IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The Politics of Ambiguity in Asia's Sovereign Wealth Funds

Listed author(s):
  • Pekkanen Saadia M

    (University of Washington)

  • Tsai Kellee S

    (Johns Hopkins University)

Registered author(s):

    Investments by Asian Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) continue to be of concern in the global economy. A common perception is that they are managed by state-affiliated entities with geostrategic motives that could somehow prove detrimental to host countries. This paper demonstrates, however, that even the definition, let alone the establishment and investment targets, of Asian SWFs are embroiled in ambiguity within home country politics. Plainly put, ambiguity refers to the absence of clear-cut policy processes, means, and goals. How do we explain the ambiguity surrounding SWFs? Ambiguity is not a cover for deliberate, cohesive, and strategic actions, because SWFs are not under the control of any one set of actors. Rather, perhaps to the discomfort even of home country sovereigns, ambiguity is a messy domestic product of contending political forces that do not allow a marked trend toward any one single policy equilibrium on sovereign investments, whether domestic or foreign. While this reality is perhaps understandable in a democratic polity, it is also equally true of authoritarian ones in the region. In both types of cases, ambiguity is constructed inadvertently by the interactions of state, interstate, and intrastate actors, each with their own interests and expectations about the role of SWFs. Analyzing the cases in Singapore, China, Japan, and other Asian countries, from this unifying perspective suggests that while ambiguity may fuel external anxiety concerning home country intentions, it actually reflects far more domestically salient controversies about SWF activities than is typically appreciated.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bap.2011.13.2/bap.2011.13.2.1344/bap.2011.13.2.1344.xml?format=INT
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by De Gruyter in its journal Business and Politics.

    Volume (Year): 13 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 2 (August)
    Pages: 1-46

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:bpj:buspol:v:13:y:2011:i:2:n:3
    Contact details of provider: Web page: https://www.degruyter.com

    Order Information: Web: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bap

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Garrett, Geoffrey & Tsebelis, George, 1996. "An institutional critique of intergovernmentalism: erratum," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(03), pages 539-539, June.
    2. Garrett, Geoffrey & Tsebelis, George, 1996. "An institutional critique of intergovernmentalism," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(02), pages 269-299, March.
    3. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    4. Noland, Marcus, 1997. "Chasing Phantoms: The Political Economy of USTR," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(03), pages 365-387, June.
    5. Moravcsik, Andrew, 1997. "Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(04), pages 513-553, September.
    6. Broz, J. Lawrence, 1998. "The Origins of Central Banking: Solutions to the Free-Rider Problem," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(02), pages 231-268, March.
    7. Bernhard, William & Leblang, David, 1999. "Democratic Institutions and Exchange-rate Commitments," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(01), pages 71-97, December.
    8. Schnietz, Karen E., 2003. "The Reaction of Private Interests to the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(01), pages 213-233, December.
    9. Peter J Kunzel & Cornelia Hammer & Iva Petrova, 2008. "Sovereign Wealth Funds; Current Institutional and Operational Practices," IMF Working Papers 08/254, International Monetary Fund.
    10. William L. Megginson & Bernardo Bortolotti & Veljko Fotak & William Miracky, 2009. "Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment Patterns and Performance," Working Papers 2009.22, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    11. Rolando Avendaño & Javier Santiso, 2010. "Are Sovereign Wealth Funds' Investments Politically Biased?: A Comparison with Mutual Funds," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 283, OECD Publishing.
    12. Koremenos, Barbara & Lipson, Charles & Snidal, Duncan, 2001. "The Rational Design of International Institutions," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(04), pages 761-799, September.
    13. Goldstein, Judith & Martin, Lisa L., 2000. "Legalization, Trade Liberalization, and Domestic Politics: A Cautionary Note," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(03), pages 603-632, June.
    14. Hiscox, Michael J., 2001. "Class Versus Industry Cleavages: Inter-Industry Factor Mobility and the Politics of Trade," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(01), pages 1-46, December.
    15. David Lake, 2009. "Open economy politics: A critical review," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 219-244, September.
    16. Chase, Kerry A., 2003. "Economic Interests and Regional Trading Arrangements: The Case of NAFTA," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(01), pages 137-174, December.
    17. Epstein, David & O'Halloran, Sharyn, 1996. "The partisan paradox and the U.S. tariff, 1877–1934," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(02), pages 301-324, March.
    18. Milner, Helen V. & Kubota, Keiko, 2005. "Why the Move to Free Trade? Democracy and Trade Policy in the Developing Countries," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(01), pages 107-143, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:buspol:v:13:y:2011:i:2:n:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.