The Overseas Private Investment Corporation:
Background and Legislative Issues
Shayerah Ilias Akhtar
Specialist in International Trade and Finance
September 25, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
98-567

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

Summary
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) is an independent U.S. government agency
that provides political risk insurance, financing (direct loans and loan guarantees), support for
private equity investment funds, and other services to promote U.S. direct investment in
developing countries and emerging economies that will have a development impact. Congress has
authorization, appropriations, oversight, and other legislative responsibilities related to the agency
and its activities. Congress does not approve individual OPIC transactions. However, it places
statutory requirements on OPIC’s activities, such as those related to economic and environmental
impacts of projects. OPIC’s governing legislation is the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-
195) as amended.
OPIC’s Programs and Activities
OPIC’s programs are intended to promote U.S. private investment by mitigating risks, such as
political risks (including currency inconvertibility, expropriation, and political violence), for U.S.
firms making qualified investments overseas. Its authority to guarantee and insure U.S.
investments abroad is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. U.S. foreign
policy objectives guide OPIC activities.
OPIC operates in over 150 countries around the world and across a range of economic sectors.
Since it began operations in 1971, OPIC has funded, guaranteed, or insured more than $200
billion in investments. In FY2012, OPIC provided $3.6 billion in new market-based financing and
political risk insurance to U.S. businesses.
Budget
OPIC’s budget is self-sustaining from its own revenues, which include user fees and interest from
U.S. Treasury securities. However, Congress annually sets OPIC’s maximum spending levels for
its administrative and program expenses. For FY2012, Congress provided $54.99 million for
OPIC’s administrative expenses and authorized a transfer of $25 million from OPIC’s noncredit
account to conduct its credit and administration programs. President Obama’s budget proposal for
FY2014 requested $71.8 million for OPIC’s administrative expenses and a transfer of $31 million
from OPIC’s noncredit account to conduct its programs.
Reauthorization and Other Issues for Congress
The 113th Congress may take up a number of issues related to OPIC, chief of which could be a
debate about whether or not to renew OPIC’s authority and, if so, under what terms. The most
recent long-term, stand-alone reauthorization of OPIC was through legislation passed in 2003
(P.L. 108-158), which reauthorized OPIC through November 1, 2007. Since then, Congress has
extended OPIC’s authority through annual appropriations vehicles for varying periods of up to a
year. The FY2013 full-year continuing resolution (P.L. 113-6) extends OPIC’s authority to
conduct its credit and insurance programs through FY2013. Congress also may examine the
policy debate related to OPIC’s mission, the statutory conditions on OPIC’s support for
investments, and the agency’s organizational structure.

Congressional Research Service

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
OPIC Background and Operations .................................................................................................. 2
Origins ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Programs .................................................................................................................................... 2
Political Risk Insurance ....................................................................................................... 2
Investment Finance ............................................................................................................. 3
Investment Funds ................................................................................................................ 4
Other Activities ................................................................................................................... 5
Budget ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Portfolio and Focus Areas ......................................................................................................... 7
Statutory and Policy Conditions for OPIC-Supported Projects ............................................... 10
International Context for Development Finance ............................................................................ 12
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 15
Reauthorization ........................................................................................................................ 15
Debate about Rationales for OPIC .......................................................................................... 16
OPIC’s Statutory and Policy Conditions ................................................................................. 17
OPIC’s Authorities ............................................................................................................ 17
OPIC’s Policies ................................................................................................................. 18
Targeted Areas for Investment Support ............................................................................. 18
Organizational Structure .......................................................................................................... 19

Figures
Figure 1. Composition of OPIC’s Portfolio by Program, FY2012 .................................................. 8

Tables
Table 1. OPIC’s Budget Summary ................................................................................................... 6
Table 2. Selected Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) ......................................................... 13

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 20

Congressional Research Service

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

Introduction
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) is an independent U.S. government agency
that seeks to promote economic growth in developing and emerging economies through the
mobilization of private capital, in support of U.S. foreign policy goals. OPIC is often referred to
as the U.S. government’s development finance institution (DFI). Its governing legislation, the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195), as amended, directs OPIC to “mobilize and
facilitate the participation of United States private capital and skills in the economic and social
development of less developed countries and areas, and countries in transition from nonmarket to
market economies... under the policy guidance of the Secretary of State.”1
OPIC works to fulfill its mandate by providing political risk insurance, finance (loans and
guarantees), support for private equity investment funds, and other services to promote U.S.
investment in over 150 counties around the world. OPIC’s services are intended to mitigate the
risks affecting U.S. international investment, such as political risks (including currency
inconvertibility, expropriation, and political violence), for U.S. firms making qualified
investments overseas. Since 1971, OPIC programs have supported more than $200 billion of
private investment in over 4,000 projects around the world. OPIC’s activities are driven by
private sector demand in investing overseas.
Although OPIC is not charged directly with promoting U.S. exports, OPIC’s activities may
nevertheless contribute to U.S. exports and employment.2 OPIC is a member of the Export
Promotion Cabinet, created under President Obama’s National Export Initiative (NEI), a plan to
double U.S. exports by 2015 to support U.S. jobs. By OPIC’s estimates, since 1971, its activities
have helped to generate $75 billion in U.S. exports and support more than 277,000 American
jobs.3
Congress does not approve individual OPIC projects, but has authorization, appropriations,
oversight, and other legislative responsibilities related to the agency and its activities. Congress
authorizes OPIC’s ability to conduct its credit and insurance programs for a period of time chosen
by Congress. Congress can amend or change OPIC’s governing legislation as it deems
appropriate. Congress approves an annual appropriation for OPIC that sets an upper limit on the
agency’s administrative and program expenses, which are covered by OPIC’s own funds. The
Senate confirms Presidential appointments to OPIC’s Board of Directors and to the OPIC
positions of President and Executive Vice President.
This report provides: (1) a background on OPIC’s origins and program operations; (2) discussion
of the international development finance context; and (3) analysis of key issues for Congress
related to OPIC.

1 22 U.S.C. §2191.
2 For additional information, see OPIC’s website: http://www.opic.gov/.
3 OPIC, OPIC 2012 Annual Report, http://www.opic.gov/sites/default/files/files/OPIC_2012_Final.pdf. It should be
noted that a combination of factors, such as macroeconomic factors and global economic developments, generally
determine a nation's level of exports.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

OPIC Background and Operations
Origins
Created under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195) as amended, OPIC was
established in 1969 and began operations in 1971 as a development finance institution amid an
atmosphere of congressional disillusionment overall with U.S. aid programs, especially large
infrastructure projects. In his first message to Congress on aid, President Nixon recommended the
creation of OPIC to assume the investment guaranty and promotion functions that were being
conducted by the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID). President Nixon also
directed that OPIC would provide “businesslike management of investment incentives” to
contribute to the economic and social progress of developing nations.4
In creating OPIC, the Nixon Administration indicated that it was not attempting to end official
U.S. foreign assistance, because “private capital and technical assistance cannot substitute for
government assistance programs,” a combination that can provide, “official aid on the one hand,
and private investment and technical assistance on the other.” Private investment activities,
however, were meant to complement the official assistance programs and, thereby, multiply the
benefits of both. In addition, market-oriented private investment was viewed as an antidote to the
government-oriented aid projects that were considered by some to be costly and inefficient. OPIC
was created as a first step in the eventual overhaul of the entire U.S. aid program. In 1973, this
overhaul was completed as the United States largely abandoned infrastructure building and other
large capital projects in favor of humanitarian aid to meet basic human needs.
Programs
OPIC operates three main programs—insurance, finance, and investment funds—that are
intended to promote U.S. private investment in less developed countries by mitigating risks, such
as political risks, for U.S. firms making qualified investment overseas. OPIC’s authority to
guarantee and insure U.S. investments abroad is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S.
government and OPIC’s own financial resources. OPIC provides financing and insurance
coverage of up to $250 million per project.
Political Risk Insurance
OPIC provides political risk insurance (PRI) to safeguard investments against certain political
risks involved in investing in developing countries. OPIC often is considered to be one of the
pioneers of PRI for developing countries; it provided such support when private sector markets
were not well-developed. Historically, OPIC’s insurance activities accounted for the bulk of its
portfolio. In recent years, however, the share of insurance in OPIC’s total portfolio has declined
to around 20%. This shift is due to a number of factors, including the greater role of the private
sector in providing PRI for developing countries as well as the rise of other development finance

4 Public Papers of the Presidents: Richard Nixon, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969. p. 412.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

institutions in this space, including the World Bank’s Multilateral Investment Guaranty Agency
(MIGA). Nevertheless, OPIC’s PRI program remains active.5
OPIC insures investments against three broad areas of political risk:
• Currency inconvertibility coverage compensates investors if new currency
restrictions are imposed which prevent the conversion and transfer of remittances
from insured investments, but it does not protect against currency devaluation.
• Expropriation coverage protects U.S. firms against the nationalization,
confiscation, or expropriation of an enterprise, including actions by foreign
governments that deprive an investor of fundamental rights or financial interests
in a project for a period of at least six months. This coverage excludes losses that
may arise from lawful regulatory or revenue actions by a foreign government and
actions instigated or provoked by the investor or foreign firm.
• Political violence coverage compensates U.S. citizens and firms for property and
income losses directly caused by various kinds of violence, including declared or
undeclared wars, hostile actions by national or international forces, civil war,
revolution, insurrection, and civil strife (including politically motivated terrorism
and sabotage). Income loss insurance protects the investor’s share of income
from losses that result from damage to the insured property caused by political
violence. Assets coverage compensates U.S. citizens and firms for losses of or
damage to tangible property caused by political violence. OPIC also has a
number of special programs that protect U.S. banks from political violence. This
type of insurance reduces risks for banks and other institutional investors, which
allows them to play a more active role in financing projects in developing
countries. Specialized types of insurance coverage also are available for U.S.
investors involved with certain contracting, exporting, licensing, or leasing
transactions that are undertaken in a developing country.
OPIC’s PRI is available to U.S. citizens, U.S. firms, or to the foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms as
long as the foreign subsidiary is at least 95%-owned by a U.S. citizen. According to OPIC, such
insurance is available for investments in new ventures or in expansions of existing enterprises,
and can cover equity investments, parent company and third party loans and loan guarantees,
technical assistance agreements, cross-border leases, assigned inventory or equipment, and other
forms of investment.
Investment Finance
OPIC’s finance program has grown to represent the largest area of OPIC activity. It operates like
an investment bank, customizing and structuring a complete package for individual projects in
countries where conventional financing institutions often are unwilling or unable to lend on a
basis that is competitively advantageous for investors. The finance program is carried out through
two departments, one that focuses on projects involving small- and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs, businesses with fewer than 500 employees and annual revenues of under $250 million)
and the other for larger U.S. businesses (with more than 500 employees and annual revenues of

5 More information on OPIC’s political risk insurance program is available at: http://www.opic.gov/what-we-
offer/political-risk-insurance.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

over $250 million) participating in large-scale capital projects, such as infrastructure,
telecommunications, power, water, housing, airports, hotels, high-technology, financial services,
and natural resource extraction industries.6
To obtain OPIC financing, the venture must be commercially and financially sound and have
some portion of U.S. ownership. Projects may be wholly owned by U.S. companies, foreign
subsidiaries of U.S. companies, or joint ventures involving local companies and U.S. sponsored
firms. In the case of a joint venture involving existing firms, the U.S. investor generally is
expected to own at least 25% of the equity of the project. For new ventures, financing may be
equal to 50% of the total project cost; a larger share is possible for certain projects.
The amount of OPIC’s participation may vary taking into consideration financial risks and
benefits. In general, OPIC will not support more than 75% of the total investment. OPIC provides
financing to investors through two major programs: direct loans and loan guarantees.
• Direct loans generally range between $350,000 and $50 million, although they can be
more in certain cases. Direct loans are available only for ventures sponsored by, or
significantly involving, U.S. SMEs or cooperatives (such as joint ventures).
• Loan guarantees typically are used for larger projects, ranging in size up to $250
million, but in certain cases can be higher. OPIC’s guarantees are issued to financial
institutions that are more than 50%-owned by U.S. citizens, corporations, or partnerships.
Rates and conditions on loans and guarantees depend on financial market conditions at
the time and on OPIC’s assessment of the financial and political risks involved.
Consistent with commercial lending practices, OPIC charges up-front, commitment, and
cancellation fees, and reimbursement is required for project-related expenses.
As part of its emphasis on U.S. small business investors, OPIC established the Enterprise
Development Network (EDN) in June 2007. Under the EDN, OPIC collaborates with
participating financial intermediaries to expand access of small businesses to OPIC-supported
products and services.7
Investment Funds
OPIC supports and mobilizes risk capital by providing debt capital for the creation of privately-
owned and privately-managed equity investment funds. These funds make direct equity and
equity-related investments in portfolio companies in new, expanding or privatizing economies of
developing or emerging markets. In most instances, OPIC provides up to one-third of the fund’s
total capital, and receives debt returns on its investment. OPIC supports these funds in situations
where U.S. firms either cannot allocate or cannot raise sufficient capital to start or expand their
businesses overseas. OPIC solicits these funds through a competitive “Call for Proposals” process
that seeks investment funds focusing on the agency’s development priorities, particularly in areas
where investments have been difficult to obtain. OPIC uses the “Call for Proposals” process to
select fund managers with private equity investment capability and experience. OPIC-supported

6 More information on OPIC’s financing program is available at: http://www.opic.gov/financing.
7 More information on OPIC’s Enterprise Development Network is available at: see http://www.opic.gov/doing-
business/edn.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

investment funds cover a range of economic sectors, including financial services, insurance,
housing, renewable energy, and information technology.8
OPIC’s investment funds program is newer compared to the PRI and finance programs. OPIC
approved its first investment fund in 1987.9 The program has been restructured periodically, such
as in 2002, leading to the incorporation of a competitive selection process for fund managers and
investment advisors through the “Call for Proposals.”
Other Activities
OPIC conducts outreach to raise awareness of its programs and services for U.S. investors. For
instance, OPIC offers workshops and seminars as part of its Expanding Horizons program to
address concerns over political risks in emerging markets and share information about its
programs and resources to support overseas investment. Expanding Horizons includes a focus on
supporting U.S. small businesses in expanding to overseas markets.10
Budget
Structured like a private corporation, OPIC operates on a self-sustaining basis to mobilize and
facilitate private capital investment overseas. OPIC’s budget is fully self-funded from its
offsetting collections, which are derived from the premiums, interest, and fees generated from its
insurance and finance services and the accumulated interest generated from the agency’s
investment in U.S. Treasury securities.11 Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended,
OPIC has the authority to spend from its own revenue to cover its operations. Each year, however,
Congress sets OPIC’s maximum spending levels for its administrative and program expenses.
Congress follows this appropriations procedure in order to exercise its oversight role and to set
limits on the extent to which OPIC can obligate U.S. government resources.
OPIC’s budget is composed of noncredit and credit accounts, in conformity with the standards set
out in the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA). The noncredit portion of OPIC’s budget
relates to OPIC’s political risk insurance program, while the credit portion is comprised of
OPIC’s direct and guaranteed loans. OPIC uses premium income and the interest it accrues from
the assets in its noncredit account to fund the direct and indirect expenses in its noncredit and
credit accounts.
For FY2012, Congress authorized $54.99 million for OPIC’s administrative expenses and a
transfer of $25 million from OPIC’s noncredit account to conduct its credit and administrative

8 More information on OPIC’s investment funds program is available at: http://www.opic.gov/what-we-
offer/investment-funds.
9 U.S. General Accounting Office (now General Accountability Office, GAO), Overseas Investment: The Overseas
Private Investment Corporation's Investment Funds Program, GAO/NSIAD-00-159BR, May 2000,
http://www.gao.gov/assets/80/79265.pdf.
10 OPIC, “Expanding Horizons,” http://www.opic.gov/media-connections/events-speakers/expanding-horizons
11 Prior to FY1992, OPIC relied exclusively on non-appropriated resources (fees and interest on Treasury securities) to
fund its operations. With federal government credit reform, however, OPIC was required to receive an appropriation
based on an estimate of its credit programs (direct loans and guarantees). From 1992 to 1994, OPIC returned to the
General Fund of the U.S. Treasury an amount equal to its direct appropriation. For FY1998 and beyond, OPIC’s
appropriations language provides OPIC with the authority to spend from its own income.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

programs (see Table 1). For FY2013, Congress appropriated funds for OPIC at the FY2012 level
through a continuing resolution (P.L. 113-6). Budgetary resources for OPIC in the non-credit
account are exempt from the current budget “sequestration,” while budgetary resources for OPIC
in its program account are subject to the sequestration.
Table 1. OPIC’s Budget Summary
(in millions of dollars)
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11a
FY12a
FY13b
FY14




Req.
NONCREDIT
ACCOUNT

Operating
expenses
48 51 52 52 55 55 72
Noncredit administrative expenses
29
51
21
21
22
22
29
Credit administrative expensesc
19 --- 31 31 33 33 43
Other
noncredit
expenses
28 38 29 12 8 8 10
Offsetting
col ections
-295 -282 -272 -235 -252 -230 -222

Federal
sources
-39 -32 -31 -31 -33 -33 -43
Interest on U.S. securities
-212
-209
-200
-165
-160
-158
-133

Non-federal
sources
-18 -15 -41 -39 -59 -39 -46

Claim
recoveries
-26 -26 --- --- --- --- ---
Budget
authority
(net)
-208 -59 -60 -49 -58 -58 -74
Outlays
(net)
-240 -223 -218 -179 -194 -167 -137
Budget authority:







Transferred to other accountsd
-52 -59 -43 -49 -58 -58 -74
CREDIT ACCOUNT / PROGRAM







Total new program obligations
110
145
81
236
173
275
74
Direct loan subsidy
6
14
24
15
12
20
20
Loan guarantee subsidy
5
11
9
8
10
5
11
Program cost re-estimates
70
90
17
182
118
177
---
Credit administrative expenses
29
30
31
31
33
33
43
Budget authority (net)
123
148
76
231
176
274
74
Appropriationse
71 89 16 182 118 216 ---
From other accountf
52 59 60 49 58 58 74
Outlays
(net)
113 135 66 232 163 272 69
Source: Budget of the United States Government, various years. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington.
Notes:
a. The amounts for FY2011 and FY2012 are based on the annualized level provided by continuing resolution.
b. The FY2013 data do not reflect the sequestration reduction.
c. Credit administrative expenses originate from noncredit account balance and are transferred to the
program account where they are returned to the noncredit account as col ection. In this way, the program
account reflects the cost of the credit program.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

d. Budget authority transferred to other accounts, including OPIC’s credit account.
e. OPIC does not receive an appropriation for the initial funding of this credit program subsidy. In accordance
with the Federal Credit Reform Act, OPIC receives an appropriation for the funding of upward subsidy
reestimates.
f.
These funds include transfers from OPIC’s noncredit account (see footnote ‘c’) and from the Export-Import
Bank and the U.S. Agency for International Aid and Development to finance projects in the New
Independent States (NIS).
For FY2014, President Obama requested $71.8 million for OPIC’s administrative expenses (up
from $60.78 million requested in FY2013), and a transfer of $31 million from OPIC’s noncredit
account to conduct its credit and administrative programs (the same amount requested for
FY2013). According to OPIC, the increase in administrative expenses requested reflects a need
for increased staffing and logistical resources to support its activities. OPIC’s FY2014
congressional budget justification states, “OPIC’s project-specific focus and statutory
requirements make it difficult to increase output with existing staff while meeting policy and
financial management required by law.”
OPIC has a net negative budget authority; its offsets to budget authority have been greater than its
appropriations. For more than thirty years, OPIC has regularly returned “surplus” funds to the
U.S. Treasury, which represent a reserve fund against losses that OPIC may incur through its
financing and insurance programs. The surplus may reflect revenues which OPIC has earned
(such as through the premiums, interest, and fees generated from OPIC’s services), but for which
OPIC has not received payment yet. It also may reflect expenses (such as financing, insurance, or
investment commitments) that OPIC has incurred, but for which OPIC has not yet disbursed
payment. The transfer of these funds to the Treasury essentially is a transaction in the accounting
ledger between the Treasury and OPIC, rather than a cash transfer of funds.
The agency has recorded a positive net income for every year of operation. Currently, OPIC has
accumulated about $5 billion in reserves (comprised of U.S. Treasury securities), which help to
protect against potential losses from OPIC-supported projects.12 On a private sector accounting
basis, OPIC reported earning a net income of $272 million in FY2012, up from $269 million in
FY2011, $260 million in FY2010, and $242 million in FY2009.13
Portfolio and Focus Areas
The statutory limit on the total outstanding liability (“exposure”) for OPIC’s financing and
insurance is $29 billion.14 In FY2012, OPIC’s portfolio of projects had a total exposure of $16.7
billion across its three program areas (see Figure 1).15

12 OPIC, Overseas Private Investment Corporation Fiscal Year 2014 Congressional Budget Justification.
13 OPIC, “OPIC Records Net Income of $269 Million in FY2011, Helping to Reduce U.S. Budget Deficit for 34th
Consecutive Year,” press release, January 3, 2012, http://www.opic.gov/news/press-releases/2009/pr010312. Exposure
information not reported.
14 22 U.S.C. 2195(a).
15 OPIC, 2012 Annual Report.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

Figure 1. Composition of OPIC’s Portfolio by Program, FY2012
(Billions of U.S. Dollars)
Investment
Political Risk
Fund Program,
Insurance
$2.5
Program, $3.1
Finance
Program: Direct
Loans, $3.4
Finance
Program:
Project
Finance, $7.7

Source: CRS analysis of OPIC, 2012 Annual Report.
Notes: As of September 30, 2012, OPIC’s insurance and finance programs had a total exposure of $16.7 billion.
OPIC is open for business in more than 150 countries around the world, with its portfolio spread
across 103 countries in FY2012.16 During that year, OPIC provided $3.6 billion in commitments
for new investment projects, up 30% from FY2011.17 Since the global economic crisis that began
in 2008, OPIC has reported an increase in demand for its services, as U.S. companies sought
OPIC support to meet the shortfall in private sector investment financing.
OPIC prioritizes its works based on U.S. foreign policy and development objectives. It is worth
noting, however, that OPIC largely is a demand-driven agency, which is reflected in OPIC’s
activity level. What follows is a summary of some of OPIC’s priority areas for its activities.18
• Geographical focus: OPIC’s regional priorities include sub-Saharan Africa
(SSA), where it committed $907 million for new projects in FY2012, and the
Middle East and North Africa (MENA), where it committed $878 million for
new projects in FY2012. A ramp-up of OPIC support is particularly evident with
respect to SSA. In FY2012, SSA accounted for nearly one-quarter ($3.74 billion)
of OPIC’s total global portfolio, up from 6% a decade ago. OPIC also focuses on

16 OPIC is not open for business in certain countries, including countries subject to U.S. economic sanctions. OPIC
suspended its programs in China following the crackdown on Tiananmen Square protestors in June 1989. See
Department of State, 2013 Investment Climate Statement - China, February 2013,
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ics/2013/204621.htm.
17 OPIC, “OPIC Posts Strong 30 Percent Growth Supporting American Businesses Abroad: Helps Reduce Deficit for
35th Consecutive Year,” press release, December 11, 2012, http://www.opic.gov/press-releases/2012/opic-posts-strong-
30-percent-growth-supporting-american-businesses-abroad-helps-; and OPIC, “OPIC Records Net Income of $269
Million in FY2011, Helping to Reduce U.S. Budget Deficit for 34th Consecutive Year,” press release, January 1, 2012,
http://www.opic.gov/press-releases/2012/opic-records-net-income-269-million-fy2011-helping-reduce-us-budget-
deficit-34th.
18 Data on OPIC’s focus areas and portfolio draw from OPIC annual reports, congressional budget justifications, and
press releases.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

certain countries with difficult investment environments, including Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Iraq, and Haiti.
• Sectoral focus: OPIC’s sectoral focus areas include renewable resources,
agriculture, infrastructure, health care, and “impact investing.” 19 OPIC’s
emphasis on renewable energy projects has been particularly strong. In FY2012,
OPIC provided $1.6 billion in financing and insurance for projects in the
renewable energy sector, up from $1.1 billion in FY2011.
• SME focus: In terms of the United States, OPIC seeks to expand U.S. SME
involvement in investment, and reported that about two-thirds of its projects in
FY2012 involved U.S. small businesses. In addition, OPIC has focused on
providing support for expanding financing available to SMEs in developing
countries and emerging markets.
OPIC also participates in broader initiatives by the Administration in response to foreign policy
and development needs, as illustrated below.
• The U.S.-Africa Clean Energy Finance (ACEF) Initiative—a joint mechanism
by the State Department, OPIC, and the Trade and Development Agency (TDA)
launched in June 2012—is a four-year, $15 million program to catalyze private
sector investment in the African clean energy sector by identifying and providing
financing for project development costs. In 2013, OPIC dedicated a staff member
for South Africa to support implementation of the initiative.20
• Power Africa, announced by the President in June 2013, is an initiative to double
access to power in SSA. The U.S. government plans to commit more than $7
billion in financial support over the next five years, including up to $1.5 billion in
OPIC financing and insurance to energy projects in the region.21
• The U.S.-Asia Pacific Comprehensive Partnership for a Sustainable Energy
Future, announced during the 2012 East Asia Summit, is a policy initiative that
includes up to $6 billion from federal trade and investment promotion agencies to
finance exports and investments related to energy infrastructure in the region. 22
The Administration announced that OPIC is to provide up to $1 billion in
financing for sustainable power and infrastructure projects in the region, in
support of the initiative.23

19 OPIC, Congressional Budget Justification –FY2012, pp. 5-6. OPIC defines impact investing as “investments in
businesses that are designed with the intent to generate positive social and/or environmental impact” and “can include
business sectors such as basic needs (food, water, sanitation, housing), basic services (education, health care, clean
technology), and financial services (microfinance and small and medium enterprise finance).”
20 U.S. Diplomatic Mission to South Africa, “OPIC to dedicate staff member for South Africa in 2013,” press release,
October 16, 2012, http://southafrica.usembassy.gov/press_121017a.html.
21 The White House, “Fact Sheet: Power Africa,” press release, June 30, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2013/06/30/fact-sheet-power-africa.
22 The White House, “Fact Sheet on the U.S.-Asia Pacific Comprehensive Partnership for a Sustainable Energy,” press
release, November 20, 2012, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/20/fact-sheet-us-asia-pacific-
comprehensive-partnership-sustainable-energy.
23 The White House, “Fact Sheet on the U.S.-Asia Pacific Comprehensive Partnership for a Sustainable Energy,” press
release, November 20, 2012, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/20/fact-sheet-us-asia-pacific-
comprehensive-partnership-sustainable-energy.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

• In response to political change in the MENA region, in March 2011, Secretary
of State Clinton announced that OPIC would provide up to $2 billion in financial
support “to catalyze private sector development” in the MENA region in order to
spur economic growth and job creation.24 Subsequently, President Obama
announced in May 2011 that OPIC would provide up to $1 billion in financing to
support infrastructure and job creation specifically in Egypt.25 As part of these
efforts, OPIC, for example, approved $500 million in lending to Egypt and
Jordan ($250 million to each country) to support small businesses in those
countries. AID is providing grant funding and technical assistance to the
initiative.26 Implementation of the Egypt facility may be difficult in light of the
country’s uncertain political environment. In comparison, implementation of the
Jordan loan guarantee facility reportedly is further along.27
• The Partnership for Growth (PFG) Initiative seeks to support sustainable
economic growth and development in four countries considered to be top-
performing and low-income (El Salvador, Tanzania, Ghana, and the Philippines).
OPIC is active in supporting investments in all four countries, providing
hundreds of millions of dollars to date.
Statutory and Policy Conditions for OPIC-Supported Projects
Projects supported by OPIC are governed by congressionally-mandated statutory requirements in
OPIC’s governing legislation and general OPIC policy. OPIC’s statutory mandates include the
following.
• Self-sustaining operations. OPIC is statutorily required to conduct its operations
on a self-sustaining basis, taking into account the “economic and financial
soundness of projects.”28
• U.S. connection. OPIC-supported projects are required to have an appropriate
link to the United States. OPIC’s enabling legislation defines the term “eligible
investor”29 and OPIC’s policies provide further specifications regarding the term.
• Environmental and social impact. In determining whether to support a project,
OPIC is directed by its enabling legislation to “be guided by the economic and
social impact and benefits” of the project.30 OPIC is generally barred from
participating in projects that pose an “unreasonable or major environmental

24 OPIC, “OPIC to Provide Up to $2 Billion for Investment in Middle East and North Africa,” press release, March 11,
2011.
25 Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks by the President on the Middle East and North Africa,” The White House,
State Department, Washington, DC, May 19, 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/19/remarks-
president-middle-east-and-north-africa.
26 OPIC, “OPIC Board Approves $500 Million for Small Business Lending in Egypt and Jordan,” press release, July 1,
2011, http://www.opic.gov/news/press-releases/2009/pr070111.
27 OPIC, “OPIC Records Net Income of $269 Million in FY2011, Helping to Reduce U.S. Budget Deficit for 34th
Consecutive Year,” press release, January 3, 2012, http://www.opic.gov/news/press-releases/2009/pr010312; and
electronic and telephone communication with CHF International official, January 23, 2013.
28 22 U.S.C. §2191(a).
29 22 U.S.C. §2198(c).
30 22 U.S.C. §2191(1).
Congressional Research Service
10

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

health, or safety, hazard.”31 Pursuant to OPIC’s enabling legislation, OPIC’s
Board of Directors shall not vote in favor of any project that is likely to have
“significant adverse environmental impacts that are sensitive, diverse, or
unprecedented” unless for at least 60 days before the vote, an environmental
impact assessment of the project is conducted and is made available to the
public.32
• Worker rights. As stated in OPIC’s governing legislation, OPIC-supported
projects can be implemented only in countries that currently have, or are taking
steps to adopt and implement, laws that uphold internationally recognized worker
rights. Any such determination shall be reported in writing to the Congress,
together with the reasons for the determination.33
• U.S. economic impact. OPIC’s activities are intended to assist U.S. firms’
foreign operations. For instance, Congress directed OPIC to focus on projects
that have “positive trade benefits for the United States.”34 OPIC is required to
decline its services, however, if it determines that an overseas investment may
reduce employment in the United States, either because a U.S. firm shifts part of
its production abroad, or because output from an overseas investment will be
shipped to the United States and “reduce substantially the positive trade benefits”
of the investment.35
• Development effects on the host country. OPIC is directed to “mobilize and
facilitate the participation of United States private capital and skills in the
economic and social development of less developed countries and areas, and
countries in transition from nonmarket to market economies... under the policy
guidance of the Secretary of State.”36 Factors considered when evaluating the
developmental impact of OPIC-supported projects on the host country include:
human capacity building and job creation, social policies and corporate social
responsibility initiatives, infrastructure improvements, and technology and
knowledge transfer.
OPIC’s Environmental and Social Policy Statement
In 2010, OPIC released a “revised and strengthened” Environmental and Social Policy Statement regarding the
projects that it supports. The policy statement adopts the International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standards
on Social and Environmental Sustainability, aligning OPIC more effectively with the international development finance
community on investment policy. OPIC’s statement discusses OPIC, investor, and host country requirements and the
processes by which OPIC ensures that its projects support environmental, social, labor, human rights, and
transparency goals. The statement also includes previously established OPIC environmental and social commitments
or practices, including to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of OPIC projects by 30% between 2008-2018 and by 50%
between 2008-2023, as wel as to provide information on the agency website on the most environmental y- or
socially-sensitive projects at least 60 days before the OPIC Board makes any decision on supporting them.
Sources: OPIC’s Environmental and Social Policy Statement is accessible at: http://www.opic.gov/doing-
business/investment/environment/policies.

31 22 U.S.C. §2191(n).
32 22 U.S.C. §2191a(b).
33 22 U.S.C. §2191a(a).
34 22 U.S.C. §2191(i).
35 22 U.S.C. §2191(k).
36 22 U.S.C. §2191.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

International Context for Development Finance
OPIC has many counterparts internationally, at the bilateral, regional, and multilateral levels (see
Table 2). OPIC and these other entities often are referred to as development finance institutions
(DFIs). As used in this report, the term DFI refers to an entity that provides officially-backed (or
government-backed) support (e.g., through direct loans, loan guarantees, or insurance) for private
sector investment in developing countries. 37
The investment financing landscape is dynamic. Traditionally, foreign direct investment (FDI)
largely has flowed from developed countries to developing countries. As such, DFIs historically
have been concentrated in developed countries, like the United States and the other G-7 countries.
However, as emerging market economies also become major sources of FDI, institutions in
emerging economies such as China, Brazil, and India are becoming significant contributors of
development finance as well.
The investment financing activities of DFIs fall outside of the forms of financing regulated by
international disciplines through the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD).38 As such, there is no central, comprehensive source of information on the investment
financing activities of OECD member countries and non-OECD members (such as China, Brazil,
and India).39 Countries vary in terms of how much information they publish regarding their
activities. Authoritative information on the full extent of China’s investment financing activities is
especially considered to be limited.

37 It is important to note that development finance can take place through other means that do not directly involve
supporting the private sector. For example, the World Bank Group’s International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (IBRD) and International Development Association (IDA) provide financial support to middle- and/or
low-income governments for development purposes. For more information, see CRS Report R41170, Multilateral
Development Banks: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Rebecca M. Nelson. As another example, the U.S. Agency
for International Development (AID) supports activities in developing countries working through recipient country
governments and non-governmental organizations, rather than directly with private investors. However, within the
OPIC context, the term DFI generally refers to the involvement of the private sector.
38 The OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits (“the OECD Arrangement”) was created in 1978 to
provide a framework on the use of officially-supported export financing. It guides the activities of the U.S. Export-
Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) and other foreign export credit agencies (ECAs) whose governments are members of the
OECD. The OECD Arrangement established limitations on the terms and conditions for official export credit activity
of OECD member countries, including the United States. The Arrangement includes financial terms and conditions in
areas such as down payments, repayment terms, interest rates and premia, and country risk classifications. It contains
notification procedures and reporting requirements for countries’ export credit activities to encourage transparency. Its
role is to help “level the playing field” so that a country’s decisions to purchase goods and services are based on price
and quality, rather than financing terms. The OECD lacks the authority to enforce its agreements, though member
countries generally monitor other countries’ policies and actions.
39 The Berne Union, an international organization, represents export credit and investment insurance industries and is
composed of 49 members, including OPIC. It maintains certain investment insurance statistics, but the publicly
available information does not provide breakdowns by private sector and DFI activity.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

Table 2. Selected Development Finance Institutions (DFIs)
Development Finance Institutions
Sponsor
Bilateral
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
United States
CDC Group (formerly Colonial Development Corporation, then
United Kingdom
Commonwealth Development Corporation)
Entrepreneurial Development Cooperation (DEG)
Germany
Entrepreneurial Development Bank (FMO)
Netherlands
Japanese Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC)
Japan
Norwegian Investment Fund for Developing Countries (Norfund)
Norway
Proparco France
Export-Import Bank of China; China Export and Credit Insurance Corporation
China
(Sinosure); China Development Bank (CDB)
Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES)
Brazil
Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India (ECGC)
India
Regional
African Development Bank (AfDB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD), Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
Multilateral

International Finance Corporation (IFC), Multilateral Investment Guaranty Agency (MIGA); part of The World Bank
Group
Source: CRS compilation from International Finance Corporation, International Finance Institutions and
Development: Private Sector, 2011; Christian Kingombe, Isabel a Massa and Dirk Willem te Velde, Comparing
Development Institutions Literature Review, Overseas Development Institute, January 20, 2011; and various DFI
publications and annual reports.
Notes: This list of DFIs is not an exhaustive compilation, but intended to be illustrative of international DFIs.
Because of a lack of comprehensive information on the activities of DFIs, it can be difficult to
make comparisons across countries. What follows are some general comparisons of OPIC and
selected other DFIs, based on available information. However, it should be noted that the large
variation in DFI characteristics demands caution in drawing any specific conclusions.
• Ownership: OPIC and certain other DFIs are owned exclusively by the public
sector, such as CDC (United Kingdom) and DEG (Germany). Others, such as
FMO (the Netherlands) and Proparco (France), have joint public and private
ownership. Regional and multilateral DFIs (such as EBRD and IFC) have
multiple shareholders from various countries.
• Organizational structure: Countries vary in how they organize their investment
and export financing functions. The United States houses investment and export
financing functions in two separate entities, OPIC (the official U.S. DFI) and the
U.S. Export-Import Bank (the official U.S. export credit agency). The two
agencies have different missions—with OPIC focused more on development
goals and the Ex-Im Bank geared toward commercial goals—although they do
coordinate on certain transactions. By comparison, in some other countries, these
Congressional Research Service
13

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

functions are housed in the same entity.40 For example, JBIC (Japan) conducts
both investment financing and export financing operations.
• General activities: The primary service offered by DFIs is to provide financing,
but some DFIs also provide “project-specific and general technical assistance,”
for example, to help support the implementation of investments. OPIC generally
provides only finance support, and limited technical support. Many OPIC
counterparts, on the other hand, do provide technical assistance.41
• Financial instruments: DFIs provide investment support through a range of
financial instruments. OPIC provides investment support through direct loans,
loan guarantees, and political risk insurance; it does not have equity authority. In
contrast, many other DFIs offer a larger suite of financial products, including
equity. In some cases, equity is the primary focus of DFI activity, such as for
CDC and Norfund.
• Total portfolios: By one U.S. government estimate, investment financing
conducted by OECD countries totaled $82 billion in 2012, up from $47 billion in
2011. 42 The size of portfolios by bilateral DFIs varies. For example, in 2012,
some of the European DFIs (including those of France, Germany, and the United
Kingdom) had portfolios of less than $10 billion each in 2012, while OPIC’s total
portfolio stood at about $16 billion.43 It can be difficult to obtain data on
investment financing by the non-OECD countries, though by one estimate,
unregulated financing by China, Brazil, and India (including both export credit
and investment financing) collectively was $58-$83 billion in 2012, up from $53-
$78 billion in 2011.44
• Portfolio distribution: DFIs support projects in a range of economic sectors.
Traditionally, infrastructure and financial services have been major areas of
focus, but support for other sectors, such as agribusiness, is also increasing. For
emerging market economies’ DFIs, securing access to natural resources is a key
focus or related outcome of development finance activities. For example,
securing access to natural resources in sub-Saharan Africa is widely regarded as
an important motivation for China’s investment financing in the region.45
• Policy requirements: Requirements that projects must meet in order to receive
support vary by DFI, such as with respect to environmental, worker rights, and

40 Entities where investment and export financing functions are combined can variously be called, in some cases, either
DFIs or export credit agencies (ECAs), depending on whether one function outweighs another or the analytical
perspective.
41 Daniel F. Runde et al., Sharing Risk in a World of Danger and Opportunities: Strengthening U.S. Development
Finance Capabilities, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), December 2011,
http://csis.org/files/publication/111205__Runde_SharingRisk_Web.pdf. In the United States, other agencies, such as
the Trade and Development Agency (TDA), provide technical assistance for development projects.
42 Ex-Im Bank, Report the U.S. Congress on Export Credit Competition and the Export-Import Bank of the United
States, for the period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, June 2013, p. 144.
43 Annual reports of various DFIs.
44 Ex-Im Bank, Report the U.S. Congress on Export Credit Competition and the Export-Import Bank of the United
States, for the period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, June 2013, p. 144.
45 For example, see GAO, Sub-Saharan Africa: Trends in U.S. and Chinese Economic Engagement, GAO-13-199,
February 2013.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

other conditions. OPIC is widely regarded as having among the most extensive
policy requirements for projects to receive its support. According to OPIC, it has
been a leader among DFIs in “developing and applying environmental and social
policies that advance long-term sustainable development....”46 While supportive
of such goals, some U.S. investors may view these policies as translating into
overly burdensome compliance requirements. In contrast to OPIC, DFIs of
emerging market economies, such as China, generally are not considered to have
as strong policy requirements, although environmental and other policy
considerations may play a factor in their support.
Issues for Congress
The 113th Congress may take up a number of issues related to OPIC, chief of which could be a
debate about OPIC’s reauthorization. As part of the reauthorization process or general oversight
of agency, Congress also may examine the policy debate related to OPIC’s mission, the statutory
conditions on OPIC’s support for investments, and the agency’s organizational structure.
Reauthorization
Congress may examine whether to reauthorize OPIC and, if so, the length of time for which to
extend OPIC’s authority and under what terms. The FY2013 full-year continuing resolution (P.L.
113-6) extends OPIC’s authority to conduct its credit and insurance programs through FY2013. In
recent years, Congress has renewed OPIC’s authority through the appropriations process (i.e.,
essentially a reauthorization waiver).47 The latest long-term, stand-alone reauthorization of OPIC
was through legislation passed in 2003 (P.L. 108-158) that extended OPIC’s authority through
FY2007. OPIC’s authorization lapsed during April –September 2008. During this period, OPIC
was able to disburse funds for already committed projects, but unable to sign contracts for new
projects.48
From an operational standpoint, some argue that OPIC would benefit from multi-year
authorizations or a permanent authorization, which may enhance OPIC’s capacity for long-term
planning and ability to provide assurances to investors about OPIC programs. From an oversight
perspective, others argue that periodic reauthorizations allow for enhanced congressional
oversight of OPIC’s activities. It is worth noting that Congress has used the appropriations
process to make adjustments to OPIC’s activities. For example, FY2010 appropriations language
introduced requirements for further reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated
with OPIC-supported projects (P.L. 111-117, Sec.7079(b)). Nevertheless, some argue that the
113th Congress should consider OPIC reauthorization legislation, which could afford Members
greater opportunity to weigh in on broader OPIC policy issues.

46 See Appendix 1 of OPIC, Overseas Private Investment Corporation 2012 Strategic Sustainability Plan, November
16, 2012, http://www.opic.gov/sites/default/files/files/OPIC_Strategic_Sustainability_Plan_2012.pdf.
47 For example, Sec. 7065(b) of the FY2012 appropriations act (P.L. 112-74, 125 Stat. 1252) states, “Notwithstanding
section 235(a)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 [which states the expiration date for OPIC’s authority], the
authority of subsections (a) through (c) of section 234 of such Act [i.e., investment insurance, investment guarantees,
and direct insurance] shall remain in effect through September 30, 2012.
48 OPIC, Budget Request of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Fiscal Year 2009, Congressional Budget
Justification, p. iii.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

In recent years, Members of Congress have introduced various types of bills to extend OPIC’s
authority. For example:
• Some bills have focused exclusively on extending OPIC’s authority. For
example, in the 112th Congress, two bills were introduced to reauthorize OPIC
through FY2015 (H.R. 2762 and S. 3627). Neither bill contained any other
provisions.
• Other bills have sought to extend OPIC’s authority, as well as to make
adjustments to OPIC’s activity. In the 111th Congress, a bill was introduced in the
Senate (S. 705) to reauthorize OPIC until September 30, 2013. The bill, which
was reported out of committee, included provisions related to the transparency
and accountability of OPIC’s investment funds, OPIC’s authority to conduct
projects in Iraq, and worker rights. In addition, it included prohibitions on OPIC
assistance to entities in countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism.
• Bills on other policy issues have included a renewal of OPIC’s authority. For
instance, in the 113th Congress, a bill was introduced in the House (H.R. 2548) to
increase U.S. government support, including through OPIC, to assist SSA
countries in increasing electricity access to support poverty alleviation and
economic growth. The bill, among other things, would extend OPIC’s authority
through FY2016.
The debate over reauthorization also could involve congressional consideration of other
outcomes, such as privatizing or terminating the functions of OPIC (see “Organizational
Structure” discussion below).
Debate about Rationales for OPIC
Over time, Congress has debated the acceptability of federal programs like OPIC that support
private sector trade and investment. While OPIC’s goals of economic development through the
mobilization of investment may have broad support, there are differing viewpoints on the U.S.
economic effects of OPIC’s financing and insurance activities. Economists generally oppose the
use of government resources to promote trade or investment abroad. They believe such
intervention may distort the flow of capital and resources away from the most efficient uses. They
also believe that by promoting investment abroad, OPIC may be crowding out, and thereby
reducing, some domestic investment. Some critics also argue that OPIC support is directed
towards companies whose overseas investments result in the outsourcing of U.S. jobs.49
In contrast, supporters argue that OPIC complements, rather than competes with, private sector
investment. They note that OPIC screens proposed investments to determine whether the private
sector could undertake the transaction without OPIC’s assistance, as well as to ensure that
proposed investments would not affect U.S. employees negatively or displace U.S. production
domestically or in overseas markets. Supporters also argue that OPIC rectifies “market failures,”
such as imperfect information and barriers to entry. Individual firms may attach more risk to
investing in developing economies due to imperfect information and, thus, be unwilling to

49 For examples of longstanding concerns, see Ian Vasquez and John Welborn, Reauthorize or Retire the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation?, CATO Institute, Foreign Policy Briefing No. 78, September 15, 2003.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

commit resources to investments in the least developed countries without OPIC’s guarantees.50
Supporters further point to the increased demand for OPIC’s services following the 2008-2009
international financial crisis and related shortfall in the availability of private sector financing as
evidence of the continued economic importance of OPIC.
Differing perspectives also exist regarding OPIC’s foreign policy rationale. Some critics argue
that certain countries no longer need OPIC support due to the successful transformation of their
markets. Supporters maintain that many developing countries that are of key U.S. foreign policy
interest continue to require the type of private sector-oriented support provided by OPIC.
A rationale for OPIC that may have broader-based support is its role in leveling the playing field
for U.S. investors in overseas markets. The growing number of players in development finance
and the growing volumes of investment financing have resulted in greater and varied competition
for U.S. businesses—competition from firms in both developed countries and from emerging
economies as they move up the value chain. To level the playing field, U.S. companies thus may
seek OPIC assistance to counter the officially-backed investment support that their competitors
receive from their national governments.
OPIC’s Statutory and Policy Conditions
Congress may examine and revise OPIC’s programs and policies as part of general oversight
and/or as a part of the reauthorization process. Areas of possible focus are discussed below.
OPIC’s Authorities
A longstanding topic of debate is OPIC’s assumed lack of authority to take equity in the
investments that it supports. Comparable foreign DFIs, such as those of the G-7 countries,
generally have equity authority. Proponents argue that equity authority would enable OPIC to
exert greater influence in an investment’s strategic goals and economic, social, and governance
policies. They also contend that foreign DFIs may be more likely to partner with OPIC to support
investments if OPIC has equity authority, thus, increasing OPIC’s ability to leverage its resources
and generate a greater developmental return. Some also argue that OPIC could use the higher
returns generally associated with equity investments to support additional investment projects. 51
However, there is a general philosophical resistance to the notion of the U.S. government taking
an ownership stake in a private enterprise. Critics argue that OPIC may need to devote more
resources to managing an investment in which it has equity, compared to an investment supported
by OPIC through debt instruments alone. They contend that OPIC would not be able to take
advantage of equity authority unless its resources were substantially increased. Furthermore, an
equity stake in a private enterprise could possibly lead to additional risk and financial exposure.

50 For a discussion of the rationales for OPIC, see Theodore H. Moran, Reforming OPIC for the 21st Century, Peterson
Institute for International Economics, Policy Analyses in International Economics 69, May 2003.
51 For example, see Daniel F. Runde et al., Sharing Risk in a World of Danger and Opportunities: Strengthening U.S.
Development Finance Capabilities, CSIS, December 2011; and Benjamin Leo, Todd Moss, and Beth Schwanke, OPIC
Unleashed: Strengthening US Tools to Promote Private-Sector Development Overseas, CGD, August 2013.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

Some stakeholders also have called for OPIC to have a consistent ability to provide grants, such
as for technical assistance, associated with its projects. Supporters of such proposals contend that
they will enhance the effectiveness of OPIC’s support for projects.52 Critics contend that
providing OPIC with a significant grant function would, to a large degree, duplicate the roles of
AID and the TDA in development assistance.
OPIC’s Policies
In supporting U.S. private sector investment overseas, OPIC is required by statute to balance
multiple policy objectives, including foreign assistance, development, economic, environmental,
and other policy goals. Congress could evaluate how OPIC might prioritize and balance these
various objectives.
OPIC’s environmental policies, in particular, have been the subject of vigorous stakeholder
debate. OPIC is engaged in efforts to reduce the direct greenhouse gas emissions associated with
projects in its active portfolio (i.e., all insurance contracts in force and all guaranty and direct
loans with an outstanding principal balance) by 30% of over a 10-year period (June 30, 2008 –
September 30, 2018) and by 50% over a 15-year period (June 30, 2008 – September 30, 2023).53
A combination of statutory, policy, and legal developments may factor into OPIC’s policy to
reduce GHG emissions associated with its projects.
On the one hand, such efforts may serve U.S. environmental policy goals and could help to
improve the sustainability of OPIC’s development finance efforts. On the other hand, some U.S.
businesses argue that OPIC’s GHG emissions policy constrains their ability to utilize OPIC
support. They contend that it can place them at a competitive disadvantage relative to foreign
firms when competing for international project contracts, such as major infrastructure projects in
SSA. Some other DFIs do not have the same level of policy restrictions that OPIC has, potentially
enabling them to support a broader array of energy-related projects. In addition, from a
development perspective, some argue that OPIC’s GHG portfolio emission reduction target
prevents it from supporting investment projects that are likely to have the largest development
impact.
Targeted Areas for Investment Support
Congress could consider opportunities for enhancing OPIC’s support for specific geographical
regions, countries, or sectors that are of U.S. policy interest. For example, some Members of
Congress, business groups, and other stakeholders assert that there is potential for greater support
by OPIC for U.S. investment in Africa. Proposals have included providing additional federal
resources to support OPIC investment promotion activity in Africa and/or directing OPIC and
other federal agencies to dedicate designated amounts of financing and personnel to foster greater
U.S. investment in Africa.54 While greater resources may increase capacity to promote
investment, it is important to note that federal agencies’ allocation of funds for trade and

52 For example, see Daniel F. Runde and Ashley Chandler, Making the Case for OPIC, CSIS, May 12, 2011,
http://csis.org/publication/making-case-opic; and Benjamin Leo, Todd Moss, and Beth Schwanke, OPIC Unleashed:
Strengthening US Tools to Promote Private-Sector Development Overseas, CGD, August 2013.
53 OPIC, OPIC – Environmental and Social Policy Statement, October 15, 2010, p. 26.
54 For example, see S. 718 and H.R. 1777, introduced in the 113th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

investment promotion is generally demand-driven. Thus, for example, if U.S. firms do not seek
such assistance due to lack of sufficient commercial interest, such funds may not be fully tapped.
At the same time, promotion of development finance opportunities by OPIC could motivate U.S.
companies to become more engaged.
Organizational Structure
Congress may wish to examine OPIC’s organizational structure in terms of the agency’s
effectiveness and efficiency in fulfilling its mandate. What follows are three possible areas of
consideration.
• Reorganization: Congress could consider merging OPIC with other federal
agencies as part of broader reorganization proposals. For example, the President
proposed reorganizing the business- and trade-related functions of OPIC and five
other federal entities—the Department of Commerce, the Ex-Im Bank, the Small
Business Administration (SBA), the TDA, and the Office of the United States
Trade Representative (USTR)—into one department in an effort to streamline the
federal government and make it more effective.55 Other proposals offered by
stakeholders include consolidation of federal agencies focused on promoting
international development through private sector tools (such as OPIC, the TDA,
and certain elements of AID), and consolidation of federal trade finance agencies
(such as OPIC and the Ex-Im Bank).56 Reorganization prospects in the near-term
are unclear, but the renewed focus has rekindled policy debates about whether
reorganization would reduce costs and improve the effectiveness of trade policy
programs, or undermine the effectiveness of federal agencies, given their
differing missions.57
• Privatization/Termination: Congress could consider privatizing or terminating
OPIC. Supporters of such options may argue that OPIC’s self-sustaining nature is
proof that there is no market failure. They also may hold the view that OPIC
competes with or crowds out the private sector, which is more efficient and better
suited than the federal government to support investments; and that OPIC’s
activities impose potential costs and risks on U.S. taxpayers, since they are
backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Those in favor of
OPIC may argue that the federal government plays a unique role in addressing
market failures; OPIC’s backing by the full faith and credit the of U.S.
government may make certain transactions more commercially attractive or give
OPIC leverage to guarantee repayment in a way that is not available to the

55 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Government Reorganization Fact Sheet,” press release, January 13,
2012, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/13/government-reorganization-fact-sheet. The President
reiterated his reorganization proposal in his FY2014 budget request.
56 For example, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on International Development
and Foreign Operations, Economic Affairs, International Environmental Protection, and Peace Corps, “Updating US
Foreign Assistance Tools and Development Policy for the Post-Aid World,” testimony by Todd J. Moss, Vice President
and Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development, for hearing on “Different Perspective on International
Development,” 113th Cong., 1st sess.
57 For additional information on the policy debate, see CRS Report R42555, Trade Reorganization: Overview and
Issues for Congress, by Shayerah Ilias Akhtar.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Background and Legislative Issues

private sector; and federal investment support is critical when there is a shortfall
in private sector financing.
• OPIC internal oversight: Congress could examine OPIC’s own internal
oversight structure. Presently, AID’s Inspector General has legal authority to
conduct reviews, investigations, and inspections of OPIC’s operations and
activities58, while external auditors conduct audits of OPIC’s financial statements
and report findings to OPIC’s Board of Directors.59 There is debate about what
structure is appropriate for carrying out the oversight and investigation functions
of OPIC’s operations and activities. Given the differing roles of OPIC and AID—
including OPIC’s emphasis on private sector financing and AID’s grant-making
functions—some have called for establishing an Office of Inspector General
(OIG) specific to OPIC. However, others may argue that the current OPIC-AID
arrangement suffices or express concern about the additional resources a new
OIG could require. Another possibility is directing the Ex-Im Bank’s OIG to
conduct oversight of OPIC’s activities, although concerns could arise about the
differences in the two agencies’ missions. Legislation has been introduced in the
113th Congress to establish an OIG within OPIC (H.R. 2548, H.R. 314).



Author Contact Information

Shayerah Ilias Akhtar

Specialist in International Trade and Finance
siliasakhtar@crs.loc.gov, 7-9253



58 22 U.S.C. §2199(e).
59 22 U.S.C. §2199(c).
Congressional Research Service
20

---