U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission

USCC Staff Research Report

March 30, 2011

Going Out: An Overview of 

China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment 

by 

Nargiza Salidjanova, 

Policy Analyst for Economic and Trade Issues
ii

Cover Photo:

Opening ceremony of the Chinese Overseas Investment Fair in Beijing, Nov. 3, 2009. 

Source: “COFAIR 2009 – Onsite Photos,” Chinese Overseas Investment Fair Homepage.

http://www.coifair.org/2010/hg_5_en.asp.

Disclaimer:

This report is the product of professional research performed by staff of the U.S.-China 

Economic and Security Review Commission, and was prepared at the request of the 

Commission to support its deliberations. Posting of the report to the Commission's website is 

intended to promote greater public understanding of the issues addressed by the Commission 

in its ongoing assessment of U.S.-China economic relations and their implications for U.S. 

security, as mandated by Public Law 106-398 and Public Law 108-7. However, it does not 

necessarily imply an endorsement by the Commission, any individual Commissioner, or the 

Commission’s other professional staff, of the views or conclusions expressed in this staff

research report.
iii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

CIC China Investment Corporation

CNOOC China National Offshore Oil Corporation

EIBC Export-Import Bank of China

FDI foreign direct investment

FIE foreign-invested enterprise

M&A merger and acquisition

MOFCOM Ministry of Commerce (China)

MOFTEC Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (China)

NDRC National Development and Reform Commission

ODI outward foreign direct investment

R&D research and development

RMB renminbi

SAFE State Administration for Foreign Exchange

SASAC State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission

Sinopec China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation

SOE state-owned enterprise

UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

WTO World Trade Organization
1

GOING OUT: AN OVERVIEW OF CHINA’S OUTWARD FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT

March 2011

China’s investments abroad are growing despite an overall decline globally in foreign direct 

investment (FDI) following the 2008 financial crisis. That trend in Chinese investments abroad is 

likely to continue, since China’s huge foreign exchange reserves are an increasing source of 

mobile capital and is a key part of China’s official government policy. The receipts from China’s 

existing global investments, combined with mounting trade surpluses, have made China the 

world’s largest capital-surplus economy.

1

Although China’s outward direct investment (ODI) is still small relative to its massive inward 

FDI, China’s overseas companies have been gaining momentum in moving international capital, 

investing across a broad spectrum of sectors ranging from natural resources to manufacturing

to telecommunications and many others. As China’s economy continues to grow, China faces 

shortages in almost all raw materials, particularly in oil, iron ore, aluminum, and uranium, and it 

must therefore build trade linkages with Australia, Russia, Brazil, and other resource-rich 

countries to secure supplies.2 

A significant jump in outflows happened when China’s ODI went from $26.51 billion in 2007 to 

$55.91 billion in 2008, an increase of over 110 percent.

3

 By the end of 2009, China’s cumulative 

FDI abroad (stock)4reached $245.75 billion.5 Growth in China’s ODI flows has become very 

significant in recent years, going from less than $100 million in flows in the 1980s to $56.53 

billion in 2009 (the latest comprehensive figures available), making China the fifth largest 

originator of ODI, by volume, from the 12th position.6 Despite the impressive growth trends, 

however, Chinese ODI remains relatively small: China, including Hong Kong and Macau, 

accounts for just 6 percent of global ODI stock today.7
2

Source: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), “Inward and Outward Foreign Direct 

Investment Flows, Annual,” UNCTADStat Database. http://unctadstat.unctad.org.

8

The rapid development of China’s ODI activities reflects not only its economic maturation and 

integration into the global marketplace but also its need to expand overseas to supply China 

with natural resources, new markets, and advanced technology. In 2010, investors looking for 

overseas deals and based in China and Hong Kong accounted for a tenth of global deals by 

value, including investment in oil and iconic industry takeovers, such as Zhejiang Geely Holding 

Group’s purchase of Ford Motor's Volvo unit.9

Accurately describing the nature of China’s investments abroad is a challenge. A significant 

share of Chinese investments is directed through tax havens, making it difficult to discern the 

ultimate destination of those funds. Different countries also employ different definitions of 

foreign direct investment, creating comparability problems. In addition, statistics released by 

the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) and the State Administration for Foreign 

Exchange (SAFE) reflect government-approved investment projects rather than actual money 

transfers. Projects that do not receive official approval therefore do not show up in Chinese 

statistics or in international ones, since most international statistical compilations, such as the 

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

US $ million

Chinese ODI Flows 

(1982-2009)
3

World Investment Directory compiled by the United Nations Conference on Trade and 

Development (UNCTAD), rely on MOFCOM statistics. Year-to-year changes in FDI definitions or 

in reporting practices in some countries also make it difficult to look for trends even in Chinese 

FDI practices in a single country. 

With these caveats in mind, it is possible to draw several broad conclusions about Chinese 

outward FDI practices. First, recent years have seen a dramatic increase in Chinese outward FDI

and an even larger potential for growth. China has a surplus of savings, which today are mostly 

recycled into rich countries. So far, China’s sovereign wealth funds and its central bank act as 

portfolio investors, buying bonds, such as U.S. Treasury securities10 and the debt of Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac.

11 These investments, however, bear low interest rates, and so China has been 

seeking alternatives to diversify its investments and realize higher returns. 

Second, Chinese outward direct investment is widely dispersed and spread in relatively small 

amounts. Ministry of Commerce statistics show that as of 2009, there were Chinese overseas 

investments in 177 countries or territories (including Hong Kong and Macau).12 Many of these 

equity investments are less than $10 million. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations 

(ASEAN) shows that within receiving countries, Chinese FDI is often subdivided among different 

sectors, with each of several sectors receiving small amounts of FDI (less than U.S. $1 million 

per sector, and sometimes as little as U.S. $10,000).13

China has significant investments in the developed world, in contrast to the historical pattern of 

developing countries running large trade deficits and carefully husbanding hard currencies. The 

Chinese style of overseas investment also bucks international trends in another way. Rather 

than simply establishing wholly owned subsidiaries abroad, China is increasingly engaging in 

mergers and acquisitions (M&A).

14 This trend has been masked by high-profile Chinese overseas 

investments that have generated media attention and public alarm. China National Offshore Oil 

Corp.’s (CNOOC) failed bid to buy Unocal in 2005, for instance, was atypical both in the size of 

the investment that it would have represented, and in the attention that it attracted. 
4

Finally, Chinese outward investment activities are often directed by the Chinese government, 

especially for firms in deals involving oil and minerals or telecommunications, which are 

required by the government to remain under government oversight or control.15 Chinese 

governments at various levels often appoint executives in such Chinese firms and finance the 

deals through state banks.16 The Chinese government’s support for these industries includes a 

variety of subsidies as well as access to low-cost financing from the largest banks, all of which 

are state owned.17 In 2008, even as global ODI fell by 15 percent as a consequence of the 

financial crisis, Chinese ODI flows more than doubled.18 In 2009, when global ODI plummeted 

by 43 percent, Chinese ODI, buoyed by Chinese government financial support, still managed to 

grow by 1 percent.19 (See Appendix I for a list of China’s recent outward investment deals.)

I. EVOLUTION OF CHINA’S OUTBOUND INVESTMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND

Since its inception, Chinese ODI has been initiated or approved by the state, which still retains a 

great measure of control. The government has selected certain strategic industries for overseas

expansion and has chosen the markets where this expansion should take place. This heavy 

government involvement, largely through state-owned companies, ensured that foreign 

investments would align with the country’s long-term development strategies.20 The 

government’s push for the development of national industry champions and the procurement 

of overseas natural resources underpins a broader agenda of economic nationalism focused on 

energy security, geopolitics, and competitiveness.21

China’s ODI has gone through four stages of development.22 During the first stage (1979-85), 

China was just opening up to the world, and foreign trade was still in the mighty grip of 

government control. Only state-owned companies, as well as provincial and municipal 

economic enterprises, could invest overseas. There were only 189 approved investment 

projects, with total investment amounting to about $197 million.23

During the second stage (1986-91), the Chinese government began gradual liberalization to 

allow more enterprises, including nonstate-owned firms, to establish investment in other 
5

countries, provided they had sufficient capital and a suitable foreign partner. Following 

liberalization, 891 projects, amounting to $1.2 billion, were approved.

The third stage (1992-98) proved to be one of great success and disappointment. As 

liberalization reforms progressed and companies began aggressively engaging in real estate and 

stock speculation, mostly across Asia, the Asian financial crisis struck. Many unprepared 

countries suffered heavy losses due to institutional weakness, corruption, and lack of 

management expertise. Alarmed by the hemorrhage of precious foreign exchange assets, 

China’s Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) tightened approval 

procedures, setting up rigorous screening and monitoring processes for any overseas venture of 

over $1 million.24 As a result, ODI activities leveled off but still increased $1.2 billion in total 

investment.25

Starting in 1999, China entered its current stage of ODI development. China’s “going global” 

strategy was consolidated, and important legislation was enacted to aid foreign investment. 

The essence of the “going global” strategy is to promote “the international operations of 

capable Chinese firms with a view to improving resource allocation and enhancing their 

international competitiveness.”26 In October 2004, for instance, the National Development and 

Reform Commission (NDRC) and the Export-Import Bank of China (EIBC) jointly issued a circular 

to encourage overseas investment in specific areas: “(1) resource exploration projects to 

mitigate the domestic shortage of natural resources; (2) projects that promote the export of 

domestic technologies, products, equipment and labor; (3) overseas R&D [research and 

development] centers to utilize internationally advanced technologies, managerial skills and 

professionals; and (4) [mergers and acquisitions] that could enhance the international 

competitiveness of Chinese enterprises and accelerate their entry into foreign markets.” 27 The 

State Council started to grant export tax rebates, financial assistance and foreign exchange 

assistance, and other incentives to Chinese enterprises wishing to tap overseas markets.28

Partly as a result of these preferential policies and partly due to China’s continued growth, 

Chinese ODI flows soared dramatically. However, the effectiveness of the strategy may have 
6

been hampered by certain government regulations. For example, in a 2005 survey of Chinese 

companies, the approval process was found to be unnecessarily complicated, while restrictions 

on the use of foreign exchange were considered too stringent.29 The decision by the State 

Administration of Foreign Exchange to abolish quotas on the purchase of foreign exchange for 

overseas investment on July 1, 2006 has helped to ease the barriers.30 The Chinese government 

has been taking further steps to simplify and encourage foreign investment by Chinese firms. 

For example, since December 2008, China Banking Regulatory Commission has been allowing 

commercial banks to make loans for cross-border M&A.31 In 2009, MOFCOM reduced approval 

time, lifted value thresholds, and transferred authority to local MOFCOM branches.32

Until further liberalization reforms take place, the bulk of China’s ODI remains the province of 

state-owned enterprises. In 2009, centrally-controlled state-owned enterprises (SOEs) provided 

about $38.2 billion (67.6 percent) of the total Chinese ODI.

33

 Private enterprises accounted for 

$345 million (or 0.6 percent) of the total ODI flows.34 The 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s 

Outward Foreign Direct Investment, compiled by MOFCOM, does not provide statics on the 

ownership breakdown for companies responsible for the rest of the capital (about 30 percent). 

They may include state enterprises that are governed by local (provincial or municipal) 

governments, and companies partially owned or controlled by the state. For example, Lenovo, 

TCL, and Beida Jade Bird (all companies listed on stock-exchanges) are owned by the regional 

governments of Beijing, Shanghai and Guandong.35 This SOE bias is explained in part by China’s 

continuing control over nearly every aspect of its economy, but is also due to the sectoral 

distribution of investment, discussed below.

Rationale for China’s ODI

Realized and planned foreign direct investment deals indicate that government encourages 

Chinese enterprises to invest overseas in order to gain access to raw materials and advanced 

technology from abroad, increase foreign exchange earnings, and promote China’s exports. 

Chinese FIEs, though predominantly state owned, are often also expected to make profits.
7

Access to Raw Materials and Energy: The need to secure access to overseas energy 

resources and raw materials to support China’s high economic growth rate continues to be a 

key strategic driving force. Over the past 20 years, China has moved from being East Asia’s 

largest oil exporter to becoming the world’s third largest importer of oil in 2008, behind the 

United States and Japan.36 A similar picture of explosive growth in demand on the part of China 

has also been forming in the case of aluminum, copper, nickel, iron ore, and other key 

commodity products. The natural resource-seeking ODI of the Chinese energy majors is 

intimately connected with the government’s pursuit of a national energy security agenda to 

secure overseas assets and supply agreements. Meanwhile, the Chinese authorities have been 

courting the governments of host states aggressively by strengthening bilateral trade relations, 

awarding aid, and providing much-needed transport and communications infrastructure, a 

process sometimes called “dollar diplomacy.”37 Another example of the government’s close 

involvement with and support of overseas-directed energy acquisitions is the current conditions 

stipulated by the influential policy-setting National Development and Reform Commission

(NDRC), requiring China’s energy firms to purchase equity in upstream energy suppliers, 

principally through overseas acquisitions.38

Although in 2009, investment in the form of M&A comprised only 30 percent of the total ODI, 

evidence shows that M&As in oil, gas, and mining are playing a growing role in Chinese outward 

direct investment.

39

 Most M&A deals in 2007-2009 were in the energy and minerals sectors, 

although the largest transactions tended to be purchases of minority stakes in global financial 

institutions.40 For example, Shanghai Baosteel, one of China’s largest steel producers, acquired 

a 15 percent ($240.5 million) stake in Aquila Resources in Australia in 2009 as part of a strategic 

cooperation agreement to expand Aquila’s steel raw materials projects, including iron ore, coal, 

and manganese.41 Also in 2009, Yanzhou Coal Mining, China’s fourth-biggest producer of the 

fuel, agreed to buy Australia’s Felix Resources Ltd. for about $2.9 billion to secure supplies, 

while China Petroleum & Chemical Corp. (Sinopec), the largest Chinese oil refiner, bought the 

Swiss oil explorer Addax for $7.24 billion to secure high-potential oil blocks in West Africa and 

Iraq.

42
8

There were other deals, but the largest was the one that did not happen: In 2009, the Chinese 

state-owned aluminum producer Chinalco abandoned a $19.5 billion bid to double its stake in 

Rio Tinto, an Anglo-Australian iron ore producer. Chinalco already owned 9 percent of Rio Tinto 

shares, acquired for $14 billion in 2008, making it the largest overseas purchase by a Chinese 

company ever. The 2008 purchase was made in an attempt to head off a takeover bid for Rio 

Tinto by BHP-Billiton, the largest mining company in the world, to protect China’s supply of 

ores.

43 The bid to double its shareholding in Rio Tinto, made to further consolidate its hold on 

mining assets, collapsed, despite the backing of the Chinese state. Chinalco faced 

embarrassment abroad and intense criticism at home.44

Acquisition of Technology, Brands, and Know-How: While the attempted deals that 

have garnered the most attention have generally involved natural resources, other mergers 

have been designed to help Chinese firms acquire advanced technology, manufacturing 

processes, and managerial know-how. FIEs are encouraged to enter joint ventures or to 

purchase foreign companies through which they can absorb state-of-the-art technologies and 

thus “leapfrog” several stages of development and upgrades. For instance, in 1988, the 

Shougang (Capital) Iron and Steel Corp. purchased 70 percent of the California-based Mesta 

Engineering and Design Inc. and thus obtained access to the company’s high-tech design 

capability in steel-rolling and casting equipment.45 Another example is Lenovo’s purchase of 

IBM’s personal computer division in 2005. Lenovo was able to gain managerial and commercial 

experience in international marketing and advertising, particularly within the United States, as 

it also acquired a world-class brand.

Mergers and acquisitions may comprise only a small percentage of Chinese outward 

investments, but they more frequently serve as the vehicle for Chinese investment in 

developed markets. Chinese firms typically look for “bargains” in the American or European 

markets—firms that have good brand recognition but are in dire financial straits—and purchase 

those firms as a way to gain a foothold in developed markets and learn marketing skills.46 China 

has capital available to invest in any business if it believes that it is in China's national interest. 
9

Moreover, China does not have to spend decades building up brand names because it can 

simply acquire existing well-known brands through government funded firms. For example, 

Nanjing Automotive acquired British car manufacturer MG Rover’s brand in 2005. Geely 

Automotive, one of China’s biggest automotive companies, acquired Ford Motor's Volvo unit in 

2010 in a $1.8 billion deal.47 As in the natural resource sector (attempted acquisitions of Unocal 

and Rio Tinto are good examples), concerns over the involvement of the Chinese government in 

commercial deals can lead to failed transactions: In 2010, Sprint Nextel Corp. excluded Chinese 

telecommunications-equipment makers Huawei and ZTE from a contract worth billions of 

dollars largely because of national security concerns about the two companies’ ties to the 

Chinese government and military, and the security implications of integrating their equipment 

into critical U.S. telecommunications infrastructure.48

The trend toward expansion in Chinese cross-border M&A purchases is driven by the same 

factor as ODI growth in general—the intensified level of domestic and international

competition faced by Chinese companies. Since foreign companies initially control virtually all 

intellectual property in China and account for 85 percent of China's technology exports, Chinese 

firms have realized that they cannot compete on low cost alone and have targeted overseas 

acquisitions as a route to enhanced research, development, and brand recognition.49

Competition in the Domestic Market: One motivation for investing abroad that gets less 

attention is the search for new markets. This effort has grown in importance as domestic 

Chinese markets have become more competitive. As Wong and Chan argue in “China’s Outward 

Direct Investment: Expanding Worldwide,” “though predominantly state owned, [firms that ‘go 

global’+ are still motivated by profit maximization.” 50 These firms’ efforts at overseas expansion 

are thus responses to saturated domestic markets or attempts to gain first-mover advantage in 

untapped markets overseas rather than attempts to further Chinese strategic interests.

Investment in tax havens is a major component of Chinese outward direct investment and one 

that makes the ultimate destination of Chinese overseas investment especially difficult to track. 

In 2009, Hong Kong, the Cayman Islands, and the British Virgin Islands collectively received 79
10

percent of China’s net, nonfinancial FDI outflows.51 Round-tripping—the practice of taking 

money out of China and then “investing” it back as new investment in order to qualify for 

special tax breaks reserved for foreign investment—especially via Hong Kong, means that these 

numbers probably yield inflated estimates of the size of Chinese investments abroad, as much 

of this money is reinvested in domestic Chinese enterprises (a more detailed overview of 

round-tripping follows in a separate section). A more serious accounting problem is the lack of 

transparency created by China’s heavy reliance on tax havens. The Chinese government has 

tried to diminish global anxiety about its principal sovereign wealth fund, the $332 billion China 

Investment Corporation (CIC), by promising fund transparency.

52 But the government’s overall 

commitment to transparency is diminished by the extensive investments by state-owned firms 

through secretive tax havens. 

Chinese firms also invest overseas in order to aid their exports to the receiving country. 

Between 1999 and 2001, firms (especially in light industry) were encouraged through subsidies 

and other incentives to set up plants abroad that could process Chinese raw materials or 

assemble Chinese-made components.53

International Barriers to Trade: A final motivation for Chinese investment abroad is a 

desire to avoid foreign quotas, tariffs, and other barriers to Chinese-made goods. This was a 

more compelling motivation for overseas investment before China’s World Trade Organization 

(WTO) accession; as Wong and Chan describe, “before China became a member of the WTO, its 

textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) products had limited access to the U.S. market. TCF firms 

consequently invested in Australia and then exported ‘Made-in-Australia’ products to the U.S.” 

in order to avoid American textiles quotas for non-WTO producers.54 Although WTO accession 

has lowered the tariffs and quotas on Chinese exports, Chinese firms have continued to build 

factories in countries that have relatively unfettered access to the American and European 

markets. For instance, the BBC reported in early 2002 that a Chinese company planned to build 

a large cotton spinning mill in Mauritius to take advantage of the African Growth and 

Opportunities Act, which gives African goods duty-free access to the U.S. market.55
11

Furthermore, buying German television brand Schneider and keeping production in Europe was 

a way for Chinese television manufacturer TCL to avoid European quotas on Chinese television 

imports.56

The Role of the State in China’s Outward FDI

Behind much of the concern over Chinese investments abroad lies the fear of the Chinese 

state—acting through its large state-owned enterprises—acquiring increasing power and 

influence abroad, and potentially engaging in other actions to promote the interests of the 

state and the Chinese Communist Party. Such state-owned companies can be fearsome 

international competitors, especially since they receive high levels of state support and are 

allowed by their government owners to forgo profit in favor of aggressively seizing market 

share. State support for the overseas expansion of Chinese enterprises takes a number of 

different forms. These include direct and indirect subsidies and favorable financing in the form 

of credit lines and low interest rate loans from state-owned banks. A more indirect avenue of 

governmental support to Chinese enterprises seeking expansion abroad is the opportunity for 

partaking commercially (through the preferential awarding of construction contracts, etc.) in 

Chinese foreign aid programs in developing economies throughout Africa, Asia, and elsewhere.

57

A top priority for the Chinese government under its “going global” strategy is the creation of a 

number of “global champions,” large multinational firms with globally recognized brands able 

to compete in the international marketplace. Political and financial support for such stateowned or state-affiliated enterprises often gives them an advantage over more marketoriented western companies, as the former may not be subject to the same fiscal discipline by 

their owners or investors, thus significantly reducing their cost of capital.58

A variation of the state-owned national champion is a hybrid that is at least partially owned by 

the government, or retains strong government ties but that has some flexibility: Examples 

include Haier (appliances) and Lenovo (computers). Huawei (telecommunications) has tried for 
12

years, with limited success, to counter perceptions that it is also government-controlled. These 

hybrid government-private firms aggressively promote themselves as private companies, in 

part because their attempts to acquire foreign companies or joint venture partners sometimes 

meet with objections because of their Chinese government connections.

As overseas investment has expanded and as the central government has relaxed controls on 

investment abroad, the number of state actors involved in approval and management of ODI 

projects has multiplied, making an already difficult process more so. But the Chinese 

government has altered the governance structure of some SOEs not only to make them more 

flexible and internationally competitive but also more profitable. The State-owned Assets 

Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC), created in 2003 to manage the large, 

central-level SOEs, is required to reform the SOEs under its control to create profitable 

“national champion” firms. In 2007, SASAC finally succeeded in establishing a system of aftertax profit distributions, with SASAC receiving a share of the profits of the SOEs under its 

supervision.

By giving SASAC a stake in the financial success of the firms it oversees, the central government 

has made SASAC, like the large SOEs, more likely to prioritize profitability over strategic 

interests, as unprofitable strategic investments will yield no benefits to SASAC. SASAC’s 

mandate to streamline central-level SOEs by forcing the least profitable ones to close or to 

merge with other firms (Li Rongrong, the then-head of SASAC, has declared his intention to 

decrease the number of SASAC firms to fewer than 100 within the next few years) also 

encourages firms to prioritize short-term growth over strategic and other concerns if they wish 

to survive.59 

Even if SASAC wished to prioritize strategic concerns over economic ones, it is unlikely that the 

agency has the power to force the firms nominally under its supervision to follow its mandate. 

As Barry Naughton argues, 
13

Over the past few years, while the power of SASAC has arguably grown 

somewhat, the power of the large central government enterprises has grown 

even more dramatically. That was obvious during the past few months in the 

saga of China Eastern Airlines, Singapore Airlines, and SASAC, where 

economic interests thoroughly trumped the effort of SASAC, an 

administrative agency that clearly ought to have had the bureaucratic power 

to impose its solution, but in the end, did not.60 

The picture is further complicated by the fact that the state-owned firms that defy their state 

owners also have state-appointed managers; all the firms under SASAC control have top 

managers appointed either by the Communist Party Organization Department or by SASAC.61

SASAC is not the only state bureaucratic agency involved in fostering overseas investments. At 

the central level, SAFE and MOFCOM are also involved. State banks, including the government’s 

China Export-Import Bank, play a role in the outward direct investment process by providing 

loans to enterprises that wish to “go global.” The China Development Bank and the China 

Export & Credit Insurance Corporation have also played a role in fostering overseas investment, 

signing an agreement to provide firms that “go global” with risk assessment, insurance, and 

protection against currency fluctuations in the host country.62 According to the China Center for 

Economic Research, Chinese embassies provide additional support to foreign-investing firms by 

conducting feasibility studies to evaluate the chances of success of proposed Chinese 

investment projects in the host country.63

Provincial officials are involved as well; beginning in 2003, SAFE and MOFCOM allowed foreign 

investments of less than U.S. $3 million to be approved at the provincial level (prior to 2003, 

investments of more than U.S. $1 million had to be approved at the central level).64 The result 

is an alphabet soup of agencies, bureaucrats, and businesses looking to regulate or profit from 

Chinese firms’ overseas investments. 
14

China’s Sovereign Wealth Funds and Outward Direct Investment

Over the last 30 years, policies aimed at promoting export growth have allowed China to 

accumulate vast foreign exchange reserves, nearly $2.65 trillion by the end of 2010 and growing 

by as much as $500 billion a year.65 These holdings are managed by an arm of the central bank, 

the State Administration for Foreign Exchange, and most are invested in highly liquid and 

secure U.S. Treasury bonds. Unhappy with the low interest rates, China’s government has 

started taking small steps to diversify away from the Treasuries and into higher-yielding assets. 

China’s official sovereign wealth fund, the China Investment Corporation, was created in 

September 2007, in part to move into foreign equities and direct investments in investment 

banks and hedge funds. CIC is not the only investment arm of the Chinese government, but it 

is the most prominent, and its investments have been scrutinized for emerging trends. (For a 

detailed look at SAFE, CIC, and China’s other investment vehicles, refer to chap. 1, sec. 2, of the 

U.S.-China Commission’s 2008 Report to Congress.

66)

The first few investments made by CIC, including a stake in U.S. investment firm Blackstone and 

investment bank Morgan Stanley, resulted in major paper losses, partially as a consequence of 

the 2008 global financial crisis. The harsh criticism faced by CIC from the Chinese public and 

government let to a reassessment of its investment strategy. In 2009, CIC made several smaller 

purchases, mainly in the commodities industry, and made a return on investment of 11.7

percent.

67

II. DISTRIBUTION OF CHINA’S ODI BY DESTINATION AND TYPE

Geographical Distribution of Chinese ODI

The internationalization of Chinese ODI has intensified, driven by resource-, asset-, and 

efficiency-seeking, as well as by the “going global” strategy. According to the 2009 MOFCOM 

Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment, China’s ODI flows were $56.5 

billion in 2009, but the true breakdown of the destination of China’s ODI is unknown because a 
15

large share of it was made in the world’s tax havens (in 2009, 12 percent went to the Cayman 

Islands and the British Virgin Islands alone) or in Hong Kong (67 percent in 2009), from where 

the money can be directed to projects around the world.68 Also complicating matters is the 

practice of round-tripping, which many Chinese enterprises use to park a large proportion of 

their foreign exchange holdings in Hong Kong, with some later funneled into foreign countries 

as FDI and some subsequently recycled back into China as “new FDI.”

Table 1 – Top 20 Destinations for China’s ODI in 2009

(stock; U.S. $ millions)

Destination Amount

1 Hong Kong $164,498.94 

2 British Virgin Islands $ 15,060.69 

3 Cayman Islands $ 13,577.07 

4 Australia $ 5,863.10 

5 Singapore $ 4,857.32 

6 United States $ 3,338.42 

7 South Africa $ 2,306.86 

8 Luxembourg $ 2,484.38 

9 Russia $ 2,220.37 

10 Macau $ 1,837.23 

11 Canada $ 1,670.34 

12 Kazakhstan $ 1,516.21 

13 Pakistan $ 1,458.09 

14 Mongolia $ 1,241.66 

15 South Korea $ 1,217.80 

16 Germany $ 1,082.24 

17 UK $ 1,028.28 

18 Nigeria $ 1,025.96 

19 Myanmar $ 929.88 

20 Zambia $ 843.97 

Other $ 17,696.57 

World Total $245,755.38

Source: MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010).

As Table 1 indicates, although geographically dispersed, a significant portion of China’s ODI 

(stock) is concentrated in a few countries. In 2009, Hong Kong and tax havens69 alone received 

79 percent of total Chinese outbound investment, which is perhaps explained in part by their 
16

role as round-tripping hubs. At 75.5 percent of ODI flows, Asia and the Middle East surpass all 

other regions combined as the top regional recipient of Chinese investment, despite inclusion 

of the tax havens under Latin American regional designation and China’s growing interest in 

Australian mineral wealth.

70 The regional bias in favor of Asia is explained by the inclusion of 

Hong Kong, the top destination for Chinese ODI. But there are other factors. For example, it 

may also be partially explained by Chinese companies setting up their production facilities in 

the region, Southeast Asia in particular, with the aim of expanding their market share in the 

host countries and reducing production costs.71 (See Appendix II for select countries, by region.)

Source: MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010).

For the United States, flows of Chinese ODI increased from $462.03 million in 2008 to $908.74 

million in 2009, a jump of 49 percent.72 The 2009 Statistical Bulletin on China’s Outward Foreign 

Asia and M. East

75%

Africa

4%

Europe

4%

Latin America

12%

North America

2% Oceania

3%

Chinese 2009 ODI by Region - Stock

(US $ million, percent share)
17

Direct Investment also said that there were over 1,300 Chinese companies with investment in 

the United States.73 According to the Ministry of Commerce, China’s U.S.-bound investment for 

the first nine months of 2010 grew by 530 percent from a year earlier, which contrasted with 

10.4 percent during the same period for China’s total ODI. 74 The sectoral distribution of Chinese 

ODI to the United States is represented in Table 2.

Table 2 – Chinese ODI to the United States, by Industry, 2009

(U.S. $10,000)

Industry

2009 Flow 2009 Stock 

Amount

Share of 

Total Amount

Share of 

Total

Wholesale and Retail $12,484 13.74% $95,265 28.54%

Manufacturing 37,873 41.68% 94,097 28.19%

Finance 14,064 15.48% 48,573 14.55%

Transportation, storage, and 

postal 396 0.44% 22,323 6.69%

Scientific research, technology 

services, and geological surveys 12,528 13.79% 22,217 6.65%

Rental and business services 4,013 4.42% 18,422 5.52%

Information transfer, computer 

services, and software 2,037 2.24% 11,534 3.45%

Construction 1,047 1.15% 5,141 1.54%

Real estate 1,218 1.34% 4,592 1.38%

Agriculture, forestry, cattle, and 

fish 1,615 1.78% 3,006 0.90%

Residential services and other 

services 1,041 1.15% 2,812 0.84%

Mining 794 0.87% 2,761 0.83%

Housing and food 1,598 1.76% 1,717 0.51%

Other Industries 166 0.18% 1,382 0.41%

Total $90,874 100% $333,842 100%

Source: MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010), p. 22.

Sectoral Composition

Chinese ODI targets a wide variety of business areas, reflecting the diversified nature of the 

country’s domestic industries and the Chinese government’s considerations. The consistently 
18

high percentage of investment flow in the service sector (30 percent in business services and 19

percent in finance in 2009) reflects the fact that the ODI is largely used to serve and promote 

the export of Chinese commodities. In contrast, the flow of investment in natural resource 

extraction accounted for nearly half of the total in 2003, one third in 2004, and about 40

percent in 2006 but dropped to less than 16 percent in 2009.

Source: MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010).

The natural resource sector, though small relative to services, is the third biggest and has farreaching impacts. Oil, gas, and mineral extraction in particular are important areas for the 

Chinese. Examples of ODI projects in this sector include massive acquisitions by the stateowned CNOOC, which in January 2002 made a $593 million deal to buy the Indonesian assets of 

Spain’s Repsol YPF, followed by the purchase in March of a 5 percent stake in the Northwest 

Shelf natural gas field off the coast of Australia for $320 million and a $275 million purchase of 

a 12.5 percent stake in the Indonesian offshore Tangguh Gas field from British Petroleum Co. in 

October.75 In October of the same year, Sinopec, also state-owned, bought a 75 percent stake 

in an oil field in North Africa for $394 million.76 And most recently in 2007, China Metallurgical 

Agriculture

1%

Mining

16%

Manufacturing

6%

Construction

1%

Transportation 

and Storage

7% IT

Wholesale and 1%

Retail

Finance 14%

19%

Real Estate

2%

Business 

Services/Leasing

30%

Other

3%

Chinese 2009 ODI by Industry - Stock
19

Group bought the right to extract high-quality copper from an Afghan mine for $3 billion.77

China’s increased M&A activity has not gone unnoticed. There are concerns that natural 

resource firms, once acquired by Chinese state-controlled investors, can become “captive 

suppliers” to China instead of selling in the open market.78 National security concerns are also a 

factor. For example, they helped derail the bid by CNOOC to purchase Unocal (United States) in 

2005 (Chevron ultimately outbid CNOOC, but only after Congress hinted that the deal might be 

derailed by opposition from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States). 

Mainland companies are aggressively snapping up overseas assets in other strategic sectors. In 

June 2002, for example, Shanghai Baosteel paid $30 million for a 46 percent stake in an 

Australian iron ore mining joint venture with Rio Tinto PLC’s Hamersley Iron unit, while in

September, television maker TCL International Holdings Ltd. paid $8 million for Germany’s 

bankrupt Schneider Electronics to sell its products under the brand name in order to break into 

the European market. 79 Huayi Group of Shanghai paid $20 million for the battery-making assets 

of Moltech Power Systems, a bankrupt outfit in Gainesville, Florida, and Holley Group, a 

Hangzhou maker of electricity meters, gained a foothold in China’s booming wireless business 

when it spent $3 million for the mobile-phone design and software operations of Philips 

Semiconductor in 2001.80 It is worth noting that many acquisitions by Chinese firms, especially 

in the developed world, have involved a company that was ailing or insolvent but had 

advantageous endowments.81 By and large, to date Chinese FIEs are yet to make an impact in 

global markets with recognizable names or brand loyalties, but promotion of domestic brand 

names in the international markets is a government-designated national priority. In fact, the 

United States has successfully challenged in WTO consultations China’s subsidization and 

support for its “famous brands,” to the detriment of foreign competitors.82

III. THERE AND BACK AGAIN: ROUND-TRIPPING

The success of investment in China continues to attract large volumes of capital. However, 

market reforms and generous incentives for FDI, including tax concessions, preferential terms 

for leasing of land and property, and guarantees for repatriation of foreign exchange, have also 
20

encouraged Chinese investors to move money offshore and then bring it back to China 

disguised as foreign investment or “round-tripping.”83 This is an issue of great concern for 

China’s MOFCOM, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, and the State Administration 

of Taxation, since even by conservative estimates as much as a quarter of China’s official FDI is 

actually masked as Chinese funds coming home to take advantage of preferential tax and other 

government policies.84 Estimation of actual volumes of round-tripping is very difficult, largely 

because investors who recycle their funds in this manner are unlikely to report their activities to 

the authorities. 

Prior to China’s WTO accession, many international firms allied with Hong Kong companies to 

gain access to the China market.85 Partly as a result of this activity, Hong Kong remains the 

largest “foreign” investor in mainland China. In the past few decades, Hong Kong has 

consistently contributed from 40 percent to 60 percent of total FDI inflows to the Peoples' 

Republic of China. Hong Kong, however, is not the sole facilitator for round-tripping capital that 

fled the mainland. Hong Kong’s share has been supplemented by steady increases in FDI flows 

through vehicles registered in the tax havens. Until 2009, this phenomenon was easily 

extrapolated from the statistics on the top 10 origins of inbound FDI in China (see Table 3). In 

2009, however, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, which compiles the data, changed its 

calculation, showing investments sourced in the given countries, including those made through 

Barbados, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Mauritius, and Western Samoa, which 

previously occupied top spots as origins of FDI in China (see Table 4). 

Table 3 – Top 10 Origins of FDI in China, 2005-2008

(U.S. $ billion)

Country/Region 

of Origin

Amount 

Invested 2005

Amount 

Invested 2006

Amount 

Invested 2007

Amount 

Invested

2008 

2007-2008

y-o-y 

Growth (%)

Hong Kong $17.95 $20.23 $27.7 $41.0 48.1

Virgin Islands 

(UK)

9.02 11.25 16.6 16.0 -3.6

Singapore 2.20 2.26 3.2 4.4 39.3

Japan 6.53 4.60 3.6 3.7 1.8
21

Cayman Islands 1.95 2.1 2.6 3.2 22.3

South Korea 5.17 3.89 3.7 3.1 -14.8

United States 3.06 2.87 2.6 2.9 12.5

Western Samoa 1.36 1.54 2.2 2.6 17.5

Taiwan 2.15 2.14 1.8 1.9 7.0

Mauritius 1.3 1.5 12.1

Germany 1.53 1.98

Source: MOFCOM; compiled by U.S.-China Business Council 2007, 2009 (USCBC).

Table 4 – Top 10 Origins of FDI in China, 2008-2009

(U.S. $ billion)

Country/Region of 

Origin

Amount Invested 

2008

Amount Invested 

2009

Year-on-Year Growth 

(%)

Hong Kong $41.0 $54.0 31.6

Taiwan 1.9 6.6 245.7

Japan 3.7 4.1 12.7

Singapore 4.4 3.9 -12.4

United States 2.9 3.6 21.5

South Korea 3.1 2.7 -13.8

United Kingdom 0.9 1.5 60.7

Germany 0.9 1.2 36.3

Macau 0.6 1.0 71.9

Canada 0.5 1.0 76.5

Source: MOFCOM; compiled by U.S.-China Business Council 2010 (USCBC).

86

Note: 2009 data includes investments sourced in these countries but made through Barbados, the British Virgin 

Islands, the Cayman Islands, Mauritius, and Western Samoa.

The Ministry of Commerce reported that in 2009, the top 10 countries and regions accounted 

for 88.3 percent of utilized foreign capital (of the $90 billion total), and Hong Kong alone 

accounted for around 60 percent.87

While the nominal origin of these recycled investments has been concentrated in Hong Kong 

and various tax havens, the actual origin remains unclear. According to the U.S. Department of 

State’s China Investment Climate survey, anecdotal evidence suggests that it includes 

investments from corporations headquartered in Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development (OECD) economies, Taiwan, and, largely, China itself. 88 Despite the magnitude of 
22

the phenomenon and its significant impact on the Chinese economy, surprisingly little research 

has been conducted by international organizations, research institutions, and scholars. The 

World Bank, for example, manages to address the issue in its entirety in a one-page box (see 

World Bank 2002), while the UNCTAD World Investment Report 2006 encapsulates the problem 

in one paragraph. 

Patterns of China’s FDI and Incentives for Round-tripping

While incentives for foreign investment are the primary reason behind FDI round-tripping in 

China, repatriation of capital previously removed from China is another. Prior to China’s WTO 

entry, large portions of the capital created in China was moved abroad, and stayed abroad, 

waiting for further opportunities elsewhere; however, as economic conditions improved in 

China, that capital flowed to China under more favorable terms. Even after WTO-compliant 

reforms, the remaining weakness of China's financial and legal systems and the lack of 

enforcement of property rights and contracts contributed to a sustained capital flight. 

89 Some 

scholars estimate that on average, about 20 percent to 30 percent of the round-tripping FDI in 

China is actually capital returning postflight.90 

Several incentives exist for investors to take their capital out the country and recycle it through 

Hong Kong or tax havens before bringing it back to China. These incentives can be grouped 

largely around issues of profit-making, risk management, and safety of capital. 91
23

Source: MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010).

Tax Advantages and Incentives: China has provided many tax advantages (such as tax 

holidays, exemptions, or reduced rates), concessional land lease terms, and other favorable 

incentives to attract foreign investment. It was very advantageous to be a foreign-invested 

enterprise, and many Chinese investors noticed this. Consequently, taking capital out of the 

country, registering it abroad, and then bringing it back became a very common, though not 

easy, method for taking advantage of China's preferential policies for FIEs. However, China’s 

administration has become aware of this phenomenon and has taken steps to gradually phase 

out tax advantages and other concessional terms. The Enterprise Income Tax Law, which took 

effect in January 2008, unified the corporate tax rate for FIEs and domestic firms at 25 percent. 

Prior to the new law, the effective income tax rate for FIEs was 11 percent, while domestic 

firms were taxed at 23 percent.

92 The passage of this law and a subsequent circular addressing 

other related issues such as tax breaks for companies with high-tech status, coupled with 

tighter regulations on off-shore investment vehicles, could lead to a contraction of roundtripping, although, as with all grey-market operations, the full effect would be hard to estimate. 

Hong Kong

67% British Virgin 

Islands

6%

Cayman Islands

6%

Australia

2%

Singapore

2%

United 

States

1%

South 

Africa

1%

Luxembourg

1%

Russia

1%

Macao

1%

Other

12%

Top 10 Recipients of Chinees ODI - 2009 (stock)
24

Property Rights Protection: China’s basic legal framework is still in flux, and 

enforcement is spotty at best. Many Chinese capital holders see, therefore, that it is to their 

advantage to reinvent themselves as foreign capital holders and enter China in this way, taking 

advantage of the more stringent, though still insufficient, protection frequently afforded to 

foreign investors. 

Competitiveness of Hong Kong and Other Overseas Financial Sectors: A significant 

portion of China’s round-tripping is connected to Hong Kong. In addition to being a regional 

and international financial hub, Hong Kong serves the majority of China's business. Despite 

many reforms, China’s banking services remain underdeveloped and weak; therefore, many 

Chinese investors choose to house their capital in Hong Kong or elsewhere in the developed 

world.

The weakness of China’s markets means that companies preparing to make a public offering 

will usually go to Hong Kong in lieu of domestic alternatives like Shanghai or Shenzhen. This is 

particularly true for big entities, like PetroChina. However, when a mainland company is 

preparing to list in Hong Kong, it would register as a new local company there, with an injection 

of capital from the mainland, which would then be counted by China as a very large portfolio 

investment. While the ownership of a company remains essentially the same, legally it 

becomes a Hong Kong entity that then may transfer some of its capital back to the mainland, 

thus completing the investment’s round trip.93 

IV. THE FUTURE OF CHINESE DIRECT INVESTMENT AND U.S. INTERESTS

With the growth in Chinese overseas direct investment comes the possibility that these 

investments will play an increasingly significant role in the U.S. economy. What might this 

increased role mean for U.S. interests? 
25

On the one hand, there is broad agreement on the economic benefits to the receiving country 

of foreign direct investment as long as that country’s economy is transparent and competitive. 

Compared to portfolio investments, FDI tends to stay in the host country for a relatively long 

period.94 FDI can create jobs in the host country or prevent jobs there from going overseas. 

Furthermore, since overseas investors must abide by host country environmental, labor, and 

transparency requirements, some argue that investments in developed countries with welldeveloped legal environments are good for both the receiving countries and foreign firms; 

receiving countries ensure that they receive safe products and learn more about the operations 

of foreign firms through disclosure/transparency requirements, and foreign firms learn better 

business practices. However, FDI is not problem-free. In Germany, one of the European 

countries most successful at wooing Chinese investors, almost half of Chinese investments 

folded within their first year or moved production to China. And even those that remained 

tended to be small businesses with only a few local employees, implying minimal job creation.95 

Some suggest that Chinese overseas investments are cause for concern for security reasons as 

well. The lack of transparency in Chinese investments is one problem. The fact that the majority 

of Chinese enterprises that invest abroad are state-owned or state-controlled, and that many of 

them are firms in strategic sectors such as natural resources, is another. This trend is not 

unique to China; the most powerful firms in many developing countries are often partially or 

totally state-owned. The rise in overseas investments by firms from the developing world and 

the rise in overseas investments by state-owned enterprises are thus inextricably linked. 

As a consequence of the global financial crisis, China has taken advantage of lowered prices on 

overseas investment opportunities to extend its global reach, especially in the natural resource 

sector.96 Conversely, having already been burned by the loss of money in its first major 

investments in financial firms in 2008, China has also been focusing mainly on small stakes in 

foreign companies rather than on outright acquisitions. China also conducts an active 

investment diplomacy: It has signed 120 bilateral investment treaties, and it has pursued free 

trade agreements, including the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement, which came into effect in 
26

January 2010.97 The Chinese government has been taking steps to ease and decentralize the 

regulatory procedure to encourage more overseas deals.98

The small scale and distribution of China’s ODI may not be a good guide for the future, since the 

patterns of capital outflows are likely to change as China becomes more assertive in the use of 

its vast capital reserves. China has become a capital-surplus economy, and its overseas 

investment has grown apace. China’s ODI is now globally diversified and involved in a wide 

variety of sectors, including banking, manufacturing, and natural resource exploitation. There 

are challenges ahead, however, for Chinese overseas investors, since they appear to have no 

clear strategy for the operation and development of their overseas branches, nor have the 

most prominent Chinese overseas investments been successful (as the grassroots backlash 

against money-losing investments in U.S. financial companies by China’s sovereign wealth fund 

indicates). Restrictions remain on the use of foreign exchange. Since the renminbi (RMB) is not

convertible, this places constraints on Chinese investors who do not have government support

and access to hard currency.

The current economic climate is too turbulent to make long-term conclusions about the future 

of China’s economy, but it is safe to assume that Chinese ODI will continue to grow. One of the 

fundamental drivers of the continued growth in Chinese ODI will be the shortage of energy and 

raw materials to support the country’s economic expansion. Other motivations include access 

to natural resources and advanced technology, acquisition of internationally established 

brands, and avoidance of trade barriers.
27

Dim Sums: A Note on the Data

This paper makes extensive use of MOFCOM’s 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward 

Foreign Direct Investment (the latest release available) for data and analysis of Chinese ODI. 

Unfortunately, data most readily available from Chinese statistical sources generally have a 

reputation for inaccuracy and opacity. All values must, therefore, be taken with some 

reservations.

99

 For the purposes of this paper, however, these statistics help to illustrate the 

major trends in China’s acquisition of foreign direct investment.

In February 2006, MOFCOM announced that it would no longer report the value of contracted 

FDI deals, which were used to estimate future commitments. This was in response, according 

to the U.S.-China Business Council, to local officials’ exaggeration of these figures, because local 

officials are evaluated on their ability to attract foreign investment. 
28

Appendix I:

Chinese Investment Deals, 2008-2010

Year Acquiring Company

Transaction

Value

(U.S. $ 

million)

Shares

Acquired

(%) Target Company Industry

Target

Country

2008 SAFE $180 1%

Australia and New Zealand Banking,

Commonwealth Bank of Australia,

National Bank of Australia Banking Australia

2008 Wuxi PharmaTech $150 AppTec Lab Services Pharma USA

2008

Minmetals (20%),

Xingxing Iron's (35%)

with Kelachandra and Manasara $1,200 Kelachandra and Manasara Steel India

2008 China Metallurgical $370 Iron Australia

2008 Sinochem $470 Soco Oil Yemen

2008 Chalco, with Alcoa $12,800 12% Rio Tinto Aluminum Australia

2008 CIC $100 Visa Finance USA

2008 China Life $260 1% Visa Finance USA

2008 Sinopec $560 60% AED Oil Australia

2008 Huaneng Power $3,000 Tuas Power Power Singapore

2008 CIC $3,200 80% JC Flowers Investment USA

2008 SAFE $2,800 1.6% Total Energy France

2008 SAFE $2,000 1% BP Energy Britain

2008 China Nonferrous $150 Copper Zambia

2008 Chinalco $2,160 Copper Peru

2008 CNPC $5,000 Oil Niger

2008 Zoomlion $250 60% Compagnia Italiana Forme Acciaio Construction Italy

2008 SAFE $2,500 20% TPG Investment USA

2008

China National Cereals, Oils, and

Foodstuffs $140 5% Smithfield Foods Food USA

2008

China Railway Engineering

and Sinohydro $1,200 28% Metals DRC

2008 CNOOC $2,500 Awilco Offshore Oil Norway

2008 China Nonferrous $800 50% Metals Myanmar

2008 Sinosteel $1,300 Midwest Iron Australia

2008 China Metalurgical $850 20% Metals DRC

2008 Sinohydro $850 20% Metals DRC

2008 Shenhua $260 Coal Australia

2008 CNPC $3,000 Oil Iraq

2008 Sinopec $1,900 Canada-based Tanganyika Oil Oil Syria

2008

China International

Marine Containers $330 30% Yantai Raffles Shipyard Shipping Singapore

2008 Sany Heavy Industry $140 Construction Germany

2008 Jiangsu Shagang $270 45% Bulk Minerals and Grange Iron Australia

2008 CIC $200 2.6% Blackstone Investment USA

2008 CNPC $1,280 51% Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise Construction Myanmar
29

2008 China Metallurgical $1,000 Copper Philippines

2008 10 property companies $520 Pacific Holdings Property Japan

2008 China Union $2,600 Iron Liberia

2009 CNPC $1,760 National Iranian Oil Company Oil Iran

2009 Hunan Valin Iron & Steel $770 16.5% Fortescue Metals Iron Australia

2009 Shougang Group $1,000 Iron Peru

2009 Wuhan Iron and Steel $240 19.9% Iron Canada

2009 CIC $800 

investment in Morgan Stanley

property fund Property USA

2009 CNPC $2,600 KasMunaigas Gas Kazakhstan

2009 China Nonferrous $450 85% Copper Zambia

2009 China Metallurgical $520 10% Palmer’s Mineralogy Coal Australia

2009

Guangdong Rising

Asset Management $140 19.9% PanAust Metals Australia

2009 PetroChina $1,020 46% Keppel, Singapore Petroleum Oil Singapore

2009 AnSteel $130 24% Gindalbie Metals Iron Australia

2009 Minmetals $1,350 Oz Minerals Metals Australia

2009 CIC $1,210 Morgan Stanley Banking USA

2009 Sinopec $7,200 Addax Petroleum Oil Switzerland

2009 CIC $160 8% Goodman Group Real Estate Australia

2009 CNPC $4,700 Gas Iran

2009 CIC $500 Blackstone Investment USA

2009 CIC $530 Blackrock Investment USA

2009 CIC $1,500 17% Teck Resources Copper Canada

2009 Zhonghui Mining $3,600 Copper Zambia

2009 Xiyang Group $480 Iron Russia

2009 Chinalco $1,500 Rio Tinto Aluminum Australia

2009 Shenhua Guohau Power $330 70% Power Indonesia

2009 CIC $370 1.10% Diageo Food Britain

2009 group of Shanxi companies $750 Property Mauritius

2009 CIC $450 19% Songbird Estates Property Britain

2009 CNPC $1,740 60% Athabasca Oil Sands Oil Canada

2009 CNOOC $100 Qatar Petroleum Gas Qatar

2009 Sinochem $880 Emerald Energy Energy Britain

2009 Yanzhou Coal $2,950 Felix Resources Coal Australia

2009 CIC $1,090 Goodman Group Property Australia

2009 Sinohydro $800 Hydro Cameroon

2009 PetroChina $1,160 Singapore Petroleum Oil Singapore

2009 CIC $940 11% JSC KazMunaiGas E&P Gas Kazakhstan

2009 CIC $600 

Oaktree Capital Management

distressed asset fund Investment USA

2009 CIC $600 

Goldman Sachs distressed

asset fund Investment USA

2009 State Construction Engineering $100 2.75% Baha Mar Resort Bahamas

2009 CNPC $2,250 Oil Iran

2009 Hanlong Mining $200 Moly Mines Iron Australia

2009 CIC $300 Nobel Holdings Oil Russia

2009 Baosteel $240 15% Aquila Resources Iron Australia

2009 CIC $1,580 15% AES Power USA
30

2009 Beijing West Industries $100 Delphi Autos USA

2009 Wuhan Iron and Steel $400 22% MMX Mineracao Iron Brazil

2009 Great Wall Motor $120 Litex Motors Autos Bulgaria

2009 Wuhan Iron and Steel $250 Centrex Minerals Iron Australia

2009 Shunde Rixin $1,900 70% Iron Chile

2009

China Railway Construction and

Tongling Nonferrous $650 Corriente Resources Copper Canada

2009 Zijin Mining $500 Indophil Resources Australia

2009 CNPC $190 Oil Iraq

2009 BAIC $200 Saab Autos USA

2009 Hebei Zhongxin $400 Autos Mexico

2009 Shanghai Auto $330 50% GM Autos India

2009 Jinjiang International Hotels $150 50% Thayer Lodging Tourism USA

2010 China Metallurgical $200 5% Resource House Metals Australia

2010 China Nickel Resources $220 Steel Indonesia

2010

Baiyin Non-Ferrous, CITIC & 

Chang Xin $190 60% Oxus Metals Uzbekistan

2010 Chalco $350 35% GIIG Aluminium Malaysia

2010 CIC $960 2.30% Apax Finance Investment Britain

2010 ICBC $530 ACL Bank Banking Thailand

2010 CIC $1,500 

Lexington Partners, Pantheon 

Ventures, Goldman Sachs Investment USA

2010 Sany Heavy Industry $200 Construction Brazil

2010 Wanhua Industrial $190 BorsodChem Chemicals Hungary

2010 CNPC $180 51% INOVA Geophysical Equipment Energy USA

2010 Hudian $650 51% Sintez Gas

Russian 

Federation

2010 Geely Auto 1,800 Ford Autos Sweden

2010

East China Mineral Exploration 

and Development Bureau 

(Jiangsu) 1,200 Itaminas Iron Brazil

2010 Poly Technologies $100 Agriculture Mauritiana

2010 CNOOC $3,100 50% Bridas Oil Argentina

2010 PetroChina 1,580 50% Arrow Energy Gas Australia

2010 CIC $250 13% South Gobi Energy Coal Mongolia

2010 First Auto Works $100 Autos

South 

Africa

2010

China National Chemical 

Engineering $500 Agriculture Sudan

2010 China Railway Materials $260 13.00% African Minerals Iron

Sierra 

Leone

2010 Sinopec 4,650 9% ConocoPhillip Oil Canada

2010 CNOOC $270 5% BG Gas Australia

2010 CNPC $900 Oil Venezuela

2010 Tencent $300 10.00% Digital Sky Technologies Technology

Russian 

Federation

2010 China Mobile $300 Telecom Pakistan

2010 Chongqing Food Group $320 Agriculture Brazil

2010 Hanlong $140 55% Moly Mines Rare metals Australia
31

2010 CNPC 1,500 35% Shell Energy Syria

2010 Hopu $100 1% Chesapeake Energy Gas USA

2010 CIC $1,220 5% Penn West Energy Oil Canada

2010 State Grid $990 Cobra, Elecnor and Isolux Power Brazil

2010 Sinochem $3,070 40% Peregrino field Oil Brazil

2010

Jinchuan Group and China-Africa 

Development Fund $230 51% Wesizwe Platinu, Metals 

South 

Africa

2010 Tianyu Group $1,000 Property

South 

Korea

2010 CNPC $150 Energy Indonesia

2010 Yunnan Chihong $100 50% Howards Pass Metals Canada

2010 Tempo Group and Beijing city $440 Nexteer Auto Austos USA

2010 China Merchants Group $550 Loscam Shipping Australia

2010 Chinalco 1,350 45% Rio Tinto Iron Guinea

2010 China Merchants Group $450 70% Aitken Spence Shipping Sri Lanka

2010 Chery $700 Autos Brazil

2010 Bosai Minerals $1,200 80% Ghana Bauxite Aluminium Ghana

2010 Jinchuan $420 Continental Metals Metals Canada

2010 Shanda Games $100 Eyedentity Games Technology

South 

Korea

2010 Sinopec 7,100 40% Repsol Oil Brazil

2010 CNOOC $2,200 33% Chesapeake Energy Oil USA

2010 Sinochem $1,440 60% Makhteshim-Agan Agriculture Israel

2010 Minmetals $2,500 Copper Peru

2010 Huaneng Power $1,230 50% InterGen Power USA

2010 CNOOC $2,470 30% Pan American Oil Argentina

2010 CNPC and Sinopec $610 Oil Ecuador

2010 SAIC $500 1% GM Autos USA

2010

Guangdong Rising Asset 

Management $400 Caledon Coal Australia

2010 Sinopec $2,450 Occidental Oil Argentina

2010 CIC $200 BTG Pactual Investment Brazil

2010 Three Gorges $170 EuroSibEnergo Power

Russian 

Federation

2010 Sinopec $680 Chevron Gas Indonesia

Source: Excerpted from Derek Scissors, “China Global Investment Tracker: 2011” (Washington, DC: The Heritage 

Foundation, January 10, 2011). http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/01/China-Global-InvestmentTracker-2011. 
32

Appendix II:

Regional Distribution of China’s ODI

Chinese ODI by Region, Stock 

(U.S. $ million)

Source: MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010).

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Asia &

Middle East $26,603.46 $33,479.55 $40,954.31 $47,978.05 $79,217.93 $131,316.99 $185,547.20 

Hong Kong 24,632.26 30,392.89 

 

36,507.08 

 

42,269.91 

 

68,781.32 

 

115,845.28 164,498.94 

Singapore 164.83 233.09 325.48 468.01 1,443.93 3,334.77 4,857.32 

Macau 446.86 624.83 598.70 612.47 910.67 1,560.78 1,837.23 

Pakistan 27.48 36.45 188.81 148.24 1,068.19 1,327.99 1,458.09 

Kazakhstan 19.71 24.78 245.24 276.24 609.93 1,402.30 1,516.21 

Africa $491.23 $899.55 $1,595.25 $2,556.82 $4,461.83 $7,803.83 $9,332.27

Algeria 5.70 34.49 171.21 247.37 393.89 508.82 751.26 

Nigeria 31.98 79.61 94.11 215.94 630.32 795.91 1,025.96 

South Africa 44.77 58.87 112.28 167.62 702.37 3,048.62 2,306.86 

Europe $487.45 $676.65 $1,272.93 $2,269.82 $4,458.54 $5,133.96 $8,676.78

Russia 61.64 123.48 465.57 929.76 1,421.51 1,838.28 2,220.37 

Germany 83.61 129.21 268.35 472.03 845.41 845.50 1,082.24 

UK 75.15 108.46 107.97 201.87 950.31 837.66 1,028.28 

L. America &

Caribbean $4,619.32 $8,268.37 $11,469.61 $19,694.37 $24,700.91 $32,240.15 $30,595.48

Cayman 

Islands 3,690.68 6,659.91 

 

8,935.59 

 

14,209.19 

 

16,810.68 

 

20,327.45 13,577.07 

Virgin 

Islands (UK) 532.64 1,089.38 

 

1,983.58 

 

4,750.40 6,626.54 

 

10,477.33 15,060.69 

Brazil 52.19 79.22 81.39 130.41 189.55 217.05 360.89 

North 

America $548.50 $909.21 $1,263.23 $1,587.02 $3,240.89 $3,659.78 $5,184.70

United 

States 502.32 665.20 822.68 

 

1,237.87 1,880.53 2,389.90 3,338.42 

Canada 46.18 58.79 103.29 140.72 1,254.52 1,268.43 1,670.34 

Oceania $472.26 $543.94 $650.29 $939.48 $1,830.40 $3,816.00 $6,418.95

Australia 416.49 494.58 587.46 794.35 1,444.01 3,355.29 5,863.10 

Total $33,222.22 $44,777.26 $57,205.62 $75,025.55 $117,910.50 $183,970.71 $245,755.38
33

Source: MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010).

 

1

This paper uses the broadest definition of FDI, a catchall term to include all instances where a foreign investor 

exerts control over domestic assets; portfolio investment is usually not included. However, the Ministry of 

Commerce of the People's Republic of China (MOFCOM) aggregates nonfinancial and financial ODI in its reports 

(for example, China’s cumulative ODI for 2009 includes $47.8 billion of nonfinancial and $8.73 billion of financial 

flows; similarly, the stock figures include $199.76 billion of nonfinancial ODI and $45.99 billion of financial ODI). 

ODI is not functionally different from FDI. It is simply a term used to represent flows of investment that go out of 

the country—as opposed to those that go in.

2

Leonard K. Cheng and Zihui Ma, “China’s Outward FDI: Past and Future,” in Proceedings of the NBER (National 

Bureau of Economic Research) Conference on China’s Growing Role in World Trade (Chicago: University of Chicago 

Press, 2007), p. 5. http://nber15.nber.org/books_in_progress/china07/cwt07/cheng.pdf.

3

All figures in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise specified. MOFCOM, 2009 年 度 中国 对外直接投资统计公报 [2009 

Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment] (Beijing: 2010), p. 77.

4

FDI stock is the cumulative value of the capital and reserves attributable to the parent enterprise (the investor). 

FDI flows comprise capital provided by a foreign direct investor to an FDI enterprise, or capital received from an

FDI enterprise by a foreign direct investor (this data is usually compiled for a given period, usually per annum). For 

details, see UNCTAD, “Methodological Note,” World Investment Report 2010: Investing in a Low Carbon Economy

(New York and Geneva: United Nations, 2010). http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/wir2010meth_en.pdf. 

5 MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010), p. 75.

6

Ding Qingfen, “U.S. Urged to Reduce Barriers,” China Daily, November 2, 2010.

7

Economist, “Being Eaten by the Dragon,” November 11, 2010. For a summary of FDI flows and stocks by region 

and country, see UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2010: Investing in a Low Carbon Economy (New York and 

Geneva: United Nations, 2010), pp. 167-176. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/wir2010_en.pdf.

8

Note that the UNCTAD figures include only non-financial FDI.

$-

$5,000 

$10,000 

$15,000 

$20,000 

$25,000 

$30,000 

$35,000 

$40,000 

$45,000 

$50,000 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Chinese ODI by Region - Flow

(US $ million, 2003-2009)

Asia and M. East Africa Europe

L. America/Caribbean North America Oceania
34

 

9

Economist, “Being Eaten by the Dragon,” November 11, 2010.

10 China’s holdings of U.S. Treasury securities amounted to around $1.2 trillion by January 2011, and far eclipse 

stock of China’s global ODI, which was around $245.75 billion in 2009 (the latest figures available). For the 

purposes of comparison, Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasury securities as of December 2009 were $894.8 billion. See 

U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities,” March 15, 2011. 

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt. 

11 Economist, “Being Eaten by the Dragon,” November 11, 2010.

12 MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of Chinese Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010), p. 75.

13 ASEAN Secretariat, Statistics of Foreign Direct Investment in ASEAN, (Indonesia: 2006).

http://www.aseansec.org/5187-1.pdf. Chinese FDI data compiled from various tables of ASEAN member states’ 

inward FDI. 

14 Allen T. Cheng, “Mainland Enterprises Pour Cash into Foreign Investments,” South China Morning Post, July 31, 

2003. OSC ID: CPP20030731000039; Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada and the China Council for the Promotion of 

International Trade, “China Goes Global II: 2006 Survey of Chinese Companies’ Outward Direct Investment 

Intentions,” December 2006.

15 These so-called “strategic and heavyweight” industries also include coal, civil aviation, machinery, automobiles, 

IT, construction, iron and steel, armaments, power generation and distribution, and shipping. For more 

information, see U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2007 Report to Congress (Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office, November 2007), pp. 36-47; and U.S.-China Economic and Security Review 

Commission, 2009 Report to Congress (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 2009), pp. 56-

79. 

16 Economist, “China Buys Up the World,” November 11, 2010.

17 Richard McGregor, The Party (New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 2010), pp. 34-69.

18 Ken Davies, “Outward FDI from China and Its Policy Context,” Columbia FDI Profiles (Vale Columbia Center: 

October 18, 2010), p. 5.

19

 UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2010: Investing in a Low Carbon Economy (New York and Geneva: United 

Nations, 2010), p. xvii; MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of Chinese Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing:

2010). 

20 Mark Yaolin Wang, “The Motivation Behind China’s Government-Initiated Industrial Investment Overseas,” 

Pacific Affairs 75.2 (Summer 2002), 194.

21 Andreas Lunding, “Global Champion in Waiting: Perspectives on China’s Overseas Direct Investment” (Deutsche 

Bank Research, August 4, 2006), p. 5. http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_ENPROD/PROD0000000000201318.pdf. 

22 Development stages adapted from John Wong and Sarah Chan, “China’s Outward Direct Investment: Expanding 

Worldwide,” China: An International Journal 1.2 (September 2003): 279-281..

23 John Wong and Sarah Chan, “China’s Outward Direct Investment: Expanding Worldwide,” China: An 

International Journal 1.2 (September 2003): 280.

24 John Wong and Sarah Chan, “China’s Outward Direct Investment: Expanding Worldwide,” China: An 

International Journal 1.2 (September 2003): 280-81.

25 John Wong and Sarah Chan, “China’s Outward Direct Investment: Expanding Worldwide,” China: An 

International Journal 1.2 (September 2003): 280-81.

26 UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2006: FDI from Developing and Transition Economies: Implications for 

Development (New York: United Nations Press, 2006), p. 210. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/wir2006_en.pdf.

27 United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Asian Foreign Direct Investment in Africa: Towards a New Era of 

Cooperation among Developing Countries (New York: United Nations Press, 2007), p. 55. 

http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteiia20071_en.pdf; UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2006: FDI from 

Developing and Transition Economies: Implications for Development (New York: United Nations Press, 2006), p. 

210. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/wir2006_en.pdf.

28 UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2006: FDI from Developing and Transition Economies: Implications for 

Development (New York: United Nations Press, 2006), p. 210. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/wir2006_en.pdf.
35

 

29 Yang Yao and Yin He, “Chinese outward investing firms: A Study for FIAS/IFC/MIGA” (Beijing: Peking University, 

China Center for Economic Research, 2005), mimeo. Quoted in UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2006: FDI from 

Developing and Transition Economies: Implications for Development (New York: United Nations Press, 2006), p. 

210. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/wir2006_en.pdf.

30 UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2006: FDI from Developing and Transition Economies: Implications for 

Development (New York: United Nations Press, 2006), p. 210. http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/wir2006_en.pdf.

31

 China Banking Regulatory Commission, “Guidelines for Risk Management of Merger and Acquisition Loans by 

Commercial Banks” (Beijing: December 9, 2008). http://info.hktdc.com/report/reg/reg_090105.htm.

32 Daniel H. Rosen and Thilo Hanemann, “China’s Changing Outbound Foreign Direct Investment Profile: Drivers 

and Policy Implications,” Policy Brief 09-14 (Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics, June 

2009), p. 11. http://www.iie.com/publications/pb/pb09-14.pdf.

33 MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010), p. 12.

The $38.2 billion figure is attributed to 中央企业(zhongyang qiye), or “central enterprise,” which refers specifically 

to SOEs under the direct control of the central government, as opposed to the more generic 国有企业 (guoyou 

qiye), which simply means “state-owned enterprise.”

34 MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing, 2010), p. 12.

35 Leonard K. Cheng and Zihui Ma, “China’s Outward FDI: Past and Future,” in Proceedings of the NBER (National 

Bureau of Economic Research) Conference on China’s Growing Role in World Trade (Chicago: University of Chicago 

Press, 2007), p. 10. http://nber15.nber.org/books_in_progress/china07/cwt07/cheng.pdf. 

36 U.S. Energy Information Administration, “China: Oil” (Washington, DC: Department of Energy, July 2009). 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/China/Oil.html. 

37 Andreas Lunding, “Global Champion in Waiting: Perspectives on China’s Overseas Direct Investment” (Deutsche 

Bank Research, August 4, 2006), p. 4. http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_ENPROD/PROD0000000000201318.pdf. 

38 William Hess, “Going Outside, Round-Tripping and Dollar Diplomacy: An Introduction to Chinese Outward Direct 

Investment” (IHS Global Insight, 2006), p. 2.

39 MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010), p. 16.

40 Ken Davies, “Outward FDI from China and Its Policy Context,” Columbia FDI Profiles (Vale Columbia Center: 

October 18, 2010), p. 3.

41 Sarah-Jane Tasker, “Aquila Resources Clinches $286m Baosteel Investment,” The Australian, August 28, 2009. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/aquila-resources-clinches-286m-baosteel-investment/storye6frg90f-1225767075809. 

42 Jason Scott and John Duce, “Yanzhou Coal to Acquire Felix for About A$3.5 Billion,” Bloomberg, August 13, 2010. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=atD1wqLMFFbg; Reuters, “China's Sinopec to Buy 

Addax for C$8.27 Billion,” June 24, 2009. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE55N59I20090625. 

43 Dexter Roberts and Chi-Chu Tschang, “Why Chinalco's Buying Into Rio Tinto,” Business Week, February 5, 2008. 

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/feb2008/gb2008025_188402.htm. 

44 Richard McGregor, The Party (New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 2010), pp. 58-61.

45Chang-hong Pei and Wang Lei, “Chinese Corporate Investment in the United States,” China and World Economy 5 

(May 2001), Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. 

http://old.iwep.org.cn/wec/english/articles/2001_05/5peichanghong.htm.

46 Paul Gao, Jonathan Woetzel, and Yibing Wu, “Can Chinese Brands Make It Abroad?” McKinsey Quarterly, 2003 

(Special Edition: Global Directions). 

47 Norihiko Shirouzu, “Geely’s Volvo Plans Take Shape,” Wall Street Journal, August 27, 2010. 

48 Joann S. Lublin and Shayndi Raice, “Security Fears Kill Chinese Bid in U.S.,” Wall Street Journal, November 5, 

2010. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704353504575596611547810220.html.

49 Economist, “The Struggle of Champions,” January 8, 2005.

50 John Wong and Sarah Chan, “China’s Outward Direct Investment: Expanding Worldwide,” China: An 

International Journal 1.2 (September 2003): 283.

51 MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010).
36

 

52 CBS News, “China Investment an Open Book?” 60 Minutes, April 6, 2008. 

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/04/60minutes/main3993933.shtml. 

53 John Wong and Sarah Chan, “China’s Outward Direct Investment: Expanding Worldwide,” China: An 

International Journal 1.2 (September 2003): 281. 

54 John Wong and Sarah Chan, “China’s Outward Direct Investment: Expanding Worldwide,” China: An 

International Journal 1.2 (September 2003): 285.

55 BBC News, “China Investment in Mauritius Cotton,” January 10, 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1753601.stm.

56 Paul Gao, Jonathan Woetzel, and Yibing Wu, “Can Chinese Brands Make It Abroad?” McKinsey Quarterly, 2003 

(Special Edition: Global Directions). 

57 Andreas Lunding, “Global Champion in Waiting: Perspectives on China’s Overseas Direct Investment” (Deutsche 

Bank Research, August 4, 2006), p. 6. http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_ENPROD/PROD0000000000201318.pdf. Also see Thomas Lun, “China’s Assistance and Government-Sponsored 

Investment Activities in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia” (Washington, DC: Congressional Research 

Service Report for Congress, November 25, 2009). http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40940.pdf. This practice is 

sometimes called “tied aid” and is generally discouraged by international aid organizations.

58 Andreas Lunding, “Global Champion in Waiting: Perspectives on China’s Overseas Direct Investment” (Deutsche 

Bank Research, August 4, 2006), p. 7. http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_ENPROD/PROD0000000000201318.pdf.

59

 Barry Naughton, “SASAC and Rising Corporate Power in China,” China Leadership Monitor 24 (Spring 2008): 2.

60

 Barry Naughton, “SASAC and Rising Corporate Power in China,” China Leadership Monitor 24 (Spring 2008): 3.

61 For a discussion of the political connections of the leadership of Chinese flagship state-owned companies see 

Cheng Li, “China’s Midterm Jockeying: Gearing Up for 2012 (Part 4: Top Leaders of Major State-Owned 

Enterprises),” China Leadership Monitor (2011 no. 34), February 22, 2011. 

62 Liu Jianhui, “‘Zou Chuqu’ de Jiaolü,” *Anxieties about “Going Out”+, Jingji. Zazhi [Economics Magazine].

www.jingji.com.cn/show.aspx?id=1535.

63 Yang Yao and Yin He, “Chinese Outward Investing Firms: A Study for FIAS/IFC/MIGA” (China Center for Economic 

Research, August 2005), pp. 13, 58. 

64 Andrea Goldstein, Multinational Companies from Emerging Economies (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), p. 

62. 

65 Jamil Anderlini, “China’s Foreign Reserves Rise by $194bn,” Financial Times, October 14, 2010; U.S.-China 

Economic and Security Review Commission, Hearing on the Implications of Sovereign Wealth Fund Investments for 

National Security, written testimony of Brad Setser, February 7, 2008.

66 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, “Section 2: China’s Capital Investment Vehicles and 

Implications for the U.S. Economy and National Security,” 2008 Report to Congress (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, November 2008), pp. 43-68. 

http://www.uscc.gov/annual_report/2008/annual_report_full_08.pdf.

67 China Daily, “CIC Reaps Gains from Rosy Overseas Investments,” July 30, 2010.

68 MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010).

69 These include the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands.

70 MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010).

71 Andreas Lunding, “Global Champion in Waiting: Perspectives on China’s Overseas Direct Investment” (Deutsche 

Bank Research, August 4, 2006), p. 8. http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_ENPROD/PROD0000000000201318.pdf. 

72 MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010), p. 82.

73 MOFCOM, 2009 Statistical Bulletin of China’s Outward Foreign Direct Investment (Beijing: 2010), p. 22

74 Ding Qingfen, “U.S. Urged to Reduce Barriers,” China Daily, November 2, 2010.

75 Frederik Balfour, “A Global Shopping Spree for the Chinese: Mainland companies are snapping up more 

overseas assets,” Business Week, November 18, 2002.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_46/b3808162.htm.
37

 

76 Frederik Balfour, “A Global Shopping Spree for the Chinese: Mainland companies are snapping up more 

overseas assets,” Business Week, November 18, 2002.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_46/b3808162.htm.

77 Jon Boone and Geoff Dyer, “Chinese Group Wins $3bn Rights to Afghan Copper,” Financial Times, November 21,

2007.

78 Economist, “Being Eaten by the Dragon,” November 11, 2010.

79 Frederik Balfour, “A Global Shopping Spree for the Chinese: Mainland companies are snapping up more 

overseas assets,” Business Week, November 18, 2002.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_46/b3808162.htm.

80 Frederik Balfour, “A Global Shopping Spree for the Chinese: Mainland companies are snapping up more 

overseas assets,” Business Week, November 18, 2002.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_46/b3808162.htm.

81 Peter J. Buckley, et al., “The Determinants of Chinese Outward Foreign Direct Investment,” Journal of 

International Business Studies 38 (2007): 505.

82 See WTO, “China — Grants, Loans and Other Incentives,” DS387. 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds387_e.htm; United States Trade Representative (USTR), 

“Grants, Loans and Other Incentives.” http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/enforcement/dispute-settlementproceedings/china-%E2%80%94-grants-loans-and-other-incentives.

83 Terry Sicular, “Capital Flight and Foreign Investment: Two Tales from China and Russia,” World Economy (1998) 

21: 589–602.

84 Nicholas Lardy, “The Role of Foreign Trade and Investment in China’s Economic Transformation,” The China 

Quarterly (1995): 1067; P. Harrold and R. Lall, “China, Reform and Development in 1992–93,” World Bank 

Discussion Papers 215 (Washington, DC: 1993), p. 24.

85 U.S. Department of State, “2009 Investment Climate Statement: China” (Washington, DC: February 2009). 

http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/rls/othr/ics/2009/120870.htm.

86 USCBC, “Foreign Direct Investment in China.” http://www.uschina.org/statistics/fdi_cumulative.html. 

87 Ministry of Commerce of China, “Foreign Direct Investment in China, January – December 2009” (in Chinese), 

January 15, 2010. www.mofcom.gov.cn/static/v/tongjiziliao/v.html. 

88 U.S. Department of State, “2009 Investment Climate Statement: China” (Washington, DC: February 2009). 

http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/rls/othr/ics/2009/120870.htm.

89 U.S. Department of State, “2009 Investment Climate Statement: China” (Washington, DC: Bureau of Economic, 

Energy and Business Affairs, February 2009). http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/rls/othr/ics/2009/120870.htm.

90 Geng Xiao, “People’s Republic of China’s Round-Tripping FDI: Scale, Causes and Implications,” Asian 

Development Bank discussion paper no. 7 (July 2004), p. 2.

91 Discussion on incentives adapted from Geng Xiao, “People’s Republic of China’s Round-Tripping FDI: Scale, 

Causes and Implications,” Asian Development Bank discussion paper no. 7 (July 2004).

92 USCBC, “Forecast 2008: Foreign Investment in China,” p. 2. 

http://www.uschina.org/public/documents/2008/02/2008-foreign-investment.pdf.

93 Geng Xiao, “People’s Republic of China’s Round-Tripping FDI: Scale, Causes and Implications,” Asian 

Development Bank discussion paper no. 7 (July 2004), pp. 19-20.

94 Scott Morris, “Foreign Direct Investment in a Globalized World” (speech at the Wilson Center on the Hill, July 22, 

2008).

95 Kerry Browne, “Chinese Overseas Direct Investment—What Kind of Opportunity?” (London, UK: Chatham House, 

January 2008), p. 8. 

96 Daniel H. Rosen and Thilo Hanemann, “China’s Changing Outbound Foreign Direct Investment Profile: Drivers 

and Policy Implications,” Policy Brief 09-14 (Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics, June 

2009), p. 1. http://www.iie.com/publications/pb/pb09-14.pdf.

97 Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), Evaluating a Potential US-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (prepared for the 

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, March 30, 2010), pp. 57-59. 

http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2010/EIU_Report_on_US-China_BIT--FINAL_14_April_2010.pdf.
38

 

98 Daniel H. Rosen and Thilo Hanemann, “China’s Changing Outbound Foreign Direct Investment Profile: Drivers 

and Policy Implications,” Policy Brief 09-14 (Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics, June 

2009), p. 1. http://www.iie.com/publications/pb/pb09-14.pdf. 

99 For a discussion on the accuracy of China’s ODI data, see for example Daniel H. Rosen and Thilo Hanemann, 

“China’s Changing Outbound Foreign Direct Investment Profile: Drivers and Policy Implications,” Policy Brief 09-14 

(Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics, June 2009), pp. 3-6. 

http://www.iie.com/publications/pb/pb09-14.pdf.