|**United**<br>**Kingdom**|Harris and Robinson<br>(2003)|Foreign ownership in the<br>manufacturing sector|Foreign owned‐plants were demonstrably more productive<br>than other domestic plants, but varied by country of origin<br>and sector.|
|---|---|---|---|
|**_Spillovers_**|**_to domestic firms_**|||
|**Bangladesh**|Kee (2015)|Sharing of suppliers by garment<br>producers with foreign firms|It accounted for one‐third of productivity growth in<br>domestic garment firms, and one‐fourth in product scope<br>expansion.|
|**Cross‐**<br>**country**|Farole and Winkler<br>(2014)|Forward linkages from FDI (measured<br>as sector average percentage of FDI<br>sales to domestic market); backward<br>linkages from FDI (measured as sector<br>average percentage of domestic input<br>purchases); absorptive capacity of<br>domestic firms (measured by their<br>productivity relative to foreign firms,<br>proximity to other firms, proxies for<br>size, technology and export intensity).<br>Manufacturing firms only.|There was a significant positive impact on domestic firm<br>productivity, and on the productivity of low‐ and medium<br>productivity firms.|
|**Cross‐**<br>**country**|Alfaro and Chen<br>(2015)|<br>Entry of a multinational firm|There was an increase in aggregate‐weighted domestic<br>productivity by 1.6 percent within a 6‐year period. Between<br>firm selection and reallocation alone, it accounted for 1.4<br>percent.|
|**Chile**|Fernandes and<br>Paunov (2012)|Forward linkages from services FDI to<br>manufacturing firms|There was a 7 percent increase in total factor productivity<br>of manufacturers using the services.|
|**China**|Du, Harrison, and<br>Jefferson (2012)|Foreign equity shares in the<br>manufacturing sector (weighted by<br>firm size)|There were significant positive productivity spillovers via<br>backward and forward linkages, but insignificant horizontal<br>spillovers. Results apply to Organisation for Economic Co‐<br>operation and Development (OECD) investors. There were<br>no spillovers from Hong Kong SAR, China; Macao; or<br>Taiwan, China‐sourced investment.|
|**Czech**<br>**Republic**|Javorcik and<br>Spatareanu (2009)|Suppliers to multinational firms|Multinational suppliers were 12–15 percent more<br>productive, even after controlling for selection bias,<br>compared to non‐suppliers.|
|**Ghana**|Görg and Strobl<br>(2005)|Previous experience of firm owner at<br>multinational firm|Increased manufacturing firm productivity is evident when<br>multinational experience is in the same industry.|
|**Lithuania**|Javorcik (2004)|A 4 percent increase in foreign<br>presence in downstream (buyer)<br>industries|There was a 15 percent increase in domestic firm output in<br>upstream (supplying) industries.|
|**Romania**|Javorcik and Li<br>(2013)|A 10 percent increase in the number<br>of foreign retail chain outlets|There was an increased total factor productivity of<br>supplying industries by 2.4‐ 2.6 percent.|
|**United**<br>**Kingdom**|Haskel, Pereira, and<br>Slaughter (2007)|A 10‐percentage point<br>increase in foreign presence in a<br>manufacturing industry|It raised total factor productivity of that industry’s domestic<br>plants by about 0.5 percent.|
|**United**<br>**States**|Keller and Yeaple<br>(2009)|<br>FDI presence in the US manufacturing<br>sector|It explains 8‐19 percent of productivity growth of U.S. firms<br>between 1987 and 1996. FDI spillovers are particularly<br>strong in high‐tech sectors, but largely absent in low‐tech<br>sectors.|
|**Venezuela**|Aitken and Harrison<br>(1999)|Increase in foreign equity<br>participation and foreign ownership|It increased productivity for recipient plants with fewer<br>than 50 employees, and decreased productivity for other<br>domestic firms. There was a small net impact.|
|**_Exports_**||||
|**China**|Swenson (2008)|Level of multinational export activity<br>across sectors (number of export<br>transactions and total value of<br>|These were positively correlated with “new” export activity<br>by domestic firms.|
|**China**|Chen and Swenson<br>(2014)|exports)<br>A 1 standard deviation increase in<br>multinational presence (measured by<br>the value of own‐industry<br>multinational exports);and a 10|It was associated with a 6.3 percent increase in transaction<br>unit values, and helped private firms expand new product<br>exports by 1.3 percent.|

5