IFSWF Report on Compliance with the Santiago Principles: Admirable but Flawed Transparency
Sarah Bagnall and Edwin M. Truman examine the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds (IFSWF) report, which claims to be "a solid, initial step toward a better understanding of the IFSWF and of the Santiago Principles," and find this to be largely true, with a few limitations. The report, released July 7, 2011, is a self-assessment of the voluntary compliance of 21 member sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) with the Generally Accepted Principles and Practices of SWFs, issued in October 2008. Bagnall and Truman find that the extent of compliance with the Santiago Principles is somewhat exaggerated. In addition, some of the 21 funds have substantially lower rates of compliance than others, which is not reported. However, the report is frank about many of the issues that arise with respect to the interpretation of its results, for example regarding the application of the principles on investment policies and on nonfinancial restrictions on SWF investment decisions. Ultimately, presentation may obscure some results in the IFSWF report, but Bagnall and Truman find the report credible and admirable.
Sovereign Wealth Funds: Is Asia Different?
Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) have become a prominent feature of the international financial landscape. They are sufficiently diverse in their origins, structures, and objectives that generalizations are perilous. However, legitimate concerns have been raised in home and host countries about the management, behavior, and interactions of these funds. Many of those concerns can be addressed via increased accountability and transparency. The Santiago Principles are a good start in doing so, but my SWF scoreboard points to areas where these principles can be improved. Meanwhile, SWF compliance must be further increased. At the same time, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) effort to address concerns from the host-country side has not resulted in the erection of new barriers to that form of cross-border investment, but the OECD failed to reverse the creeping financial protectionism of the past decade. Because of their size and the source of their funding, some Asian funds are different. As a result, they will be held to a higher standard of accountability and transparency even as their government owners press for more openness to cross-border investment.
Did the metamorphosis from Export Processing Zones to Special Economic Zones improve the efficiency of trade enclaves in India?
In this paper, the efficiency of seven conventional Special Economic Zones in India is analyzed, by adopting a stochastic production frontier technique, for the period between 1986–1987 and 2007–2008.Results indicate that although the efficiency scores of these enclaves have improved over the years, specifically with the introduction of the SEZ policy (2000–2001), it is far below the threshold level as identified in the literature. Besides, one can also observe a discrepancy emerging between better export earning zones and efficient zones. On the determinants side, policy intervention and large geographical area, accompanied by clustering of units, are found to have impacted the efficiency scores of these enclaves positively.