Australia's foreign investment policy: an historical perspective

Q3 Social Sciences
Christopher J Pokarier
{"title":"Australia's foreign investment policy: an historical perspective","authors":"Christopher J Pokarier","doi":"10.1504/IJPP.2017.086051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Why did Australia, historically open to overseas capital, turn to restrictive policy in the early 1970s, only to significantly liberalise again from the mid-1980s? Furthermore, why has the regulatory apparatus of Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB), established in the illiberal mid-1970s, been little changed over the last four decades, despite a return to relative openness? The paper finds that the initial illiberal turn arose from the changing sectoral and country-of-origin mix of foreign investment, a less liberal domestic and international ideational climate FDI, and from oppositional policy entrepreneurship. Liberalisation followed growing external imbalances, elite neo-liberal ideational change and transformative public leadership. The FIRB mechanism placated populist economic nationalist sentiment while allowing liberal policy in general, yet also tailored to the public and private interest logics of specific investment proposals. Remaining sectoral restrictions reflect both private interest influences and sector-specific public interest sensitivities.","PeriodicalId":35027,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Policy","volume":"13 1","pages":"212-231"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1504/IJPP.2017.086051","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPP.2017.086051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Why did Australia, historically open to overseas capital, turn to restrictive policy in the early 1970s, only to significantly liberalise again from the mid-1980s? Furthermore, why has the regulatory apparatus of Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB), established in the illiberal mid-1970s, been little changed over the last four decades, despite a return to relative openness? The paper finds that the initial illiberal turn arose from the changing sectoral and country-of-origin mix of foreign investment, a less liberal domestic and international ideational climate FDI, and from oppositional policy entrepreneurship. Liberalisation followed growing external imbalances, elite neo-liberal ideational change and transformative public leadership. The FIRB mechanism placated populist economic nationalist sentiment while allowing liberal policy in general, yet also tailored to the public and private interest logics of specific investment proposals. Remaining sectoral restrictions reflect both private interest influences and sector-specific public interest sensitivities.
澳大利亚的外国投资政策:一个历史的视角
为什么历史上对海外资本开放的澳大利亚在20世纪70年代初转向限制性政策,却从20世纪80年代中期开始再次大幅自由化?此外,为什么澳大利亚外国投资审查委员会(FIRB)成立于20世纪70年代中期,尽管恢复了相对开放,但其监管机构在过去四十年里几乎没有变化?论文发现,最初的不自由转向源于外国投资的部门和来源国组合的变化、国内外观念氛围的不太自由的外国直接投资,以及对立的政策创业。自由化伴随着日益严重的外部失衡、精英新自由主义思想的转变和变革性的公共领导。FIRB机制安抚了民粹主义的经济民族主义情绪,同时允许总体上的自由主义政策,但也适应了具体投资提案的公共和私人利益逻辑。剩余的部门限制既反映了私人利益的影响,也反映了特定部门的公共利益敏感性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Public Policy
International Journal of Public Policy Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The IJPP proposes and fosters discussion on public policy issues facing nation states and national and supranational organisations, including governments, and how these diverse groups approach and solve common public policy problems. The emphasis will be on governance, accountability, the creation of wealth and wellbeing, and the implications policy choices have on nation states and their citizens. This perspective acknowledges that public policy choice and execution is complex and has ramifications on the welfare of citizens; and that, despite national differences, the actions of nation states are constrained by policies determined by supranational bodies, some of which are not directly accountable to any international body.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信