No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Government Partisanship, Unionization and the Structure of Investment Liberalization
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 September 2019
Abstract
Governments in advanced industrial democracies generally regulate foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows with two types of policy measures: entry barriers and post-establishment restrictions. This article provides an integrated account for the two types of FDI restrictions, which is largely absent in the existing literature. We argue that the government's choice of FDI policies is shaped by a compound effect of the incumbent's ideological orientation and the political influence of unionized labour. Although inward FDI broadly benefits domestic workers, the entrance of multinational corporations (MNCs) adversely impacts the unionized interests of labour by transforming the labour market in ways detrimental to unions’ wage-bargaining leverage. Leftist governments, driven by the preferences of their labour constituency, tend to lift entry barriers to FDI in order to promote capital inflows. At the same time, leftist governments may also need to address unions’ concerns about inbound MNCs by tightening post-establishment restrictions on FDI, which impose constraints on the globalized business and operational model of MNCs. We argue that leftist incumbents generally liberalize entry barriers but tighten post-establishment restrictions when the level of labour unionization is high. We found evidence consistent with our argument from country-level and sector-level analysis of FDI restrictions, using a sample from the early 2000s to the mid-2010s of Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.
Résumé
Dans les démocraties industrielles avancées, les gouvernements réglementent généralement les flux d'IED par deux types de mesures, à savoir les barrières à l'entrée et les restrictions postérieures à l'établissement. Le présent document fournit un compte rendu intégré des deux types de restrictions à l'IED, largement absent de la bibliographie existante. Nous soutenons que le choix des politiques du gouvernement en matière d'IED est déterminé par l'effet combiné de l'orientation idéologique du titulaire et de l'influence politique des syndicats. Bien que l'IED intérieur profite largement aux travailleurs domestiques, l'entrée des multinationales a un impact négatif sur l'intérêt syndiqué de la main-d'œuvre en transformant le marché du travail au détriment du pouvoir de négociation des syndicats sur les salaires. Poussés par la préférence de leur électorat ouvrier, les gouvernements de gauche ont tendance à lever les barrières à l'entrée de l'IED pour favoriser les entrées de capitaux. Dans l'intervalle, les gouvernements de gauche devront peut-être aussi répondre aux préoccupations des syndicats à l'égard des multinationales entrantes en resserrant les restrictions imposées à l'IED après la création d'entreprises qui imposent des contraintes au modèle commercial et opérationnel mondialisé des multinationales. Nous soutenons que les titulaires de gauche libéralisent généralement les barrières à l'entrée, mais resserrent les restrictions post-établissement lorsque le niveau de syndicalisation est élevé. Nous avons trouvé des éléments probants conformes à notre analyse des restrictions à l'IED au niveau des pays et des secteurs, à partir d'un échantillon de pays de l'OCDE du début des années 2000 au milieu des années 2010.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article/Étude originale
- Information
- Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 825 - 846
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2019
References
Abraham, Filip, Konings, Jozef and Vanormelingen, Stijn. 2009. “The Effect of Globalization on Union Bargaining and Price-Cost Margins of Firms.” Review of World Economics 145 (1): 13–36.Google Scholar
Aitken, Brian, Harrison, Ann and Lipsey, Robert. 1996. “Wages and Foreign Ownership: A Comparative Study of Mexico, Venezuela, and the United States.” Journal of International Economics 40 (3): 345–71.Google Scholar
Alvarez, Michael, Garrett, Geoffrey and Lange, Peter. 1991. “Government Partisanship, Labor Organization, and Macroeconomic Performance.” American Political Science Review 85 (2): 539–56.10.2307/1963174Google Scholar
Alvarez, Roberto and Görg, Holger. 2009. “Multinationals and Plant Exit: Evidence from Chile.” International Review of Economics & Finance 18 (1): 45–51.10.1016/j.iref.2008.02.011Google Scholar
Asiedu, Elizabeth and Lien, Donald. 2004. “Capital Controls and Foreign Direct Investment.” World Development 32 (3): 479–90.10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.016Google Scholar
Asiedu, Elizabeth and Hadi, Salehi Esfahani. 2001. “Ownership Structure in Foreign Direct Investment Projects.” Review of Economics and Statistics 83 (4): 647–62.10.1162/003465301753237731Google Scholar
Bartolini, Stefano. 2007. The Political Mobilization of the European Left, 1860–1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bearce, David. 2003. “Societal Preferences, Partisan Agents, and Monetary Policy Outcomes.” International Organization 57 (2): 373–410.10.1017/S0020818303572058Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel. 2001. “Time-Series-Cross-Section Data: What Have We Learned in the Past Few Years?” Annual Review of Political Science 4 (1): 271–93.10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.271Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel and Katz, Jonathan. 1995. “What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data.” American Political Science Review 89 (3): 634–47.Google Scholar
Brännlund, Runar, Jonas, Nordström and Dick, Svedin. 2016. “Foreign Ownership and Its Effects on Employment and Wages: The Case of Sweden.” IZA Journal of European Labor Studies 5 (1): 8.10.1186/s40174-016-0058-1Google Scholar
Brown, Drusilla, Deardorff, Alan and Stern, Robert. 2004. “The Effects of Multinational Production on Wages and Working Conditions in Developing Countries.” In Challenges to Globalization: Analyzing the Economics, ed. Baldwin, Robert E. and Winters, L. Alan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chinn, Menzie D. and Ito, Hiro. 2008. “A New Measure of Financial Openness.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 10 (3): 309–22.Google Scholar
Choi, Minsik. 2001. “Threat Effect of Foreign Direct Investment on Labor Union Wage Premium.” PERI Working Paper Series. No. 27. Department of Economics. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Dumont, Michel, Rayp, Glenn and Willemé, Peter. 2006. “Does Internationalization Affect Union Bargaining Power? An Empirical Study for Five EU Countries.” Oxford Economic Papers 58 (1): 77–102.Google Scholar
Dutt, Pushan and Mitra, Devashish. 2005. “Political Ideology and Endogenous Trade Policy: An Empirical Investigation.” Review of Economics and Statistics 87 (1): 59–72.Google Scholar
Elkins, Zachary, Guzman, Andrew T., and Simmons, Beth A.. 2006. “Competing for Capital: The Diffusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties, 1960–2000.” International Organization 60 (4): 811–46.Google Scholar
European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). 2016. A Renewed EU Industrial Policy – ETUC Reaction. ETUC Position Paper. https://www.etuc.org/sites/default/files/document/files/en-a_renewed_eu_industrial_policy_etuc_reaction.pdf (February 5, 2019).Google Scholar
Fisher, Stephen. 2007. “(Change in) Turnout and (Change in) the Left Share of the Vote.” Electoral Studies 26 (3): 598–611.Google Scholar
Flavin, Patrick and Radcliff, Benjamin. 2011. “Labor Union Membership and Voting across Nations.” Electoral Studies 30 (4): 633–41.Google Scholar
Freeman, John and Quinn, Dennis. 2012. “The Economic Origins of Democracy Reconsidered.” American Political Science Review 106 (1): 58–80.10.1017/S0003055411000505Google Scholar
Freeman, Richard. 1976. “Individual Mobility and Union Voice in the Labor Market.” American Economic Review 66 (2): 361–68.Google Scholar
Ghebrihiwet, Nahom. 2017. “Acquisition or Direct Entry, Technology Transfer, and FDI Policy Liberalization.” International Review of Economics & Finance 51: 455–69.10.1016/j.iref.2017.07.007Google Scholar
Griswold, Daniel. 2010. “Unions, Protectionism, and US Competitiveness.” Cato Journal 30 (1): 181–96.Google Scholar
Gunnigle, Patrick, Lavelle, Jonathan, and McDonnell, Anthony. 2009. “Subtle But Deadly? Union Avoidance Through ‘Double Breasting’ Among Multinational Companies.” In Advances in Industrial & Labor Relations, ed. Lewin, David and Kaufman, Bruce E.. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 51–73.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A. and David, Soskice, eds. 2001. Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holdcroft, Jenny and Lee, Adam. 2016. “Workers’ Rights in Global Supply Chains: Holding Companies Accountable”. IndustriALL Global Union. http://www.industriall-union.org/workers-rights-in-global-supply-chains-holding-companies-accountable (February 5, 2019).Google Scholar
ICTU (Irish Congress of Trade Unions). 2016. “No Deal: Why Unions Oppose TTIP & CETA.” https://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/no_deal.pdf (February 5, 2019).Google Scholar
ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation). 2008. “Trade Unions and Bilaterals: Do's and Don'ts.” https://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/Brochure_24_4_ENG_LR.pdf (February 5, 2019).Google Scholar
Jensen, Nathan and Rosas, Guillermo. 2007. “Foreign Direct Investment and Income Inequality in Mexico, 1990–2000.” International Organization 61 (3): 467–87.Google Scholar
Keefer, Philip. 2005. Database of Political Institutions: Changes and Variable Definitions. Washington, DC: Development Research Group, The World Bank.Google Scholar
Kerrissey, Jasmine and Schofer, Evan. 2013. “Union Membership and Political Participation in the United States.” Social Forces 91 (3): 895–928.Google Scholar
Lamare, J. Ryan, Gunnigle, Patrick, Marginson, Paul and Murray, Gregor. 2013. “Union Status and Double-Breasting at Multinational Companies in Three Liberal Market Economies.” ILR Review 66 (3): 696–722.Google Scholar
Leighley, Jan E and Nagler, Jonathan. 2007. “Unions, Voter Turnout, and Class Bias in the US Electorate, 1964–2004.” Journal of Politics 69 (2): 430–41.Google Scholar
Lee, Lung-Fei. 1978. “Unionism and Wage Rates: A Simultaneous Equations Model with Qualitative and Limited Dependent Variables.” International Economic Review (1978): 415–33.Google Scholar
Martins, Pedro S. 2011. “Paying More to Hire the Best?: Foreign Firms, Wages, and Worker Mobility.” Economic Inquiry 49 (2): 349–63.Google Scholar
Mattoo, Aaditya, Olarreaga, Marcelo and Saggi, Kamal. 2004. “Mode of Foreign Entry, Technology Transfer, and FDI Policy.” Journal of Development Economics 75 (1): 95–111.Google Scholar
Milberg, William and Winkler, Deborah. 2010. “Economic Insecurity in the New Wave of Globalization: Offshoring and the Labor Share under Varieties of Capitalism.” International Review of Applied Economics 24 (3): 285–308.10.1080/02692171003701479Google Scholar
Owen, Erica. 2013. “Unionization and Restrictions on Foreign Direct Investment.” International Interactions 39 (5): 723–47.Google Scholar
Owen, Erica. 2015. “The Political Power of Organized Labor and the Politics of Foreign Direct Investment in Developed Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (13): 1746–80.Google Scholar
Pandya, Sonal S. 2014. “Democratization and Foreign Direct Investment Liberalization, 1970–2000.” International Studies Quarterly 58 (3): 475–88.Google Scholar
Pinto, Pablo M. 2013. Partisan Investment in the Global Economy: Why the Left Loves Foreign Direct Investment and FDI Loves the Left. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pond, Amy. 2018. “Worker Influence on Capital Account Policy: Inflow Liberalization and Outflow Restrictions.” International Interactions 44 (2): 244–67.10.1080/03050629.2017.1344125Google Scholar
Pontusson, Jonas and Rueda, David. 2010. “The Politics of Inequality: Voter Mobilization and Left Parties in Advanced Industrial States.” Comparative Political Studies 43 (6): 675–705.Google Scholar
Scheve, Kenneth and Slaughter, Matthew. 2004. “Economic Insecurity and the Globalization of Production.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (4): 662–74.10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00094.xGoogle Scholar
Slaughter, Matthew. 2007. “Globalization and Declining Unionization in the United States.” Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 46 (2): 329–46.10.1111/j.1468-232X.2007.00470.xGoogle Scholar
Svejnar, Jan. 1986. “Bargaining Power, Fear of Disagreement, and Wage Settlements: Theory and Evidence from U.S. Industry.” Econometrica 54 (5): 1055–78.10.2307/1912322Google Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen. 2001. “Varieties of Labor Politics in the Developed Democracies.” In Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, ed. Hall, Peter and Soskice, David. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 71–103.Google Scholar
Vachon, Todd and Wallace, Michael. 2013. “Globalization, Labor Market Transformation, and Union Decline in U.S. Metropolitan Areas.” Labor Studies Journal 38 (3): 229–55.Google Scholar
Vallas, Steven. 1999. “Rethinking Post-Fordism: The Meaning of Workplace Flexibility.” Sociological Theory 17 (1): 68–101.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Nie, Norman and Kim, Jae-on. 1987. Participation and Political Equality: A Seven-Nation Comparison. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chen and Park supplementary material
Chen and Park supplementary material
PDF
818 KB