In my first post about Andy Spalding's article, Unwitting Sanctions: Understanding Anti-Bribery Legislation as Economic Sanctions against Emerging Markets, I was unduly restrained in my praise. "Interesting" does not come close to capturing this piece, which is quite provocative in its reconceptualization of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The FCPA Blog did a much better job of capturing the piece, calling it "a real mind-bender."
Today the W$J is featuring Andy in a story about the FCPA:
Andy Spalding, a Fulbright scholar in India and former securities-fraud lawyer in Washington who is studying the impact of the FCPA in emerging markets, says enforcement of the act might be deterring corporations from investing in developing countries where corruption is rampant and bribes are commonly sought.
If U.S. corporations stop investing in emerging markets, then other nations that anticorruption advocates say aren't as committed to fighting bribery will step up their investments, he says.
As you would expect, not everyone agrees:
That last part is the kicker. Sure, if "all exporting nations" enforce a bribery prohibition, then we are good to go. But what about, say, China? I think Andy has the better of the argument here, casting the FCPA as an inadvertent trade sanction that places the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. I am hoping for a follow up in which Andy explains what we can do about this mess.
If you haven't already read the piece, take a look and see what you think.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e20120a5233f7c970c
Links to weblogs that reference The Inadvertent Consequences of the FCPA:
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
