Partnership in Political Risk: Singapore Goes Global!
On February 22, MIGA partnered with the Singapore Management University (SMU) and International Enterprise Singapore (IE Singapore), to launch the most recent World Investment and Political Risk Report in Asia. 
The event, at SMU’s downtown campus, focused on the key issues of sovereign and political risk and how foreign investors can mitigate them.
The latest World Investment and Political Risk report is the fourth in a series that we’ve recently launched in London and Washington, DC as well. There are some important nuggets on FDI trends and perceptions this year. The report notes that foreign investors, attracted by stronger economic growth in developing countries while mindful of risks, still remain optimistic about these destinations.
facing: subprime lending, the credit crunch, banking, Greece, the euro zone’s woes, and so on. Soul-searching about the political and economic status quo ensued. This year, with leadership transitions in the two largest economies completed, the euro zone no longer facing imminent break-up, and China growing at 7.8%, Davos resumed some normalcy. Some even claimed optimism.
The land was empty and, at the first glance, the first thought that came to mind was “how can this be developed into arable land?” When MIGA’s Executive Vice President 
I found it interesting that South Africa’s significant decline in FDI seemed to catch a good deal of media interest. Yes, the continent’s darling and the usually one of the highest recipients of FDI saw a drastic drop (by 43%); admittedly this deserves more than a glance. But I wonder why Finland and Ireland’s numbers, at 96.2 and 42.8 percent respectively, didn’t make much news. South Asia’s inflows also fell by 40 percent as a result of declines across nearly all countries in the subcontinent. In India, inward FDI fell from US$18 billion to US$10 billion. Why South Africa? In my opinion, the flow of investment to sub-Saharan Africa is often reported as a sign that the doors of the last frontiers are being approached.
Last month, MIGA signed its very first 
as well as our sister institutions the 
Readers might rightly ask how I’ve come to this conclusion. Consider what a governance product is: something that supports good governance (and by this we mean, first and foremost, eliminating corruption and its incentives). Thus, could not a MIGA guarantee be recognized as a governance product from two perspectives—that of the company that is our guarantee holder and that of the country host to a MIGA-insured investment?
investment in an Eastern European country with a “friendly” government. But suddenly things are not working the way they were supposed to. He cannot access the returns from his investment —the government will not let him take them out of the country.
Economic Forum for East Asia
effectiveness of Investment Promotion Agencies (IPAs). The panel discussion coincided with the launch of the Investment Climate Department’s