America Investing Abroad
- Sumedha Rajbanshi
- Jan 12
- 2 min read
As per usual from a change in the party which controls the government, the United States has been setting out it's foreign policy objectives. The new target is Venezuela, however the discussions over Greenland have been happening since the beginning of 2025. Despite the amazement people have over both issues given their slightly empire-esque vibe, the reactions over the prospect of American FDI going to Greenland and Venezuela oppose one another.
Greenland is a semi-autonomous state, controlled by Denmark, but there unsurprisingly wasn't apprehension or concern over making investments because of the economic stability which the nation has had, as well as it's alliance with NATO. Concern was shown more from the Greenlandic and Danish side, of what would happen to decision making and ownership with the involvement of America - the US seem happy and ready to begin negotiations on projects, and claiming ownership of any investments (risky or otherwise) to be made. In contrast, Venezuela does not have the same level of economic risk certainty, and the prospect of making investments in the oil sector did not seem to be received with the same level of comfort, despite Venezuela possessing one of the largest oil reserves in the globe. Surely it would be a boon to large oil corporations? Getting first dibs in coveted oil reserves?
This difference essentially provides a snapshot of the nature of FDI. Recipient country economic conditions matter significantly in such choices. Even with the opportunity of having ownership, whereby the upside of success can be highly profitable to the funder, political and local community risk can be off-putting enough to make investors cautious. For the potential recipients for funds, it may not be so obvious, and discussions might end up going down the "why them but not us?" hole. Not to mention the numerous other tenuous situations which have unfolded historically in resource rich nations, without dependable economic and political infrastructure, reminding donor countries about the unintended consequences of FDI.
Comments