A persistent puzzle in international political economy (IPE) is the lack of a robust correlation between foreign direct investment (FDI) and poverty alleviation in emerging markets. This is especially confusing given the compelling theory that predicts poverty reductions following FDI increases (Moran 1999). At least three general channels have been hypothesized linking FDI inflows to reductions in the poverty level (Hanson 2001). FDI is thought to contribute to poverty alleviation through (i) spillovers of labor productivity, technology, and corporate governance practices; (ii) market effects, as foreign invested enterprises (FIEs) contract domestic producers and sell their products in the host country, reducing consumer costs through competition; and (iii) revenue effects, as taxes paid by FIEs increase host country coffers and subsidize transfers to poorer citizens of the country. For all of the hypothesized channels, the empirical support is mixed at best. Figure ⇓ demonstrates the lack of observed correlation using a variety of poverty cutoffs, and the analysis is robust to using changes in FDI stocks as well. Fig 2 The Correlation between Poverty and Foreign Investment Flows By far the weakest support has been found for the revenue channel. There has been very little convincing work demonstrating that FIEs offer substantial increases in revenue above domestic firms, and even less evidence that FDI spurs equalizing welfare transfers. At a distance, this non-finding is the greatest enigma, as budget data are the easiest of the dependent variables to collect and analyze. Explanations are possible to explain the inability of FDI tax revenue to reach the poorest. The first basket of answers is methodological, including measurement error in poverty rates data, biased selection of foreign investors into wealthier states where poverty increases would be less obvious, and differing reporting rules for FDI in host countries leading to noisy estimates. The Beramendi and Wibbels contribution …