OECD FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness Index 2025

Executive summary

Foreign direct investment (FDI) restrictiveness remained broadly stable in 2025: more economies liberalised, but larger tightening measures pushed the average slightly upwards for a second consecutive year

Across the 106 economies covered, the average FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness Index (FDIRRI) score increased only marginally, from 0.1192 in 2024 to 0.1194 in 2025, while the median remained unchanged. Higher FDIRRI scores indicate greater statutory restrictions. Ninety-five economies recorded no change. Seven economies recorded a net decline, while four recorded a net increase. More economies liberalised than tightened, but larger tightening measures pushed the average slightly upwards. The average score increase among tightening economies was 0.051, almost twice the average decline of 0.027 points among liberalising economies. Most scored tightening measures in 2025 reflected domestic objectives related to local ownership and participation, public procurement and conditions on foreign participation in selected sectors, including strategic activities, such as mining and offshore wind power. These developments are unfolding amid the renewed prominence of industrial policy and more active use of trade, innovation and national security policies to shape the location and composition of international investment.

FDI restrictiveness remains highly uneven across economies

FDI restrictiveness varies widely across the 106 covered economies. The average score in the most restrictive quartile was more than 22 times that in the least restrictive quartile, while the ten most restrictive economies accounted for over 31% of the aggregate FDIRRI score. Average restrictiveness also differed substantially between OECD and non-OECD economies, at 0.0509 and 0.1576, respectively.

Restrictiveness is highest in MENA, East Asia and the Pacific, and Sub-Saharan Africa

The MENA region recorded the highest regional average (0.246), despite substantial FDI liberalisation in several economies, followed by East Asia and the Pacific (0.201) and Sub-Saharan Africa (0.200). Latin America and the Caribbean and Europe and Central Asia recorded substantially lower average scores, at 0.050 and 0.043, respectively. Restrictiveness was also higher among lower-income economies, where average scores were more than three times higher than in high-income economies.

Foreign equity limits account for most measured FDI restrictiveness

Foreign equity limits remained the largest source of measured FDI restrictiveness, averaging 61% of the FDIRRI score across economies. Other operational restrictions represented 26%, followed by economic screening at 10% and restrictions on key foreign personnel at 3%. Economic screening represented a larger share of measured restrictiveness in the OECD area, although this was driven by a few countries, while other operational restrictions remained relatively more prominent among non-OECD economies.

Restrictions are concentrated in selected primary activities and services

On average, media, real estate, transport, agriculture, fisheries and professional services record the highest levels of policy restrictiveness across the covered economies, with a broadly similar pattern in OECD and non-OECD economies. Restrictions in media and transport are driven mainly by foreign equity limits, with nationality requirements for key personnel representing the most widespread complementary restriction in both sectors, while those in real estate reflect a combination of foreign ownership restrictions, local incorporation requirements and screening. Restrictions in agriculture and fisheries stem mostly from limits on foreign ownership of agricultural land and fishing vessels, respectively, while those in professional services are largely driven by barriers to foreign participation in legal services. By contrast, most manufacturing activities and several business services remain relatively open, although restrictiveness is generally higher in non-OECD economies.

Long-term liberalisation has slowed and fewer economies are reforming

FDI restrictions have declined substantially over recent decades, but the pace of liberalisation has slowed as many broad-based barriers have already been removed. Although significant reforms have occurred in Asia since 1997 and, more recently, in several MENA economies, reform activity has generally become less widespread in recent years, with the share of economies recording a change in their FDIRRI score falling from 21% in 2021-2022 to 14% in 2022‑2023, 13% in 2023‑2024 and 10% in 2024‑2025.

Security implications of investment attract attention beyond the OECD area

Security implications of investment attracted greater attention and prompted policy changes in a growing number of jurisdictions in 2025. Measures addressing these implications do not affect FDIRRI scores. Albania, Croatia, the Kyrgyz Republic and Ireland introduced new cross-sectoral frameworks. Ten other economies revised, clarified or introduced security-related investment measures. These developments highlight the increasing prominence of security considerations beyond the OECD area and the continued evolution of the frameworks used to manage them.

Key policy reflections

• Continued review of remaining discriminatory restrictions and opportunities for reform. The slowdown in liberalisation means that substantial statutory restrictions remain, particularly in parts of Asia, MENA and Sub-Saharan Africa. Governments can assess whether these restrictions remain necessary and proportionate to their objectives, and whether these could be achieved through less discriminatory means. More open FDI regimes can support investment and sustainable development,1 while regional and multilateral initiatives can further support domestic reform efforts.

• Prioritising reforms where restrictions matter most. Foreign equity limits continue to account for most measured FDI restrictiveness. Where reform is appropriate, governments could prioritise these and other significant barriers in highly restricted activities. Greater openness, particularly in services that provide important inputs to the wider economy, can support productivity gains.2

• Targeted and proportionate security-related investment measures. As security concerns and investment screening expand within and beyond the OECD, well-designed measures can help address legitimate risks without unnecessarily discouraging beneficial investment. The OECD Guidelines for Recipient Country Investment Policies Relating to National Security (2009[1]) provide principles to help countries preserve open and predictable investment regimes.

Notes

← 1.  Recent developments and trends in global FDI are discussed in the latest OECD FDI in Figures (OECD, 2026[45]) and World Bank Global Economic Prospects report (World Bank, 2026[46]). For evidence on the contribution of FDI to sustainable development, see the OECD FDI Qualities Initiative and Indicators (OECD, 2022[35]; 2025[41]). For empirical evidence on the relationship between FDI restrictions and FDI, see World Bank (2025[9]), Eichenauer and Wang (2024[43]); Albori et al., (2021[39]); Mistura and Roulet (2019[6]); Kox and Rojas Romasgosa, (2019[40])Fournier (2015[36]); Ghosh, Syntetos and Wang (2012[37]); Golub et al., (2003[38]).

← 2.  See OECD (2024[42]) and (2026[44]) for evidence on the benefits of services trade and investment liberalisation and recent developments in services trade policy.