Public Footprints in Private Markets
The massive growth of sovereign wealth funds -- pools of capital controlled by governments and invested in private markets abroad -- should not cause alarm. But it does raise legitimate questions for the United States, pointing to the need for new policy principles for both the funds and the countries in which they invest.
ROBERT M. KIMMITT is Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
In 1953, eight years before its independence from the United Kingdom, Kuwait established the Kuwait Investment Board to invest its surplus oil revenue. That was perhaps the first-ever "sovereign wealth fund" (SWF), although the term would not exist for another 50 years. SWFs are large pools of capital controlled by a government and invested in private markets abroad. Today, they are growing rapidly in both number and size. Twelve SWFs been established since 2005, and altogether SWFs control roughly $2.5 trillion -- a figure now growing, according to some estimates, by $1 trillion a year.
These developments should not cause alarm, but they do raise legitimate policy questions. Governments should consider the implications of SWFs' growing importance with calm and precision. Many concerns, aired frequently in policy debates and prominently in the media, have been exaggerated, in part because of a lack of understanding of SWFs and other vehicles for sovereign investment. A fuller picture of SWFs' history, purpose, size, growth, and broader systemic implications is needed. Such an understanding, along with a set of clear policy principles for both SWFs and the countries in which they invest, will help preserve openness to foreign investment and promote financial stability worldwide.
THE FOUR SOVEREIGNS
To frame this policy discussion, it is useful to differentiate among four kinds of sovereign investment: international reserves, public pension funds, state-owned enterprises, and SWFs. International reserves, as defined by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), are external assets that are controlled by and readily available to finance ministries and central banks for direct financing of international payment imbalances. Countries typically keep reserves on hand to cushion an export shortfall or to intervene to defend the currency in a financial crisis. Reserves are by definition invested in highly liquid and marketable securities, which usually means highly rated industrialized-country government bonds...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The United States is obsessed with its ever-growing trade deficit. Yet trade is no longer a valid measure of global competitiveness. Today U.S. firms compete in the world marketplace through foreign-affiliate sales instead of exports -- and they do so with unparalleled success. Overblown fears about the burgeoning trade deficit, along with a slowing U.S. economy, could spark protectionist policies in Washington, which could then trigger retaliations around the globe. This outcome -- not the size of the trade deficit -- is the greatest danger.
Despite its seemingly thorough approach, Raymond Garthoff's apologetic treatment of Soviet Cold War policies fails to explain why communism collapsed.
America now faces the prospect of economic conflicts with both Europe and East Asia. The United States and the European Union have already fired the first shots of retaliatory sanctions over their ever-growing trade disputes. On the other side of the world, meanwhile, Asian countries are creating a bloc of their own that could include preferential trade arrangements and an Asian Monetary Fund. These developments could produce a tripolar world and hamper global economic integration. To avert this outcome, the United States must quell its domestic backlash against globalization and reassert its economic leadership in the world. The new Bush administration should make multilateral trade liberalization a top priority -- or it will face unpleasant economic and political consequences as the U.S. and foreign economies slow.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.