IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iie/pbrief/pb16-18.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Uneven Progress on Sovereign Wealth Fund Transparency and Accountability

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah E. Stone

    (Williams College)

  • Edwin M. Truman

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

Abstract

Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs)—government-controlled funds invested in whole or in part outside their home country—have grown in size, attracting political and financial attention focused on their lack of transparency. Suspicions have also grown about the motives behind their investments and their potential to disrupt countries economically, financially and politically. This Policy Brief updates and expands a prototype scoreboard rating the transparency and accountability of SWFs, which Truman established in 2007 to examine and promote the transparency and accountability of SWFs within and outside their countries. The first full scoreboard was released in April 2008, the second in September 2010, and the third in August 2013. The 60 SWFs scored in this fourth edition of the scoreboard record substantial differences: Some SWFs have high scores, others have low scores. Even funds within the same country have substantially different scores. Most important, many funds fall short of what the citizens of their countries or the international community should expect. On the other hand, the scores of many funds have improved over the past decade. The International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds (IFSWF) has been instrumental in promoting transparency and accountability of SWFs, and member funds generally score higher than nonmember funds. But the Forum can do more to increase its membership and improve the transparency of its members.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah E. Stone & Edwin M. Truman, 2016. "Uneven Progress on Sovereign Wealth Fund Transparency and Accountability," Policy Briefs PB16-18, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:iie:pbrief:pb16-18
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/uneven-progress-sovereign-wealth-fund-transparency-and-accountability
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joseph E. Gagnon, 2017. "Do Governments Drive Global Trade Imbalances?," Working Paper Series WP17-15, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    2. Ghouma, Hatem H. & Ouni, Zeineb, 2022. "The sovereign wealth funds risk premium: Evidence from the cost of debt financing," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    3. Peng Liu & Nathan Mauck & S. McKay Price, 2020. "Are Government Owned Investment Funds Created Equal? Evidence from Sovereign Wealth Fund Real Estate Acquisitions," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 61(4), pages 698-729, November.
    4. Bernardo Bortolotti & Veljko Fotak & Chloe Hogg, 2020. "Sovereign Wealth Funds and the COVID-19 shock: Economic and Financial Resilience in Resource-Rich Countries," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 20147, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    5. Amar, J. & Lecourt, C., 2023. "Sovereign wealth fund governance: A trade-off between internal and external legitimacy," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(6).
    6. Megginson, William L. & Gao, Xuechen, 2020. "The state of research on sovereign wealth funds," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iie:pbrief:pb16-18. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peterson Institute webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iieeeus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.