Skip to content


Harry Cassin
Publisher and Editor

Andy Spalding
Senior Editor

Jessica Tillipman
Senior Editor

Bill Steinman
Senior Editor

Richard L. Cassin
Editor at Large

Elizabeth K. Spahn
Editor Emeritus

Cody Worthington
Contributing Editor

Julie DiMauro
Contributing Editor

Thomas Fox
Contributing Editor

Marc Alain Bohn
Contributing Editor

Bill Waite
Contributing Editor

Shruti J. Shah
Contributing Editor

Russell A. Stamets
Contributing Editor

Richard Bistrong
Contributing Editor

Eric Carlson
Contributing Editor

Andy Spalding: From Cuba, a Plea for Revolutionary Compliance

There is nothing quite like a week-long trip to Cuba to more keenly appreciate the prospect, and the perils, of foreign investment in developing countries.

For the Latin American experts with whom I traveled, foreign investment is not a catalyst to growth but an instrument of imperialism and oppression. The United States is not an exemplar of best practices but a belligerent and self-serving bully. Sadly, there is no shortage of evidence in Cuba to support this view. 

American companies present in pre-revolutionary Cuba were all-too-cozy with a military dictator, likely engaging in bribery and worse. The accouterments of that dictator’s grandiose corruption remain on public display, reminding Cubans of relationship with the U.S. they do not wish to replicate.

Unlike the Castros, images of Che Guevara — the martyred hero, the symbol of not-quite-fulfilled revolutionary hope — are everywhere. One building bore his image and the phrase, “Hasta la revolucion siempre,” which roughly translates as, “always work toward the revolution.” Even progressive economists who speak of incremental market reforms still claim to hold tight to “revolutionary ideals.”  But if those ideals are no longer state ownership of the means of production and guaranteed income equality, what are they?

The revolution was not against capitalism, but against imperialism. Cubans want transactions of mutual benefit; commerce without exploitation; foreign investment that strengthens and stimulates rather than extracting and depleting. They want foreign companies who will ask the Cuban government to become more transparent, not less. And they need these corporations’ home governments to enforce law beyond their borders, no longer allowing their companies to operate in a lawless sphere, as they once did.

So can a new era begin?  The FCPA is designed, in a very real sense, to counter the corporate excesses of our past. Its aim is to deter the very bribery that surely was the order of the day in pre-revolutionary Cuba, and elsewhere. The FCPA is thus an antidote to imperialism. Are we, the readers of the FCPA Blog, committed to this ideal? Have we internalized it? Have our companies? Are we committed to doing better than our predecessors? Do we believe that economic integration can promote collective prosperity? Or does the Brexit vote signal that it’s all a bunch of, well, poppycock?

We bear the burden of proof. We must demonstrate to our friends in Cuba, and Iran, and any other country whose history teaches deep suspicion of Western companies, that this is a new era. Laws, and norms, are different than they once were. We are required to behave better, and we are committed to doing so.

And so to my capitalist friends, I plea for revolutionary compliance, for international commerce that strengthens and dignifies economies and governments and people. And to my Latin Americanist colleagues, I say, the image in your mind of the ravaging, lawless corporation may today be something of a caricature. Or at least, there are tens and hundreds of thousands of professionals around the world, including but not limited to the readers of this blog, working to make it so.​


Andy Spalding is a Senior Editor of the FCPA Blog and Associate Professor at the University of Richmond School of Law. He’ll be a speaker at the FCPA Blog NYC Conference 2016.

Share this post



  1. Very good, timely and insightful article.

  2. If Cuba would have kept the "rapacious" US corporations in cahoots with the people in power instead of going through a so called revolution, today it would have been much better off than it is.
    The Castro brothers have destroyed the agriculture, the industry and the economy and have become personally billionaires in the process.

  3. Cuba not only rejects USA bu their imperialistic condition. Cuba applies radical Marxism.

    In more inner and fundamental concept, Marxism don't accept that bourgeois or management action participation in creating value of change, the ultimate origin of prices.

    This is developed assuming entrepreneur as a parasitic o exploiter. as no-person only target of class hate. This idea is explained to "militants" as the true class conscience. People are classified as conscious or unconscious.

    To prevent bourgeois appear they don't pay to administrators of industrial o agricultural enterprises more than a wage and management work left unpaid. Additionally independent workers are charged with heavy taxes.

    The only, till now, understanding between American Industries with Marxist radical regimes is thru cheap labor supplier

  4. "The revolution was not against capitalism, but against imperialism."

    Really, so Cuba is home to a thriving and well regulated private economy that makes it one of the most prosperous places in the Western Hemisphere? Oh, just the opposite of that. It's actually a basket case mired in the corruption of a centralized economy.

    The only thing rapacious that Cubans have experienced in the last 60 years is not US corporations but their own government agencies and the Party.

Comments are closed for this article!