Americans have long been ambivalent toward foreign direct investment in the United States. Foreign multinational corporations may be a source of capital, technology, and jobs. But what are the implications for US workers, firms, communities, and consumers as the United States remains the most popular destination for foreign multinational investment? Theodore H. Moran and Lindsay Oldenski find that foreign multinational firms that invest in the United States are, alongside US-headquartered American multinationals, the most productive and highest-paying segment of the US economy. These firms conduct more research and development, provide more value added to US domestic inputs, and export more goods and services than other firms in the US economy. The superior technology and management techniques they employ spill over horizontally and vertically to improve the performance of local firms and workers. As the United States wants not only to expand employment but also create well-paying jobs that reverse the falling earnings that many US workers and middle class families have suffered in recent decades, it is more important than ever to enhance the United States as a destination for multinational investors

From the colonial era to 1914, America was a debtor nation in international accounts--owing more to foreigners than foreigners owed to us. By 1914 it was the world's largest debtor nation. Mira Wilkins provides the first complete history of foreign investment in the United States during that period. The book shows why the United States was attractive to foreign investors and traces the changing role of foreign capital in the nation's development, covering both portfolio and direct investment. The immense new wave of foreign investment in the United States today, and our return to the status of a debtor nation--once again the world's largest debtor nation--makes this strong exposition far more than just historically interesting. Wilkins reviews foreign portfolio investments in government securities (federal, state, and local) and in corporate stocks and bonds, as well as foreign direct investments in land and real estate, manufacturing plants, and even such service-sector activities as accounting, insurance, banking, and mortgage lending. She finds that between 1776 and 1875, public-sector securities (principally federal and state securities) drew in the most long-term foreign investment, whereas from 1875 to 1914 the private sector was the main attraction. The construction of the American railroad system called on vast portfolio investments from abroad; there was also sizable direct investment in mining, cattle ranching, the oil industry, the chemical industry, flour production, and breweries, as well as the production of rayon, thread, and even submarines. In addition, there were foreign stakes in making automobile and electrical and nonelectrical machinery. America became the leading industrial country of the world at the very time when it was a debtor nation in world accounts.

Examines foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States, the national security concerns associated with this investment, and treatment of these concerns under US policy. This book asks whether the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) process can be improved and answers in the affirmative.Does foreign ownership of American businesses pose a threat to the United States (like the abortive attempt by CNOOC, a Chinese company, to purchase Unocal during the summer of 2005)? This important new book examines foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States, the national security concerns associated with this investment, and treatment of these concerns under US policy. It asks whether the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) process can be improved and answers in the affirmative. The book starts by looking at the review process for foreign takeovers of US firms (including a historical review), looks at the economic and political impact on the United States of foreign direct investment, takes a detailed look at issues relating to FDI posed by the rise of China as an economic and geopolitical power and finally suggests some changes to the Exon-Florio process.

The share of the US economy controlled by foreign firms has tripled since the mid-1970s. The authors find that foreign firms appear to invest in the United States mainly to exploit their individual advantages in management and technology - the same reasons why American firms invest abroad - rather than because the United States is now running large deficits and has become a large debtor nation. Foreign-owned firms do not pay lower wages or shift good jobs and research and development away from the United States. Foreign-owned firms and especially Japanese firms do, however, have a marked tendency to import more of their production inputs. The authors warn that the President's new legislative authority to screen FDI on national security grounds could easily be abused, but endorse using this authority to ensure access to critical technologies or production processes including a requirement on some foreign firms to invest in the United States. They propose new international rules to minimize governmental interference and harmonize policies toward multinational firms.

This volume gathers the cutting edge of new research on foreign direct investment and host country economic performance, and presents the most sophisticated critiques of current and past inquiries. It presents new results, concludes with an analysis of the implications for contemporary policy debates, and proposed new avenues for future research.

Mira Wilkins, the foremost authority on foreign investment in the United States, continues her magisterial history in a work covering the critical years 1914-1945. Wilkins includes all long-term inward foreign investments, both portfolio (by individuals and institutions) and direct (by multinationals), across such enterprises as chemicals and pharmaceuticals, textiles, insurance, banks and mortgage providers, other service sector companies, and mining and oil industries. She traces the complex course of inward investments, presents the experiences of the investors, and examines the political and economic conditions, particularly the range of public policies, that affected foreign investments. She also offers valuable discussions on the intricate cross-investments of inward and outward involvements and the legal precedents that had long-term consequences on foreign investment. At the start of World War I, the United States was a debtor nation. By the end of World War II, it was a creditor nation with the strongest economy in the world. Integrating economic, business, technological, legal, and diplomatic history, this comprehensive study is essential to understanding the internationalization of the American economy, as well as broader global trends.

What makes a country attractive to foreign investors? To what extent do conditions of governance and politics matter? This book provides the most systematic exploration to date of these crucial questions at the nexus of politics and economics. Using quantitative data and interviews with investment promotion agencies, investment location consultants, political risk insurers, and decision makers at multinational corporations, Nathan Jensen arrives at a surprising conclusion: Countries may be competing for international capital, but government fiscal policy--both taxation and spending--has little impact on multinationals' investment decisions. Although government policy has a limited ability to determine patterns of foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows, political institutions are central to explaining why some countries are more successful in attracting international capital. First, democratic institutions lower political risks for multinational corporations. Indeed, they lead to massive amounts of foreign direct investment. Second, politically federal institutions, in contrast to fiscally federal institutions, lower political risks for multinationals and allow host countries to attract higher levels of FDI inflows. Third, the International Monetary Fund, often cited as a catalyst for promoting foreign investment, actually deters multinationals from investment in countries under IMF programs. Even after controlling for the factors that lead countries to seek IMF support, IMF agreements are associated with much lower levels of FDI inflows.

Over the past twenty years, foreign direct investments have spurred widespread liberalization of the foreign direct investment (FDI) regulatory framework. By opening up to foreign investors and encouraging FDI, which could result in increased capital and market access, many countries have improved the operational conditions for foreign affiliates and strengthened standards of treatment and protection. By assuring investors that their investment will be legally protected with closed bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and double taxation treaties (DTTs), this in turn creates greater interest in FDI.