Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Leviathan as foreign investor: Geopolitics and sovereign wealth funds

  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) are important but understudied state investors. We investigate whether geopolitics influences SWFs foreign acquisitions, asking if and how their FDI patterns differ from those of private firms. Theoretical expectations are mixed. On the one hand, limited managerial control of target firms suggests that SWFs may be unable to pursue political goals, and thus they are no more sensitive to geopolitics than private firms. On the other hand, state ownership of SWFs can generate national security externalities and thereby makes SWFs more sensitive to geopolitics. Utilizing novel big-data measures of cooperative and adversarial relations based on media reporting and three different tests, we examine over 5800 cross-border acquisitions by SWFs and private firms. We find that home–host conflict hinders SWFs more than private firms whereas cooperation helps SWFs more than private firms. Hence, despite SWFs’ lack of managerial control of target firms, state ownership moderates geopolitical influences on their internationalization and makes them more sensitive than private firms to interstate relations. Our findings suggest that government concern over FDI by state entities goes beyond their operational activities.

Resume

Les fonds souverains (SWFs - Sovereign Wealth Funds) sont des investisseurs publics importants mais peu étudiés. Nous cherchons à savoir si la géopolitique influence les acquisitions internationales des fonds souverains, plus spécifiquement, si et en quoi leurs configurations d'investissement direct à l’étranger (FDI – Foreign Direct Investment) diffèrent de celles des entreprises privées. Les perspectives théoriques sont mixtes. D'une part, le contrôle managérial limité des entreprises cibles suggère que les fonds souverains puissent être incapables de poursuivre des objectifs politiques et ne soient donc pas plus sensibles à la géopolitique que les entreprises privées. D'autre part, le fait d’être détenu par l’Etat peut générer des externalités de sécurité nationale et rend ainsi les fonds souverains plus sensibles à la géopolitique. En concevant trois tests différents et de nouvelles mesures basées sur les mégadonnées des relations coopératives et antagonistes reportées par les médias, nous examinons plus de 5800 acquisitions internationales par des fonds souverains et des entreprises privées. Nous observons que les conflits entre les pays d'origine et d’accueil entravent davantage les fonds souverains que les entreprises privées, tandis que la coopération aide davantage les premiers que les secondes. Ainsi, malgré le manque de contrôle managérial des SWFs sur les entreprises cibles, la propriété étatique modère les influences géopolitiques sur leur internationalisation et les rend plus sensibles aux relations interétatiques que les entreprises privées. Nos résultats suggèrent que les préoccupations du gouvernement en matière de FDI des entités étatiques vont au-delà de leurs activités opérationnelles.

Resumen

Los fondos soberanos (SWF por sus iniciales en inglés) son importantes, pero son inversionistas estatales poco estudiados. Investigamos si la geopolítica influencia las adquisiciones extranjeras de fondos soberanos, preguntándonos si y de que manera los patrones de IED difieren de los de las empresas privadas. Las expectativas teóricas son mixtas. Por un lado, el control gerencial limitado de las empresas objetivo sugiere que los fondos soberanos pueden ser incapaces de perseguir objetivos políticos y, por tanto, no son más sensibles a la geopolítica que las empresas privadas. Por otro lado, la propiedad estatal de los fondos soberanos puede generar externalidades a la seguridad nacional y por ende hacer los fondos soberanos más sensible a la geopolítica. Usando medidas novedosas de big data de relaciones cooperativas y adversarias basadas en la información de los medios de comunicación y tres pruebas diferentes, examinamos más de 5.800 adquisiciones transfronterizas de fondos soberanos y empresas privadas. Encontramos que los conflictos entre el país de origen y el de acogida obstaculizan más a los fondos soberanos que a las empresas privadas, mientras que la cooperación ayuda más a los fondos soberanos que a las empresas privadas. Por consiguiente, a pesar de que los fondos soberanos no tienen el control de la gestión de las empresas objetivo, la propiedad estatal modera las influencias geopolíticas en su internacionalización y los hace más sensibles que las empresas privadas a las relaciones interestatales. Nuestros hallazgos sugieren que la preocupación de los gobiernos por la IED de las entidades estatales va más allá de sus actividades operativas.

Resumo

Fundos Soberanos de Riqueza (SWFs) são investidores estatais importantes, mas pouco estudados. Investigamos se a geopolítica influencia aquisições estrangeiras de SWFs, perguntando se e como seus padrões de FDI diferem daqueles de empresas privadas. Expectativas teóricas são variadas. Por um lado, controle gerencial limitado de empresas-alvo sugere que SWFs podem ser incapazes de perseguir objetivos políticos e, portanto, não são mais sensíveis à geopolítica do que as empresas privadas. Por outro lado, a propriedade estatal de SWFs pode gerar externalidades de segurança nacional e, portanto, torna os SWFs mais sensíveis à geopolítica. Utilizando novas mensurações de big data de relações cooperativas e adversárias com base em reportagens da mídia e três testes diferentes, examinamos mais de 5800 aquisições transfronteiriças por SWFs e empresas privadas. Descobrimos que o conflito casa-anfitrião prejudica mais SWFs do que empresas privadas, ao passo que a cooperação ajuda mais SWFs do que empresas privadas. Portanto, apesar da falta de controle gerencial de SWFs sobre empresas-alvo, a propriedade estatal modera influências geopolíticas sobre sua internacionalização e os torna mais sensíveis a relações interestaduais do que empresas privadas. Nossas descobertas sugerem que a preocupação governamental com FDI de entidades estatais vai além de suas atividades operacionais.

摘要

主权财富基金 (SWF) 是重要的然而很少研究的国家投资者。我们调查地缘政治是否会影响SWF的海外收购, 并询问其外国直接投资(FDI)模式与私营公司情况是否以及如何不同。理论预期是混杂的。一方面, 对目标公司的有限管理控制表明, SWF可能无法追求政治目标, 因此它们对地缘政治的敏感性不比私营公司高。另一方面, SWF的国家所有权可以产生国家安全外部性, 从而使SWF对地缘政治更加敏感。利用基于媒体报道和三种不同测试的针对合作和对抗关系的新颖大数据的量表, 我们研究了SWF和私营公司进行的5800多项跨境收购。我们发现, 东道国与母国之间的冲突对SWF的阻碍要大于私营企业, 而合作对SWF的帮助要大于私营企业。因此, 尽管SWF缺乏对目标公司的管理控制权, 但国家所有权减轻了地缘政治对其国际化的影响, 并使它们与私营企业相比对国家间的关系更为敏感。我们的发现表明, 政府对国有实体FDI的关注超出了其经营活动范围。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Our CL estimation employs a dichotomous DV (1 if investment, 0 if no investment) and adds to the IVs an SWF dummy variable (1 if acquiror firm is an SWF, 0 otherwise), and interaction terms between SWF and 1) cooperation and 2) conflict. Results are reported under sensitivity analysis. However, in non-linear models a moderator’s effects and p-value do not depend solely on its estimated coefficient and standard error (Hoetker, 2007; Wiersema and Bowen, 2009).

REFERENCES

  • Aguilera, R. V., Capapé, J., & Santiso, J. 2016. Sovereign wealth funds: A strategic governance view. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(1): 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J., Sutherland, D., & Severe, S. 2015. An event study of home and host country patent generation in Chinese MNEs undertaking strategic asset acquisitions in developed markets. International Business Review, 24(5): 758–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appel, I. R., Gormley, T. A., & Keim, D. B. 2016. Passive investors, not passive owners. Journal of Financial Economics, 121(1): 111–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arikan, I., & Shenkar, O. 2013. National animosity and cross-border alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6): 1516–1544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avendaño, R., & Santiso, J. 2011. Are sovereign wealth funds politically biased? A comparison with other institutional investors. International Finance Review, 12: 313–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, M. A., Strezhnev, A., & Voeten, E. 2017. Estimating dynamic state preferences from United Nations voting data. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(2): 430–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S. R., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. 2016. Measuring economic policy uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4): 1593–1636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, R. N., Hillman, A. L., Potrafke, N., & Schwemmer, A. H. 2015. The preoccupation of the United Nations with Israel: Evidence and theory. The Review of International Organizations, 10(4): 413–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkman, H., Jacobsen, B., & Lee, J. B. (2011). Time-varying rare disaster risk and stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 101, 313–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, S., Lerner, J., & Schoar, A. (2013). The Investment Strategies of Sovereign Wealth Funds. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(2), 219–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, O., Betschinger, M. A., & Settles, A. 2016. The relevance of political affinity for the initial acquisition premium in cross-border acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 37(10): 2071–2091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biglaiser, G., & DeRouen, K., Jr. 2007. Following the flag: Troop deployment and US foreign direct investment. International Studies Quarterly, 51(4): 835–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, A., Edwards, A., & Shevlin, T. 2017. Does US foreign earnings lockout advantage foreign acquirers? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 64(1): 150–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortolotti, B., Fotak, V., & Megginson, W. L. 2015. The sovereign wealth fund discount: Evidence from public equity investments. Review of Financial Studies, 28(11): 2993–3035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bremmer, I. 2009. State capitalism comes of age-the end of the free market. Foreign Affairs, 88(3): 40–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruton, G. D., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Stan, C., & Xu, K. 2015. State-owned enterprises around the world as hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1): 92–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. 2018. Measuring geopolitical risk. FRB International Finance Discussion Paper 1222. https://www2.bc.edu/matteo-iacoviello/gpr_files/GPR_PAPER.pdf

  • Calluzzo, P., Dong, G. N., & Godsell, D. 2017. Sovereign wealth fund investments and the US political process. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(2): 222–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (Ed). 2018a. State-owned multinationals: Governments in global business. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuervo-Cazurra, A. 2018b. Thanks but no thanks: State-owned multinationals from emerging markets and host-country policies. Journal of International Business Policy, 1(3–4): 128–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Li, C. forthcoming. State ownership and internationalization: The advantage and disadvantage of stateness. Journal of World Business.

  • Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Inkpen, A., Musacchio, A., & Ramaswamy, K. 2014. Governments as owners: State-owned multinational companies. Journal of International Business Studies, 45: 919–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Souza, J., & Nash, R. 2017. Private benefits of public control: Evidence of political and economic benefits of state ownership. Journal of Corporate Finance, 46: 232–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dai, N., & Nahata, R. 2016. Cultural differences and cross-border venture capital syndication. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(2): 140–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, C. L., Fuchs, A., & Johnson, K. 2019. State control and the effects of foreign relations on bilateral trade. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63(2): 405–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desbordes, R. 2010. Global and diplomatic political risks and foreign direct investment. Economics & Politics, 22(1): 92–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinc, S. I., & Erel, I. 2013. Economic nationalism in mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Finance, 68(6): 2471–2514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duanmu, J. L. 2014. State-owned MNCs and host country expropriation risk: The role of home state soft power and economic gunboat diplomacy. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(8): 1044–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyck, I.J., and Morse, A., 2011. Sovereign wealth fund portfolios. Chicago Booth Research Paper, (11-15).

  • Edmans, A. and Holderness, C.G., 2017. Blockholders: A survey of theory and evidence. In The handbook of the economics of corporate governance, Vol. 1: 541–636. North-Holland.

  • Fors, G., & Kokko, A. 2001. Home country effects of FDI: Foreign production and structural change in home-country operations. In M. Blomstrom, & L. S. Goldberg (Eds), Topics in empirical international economics: A Festschrift in honor of Robert E. Lipsey. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gertz, G. 2018. Commercial diplomacy and political risk. International Studies Quarterly, 62(1): 94–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilson, R. J., & Milhaupt, C. J. 2009. Sovereign wealth funds and corporate governance: A minimalist response to the new mercantilism. Revue d’économie financière, 9(1): 345–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. S. 1992. A conflict-cooperation scale for WEIS events data. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2): 369–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. 2003. Econometric Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

  • Grigoryan, A. (2016). The ruling bargain: sovereign wealth funds in elite-dominated societies. Economics of Governance, 17(2), 165–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guedhami, O. 2012. Characteristics of government acquisitions over time: International evidence and crisis effect. Privatization Barometer Report: 30–43.

  • Guler, I., & Guillén, M. F. 2010. Institutions and the internationalization of US venture capital firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 185–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinemann, A. 2012. Government control of cross-border M&A: Legitimate regulation or protectionism? Journal of International Economic Law, 15(3): 843–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoetker, G. 2007. The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues. Strategic Management Journal, 28(4): 331–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, K. 2019. Government investment in publicly traded firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 56: 319–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jandhyala, S., & Weiner, R. J. 2014. Institutions sans frontières: International agreements and foreign investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(6): 649–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johan, S. A., Knill, A., & Mauck, N. 2013. Determinants of sovereign wealth fund investment in private equity vs public equity. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(2): 155–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski, T. (2017). Sovereign Wealth Fund Investments in Europe as an Instruement of Chinese Energy Policy. Energy Policy, 101, 733–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandogan, Y., & Hiller, J. 2018. Alliances in international governmental organizations, regional trade agreement formation, and multinational enterprise regionalization strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(6): 729–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karolyi, G. A., & Liao, R. C. 2017. State capitalism’s global reach: Evidence from foreign acquisitions by state-owned companies. Journal of Corporate Finance, 42, 367–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kastner, S. L. 2007. When do conflicting political relations affect international trade? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(4): 664–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knill, A., Lee, B. S., & Mauck, N. 2012. Bilateral political relations and sovereign wealth fund investment. Journal of Corporate Finance, 18(1): 108–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knutsen, C. H., Rygh, A., & Hveem, H. 2011. Does state ownership matter? Institutions’ effect on foreign direct investment revisited. Business and Politics, 13(1): 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotter, J., & Lel, U. 2011. Friends or foes? Target selection decisions of sovereign wealth funds and their consequences. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(2): 360–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurlantzick, J. 2016. State capitalism: How the return of statism is transforming the world. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leetaru, K. and Schrodt, P.A., 2013, April. Gdelt: Global data on events, location, and tone, 1979–2012. In ISA annual convention, Vol. 2, No. 4: 1–49. Citeseer.

  • Li, J., Meyer, K. E., Zhang, H., & Ding, Y. 2018. Diplomatic and corporate networks: Bridges to foreign locations. Journal of International Business Studies, 49: 659–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., Xia, J., & Lin, Z. 2017. Cross-border acquisitions by state-owned firms: How do legitimacy concerns affect the completion and duration of their acquisitions? Strategic Management Journal, 38(9): 1915–1934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q. 2008. Foreign direct investment and interstate military conflict. Journal of International Affairs, 62: 53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q., & Sacko, D. H. 2002. The (Ir) relevance of militarized interstate disputes for international trade. International Studies Quarterly, 46(1): 11–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q., & Vashchilko, T. 2010. Dyadic military conflict, security alliances, and bilateral FDI flows. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(5): 765–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindner, T., Puck, J., & Verbeke, A. 2020. Misconceptions about multicollinearity in international business research: Identification, consequences, and remedies. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(3): 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, B., & McConnell, J. 2013. The role of the media in corporate governance: Do the media influence managers’ capital allocation decisions? Journal of Financial Economics, 110(1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S., & Freese, J. 2006. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., Xue, Q., & Han, B. 2010. How emerging market governments promote outward FDI: Experience from China. Journal of World Business, 45(1): 68–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. D., & Bronson, R. 1997. Alliances, preferential trading arrangements, and international trade. American Political Science Review, 91(1): 94–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Megginson, W. L., & Fotak, V. 2015. Rise of the fiduciary state: A survey of sovereign wealth fund research. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(4): 733–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Megginson, W. L. 2017. State capitalism and state ownership of business in the 21st century. Available at SSRN 3094412.

  • Moons, S. J. V., & van Bergeijk, P. A. 2017. Does economic diplomacy work? A meta-analysis of its impact on trade and investment. World Economy, 40(2): 336–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, J. D., Siverson, R. M., & Tabares, T. E. 1998. The political determinants of international trade: the major powers, 1907–1990. American Political Science Review, 92(3): 649–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musacchio, A., & Lazzarini, S. G. 2018. State-owned enterprises as multinationals: Theory and research directions: 255–276. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Musacchio, A., Lazzarini, S. G., & Aguilera, R. V. 2015. New varieties of state capitalism: Strategic and governance implications. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1): 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nigh, D. 1985. The effect of political events on United States direct foreign investment: A pooled time-series cross-sectional analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 16(1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollins, B. M. 1989a. Conflict, cooperation, and commerce: The effect of international political interactions on bilateral trade flows. American Journal of Political Science, 33: 737–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollins, B. M. 1989b. Does trade still follow the flag? American Political Science Review, 83(2): 465–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rygh, A. 2019. Bureaucrats in international business: A review of five decades of research on state-owned MNEs. In A. Chidlow, et al. (Eds), The changing strategies of international business: 49–69. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, W., Hoskisson, R. E., & Zhang, Y. A. 2016. A geopolitical perspective into the opposition to globalizing state-owned enterprises in target states. Global Strategy Journal, 6(1): 13–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smeets, R. 2008. Collecting the pieces of the FDI knowledge spillovers puzzle. The World Bank Research Observer, 23(2): 107–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SWF Institute. Top 91 largest Sovereign Wealth Fund rankings by total assets. Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute. https://www.swfinstitute.org/fund-rankings/sovereign-wealth-fund

  • Train, K. E. 2009. Discrete choice methods with simulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasudeva, G. 2013. Weaving together the normative and regulative roles of government: How the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund’s responsible conduct is shaping firms’ cross-border investments. Organization Science, 24(6): 1662–1682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasudeva, G., Nachum, L., & Say, G. D. 2018. Overcoming information asymmetry in internationalization: The signaling effect of a sovereign wealth fund as an Institutional intermediary. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4): 1583–1611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voeten, E. 2013. Data and analyses of voting in the UN General Assembly. In B. Reinalda (Ed), Routledge handbook of international organization: 80–92. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., Hong, J., Kafouros, M., & Wright, M. 2012. Exploring the role of government involvement in outward FDI from emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(7): 655–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, M. D., Beger, A., Cutler, J., Dickenson, M., Dorff, C., & Radford, B. 2013. Comparing GDELT and ICEWS event data. Analysis, 21(1): 267–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehrheim, D., Dalay, H. D., Fosfuri, A., & Helmers, C. 2020. How mixed ownership affects decision making in turbulent times: Evidence from the digital revolution in telecommunications. Journal of Corporate Finance, 64: 101626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiersema, M. F., & Bowen, H. P. 2009. The use of limited dependent variable techniques in strategy research: Issues and methods. Strategic Management Journal, 30(6): 679–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. 2017. What is a sovereign wealth fund? http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/10/what-you-need-to-know-about-sovereign-wealth-funds

  • Wei, Y., & Liu, X. 2006. Productivity spillovers from R&D, exports and FDI in China’s manufacturing sector. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(4): 544–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. 2010. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Pruthi, S., & Lockett, A. 2005. International venture capital research: From cross-country comparisons to crossing borders. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(3): 135–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zelner, B. A., Henisz, W. J., & Holburn, G. L. 2009. Contentious implementation and retrenchment in neoliberal policy reform: The global electric power industry, 1989–2001. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(3): 379–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Government, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712-1704, USA

    Di Wang

  2. International Business Department, George Washington University, Washington, DC, 20052, USA

    Robert J. Weiner

  3. Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843-4348, USA

    Quan Li

  4. ESSEC Business School, 5 Nepal Park, Singapore, 139408, Singapore

    Srividya Jandhyala

Authors
  1. Di Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert J. Weiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Quan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Srividya Jandhyala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Di Wang.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Accepted by Alain Verbeke, Editor-in-Chief, 18 January 2021. This article has been with the authors for four revisions.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 596 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, D., Weiner, R.J., Li, Q. et al. Leviathan as foreign investor: Geopolitics and sovereign wealth funds. J Int Bus Stud 52, 1238–1255 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00415-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00415-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation