前回エントリで紹介したProject Syndicateの引用部の続きをMostly Economicsが別エントリで紹介している。そちらの引用部では、オーストリアと同様の失敗をドイツが犯さなかった理由が述べられている。

Germany’s growth was not similarly affected, for three reasons. To begin with, after the fall of Communism, Austria reoriented its foreign direct investment almost exclusively to Eastern Europe, which accounted for nearly 90% of its FDI outflows. In Germany, just 4% of FDI moved to Eastern Europe in the 1990s, reaching 30% at the turn of the century. As a result, Austria became much more integrated with Eastern Europe.
Second, Germany was richer in skills than Austria. In 1998, the share of the German population with academic degrees was 15%, more than double the Austrian level. German firms did relocate high-skilled work to the east, but not to the extent that Austria did. As a proportion of the workforce, German affiliates in Eastern Europe employed three times as many people with academic degrees as their parent firms did. And German subsidiaries employed 11% more researchers than their parent companies.
Finally, many of the Austrian parent companies were themselves subsidiaries of foreign firms, while German firms were German multinationals, which transplanted their corporate culture to their Central and Eastern European subsidiaries. They employed more German managers relative to local managers, which gave them more control over innovation. Furthermore, most German investments were based on the transfer of an established technology; only 8% of the country’s FDI in the region involved cutting-edge research.
By contrast, Austrian firms adapted their business to the region’s environment and employed more local managers than Austrians. As a result, their subsidiaries were more autonomous in their innovation decisions. There was no mechanism that guaranteed that the knowledge created in a subsidiary also benefited the parent company.

一方でMostly Economicsは、同じ著者がVoxEU論説で、上記の記述と一見矛盾することを書いていることを指摘している。

In a new piece by the same author Prof Dalia Marin, she says Germany inequality is lower than US. Guess the reason? It is because German firms relocated work to Eastern Europe and reduced the skill wage premium!

Income inequality is less severe in Germany than in the US. Part of this is due to CEO pay in the US growing faster than in Germany. This column offers some novel explanations for these observations. From the mid-1990s, Germany began offshoring managerial tasks to Eastern Europe, reducing demand for German managers. In addition Germany offshored skill-intensive jobs to Eastern Europe, reducing the skill premium.

Based on both, it seems inequality might be much lower for Austria but has backfired in terms of growth.
Complicated economics. Move one thing and other falls. Save the other and the first falls..game goes on..
同じDalia Marin教授の新しい記事では、ドイツの不平等度は米国より低いと書かれている。理由は何か? ドイツが職を東欧に移転して技能の賃金プレミアムを削減したためとのことである!



ちなみにMostly Economicsの別のエントリでは、ドイツの内なる東欧であったとも言える旧東独地域の経済発展について、別の著者*1によるVoxEU記事紹介している

Since Italy’s monetary unification some 155 years ago, income per capita in the South (the Mezzogiorno) has fallen from virtually the same level as in the Centre-North to little more than 55% of the Centre-North’s level. This column asks why East Germany hasn’t suffered the same fate since German monetary unification 25 years ago. East Germany is not like the Mezzogiorno because of labour market flexibility, different evolutions of the tradeable sector, and the weight of history.

*1:Andrea Boltho(オックスフォード大)、Wendy Carlin(ユニヴァーシティ・カレッジ・ロンドン)、Pasquale Scaramozzino(ロンドン大東洋アフリカ研究学院、ローマ大学トルベルガータ校)。

*2:cf. 本ブログでの関連エントリ12。なお記事では、東独地域の社会資本が共産主義時代の40年間で失われなかった証左として、同地域におけるボランティア仕事や非営利組織や臓器提供の頻度が西独地域と同等か(臓器提供の場合)それ以上であることを挙げているが、それらは社会主義体制における滅私奉公文化の名残りという気がしなくもない。