Foreign direct investment and the demand for protection in the United States

1996 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 565-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
John B. Goodman ◽  
Debora Spar ◽  
David B. Yoffie

Over the past decade, foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States has grown dramatically, changing the composition of many U.S. industries and bringing foreignowned firms into the domestic political process. Presumably, FDI also has affected the politics of protection, by both altering the domestic coalitions around protectionist demands and shifting the potential benefits that protectionism is likely to bring. To understand this process, we create and test a model that examines the level of inward investment and the extent to which this investment either complements or substitutes for existing import levels. Import-complementing investment, we suggest, will cause a split in protectionist demands, with local producers favoring protectionism and foreign investors pushing for free trade. Import-substituting investment, by contrast, will create convergent interests between local and foreign producers. In both cases, inward FDI reshuffles traditional alliances and demands for protection, challenging many prevailing views about protectionism in the United States.

Significance The authorities went ahead with the arrest of Nika Melia, leader of the opposition United National Movement (UNM), on February 23 even after the prime minister resigned in protest. Georgian Dream's actions have caused concern in Western capitals that approved its election victory when the opposition cried foul. Impacts The crisis is a setback for the government's stated plan to apply for EU membership in 2024. There is growing talk in the United States about individual sanctions targeting Ivanishvili and his associates. Political turmoil will harm hopes of foreign direct investment and the imminent Anaklia port tender.


Significance Last week, its partners in the ‘Quad’ grouping -- the United States, Japan and Australia -- agreed to help increase its vaccine manufacturing and exporting capacity. Each of the Quad members is wary of China, which like India is gifting and selling coronavirus jabs around the world. Impacts India’s manufacturing sector will attract more foreign direct investment. Greater cooperation over supply chains will help strengthen India-Australia ties. Indian pharma will in the long term aim to ease dependence on imports of active pharmaceutical ingredients from China.


2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Blanco Jimenez ◽  
J Valdez ◽  
Martha Fasci

Key words: Enterprises, Foreign Direct Investment, management style, Mexico, United StatesAbstract: The United States and Mexico are two countries with vast cultural and economic differences, but their bilateral relations oftrade and Foreign Direct Investment (FDl) are very close. Their geographic proximity and their membership to NAFTA have increased the US-Mexican goods trade and have multiplied the Foreign Direct Investment (FDl) inflows into Mexico by seven folds during 1988-2000. Onthe other hand, the Mexican FDI inflows into the United States even though enjoyed a steady growth during last years, but without asubstantial ncrease. Although, there are some outside oolitical nd economical fctors that have influenced this evolution ofFDI in both countries, there are some managerial fctors that have made it difficult to integrate he Mexican enterprises with the US ones. Some researches confirm that in Mexico, cultural aspects influence in all possible ways to make business. These are different from the American management style, so the Mexican enterprises that want o invest in the American market must adopt the American management system, in order to have a successful investment. This research aims to: 1) Demonstrate thgrowing mutual economic trade interdependence between Mexico and the United States, 2) ldentify in which sectors and what areas are most of the Mexican enterprises located in the United States and 3) Compare the Mexican management style with the American system.Palabras Clave: Empresas, estilo de administración, Estados Unidos, Inversión Directa Extranjera, MéxicoResumen: Los Estados Unidos y México son dos países con importantes diferencias culturales y económicas, sinembargo su relación bilateral en el comercio y la inversión es muy estrecha. La proximidad geográfica y la firma del Tratado de Libre Comercio de Norte América han incrementado el comercio USA-México y han permitido que la inversión directa extranjera Americana enMéxico se multiplique por siete veces de 1988 a|2000. Por otro lado, la Inversión Directa Extranjera de México en los Estados Unidos, aunque presenta un incremento enestos últimos años, no ha tenido un crecimiento sustancial. Existen factores políticos y económicos que han influenciado esta evolución deIDE en ambos países, sin embargo, hay otros factores como la cultura empresarial que ha sido un elemento de dificultad para integrar las empresas Mexicanas en los Estados Unidos. Algunos investigadores confirman que la cultura empresarial infuye en la manera como las empresas Mexicanas hacen negocios, la cual es diferente a la cultura empresarial Americana, entonces, las empresas Mexicanas que quieran invertir y hacer negocio en el mercado Americano, tienen que adoptar elestilo empresarial Americano para tener éxito en sus inversiones. Por lo tanto, esta investigación trata de: 1) Demostrar el crecimiento de Ia dependencia económica comercial que existe entre México y los Estados Unidos, 2)ldentificar en que sectores y donde están establecidas la mayor parte de las empresas mexicanas en los Estados Unidos y 3) Comparar el estilo empresarial mexicanos con el sistema Americano. 


Author(s):  
Curtis A. Bradley

This chapter describes U.S. law governing the use of military force, and it considers the potential value of comparative study of how different countries regulate the issue. As the chapter notes, there is significant uncertainty and debate in the United States over the distribution of authority concerning the use of force—in particular, over whether and to what extent military actions must be authorized by Congress. Because courts in the modern era have generally declined to review the legality of military actions, disputes over this issue have had to be resolved, as a practical matter, through the political process. For those who believe that it is important to have legislative involvement in decisions to use force, the political process has not proven to be satisfactory: presidents have often used military force without obtaining congressional approval, and Congress generally has done little to resist such presidential unilateralism. The United States is not the only country to struggle with regulating the domestic authority to use military force. This issue of foreign relations law is common to constitutional democracies, and nations vary substantially in how they have addressed it. Comparative study of such approaches should be of inherent interest to scholars and students, including those trying to better understand the U.S. approach. Whether and to what extent such study should also inform the interpretation or revision of U.S. law presents a more complicated set of questions that are affected in part by one’s legal methodology and how the comparative materials are being invoked.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document