Skip to main content
Skip main navigation
No Access

Legitimacy and market development risks of Sovereign Wealth Funds

Published Online:pp 400-415https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPP.2013.056588

Sovereign Wealth Funds objectives can be classified as either demand stabilisation, supply side strengthening, or wealth conservation. These objectives cannot only be explained by domestic development needs, they also show different profiles of market development and political legitimacy risks. Specifically, we find that supply side strengtheners are on average exposed to both legitimacy and market development risks. Demand stabilisers carry only market development risks. Wealth conservation funds have the least exposure to either risk.

Keywords

Sovereign Wealth Funds, SWFs, public policy analysis, legitimacy risks, market development risks, demand stabilisation, supply strengthening, wealth conservation

References

  • 1. Aizenman, J. , Glick, R. (2008). Sovereign Wealth Funds: Stylized Facts about their Determinants and Governance. Cambridge, MA:National Bureau of Economic Research , NBER Working Paper 14562 Google Scholar
  • 2. Avendaño, R. , Santiso, J. (2009). Are Sovereign Wealth Funds’ Investments Politically Biased? A Comparison with Mutual Funds. OECD Development Centre, Working Paper No. 283 Google Scholar
  • 3. Bahgat, G. (2008). ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: dangers and opportunities’. International Affairs. 84, 6, 1189-1204 Google Scholar
  • 4. Balding, C. (2008). A Portfolio Analysis of Sovereign Wealth Funds. (accessed 30 January 2011), Irvine:University of California , Working Paper, [online] http://ssrn.com/abstract=1141531 Google Scholar
  • 5. Cohen, B.J. (2009). ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds and national security: the great tradeoff’. International Affairs. 85, 4, 713-731 Google Scholar
  • 6. Drezner, D.W. (2008). ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds and the (in)security of global finance’. Journal of International Affairs. 62, 1, 115-130 Google Scholar
  • 7. Gilson, R.J. , Milhaupt, C.J. (2008). ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds and corporate governance: a minimalist response to the new mercantilism’. Stanford Law Review. 60, 5, 1345-1369 Google Scholar
  • 8. IMF ‘Global financial stability report’. 2007, 10, (accessed 6 January 2011), Washington D.C., [online] http://www.imf.org/External/Pubs/FT/GFSR/2007/02/pdf/text.pdf Google Scholar
  • 9. IMF (2008). ‘Sovereign wealth funds – a work agenda’. (accessed 27 December 2010), [online] http://www.imf.org/ external/np/pp/eng/2008/022908.pdf Google Scholar
  • 10. International Working Group of Sovereign Wealth Funds (2008). ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: generally accepted principles and practices (‘Santiago Principles’)’. (accessed 23 November 2010), [online] http://www.iwg-swf.org/pubs/eng/santiagoprinciples.pdf Google Scholar
  • 11. Kimmitt, R.M. (2008). ‘Public footprints in private markets’. Foreign Affairs. 87, 1, 119-130 Google Scholar
  • 12. Kirshner, J. (2009). ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds and national security: the dog that will refuse to bark’. Geopolitics. 14, 2, 305-316 Google Scholar
  • 13. Reisen, H. (2008). ‘How to spend it: commodity and non-commodity Sovereign Wealth Funds’. (accessed 1 May 2011), Deutsche Bank Research, Research Notes 28, [online] http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/33/41212577.pdf Google Scholar
  • 14. The Economist (2008). ‘The invasion of the sovereign-wealth funds’. The Economist. 386, 8563, 11 Google Scholar
  • 15. Truman, E.M. (2010). Sovereign Wealth Funds: Threat or Salvation?. Washington, DC:Peterson Institute for International Economics Google Scholar
  • 16. Zilinsky, J. (2009). Understanding Sovereign Wealth Funds. (accessed 4 January 2011), Harvard University, Senior thesis, [online] http://web.mit.edu/zilinsky/www/Data/thesis_zilinsky.pdf Google Scholar

Electronic resources