Governments actively court foreign direct investment (FDI) as a tool for economic growth and development. Despite the important role of FDI in the global economy, we do not know how this activity affects election outcomes. Crucially, state and local governments are often responsible for attracting FDI. Although FDI creates jobs, it also generates competition for domestic producers. Drawing on theories of global production, I argue that inward FDI increases the net welfare of voters in the local host economy. Therefore, new investment should increase the electoral success of incumbent parties in local elections. I use new project-level greenfield FDI data to test this claim in the context of Brazilian mayoral elections between 2004 and 2012. I find that the announcement of a new investment project increases the probability that the incumbent party wins reelection. The findings suggest a channel through which globalization directly affects mass politics at the subnational level.
AchenC. H. (2002). Toward a new political methodology: Microfoundations and ART. Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 423-450.
2.
AlfaroL.Rodríguez-ClareA.HansonG. H.Bravo-OrtegaC. (2004). Multinationals and linkages: An empirical investigation [with comments]. Economía, 4, 113-169.
3.
AlmeidaR. (2007). The labor market effects of foreign owned firms. Journal of International Economics, 72, 75-96.
4.
AutorD.DornD.HansonG.MajlesiK. (2016). Importing political polarization? The electoral consequences of rising trade exposure (NBER Working Paper No. 22637). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
5.
AxarloglouK.PournarakisM. (2007). Do all foreign direct investment inflows benefit the local economy?The World Economy, 30, 424-445.
6.
BacciniL.LiQ.MirkinaI. (2014). Corporate tax cuts and foreign direct investment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33, 977-1006.
7.
BlonigenB.WangM. (2005). Inappropriate pooling of wealthy and poor countries in empirical FDI studies. In MoranT.GrahamE.BlomstromM. (Eds.), Does foreign direct investment promote development? (pp. 221-244). Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
8.
BramborT.CenevivaR. (2011). Incumbency advantage in Brazilian mayoral elections (APSA 2011 Annual meeting paper). Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1903410
9.
BrolloF.NanniciniT. (2012). Tying your enemy’s hands in close races: The politics of federal transfers in Brazil. American Political Science Review, 106, 742-761.
10.
BuschM.ReinhardtE. (1999). Industry location and protection: The political and economic geography of US Nontariff Barriers. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 1028-1050.
11.
CampelloD.ZuccoC. (2016). Presidential success and the world economy. The Journal of Politics, 78, 589-602.
12.
CavesR. (1996). Multinational enterprise and economic analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
ChristiansenH.OmanC.CharltonA. (2003). Incentives-based competition for foreign direct investment: The case of Brazil. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
14.
CrystalJ. (2003). What do producers want? On the origins of societal policy preferences. European Journal of International Relations, 9, 407-439.
15.
CrystalJ. (1998). A new kind of competition: How American producers respond to incoming foreign direct investment. International Studies Quarterly, 42, 513-543.
DanzmanS. B.StoyanA. (2016). Infrastructure privatization and public opinion of foreign direct investment in Latin America (Unpublished manuscript).
18.
DassonnevilleR.ClaesE.Lewis-BeckM. S. (2016). Punishing local incumbents for the local economy: Economic voting in the 2012 Belgian municipal elections. Rivista Italiana Di Scienza Politica, 46, 3-22.
19.
De MagalhaesL. (2015). Incumbency effects in a comparative perspective: Evidence from Brazilian mayoral elections. Political Analysis, 23, 113-126.
20.
DomsM.JensenJ. B. (1998). Comparing wages, skills, and productivity between domestically and foreign-owned manufacturing establishments in the United States. In BaldwinR. E.LipseyR. E.RichardsonJ. D. (Eds.), Geography and ownership as bases for economic accounting (pp. 235-258). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
dos AnjosJ. R. M. M.BarberiaL. G. (2016). The effect of random audits on the re-election of corrupt Brazilian mayors. Working paper presented at Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.
22.
DuchR. M.StevensonR. (2010). The global economy, competency, and the economic vote. The Journal of Politics, 72, 105-123.
23.
DunningJ.LundanS. (2008). Multinational enterprises and the global economy, 2nd edition. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
24.
EzrowL.HellwigT. (2014). Responding to voters or responding to markets? Political parties and public opinion in an era of globalization. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 816-827.
25.
Fauvelle-AymarC.Lewis-BeckM. (2011). Second-order elections and economic voting: French regional elections. Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 41, 369-384.
26.
fDi Markets. (2015). The Financial Times Ltd. Retrieved from www.fdimarkets.com.
27.
FeenstraR.HansonG. (1996). Foreign Investment, Outsourcing and Relative Wages. In: FeenstraR.GrossmanG.
D. Irwin (Eds.), Political economcy of trade policy: Essays in honor of Jagdish Bhagwati (pp. 87-127). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
Fernández-AlbertosJ.KuoA.BalcellsL. (2013). Economic crisis, Globalization, and partisan bias: Evidence from Spain. International Studies Quarterly, 57, 804-816.
29.
FerrazC.FinanF. (2008). Exposing corrupt politicians: The effects of Brazil’s publicly released audits on electoral outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123, 703-745.
30.
FiglioD. N.BlonigenB. A. (1999). The effects of direct foreign investment on local communities (Tech. Rep.). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
31.
Garcia-JohnsonR. (2000). Exporting environmentalism: U.S. multinational chemical corporations in Brazil and Mexico. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
GingerichD. (2014). Brokered politics in Brazil: An empirical analysis. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 9, 269-300.
33.
GirmaS.GörgH. (2007). Evaluating the foreign ownership wage premium using a difference-in-differences matching approach. Journal of International Economics, 72, 97-112.
34.
GöorgH.GreenawayD. (2004). Much ado about nothing? Do domestic firms really benefit from foreign direct investment?The World Bank Research Observer, 19(2), 171-198.
35.
GöorgH.StroblE. (2004). Foreign direct investment and local economic development: Beyond productivity spillovers (Globalisation, Productivity and Technology Research Paper No. 2004/11), 4-30.
36.
GöorgH.StroblE. (2005). Spillovers from foreign firms through worker mobility: An empirical investigation. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 107, 693-709.
37.
GrahamE.KrugmanP. (1994). Foreign direct investment in the United States. Washington DC: Institute for International Economics.
38.
GrahamE.MarchickD. (2006). US national security and foreign direct investment. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
39.
GreenstoneM.HornbeckR.MorettiE. (2010). Identifying agglomeration spillovers: Evidence from winners and losers of large plant openings. Journal of Political Economy, 118, 536-598.
40.
HellwigT. (2001). Interdependence, government constraints, and economic voting. The Journal of Politics, 63, 1141-1162.
41.
HellwigT. (2008). Globalization, policy constraints, and vote choice. Journal of Politics, 70, 1128-1141.
42.
HellwigT. (2014). Globalization and mass politics: Retaining the room to maneuver. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43.
HellwigT.SamuelsD. (2007). Voting in open economies the electoral consequences of globalization. Comparative Political Studies, 40, 283-306.
44.
HelpmanE. (2006). Trade, FDI, and the organization of firms. Journal of Economic Literature, XLIV, 589-630.
45.
HeymanF.SjöholmF.TingvallP. G. (2007). Is there really a foreign ownership wage premium? Evidence from matched employer-employee data. Journal of International Economics, 73, 355-376.
46.
HongJ. Y.ParkS. (2014). Factories for votes? How authoritarian leaders gain population support using targeted industrial policy. British Journal of Political Science, 46, 501-527.
47.
IacusS.KingG.PorroG. (2012). Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, 20, 1-24.
48.
JavorcikB. S. (2015). Does FDI bring good jobs to host countries?The World Bank Research Observer, 30, 74-94.
49.
JensenJ. B.QuinnD.WeymouthS. (2017). Winners and losers in international trade: The effects on U.S. presidential voting. International Organization, 71, 423-457.
50.
JensenN. M. (2017). Job creation and firm-specific location incentives. Journal of Public Policy, 37, 85-112.
JensenN. M.MaleskyE. J.WalshM. (2015). Competing for global capital or local voters? The politics of business location incentives. Public Choice, 164, 331-356.
53.
JensenN. M.BiglaiserG.LiQ.MaleskyE.PintoP. M.PintoS. M.StaatsJ. L. (2012). Politics and foreign direct investment. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
54.
JensenN. M.MaleskyE.MedinaM.OzdemirU. (2014). Pass the bucks: Credit, blame, and the global competition for investment. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 433-447.
55.
KangC. S. E. (1997). US politics and greater regulation of inward foreign direct investment. International Organization, 51, 301-333.
56.
KayserM. A. (2007). How domestic is domestic politics? Globalization and elections. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 341-362.
57.
KayserM. A. (2014). The elusive economic vote. In LeducL.NiemiR. (Eds.), Comparing democracies: Elections and voting in a changing world (Vol. 4, pp. 112-132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58.
KayserM. A.PeressM. (2012). Benchmarking across borders: Electoral accountability and the necessity of comparison. American Political Science Review, 106, 661-684.
59.
KeeleL. (2015). The statistics of causal inference: A view from political methodology. Political Analysis, 23, 313-335.
60.
KlašnjaM.TitiunikR. (2017). The incumbency curse: Weak parties, term limits, and unfulfilled accountability. American Political Science Review, 111, 129-148.
61.
LiQ. (2016). Fiscal decentralization and tax incentives in the developing world. Review of International Political Economy, 23, 232-260.
62.
LipseyR. E.SjöholmF. (2005). The impact of inward FDI on host countries: Why such different answers? In MoranTheodore H.GrahamEdward MontgomeryBlomstromMagnusBlomströmMagnus (Eds.), Does foreign direct investment promote development (pp. 23-43). Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics and Center for Global Development.
63.
MangerM. (2009). Investing in protection: The politics of preferential trade agreements between North and South. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64.
MargalitY. (2011). Costly jobs: Trade-related layoffs, government compensation, and voting in U.S. elections. American Political Science Review, 105, 166-188.
65.
MarkusenJ. R.VenablesA. J. (1999). Foreign direct investment as a catalyst for industrial development. European Economic Review, 43, 335-356.
66.
MarienS.DassonnevilleR.HoogheM. (2015). How second order are local elections? Voting motives and party preferences in Belgian municipal elections. Local Government Studies, 41, 898-916.
67.
MarkusenA.NesseK. (2007). Institutional and political determinants of incentive competition. In MarkusenA. (Ed.), Reining in the competition for capital (pp. 1-42). Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
68.
MartinsR.FranciscoJ. V. (2013). Economic voting in Portuguese municipal elections. Public Choice, 155, 317-334.
69.
McMillanS. L. (2012). The involvement of state governments in US foreign relations. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
70.
MenendezI. (2016). Globalization and welfare spending: How geography and electoral institutions condition compensation. International Studies Quarterly, 60, 665-676.
71.
MeyerK. E.SinaniE. (2009). When and where does foreign direct investment generate positive spillovers? A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1075-1094.
72.
MilnerH. (1988). Resisting protectionism: Global industries and the politics of international trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
73.
MoranT.GrahamE.BlomstromM. (2005). Does foreign direct investment promote development?Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
74.
MosleyL. (2010). Labor rights and multinational production. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
75.
MosleyL.UnoS. (2007). Racing to the bottom or climbing to the top? Economic globalization and collective labor rights. Comparative Political Studies, 40, 923-948.
76.
NadeauR.Lewis-BeckM. S.BélangerÉ. (2013). Economics and elections revisited. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 551-573.
77.
NarulaR.DunningJ. H. (2010). Multinational enterprises, development and globalization: Some clarifications and a research agenda. Oxford Development Studies, 38, 263-287.
78.
NelsonR. (2002). State competition for foreign direct investment in Brazil: The case of Dell Computer. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 8, 139-153.
79.
OmanC. (2000). Policy competition for foreign direct investment: A study of competition among governments to attract FDI. Paris, France: Development Centre of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
80.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2002). Foreign direct investment for development: Maximising benefits, minimizing costs (Tech. Rep.). Paris, France: OECD Publications.
81.
OwenE. (2013). Unionization and restrictions on foreign direct investment. International Interactions, 39, 723-747.
82.
OwenE. (2015). The political power of organized labor and the politics of foreign direct investment in developed democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 48, 1746-1780.
83.
OwenE.QuinnD. (2016). Does economic globalization influence the U.S. policy mood? A study of U.S. public sentiment, 1954-2011. British Journal of Political Science, 46, 95-125.
84.
PandyaS. S. (2010). Labor markets and the demand for foreign direct investment. International Organization, 64, 389-409.
85.
PandyaS. S. (2014a). Democratization and FDI liberalization, 1970-2000. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 475-488.
86.
PandyaS. S. (2014b). Trading spaces: Foreign direct investment regulation, 1970-2000. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
87.
PereiraC.MeloM. A. (2015). Reelecting corrupt incumbents in exchange for public goods: Rouba mas faz in Brazil. Latin American Research Review, 50, 88-115.
88.
PintoP. M. (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.
89.
PintoP. M.PintoS. (2008). The politics of investment: Partisanship and the sectoral allocation of foreign direct investment. Economics and Politics, 20, 216-254.
90.
PintoP. M.ZhuB. (2016). Fortune or evil? The effect of inward foreign direct investment on corruption. International Studies Quarterly, 60, 693-705.
91.
PooleJ. P. (2013). Knowledge transfers from multinational to domestic firms: Evidence from worker mobility. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95, 393-406.
92.
PowellG. B.WhittenG. (1993). A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of the political context. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 391-414.
93.
PowerT. J.ZuccoC. (2009). Estimating ideology of Brazilian legislative parties, 1990-2005: A research communication. Latin American Research Review, 44, 218-246.
RickardS. (2012). Electoral systems, voters’ interests and geographic dispersion. British Journal of Political Science, 42, 855-877.
96.
Rodríguez-PoseA.ArbixG. (2001). Strategies of waste: Bidding wars in the Brazilian automobile sector. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25, 134-154.
97.
SakuraiS. N.Menezes-FilhoN. A. (2008). Fiscal policy and reelection in Brazilian municipalities. Public Choice, 137, 301-314.
98.
ScheveK.SlaughterM. J. (2004). Economic insecurity and the globalization of production. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 662-674.
99.
SjöoholmF.LipseyR. (2006). Foreign firms and Indonesian manufacturing wages: An analysis with panel data. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 55, 201-221.
100.
ThomasK. P. (2007). Investment incentives: Growing use, uncertain benefits, uneven controls. Geneva, Switzerland: International Institute for Sustainable Development Geneva.
101.
ThomasK. P. (2011). Investment incentives and the global competition for capital. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
102.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2015). World investment report: Reforming international investment governance (Tech. Rep.). United Nations Commission on Trade and Development. Retrieved from http://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=1245
103.
VermeirJ.HeyndelsB. (2006). Tax policy and yardstick voting in flemish municipal elections. Applied Economics, 38, 2285-2298.
104.
WaldkirchA.GopinathM. (2008). Pollution control and foreign direct investment in Mexico: An industry-level analysis. Environmental & Resource Economics, 41, 289-313.
105.
ZhuB. (2012). Essays on the political economy of foreign direct investment. PhD dissertation, New York: Columbia University. doi: 10.7916/D8KP807C
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.
