Size and growth of Japanese plants in the United States

Blonigen, Bruce A.; Tomlin, Kasaundra

doi:10.1016/s0167-7187(99)00055-7

Cited by 36 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two conflicting hypotheses have been put forward, one on slower and the other on higher growth rates of FO firms. Tomlin (1999, 2001) provide an argument for VORZHU growth rates of FO firms in the case of first entry into a market, because of uncertainties in foreign markets like inefficiencies or problems in obtaining material inputs. Inefficiencies may arise from monitoring problems of workers or other factors.…”

Section: *Urzwk *Dsvmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Domestic and Foreign Firms Differ and Why Does it Matter?

Bellak

2004

Journal of Economic Surveys

163

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. This paper reviews and summarises the results of selected studies on performance gaps between multinational enterprises and their domestic counterparts. Performance gaps arise in such fields as productivity, technology, profitability, wages, skills and growth. While these gaps are often attributed to foreign ownership of the affiliates, the theory of the Multinational Enterprise argues that these gaps are due to being a Multinational rather than the nationality of the firm. Empirical evidence on the existence of performance gaps between foreign and domestic firms is supportive of this view: foreign ownership turns out to be a much less important explanatory factor than normally assumed. Firm‐specific assets and firm characteristics like industry, size, parent country and multinationality per se are more important. Such results are broadly consistent with those derived in the literatures on ownership change, on foreign entry and on spillovers. We conclude that there is little case for foreign direct investment promotion policies to discriminate between firms on the basis of ownership.

show abstract

Section: *Urzwk *Dsvmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Domestic and Foreign Firms Differ and Why Does it Matter?

Bellak

2004

Journal of Economic Surveys

163

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…13 http://www.nber.org/nberces/nbprod96.htm 14 Numerous studies on mean reversion in plant employment growth have documented the relationship between initial size and age and subsequent changes in employment (e.g. Hall 1987 andBlonigen andTomlin 2001). While we are not interested in testing Gibrat's law per se, we include the log of initial employment as well as plant age in all our specifications.…”

Section: Empirical Results: Plant Survival and Growthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival of the best fit: exposure to low-wage countries and the (uneven) growth of US manufacturing plants

Bernard¹,

Jensen²,

Schott³

2003

Working Paper Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the role of international trade in the reallocation of U.S. manufacturing activity within and across industries from 1977 to 1997. It introduces a new measure of industry exposure to international trade, motivated by the Heckscher-Ohlin model, which focuses on where imports originate rather than their overall level. Results demonstrate that plant survival as well as output and employment growth are negatively associated with the share of industry imports sourced from the world's lowest-wage countries. Within industries, activity is reallocated towards capital-intensive plants. Plants are also more likely to alter their product mix (i.e. switch industries) in response to trade with low-wage countries. Plants altering their product mix switch to industries that are more capitaland skill-intensive.

show abstract

“…Bloningen and Tomlin (2001) find that in the United States Japanese-owned manufacturing plants are much larger and grow faster than US domestic-owned plants. 3 The Econometric Specification of the Firm…”

Section: Related Literature and Previous Findingsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Only a limited number of studies investigate the effects of corporate group networks (Variyam and Kraybill 1992) and multinationality (Buckley, Dunning and Pearce 1984, Cantwell and Sanna-Randaccio 1993, Bloningen and Tomlin 2001, Belderbos and Zou 2007 on firm growth. Variyam and Kraybill (1992) find support to the fact that firm growth in terms of employment is significantly smaller for independent, single establishment firms compared to firms organized in a corporate group.…”

Section: Related Literature and Previous Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Firm growth in multinational corporate groups

Oberhofer

Pfaffermayr

2012

Empir Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper formulates an econometric firm growth model that explicitly accounts for the interdependence of firm performance within corporate networks and is in line with several economic theories on firm growth. We estimate the model for national and multinational corporate groups (MNEs) using a recently introduced instrumental variable estimation procedure for peer group effects developed by Lee (2007). In our data for corporate groups the observation of fast growing young firms and slow growing old firms disappears if interdependence of firm performance within corporation networks is introduced.JEL Codes: C21, F23, L25

show abstract

Size and growth of Japanese plants in the United States

Cited by 36 publications

References 20 publications

How Domestic and Foreign Firms Differ and Why Does it Matter?

How Domestic and Foreign Firms Differ and Why Does it Matter?

Survival of the best fit: exposure to low-wage countries and the (uneven) growth of US manufacturing plants

Firm growth in multinational corporate groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About