The Intermediary Power of Citizenship by Investment Firms

Citizenship is traditionally a state-based, non-commercial, and sovereignty-central institution. Yet, through the proliferation of investment-based citizenship acquisition, it is exposed to market dynamics and economic power. This builds on, and contributes to, the currently mounting global economic inequalities that have been observed by Thomas Piketty, Quinn Slobodian, and others. Processes of investment-based citizenship (or residency) are facilitated by private consultancy firms. Such firms constitute intermediaries in citizenship processes in that they link individual “buyers” (investors from the global economic elite) and “sellers” of citizenship (governments who offer citizenship by investment, CBI). They are involved at all stages of investment citizenship processes – program development and reform, marketing, preparing applications for individual investors, and carrying out background checks. Scholarly work on CBI has mainly centered on state actors and on individuals that seek a new citizenship through economic investments. In contrast, our focus is on the less researched role of private firms in CBI processes. This paper explores and compares the role of investment citizenship firms in domestic political contexts. We ask: What role does the CBI industry play in national politics? What types of agency and power underpin the industry’s intermediary position in CBI processes and regulatory politics? Among countries currently having active CBI programs, we explore and compare the role of the industry in two countries of different size and economic strength, namely Turkey and St. Kitts and Nevis. The power of transnational CBI firms can be expected to be greater in relation to small island country governments than in relation to governments of larger countries with greater bureaucratic capacity and economic clout. Moreover, the degree of political contention around CBI varies between country contexts. Our empirical material is based on industry and government publications on CBI programs and on interviews with country representatives of large and small CBI firms. We also draw on sources from national political debates, government policy-making processes, media reporting, civil society reports, and previous research. On this basis we show that the intermediary position of investment citizenship firms involves several forms of power in the short and long term. Drawing on our case studies, we offer empirically-based illustrations of the instrumental, discursive, and structural power that stems from the intermediary position of acting on behalf of both governments and the global economic elite seeking a second citizenship. While aiming to expand CBI-programs, the CBI industry also navigates political contention and rapid regulatory change on citizenship by investment in domestic and international contexts.