跨国公司效应:英国脱欧的一个几乎未被探索的方面

IF 1 Q2 LAW
Claudia Fernández-Pacheco Theurer, José L. Ruiz, M. Latorre
{"title":"跨国公司效应:英国脱欧的一个几乎未被探索的方面","authors":"Claudia Fernández-Pacheco Theurer, José L. Ruiz, M. Latorre","doi":"10.1108/JITLP-12-2017-0053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to review the economic studies on Brexit, highlighting that they have focused mainly on its negative impact on trade. The economic intuition behind these outcomes is provided, explaining why they are asymmetric with the UK being much more harmed than EU-27.,The importance of foreign multinationals in the UK and of UK’s multinationals abroad is shown using a non-standard quantification, which may be preferable than conventional methodologies. In addition, EU trade and investment legislative regimes are explained. Particular attention is paid to the change after the 2009 Lisbon Treaty which transfers foreign investment to the exclusive competence of the EU as opposed to EU states.,The data show that EU-27 is a much less important investment than trade partner for UK.,Although modelling the economy-wide impact of multinationals is challenging, the data and EU legislative framework analyzed suggest it is very much worthwhile. Other considerations about UK’s diminished leveraging power to negotiate after its EU’s withdrawal are also considered.","PeriodicalId":42719,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JITLP-12-2017-0053","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multinationals’ effects: a nearly unexplored aspect of Brexit\",\"authors\":\"Claudia Fernández-Pacheco Theurer, José L. Ruiz, M. Latorre\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/JITLP-12-2017-0053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purpose of this paper is to review the economic studies on Brexit, highlighting that they have focused mainly on its negative impact on trade. The economic intuition behind these outcomes is provided, explaining why they are asymmetric with the UK being much more harmed than EU-27.,The importance of foreign multinationals in the UK and of UK’s multinationals abroad is shown using a non-standard quantification, which may be preferable than conventional methodologies. In addition, EU trade and investment legislative regimes are explained. Particular attention is paid to the change after the 2009 Lisbon Treaty which transfers foreign investment to the exclusive competence of the EU as opposed to EU states.,The data show that EU-27 is a much less important investment than trade partner for UK.,Although modelling the economy-wide impact of multinationals is challenging, the data and EU legislative framework analyzed suggest it is very much worthwhile. Other considerations about UK’s diminished leveraging power to negotiate after its EU’s withdrawal are also considered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42719,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/JITLP-12-2017-0053\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-12-2017-0053\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Trade Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-12-2017-0053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

本文的目的是回顾英国脱欧的经济研究,强调他们主要关注脱欧对贸易的负面影响。提供了这些结果背后的经济直觉,解释了为什么它们是不对称的,英国比欧盟27国受到的伤害要大得多。外国跨国公司在英国和英国跨国公司在国外的重要性使用非标准量化来显示,这可能比传统方法更可取。此外,还解释了欧盟贸易和投资立法制度。特别关注2009年《里斯本条约》之后的变化,该条约将外国投资转移到欧盟的专属权限,而不是欧盟国家。,数据显示,对英国来说,欧盟27国的投资远不如贸易伙伴重要。尽管跨国公司对整个经济的影响建模具有挑战性,但分析的数据和欧盟立法框架表明,这是非常值得的。还考虑了英国在退出欧盟后谈判杠杆力减弱的其他因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multinationals’ effects: a nearly unexplored aspect of Brexit
The purpose of this paper is to review the economic studies on Brexit, highlighting that they have focused mainly on its negative impact on trade. The economic intuition behind these outcomes is provided, explaining why they are asymmetric with the UK being much more harmed than EU-27.,The importance of foreign multinationals in the UK and of UK’s multinationals abroad is shown using a non-standard quantification, which may be preferable than conventional methodologies. In addition, EU trade and investment legislative regimes are explained. Particular attention is paid to the change after the 2009 Lisbon Treaty which transfers foreign investment to the exclusive competence of the EU as opposed to EU states.,The data show that EU-27 is a much less important investment than trade partner for UK.,Although modelling the economy-wide impact of multinationals is challenging, the data and EU legislative framework analyzed suggest it is very much worthwhile. Other considerations about UK’s diminished leveraging power to negotiate after its EU’s withdrawal are also considered.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Journal of International Trade Law and Policy is a peer reviewed interdisciplinary journal with a focus upon the nexus of international economic policy and international economic law. It is receptive, but not limited, to the methods of economics, law, and the social sciences. As scholars tend to read individual articles of particular interest to them, rather than an entire issue, authors are not required to write with full accessibility to readers from all disciplines within the purview of the Journal. However, interdisciplinary communication should be fostered where possible. Thus economists can utilize quantitative methods (including econometrics and statistics), while legal scholars and political scientists can invoke specialized techniques and theories. Appendices are encouraged for more technical material. Submissions should contribute to understanding international economic policy and the institutional/legal architecture in which it is implemented. Submissions can be conceptual (theoretical) and/or empirical and/or doctrinal in content. Topics of interest to the Journal are expected to evolve over time but include: -All aspects of international trade law and policy -All aspects of international investment law and policy -All aspects of international development law and policy -All aspects of international financial law and policy -Relationship between economic policy and law and other societal concerns, including the human rights, environment, health, development, and national security
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信