This paper examines theoretically and empirically how employment protection legislation affects location decisions of multinationals. We depart from the "conventional wisdom" by examining not only the effect of protection on inward foreign direct investment (FDI), but also a country's ability to "anchor" potential outward investment. Based on our simple theoretical framework, we estimate an empirical model, using data on bilateral FDI and employment protection indices for OECD countries, and controlling for other labour market institutions and investment costs. We find that, while an "unfavourable" employment protection differential between a domestic and a foreign location is inimical to FDI, a high domestic level of employment protection tends to discourage outward FDI. The results are in line with our conjecture that strict employment protection in the firm's home country makes firms reluctant to relocate abroad and keeps them "anchored" at home. JEL no. F23, J80, D80Keywords: foreign direct investment, employment protection, domestic anchorage, uncertainty Acknowledgements: We are grateful to Dana Hajkova and Daniel Mirza for help with the OECD data and to David Greenaway, Dermot Leahy, Hassan Molana and an anonymous referee for helpful comments.

Because the use of trade policy is limited by international institutional arrangements, governments pursuing a policy of export promotion may want to use more indirect instruments to achieve their objectives. In that context, this paper focuses on the public provision of export insurance. While the prime objective is insurance against the risk of default faced by firms exporting to risky markets, these insurance programmes are often embedded in more global policy objectives of the exporting country's government. This paper investigates how premium rating of official export insurance is affected by strategic export promotion and the pursuit of other political objectives. q 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.JEL classification: D81; F13

This paper examines optimal trade policy in a two-period oligopoly model, with a home and a foreign firm choosing capital and output. Demand uncertainty, resolved in period two, gives rise to a trade-off between strategic commitment and flexibility in the firms' investment decisions. Firms' investment timing is endogenous and can be manipulated by the home government, which sets a subsidy before firms decide when to invest. We show that when the government wishes to manipulate investment timing, it will choose its policy to deter investment commitment by the home or the foreign firm. D

We construct a model in which oligopolistic firms decide where to locate. Firms choose to locate either in a country where employment protection implies costly output adjustments or in one without adjustment costs. Using a two-period three-stage game with uncertainty it is demonstrated that location is influenced by both flexibility and strategic concerns. We show that the strategic effects under Cournot work towards domestic anchorage in the country with adjustment costs while those under Bertrand do not. Strategic agglomeration can occur in the inflexible country under Cournot and even under Bertrand provided uncertainty and foreign direct investment costs are low.

We construct a model in which oligopolistic firms decide between locating in a country where employment protection implies costly output adjustments and in one without employment protection. Using a two-period three-stage game with uncertainty, we demonstrate that location is influenced by both flexibility and strategic concerns. The strategic effects under Cournot work towards domestic anchorage in the country with employment protection while those under Bertrand do not. Strategic agglomeration can occur in the inflexible country under Cournot and even under Bertrand, provided uncertainty and foreign direct investment costs are low.