OECD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

Working Paper No. 192

(Formerly Technical Paper No. 192)

SKILL UPGRADING
IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES:
HAS INWARD FOREIGN DIRECT
INVESTMENT PLAYED A ROLE?
by

Matthew J. Slaughter

Research programme on:

Global Interdependence and Income Distribution

August 2002
CD/DOC(2002)04
CD/DOC(2002)04

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................5

PREFACE .........................................................................................................................6

RÉSUMÉ...........................................................................................................................8

SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 8

I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................9

II. MULTINATIONALS AND THE DEMAND FOR SKILLED LABOUR ............................11

III. MULTINATIONALS AND THE SUPPLY OF SKILLED LABOUR ...............................21

IV. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................24

NOTES............................................................................................................................25

BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................27

OTHER TITLES IN THE SERIES/ AUTRES TITRES DANS LA SÉRIE .........................30

4
 CD/DOC(2002)04

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Development Centre would like to express its gratitude to the Ford
Foundation and the Swiss Authorities for the financial support given to the project on
“FDI, Human Capital and Education in Developing Countries”, in the context of which this
study was carried out.

5
CD/DOC(2002)04

PREFACE

This paper is one of five presented at a meeting on FDI, human capital and
education in developing countries held in Paris in mid-December 2001. They examine
the links between FDI and human capital development, notably the interaction between
the host country’s policies affecting multinational enterprises (MNEs), its educational and
training system, and the education and training activities of MNEs. The five papers are:
1) by Ethan Kapstein situating this issue in the broader context of current debates on
globalisation, growth and poverty; 2) by Matthew Slaughter looking at the implications of
FDI for skill demand and supply; 3) by Dirk Willem te Velde examining the interaction
between FDI promotion policy and human capital; 4) by Bryan Ritchie reviewing the
relationship between domestic policy, FDI and human capital in East Asia; and 5) by
Magnus Blomström and Ari Kokko reviewing the literature on human capital spillovers for
the purposes of defining a new research agenda.
Over the last ten years, globalisation has become a contentious issue. Much of
the debate has focused on the role of capital inflows and FDI. There is substantial
evidence that short-term capital flows, and portfolio capital in particular, increase the
susceptibility of developing countries to financial crises, while FDI appears to be more
stable and less subject to reversal and rapid outflows. Over the last decade an
increasing number of emerging market economies have opened their countries to FDI,
and have made attracting FDI an integral component of their development strategies. In
Latin America alone, for example, net FDI flows climbed from $18 billion in 1990 to more
than $85 billion in 1999.
At the same time, the composition of FDI has changed. The majority of FDI from
OECD countries to developing countries now goes into services, rather than
manufacturing and natural resource production. This change of composition has been
accompanied by a change in purpose. As a result, FDI is now more likely to finance a
large initial surge in capital goods imports, bringing advanced technology, know-how and
organisational techniques. Is, however, FDI causing a race to the bottom as countries
compete to attract investors, or to a race to the top as governments recognise the need
for an educated workforce? Is it contributing to greater income inequality by increasing
the demand for skilled labour, or to an increase in opportunities for workers at all income
levels?
The possibility that FDI is contributing to widening wage and income inequalities
has revealed an important but relatively unexplored link with human capital and human
capital policy, education and training. In this context, and building upon research that the
OECD Development Centre has done on globalisation, the Centre’s meeting was
organised to examine the links between FDI and human capital development. It

6
 CD/DOC(2002)04

particularly examined the three-way interaction between the host country’s incentives to
attract FDI and its policies affecting MNEs, its educational and training system, and the
MNEs education and training activities.
The general conclusion that can be drawn from these papers is that MNEs can
and do generate substantial human capital spillovers in developing countries and that
appropriate policies can maximise these. For instance, training policies are essential to
creating positive synergies with MNEs but must be seen as not FDI-specific — they are
necessary for the competitiveness of all enterprises. At this point very little is known
about the training activities that MNEs are actually engaged in, and to what extent local
employees and managers of MNEs subsequently work in domestic firms, or start new
firms themselves.
Further research is needed on the relationship between human capital and FDI,
that could be extremely fruitful for both policy makers and MNEs. In particular, we need
to know more about the transmission mechanisms and the ways in which policies can
support them. These five Technical Papers, each of them written by eminent specialists,
provide a sound basis for further work which can enhance development potential in very
practical ways.

Jorge Braga de Macedo

President
OECD Development Centre
29 July 2002

Technical Paper No. 191, Virtuous Circles? Human Capital Formation, Economic Development and the Multinational Enterprise, by
Ethan B. Kapstein, August 2002.
Technical Paper No. 192, Skill Upgrading in Developing Countries: Has Inward Foreign Direct Investment Played a Role?, by
Matthew J. Slaughter, August 2002.
Technical Paper No. 193, Government Policies for Inward Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries: Implications for Human
Capital Formation and Income Inequality, by Dirk Willem te Velde, August 2002.
Technical Paper No. 194, Foreign Direct Investment and Intellectual Capital Formation in Southeast Asia, by Bryan K. Ritchie,
August 2002.
Technical Paper No. 195, FDI and Human Capital: A Research Agenda, by Magnus Blomström and Ari Kokko, August 2002.

7
CD/DOC(2002)04

RÉSUMÉ

Comment les firmes multinationales affectent-elles l’offre et la demande de

compétences sur les marchés du travail des pays dans lesquelles elles s’installent ? Du
côté de la demande, l’investissement direct étranger peut accroître la demande de main-
d’œuvre qualifiée dans les pays d’accueil, par plusieurs canaux. Il ressort de la plupart
de données empiriques que ces canaux sont à l’œuvre à l’intérieur des firmes elles-
mêmes, plutôt que par une diffusion des connaissances vers les entreprises nationales.
Du côté de l’offre, il est beaucoup plus difficile de savoir comment l’IDE modifie le
développement du capital humain. Les firmes multinationales peuvent faciliter de deux
manières l’investissement dans le capital humain. La première se manifeste via les
activités à court terme, au niveau de la firme, par lesquelles chaque entreprise interagit
avec le marché du travail du pays d’accueil. L’autre se manifeste via les activités à long
terme, au niveau du pays, par lesquelles l’ensemble des multinationales contribuent à la
mise en place d’un environnement macroéconomique global permettant à la politique
budgétaire d’impulser et de financer une politique d’éducation.

SUMMARY

How do multinational firms affect both the demand for and supply of skills in host
country labour markets? On the demand side, inward FDI can stimulate demand for
skilled workers in host countries through several channels. Most empirical evidence
indicates that these channels work mainly within multinationals themselves, rather than
through knowledge spillovers to domestic firms. On the supply side, the question of how
inward FDI influences the development of human capital is much more difficult to
answer. There are two different modes by which multinational enterprises (MNEs) can
facilitate investments in human capital. One involves short-term, firm-level activities by
which individual firms interact with host country labour markets. The other involves long-
term, country-level activities by which MNEs collectively contribute to an overall macro
environment where fiscal policy can support and drive education policy.

8
 CD/DOC(2002)04

I. INTRODUCTION

An important part of globalisation in recent years has been the continuing rise in
foreign direct investment (FDI). UNCTAD (2000) reports that from 1979 to 1999, the ratio
of world FDI stock to world gross domestic product rose from 5 to 16 per cent, and the
ratio of world FDI inflows to global gross domestic capital formation rose from 2 to 14 per
cent. One consequence is that an increasing share of developing countries’ output is
accounted for by foreign affiliates of multinational enterprises (MNEs). The foreign-
affiliate share of world production is now 15 per cent in manufacturing and other
tradables (Lipsey et al., 1998).
How do these multinational affiliates influence host labour markets in developing
countries? In this paper, I offer some insights on this question by examining the issue of
“skill upgrading”, which I will define in terms of both labour demand and supply. Each
side of the labour market will be addressed in turn.
On the demand side, the academic literature on multinationals suggests several
channels by which inward FDI stimulates demand for skilled workers in host countries.
These include technology transfer to host country affiliates; technology flows
— both market-mediated and via spillovers — to host country firms; and investments in
physical capital related to new technologies. I will discuss both the theoretical concepts
and empirical evidence for these various channels. There is compelling evidence on the
importance of within-firm technology transfer and capital investment as modes of
boosting host country demand for skilled workers. The evidence is much more mixed on
technology flows to domestic firms, particularly via spillovers. But contrary to what is
commonly assumed, I will argue that a lack of spillovers is not necessarily a bad thing in
light of the stronger evidence on the significant roles played by within-firm technology
transfer and capital accumulation.
On the supply side, the question of how inward FDI influences the development of
human capital is much more difficult to answer. This link is, correctly, at the centre of this
discussion, as not a lot is known about it. I will distinguish two different modes by which
MNEs can facilitate investments in human capital. One involves short-term, firm-level
activities by which individual firms interact with host country labour markets through
on-the-job training, support for local educational institutions, and the like. The other
involves long-term, country-level activities by which MNEs collectively contribute to an
overall macro environment where fiscal policy can support and drive education policy. To
the extent that MNEs contribute to a good macro environment in host countries
— through raising worker productivity, providing a relatively stable source of foreign
capital, paying host country taxes — they contribute to the ability of host countries to
fund education. Even if at this point generalisations of successful firm-level educational

9
CD/DOC(2002)04

initiatives are hard to come by, as these efforts continue sight should not be lost of the
country-level contributions.
The rest of this paper is organised as follows. Section II addresses the theory and
empirical evidence on how MNEs affect the demand for skills in host countries.
Section III turns to the supply-side issues. Section IV concludes the paper.

10
 CD/DOC(2002)04

II. MULTINATIONALS AND THE DEMAND FOR SKILLED LABOUR

Theoretical Links

In what ways does the nationality of firm ownership influence the demand of firms
for labour in developing countries? Note that if there were no such influence, then MNEs
would merit no particular attention when thinking about skill upgrading. There is
widespread agreement among researchers in many fields that a distinguishing feature of
these firms is their possession of knowledge assets — patents, proprietary technology,
trademarks, etc. — that can be deployed in affiliates outside the parent country. This
knowledge intensity is important for understanding the nature of MNE labour demand in
host countries.
From an industrial-organisation perspective, Dunning (1981) formalised a
framework in which MNEs are firms possessing three particular sets of advantages,
known together as “OLI”. First is the ownership advantage, i.e. the ownership of a firm-
specific asset. Second is the location advantage, i.e. it must be more cost efficient for the
firm to exploit that asset abroad than in just the home country. And third is the
internalisation advantage, i.e. the firm must be better off using its asset itself rather than
contracting with another firm.
In international trade, over the last two decades there has been substantial
progress in modelling multinational firms in general equilibrium. This theoretical literature
contains mostly uni-dimensional theories of multinationals, which focus on either
horizontal or vertical FDI.
The vertical FDI view is that multinationals arise when firms want to take
advantage of international factor price differences1. These firms generally engage in two
activities: headquarter services to develop and maintain the firm’s knowledge assets, and
production of output. Headquarter services are intensive in physical and human capital,
while production is intensive in manual labour. When factor prices differ across countries,
firms become multinational by locating production in countries where manual-labour
costs are relatively low and headquarters in countries where skilled-labour costs are
relatively low.
Even though the production activities may be low-skill intensive relative to
headquarter services, for host countries they likely will be skill intensive relative to their
initial activity mix.
The horizontal FDI view is that multinationals arise because trade barriers make
exporting costly2. The formal setup is one in which firms have high fixed cost
headquarters and one or more production plants. When trade costs are low, a firm

11
CD/DOC(2002)04

produces all output in domestic plants and serves foreign consumers through exports.
When trade costs are high, a firm becomes multinational by building production plants
both at home and abroad, each serving only local consumers. This type of FDI is called
horizontal because the multinational has the same activities (here, production) in all
countries.
One sign indicating that MNEs are knowledge-intensive firms is their intensity of
research and development (R&D). In the aggregate, this is supported by evidence of an
overlap between countries that perform much R&D and countries that headquarter many
MNEs. It is commonly calculated that approximately 90 per cent of the world’s R&D is
performed in just five countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, France,
Germany and Japan (Keller, 2001). These five countries are also among the largest
source countries for world FDI flows. At the firm level, Slaughter (1998) reports that over
the past 20 years the US parents of US-headquartered MNEs — only 2 727 firms in
1994 —have consistently performed over half of all US R&D.
Having established that MNEs tend to be very knowledge intensive firms, we can
now elaborate on how this knowledge intensity can help raise host country demand for
skills. At least three important channels can be identified.
One is technology transfer. The simple idea here is that MNE use of knowledge
assets often entails the transfer of technology from parents to affiliates. Inward FDI, then,
can mean new production technologies for the host country, which in turn can boost
demand for more skilled labour within host country affiliates to the extent that the
innovations are skill biased. This can occur whether the inward FDI is horizontal or
vertical in nature. In either case, FDI expansion is likely to entail skill-biased innovations3.
A second demand channel is that these new technologies may also reach
domestically owned firms in host countries. This may happen through market mediated
arrangements such as patent licensing, in which domestic firms pay MNEs for the right to
use their technologies. New technologies may also reach domestic firms thanks to
“productivity spillovers” via non-market channels. Either way, the presence of inward FDI
may stimulate domestically owned firms to demand more skilled labour.
Spillovers of knowledge from affiliates to domestic firms are an often-claimed
benefit of inward FDI, so it is worth outlining possible spillover channels. The general
idea that interaction among firms can generate spillovers dates back to at least Marshall
(1920). Caves (1974, 1996) has had an early and ongoing interest in analysing this
possibility of multinationals interacting with host country firms. Mansfield and Romeo
(1980) present some early survey evidence — all consistent with multinational
spillovers — in which US multinationals reported the frequency and pace at which their
technology deployed in foreign affiliates reached host country competitors.
Theoretical work on the mechanics of spillovers ranges from general discussions,
often leavened with anecdotes, to formal general-equilibrium models. Broadly speaking,
spillovers are commonly hypothesised to fall along industry or regional lines. An example
of multinational spillovers along industry lines is cited by Rodriguez-Clare (1996), where
affiliates increase a host country’s access to specialised varieties of intermediate inputs,
the improved knowledge of which raises the TFP of domestic producers. Less formally, it
is often hypothesised that domestic firms learn from affiliates in the same industry via a

12
 CD/DOC(2002)04

range of informal contacts: e.g. trade shows; supplier/distributor discussions; exposure to

affiliate products, marketing, and patents; technical support from affiliates; and reverse
engineering. Depending on how narrowly or broadly industries are defined, if the key
contacts are between suppliers and/or distributors, then spillovers may be classified as
intra-industry or inter-industry4.
Other spillover mechanisms may operate along regional lines. One commonly
proposed avenue (since at least Marshall, 1920) is via labour turnover. If at least some of
the knowledge particular to foreign affiliates is embodied in their labour force, then as
affiliate employees leave to work for domestic firms this knowledge may move as well.
For example, Song et al. (2001) use US patent records to trace the movement of
scientists between domestic and foreign firms (also see Motta et al., 1999, and Moen,
2000). This knowledge need not be firm-specific (e.g. inventory control or management
techniques). If inter-regional labour mobility within a country is low, then these spillovers
are likely to be concentrated within regions where the affiliates operate rather than
dispersed countrywide. More generally, regional labour market spillovers can be thought
of as one important kind of agglomeration economy that can induce firms to locate near
each other in space. Krugman (1991) offers some formal models of agglomeration
issues5.
A third channel for boosting host country skilled labour demand, for both foreign
and domestically owned firms alike, is capital investments. Implementing new
technologies often entails making new capital investments (e.g. computers and office
products). To the extent that capital and skills are complements in the factor demands of
firms, skill upgrading may arise not only directly from new technologies but also indirectly
from the capital investments induced by these new technologies.

Empirical Evidence on These Links

For the empirical evidence on how MNEs influence the mix of host country labour
demand, consider in turn each of the three channels — within-MNE technology transfer,
affiliate to local technology transfer, and capital investment.
An important implication of within-MNE technology transfer from parents to
affiliates is that, relative to host country domestic firms, this transfer and/or its resultant
boost in demand for skilled workers should lead affiliates to pay higher wages. This
implication enjoys a lot of empirical support. Many studies — of both developed and
developing countries — have found that establishments owned by multinational firms pay
higher wages than domestically owned establishments, even when controlling for a wide
range of observable worker and/or plant characteristics such as industry, region, and
overall size6. To the extent that production technology is largely unobservable in these
studies, the regularity of this “multinational wage premium” may stem from the superior
technology and thus labour-demand mix of these firms7.
More direct evidence on the transfer of technology and resultant labour-demand
mix for MNEs can be obtained from data on US-headquartered MNEs. Since the late
1970s, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) in the US Department of Commerce has
collected data on both the domestic and foreign operations of these companies. One
piece of evidence consistent with rising within-firm technology transfer is the rising share

13
CD/DOC(2002)04

of MNE-wide R&D performed by foreign affiliates. In 1982 foreign affiliates performed

6.4 per cent of worldwide R&D for these firms; by 1994 that share had nearly doubled, to
11.5 per cent. If one role of R&D is to facilitate technology transfer, then this rising R&D
share suggests rising technology transfer.
As for the labour-demand mix, the BEA requires (in its census years) that foreign
affiliates in manufacturing distinguish non-production from production employment.
Following a number of studies in the trade and wages literature, one can define the
former to be skilled and the latter to be unskilled8. Table II.1 reports the skill mix of
affiliate employment in 1977 and again in 1994 (the most recent year for which these
data are available) for the overall world and for a set of prominent developing countries.

Table II.1. The Skill Mix of Employment

in Foreign Affiliates of US-Headquartered Multinationals

Country 1977 1977 1977 1994 1994 1994

P Emp NP Emp NP Share P Emp NP Emp NP Share

World 2 370.0 1 400.0 0.37 2 093.4 1 422.6 0.41

Brazil 179.5 116.7 0.39 133.9 91.4 0.41
India 19.3 14.9 0.44 8.2 7.6 0.48
Malaysia 19.0 6.7 0.26 67.3 42.9 0.39
Mexico 103.1 68.1 0.40 284.2 131.0 0.32
Philippines 44.7 16.4 0.27 29.1 23.1 0.44
Singapore 27.4 5.1 0.15 44.5 24.6 0.36
Chinese Taipei 45.3 13.0 0.22 22.3 15.7 0.41

Notes: “P Emp” indicates production worker employment, in thousands. “NP Emp” indicates non-production worker
employment, in thousands. “NP Share” indicates the share of total employment accounted for by non-production
workers.
Source: All data come from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The key message of Table II.1 is a widespread shift in the skill mix of affiliate
employment. In 1977, manufacturing affiliates of US MNEs employed 2.37 million
production workers worldwide. By 1994 this number had fallen to just 2.09 million. Over
that same period, non-production employment actually increased slightly, from
1.40 million to 1.42 million. This means that the skilled labour share of total
manufacturing employment in affiliates has been rising, from 37.2 to 40.5 per cent. This
rise is matched in all individual countries in Table II.1 except Mexico, regardless of
whether the overall level of affiliate employment was rising or falling.
To put these share changes in context, during this same period in the United
States the skilled labour share of employment across all manufacturing plants rose from
26.1 to 30 per cent. This was a period of widespread skill-biased technological change in
US industries (Haskel and Slaughter, 2001), yet the share increase in the United States
was only slightly larger than that in US affiliates. And this share increase in affiliates does
not simply reflect shifting relative size among industries of different but constant skill
intensities. Slaughter (2000) reports that for the standard 32 BEA industry groups within
overall manufacturing, 24 had rising skilled employment shares9.
The shift in relative employment in Table II.1 is strongly suggestive of technology
transfer that stimulates demand for skilled workers. More generally, this rising
employment within affiliates of skilled workers has been widely documented in many

14
 CD/DOC(2002)04

countries — developed and developing — in recent decades (Berman et al., 1998;

Haskel and Slaughter, 2001; Berman and Machin, 2000). Such employment shifts in the
face of flat or rising relative wages for skilled-workers is commonly cited as evidence
consistent with skill-biased technological change.
Taken together, this evidence on affiliate wages, R&D, and skill-mix is consistent
with the idea that foreign affiliates stimulate demand for skilled workers thanks to
technology transfer from the parent firms. Let us hold for now the question of whether
this technology somehow reaches other firms in host countries, and turn first to the issue
of capital accumulation.
Many studies have documented how new technologies are often embodied in new
capital goods (as opposed to simply changing production techniques for unchanging
capital goods). The most prominent recent example of this is the recent surge in
innovation in information and communication technology (ICT) products: desktop and
laptop computers, fax machines, pagers, cell phones. In turn, there is also a large body
of evidence (see the survey in Hamermesh, 1993) that capital investment stimulates the
demand of firms for skilled workers.
Data on US MNEs are again consistent with this. From 1977 to 1994, the affiliate
share of worldwide capital within these firms rose from about 19 to 23 per cent. In
manufacturing, the affiliate capital share rose in 22 of the 32 primary BEA industries. The
coincidence of affiliate capital deepening and shifting relative employment is consistent
with capital-skill complementarity related to technology transfer. More generally, to the
extent that FDI involves, by definition, host country capital accumulation by foreign-
owned firms, it is not surprising that affiliate expansion should be a force raising demand
for skilled workers.
What about the transfer of technology from affiliates to domestic firms in host
countries? Existing evidence on whether there are productivity spillovers is of three
types. First, there are case studies. Cases can offer rich description about episodes and
exemplify general issues, but they do not always offer quantitative information and
cannot be easily used to generalise.
Second, there are industry-level studies (Caves, 1974 and Blomstrom, 1986).
Many have documented a positive correlation between FDI inflows and productivity. But
the causal meaning of this industry-level correlation is unclear. It may be that inward FDI
raises host country productivity via spillovers. It may also be that inward FDI raises host
country productivity by forcing the exit of low-productivity domestic plants, or simply by
raising the market share of foreign firms which are, on average, more productive. Or it
may be that multinationals tend to concentrate in high-productivity industries. This latter
interpretation is consistent with the knowledge-capital models of multinational firms
outlined above.
The third set of studies are micro-level analyses. These studies examine whether
the productivity of domestic plants (or firms) is correlated with FDI presence in the
industry and/or region of the domestic plants. These micro-level studies are the best
suited approach for identifying productivity patterns consistent with spillovers that
industry-level studies cannot identify.

15
CD/DOC(2002)04

For developing countries, however, there is very little micro evidence supporting
knowledge spillovers. Haddad and Harrison (1993) find increased industry-level FDI is
correlated with lower, not higher, domestic plant productivity in Moroccan manufacturing
plants. Aitken and Harrison (1999) find the same negative result for Venezuelan
manufacturing. For developed countries the results are more mixed. Chung et al. (1998)
report no evidence that Japanese automobile firms operating in the United States
boosted the productivity of their American component-supplier firms via technology
spillovers. Haskel et al. (2002) report some of the strongest micro-level evidence of FDI
spillovers. For a panel of plants covering the entire UK manufacturing sector from 1973
through 1992, they estimate a significantly positive correlation between a domestic
plant’s TFP and the foreign-affiliate share of activity in that plant’s industry.
Why is the evidence on FDI spillovers so mixed? One possible explanation is the
pro-competitive effects of affiliate operations. It may be that foreign entrants take market
shares of domestic firms as they stimulate product market competition, and thereby force
domestic incumbents up their average cost curves. This argument is consistent with
Baily and Solow (2001), who survey a wide range of micro evidence indicating that
international competition of many forms — including both FDI and trade — tends to spur
competitive responses in exposed firms. An alternative explanation is simply that
domestic firms in developing countries do not have sufficient absorptive capacity to
realise knowledge transfers from affiliates.

Summary of Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications

Consistent with standard models of MNEs, there is compelling evidence that

affiliate demand for skilled labour is stimulated by their receipts of parent technology and
their investments in physical capital. Purely through a compositional shift, then, more
inward FDI can raise host country demand for skilled workers. The evidence is mixed,
however, for determining whether affiliates also stimulate this host country demand via
technology transfer to domestic competitors.
The ambiguous evidence, at best, on knowledge spillovers from foreign to
domestic firms may strike some as unfortunate. Such spillovers are an often touted
benefit of inward FDI. It is important to emphasise, however, that externalities of this kind
are, by definition, market failures. In theory, if profit maximising MNEs are aware of their
ability to generate spillovers, then their operational decisions may be endogenous to this
possibility and thus may try to minimise spillover benefits to local competitors.
The survey evidence on MNE expansion strategies in Mansfield and Romeo
(1980) supports this minimisation argument. For example, US MNEs report they transfer
only older technologies to affiliates that are joint ventures — and where knowledge
spillovers are more likely — a precaution that does not seem necessary for affiliates they
wholly own.
The analysis of Shaver and Flyer (2000) is also consistent with this observation.
They argue that when firms vary in their inherent technological abilities and other
measures of firm performance, then these firms differ in the net benefits they realise from
agglomerating near each other. “Best practice” firms have the least to gain and the most
to lose from clustering: few other firms can offer them new ideas, yet their good ideas

16
 CD/DOC(2002)04

can benefit a large number of other firms. Thus, with heterogeneous firms agglomeration
may be characterised by adverse selection, where the firms with the most to offer by
clustering have the least incentive to do so. Their analysis of location choices of
greenfield investments into the United States supports this idea: better-practice foreign
plants, proxied by measures such as size, were less likely to locate near domestic firms.
An important policy implication of this endogeneity of knowledge spillovers is that
host country policies that aim to encourage knowledge transfer can have the paradoxical
effect of aggravating rather than solving the underlying market failure — and thereby of
reducing, not enhancing, the host country benefits of foreign presence.
The recent work by Moran (2001) makes precisely this point. He carefully
examines two industries with extensive global activity in FDI, automobiles and
computers/electronics. For each industry he distinguishes two types of host countries.
One is those that allow parents to maintain tight control over affiliate operations and
thereby allow affiliates to be integrated into MNE-wide production networks as the firms
see best. The other is countries that impose relatively stringent and/or widespread
performance standards on affiliates — e.g. ownership caps, domestic-content
requirements, and various technology-sharing mandates. Moran’s (p. 32) description of
the latter group presents a striking set of performance differences between the two types
of policy regimes.
“The implications for the development prospects of the host are not
favourable. Resources are wasted. Not only are host country consumers
penalised, but so too are host country producers that rely on the use of the
resulting goods and services to establish their own competitive positions in the
marketplace … the plants utilise older technology, and suffer lags in the
introduction of newer processes and products in comparison to wholly owned
subsidiaries without such requirements. At considerable variance with the
dynamic infant industry perspective, the plants are locked systematically into a
position well behind the cutting edge of the industry”.
Put differently, there is compelling evidence that inward FDI brings new
technology and capital investment to host countries within the boundaries of affiliate
operations. The evidence that this technology spills over to domestic firms is much more
mixed. But one should not automatically assume that more of the latter would be better,
because in general equilibrium it may come at the cost of less of the former. Policy
makers need to keep this in mind. If policy makers care only about raising aggregate
productivity, then they should be indifferent about the nationality of ownership of their
more productive firms.
Let me offer two examples of this point. First is a country, Ireland. Ireland enjoyed
a booming economy throughout most of the 1990s, driven in large part by a surge in
inward FDI — and thus in technologies and capital investment — that was concentrated
in high-technology sectors like computers and pharmaceuticals. Today, foreign affiliates
of US firms account for about 16 per cent of Irish GDP. Does it matter for Ireland whether
its surge in output related to strong technology and investment gains has been largely or
even entirely within the boundaries of foreign affiliates operating there? By extension,
does it matter for any other country?

17
CD/DOC(2002)04

My second example is an industry, ICT products. In recent years ICT industries

have been central to the aggregate economic performance of the United States and
other countries. For the United States, about two-thirds of the acceleration since 1995 in
labour-productivity growth is accounted for by the combination of the production and the
use of ICT products (Slaughter, 2001). Prominent ICT-producing firms such as Microsoft
and Intel are widely regarded as worldwide best-practice firms, and policy makers
worldwide profess their intention to host a rising share of worldwide ICT activity.
It is instructive to note the large and rising role for MNEs in these ICT sectors.
Table II.2 offers some evidence on this. For two key ICT industries, industrial machinery
and electronic goods, it reports the share of total US sales accounted for by the sales of
goods of US parents of MNEs whose main line of business is in those industries. Shares
are reported for 1982, 1989, and 1996; similar shares for overall manufacturing outside
these ICT industries are also reported10.

Table II.2. The Share of US Sales in ICT Industries

Accounted for by the US Parents of US-Headquartered Multinationals

Industry 1982 1989 1996

Machinery 54.8 58.6 62.2

Electronics 73.2 66.6 77.6
Other Manufacturing 45.0 49.1 49.3

Notes: Cell entries report the share (in percentage terms) of each industry’s US sales accounted for by the sale of
goods of US parents of US-headquartered multinationals whose main line of business is that relevant industry.
Other manufacturing is all manufacturing less machinery and electronics.

Over the 1980s and into the 1990s, US parents of MNEs account for over 60 per
cent of total US sales in these two prominent ICT industries. Moreover, the importance of
these industries has generally been rising over time. In machinery this sales share rose
from 54.8 per cent in 1982 to 62.2 per cent in 1996. In electronics this sales share
actually declined over the 1980s, but surged in the 1990s from 66.6 to 77.6 per cent.
This prominent presence for US parents in these industries is far larger than their
presence in the rest of manufacturing. The parent sales share for other manufacturing
rose from 45 per cent in 1982 to 49.3 per cent in 1996. And during the 1990s this share
was virtually unchanged in the rest of manufacturing, while it was rising substantially in
the two ICT industries.
All this suggests that MNEs account for a sizeable share of total US ICT activity, a
share which has been rising over time — particularly over the 1990s — and which
appears larger than in most other industries. It is also of interest to know how
prominently foreign affiliates appear in the worldwide activity of these firms. Do MNEs in
ICT industries look more global than those in other industries in terms of affiliates
representing a higher share of firm-wide activity?
Data answering this question are in Table II.3. It reports the share of worldwide
firm value added and employment accounted for by majority-owned foreign affiliates.
These shares are reported for 1982, 1989, and 1997 for machinery, electronic goods,
and all industries together. Table II.3 shows that in 1997, foreign affiliates in these central
ICT industries accounted for between 26 and 40 per cent of worldwide firm value added

18
 CD/DOC(2002)04

and employment. These shares were generally rising by several percentage points over
the 1980s and 1990s. They also were uniformly higher by 1997 than for the broad
economy, where the increases were generally smaller.

Table II.3. The Share of Worldwide Activity of US-Headquartered Multinationals

Accounted for by Foreign Affiliates

Industry Activity Measure 1982 1989 1997

Machinery Value Added 28 39 38

Electronics 14 18 26
All Industries 22 23 25
Machinery Employment 26 34 40
Electronics 23 26 33
All Industries 21 21 25

Notes: Cell entries report the share (in percentage terms) of worldwide activity of US-headquartered multinationals
accounted for by foreign affiliates (where data are available for majority-owned affiliates only).

The global presence of these ICT industries involves not just high-income but
many middle- and low-income countries as well. The McGraw Hill Companies et al.
(2000) reports that in many central ICT industries, many low-income countries such as
Mexico, Malaysia, Philippines, and South Korea are large exporters running net trade
surpluses. This is consistent with global production networks in which these countries
tend to import ICT intermediates, add value to these intermediates, and then export them
on to other countries. There are also compelling studies of international production
networks for very specific activities within ICT sectors — for example, McKendrick’s
coverage of hard-disk drive production (McKendrick et al., 2000). A generation ago these
disk drives were physically produced in the United States, but since then have migrated
to lower-cost regions in various lower-income countries, primarily in Southeast Asia.
Consistent with all this, Hanson et al. (2001) report that from 1982 through 1998, for
affiliates of US multinationals the fastest growing industry-region combination was
computers/office products in Southeast Asia.
It is also important to emphasise that for many producers of ICT products, foreign
customers may be served much more effectively through foreign affiliates than through
exports. This may be particularly true for ICT services, many of which require firms to
interact on-site with customers. Affiliates of MNEs, then, can also figure prominently in
terms of serving foreign markets.
Table II.4 demonstrates this predominance of foreign affiliate sales in US exports
for the key ICT industries of computer services, data-processing and network services,
and electronic information services. For these industries, this table reports both total
foreign sales by majority-owned affiliates and total US exports in three years over the
1990s — 1992, 1994, and 199811. Affiliate sales were about eight times larger than
exports in 1992, and by 1998 this gap had grown to nearly 20 times. This shows that for
many ICT services, foreign affiliates have become an increasingly important channel for
serving foreign markets.

19
CD/DOC(2002)04

Table II.4. The Relative Importance for ICT Services Industries of US Exports versus
Sales by Foreign Affiliates of US-Headquartered Multinationals

Year 1992 1994 1998

US Exports 1 417 2 332 3 412

Affiliate Sales 11 545 25 859 65 056

Notes: Cell entries report the value of either total US exports or total affiliate sales, in billions of current dollars, for the
ICT industries of computer services, data-processing and network services, and electronic-information services
(where data cover majority-owned affiliates only).

So not only do the US parents of MNEs account for a high and rising share of US
activity in central ICT industries (Table II.2), but within these firms in these industries a
high and rising share of total activity (Table II.3) and total foreign-market sales
(Table II.4) is accounted for by their foreign affiliates. Together, all this suggests that
MNEs mediate an important share of total world ICT activity. Again, from the standpoint
of policy makers interested in attracting ICT firms, does this matter? If these firms choose
to minimise knowledge spillovers — a plausible assumption for such information
intensive sectors — does that mean that host countries should not try to attract them?

20
 CD/DOC(2002)04

III. MULTINATIONALS AND THE SUPPLY OF SKILLED LABOUR

On the supply side, the question of how inward FDI influences the development of
human capital is much less clearly answered. This link is, correctly, at the centre of this
discussion, as not a lot is known about it. I will distinguish two different modes by which
MNEs can facilitate investments in human capital.

Multinationals and the Short-Term, Firm-Level Supply of Labour

MNEs can facilitate investments in skilled labour through the short-term, firm-level
activities in which individual firms interact with host country labour markets, such as
on-the-job training, support for local educational institutions, and the like. MNEs might
directly affect labour supplies, as their transferred knowledge might boost the skills of
their employees (and, with spillovers, the skills of local employees as well). They might
also indirectly affect labour supplies, for example, by influencing the educational
infrastructure of host countries in terms of curriculum choices and vocational training. For
instance, Hanson (2000) reports that Intel recently chose to establish a large assembly
and testing facility in Costa Rica, in part thanks to Costa Rica’s agreement to expand
high-school training in electronics and English.
There is recurring discussion of the “skills gaps” multinationals encounter in host
country labour markets. Knowing how individual firms try to overcome these gaps may
hold lessons for the educational initiatives of host country governments. While others
may be more familiar with real world cases and can better discuss these approaches and
policy lessons, I would like to offer two related points. First, in the training literature it is
well documented that educational initiatives by firms tend to be for firm-specific skills, not
general skills (Lynch, 1992). This focus on firm-specific skills is understandable in light of
the inability of firms to capture the returns on investment in general skills. Second,
I reiterate that the knowledge of MNEs is often of competitive value. Government
initiatives to have this information flow beyond affiliates may have unintended
consequences, as outlined in Section II. Taken together, these two points are not meant
to say that individual MNEs cannot engage the institutions of host country labour markets
to help build skills. But they do mean to say that the methods of MNE human capital
development are often likely to be firm-specific rather than aimed at developing general
human capital skills such as numeracy, literacy, and problem solving.

Multinationals and the Long-Term, National Supply of Labour

The other way MNEs can facilitate human capital development is through long-
term, country-level activities that collectively contribute to the overall macro environment

21
CD/DOC(2002)04

in which fiscal policy can support education policy. To the extent that MNEs contribute to
a good macro environment in host countries, they contribute to the ability of host
countries to fund education.
First, MNEs foster skills acquisition economy-wide to the extent that their affiliate
activities of technology transfer and capital investment boost demand and thus wages for
skilled workers. These labour-demand drivers were discussed in Section II. If MNEs
contribute to rising demand and wages for skilled workers economy-wide, then over the
long run they contribute to the general-equilibrium incentive of individuals in host
countries to acquire skills through education and/or training. If individuals in host
countries have access to these methods of skills acquisition, then they should respond to
the price signals coming from the labour market.
Second, the rise in economic activity from MNE affiliates means a rise in host
country tax revenue (whether taxes are levied on labour, capital, or both). This
broadening of host country tax bases can allow greater government investment in
education and training. Of course, FDI output and the tax revenues this generates do not
automatically imply greater investment in human capital. But FDI output and tax
revenues therefrom do free up budget constraints and thereby make possible these
greater investments. This broadly accords with the recent findings of Dollar and Kray
(2000) who document for a large set of developing countries that overall economic
growth tends to coexist with growth in incomes for these countries’ poorest groups.
Third, FDI inflows can improve not just the level of host country economic activity
but also reduce its volatility. Many developing countries rely on foreign capital to help
fund domestic investment opportunities. Table III.5 (from the World Bank, 2000) reports
the composition of net capital flows into developing countries over the 1990s. One
prominent fact is the declining relevance of official aid flows, whose share of the total fell
from nearly 60 per cent in 1990 to under 20 per cent in 1999. A second prominent fact is
that within private flows, FDI has grown in both absolute and relative importance. By
1999 FDI accounted for about two-thirds of total capital inflows and nearly 80 per cent of
private inflows into developing countries.

Table III.5. The Relative Importance of FDI

in Net Capital Inflows in Developing Countries

Year 1990 1995 1997 1999

Total 98.5 257.2 343.7 290.7

Official 55.9 53.9 39.9 52.0
Private 42.6 203.3 303.9 238.7
FDI 24.1 105.0 170.3 192.0
Equity 2.8 36.1 30.2 27.6
Debt 15.7 62.2 103.4 19.1

Notes: Cell entries report the value of various kinds of developing-country net capital inflows, in billions of US dollars.
Source: These data come from World Bank (2000).

22
 CD/DOC(2002)04

A notable feature of FDI relative to other forms of capital flows is its low volatility.
For most of the world’s developing countries over the 1990s, year-on-year variation in
FDI flows has been much lower than in equity and debt flows. Table II.5 shows this to be
the case during the second-half of the 1990s with the run up and subsequent crash down
of debt financing and, to a lesser extent, equity flows. In contrast, FDI flows grew steadily
over the decade. This pattern in Table II.5 has been documented in many studies. For
example, the World Bank (1999) reports that for a sample of 21 developing countries
from 1978 through 1997, FDI inflows were less volatile (in terms of sample coefficient of
variation, as a share of GDP) than non-FDI capital inflows. Similar evidence can be
found in Reisen and Soto (2001).
All this means that over time, for many countries a rising share of their total
international capital inflows has been made up of relatively stable FDI. From the
standpoint of macroeconomic policy, stable capital inflows are much easier to manage.
Accordingly, these FDI inflows help foster macroeconomic stability in which educational
investments can better flourish. Again, macro stability — like tax revenue growth — may
not be a sufficient condition for FDI to stimulate human capital development, but it may,
again, be a necessary condition.
A fourth issue is that FDI inflows can inhibit “brain drain”. In many developing
countries an ongoing policy concern is the loss of highly educated natives to employment
opportunities abroad (either as these people get education locally and then emigrate or
as they get education abroad and then do not return home). To the extent that FDI
inflows bring those attractive employment opportunities to host countries, they can inhibit
brain drain.
Again, consider the example of Ireland. The 1990s boom, due in large part to the
inward FDI surge, is widely perceived as having boosted demand for skilled Irish workers
— with a resulting surge in labour supply driven largely by reverse migration of young
Irish back into the country from locations like England and the United States. Over the
1990s the Irish labour force rose by about 60 per cent, with a commensurate rise in the
population from 2.8 million in 1961 to 3.8 million today (Brumley, 2001). For several
decades before the 1990s, annual net emigration out of Ireland was about 35 000 per
year. During the 1990s this reversed to net immigration of about 45 000 per year, of
which the majority were Irish returnees. Of course, the Irish experience may be
somewhat unique and not representative of developing countries, but it exemplifies well
the general idea of the interaction between inward FDI and reverse migration.

Summary of Multinationals and Labour Supply

Even if at this point generalisations of successful firm-level educational initiatives

are hard to come by, as these efforts continue sight should not be lost of the country-
level contributions that MNEs can make to human capital development in developing
countries. This is particularly true for policy aimed at longer time horizons. High MNE
wages as an important labour market signal, higher and more stable macroeconomic
growth and tax revenue, and reduced emigration incentives: through all these channels
MNE affiliates can stimulate long-term skills acquisition in host countries.

23
CD/DOC(2002)04

IV. CONCLUSIONS

This paper has discussed how multinational firms affect both the demand for and
supply of skills in host country labour markets. On the demand side, as multinational
affiliates utilise firm-specific knowledge assets and invest in physical capital they raise
demand for skilled workers. All this may also occur in domestic firms in host countries if
these knowledge assets are somehow transferred, but evidence on this — particularly for
externality spillovers — is rather mixed. On the supply side, multinationals can raise the
supply of skilled workers both at the micro-level of individual affiliates training workers
in-house and via interactions with host country education and training institutions. They
can also do this at the macro-level through channels such as helping to raise and
stabilise output and affecting migration decisions.
Two areas in particular on this interaction between multinationals and skill
upgrading may merit closer research. On the demand side, understanding how these
firms control the within-firm and cross-firm flows of information may be important for
understanding how broadly these knowledge assets spread within host countries. At this
point, there simply is not a large, systematic body of evidence on knowledge flows into
FDI host countries. This is in part because data requirements for distinguishing
alternative stories identifying and analysing these different flows are high: micro-level
data on plants, firms, and individuals are really needed. How much can be learned about
these issues will largely depend on which countries will be able to provide the necessary
data to permit that learning. On the supply side, an ongoing issue is obtaining a clearer
understanding of effective micro-level policies for fostering private-public skills building.

24
 CD/DOC(2002)04

NOTES

1. See Helpman (1984) and Helpman and Krugman (1985). This view is also related to models of foreign
outsourcing, in which the vertical separation of production occurs without multinationals.

2. See Markusen (1984), Horstmann and Markusen (1987, 1992) and Markusen and Venables (1998, 2000). Trade
models of this variety are similar to older theories of tariff-jumping FDI. See Caves (1996) for a discussion. There
have been some attempts to integrate models of horizontal and vertical FDI into a single framework. See, for
example, Markusen (2001).

3. In general-equilibrium trade models with multiple sectors, the “sector bias” of technological change — i.e. what
industries these innovations are occurring in — can matter for economy-wide labour demand changes above and
beyond any factor bias to these innovations. See Haskel and Slaughter (2001).

4. For example, suppose that knowledge spills over from automobile producers (which fall within US Standard
Industry Code (SIC) 3711) to automobile-parts suppliers (which fall within US SIC 3712). Then at the four-digit
SIC level spillovers would be inter-industry, but at the two- or three-digit level they would be intra-industry.

5. Spillovers via labour turnover might hinge on the mobility of administrative workers — e.g. managers with
knowledge of organisational techniques. But it might hinge on the mobility of production workers as well
— e.g. assemblers with knowledge of production-line efficiencies.

6. For example, Howenstine and Zeile (1994) and Doms and Jensen (1998) document these wage differentials
among US manufacturing plants. Globerman et al. (1994) present similar evidence for Canada; Aitken et al.
(1996) for Mexico and Venezuela; and Te Velde and Morrissey (2001) for five African countries.

7. Budd et al. (2001) argue that if MNEs are, on average, more profitable than domestic firms, then international
rent sharing within MNEs could explain this wage premium. For a panel of MNEs in Europe over the 1990s, they
estimate a robust correlation between affiliate wages and parent profitability, consistent with this profit-sharing
assumption.

8. Berman, et al. (1994) document for the United States that employment trends for this job classification measure
track quite closely employment trends measured by the white-collar/blue-collar job classification —- which in turn
closely reflects the college/high-school classification.

9. Also notable is the fact that many developing countries had non-production employment shares below the share
for the overall world. This broadly suggests that MNE employment demands respond to cross-country
differences in factor prices.

10. Within the widely used Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), many studies term ICT sectors part or all of
electrical and non-electrical machinery (SIC 36 and 35, respectively). These industries contain much of the ICT
hardware such as computers and office products (SIC 357) and semiconductors (SIC 3674). Other ICT sectors
include telecommunication services (SIC 48) and information services (SIC 737). Sales data for these industries
in the overall United States come from the National Bureau of Economic Research (2001). Sales data for the US
parents of American companies with global operations come from the BEA. What is reported for these parents is
their sales of goods only, not of goods and services. This is to maximise comparability with the US industry-wide
sales data. That said, one potential limitation of these parent data is they classify all of a parent’s sales of goods
into the single industry in which that parent is classified. To the extent that some parents span multiple lines of

25
CD/DOC(2002)04

business, and thus sell goods across multiple industries, these data may be noisy. For a smaller number of years
sales data are also classified by industry of sales, rather than by industry of parent. Sales data across these two
methods are very close to each other. In fact, for ICT industries parent sales by industry of sales are slightly
larger than parent sales of goods by industry of parent, so this alternative sales measure would make US
parents look even more prominent than they already do in Table II.2.

11. The ICT service industries in this table together constitute SIC industry 737.

26
 CD/DOC(2002)04

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AITKEN, B.J. and A.E. HARRISON (1999), “Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Foreign Direct Investment?
Evidence from Venezuela”, American Economic Review, June, pp. 605-618.
AITKEN, B.J., A.E. HARRISON and R.E. LIPSEY (1996), “Wages and Foreign Ownership: A Comparative
Study of Mexico, Venezuela, and the United States”, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 40
(3-4), May, pp. 345-371.
BAILY, M.N. and R.M. SOLOW (2001), “International Productivity Comparisons Built from the Firm Level”,
Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15, No. 3, Summer, pp. 151-172.
BALDWIN, R, R. LIPSEY and J.D. RICHARDSON (1998) (eds.), Geography and Ownership as Bases for
Economic Accounting, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
BERMAN, E., J. BOUND and Z. GRILICHES (1994), “Changes in the Demand for Skilled Labour within US
Manufacturing: Evidence from the Annual Survey of Manufactures”, Quarterly Journal of Economics,
pp. 367-397.
BERMAN, E., J. BOUND and S. MACHIN (1998), “Implications of Skill-Biased Technological Change:
International Evidence”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, pp. 1245-1280.
BERMAN, E. and S. MACHIN (2000), “Skill-Biased Technology Transfer Around the World”, Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, Vol. 16, pp. 12-22.
BLÖMSTROM, M. (1986), “Foreign Investment and Productive Efficiency: The Case of Mexico”, Journal of
Industrial Economics, 35 (1), pp. 97-110.
BRUMLEY, B. (2001), “IT Reverses Brain Drain”, Australian IT, October 23.
BUDD, J.W., J. KONINGS and M.J. SLAUGHTER (2001), “International Profit Sharing in Multinational Firms”,
mimeo, November.
CAVES, R.E. (1974), “Multinational Firms, Competition, and Productivity in Host-Country Industries”,
Economica, 41, pp. 176-193.
CAVES, R.E. (1996), Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis, second edition, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
CHUNG, W., W. MITCHELL and B. YEUNG (1998), “Foreign Direct Investment and Host Country Productivity:
The American Automotive Component Industry in the 1980s”, mimeo.
DOLLAR, D. and A. KRAAY (2000), “Growth is Good for the Poor”, Development Research Group, World
Bank, Washington, D.C.
DOMS, M.E. and J.B. JENSEN (1998), “Comparing Wages, Skills, and Productivity between Domestically
and Foreign-Owned Manufacturing Establishments in the United States”, in R. BALDWIN, R. LIPSEY
and J.D. RICHARDSON (eds.), op. cit., pp. 235-255.
DUNNING, J.H. (1981), International Production and the Multinational Enterprise, George, Allen, and Unwin,
London.

27
CD/DOC(2002)04

GLOBERMAN, S., J.C. RIES and I. VERTINSKY (1994), “The Economic Performance of Foreign Affiliates in
Canada”, Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. 27 (1), pp. 143-156.
HADDAD, M. and A.E. HARRISON (1993), “Are there Positive Spillovers from Direct Foreign Investment?”
Journal of Development Economics, 42, pp. 51-74.
HAMERMESH, D. (1993), Labor Demand, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
HANSON, G.H. (2000), “Should Countries Promote Foreign Direct Investment?”, G24 paper.
HANSON, G.H., R. MATALONI and M.J. SLAUGHTER (2001), “Expansion Strategies of US Multinational Firms”,
in D. RODRIK and S. COLLINS (eds), op. cit.
HASKEL, J.E., S.C. PEREIRA and M.J. SLAUGHTER (2002), “Does Inward Foreign Direct Investment Boost the
Productivity of Domestic Firms?”, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No. 8724.
HASKEL, J.E. and M.J. SLAUGHTER (2001), “Does the Sector Bias of Skill-Biased Technological Change
Explain Changing Skill Premia?”, European Economic Review.
HELPMAN, E. (1984), “A Simple Theory of Trade with Multinational Corporations”, Journal of Political
Economy 92, pp. 451-471.
HELPMAN, E. and P. KRUGMAN (1985), Market Structure and Foreign Trade, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
HORSTMANN, I.J. and J.R. MARKUSEN (1987), “Strategic Investments and the Development of
Multinationals”, International Economic Review 28, pp. 109-121.
HORSTMANN, I.J. and J.R. MARKUSEN (1992), “Endogenous Market Structures in International Trade”,
Journal of International Economics 32, pp. 109-129.
HOWENSTINE, N.G. and W.J. ZEILE (1994), “Characteristics of Foreign-owned US Manufacturing
Establishments”, Survey of Current Business, Vol. 74 (1), January, pp. 34-59.
KELLER, W. (2001), “The Geography and Channels of Diffusion at the World’s Technology Frontier”,
National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, No. 8150, March.
KRUGMAN, P.R. (1991), Geography and Trade, MIT Press, Cambridge.
LIPSEY, R.E., M. BLÖMSTROM and E. RAMSTETTER (1998), “Internationalised Production in World Output”, in
R. BALDWIN, R. LIPSEY, and J.D. RICHARDSON (eds.), op. cit., pp. 83-135.
LYNCH, L.M. (1992), “Private-Sector Training and the Earnings of Young Workers”, American Economic
Review, 82 (1), pp. 299-312.
MANSFIELD, E. and A. ROMEO (1980), “Technology Transfer to Overseas Subsidiaries by US-Based Firms”,
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95 (4), pp. 737-750.
MARKUSEN, J.R. (1984), “Multinationals, Multi-Plant Economies, and the Gains from Trade”, Journal of
International Economics 16, pp. 205-226.
MARKUSEN, J.R. (2001), Multinational Firms and the Theory of International Trade, forthcoming, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
MARKUSEN, J. and A. VENABLES (1998), “Multinational Firms and the New Trade Theory”, Journal of
International Economics 46, pp. 183-203.
MARKUSEN, J. and A. VENABLES (2000), “The Theory of Endowment, Intra-Industry and Multinational
Trade”, Journal of International Economics 52, pp. 209-234.
MARSHALL, A. (1920), Principles of Economics, 8th edition, Macmillan, London.
MCKENDRICK, D.G., R.F. DONER and S. HAGGARD (2000), From Silicon Valley to Singapore: Location and
Competitive Advantage in the Hard Disk Drive Industry, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

28
 CD/DOC(2002)04

MOEN, J. (2000), “Is Mobility of Technical Personnel a Source of R&D Spillovers?”, National Bureau of
Economic Research Working Paper , No. 7834, August.
MORAN, T.H. (2001), Parental Supervision: The New Paradigm for Foreign Direct Investment and
Development, Institute for International Economics, August, Washington, D.C.
MOTTA, M., A. FOFUR and T. RONDE (1999), “Foreign Direct Investment and Spillovers through Workers’
Mobility”, CEPR Discussion Paper, No. 2194.
REISEN, H. and M. SOTO (2001), “Which Type of Capital Flows Foster Developing-Country Growth?”,
International Finance 4(1), pp. 1-14.
RODRIGUEZ-CLARE, A. (1996), “Multinationals, Linkages, and Economic Development”, American Economic
Review 86 (4), September, pp. 852-873.
RODRIK, D. and S. COLLINS (2001) (eds), Brookings Trade Forum 2001.
SHAVER, J. M. and F. FLYER (2000), “Agglomeration Economies, Firm Heterogeneity, and FDI in the United
States”, Strategic Management Journal, 21 (12), pp. 1175-1193.
SLAUGHTER, M.J. (1998), American Investments, Global Returns, American Committee for American Trade
Washington, D.C.
SLAUGHTER, M.J. (2000), “Production Transfer within Multinational Enterprises and American Wages”,
Journal of International Economics, 50, April 2000, pp. 449-472.
SLAUGHTER, M.J. (2001), US Trade and Investment Policy and the Growth of Information Technology,
American Committee for American Trade, Washington, D.C.
SONG, J., P. ALMEIDA and G. WU (2001), “Learning-by-Hiring: When is Mobility Useful?”, paper presented
at the “Technological Innovation and Evolution” Conference, March.
TE VELDE, D.W. and O. MORRISSEY (2001), “Foreign Ownership and Wages: Evidence from Five African
Countries”, CREDIT Discussion Paper.
THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/INTERNATIONAL TRADE
ADMINISTRATION (2000), US Industry & Trade Outlook 2000, The McGraw-Hill Companies, New York.
UNCTAD (2000), World Investment Report 2000: Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions and
Development, United Nations, New York and Geneva.
WORLD BANK (1999, 2000), Global Development Finance, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

29
CD/DOC(2002)04

OTHER TITLES IN THE SERIES/

AUTRES TITRES DANS LA SÉRIE

All these documents may be downloaded from:

http://www.oecd.org/dev/Technics, obtained via e-mail ([email protected])
or ordered by post from the address on page 3

Technical Paper No.1, Macroeconomic Adjustment and Income Distribution: A Macro-Micro Simulation Model, by F. Bourguignon,
W.H. Branson, J. de Melo, March 1989.
Technical Paper No. 2, International Interactions In Food and Agricultural Policies: Effect of Alternative Policies, by J. Zietz and
A. Valdés, April, 1989.
Technical Paper No. 3, The Impact of Budget Retrenchment on Income Distribution in Indonesia: A Social Accounting Matrix
Application, by S. Keuning, E. Thorbecke, June 1989.
Technical Paper No. 3a, Statistical Annex to The Impact of Budget Retrenchment, June 1989.
Technical Paper No. 4, Le Rééquilibrage entre le secteur public et le secteur privé : le cas du Mexique, by C.-A. Michalet, June1989.
Technical Paper No. 5, Rebalancing the Public and Private Sectors: The Case of Malaysia, by R. Leeds, July 1989.
Technical Paper No. 6, Efficiency, Welfare Effects, and Political Feasibility of Alternative Antipoverty and Adjustment Programs,
by A. de Janvry and E. Sadoulet, January 1990.
Document Technique No. 7, Ajustement et distribution des revenus : application d’un modèle macro-micro au Maroc, par Christian
Morrisson, avec la collaboration de Sylvie Lambert et Akiko Suwa, décembre 1989.
Technical Paper No. 8, Emerging Maize Biotechnologies and their Potential Impact, by W. Burt Sundquist, October 1989.
Document Technique No. 9, Analyse des variables socio-culturelles et de l’ajustement en Côte d’Ivoire, par W. Weekes-Vagliani,
janvier 1990.
Technical Paper No. 10, A Financial Computable General Equilibrium Model for the Analysis of Ecuador’s Stabilization Programs, by
André Fargeix and Elisabeth Sadoulet, February 1990.
Technical Paper No. 11, Macroeconomic Aspects, Foreign Flows and Domestic Savings Performance in Developing Countries.
A ”State of The Art” Report, by Anand Chandavarkar, February 1990.
Technical Paper No. 12, Tax Revenue Implications of the Real Exchange Rate: Econometric Evidence from Korea and Mexico,
by Viriginia Fierro-Duran and Helmut Reisen, April 1990.
Technical Paper No. 13, Agricultural Growth and Economic Development: The Case of Pakistan, by Naved Hamid and Wouter Tins,
April 1990.
Technical Paper No. 14, Rebalancing The Public and Private Sectors in Developing Countries. The Case of Ghana,
by Dr. H. Akuoko-Frimpong, June 1990.
Technical Paper No. 15, Agriculture and the Economic Cycle: An Economic and Econometric Analysis with Special Reference to
Brazil, by Florence Contre and Ian Goldin, June 1990.
Technical Paper No. 16, Comparative Advantage: Theory and Application to Developing Country Agriculture, by Ian Goldin,
June1990.
Technical Paper No.17, Biotechnology and Developing Country Agriculture: Maize in Brazil, by Bernardo Sorj and John Wilkinson,
June 1990.
Technical Paper No. 18, Economic Policies and Sectoral Growth: Argentina 1913-1984, by Yair Mundlak, Domingo Cavallo, Roberto
Domenech, June 1990.
Technical Paper No. 19, Biotechnology and Developing Country Agriculture: Maize In Mexico, by Jaime A. Matus Gardea, Arturo
Puente Gonzalez, Cristina Lopez Peralta, June 1990.
Technical Paper No. 20, Biotechnology and Developing Country Agriculture: Maize in Thailand, by Suthad Setboonsarng, July 1990.
Technical Paper No. 21, International Comparisons of Efficiency in Agricultural Production, by Guillermo Flichmann, July 1990.
Technical Paper No. 22, Unemployment in Developing Countries: New Light on an Old Problem, by David Turnham and Denizhan
Eröcal, July 1990.
Technical Paper No. 23, Optimal Currency Composition of Foreign Debt: the Case of Five Developing Countries, by Pier Giorgio
Gawronski, August 1990.
Technical Paper No. 24, From Globalization to Regionalization: the Mexican Case, by Wilson Peres Nuñez, August 1990.
Technical Paper No. 25, Electronics and Development in Venezuela. A User-Oriented Strategy and its Policy Implications, by Carlota
Perez, October 1990.

30
 CD/DOC(2002)04

Technical Paper No. 26, The Legal Protection of Software. Implications for Latecomer Strategies in Newly Industrialising Economies
NIEs and Middle-Income Economies MIEs, by Carlos Maria Correa, October 1990.
Technical Paper No. 27, Specialization, Technical Change and Competitiveness in the Brazilian Electronics Industry, by Claudio R.
Frischtak, October 1990.
Technical Paper No. 28, Internationalization Strategies of Japanese Electronics Companies: Implications for Asian Newly
Industrializing Economies NIEs, by Bundo Yamada, October 1990.
Technical Paper No. 29, The Status and an Evaluation of the Electronics Industry in Taiwan, by Gee San, October 1990.
Technical Paper No. 30, The Indian Electronics Industry: Current Status, Perspectives and Policy Options, by Ghayur Alam, October
1990.
Technical Paper No. 31, Comparative Advantage in Agriculture in Ghana, by James Pickett and E. Shaeeldin, October 1990.
Technical Paper No. 32, Debt Overhang, Liquidity Constraints and Adjustment Incentives, by Bert Hofman and Helmut Reisen,
October 1990.
Technical Paper No. 34, Biotechnology and Developing Country Agriculture: Maize in Indonesia, by Hidajat Nataatmadja et al.,
January 1991.
Technical Paper No. 35, Changing Comparative Advantage in Thai Agriculture, by Ammar Siamwalla, Suthad Setboonsarng and
Prasong Werakarnjanapongs, March 1991.
Technical Paper No. 36, Capital Flows and the External Financing of Turkey’s Imports, by Ziya Önis and Süleyman Özmucur, July
1991.
Technical Paper No. 37, The External Financing of Indonesia’s Imports, by Glenn P. Jenkins and Henry B.F. Lim, July 1991.
Technical Paper No. 38, Long-term Capital Reflow under Macroeconomic Stabilization in Latin America, by Beatriz Armendariz de
Aghion, April 1991.
Technical Paper No. 39, Buybacks of LDC Debt and the Scope for Forgiveness, by Beatriz Armendariz de Aghion, April 1991.
Technical Paper No. 40, Measuring and Modelling Non-Tariff Distortions with Special Reference to Trade in Agricultural Commodities,
by Peter J. Lloyd, July 1991.
Technical Paper No. 41, The Changing Nature of IMF Conditionality, by Jacques J. Polak, August 1991.
Technical Paper No. 42, Time-Varying Estimates on the Openness of the Capital Account in Korea and Taiwan, by Helmut Reisen
and Hélène Yèches, August 1991.
Technical Paper No. 43, Toward a Concept of Development Agreements, by F. Gerard Adams, August 1991.
Document technique No. 44, Le Partage du fardeau entre les créanciers de pays débiteurs défaillants, par Jean-Claude Berthélemy
et Ann Vourc’h, septembre 1991.
Technical Paper No. 45, The External Financing of Thailand’s Imports, by Supote Chunanunthathum, October 1991.
Technical Paper No. 46, The External Financing of Brazilian Imports, by Enrico Colombatto, with Elisa Luciano, Luca Gargiulo, Pietro
Garibaldi and Giuseppe Russo, October 1991.
Technical Paper No. 47, Scenarios for the World Trading System and their Implications for Developing Countries, by Robert Z.
Lawrence, November 1991.
Technical Paper No. 48, Trade Policies in a Global Context: Technical Specification of the Rural/UrbanNorth/South RUNS Applied
General Equilibrium Model, by Jean-Marc Burniaux and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, November 1991.
Technical Paper No. 49, Macro-Micro Linkages: Structural Adjustment and Fertilizer Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa, by
Jean-Marc Fontaine with the collaboration of Alice Sinzingre, December 1991.
Technical Paper No. 50, Aggregation by Industry in General Equilibrium Models with International Trade, by Peter J. Lloyd, December
1991.
Technical Paper No. 51, Policy and Entrepreneurial Responses to the Montreal Protocol: Some Evidence from the Dynamic Asian
Economies, by David C. O’Connor, December 1991.
Technical Paper No. 52, On the Pricing of LDC Debt: an Analysis based on Historical Evidence from Latin America, by Beatriz
Armendariz de Aghion, February 1992.
Technical Paper No. 53, Economic Regionalisation and Intra-Industry Trade: Pacific-Asian Perspectives, by Kiichiro Fukasaku,
February 1992.
Technical Paper No. 54, Debt Conversions in Yugoslavia, by Mojmir Mrak, February 1992.
Technical Paper No. 55, Evaluation of Nigeria’s Debt-Relief Experience 1985-1990, by N.E. Ogbe, March 1992.
Document technique No. 56, L’Expérience de l’allégement de la dette du Mali, par Jean-Claude Berthélemy, février 1992.
Technical Paper No. 57, Conflict or Indifference: US Multinationals in a World of Regional Trading Blocs, by Louis T. Wells, Jr., March
1992.
Technical Paper No. 58, Japan’s Rapidly Emerging Strategy Toward Asia, by Edward J. Lincoln, April 1992.
Technical Paper No. 59, The Political Economy of Stabilization Programmes in Developing Countries, by Bruno S. Frey and Reiner
Eichenberger, April 1992.
Technical Paper No. 60, Some Implications of Europe 1992 for Developing Countries, by Sheila Page, April 1992.
Technical Paper No. 61, Taiwanese Corporations in Globalisation and Regionalisation, by San Gee, April 1992.
Technical Paper No. 62, Lessons from the Family Planning Experience for Community-Based Environmental Education, by Winifred
Weekes-Vagliani, April 1992.
Technical Paper No. 63, Mexican Agriculture in the Free Trade Agreement: Transition Problems in Economic Reform, by Santiago
Levy and Sweder van Wijnbergen, May 1992.
Technical Paper No. 64, Offensive and Defensive Responses by European Multinationals to a World of Trade Blocs, by John M.
Stopford, May 1992.
Technical Paper No. 65, Economic Integration in the Pacific, by Richard Drobnick, May 1992.
Technical Paper No. 66, Latin America in a Changing Global Environment, by Winston Fritsch, May 1992.
Technical Paper No. 67, An Assessment of the Brady Plan Agreements, by Jean-Claude Berthélemy and Robert Lensink, May 1992.
Technical Paper No. 68, The Impact of Economic Reform on the Performance of the Seed Sector in Eastern and Southern Africa,
by Elizabeth Cromwell, May 1992.

31
CD/DOC(2002)04

Technical Paper No. 69, Impact of Structural Adjustment and Adoption of Technology on Competitiveness of Major Cocoa Producing
Countries, by Emily M. Bloomfield and R. Antony Lass, June 1992.
Technical Paper No. 70, Structural Adjustment and Moroccan Agriculture: an Assessment of the Reforms in the Sugar and Cereal
Sectors, by Jonathan Kydd and Sophie Thoyer, June 1992.
Document technique No. 71, L’Allégement de la dette au Club de Paris : les évolutions récentes en perspective, par Ann Vourc’h, juin
1992.
Technical Paper No. 72, Biotechnology and the Changing Public/Private Sector Balance: Developments in Rice and Cocoa, by
Carliene Brenner, July 1992.
Technical Paper No. 73, Namibian Agriculture: Policies and Prospects, by Walter Elkan, Peter Amutenya, Jochbeth Andima, Robin
Sherbourne and Eline van der Linden, July 1992.
Technical Paper No. 74, Agriculture and the Policy Environment: Zambia and Zimbabwe, by Doris J. Jansen and Andrew Rukovo,
July 1992.
Technical Paper No. 75, Agricultural Productivity and Economic Policies: Concepts and Measurements, by Yair Mundlak, August
1992.
Technical Paper No. 76, Structural Adjustment and the Institutional Dimensions of Agricultural Research and Development in Brazil:
Soybeans, Wheat and Sugar Cane, by John Wilkinson and Bernardo Sorj, August 1992.
Technical Paper No. 77, The Impact of Laws and Regulations on Micro and Small Enterprises in Niger and Swaziland, by Isabelle
Joumard, Carl Liedholm and Donald Mead, September 1992.
Technical Paper No. 78, Co-Financing Transactions between Multilateral Institutions and International Banks, by Michel Bouchet and
Amit Ghose, October 1992.
Document technique No. 79, Allégement de la dette et croissance : le cas mexicain, par Jean-Claude Berthélemy et Ann Vourc’h,
octobre 1992.
Document technique No. 80, Le Secteur informel en Tunisie : cadre réglementaire et pratique courante, par Abderrahman Ben
Zakour et Farouk Kria, novembre 1992.
Technical Paper No. 81, Small-Scale Industries and Institutional Framework in Thailand, by Naruemol Bunjongjit and Xavier Oudin,
November 1992.
Technical Paper No. 81a, Statistical Annex, November 1992.
Document technique No. 82, L’Expérience de l’allégement de la dette du Niger, par Ann Vourc’h and Maina Boukar Moussa,
novembre 1992.
Technical Paper No. 83, Stabilization and Structural Adjustment in Indonesia: an Intertemporal General Equilibrium Analysis,
by David Roland-Holst, November 1992.
Technical Paper No. 84, Striving for International Competitiveness: Lessons from Electronics for Developing Countries, by Jan
Maarten de Vet, March 1993.
Document technique No. 85, Micro-entreprises et cadre institutionnel en Algérie, by Hocine Benissad, March 1993.
Technical Paper No. 86, Informal Sector and Regulations in Ecuador and Jamaica, by Emilio Klein and Victor E. Tokman, August
1993.
Technical Paper No. 87, Alternative Explanations of the Trade-Output Correlation in the East Asian Economies, by Colin I. Bradford
Jr. and Naomi Chakwin, August 1993.
Document technique No. 88, La Faisabilité politique de l’ajustement dans les pays africains, by Christian Morrisson, Jean-Dominique
Lafay and Sébastien Dessus, November 1993.
Technical Paper No. 89, China as a Leading Pacific Economy, by Kiichiro Fukasaku and Mingyuan Wu, November 1993.
Technical Paper No. 90, A Detailed Input-Output Table for Morocco, 1990, by Maurizio Bussolo and David Roland-Holst November
1993.
Technical Paper No. 91, International Trade and the Transfer of Environmental Costs and Benefits, by Hiro Lee and David
Roland-Holst, December 1993.
Technical Paper No. 92, Economic Instruments in Environmental Policy: Lessons from the OECD Experience and their Relevance to
Developing Economies, by Jean-Philippe Barde, January 1994.
Technical Paper No. 93, What Can Developing Countries Learn from OECD Labour Market Programmes and Policies?, by Åsa
Sohlman with David Turnham January 1994.
Technical Paper No. 94, Trade Liberalization and Employment Linkages in the Pacific Basin, by Hiro Lee and David Roland-Holst,
February 1994.
Technical Paper No. 95, Participatory Development and Gender: Articulating Concepts and Cases, by Winifred Weekes-Vagliani,
February 1994.
Document technique No. 96, Promouvoir la maîtrise locale et régionale du développement : une démarche participative à
Madagascar, by Philippe de Rham and Bernard J. Lecomte, June 1994.
Technical Paper No. 97, The OECD Green Model: an Updated Overview, by Hiro Lee, Joaquim Oliveira-Martins and Dominique van
der Mensbrugghe, August 1994.
Technical Paper No. 98, Pension Funds, Capital Controls and Macroeconomic Stability, by Helmut Reisen and John Williamson
August 1994.
Technical Paper No. 99, Trade and Pollution Linkages: Piecemeal Reform and Optimal Intervention, by John Beghin, David
Roland-Holst and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, October 1994.
Technical Paper No. 100, International Initiatives in Biotechnology for Developing Country Agriculture: Promises and Problems, by
Carliene Brenner and John Komen, October 1994.
Technical Paper No. 101, Input-based Pollution Estimates for Environmental Assessment in Developing Countries, by Sébastien
Dessus, David Roland-Holst and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, October 1994.
Technical Paper No. 102, Transitional Problems from Reform to Growth: Safety Nets and Financial Efficiency in the Adjusting
Egyptian Economy, by Mahmoud Abdel-Fadil, December 1994.
Technical Paper No. 103, Biotechnology and Sustainable Agriculture: Lessons from India, by Ghayur Alam, December 1994.

32
 CD/DOC(2002)04

Technical Paper No. 104, Crop Biotechnology and Sustainability: a Case Study of Colombia, by Luis R. Sanint, January 1995.
Technical Paper No. 105, Biotechnology and Sustainable Agriculture: the Case of Mexico, by José Luis Solleiro Rebolledo, January
1995.
Technical Paper No. 106, Empirical Specifications for a General Equilibrium Analysis of Labor Market Policies and Adjustments, by
Andréa Maechler and David Roland-Holst, May 1995.
Document technique No. 107, Les Migrants, partenaires de la coopération internationale : le cas des Maliens de France, by
Christophe Daum, July 1995.
Document technique No. 108, Ouverture et croissance industrielle en Chine : étude empirique sur un échantillon de villes, by Sylvie
Démurger, September 1995.
Technical Paper No. 109, Biotechnology and Sustainable Crop Production in Zimbabwe, by John J. Woodend, December 1995.
Document technique No. 110, Politiques de l’environnement et libéralisation des échanges au Costa Rica : une vue d’ensemble, par
Sébastien Dessus et Maurizio Bussolo, February 1996.
Technical Paper No. 111, Grow Now/Clean Later, or the Pursuit of Sustainable Development?, by David O’Connor, March 1996.
Technical Paper No. 112, Economic Transition and Trade-Policy Reform: Lessons from China, by Kiichiro Fukasaku and Henri-
Bernard Solignac Lecomte, July 1996.
Technical Paper No. 113, Chinese Outward Investment in Hong Kong: Trends, Prospects and Policy Implications, by Yun-Wing Sung,
July 1996.
Technical Paper No. 114, Vertical Intra-industry Trade between China and OECD Countries, by Lisbeth Hellvin, July 1996.
Document technique No. 115, Le Rôle du capital public dans la croissance des pays en développement au cours des années 80, par
Sébastien Dessus et Rémy Herrera, July 1996.
Technical Paper No. 116, General Equilibrium Modelling of Trade and the Environment, by John Beghin, Sébastien Dessus, David
Roland-Holst and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, September 1996.
Technical Paper No. 117, Labour Market Aspects of State Enterprise Reform in Viet Nam, by David O’Connor, September 1996.
Document technique No. 118, Croissance et compétitivité de l’industrie manufacturière au Sénégal par Thierry Latreille et Aristomène
Varoudakis, October 1996.
Technical Paper No. 119, Evidence on Trade and Wages in the Developing World, by Donald J. Robbins, December 1996.
Technical Paper No. 120, Liberalising Foreign Investments by Pension Funds: Positive and Normative Aspects, by Helmut Reisen,
January 1997
Document technique No. 121, Capital Humain, ouverture extérieure et croissance : estimation sur données de panel d’un modèle à
coefficients variables, par Jean-Claude Berthélemy, Sébastien Dessus et Aristomène Varoudakis, January 1997.
Technical Paper No. 122, Corruption: The Issues, by Andrew W. Goudie and David Stasavage, January 1997.
Technical Paper No. 123, Outflows of Capital from China, by David Wall, March 1997.
Technical Paper No. 124, Emerging Market Risk and Sovereign Credit Ratings, by Guillermo Larraín, Helmut Reisen and Julia von
Maltzan, April 1997.
Technical Paper No. 125, Urban Credit Co-operatives in China, by Eric Girardin and Xie Ping, August 1997.
Technical Paper No. 126, Fiscal Alternatives of Moving from Unfunded to Funded Pensions, by Robert Holzmann, August 1997.
Technical Paper No. 127, Trade Strategies for the Southern Mediterranean, by Peter A. Petri, December 1997.
Technical Paper No. 128, The Case of Missing Foreign Investment in the Southern Mediterranean, by Peter A. Petri, December 1997.
Technical Paper No. 129, Economic Reform in Egypt in a Changing Global Economy, by Joseph Licari, December 1997.
Technical Paper No. 130, Do Funded Pensions Contribute to Higher Aggregate Savings? A Cross-Country Analysis, by Jeanine
Bailliu and Helmut Reisen, December 1997.
Technical Paper No. 131, Long-run Growth Trends and Convergence Across Indian States, by Rayaprolu Nagaraj, Aristomène
Varoudakis and Marie-Ange Véganzonès, January 1998.
Technical Paper No. 132, Sustainable and Excessive Current Account Deficits, by Helmut Reisen, February 1998.
Technical Paper No. 133, Intellectual Property Rights and Technology Transfer in Developing Country Agriculture: Rhetoric and
Reality, by Carliene Brenner, March 1998.
Technical Paper No. 134, Exchange-rate Management and Manufactured Exports in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Khalid Sekkat and
Aristomène Varoudakis, March 1998.
Technical Paper No. 135, Trade Integration with Europe, Export Diversification and Economic Growth in Egypt, by Sébastien Dessus
and Akiko Suwa-Eisenmann, June 1998.
Technical Paper No. 136, Domestic Causes of Currency Crises: Policy Lessons for Crisis Avoidance, by Helmut Reisen, June 1998.
Technical Paper No. 137, A Simulation Model of Global Pension Investment, by Landis MacKellar and Helmut Reisen, August 1998.
Technical Paper No. 138, Determinants of Customs Fraud and Corruption: Evidence from Two African Countries, by David
Stasavage and Cécile Daubrée, August 1998.
Technical Paper No. 139, State Infrastructure and Productive Performance in Indian Manufacturing, by Arup Mitra, Aristomène
Varoudakis and Marie-Ange Véganzonès, August 1998.
Technical Paper No. 140, Rural Industrial Development in Viet Nam and China: A Study of Contrasts, by David O’Connor, August
1998.
Technical Paper No. 141,Labour Market Aspects of State Enterprise Reform in China, by Fan Gang,Maria Rosa Lunati and David
O’Connor, October 1998.
Technical Paper No. 142, Fighting Extreme Poverty in Brazil: The Influence of Citizens’ Action on Government Policies, by Fernanda
Lopes de Carvalho, November 1998.
Technical Paper No. 143, How Bad Governance Impedes Poverty Alleviation in Bangladesh, by Rehman Sobhan, November 1998.
Document technique No. 144, La libéralisation de l’agriculture tunisienne et l’Union européenne : une vue prospective, par Mohamed
Abdelbasset Chemingui et Sébastien Dessus, février 1999.
Technical Paper No. 145, Economic Policy Reform and Growth Prospects in Emerging African Economies, by Patrick Guillaumont,
Sylviane Guillaumont Jeanneney and Aristomène Varoudakis, March 1999.

33
CD/DOC(2002)04

Technical Paper No. 146, Structural Policies for International Competitiveness in Manufacturing: The Case of Cameroon, by Ludvig
Söderling, March 1999.
Technical Paper No. 147, China’s Unfinished Open-Economy Reforms: Liberalisation of Services, by Kiichiro Fukasaku, Yu Ma and
Qiumei Yang, April 1999.
Technical Paper No. 148, Boom and Bust and Sovereign Ratings, by Helmut Reisen and Julia von Maltzan, June 1999.
Technical Paper No. 149, Economic Opening and the Demand for Skills in Developing Countries: A Review of Theory and Evidence,
by David O’Connor and Maria Rosa Lunati, June 1999.
Technical Paper No. 150, The Role of Capital Accumulation, Adjustment and Structural Change for Economic Take-off: Empirical
Evidence from African Growth Episodes, by Jean-Claude Berthélemy and Ludvig Söderling, July 1999.
Technical Paper No. 151, Gender, Human Capital and Growth: Evidence from Six Latin American Countries, by Donald J. Robbins,
September 1999.
Technical Paper No. 152, The Politics and Economics of Transition to an Open Market Economy in Viet Nam, by James Riedel and
William S. Turley, September 1999.
Technical Paper No. 153, The Economics and Politics of Transition to an Open Market Economy: China, by Wing Thye Woo, October
1999.
Technical Paper No. 154, Infrastructure Development and Regulatory Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case of Air Transport, by
Andrea E. Goldstein, October 1999.
Technical Paper No. 155, The Economics and Politics of Transition to an Open Market Economy: India, by Ashok V. Desai, October
1999.
Technical Paper No. 156, Climate Policy Without Tears: CGE-Based Ancillary Benefits Estimates for Chile, by Sébastien Dessus and
David O’Connor, November 1999.
Document technique No. 157, Dépenses d’éducation, qualité de l’éducation et pauvreté : l’exemple de cinq pays d’Afrique
francophone, par Katharina Michaelowa, avril 2000.
Document technique No. 158, Une estimation de la pauvreté en Afrique subsaharienne d’après les données anthropométriques, par
Christian Morrisson, Hélène Guilmeau et Charles Linskens, mai 2000.
Technical Paper No. 159, Converging European Transitions, by Jorge Braga de Macedo, July 2000.
Technical Paper No. 160, Capital Flows and Growth in Developing Countries: Recent Empirical Evidence, by Marcelo Soto, July
2000.
Technical Paper No. 161, Global Capital Flows and the Environment in the 21st Century, by David O’Connor, July 2000.
Technical Paper No. 162, Financial Crises and International Architecture: A “Eurocentric” Perspective, by Jorge Braga de Macedo,
August 2000.
Document technique No. 163, Résoudre le problème de la dette : de l’initiative PPTE à Cologne, par Anne Joseph, août 2000.
Technical Paper No. 164, E-Commerce for Development: Prospects and Policy Issues, by Andrea Goldstein and David O’Connor,
September 2000.
Technical Paper No. 165, Negative Alchemy? Corruption and Composition of Capital Flows, by Shang-Jin Wei, October 2000.
Technical Paper No. 166, The HIPC Initiative: True And False Promises, by Daniel Cohen, October 2000.
Document technique No. 167, Les facteurs explicatifs de la malnutrition en Afrique subsahienne, par Christian Morrisson et Charles
Linskens, October 2000.
Technical Paper No. 168, Human Capital and Growth: A Synthesis Report, by Christopher A. Pissarides, November 2000.
Technical Paper No. 169, Obstacles to Expanding Intra-African Trade, by Roberto Longo and Khalid Sekkat, March 2001.
Technical Paper No. 170, Regional Integration In West Africa, by Ernest Aryeetey, March 2001.
Technical Paper No. 171, Regional Integration Experience in the Eastern African Region, by Andrea Goldstein and Njuguna S.
Ndung’u , March 2001.
Technical Paper No. 172, Integration and Co-operation in Southern Africa, by Carolyn Jenkins, March 2001.
Technical Paper No. 173, FDI in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Ludger Odenthal, March 2001
Document technique No. 174, La réforme des télécommunications en Afrique subsaharienne, par Patrick Plane, mars 2001.
Technical Paper No. 175, Fighting Corruption in Customs Administration: What Can We Learn from Recent Experiences?, by Irène
Hors; April 2001.
Technical Paper No. 176, Globalisation and Transformation: Illusions and Reality, by Grzegorz W. Kolodko, May 2001.
Technical Paper No. 177, External Solvency, Dollarisation and Investment Grade: Towards a Virtuous Circle, by Martin Grandes,
June 2001.
Document technique No. 178, Congo 1965-1999: Les espoirs déçus du « Brésil africain », par Joseph Maton avec Henri-Bernard
Sollignac Lecomte, septembre 2001.
Technical Paper No. 179, Growth and Human Capital: Good Data, Good Results, by Daniel Cohen and Marcelo Soto, September
2001.
Technical Paper No. 180, Corporate Governance and National Development, by Charles P. Oman, October 2001.
Technical Paper No. 181, How Globalisation Improves Governance, by Federico Bonaglia, Jorge Braga de Macedo and Maurizio
Bussolo
Technical Paper No. 182, Clearing the Air in India: The Economics of Climate Policy with Ancillary Benefits, by Maurizio Bussolo and
David O’Connor, November 2001.
Technical Paper No. 183, Globalisation, Poverty and Inequality in sub-Saharan Africa: A Political Economy Appraisal, by Yvonne M.
Tsikata, December 2001.
Technical Paper No. 184, Distribution and Growth in Latin America in an Era of Structural Reform: The Impact of Globalisation, by
Samuel A. Morley, December 2001.
Technical Paper No: 185, Globalisation, Liberalisation, Poverty and Income Inequality in Southeast Asia, by K.S. Jomo, December
2001.
Technical Paper No. 186, Globalisation, Growth and Income Inequality: The African Experience, by Steve Kayizzi-Mugerwa,
December 2001.

34
 CD/DOC(2002)04

Technical Paper No. 187, The Social Impact of Globalisation in Southeast Asia, by Mari Pangestu, December 2001.
Technical Paper No: 188, Where Does Inequality Come From? Ideas and Implications for Latin America, by James A. Robinson,
December 2001.
Technical Paper No: 189, Policies and Institutions for E-Commerce Readiness: What Can Developing Countries Learn from OECD
Experience?, by Paulo Bastos Tigre and David O’Connor, April 2002.
Document technique No. 190, La réforme du secteur financier en Afrique, par Anne Joseph, juillet 2002.
Technical Paper No. 191, Virtuous Circles? Human Capital Formation, Economic Development and the Multinational Enterprise, by
Ethan B. Kapstein, August 2002.
Technical Paper No. 192, Skill Upgrading in Developing Countries: Has Inward Foreign Direct Investment Played a Role?, by
Matthew J. Slaughter, August 2002.
Technical Paper No. 193, Government Policies for Inward Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries: Implications for Human
Capital Formation and Income Inequality, by Dirk Willem te Velde, August 2002.
Technical Paper No. 194, Foreign Direct Investment and Intellectual Capital Formation in Southeast Asia, by Bryan K. Ritchie,
August 2002.
Technical Paper No. 195, FDI and Human Capital: A Research Agenda, by Magnus Blomström and Ari Kokko, August 2002.

35