Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:26 am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:45 am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:00 am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:36 am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:37 pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:41 am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:32 am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:29 pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:09 pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:47 am EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Why Sovereign Wealth Funds Should Invest in Africa
I'm a fan of World Bank president Robert Zoellick's idea yesterday that sovereign wealth funds should invest 1% of their assets in Africa.
For one thing, as Zoellick says, this kind of investment makes sense on a purely financial level. Africa is a promising region for investment, and it becomes even more promising if you know that a lot of other people are going to be investing there as well.
But this is also a smart use of sovereign wealth funds specifically, as opposed to financial investors more generally. The NYT's Steven Weisman reports that if the funds sign on to the idea, that might assuage "the West's mistrust of sovereign wealth funds" - something which has been brewing for a while.
Up until now, proposals for assuaging that mistrust have concentrated on codes of conduct and best-practice procedures and the like, most of which try to place the funds at arm's length from their sovereign owners, and ask that the funds have only financial and not any kind of strategic interest in where their money is invested. That's simply not realistic. Much better to harness the strategic interests of those sovereigns in a positive-sum game, which is something the Zoellick proposal can do.
Every sovereign nation in the world has a geopolitical interest in a stable and strong Africa. If the sovereigns with excess funds can invest that money in Africa, they will help to stabilize an important region while at the same time making healthy returns. That's a much more realistic vision than one in which sovereigns renounce any strategic interest in where their monies are invested.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.





