scholarly journals Drivers of Globalization of R&D Investment by U.S. Multinational Enterprises: Evidence from Industry-Level Data

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yixiao Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
The United States ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Theoretical Understanding ◽  
Industry Level ◽  
Country Level ◽  
Level Data ◽  
D Investment ◽  
Industry Level Data

<p>Existing country-level and firm-level studies have shed light on the mechanisms driving the globalization of R&amp;D investment by multinational enterprises. However, there is a lack of industry-level evidence on this issue, which is much needed for the robustness of the theoretical and conceptual framework developed from country- and firm-level studies. Therefore, this study examines the determinants of overseas R&amp;D investment by multinational enterprises from a single country, the United States, using an industry-level panel dataset. This study covers U.S. multinational enterprises in seven two-digit-level North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) manufacturing industries in twenty-three countries over the period 1999-2008.</p>The empirical findings suggest that technology-seeking motive, technology-adaptation motive, and access to an abundant pool of researchers exert positive impact on the R&amp;D intensity of U.S.-based multinational enterprises in a host country. The roles of investment position, institutional quality and distance are not found to be robust. These findings are largely consistent with the current theoretical understanding on R&amp;D globalization by multinational enterprises. The findings point to the need for policies that strengthen domestic R&amp;D stock, enhance human capital endowment and support a domestic market that is open to the world in order to attract overseas R&amp;D investment by multinational enterprises.

The determinants of ESG in the banking sector of MENA region: a trend or necessity?

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rim El Khoury ◽  
Nohade Nasrallah ◽  
Bahaaeddin Alareeni
Keyword(s):  
Banking Sector ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Mena Region ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Country Level ◽  
Driving Mechanisms ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Level Of Economic Development

Purpose As reporting environmental, social and governance (ESG) information is not yet mandatory in all countries, it is intriguing to understand ESG’s underlying driving mechanisms. This study aims to investigate ESG determinants in the banking sector of the Middle East and North Africa countries. Design/methodology/approach The authors gather data for 38 listed banks for the period 2011–2019. The data used is threefold as follows: data related to ESG; firm-level; and country-level data. While ESG and firm’s level data are taken from Refinitiv, country-level data are extracted from the World Bank. Using panel regression, the authors test the effect of firm- and country-specific variables on the overall ESG score and its pillars. Findings Results indicate that banks’ ESG scores are negatively affected by performance and positively affected by size. The level of economic development exerts a negative impact on the environmental pillar while the social development exerts a positive impact on ESG and governance pillar. Corruption is the only country-level that gathers a homogenous effect on ESG scores. Finally, the three pillars follow heterogeneous patterns. Originality/value This study extends the scope of previous studies by introducing new country-level independent variables to contribute to the understanding of ESG antecedents.

The World KLEMS Initiative

2018 ◽  
pp. 662-698 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dale W. Jorgenson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Growth ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intermediate Inputs ◽  
Industry Level ◽  
Level Data ◽  
The World ◽  
Industry Level Data ◽  
Purchasing Power Parities ◽  
Productivity Gap

The World KLEMS Initiative generates industry-level data on outputs, inputs, and productivity. Productivity is output per unit of all inputs. The inputs consist of the primary factors of production—capital (K) and labor (L)—and the intermediate inputs: energy (E), materials (M), and services (S). Industry-level data are indispensable for analyzing the sources of economic growth. Productivity gaps between two countries are defined in terms of differences in productivity levels. These differences are measured by linking productivity levels for each country by purchasing power parities for outputs and inputs. The large productivity gap between the United States and Japan in 1955 gradually closed until 1995. Since then, Japanese productivity has been stagnant, while US productivity has continued to grow. The widening productivity gap can be traced to a small number of sectors, mainly in trade and services.

scholarly journals Moving on from New Zealand’s productivity paradox

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Nolan ◽  
Huon Fraser ◽  
Paul Conway
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Linked Data ◽  
Recent Progress ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Productivity Paradox ◽  
Industry Level ◽  
Level Data ◽  
High Level ◽  
Industry Level Data

For many years New Zealand’s productivity performance has been disappointing. The authors outline recent progress in understanding what could be driving this performance. They draw on Statistics New Zealand industry-level data, before summarising insights from firm-level research using linked data sets (the Longitudinal Business Database (LBD)). They conclude with a high-level summary of directions of reform that could help improve New Zealand’s productivity performance.

scholarly journals Competing for Capitals: The Great Fragmentation of the firm and varieties of FDI attraction profiles in the European Union

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arjan Reurink ◽  
Javier Garcia-Bernardo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Holding Companies ◽  
Investment Projects ◽  
Country Level ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Shared Service ◽  
Investment Capital ◽  
Fdi Attraction

Economic globalization has pressured countries to compete with one another for firms’ investment capital. Analyses of such competition draw heavily on foreign direct investment (FDI) statistics. In and of themselves, however, FDI statistics are merely a quantification of the value of firms’ investment projects and tell us little about the heterogeneity of these projects and the distinct patterns of competitive dynamics between countries they generate. Here, we create a more sophisticated understanding of international competition for FDI by pointing out its variegated nature. To do so, we trace the “great fragmentation of the firm” to distinguish between five categories of FDI: manufacturing affiliates, shared service centers, R&amp;D facilities, intermediate holding companies, and top holding companies. Using a novel combination of firm-level and country-level data, we identify for each of these different categories which European Union member states are most successful in attracting it, what macro-institutional and tax arrangements are present in them, and what benefits they receive from it in terms of tax revenues and employment creation. In this way, we are able to identify five distinct “FDI attraction profiles” and show that competition increasingly appears to take place amongst subsets of countries that compete for similar categories of FDI.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document