This presentation highlights the main findings of the report Mapping of Investment Promotion Agencies in OECD Countries. This publication provides a benchmarking and analysis of IPAs based on a comprehensive survey jointly designed with the Inter-American Development Bank. The report was launched at the 3rd Meeting of the OECD Investment Promotion Agency (IPA) Network on 22 October 2018 in Paris France. For more information please visit http://www.oecd.org/corruption/investment-promotion-and-facilitation.htm

1. Mapping of Investment Promotion
Agencies in OECD Countries:
Main Findings
Ana NOVIK
Head of Investment Division
3rd meeting of the OECD IPA Network
Paris, 22 October 2018

2. Investment promotion: why do we care?
 Most countries aim to attract investment to create jobs,
growth, innovation and development
 Governments have established investment promotion
agencies (IPAs) as one tool to attract, facilitate and retain
investment
 One size does not fit all and different activities, strategies
and approaches are suitable for different countries
 Little research on the subject and little knowledge by IPAs
on what other agencies do and how
2

3. • A survey of 32 OECD and 21 LAC agencies
• Follow-up surveys in different regions (10 MENA agencies
& others to come)
• Detailed survey in different areas of IPA operations
• Allows for comparative analysis and comprehensive
benchmarking
• Is the basis for peer-learning and experience sharing
• Paves the way for further research work
New data on the subject: the OECD-IDB
Survey of IPAs
3

4. 1. Institutional choices and organisational characteristics
2. Functions and activities
3. Prioritisation strategies
4. Monitoring and evaluation
5. Coordination and cooperation
Mapping of IPAs in OECD countries: outline
4

5. 1. Institutional choices and organisational characteristics
2. Functions and activities
3. Prioritisation strategies
4. Monitoring and evaluation
5. Coordination and cooperation
Mapping of IPAs in OECD countries
5

6. Background: a changing landscape of
investment promotion
• A strong rise in the number of IPAs over time
• 89% of OECD IPAs underwent min. 1 major reform in the past 5
years (1/4 with 3 or more reforms)
Source: OECD-IDB survey of Investment Promotion Agencies (2017)
6
1

7. Governance policy: relative autonomy and
multiple reporting lines dominate
Governmental
31%
Autonomous
public
60%
Joint public-
private
6%
Private
3%
OECD IPAs’ reporting lines
13%
16%
25%
41%
44%
59%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Other
Head of government
Several ministers or inter-ministerial taskforce
Board of directors
Sub-ministerial level
Minister
Source: OECD-IDB survey of Investment Promotion Agencies (2017)
OECD IPAs’ legal status

8. Mandates: 5.7 different mandates on
average and large variations across IPAs
Number of mandates by agency in OECD countries
Source: OECD-IDB survey of Investment Promotion Agencies (2017)
OECD average
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14

9. Mandates: export, innovation and regional development
are often combined with investment promotion
9
56% 56%
50%
44%
41%
31%
28%
25% 25%
19%
16%
13%
9% 9% 9% 9% 9%
3% 3%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Source: OECD-IDB survey of Investment Promotion Agencies (2017)
Share of IPAs reporting the function as an official mandate

10. Large Specialist Large Generalist Small Specialist Small Generalist
Highly autonomous
IPA
Sweden
Iceland
Switzerland
Moderately
autonomous IPA
Australia
Spain
France
Ireland
Czech Republic
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Latvia
Norway
Portugal
Turkey
Austria
Chile
New Zealand
Greece
Hungary
Poland
Slovenia
Non autonomous IPA United Kingdom
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Canada
Denmark
Israel
Netherlands
United States
Slovak Republic
10
Classification of OECD IPAs by size,
specialisation and autonomy
Source: OECD (based on OECD-IDB survey of Investment Promotion Agencies, 2017)
Methodology:
• Size (large/small) = total number of employees
• Specialisation (specialist/generalist) = number of mandates
• Autonomy (highly, moderately or not) = legal status

11. 1. Institutional choices and organisational characteristics
2. Functions and activities
3. Prioritisation strategies
4. Monitoring and evaluation
5. Coordination and cooperation
Mapping of IPAs in OECD countries
11

12. Activity mix: bulk of IPA resources are dedicated to
investment generation and investment facilitation & retention
12
18% 17%
46%
42%
30%
34%
6% 7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Budget Personnel
Image building Investment generation Facilitation, retention and aftercare Policy advocacy
OECD IPAs’ budget and personnel allocation across IPA core functions
Source: OECD-IDB survey of Investment Promotion Agencies (2017)

13. Image builders Generators Facilitators Balanced
Slovenia
Switzerland
Austria
Chile
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Korea
Netherlands
New Zealand
Slovak Republic
Sweden
United States
Australia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Hungary
Ireland
Japan
Norway
United Kingdom
Canada
Finland
Israel
Latvia
Mexico
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Turkey
Classification of OECD IPAs by activity mix
13
Source: OECD (based on OECD-IDB survey of Investment Promotion Agencies, 2017)

14. 1. Institutional choices and organisational characteristics
2. Functions and activities
3. Prioritisation strategies
4. Monitoring and evaluation
5. Coordination and cooperation
Mapping of IPAs in OECD countries
14

15. Prioritisation is a dominant practice across
IPAs but strategies and criteria differ
15
 All OECD IPAs
prioritise certain
sectors and countries
 75% of IPAs prioritise
projects
 Over half prioritises
investor
Source: OECD-IDB survey of Investment Promotion Agencies (2017)
0%
6%
21%
21%
27%
48%
48%
48%
55%
58%
58%
64%
0% 50% 100%
Investors Record on RBC in the Sector
Other
Impact on Evironment or Climate
Change
Existence of Market Failure
Green Investment
Strong Global Demand
Importance to Regional Development or
Agglomeration Effects
Important/Strong Links to the Rest of the
Economy
Impact on Employment and/or Working
Conditions
Competitive Position vis-à-vis Other
Countries
Potential to Diversify the Economy
Strong Domestic Capacity
Criteria used to prioritise specific
sectors in OECD countries

16. Does not Target Investors Target Investors
Does not Target Projects
“Basic Prioritisers”
Chile
Czech Republic
Estonia
Japan
Latvia
Slovak Republic
“Investor-Centred Prioritisers”
Canada
Target Projects
“Project-Centred Prioritisers”
Austria
Denmark
Iceland
Ireland
Korea
Netherlands
New Zealand
Poland
Switzerland
Turkey
United States
“Super-Prioritisers”
Australia
Greece
Hungary
Israel
Finland
France
Mexico
Norway
Portugal
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Classification of OECD IPAs by
prioritisation strategy
16
Source: OECD (based on OECD-IDB survey of Investment Promotion Agencies, 2017)

17. 1. Institutional choices and organisational characteristics
2. Functions and activities
3. Prioritisation strategies
4. Monitoring and evaluation
5. Coordination and cooperation
Mapping of IPAs in OECD countries
17

18. Evaluation methodologies: benchmarking,
client feedback and consultations dominate
18
78%
75%
69%
56%
38%
31%
22%
16%
9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Benchmarking (e.g. comparisons with other IPAs)
Client feedback and surveys
Consultations with stakeholders
Case studies
Quality-control assessment (e.g. time to answer inquiries, quality of
responses, etc.)
Non-client feedback and surveys
Cost-benefit analysis of assisted investment projects
Econometric assessment
Other
Source: OECD-IDB survey of Investment Promotion Agencies (2017)
 94% of OECD IPAs use a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system to
track and monitor their activities.
 58% of OECD IPAs have a dedicated evaluation unit
OECD IPAs’ evaluation methodologies

19. Key performance indicators: IPAs use both output
and outcome indicators but not extensively
19
91%
66% 66%
63%
50%
27%
88%
81%
53%
41%
34%
28% 28% 28%
23%
16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Source: OECD-IDB survey of Investment Promotion Agencies (2017)
Indicators used by OECD IPAs
Outcome indicatorsOutput indicators

20. 1. Institutional choices and organisational characteristics
2. Functions and activities
3. Prioritisation strategies
4. Monitoring and evaluation
5. Coordination and cooperation
Mapping of IPAs in OECD countries
20

21. 21
Export promotion agency
Ministry responsible for investment
Subnational IPAs
Ministry of Foreign Trade
Embassies and
consulates
Ministry of
Foreign AffairsInnovation
promotion agencyTourism promotion
agency
Investment
incentive
agency
Other Ministry Inter-ministerial
committee
Business developement
promotion agency
Subnational governementsOther national IPAs
National statistics
Immigration agencies
Chambers of Commerce
Sectoral
regulatory body Presidential
administration
/ PM
Embassies of foreign countries
Ministry of Infrastructure
/ Customs
SEZ agency Tax agencyMinistry of Finance
Ministry of
Finance
Competition Authority
Central Bank
Ministry of Education
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Average = 2.3
Averagefrequencyofinteractions
(onascalefrom0(=verylow)to5(=veryhigh))
Share of IPAs interacting with the institutions
Share of interactions vs. frequency
Interactions with public and semi-public
institutions: mapping of OECD IPAs
Source: OECD (based on OECD-IDB survey of Investment Promotion Agencies, 2017)

22. Some interactions depend on the existence
of overseas and sub-national offices
22
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
JPN GBR MEX ESP PRT AUS KOR CAN FRA NLD IRL LVA DNK GER SWE FIN TUR CHE CZE NZL POL EST CHL ISR
Personnel located in Embassies / Consulates Shared with another agency Affiliated Total¹
Source: OECD-IDB survey of Investment Promotion Agencies (2017)
OECD IPA offices abroad performing investment promotion
Sub-national offices:
• About half of OECD IPAs have no other offices in the country
• 15% have more than 10 sub-national offices

23. OECD work on investment promotion
and facilitation: next steps
• Sustain and reinforce the OECD IPA Network for peer
learning and experience sharing
• Roll out the IPA mapping project to other regions
• Engage in further research work, as identified in the
mapping report, including:
– Organisational settings – trends and impact of reforms
– Monitoring & evaluation – how to improve existing tools
– Prioritisation strategies – what to prioritise and why
– Investment facilitation – going beyond domestic measures
– Investment promotion for sustainable development – the role of IPAs
23

24. http://www.oecd.org/investment
http://www.oecd.org/investment/investment-promotion-and-
facilitation.htm
THANK YOU
24