and future employers than is non-accredited training—and that only accredited training is transferable between employers. However, the literature did not provide much by means of explaining how firms were paying (individually or via cooperation) for these accredited general skills. Findings from this research are consistent with Loewenstein and Spletzer (1998) and Acemoglu and Pischke (1999, 2000).

In another related study involving labor movement between multinational companies (MNCs) and non-MNCs in Brazil, Poole (2013) shows that when former MNC-employed workers move to domestic firms, incumbent workers of the hiring domestic firms enjoy wage gains. This starts to point to the positive externalities associated with more trained workers. At the average wage of a typical domestic worker, a 10 percentage point increase in the share of former multinational workers increases wages by $23 a year. For the average domestic establishment with 60 workers in Brazil, the total implied wage effect from an enhanced foreign presence is roughly $1,400.

In a similar study in Ghana, Gorg and Strobl (2005) use firm-level data for a sample of manufacturing plants to find that firms whose owners worked in MNCs in the same industry prior to joining are more productive than other firms. In OECD countries, Stoyanov and Zubanov (2012) show positive productivity effects of hiring workers that come from more productive firms (using Danish data). They find that the effect is 0.35 percent per year for an average firm one year after hiring. The accumulated gain in the fifth year is 1.64 percent. This result is similar to Balsvik (2011), who using matched employer-employee data for Norway, finds that workers with MNC experience contribute 20 percent more to the productivity of non-MNCs than workers without such experience, even after controlling for unobservable characteristics of the workers.<sup>13</sup> Through fixed effects, these studies are able to control for the firm-specific advantage of MNCs, such as better technology (so that the gains are not attributed to MNCs simply being bigger or better firms). Regarding the role of human capital developed in the previous firm as a factor in increasing wages, Balsvik (2011) mentions that through on-the-job experience (or training), workers in MNCs may be able to embody valuable knowledge and bring this knowledge to a new employer. Stoyanov and Zybanov (2012) find that while the presence of human capital accentuates the productivity gains, it does not fully explain it. This leads them to conclude that the presence of knowledge spillovers or positive externalities are related to labor mobility. Poole (2013) finds that among different types of workers, highly skilled workers from MNCs produce a larger effect.<sup>14</sup>

> 13 Stoyanov and Zubanov also show that of the total output gain, two-thirds goes to the new firm, and 25 percent to the incumbent workers. For Norway, the wage premium for movers from MNEs to non-MNEs is 5 percent compared to workers (with similar characteristics) who stay in non-MNCs. The productivity gain premium is 20 percent in the new employer, as compared to hiring non MNC workers. See Saraf, Mariscal and Velazquez (2016).

> 14 The literature on R&D spillovers and labor mobility uses a human capital framework: since at least a part of the knowledge acquired in the firm will move with the worker in the case of mobility, workers who receive access to formal training/knowledge should be willing to pay for this by accepting a pay cut (Pakes and Nitzan 1983).

16