Abstract:Do investment incentives influence private firms' location decisions? Whereas prior research emphasizes tax incentives, we focus on incentives that require real-time government spending including job training and infrastructure. Real incentives influence where firms invest by resolving costly information asymmetries, and are subject to budget constraints that give rise to political targeting. This paper evaluates how real incentives shape the location decisions of foreign firms, investors who suffer from acute information asymmetries. We leverage features of the Great Recession and the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus, which temporarily increased states' fiscal capacity to fund real incentives. During the narrow stimulus spending window, states that received more federal Medicaid stimulus—instrumented with the exogenous component of the Act's funding formula—attracted more foreign direct investment (FDI) and increased state spending on real incentives. The stimulus window approximately coincides with FDI's temporary geographic expansion into US counties that lacked a history of these investments. On average, these counties had narrow vote margins in the prior gubernatorial election and garnered more state real incentive spending. These correlates are pronounced in counties with idle industrial capacity and in states whose governors sought re-election. Tax incentives had no effect on FDI. These findings have important implications for the efficacy of investment incentives and the political economy of industrial policy.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem this paper attempts to address is: Do investment incentives affect the location decisions of private enterprises? Specifically, the paper focuses on how actual incentives (such as job training and infrastructure development) influence the geographic location choices of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Unlike previous studies that mainly focus on tax incentives, this paper emphasizes the impact of actual incentives, which require real-time government expenditure, on the investment decisions of foreign enterprises.
### Main Research Questions:
1. **Do actual incentives influence the investment location choices of foreign enterprises?**
- The paper explores how actual incentives help enterprises make investment decisions under information asymmetry by analyzing data from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
2. **How do political motivations affect the distribution of actual incentives?**
- The study also examines the political motivations of state governments in providing actual incentives, particularly whether these incentives are used to attract the support of key voters.
### Background and Motivation:
- **Background**: State and local governments in the United States spend approximately $50 billion annually on investment incentives to attract private enterprise investment. The effectiveness of these incentives is controversial, with some studies suggesting they contribute little to economic development and may even lead to harmful competition between states.
- **Motivation**: The researchers believe that actual incentives can influence enterprise location decisions by addressing information asymmetry. These incentives typically include cash grants, specialized business inputs, and land development, which can help enterprises reduce the costs of entering new markets.
### Methods and Data:
- **Methods**: The paper uses the external budget shock provided by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and employs the Instrumental Variable (IV) method to analyze the impact of actual incentives on Foreign Direct Investment.
- **Data**: The study uses county-level manufacturing FDI data from 2003 to 2016 and state-level actual incentive expenditure data from 2009 to 2011.
### Main Findings:
- **Actual incentives effectively attract FDI**: The study finds that Medicaid stimulus funds provided by ARRA are associated with higher state-level FDI inflows. This effect is particularly pronounced in counties with no prior history of FDI.
- **Political motivations influence incentive distribution**: State governments tend to allocate actual incentives to swing counties, especially in states where governors are seeking re-election. These counties typically have idle industrial capacity and had narrow voting margins in previous gubernatorial elections.
### Significance:
- **Policy Implications**: The findings suggest that providing actual incentives can effectively attract FDI in situations of severe information asymmetry. This insight is valuable for industrial policy formulation, especially in contexts where enterprises need to rapidly reconfigure supply chains, such as during the 2018 US-China trade war and the COVID-19 pandemic.
- **Contribution to Political Economy**: The study also reveals how political motivations influence the geographic distribution of actual incentives, enriching the political economy literature on targeted spending.
In summary, this paper empirically examines the role of actual incentives in attracting FDI and the political reasons behind their distribution, providing valuable insights for relevant policy-making.