Diffusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties 817 30 25 ● Dyads signing BITs ● 20 15- 10- ● All dyads at risk 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year Note:Data points shown are for dyads signing BITs. FIGURE 2.Mean difference in GDP per capita between dyad members president after completion of six BITs in 198620 that,"[o]ur BIT approach fol- lowed similar programs that had been undertaken with considerable success by a number of European countries,including the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom,since the early 1960s."21 By the late 1980s,most analysts would agree that governments in countries home to large multinational corporations (MNCs)had nearly converged on a single treaty model.Developing countries could, increasingly,opt to take it or to leave it.As Figure 1 attests,many did the former. Early on,BITs were primarily agreements between countries of starkly varying developmental levels and political traditions.Figure 2,which plots the mean dif- ference in gross domestic product(GDP)per capita between BIT partners as well as that between states in all other dyads"at risk"of signing in a given year,dem- onstrates that the economic differences within these dyads have declined fairly substantially over time,even while the wealth disparities between non-BIT dyads have increased.As is the case with wealth,the "political gap"between new BIT signers has also diminished significantly over the past thirty years.Figure 3 plots the mean difference in the level of democracy (as measured by Polity scores)of 20.Turkey,Morocco,Haiti,Panama,Senegal,and Zaire. 21.George P.Schultz,transmission letter to the president recommending transmission of the U.S.-Turkey Bilateral Investment Treaty,1985.Available at (http://www.state.gov/documents/ organization/43615.pdf).Accessed 12 July 2006.president after completion of six BITs in 198620 that, “@o#ur BIT approach fol￾lowed similar programs that had been undertaken with considerable success by a number of European countries, including the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom, since the early 1960s+”21 By the late 1980s, most analysts would agree that governments in countries home to large multinational corporations ~MNCs! had nearly converged on a single treaty model+ Developing countries could, increasingly, opt to take it or to leave it+ As Figure 1 attests, many did the former+ Early on, BITs were primarily agreements between countries of starkly varying developmental levels and political traditions+ Figure 2, which plots the mean dif￾ference in gross domestic product ~GDP! per capita between BIT partners as well as that between states in all other dyads “at risk” of signing in a given year, dem￾onstrates that the economic differences within these dyads have declined fairly substantially over time, even while the wealth disparities between non-BIT dyads have increased+ As is the case with wealth, the “political gap” between new BIT signers has also diminished significantly over the past thirty years+ Figure 3 plots the mean difference in the level of democracy ~as measured by Polity scores! of 20+ Turkey, Morocco, Haiti, Panama, Senegal, and Zaire+ 21+ George P+ Schultz, transmission letter to the president recommending transmission of the U+S+-Turkey Bilateral Investment Treaty, 1985+ Available at ^http:00www+state+gov0documents0 organization043615+pdf&+ Accessed 12 July 2006+ FIGURE 2. Mean difference in GDP per capita between dyad members Diffusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties 817