Ralentissement dans les BRIC: faut-il s’en inquiéter ?

Mercredi 18 décembre 2013, 18 rue de Martignac - 75007 Paris

Présentation :

• Andrea Goldstein, Economiste à l’OCDE

The BRICs in the International Investment Landscape

Andrea Goldstein Club du CEPII

18 décembre 2013

FDI in the Current Globalization Wave (1994 = 100)

Sources: UNCTAD, World Bank, WTO

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

GDP

trade (exports)

FDI (inflows)

FDI (outflows)

The BRICs in the Current Globalization Wave (1994 = 100)

Sources: UNCTAD, World Bank, WTO

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

GDP

trade (exports)

FDI (inflows)

FDI (outflows)

The BRICs in the Global Investment Landscape: As Destinations

(US$ bn)

Source: UNCTAD

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Brazil

Russia

India

China

The BRICs in the Global Investment Landscape: As Sources

(US$ bn)

Source: UNCTAD

(20)

0

20

40

60

80

100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Brazil

Russia

India

China

BRIC Big Business: Irresistible Growth … (number of entries among the world’s 500 largest companies, by turnover)

Source: Fortune

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1994 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Brazil

Russia

India

China

… although not so global … (value of the Trans-nationality Index)

Source: elaboration on UNCTAD data

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

World Emerging economies

BRIC Brazil Russia India China

TNI

… including SOEs FG500 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 10 29

3 7 State Grid China Utilities 0 0

4 13 Japan Post Holdings Japan Mail, Package, and Freight Delivery 0 0

5 15 Gazprom Russia Energy 0 na

6 23 Petrobras Brazil Petroleum Refining 6 12

7 34 Pemex Mexico Mining, Crude-Oil Production 0 50

8 40 Statoil Norway Petroleum Refining 51 23

9 68 Petronas Malaysia Petroleum Refining 26 78

10 73 Électricité de France France Utilities 51 42

11 81 China Mobile Communications China Telecommunications 0 0

12 83 Indian Oil India Petroleum Refining 0 na

13 101 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 0 0

16 135 U.S. Postal Service United States Mail, Package, and Freight Delivery 0 0

17 137 Rosneft Oil Russia Petroleum Refining 0 81

18 179 Deutsche Bahn Germany Railroads 15 42

19 197 Baosteel Group China Metals 0 11

20 221 China Telecommunications China Telecommunications 0 0

Average: 10 23 Non-OECD average: 5.7 21.9

OECD average: 19.6 26.0

Source: OECD elaboration on Company annual reports, Fortune Global 500 2012.

Outward IM&A profiles, 2012

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

Private listed Private non-listed SOE non-listed SOE listed

All countries

Source: OECD elaboration on Datastream.

Outward IM&A profiles in 2012: Brazil and China vs. France and Norway

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Private listed

Private non-listed

SOE listed SOE non-listed

Brazil

0

10000

20000

30000

Private listed

Private non-listed

SOE listed SOE non-listed

China

0

10000

20000

30000

Private listed

Private non-listed

SOE listed SOE non-listed

France

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Private listed

Private non-listed

SOE listed SOE non-listed

Norway

Source: OECD elaboration on Datastream.

Inward IM&A profiles, 2012

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

Private listed Private non-listed SOE non-listed SOE listed

All countries

Source: OECD elaboration on Datastream.

Inward IM&A profiles of six countries, 2012

0

10000

20000

30000

Private listed

Private non-listed

SOE non-listed

SOE listed

Australia

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

Private listed

Private non-listed

SOE non-listed

SOE listed

Canada

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Private listed

Private non-listed

SOE non-listed

SOE listed

China

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

10000

Private listed

Private non-listed

SOE non-listed

SOE listed

Norway

0

50000

100000

150000

Private listed

Private non-listed

SOE non-listed

SOE listed

United States

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Private listed

Private non-listed

SOE non-listed

SOE listed

India

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

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.

Ease of Doing Business Corruption Perceptions

Ranking 2007 Ranking 2014 Score 2005 Score 2014

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 4.0

Has business life in the BRICs become harder?

Sources: Transparency International and World Bank Note: Since 2013, all Doing Business rankings have been recalculated

to reflect changes to the methodology and revisions of data due to new information.

• 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.

2013 Investment Climate Statements

Source: US State Department, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

2012 OECD FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness Index

OECD average

NON-OECD average

Average of adherent countries

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45

ChinaSaudi Arabia

IndonesiaJordan

IndiaJapan

New ZealandMexico

MalaysiaTunisiaRussiaIcelandCanada

MongoliaKazakhstan

KoreaAustralia

IsraelUkraine

PeruAustria

United StatesBrazil

SwitzerlandKyrgyz Republic

NorwayTurkey

DenmarkPoland

ChileMorocco

LatviaEgypt

United KingdomSweden

Czech RepublicSouth Africa

ItalyHungary

Slovak RepublicFranceIreland

LithuaniaBelgiumGreece

ArgentinaColombiaGermany

EstoniaSpain

FinlandNetherlands

RomaniaSloveniaPortugal

Luxembourg

Closed = 1; Open = 0

Source: Mistura and Thomsen (2014

Top reformers according to the OECD FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness Index

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7Top reformers ranked from left to right

FDI Reform (difference in scores between 1997 and 2010) 2010

Source: Mistura and Thomsen (2014

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, 2013

Male capitalism …

EU

M

W

US

M

W

JP

M

W

BRICKVM

M

W

… although the winner is …