DOMESTIC EFFECTS OF FOREIGN INVESTMENTS

Domestic Effects of Foreign Investments

Table of content

CHAPTER I4

Introduction4

CHAPTER II- LITERATE REVIEW7

Introduction7

Social Structures of Accumulation and Spatialization11

CHAPTER III- METHODOLOGY19

Methods19

Dependent Variables21

Key Independent Variables22

Control Variables24

CHAPTER IV- RESULT27

Analysis27

CHAPTER V- CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION38

Conclusion38

Analysis41

References45

APPENDIX54

Descriptive Statistics, Descriptions, and Sources for All Variables, 1990-200854

TABLE 1: Determinants of Organizational Capacity, 1990-200854

TABLE 2: Determinants of Labor Dissent, 1990-200856

TABLE 3: Determinants of Economic Standing, 1990-200858

TABLE 4: Comparison of Effects of Lagged Values and Rates of Change of Foreign Investment Variables60

Analysis

Emergent trends in the globalization of the economy and the spatial restructuring of work portend many new challenges for workers around the world. Among the issues that have received insufficient attention is the impact of inward foreign direct investment (FDI) on labor in the U.S. Previous research has been inconclusive and plagued by a lack of empirical breadth and by insufficient theoretical explanations. In this article, we first outline a theory of Spatialization as an extension of the social structures of accumulation framework to anticipate the likely consequences of FDI for workers. Second, we undertake an analysis of the forty-eight contiguous American states for the years 1990-96 of the consequences of inward FDI for labor's organizational capacity, labor dissent, and the economic standing of labor. Our analysis demonstrates that inward FDI has a consistent negative effect on these labor outcomes that differs for manufacturing and nonmanufacturing FDI. We suggest that our findings are consistent with Spatialization theory and inform theoretical debates on globalization and labor in the contemporary U.S.

Domestic Effects of Foreign Investments

Chapter I

Introduction

At the end of the twentieth century, few trends command more attention than economic globalization. Recent statistics on international trade, financial flows, and particularly foreign direct investment (FDI) bespeak an unprecedented level of interconnectedness in the global economy (Berger & Dore 2008). As Graham (2008) stresses, "During the past ten years, a massive surge in FDI has led to the deepest integration of the world's economy in history. FDI as a share of the world's total fixed capital formation rose almost 80 percent" (1). Increasingly, scholars of international political economy contend that FDI has surpassed trade and financial flows as the most important dimension of globalization. Sassen (2006) shows that in the 1992s FDI grew three times faster than export trade. Wade (2008) notes that FDI flows into the U.S. quadrupled during the 1992s and grew three times faster than output.

The remarkable aspect of recent patterns of economic globalization is the increasing interconnectedness of the advanced capitalist countries in North America, Western Europe, and Japan, with the U.S. economy leading the way (Ohmae 2007). Inflows and outflows of FDI among these advanced capitalist countries have spurred much of this economic integration (Wade 2008). In fact, 85% of worldwide FDI flows occur among the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan (Boyer & Drache 2008). The U.S., in particular, headquarters more multinational firms, originates more outflowing FDI, and, importantly, hosts more inflowing FDI than any other country in the world. Although capital flight or the outflow of FDI from the ...