR) and to state bonds. Not surprisingly, there was still no unified definition of "valuable paper". After the beginning of Gorbachev's perestroika, a securities market began to re-appear in the USSR. However, the successful development of securities markets in the USSR was retarded by the absence of an appropriate regulatory framework. The first effort to improve the situation was the adoption of the Regulations on Valuable Papers, approved by resolution No. 590 of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, dated June 19, 1990. Section 1 of the Regulation contained the first statutory definition of "valuable paper" in the history of Russia. At the very beginning of the period of transition to a market economy, a number of acts contained different definitions of "valuable paper". This diversity clearly undermined the stability of the Russian securities market and did not achieve the goal of protecting the investor. The lack of unified criteria for the consideration of such non-standard financial instruments as "valuable papers" significantly contributed to the appearance of numerous fraudulent "pyramid" schemes that were outside of the regulatory scheme of Russia legislation. The situation was substantially improved by the adoption of the new Civil Code of the Russian Federation. According to Section 1 of Article 142 of the Civil Code, a valuable paper is a document that confirms, in compliance with an established form and mandatory requisites, certain material rights whose realisation or transfer are possible only in the process of its presentation. Finally, the recent Federal law No. 39 - FZ "On the Valuable Papers Market", dated April 22 1996, has also introduced the term "emission valuable papers". According to Article 2 of this Law, an "emission valuable paper" is any valuable paper, including non-documentary, that simultaneously has the following features: it fixes the composition of material and non-material rights that are subject to confirmation, cession and unconditional realisation in compliance with the form and procedure established by this federal law; it is placed by issues; and it has equal amount and time of realisation of rights within the same issue regardless of when the valuable paper was purchased. Thus the introduction of the conception of "emission valuable paper" became the starting point in the Russian federation's legislation for the differentiation between the legal regimes of "commercial papers" and "investment papers" similar to the Common Law approach. Moving now to the synchronic, comparative method of research, Mr. Pentsov notes that there are currently three major conceptions of "security" and, correspondingly, three approaches to its legal definition: the Common Law concept, the continental law concept, and the concept employed by Japanese Law. Mr. Pentsov proceeds to analyse the differences and similarities of all three, concluding that though the concept of "security" in the Common Law system substantially differs from that of "valuable paper" in the Continental Law system, nevertheless the two concepts are developing in similar directions. He predicts that in the foreseeable future the existing differences between these two concepts will become less and less significant. On the basis of his research, Mr. Pentsov arrived at the conclusion that the concept of "security" (and its equivalents) is not a static one. On the contrary, it is in the process of permanent evolution that reflects the introduction of new financial instruments onto the capital markets. He believes that the scope of the statutory definition of "security" plays an extremely important role in the protection of investors. While passing the Securities Act of 1933, the United States Congress determined that the best way to achieve the goal of protecting investors was to define the term "security" in sufficiently broad and general terms so as to include within the definition the many types of instruments that in the commercial world fall within the ordinary concept of "security' and to cover the countless and various devices used by those who seek to use the money of others on the promise of profits. On the other hand, the very limited scope of the current definition of "emission valuable paper" in the Federal Law of the Russian Federation entitled "On the Valuable Papers Market" does not allow the anti-fraud provisions of this law to be implemented in an efficient way. Consequently, there is no basis for the protection of investors. Mr. Pentsov proposes amendments which he believes would enable the Russian markets to become more efficient and attractive for both foreign and domestic investors.

The importance of International Developments in the case-law of the European Court of Justice: Kadi and the autonomy of the EC legal order. Research Papers in Law, 1/2009

From the Introduction. In the USA, the debate is still ongoing as to whether and to what extent the Supreme Court could or should refer to foreign precedent, in particular in relation to constitutional matters such as the death penalty.1 In the EU, in particular the recent Kadi case of 20082 has triggered much controversy,3 thereby highlighting the opposite angle to a similar discussion. The focus of attention in Europe is namely to what extent the European Court of Justice (hereafter “ECJ”) could lawfully and rightfully refuse to plainly ‘surrender’ or to subordinate the EC legal system to UN law and obligations when dealing with human rights issues. This question becomes all the more pertinent in view of the fact that in the past the ECJ has been rather receptive and constructive in forging interconnectivity between the EC legal order and international law developments. A bench mark in that respect was undoubtedly the Racke case of 1998,4 where the ECJ spelled out the necessity for the EC to respect international law with direct reference to a ruling of the International Court of Justice. This judgment which was rendered 10 years earlier than Kadi equally concerned EC/EU economic sanctions taken in implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions. A major question is therefore whether it is at all possible, and if so to determine how, to reconcile those apparently conflicting judgments.

Review of activities of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation [microform] : hearings before the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-sixth Congress, July 17, 1979, and February 7, 1980.

Reuse of record except for individual research requires license from Congressional Information Service, Inc.

Regional foreign direct investment and wage spillovers:plant level evidence from the UK electronics industry

This paper examines the extent to which foreign investment in the UK generates wage spillovers in the domestic sector of the economy using a simultaneous dynamic panel data model and focusing on the electronics sector, possibly the most ‘globalized’ sector of UK manufacturing. It finds evidence that the higher wages paid by foreign firms cause wages in the domestic sector to be bid up. This phenomenon is, however, largely confined to the region where foreign direct investment takes place.

Foreign and domestic investment:regional development or crowding out?

This paper tests, at the regional and industry level, the extent to which domestic investment is stimulated or crowded out by inward foreign direct investment. The paper develops a model of domestic investment, based on standard models drawn from macroeconomics and industrial economics. The paper then goes on to show that, at a general level, the 'development' or agglomeration hypothesis is confirmed that domestic investment is indeed stimulated by inward investment. However, there is also evidence that, in certain regions, inward investment has crowded out domestic investment. The implications of this from the perspective of regional policy are briefly discussed.

Foreign direct investment and economic development:an interactive relationship

With the increasing importance of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), there have been substantial studies on this issue, both empirically and theoretically. However, most existing studies focus on either the impacts of FDI presence or the determinants of FDI inflows, ignoring the fact that inward FDI and economic development may simultaneously affect each other. This thesis sets out to examine the interactive effects between FDI and economic development. The whole thesis is composed of five chapters. Chapter One is an overall introduction to the thesis. Chapter Two presents a theoretical study and chapter Two and Three provide two empirical studies. Chapter Five concludes. Chapter Two presents a theoretical two-sector model that features the importance of human capital in attracting foreign investment. This model theoretically explains why FDI is more likely to occur among countries that are similar in terms of human capital and technology. On the other hand, MNCs must train local employees to work with firm-specific technology and hence improve the technological skills of local workers. In Chapter Two, an empirical model is constructed to detect whether the productivities of foreign and local firms impact each other. The model is tested on China’s data at the industry level. The results indicate that productivity growth of local and foreign firms are jointly determined. Evidence also suggests that the extent to which spillovers occur varies with difference technology levels of local firms. Chapter Four investigates the relationship between FDI and economic grown based on a panel of data for 84 countries over the period 1970-1999. Both equations of FDI inflow and GDP growth are examined. The results indicate that FDI not only directly promotes economic growth by itself, but also indirectly does so via its interaction terms. There is a strong positive interaction effect of FDI with human capital and a strong negative interaction effect of FDI with technology gap on economic growth in developing countries.

Spain and Investment Arbitration: The Renewable Energy Explosion

In the past decade, Spain’s generous incentive system for renewable energy production attracted substantial foreign and national investment. However, when the global financial crisis hit, and the consequent reduction of electricity consumption, the incentives began to cause a tariff deficit in the electricity system, leading the Spanish government to cut back and then eliminate the incentives. In the wake of losses, international investors turned to investment arbitration, while national investors could only present their claims before Spanish courts. The result was a potential for differential treatment between national and foreign investors. This paper examines the incentive regime and the government’s changes to it in order to understand the investors’ claims and the reasoning that resulted in their rejections, both in national courts and in the only arbitration award issued up to now. The paper concludes with a discussion of the effect of the renewable energies situation on the investment arbitration debate within Spanish civil society.