Post 2015: Global Action for an Inclusive and Sustainable Future
Post 2015: Global Action for an Inclusive and Sustainable Future
Post 2015: Global Action for an Inclusive and Sustainable Future
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
lDcs to foster trade growth <strong>an</strong>d achieve structural<br />
economic tr<strong>an</strong>s<strong>for</strong>mation. In 2010, the total volume<br />
of contributions from the Eu <strong>an</strong>d its member<br />
States accounted <strong>for</strong> about 40% of global aft flows<br />
(basnett, 2012). at the global level, the Eu could<br />
also help to focus the aft agenda on reducing<br />
the costs of trading <strong>an</strong>d addressing the binding<br />
constraints to growth in lIcs.<br />
the Eu currently provides more aft to umIcs<br />
th<strong>an</strong> to lIcs, <strong>an</strong>d proportionately, it provides less<br />
aft to lIcs th<strong>an</strong> do other donors (Stevens, 2012).<br />
this needs to ch<strong>an</strong>ge in order to align the Eu’s trade<br />
policy in the GSp (to favour lmIcs <strong>an</strong>d lIcs over<br />
umIcs) <strong>an</strong>d its positive support to trade (which<br />
favours umIcs over lIcs). Given that supply<br />
capacity (including infrastructural constraints<br />
<strong>an</strong>d a poor policy framework) is a major obstacle<br />
to increasing lIc <strong>an</strong>d lDc exports, which c<strong>an</strong>not<br />
be offset by trade preferences, it could be argued<br />
that the Eu has it the wrong way around. Greater<br />
support to increasing supply capacity in lIcs would<br />
reduce the claimed need to increase tariffs on<br />
imports from umIcs in order to help poorer states.<br />
(b)Investing in inclusive <strong>an</strong>d sustainable<br />
development<br />
there are signific<strong>an</strong>t ch<strong>an</strong>ges underway in the<br />
national <strong>an</strong>d international investment l<strong>an</strong>dscape.<br />
For example, emerging economies – in particular<br />
brIcs – are increasingly large investors as their<br />
outward FDI represents about 30% of world FDI<br />
flows (unctaD, 2012a). Sovereign wealth funds are<br />
increasingly signific<strong>an</strong>t investors, <strong>an</strong>d although they<br />
still account <strong>for</strong> only a small share of global FDI they<br />
have the resources to assume a greater profile. Stateowned<br />
enterprises (SoEs) are also major investors,<br />
with their overseas investments accounting <strong>for</strong> about<br />
11% of global FDI flows (unctaD, 2012b). this<br />
proliferation brings new opportunities but also poses<br />
new challenges, since it becomes harder to achieve<br />
the dual objective of maximising investment inflows<br />
while also providing a regulatory environment that<br />
ensures that the benefits accrue to society. the<br />
signific<strong>an</strong>t increase of chinese investment is often in<br />
the extractive industries, which typically have large<br />
social <strong>an</strong>d environmental externalities.<br />
at the same time governments are becoming<br />
more active in determining investment policy.<br />
Just to provide a few examples, <strong>an</strong>d as reported<br />
by unctaD (2012b), they are promoting more<br />
investment regulations, encouraging job-creating<br />
investments (especially to counteract the effects of<br />
the current global economic <strong>an</strong>d fin<strong>an</strong>cial crises),<br />
exploiting investment promotion activities to<br />
support the integration of domestic comp<strong>an</strong>ies into<br />
Gvcs, <strong>an</strong>d also favouring the quality rather th<strong>an</strong><br />
the qu<strong>an</strong>tity of investment. again, these tendencies<br />
underline the difficulties of finding the right bal<strong>an</strong>ce<br />
between promoting <strong>an</strong>d regulating investment.<br />
a post-<strong>2015</strong> framework should take into account<br />
these ch<strong>an</strong>ges in the investment l<strong>an</strong>dscape in<br />
order to ensure that investment helps to promote<br />
inclusive <strong>an</strong>d sustainable development. to this end<br />
it is import<strong>an</strong>t:<br />
• To encourage investment in LICs <strong>an</strong>d LDCs.<br />
the country case studies on nepal <strong>an</strong>d rw<strong>an</strong>da<br />
call <strong>for</strong> creating tax incentives <strong>for</strong> investments<br />
destined <strong>for</strong> lIcs <strong>an</strong>d lDcs. the nepal case<br />
study argues that a post-<strong>2015</strong> framework should<br />
also include targets that encourage developed<br />
countries <strong>an</strong>d emerging economies to provide<br />
incentives (such as subsidised credit or tax<br />
breaks) to encourage their enterprises to make<br />
development-friendly investments in lDcs. the<br />
case study stresses that indicative targets should<br />
be at least 2% of FDI flows <strong>an</strong>d at least 1% of all<br />
greenfield investments.<br />
• To integrate investment policy in development<br />
strategy. Investments should be directed to<br />
areas that could encourage growth, productivity<br />
<strong>an</strong>d structural tr<strong>an</strong>s<strong>for</strong>mation. this may also<br />
help lessen the impact of external shocks.<br />
there should also be greater coherence between<br />
poSt-<strong>2015</strong>: <strong>Global</strong> actIon For <strong>an</strong> IncluSIvE <strong>an</strong>D SuStaInablE FuturE<br />
There are<br />
signific<strong>an</strong>t<br />
ch<strong>an</strong>ges underway<br />
in the national<br />
<strong>an</strong>d international<br />
investment<br />
l<strong>an</strong>dscape.<br />
The post-<strong>2015</strong><br />
framework should<br />
take into account<br />
these ch<strong>an</strong>ges.<br />
167