This paper examines the extent to which industrial offset agreements affect US exporters of computer numerically controlled machine tools. Evidence from a sample of 48 export-intensive firms suggests that compensatory conditions vary directly with unit selling prices (i.e. expensive machines are subject to tougher offsets than low-end products). The evidence also suggests that the most stringent offset agreements involve a degree of international technology transfer, as well as job-displacement within the US. On balance, however, the commercial benefits of industrial offset agreements appear to exceed the costs. Specifically, it would seem that US employment in the machine tool industry has become increasingly export-dependent, and that offset agreements represent relatively minor irritants in the light of the industry's growing need for international sales. The study concludes with a brief discussion of the implications of the empirical findings for future research on compensatory trade in technology-intensive industries.
Association for Manufacturing Technology. (2003). The Economic Handbook of the Machine Tool Industry. Association for Manufacturing Technology, National Machine Tool Builders' Association, 2001–2002 Handbook. McLean VA, 22102, USA.
2.
BarberR. (2000). Testimony of Randy Barber (Center for Economic Organization, Washington DC) Before the Presidential Commission on Offsets, December 4, 2000.
3.
BonaccorsiA. (1992). On the relationship between firm size and export intensity. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4), 605–635.
4.
CohenS. S.ZysmanJ. (1986). Countertrade, offsets, barter, and buybacks. California Management Review, 28, 41–57.
5.
DanielsJ. D.RadebaughL. H. (1998). International Business: Environments and Operations. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
6.
DanielsJ. D.RadebaughL. H.SullivanD. P. (2002). Globalization and Business. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
7.
ErikssonS. (1995). Global Shift in the Aircraft Industry. School of Economics and Commercial Law, Department of Geography, University of Gothenburg.
8.
FinegoldD.BrendleyK. W.LempertR.HenryD.CannonP.BoultinghouseB.NelsonM. (1994). The Decline of the US Machine Tool Industry and Prospects for its Sustainable Recovery. Santa Monica, Rand.
9.
GertlerM. S. (1996). World's apart: The changing market geography of the German machinery industry. Small Business Economics, 8, 87–106.
10.
GrahamJ. (1993). Firm and state strategy in a multipolar world: The changing geography of machine tool production and trade. In: NoponenH.GrahamJ.MarkusenA. (Eds.), Trading Industries, Trading Regions. Guilford Press, New York, pp. 140–174.
11.
LoganJ. F. (1999). Testimony of John F. Logan, Chairman of the Association for Manufacturing Technology, Before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, United States Senate, October 28, 1999.
12.
KalafskyR.MacPhersonA. (2001). Recent trends in the export performance of US machine tool companies. Technovation, 21, 709–717.
13.
MacPhersonA. (2000). The role of international design orientation and market intelligence in the export performance of US machine tool companies. R&D Management, 30, 167–176.
14.
MacPhersonA.PritchardD. (2003). The global decentralization of US commercial aircraft production: Implications for employment and trade. Futures, 35, 221–238.
15.
MajakR. R. (1999). Testimony of R. Roger Majak (Assistant Secretary for Export Adminstration, US Department of Commerce) before the US House of Representatives Committee on Governmental Reform, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, June 29, 1999.
16.
MarkusenA. (2001). Offsets and US Export Controls. Statement of Commission Member Ann Markusen Regarding Offsets and US Export Controls, Statement Report of the Presidential Commission on Offsets in International Trade, Washington DC, January 18, 2001.
17.
MazzoleniR. (1999). Innovation in the machine tool industry: A historical perspective on the dynamics of comparative advantage. In: MoweryD.NelsonR. (Eds.), Sources of Industrial Leadership. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp. 217–266.
18.
NivenS. R. (2000). Regional Innovation Potential: The Case of the US Machine Tool Industry. Aldershot, Ashgate.
19.
ParentJ. M. (2000). Testimony of J. M. Parent (Directing Business Representative, IAM District Lodge 91) before the US House of Representatives Committee on Governmental Reform, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, June 29, 1999.
20.
Presidential Commission. (2001). Status Report of the Presidential Commission on Offsets in International Trade, Office of the President of the United States, January 18, 2001.
21.
PritchardD. (2001). The globalization of commercial aircraft production: Implications for US-based manufacturing activity. International Journal of Aerospace Management, 1, 213–226.
22.
StonecipherH. C. (1997). Back from the ashes: Revival of the US machine tool industry. Executive Speeches, 11(4), 1–4.
23.
StutzF. P.de SouzaA. R. (1998). The World Economy: Resources, Trade and Development. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
24.
SuzikH. A. (1999). Export controls hinder sales to China. Quality, 38, 20–22.
25.
UdisB.MaskusK. (1991). Offsets as industrial policy: Lessons from aerospace. Defense Economics, 2, 151–164.
26.
VerzariuP. (1992). Trends and developments in international countertrade. Business America, 113, 2–7.
27.
VerzariuP. (2000). The Evolution of International Barter, Countertrade and Offset Practices: A Survey of the 1970s Through the 1990s. U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Office of Finance, Washington, DC.
28.
WestD. (2001). Countertrade. Business Credit, 103, 64–67.
