This article argues that the political risk associated with foreign direct investment (FDI) is primarily a function of investment in fixed-capital, and not a homogeneous feature of FDI. As such, empirical tests of a political institution's ability to mitigate political risk should focus directly on investments in fixed capital and not on more highly aggregated measures of multinational corporation (MNC) activity, such as FDI flow and stock data that are affected by the accumulation of liquid assets in foreign affiliates. We apply this to the study of bilateral investment treaties (BITs). We find that BITs with the United States correlate positively with investments in fixed capital and have little, if any, correlation with other measures of MNC activity.Foreign direct investment (FDI) is thought to be an especially risky form of investment because its ex post illiquidity allows host-state governments to renegotiate the terms of an investment without triggering capital flight. 1 This dynamic is often referred to as the 'obsolescing bargain', or, more generally, 'political risk'. 2 Political scientists often ask whether certain institutional arrangements can alleviate political risk (and increase FDI) by rendering such renegotiations procedurally difficult or politically unwise. 3 Knowing whether or not political institutions have this effect is an important research agenda, not only for what it reveals about the effects of political institutions, but because institutional environments that fail to provide adequate checks against predatory behaviour by host governments lead to less FDI, with the attendant detrimental effects on capital accumulation, employment and economic growth.Bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have received particular attention in this literature. BITs secure a set of clearly defined rights for multinational investors and subject host

Cooking is regarded as one of the most basic characteristics of civilised existence, almost as critical as shelter in defining and reading the human condition. Frascari (2002) used cooking as an analogy for design suggesting that ‘to build and cook are a necessity, but to build and cook intelligently is the chief obligation of architecture and cuisine’ (p. 3). What is it about this ordinary activity that invites comparison? Is it that the everyday acts of cooking are primary generators of spatial practices and material culture? Or is it that the production of food bears numerous parallels with the production of built space – each following a recipe or plan to manipulate elements into an entity definitively judged by the physical senses? This paper builds upon a companion work titled, ‘Eating Australian Architecture’ (Hurst & Lawrence, 2003), which investigated a pedagogical approach based on parallels between food and design for teaching first year architectural students. In this paper, the focus is on a detailed application of this method to typological analyses of contemporary domestic architecture. It uses three examples of influential Australian design practices, selecting from each a paradigm with which they are associated. Food metaphors of raw, medium and well- done are used to explore emergent characteristics and experiential qualities within the current architectural climate. The apparent extremes between raw and cooked, like those between excess and austerity, are re-evaluated not as simple oppositions or measures of success, but as equally rich modes of approach to design. The argument is made for gastronomy as a persuasive interrogatory tool for the sensory and holistic examination of the built environment.

No abstract

Taking their cue from the culinary criteria most often applied to the cooking of a beefsteak, Rachel Hurst and Jane Lawrence develop a taxonomy of design for eating establishments in Australia. They find examples of the ‘raw’ in Melbourne's buzzing Centre Place, the ‘medium’ in a chain of Italian restaurants in Adelaide, and the ‘well done’ at The Restaurant at the Art Gallery of New South Wales in Sydney.

No abstract