Made in (but not owned by) the USA

Investment is typically seen as a sign of economic strength, as people and financial entities put their money where they believe it can be most productive and profitable. Foreign direct investment (FDI) tracks the amount of money international firms invest in the United States, and a recent report on the matter by the Brookings Institution shows that it’s growing in the Ninth District, but not as fast as it is elsewhere in the country.

In 2013, for example, companies invested $1.46 trillion in locations outside their home country, and the United States is the single largest destination of that capital, receiving $193 billion, according to the report. This investment manifests itself in many forms: spreading technology, facilitating the exchange of knowledge and inducing new trade.

It also employs millions of people, which the Brookings report investigated more closely. Among Ninth District states, the trends are somewhat diverging. In five Ninth District states (cumulative), total employment at foreign-owned establishments (FOEs) grew by about 50 percent from 1991 to 2011, and the share of total private employment at FOEs increased as well (see Chart 1). The growth in this share of employment tended to be modest—about one-half of a percentage point—with the exception of North Dakota, whose share of FOE employment tripled over this period, most likely as a result of foreign firms investing resources in (and hiring workers for) the Bakken oil patch.

However, across the board, district states have a lower share of FOE employment than the national average and (with the exception of North Dakota) saw less growth in the share of FOE employment. As a result, most distrct states fell in ranking among their peers in FOE’s share of total private employment (see table embedded in Chart 1).

One caveat to FDI trends: Much of this investment is the result of acquisitions or mergers of U.S. companies by international firms. So a considerable amount of the resulting “growth” in FOE employment is a methodological quirk—namely, a shift in the nationality of the parent company. This was particularly the case in North Dakota. Among district states, only Wisconsin was close to the national average in the share of FOE employment growth coming from new openings (see Chart 2).

FDI Ch1-2

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

 
 

Made in (but not owned by) the USA

Posted by Ron Wirtz on 07/07/2014

Investment is typically seen as a sign of economic strength, as people and financial entities put their money where they believe it can be most productive and profitable. Foreign direct investment (FDI) tracks the amount of money international firms invest in the United States, and a recent report on the matter by the Brookings Institution shows that it’s growing in the Ninth District, but not as fast as it is elsewhere in the country.

In 2013, for example, companies invested $1.46 trillion in locations outside their home country, and the United States is the single largest destination of that capital, receiving $193 billion, according to the report. This investment manifests itself in many forms: spreading technology, facilitating the exchange of knowledge and inducing new trade.

It also employs millions of people, which the Brookings report investigated more closely. Among Ninth District states, the trends are somewhat diverging. In five Ninth District states (cumulative), total employment at foreign-owned establishments (FOEs) grew by about 50 percent from 1991 to 2011, and the share of total private employment at FOEs increased as well (see Chart 1). The growth in this share of employment tended to be modest—about one-half of a percentage point—with the exception of North Dakota, whose share of FOE employment tripled over this period, most likely as a result of foreign firms investing resources in (and hiring workers for) the Bakken oil patch.

However, across the board, district states have a lower share of FOE employment than the national average and (with the exception of North Dakota) saw less growth in the share of FOE employment. As a result, most distrct states fell in ranking among their peers in FOE’s share of total private employment (see table embedded in Chart 1).

One caveat to FDI trends: Much of this investment is the result of acquisitions or mergers of U.S. companies by international firms. So a considerable amount of the resulting “growth” in FOE employment is a methodological quirk—namely, a shift in the nationality of the parent company. This was particularly the case in North Dakota. Among district states, only Wisconsin was close to the national average in the share of FOE employment growth coming from new openings (see Chart 2).

FDI Ch1-2

Share via: Twitter Facebook
Top  |  View on full site