Reviewing the EU Approach to Regulating FDI Policy Competition


The main conclusion of the positive analysis of FDI policy competition in Europe presented in Chapter 3 is that the EU possesses a sophisticated competition framework that represents a “considerable success in cooperation and policy coordination”.466 It suggested that EU institutions and governance mechanisms in this area are, in principle, well designed to be effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to support the goal of establishing ex ante arrangements for contract governance to save on ex-post transaction costs.467 The following section takes a closer look at the extent to which the overall EU competition framework also represents an effective solution to overcome FDI policy competition issues.


Annex Table Horizontal Objective Agendum Enterprise Award Level Individual Award 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 466.
    Wishlade, in RAINES/ BROWN (1999), pp. 112–113.Google Scholar
  2. 467.
    See WILLIAMSON (1985), pp. 21–22.Google Scholar
  3. 469.
    EU (2004), p. 4.Google Scholar
  4. 470.
    See UNCTAD (2004a), p. 80.Google Scholar
  5. 471.
    The Inward FDI Performance measures a country’s relative FDI performance in relation to its economic size, which is an indicator of its competitiveness. The European Union consistently ranked above factor 1, i.e., it received more FDI than its economic size. The exact numbers are 1.33(1988–90), 1.12(1993–95), 1.91 (2000–02), 1.88 (2001–03). See UNCTAD (2004a), p. 12.Google Scholar
  6. 472.
    For example, during the same period North America ranked 1.13 (1988–1990), 0.76 (1993–1995), 0.67 (2000–2002), 0.45 (2001–2003). See UNCTAD (2004a), p. 12.Google Scholar
  7. 474.
    See EU (2004), p. 4. See Annex Table A-15 for a comprehensive summary of data.Google Scholar
  8. 475.
    See EU (2004), p. 12.Google Scholar
  9. 476.
    See EU (2004), p. 5.Google Scholar
  10. 477.
    See IBEX (2003), p. 6. As is pointed out in the report, these numbers need to be interpreted with caution as classification of aid categories does not necessarily reflect their primary objectives.Google Scholar
  11. 478.
    See EU (2004), p. 36. The phasing out of special aid programs to Germany’s New Federal States in 2000 heavily impacted this trend. See Annex Table A-16 for data.Google Scholar
  12. 479.
    The EU State Aid Scoreboard 2004 (Spring Update) does not provide any data on regional aid to 87(3)c areas (only 87[3]a areas). Thus, regional aid data for “c” areas in EUR have been obtained from the EU Ninth Survey on State Aid (2001), which lists country data from 1995–1999, weighted by total aid less agriculture, fisheries and transport in EU (2004). See Annex Table A-17 for data.Google Scholar
  13. 480.
    IBEX (2003), p. 7. See comments above regarding the use of data.Google Scholar
  14. 481.
    See IBEX (2003), p. 7.Google Scholar
  15. 482.
    WILLIAMSON (2000), p. 601.Google Scholar
  16. 483.
    WILLIAMSON (2000), p. 601.Google Scholar
  17. 484.
    EU (2003a), p. 2.Google Scholar
  18. 485.
    See YUILL/ BACHTLER/ WISHLADE (1996) for a detailed discussion on designation of regional aid areas.Google Scholar
  19. 488.
    See RAINES/ WISHLADE (1997), p. 6Google Scholar
  20. 489.
    Instead, some countries such as Portugal and Spain experienced an actual increase of (theoretical) state aid levels when joining the EU (see RAINES/ WISHLADE, 1997, p. 8).Google Scholar
  21. 489.
    See RAINES/ WISHLADE (1997), p. 7.Google Scholar
  22. 490.
    See RAINES/ BROWN (1990), p. 100.Google Scholar
  23. 491.
    See EU (2003a), p. 15.Google Scholar
  24. 494.
    The Multisectoral Framework on Regional Aid for Large Investment Projects requires single notification of total investment costs of EUR 100 million per investment for each project. Subsidy level for all investments exceeding EUR 50 million is subject to a 50 percent reduced rate of the maximum regional subsidy level. For investments larger than EUR 100 million the proportion exceeding EUR 100 million is subject to a reduced level of 34 percent of the maximum regional subsidy level (see EU, 2002b, p. 10).Google Scholar
  25. 495.
    See RAINES/ BROWN (1999); DAVIDSON/ FITZPATRICK/ JOHNSON (1995); WILKS (1992).Google Scholar
  26. 496.
    Wishlade, in RAINES/ BROWN (1999), p. 108.Google Scholar
  27. 497.
    The EU Scoreboard 2004 notes that in 15 percent of investigated aid cases, the Commission, not the Member State, initiated the control procedure after finding out about the aid, for example, following a complaint (see EU, 2004, p. 39).Google Scholar
  28. 498.
    See Wishlade, in RAINES/ BROWN (1999), p. 107.Google Scholar
  29. 499.
    See EU (2004), p. 41.Google Scholar
  30. 500.
    See EU (2003a), p. 13.Google Scholar
  31. 501.
    See EU (2003a), p. 4.Google Scholar
  32. 502.
    See OECD (2001), p. 8. See also BESLEY/ SEABRIGHT (1999).Google Scholar
  33. 503.
    See DAVIDSON/ FITZPATRICK/ JOHNSON (1995), p. 38.Google Scholar
  34. 504.
    See EU (2004), p. 40.Google Scholar
  35. 505.
    See STAPLES (2004).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2006

Personalised recommendations