美国跨国公司与美国经济利益:旧争论的新维度

T. Moran
{"title":"美国跨国公司与美国经济利益:旧争论的新维度","authors":"T. Moran","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1437673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 2008 election rekindled debate about whether US multinationals shift technology across borders and relocate production in ways that might harm workers and communities at home. President Obama now pledges to end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas. The preoccupation about the behavior of American multinationals takes three forms: (1) that US-based multinational corporations may follow a strategy that leads them to abandon the home economy, leaving the workers and communities to cope on their own with few appealing alternatives after the multinationals have left; (2) worse, that US-based multinational corporations may not just abandon home sites but drain off capital, substitute production abroad for exports, and \"hollow out\" the domestic economy in a zero-sum process that damages those left behind; and (3) worst, that US-based multinational corporations may deploy a rent-gathering apparatus that switches from sharing supranormal profits and externalities with US workers and communities to extracting rents from the United States. Each contains a hypothetical outcome that can be compared with contemporary evidence from the United States and other home countries. This working paper shows that multinational corporations do not locate their operations in a zero-sum manner that favors host economies at the expense of the home economy. The two-way flow of inward and outward investment does not create an outcome that can be reasonably characterized in any way as \"hollowing out\" the home economy. The evidence consistently shows that the expansion of MNC operations abroad and the strengthening of MNC operations in the home country are complementary, and the answer to the counterfactual--would the home country be better off, or would workers in the home country be better off, if home-country MNCs were prevented from engaging in outward investment?--is indisputably negative. Making it more difficult to engage in outward investment would not strengthen the home economy in the United States. Quite the contrary, placing obstacles in the way of US multinationals using the United States as the center for conducting their global operations would leave them, their suppliers, their workers, and the communities where they are located worse off and less competitive in the world economy.","PeriodicalId":14396,"journal":{"name":"International Trade","volume":"98 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"American Multinationals and American Economic Interests: New Dimensions to an Old Debate\",\"authors\":\"T. Moran\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1437673\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The 2008 election rekindled debate about whether US multinationals shift technology across borders and relocate production in ways that might harm workers and communities at home. President Obama now pledges to end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas. The preoccupation about the behavior of American multinationals takes three forms: (1) that US-based multinational corporations may follow a strategy that leads them to abandon the home economy, leaving the workers and communities to cope on their own with few appealing alternatives after the multinationals have left; (2) worse, that US-based multinational corporations may not just abandon home sites but drain off capital, substitute production abroad for exports, and \\\"hollow out\\\" the domestic economy in a zero-sum process that damages those left behind; and (3) worst, that US-based multinational corporations may deploy a rent-gathering apparatus that switches from sharing supranormal profits and externalities with US workers and communities to extracting rents from the United States. Each contains a hypothetical outcome that can be compared with contemporary evidence from the United States and other home countries. This working paper shows that multinational corporations do not locate their operations in a zero-sum manner that favors host economies at the expense of the home economy. The two-way flow of inward and outward investment does not create an outcome that can be reasonably characterized in any way as \\\"hollowing out\\\" the home economy. The evidence consistently shows that the expansion of MNC operations abroad and the strengthening of MNC operations in the home country are complementary, and the answer to the counterfactual--would the home country be better off, or would workers in the home country be better off, if home-country MNCs were prevented from engaging in outward investment?--is indisputably negative. Making it more difficult to engage in outward investment would not strengthen the home economy in the United States. Quite the contrary, placing obstacles in the way of US multinationals using the United States as the center for conducting their global operations would leave them, their suppliers, their workers, and the communities where they are located worse off and less competitive in the world economy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Trade\",\"volume\":\"98 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Trade\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1437673\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Trade","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1437673","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

2008年的大选再次引发了一场辩论,即美国跨国公司是否会跨境转移技术,并以可能伤害美国工人和社区的方式重新安置生产。奥巴马总统现在承诺结束对那些将工作岗位转移到海外的公司的税收减免。对美国跨国公司行为的关注有三种形式:(1)总部设在美国的跨国公司可能会采取一种战略,导致它们放弃本国经济,让工人和社区在跨国公司离开后独自应对,几乎没有什么有吸引力的选择;(2)更糟糕的是,总部设在美国的跨国公司不仅可能放弃本土,还可能流失资本,以海外生产取代出口,并在零和过程中“掏空”国内经济,损害那些落后的国家;(3)最糟糕的是,总部位于美国的跨国公司可能会部署一种收租机制,从与美国工人和社区分享异常利润和外部性,转变为从美国榨取租金。每一个都包含一个假设的结果,可以与来自美国和其他母国的当代证据进行比较。这份工作报告表明,跨国公司不会以零和方式将业务定位在有利于东道国经济而牺牲本国经济的地方。对内和对外投资的双向流动不会产生以任何方式合理地描述为国内经济“空心化”的结果。证据一致表明,跨国公司海外业务的扩张和跨国公司在母国业务的加强是互补的,并且反事实的答案是——如果母国跨国公司被阻止从事对外投资,母国的情况会更好,还是母国工人的情况会更好?——无疑是消极的。加大对外投资的难度并不会增强美国的国内经济。恰恰相反,在美国跨国公司将美国作为其全球业务中心的道路上设置障碍,将使他们、他们的供应商、他们的工人和他们所在的社区变得更糟,在世界经济中竞争力下降。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
American Multinationals and American Economic Interests: New Dimensions to an Old Debate
The 2008 election rekindled debate about whether US multinationals shift technology across borders and relocate production in ways that might harm workers and communities at home. President Obama now pledges to end tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas. The preoccupation about the behavior of American multinationals takes three forms: (1) that US-based multinational corporations may follow a strategy that leads them to abandon the home economy, leaving the workers and communities to cope on their own with few appealing alternatives after the multinationals have left; (2) worse, that US-based multinational corporations may not just abandon home sites but drain off capital, substitute production abroad for exports, and "hollow out" the domestic economy in a zero-sum process that damages those left behind; and (3) worst, that US-based multinational corporations may deploy a rent-gathering apparatus that switches from sharing supranormal profits and externalities with US workers and communities to extracting rents from the United States. Each contains a hypothetical outcome that can be compared with contemporary evidence from the United States and other home countries. This working paper shows that multinational corporations do not locate their operations in a zero-sum manner that favors host economies at the expense of the home economy. The two-way flow of inward and outward investment does not create an outcome that can be reasonably characterized in any way as "hollowing out" the home economy. The evidence consistently shows that the expansion of MNC operations abroad and the strengthening of MNC operations in the home country are complementary, and the answer to the counterfactual--would the home country be better off, or would workers in the home country be better off, if home-country MNCs were prevented from engaging in outward investment?--is indisputably negative. Making it more difficult to engage in outward investment would not strengthen the home economy in the United States. Quite the contrary, placing obstacles in the way of US multinationals using the United States as the center for conducting their global operations would leave them, their suppliers, their workers, and the communities where they are located worse off and less competitive in the world economy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Case for Free Trade Gray Areas Developing Countries China Trade Policy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1