OECD MAPPING OF MED IPAs 2018 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS October 2018
Mapping of IPAs in MED countries: Outline 1. Institutional choices and organisational characteristics 2. Co-ordination and co-operation 3. Functions and activities 4. Prioritisation strategies 5. Monitoring and evaluation 2
1. INSTITUTIONAL CHOICES AND ORGANISATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 3
Creation of IPAs and recent organisational reforms 12 10 8 6 4 2 Number of recent organisational reforms Number of IPAs 0 1970-1974 1975-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010-2014 2015-2018 - The average IPA age in the MED region is 21 (20 years for OECD countries) - Some IPAs were created in the 70s in order to foster the industrialisation of the countries - The majority of IPAs was created after 1995 4
Date of creation of MED IPAs IPA Date of creation Former name GAFI 1971 APII 1972 IDAL 1994 FIPA 1995 General Authority For Investment and Free Zones (GAFI) Agence de Promotion de l Investissement (API) The Investment Development Authority of Lebanon (IDAL) Foreign Investment Promotion Agency (FIPA) JIC 1995 Jordan Investment Board (JIC) ANDI 1995 PIPA 1998 Agence de Promotion, de Soutien et de Suivi de l Investissement (APSI) The Palestinian Investment Promotion Agency (PIPA) PIB 2002 Privatization and Investment Board AMDIE 2009 Agence Marocaine de développement de l Investissement (AMDI) TIA 2017 Tunisia Investment Authority (TIA) 5
Recent reforms aimed at addressing some of MED IPA s main challenges Challenges faced by MED and OECD IPAs to attract investment in the next 5-10 years Challenges MED OECD Emergence of New Players in the Market 1 6 Inadequate Resources 2 1 Inadequacy or Instability of the Mandate 3 4 Lack of Political Support for the IPA 4 5 Wider Business Climate or Regulatory Framework 5 3 Inadequate Staff 6 2 Note: The survey question is the following: What biggest challenges do you see that can limit the ability of your IPA to attract investment into your country in the next 5-10 years? 1 refers to the most important challenge and 6 to the least important one. Other challenges MED IPAs cited: Wrong perception from international media, geopolitical issues, and no offices abroad. The majority of the IPAs have undertaken at least two reforms in the past 10 years. Reforms were mainly linked to regulatory reforms and often to a change in the scope / mandate of the IPAs. 6
Autonomous public agencies dominate the organisational landscape of MED IPAs MED and OECD IPAs legal status MED OECD Autonomous public agency 100% 60% Governmental (department or unit in a ministry) 0% 31% Joint public-private agency 0% 6% Private agency 0% 3% 7
MED IPAs are more in contact with the highest political authorities than OECD IPAs Head of government MED IPAs reporting lines Minister Several ministers Sub-ministerial level Board of director DZA Industry & Mining EGY Investment JOR X LBN X X X LBY Economy X X X MAR Industry, Investment & Trade PA X Economy X X TUN (APII) Trade & Industry X TUN (FIPA) Investment TUN (TIA) X Investment X Other Only 16% of OECD agencies report to the head of government. in OECD countries the majority of IPAs report to economy and trade ministries and in some cases to the ministry of foreign affairs. 8
Heads of IPAs are often appointed by the highest executive authorities in their countries Authority appointing the head of the IPA in the MED region The IPA's Sponsor Minister Council of ministers The President/ Prime Minister 40% 20% In contrast, in OECD countries, most heads are appointed by the Board of Directors of the IPA. 9
The private sector has a stronger presence in some MED IPAs Board of Directors 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 MED IPA s board of Directors composition Chairman Public Sector Private Sector Research & Academia Civil Society Other or unspecified DZA EGY JOR LBN LBY MAR PA TUN (APII) TUN (TIA) OECD average Note: data for FIPA are not available. Jordan has an Investment Council that has a broader role than an IPA board. 10
MED IPAs often have broader mandates than the average OECD agency 16 14 Number of official mandates by agency 14 15 12 10 8 7 8 8 8.7 9 10 11 6 5 5.7 4 3 2 0 TUN (FIPA) MAR OECD average DZA LBN TUN (TIA) MED average TUN (APII) LBY JOR EGY PA 11
MED IPAs mandates often reflect their countries economic priorities Share of IPAs reporting the function as an official mandate MED OECD Inward foreign investment promotion Domestic investment promotion Operation of one-stop shop Promotion of regional development Innovation promotion Negotiation of international agreements Export promotion Granting fiscal incentives Screening and approval of investors Granting financial incentives Granting other incentives Management of FTZs or SEZs Outward investment promotion Management of public-private partnerships Management of privatization Trade facilitation 10% 10% 10% 40% 0% 10% 20% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 60% 70% 80% 80% 90% 100% 12
Mandates performed by MED IPAs are also often carried out by other national agencies Other national and sub-national agencies performing the following functions Other agencies at sub national level perform the following functions Other agencies at national level perform the following functions Negotiation of International Trade, Investment or Other Agreements 10% 80% Issuing of Relevant Business Permits Screening and Prior Approval of Investment Projects with Foreign Participation (e.g. economic needs Operation of One-Stop Shop (OSS) 20% 20% 40% 80% Domestic Investment Promotion 60% Outward Investment Promotion 20% Inward Foreign Investment Promotion 10% 0% 10% 20% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 13
MED IPAs allocate on average 18.3% of budget to promotion (17.4% for OECD) Average MED IPA budget in USD million (excluding incentives), last available year (2016 or 2017) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 5.99 Total IPA budget Average 1.09 Only investment promotion Note: Data for GAFI is not available. The 2018 provisional budget for the TIA was reported as the institution was established in 2017. This figure makes the assumption that IDAL s budget was 3 USD million in 2017. 5.33 Median Preliminary analysis 0.33 An OECD average IPA allocates USD 12 million to investment promotion. 14
INVESTMENT PROMOTION BUDGET (USD MILLIONS) Promotion budgets reflect countries size and income disparities but also the breadth of IPAs mandates IPAs investment promotion budgets in comparison to the size of their economies 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Morocco Tunisia* PA* Med average Jordan Algeria Libya Lebanon 0 50 100 150 200 GDP (USD BILLIONS) Note: The investment promotion budget for Tunisia is an aggregate of its three IPAs (TIA, FIPA and APII). The 2018 provisional budget for the TIA was reported as the institution was established in 2017. This figure makes the assumption that IDAL s budget was 3 USD million in 2017. Preliminary analysis 15
Median MED IPA dedicates 20% of staff to investment promotion and OECD IPA 28% Total Number of FTE Employees : Investment promotion versus other mandates Investment Promotion Other mandates 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1,595 EGY DZA TUN (APII) JOR OECD MED TUN (FIPA) MAR PA LBN TUN (TIA) Median MED IPA has 83 staff among which 17 are dedicated to promotion. Median OECD IPA has 44 staff dedicated to promotion and LAC IPA 21. This is not surprising in light of the breadth of MED IPAs mandates. Preliminary analysis 16
Human resources: Skills and wages There is not enough information provided by the agencies to analyse personnel expenditure and skills. Only preliminary conclusions can be drawn regarding wages of agency employees: The majority of the IPAs pay salaries that are higher than the average wage in the public sector (TIA, IDAL, JIC, ANDI). Some pay salaries at the level of public sector wages (PIPA, PIB, FIPA). AMDIE pay both salaries that are higher than and similar to other public sector agencies. Preliminary analysis 17
2. COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 18
On average MED IPAs interact with 31 different organisations (26 for OECD) Number of organisations with which MED IPAs interact 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Strategic relationships Non-strategic relationships 0 PA MAR TUN (FIPA) LBY EGY TUN (APII) DZA MED average JOR OECD average TUN (TIA) LBN 19
MED IPAs work much more closely with the highest levels of government than OECD IPAs do International Organisations President/Presidential Admin or Prime Minister Ministry Responsible for Investment Inter-Ministerial Investment Committees Industry Groups / Associations Agency/Entity Responsible for Tourism Promotion Ministry of Finance Chambers of Commerce Tax Agency Customs Agency in charge of land allocation Ministry of Foreign Affairs Agency/Entity Responsible for Free Trade Zones and Agency/Entity Responsible for Investment Incentives MED IPAs top strategic relationships 60% 60% 60% 70% 80% 80% 90% 0% 10% 20% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Note: Top strategic relationships are those that considered strategic by at least of the IPAs. OECD IPAs work more frequently with the foreign ministry, innovation agencies, diplomatic missions and sub-national authorities. 20
MED IPA offices abroad performing investment promotion Only a few IPAs report having offices abroad: AMDIE: 1 office FIPA: 8 offices No information available regarding offices shared with other agencies or personnel located in embassies/consulates. OECD: The most widespread type of offices performing investment promotion are those affiliated to the IPA (63% of all IPA foreign offices), while other set-ups are shared offices with another agency (25%), personnel located in embassies and consulates (11%). 21
Missing information regarding the IPA s cooperation network IPA interactions with government, public, semi-public institutions IPA interactions with the private sector, academia and international organisations MED IPAs abroad performing investment promotion Interactions of MED IPAs with embassies and consulates 22
co-operation at the sub-national level: focus on the provision of facilitation and aftercare Reasons why MED IPAs contact sub-national agencies For Installation Assistance or Aftercare Services in the Region/City 70% To Accompany the IPA in Conversations with Investors When a Complaint Has Been Raised by the Investor When a Regulatory/Administrative Change is Required by a Local Body For Evaluation of an Investment Project Implemented in the Region When an Incentive Is Allocated for Investment in the Region/City 40% Never* Other 10% 0% 10% 20% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Note: The numbers reported are based on the assumption that IPAs that did not answer the question Reasons why IPAs contact sub-national agencies do not contact sub-national agencies. 23
Infrastructure and interactions with local government are important obstacles to attract FDI to regions Obstacles to the attraction of FDI in the regions according to IPAs Obstacles MED OECD Poor infrastructure orconnectivity to important hubs 1 3 Image problems (e.g. security, lifestyle, etc.) 2 4 Difficulties in interacting with the local government 3 5 Distance to suppliers and clients 4 1 Lack of adequately skilled labour or difficulty of attracting it into the 5 2 region Lack of dedicated State support (e.g. special economic zones, etc.) 6 6 The survey question is the following: What biggest challenges do you see Most Important for Attracting Investors Outside of the Capital City / into Different Regions? 1 refers to the most important challenge and 6 to the least important one. Other obstacles cited: lack of regional funds, access of governmental agencies to obtain the necessary permits, and political instability. There is considerable variation among MED IPAs: The Libyan and Palestinian agencies cited political instability. Lack of skilled labour is a key issue for agencies in Morocco and Tunisia. 24
Missing information regarding the level of Cooperation with sub-national agencies The number of IPA s affiliated subnational offices performing investment promotion 25
3. FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES 26
MED IPA s allocate most of the budget to image building while OECD to investment generation IPA budget & personnel allocation across core functions of investment promotion (% of total of 4 functions) 60% Image Building Investment Generation Investment Facilitation and Retention Policy Advocacy 49% 44% 43% 40% 20% 28% 16% 19% 31% 38% 28% 24% 17% 33% 10% 7% 6% 11% 7% 0% MED OECD MED OECD Budget Personnel Preliminary analysis 27
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 40% 20% 10% 0% Majority of promotion budget allocated to image building or investment generation IPAs investment promotion budget allocation pattern (% total budget) Image Building Investment Generation Investment Facilitation and Retention Policy Advocacy 0% 0% 0% 7% 100% 100% 15% 78% 15% 15% 20% 10% 20% 40% LBN DZA MAR LBY TUN (FIPA) 0% 70% 10% 10% 10% 35% 25% 20% 15% 35% 20% 20% 7% 16% 28% 49% JOR EGY PA TUN (APII) TUN (TIA) MED Average Some responses require to be revised and completed some IPAs indicate allocating 100% of their budget to image building while performing all the remaining functions as well. 28
Allocation of human resources across IPAs function is more spread than budget IPAs investment promotion human resource allocation pattern (% of staff) Image Building Investment Generation Investment Facilitation and Retention Policy Advocacy 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 40% 20% 10% 0% 0% 100% 10% 10% 10% 25% 25% 20% 40% 0% 10% 20% 0% 10% 40% 40% 40% 40% DZA MAR LBY LBN TUN (FIPA) 15% 40% 25% 10% 20% 5% 20% 60% 15% 25% 40% 25% 10% 11% 24% 28% 38% JOR PA EGY TUN (APII) TUN (TIA) MED average Some responses require to be revised and completed This figure combined with the previous one can allow us to highlight some inconsistencies 29
Most MED IPAs are image builders while OECD IPAs are generators Categorising IPAs into strategic profiles to understand their activities Image builders Generators Facilitators Balanced DZA LBY MAR TUN (FIPA) JOR TUN (APII) TUN (TIA) EGY LBN PA Most MED IPAs are image builders : allocating at least 40% of their resources these activities. Three agencies are balanced : allocating resources fairly equitably to a range activities. In contrast, most OECD IPAs are generators (only two are image builders) 30
Further information on resource allocation is required It is noteworthy that MED IPAs perform more activities than OECD countries across the functions Further clarification is required to better understand budget and human resources allocations There are some discrepancies in the data: Notably, image building activities receive more financial than human resources 31
4. PRIORITISATION STRATEGIES 32
Overview of the prioritisation strategies of IPAs in MED countries Yes No 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 40% 20% 10% 0% 90% 10% Priority Sectors/Countries 70% Priority projects 10% 90% Priority investors Libya s IPA reported not prioritising specific sectors or countries Egypt s IPA prioritises specific investors ( in OECD agencies) 33
Prioritisation strategy is often taken at the highest levels and involves multiple actors Government bodies responsible for approval of the prioritisation strategy MED OECD President/ Prime Minister 56% IPA's Board 25% 56% Several Ministries 9% 44% IPA's Management 34% 33% Other 3% 22% A Ministry 11% 41% A Specialised Government Agency 6% 11% 0% 10% 20% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 34
All MED IPAs that prioritise by sector seek investment with potential to diversify the economy Prioritisation by sector Potential to Diversify the Economy Importance to Regional Competitive Position vis-à-vis Other Countries Green Investment Importance/Strong Links to the Rest of the Impact on Employment and/or Working Strong Global Demand Strong Domestic Capacity Impact on Environmentor Climate Change Existence of Market Failure Investors Record on RBC Other 0% 11% 33% 44% 67% 78% 78% 78% 78% 89% 89% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 35
Criteria used to prioritise specific sectors and countries in MED economies (2/2) Prioritisation by country International Investment Agreements (IIAs) Free Trade Agreements (FTA, RTIA, etc.) Dynamic Market Growth High-Quality Regulatory Framework Source of High-technology Strong Economic or Political Ties (in General) Presence of Investors from that Country Locally Large Market Distance Good Reputation Common Language Level of Development /per capita GDP income Other 0% 11% 11% 22% 22% 33% 33% 33% 44% 44% 67% 67% 67% 0% 10% 20% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% International investment and free trade agreements are not an important factor for OECD IPAs in their prioritisation. Strong economic or political ties are not important for MED IPAs (2 nd most important criteria for OECD agencies) 36
Three MED IPAs and 16 OECD IPAs report having a formal prioritisation unit Existence of a dedicated unit and staff for priority sectors/countries in MED IPAs Dedicated Organisational Unit Dedicated Staff AMDIE Yes N/A* ANDI No N/A APII No N/A FIPA No N/A GAFI Yes N/A IDAL No 3 JIC No 4 PIB** No No PIPA Yes No*** TIA No Yes Note: * To be defined after the restructuring of the AMDIE; ** PIB does not prioritise by countries/sectors; *** Prioritisation is the responsibility of the Board of Directors. The information provided in this slide needs to be confirmed 37
5. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 38
IPAs in MED appear to use a wider set of evaluation methodologies than in OECD IPA s evalutation methodologies OECD MED Quality-Control Assessment (e.g., Time to Answer Consultations with Stakeholders Benchmarking (e.g. Comparisons with Other IPAs) Client Feedback and Surveys Cost-Benefit Analysis of Assisted Investment Projects Case Studies Econometric Assessment Non-Client Feedback and Surveys Other 35% 23% 16% 40% 20% 29% 10% 10% 100% 68% 80% 70% 77% 70% 74% 60% 55% 0% 10% 20% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% All surveyed IPAs use a CRM software with the exception of 2 agencies. All MED IPAs use quality-control assessment to evaluate their interaction with investors. In contrast, only a third of OECD agencies use this methodology 39
All evaluation units in MED IPAs report directly to the IPA s head or board With the exception of APII and JIC, all the other IPAs in the MED region indicated having a dedicated internal evaluation unit. In OECD 40% of the evaluation units report to the IPA management. 40
MED IPAs rely on average on 18 different KPI indicators, twice more than in the OECD Number of indicators used by IPAs 30 Outcome indicators Output indicators 25 20 3 6 6 6 6 15 1 3 4.3 10 5 3 4.7 6 4.9 4 5 9 8 14 12 13.7 17 15 18 18 20 0 TUN (FIPA) OECD average LBN MAR TUN (TIA) TUN (APII) MED average JOR EGY LBY DZA PA 41
Output indicators used by IPAs: Ad hoc measures or tracked through the CRM software? Output indicators used by IPAs OECD MED Investment Projects Investing Firms Client Satisfaction Time to Respond Replies to Requests/Inquiries Subject to Assessment Number of Assisted Firms Time to Organize Visits Return on Investment (ROI) on IPA's Activities Costs Market Studies Subject to Peer Review Total Cost per Job 90% 100% 65% 100% 65% 100% 49% 80% 42% 80% 61% 80% 26% 70% 14% 40% 36% 40% 22% 7% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 42
Indicators to monitor IPAs impact on the type of FDI attracted: In-house or external? Outcome indicators used by IPAs OECD MED Jobs Total FDI Regional Development Innovation / R&D Exports Country's Image Capacity of Domestic Firms Green Investment Competition Tax Revenue Investors Record on RBC Wages 87% 100% 81% 90% 42% 90% 55% 70% 35% 70% 29% 70% 23% 70% 23% 60% 19% 16% 6% 29% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 43
THANK YOU http://www.oecd.org/investment http://www.oecd.org/investment/investme nt-promotion-and-facilitation.htm 44