Skip Navigation

Contributions to Political Economy 2005 24(1):55-78; doi:10.1093/cpe/bzi003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Driffield, N.
Right arrow Articles by Love, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved

INTRA-INDUSTRY FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT, UNEVEN DEVELOPMENT AND GLOBALISATION: THE LEGACY OF STEPHEN HYMER

Nigel Driffield and James H. Love*

Economics and Strategy Group, Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham

This paper revisits the issue of intra-industry foreign direct investment (FDI). This issue was considered in Stephen Hymer's early work, but was not subsequently developed, and was largely ignored in the literature for some time. Using the example of the UK, this paper traces the patterns of intra-industry FDI, both across countries and industries, for both the manufacturing and service sectors. Despite the undoubted increase in the integration of goods and factor markets since the time of Hymer's writing, the analysis presented here shows that the pattern has changed little in the last 40 years. The paper then goes on to discuss the motives for intra-industry FDI, relating it to technology flows and factor cost differentials. Finally, we present some analysis relating intra-industry FDI to uneven development, both between developed and developing countries, and between regions of a developed country. It is clear that intra-industry FDI is still very much a developed country phenomenon, as Hymer suggested, with both developing countries and poorer regions of developed countries unlikely to reap any of the benefits. In this context, one-way and two-way FDI must be seen as different phenomena within the debate on globalisation.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.