< Back to Current Version

U.S. Direct Investment Abroad: Trends and Current Issues

Changes from April 29, 2005 to April 26, 2006

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.


Order Code RS21118 Updated April 29, 200526, 2006 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web U.S. Direct Investment Abroad: Trends and Current Issues James K. Jackson Specialist in International Trade and Finance Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Summary The United States is the largest investor abroad and the largest recipient of direct investment in the world. For some Americans, the national gains attributed to investing overseas are offset by such perceived losses as displaced U.S. workers and lower wages. Some observers believe U.S. firms invest abroad to avoid U.S. labor unions or high U.S. wages, however, 70% of U.S. foreign direct investment is concentrated in high income developed countries. Even more striking is the fact that the share of investment going to developing countries has fallen in recent years. Most economic analystseconomists conclude that direct direct investment abroad overall does not lead to fewer jobs or lower incomes overall for for Americans and that the majority of jobs lost among U.S. manufacturing firms over the the past decade reflect a broad restructuring of U.S. manufacturing industries. This report report will be updated as events warrant. Recent Investments New spending by U.S. firms on businesses and real estate abroad, or U.S. direct investment abroad1, reached $248 billion in 2004, a 40% increase from the amount invested in 2003 and more than twice the amount foreign firms invested in the United States, according to the Department of Commerce.2 This level of investment spending sets a new record in nominal terms (not accounting for inflation) that U.S. firms invested abroad during a year. The spending on foreign investment stems from a number of factors, including equity capital outflows associated with a number of large U.S. acquisitions of foreign firms. Reinvested earnings also increased as economic activityfell sharply in 2005 to $21 billion, or less than one-tenth of the $252 billion U.S. firms invested in 2004, according to the Department of Commerce.2 This drop in investment spending contrasts with a 20% increase in spending by foreign firms in 2005 to reach $129 billion. The drop in U.S. direct investment abroad reflects actions by U.S. parent firms to reduce the amount of reinvested earnings going to their foreign affiliates for distribution to the U.S. parent firms in order to take advantage of one-time 1 The United States defines direct investment abroad as the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one person (individual, branch, partnership, association, government, etc.) of 10% or more of the voting securities of an incorporated business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated business enterprise. 15 CFR § 806.15 (a)(1). 2 Bach, Christopher L., U.S. International Transactions, 2004 in 2005. Survey of Current Business, April 2005, p. 46. Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress CRS-2 picked up in some European countries and in the petroleum industry. Foreign direct investment in the United States also increased in 2004, chalking up $113 billion in new investment, nearly triple the $40 billion invested in 2003. Relative rates of growth between U.S. and foreign economies largely determine the April 2005, p. 468. Direct investment data reported in the balance of payments differ from capital flow data reported elsewhere, because the balance of payments data have not been adjusted for current cost adjustments to earnings. Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress CRS-2 tax provisions in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-357). Foreign direct investment in the United States increased by 20% in 2005, chalking up $129 billion in new investment. Generally, relative rates of growth between U.S. and foreign economies largely determine the direction and magnitude of direct investment flows. These flows also are affected by relative rates of inflation, interest rates, and expectations about the performance of national economies, which means they can be quite erratic at times. Since the mid-1990s, the combination of strong growth and low inflation in the U.S. economy attracted foreign investors, as indicated in Figure 1. Since 2002From 2002 to 2005, U.S. direct investment abroad has been was more than twice the amount foreigners have invested in the U.S. economy, reflecting the period of slower growth in the economy from 2001-2003. On the whole, U.S. firms continue to beare the most prolific overseas investors: a recent study by the United Nations indicates that U.S. firms are the largest foreign direct investors in the world and own as much abroad as the British and Germans combined, the next largest foreign direct investors. Table 1 indicates that the overseas direct investment position of U.S. firms on a investors. Figure 1. U.S. Direct Investment Abroad and Foreign Direct Direct Investment in the U.S. Economy, annual Flows 1982-2004Annual Flows 1990-2005 (in billions of dollars) $350 Billions of dollars $350 $300 Foreign Direct Investment in the the United States $250 $200 $150 $100 U.S. Direct Investment Abroad $100 $50 $0 1982 1984 1986 1988 50 $0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year U.S. Department of Commerce Table 1 indicates that the overseas direct investment position of U.S. firms on a historical-cost basis,3 or the cumulative amount at book value, reached $1.82.1 trillion in 3 The position, or stock, is the net book value of U.S. parent company’s equity in, and outstanding loans to, their affiliates abroad. A change in the position in a given year consists of three components: equity and intercompany inflows, reinvested earnings of incorporated affiliates, and valuation adjustments to account for changes in the value of financial assets. The Commerce (continued...) CRS-3 2003Department also publishes data on the U.S. direct investment position valued on a current-cost and market value bases. These estimates indicate that U.S. direct investment abroad increased by $304 billion and $569 billion in 2004, respectively, to $2.4 and $3.3 trillion. CRS-3 2004, the latest year for such investment position data.4 More than 70% of these overseas investments are in developed countries: Europe alone accounts for over half of all U.S. direct investment abroad, or $963 billion1.1 trillion. Europe has been a prime target of U.S. investment since U.S. firms first invested abroad in the 1860s. American firms began investing heavily in Europe following World War II as European countries rebuilt their economies and later when they formed an intra-European economic union. Table 1. U.S. Direct Investment Position Abroad on a Historical-Cost Basis at Year-end 2003 (in millions of U.S. dollars) All countries Canada Europe Belgium France Germany Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Latin America Brazil Venezuela Mexico Bermuda Africa Middle East Asia Australia China Hong Kong Indonesia Japan Korea Singapore All indusManutries facturing 1,788,911 378,033 192,409 963,087 25,804 47,914 80,163 55,463 30,417 66,919 178,933 38,215 28,905 86,435 272,640 304,023 29,915 10,859 61,526 84,609 18,960 16,942 293,490 40,985 11,877 44,323 10,387 73,435 13,318 57,589 74,878 177,951 8,230 19,942 18,985 15,002 18,159 2,796 21,060 8,707 1,024 8,721 40,548 46,775 10,326 2,698 20,089 648 1,266 4,537 72,625 10,841 6,791 4,045 470 14,422 6,842 13,394 Wholesale Infortrade mation 140,579 47,525 12,653 89,467 2,708 4,016 20,878 2,998 2,593 (D) 21,016 2,849 1,079 11,882 9,901 12,120 1,460 253 2,030 2,417 598 8 25,734 2,664 1,332 8,201 (D) 6,544 827 (D) 2,194 30,328 201 -146 3,347 14,048 1,884 (D) 3,470 874 166 -2,711 7,675 5,963 415 (D) 1,230 362 1,196 1,535 6,310 334 115 849 -189 3,179 98 1,462 Banking Finance Services 63,655 299,805 40,599 2,661 38,142 638 2,908 1,412 445 239 575 29 1,665 (D) 7,103 18,596 9,086 1,948 (D) 16,867 0 618 846 12,303 2,284 413 1,983 406 609 2,021 843 34,181 116,384 7,437 3,798 11,644 8,681 1,831 79 9,277 3,249 384 3,264 62,359 81,722 4,406 337 7,193 45,222 605 1,015 65,899 5,028 -49 14,951 (D) 34,215 1,583 2,912 2,035 21,051 1,434 1,277 2,027 1,655 734 (D) 1,408 274 183 534 9,794 1,555 615 -88 442 20 121 1,092 14,744 1,730 93 1,122 90 9,101 559 (D) Other industries 693,138 38,528 460,508 5,151 15,988 21,783 (D) 4,963 60,093 118,857 20,511 (D) 57,631 108,158 121,983 7,086 1,176 12,581 35,708 2,458 3,102 66,559 7,404 1,375 10,001 541 5,349 1,386 (D) End 2004 (in millions of U.S. dollars) All Manufac- Wholesale Other Information Banking Finance Services industries turing trade industries All countries 2,063,998 428,235 136,949 56,422 68,100 370,965 42,110 840,755 Canada 216,571 76,786 11,797 3,485 2,981 36,889 2,281 50,085 Europe 1,089,941 217,088 81,805 34,849 40,293 163,393 21,987 503,346 Belgium 27,761 8,912 4,085 -306 809 8,240 1,129 4,880 France 58,927 21,330 5,778 1,238 3,269 4,407 1,724 21,122 Germany 79,579 20,147 16,406 2,216 1,674 10,518 3,646 24,371 Ireland 73,153 21,290 4,598 17,029 (D) 11,101 1,968 16,094 Italy 33,378 22,039 2,664 2,862 -26 2,135 969 (D) Luxembourg 74,902 6,632 179 (D) 667 2,083 29 (D) Netherlands 201,918 24,977 13,397 4,431 34 22,495 1,573 131,059 Spain 45,251 11,359 2,933 1,295 1,861 4,672 (D) 22,751 Sweden 36,399 1,435 1,100 227 (D) 4,344 243 (D) Switzerland 100,727 10,785 10,083 -2,373 7,920 4,528 513 (D) United Kingdom 302,523 52,295 14,146 6,217 18,009 84,475 8,772 108,230 Latin America 325,891 46,913 11,118 7,061 8,555 98,998 2,194 128,622 Brazil 33,267 12,220 755 732 2,433 4,688 378 7,654 Chile 10,196 1,767 693 522 1,184 2,329 38 (D) Mexico 66,554 19,438 1,954 1,495 16,811 11,160 567 12,858 Bermuda 91,265 -42 1,691 487 0 50,960 111 37,953 Caribbean 63,066 1,255 2,337 668 -12,452 22,881 479 46,221 Africa 22,259 2,255 1,116 1,273 797 141 141 3,459 Middle East 19,235 4,657 581 1,745 237 1,064 852 4,280 Asia 390,101 80,537 30,531 8,010 15,237 70,480 14,654 150,963 China 15,430 8,222 1,825 368 534 -2 688 (D) Hong Kong 43,743 3,608 8,625 927 2,178 12,291 1,451 14,614 Japan 80,246 14,598 8,242 3,701 244 39,189 7,697 6,565 Korea 17,332 7,826 1,089 211 3,833 2,062 781 1,529 Singapore 56,900 14,435 (D) 1,383 835 2,529 425 (D) Source: U.S. Direct Investment Abroad: Detail for Historical-Cost Position and Related Capital and Income Flows, 2003. Survey of Current Business, September 20042005. p. 90136. Note: A (D) indicates that the data have been suppressed by the Department of Commerce to avoid disclosing the data of individual companies. 3 (...continued) Department also publishes data on the U.S. direct investment position valued on a current-cost and market value bases. These estimates indicate that U.S. direct investment abroad increased by $229 billion and $690 billion in 2003, respectively, to $2.1 and $2.7 trillion. 4 Borga, Maria, and Daniel R. Yorgason, Direct Investment Positions for 2003: Country and Industry Detail, Survey of Current Business, July, 2004. P. 40. CRS-4 Typically, U.S. firms have placed the largest share of their annual investments in developed countries, primarily in Western Europe, but this tendency has increased since the mid-1990s. In the last half of the 1990s, U.S. direct investment abroad experienced a dramatic shift from developing countries to the richest developed economies: the share of U.S. direct investment going to developing countries fell from 37% in 1996 to 21% in 4 Koncz, Jennifer L., and Daniel R. Yorgason, Direct Investment Positions for 2003: Country and Industry Detail, Survey of Current Business, July, 2005. P. 53. CRS-4 2000. In 20042000. In 2003, U.S. firms focused a slightly greater percent of their investment funds on developing countries, which received 2529% of the investment funds of U.S. multinational firms. Patterns in U.S. direct investment abroad generally reflect fundamental changes that occur in the U.S. economy during the same period. As investment funds in the U.S. economy shifted from extractive, processing, and manufacturing industries toward high technology services and financial industries, U.S. investment abroad mirrored these changes. As a result, U.S. direct investment abroad focused less on the extractive, processing, and basic manufacturing industries in developing countries and more on high technology, finance, and services industries located in highly-developed countries with advanced infrastructure and communications systems. U.S. direct investment abroad during the 2000-20032004 period increased about 3656%. Investments in the finance and services sectors grew twice as fast, on the whole, as direct investment abroad overall during the 1996-2000 period. Within the manufacturing sector, food processing, chemicals, and metals lagged in growth behind the industrial machinery, electronic, and transportation sectors. U.S. Multinationals Nations once hostile to American direct investment now compete aggressively by offering incentives to U.S. firms. A debate continues within the United States, however, over the relative merits of U.S. direct investment abroad. Some Americans believe that U.S. direct investment abroad, directly or indirectly, shifts some jobs to low wage countries. They argue that such shifts reduce employment in the United States and increase imports, thereby affecting negatively both U.S. employment and economic growth. Economists generally believe that firms invest abroad because those firms possess some special process or product knowledge or because they possess special managerial abilities which give them an advantage over other firms. On the whole, U.S. firms invest abroad to serve the foreign local market, rather than to produce goods to export to the United States, although some firms do establish overseas operations to replace U.S. exports or production, or to gain access to raw materials, cheap labor, or other markets. On average, about 98% of affiliate sales are to the U.S. parent companies.5 U.S. multinational corporations (MNCs) rank among the largest U.S. firms. According to data collected by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), when American parent companies and their foreign affiliates are compared by the size structure of employment classes, 40% of the more than 2,000 U.S. parent companies employ more than 2,499 persons. These large parent firms account for 95% of the total number of people employed by U.S. MNCs. Employment abroad is even more concentrated among the largest foreign affiliates of U.S. parent firms: the largest 2% of the affiliates account for 90% of affiliate employment.6 5 U.S. Direct Investment Abroad: Operations of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates, Preliminary 20022003 Estimates, October 2004. Table III. F. 1. CRS-5 more concentrated among the largest foreign affiliates of U.S. parent firms: the largest 2% of the affiliates account for 90% of affiliate employment.62005. Table III. F. 1. 6 Mataloni, Raymond J. Jr. U.S. Multinational Companies: Operations in 1998. Survey of Current Business, July 2000. pp. 24-45. CRS-5 While U.S. MNCs used their economic strengths to expand abroad during the 1980s and 1990sbetween the 1980s and early 2000s, the U.S.-based parent firms lost market positions at home, in large part due to corporate downsizing efforts to improve profits. U.S. MNC parent companies’ share share of all U.S. business gross domestic product (GDP) — the broadest measure of economic economic activity — declined from 32% to 25% from 1977 to 1989, comprising 24% of total U.S. private business output in 1998 (the latest year for which estimates are available).7 These MNC parent companies increased their share of all U.S. business GDP in the services sector, which rose from 6% to 8% of U.S. GDP during the period from 1989 to 1998. The MNC share of all other industries rose from 16% to 18% during the 10-year period, but they lost shares in the manufacturing sector (from 62% to 58%) at a time when the U.S. manufacturing sector as a whole was shrinking as a share of national GDP (from 20% to 16%).8 As U.S. MNC parent companies were losing their relative market positions at home, their cumulative amount of direct investment abroad doubled. This increase did spur a shift in some economic activity among the U.S. MNCs from the U.S. parent companies to the foreign affiliates. During the period from 1977 to 1997, the foreign affiliates increased their share of the total economic activity within U.S. MNCs — the combined economic output of the U.S. parent and the foreign affiliates — from 22% to 24%.9 Employment One of the most commonly expressed concerns about U.S. direct investment abroad is that U.S. parent companies invest abroad in order to send low-wage jobs overseas. Such effects are difficult to measure because they are small compared with much larger changes occurring within the U.S. economy. In addition, a cursory examination of the data seems to indicate that employment losses among parent firms occurred simultaneously with gains in foreign subsidiaries, thereby giving the impression that jobs are being shifted abroad. Employment among U.S. parent companies did fallfell during the early 1980s, although it early 1980s, but increased in the 1992-20022000 period, from 17.5 million to 22.4 million23.9 million. From 2000 to 2003, however, employment among U.S. parent companies fell by 9% to 21.7 million in 2003 during the slowdown in the rate of U.S. economic growth. After employment losses in the early 1980s, employment at both the parent firms and the foreign affiliates increased after 1992, although at different rates and in different industries. In a number of cases, U.S. parent firms and their foreign affiliates lost or gained employment in many of the same industries. Both the parent firms and the affiliates lost employment in the petroleum and finance sectors, although both gained employment in the services and wholesale trade sectors. Furthermore, employment gains 6 and losses among MNCs more likely reflect fundamental shifts within the U.S. economy, than any formal or informal efforts to shift employment abroad. 7 Mataloni, Raymond J. Jr. U.S. Multinational Companies: Operations in 19982003. Survey of Current Business, July 2000. pp. 26-45. 7 Mataloni, Operations of U.S. Multinational Companies. p. 31. 2005. p. 15. 8 Ibid., p. 31. 9 Ibid., p. 31. CRS-6 and losses among MNCs more likely reflect fundamental shifts within the U.S. economy, than any formal or informal efforts to shift employment abroad. Some observers also contend that U.S. direct investment abroad supplants U.S. exports, thereby worsening the U.S. trade deficit and eliminating some U.S. jobs. Most analyses indicate, however, that intra-company trade, or trade between the U.S. parent company and its foreign subsidiaries, represents a large share of U.S. trade and that foreign investment typically boosts U.S. exports more than it contributes to a rise in imports or to a loss of exports. For instance, American multinational corporations account for over 60% of U.S. exports and 40% of U.S. imports, indicating that U.S. parent firms tend to be a more important source of supply to their affiliates than the affiliates are to their parent companies. Conclusions American direct investment abroad has grown sharply since the mid-1990s, raising questions for many observers about the effects of such investment on the U.S. economy. These questions seem pertinent since American multinational corporations lost shares of U.S. GDP over the last decade and their domestic employment had declined until the mid1990s. Increased economic activity abroad relative to that in the United States increased overseas affiliate employment in some industries, including manufacturing. Most of this affiliate activity, however, is geared toward supplying the local markets in which they are located. In 20012003, about 98% of the sales of the foreign affiliates of U.S. firms was accounted for by exports back to the United States,10 although this share is nonetheless substantial. Some observers believe U.S. direct investment abroad is harmful to U.S. workers because it shifts jobs abroad. There is no conclusive evidence in the data collected to date to indicate that current investment trends are substantially different from those of previous periods or that jobs are moving offshore at a rate that is significantly different from previous periods.11 There are instances when firms shift activities abroad to take advantage of lower labor costs. However, it is clear from the data that the majority of U.S. direct investment abroad is in developed countries where wages, markets, industries, and consumers’ tastes are similar to those in the United States. U.S. direct investment in these developed countries is oriented toward serving the markets where the affiliates are located and they tend, in the aggregate, to boost exports from the United States. In addition, foreign firms have been pouring record amounts of money into the United States to acquire existing U.S. firms, to expand existing subsidiaries, or to establish “greenfield” or new investments. 10 11 Mataloni, Operations of U.S. Multinational Companies. p. 41. CRS Report RL32461, Outsourcing and Insourcing Jobs in the U.S. Economy: Evidence Based on Foreign Investment Data, by James K. Jackson.