The Experts below are selected from a list of 46185 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Karl P Sauvant - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
attracting foreign direct investment and benefiting from it challenges for the Least Developed Countries
Transnational Corporations Review, 2015Co-Authors: Karl P SauvantAbstract:All the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) need to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) and benefit from it as much as possible in order to advance their development. In fact, LDCs as a group are not doing that badly in terms of FDI inflows. The US$25 billion they attracted on average during 2011-2013 constituted about 2% of world FDI flows. But these US$25 billion amounted to about 13% of these Countries’ gross fixed capital formation. And that is a higher percentage than for any other country group. In other words, the FDI that LDCs received is more important for them than the FDI that other country groups received – although it is quite unevenly distributed among LDCs. And while it is also true that most FDI in LDCs is in natural resources, an increasing share goes into manufacturing and services. Transnational corporations (TNCs) from all parts of the world, including those headquartered in such rising emerging markets as China, India, Malaysia, and South Africa, invest in the continent. Interestingly, outward FDI from African LDCs is rising as well, having reached US$4 billion last year. This indicates that some firms in a number of these Countries have reached the international competitiveness that is needed to flourish in the world FDI market. These are encouraging trends. The international community needs to support them, precisely because FDI can make an important contribution to economic growth and development. The challenge is twofold: to help increase FDI flows to LDCs; and to increase the contribution that the FDI flows that LDCs receive make to the development of host economies. To turn to the first challenge: as we know, FDI is undertaken by private firms (although state-owned enterprises are also becoming important) that have the capabilities to compete abroad and find it advantageous to do so through international production. Understanding where their FDI flows are directed requires that we look at the locational determinants of FDI. Three sets of determinants at the host-country end are particularly important: the economic determinants; the regulatory framework; and FDI promotion. The most important factor for enterprises to undertake FDI in a country is the nature of the economic determinants: quality of infrastructure, size of the market, growth of the market, availability of skills, technological infrastructure, etc. If the economic determinants are not favourable for firms to make a profit, FDI will not take place. To put it differently: while the economic determinants are not everything, everything is nothing if the economic determinants in a potential host country are not favourable. The economic determinants are the key for attracting FDI. As we know, however, the economic determinants in LDCs are not favourable. They need to be strengthened, and official development assistance (ODA) is critical for that purpose.
-
policy options for promoting foreign direct investment in the Least Developed Countries
Transnational Corporations Review, 2015Co-Authors: Karl P Sauvant, Padma MallampallyAbstract:AbstractForeign direct investment (FDI) plays an important role in the world economy and has the potential to contribute towards accelerating the process of economic growth and sustainable development in the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The paper provides a brief overview of recent trends and patterns in FDI flows to the LDCs, and then takes stock of the policies, programmes and measures pursued by host and home Countries and by international organizations to stimulate FDI flows to LDCs and increase their benefits for these Countries. It then lays out a number of policy proposals on how flows to LDCs, and the benefits associated with them, can be enhanced. Finally, it outlines some options for international action to strengthen such efforts—proposals and options that are also relevant to other developing Countries.
-
attracting foreign direct investment and benefiting from it challenges for the Least Developed Countries
Social Science Research Network, 2015Co-Authors: Karl P SauvantAbstract:The challenge to attract FDI to Least Developed Countries (LDCs) is twofold: to help increase FDI flows to LDCs; and to increase the contribution that the FDI flows that LDCs receive make to the development of host economies. Economic determinants, an enabling regulatory framework and investment promotion are crucial elements for attracting FDI that will ultimately enhance the contribution of TNCs to the economic growth and development of LDCs.
-
policy options for promoting foreign direct investment in the Least Developed Countries
Social Science Research Network, 2015Co-Authors: Karl P Sauvant, Padma MallampallyAbstract:Foreign direct investment (FDI) plays an important role in the world economy and has the potential to contribute toward accelerating the process of economic growth and sustainable development in the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). This article provides a brief overview of recent trends and patterns in FDI flows to the LDCs, and then takes stock of the policies, programs and measures pursued by host and home Countries and by international organizations to stimulate FDI flows to LDCs and increase the benefits for these Countries. It then lays out a number of policy proposals on how flows to LDCs, and the benefits associated with them, can be enhanced. Finally, it outlines some options for international action to strengthen such efforts - proposals and options that are also relevant to other developing Countries.
Anna Pegels - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
private sector engagement in climate change adaptation in Least Developed Countries an exploration
Climate and Development, 2013Co-Authors: Pieter Pauw, Anna PegelsAbstract:The private sector is increasingly being engaged in climate finance and climate-related activities. Private sector opportunities for engagement in climate change adaptation are less clear than for mitigation, particularly in developing Countries. This article first conceptualizes private sector engagement in adaptation by exploring (1) different roles of the private sector in adaptation in developing Countries and (2) the way governments can create an enabling environment to increase private sector engagement. Second, it analyses how 47 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) envisage the role of the private sector in their National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). This article argues that private sector engagement in adaptation is often inevitable and potentially significant. Yet, the results show that it receives little attention in NAPAs. This may have three explanations: (1) an intentional approach of LDCs to avoid a distraction from the necessity to scale up public funding; (2) a lack of awareness o...
-
private sector engagement in climate change adaptation in Least Developed Countries an exploration
Social Science Research Network, 2013Co-Authors: Pieter Pauw, Anna PegelsAbstract:The private sector is increasingly being engaged in climate finance and climate-related activities. Private sector opportunities for engagement in climate change adaptation are less clear than for mitigation, particularly in developing Countries. This article first conceptualizes private sector engagement in adaptation by exploring (1) different roles of the private sector in adaptation in developing Countries and (2) the way governments can create an enabling environment to increase private sector engagement. Second, it analyses how 47 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) envisage the role of the private sector in their National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). This article argues that private sector engagement in adaptation is often inevitable and potentially significant. Yet, the results show that it receives little attention in NAPAs. This may have three explanations: (1) an intentional approach of LDCs to avoid a distraction from the necessity to scale up public funding; (2) a lack of awareness of the potential of the private sector; and (3) the NAPA formulation guidelines focus on the public sector in the context of public financing, potentially causing path dependency. Developed Countries’ historic responsibility for emissions obliges them to upscale public climate finance. At the same time, however, LDCs should further explore private sector engagement in adaptation.
Benjamin K. Sovacool - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
political economy poverty and polycentrism in the global environment facility s Least Developed Countries fund ldcf for climate change adaptation
Third World Quarterly, 2017Co-Authors: Benjamin K. Sovacool, May Tanmullins, David Ockwell, Peter NewellAbstract:Climate change adaptation refers to altering infrastructure, institutions or ecosystems to respond to the impacts of climate change. Least Developed Countries often lack the requisite capacity to implement adaptation projects. The Global Environment Facility’s Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) is a scheme where industrialised Countries have disbursed $934.5 million in voluntary contributions to support 213 adaptation projects across 51 Least Developed Countries. But how effective are its efforts—and what sort of challenges have arisen as it implements projects? To provide some answers, this article documents the presence of four “political economy” attributes of adaptation projects—processes we have termed enclosure, exclusion, encroachment and entrenchment—cutting across economic, political, ecological and social dimensions. Based on extensive field research, we find the four processes at work simultaneously in our case studies of five LDCF projects being implemented in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, the Maldives and Vanuatu. The article concludes with a discussion of the broader implications of the political economy of adaptation for analysts, program managers and climate researchers at large. In sum, the politics of adaptation must be taken into account so that projects can maximise their efficacy and avoid marginalising those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
-
Climate change adaptation and the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF): Qualitative insights from policy implementation in the Asia-Pacific
Climatic Change, 2017Co-Authors: Benjamin K. Sovacool, Björn-ola Linnér, Richard J. T. KleinAbstract:Least Developed Countries often lack the requisite capacity to implement climate change adaptation projects. The Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) is a scheme where industrialized Countries have (as of early 2016) disbursed $934.5 million in voluntary contributions, raised more than four times that amount in co-financing, and supported 213 adaptation projects across 51 Least Developed Countries. But what sorts of challenges have arisen during implementation? Based on extensive field research in five Least Developed Countries—Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, the Maldives, and Vanuatu—and original data collected from almost 150 research interviews, this article qualitatively explores both the benefits and challenges of LDCF projects in the Asia-Pacific. It finds that while LDCF projects do contribute to enhancing multiple types of infrastructural, institutional, and community-based adaptive capacity, they also suffer from uncertainty, a convoluted management structure, and an inability to fully respond to climate risks. Based on these findings, the study concludes that adaptation must be pursued as a multidimensional process; and that LDCF activities have tended to promote marginal rather than more radical or systematic transformations.
Marcelo Olarreaga - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
eliminating excessive tariffs on exports of Least Developed Countries
2001Co-Authors: Bernard Hoekman, Marcelo OlarreagaAbstract:Most goods imported from developing Countries, enter Quad markets duty-free, and, average tariffs in Quad markets are very low. But tariffs for some commodities are over one hundred percent. Such"tariff peaks"are often concentrated in products developing Countries want to export: agricultural, and food products - especially such staples as sugar, cereals, and fish; fruits and vegetables; food products with a high sugar content; and, tobacco, and alcoholic beverages - and products from such labor-intensive sectors as apparel, and footwear. Giving Least Developed Countries full duty- and quota-free access in the Quad for peak-tariff products would increase their total annual exports by eleven percent - or roughly $ 2.5 billion. Exports to Quad Countries of peak-tariff products, would expand by 30-60 percent. Considering that peak-tariff items account for only a small share of developing Countries'exports, granting lest Developed Countries duty-free access, would have only a negligible impact on other developing Countries. For the same reason, Quad imports increase only marginally, suggesting that this factor should not constrain implementation of duty-free access for the poorest Countries.
-
eliminating excessive tariffs on exports of Least Developed Countries
Social Science Research Network, 2001Co-Authors: Bernard Hoekman, Marcelo OlarreagaAbstract:Average most-favored-nation tariffs in the Quad (Canada, the European Union, Japan, and the United States) have fallen to about 5 percent. But tariffs more than three times the average most-favored-nation duty are not uncommon in the Quad and have a disproportionate effect on exports of Least Developed Countries. Giving the poorest Countries duty-free access for peak-tariff products would increase their total annual exports by roughly $2.5 billion. Most goods imported from developing Countries enter Quad markets duty-free, and average tariffs in Quad markets are very low. But tariffs for some commodities are over 100 percent. Such tariff peaks are often concentrated in products developing Countries want to export: agricultural and food products - especially such staples as sugar, cereals, and fish; fruits and vegetables; food products with a high sugar content; and tobacco and alcoholic beverages - and products from such labor-intensive sectors as apparel and footwear. Giving Least Developed Countries full duty- and quota-free access in the Quad for peak-tariff products would increase their total annual exports by 11 percent - or roughly $2.5 billion. Exports to Quad Countries of peak-tariff products would expand by 30-60 percent. Considering that peak-tariff items account for only a small share of developing Countries' exports, granting Least Developed Countries duty-free access would have only a negligible impact on other developing Countries. For the same reason, Quad imports increase only marginally, suggesting that this factor should not constrain implementation of duty-free access for the poorest Countries. This paper - a product of Trade, Development Research Group - is part of a larger effort in the group to analyze impediments to developing country export growth.
-
eliminating excessive tariffs on exports of Least Developed Countries
The World Bank Economic Review, 1999Co-Authors: Bernard Hoekman, Marcelo OlarreagaAbstract:Although average OECD tariffs on imports from the Least Developed Countries are very low; tariffs above 15 percent (peaks) have a disproportional effect on their exports. Products subject to tariff peaks tend to be heavily concentrated in agriculture and food products and labor-intensive sectors, such as apparel and footwear. Although the Least Developed Countries benefit from preferential access, preferences tend to be smallest for tariff peak products. A major exception is the European Union, so that the recent European initiative to grant full duty-free and quota-free access for the Least Developed Countries (the so-called Everything But Arms initiative) will result in only a small increase in their exports of tariff peak items (less than 1 percent of total exports). However, as preferences are less significant in other major OECD Countries, a more general emulation of the European Union initiative would increase the Least Developed Countries' total exports of peak products by US$2.5 billion (11 percen...
Patrick Guillaumont - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
has structural economic vulnerability decreased in Least Developed Countries lessons drawn from retrospective indices
Journal of Development Studies, 2016Co-Authors: Joel Cariolle, Michael Goujon, Patrick GuillaumontAbstract:AbstractThe Economic Vulnerability Index (EVI) is a well-recognised measure of the structural vulnerability of developing Countries and is regularly used and published by the United Nations for cross-country comparison purposes, primarily to review the list of Least Developed Countries (LDCs). However, due to the revisions in methodology occurring over time, the official EVI cannot be used to assess the changes in vulnerability. In this paper, we use two retrospective series of the EVI, based on constant definitions. The real change in vulnerability is thus isolated from the impact of revisions in the design of the index, allowing comparison of the evolution of LDCs and non-LDCs. The implications of the revisions in the EVI design are then discussed.
-
Has structural economic vulnerability decreased in Least Developed Countries? Lessons drawn from retrospective indices
2014Co-Authors: Joel Cariolle, Michael Goujon, Patrick GuillaumontAbstract:Monitoring of structural change in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) requires examination of the changes in their structural economic vulnerability. This cannot be done by comparing the level of the Economic Vulnerability Index (EVI) that is calculated for each triennial review of the list of LDCs, because of the change in the design of the index. In this paper, the change in the structural vulnerability of LDCs is assessed according to two retrospective series of EVI, based on constant definitions, those respectively used at the 2006 and 2012 reviews. The real change in structural economic vulnerability is thus isolated from the impact of the changes in the design of the index (components, weighting, methods of calculation, and data updating). According to both retrospective series, structural vulnerability is not only markedly higher in LDCs than in other developing Countries, but it shows a later and smaller decline over the period 1990-2011. The declining trend of EVI is due mainly to the trend of the shock sub-index which is more marked in non-LDCs than in LDCs according to both designs. On the other hand, the exposure trend, which declines at a similar rate in LDCs and non LDCs, seems to result from two factors which do not reflect a real structural change in LDCs: a higher population growth and a less rapid increase of the share of population located in low elevation areas. Moreover the change in 2012 of the weighting of the exposure index, together with the addition of the low elevation coastal zone (LECZ) component (at the expense of population size), introduced a bias into the distribution of vulnerability values within the LDC group. It works against dry land Countries, which are often threatened by climate change. It also leads to underestimate the increase in the gap between the structural vulnerability of LDCs and non-LDCs.
-
the concept of structural economic vulnerability and its relevance for the identification of the Least Developed Countries and other purposes
Research Papers in Economics, 2011Co-Authors: Patrick GuillaumontAbstract:This paper was prepared by Professor Patrick Guillaumont, as a contribution to the expert group meeting of the Committee for Development Policy on climate change, conflict and other issues related to the review of the criteria for the identification of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) which took place in New York, 2-3 February 2011. Structural economic vulnerability is a major obstacle for the development of LDCs. The paper discusses the conceptual, methodological and empirical issues related to the economic vulnerability index (EVI) Developed and used by the Committee for Development Policy (CDP) in the identification of LDCs. The note also addresses the relation between physical and economic vulnerability to climate change as well as the role of the EVI in allocating official development aid and as tool for development research.
-
Assessing the Economic Vulnerability of Small Island Developing States and the Least Developed Countries
The Journal of Development Studies, 2010Co-Authors: Patrick GuillaumontAbstract:Macro vulnerability of the small island developing states (SIDS) as well as of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) has been an increasing concern for the international community. This has led to the design of an economic vulnerability index (EVI) to assess the structural economic vulnerability resulting from natural or external shocks. We first explain how vulnerability affects growth, development and poverty reduction, particularly in small developing Countries. We then examine how the EVI has been designed and how it can be used to compare SIDS and LDCs. We argue that EVI is a relevant tool not only for identification of LDCs, but also for geographical aid allocation to favour vulnerable Countries, including LDCs and SIDS, even though not all SIDS qualify as LDCs.
-
caught in a trap identifying the Least Developed Countries
2009Co-Authors: Patrick GuillaumontAbstract:The United Nations recognizes 49 Countries as ""Least Developed"" --the low-income Countries suffering most from structural handicaps to growth and thus deserving special treatment from the international community. Patrick Guillaumont has chaired the group that identifies Least Developed Countries (LDCs) at the UN Committee for Development Policy for the past ten years. In this book, he explores the meaning of ""Least Developed"" and the rationale for the LDC category. The book presents a history of the category and its conceptual and empirical grounds in growth economics. It assesses the two main criteria of structural handicaps: a human assets index and an economic vulnerability index. It considers how they can be aggregated in a structural handicap index to refine the identification of the LDCs and whether they could be combined with income per capita in a synthetic ""Least likely to develop"" index. Through its examination of the LDC category, this book explains why some low-income Countries seem to have been caught in a poverty trap while some others have escaped.