Record Details

Replication data for: Do Investor-State Disputes Hurt FDI?, by Andrew Kerner Krzysztof J. Pelc

Harvard Dataverse (Africa Rice Center, Bioversity International, CCAFS, CIAT, IFPRI, IRRI and WorldFish)

View Archive Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Title Replication data for: Do Investor-State Disputes Hurt FDI?, by Andrew Kerner Krzysztof J. Pelc
 
Identifier https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DHL5UR
 
Creator Kerner, Andrew
Pelc, Krzysztof
 
Publisher Harvard Dataverse
 
Description What are the consequences of being sued for violating bilateral investment treaties (BITs)? The conventional wisdom is that investor-state disputes (ISDS) tarnish countries’ compliance record, and harm foreign direct investment in the process. We re-examine this belief in light of recent trends in ISDS. The regime has witnessed a proliferation of claims, a growing proportion of which allege breaches of provisions like fair and equitable treatment (FET) and indirect expropriation. Combined with a decrease in the rate of success of such claims, we argue that the average ISDS claim now carries less information than it once did. If so, investors should be less likely to update their expectations and reduce investments. We find consistent evidence for this through an examination of 812 investor-state disputes from 1987 to present day, across two different datasets relating to firms’ risk perceptions. Consequences of investor-state claims on FDI are only apparent in cases that allege direct expropriation. Even among these, the effects are smaller today than they were in the past. In sum, the reputational effects of ISDS claims appear to have been eroded by the developments of the last two decades. ISDS just isn’t what it used to be.
 
Subject Social Sciences
"Investor State Dispute Settlement" "Foreign Direct Investment"
 
Contributor Kerner, Andrew