Sovereign wealth funds enhance the international movement of capital and often facilitate economic development in domestic and host countries. However, the lack of transparency and accountability of SWFs varies, and state ownership gives rise to suspicions and realizations of political motivations, unfair commercial advantages, opportunities for corruption, and national security threats, thereby challenging the liberal economic order. This paper provides an overview and identifies major concerns and policy options associated with SWFs. Defining SWFs, measuring their size and transparency, domestic, cultural, and political origins, and policies for oversight and mitigation of geopolitical risk are discussed. The goals and behavior of SWFs are too diverse to draw broad, general conclusions. The growth in the number of funds and assets under management has increased their diversity, but the essential defining characteristic is that they are state-owned financial investment vehicles not subject to the hard budget constraints or regulations of comparable private sector, market-oriented entities. Transparency varies, with democratic country SWFs more transparent and less problematic than those of autocracies. SWFs have evolved into unbounded state-owned entities ushering in a new era of financial statecraft. Policies to guide their behavior and enforcement mechanisms are host-country specific and highly variable. An often-discussed international regulatory framework to mitigate geopolitical risk has not emerged and is not likely.
David M. Kemme (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: