Table 2: Summary Statistics

|**Variable**|**Mean**|**Std. Dev.**|**Min.**|**Max.**|**N**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Employment Growth|0.01|0.51|-1.96|1.95|15465|
|Capital Growth|-0.03|0.87|-2|2|15395|
|Employees|11.26|84.09|1|4800|30930|
|Capital|299741.18|6762496.28|0|750000000|30921|
|_Fgn_ 2006|71.07|29.04|10|100|338|
|_Fgn_ 2011|68.93|30.97|13|100|142|
|Start Year|1996.69|11.03|1920|2011|30930|

with the weight being the the proportion of sector _s_ ’s output supplied to another sector _k_ . This is taken from the 2006 input-output matrix for 81 industry sectors which is matched to the 221 sectors following the 4-digit ISIC3.1 classification.<sup>21</sup> Note that inputs supplied within the sector are not included since this is already captured by _φ_<sup>_H_</sup> _s,t_<sup>.Likewise,</sup><sup>_φF_</sup> _s,t_<sup>is</sup> the share of foreign employment in upstream (or supplying) sectors feeding into _s_ , with the different sectors’ _φ_<sup>_H_</sup> _k,t_<sup>values weighted by the share of inputs</sup><sup>_s_sources from</sup><sup>_k_(again excluding</sup> within-sector purchases). As discussed above, we will decompose changes in these three variables into those arising from increases in foreign ownership ̇ + and those from declining foreign ownership. For spillover type _j ∈{H, B, F }_ , _φ_<sup>_j_</sup> _s,t_ denotes changes coming from ̇ _−_ increases in foreign ownership and _φ_<sup>_j_</sup> _s,t_ is that arising from decreases in foreign ownership.<sup>22</sup> Table 4 presents summary statistics for the changes in foreign ownership and the spillover variables, both on net and decomposed into positive and negative changes.<sup>23</sup> On net, foreign ownership and the forward and backward spillover variables fall; horizontal spillovers, meanwhile, increase. Nevertheless, regardless of which of these one considers, there is a good deal of churning (i.e. simultaneous entry and exits). In the horizontal spillovers, entries are roughly 1.6 times the size of exits (i.e. _φ_<sup>_H_</sup> _s,t_ + = _−_ 1 _._ 6 _φHs,t−_ ). For forward spillovers, on the other hand, exits are 2.3 times larger than entries. As the horizontal spillovers increased on average, this means that the exits were tilted towards those industries which purchase from Jordanian firms. Even more extreme are the backward spillovers, where exits are 26 times larger than entries. Thus, in industries which supply to Jordanian firms, reductions in

> 21As there is no input-output matrix available for 2011 we use the same shares for both years.

> 22Note that although the spillover variables can change due to relative changes in employment across firms, this decomposition is constructed only using the changes in ownership.

> 23Note that for the foreign ownership variable, a given firm either experiences an increase or a decrease. For the spillover variables, however, a given firm experiences both changes due to entries and changes due to exits. In unreported results, we measured these changes as growth rates (i.e. changes in logs). When doing so, we found more evidence that foreign ownership increases and forward exits result in higher employment growth. The other spillover results were comparable to those reported. These alternative results are available on request.

10