How does organized labor shape restrictions on inward foreign direct investment (FDI)? Distributional consequences, drawn from heterogeneous firms theory, suggest that although inward FDI benefits a subset of workers, a greater number of workers is hurt by inward FDI, leading labor in the aggregate to support restrictions on inward FDI. I argue that the political power of labor is determined by the position of labor vis-à-vis other actors in society and the unity of labor’s policy preferences. The share of the labor force that is unionized determines the relative importance of labor interests, while union concentration determines whether the aggregate policy position of organized labor is unified or fragmented. In an analysis of 19 developed countries from 1971 and 2000, I find evidence that greater union density leads to more restrictions on inward investment when unions are concentrated.
AhlquistJ. (2010). Building strategic capacity: The political underpinnings of coordinated wage bargaining. American Political Science Review, 104, 1-18.
BursteinA.VogelJ. (2010). Globalization, technology, and the skill premium: A quantitative analysis (NBER Working Paper #16459). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
8.
BuschM.ReinhardtE. (1999). Industry location and protection: The political and economic geography of us nontariff barriers. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 1028-1050.
9.
BuschM.ReinhardtE. (2000). Geography, international trade, and political mobilization in U.S. industries. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 703-719.
10.
ChoiC. (2006). Does foreign direct investment affect domestic income inequality?Applied Economics Letters, 13, 811-814.
11.
CrystalJ. (1998). A new kind of competition: How American producers respond to incoming foreign direct investment. International Studies Quarterly, 42, 513-543.
12.
CrystalJ. (2003). Unwanted company: Foreign investment in American industries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
13.
DavisD.HarriganJ. (2011). Good jobs, bad jobs, and trade liberalization. Journal of International Economics, 84, 26-36.
14.
DomsM.JensenJ. B. (1998). Comparing wages, skills, and productivity between domestically and foreign-owned manufacturing establishments in the United States. In BaldwinR.LipseyR.RichardsonD. (Eds.), Geography and ownership as bases for economic accounting (pp. 235-258). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
DumontM.RaypG.WillemeP. (2006). Does internationalization affect union bargaining power? An empirical study for five EU countries?Oxford Economic Papers, 58, 77-102.
16.
DunningJ. (1981). International production and the multinational enterprise. Boston, MA: Routledge.
17.
EggerH.KreickemeierU. (2009). Firm heterogeneity and the labor market effects of trade liberalization. International Economic Review, 50, 187-216.
18.
EhrlichS. (2007). Access to protection: Domestic institutions and trade policy in democracies. International Organization, 61, 571-605.
19.
FabbriF.HaskelJ.SlaughterM. (2003). Does nationality of ownership matter for labor demands?Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, 698-707.
20.
FreemanJ. (1989). Democracy and markets: The politics of mixed economies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
21.
GarrettG. (1998). Partisan politics in the global economy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22.
GlickmanN. J.WoodwardD. P. (1989). The new competitors: How foreign investors are changing the U.S. economy. New York, NY: Basic Books.
23.
GoldenM.WallersteinM.LangeP. (2006). Union centralization among advanced industrial societies: An empirical study of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, 1950–2000 (ICPSR04541-v1). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2006-08-30. doi:10.3886/ICPSR04541.v1
24.
GolubS. (2003). Measures of restrictions on inward foreign direct investment for OECD countries. OECD Economic Studies, 2003(36), 85-116.
25.
GorgH.StroblE. (2003). Footloose multinationals?The Manchester School, 71, 1-19.
26.
GrahamE.KrugmanP. (1994). Foreign direct investment in the United States. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
27.
GrahamE.MarchickD. (2006). U.S. national security and foreign direct investment. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
28.
GrossmanG. M. (2013). Heterogeneous workers and international trade. Review of World Economics, 149, 211-245.
29.
GrossmanG. M.HelpmanE. (2001). Special interest politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
HakkalaK. N.HeymanF.SjöholmF. (2010). Multinationals, skills, and wage elasticities. Review of World Economics, 146, 263-280.
31.
HelpmanE. (2006). Trade, FDI, and the organization of firms. Journal of Economic Literature, XLIV, 589-630.
32.
HelpmanE.ItskhokiO. (2010). Labor market rigidities, trade and unemployment. Review of Economic Studies, 77, 1100-1137.
33.
HelpmanE.ItskhokiO.ReddingS. (2010). Inequality and unemployment in a global economy. Econometrica, 78, 1239-1283.
34.
HelpmanE.MelitzM.YeapleS. (2004). Export versus FDI with heterogeneous firms. The American Economic Review, 94, 300-316.
35.
HeniszW. (2000). The institutional environment for economic growth. Economics & Politics, 12, 1-31.
36.
HeniszW.MansfieldE. (2006). Votes and vetoes: The political determinants of commercial openness. International Studies Quarterly, 50, 189-211.
37.
HoldenM. (2007). The foreign direct investment review process in Canada and other countries (PRB 07–13E). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Parliamentary Information and Research Service.
38.
HwangW.LeeH. (2014). Globalization, factor mobility, partisanship, and compensation policies. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 1-14.
39.
Ibarra-CatonM. (2012). Foreign direct investment relationship and plant exit: Evidence from the United States. Washington, DC: Bureau of Economic Analysis.
40.
International Trade Administration. (2007). Foreign-based companies investing in the U.S. auto industry. Washington, DC: Office of Aerospace and Automotive Industries of the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
41.
Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. (2009, October-November). Eurobarometer 72.4: Globalization, financial and economic crisis, social change, EU policies and decision-making and global challenges (Study 30461–v1). Retrieved from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/30461
42.
ISSP Research Group. (2003). International Social Survey Programme: National Identity II–ISSP 2003. Cologne, Germany: GESIS Data Archive.
43.
IversenT. (1996). Power, flexibility and the breakdown of centralized wage bargaining. Comparative Politics, 28, 399-436.
44.
JensenN. (2013). Domestic institutions and the taxing of multinational corporations. International Studies Quarterly, 57, 440-448.
KangC. E. (1997). U.S. politics and greater regulation of inward foreign direct investment. International Organization, 51, 301-333.
47.
KaufmanB. (2005). What unions do: Insights from economy theory. Journal of Labor Research, XXV, 351-382.
48.
KimH.FordingR. (2002). Government partisanship in western democracies, 1945-1998. European Journal of Political Research, 41, 165-184.
49.
KletzerL. G. (2001). Job loss from imports: Measuring the costs. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute.
50.
KrugmanP. (2000). Capital flows and the emerging economies: Theory, evidence and controversies. In EdwardsS. (Ed.), Capital flows and the emerging economies: Theory, evidence, and controversies (pp. 43-59). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
51.
LakeD. (2009). Open economy politics: A critical review. Review of International Organizations, 4, 219-244.
52.
LeviM. (2003). Organizing power: The prospects for an American labor movement. Perspectives on Politics, 1, 45-68.
53.
LiQ. (2006). Democracy, autocracy, and tax incentives to foreign direct investors: A cross-national analysis. Journal of Politics, 68, 62-74.
54.
LiQ. (2009). Outlier, measurement, and the democracy-FDI controversy. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 4(2), 167-181.
55.
LipseyR. E. (2004). Home- and host-country effects of foreign direct investment. In BaldwinR.WintersL. A. (Eds.), Challenges to globalization: Analyzing the economics (pp. 333-382). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
56.
LipseyR. E.SjöholmF. (2005). The impact of inward FDI on host countries: Why such different answers? In MoranT.GrahamE.BlomströmM. (Eds.), Does foreign direct investment promote development? (pp. 23-43). Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics and Center for Global Development.
57.
MayerT.OttavianoG. I. (2008). The happy few: The internationalisation of European firms. Intereconomics, 43, 135-148.
58.
MelitzM. J. (2003). The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica, 71, 1695-1725.
59.
MosleyL. (2010). Labor rights and multinational production. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
60.
OwenE. (2013). Unionization and restrictions on foreign direct investment. International Interactions, 39, 723-747.
61.
PandyaS. (2010). Labor markets and the demand for foreign direct investment. International Organization, 64, 389-409.
62.
PandyaS. (2014a). Democratization and FDI liberalization, 1970-2000. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 475-488.
63.
PandyaS. (2014b). Trading spaces: Foreign direct investment regulation, 1970-2000. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64.
PintoP. (2013). Partisan investment in the global economy: Why the left loves foreign direct investment and FDI loves the left. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
65.
PintoP.PintoS. (2008). The politics of investment: Partisanship and the sectoral allocation of foreign direct investment. Economics & Politics, 20, 216-254.
66.
PontussonJ. (1992). Organizational and political-economic perspectives on union politics. In GoldenM.PontussonJ. (Eds.), Bargaining for change: Union politics in North America and Europe (pp. 1-41). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
67.
PontussonJ.RuedaD. (2010). The politics of inequality: Voter mobilization and left parties in advanced industrial states. Comparative Political Studies, 43, 675-705.
68.
PontussonJ.SwensonP. (1996). Labor markets, production strategies, and wage bargaining institutions: The Swedish employer offensive in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 29, 223-250.
69.
RickardS. (2012). Electoral systems, voters’ interests and geographic dispersion. British Journal of Political Science, 42, 855-877.
70.
RuggieJ. (1982). International regimes, transactions, and change: Embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. International Organization, 36, 379-415.
71.
ScheveK.SlaughterM. J. (2004). Economic insecurity and the globalization of production. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 662-674.
72.
TemouriY.DriffieldN.HigonD. (2008). Analysis of productivity differences among foreign and domestic firms: Evidence from Germany. Review of World Economics, 144, 32-54.
73.
VisserJ. (2009, January). The ICTWSS database: Database on institutional characteristics of trade unions, wage setting, state intervention and social pacts in 24 countries between 1960 and 2007. Retrieved from http://www.uva-aias.net/208
74.
WalterA.SenG. (2009). Analyzing the global political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
