One of the most desired characteristics of foreign direct investment (FDI) destinations is political stability.
That seems to be growing scarcer currently, though, as wars and domestic plague nations worldwide. Political violence 25% from 2023 to 2024 and in the past five years, it has almost doubled, according to Armed Conflict Location & Event Data.
However, FDI still does enter conflict zones, in particular because there are industries that are accustomed to operating under difficult conditions and because the high risk a firm takes may pay off during that country鈥檚 reconstruction.
Courtney Fingar, an FDI specialist and former editor-in-chief of 51爆料 Monitor, discussed the nuances of FDI flows in conflict zones during ESSCA School of Management鈥檚 5th FDI & Cities Forum held in Paris, France, last week. She highlighted the dynamism that Ukrainian agencies have displayed amid Russia鈥檚 invasion, the importance of private capital during periods of reconstruction and the potential pitfalls of FDI under such complex environments.
FDI paradox
Countries in the middle or aftermath of a violent period are vulnerable in many respects. Firstly, conflict tends to occur in countries that already have complicated investment environments whether that be a result of the conflict itself or because of circumstances such as poverty and corrupt governments. In periods of reconstruction, investors may take note of increased opportunities, but 鈥測ou often have vultures circling around thinking what they can get out the place,鈥� Fingar says.
She highlighted a UNCTAD study that suggests that about that enters fragile states comes from extractive industries. These sorts of firms 鈥渉ave a high tolerance for risk,鈥� so they are not as easily deterred in the face of violent conflict. There is also the question of whether investments from oil and mining companies, for example, are necessarily conducive to the development of that country. Fingar raised the question too of what happens to places suffering conflict that do not have these coveted natural resources. 鈥淧eople just don鈥檛 care that much,鈥� she added.聽聽
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don鈥檛 let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataFor example, in oil-rich Angola, during just the last five years of the civil war (1998-2002), FDI stock 155% 鈥渂ecause the oil majors were circling around and keen to get involved at the earliest opportunity.鈥�
But, more often, a rift takes place. Where the countries that need the investment the most because they are undergoing reconstruction and 鈥渨ere already suffering from a gap in major needs for investment鈥� don鈥檛 attract enough FDI.聽
However, taking the risk of investing in a high-risk area could also lead to greater rewards. A study found that 鈥渢here’s actually an 8% higher return on investment in countries with lower levels of peace, and that’s really the driver.鈥� 聽
Fingar also suggested that, given the mass scaling back of ongoing under US President Donald Trump, 鈥渋t becomes even more important to rethink where the needs are and to try to fill the gaps in conflict zones.鈥�
The case of Kingspan in Ukraine
Kingspan Group is an Irish building materials company. It has over 200 factories, employs 22,000 people worldwide and has over $1b in annual turnover. In 2023, it went through with an investment project worth over $280m (鈧�269m), just over a year after Russia invaded Ukraine. 聽
Fingar explains that this investment did not come by accident. Only a month after the war began, the relatively new Ukrainian promotion investment agency (Ukraine Invest) did a 鈥渇ull-on outreach campaign while Russian tanks were rolling around,鈥� she explained. It was a way to plan ahead as thoughts turned to what would be needed for Ukraine鈥檚 long-term recovery.
Only a month after the invasion had begun in February 2022, Ukraine Invest was already working on updating the country鈥檚 investment laws to provide more incentives. The changes came into effect in 2023, lowering the threshold of investment needed to access incentives, expanding the types of projects that would be eligible, simplifying issues around land rights and offering tax incentives.
This was accompanied by a strong media campaign. Fingar explained that Sergiy Tsivkach, the CEO of Ukraine Invest, 鈥渨as out front,鈥� in the 鈥渋nternational media, saying to investors, don鈥檛 wait until the war is over […] We鈥檙e open for business.鈥�
Kingspan would build a high-tech campus to produce construction materials and create over 700 jobs. 聽
She also highlighted, that while there was a 鈥渕oralistic corporate social responsibility aspect to the investment of being seen to do the right thing,鈥� Kingspan was adamant about it ultimately being a business decision. They already had a presence in the country before the war broke out and had been active in the region.
It was significant also, 鈥渇or what it represented in the signal it gave to other companies,鈥� that a mid-conflict investment was possible and could make good business sense.
Unintended consequences
It is worth noting that the FDI inflows in Ukraine still took a dive after the war began. According to UNCTAD data, the country received $7.3bn of inward FDI in 2021, which dropped to $848m in 2022.
While Ukraine had a mid-level economy before the war, it is located in regional proximity to major markets like the EU and the UK. These are important factors in attracting FDI that many developing nations undergoing periods of violence do not have.
The UN World Institute for Development Economic Research (UN WIDER) published a in 2023 analysing the localised effects of FDI inflows in conflict zones. In its framework, the location of FDI projects affected the government鈥檚 counterinsurgency strategies because 鈥渋nvestors are sensitive to political risk鈥� and the economic rents derived from a certain greenfield investment 鈥減lay an important role in determining when it is worth fighting over a particular territory.鈥�
This means that governments put resources into trying to capture territories linked to investments. However, 鈥渉eightened military presence in areas close to FDI projects reinforce rebel group reliance on irregular warfare, thus amplifying civilian victimisation as a tool to elicit cooperation or enforce control.鈥�
The study suggested that areas with ongoing FDI projects experience over 25% more civilian casualties than areas with projects planned for the future. It highlights that the phenomenon is most clearly observed 鈥渨hen looking specifically at the influx of extractive FDI.鈥� The study focused on conflict in African countries from 2003 to 2019.
While attracting FDI during a conflict is still possible and may have long-term benefits, the type of industry involved and the country’s wider set of circumstances still seem central in determining the value of that investment.
