The name is absent



Table 1. The data set: summary statistics (reference year: 1998)

Belgium

Denmark

Spain

Finland

France

Germany

Italy

Nether-
lands

Norway

Sweden

United

Kingdom

N. of firmsa

586

233

1039

167

3273

323

1783

234

1079

1859

4324

OfwhichMNEs (%)

65.02

48.07

40.52

31.14

38.41

46.13

27.26

73.93

14.64

13.56

47.29

Total Employment

194.360

54.675

250.757

36.242

910.055

476.341

295.098

292.107

53.141

300.446

1.514.182

Ofwhich inMNEs (%)

Employees in the sample

85.10

41.62

55.67

24.15

33.19

44.38

49.05

58.97

34.50

27.32

45.01

as % of total national
manufacturing
employmentb

29.67

12.17

9.08

8.20

24.03

5.87

5.68

27.22

-

40.33

33.78

For comparison:
manufacturing
employment inforeign
MNEs as reported by
OECD statisticsc

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

13.80

27.80

6.00

8.8

21.90

17.40

21.80

17.80

Notes:

a The firms in the sample are in manufacturing and larger than 50 employees

b Source OECD STAN database, OECD , 2001

c OECD (2001), Measuring Globalisation, Volume I: Manufacturing Sector, OECD Paris, 2001

The coverage of the final data set of national manufacturing activities varies by country, from
40.33% in Sweden to 5.68% in Italy. Also, MNEs are over-represented compared to their share in
national manufacturing employment, mainly because of the exclusion of firms smaller than 50
employees. However, average output per employee and average cost of employment per employee for
NEs and MNEs in the sample (Table A1) are in line with those at the population level, according to
OECD data. Consistently with most of the available evidence, MNEs in the sample report higher
output per employee and employment costs per employee than NEs. This gap, which is robust when
we control for size and sector distribution (unreported), is possibly related to higher skill intensity in
MNEs. Regrettably, in our sample we cannot directly measure this effect, as we have no information on
the skill composition of employment.

3.2. The econometric model and results

We are interested in measuring both the speed and the extent of labour demand adjustment across firms.
We derive from a Cobb Douglas production function a constant-output dynamic labour demand
function for a generic cost-minimising firm under the assumption of partial adjustment of the type
λ


, where 0 Λ1, while Lit and Lit are, respectively, effective and desired employment

in firm i at time t. In logarithmic form, the firm-level conditional labour demand is derived as follows,

8



More intriguing information

1. Optimal Private and Public Harvesting under Spatial and Temporal Interdependence
2. The name is absent
3. Structure and objectives of Austria's foreign direct investment in the four adjacent Central and Eastern European countries Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia
4. 101 Proposals to reform the Stability and Growth Pact. Why so many? A Survey
5. PER UNIT COSTS TO OWN AND OPERATE FARM MACHINERY
6. Momentum in Australian Stock Returns: An Update
7. Determinants of Household Health Expenditure: Case of Urban Orissa
8. On Dictatorship, Economic Development and Stability
9. NVESTIGATING LEXICAL ACQUISITION PATTERNS: CONTEXT AND COGNITION
10. The name is absent