WPS8686 Policy Research Working Paper 8686 Beyond Capital Monitoring Development Outcomes of Multinational Enterprises Iza Lejárraga Alexandros Ragoussis International Finance Corporation December 2018 Policy Research Working Paper 8686 Abstract This study presents a novel set of indicators on outcomes of transfer, appear to be increasing with income, although foreign direct investment spanning 63 developing countries premia in most outcomes are stronger in lower-middle-in- and 10 areas that matter for development. Building on come or low-income markets, highlighting the relevance decade-long data collection by the World Bank Enterprise of foreign multinational enterprises for socioeconomic Surveys, the indicators highlight systematic differences progress in these contexts. Moreover, outcomes of foreign between foreign multinational enterprises and domestic multinational enterprises in areas such as export orientation, firms across countries in competitiveness outcomes such skills transfer, and physical capital accumulation are more as productivity, innovation, export orientation, as well as consistent across countries, whereas in other areas the out- the extent to which they promote inclusiveness through comes display wide variation, suggesting potentially higher job creation, gender empowerment, or supply linkages. sensitivity to investor motivations, sectors, seasonal trends, Although there appears to be no striking trade-off between and business environments. Policy efforts should take these competitiveness and inclusiveness of foreign multinational differences into account, to devise investment strategies that enterprises, their premia differ substantially across regions not only seek to increase capital flows, but also enhance the and income groups. Differences in some key drivers of benefits that could be derived from them. competitiveness, such as productivity, innovation, and skills This paper is a joint product of the Economics and Private Sector Development Vice Presidency of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), member of the World Bank Group, and the Investment Division of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://www.worldbank.org/research. The authors may be contacted at aragoussis@ifc.org and iza.lejarraga@oecd.org. The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Produced by the Research Support Team   Beyond Capital: Monitoring Development Outcomes of Multinational Enterprises Iza Lejárraga Alexandros Ragoussis Investment Division Economics and Private Sector Development Directorate for Enterprise and Fin. Affairs International Finance Corporation OECD World Bank Group _____________________________ About this study: The study builds on the methodological framework for developing quantitative measures on the outcomes of FDI that was jointly prepared by the IFC and the OECD and presented to the OECD Investment Committee in October 2016. A preliminary set of indicators was prepared for the 2017 Global Forum on International Investment (GFII) and subsequently discussed at the Investment Committee at its March 2017 meeting. This work has gratefully benefitted from a voluntary contribution from the European Commission, which supported a technical expert meeting and background work for the development of the conceptual framework this study is based on. The authors would like to thank Rahma Ahmed, Fares Al Hussami, Winfrid Blaschke, Neil Gregory, Marie Catriona Hyland, Peter Kusek, Iris Mantovani, Letizia Montinari, Ana Novik, Chinemelu Okafor, Daniel Reyes, Ben Shepherd, Matthew Stephenson, Rodrigo Wagner, and Martin Wermelinger for valuable inputs and comments. JEL Codes: F23, F63, O12 Keywords: Multinational Enterprises; Foreign Direct Investment; Sustainable Development 2 │    1. Introduction   Beyond attracting higher levels of foreign direct investment (FDI), developing countries are increasingly concerned with investment that helps advance their socio-economic development and environmental sustainability. Calls for “quality FDI” or the “right kind of FDI” reflect a desire that goes beyond attracting foreign capital, to creating more and better jobs, skills and know-how, opportunities for women and domestic firms and respect for the environment. These expectations have not always been realized or have not been evenly distributed across the population in a country. Worse still, at times foreign multinationals have been associated with environmental and social costs (UNCTAD, 1999). While FDI is generally associated with positive effects on development, there is a broad consensus in the literature that materialization of these effects is neither automatic (Alfaro and Chauyin 2018) nor monotonic; it varies considerably across various types of enterprises, sectors, regions and countries. Moreover, even when FDI supports development in the aggregate, it does not ensure that everyone benefits from the activities of foreign multinationals. In this context, investment promotion and strategy require nuance, and above all, a solid empirical framework to monitor the contribution of investment to a broad-based development agenda. This need is even greater in the context of the ambitious set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) looking forward to 2030, which will require bridging an acute investment gap in the range of trillions—by some conservative estimates, USD 2.5 trillion annually for developing countries (UNCTAD 2014)—and, importantly, finding ways to make the most of incoming capital for social and economic progress, often by changing established ways of doing business. While public investments will continue to play a central role for most developing countries, for least-developed countries (LDCs) especially, the role of private—notably foreign—investment will be indispensable to advance developmental objectives. But how do we measure the contributions of foreign multinationals to development? While there has been a proliferation of cross-country indicators related to investment policies and business environment conditions, a lot fewer indicators exist on measurements of investment outcomes across countries and sectors—a compass to tell how different multinational firms fare in one country versus another, and where each country stands relative to its own development objectives. An ample amount of literature has demonstrated the direction and magnitude of effects of foreign multinationals on job creation, wages, productivity, and innovation in specific contexts, periods, or sectors. Yet, what is lacking to date are consistent measurement and benchmarking of these development outcomes of international business across countries. This study aims to fill this information gap. It takes advantage of rich sources of data collected by the World Bank Enterprise Surveys over the past decade to measure differences between foreign multinational and domestic firms consistently across 63 countries over 10 dimensions that matter for development. These dimensions have been selected based on their importance         │ 3    for fulfilling both economic and social objectives, as well the availability and quality of the data. By augmenting the set of publicly available information on differences between plants of multinational and domestic firms, this study paints a picture that contributes to a better understanding of what multinational firms bring to advance various development outcomes, and the differences across countries. Compiling indicators of development outcomes at the level of firms is predicated on the understanding that differences between firm outcomes are a driving force behind development impact at the level of the economy. Outcomes of foreign-owned firms are however not to be confused with aggregate development impact of international business; they are one among a number of such drivers that shift macro-economic and social outcomes of host countries. In addition to the variety of characteristics of firms presented in this work, the actual aggregate impact of foreign multinationals on host countries remains dependent on the volume of investment, local conditions, spillovers to domestic firms, and government policies. The picture this exercise unveils is highly heterogeneous. While there appears to be no striking trade-off between competitiveness and inclusiveness of foreign multinationals, contrary to the efficiency-equity trade-off that fuels intense debates (WEF & EIB, 2017), one can observe systematic differences in how pronounced their premia are across regions and income groups. Relative to other regions, foreign MNEs established in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, for example, exhibit higher premia over domestic firms in the majority of outcomes relating to competitiveness and inclusiveness. Foreign MNEs established in Latin America stand out in terms of productivity and skills transfer while the opposite pattern is observed in Sub-Saharan Africa, where foreign multinationals stand out with respect to job expansion and wages. The mix appears to be highly specific to the type of multinationals each region attracts, including the industry and investor motivations, as well as the host economy conditions. In the Middle East and North Africa, for example, multinationals differ significantly in terms of export propensity and geographical diversification due to the concentration of FDI in natural resource sectors. Meanwhile they also contribute more in these regions than anywhere else to gender empowerment by employing significantly more women in managerial positions, potentially due to social and cultural differences between the home and host countries. Differences in some key areas that drive competitiveness, such as productivity, innovation, and skills transfer, appear to increase with income, while premia in all other areas would reach a maximum in lower-middle or low-income markets, highlighting the relevance of foreign multinationals for socio-economic progress in these contexts. Outcomes in export orientation, skills transfer, and investment in physical capital are more consistent across some countries, whereas in others they display wide variations, suggesting potentially higher sensitivity to investor motivations, sectors, seasonal trends and business environments. Interpretation of these patterns requires caution, due to the limitations of the underlying analysis. Indicators are static, non-exhaustive on dimensions of sustainable development, and cover only part of developing-country economies in terms of sectors, formality, and firm sizes according to survey design. In addition, the underlying surveys are not conducted simultaneously across countries and therefore are prone to seasonal bias. The deliberate focus on developing countries makes the results less generalizable to the global economy. In       4 │    particular, different patterns may be observed in terms of the contributions of foreign multinational enterprises in more advanced OECD economies. Still, the piece of the puzzle we present in this report is the most difficult to measure consistently and reliably across countries; thus, we note the value of future refinements of this work for governments and development institutions. The analysis breaks some new ground that can serve as the basis for policy discussions. The policy and development strategy package must find ways to unlock the resulting opportunities from all incoming foreign investment— as opposed to picking the right or wrong FDI---by addressing the market and government failures that may be preventing firms from delivering expected gains. The rest of the report is structured as follows: Section 2 describes our thinking about development aspects of FDI and outlines the main evidence and knowledge gaps with respect to a selection of development outcomes of foreign MNEs. Section 3 presents the indicators of competitiveness and inclusiveness of foreign MNE activities, while making a first attempt at a synthesis across both indicators and countries. Concluding remarks and avenues for future work are offered in the last section. 2. How do we think about development outcomes of FDI? Facts and knowledge gaps   The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reflect a vision of the future that goes beyond economic growth to decent jobs, education, health, security and many other benefits. This set of objectives illustrates the breadth and complexity of the development agenda, which is increasingly multifaceted. But how do we think about the development outcomes of multinational firms in particular? Foreign direct investment is about growth rather than substitution of domestic capital; but it is also about enabling more firms and households to benefit from the resulting opportunities. The extent to which multinational firms contribute to growth and aggregate income is associated with more broad-based opportunities and firm-level outcomes that can be grouped into two broad pillars: Competitiveness (C) and Inclusiveness (I), referred to hereafter as the CI pillars. The two pillars follow conceptually the pillars of sustainable development: economic and social, to which typically one would add environmental outcomes as a third. The section below lays out the main channels through which foreign MNEs can contribute to these outcomes and takes stock of the existing evidence and knowledge gaps. The list is neither exhaustive nor sufficiently comprehensive to address all the SDGs, which would notably require addressing also the environmental impacts from the activities of MNEs. Its objective is to serve as a starting point in the effort to develop indicators that can inform discussions and motivate extensions.         │ 5    2.1 Two pillars of development outcomes: Competitiveness and inclusiveness The first pillar relates to measurements of competitiveness of multinational enterprises (see Table 1 for selected examples of outcomes in that category). In effect, a nation’s standard of living is increasingly dependent on the competitiveness of its firms. In most countries, high and rising standards of living can only be sustained by continuous improvements in productivity, either through achieving higher productivity in existing enterprises or through the entry of new enterprises such as MNEs with higher levels of productivity. Closely related to productivity, the level of physical and human capital, combined with the level of innovation, determines the output of the economy in terms of the ‘size of the pie’. Productive and innovative firms arguably generate spillovers and contribute, for example, towards a more sophisticated business activity that generates high returns. Finally, export orientation and diversification have been associated with higher levels of productivity growth while contributing to resilience by mitigating risks associated with domestic business cycles. Increasing the ability of a country’s enterprises to deepen their integration in world markets through trade and FDI provides substantial leverage for efficiency gains and productivity growth. Table 1. Selected outcomes of foreign MNEs Competitiveness Inclusiveness Productivity Job creation Export-orientation Wages Capital Accumulation Gender Inclusion and Empowerment Innovation Supply Linkages Skills utilization and transfer Geographical Spread Note: The selection of outcomes presented in this table reflects data availability in the Enterprise Surveys and is non-exhaustive on firm outcomes associated with sustainable development. Source: Authors’ Elaboration of an earlier version prepared for the Investment Committee in October 2016.       6 │    The second pillar regards the inclusiveness of FDI. This, in turn, captures the extent to which the activities of foreign MNEs are contributing to desirable distributional outcomes. Inclusive investment can be seen as investment that contributes to reducing inequalities in terms of income and gender, as well as through integration between economic activities and subnational regions. Arguably, the activities of foreign MNEs can drive aggregate outcomes in different directions. Higher wages than local firms pay for skilled workers, for example, can increase within-labor income inequality, at least partly offsetting the higher labor share of national income. Yet, this is not a generalized case: MNEs in sectors such as textiles or tourism employ unskilled labor and contribute to higher wages at the lower end of the income distribution scale in many developing countries. Not all FDI increases employment, particularly when investment targets existing operating companies. However, if foreign MNEs represent ‘greenfield investment’ that expands net aggregate employment—particularly for unskilled labor—that may, other things being equal, help parts of the population move out of poverty and close within-labor income disparities. The extent to which MNEs employ women, including at senior positions, can also contribute to gender empowerment. Finally, the extent to which the activities of foreign MNEs are spread spatially across the territories of developing countries makes a difference in reducing regional disparities. And the extent to which there are well-developed linkages of MNEs with local suppliers ensures that there is a larger pool of beneficiaries from economic growth due to foreign investment. The two pillars often mutually reinforce each other but also trade off each other in different areas. If the activities of foreign MNEs contribute to productivity growth, for example, efficiency improvements will support national income that offers the potential to benefit the poor. Similarly, if foreign MNEs expand their sales to foreign markets through exports, this is likely to create additional opportunities for growth for their domestic suppliers. These indirect knock-on effects, from competitiveness to inclusiveness, should be fostered. In other areas, there may be tensions between the two pillars. That is to say, while FDI may bring positive effects for the economy as a whole by raising overall competitiveness, these net effects can mask differences across income groups. In particular, because of the skill bias of FDI in many sectors and countries, skills and training may increase wage differentials between workers in the short term, thereby increasing within-labor income inequality. If foreign MNEs are more capital-intensive than domestic firms, employment levels may not increase at the same pace, reducing opportunities for the population to benefit from the capital growth. These negative cross-effects can be mitigated with policies, including effective education and transfers. 2.2 How much do we know about FDI development impact?   The effect of FDI, and specifically that of multinational firms on host economies, has been extensively researched to date, creating a large body of evidence on the topic. However, this         │ 7    research has traditionally focused on competitiveness dimensions such as productivity and some general firm attributes such as employment and wages. Gender, innovation, and value chain linkages have received inadequate attention in that body of literature until recently. Additionally, the studies have always been constrained by available data across countries and over time. A key insight from that body of literature concerns the conditionality of the effects of foreign investment. FDI can have significant positive effects on host economy development, but these benefits are not automatic. The extent to which benefits are realized, and any risks are palliated, will depend on an alignment among four dimensions: host economy framework conditions and policies on the one hand; investor motivation and sector composition on the other (Echandi et al., 2015). An overview of the literature allows us to identify where the evidence is relatively deep and the conclusions are relatively clear: i.e., productivity, wage and employment effects of foreign multinationals. By contrast, in the areas of economic complexity, gender and innovation evidence is relatively scarce and warrants more investigation. Table 2 presents this information in color-coded manner across the different dimensions identified above. For those dimensions where our understanding of FDI’s effect on the host economy is low, medium, or even non- existent, further work is required, in particular regarding external validity, i.e., the extent to which results from one country or sector can extend to the aggregate of developing countries. Estimates of the magnitude of the effect FDI has over every dimension of impact vary widely between studies (see Box 1 for selected examples). Where there is insufficient empirical work to suggest such estimates, namely FDI’s effect on host economic complexity and integration into Global Value Chains (GVCs), one can only infer the direction of the effect. For the rest, estimates do exist. Table 2 provides a comparison of their magnitude on host economies according to a selection of recent such investigations. What is particularly noteworthy is that the potential effect is much more positive than negative: across some economic dimensions, FDI only produces positive effects on the host economy, and when both positive and negative effects are reported in the literature, the latter are much weaker than the former. It is often challenging to assess the positive effects of FDI on host economies, mainly due to the difficulty of determining the scope of desirable outcomes of such an intervention. For example, FDI’s effect on host labor markets needs to consider not only job creation, but also job quality, since what people care about is not just jobs per se, but ‘good’ jobs (Cazes, Hijzen and Saint-Martin, 2015). The OECD has developed a framework to measure job quality based on three dimensions: wages, labor market security, and the work environment (also known as non-wage working conditions) (OECD, 2008). While there is clear evidence of FDI’s impact on wages, there is mixed evidence regarding its impact on both labor market security and working conditions. And within this last category, there is no universally accepted understanding of what constitutes good working conditions. There is some evidence that FDI leads to more training – one dimension of working conditions – but also evidence that FDI leads to longer working hours – another dimension of working conditions that is often involuntary in high-income countries (Filer et al., 1995; Markey and Ravenswood, 2009;       8 │    OECD 2008; World Bank, 1997). The lack of clear thinking around the scope of desirable outcomes across these different dimensions as well as limited comparability between different estimates makes it difficult to evaluate whether FDI leads on aggregate to positive, negative or neutral outcomes. Another challenge lies in incompleteness of analysis at both the micro and macro levels (e.g. at the level of the firm vs. the industry or the economy). An aggregate effect at the industry or country level could hide substantial heterogeneity across sectors, regions, and individual firms which is critical for assessing FDI development outcomes. Evidence at the level of firms or individual transactions is, however, often incomplete, non-representative or confidential, suggesting problems in the validity of results and the ability to generalize conclusions. For a number of effects of interest, analysis at the levels of the economy, the sector or the firm choice is constrained by the availability of data: that is, data only exist from one source at a specific level. The choice is therefore guided by the degree of confidence in that source. Table 2. How clear is the evidence? FDI’s impact in selected categories Competitiveness Inclusiveness Productivity & Exports & Domestic Gender Supply Innovation Jobs Wages Growth Diversification investment inclusiveness Linkages Number of High Low Low Medium High High Low Medium studies Geographic range of High Medium Low High High High Medium Medium studies Conclusivene High Medium Low Low Medium Medium Low Low ss of results Source: Authors’ elaboration. Note: The estimates come from an overall view of the literature while relying in part, though not entirely, on the leading or most complete study considered in this review, the study with the longest time horizon, the greatest number of economies sampled, or the most complete data 1                                                              1 For productivity, see Havranek and Iršová (2011), which finds strong evidence of positive vertical productivity effects, but no evidence of significant horizontal productivity effects; the potentially negative effects in the figure come from negative horizontal spillovers in other leading studies (e.g. Wooster and Diebel, 2010). For exports, see Harding and Javorcik (2012). For wages and employment, see Hijzen et al. (2013), though the possibility for negative effects come from other leading studies (e.g. Heyman et al., 2007). For women’s employment, see Chen et al. (2012), though again the possibility for negative effects comes from other studies (e.g. Braunstein and Brenner, 2007). For domestic investment, see Wang (2010). Finally, for innovation see Cheung and Lin (2004).         │ 9    Box 1. How strong is the impact of foreign MNEs? Numbers from selected studies 1. A 10% increase in foreign presence in customer sectors is followed by an 11% average increase in productivity of domestic suppliers. Havranek and Iršová (2011) meta-analysis of studies covering 47 countries; 17 of them European. 2. Sectors prioritized in national efforts to attract FDI are found to have 11% higher unit values of exported products than other sectors. Harding and Javorcik (2012) covering a global sample of 105 countries. 3. The FDI wage premia range from 2% in Germany to 5% in the United Kingdom, 8% in Portugal, 16% in Brazil and 21% in Indonesia. Hijzen et al. (2013). 4. Female employment is 13% higher in foreign and exporting firms than in non-exporting firms. Chen et al. (2012) covering China. 5. Foreign takeovers of firms tend to have no or even a negative effect on wages. Specifically, wages are 2% less in acquired firms compared to similar non-acquired firms. Heyman et al. (2007) covering Sweden. 6. In 1995, women experienced larger gains from FDI than men, but those gender-based advantages had reversed by 2002. A 10% increase of FDI as a proportion of investment in 1995 was estimated to raise female wages by 3.7% and male wages by 2%, as opposed to 1.3% and 2.4 % respectively in 2002. Braunstein and Brenner (2007) covering China. 7. A 1% increase in FDI as a share of GDP leads to an increase of 0.323% in domestic investment as a share of GDP over four years. For LDCs, the same increase is associated with a 0.767% increase in domestic investment as a share of GDP over three years, and a 1.116% increase over four years. Wang (2010) covering 50 countries, both developed and developing. 8. A 1% increase in FDI can lead to a 0.12% increase in the number of applications for invention patents, a 0.18% increase for utility model patents, and around 0.47% increase for design patents. Cheung and Lin (2004) covering China. 9. Over 86% of the total FDI inflow in China has been concentrated in the coastal region. Cheung and Lin (2004) covering China. 10. An increase of US$1 billion in FDI stock has been associated with approximately 232 new export lines. For high natural resource countries, the net effect of an increase of US$1 billion in FDI is much lower, at 44 and 18 new export channels, respectively. Shasheen Jayaweera (2009) covering 29 low-income countries. 11. A 10% increase in foreign presence in downstream sectors is associated with an increase in the average complexity of newly introduced products by 0.297. This corresponds to about 30% of the standard deviation in the sample. Javorcik, et al. (2017) covering Turkey. 12. Moving from a very low level of GVC participation in a country such as Mali to the levels of participation recorded in Vietnam, the share of intermediate products bought locally increases by 6.4 %. Amendolagine et al. (2017), Sub-Saharan Africa and Vietnam. 13. A one standard deviation increase in share of sales to foreign multinationals can raise our measures of innovation by about 0.015 to 0.030, or approximately 4% to 7%. Gorodnichenko et al. (2015) covering transition economies and Turkey. 14. Local pollution decreases with the scale of foreign investment: for a 1 percent increase in foreign direct investment, sulfur dioxide emission intensity decreases by 0.6-0.7 percent. Feng Helen Liang (2006) covering China.       10 │    External validity becomes even more difficult when evidence is confined to specific countries or markets at only a certain level of income, since FDI’s impact may vary with development level. In general, FDI’s effect on host economies is stronger for developing economies and weaker for developed economies. Such differences may be due to levels of knowledge and technology between developing and developed countries, so that developing countries can use FDI to close this gap, while high-income countries may already be at the frontier. FDI’s differential effect across development levels is well illustrated in the case of foreign multinationals’ wage premium (Hijzen et al., 2013) as well as the impact on exports, whether unit value of exports (Harding and Javorcik, 2012) or diversification and sophistication (Iwamoto and Nabeshima, 2012). The implications are that any potential conclusions regarding FDI and host economies need to control for development levels in destination economies. In addition, FDI’s effect may vary by the income level of the source economy. The evidence shows that developed source economies may be associated with much higher MNE wage premia than developing source economies, the latter of which can even result in significant negative effects in host economies (Coniglio et al., 2015). Any conclusions regarding FDI’s impact on host economies may therefore need to factor in the development level of both source and target economies. Finally, a critical challenge to measuring FDI’s effect on host economies is variation by investor motivation. For instance, efficiency-seeking FDI is most likely to lead to export- oriented diversification, while market-seeking FDI is most likely to generate immediate linkages with the domestic economy (Farole and Winkler, 2014). The two may have very different effects on factor incomes, such as wages (Alfaro, 2016). In contrast, natural resource- seeking FDI may generate the fewest linkages with host economy firms, while strategic asset- seeking FDI may hold relatively less productivity potential (Amendolagine et al., 2013). However, there is no clear methodology to classify a certain FDI flow or stock using this typology. Attempts to do so exist: one study tries to disaggregate market-seeking FDI and efficiency-seeking FDI by using four-digit sector-level information along with input-output tables (Alfaro and Charlton, 2009). However, this approach may suffer inaccuracies, as FDI types can cut across sectors. In addition, there is growing evidence that FDI may be responding to more than one motivation at a time, demonstrating mixed motives, further challenging the analysis. 3. Cross-country benchmarking of MNE development outcomes There are several ways of measuring the competitiveness and inclusiveness of foreign multinationals. A precise approach focuses at the level of firms by highlighting differences in relevant characteristics of those that are foreign and those that are domestically-owned. Data availability at the level of firms and their representativeness are major challenges in that approach. Another approach is to work at the macro-level by combining information on FDI         │ 11    flows with industry characteristics. Measurements in that approach highlight the characteristics of industries where foreign investment is concentrated. Table 3 presents an illustrative, non-exhaustive set of indicators that could be developed based on the two approaches. Table 3. Macro and micro-based approach to measuring development aspects of FDI Pillar Area Indicator Strategic question Indicator’s description type Macro- Is foreign investment directed Concentration of FDI flows into based towards productive activities? sectors with high labour productivity. Productivity Micro- Are foreign-owned firms Productivity wedge between Based+ contributing to higher productivity foreign-owned and domestic- in the economy? owned firms. Macro- Does FDI contribute to growth of Concentration of FDI flows in Competitiveness based innovative activities in the sectors where innovation takes economy? place intensively. Innovation Micro- Are foreign-owned firms Difference between shares of Based innovating more than domestic foreign and domestic firms firms? reporting some form of innovation. Macro- Is foreign investment directed Concentration of FDI flows into based towards skill-intensive activities? sectors with high skill intensity. Skills Micro- Do foreign multinationals employ Wedge between shares of skilled Based relatively more skilled workers? workers in foreign-owned and domestic-owned firms. Macro- Is foreign investment directed Concentration of FDI flows in based towards sectors that rely on labour labour-intensive sectors. Job creation rather than capital? Micro- How many jobs do foreign-owned Wedge of employment growth Based firms create? between foreign and domestically- owned firms. Macro- Is FDI going to sectors with better Concentration of FDI flows into based paid jobs? sectors with high paying jobs Wages Micro- Do foreign-owned firms contribute Average wage difference offered by Inclusiveness Based to better paid jobs? foreign-owned firms compared to domestically-owned firms Macro- Is FDI going to sectors that employ Concentration of FDI flows into based women? sectors with high shares of female Gender employment. inclusion Micro- How gender-friendly are foreign- Difference in the share of female Based owned firms relative to domestic workers between foreign and firms? domestically-owned firms Macro- Does FDI foster integration in Concentration of FDI flows into Domestic based global value chains? sectors sourcing inputs Linkages domestically.       12 │    Pillar Area Indicator Strategic question Indicator’s description type Micro- Do foreign-owned firms source Wedge between foreign-owned and Based inputs more intensively from domestically owned firms in their abroad? intensity of sourcing domestic inputs Source: Authors’ elaboration of an earlier version prepared jointly with the OECD for the Investment Committee in October 2016. The indicators presented in this study are all compiled at the level of production establishments. They adopt the first approach of measuring the differences between foreign multinational and domestic firms by employing two thresholds of foreign ownership: 10 percent and 50 percent. 3.1 The data: Foreign-owned firms in World Bank Enterprise Surveys The World Bank Enterprise Survey (WBES) is a unique source of economic data, which has a pool of 131,000 firms from 139 countries, mostly developing nations. The data have been collected since 2006 using a harmonized methodology to ensure cross-country comparability. The surveys only represent a country's non-agricultural economy. Thus, the sectoral scope of the surveys is not comprehensive. Manufacturing and services are the primary sectors of focus, with services including construction, retail, wholesale, hotels, restaurants, transport, storage, and telecommunications. Mining and financial services, which attract significant foreign investment, are excluded. This also excludes firms that employ fewer than five workers, as well as wholly state-owned enterprises. All these factors affect the benchmark for evaluating the differences between foreign multinational and domestic firms. But how accurate is the WBES when it comes to foreign multinationals? The sampling follows frames provided by national statistical offices or other official sources over three dimensions: firm size, business sector, and geographic region, but does not consider domestic or foreign ownership. However, to the extent that variation in foreign ownership is driven by characteristics the survey is stratified on - such as sector of activity, scale of production, and location, all of which are established drivers of foreign multinational activity – then the surveys should exhibit high alignment in terms of representativeness, subject to a sufficient number of observations on both pools. We restrict the sample to surveys conducted after 2010 where at least 30 foreign multinationals with over 50 percent ownership are present, keeping only 63 surveys of the 139 available (see Table 4 for a description of the sample).         │ 13    Table 4. World Bank Ent. Surveys with 30 or more 50% foreign-owned firms Year of Number of Observations Employment Share Output Share Country Survey Total MNE 10 MNE 50 MNE 10 MNE 50 MNE 10 MNE 50 India 2014 9281 85 34 1.8% 0.6% 3.0% 0.8% Russia 2012 4220 116 82 21.6% 19.7% 7.7% 6.0% China 2012 2700 161 89 5.9% 3.9% 6.3% 4.9% Nigeria 2014 2676 320 64 23.2% 11.4% 12.0% 4.8% Egypt 2016 1814 120 83 12.7% 6.2% 9.8% 4.4% Mexico 2010 1480 139 118 36.6% 35.6% 31.4% 29.9% Philippines 2015 1335 293 226 24.3% 19.0% 24.9% 23.6% Indonesia 2015 1320 137 51 13.1% 7.2% 37.2% 6.1% Chile 2010 1033 132 115 19.9% 14.2% 33.9% 27.2% Peru 2017 1003 90 77 22.7% 19.7% 26.1% 20.8% Malaysia 2015 1000 181 45 87.0% 1.9% 14.4% 3.6% Vietnam 2015 996 82 69 41.3% 14.2% 23.0% 15.4% Argentina 2017 991 40 34 14.1% 13.8% 28.6% 28.4% Colombia 2010 942 86 68 41.2% 11.8% 53.7% 28.6% Ethiopia 2015 848 86 70 22.3% 15.3% 22.9% 19.9% Kenya 2013 781 89 56 32.5% 16.9% 44.3% 25.3% Uganda 2013 762 108 100 18.3% 17.2% 53.5% 52.4% South Sudan 2014 738 292 252 57.6% 50.3% 59.1% 55.2% Zambia 2013 720 200 183 35.0% 29.3% 30.3% 26.4% Ghana 2013 720 115 106 39.8% 37.6% 55.5% 55.2% El Salvador 2016 719 97 88 25.8% 25.3% 42.9% 41.9% Senegal 2014 601 70 50 26.2% 10.4% 31.0% 18.7% Zimbabwe 2016 600 116 45 37.4% 9.3% 26.0% 16.5% Sweden 2014 600 155 130 42.2% 40.9% 30.9% 29.6% Tunisia 2013 592 87 59 21.7% 16.3% 15.7% 9.6% Guatemala 2010 590 77 64 13.8% 7.9% 18.7% 4.6% Jordan 2013 573 65 51 27.6% 24.8% 27.7% 23.2% Poland 2013 542 39 34 24.1% 21.5% 21.5% 15.0% Romania 2013 540 71 65 18.1% 14.8% 27.2% 26.5% Costa Rica 2010 538 87 83 15.8% 12.5% 14.9% 10.4% Madagascar 2013 532 145 137 60.2% 58.2% 40.6% 39.0% DRC 2013 529 89 78 42.6% 39.3% 48.6% 46.1% Malawi 2014 523 100 88 64.5% 59.3% 20.7% 16.9% Morocco 2013 407 53 40 9.7% 6.8% 6.4% 4.5% Uzbekistan 2013 390 50 33 26.1% 21.1% 28.7% 23.3% Jamaica 2010 376 52 35 21.3% 14.1% 21.2% 12.1% Cambodia 2016 373 36 31 57.9% 55.8% 64.4% 62.8% Lao PDR 2016 368 46 44 20.8% 19.4% 15.1% 13.1% Panama 2010 365 71 39 28.1% 18.6% 8.7% 5.7% Ecuador 2017 361 55 47 18.4% 17.3% 36.4% 35.5% Côte d'Ivoire 2016 361 95 73 38.8% 32.5% 58.0% 50.9% Belarus 2013 360 42 32 21.9% 16.8% 23.6% 20.1% Croatia 2013 360 34 32 24.5% 14.0% 31.5% 16.4% Angola 2010 360 104 48 43.2% 18.2% 9.0% 0.9% Uruguay 2017 347 50 43 36.9% 36.2% 42.6% 42.0% Latvia 2013 336 38 34 24.6% 18.8% 31.0% 24.2% Nicaragua 2016 333 61 53 24.6% 19.3% 32.5% 27.8% Honduras 2016 332 38 37 14.5% 14.4% 20.2% 20.2% Venezuela 2010 320 40 37 10.8% 10.2% 2.7% 2.7% Estonia 2013 273 35 30 31.9% 28.4% 36.9% 34.7% Slovenia 2013 270 44 37 29.0% 19.8% 40.7% 32.7% Kyrgyz Republic 2013 270 47 35 43.2% 34.6% 43.5% 37.5% Slovak Republic 2013 268 38 34 26.8% 24.9% 50.7% 45.6% Botswana 2010 268 129 116 44.9% 31.3% 70.0% 48.8% Czech Republic 2013 254 38 35 31.5% 31.4% 41.0% 41.0% Rwanda 2011 241 50 42 36.6% 33.1% 65.0% 61.7% Mali 2016 185 65 41 65.2% 46.9% 78.4% 67.1% Guyana 2010 165 42 34 38.5% 22.1% 46.7% 30.7% Liberia 2017 151 40 38 24.3% 22.8% 17.1% 16.4% Solomon Islands 2015 151 70 63 61.4% 49.8% 60.5% 56.9% Togo 2016 150 51 45 60.2% 57.4% 85.4% 79.7% Central African Rep 2011 150 64 53 54.1% 48.0% 76.8% 73.0% Papua New Guinea 2015 65 45 42 80.8% 49.0% 82.0% 68.0% Average 32.4% 24.1% 34.5% 28.5% Source: Calculations on World Bank Enterprise Surveys (2010-2018); Note: MNE 10 and MNE 50 refer to establishments of firms with >10% and >50% foreign ownership respectively. Resampling weights have been used to generate shares of foreign multinationals in total employment and output.       14 │    At present, there is still no official source of information for the number of foreign multinationals in developing countries that can be used to verify the representativeness for the entire sample. The information available is compiled by the OECD in its Activities of Multinational Enterprises (AMNE) database. It contains the official data published by National Statistical Offices and Central Banks on activities of foreign multinationals. The coverage of AMNE data has been good for the United States and several European countries, none of which has a publicly available World Bank Enterprise Survey. Recent analytical work at the OECD, however, has produced estimates of the share of foreign multinationals in total output for many more economies by combining information from two official sources: the AMNE analytical statistics and the Inter-Country Input-Output (ICIO) tables (Cadestin et al., 2018). This new data set highlights the contribution of domestic firms and foreign multinationals, as well as their foreign affiliates, to global trade and production. It essentially brings to enterprise analysis the same conceptual shift introduced by Trade in Value-Added statistics (TiVA) in trade analysis. Nineteen of the countries in the new data set have a World Bank Enterprise Survey, 14 of which we use in this study – BRICS and a number of economies in Eastern Europe, conducted in their majority around the same year, 2014 – offering a unique opportunity to assess the representativeness of foreign multinationals. The share of foreign multinationals in aggregate output calculated by the World Bank Enterprise Surveys and the OECD are largely aligned (see Fig. 1), with a 45-degree line indicating equal shares from the two sources. The Pearson correlation coefficient, which measures the strength of association between two continuous variables (ranging from -1 to +1) reaches 0.86, statistically significant at the 1% level, indicating a high degree of correlation. However, this exercise only accounts for a limited number of countries in the sample. It also considers only a single dimension – output – with many structural elements in the two statistics, such as the selective sectoral scope of the WBES and year mismatch, justifying systematic bias in some countries over other ones. Rather than validating the sample of foreign multinationals in WBES as a whole, the alignment serves primarily not to reject the WBES as a valuable source of information for foreign multinationals based on the information we have available. The true numbers and weight of multinationals in these countries remains to be evaluated in the future. The indicators reported in this study correspond to weighted averages across establishments using sampling weights w of the Enterprise Surveys that are based on the frame provided by official sources, as well as their differences across groups in absolute and/or relative terms. Every data point x is calculated over the total of n firms i in each country for the national average, the subsample of foreign multinationals defined using a 10 percent threshold and then the subsample using a 50 percent threshold. ̅ where 1 ∑         │ 15    For selected indicators corresponding to fractions over employment (specifically the shares of skilled and semi-skilled workers in the workforce, employment expansion, and average wage) the average is taken over the population of workers rather than number of firms, using the weighted sum of employment E in each subgroup (national total, foreign multinationals with 50 percent and 10 percent ownership) as the basis for the calculation: 2 ∑ Figure 1. Representativeness of Foreign MNEs in World Bank Enterprise Surveys Share of MNEs in Aggregate Output 70 60 50 Slovak Republic OECD Estimate Czech 40 Romania Republic Estonia 30 Poland Latvia Sweden Croatia 20 Slovenia Mexico Indonesia 10 China India Russia 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 World bank Enterprise Surveys Source: Calculations on World Bank Enterprise Surveys; Cadestin et al., 2018 for OECD estimates based on official AMNE data and WIOD. Note: Resampling weights have been used to generate shares of foreign multinationals in output in World Bank Enterprise Surveys. The results are discussed in three parts: (i) the relationship between foreign ownership and the firm; (ii) cross-country differences found in the World Bank Enterprise Surveys; and (iii) implications of these differences for the local economy based on what is known.       16 │    3.2 Competitiveness proxies: Productivity, trade performance, skills, and innovation Competitive investment, often associated with foreign multinationals, drives economic growth. This lies with the type of foreign multinational and its ability to compete and grow in global markets. Whether by boosting labor productivity, enhancing innovation, or utilizing skills, developing countries need a bigger pie to be able to advance the development agenda, and need to compete with established producers abroad in an increasingly globalized context. In the following, we examine some of the fundamental characteristics of competitive firms – productivity, export orientation, investment in R&D, skills utilization and transfer – and compare their incidence across foreign multinational and domestic firms in the 30 most populous developing countries in the sample of the World Bank Enterprise Surveys on which we have information. Productivity Foreign-owned firms tend to be more productive than domestically-owned firms. Numerous studies have highlighted this pattern in the past, as well as its effects on the productivity of domestic firms. The reason for the productivity premia of foreign firms lies in their possession of more advanced technology and managerial know-how than local firms. To be competitive in markets outside of their home economy, foreign multinationals need to have some competitive advantage, thereby overcoming their ‘liability of foreignness’ (Zaheer, 1995). The cost of entering a foreign market, their lack of local networks and customer knowledge mean that foreign firms require other firm-specific assets to overcome these liabilities. Such assets can take the form of knowledge-related capacities, which can ultimately enhance productivity in the host economy. The picture that emerges in two simple indicators of productivity is broadly consistent with these premia (see Fig. 2). Total Factor Productivity (TFP) differences in manufacturing across firms vary considerably across countries, reflecting the level of sophistication, the scale as well as the structure of manufacturing production, that more intensively attracts foreign investors. Markets that stand out by attracting productive foreign multinationals tend to combine large size and high integration into global value chains, such as China, Indonesia, Mexico and Ethiopia. Examples of countries where the average foreign multinational firm would appear to be less productive than domestic ones, such as the Russian Federation, are an exception, while in a number of cases, such as Malaysia, Nigeria, or Kenya, joint ventures with some foreign participation stand out with higher productivity than majority-owned foreign establishments. How do these productivity premia of foreign MNEs translate into development effects? The question has been extensively studied, with the largest body of evidence pointing to productivity increases to local firms (Alfaro, 2015; Blalock and Gertler, 2009; Echandi et al., 2015; Havranek and Iršová, 2012; Meyer and Sinani, 2009; Wooster and Diebel, 2010). This can take place through different channels – labor mobility, demonstration and competition         │ 17    effects, but also vertical supply linkages. Between 2000 and 2010, there were more than 100 studies carried out on FDI and productivity (Havranek and Iršová, 2011); that number is now much higher. Meta-analysis studies of FDI and productivity provide strong evidence on vertical effects, but weak or no evidence through horizontal effects. The average vertical productivity effects are significant for both upstream (to suppliers) and downstream (to buyers), although the effect is greater for the former (Havranek and Iršová, 2011). A 10% increase in foreign presence through FDI is associated with a 9 percent increase in the productivity of domestic suppliers. Figure 2. Total Factor Productivity (Manufacturing Sector)  Source: Calculations on World Bank Enterprise Surveys, 2010-2018; 30 most populous developing countries in the sample sorted by absolute performance of MNE 50. Note: TFP Estimates for Argentina and Peru are provisionary pending confirmation. While there is clear evidence that FDI can have a positive impact on the domestic productivity of host countries, this depends on certain ‘mediating factors’ such as the productivity potential of foreign investors, the absorptive capacity of host firms, and host economy institutional frameworks, inspired by the empirical model developed by Farole and Winkler (2014). All three affect the extent and direction of FDI effects on domestic firm and host economy productivity.       18 │    Skills FDI tends to flow increasingly into higher-skilled activities2 over lower-skilled activities. In the manufacturing sector, the global inflow of investment to higher-skilled activities from 2009 to 2011 was nearly 10 times larger per year than that of lower-skilled activities. Moreover, the skill bias of FDI seems to be accelerating over the years. The annual average between 1990 and 1992 was about five times larger, and between 2005 and 2007 about 14 times larger (Moran, Gorg and Seric, 2016). Overall, while there exist stark differences in skill utilization across countries as revealed by the shares of skilled workers in the sample of Enterprise Surveys, the majority of foreign multinationals in most countries offer training in much greater numbers than domestic firms (see Fig. 3 and 4). In countries where services and high-tech manufacturing FDI take place, foreign multinationals rely much more on skilled workers for their activities. This would be the case of Poland, Indonesia or the Philippines, which have already significantly upgraded their industrial capabilities and expanded services FDI over the last decade. On the other hand, in Mexico, Ethiopia, Romania, or Vietnam, foreign multinationals employ significantly higher shares of unskilled employees in low-technology manufacturing, while in Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo low skill intensity reflects concentration of foreign MNEs on natural resource sectors. All these are examples of markets where efficiency-seeking FDI or resource-seeking investment is taking place on a larger scale. Training offers across firms also vary substantially across countries, although there seems to be a consistent premium in shares of foreign multinationals that offer it relative to their domestic competitors. Whether these differences in skill utilization and transfer translate into substantial effects on the aggregate level of skills in the workforce depends not only on the volume of investment activity, but also on initial skills endowments. In fact, there may be a cyclical relationship between FDI types and skill endowments in the economy: certain skill endowments attract certain FDI types, and certain FDI types help develop certain skill endowments. Evidence over a large number of years shows that FDI amplifies differences in initial skill endowments between countries: in those that are relatively well-endowed with skills, FDI enhances skill development by increasing enrollment in secondary and tertiary education relative to the sample average. However, in countries that are relatively poorly endowed with skills, FDI is more intensively directed towards low-skilled activities, creating a low-skill equilibrium or trap (Te Velde and Xenogiani, 2007).                                                              2 In the manufacturing sector, lower-skilled activities are defined as: food, beverages and tobacco; textiles, clothing and leather; and wood and wood products. Higher-skilled activities are defined as publishing, printing and reproduction; coke, petroleum products and nuclear; chemicals and chemical products; rubber and plastic products; non-metallic mineral products; metals and metal products; electrical and electronic equipment; precision instruments; and motor vehicles and other transport (Moran, Gorg and Seric, 2016: 24).         │ 19    Figure 3. Skilled Workforce (high and semi-skilled) Figure 4. Skills Transfer (Training) Source: Calculations on World Bank Enterprise Surveys, 2010-2018; 30 most populous developing countries in the sample sorted by absolute performance of MNE 50. Note: High skills refers to the aggregate of high and semi- skilled workers.       20 │    Trade performance Modes of firm internationalization are highly correlated: FDI can not only lead to host economy export growth, but also to export sophistication and diversification. On the one hand, export-platform firms can use their advantages to produce with the sole purpose of shipping and selling back home or in third markets. On the other hand, foreign MNEs can generate knowledge and technology spillovers to local firms, especially suppliers in the production process, facilitating product upgrading and the exports of local firms (Harding and Javorcik, 2012). Figure 5. Exports Source: Calculations on World Bank Enterprise Surveys, 2010-2018; 30 most populous developing countries in the sample sorted by absolute performance of MNE 50. The numbers of foreign multinationals that export confirm a consistent premium in most developing countries, including in markets where domestic firms are already highly export- oriented (see Fig. 5). Asian countries, such as China, Vietnam, and Malaysia, and emerging manufacturing hubs, such as Romania and Indonesia, that are highly integrated in GVCs lead the way with significantly higher shares of foreign multinationals that export relative to domestic firms. What impact do these differences have on domestic firms? Export-oriented foreign multinationals help improve the sophistication and diversification of domestic firms in developing countries through supply and demand linkages with more advanced markets.         │ 21    Looking specifically at China, the developing country example of using FDI for export upgrading par excellence, evidence has shown that a one standard deviation increase in foreign MNE presence is associated with a 6.3 percent increase in transaction unit values and a 1.3 percent increase in exports (Chen and Swenson, 2014). For high-income economies there is often a smaller technology gap to close, and so the presence of foreign MNEs has a smaller effect on the sophistication of domestic production (Harding and Javorcik, 2012). Innovation input The strong association of foreign investment with productivity improvements suggests a direct link with innovation – both by the foreign multinational firm and its domestic competitors and suppliers. Channels of such effects could take place through adaptation of foreign multinational firm practice to local context and exposure of domestic firms to foreign production processes and practices. Yet, empirical work on the relationship between FDI and host economy innovation, whether measured by input or output (R&D intensity or patents), is scarce. Most of the existing literature on China’s experience has found a positive relationship between FDI and domestic firm innovation. Looking at Chinese provincial-level data from 1995 to 2000, evidence shows positive effects of FDI on the number of domestic patents across three different kinds of patents (Cheung and Lin, 2004; Xian and Yan, 2005), though these effects are strongest for minor rather than major innovations. Separate evidence, from Mexico, finds that the entry of a foreign multinational retailer caused market share reallocations, exit patterns, and adjustments in innovative effort that increased both productivity and the rate of innovation (Iacovone et al., 2009). The Enterprise Surveys confirm that the innovation input intensity of foreign multinationals is higher than that of domestic firms in most countries, and even more often in countries highly integrated in global value chains with significant upgrading taking place over the last years (see Fig. 6). Innovation intensity is also associated with the size of foreign multinationals, and by extension the size of the markets they operate in across a wide range of sectors. For example, foreign multinationals operating in Latin America also report high rates of innovation input despite the lower focus on high technology manufacturing. The fact that the propensity of firms to invest in innovation appears to be also correlated with capital accumulation confirms the association with scale as part of the strategy for firms’ expansion (see Fig. 7 and Annex Table 1). Countries where foreign multinationals acquire fixed assets intensively are generally large emerging markets, such as China and India where investment takes place in large ventures across a number of sectors.       22 │    Figure 6. Investment in Innovation Figure 7. Investment in Physical Capital Source: Calculations on World Bank Enterprise Surveys, 2010-2018; 30 most populous developing countries         │ 23    3.3. Inclusiveness proxies: Jobs, income, linkages, gender, and geographic spread Inclusive investment is associated with foreign multinational activity that aims – by structure or purpose – to maximize benefits to the local economy and people. Whether it be providing jobs for the local workforce or opening up activities to local firms, inclusive investment is a fundamental element of what developing countries need to grow sustainably. How inclusive foreign multinationals are in their activities depends on a combination of four factors: what they do, how they do it, how much of it grows in the local economy, and what the local conditions are. In the following, we examine the first two aspects: structural and behavioral differences of foreign multinational activity for which data are scarce in developing countries. In particular, we present indicators on job creation, geographical spread, gender empowerment, and linkages with domestic suppliers. The actual impact of foreign multinationals remains dependent on the volume of investment and local conditions, aspects about which we already know a fair amount. Job creation and wages Foreign direct investment generates employment in two ways. First, foreign-owned firms are generally larger than domestic firms and have the capacity to employ more workers (Hijzen et al., 2013). Greenfield investments tend therefore to create more jobs than any domestic new ventures. Second, employment can increase through growth of existing ventures when a foreign takeover takes place, although the evidence on the direction of change in employment in that case is not clear cut. Most of the existing evidence suggests that firm-level employment levels remain unchanged or increase following foreign acquisition.3 Variation in the impact of foreign investment on host employment could depend on the source country and its level of development: South-South FDI appears to generate more jobs than North-South FDI (Coniglio et al., 2015). Drilling down to specific countries and regions within South-South FDI, FDI from China seems to generate the largest employment increase, followed by FDI from South African firms and from the MENA region. Importantly, these differences are not driven by sectoral specialization of firms – FDI from other developing countries seems to target blue-collar, relatively less-skilled jobs, and generate relatively more of such employment. The World Bank Enterprise Surveys confirm that growth in full-time employment in foreign multinationals occurs at a larger scale as a whole (see Fig. 8), yet not necessarily more frequently than employment contraction in several developing countries. As differences                                                              3 See, for example, Girma (2005) for the United Kingdom; Bandick and Karpaty (2007) for Sweden; Balsvik  and Haller (2010) for Norway.         24 │    observed on aggregate with domestic firms do not appear to be substantial, job creation also appears to be associated with seasonal dynamics; that is, business cycles and varying global macro conditions specific to the time period of the surveys. The debate, however, tends to focus not just on any job creation, but on “good” jobs associated with high wages, labor market security, and quality of the working environment. And while there is no strong evidence that FDI also improves non-wage working conditions (OECD, 2008), there is evidence that foreign-owned firms pay higher average wages --10 to 70 percent higher, according to estimates.4 This finding is corroborated across countries, development levels, sectors, skill level and over time, with developing countries enjoying much larger premia than developed countries. Several factors justify higher wages by foreign multinationals, all related one way or another to productivity advantages. Firms acquired or established through FDI may be more productive than other domestic firms, thus earning higher profits and paying higher wages. Second, foreign affiliates may pay more because their parent firms are relatively more productive (having had to overcome the liability of foreignness to undertake FDI), and thus have higher profits and can pay higher wages. Third, foreign firms might try to prevent technological spillovers through labor turnover by paying higher wages. Fourth, the FDI wage premium may compensate for higher labor demand volatility in foreign plants or for a higher foreign plant closure rate. Fifth, non-market forces, such as equity considerations, could also play a role (Bernard and Sjöholm, 2003; Egger and Kreickmeier, 2013; Fabri et al., 2003; Fosfuri et al., 2001; Heyman et al., 2007; Javorcik, 2014; Tomohara and Takii, 2011). The World Bank Enterprise Surveys confirm the existence of substantial aggregate wage premia in the majority of developing countries (see Fig. 9). The levels of premia seem to be associated with intensity of skill use and existing wage gaps, ranging from high levels in countries where unskilled labor is more intensively employed in foreign multinationals to lower levels where skilled labor is abundant. A concentration of foreign MNEs in activities with higher returns or skill intensity could well explain aggregate differences between multinational and domestic firms; i.e., differences within sectors might be much less pronounced. The fact that average wages hide variations across skill remuneration in developing countries does not invalidate the findings of the literature; it rather shows that foreign multinationals’ wage advantages do not accrue automatically.                                                              4 Heymanet et al. (2007) draw from the following studies in estimating this range: Aitken et al. (1996), Bandick (2004), Conyon et al. (2002), Doms and Jensen (1998), Driffield and Girma (2001), Girma et al. (2001), Griffith (1999), Görg et al. (2002), Haddad and Harrison (1993), Lipsey (1994), Lipsey and Sjöholm (2004), and Sjöholm and Lipsey (2006).         │ 25    Figure 8. Employment Expansion Figure 9. Average Wage Source: Calculations on World Bank Enterprise Surveys, 2010-2018; 30 most populous developing countries in the sample sorted by absolute performance of MNE 50. Note: Venezuela is excluded from the wage sample because of outlying values subject to significant price changes since the time of the survey.       26 │    Lastly, on the question of how these wage differences spill over to domestic firms, the evidence is mixed. Foreign investment may induce wage increases in domestic firms by shifting up the labor demand curve, thereby increasing equilibrium wages (a so-called ‘reference wage effect’) or ‘wage spillovers’, which can operate through labor mobility and bargaining (Tomohara and Takii, 2011). As an example, studies have found that a 10% increase in the share of former foreign MNE workers in domestic firms increases an incumbent worker’s wage in domestic firms by approximately 0.6% (Poole, 2013). Negative effects have also been identified in the literature; for example, to wages paid by domestically owned enterprises. The possible reason for negative wage spillovers is that foreign firms ‘steal’ the best workers, i.e., high wage workers from the local firms (so-called “labor-market crowding out”); moreover, the competition between local and foreign firms in the product market decreases the profitability of local firms which, in turn, may lead to wage reductions in these firms (so-called “product- market crowding out”) (Pittiglio et al., 2014). Geographical Diversification Marked regional differences in the distribution of foreign investment are a fact in most developing countries and have motivated a substantial stream of literature on the choice of FDI location within countries. Access to customers as well as suppliers of intermediate inputs (Amiti and Javorcki, 2005); institutions and risk appetite due to cultural differences among investors (Du, Tao and Lu, 2012); agglomeration effects, follow-the-leader strategies (Deichmann, Karidis and Sayek, 2003; Hilber and Voicu, 2010) as well as the availability of qualified labor and good infrastructure have all been identified as strong determinants of MNE spatial concentration or diversification in various contexts.  The Enterprise Surveys confirm that foreign multinational activity tends to be less widespread than domestic activity, either concentrated in industrial or economic hubs within the tertiary sector of host countries (see Fig. 10 using the share of the top subnational region in MNE output and aggregate economy output as a proxy for concentration). The concentration can be in stark contrast with domestic activity such as in the cases of Angola, Russia, India, and China, or in line with domestic economic activity, such as is the case in smaller African countries, Mexico or the Arab Republic of Egypt. The positive relationship between FDI agglomeration and local economic activity leads to a multiplier effect that can benefit countries in terms of competitiveness: the more the latter grows, the greater the likelihood of that region attracting further FDI inflows and vice-versa. This partly explains why large cities such as those in China are foreign investment hubs, continually attracting FDI (Huang and Wei, 2011). The effect of such agglomeration on inclusiveness can be ambiguous to the extent that supply linkages extend to more remote areas and activities, and redistribution policies are in place.         │ 27    Figure 10. Geographical Concentration Source: Calculations on World Bank Enterprise Surveys, 2010-2018; 30 most populous developing countries Gender The relationship between foreign multinational activity and gender empowerment has not been discussed extensively in the literature, especially compared to the amount of evidence in other areas. Existing evidence points to a positive impact on both, although this varies depending on FDI type, skill level of women, development level in the host economy, and over time. In particular, the literature has identified two effects that are associated with different stages of industrial development. In many developing countries, women are relatively unskilled compared to men and are relatively overrepresented in the informal sector, which is poorly remunerated. More formal employment opportunities brought by MNEs thus present a significant step up in pay for women compared to informal employment. Empirical studies       28 │    from three different parts of the world, China, Honduras, and Madagascar, provide strong supportive evidence.5 However, as economies upgrade their industrial capabilities, women may be left out of higher quality jobs (described in the literature as a “technology effect”). In developing countries, women may be disproportionately assigned to low-value added, low-tech, and low-training tasks in foreign and exporting firms, a phenomenon described as ‘within-firm segregation of tasks’ (Chen et al., 2012). This seems to indicate an ‘up-down’ dynamic to the effect of FDI on women’s employment and wages in developing countries. It initially benefits women as they enter the formal labor market for the first time, but as foreign firms require greater skilled labor, women’s employment and wages may decline relative to men’s, or even reverse, following either declining returns of their employers’ activities or greater segregation within firms. China provides some evidence of this dynamic dimension (Braunstein and Brenner, 2007; Chen et al., 2012). Figure 11. Gender Empowerment Source: Calculations on World Bank Enterprise Surveys, 2010-2018; 30 most populous developing countries                                                              5  In the 1990s, these women were able to earn more in one month than a man in their home village could make in an entire year (Davin, 2001). A later study of Chinese gender composition differentials in 2004 finds that female employment is 13% higher in foreign and exporting firms than in non-exporting firms, significant at the 1% level (Chen et al., 2012).          │ 29    A snapshot of differences in the ratio of woman-owned or managed foreign multinationals relative to domestic firms highlights the lower numbers of women in managerial positions (see Fig. 12). Firm scale, skills mismatches, and the nationality of managers often expatriated could explain these patterns. Although in countries where high positive differences are observed local conditions seem to be an important driver: Malaysia and Indonesia are good examples of high differences in female managerial responsibilities. Overall, operating with global labor standards in countries where women do not have the same opportunities stands to make a difference for the local populations. Yet while the direction of this effect on gender inequality is undisputed, its magnitude would inevitably vary (Shu, Zhu and Zhang, 2007; Aguayo-Tellez, 2012; Braunstein and Brenner, 2007; Glick and Roubaud, 2006; Siegmann, 2007). Domestic supply linkages The strength of linkages between foreign and domestic firms is often shaped by the motivation for foreign investment. In particular, market-seeking FDI is more likely to result in linkages with local firms than efficiency-seeking, natural resource-seeking, or strategic asset-seeking FDI (Farole and Winkler, 2014; Amendolagine et al., 2013; Sánchez‐Martín, de Pinies and Antoine, 2015). More generally, what multinationals do – i.e., their industrial activities – largely explains the extent of linkages with local suppliers. The food, wood and furniture, automobile and auto parts industries are structurally more dependent on foreign inputs (Sánchez‐Martín, de Pinies and Antoine, 2015). By contrast, in the apparel industry, the presence of rules-of-origin requirements limits their development (Farole and Winkler, 2014). Services may be the most promising sector for local firms to develop and benefit from linkages with FDI activities due to the prevalence of market-seeking motivation and their high labor intensity. The Enterprise Surveys confirm that domestic linkages of foreign multinationals tend on average to be less strong than those of domestic firms, with only very few exceptions (see Fig. 12). Part of this variation could be due to industrial activities where multinational firms are concentrated. Yet, in countries with large market size, such as China, India, Nigeria, and Indonesia, both multinationals and domestic firms exhibit strong local sourcing. This is due to the availability of local inputs for a variety of activities and also because of the intensity of market-seeking FDI in addition to other types. A number of countries in South East Asia upgrading their GVC participation exhibit very high foreign input use, as well as Vietnam and Poland. Implications of these differences for domestic economy are vast, as this is one of the main channels for productivity spillovers between foreign firms and their domestic suppliers (Javorcik, 2004).       30 │    Figure 12. Domestic Linkages Source: Calculations on World Bank Enterprise Surveys, 2010-2018; 30 most populous developing countries 3.4. Towards a synthesis of patterns across countries A critical question that arises at the conclusion of this analysis is whether the premia of foreign multinationals over domestic firms are more pronounced in one country, region, or income group relative to another. To answer this question, it is important to compare wedges between domestic and foreign firms in different contexts. Standardized values, or z-scores, using the distribution of majority-owned foreign MNE premia across countries allow us to make exactly this type of comparison of a country’s relative position across indicators. The scores are dimensionless, as they are obtained by subtracting the population mean and dividing the difference by the population standard deviation, where population refers to the 63 countries included in the sample. They essentially describe the positioning of the country in the sample distribution of observations in every characteristic. An illustration of these scores for six of the most populous developing countries in the world shows significant variation in the positions of each country along the distribution of characteristic differences, reflecting wide variances in outcomes across countries (see Fig.13). In Russia, for example, foreign MNEs are not significantly different in terms of inclusiveness; foreign MNE premia stand out in terms of capital accumulation and skills’ transfer.         │ 31    Figure 13. How do foreign MNE premia compare across countries? Source: Calculations on World Bank Enterprise Surveys, 2010-2018       32 │    Overall, at the levels of countries, there appears to be no striking trade-off between competitiveness and inclusiveness: foreign multinationals which stand out in terms of competitiveness do not systematically appear to underperform in terms of inclusiveness, which is an important finding (see Correlation Matrix in Annex Table 1). It should be recalled, however, that the indicators capture MNE premia—the wedge between foreign-owned and domestically-owned firms in the country—and this should therefore be interpreted in context- specific terms, relative to the performance of domestic firms. The MNE premia will be lower in a country in which domestically-owned firms already perform well in terms of the inclusiveness and competitiveness dimensions. Competitiveness in terms of innovation and capital accumulation stands out as the strength of foreign MNEs operating in India; export-orientation is a distinct feature of foreign MNEs in China; and the productivity of foreign MNEs in Mexico is a distinct feature with respect to MNEs in the rest of the world. Yet systematic differences between domestic and foreign firms persist across specific regions and income groups (see Annex Table 2 for averages across income groups and regions). Relative to other regions, foreign MNEs established in Latin America stand out in productivity and skills transfer while the opposite pattern is observed in Sub-Saharan Africa – foreign multinationals there stand out in terms of job expansion and wages. Foreign multinationals in Southeast Asia stand out in terms of export orientation. The mix is highly specific to the type of multinationals each region attracts and the prevalent starting conditions. In the Middle East and North Africa, for example, multinationals differ significantly in terms of export propensity and geographical diversification due to the concentration of FDI in natural resource sectors, but they also promote more than anywhere else gender empowerment due to prevalent societal norms. In general, differences in some key areas driving competitiveness such as productivity, innovation, and skills transfer appear to be increasing with income, while premia in all other areas would reach a maximum in lower-middle or low-income markets, highlighting the relevance of foreign multinationals for socio-economic progress in these contexts. 4. Concluding remarks The indicators presented in this paper represent a first step towards internationally comparable, outcomes-based, firm-level metrics on outcomes of foreign multinationals that contribute to development. Their main advantage over existing indicators lies in the scope and country coverage, which allows us to illustrate the heterogeneity of outcomes in a variety of areas– from supply linkages and innovation to gender empowerment – in both absolute and relative terms. This allows us to ascertain what foreign multinationals bring to the domestic economy in terms of technology, managerial practices, and other production assets. The net aggregate effect of international business in every country would be the result of these firm-         │ 33    level differences, as well as volumes of respective activities, spillovers to domestic firms and local starting conditions. Policy inferences from these indicators must be treated with caution. The exercise does not aim at distinguishing between ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘better’ or ‘worse’ foreign investment in any universal way, but rather to enhance understanding around the complementarity of multinational firms in specific contexts and to support the alignment of their outcomes with national development objectives, however diverse and evolving the latter may be. The “quality” of FDI, if there is such a notion, is ultimately highly idiosyncratic and to a large extent independent from capital. The same type of investment will produce different outcomes in different contexts that are more or less desired from a societal, economic and strategic point of view. The policy and strategy package needs to find ways to unlock these opportunities from all incoming foreign investment, by addressing the market and government failures that may be preventing multinational firms from delivering expected gains. Future work can build on several directions, namely, to validate and improve the information presented herein, and to extend the findings to other relevant domains that are not covered in the analysis. In terms of validation, benchmarking the sample of multinational firms against a wide array of other sources, business census and registers as well as industrial surveys conducted in developing countries, would be necessary to validate the sample. In addition, part of the variation in development outcomes of foreign MNEs is also explained indirectly through other prevalent characteristics of these firms, such as production scale – i.e., the fact that they are larger than domestic firms – or their sectoral concentration, which may not be explicitly controlled for due to data limitations. Additional analysis to validate a number of hypotheses on drivers of development outcomes presented in this report would be warranted. Assessing the extent of seasonal and sectoral influence, which will be possible in future iterations of World Bank Enterprise Surveys, is also essential in order to remove potential biases, improve the quality of information, and unbundle outcomes to what can and cannot be influenced by policy. Future work can build on several directions to address certain gaps as well. First of all, this study draws on a large and diversified sample of developing economies, with only a few OECD countries represented in the sample. It would be worthwhile to extend these indicators to advanced OECD countries, where premia may well differ considerably, particularly as greater FDI is received from emerging economies with different motivations. In addition to the geographic scope, replicating these patterns over time would allow countries to monitor progress, and assess the impact of specific policy interventions on outcomes. Second, the scope of this work only addresses inward FDI. Future work could focus on differences between domestic multinationals and other domestic firms, highlighting development aspects of outward FDI. Finally, the outcomes assessed relate to economic growth and socio-economic inclusiveness, which are key pillars of development strategies. An extension to environmental outcomes would align the set of indicators more closely to the SDGs and add value to the existing framework.       34 │    References   Aguayo‐Tellez, Ernesto. 2012. “The impact of trade liberalization policies and FDI on gender inequalities: A Literature Review.” World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/9220 Aitken, Brian, Harrison, Anne E., Lipsey, Robert E., 1996. “Wages and foreign ownership: a comparative study of Mexico, Venezuela, and the United States.” Journal of International Economics 40, 345–371. Alfaro, Laura, and Andrew Charlton. 2009. "Intra-industry foreign direct investment." American Economic Review, 99 (5): 2096-2119. DOI: 10.1257/aer.99.5.2096. Alfaro, L. 2015. “Foreign direct investment: effects, complementarities, and promotion.” in Partners or Creditors? Attracting Foreign Investment and Productive Development to Central America and Dominican Republic, ed. Osmel Manzano, Sebastian Auguste, and Mario Cuevas, 21–76. Inter-American Development Bank. Alfaro, Laura. 2016. "Gains from Foreign Direct Investment: Macro and Micro Approaches." World Bank Economic Review 30, Suppl. 1 (March 2017): S2–S15. ABCDE Conference Keynote Presentation. World Bank. Alfaro, Laura, and Jasmina Chauvin. 2018. "Foreign Direct Investment, Finance and Economic Development." In Encyclopedia of International Economics and Global Trade, Vol. 3: Foreign Direct Investment and the Multinational Enterprise, edited by Mariana Spatareanu. Singapore: World Scientific. Amendolagine, V., Boly, A., Coniglio, N. D., Prota, F., and Seric, A. 2013. “FDI and local linkages in developing countries: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa.” World Development, 50: 41-56. Amendolagine, V., Presbitero, A., Rabellotti R., Sanfilippo M., and Seric, A. 2017. “FDI, Global Value Chains, and Local Sourcing in Developing Countries.” IMF Working Paper No. 17/284. Amiti, M and Javorcik, B. S, 2005. “Trade costs and location of foreign firms in China.” IMF Working Paper No. 05/55. Balsvik R, Haller SA. 2010. Picking “Lemons” or Picking “Cherries”? Domestic and Foreign Acquisitions in Norwegian Manufacturing. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 112(2): 361-387. Bandick, Roger, 2004. “Do workers benefit from foreign ownership? Evidence from Swedish manufacturing.” FIEF Working Paper, vol. 201. Bandick R, Karpaty P. 2007. Foreign Acquisition and Employment Effects in Swedish Manufacturing. Örebro University Working Papers No. 10. Bernard, A.B. and Sjoholm, F., 2003. “Foreign owners and plant survival” (No. w10039). National Bureau of Economic Research. Blalock, Garrick, and Paul J. Gertler. 2009. “How firm capabilities affect who benefits from foreign technology.” Journal of Development Economics 90 (2): 192-199.         │ 35    Braunstein, E. and Brenner, M., 2007. “Foreign direct investment and gendered wages in urban China.” Feminist Economics, 13(3-4): 213-237. Cadestin, C, K De Backer, I Desnoyers-James, S Miroudot, D Rigo, and M Ye (2018), “Multinational enterprises and global value chains: the OECD analytical AMNE database,” OECD Trade Policy Papers 211. Cazes S., Hijzen A., Saint-Martin, A. 2015. "Measuring and Assessing Job Quality: The OECD Job Quality Framework," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 174, OEC. Chen, Huiya, Swenson, Deborah L. 2014. “Multinational exposure and the quality of new Chinese exports.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 76(1): 41–66. Chen, Zhihong, Ying Ge, Huiwen Lai. 2012. “Foreign Direct Investment and wage inequality: Evidence from China.” World Development. 39 (8): 1322-1332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.12.006. Cheung, Kuiyin, and Ping Lin. 2004. “Spillover effects of FDI on innovation in China: Evidence from the provincial data.” China Economic Review 15: 25 – 44. Coniglio, N., Prota, F., & Seric, A. 2015. “Foreign direct investment, employment and wages in Sub‐ Saharan Africa.” Journal of International Development, 27 (7): 1243-1266. Conyon, Martin, Girma, Sourafel, Thompson, Steve, Wright, Peter. 2002. “The productivity and wage effects of foreign acquisition in the United Kingdom.” Journal of Industrial Economics 50: 85–102. Davin, D., 2001. “The impact of export-oriented manufacturing on Chinese women workers.” United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD). Deichmann J., Karidis S., Sayek S. 2003, “Foreign direct investment in Turkey: regional determinants.” Applied Economics, vol. 35, issue 16, 1767-1778 Doms, Mark E., Jensen, J. Bradford, 1998. “Comparing wages, skills, and productivity between domestically and foreign-owned manufacturing establishments in the United States.” In: Baldwin, Robert E., Lipsey, Driffield, Nigel, Girma, Sourafel, 2001. “Regional foreign direct investment and wage spillovers: plant level evidence from the electronics industry”. Leverhulme Centre for Research on Globalisation and Economic Policy, Nottingham, University of Nottingham. Research paper 2002/04. Du, Julan and Tao, Zhigang and Lu, Yi. 2012, “Bank loans vs. trade credit.” Economics of Transition, Vol. 20, Issue 3, pp. 457-480. Echandi, R., Krajcovicova, J., and Qiang, C. Z. W. 2015. “The impact of investment policy in a changing global economy: A review of the literature.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (7437). Egger, H. and Kreickemeier, U., 2013. “Why foreign ownership may be good for you.” International Economic Review, 54(2): 693-716.       36 │    Fabri, Francesca, Jonathan E. Haskel and Matthew J. Slaughter. 2003. “Does nationality of ownership matter for labor demands?” Journal of the European Economic Association, Papers and Proceedings. 1: 698-707. Farole, Thomas, and Deborah Winkler. 2014. “The role of mediating factors for FDI spillovers in developing countries: Evidence from a global dataset.” In Making Foreign Direct Investment Work for Sub‐Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank. Filer, R., O. Schneider and J. Svejnar. 1995. “Wage and Non-wage Labour Cost in the Czech Republic: The Impact of Fringe Benefits.” CERGE-EI Working Paper No. 77, Prague. Fosfuri, A., Motta, M. and Rønde, T., 2001. “Foreign direct investment and spillovers through workers’ mobility.” Journal of international economics. 53(1): 205-222. Girma, Sourafel, Greenaway, David, Wakelin, Katherine, 2001. “Who benefits from foreign direct investment in the UK?” Scottish Journal of Political Economy 48(2): 119–133. Girma S. 2005. Safeguarding Jobs? Acquisition FDI and Employment Dynamics in U.K. Manufacturing. Review of World Economics/Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 141: 165–178. Glick, F., Roubaud, P.F. 2006, “Export processing zone expansion in Madagascar: What are the labour market and gender impacts? Journal of African Economies, Volume 15, Issue 4, 1 December 2006, Pages 722–756. Görg, Holger, Strobl, Eric, Walsh, Frank, 2002. “Why do foreign-owned firms pay more? The role of on-the-job training.” Nottingham University. GEP Research Papers No 2002/15. Gorodnichenko Y., Svejnar J. 2015, “Foreign entry and domestic innovation.” VOX, CEPR Policy Portal - VoxEU Griffith, Rachel, 1999. “Using the ARD establishment level data to look at foreign ownership and productivity in the United Kingdom.”Economic Journal 109: 416–442. Haddad, Mona, Harrison, Ann, 1993. “Are there positive spillovers from direct foreign investment?” Journal of Development Economics. 42: 51–74. Harding, Torfinn, and Beata S. Javorcik. 2012. “FDI and export upgrading.” Economics Series Working Papers 526, University of Oxford, Department of Economics. Havranek, T., and Z. Iršová. 2011. “Estimating vertical spillovers from FDI: Why results vary and what the true effect is.” Journal of International Economics 85 (2): 234-244. Havranek, T., and Z. Iršová, 2012. “Survey article: Publication bias in the literature on foreign direct investment spillovers,” The Journal of Development Studies, 48:10, 1375-1396, DOI: 10.1080/00220388.2012.685721 Heyman, Fredrik, Fredrik Sjöholm, and Patrik Gustavsson Tingvall. 2007. “Is there really a foreign ownership wage premium? Evidence from matched employer‐employee data.” Journal of International Economics 73 (2): 355–76. Hilber C. A. L., Voicu I. 2010, “Agglomeration economies and the location of foreign direct investment: empirical evidence from Romania.” Regional Studies. Volume 39, 2005 - Issue 1.         │ 37    Hijzen, Alexander, Pedro S. Martins, Thorsten Schank and Richard, Upward. 2013. “Foreign‐owned firms around the world: A comparative analysis of wages and employment at the micro‐level.” European Economic Review. 60(C): 170–188. Huang, H., & Wei, Y.H.D. 2011. “Location and determinants of foreign investment in China.” Erdkunde 65(1): 7–23 Iacovone, L., Javorcik, B., Keller, W. and Tybout, J., 2009. “Walmart in Mexico: The impact of FDI on innovation and industry productivity.” University of Colorado. Iwamoto, Manabu and Nabeshima, Kaoru, 2012. “Can FDI promote export diversification and sophistication of host countries?: Dynamic panel system GMM analysis.” IDE Discussion Papers 347, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO). http://ir.ide.go.jp/dspace/bitstream/2344/1139/1/ARRIDE_Discussion_No.347_iwamoto.pdf Javorcik, Beata S. 2004. “Does Foreign Direct Investment Increase the Productivity of Domestic Firms? In Search of Spillovers through Backward Linkages.” American Economic Review 94 (3): 605–27. Javorcik, Beata S. 2014. “Does FDI bring good jobs to host countries?” Policy Research Working Paper 6936. Washington, D.C: World Bank. Javorcik,B,.Turco A.L, Maggioni, D., 2017. “New and Improved: Does FDI Boost Production Complexity in Host Countries?” Open Access, Oxford University, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12530 Jayaweera, Shasheen, 2009. “Foreign Direct Investment and Export Diversification in Low Income Nations.” Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1566044 Liang, Feng Helen. 2006, “Does foreign direct investment harm the host country’s environment? Evidence from China.” Haas Business School, University of California, Berkeley. http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/fenliang/research/pollution&fdi/fdi_pollution.pdf Lipsey, Robert E., 1994. “Foreign-owned firms and US wages.” NBER Working Paper, vol. 4927. Lipsey, Robert E. and Fredrik Sjoholm. 2004, “Foreign direct investment, education, and wages in Indonesian manufacturing,” Journal of Development Economics. 75(1): 415-422. Markey, Raymond, and Katherine Ravenswood. 2009. “The Effects of Foreign Direct Investment and Multinational Enterprises on the areas covered by the 1977 MNE Declaration of the ILO.” New Zealand Work & Labour Market Institute. Auckland University of Technology September 2009 Meyer, Klaus E., and Evis Sinani. 2009. “When and where does foreign direct investment generate positive spillovers? A Meta-analysis.” Journal of International Business Studies 40 (7): 1075-1094. Moran, T. H., Görg, H., and Seric, A. 2016. “Quality FDI and supply-chains in manufacturing: Overcoming obstacles and supporting development.” Discussion Paper prepared for the Vienna, Investment Conference 2016 organised by UNIDO and the Kiel Institute for the World Economy OECD. 2008. “Do multinationals promote better pay and working conditions?” in OECD Employment Outlook 2008, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/empl_outlook-2008-7-en       38 │    Pittiglio, R., Reganati, F. and Sica, E. 2014. “"How much do technological gap, firm size, and regional characteristics matter for the absorptive capacity of Italian enterprises?," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer; International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 20(1), pages 57- 72. Poole, J. 2013, “Knowledge transfers from multinational to domestic firms: Evidence from worker mobility.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2013, vol. 95, issue 2, 393-406. Sánchez‐Martín, Miguel Eduardo, Jaime De Piniés, and Kássia Antoine. 2015. “Measuring the determinants of backward linkages from FDI in developing economies: Is it a matter of size?” Policy Research Working Paper 7185. Washington D.C: World Bank. Shu, X., Zhu, Y. and Zhang, Z., 2007. “Global economy and gender inequalities: The Case of the Urban Chinese Labor Market.” Social Science Quarterly, 88 (5): 1307-1332. Siegmann, Karin Astrid. 2007. “Globalisation, gender, and equity: Effects of foreign direct investment on labour markets in rural Indonesia.” Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Göttingen 2007 / Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics, No. 30. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/19883 Sjöholm, Fredrik, Lipsey, Robert E., 2006. “Foreign firms and Indonesian manufacturing wages: An analysis with panel data.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 55 (1): 201–221. Te Velde, D. W., and T. B. Xenogiani. 2007. “Foreign direct investment and international skill inequality,” Oxford Development Studies 35: 83-104. DOI: 10.1080/13600810601167603 Tomohara, Akinori and Sadayuki Takii, 2011. “Does globalization benefit developing countries? Effects of FDI on local wages.” Journal of Policy Modeling 33 (3): 511-521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2010.12.010. UNCTAD 1999. World Investment Report. Foreign Direct Investment and the Challenge of Development. UCTAD, Geneva. UNCTAD 2014. World Investment Report. Investing in the SDGs: An Action Plan. UNCTAD, Geneva. Wang, Miao. 2010. “Foreign direct investment and domestic investment in the host country: evidence from panel study.” Applied Economics. 42 (29): 3711-3721. DOI: 10.1080/00036840802314580 WEF & EIB 2017. Beyond the Equity Efficiency Trade-Off: Practical Ideas for Inclusive Growth and Competitiveness in Europe. White Paper: World Economic Forum and European Investment Bank. Wooster, Rossitza B. and David S. Diebel. 2010. “Productivity spillovers from foreign direct investment in developing countries: A meta-regression analysis” Review of Development Economics 14: 640–55. World Bank. 1997. Malaysia: Enterprise Training, Technology, and Productivity. World Bank. Washington, D.C. Xian, Guomin and Bing Yan. 2005. “The spill-over effect of FDI on China’s innovation capacity” World Economy, 2005-10. Zaheer, Srilata. 1995. “Overcoming the liability of foreignness.” The Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2): 341–363. doi: 10.2307/256683         │ 39    Annex I: Data – Standardized scores on foreign MNE premia Domestic Linkages Innovation (R&D) Job Expansion Empowerment Concentration Accumulation Geographical Total Factor Productivity Exporting Training Gender Capital Wages Skills Country Angola 0.819 -1.242 0.295 0.111 1.661 0.803 -0.939 -2.188 Argentina 0.848 2.432 1.226 -0.842 0.496 -0.094 -0.420 -0.688 -0.007 -0.114 -0.140 Belarus 1.129 -1.253 -0.672 -0.629 -0.687 -0.613 0.167 0.376 -0.198 -0.540 0.183 Botswana 1.102 -0.577 0.205 1.044 0.502 -0.101 -0.476 -0.280 Cambodia 1.200 -0.196 0.721 -2.940 -0.011 0.686 0.269 0.036 -0.144 -0.628 -0.564 CAR 1.212 -0.169 Chile 0.887 1.378 0.210 0.648 0.051 -0.261 -0.572 -0.075 0.344 -0.146 0.540 China -2.415 -0.451 0.166 -0.979 0.472 0.513 1.589 -0.460 -1.180 0.747 0.669 Colombia 0.688 1.590 1.409 -1.415 -2.026 -2.706 -0.610 0.465 0.631 -0.129 1.504 Costa Rica -0.047 0.109 0.922 0.336 1.558 -0.485 0.238 0.008 0.314 0.180 -0.045 Côte d'Ivoire 1.051 -1.477 -0.505 0.634 -0.812 -0.964 -0.769 -0.160 -0.007 0.707 0.324 Croatia -1.261 1.090 -1.411 1.977 1.296 0.402 -0.037 -0.833 -0.492 -0.287 0.022 Czech Republic 0.468 1.231 -0.200 -0.548 -1.043 -0.631 -0.791 0.033 0.829 -0.043 -1.457 DRC -0.494 0.201 0.598 -0.630 0.465 -0.833 -0.814 0.372 -0.358 -0.615 -0.069 Ecuador 0.435 -1.643 0.138 0.486 -0.660 -0.686 -0.525 0.255 -0.007 0.140 -0.571 Egypt -0.575 -0.745 1.138 0.788 -0.719 -0.293 -0.017 -0.295 -0.007 -0.084 -0.250 El Salvador -0.264 1.686 0.466 -1.159 -0.475 2.168 -0.487 0.700 -0.007 -0.087 -1.111 Estonia 0.185 1.164 0.379 0.083 -0.067 0.025 0.248 0.275 -0.077 -0.028 1.015 Ethiopia 1.115 -0.750 1.634 -0.324 1.490 0.840 0.103 -1.016 -1.100 -0.300 0.110 Ghana -1.415 -0.927 -0.570 0.437 -0.481 0.307 -0.367 0.214 -1.169 0.517 -1.045 Guatemala 0.278 0.592 -0.793 0.178 1.155 0.249 -0.667 1.981 1.416 -0.499 0.239 Guyana 1.234 -0.215 0.013 2.043 -1.191 -0.884 -0.137 -1.227 -0.465 0.427 Honduras -1.338 1.577 -1.845 1.026 0.525 0.459 0.477 1.277 -0.007 0.280 2.493 India -0.446 -2.306 -0.062 -0.780 4.189 3.680 -0.701 0.895 -1.099 2.330 -0.423 Indonesia -1.523 1.318 0.671 -0.862 -0.062 -0.384 0.282 0.286 0.859 -0.405 0.653 Jamaica 0.671 -1.295 -1.306 -0.286 -1.073 -0.824 -0.894 -0.716 1.653 -0.524 0.403 Jordan -1.489 -0.949 0.251 0.445 0.383 -1.104 0.050 0.027 1.661 0.025 0.460 Kenya -0.101 0.927 1.319 -0.129 1.067 1.034 0.723 -1.675 -0.944 0.640 -0.434 Kyrgyz Republic 0.803 -0.311 -0.612 -0.286 -0.710 -0.701 -0.336 0.363 0.616 -0.594 -0.825 Lao PDR -0.832 -0.408 -2.267 0.113 -0.726 0.341 -0.192 0.124 0.532 -0.655 1.439 Latvia -0.451 0.539 -1.421 0.255 -0.315 0.937 2.596 -0.219 -2.499 -0.177 -2.205 Liberia 1.065 -0.820 1.309 -0.111 -1.262 -0.269 -0.724 -0.179 -0.007 -0.523 -0.268 Madagascar -0.383 -0.649 -0.324 -0.470 2.014 -1.233 0.298 Malawi -0.516 0.408 -0.975 0.426 -0.483 -0.770 -0.747 -0.207 0.440 -0.632 -0.537 Malaysia 0.555 1.731 3.417 0.429 0.461 -0.545 2.478 -0.367 -0.094 0.490 -0.669 Mali 1.037 0.309 0.259 0.442 0.582 1.289 -0.611 1.997 -0.007 -0.009 -0.813 Mexico -0.211 0.108 -0.905 0.470 0.399 1.289 -0.402 1.230 -0.740 -0.643 2.377 Morocco -1.827 -0.374 0.099 0.421 0.463 0.102 -0.429 -0.822 1.153 -0.766 -0.115 Nicaragua 0.718 -1.000 -0.628 -0.104 -0.658 -0.629 -0.819 -0.287 -0.007 0.964 1.242 Nigeria -1.346 -0.960 -0.389 0.022 0.305 1.069 0.245 -0.996 -1.598 5.246 -0.001 Panama -0.530 0.751 0.909 1.379 2.352 0.073 -0.125 0.937 -0.503 -1.377 -2.188 Papua New Guinea 0.590 -0.317 0.520 0.620 -0.463 -0.760 -0.895 1.073 -0.945 -1.024 -0.382 Peru 1.024 -0.610 -0.785 0.531 1.499 0.871 0.063 -0.975 -0.007 -0.166 0.426 Philippines -0.705 -0.250 -1.852 -0.947 -0.898 -0.099 0.218 -0.393 0.688 -0.139 0.171 Poland -0.978 1.142 -0.077 -1.647 1.253 0.535 0.622 -0.473 0.795 0.428 0.340 Romania -0.250 -0.602 0.970 -0.497 -0.675 0.419 1.362 -0.116 -1.206 0.652 0.026 Russia 0.675 1.535 -0.443 -0.763 -1.193 2.591 -0.994 -0.064 -2.861 -1.181 -0.884 Rwanda 1.234 2.784 Senegal 0.908 0.678 -0.045 -0.977 -0.918 -0.272 -0.522 -0.598 2.718 1.304 -0.862 Slovak Republic -1.382 0.587 0.492 -1.074 -0.260 -0.504 0.394 1.624 -0.661 1.576 1.238 Slovenia 0.341 -2.026 -1.441 0.863 0.359 0.944 0.106 0.306 -0.519 -0.294 1.853 Solomon Islands 1.234 -0.547 0.065 0.729 -0.445 -0.988 -0.733 -0.902 0.210 -0.169 -0.816 South Sudan 0.864 -0.427 0.655 0.478 -0.363 -0.338 -0.963 0.783 0.933 -0.339 -0.183 Sweden -0.470 -0.512 0.412 0.898 0.665 -0.514 -0.353 -0.144 -0.036 -0.544 1.032 Togo 1.234 -1.125 -0.348 0.098 -0.897 0.014 2.111 -0.214 -0.007 -0.045 -0.139 Tunisia -1.857 0.177 1.247 -0.641 -0.026 -0.243 2.851 -0.170 0.490 -0.529 -0.345 Uganda 1.195 -0.597 -0.393 -0.164 0.174 -0.408 -0.731 0.047 0.730 0.177 -0.631 Uruguay 0.906 0.928 0.013 2.318 -0.158 0.314 1.729 -2.288 -0.007 -0.794 2.136 Uzbekistan -0.870 0.143 -0.775 -0.683 -0.502 -2.033 -0.195 -1.181 1.184 -0.208 0.548 Venezuela -0.895 -0.104 -0.917 -2.474 0.380 -0.768 -0.970 -1.492 1.810 1.293 0.327 Vietnam -0.737 0.374 -1.693 -1.067 -0.060 1.353 3.107 0.284 -1.807 -0.630 -0.933 Zambia -0.681 0.437 -0.208 0.088 0.313 -0.236 -0.867 -0.926 -0.385 -0.607 0.230   Zimbabwe -1.423 -0.029 0.516 2.221 -0.629 -0.418 -0.484 -2.598 -0.007 1.889 -1.349         40 │    Annex Table 1. Standardized Scores Correlation Matrix Total Factor Productivity Gender Empowerment Capital Accumulation Domestic Linkages Innovation (R&D) Job Expansion Concentration Geographical Exporting Training Wages Skills Geographical Concentration 1 Training -0.106 1 Gender Empowerment 0.1576 0.2204* 1 Domestic Linkages 0.0695 -0.103 -0.047 1 Innovation (R&D) -0.2314* -0.046 0.0965 0.0627 1 Capital Accumulation -0.092 -0.023 -0.158 -0.074 0.4998* 1 Exporting -0.2463* 0.1318 0.1011 -0.031 0.0572 0.1753 1 Job Expansion 0.1122 -0.046 -0.059 -0.155 0.1195 0.1678 -0.125 1 Skills 0.0817 0.0101 -0.013 -0.108 -0.149 -0.5603* -0.3267* -0.042 1 Wages -0.2609* -0.162 0.034 -0.112 0.1586 0.1612 0.0143 -0.2492* -0.098 1 Total Factor Productivity -0.11 0.0093 -0.2213* 0.0619 -0.03 -0.14 -0.034 -0.017 0.1262 0.0268 1 Source: Calculations on Standardized Scores dataset presented in Annex I. Note: * indicates statistical significance at 1% level. Annex Table 2. Average scores and standard errors by region and income level Income level Region East Asia &  Europe &  Latin America  Middle East &  Sub‐Saharan  Low Lower Middle Upper Middle Pacific Central Asia & Caribbean North Africa Africa Total Factor Productivity ‐0.404 ‐0.106 0.287 ‐0.048 0.072 0.504 ‐0.063 ‐0.457 0.146 0.212 0.200 0.274 0.347 0.313 0.180 0.159 Skills 0.333 ‐0.072 0.073 ‐0.209 ‐0.327 0.325 0.824 0.018 0.320 0.185 0.330 0.306 0.361 0.193 0.366 0.257 Training ‐0.255 ‐0.201 ‐0.127 0.139 0.278 0.393 ‐0.473 ‐0.401 0.179 0.212 0.260 0.278 0.320 0.294 0.247 0.175 Innovation ‐0.184 ‐0.009 ‐0.080 ‐0.192 ‐0.100 0.136 0.025 ‐0.137 0.268 0.239 0.278 0.161 0.240 0.288 0.270 0.217 Capital Accumulation ‐0.117 0.184 ‐0.179 0.013 0.036 ‐0.120 ‐0.384 0.063 0.214 0.269 0.317 0.255 0.335 0.273 0.255 0.193 Exports ‐0.338 0.065 0.050 0.680 0.119 ‐0.258 0.613 ‐0.257 0.287 0.235 0.263 0.467 0.263 0.167 0.753 0.223 Job Expansion 0.232 ‐0.041 ‐0.036 ‐0.036 0.005 ‐0.056 ‐0.315 0.066 0.393 0.181 0.220 0.191 0.203 0.286 0.182 0.308 Wages ‐0.030 0.146 ‐0.068 ‐0.268 ‐0.158 ‐0.130 ‐0.338 0.316 0.271 0.293 0.158 0.191 0.194 0.161 0.186 0.365 Gender Empowerment 0.262 ‐0.221 0.104 ‐0.028 ‐0.481 ‐0.117 0.684 0.143 0.235 0.219 0.294 0.582 0.205 0.238 0.296 0.180 Supply Linkages 0.090 ‐0.209 ‐0.068 ‐0.545 ‐0.129 0.196 0.253 0.225 0.255 0.191 0.265 0.388 0.289 0.313 0.310 0.169 Geographical Diversification 0.542 ‐0.368 0.155 ‐0.292 ‐0.151 0.275 ‐1.437 0.367 0.251 0.216 0.255 0.421 0.248 0.187 0.299 0.230 Source: Calculations on Standardized Scores dataset presented in Annex I. Note: The bold entry indicates the mean below which standard errors are reported. Geographical Diversification is the negative score of Geographical Concentration.