human capital intensity in technology-based firms located
TRANSCRIPT
F E P W O R K I N G P A P E R SF E P W O R K I N G P A P E R SResearch – Work in Progress – n. 187, August 2005
HumanHuman CapitalCapital Intensity in Intensity in TechnologyTechnology--Based Firms Located inBased Firms Located in
Portugal: DoPortugal: Do Foreign Foreign Multinationals MakeMultinationals Make aa DifferenceDifference??
Ana Teresa Tavares
Aurora A. C. Teixeira
CEMPRE - Centro de Estudos Macroeconómicos e Previsão
Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-464 Porto | Tel. 225 571 100Faculdade de Economia da Universidade do Porto
Tel. 225571100 | www.fep.up.pt
HUMAN CAPITAL INTENSITY IN TECHNOLOGY-BASED FIRMS LOCATED IN
PORTUGAL: DO FOREIGN MULTINATIONALS MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
Ana Teresa Tavares Aurora A. C. Teixeira
[email protected] [email protected]
CEMPRE,♦ Faculdade de Economia, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-
464 Porto Portugal
ABSTRACT
This paper contributes to the scarce empirical literature on the impact of foreign ownership on
human capital intensity. New evidence is provided, based on a comprehensive, large-scale
survey of technology-based firms located in Portugal. Using two alternatives measures of
human capital (one based on skills, another on education), the key findings are that: (1)
foreign ownership directly (and significantly) impacts on firms general human capital
(education); (2) foreign ownership indirectly (and significantly) impacts on firms specific
human capital (skills); (3) the total impact of foreign ownership on firms’ human capital
intensity is higher for education- (general) than for skills- (specific) related human capital
intensity. Other findings are that younger and smaller firms tend to be more human capital
intensive, and that export patterns are not significantly related to human capital intensity.
Giving the critical importance of both FDI and human capital development for an economy
like Portugal (lagging behind in terms of human capital stock, and seeming to have lost part
of its attractiveness as an FDI location), the paper discusses related policy implications.
Keywords: Foreign direct investment (FDI), multinational enterprises (MNEs), human capital,
education, technology-based firms (TBFs).
JEL Classification: J24; F23.
♦ CEMPRE - Centro de Estudos Macroeconómicos e Previsão - is supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal, through the Programa Operacional Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (POCTI) of the Quadro Comunitário de Apoio III, which is financed by FEDER and Portuguese funds.
1
1. Introduction
Human capital and foreign direct investment (FDI) are widely seen as key engines of
economic growth and development (Romer, 1986; Lucas, 1988; Grossman and Helpman,
1991; Dunning, 1993). While there is considerable literature focusing on either FDI or human
capital in isolation, the specific link between the two has been less researched. The issue has
further interest given a potential two-way causality between human capital and FDI. Human
capital has been recognised as an important FDI determinant (Noorbakhsh et al., 2001). In
turn, foreign owned companies might be relevant contributors to human capital formation, as
they affect both the demand and supply of skilled labour (Slaughter, 2002). Most extant work
focuses on the first direction of impact. Studies highlighting the impact of FDI on human
capital formation are scarce, rather exploratory (typically opinions and conceptual literature
reviews) and mainly based on developing countries.1 Even though there are very
comprehensive and useful literature reviews (for instance, Blomström and Kokko, 2003;
Rasiah, 2005; it is fair to say that empirical studies are very scarce. An exception is Narula
and Marin (2003), a thorough empirical study comparing foreign-owned versus domestic
firms in Argentina as regards the quantity and quality of human capital they employ, further
linking that to technological spillovers. In this paper we propose to contribute to this scarce
empirical literature on the relationship between human capital and FDI by investigating the
relevance of foreign ownership for the human capital intensity of technology based firms
(TBFs) located in Portugal. This study focuses on an under-researched empirical setting, the
Portuguese case. For Portugal, no similar study exists, relating human capital intensity and
foreign versus domestic ownership. Moreover, the themes of FDI and human capital
development are particularly relevant to this ‘peripheral’ European economy, marked by
convergence difficulties vis-à-vis the European Union (EU), and with a considerable human
capital and technological disadvantage relative to developed countries in general. In addition,
Portugal embraced in the last years a proactive FDI attraction policy (with a recently opened
investment promotion institution and accompanying legislation geared for that), recognising
the potential role foreign multinationals could have in upgrading Portugal’s industrial fabric
and in the accumulation of competences. Therefore, the theme underlying this paper is a
critical one for the Portuguese economy. We will test whether foreign-owned TBFs behave
1 Mainly stimulated by specific OECD and World Bank initiatives aiming to call the attention to the relevance of human capital development in countries with a modest human capital stock, or a dearth of initiatives to improve education and skills’ upgrading. The most comprehensive collection of papers, resulting from a technical meeting specifically aiming to debate FDI, human capital and education in developing countries, can be found in OECD (2001).
1
differently than their domestic counterparts in what respects human capital intensity. This is
the research question here addressed.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews extant literature on
human capital and FDI, highlighting their connection with economic growth and
development, and puts forward the hypotheses tested in the paper. Section 3 presents the data,
providing the descriptive statistics of the respondent TBFs located in Portugal, specifically
concerning their human capital traits and foreign ownership structure. The following section
explains the empirical methodology, presents the econometric models estimated, and
discusses the results obtained. The final section concludes, derives policy implications, and
suggests avenues for future research.
2. Human capital, FDI and technology development
Since the late 1980s, education (mainly at higher levels) became increasingly associated with
economic performance and international competitiveness (e.g. Aldcroft, 1992). In particular,
with the emergence of the so-called ‘endogenous growth theories’, an important role – “the
engine of growth” (Ehrlich, 1990) – has been assigned to human capital. The development of
both the Lucas (1988) approach (inspired by the work of Becker) and the work of Nelson-
Phelps (1966) converge in a positive effect of educational attainment on the productivity of
workers, and hence on growth.
Nowadays, most economists and policy-makers consider human capital a key productive
asset, highly complementary with technological capital. Earlier studies focusing on cross-
country growth performance over long periods generally yielded positive results (e.g., Barro
and Lee, 1993).
Although the amount of theoretical and empirical studies on human capital at firm or
establishment level is already significant (Teixeira, 2002), most analyses are more aggregated,
and mainly focusing on issues of economic growth (Wößmann, 2003) or rate-of-return
analysis (Sianesi and van Reenen, 2003). The present analysis aims to contribute for a finer
view of these issues, in addition relating human capital to multinationality, an under-
researched area.
FDI is nowadays one of the most topical issues and a particular focus of policy in many
countries (Hanson, 2001; Young, 2004; Young and Tavares, 2004), owing to its sheer scale
and importance, as well as that FDI is often seen by policy-makers (Portuguese included) as a
fast track panacea for growth and development. Most countries (developed and developing
2
alike) scramble to attract FDI projects (Oxelheim and Ghauri, 2003), based on the common
wisdom, or the “stylised fact” that multinationals bring positive externalities (“spillovers”)2 to
the domestic economy, stimulating development, growth, employment (quantity and skill
upgrading/human capital development), wages, exports, technological and managerial
innovation, productivity, domestic entrepreneurship and other impacts such as demonstration,
agglomeration, competition and linkage effects, thereby enhancing macroeconomic
conditions, the sophistication of the local industrial fabric and of the indigenous workforce.
However, and even if this is the most common view, a growing body of literature questions
the magnitude of these effects, or even if they are positive (for instance Haddad and Harrison,
1993; Aitken and Harrison, 1999; Kathuria, 2000; Castellani and Zanfei, 2003) as well as the
economic efficiency (opportunity cost) of the sizeable incentives3 given by countries through
their proactive FDI attraction policies (Hanson, 2001; Oxelheim and Ghauri, 2003; Young,
2004). Just like research focusing on human capital, FDI impact issues are better researched at
micro (firm) level (Görg and Strobl, 2001), further supporting the approach (as regards unit of
analysis) used in this paper.
Analysing now the links between human capital and FDI, the complementarity between both
aspects has been investigated, in different ways. Quite often, the FDI-human capital link is
treated as a secondary issue in studies focusing primarily on the FDI-growth nexus
(Borensztein et al., 1998; Ram and Zhang, 2002). While the former study argued in favour of
such complementarity, the second did not find evidence supporting that, emphasising the need
for further research. Borensztein et al. (1998) refer another interesting relationship between
FDI and human capital: when analysing the impact of FDI on economic growth, they find a
positive link, but only provided that a minimum threshold of human capital exists [i.e.,
corroborating the “absorptive capacity” hypothesis (Cohen and Levinthal, 1989)]. Although
this issue is not our focus here, we respond to their call for the importance of studying the
effects of FDI on human capital.
In line with Borensztein et al.’s (1998) idea of a minimum threshold of human capital, both
Xu (2000) and Saggi (2000) found that, in the absence of adequate human capital, spillovers
(namely of a technological nature, and productivity spillovers) may simply be unfeasible.
2 There is a vast literature on spillovers and on the potential impact of multinational firms (Rodríguez-Clare, 1996; Blomström and Kokko, 1998; Markusen and Venables, 1999; for a review, see Görg and Strobl, 2001, and Tavares and Young, 2005). 3 Of particular interest for this paper is the fact that in Portugal (as well as in the other “Cohesion” countries) there have been vast sums awarded in the form of training grants (mainly funded by the European Social Fund), as well as other financial grants (provided by the European Regional Development Fund) directly financing FDI projects, and indirectly through funding relevant infrastructure such as business parks and roads.
3
Therefore, even when dealt with as a secondary research question, extant work reaches the
conclusion that human capital is crucial to enable the spillovers that underpin economic
growth.
The two-way causality between FDI and human capital has been also studied in its own right,
though we think that not often as much as the importance of the topic warranted. As
Blomström and Kokko (2001) refer, the FDI and human capital relationship is complex and
highly non-linear, and our knowledge in this vein is still sketchy.
However, and considering firstly the direction of causality from human capital to FDI (i.e.
human capital as a determinant of FDI inflows), this relationship has been more researched
(Noorbakhsh et al., 2001). The main lacuna remains, thus, in the direction of causality from
FDI to human capital, that is, does foreign-ownership matter as regards firms’ human capital
intensity? As referred to above, Narula and Marin (2003) constitute an exception to this
scarce empirical literature on the impact of FDI on firms’ human capital. They found that
overall, foreign-owned firms hire more qualified workers, and have a more skilled workforce,
than their local counterparts. In a relevant conceptual piece, Slaughter (2002) notes that
MNEs can raise both the demand and the supply of labour (Slaughter, 2002). MNEs tend to
be very technologically intensive firms (Slaughter, 2002), thereby demanding skilled staff to
work along their knowledge-specific assets. This knowledge intensity can help raising host
country demand for skills, through at least three main channels: technology transfer,
technological spillovers to domestic firms, and capital investments (the latter for both foreign
and domestically-owned firms alike). Saggi (2000) emphasises the (often neglected, in his
words) importance of labour turnover as a channel for inter-firm technology diffusion
(particularly, from MNEs to domestic firms). The interaction between the market for labour
and for goods is no new, and in related literature (focusing on spillovers) it has been noted by
Glass and Saggi (1999), and Saggi (2000).
Therefore, the stimulus provided by MNEs, their demand patterns, their competitive pressure,
and potential better practices in human resource development, would, ideally, spur a virtuous
circle between foreign-owned and domestic firms, ‘raising’ the bar of qualification and
making the “laggards” converge hopefully towards the more advanced human capital hiring
companies. It is worth analysing in more detail the mechanisms through which MNEs can
contribute to increase the demand of human capital, an impact highlighted in many studies
(Feenstra and Hanson, 1997; Markusen and Venables, 1997; Slaughter, 2002). That may
occur via vertical or horizontal linkages. Concerning vertical linkages, if MNEs demand high
4
standards to suppliers and subcontractors, then the latter have to adjust to these requirements,
and often have to hire highly skilled/qualified collaborators. This increase in the demand of
skilled labour may happen also through horizontal linkages, for instance via demonstration
effects and competitive pressure on firms in the same industry (foreign-owned or domestic),
‘raising the bar’ again for all industry players.
Now turning to the possibility of MNEs influencing the supply of skilled labour, that can
happen both at the micro- and at the macro-level (Slaughter, 2002). This author (based on
aggregate data) offers some empirical evidence about the existing correlation between FDI
and skill upgrading, for 16 countries and from 1982 to 1990. MNEs can help increasing the
supply of skilled labour by sponsoring education programmes (usually at the tertiary level),
by formal training of their workforce (done inside or outside the firm), and by informal, on-
the-job training. These initiatives can be an important source of technical and managerial
skills for the workers (that can eventually spill over, especially if labour mobility to domestic
firms occurs, or if entrepreneurial workers set up their own companies).
The impact of MNEs on the labour market is often explored via the impact on wages
(Feenstra and Hanson, 1997; Markusen and Venables, 1997; Bruno et al., 2004). The latter
(and more recent) study, contrary to previous work, found that FDI did not affect the relative
demand for skilled labour, in some Eastern European countries. Hence, the correlation
between FDI and skill upgrading/superior human capital intensity is not uncontroversial,
which is testified by the mixed results achieved by different studies.
Nevertheless, on balance, we would go along with the dominant impression reported in
previous work, that foreign owned firms tend to be more human capital intensive than
domestic firms. Our first hypothesis is thus:
Hypothesis 1: Foreign owned TBFs present higher human capital intensity than their
nationally owned counterparts.
Another crucial relationship, that has relevance to understand better the FDI-human capital
link, is the FDI-technology nexus. There is a vast literature highlighting the central role of
MNEs as producers and disseminators of knowledge and technological innovations (Teece,
1977; Cantwell, 1989; Narula, 2003). This literature has different types of focus, from
studying the technology “transfer” from foreign MNEs to indigenous firms, to a more
interactive technology “creation” process between the two types of agents, or even to
investigate the intra-firm transfer and sharing of knowledge between parent firms and
5
subsidiaries (including “reverse transfer” from subsidiaries to parents/strategic asset-seeking).
No matter the lens adopted, it is clear that human capital matters in all these dynamics.
Without properly trained or educated human resources, these processes of
technology/knowledge transfer and creation, reactive or proactive, cannot occur effectively.
Therefore, several authors (e.g. Haddad and Harrison, 1993) noted how critical for technology
dissemination is the absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1989, 1990) of the
“receiving”, or “partner” firms (which is, we argue, in fact the absorptive capacity of the staff
working in these firms).
A related topic to knowledge production concerns R&D activities. A rich stream of literature
has highlighted the strong connection between multinational enterprises and R&D (Ronstadt,
1977; Pearce, 1989; Kuemmerle, 1999). Caves (1996: 163) noted that “the affinities between
R&D and the MNE are numerous”, considering that the extent of R&D spending constitutes
an excellent predictor of MNE activity in an industry. A few of the largest global
multinationals account for the lion’s share in R&D in several industries (e.g. pharmaceuticals,
chemical). R&D activities can be thus hypothesised to be correlated to foreign ownership. In
turn, performing R&D operations requires highly qualified and skilled professionals. This
leads us to put forward the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The impact of foreign ownership on TBFs’ human capital intensity is higher the
more intensive are TBFs’ R&D efforts.
One of the outcomes of the globalisation process is the growth of alliances, cooperation in
technology development, or Strategic Technology Partnering (Narula, 2003). One of the ways
in which this Strategic Technology Partnering (STP) may be materialised is through linkages
between firms and other knowledge-producing agents (such as universities and research
laboratories). We would expect that foreign-owned TBFs, because they are technology-based
and because they are foreign (thus incurring a “cost” or “liability” of foreignness [Hymer,
1960/76; Zaheer, 1995]), may profit from developing such linkages like contacts with
universities. There is not, to the best of our knowledge, a well established and systematic
literature specifically on multinationals and university linkages. There is, however, a
considerable stream of research on firms (regardless of ownership) and university contacts
(Laursen and Salter, 2004; Mowery and Sampat, 2004). In order for the firm-university
relationship to be productive, the firm in question needs to have adequate human capital, i.e.
6
staff that is able to interact and understand the university partners (the latter are, by definition,
very qualified). The consideration of all these arguments leads us to hypothesise that:
Hypothesis 3: The impact of foreign ownership on TBFs’ human capital intensity is higher the
more frequent are TBFs’ contacts with Universities.
3. Methodology
3.1. Data
This analysis is based on data gathered through a questionnaire survey. The firms surveyed
were drawn from the Markelink 2004 list, which comprises firms located in Portugal that
declared and publicised R&D activities.4 This was the best possible list of companies publicly
available, in order to obtain a credible list of TBFs located in Portugal. There are two very
reputed and comprehensive alternatives, notably the company lists used by the Community
Innovation Survey (CIS) and Observatório para a Ciência e Ensino Superior (OCES) survey,
but these are not publicly disclosed owing to statistical secrecy. The list of companies we use,
Markelink, includes 703 companies, representing 85% of CIS III ‘innovative’ firms and
encompassing a much higher number of firms than those considered as ‘innovative’ by the
last OCES survey, therefore it is a representative list. It is important to note that, similarly to
CIS and OCES, Markelink list encompasses firms from all industries located within the
Portuguese territory (including Azores and Madeira islands), and, differently from CIS,
covers all size classes.
The questionnaire was sent in November-December 2004 to all firms listed in the Markelink
list (703) plus 4 firms that we knew (through the available on-line OCES’ list of Portuguese
firms with the largest R&D expenditures in 2001) that performed R&D activities.5 By mid-
December, 425 complete valid replies were received, which represents an effective response
rate of almost 61%. This is a surprisingly high response rate for a non-compulsory survey. As
Harzing (1997) noted, non compulsory industrial surveys are typically plagued by low
response rates. For instance, CIS III inquiry, which is compulsory, the response rate was
45,8% in the case of Portugal (Bóia, 2003) and 41,7% for the U.K. (Stockdale, 2002).6
4 Markelink is a private information supplier who manages several databases, covering a wide-ranging set of issues, including R&D (http://www.markelink.com/). 5 For a detailed description of the implementation of this survey see Costa and Teixeira (2005). 6 Using a formula for computing the size of the sample, in random samples, based on a pessimistic scenario (Vicente et al., 1996), a sample size of 425 observations (in a population of 697 firms – the difference between the 707 surveyed and 10 that we found to be out of business) would lead, for a confidence level of 95%, to a precision of approximately 0.03.
7
Therefore, the dataset gathered through this survey is remarkably comprehensive and
representative of the relevant population of firms.
3.2. Variables and descriptive statistics
3.2.1. Dependent variable
Since we are interested in explaining the human capital intensity of TBFs, our dependent
variable is the proportion of ‘top skilled’ and ‘top educated’ workers in total employment.
Although skills and education are treated in countless studies as synonymous concepts (e.g.,
Harris and Helfat, 1997), more accurately they are distinct (though interrelated) concepts.
Skills can be acquired through education and (formal) training but also (and mainly) through
the course of people’s activities at work (i.e., learning-by-doing). Rosen (1986) points to the
fact that most specific job skills are learned from performing the work activities themselves.
Formal schooling complements these skills, both by providing a body of general knowledge
and principles for students, as well as teaching them how to learn (Teixeira, 2005).
In order to capture both components of human capital we test human capital intensity by
using these two alternative (though interrelated) ways of measuring it. This is reflected in the
alternative model specifications presented later (Table 3).
Firms were asked about the number of total workers and the number of workers with an
engineering degree, which tend to represent a more firm-industry specific human capital
component, and the number of workers with 12 or more years of schooling (post-secondary
school), a more general component of human capital (Becker, 1962). Then we compute two
widely used ratios for proxying the human capital intensity variable:
(i) the number of ‘top skilled’ workers over total employment, being top skills measured by
the number of engineers (Wood and Ridao-Cano, 1999; Noorbakhsh et al., 2001); and
(ii) the number of ‘top educated’ workers over total employment, with top educated
represented as the number of workers with twelve or more years of formal education
(Teixeira, 2002; Wöβmann, 2003).
The respondent sample presents high skill intensity (14,2% on average cf. Table 2).7 In fact,
almost half of the firms state that the number of engineers in their total employment surpassed
5% (23% said that engineers represented more than 20% of total employment). By Portuguese
standards these TBFs are highly human capital intensive firms. For instance, considering data
referring to 2002 from ‘Balanço Social’ (DEEP, 2003), an annual compulsory survey to all
7 All variables are reported as three-year averages (2001-2003).
8
firms that employ more than 100 workers, the average percentage of workers with University
degree (engineers and others) was 9,9%.
Similarly to the skill intensity indicator, the education intensity, which is measured by the
percentage of employees with 12 years of schooling or more (‘top educated’), also reflects the
high human capital endowments of the firms covered in this study. Approximately 84% of
TBFs pointed out that ‘top educated’ workers represented more than 5% of their total
workforce, with almost half of TBFs indicating that this figure exceeded 20%. For the
respondent TBFs the mean of the education intensity indicator is 26,3% (cf. Table 2). Once
again, comparing with ‘Balanço Social’ figures, we conclude that our sample is relatively
highly educated.
3.2.2. Independent variables
Our ‘strategic’ variable, ‘foreign ownership’, is a dummy variable which takes the value 1 in
the case 50% or more of its equity is foreign-owned and 0 otherwise. The cut-off point of
50% was chosen owing to two main reasons: firstly, and without further specific information,
it is the least controversial way of considering that a firm is controlled/owned by a certain
type of investor, foreign or domestic; as such, it is widely used in the literature (Bellak, 2004;
De Backer and Sleuwaegen, 2005), more often than the minimum threshold of 10% of capital
adopted by the more controversial OECD Statistical Benchmark Definition for Foreign Direct
Investment (OECD, 1999);8 secondly, only 3% of the companies in the sample had a minority
participation of the foreign investor, so the majority ownership was the main strategy when
FDI occurred;9 hence, we decided to consider majority ownership as the most accurate
evidence of being a national or a foreign-owned company. Around 15% (cf. Table 2) state that
foreign entities owned above 50% of the surveyed firms’ capital. Hence, it must be noted, that
a substantial percentage of TBFs are nationally owned - 82% do not present foreign capital in
their equity structure.
The models estimated consider as regressors, apart from the main determinant (foreign
ownership), four other structural variables (here used as controls): size, age, R&D intensity,
and export intensity.
8 The OECD Benchmark Definition of Foreign Direct Investment (OECD, 1999) provides operational guidelines on how foreign direct investment (FDI) activity should be measured according to internationally agreed standards. The initial version of the Benchmark Definition (in 1983) and its subsequent revisions were prepared under the supervision of the Investment Committee. Accordingly, it is considered FDI when the proportion of firms’ equity owned by foreign capital is equal or above 10%. 9 Therefore, we obtained similar results when we replicated all the models with a minimum FDI threshold of 10% - this was undertaken, and the fact that the results are similar only testifies to the dominance of majority-owned FDI, when there was foreign capital in the surveyed firms’ equity.
9
Substantial literature on multinationals (mostly surveyed in Bellak, 2004) shows evidence of
performance gaps between ‘domestic-owned’ and ‘foreign-owned’ firms. The revealed
performance differences have been partly attributed to ownership, but also to firm
characteristics such as size (Nickell, 1996), age, R&D intensity (Buckley and Casson, 1976;
Markusen 1995), export intensity (Cohen, 1973) and other innovatory-related activities
(Mowery and Sampat, 2004). Therefore, the models estimated and reported in this paper take
into account these supplementary explanatory factors, defined and measured as follows.
Size is proxied by the number of workers (in logarithmic form). Age is measured by the
number of years in business (also in logs). The measure of R&D intensity is the ratio firm
R&D expenditure divided by firm sales. This variable is similar to that used by Mohnen and
Hoareau (2003) and Laursen and Salter (2004). Finally, export intensity is proxied by the ratio
of exports to total sales.
In addition to the five explanatory variables discussed above, 13 industry controls are
included to control for different TBFs’ skill and education intensities across industries.
Tables 1 and 2 contain more detailed descriptive statistics regarding our sample. Table 1
focuses on the surveyed firms’ human capital intensity, and foreign ownership, providing
statistics disaggregated by industry – where considerable differences in human capital
intensity and foreign ownership incidence across industries can be easily observed. Table 2
provides descriptive statistics on all variables used in the model, and presents the respective
correlation matrix.
Table 1: Across industry variation of human capital intensity and foreign ownership, 2001-2003
Human capital intensity
Industry %engineers
%workers with 12 or more years of formal
education
% foreign owned TBFs in the industry
Agriculture, fishery and extractive industry 19,3 22,7 20,0 Food, drink and tobacco 5,6 20,0 26,1 Textiles 3,5 10,0 5,3 Wood, paper and printing 4,9 15,3 25,0 Chemicals and plastics 9,7 26,9 32,7 Non-metallic minerals 5,3 12,6 11,1 Basic metals and fabric. metal products 5,4 16,4 24,1 Machinery 8,7 17,0 10,8 Electrical 21,9 31,3 19,4 Transport and other manufacturing 8,7 20,5 20,8 Utilities and construction 11,3 22,5 8,3 Retail and wholesale 10,8 47,7 23,7 Computing, R&D and firm services 39,2 54,2 5,7 Other services 23,6 27,2 18,2 Average: all industries 15,2 27,2 14,7
10
Table 2: Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix
Mean SD Min Max 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(1) Skill intensity 0,142 0,200 0 1,00 1 0,134* -0,032 -0,399* -0,310* 0,368* -0,232* 0,188* 0,005
(2) Education intensity 0,263 0,253 0
1,00 1,000 0,058 -0,371* -0,238* 0,212* -0,308* 0,109* -0,023
(3) Foreign owned 0,153 0,361 0 1,00 1,000 0,194* 0,052 -0,097*** 0,095** 0,327* 0,685*
(4) Firm size (log) 4,305 1,479 0 8,79 1,000 0,341* -0,307* 0,369* -0,018 0,128**
(5) Firm age (log) 3,125 0,789 0 5,19 1,000 -0,211* 0,065 -0,097*** 0,090***
(6) R&D intensity 0,051 0,126 0 1,00 1,000 -0,175* 0,177* -0,047
(7) Export intensity 0,265 0,341 0 1,00 1,000 -0,017 0,068
(8) Foreign*R&D 0,004 0,029 0 0,50 1,000 0,273*
(9) Foreign*Contacts with
Universities 0,090 0,309 0 2,30 1,000
* significant at 1%; ** significant at 5%; *** significant at 10%
11
The majority of the TBFs surveyed (68%) employ between 10 and 250 workers, being the
mean value for the sample of 74 workers. TBFs with more than 250 workers represent 21% of
the total. A large percentage of TBFs are in business for a reasonable number of years (23
years approximately on average). In fact, 57% of the total sample claimed to be in business
for over twenty years. Only 13% might be considered as startups (age below 10 years).10
Overall, TBFs represented in this sample are characterised by a reasonably high intensity in
R&D – on average, 5,1% of their sales are devoted to R&D activities.11 Recalling that the CIS
III survey for Portugal concluded that the total expenditure in R&D activities (both intramural
and extramural) by firms amounted to 0,8% of their total turnover (Bóia, 2003), we might
claim that indeed our sample embraces high-technology and knowledge intensive firms.
Around thirty firms (6,8% of the total) present truly remarkable average R&D intensities,
above 20%. A few of these are firms whose business is totally centered in performing R&D
activities.
As regards markets served, the bulk of TBFs are inward oriented (exporting on average 26,5%
of their total sales). Indeed, within the period covered in this study (2001-2003), almost two-
thirds (63%)of the firms surveyed export less than 20% of their total sales. For Portugal as a
whole, the average proportion of exports in total Gross Domestic Product in the period 2001-
2003 amounts to 30,7% (INE, 2003).
The correlation matrix shows that, without controlling for other variables, skill and education
intensity are negatively and significantly linearly related to size, age and export intensity, and
positively (and significantly) linearly related to skill intensity. Thus, smaller, younger, export-
led and technology-intensive firms tend to be more strongly associated with high levels of
human capital intensity. In contrast, ownership structure fails to be linearly statistically
associated with human capital variables.
10 Startup is a rather vague concept, generally meaning a new business venture in its earliest stage of development. Usually its operationalisation is made based on the age in business, ranging from 3-5 years up to 15 years. Given this wide variation, we opted for Almeida et al.’s (2003) definition, which considers startups those firms with 10 or less years in business. 11 It is rather peculiar that in spite of being listed as a R&D performer, almost 20% of the respondent TBFs, when asked about the average amount spent in R&D activities in the three-year period of 2001-2003, declared having registered in their accounts no value for this item. Some of these firms recognised, however, to have performed R&D activities in the period in study but did not reflect these expenses in their accounts. Some of these respondents are affiliates of other firms, and stated that R&D expenses were exclusively registered in their parent firms’ accounts.
12
4. Model specification and results
4.1. Econometric model specification
In order to test whether foreign ownership matters for explaining establishments’ human
capital intensity, the following empirical models are estimated for 2001-2003 (average
values):
iiii Xfh εββα +++= 12
11
1 (1)
iiiii DRffh νβββα ++++= X24
22
21
2 )&*( (2)
iiiiii UnivfDRffh ωββββα +++++= X34
33
32
31
3 )*()&*( (3)
Where hi denotes TBF’s i human capital intensity, that is, the proportion of engineers (or
workers with twelve or more years of formal education) in total employment. fi is the dummy
variable for foreign owned TBFs. X denotes a vector of other variables representing
characteristics of the firm (size, age, R&D intensity; export intensity; and industry), likely to
influence its human capital intensity. εi, νi, ωi are error terms following the standard
assumptions.
Our attention in this investigation is focused on the β1, β2, and β3 coefficients, trying to assess
whether the impact of foreign ownership and human capital intensity are statistically related
and which of the effects are more relevant - the direct effect (β1), or the indirect ones through
the interaction with R&D intensity (β2), or through the interaction with the frequency of
University contacts (β3).
Although most of the literature (see Bellak, 2004) focuses on the direct impact of foreign
ownership, we here try to highlight the relevance of its indirect impact, namely through
technology competencies, translated into R&D intensity and propensity for drawing on
external sources of information for innovation, such as universities. These latter interactions
were particularly emphasized by the literature on innovation (e.g., Laursen and Salter, 2004;
Mowery and Sampat, 2004), which stress the leverage effect that R&D and university
contacts’ intensity have on firms’ human capital traits. In this sense, we would expect that the
impact of foreign ownership on TBFs human capital intensity is higher “… the more intensive
are TBFs R&D efforts” (Hypothesis 2) and “… the more frequent are TBFs contacts with
Universities” (Hypothesis 3), that is and positive and statistically significant. 2β̂ 3β̂
13
4.2. Results
We find foreign ownership significant in explaining the human capital intensity of TBFs since
the parameter estimates are significant for this variable. It is interesting to note that foreign
ownership directly impacts on education intensity of TBFs, whereas in TBFs’ skill intensity
the relevant impact is the indirect one, through R&D efforts. This seems to give reason to
both the literature on multinationals, which emphasizes mainly the positive effects that
multinationality brings to countries’ general levels of human capital, and the literature on
innovation that highlights the mediating role of R&D on firms-industry specific human capital
upgrading. This further highlights the importance of the “two faces of foreign ownership” –
foreign ownership’s (indirect) impact on human capital intensity is closely related to the
generation of new knowledge within the firm (Cohen and Levinthal, 1989), and the ability to
seek for external sources of information and knowledge for innovation activities (Laursen and
Salter, 2004; Costa and Teixeira, 2005).
In this case, and as expected from Hypotheses 2 and 3, the impact of foreign ownership on
TBFs’ human capital intensity is higher “the more intensive are TBFs R&D efforts” and “the
more frequent are TBFs contacts with Universities”. Our results confirm the importance of
controlling for R&D intensity and university contacts when trying to explain the firms’
human capital intensity.
Concerning R&D intensity per se, the results show that R&D efforts are significant in
explaining TBFs’ specific human capital (skills) intensity, but not general human capital
(education) intensity.
Regarding the control variables, size proved to be negatively signed and significant in all
models estimated (for both human capital proxies). This means that smaller TBFs tend to be
more intensive in human capital. As regards the variable age, it turned out that younger firms
tend to be more human capital intensive, although in this latter case the results hold only for
the models with human capital intensity measured through the variable ‘skill intensity’. These
two results are not surprising as, after all, we are dealing only with technology-based firms.
Literature on this type of firms (e.g., Bartel and Lichtenberg, 1987) usually highlights that
smaller and younger firms tend to be more intensive in (mainly specific) human capital.
14
Table 3: OLS estimation, explaining the human capital intensity of TBFs located in Portugal, 2001–2003
Dependent variable: skill intensity Dependent variable: education intensity
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Coef. p-value Coef. p-value Coef. p-value Coef. p-value Coef. p-value Coef. p-value
Foreign 0,036 0,134 0,013 0,617 -0,013 0,699 0,081 0,014 0,072 0,039 0,113 0,014
Size (log) -0,022 0,002 -0,022 0,001 -0,022 0,002 -0,033 0,001 -0,033 0,001 -0,034 0,001
Age (log) -0,025 0,031 -0,023 0,044 -0,024 0,036 -0,022 0,156 -0,022 0,169 -0,020 0,209
R&D intensity 0,190 0,009 0,156 0,033 0,152 0,037
0,016 0,874 0,004 0,970 0,010 0,920
Export intensity 0,000 0,457 0,000 0,440 0,000 0,448 -0,001 0,191 -0,001 0,194 -0,001 0,200
Foreign*R&D 0,809 0,008 0,773 0,012
0,286 0,502 0,347 0,416
Foreign*University contacts 0,054 0,081 -0,076 0,140
Constant 0,356 0,000 0,351 0,000 0,356 0,000 0,672 0,000 0,670 0,000 0,662 0,000
Foreign ownership estimated impact on TBFs human capital intensity1
0,036 0,054 0,060 0,081 0,087 0,084
N 379 379 379 379 379 379
F-statistic 13,476
0,000 13,351 0,000 12,728 0,000 8,296 0,000 7,871 0,000 7,516 0,000
Adjusted R2 0,372 0,382 0,383 0,258 0,257 0,257
Note: All models have (13) industry controls.
1 )(int)&( 321 UnivContDRForeign
HC βββ ++=∂∂ .
15
Export intensity fails to be a significant determinant of human capital intensity, regardless the
proxy for human capital intensity. Very often (and now thinking specifically of the
Portuguese case), firms that are focused on exporting most of their output do not develop high
value-added activities (Tavares and Young, 2002), therefore do not display a considerable
human capital intensity.
Overall, and summarising the results obtained, three main outcomes of our empirical study
should be strongly emphasised:
1) foreign ownership directly (and significantly) impacts on firms general human capital;
2) foreign ownership indirectly (and significantly) impacts on firms specific human capital;
3) the total impact of foreign ownership on firms’ human capital intensity is higher for
education- (general) than for skills- (specific) related human capital intensity. We estimate
that, all other factors remaining constant, 1 percentage point (pp) increase in foreign
ownership tends to lead to 3,6pp - 6,0pp increase in TBFs’ skill intensity and to 8,1pp -
8,4pp increase in TBFs’ education intensity.
5. Conclusions and Policy Implications
5.1. Concluding Remarks
This paper aimed at contributing to the relative scarce empirical literature studying the impact
of FDI on human capital intensity. Our approach was to establish whether foreign ownership
was a significant determinant of the human capital intensity in TBFs. We used the empirical
setting of Portugal, a country that has been encouraging FDI inflows (lately more proactively,
through various and sizeable FDI incentives) and at the same time a country with a recognised
deficit in qualifications, and with some of the poorest education indicators in Europe and in
the developed world. Portugal’s sluggish economic growth, prevalence of low value-added
activities, challenges as a FDI host economy, and relatively low stock of human capital make
this study timely, by tackling these critical issues for the country’s development.
Using brand new evidence gathered through a purposefully-designed and representative large-
scale survey of TBFs located in Portugal (with a usable sample of 475 firms, 61% response
rate to the comprehensive survey undertaken), we found that foreign ownership had a positive
relationship with the human capital intensity of these TBFs, directly, and indirectly when
foreign ownership was considered jointly with R&D intensity and the frequency of contacts
with Universities. As mentioned above, three key results were obtained. Firstly, foreign
16
ownership directly (and significantly) impacts on firms general human capital (measured by
the proxy related to education “proportion of workers with more than 12 years of studies in
the total workforce”); secondly, foreign ownership indirectly (and significantly) impacts on
firms specific human capital, the latter measured by the proportion of engineers in the total
labour force – a conventional proxy for “top skills”; thirdly, the total impact of foreign
ownership on firms’ human capital intensity is higher for education- (general) than for skills-
(specific) related human capital intensity.
Two interaction terms were considered: one, relating foreign ownership to R&D; the other,
connecting foreign ownership to the frequency of university contacts. When the dependent
variable (human capital intensity) was measured by the “top skills” indicator, these interaction
terms were significant. In particular, the significance of the interaction term foreign
ownership jointly with R&D needs to be emphasised, meaning that the joint interaction of
foreign ownership with R&D intensity is a strong predictor of high human capital intensity.
Hence, the results provide broad support to the three hypotheses specified above when human
capital refers to skill intensity (specific human capital) and also support a clear positive direct
impact of foreign ownership on general human capital.
5.2. Policy Implications
These findings have, in our opinion, relevant policy implications, both for policies aimed at
attracting (and maintaining) FDI, and to broader (more macro), horizontal policies (such as
those related to education and training of human resources).
First of all, foreign ownership matters. Foreign subsidiaries operating in Portugal are,
generally speaking, better endowed in terms of human capital. Hence, for a country like
Portugal, needing badly to catch up in terms of qualification indicators (although that is a long
term pursuit), with sluggish growth, a difficult external image, and that has lost its traditional
labour cost advantage, our results seem to suggest that FDI should be supported. However,
not all types of multinational operations. Since we are dealing only with TBFs, i.e. the most
innovative firms in the country, it must be concluded that FDI-related policy ought to be
discerning and emphasise the quest for higher value-added MNE activities, in a way that is
compatible with the endogenous resources and capabilities that the country can realistically
offer. This means adopting a selective, targeted and sophisticated approach, and a clear
strategy on what kind of firm is desirable. Proactive chase for high value-added investors will,
nevertheless, fall apart if it is not coordinated with other policy measures, we argue, of
17
broader nature. For instance, altering the supply of tertiary (and even secondary and technical)
education courses in line with the strategy delineated (e.g. Ireland increased dramatically the
number of courses offered to engineers, particularly in electronics, in line with its fine-tuned
industrial targeting; Costa Rica attracted Intel, more due to its commitment to changing
secondary education curricula to emphasise electronics and English; and many other
examples exist, like the best practice case of the Penang Skill Development Centre in
Malaysia, as well as other interesting experiments in countries like Singapore and Thailand).
After all, each country gets the investment she deserves. FDI policies, especially “untied”
subsidies and tax cuts, cannot make miracles: if they are too easy, and given without a proper
strategy, they can even be counterproductive – and foreign investors know how to assess the
other side of the bargain. Probably the way to go would be to tie incentives to high value-
added operations, in a transparent and clear way so that the investor knows what he can get
depending on the investment’s characteristics. This would weed out purely opportunistic,
rent-seeking and incentive-snatching investors, and would give a more serious sign that the
country really is committed to changing its model of development, and its way of acting. A
focus in some niches where excellence has been achieved (e.g. in microelectronics, with the
Siemens case) should be eventually pondered, and eventually to support more FDI in
specialised services (that is a more sensitive issue, but on average, tradable service activities
are o average more intensive in human capital than the average industrial operation). A
balanced, and more systemic approach is needed, encompassing a more coordinated
implementation of measures, and, above all, an emphasis on the quality of operations, in order
to attract sustainable MNE operations.
Energy and resources should be devoted to investors that are already present in the country –
often, it is harder to maintain than to attract investment. But with a closer relationship with
subsidiary managers of the truly high quality operations, giving less attention and not wasting
resources with those subsidiaries that are not bound to be upgraded. This would imply a deep
knowledge, and very accurate data on the country’s foreign investor population, with
objective (and again transparent) criteria.
Notwithstanding, FDI-related policies are unlikely to be enough.
In terms of the usual investment in education and training, it is urgent that a better allocation
of resources is achieved, as Portugal per capita spending on education (the “input” measure)
18
is relatively high, but the output indicators are simply not in tune with the relatively high
spending – so, investing better, and not necessarily more, as a priority.
However, the main hindrance to a credible image of the country vis-à-vis foreign investors is
the remarkable institutional and policy instability that is obvious to the eye of any investor.
FDI-related policies have to be implemented by a stable, independent, uncontroversial, and
credible institution, that has the legitimacy and the ability to decide on most of the issues that
interest an investor (foreign or national).
This paper’s results, are, in sum, in line with general expectation, but are specifically
interesting given the direct and indirect impact of foreign ownership according to the human
capital measure. It seems, thus, that FDI is acting in the ‘right’ way – impacting directly and
positively on general human capital, which, in terms of spillover potential (positive
externalities) to the rest of the economy, is more important as these general qualifications are
easily transferable across companies and sectors. Therefore, foreign multinationals operating
in Portugal are helping with the development process, and also seem to offer some hope that
they have invested in Portugal not only to take advantage of low costs per se, a self-
obsolescing (and already eroded) source of competitive advantage.
In a nutshell, both FDI and human capital formation should be promoted, as two relevant key
engines of growth and also of sustainability of the Portuguese economy, trying to promote
properly a consistent and well communicated strategy, acting also in order to shape the skill
mix towards more engineering/technical graduates, acting more strongly on intermediate
levels of education, on vocational/technical training, continuing education, on knowledge
infrastructure policies, on linkages between the foreign and domestic agents.
Catching up in terms of human capital stock will take decades. However, starting to act upon
it cannot be delayed any longer, if the low-income, low-skill trap is to be avoided.
Acknowledgements
The authors are deeply indebt to Joana Costa for the gathering of the data used in the present
work.
19
References
Aitken, B.J. and Harrison, A. (1999). “Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign
Investment? Evidence from Venezuela”, American Economic Review, 89 (3): 605-618.
Aldcroft, D. (1992). Education, Training and Economic Performance, 1944 to 1990.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Almeida, P., Dokko, G. and Rosenkopf, L. (2003). “Startup Size and the Mechanisms of
External Learning: Increasing Opportunity and Decreasing Ability?” Research Policy,
32: 301–315.
Barro, R. and Lee, J.-W (1993). “International Comparison of Educational Attainment”,
Journal of Monetary Economics, 32: 363-394.
Bartel, A. and Lichtenberg, F. (1987). “The Comparative aAvantage of Educated Workers in
Implementing New Technology”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 68 (1): 1-11.
Becker, G. (1962). “Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis”, Journal of
Political Economy, 70: 9-44.
Bellak, C. (2004). “How Domestic and Foreign Firms Differ and Why Does It Matter?”,
Journal of Economic Surveys 18 (4): 483-514.
Blomström, M. and Kokko, A. (1998). “Multinational Corporations and Spillovers”, Journal
of Economic Surveys, 12 (3): 247-277.
Blomström, M. and Kokko, A. (2003). “Human Capital and Inward FDI”, CEPR Discussion
Paper No. 3762, London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.
Bóia, M.J. (2003). Determinants of Innovation in Portugal. Designing, Implementing and
Analyzing Evidence from the Third Community Innovation Survey. Unpublished
Master’s Dissertation, Lisbon: IST, Universidade de Lisboa.
Borensztein, E., De Gregorio, J. and Lee, J.-W. (1998). “How Does Foreign Direct
Investment Affect Economic Growth?”. Journal of International Economics, 45: 115-
135.
Bruno G., Crinò, R. and Falzoni, A. (2004). “Foreign Direct investment, Wage Inequality, and
Skilled Labor Demand in EU Accession Countries”, CESPRI Working Paper No. 154,
Milan: Centre for Research on Innovation and Internationalisation, Bocconi University.
20
Buckley, P. J. and Casson, M. (1976). The Future of the Multinational Enterprise,
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Cantwell, J.A. (1989). Technological Innovation and Multinational Corporations. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Castellani, D. and Zanfei, A. (2003). “Technology Gaps, Inward Investments and Productivity
of European Firms”, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12 (6): 555-576.
Caves, R.E. (1996). Multinational Enterprise an Economic Analysis, 2nd Edition, Cambridge
(UK): Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, B. I. (1973). “Comparative Behavior of Foreign and Domestic Export Firms in a
Developing Economy”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 55: 190–97.
Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1989). “Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D”.
Economic Journal, 99: 569-596.
Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990). “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on
Learning and Innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128–52.
Costa, J. and Teixeira, A.A.C. (2005). “Universities as Source of Knowledge for Innovation.
The Case of Technology Intensive Firms in Portugal”, FEP Working Paper nº 181,
Porto: Faculdade de Economia, Universidade do Porto.
De Backer, K. and Sleuwaegen, L. (2005). “A closer look at the productivity advantage of
foreign affiliates”. International Journal of the Economics of Business, Special Issue,
12(1): 17-34.
DEEP (2003). Balanço Social 2002. Lisboa: Departamento de Estudos, Estatística e
Planeamento/Ministry of Labour.
Dunning, J.H. (1993). Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, Wokingham (UK):
Addison Wesley.
Ehrlich, I. (1990). “The Problem of Development: Introduction”, Journal of Political
Economy, 98 (5): 1-11.
Feenstra, R.C. and Hanson, G.H. (1997). "Foreign Direct Investment and Relative Wages:
Evidence from Mexico’s Maquiladoras", Journal of International Economics, 42: 371-
393.
21
Glass, A. and Saggi, K. (1999). “Multinational Firms and Technology Transfer”, World Bank
Research Working Paper No. 2067. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.
Görg, H. and Strobl, E. (2001). “Multinational Companies and Productivity Spillovers: A
Meta-Analysis”. Economic Journal, 111: 723-739.
Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy.
Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Haddad, M. and Harrison, A.E. (1993). “Are There Positive Spillovers from Direct Foreign
Investment? Evidence from Panel Data for Morocco”, Journal of Development
Economics, 42: 51-74.
Hanson, G.H. (2001). “Should Countries Promote Foreign Direct Investment?”. G-24
Discussion Paper Series, No. 9, February. New York and Geneva: United Nations.
Harris and Helfat, C. (1997). “Specificity of CEO Human Capital and Compensation”,
Strategic Management Journal, 18: 895-920.
Harzing, A.-W.K. (1997). “Response Rates in International Mail Surveys: rRsults of a 22
Country Study”. International Business Review, 6 (6): 641-65.
Hymer, S. (1960/1976). The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Direct
Foreign Investment, Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
INE (2003). Anuário Estatístico de Portugal 2003, Lisbon: Instituto Nacional de Estatística.
Kathuria, V. (2000). “Productivity Spillovers from Technology Transfer to Indian
Manufacturing Firms,” Journal of International Development, 12: 343-36
Kuemmerle, W. (1999). "The Drivers of Foreign Direct Investment into Research and
Development - An Empirical Investigation", Journal of International Business Studies,
30 (1): 1-24.
Laursen, K. and Salter, A. (2004). “Searching High and Low: What Types of Firms Use
Universities as a Source of Innovation?”, Research Policy, 33: 1201–1215.
Lucas, R. (1988). “On the Mechanics of Economic Development”, Journal of Monetary
Economics, 22: 3-42.
Markelink (2004). ‘Markelink: Ciência e Tecnologia’, www.markelink.com.
Markusen, J.R. (1995). “The Boundaries of Multinational Enterprises and the Theory of
International Trade”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9: 169–89.
22
Markusen, J.R. and Venables, A.J. (1997). "The Role of Multinational Firms in the Wage-Gap
Debate", Review of International Economics, 5(4), 435-451.
Markusen, J.R. and Venables, A.J. (1999). “Foreign Direct Investment as a Catalyst for
Industrial Development”. European Economic Review, 43: 335-56.
Miyamoto, K. (2003). “Human Capital Formation and Foreign Direct Investment in
Developing Countries”, OECD Development Centre Working Paper No. 211, Paris:
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
Mohnen, P., Hoareau, C. (2003). “What Type of Enterprise Forges Close Links with
Universities and Government Labs? Evidence from CIS2”, Managerial and Decision
Economics, 24: 133–146.
Mowery, D. and Sampat, B. (2004). “Universities in National Innovation Systems” in
Fagerberg et al., The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Chapter 8.
Narula, R. (2003). Globalization & Technology, Cambridge (UK): Polity Press.
Narula, R. and Marin, A. (2003). “FDI Spillovers, Absorptive Capacities, and Human Capital
Development: Evidence from Argentina”. MERIT-Infonomics Research Memorandum
Series, 2003-016. Maastricht: MERIT and Infonomics, University of Maastricht.
Nelson, R. and Phelps, E. (1966). “Investment in Humans, Technological Diffusion, and
Economic Growth”, American Economic Review. 46 (2): 69-75.
Nickell, S. J. (1996). “Competition and Corporate Performance”, Journal of Political
Economy, 104: 724–46.
Noorbakhsh, F., Paloni, A. and Youssef, A. (2001). “Human Capital and FDI Inflows to
Developing Countries: New Empirical Evidence”, World Development, 29: 1593-1610.
OECD (1999). OECD Benchmark Definition of Foreign Direct Investment, 3rd edition, Paris:
Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development.
OECD (2001). OECD Development Centre Technical Meeting: FDI, Human Capital and
Education in Developing Countries.
http://www.oecd.org/document/23/0,2340,en_2649_33975_2731607_1_1_1_1,00.html
Oxelheim, L. and Ghauri, P. (eds.) (2003). European Union and the Race for Foreign Direct
Investment in Europe, Oxford: Elsevier (Pergamon).
23
Pearce, R. (1989). The Internationalisation of Research and Development by Multinational
Enterprises, London: Macmillan.
Ram, R. and Zhang, K.H. (2002). “Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth:
Evidence from Cross-Country Data for the 1990s”. Economic Development and
Cultural Change, 205-215.
Rasiah, R. (2005). Human Resources and Foreign Direct Investment With a Focus on the
Electronics and Garment Industries.Paper prepared for the World Bank.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLM/Publications/20437210/FDI.pdf.
Rodríguez-Clare, A. (1996). “Multinationals, Linkages, and Economic Development”.
American Economic Review, 86 (4), September: 852-873.
Romer, P. (1986). “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth”. Journal of Political Economy,
94 (5): 1002-1037.
Ronstadt, R.C. (1977). Research and Development Abroad by US Multinationals, New York:
Praeger.
Rosen, S. (1986). “The Theory of Equalizing Differences”, in Ashenfelter, O. and Layard, R.
(eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. I, Chapter 12: 641-694.
Saggi, K. (2000). “Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and International Technology Transfer:
A Survey”. Policy Research Working Paper No. 2349, Development Research Group,
Trade. Washington D.C: The World Bank.
Sianesi, B. and van Reenen, J. (2003). “The returns to education: macroeconomics”, Journal
of Economic Surveys, 17 (2): 157-200.
Slaughter, M. (2002). “Skill Upgrading in Developing Countries: Has Inward Foreign Direct
Investment Played a Role?”, CEPA Working Paper 2002-08, New York: Center for
Economic Policy Analysis.
Stockdale, B. (2002). UK Innovation Survey, London: Department of Trade and Industry.
Tavares, A.T. and Young, S. (2002). “Explaining the Export Intensity of Multinational
Subsidiaries: An EU-Based Empirical Study”. Strathclyde International Business Unit
Working Papers, 2002/2, Glasgow: University of Strathclyde.
24
Tavares, A.T. and Young, S. (2005). Introduction to Special Issue on “FDI and
Multinationals: Patterns, Impacts and Policies”, International Journal of the Economics
of Business, 12 (1): 3-16.
Te Velde, D.W. (2002). “Government Policies for Inward Foreign Direct Investment in
Developing Countries: Implications for Human Capital Formation and Income
Inequality”, OECD Development Centre Technical Paper No. 193, Paris: Organisation
for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
Teece, D.J. (1977). “Technology Transfer by Multinational Firms: The Resource Cost of
Transferring Technological Know-How”, Economic Journal, 87: 242-261.
Teixeira, A.A.C. (2002). “On the Link between Human Capital and Firm Performance. A
Theoretical and Empirical Survey”, FEP Working Paper nº 121, Porto: Faculdade de
Economia, Universidade do Porto.
Teixeira, A.A.C. (2005). “Measuring Aggregate Human Capital in Portugal, 1960-2001”,
Portuguese Journal of Social Science, forthcoming.
Vicente, P., Reis, E. and Ferrão, F. (1996). Sondagens. A Amostragem como um Factor
Decisivo da Qualidade. Lisbon: Edições Sílabo.
Wood, A. and Ridao-Cano, C. (1999). “Skill, Trade and International Inequality”, Oxford
Economic Papers, 51: 89-119.
Wößmann L. (2003). “Specifying Human Capital”, Journal of Economic Surveys, 17 (3): 239-
270.
Xu, B. (2000). “Multinational Enterprises, Technology Diffusion, and Host Country
Productivity Growth,” Journal of Development Economics, 62, 477-93.
Young, S. (ed.) (2004). Multinationals and Public Policy. International Library of Critical
Writings in Economics, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Young, S. and Tavares, A.T. (2004). “Multilateral Rules on FDI. Do We Need Them? Will
We Get Them? A Developing Country Perspective”, Transnational Corporations, 13
(1):1-30.
Zaheer, S. (1995). “Overcoming the Liability of Foreignness”, Academy of Management
Journal, 38 (2): 341-363.
25
Recent FEP Working Papers
Nº 186 Jorge M. S. Valente, Beam search algorithms for the single machine total weighted tardiness scheduling problem with sequence-dependent setups, August 2005
Nº 185 Sofia Castro and João Correia-da-Silva, Past expectations as a determinant of present prices – hysteresis in a simple economy, July 2005
Nº 184 Carlos F. Alves and Victor Mendes, Institutional Investor Activism: Does the Portfolio Management Skill Matter?, July 2005
Nº 183 Filipe J. Sousa and Luís M. de Castro, Relationship significance: is it sufficiently explained?, July 2005
Nº 182 Alvaro Aguiar and Manuel M. F. Martins, Testing for Asymmetries in the Preferences of the Euro-Area Monetary Policymaker, July 2005
Nº 181 Joana Costa and Aurora A. C. Teixeira, Universities as sources of knowledge for innovation. The case of Technology Intensive Firms in Portugal, July 2005
Nº 180 Ana Margarida Oliveira Brochado and Francisco Vitorino Martins, Democracy and Economic Development: a Fuzzy Classification Approach, July 2005
Nº 179 Mário Alexandre Silva and Aurora A. C. Teixeira, A Model of the Learning Process with Local Knowledge Externalities Illustrated with an Integrated Graphical Framework, June 2005
Nº 178 Leonor Vasconcelos Ferreira, Dinâmica de Rendimentos, Persistência da Pobreza e Políticas Sociais em Portugal, June 2005
Nº 177 Carlos F. Alves and F. Teixeira dos Santos, The Informativeness of Quarterly Financial Reporting: The Portuguese Case, June 2005
Nº 176 Leonor Vasconcelos Ferreira and Adelaide Figueiredo, Welfare Regimes in the UE 15 and in the Enlarged Europe: An exploratory analysis, June 2005
Nº 175
Mário Alexandre Silva and Aurora A. C. Teixeira, Integrated graphical framework accounting for the nature and the speed of the learning process: an application to MNEs strategies of internationalisation of production and R&D investment, May 2005
Nº 174 Ana Paula Africano and Manuela Magalhães, FDI and Trade in Portugal: a gravity analysis, April 2005
Nº 173 Pedro Cosme Costa Vieira, Market equilibrium with search and computational costs, April 2005
Nº 172 Mário Rui Silva and Hermano Rodrigues, Public-Private Partnerships and the Promotion of Collective Entrepreneurship, April 2005
Nº 171 Mário Rui Silva and Hermano Rodrigues, Competitiveness and Public-Private Partnerships: Towards a More Decentralised Policy, April 2005
Nº 170 Óscar Afonso and Álvaro Aguiar, Price-Channel Effects of North-South Trade on the Direction of Technological Knowledge and Wage Inequality, March 2005
Nº 169 Pedro Cosme Costa Vieira, The importance in the papers' impact of the number of pages and of co-authors - an empirical estimation with data from top ranking economic journals, March 2005
Nº 168 Leonor Vasconcelos Ferreira, Social Protection and Chronic Poverty: Portugal and the Southern European Welfare Regime, March 2005
Nº 167 Stephen G. Donald, Natércia Fortuna and Vladas Pipiras, On rank estimation in symmetric matrices: the case of indefinite matrix estimators, February 2005
Nº 166 Pedro Cosme Costa Vieira, Multi Product Market Equilibrium with Sequential Search, February 2005
Nº 165 João Correia-da-Silva and Carlos Hervés-Beloso, Contracts for uncertain delivery, February 2005
Nº 164 Pedro Cosme Costa Vieira, Animals domestication and agriculture as outcomes of collusion, January 2005
Nº 163 Filipe J. Sousa and Luís M. de Castro, The strategic relevance of business relationships: a preliminary assessment, December 2004
Nº 162 Carlos Alves and Victor Mendes, Self-Interest on Mutual Fund Management: Evidence from the Portuguese Market, November 2004
Nº 161 Paulo Guimarães, Octávio Figueiredo and Douglas Woodward, Measuring the Localization of Economic Activity: A Random Utility Approach, October 2004
Nº 160 Ana Teresa Tavares and Stephen Young, Sourcing Patterns of Foreign-owned Multinational Subsidiaries in Europe, October 2004
Nº 159 Cristina Barbot, Low cost carriers, secondary airports and State aid: an economic assessment of the Charleroi affair, October 2004
Nº 158 Sandra Tavares Silva, Aurora A. C. Teixeira and Mário Rui Silva, Economics of the Firm and Economic Growth. An hybrid theoretical framework of analysis, September 2004
Nº 157 Pedro Rui Mazeda Gil, Expected Profitability of Capital under Uncertainty – a Microeconomic Perspective, September 2004
Nº 156 Jorge M. S. Valente, Local and global dominance conditions for the weighted earliness scheduling problem with no idle time, September 2004
Nº 155 João Correia-da-Silva and Carlos Hervés-Beloso, Private Information:Similarity as Compatibility, September 2004
Nº 154 Rui Henrique Alves, Europe: Looking for a New Model, September 2004
Nº 153 Aurora A. C. Teixeira, How has the Portuguese Innovation Capability Evolved? Estimating a time series of the stock of technological knowledge, 1960-2001, September 2004
Nº 152 Aurora A. C. Teixeira, Measuring aggregate human capital in Portugal. An update up to 2001, August 2004
Nº 151 Ana Paula Delgado and Isabel Maria Godinho, The evolution of city size distribution in Portugal: 1864-2001, July 2004
Nº 150 Patrícia Teixeira Lopes and Lúcia Lima Rodrigues, Accounting practices for financial instruments. How far are the Portuguese companies from IAS?, July 2004
Nº 149 Pedro Cosme Costa Vieira, Top ranking economics journals impact variability and a ranking update to the year 2002, June 2004
Nº 148 Maria do Rosário Correia, Scott C. Linn and Andrew Marshall, An Empirical Investigation of Debt Contract Design: The Determinants of the Choice of Debt Terms in Eurobond Issues, June 2004
Nº 147 Francisco Castro, Foreign Direct Investment in a Late Industrialising Country: The Portuguese IDP Revisited, May 2004
Nº 146 Óscar Afonso and Álvaro Aguiar, Comércio Externo e Crescimento da Economia Portuguesa no Século XX, May 2004
Nº 145 Álvaro Aguiar and Manuel M. F. Martins, O Crescimento da Produtividade da Indústria Portuguesa no Século XX, May 2004
Nº 144 Álvaro Aguiar and Manuel M. F. Martins, Growth Cycles in XXth Century European Industrial Productivity: Unbiased Variance Estimation in a Time-varying Parameter Model, May 2004
Editor: Prof. Aurora Teixeira ([email protected]) Download available at: http://www.fep.up.pt/investigacao/workingpapers/workingpapers.htm also in http://ideas.repec.org/PaperSeries.html
www.fep.up.pt
Recent FEP Working Papers
Nº 186 Jorge M. S. Valente, Beam search algorithms for the single machine total weighted tardiness scheduling problem with sequence-dependent setups, August 2005
Nº 185 Sofia Castro and João Correia-da-Silva, Past expectations as a determinant of present prices – hysteresis in a simple economy, July 2005
Nº 184 Carlos F. Alves and Victor Mendes, Institutional Investor Activism: Does the Portfolio Management Skill Matter?, July 2005
Nº 183 Filipe J. Sousa and Luís M. de Castro, Relationship significance: is it sufficiently explained?, July 2005
Nº 182 Alvaro Aguiar and Manuel M. F. Martins, Testing for Asymmetries in the Preferences of the Euro-Area Monetary Policymaker, July 2005
Nº 181 Joana Costa and Aurora A. C. Teixeira, Universities as sources of knowledge for innovation. The case of Technology Intensive Firms in Portugal, July 2005
Nº 180 Ana Margarida Oliveira Brochado and Francisco Vitorino Martins, Democracy and Economic Development: a Fuzzy Classification Approach, July 2005
Nº 179 Mário Alexandre Silva and Aurora A. C. Teixeira, A Model of the Learning Process with Local Knowledge Externalities Illustrated with an Integrated Graphical Framework, June 2005
Nº 178 Leonor Vasconcelos Ferreira, Dinâmica de Rendimentos, Persistência da Pobreza e Políticas Sociais em Portugal, June 2005
Nº 177 Carlos F. Alves and F. Teixeira dos Santos, The Informativeness of Quarterly Financial Reporting: The Portuguese Case, June 2005
Nº 176 Leonor Vasconcelos Ferreira and Adelaide Figueiredo, Welfare Regimes in the UE 15 and in the Enlarged Europe: An exploratory analysis, June 2005
Nº 175
Mário Alexandre Silva and Aurora A. C. Teixeira, Integrated graphical framework accounting for the nature and the speed of the learning process: an application to MNEs strategies of internationalisation of production and R&D investment, May 2005
Nº 174 Ana Paula Africano and Manuela Magalhães, FDI and Trade in Portugal: a gravity analysis, April 2005
Nº 173 Pedro Cosme Costa Vieira, Market equilibrium with search and computational costs, April 2005
Nº 172 Mário Rui Silva and Hermano Rodrigues, Public-Private Partnerships and the Promotion of Collective Entrepreneurship, April 2005
Nº 171 Mário Rui Silva and Hermano Rodrigues, Competitiveness and Public-Private Partnerships: Towards a More Decentralised Policy, April 2005
Nº 170 Óscar Afonso and Álvaro Aguiar, Price-Channel Effects of North-South Trade on the Direction of Technological Knowledge and Wage Inequality, March 2005
Nº 169 Pedro Cosme Costa Vieira, The importance in the papers' impact of the number of pages and of co-authors - an empirical estimation with data from top ranking economic journals, March 2005
Nº 168 Leonor Vasconcelos Ferreira, Social Protection and Chronic Poverty: Portugal and the Southern European Welfare Regime, March 2005
Nº 167 Stephen G. Donald, Natércia Fortuna and Vladas Pipiras, On rank estimation in symmetric matrices: the case of indefinite matrix estimators, February 2005
Nº 166 Pedro Cosme Costa Vieira, Multi Product Market Equilibrium with Sequential Search, February 2005
Nº 165 João Correia-da-Silva and Carlos Hervés-Beloso, Contracts for uncertain delivery, February 2005
Nº 164 Pedro Cosme Costa Vieira, Animals domestication and agriculture as outcomes of collusion, January 2005
Nº 163 Filipe J. Sousa and Luís M. de Castro, The strategic relevance of business relationships: a preliminary assessment, December 2004
Nº 162 Carlos Alves and Victor Mendes, Self-Interest on Mutual Fund Management: Evidence from the Portuguese Market, November 2004
Nº 161 Paulo Guimarães, Octávio Figueiredo and Douglas Woodward, Measuring the Localization of Economic Activity: A Random Utility Approach, October 2004
Nº 160 Ana Teresa Tavares and Stephen Young, Sourcing Patterns of Foreign-owned Multinational Subsidiaries in Europe, October 2004
Nº 159 Cristina Barbot, Low cost carriers, secondary airports and State aid: an economic assessment of the Charleroi affair, October 2004
Nº 158 Sandra Tavares Silva, Aurora A. C. Teixeira and Mário Rui Silva, Economics of the Firm and Economic Growth. An hybrid theoretical framework of analysis, September 2004
Nº 157 Pedro Rui Mazeda Gil, Expected Profitability of Capital under Uncertainty – a Microeconomic Perspective, September 2004
Nº 156 Jorge M. S. Valente, Local and global dominance conditions for the weighted earliness scheduling problem with no idle time, September 2004
Nº 155 João Correia-da-Silva and Carlos Hervés-Beloso, Private Information:Similarity as Compatibility, September 2004
Nº 154 Rui Henrique Alves, Europe: Looking for a New Model, September 2004
Nº 153 Aurora A. C. Teixeira, How has the Portuguese Innovation Capability Evolved? Estimating a time series of the stock of technological knowledge, 1960-2001, September 2004
Nº 152 Aurora A. C. Teixeira, Measuring aggregate human capital in Portugal. An update up to 2001, August 2004
Nº 151 Ana Paula Delgado and Isabel Maria Godinho, The evolution of city size distribution in Portugal: 1864-2001, July 2004
Nº 150 Patrícia Teixeira Lopes and Lúcia Lima Rodrigues, Accounting practices for financial instruments. How far are the Portuguese companies from IAS?, July 2004
Nº 149 Pedro Cosme Costa Vieira, Top ranking economics journals impact variability and a ranking update to the year 2002, June 2004
Nº 148 Maria do Rosário Correia, Scott C. Linn and Andrew Marshall, An Empirical Investigation of Debt Contract Design: The Determinants of the Choice of Debt Terms in Eurobond Issues, June 2004
Nº 147 Francisco Castro, Foreign Direct Investment in a Late Industrialising Country: The Portuguese IDP Revisited, May 2004
Nº 146 Óscar Afonso and Álvaro Aguiar, Comércio Externo e Crescimento da Economia Portuguesa no Século XX, May 2004
Nº 145 Álvaro Aguiar and Manuel M. F. Martins, O Crescimento da Produtividade da Indústria Portuguesa no Século XX, May 2004
Nº 144 Álvaro Aguiar and Manuel M. F. Martins, Growth Cycles in XXth Century European Industrial Productivity: Unbiased Variance Estimation in a Time-varying Parameter Model, May 2004
Editor: Prof. Aurora Teixeira ([email protected]) Download available at: http://www.fep.up.pt/investigacao/workingpapers/workingpapers.htm also in http://ideas.repec.org/PaperSeries.html
www.fep.up.pt