Ralentissement dans les BRIC: faut-il s en inquiéter? Présentation : Andrea Goldstein, Economiste à l OCDE Mercredi 18 décembre 213, 18 rue de Martignac - 757 Paris
The BRICs in the International Investment Landscape Andrea Goldstein Club du CEPII 18 décembre 213
FDI in the Current Globalization Wave (1994 = 1) 4 35 3 25 2 15 GDP trade (exports) FDI (inflows) FDI (outflows) 1 5 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 Sources: UNCTAD, World Bank, WTO
The BRICs in the Current Globalization Wave (1994 = 1) 4 35 3 25 2 15 GDP trade (exports) FDI (inflows) FDI (outflows) 1 5 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 Sources: UNCTAD, World Bank, WTO
The BRICs in the Global Investment Landscape: As Destinations (US$ bn) 3 25 2 15 1 Brazil Russia India China 5 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 Source: UNCTAD
The BRICs in the Global Investment Landscape: As Sources (US$ bn) 1 8 6 4 2 Brazil Russia India China 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 (2) Source: UNCTAD
BRIC Big Business: Irresistible Growth (number of entries among the world s 5 largest companies, by turnover) 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Brazil Russia India China 2 1 1994 25 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 213 Source: Fortune
although not so global (value of the Trans-nationality Index) 7 6 5 4 3 TNI 2 1 World Emerging economies BRIC Brazil Russia India China Source: elaboration on UNCTAD data
including SOEs FG5 rank COMPANY NAME Country Industry FA/TA% FR/TR% 1 5 Sinopec Group China Petroleum Refining 1 na 2 6 China National Petroleum China Petroleum Refining 1 29 3 7 State Grid China Utilities 4 13 Japan Post Holdings Japan Mail, Package, and Freight Delivery 5 15 Gazprom Russia Energy na 6 23 Petrobras Brazil Petroleum Refining 6 12 7 34 Pemex Mexico Mining, Crude-Oil Production 5 8 4 Statoil Norway Petroleum Refining 51 23 9 68 Petronas Malaysia Petroleum Refining 26 78 1 73 Électricité de France France Utilities 51 42 11 81 China Mobile Communications China Telecommunications 12 83 Indian Oil India Petroleum Refining na 13 11 China National Offshore Oil China Mining, Crude-Oil Production 26 26 14 111 China Railway Construction China Engineering, Construction 5 4 15 112 China Railway Group China Engineering, Construction 16 135 U.S. Postal Service United States Mail, Package, and Freight Delivery 17 137 Rosneft Oil Russia Petroleum Refining 81 18 179 Deutsche Bahn Germany Railroads 15 42 19 197 Baosteel Group China Metals 11 2 221 China Telecommunications China Telecommunications Average: 1 23 Non-OECD average: 5.7 21.9 OECD average: 19.6 26. Source: OECD elaboration on Company annual reports, Fortune Global 5 212.
Outward IM&A profiles, 212 5 All countries 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 listed non-listed SOE non-listed SOE listed Source: OECD elaboration on Datastream.
Outward IM&A profiles in 212: Brazil and China vs. France and Norway Brazil China 4 3 3 2 1 2 1 listed nonlisted SOE listed SOE nonlisted listed non-listed SOE listed SOE nonlisted France Norway 3 2 1 listed non-listed SOE listed SOE nonlisted 5 4 3 2 1 listed nonlisted SOE listed SOE nonlisted Source: OECD elaboration on Datastream.
Inward IM&A profiles, 212 5 All countries 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 listed non-listed SOE non-listed SOE listed Source: OECD elaboration on Datastream.
Inward IM&A profiles of six countries, 212 Australia Canada China 3 4 2 2 1 3 2 1 15 1 5 listed non-listed SOE nonlisted SOE listed listed non-listed SOE nonlisted SOE listed listed non-listed SOE nonlisted SOE listed Norway United States India 1 8 6 4 2 listed non-listed SOE nonlisted SOE listed 15 1 5 listed non-listed SOE nonlisted SOE listed 4 3 2 1 listed nonlisted SOE nonlisted SOE listed Source: OECD elaboration on Datastream.
Total number of IIAs concluded per year in comparison with IIAs with an explicit reference to SOE in definition of investor 1% 12 9% 1 8% 7% 8 6% 6 5% 4% 4 3% 2 2% 1% % 196 1962 1964 1966 1968 197 1972 1974 1976 1978 198 1982 1984 1986 1988 199 1992 1994 1996 1998 2 22 24 26 28 21 212 Number of treaties which have no express reference to SOE Number of treaties which have express reference to SOE Percentage of IIAs with reference to SOE in total treaties concluded in a given year Source: OECD survey of 1,814 Bilateral Investment Agreements.
Sources: Transparency International and World Bank Note: Since 213, all Doing Business rankings have been recalculated to reflect changes to the methodology and revisions of data due to new information. Has business life in the BRICs become harder? Ease of Doing Business Corruption Perceptions Ranking 27 Ranking 214 Score 25 Score 214 Brazil 121 116 3.7 4.2 Russia 96 92 2.4 2.8 India 134 134 2.9 3.6 China 93 96 3.2 4.
213 Investment Climate Statements While Brazil is generally considered a friendly environment for foreign investment, complex tax and regulatory requirements exist. In most cases, these impediments apply without discrimination to both foreign and domestic firms. investing in the Russian market still requires that firms navigate a complicated and fluid set of challenges ranging from complex and burdensome regulatory processes to corruption that marks both political and judicial structures. India underperforms its vast potential. Major areas of concern include rampant corruption, complex and lengthy investment and business approval processes, antiquated land acquisition and labor laws, and poor contract enforcement. India s historical preference for economic self-sufficiency informs current and proposed industrial and trade policies that protect domestic manufacturing, agriculture, and other sectors. Foreign investors often temper their optimism regarding potential investment returns with uncertainty about China's willingness to offer a level playing field vis-à-vis domestic competitors. In addition, foreign investors report a range of challenges related to current investment climate. These include industrial policies that protect and promote SOEs and other domestic firms, equity caps and other restrictions on foreign ownership, weak IPR protection, a lack of transparency, corruption, and an unreliable legal system. Source: US State Department, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
212 OECD FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness Index Closed = 1; Open = China Saudi Arabia Indonesia Jordan India Japan New Zealand Mexico Malaysia Tunisia Russia Iceland Canada Mongolia Kazakhstan Korea Australia Israel Ukraine Peru Austria United States Brazil Switzerland Kyrgyz Republic Norway Turkey Denmark Poland Chile Morocco Latvia Egypt United Kingdom Sweden Czech Republic South Africa Italy Hungary Slovak Republic France Ireland Lithuania Belgium Greece Argentina Colombia Germany Estonia Spain Finland Netherlands Romania Slovenia Portugal Luxembourg.5.1.15.2.25.3.35.4.45 OECD average Average of adherent countries NON-OECD average Source: Mistura and Thomsen (214
Top reformers according to the OECD FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness Index FDI Reform (difference in scores between 1997 and 21) 21.7.6 Top reformers ranked from left to right.5.4.3.2.1 -.1 Source: Mistura and Thomsen (214
Insular capitalisms (board composition, N = 634) Domestic Continental Other OECD Emerging OECD US -zone JP CN RU non-eu UK MX BR
Insular capitalisms
Richard Matzke Mark Mobius Guglielmo Moscato Ivan Pictet Board of Directors elected at the Annual General Shareholders Meeting on June 27, 213
Male capitalism EU US M W M W BRICKVM JP M W M W
although the winner is