U.S. in the global FDI’ flows: repatriation of foreign earning by U.S. from EU members as the new global trend

Cover Page

Abstract


Scientific investigation covers the questions of U.S.’ involvedness into the international economic relations and into the international trade of goods and services and international movement of FDI as well. The fact that USA is the larger importer and the second exporter of goods in the world (2018), and the largest exporter and importer of commercial services (2018), the biggest host economy of FDI, and the largest investor (till 2017) the investigation of the American investment cooperation is the rather important affair, that can show the tough dependence of U.S.’ economy of foreign countries investments flows and regimes. In accordance with UNCTAD data U.S. is holding the first place as the exporter of FDI during the long period till 2018, that showed the negative number of FDI outflow in 2018 as the result of tax reform’ implementation at the end of 2017. Implementation of open and tough foreign trade policy (the policy of protectionism) through the import tariffs increasing is aimed at trade deficit reduction, protection and support of the American producers, implementation of tax reform at the end of 2017, making come true the soundbites of D. Trump “Make America Great Again” and “America first”. The author analyzed investment cooperation of U.S. and EU, its dynamic, specialization, directions. The author came to conclusion that correlation of United States’ investment indicators with European Union showed an unequal evaluation of each Union’ member and determined the disproportion of understanding and examination of regional integration not as the complex subject of the global economy but as the set of different and independent subjects. Investigation of U.S.’ FDI export and import statistics gave the author opportunity to come the conclusion that there is the specific of U.S.’ investment outflow into the European Union countries reflected through the limited set of investment recipients. At the same time, implementation of the tax reforms at the end of 2017 could lead to the changing of global investment flows from low tax jurisdictions to USA, for example.


Full Text

Introduction Taking into account the present situation in the global economy, such as: U.S. - China trade war, implementation by USA the policy of the tough and open protectionism through the import’ increase, implementation the tax reform in USA, “freezing” of “Brexit” and TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) agreement negotiations, United States’ exit from Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), transformation of NAFTA to USMCA, it needs to underline that European Union is under the potential pressure and “economic fire” from two centripetal vectors from USA and from China, where the EU is the point of different economic interests accumulation. XXI century became the period of necessity to review the classic liberalization laws due to the several facts: increasing and growing of the emerging economies, increasing of the developing countries’ share in the international economic relations (international trade and international movement of the capital and investments) and on the global markets, forfeiting by the developed countries’ their role and position in the global economy, decreasing of the international productivity growth rate, decreasing of some types of economic activities in the structure of the developed countries’ GDPs, toughening of the international competitiveness “battle” and so on. United States of America as the pioneer and the “determinator” of the economic and political global tendencies, faced the fact of U.S.’ share and role decreasing not only in the international economic relations, but on the global markets, problem of trade deficit and so on. With the coming to the American political Olympia of D. Trump, the American foreign economic policy changed as well. It was reflected in the escalation of the trade war with China, increasing of import tariffs on several industrial goods and raw materials, implementation of the tax reforms, the direct blackmail of Canada, Mexica and EU countries to make some actions in order to satisfy U.S.’ requirements and so on. With the parallel growth of China’ role and share in the global economy, developing of the international project “One Belt, One Road”/”Silk Road” directed from China to EU mainly, USA are tending to be involved into the battle for the European market. So it needs to analyze the current and may be to develop some kind of forecast of U.S. - EU investment cooperation. Methods Bilateral investment relations of U.S. and EU are analyzed with the statistical period from 2000 or 2010 to 2018. In this research the author tried to work with some tasks and problems: · to find out key features of U.S. - EU investment ties; · to develop the fact of unequal evaluation of EU-members by U.S. as the partner; · to determine and develop several prospects of U.S. - EU investment cooperation. The author adapted the methods of economic analysis, synthesis, deduction and retrospective. Literature review Features of U.S. - EU trade and investment cooperation are reviewing and analyzing in foreign and native Russian scientists’ studies and investigations. For example, there are several scientific institutions are specialized on the problems of USA and European countries, such as: Institute for USA and Canada studies, Institute for European studies. Studies of N.E. Petrovskaya (Petrovskaya, 2019) are dedicated to the rather broad set of topics and problems concerned USA’ positions in the system of international economic relations; investigations of I.Yu. Arkhangelsky (Arkhangelsky, 2019) are dedicated to the American MNEs, FDI, questions of monopolization and concentration of the American capital; the most scientific articles of O.V. Prikhodko (Prikhodko, 2017, 2018, 2019), the leading researcher of the Institute of the USA and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ISCRAN), analyzed deeply U.S. - EU relationships in the context of TransAtlantic cooperation and the potential threaten from China’s economic power growth; professor V.B. Supyan (Supyan, 2019) and the leading researcher of ISCRAN A.Y. Davydov (Davydov, 2017) are coming to the U.S. investigation from the global point of view, they analyze the role and the place of U.S. in the global economy taking into account some person’s role in the history, analyzing the global transition of the international flows of goods, services and capital as the result of the present U.S.’s foreign policy; some investigations of the professor R.I. Zimenkov (Zimenkov, 2019) are dedicated to the American MNEs activity key features; participation of EU in the international economic relations, key features and problems of the Trans-Atlantic Partnership between U.S. and EU - are the subjects of scientific researches of N.B. Kondratyeva (Kondratyeva, 2017); professor of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences O.V. Butorina (Butorina, 2017, 2013) is considering the role and the place of the European economic integration in the global economy. There are some foreign scientists are considering deeply the problems and specifics of the American-European trade and investment ties, they are: Ilias Akhtar Shayerah (Shayerah, 2008), Marianne Schneider-Petsinger (Schneider-Petsinger, 2019), Anabel González (González, 2019). U.S. FDI inflows and outflows: key tendencies and problems In accordance with the World Investment Report - 2019 (UNCTAD): “...global FDI flows continued their slide in 2018, falling by 13% to 1,3 trln. doll. The decline - the third consecutive year’s fall in FDI - was mainly due to largescale repatriations of accumulated foreign earnings by United States MNEs in the first two quarters of 2018, following tax reforms introduced by that country at the end of 2017…”1. The present U.S. foreign policy can be characterized as mercantilism or neomercantilism. The main feature of the American foreign policy’ implementation - is the aggressive and unpredictable actions aimed at the protection of the American economy from the globalization challenges such as the growing of the developing and transitional economies, displacement of the world markets leaders, loosing of the developed economies’ places, growing of the foreign state debt and the trade deficit, accumulation of the American MNEs earnings abroad in the low-taxed jurisdictions. 1 UNCTAD. World Invested Report - 2019. Retrieved from https://unctad.org/en/Publications Library/wir2019_en.pdf (accessed: 15.10.2019). First of all, it needs to underline the fact that the tough and the aggressive U.S. Administration actions are based on the national legislation - Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974, it gives the U.S. Trade Representative broad authority to investigate and respond to a foreign country’s unfair trade practices, to increase import tariffs and to use almost all methods and actions in order to protect national economic safety from the external factors. It means that the traditional and the present theory of globalization and liberalization has to be reviewed as the result of US’ foreign trade policy transformation and US’ protectionism measures through the import tariffs increasing (Konovalova, Ushanov, 2019). It is known that one of the most important U.S. economy problem - is the trade deficit (in trade of goods) which made up (-887 bln. doll.) in accordance with BEA. In 2000 U.S. trade deficit (in trade of goods) made up (-446,7 bln. doll.), till 2018 this indicator doubled. At the same time, it needs to pay much more attention to the proportion of foreign economies that formed the American goods trade deficit: in 2000 the share of China in the American goods trade deficit amounted to 18,77% (-83,8 bln. doll.), the share of EU amounted to 12,59% (-56,2 bln. doll.); in 2018 the share of China made up 47,29% (-419,6 bln. doll.), the share of EU - 19,1% (-169,5 bln. doll.). The growing of the Chinese’ share in the American goods trade deficit composition can tell us not only about the increasing of the American economy dependence on the Chinese goods, but first of all, about the growing of the global meaning of China in the international economic relations and the trade in value-added and participation in global value chains. The American economy stays the most attractive for the foreign investors. In accordance with the Foreign Direct Investment Confidence Index developed by A.T. Kearney, USA took the first place during the period from 2013 to 2019. There are several advantages of the American economy that are so attractive for the foreign investors, such as: the openness of the economy, favorable investment climate, big consumer market, the international acknowledge of the American higher education and high quality staff, business culture, transparency of the regulation system and so on. Analysis of the American import (inflow) of FDI shows that at the period from 2000 to 2018 proportion and shares of each European country had changed radically: the share of the European countries as the FDI investors in to U.S. decrease from 79,95 to 60,62%, at the same time the share of EU members decreased from 75,39 to 47,99%. Such negative tendency can be connected with the increase of the Canadian’ FDI inflow in to the American economy - from 8,68 to 18,72%, Japanese’ FDI - from 2,49 to 8,76%. At the same time, it needs to underline rough slump of the English’ FDI inflows share - 26,32% in 2000, 12% in 2016, 16% - in 2017, 0,52% - in 2018. In accordance with BEA the volume of cumulative FDI in to U.S. increased from 2,28 to 4,34 trln. doll. during the period from 2000 to 2018; in 2010 the share of the European countries in the structure of cumulative FDI in to U.S. made up 73% (1,66 trln. doll.), at the same time the share of EU members made up 64% (1,45 trln. doll.), the share of Germany made up 9% (203 bln. doll.), the share of Luxemburg made up 7% (170,3 bln. doll.), the share of Netherlands made up - 10% (234,4%), the share of United Kingdom made up - 18% (400,4 bln. doll.); 15% (346,6 bln. doll.) of the volume of cumulative FDI in to U.S. are accumulated on Asian and Pacific Region, the share of Japan made up 11% (255 bln. doll.); Canada accumulated 8% (192,5 bln. doll.) of the volume of cumulative FDI in to U.S. Table 1 Volume and dynamics of FDI in to the American economy by selected countries and regions in 2000, 2010, 2018 (bln. doll., %) 2000 2010 2018 Countries Total Total Total 314,0 100% 198,05 100% 253,56 100% Canada 27,3 8,68% 7,36 3,72 47,47 18,72 European Countries 251,0 79,95% 151,05 76,27 153,7 60,62 France 51,0 16,24% 8,86 4,47 23,44 9,24 Germany 14,0 4,48% 18,7 9,44 26,79 10,57 Ireland 5,0 1,61% 5,4 2,73 64,2 25,32 Luxemburg 30,8 983% 29,46 14,88 -110,38 -43,53 Netherlands 33,5 10,67% 20,77 10,49 83,6 32,97 Switzerland 12,1 3,86% 41,4 20,90 25,57 10,08 United Kingdom 82,6 26,32% 30,1 15,20 1,32 0,52 Mexica 5,0 1,61% No data No data No data No data Bermuda Islands 2,9 0,94% 5,37 2,71 12,1 4,77 African Countries 0,6 0,21% 1,1 0,56 0,054 0,02 Middle East 2,3 0,76% No data No data 2,18 0,86 Asian and Pacific Region Countries 19,9 6,34% 26,87 13,57 35,48 13,99 China No data No data 1,1 0,56 No data No data Hong Kong 0,6 0,21% 0,27 0,14 3,49 1,38 Japan 7,8 2,49% 15,8 7,98 22,2 8,76 EU (15/28) 236,7 75,39% 110,75 55,92 121,68 47,99 Source: BEA U.S. Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S.: Balance of Payments and Direct Investment Position Data. Retrieved from https://www.bea.gov/international/di1fdibal (accessed: 15.12.2019). There are some changes in the structure of the main investors in to the American economy till 2018: the share of Canada in the structure of cumulative FDI in to U.S. increased to 12%, the share of the European countries decreased to 68%, the share of EU members decreased to 60%, the shares of France and Germany made up 7% of each, the share of Ireland made up 5%, the share of Luxemburg made up 8%, the share of Netherlands - 11%, the share of United Kingdom - 13%, the share of Asian and Pacific Region - 16%, the share of Japan - 11%. The EU members stay the main investors in to the American economy in spite of the considerable transformation of the FDI’ investors in to U.S., actually it needs to underline the shares of Great Britain, Germany, France, Ireland and Netherlands. Analysis of the foreign direct investments’ industrial directions and specialization showed that in 2018 41% (or 1,77 trln. doll.) of all cumulative FDI in to U.S. was accumulated in the industrial sector (814,6 bln. doll. or 46% - chemical industry, 6% - machinery, 6% - food production, 4% - primary and fabricated metals, 5% - computers and electronic products, 3% - electrical equipment, appliances and components, 9% - transportation equipment, 21% - other manufacturing), 10% - wholesale trade, 3% - retail trade, 4% - information, 5% - depository institutions, 12% (or 527,3 bln. doll.) - finance and insurance, 3% - real estate and rental and leasing, 4% - professional, scientific and technical services, 17% - other industries2. Suppositions of the high level of FDI’ interest in to the American chemical industry are connected with the high quality of the work force, the presence of the research and development centers, intellectual properties protection and so on. Pharmaceutical industry accumulated 2/3 of 814,6 bln. doll. of cumulative FDI that had been invested in to the American economy. Talking about the volume, the geography stricture and the specialization of FDI (not cumulative) that have been invested in to the American economy in 2018, it needs to underline next facts: the total volume of FDI inflows in 2018 made up 253,5 bln. doll., 19% (47,47 bln. doll.) were invested by Canada, 61% (153,7 bln. doll.) - by the European countries, 48% (121,7 bln. doll.) - by EU members, 9% (23,4 bln. doll.) - by France, 11% (26,7 bln. doll.) - by Germany, 25% (64,2 bln. doll.) - by Ireland, 33% (83,6 bln. doll.) - by Netherlands, 10% (25,5 bln. doll.) - by Switzerland, 9% - by Japan3. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: financial transactions without current-cost adjustment from 2010 to 2018 (mln. doll.) Table 2 Countries 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total 198 049 229 862 199 034 201 393 201 733 467 625 471 792 277 258 253 561 EU (27/28) 110 758 102 469 138 895 90 392 49 204 329 844 259 250 127 893 121 685 Austria 136 177 477 639 983 198 3 482 1 788 -443 Belgium 5 640 10 284 12 353 -8 589 11 410 -12 327 3 363 5 982 6 015 Denmark 1 472 462 248 2 101 3 282 1 013 3 616 176 2 041 Finland -179 660 -238 554 -1 455 655 -79 829 1 459 France 8 865 795 25 433 -7 021 10 197 33 472 28 104 20 757 23 440 Germany 18 760 16 396 6 772 12 427 37 121 25 353 14 931 11 899 26 795 Ireland 5 417 -1 696 -936 9 554 7 114 14 892 36 695 17 269 64 187 Italy 1 304 3 334 1 794 1 887 4 071 6 924 608 262 2 367 Luxembourg 29 461 11 989 10 483 34 988 27 943 172 740 57 398 2 477 -110 388 Netherlands 20 772 8 457 38 618 4 606 29 685 33 318 47 186 17 770 83 614 Spain 4 410 5 923 1 218 1 594 4 671 4 956 3 294 4 078 3 843 Sweden 10 903 2 779 889 4 611 4 134 3 685 4 161 -265 550 Great Britain 30 069 46 316 39 640 32 023 -94 851 50 294 57 267 43 694 1 326 Source: BEA U.S. Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S.: Balance of Payments and Direct Investment Position Data. Retrieved from https://www.bea.gov/international/di1fdibal (accessed: 15.12.2019). 2 BEA US. Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S.: Balance of Payments and Direct Investment Position Data: Position on a historical-cost basis. Retrieved from https://www.bea.gov/ international/di1fdibal (accessed: 15.12.2019). 3 BEA US. Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S.: Balance of Payments and Direct Investment Position Data: Financial transactions without current-cost adjustment. Retrieved from https:// www.bea.gov/international/di1fdibal (accessed: 15.12.2019). Analysis of the American export (outflow) of FDI shows that the character feature of the American FDI abroad is the prevalence of the manufacturing industries in the structure of U.S. foreign interests. At the same time the biggest share of U.S.’ FDI outflows are accumulated on the developed countries with the attractive and liberalized investment climate, and “so called” offshores (such as Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, Great Britain, Bermuda Islands) and NAFTA/USMCA partners. Globalization, liberalization of the world economy, facilitation of FDI regulation, investment policies and climate, low tax rates and liberalized tax regimes were the main reasons for U.S. FDI export. The volume of U.S. cumulative FDI abroad in 2010-2018 made up 5,9 trln. doll., the share of Canada made up 6,75%, of Germany - 2,36%, of Netherlands - 14,84%, of Switzerland - 4,67%, of Great Britain - 12,73%. Almost the half of the American cumulative FDI abroad are concentrated in the American holding companies (46,7% or 2,77 trln. doll.), the activity of which are connected with the non-banking activity. U.S. direct investment position abroad on a historical-cost basis: industry detail for selected countries in 2018 (mln. doll.) Industries Total Canada France Germany Netherlands Switzerland Great Table 3 Mexica Australia Britain All industries 5 950 991 401 874 86 863 140 331 883 188 278 044 757 781 114 877 162 983 Mining 156 795 14 119 234 n/d 1636 n/d 6273 12 957 17 149 Oil and gas extraction 81 188 5117 (*) n/d n/d 1 954 644 n/d Manufacturing 902 555 110 075 27 771 32 204 77 039 54 669 96 887 46 724 21 132 Food 90 879 8 438 6 562 609 6319 75 25 034 4578 8370 Chemicals 203 002 19 529 3161 7236 18 509 19 864 13 241 7020 2113 Pharmaceuticals and medicines 97 801 2211 696 1161 14 938 15 302 7390 1588 603 Computers and electronic products Transportation 152 302 7901 1269 5039 8307 7355 9965 1227 2119 equipment 86 189 12 534 583 2341 2898 n/d 5872 н/д 1555 Motor vehicles, bodies and trailers,and parts Other 69 975 7571 67 2077 2386 n/d 1051 14 145 n/d manufacturing 243 073 48 162 8014 8789 32 696 17 225 23 125 n/d 4621 Medical equipment and supplies Wholesale 71 992 3384 1594 2529 n/d 14 175 378 630 3392 trade 221 683 29 061 5780 11 602 9614 13 298 12 206 3983 5501 Information 286 330 10 650 2171 8922 27 435 7972 74 037 763 8179 Depository institutions (banking) 124 479 4822 2035 n/d n/d n/d 11 315 n/d 713 Banks 122 425 4402 n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d n/d Industries Total Canada France Germany Netherlands Switzerland Great Table 3, ending Mexica Australia Britain Finance (except depository institutions) and insurance Finance, except depository institutions Insurance carriers and related activities Professional, scientific, and technical services Holding companies (nonbank) Holding companies (nonbank), excluding management offices Corporate, subsidiary, and regional management offices Other 904 858 54 458 19 198 17 565 50 569 19 735 225 975 15 580 6499 745 673 40 134 18 904 n/d 52 384 19 062 205 263 12 795 3056 159 185 14 324 293 n/d -1815 673 20 712 2785 3442 138 790 9745 3122 6694 2210 4668 35 824 566 10 838 2 779 549 105 013 16 343 58 365 682 586 136 979 245 720 19 975 85 974 2 772 320 104 949 16 330 58 317 n/d n/d 243 949 19 864 85 989 7229 63 13 48 n/d n/d 1771 111 15 industries 435 952 63 931 10 208 n/d n/d 32 953 49 544 n/d 6999 Source: Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S.: Balance of Payments and Direct Investment Position Data, BEA U.S., URL: https://www.bea.gov/international/di1fdibal (accessed: 15.12.19) In accordance with BEA U.S. data mining of raw materials accumulated on itself 2,63% of U.S. cumulative FDI abroad (156,7 bln. doll.), manufacturing accumulated - 15,17% (902,55 bln. doll.), chemicals - 3,41% (203,0 bln. doll.), pharmaceuticals and medicines - 1,64% (97,8 bln. doll.), computers and electronic products - 2,56% (152,3 bln. doll.), wholesale trade - 3,73% (221,68 bln. doll.), information - 4,81% (286,3 bln. doll.), finance and insurance - 15,21% (904,8 bln. doll.), holding companies - 46,71% (3,7 trln. doll.). The last fact concerning the American holding companies tells us about the development by U.S. so called the “second economy” through the setting up the broad net of affiliates. Analysis of the American FDI abroad in 2018 (not cumulative) showed the next one fact: developed European countries are the main recipients of U.S.’ FDI - 61%, at the same time EU accumulated more than half of U.S. FDI (54,94%). U.S.’ business and FDI are following the global tendencies - location of the investment and activity interests in to the countries so called off-shores and the territories with the low tax rates (15% - Netherlands, 12% - Luxembourg, 7% - Ireland, 13% - Great Britain)4. 4 BEA US. Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S.: Balance of Payments and Direct Investment Position Data: U.S. Direct Investment Position Abroad on a Historical-Cost Basis: Country Detail by Industry. Retrieved from https://www.bea.gov/international/di1fdibal (accessed: 15.12.2019). It was already said that in accordance with UNCTAD “...global FDI flows continued their slide in 2018, falling by 13% to 1,3 trln. doll. The decline - the third consecutive year’s fall in FDI - was mainly due to large-scale repatriations of accumulated foreign earnings by United States MNEs in the first two quarters of 2018, following tax reforms introduced by that country at the end of 2017…”5. As the result of U.S. tax reforms rather considerable repatriation of U.S. MNEs’ revenues repatriation led to the negative index of U.S. FDI export. Data on selected countries showed that the American FDI abroad reflected were repatriated first of all from the American holding companies (-318,8 bln. doll.), at the same time (-143,5 bln. doll.) of this volume have been repatriated from the European countries, and (-147,9 bln. doll.) - from EU members: Ireland (-99,9 bln. doll.), (-41,3 bln. doll.) - Netherlands, (-20,4 bln. doll.) - Great Britain; (-182,6 bln. doll.) have been repatriated from Bermuda Islands and (-23,4 bln. doll.) from Singapore6. Analysis of the directions and specialization of the American FDI abroad showed that during the period from 2010 to 2018 the volume of U.S. FDI export in to the holding companies decreased from 169,7 bln. doll. to (-318,8 bln. doll.), in to the finance and insurance sector - increased from 21,8 to 110,5 bln. doll., in to the information sector - increased from 8,7 to 51,8 bln. doll. Repatriation of the American FDI export in 2018 as the result of the economic police transformation and revision and implementation of the tax reforms, could lead not only to the practical effects (in terms of cutting of the tax rates, partially repatriation of the American capital back to the national economy, strengthening of the global competition, reviewing of the role and the place of low tax jurisdictions and so on), but to lead to the reviewing and rewriting the scientific paradigm of globalization with the prevalence of the national interests above the global and foreign partners interests. As it was told already that in accordance with BEA U.S. the volume of U.S. FDI export increased from 146,2 to 300,4 bln. doll. for the period from 2000 to 2017. At the same time there was repatriation of the American capital back to the national economy in 2018 after the tax reforms implementation, so as the result the total volume of U.S. FDI export is with the negative index (-90,6 bln. doll.) that is the sum of the American FDI export in amount to 172,59 bln doll. with the sign “+” and repatriation in amount to 263,2 bln. doll. with the sign “-”, so there is the negative index of U.S. FDI export in total. Total volume of repatriated American capital in 2018 made up (-263,2 bln. doll.), (-10,5 bln. doll.) have been repatriated from Ireland, (-26,5 bln. doll.) - from Netherlands, (-158,15 bln. doll.) - from Bermuda Islands, (-47,5 bln. doll.) - from Singapore. The share of EU members in the structure of U.S. FDI export made up 27,9% or 43,8 bln. doll. (this is the sum of export amounted to 172,59 bln. doll. with the sign “+” and repatriation amounted to (-263,2 bln. doll.) with the sign “-”). 5 UNCTAD. World Invested Report - 2019. Retrieved from https://unctad.org/en/Publications Library/wir2019_en.pdf (accessed: 15.10.2019). 6 BEA US. Direct investment by country and industry. Retrieved from https://www.bea.gov/ data/intl-trade-investment/direct-investment-country-and-industry (accessed: 15.12.2019). Main recipients of the American FDI export in 2018 are Luxembourg (37,6 bln. doll.), Great Britain (8,6 bln. doll.), Belgium (9,9 bln. doll.), at the same time (-10,5 bln. doll.) have been repatriated from Ireland and (-26,5 bln. doll.) from Netherlands; (-147,8 bln. doll.) have been repatriated from all EU members from the American holding companies: (-99,8 bln. doll.) - from Ireland, (-5,6 bln. doll.) - from Germany, (-41,2 bln. doll.) - from Netherlands, (-20,3 bln. doll.) - from Great Britain. In spite of the American capital repatriation from the American holding companies, 51% of all U.S. FDI export were accumulated in the financial and insurance sector. It needs to remark one more fact that repatriation of the American capital is not the formed and long-present tendency, it is just the sum of the American FDI export and repatriation and the result of the tax reforms. Conclusion Analysis of U.S. involvement in to the global FDI’ flows showed that prevalence of the limited list of countries as the main recipients and investors of the American economy found out the tendency of U.S. investment interests disproportion. From one side it can tell us about competitive advantages of certain countries that stimulate the economic growth and decrease expenses, from other side - it can tell us about tough and dangerous dependence of the American economy on the low tax jurisdictions and off-shores. Results of the American tax reforms can be the supposition and the start of the planned global capital flows changing from the countries with the low tax rates and off-shores to the American economy. In accordance with the White House “…since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passage, United States multinational enterprises have repatriated 1 trln. doll. in past overseas earnings that were previously invested abroad…”7. For the scientific community it can be the sign in order to review the scientific paradigm of globalization.

About the authors

Yulia A. Konovalova

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Author for correspondence.
Email: konovalova_yua@pfur.ru
6 Miklukho-Maklaya St., Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation

Candidate of Science (in Economics), the head teacher of the International Economic Relations Department

References

  1. Arkhangelsky, I.Yu. (2019). Antimonopoly Regulation of Foreign Capital in the USA. USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture, 2(590), 57-74. (In Russ.)
  2. Butorina, O.V. (2013). European Union after the crisis: decline or renaissance? MGIMO Review of International Relations, 4(31), 71-81. (In Russ.)
  3. Butorina, O.V. (2017). Negative and Positive Objectives of the European Monetary Union. Contemporary Europe, 2(74), 18-29. (In Russ.)
  4. Davydov, A.Y. (2017). The United States and the World Financial Flows. USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture, 7(571), 26-41. (In Russ.)
  5. González, A. (2019). U.S. - EU Trade and Economic Issues. Congressional Research Service (p. 2). Kondratyeva, N.B. (2017). The fate of the negotiations on the Transatlantic trade and investment partnership EU - USA. Contemporary Europe, 1(73), 138-143. (In Russ.)
  6. Kondratyeva, N.B. (2017). The U.S. - EU Transatlantic Partnership: prospects. World Economy and International Relations, 61(8), 5-13. (In Russ.)
  7. Wight House. Two Years On, Tax Cuts Continue Boosting the United States Economy. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/two-years-tax-cuts-continue-boosting-unitedstates-economy/ (accessed: 25.12.2019).
  8. Konovalova, Yu.A., & Ushanov, S.A. (2019) US - EU merchandise trade: key features and problem of disproportion. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research: Fourth International Conference on Economic and Business Management (FEBM 2019), 106, 6-10.
  9. Petrovskaya, N.E. (2019). Employment problems in the XXI century: global trends and national characteristics (U.S. experience) (p. 191). Moscow: Infra-M Publ. (In Russ.)
  10. Prikhodko, O.V. (2017). The U.S. and Europe: Responding to New Challenges. Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture, 5(569), 5-22. (In Russ.)
  11. Prikhodko, O.V. (2018). The Donald Trump Foreign Policy and Europe Allies. Russia and America in the 21 Century, (2), 7. (In Russ.)
  12. Prikhodko, O.V. (2019). Trump’s Euro-Atlantic policy: main features of the current agenda. USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture, 49(11), 5-19. (In Russ.)
  13. Schneider-Petsinger, M. (2019). US - EU Trade Relations in the Trump Era Which Way Forward? Research paper (p. 30). The Royal Institute of International Affairs.
  14. Shayerah, I.A. (2008). U.S. International trade: trends and forecasts (p. 29). Library of Congress of Washington DC Congressional Research Service.
  15. Supyan, V.B. (2019). R & D in the USA: Funding, Structure and Results. The Journal of the New Economic Association, 1(41), 201-207. (In Russ.)
  16. Supyan, V.B. (2019). The State and Economy: D. Trump’s Version. USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture, 49(5), 5-21. (In Russ.)
  17. Zimenkov, R.I. (2019). The Practice of Outsourcing by American Corporations. USA & Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture, 49(6), 54-80. (In Russ.)

Statistics

Views

Abstract - 191

PDF (English) - 57

Cited-By


PlumX

Dimensions


Copyright (c) 2020 Konovalova Y.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies