This active role in foreign investment continues to drive a national debate over various aspects of foreign investment, including the impact on employment; the implications for national security of foreign direct investment in U.S. industrial firms; the effect on corporate research and development; and the implications for high-technology jobs, especially on science and engineering activities that are deemed to be important for continuing economic advancement. During the decades of the 1990s and the 2000s, manufacturing production experienced a slow decline as a share of U.S. parent company gross product, falling from 53% of total output in 1994, to 39.2% in 2010, reflecting the slowdown in the rate of growth in the U.S. economy and the decline overall in the share of the U.S. economy devoted to the manufacturing sector. In general, such acquisitions are not characterized as creating new jobs, but they may well sustain U.S. employment and production and potentially prevent job losses. Such structural changes are different from cyclical changes in the economy that represent short-term expansions and contractions in the economy. Traditional economic theory argues that firms and nations export goods and services that reflect their international comparative advantage. Most explanations of such capital flows argue that direct investment is just another form of international capital flows and that capital flows to locations where the rate of return is the highest. Evidence indicates that there is little empirical basis for expecting a universal linkage between foreign investment and trade. Conclusion

This report utilizes a broad collection of data on direct investment published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce to assess the impact of U.S. direct investment abroad and foreign direct investment in the United States on the U.S. economy. Data published by the BEA are the most extensive set of published data on foreign investment activities, but they were not developed to address the issue of jobs outsourcing and it is not possible with the BEA data to track job losses or gains in specific industries, specific companies, or specific plants with changes in jobs abroad. Broad, comprehensive data on U.S. multinational companies published by the BEA lag behind current events by two years, which means that assessing these activities may seem to be out of sync with the more limited anecdotal examples that appear in the popular press and raises questions about the relevancy of the data to assessing short-term developments compared with long term trends. U.S. parent companies may or may not respond to the economic slowdown by outsourcing jobs abroad because the dominating presence of the U.S. economy in the world economy means that an economic slowdown in the United States likely reduces economic growth abroad as well and that the foreign affiliates of those parent companies may not be a position to add more jobs.
The impact of foreign direct investment on U.S. employment continues to attract national attention. While local communities compete with one another for investment projects, many of the residents of those communities fear losing their jobs as U.S. companies seek out foreign locations and foreign workers to perform work that traditionally has been done in the United States, generally referred to as outsourcing. Some observers suggest that current U.S. experiences with outsourcing are different from those that have preceded them and that this merits legislative actions by Congress to blunt the economic impact of these activities. Other observers argue that investing abroad by U.S. multinational companies impedes the growth of new jobs in the economy and thwarts the nation's investments in high technology sectors. Some opponents also argue that mid-career workers who lose good-paying manufacturing and service-sector jobs likely will never recover their standard of living.
Economists and others generally argue that free and unimpeded international flows of capital ultimately have a positive impact on both domestic and foreign economies. Direct investment is unique among international capital flows because it adds permanently to the capital stock and skill set of a nation, but it also challenges the general theory of capital flows because of the presence of strong cross-border and intra-industry investment. Supporters contend that to the extent that foreign investment shifts jobs abroad, it is a minor component of the overall economic picture and that it is offset somewhat by the investment of foreign firms in the U.S. economy (referred to as insourcing), which supports existing jobs and creates new jobs in the economy.
Broad, comprehensive data on U.S. multinational companies generally lag behind current events by two years and were not developed to address the issue of jobs outsourcing. Many economists argue, however, that there is little evidence to date to support the notion that the overseas investment activities of U.S. multinational companies play a significant role in the rate at which jobs are created in the U.S. economy. Instead, they argue that the source of job creation in the economy is rooted in the combination of macroeconomic policies the nation has chosen, the rate of productivity growth, and the availability of resources. This report addresses these issues by analyzing the extent of direct investment into and out of the economy, the role such investment plays in U.S. trade, jobs, and production, and the relationship between direct investment and the broader economic changes that are occurring in the U.S. economy.