Consultant on Gravity Utility for the Assessment and Reduction of Disguised Investments (G.U.A.R.D.)

To provide an independent peer review of: • the GUARD methodology note, • the GUARD results/paper draft, and to advise ESCWA on: 1) methodological soundness and transparency, 2) interpretive limits and caveats, 3) policy framing and communication of findings for policymakers.

Remote

1.5 months

Background ESCWA has developed the Gravity Utility for the Assessment and Reduction of Disguised Investments (G.U.A.R.D.) as a corridor-level screening approach that flags statistically anomalous patterns in recorded FDI positions involving Arab economies. The current prototype relies on the IMF Direct Investment Positions by Counterpart Economy (DIP, formerly CDIS) dataset, which reports end-year bilateral FDI positions by immediate counterpart economy on the directional principle, with equity and intercompany-debt detail, aligned with IMF Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual, Sixth Edition (BPM6) and the OECD Benchmark Definition of Foreign Direct Investment, Fourth Edition (BMD4). The screening logic integrates: 1) gravity-based anomaly detection (PPML with high-dimensional fixed effects) to benchmark corridor-year positions against fundamentals, 2) mirror-asymmetry diagnostics aligning inward positions with partner-reported outward “mirror” positions, and 3) a persistence-weighted composite index (EWMA) that prioritizes sustained patterns and incorporates a gross-to-net “pipeline” signal consistent with pass-through mechanics. The methodology and results are documented in two draft outputs: • GUARD methodology note, and • GUARD results draft paper (“The phantom footprint: a corridor-level FDI risk assessment in the Arab region”). The analysis is designed as an early-warning screening and prioritization tool to support follow-up actions such as statistical reconciliation, transparency/substance checks, and targeted review of treaty and incentive design. ESCWA seeks an independent peer review to strengthen methodological robustness, transparency, and policy-safe interpretation prior to further internal review and dissemination. Duties and Responsibilities Under the overall guidance of the ESCWA Economic Advisor and Head of Financing for Development Office, the consultant will conduct the following tasks: • Provide a technical and interpretive peer review of both documents (including tables, figures, boxes and annexes), ensuring internal consistency of concepts, notation, assumptions, and narrative across the methodology note and the paper draft. • All comments must be specific, detailed, and operational, indicating exactly what changes are needed and where (e.g., wording to revise, definitions to add/adjust, tables/figures to modify, robustness checks to implement, caveat language to strengthen). Generic feedback (e.g., “clarify,” “add robustness,” “check other data”) is not sufficient. • Where proposing cross-checks or alternative datasets, the consultant must indicate whether the data exist, are accessible, and whether their dimensionality/coverage are sufficient for the intended comparison. The peer review is multi-disciplinary. The consultant is expected to provide in-depth review contributions in at least two of the thematic areas listed below, consistent with their expertise, while ensuring that comments support an integrated interpretation of findings and policy-safe messaging. Where a topic falls outside the consultant’s core expertise, the consultant should flag this explicitly and provide high-level observations and/or indicate where complementary expertise may be needed. Data inputs and statistical perimeter (IMF DIP/CDIS, mirrors, and complementary sources for cross-checking) • Assess whether the description and use of the IMF Direct Investment Positions by Counterpart Economy (DIP, formerly CDIS) dataset is accurate and sufficiently transparent (including: directional principle, immediate counterpart economy reporting, end-year positions, and the equity vs. intercompany debt split), and clearly state what the dataset can and cannot capture. • Review the use and interpretation of “mirror” positions and associated caveats (coverage constraints, confidentiality practices, allocation differences, and reporting frictions), and assess whether the paper appropriately communicates these limitations. • Recommend feasible cross-checks / broader validation using complementary data sources (where relevant and available), including UNCTAD and other established databases the reviewer has experience with (e.g., OECD FDI statistics and/or national IIP/BoP publications), to support interpretation and improve robustness of policy messaging. For any proposed cross-check, the reviewer must specify: o the exact dataset/source, o the unit of observation and dimensionality (e.g., corridor-year vs. country-year), o time coverage and expected sample size, o variables and matching keys required, o whether the data are available, accessible, and adequate for the intended test. o Where corridor-level validation is not feasible due to data dimensionality, the reviewer can propose an aggregation-consistent alternative (e.g., country-year plausibility checks) and clearly document conceptual differences that limit comparability. • Econometric strategy and implementation choices (gravity/PPML). • Review the robustness strategy (including use of alternative model variants and any corroboration/overlap logic across variants), screening logic, thresholds and score construction. • Review the anomaly diagnostics and composite structural score (component scaling, weights, damping transformations). Validation exercises, correlation/triangulation options, and interpretive caveats • Review any validation components (e.g., treaty-feature screens and regulatory correlation exercises). • Propose additional feasible correlation/triangulation exercises (non-causal) that could strengthen interpretability and confidence in the screening signal, while remaining consistent with GUARD as a screening/diagnostic tool. • For every suggested correlation/triangulation check, the consultant must specify: o the exact dataset/source (public or already referenced in the GUARD documents), o the unit of observation and dimensionality (e.g., corridor-year, country-year), o the time coverage and expected sample size, o the variables and matching keys required (e.g., reporter/partner/year), o a brief assessment of whether the data are available, accessible, and adequate for the intended test. Policy framing and presentation • Evaluate whether the main findings and flagged patterns are credible, plausible, or not supported/refuted by the evidence, given the statistical perimeter and known data/measurement constraints. Where results may be ambiguous or potentially artefactual, clearly explain why and propose precise corrective steps or wording. • Provide where appropriate additional clear, policy-safe implications of the screening results for FDI policy and investment promotion, tax policy and treaty design, and investment incentives/safeguards, explicitly distinguishing what can reasonably be inferred from the paper’s screening signal versus what requires additional due diligence or validation. • Propose where appropriate concrete messages for policymakers and/or revise the current messages, including recommended disclaimer language (e.g. signal does not equal proof, no inference of illegality), and a sequenced set of follow-up actions consistent with the tool’s early-warning purpose (e.g., statistical reconciliation, transparency/substance checks, targeted policy follow-up). • Where the consultant has relevant country-context experience on phantom/pass-through investment, SPEs, profit shifting, investment incentives, treaty policy, or related integrity/measurement work, propose draft text for a short box (“country case study”) that can be included in the paper to contextualize findings and highlight policy lessons (ensuring it is fit for publication, non-confidential and does not disclose restricted information). • Suggest improvements to the structure, clarity and presentation of the documents (including tables/figures/boxes) to ensure the policy narrative is coherent and policy-safe. Confidentiality and clearance • Treat all materials provided as confidential internal ESCWA drafts and do not circulate or disclose them externally. Any external use of the documents or results remains subject to ESCWA clearance.

An advanced university degree in economics, econometrics or related field is required. All candidates must submit a copy of the required educational degree. Incomplete applications will not be reviewed A minimum of 10 years of professional work experience in applied research and or policy work relevant to at least 2 of the following areas are required: 1. FDI statistics and international investment position/balance of payments compilation ,analysis, including IMF/OECD/UNCTAD standards and SPE/pass-through considerations. 2. Applied econometrics for international finance/trade, including gravity models. 3. Corporate structures and investment routing, including conduit/phantom/pass-through investment, profit shifting, beneficial ownership transparency and related financial integrity considerations. 4. Investment and tax policy implications, including investment incentives/safeguards, treaty and incentive design considerations, and policy-safe interpretation of empirical screening results. Knowledge of economic development issues of Arab countries is desirable. Publication in reputed journals and/or demonstrated record of high-quality technical outputs in these fields is desirable.

English and French are the working languages of the United Nations Secretariat; and Arabic is a working language of ESCWA. For this position, fluency in English is required. Note: “Fluency” equals a rating of ‘fluent’ in all four areas (speak, read, write, and understand) and “Knowledge of” equals a rating of ‘confident’ in two of the four areas.

Not available.