First developed in 2003 and most recently revised in 2022, the OECD FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness Index (FDIRRI) is a policy-based indicator measuring discriminatory statutory restrictions on foreign direct investment (FDI) across countries and over time. It captures policy barriers across four categories: i) foreign equity limits; ii) screening and approval of foreign investment; iii) restrictions on key foreign personnel; and iv) other restrictions, such as reciprocity requirements, limits on real estate and land ownership by foreigners or preferential treatment for domestic firms in public procurement.
The FDIRRI currently covers 106 jurisdictions across nearly all regions, including all OECD and G20 members as well as adherents to the OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises. Together, these economies represented 92% of the global inward FDI position in 2025. The revised series provides data for 2018 and 2021‑2025. As such, the FDIRRI serves as a global benchmark of statutory barriers to investment, supporting both monitoring of reforms and empirical analysis of the potential impacts of regulatory changes.
Sectoral coverage extends to 22 economic sectors, including agriculture, mining, manufacturing, electricity, construction, distribution, transport, media, telecommunications, financial and professional services, and real estate. Sectoral scores are aggregated into an economy-wide indicator using fixed sector weights derived from OECD Input – Output tables. These weights, applied consistently across countries and years, reflect the economic significance of each sector and ensure comparability over time, while correcting for the over-representation of smaller but highly restricted activities. This approach helps to ensure that any variation in scores between countries is attributed to policy differences.
Each policy measure is scored on a scale from 0 (fully open) to 1 (fully closed), reflecting the degree of restrictiveness. Sectoral scores reflect the sum across all policy categories, capped at 1. Details on the scoring framework are available in OECD (2024[32]).
All regulatory measures underlying the FDIRRI are documented in the FDIRRI – Regulatory Database (OECD, 2025[33]), which provides legislative extracts, explanatory notes and links to original official legal sources. Updates are undertaken annually by the OECD Secretariat, based on (i) policy changes reported through the OECD Freedom of Investment monitoring process; and (ii) systematic review of regulatory developments published in legal gazettes and specialised databases and portals (e.g. OECD Services Trade Restrictiveness Index, World Bank – WTO Services Trade Policy Database, UNCTAD Investment Policy Monitor, Global Trade Alert, as well as legal information platforms and reports from law firms).
The discriminatory nature of a measure – its application specifically to foreign investors – is the central criterion for scoring restrictiveness. Certain non-discriminatory provisions are also included where they are deemed particularly burdensome for foreign investors, such as nationality requirements for boards of directors. By contrast, several other aspects relevant to the investment climate are excluded, such as regulatory transparency, the presence of state monopolies, preferential treatment of selected investors (e.g. treaty-protected investors or those in special economic zones), and measures taken for the protection of public order or essential security interests.
Data are reported on an annual basis, capturing the regulatory situation as of end-December of each year. As of 2025, the Index draws on over 2 130 database entries, each corresponding to a unique policy – sector restriction enshrined and/or specified in more than 1 800 unique pieces of legislation.1
Further information on the updated methodology, the full list of covered measures and scores is available in OECD (2024[32]), as well as in the FDIRRI – Regulatory Database (OECD, 2025[33]) and the FDIRRI – Scores (OECD, 2025[11]). For details on the previous methodological framework, see Kalinova, Palerm and Thomsen (2010[34]).