Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Self-interest, foreign need and good governance: are bilateral investment treaty programs similar to aid allocation?

By Eric Neumayer

Abstract

Bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have become the most important legal mechanism for the encouragement and governance of foreign direct investment (FDI) in developing countries. Yet practically no systematic evidence exists on what motivates capital-exporting developed countries to sign BITs earlier with some developing countries than with others, if at all. The theoretical framework from the aid allocation literature suggests that developed countries pursue a mixture of self-interest, foreign need and, possibly, good governance. We find evidence that both economic interests of developed countries’ foreign investors and political interests of developed countries determine their scheduling of BITs. However, foreign need as measured by per capita income is also a factor, whereas good governance by and large does not matter. These results suggest that BIT programs can be explained employing the same framework successfully applied to the allocation of aid. At the same time, self-interest seems to be substantively more important than developing country need when it comes to BITs

Topics: JA Political science (General)
Year: 2006
DOI identifier: 10.1111/j.1743-8594.2006.00029.x
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:808
Provided by: LSE Research Online
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/808/1... (external link)
  • http://www.blackwellpublishing... (external link)
  • http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/808/ (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    Citations

    1. (1977). A Foreign Policy Model of U.S. Bilateral Aid Allocation. World Politics doi
    2. (1999). Admission and Establishment.
    3. (1999). Aid, Growth and Democracy. doi
    4. (2001). Alberto Paloni and Ali Youssef doi
    5. (2000). Bilateral Investment Treaties 1959-1999. Internet Edition.
    6. (1998). Bilateral Investment Treaties in the Mid-1990s.
    7. (1997). Bilateral Investment Treaties Play Only a Minor Role in Attracting FDI.
    8. (1995). Bilateral Investment Treaties. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. doi
    9. (1990). BIT by BIT: The Growth of Bilateral Investment Treaties and Their Impact on Foreign Investment in Developing Countries. doi
    10. (1998). Clarifying the Foreign Aid Puzzle. doi
    11. (2004). Competing for Capital: The diffusion of bilateral investment treaties, 1960-2000. Working paper. doi
    12. (1994). DAC Orientations on Participatory Development and Good Governance, Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
    13. (1999). Davud
    14. (2003). Democratic Governance and Multinational Corporations: Political Regimes and Inflows of Foreign Direct Investment. doi
    15. (2000). Distance between capital cities database.
    16. (2003). Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Attract FDI? Only a bit…and they could bite. World Bank Policy Research Paper WPS 3121. World Bank: doi
    17. (2004). Eric
    18. (2005). Eric and Laura Spess doi
    19. (1994). Estimating Aid-allocation Criteria with Panel Data. doi
    20. (1999). Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer and Robert Vishny. doi
    21. (2005). Foreign Direct Investment and the Business Environment in Developing Countries: the Impact of Bilateral Investment Treaties. Yale Law School Center for Law, Economics and Public Policy Research Paper No. doi
    22. (2002). Global Foreign Direct Investment Flows: The Role of Governance Infrastructure. World Development 30:1899-1919. doi
    23. (1992). Human Rights and Economic Aid Allocation under Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. doi
    24. (1993). Human Rights and the Distribution of U.S. Foreign Aid. Public Choice 77:815–21. doi
    25. (1985). Human Rights Practices and the Distribution of U.S. Foreign Aid to Latin American Countries. doi
    26. (2000). International Data on Educational Attainment: Updates and Implications. Working Paper no. 42. Cambridge (Mass.): doi
    27. (2003). Nonproportional hazards and event history analysis in international relations. doi
    28. (2001). Political Freedom, Political Instability and Policy Uncertainty: A Study doi
    29. (2004). Political Terror Scales Dataset,
    30. (2003). Reversal of Fortunes: Democratic Institutions and Foreign Direct Investment Inflows to Developing Countries. doi
    31. (1996). Review of Dolzer and Stevens: Bilateral Investment Treaties. doi
    32. (1975). Roxbee doi
    33. (1986). State Responsibility and Bilateral Investment Treaties.
    34. (1999). Tau-b or Not Tau-b: Measuring the Similarity of Foreign Policy Positions. doi
    35. (1998). Testing Models of U.S. Foreign Policy: Foreign Aid During and After the Cold War. doi
    36. (1994). The Demise of Expropriation as an Instrument of LDC Policy, doi
    37. (2001). The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment: Sensitivity Analyses of Cross-Country Regressions. doi
    38. (2000). The Economics of Bilateral Investment Treaties. doi
    39. (2000). The Impact of Host Country Government Policy on US Multinational Investment Decisions. The World Economy doi
    40. (2001). The Obsolescing ‘Bargaining Model’? MNC-Host Developing Country Relations Revisited. doi
    41. (1998). The Political Economy of a Bilateral Investment Treaty. doi
    42. (1987). The Role of Human Rights in U.S. Foreign Assistance Policy: a Critique and Reappraisal. doi
    43. (1992). The Socialist System. The Political Economy of Communism. doi
    44. (1997). Time is of the essence: Event history models in political science. doi
    45. Trends and Recent Developments in Foreign Direct Investment. Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Economic Development.
    46. (1997). Two Aid Hegemons: Japanese-US Interaction and Aid Allocation to Latin America and the Caribbean. World Development, doi
    47. (2004). U.S. Oversees Loans and Grants Online (Greenbook).
    48. UNCTAD (2003b) Dispute Settlement: State-State.
    49. (2006). UNCTAD (2004a) World Investment Directory Online. New York and Geneva: United Nations.
    50. (2004). UNCTAD (2004b) World Investment Report
    51. (1999). United States Human Rights Policy and Foreign Assistance. doi
    52. (2000). Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why? doi
    53. (1998). Why LDCs Sign Treaties That Hurt Them: Explaining the Popularity of Bilateral Investment Treaties. Virginia doi
    54. (2003). World Development Indicators CD Rom. doi

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.