Roland Koch’s article looks at the problem of sovereign wealth funds from a largely national point of view, that of Germany. But these days our marketplace for goods and capital is global. I believe it is worth seeing if a balance might be struck between global and national interests, ending or at least easing the fears raised by Koch.
It won’t be easy. International investment funds, including state-owned or state-influenced ones, play a growing role in Europe. Host countries are not unreasonably concerned that they represent a security risk, for the very size of the funds can be alarming.
There was a time, only a decade or so ago, when sovereign wealth funds and long-term investment funds aroused few national security worries, if any. These funds invested in the economies of many European countries, including major ones like Germany and France. The profits from their investments were mostly reinvested in the host country, and export-oriented ones with open external economic relations benefited greatly from these investments.
Then along came the oil-rich countries like Russia, and the Gulf states, and emerging countries such as China and India, with even larger funds at their disposal. They are much bigger than the pension (or other) funds of a European state, and are invested or withdrawn according to the sovereign decisions of their owners, and to their political and economic goals. The functioning of these long-term investment funds affects the whole world, and has created new challenges for European countries, just as Roland Koch has demonstrated.
Differences in the business philosophies of these foreign investors and the states they target can obviously cause conflict. The targeted states clearly want guarantees of fair business practices, and are against the creation of monopolies or even oligopolies that run contrary to the European model of a market economy. Reciprocity is probably rarely mentioned by these investors. Koch makes a good point that a country that allows foreign investment should have the same market access in the investor’s country. As things stand, most foreign state investors do not welcome European investors as equals. Their currency may not be convertible, or if it is they fix the non-negotiable exchange rate, contrary to the basic principles of international cooperation. Making reciprocity a condition for accepting foreign investment would be an important step towards a more balanced relationship between sovereign funds and host countries.
It is not only the older and larger EU states that feel insecure. We in the EU’s new member states are also aware of the growing penetration of foreign state-owned companies. In many cases they have gained majority stakes in strategically important sectors like electricity, water and gas, and also in transport and telecommunications.
So what should be done? Yes, there’s reciprocity, but what about protectionism? It is a word that makes Europeans feel uneasy. Let us in Europe at least ensure we are pursuing economic policies that give priority to the proper functioning of key sectors, with its associated benefits of health care, education, good infrastructure and environmental management. But let us also look more closely at our own resources for investment. We need to encourage home savings. Sovereign wealth funds will not go away, but they may yet prove receptive to reasonable reforms that would allay host countries’ fears.