sign in sign up
<<
Home , Economy of Illinois

Rural Spring 1996 RESEARCH REPORT Volume 7, Issue 4 Published by the Institute for Rural Affairs Stipes Hall 518 Western Illinois University 1 University Circle Macomb, IL 61455-1390 309/298-2237 Rural Illinois in a Global Economy: The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment

by Christopher D. Merrett1 Development officials prioritize industrial recruitment and Affairs (DCCA) operates or has operated offices in Brazil, job creation above all else. In an expanding global economy, Japan, Belgium, Hong Kong, Mexico, and Canada. These foreign direct investment (FDI) has attracted attention offices promote the products and services of Illinois firms in because it has created an increasing number of jobs in the international markets and encourage FDI in Illinois. The United States. FDI also accounts for an increasingly large question is, how successful has Illinois been in recruiting proportion of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). In FDI compared with other states? Furthermore, what benefits 1982, FDI in the United States was valued at $124.7 billion. accompanied FDI in Illinois, especially in rural communities? By 1993, that value had risen to $445.3 billion measured on Recent studies suggest that during the 1980s, 10 percent of a historical-cost basis. FDI has grown from 2.3 percent of all FDI in the United States was located in nonmetropolitan the U.S. GDP in 1977 to almost 6 percent by 1992 (U.S. communities (Glasmeier and Glickman 1990). Have rural Department of Commerce 1995a). The total number of communities in Illinois benefitted from this influx of FDI into foreign firms operating in the United States has grown from the United States? 7,676 in 1980 to 11,698 by 1992 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1983a, 1994). This report investigates the role played by FDI in the rural economy of Illinois using the following approach. First, FDI Because of this growth, development specialists believe is defined, and we examine why foreign firms might choose that FDI can positively affect local economic development. to invest in the United States. Implications are also examined Accordingly, officials from across the United States have for communities that have successfully recruited FDI. Section devoted greater attention to recruiting FDI into their states two examines the geographic, temporal, and sectoral patterns and communities. A 1982 survey by the Council of State of FDI in the United States and Illinois using secondary data Governments revealed that 23 states had at least one from the U.S. Department of Commerce and DCCA. Specific foreign office created to attract foreign investment to their aspects of FDI examined include the countries of origin, respective states. By 1991, 41 states had foreign offices to economic sector, how Illinois compares to other states in promote exports and recruit FDI (Corporation for Enterprise recruiting FDI, and urban versus rural comparisons in FDI Development 1991). Illinois has expanded its global location. Section three provides concluding thoughts about recruitment strategy by opening trade offices around the the role of FDI in economic development strategies pursued world. The Illinois Department of Commerce and Community by nonmetropolitan communities in Illinois.

Causes and Consequences of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States

The U.S. Department of Commerce (1995a) defines foreign Two separate questions confront managers of foreign firms investment as direct when a single foreign investor has who consider expanding production into the United States. acquired 10 percent or more equity in a U.S. firm. That firm First, they must decide whether or not it makes sense to is then considered a U.S. affiliate of a foreign investor. The actually produce abroad: they could just engage in 10 percent figure, while arbitrary, was chosen by the U.S. international trade or license a competitor to produce in the Department of Commerce because it was deemed to United States. Second, once the firm decides to engage in represent the minimum stake required by foreign investors FDI, the firm must decide upon the geographic location of its to wield long-term influence over the management of a firm investment within the United States. in the United States.

1The author is assistant professor, Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs. Cartographical assistance provided by Bill Westerhold. Layout by Nancy Baird. This second decision can have profound consequences for Carolina to recruit a BMW plant. Alabama provided incentives the community chosen as the site for the FDI. Foreign worth $300 million to attract Mercedes-Benz with its promise investment can bring new jobs into a local economy. From of 1,500 jobs (or $200,000 per job). The long-term multiplier a national perspective, employment in foreign affiliates has effects of these jobs are thought to offset the initial incentive grown from 2.1 million employees in 1980 to 4.7 million by costs. In addition, foreign plants in the United States can 1992 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1983a, 1994). provide new sources of regional financial capital, Development officials expend great energies to influence management expertise, increased technological capabilities, where these jobs are located. Witness the incentives provided and buyers for local supplies and services. by Alabama to attract a Mercedes-Benz plant and by South

Characteristics and Geographic Patterns of FDI in the United States

Country of Origin. During the past decade, the amount of this time. However, if development specialists are interested FDI in the United States has increased dramatically. The in FDI that generates local jobs, then they should continue origins of the FDI have remained constant, however (Table to recruit manufacturing FDI. In 1980, FIRE-sector FDI 1). The top seven investor countries in 1980 are the same accounted for 107,000 jobs or 20 percent of all FDI-generated seven in 1993. What has changed is the growing jobs. In the same year, manufacturing-FDI represented concentration and relative share of FDI held by firms from 1,103,000 or about 54 percent of all FDI-generated jobs. these seven countries. These seven countries represented 78.3 percent of the dollar value of FDI in 1980. By 1993, they By 1992, despite the massive increase in FIRE-sector FDI, accounted for 86.2 percent of the FDI. This is due to it could only account for 245,000 jobs, representing only 5.2 American international balance of payments problems, the percent of the 4.7 million jobs connected to FDI in the United devalued dollar, and protectionist U.S. trade policies. States. Manufacturing FDI generated 2,231,000 or 47 percent Increasing FDI also reflects America’s declining edge in of the jobs. Clearly, more jobs are connected to manufacturing productivity and technology. Simply put, foreign firms locate FDI than any other sector. Much of the FDI related to the in the United States because they can now compete with FIRE sector is acquisitions, rather than construction or American firms in America’s backyard. expansion of facilities.

Table 1. Share of FDI in the United States by Country of Origin Table 2. Value and Percent of FDI Assets in the United States by Economic Sector Country 1980 1993 Sector 1980 1993 Japan 5.7 21.6 (US $ millions) (pct.) (US $ millions) (pct.) United Kingdom 17.0 21.4 FIRE 88,403 (30.3) 835,073 (46.1) Netherlands 23.0 15.4 Manufacturing 81,684 (28.0) 473,047 (26.0) Canada 8.9 14.6 Wholesale Trade 50,060 (17.1) 187,346 (10.4) Germany 9.1 7.8 Petroleum 44,060 (15.1) 95,634 (5.3) France 3.2 6.4 Retail Trade 9,685 (3.3) 41,621 (2.3) Switzerland 6.1 4.8 Other 18,133 (6.2) 177,229 (9.9) Top Seven Total 78.3 86.2 Total FDI 292,033 (100.0) 1,809,950 (100.0) Rest of World 21.3 13.8 Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce 1983b and 1995b. Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce 1995a and 1995b. Geographic Patterns of FDI. This section identifies the Economic Sector of FDI. In 1980 and in 1992, finance, location of FDI and its related employment in the United insurance, and real estate (FIRE) combined to represent the States. Table 3 shows the employment of U.S. foreign largest dollar value and proportion of FDI assets (Table 2). affiliates and FDI-employment location quotients by state The manufacturing sector has attracted the second largest from 1981 until 1992. A location quotient compares FDI- value of FDI during this time period. It appears that states related employment in each state to the FDI-related and communities should target FDI from the FIRE sector employment in the United States as a whole. A state with a because of the large value of the FDI. FIRE is also the location quotient greater than one has a disproportionately fastest growing component of FDI, increasing from 30 large share of FDI-related employment. Conversely, states percent to over 46 percent of FDI in the United States during

2 with location quotients less than one have been less more than any other region (Table 3). Much of the influx has successful at attracting FDI that generates jobs.2 been tied to Japanese automotive investment.

Table 3 reveals that some states have been more successful We should not assume, however, that all states in the at recruiting FDI than others and that recruiting success Midwest have lost their share of FDI investment. The East changes over time. New England, Middle Atlantic, and North Central region, including Illinois, has increased its South Atlantic states successfully attracted FDI employment share of FDI and related employment. In addition to the in the past, but have seen their share decline during the past overall increase in FDI, the East North Central region has decade. Data on FDI in East South Central states such as attracted more manufacturing FDI, as measured by Tennessee appear to confirm the view that FDI has become investment book value and FDI-related jobs, than any other less concentrated over time (McConnell 1980). Between region (U.S. Department of Commerce 1994). This is 1981 and 1992, this region increased its location quotient important because manufacturing jobs have a larger multiplier (+0.77), and hence its share of FDI-generated employment, effect than any other job category (Malecki 1991).

Table 3. Employment of U.S. Affiliates of Foreign Firms by State Employment (thousands) Location Quotient Location Quotient State 1981 1992 1981 1992 Change, 1981-1992 United States 2,416.6 4,705.5 — — — New England 143.9 266.9 1.03 1.02 -0.01 Connecticut 40.8 81.7 0.68 1.23 +0.55 17.7 24.1 1.40 1.00 -0.40 55.6 113.6 0.85 0.98 +0.13 13.9 27.7 1.25 1.20 -0.05 9.9 12.3 0.93 0.62 -0.31 6.0 7.5 1.04 0.63 -0.41

Middle Atlantic 480.2 771.6 1.26 1.12 -0.14 134.9 216.3 1.70 1.44 -0.26 New York 210.3 340.0 1.18 1.07 -0.11 135.0 215.3 1.30 0.98 -0.32

East North Central 388.6 807.4 0.88 1.01 +0.13 Illinois 113.6 246.4 0.92 1.08 +0.16 Indiana 47.0 126.2 0.79 1.23 +0.44 65.9 140.4 0.68 1.50 +0.82 Ohio 99.9 212.6 0.87 1.05 +0.18 62.2 81.8 1.18 0.81 -0.37

West North Central 112.2 258.4 0.59 0.73 +0.14 21.6 32.6 0.68 0.57 -0.11 14.6 27.4 0.55 0.56 +0.01 Minnesota 33.0 94.1 0.70 1.05 +0.35 32.6 77.2 0.62 0.76 +0.14 5.6 16.0 0.33 0.51 +0.18 3.5 5.3 0.50 0.44 -0.06 1.3 5.8 0.17 0.43 +0.26

South Atlantic 472.8 916.2 1.23 1.10 -0.13 Delaware 36.0 35.8 5.73 2.62 -3.11 73.9 194.9 0.74 0.77 +0.03 78.5 154.3 1.33 1.32 -0.01 45.1 74.8 0.95 1.48 +0.53 North Carolina 89.0 191.3 1.37 1.48 +0.11 South Carolina 65.1 111.1 2.08 1.71 -0.37 Virginia 49.8 119.9 0.91 0.96 +0.05 West Virginia 35.4 34.1 2.14 1.17 -0.97 (continued on next page)

2 The location quotient equation for each state is given by: LQi = (FDIEi/FDIE)/(Ei/E) where LQi is the employment location

quotient for state “I”, FDIEi is the total number of jobs associated with FDI in state “I” in 1981 and 1992, FDIE is the total number of jobs

associated with FDI in the United States in 1981 and 1992, Ei is the size of the civilian labor force in state “I” in 1981 and 1992, and E is the size of the U.S. labor force in 1981 and 1992. 3 Table 3. Employment of U.S. Affiliates of Foreign Firms by State (continued) Employment (thousands) Location Quotient Location Quotient State 1981 1992 1981 1992 Change, 1981-1992 East South Central 121.7 275.6 0.25 1.02 +0.77 Alabama 27.0 60.7 0.73 0.87 +0.14 26.0 69.4 0.71 1.07 +0.36 11.3 23.8 0.48 1.05 +0.57 Tennessee 57.4 121.7 1.26 1.36 +0.10 West South Central 268.5 461.1 1.06 0.93 -0.13 Arkansas 17.5 30.8 0.76 0.72 -0.04 47.0 62.1 1.12 0.87 -0.25 Oklahoma 25.0 43.8 0.78 0.61 -0.17 Texas 179.0 324.4 1.14 1.00 -0.14 Mountain 97.9 197.3 0.80 0.78 -0.02 Arizona 30.6 52.6 1.08 0.82 -0.26 Colorado 24.7 61.0 0.72 0.93 +0.21 Idaho 3.8 13.5 0.41 0.71 +0.30 3.0 5.4 0.34 0.69 +0.35 6.9 23.0 0.67 0.92 +0.25 New Mexico 7.9 13.6 0.60 0.52 -0.08 Utah 16.8 22.7 1.19 0.75 -0.44 4.2 5.5 0.74 0.63 -0.11 Pacific 287.5 643.5 0.86 0.93 +0.07 California 248.4 521.8 0.95 0.93 -0.02 Oregon 13.1 43.0 0.44 0.75 +0.31 Washington 26.0 78.7 0.59 0.85 +0.26 Source: Calculations based on U.S. Department of Commerce 1993, 1994, and 1995b.

Illinois, as part of the East North Central region, also different rank order, the highest seven sources of FDI attracted more than its share of FDI. This condition contradicts nationally are also the highest seven sources of FDI in previous research suggesting that FDI was becoming less Illinois. Furthermore, these sources have remained the concentrated in the Northeast and Midwest (McConnell same during the 1980s. This consistency can be attributed 1980; O’hUallachain and Reid 1992). In 1981, Illinois had to broader global processes such as declining value of the the sixth largest number of FDI-related jobs. By 1992, Illinois U.S. dollar and the increasingly competitive economies of ranked fourth, trailing only New York, Texas, and California. Europe and East Asia. Table 4 also shows that between The fact that Illinois increased its location quotient from 0.80 1980 and 1992, the highest seven countries contributed to 1.08 between 1981 and 1992 shows that Illinois has less as a proportion of all FDI in Illinois. Nationally, the top attracted jobs through FDI. seven countries increased their share. The opposing trend in Illinois is explained by the recent influx of FDI from FDI in Illinois. The origins of FDI in Illinois (Table 4) largely countries such as Sweden, Belgium, and Italy (DCCA mirror the national pattern of FDI (Table 1). Despite the 1991).

Table 4. FDI Book Value and FDI Employment in Illinois by Country of Origin 1980 1992 Country FDI Value Jobs FDI Value Jobs ($ million) (Percent) (thousands) (Percent) ($ million) (Percent) (thousands) (Percent) Japan 213 (4.7) 8.1 (7.2) 7,311 (26.4) 46.2 (18.8) United Kingdom 787 (17.4) 24.9 (22.2) 4,489 (16.2) 53.0 (21.5) Canada 712 (15.7) 16.8 (14.9) 2,936 (10.6) 27.0 (11.0) Netherlands 988 (21.8) 11.0 (9.8) 2,894 (10.4) 14.3 (5.8) Germany 532 (11.7) 17.0 (15.1) 2,748 (9.9) 26.6 (10.8) Switzerland 401 (8.8) 13.4 (12.0) 1,860 (6.7) 27.2 (11.0) France 346 (7.6) 6.9 (6.1) 1,839 (6.6) 13.3 (5.4) Top Seven Total 3979 (78.7) 98.1 (87.3) 24,077 (86.2) 207.6 (84.3) Rest of World 553 (21.3) 14.3 (12.8) 3,603 (13.8) 38.8 (15.7) Total 4,532 (100.0) 1124 (100.0) 27,680 (100.0) 246.4 (100.0)

Source: Calculations based on U.S. Department of Commerce 1983a and 1994.

4 During the entire study period, the manufacturing sector manifestation of the broader rural renaissance occurring received the most FDI as measured both by book value and during the 1960s and 1970s. by the number of jobs generated by foreign investment in Illinois (Table 5). In fact, Illinois countered the national trend Researchers adopted a filtering-down theory to explain why during the 1980s by increasing the share of FDI represented firms would choose a rural location for production. This by manufacturing investment. theory suggests that as the manufacture of an item becomes more routine, production can be shifted to low-wage, low- Jobs generated by manufacturing FDI increased in absolute skill locations in rural counties to lower overall production terms and as a percentage of all jobs generated by FDI in costs (Erickson 1976). Therefore, the competitive advantage Illinois. FIRE, the fastest growing component of FDI in terms held by rural areas is in low-wage, low-skill production that of assets, generated only 5 percent of the jobs. Recent lowers overall production costs. discussions about the rising importance of FIRE and the service sector in the global economy do not apply to FDI in The general process of industrial decentralization convinced Illinois (Glasmeier and Howland 1994). As of 1992, Japanese researchers that FDI would follow a similar, although lagged, FDI generated the most manufacturing jobs (25.2 percent), pattern (McConnell 1980). This has been true in some followed by the United Kingdom (19.5 percent), Germany states. Upwards of 10 percent of all FDI during the 1980s (12.2 percent), Switzerland (8.8 percent), France (8.2 was located in nonmetropolitan counties (Glasmeier and percent), The Netherlands (6.5 percent), and Canada (5.2 Glickman 1990). The recent massive investment in percent) (DCCA 1991). The remaining 14.4 percent of FDI- automobile production in nonmetropolitan Ohio, Kentucky, related jobs in manufacturing were generated by investment and Tennessee gives credence to this view of rural FDI. from diverse countries such as Korea, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Italy, and Belgium. Unfortunately for rural Illinois, Southern states received most of the FDI destined for rural counties. Illinois has an FDI in Rural Illinois. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, extreme urban bias in the location of its FDI (Figures 1 and researchers expressed optimism about the future of industrial 2). Of the estimated 1,479 foreign firms in Illinois, 1,424 development in nonmetropolitan regions. Better education, (96.3 percent) operate in counties designated as urban by comparatively low wages, and improved infrastructure during the U.S. Census. Illinois also has an extreme geographic this time meant that rural communities could compete with bias in the location of FDI. and the “” urban areas for manufacturing investment. Haren (1970) of McHenry, Lake, Cook, Kane, DuPage, and Will account estimated that 20 percent of all new plant locations or for 1,322 (89.0 percent) of all foreign firms in Illinois. Cook expansions occurred in nonmetropolitan counties in the County alone contains 986 or two-thirds of the foreign firms 1960s. During the 1970s and 1980s, rural manufacturing job in Illinois (DCCA 1991). The agglomeration economies growth exceeded that of urban areas (Bloomquist 1988). afforded by the transportation and communications facilities Increased levels of manufacturing were just one more in Chicago attract many of these firms.

Table 5. FDI Assets and FDI Employment in Illinois by Economic Sector 1980 1992 Sector FDI Value Jobs FDI Value Jobs ($ million) (Pct.) (thousands) (Pct.) ($ million) (Pct.) (thousands) (Pct.) Total FDI 4,532 (100) 112.4 (100.0) 27,680 (100) 246.4 (100) Manufacturing 1,991 (43.9) 62.2 (55.3) 12,669 (45.8) 127.3 (51.7) FIRE 498 (11.0) 5.2 (4.6) 5,623 (20.3) 12.5 (5.1) Petroleum 1,066 (23.5) 7.0 (6.2) 2,621 (9.4) 6.9 (2.8) Wholesale Trade 463 (10.2) 14.7 (13.7) 2,304 (8.3) 25.2 (10.2) Retail Trade 268 (5.8) 16.0 (14.2) 1,066 (3.9) 31.2 (12.7) Other 246 (5.6) 7.3 (6.0) 3,397 (12.3) 43.3 (17.5)

Source: Calculations based on U.S. Department of Commerce 1983b, 1994, and 1995b.

5 Figure 1. Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Counties in Illinois Figure 2. Foreign Direct Investment in Illinois by County, 1991

Boone Jo Daviess Stephenson Winnebago McHenry Lake

Carroll Ogle Kane De Kalb Du Page Whiteside Lee Cook Kendall

Rock Island Will Bureau Henry La Salle Grundy Mercer Putnam Kankakee Stark Marshall Knox Livingston Warren Peoria Woodford Henderson Iroquois

Ford Tazewell McLean McDonough Fulton Hancock

Mason Schuyler De Witt Vermilion Logan Champaign Menard Piatt Adams Brown Cass Macon Sangamon Douglas Morgan Edgar Pike Scott Moultrie Christian Coles Shelby Greene Clark Cumberland MacoupinMontgomery Calhoun Jersey Effingham Crawford Fayette Jasper Bond Madison Clay Lawrence Richland Marion Clinton Wabash St. Clair Number of Firms Wayne Edwards Washington Monroe Jefferson Urban 1 to 3 White Randolph Perry Hamilton Franklin Rural 4 to 59 Jackson Williamson Saline Gallatin 223 to 986 Hardin Union Johnson Pope No FDI

Alexander Massac Pulaski

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993. Source: DCCA, 1991.

Nonmetropolitan counties represented only 55 firms or 3.7 and Bureau Counties, where one British and four Japanese percent of the FDI operating in Illinois. Of these, 34 (2.3 firms produce automobile parts. percent) were located in rural-adjacent counties, while 21 (1.4 percent) were located in rural-nonadjacent counties. Firms from the same country also tend to locate in close La Salle County has the most foreign firms of any rural proximity to one another. Six of the ten Japanese firms are county. Its location adjacent to the Chicago Metropolitan located in La Salle County. Three of the four Canadian firms area, with access to Interstate 80, explains this situation. In are located in Washington County in . Ten fact, 30 percent of all foreign firms in rural Illinois are located of the 12 German firms are clustered in a contiguous region in counties adjacent to either the Chicago metropolitan containing Jefferson, Clay, Washington, Marion, and counties or Interstate 80. Japan has the most FDI in this Richland Counties. Three out of five French firms also region adjacent to Chicago, but FDI also originates from the operate in Richland County. These firms from different United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. countries locate in close proximity to capture local agglomeration economies. By sharing suppliers, they can In fact, Germany has the most firms in rural Illinois, and they achieve external economies of scale by purchasing inputs are located far downstate (Table 6). This points to the at lower per unit costs and lower overall production costs. clustered pattern of the FDI in the rural counties in Illinois. Foreign firms producing different products locate close to Foreign firms cluster by sector as well as by country of origin. each other to achieve external economies of scope. Even if Richland County contains one sectoral cluster where two they don’t share the same suppliers, foreign firms can French firms, a German firm, and a Swiss firm manufacture benefit from an agglomeration of producer services and a bicycle parts. A second sectoral cluster exists in La Salle locally developed skilled labor force.

6 Table 6. Source Countries and Sector of Foreign Firms in Rural Counties of Illinois Two Digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes3 Country Total 20 26 27 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 50 51 76

Germany 12 — — — 1 1 — — 5 1 3 — 1 —

Japan 10 — — — — 1 1 2 3 — 2 — 1 —

United Kingdom 7 3 — — — 1 — — — 1 1 1 — —

France 5 1 — — — — — 1 1 — 2 — — —

Switzerland 5 2 — 1 — — — — — — 1 1 — —

Canada 4 — — 1 — — — — — — 2 — — 1

Ireland 3 — 3 — — — — — — — — — — —

Sweden 3 — — — — — — 1 1 — — 1 — —

Finland 2 2 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Belgium 1 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — —

Denmark 1 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — —

Italy 1 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 —

Netherlands 1 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — —

Sector Totals 55 8 3 2 1 5 1 4 10 2 11 4 3 1

Source: DCCA 1991.

FDI as a Regional Development Strategy in Rural Illinois

FDI does not contribute in a broad way to rural economic seven of them affiliated with foreign firms. A rural adjacent development in Illinois. Only 25 of the 74 rural counties in county such as La Salle, in the shadow of Chicago, reported Illinois had attracted any FDI by the early 1990s. As a that 6 percent of its manufacturing firms were foreign- general rule, foreign firms are more likely to invest in an controlled. While FDI has a low overall impact in rural areas, urban rather than a rural Illinois county. The clustering it can have a profound local effect in some rural counties. pattern makes clear, however, that some counties have The lesson learned is that while rural counties should not benefitted in a profound way from FDI. Rural nonadjacent devote all of their energies to recruiting FDI, it should be an Richland County reported 23 manufacturing firms in 1990, integral part of business recruitment and retention strategies.

3The two-digit SIC codes correspond to the following economic sectors: 20 (food and kindred products), 26 (paper and allied products), 27 (printing and publishing), 30 (rubber and miscellaneous plastics), 32 (stone, clay, and glass products), 33 (primary metal industries), 34 (fabricated metal products), 35 (industrial machinery and equipment), 36 (electronic and electric equipment), 37 (transportation equipment), 50 (wholesale trade–durable goods), 51 (wholesale trade–nondurable goods), 76 (miscellaneous repair services).

7 References

Bloomquist, L. 1988. “Rural Manufacturing Gets Mixed Reviews.” Rural Development Perspectives 4(3): 22-6.

Corporation for Enterprise Development. 1991. The 1991 Development Report Card for the States. Washington, DC: Corporation for Enterprise Development.

Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA). 1991. Directory of Direct Foreign Investment in Illinois. Springfield, IL: Department of Commerce and Community Affairs.

Erickson, R. 1976. “The Filtering-Down Process: Industrial Location in a Non-metropolitan Area.” Professional Geographer 28(3): 254-260.

Glasmeier, A., and N. Glickman. 1990. “Foreign Investment Boosts Rural Economies.” Rural Development Perspectives 6(3): 19-25.

Glasmeier, A., and M. Howland. 1994. From Combines to Computers: Rural Services Development in the Age of Information Technology. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Haren, C. 1970. “Rural Industrial Growth in the 1960’s.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 52(3): 431-37.

Malecki, E. 1991. Technology and Development. New York: Longman Scientific and Technical.

McConnell, J. 1980. “Foreign Direct Investment in the United States.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 70(2): 259-70.

O’hUallachain, B., and N. Reid. 1992. “Source Country Differences in the Spatial Distribution of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States.” Professional Geographer 44(3): 272-85.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1993 (February). Census and You.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1983a. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, 1980. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1983b. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1984 (104th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1994. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States: 1992 Benchmark Survey, Preliminary Results. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1995a. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, An Update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1995b. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1995 (115th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

The Rural Research Report is a series published by the Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs to provide brief updates on research projects conducted by the Institute. Rural Research Reports are peer-reviewed and distributed to public officials, libraries, and professional associations involved with specific policy issues.

Printed on recycled paper

8