Technology Capital and the US Current Account By
Technology Capital and the US Current Account By
复制标题
科技资本与美国经常账户
DOI:
--
复制
发表时间:
2012
期刊:
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
E. Prescott
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Ellen R Mcgrattan;E. Prescott
The US Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that the return on investments of foreign subsidiaries of US multinational companies over the period 1982–2006 averaged 9.4 percent annually after taxes, whereas returns on investments of US subsidiaries of foreign multinationals averaged only 3.2 percent. These series are displayed in Figure 1. The figure shows that the differences in these returns are not only high on average but are persistently high. Furthermore, when compared with estimates of returns of US businesses on domestic operations, returns on investments abroad are 4 to 5 percentage points higher, and returns on investments made by foreign companies in the United States are 1 to 2 percentage points lower. Since one-third of US C-corporation profits come from their foreign subsidiaries, understanding why their foreign operations appear to be doing so much better than their domestic operations is both interesting and important. In this paper, we estimate the importance of unmeasured intangible investments that distort measured returns on foreign direct investment. We do this by developing a multicountry general equilibrium model that includes intangible capital. The main theoretical innovation is the inclusion of two distinct types of intangible capital: technology capital that can be used at multiple locations and intangible capital that is plant specific. Examples of technology capital include accumulated know-how from investments in research and development (R&D), brands, and organizations that is not specific to a plant. Technology capital used abroad generates rents for foreign subsidiaries with no foreign direct investment. Thus, given technology capital, foreign subsidiaries play an essential role. We apply the same methodology as the BEA to construct economic statistics for our model economy. We emphasize that the names for the BEA statistics are not appropriate in our model