Corporate tax policy and multinational corporations in the American states: Exploring the intervening effect of local fiscal decentralization

Better service delivery, more satisfied citizens? The mediating effects of local government management capacity in South Korea

“…Other studies, however, provide evidence that fiscal decentralisation positively enhances economic growth at the state (Akai & Sakata, 2002) and local (Stansel, 2005) levels. In a more recent study, Shin (2018) shows that American states with larger municipalities attract more foreign industries by minimising the effects of tax incentives. At the cross‐national level, Davoodi and Zou (1998) indicate that fiscal decentralisation is negatively associated with economic growth in developing countries, but not in developed countries.…”

The direct and indirect impacts of liberal immigration policies on the United States’ economy

“…Earlier work suggests that more expansive immigration policies would increase FDI due to the increased expected return to foreign firms obtained by accessing immigrants' experience, information, and social capital. While many of the skilled immigrants to the U.S. in recent years have come from China and India, the major source countries for investment of assets and plants in the U.S. are from Western Europe and Australia (Foad, 2012;Shin, 2018), accounting for more than 70% of all foreign-owned the real annual book value of gross property, plant, and equipment. Regardless of where a multinational corporation is domiciled, however, it is important to note it is a rational actor that is pursuing profit maximization (Shin, 2018).…”

“…While many of the skilled immigrants to the U.S. in recent years have come from China and India, the major source countries for investment of assets and plants in the U.S. are from Western Europe and Australia (Foad, 2012;Shin, 2018), accounting for more than 70% of all foreign-owned the real annual book value of gross property, plant, and equipment. Regardless of where a multinational corporation is domiciled, however, it is important to note it is a rational actor that is pursuing profit maximization (Shin, 2018). Thus, firms from Western Europe and Australia are not likely to make their investment decisions based on immigrants' countries of origin.…”

Welfare, innovation capacity, and economic performance: Evidence from American federalism

“…Many studies have examined the effect of institutional power, management, party control, and ideological differences, on economic development policies (e.g., Bae et al, 2012;Brace, 1993;Howell-Moroney, 2008;Rigby and Wright, 2013). Additionally, a significant number of scholars have examined the relationship between the level of fiscal decentralization of American states and state economic growth (Akai and Sakata, 2002;Shin, 2018;Xie et al, 1999).…”

“…The theory of fiscal decentralization suggests that subnational governments promote economic efficiency by providing public goods that meet different preferences of individuals, increasing accountability of subnational officials, and allowing experimentation and innovation in the pubic-service production process (Oates, 1972;Stansel, 2005). Such benefits of a higher fiscal decentralization suggest that states with more fiscal capacity not only exercise higher innovation capacity, but secure their own source revenues, which in turn translate to economic development (Saiz, 2001;Shin, 2018). Thus, states can expect that an increase in federal welfare funds would secure the state budget on welfare programs that the states have not adequately dealt with; and thereby increase state innovation capacity to generate strategic and progressive economic development programs by lowering the cost of performing redistributive activity and increasing slack resources to be transferred into the regional economy.…”