scholarly journals Multinational Enterprises, International Trade, and Productivity Growth: Firm-Level Evidence from the United States

10.3386/w9504 ◽  
2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Keller ◽  
Stephen Yeaple
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
The United States ◽  
Firm Level

scholarly journals Multinational Enterprises, International Trade, and Productivity Growth: Firm-Level Evidence From the United States

2003 ◽  
Vol 03 (248) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Yeaple ◽  
Wolfgang Keller ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
The United States ◽  
Firm Level

scholarly journals Heterogeneous Markups, Growth, and Endogenous Misallocation

Econometrica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 88 (5) ◽  
pp. 2037-2073 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Peters
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Market Power ◽  
Productivity Growth ◽  
Firm Dynamics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Equilibrium Outcome ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Competitive Effects ◽  
Level Data ◽  
Firm Level Data

Markups vary systematically across firms and are a source of misallocation. This paper develops a tractable model of firm dynamics where firms' market power is endogenous and the distribution of markups emerges as an equilibrium outcome. Monopoly power is the result of a process of forward‐looking, risky accumulation: firms invest in productivity growth to increase markups in their existing products but are stochastically replaced by more efficient competitors. Creative destruction therefore has pro‐competitive effects because faster churn gives firms less time to accumulate market power. In an application to firm‐level data from Indonesia, the model predicts that, relative to the United States, misallocation is more severe and firms are substantially smaller. To explain these patterns, the model suggests an important role for frictions that prevent existing firms from entering new markets. Differences in entry costs for new firms are less important.

The Distributional Consequences of Preferential Trade Liberalization: Firm-Level Evidence

2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 373-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Baccini ◽  
Pablo M. Pinto ◽  
Stephen Weymouth
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Multinational Corporations ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
The United States ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Preferential Trade ◽  
Distributional Consequences

AbstractWhile increasing trade and foreign direct investment, international trade agreements create winners and losers. Our paper examines the distributional consequences of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) at the firm level. We contend that PTAs expand trade among the largest and most productive multinationals by lowering preferential tariffs. We examine data covering the near universe of US foreign direct investment and disaggregated tariff data from PTAs signed by the United States. Our results indicate that US preferential tariffs increase sales to the United States from the most competitive subsidiaries of multinational corporations operating in partner countries. We also find increases in market concentration in partner countries following preferential liberalization with the United States. By demonstrating that the gains from preferential liberalization are unevenly distributed across firms, we shed new light on the firm-level, economic sources of political mobilization over international trade and investment policies.

scholarly journals European and American Perspectives on the Choice of Law Regarding Cross-Border Insolvencies of Multinational Corporations – Suggestions for South Africa

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 133
Author(s):  
Jeanette Weideman ◽  
Leonie Stander
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
International Trade ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
The United States ◽  
Valuable Insight ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The World ◽  
Model Law

An increase in economic globalisation and international trade has amounted to an increase in the number of multinational enterprises that have debt, own assets and conduct business in various jurisdictions around the world.  This, coupled with the recent worldwide economic recession, has inevitably caused the increased occurrence of multinational financial default, also known as cross-border insolvency (CBI). The legal response to this trend has, inter alia, produced two important international instruments that were designed to address key issues associated with CBI. Firstly, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the Model Law) in 1997, which has been adopted by nineteen countries including the United States of America and South Africa. Secondly, the European Union (EU) adopted the European Council Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EC Regulation) in 2000.  Both the EC Regulation and Chapter 15 adopt a “modified universalist” approach towards CBI matters. Europe and the United States of America are currently the world leaders in the area of CBI and the CBI legislation adopted and applied in these jurisdictions seems to be effective. As South Africa’s Cross-Border Insolvency Act is not yet effective, there is no local policy guidance available to insolvency practitioners with regard to the application of the Model Law. At the basis of this article is the view that an analysis of the European and American approaches to CBI matters will provide South African practitioners with valuable insight, knowledge and lessons that could be used to understand and apply the principles adopted and applied in terms of the EC Regulation and Chapter 15, specifically the COMI concept, the “establishment” concept in the case of integrated multinational enterprises and related aspects.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document