Knowledge that Transforms

Rising levels of foreign direct investment (FDI) concern growing numbers of policymakers and members of the American public. These concerns stem from the perception that foreign activities of American multinational corporations reduce employment and other economic activities within the United States. While investment flows within the United States go largely unnoticed, in an international setting the lexicon of “winners” and “losers” can be inescapable. Curiously, both capital-exporting countries and capital-importing countries have at times expressed concern over the consequences of international capital flows. Capital-exporting countries worry that too much of their capital goes abroad, while capital-importing countries fear foreign control of domestic assets and the possible macroeconomic instability associated with rapid changes in foreign investment levels. The concerns of capital-exporting countries, while diffuse, often are based on conceptions of outbound FDI as diverting economic activity. Unsurprisingly, growing overseas activities of multinational firms have become a source of economic insecurity for workers, managers, and tax collectors (see e.g., Kenneth F. Scheve and Matthew J. Slaughter, 2001).

This paper shows that a country’s wealth can be an important determinant of comparative advantage when access to credit differs across sectors of the economy. Wealthier nations exhibit a comparative advantage toward goods produced in sectors facing more severe financial imperfections. These sectors are typically populated by small firms. Empirically this paper documents that these sectors are also labor intensive. Consequently, this theory partially offsets traditional sources of comparative advantage and offers an explanation for Trefler’s missing trade mystery and the Leontief paradox. Furthermore, the theory makes the relation between trade and income distribution endogenous.

We reassess the empirical robustness of the empirical findings in Jere R. Berhman and Mark R. Rosenzweig (2002) using new information on schooling which was collected and coded independently of codings carried out by both Kate Antonovics and Arthur Goldberger, and Berhmamn and Rosenzweig. We conclude that the independently coded data and the codings by Antonovics and Goldberger provide additional support for Behrman and Rosenzweig's original results showing that the positive cross-sectional relationship between a mother's schooling and her child's schooling is not robust to controls for unmeasured, intergenerationally correlated endowments, while the positive effect of paternal schooling is robust.