Examining the correlation between trade and income cannot identify the direction of causation between the two. Countries’ geographic characteristics, however, have important effects on trade, and are plausibly uncorrelated with other determinants of income. This paper therefore constructs measures of the geographic component of countries’ trade, and uses those measures to obtain instrumental variables estimates of the effect of trade on income. The results provide no evidence that ordinary least-squares estimates overstate the effects of trade. Further, they suggest that trade has a quantitatively large and robust, though only moderately statistically significant, positive effect on income. (JEL F43, 040)

/pdf/does-trade-cause-growth-532nt8hsja.pdf

Does Trade Cause Growth

We investigate whether income inequality affects subsequent growth in a cross-country sample for 1965-90, using the models of Barro (1997), Bleaney and Nishiyama (2002) and Sachs and Warner (1997), with negative results. We then investigate the evolution of income inequality over the same period and its correlation with growth. The dominating feature is inequality convergence across countries. This convergence has been significantly faster amongst developed countries. Growth does not appear to influence the evolution of inequality over time. Outline

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/81822/1/02-28.pdf

Economic growth and income inequality

World Investment Report

We describe the theory and practice of real GDP comparisons across countries and over time. Effective with version 8, the Penn World Table (PWT) will be taken over by the University of California, Davis and the University of Groningen, with continued input from Alan Heston at the University of Pennsylvania. Version 8 will expand on previous versions of PWT in three respects. First, it will distinguish real GDP on the expenditure side from real GDP on the output side, which differ by the terms of trade faced by countries. Second, it will distinguish growth rates of GDP based on national accounts data from growth rates that are benchmarked in multiple years to cross-country price data. Third, data on capital stocks will be reintroduced. Some illustrative results from PWT version 8 are discussed, including new results that show how the Penn effect is not emergent but a stable relationship over time.

/pdf/online-appendix-to-the-next-generation-of-the-penn-world-4tu31v8v90.pdf

Online Appendix to: The Next Generation of the Penn World Table*

Many countries compete against one another in attracting foreign investors by offering ever more generous incentive packages and justifying their actions with the productivity gains that are expected to accrue to domestic producers from knowledge externalities generated by foreign affiliates. Despite this being hugely important to public policy choices, there is little conclusive evidence indicating that domestic firms benefit from foreign presence in their sector. It is possible, though, that researchers have been looking for foreign direct investment (FDI) spillovers in the wrong place. Multinationals have an incentive to prevent information leakage that would enhance the performance of their local competitors in the same industry but at the same time may want to transfer knowledge to their local suppliers in other sectors. Spillovers from FDI may be, therefore, more likely to take place through backward linkages - that is, contacts between domestic suppliers of intermediate inputs and their multinational clients - and thus would not have been captured by the earlier literature. This paper focuses on the understudied issue of FDI spillovers through backward linkages and goes beyond existing studies by shedding some light on factors driving this phenomenon. It also improves over existing literature by addressing several econometric problems that may have biased the results of earlier research. Based on a firm-level panel data set from Lithuania, the estimation results are consistent with the existence of productivity spillovers. They suggest that a 10 percent increase in the foreign presence in downstream sectors is associated with 0.38 percent rise in output of each domestic firm in the supplying industry. The data indicate that these spillovers are not restricted geographically, since local firms seem to benefit from the operation of downstream foreign affiliates on their own, as well as in other regions. The results further show that greater productivity benefits are associated with domestic-market, rather than export-oriented, foreign affiliates. But no difference is detected between the effects of fully-owned foreign firms and those with joint domestic and foreign ownership. The findings of a positive correlation between productivity growth of domestic firms and the increase in multinational presence in downstream sectors should not, however, be interpreted as a call for subsidizing FDI. These results are consistent with the existence of knowledge spillovers from foreign affiliates to their local suppliers, but they may also be a result of increased competition in upstream sectors. While the former case would call for offering FDI incentive packages, it would not be the optimal policy in the latter. Certainly more research is needed to disentangle these two effects. This paper - a product of Trade, Development Research Group - is part of a larger effort in the group to study the contribution of trade and foreign direct investment to technology transfer.

Does Foreign Direct Investment Increase the Productivity of Domestic Firms? In Search of Spillovers Through Backward Linkages

Governments often promote inward foreign investment to encourage technology 'spillovers' from foreign to domestic firms. Using panel data on Venezuelan plants, the authors find that foreign equity participation is positively correlated with plant productivity (the 'own-plant' effect), but this relationship is only robust for small enterprises. They then test for spillovers from joint ventures to plants with no foreign investment. Foreign investment negatively affects the productivity of domestically owned plants. The net impact of foreign investment, taking into account these two offsetting effects, is quite small. The gains from foreign investment appear to be entirely captured by joint ventures.

/pdf/do-domestic-firms-benefit-from-direct-foreign-investment-1mh59aw3qf.pdf

Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela

Are there positive spillovers from direct foreign investment

https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1163&context=mgmt_papers

Spillovers, Foreign Investment, and Export Behavior

This paper compares the association between many popular proxies for openness and the rate of GDP growth, as well as the results from cross-section and panel estimation, controlling for country effects. The results suggest that using period averages versus annual data critically affects the strength of the association between openness and growth. The paper reviews the empirical literature on openness and technological change. It discusses the dataset for this paper and the empirical specification, while also presenting the main results. The sensitivity of the results to the inclusion of both macroeconomic variables and country size are also tested. It concludes with an agenda for future research.

Openness and Growth: A Time-Series, Cross-Country Analysis for Developing Countries

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w5221/w5221.pdf

Ann Harrison

Papers

Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela

Are there positive spillovers from direct foreign investment

Spillovers, Foreign Investment, and Export Behavior

Openness and Growth: A Time-Series, Cross-Country Analysis for Developing Countries

Openness and Growth: A Time-Series, Cross-Country Analysis for Developing Countries