��� THE EFFECTS OF NATIONALITY AND FIRM-SPECIFIC VARIABLES

ON THE IMPORTANCE OF MANUFACTURING LOCATION ATTRIBUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES

 

 

 

 

������������������ Francis M. Ulgado, Ph.D.

���������������� DuPree College of Management

��������������� Georgia Institute of Technology

���������������� Atlanta, Georgia30332-0520

��������������������� TEL: (404) 894-4360

FAX: (404) 894-6030

E-M: francis.ulgado@scheller.gatech.edu

 

A Crystal Godsey

School of Psychology

Georgia Institute of Technology

Atlanta, Georgia30332

TEL:(404) 385-0013

E-M: cg41@prism.gatech.edu

 

 

 

 

 

Work In Progress Draft

Please do not quote or reproduce without the consent of the authors

 

 

Submitted to the Annual Meeting of the Academy of International Business Annual

March 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


��� THE EFFECTS OF NATIONALITY AND FIRM-SPECIFIC VARIABLES

ON THE IMPORTANCE OF MANUFACTURING LOCATION ATTRIBUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES

 

���� ABSTRACT: This study investigates the effect of nationality of investors, industry affiliation and other firm-specific variables on the location decision of manufacturing investment in the U.S.Based on the survey of 265 firms, the findings indicate that: nationality and industry affiliation tend to significantly influence the importance of location attributes to manufacturing firms, while other firm characteristics affect location attributes to a lesser degree.

 

 

 


��� THE LOCATION OF MANUFACTURING FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT

���� IN THE UNITED STATES: THE EFFECTS OF NATIONALITY AND

������������������� FIRM-SPECIFIC VARIABLES

 

 

I. INTRODUCTION

 

���� Choosing the site for a major production facility is an important decision that impacts not only the firm making the choice, but also the community it selects.Since the 1800s (e.g. von Thunen 1826, Weber 1909), the subject of industrial location has been systematically studied from the perspectives of various disciplines.Economists have developed optimal patterns of location while geographers have analyzed existing spatial patterns (for instance, Hoover 1948; Losch 1954; Greenhut 1963; Isard 1960).In more recent years, operations research scholars and organizational behavioralists have also studied the choice between location alternatives in well-structured situations where the criteria is well-defined (Pred 1969; Cyert and March 1963; Galbraith 1967; Stafford 1972).In addition to these earlier studies, more recent efforts were done by Carlton (1983), Bartik (1985), Papke (1991), and Storper (1995), to name a few.Such research has identified economic, organizational, and behavioral factors that affect and determine the location choice of manufacturing firms.��

���� Meanwhile, Foreign Direct Investment in the United States [FDIUS] has increased dramatically in magnitude and importance over the past decade.This growth has stimulated a myriad of research investigating the characteristics and impact of such a phenomenon.One area that has received considerable focus involves the geographic location of FDIUS within the United States.This paper directly compares foreign and domestic manufacturing investment in the U.S.Specifically, the following exploratory study involves different firm-specific characteristics (including nationality) of manufacturing firms in the U.S., and examines their effect on the importance of geographic location factors.

���� This research investigates the following question by using a survey:

��������� Are the location attributes important to a manufacturing firm affected by nationality, industry affiliation, method of entry, type of plant, and first plant status?

����

���� Five sections follow this introduction of the paper.The next section briefly reviews the relevant literature and section III presents the research hypotheses.Section IV explains the research methodology, while section V discusses the preliminary survey results.The last section provides a concluding discussion.

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

���� While some studies have examined the environmental factors affecting the locational choice of investment in the US without distinguishing between foreign and domestic firms, others have emphasized the distinctions between these two groups.�� Given the background on industrial location and the increased interest in FDIUS in the seventies, a selection of empirical and descriptive literature began to look into the area of foreign investment location in the United States resulting in two primary streams of research.One group of primarily earlier studies involved survey research investigating companies engaged in FDI in the U.S.(Daniels 1971, Arpan and Ricks 1975, Foster 1976, Tong 1979, Mandell and Killian, 1974, and Arpan 1981).Other studies relied more on econometric approaches to foreign investment location, such as Little (1978), McConnell (1980), Glickman et al (1989) and Shaver (1998).The most recent studies tend to indicate that differences exist between foreign and domestic firms when it comes to geographic location patterns and decision-making (Smith and Florida 1994, Lipsey 1994, Ulgado 1996, Shaver 1998, Shannon, Zeile and Johnson 1999).

���� Nevertheless, Previous work that has looked into the location considerations of FDI in this country has narrowly focused on particular time periods, industries, regions, or firms from a specific foreign country. Others are constrained by a limited set of firm-specific variables, while controlling for others.Very few have significantly considered the impact of multiple firm-specific factors on the importance of multiple location attributes. Most studies are also limited in the location factors that they investigated, choosing to center on the influence of a specific location determinant or a small group of them.Furthermore, most studies that do directly compare and distinguish between foreign and domestic manufacturers do not consider the different specific national origins.

���� Similar to previous studies, the following study attempts to examine FDIUS and the possible contrast between domestic and foreign firms. However, unlike past research, our approach includes the effect of varying nationalities on location, while simultaneously considering other primary firm-specific characteristics such as industry affiliation, method of entry, plant type, and number of plants.Using multiple firm-specific characteristics, their relative influence on the importance of location site attributes is determined.

III. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

���� We hypothesize that two main types of influencing factors determine the location choice, FIRM-SPECIFIC VARIABLES and LOCATION-SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES.The firm-specific variables named involved the nature of the manufacturing firm and its industrial and competitive environment.These are characteristics inherent in and unique to the firm making the location decision.Location-specific attributes are found in the various plant location alternatives that are considered by the firm.Both lists of firm-specific and location-specific variables have been derived from previous studies.

���� The location attributes are organized under the main categories of Capital Concerns, Community Environment, Logistics, Land and Transportation Services, Local Labor & Attitudes, Skilled Human Resource Availability, Tax Rates, International Concerns, Incentives (see the Appendix for the list of attributes).The firm-specific variables are further defined and operationalized as follows:

���� Nationality- of the firm as defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce- A firm is considered "foreign" if 10% or more of firm ownership is non-U.S.The country of origin of this foreign ownership determines the "nationality."Otherwise, the firm is domestic and American.In the case of multiple foreign ownership, the principal foreign country is considered.

 

���� Type of Industry Affiliation- refers to the primary type of industry the firm is involved in based on their primary product category as indicated by the first two digits of their corresponding four-digit SIC code.

 

���� Method of Entry- refers to whether the plant was a wholly-owned or a joint venture operation.

 

���� Type of Plant- refers to whether the operation being considered was a new plant (greenfield) case, or an existing plant (merger or acquisition) case.

 

���� First Plant Status- distinguishes between a case where the plant was the first in the United States, and one where the plant was not.

���� �� ��

���� Hypothesis 1 relates to nationality and the importance of location factors while Hypothesis 2 deals with industry of affiliation.Additional firm-specific factors and their impact on location decisions are addressed by Hypothesis 3, 4, 5 and 6.

���� Hypothesis 1 [H1]: The level of importance of location-specific attributes will be significantly different across NATIONALITY of manufacturing investors in the United States.

 

���� Although the same location factors may be important to all manufacturing firms, their level of relative importance would be different for foreign firms compared to domestic companies.For example, Schollhammer (1974) cited differences in the rankings of location factors among U.S. and European MNCs.In a later example, Glickman et al (1989) found that in three particular industries, foreign companies value labor cost, transportation and access to markets higher than U.S. firms.Even more recent, Shaver (1998) indicated that the location patterns of foreign-owned and U.S.-owned establishments differ.

���� Taking this distinction between foreign and domestic firm location behavior, it can be argued that firms of different nationalities weigh location factors differently.Nationality differences stem from varying social, economic and political influences translated into differences in values, attitudes, motivations and preferences behind location choice.Schollhammer (1974), Tong (1979), Chernotsky (1983), to name a few, cited these differences among firms of various national origins.For example, Schollhammer (1974) found these differences among U.S., British, French and German firms, while Ulgado (1996) determined differences across U.S., Japanese and German companies.Our study pays particular attention to American, Japanese, German and other European manufacturing firms in the U.S.

���� Hypothesis 2 [H2]: The level of importance of location-specific attributes will be significantly different across INDUSTRY AFFILIATION of manufacturing investors in the United States.

 

���� Since it generally requires different combinations of production factors to produce different products in various industries, plants in different industries or product categories could consider different plant location factors important. Comparison of various studies that have paid particular attention to specific industries such as textiles in Chernotsky (1983), automobile, semiconductor and computers in Glickman and Woodward (1988), and automotive-related in Smith and Florida (1994) indicate that different industries have different location requirements.Tong (1974) found that different industries weigh the factors of proximity to inputs and suppliers, and the availability of skilled labor differently.

���� Hypothesis 3 [H3]: The level of importance of location-specific attributes will be significantly different across TYPE OF PLANT, whether greenfield or pre-existing (merger or acquisition), of manufacturing investors in the United States.

 

���� In their examination of both U.S. owned and foreign

manufacturing firms, the findings of Shannon, Zeil and

Johnson (1999) indicate that location patterns for

greenfield or newly created plants are different from pre-

existing plants established through a merger or acquisition.

���� Hypothesis 4 [H4]: The level of importance of location-specific attributes will be significantly different across METHOD OF ENTRY, whether wholly-owned or joint venture, of manufacturing investors in the United States.

 

���� For example, Tong (1979) found that the importance of seven location factors varied by the percentage of foreign

ownership and concluded that manufacturing firms with

different degrees of foreign ownership weigh location factors differently.

���� Hypothesis 5 [H5]: The level of importance of location-specific attributes will be significantly different across FIRST PLANT STATUS, whether single/first plant or multiple-plant status, of manufacturing investors in the United States.

 

���� Daniels (1971) and Chernotsky (1983) both considered new plant and existing plant cases in their study of location decision.They found that location factors do play a role in existing plant cases, although a different one from new plant scenarios.Smith (1981) argues that single-plant firms might exhibit different location patterns from multi-plant firms due to the joint optimization of plant locations.

Hypothesis 6 [H6]: The firm-specific variables: number of employees, amount of capital investment, number of operations and age of the firm will be significant predictors of the importance of location factors.

 

���� Various studies have suggested the significance of these factors listed above.For example, Tong (1979) discovered that manufacturing firms of differing employee size consider the importance of location factors differently.In terms of age of the firm and the time of plant establishment, Swamidaas (1990) concluded that overtime, foreign manufacturers in the U.S. tend to become more like their domestic counterparts.

IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

���� In this study, the population was defined as all manufacturing investors in the United States.Manufacturing investors were considered foreign based on criteria used by the U.S. Department of Commerce and utilized in previous studies. The specific manufacturing firm nationality was determined a 91 percent or more firm ownership from that particular national origin. Using stratified proportionate random sampling, the sample size was selected from directories of foreign and domestic manufacturers published by the U.S. Department of Commerce and state development agencies. Using a pre-tested questionnaire, the survey was addressed to a specific top management individual in the firm who was deemed familiar with the information sought.The questionnaire asked for firm-specific information including whether it was a GREENFIELD (new plant construction) or EXISTING PLANT (through merger or acquisition), whether it was a WHOLLY-OWNED or JOINT VENTURE effort, as well as additional firm information such as NATIONALITY, FIRST PLANT STATUS/NUMBER OF U.S. PLANTS, and INDUSTRY. Using a seven-point Likert scale, the respondents were asked to rate the importance of each of 58 location attributes when their firm selected a particular community in which to locate their facility.

���� In total, 265 responses (a 20 percent response rate) were actually used. 77 firms were American, 64 were Japanese firms, 38 were German firms, 86 were firms from other European countries. In terms of industry affiliation (based on 2-digit sic codes), a large part of the respondents (64 percent) came from Chemicals and Allied Products (12 percent), Rubber and Plastics (12 percent) Industrial Machinery (12 percent), Fabricated Metal Products (13 percent) and Electronics (15 percent).

V. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

 

���� This section has two parts: (1) Top Location Factors

 

and (2) Firm-Specific Variables and Location Factors.

 

TOP LOCATION FACTORS

���� A factor analysis was done using principal-axis factoring with varimax rotation.A six-factor solution was chosen based on initial eigenvalues, Catell's scree plot (Catell 1966), and the percent variance explained (factor loadings are shown in Table 1). The six factors are: 1) "Local Business Environment", 2) "Incentives", 3) "Community Environment", 4) "Trade and International Business", 5) "Logistics", and 6) "Market Proximity.

(Table 1 about here)

To test hypotheses 1-5, multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were conducted for each hypothesis.A summary of these results is shown in Table 2 below. Preliminary results and analysis indicate that there is strong support for Hypotheses 1 and 2, implying that nationality and industry affiliation are influential firm-specific factors that significantly affect the importance of location attributes.

(Table 2 about here)

To test hypothesis 6, firm-specific variables were regressed onto each location factor.The results are given in Table 3 below.

(Table 3 about here)

 

Initial results indicate partial support for Hypothesis 6.

 


REFERENCES

 

Arpan, Jeffrey S. 1981. Impact of state incentives on foreign����� investors' site selections. Economic Review, 66: 36-42.

 

Arpan, Jeffrey S. and David A. Ricks. 1975. Directory of Foreign Manufacturers in the United States. Atlanta: Georgia State University Publishing Services Divisions.

 

Bartik, Timothy J. 1985. Business location decisions in the United States: estimates of the effects of unionization, taxes, and other characteristics of ctates. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, January 3(1): 14-22.

 

Carlton, Dennis W. 1983. The location and employment choices of new firms: An econometric model with discrete and continuous endogenous variables. Review of Economics and Statistics, 54: 440-49.

 

Cattell, R. 1966. The Scree test for the number of factors.

Multivariate Behavioral Research, p. 245.

 

Chernotsky, Harry I. 1983. Selecting U.S. sites: A case study of German and Japanese firms. Management International Review, 23: 45-55.

 

Cyert, R. M. and J. G. Marsh. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 

Daniels, John. 1971. Recent foreign direct manufacturing investment in the United States. Journal of International Business Studies. Spring, 125-132.

 

Foster, Tom. 1976. The Friendly invasion. Distribution Worldwide, December 75: 27-43.

 

Galbraith, J. K. 1967. The New Industrial State. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

 

Glickman, Norman J., Amy Glasmeier, Geoffrey J. Bannister, William Luker Jr. 1989. Foreign investment, industrial linkages, and regional development, Working Paper Number 55. Austin: University of Texas at Austin.

 

Glickman, Norman J. and Douglas P. Woodward. 1988. The location of foreign direct investment in the United States: Patterns and determinants. International Regional Science Review, 11(2): 137-154.

 

Greenhut, M. L. 1963. Microeconomics and the Space Economy. Chicago: Scott Foresman.

 

Hoover, E. M. 1948. The Location of Economic Activity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 

Isard, W. 1960. Methods of Regional Analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press.

 

Little, Jane S. 1978. Locational decisions of foreign direct investors in the United States. New England Economic Review, July/August: 43-63.

 

Lipsey, Robert E. 1991. Foreign direct investment in the U.S. and U.S. trade. The Annals of the U.S. Academy of Political and social Science, 516: 76-90.

 

Losch, A. 1954. The Economics of Location (english version). New Haven: Yale University Press.

 

Mandell, S. and C. Killian. 1974. An analysis of foreign investments in selected areas of the United States: A research project on behalf of the New England Regional Commission. Boston: The International Center of New England, Inc.

 

McConnell, J. 1980. Foreign direct investment in the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geogrpahers. 70: 259-270.

 

Papke, Leslie E. 1991. Interstate business tax differentials and new firm location. Journal of Public Economics, 45:47-68.

 

Pred, A. 1969. Behavior and Location: Foundations for a Geographic and Dynamic Location Theory, Part II. Lund Studies in Geography, Series B, 28.

 

Schollhammer, Hans. 1974. Locational Strategies of Multinational Firms. Los Angeles: Pepperdine University.

 

Shannon, Dale P., William J. Zeille, and Kenneth P. Johnson. 1999. Regional patterns in the location of foreign-owned U.S. manufacturing firms. U.S. Department of Commerce Survey of Current Business. May.

 

Shaver, J. Miles. 1998. Do foreign-owned and U.S.-owned establishments exhibit the same location pattern in U.S> manufacturing industries? Journal of International Business Studies, 29(3): 469-492.

 

Smith, Donald F. and Richard Florida. 1994. Agglomeration and industrial location: An econometric analysis of Japanese-affiliated manufacturing establishment in automotive-related industries. Journal of Urban Economics, 36:23-41.

 

Stafford, H. 1972. The geography of manufacturing. Progress in Geography, 4: 183-215.

 

Storper, Michael. 1995. Regional technology coalitions: An essential dimension of national technology policy. Research Policy, 24(6): 895-911.

 

Swamidaas, Paul M. 1990. A comparison of the plant location strategies of foreign and domestic manufacturers in the U.S. Journal of International Business Studies, 21(2): 301-317.

 

Thunen, J. H. von. 1826. The Isolated State (english version), Oxford: Pergamon Press.

 

Tong, Hsin-Min. 1979. Plant Location Decisions of Foreign Manufacturers. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International Press.

 

Ulgado, Francis M. 1996. Location characteristics of manufacturing investments in the U.S.: A comparison of American and foreign-based firms. Management International Review, 36(1): 7-26.

 

Weber, A. 1909. Theory of the Location of Industries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 


Table 1.

Rotated Factor Matrix

 

Factor

Attribute

1

2

3

4

5

6

Local Business Environment

ATTI

.799

 

 

 

 

 

PRTY

.735

 

 

 

 

 

LAWS

.723

 

 

 

 

 

TURN

.707

 

 

 

 

 

SALA

.686

 

 

 

 

 

UTIC

.662

 

 

 

 

 

UTIL

.650

 

 

 

 

 

CLTZ

.634

 

.386

 

 

 

GOVT

.635

 

 

 

 

 

TXST

.579

.362

 

 

 

-.328

TXLO

.566

.364

 

 

 

-.315

INSU

.517

 

 

 

 

 

UNIO

.504

 

 

 

 

 

SPAC

.460

 

.305

 

 

 

UNSK

.447

 

 

 

 

 

LSKL

.372

 

 

 

 

 

Incentives

ILFI

 

.830

 

 

 

 

ISFI

 

.821

 

 

 

 

ILTX

 

.817

 

 

 

 

ISTX

 

.799

 

 

 

 

IASS

 

.621

 

 

 

 

ILND

 

.587

 

 

 

 

ISUT

 

.550

.324

 

 

 

ISEL

 

.519

 

 

 

 

IFTR

 

.516

 

 

 

 

ITRR

 

.488

 

 

 

 

IINF

 

.484

 

 

 

 

CSTK

 

.442

 

 

 

 

AVAK

 

.433

 

 

 

 

Community Environment

CHIL

 

 

.839

 

 

 

HOUS

 

 

.782

 

 

 

EDUC

 

 

.765

 

 

 

WIVE

 

 

.765

 

 

 

POLF

 

 

.668

 

 

 

CRIM

.376

 

.648

 

 

 

EXPA

 

 

.631

 

 

 

HOTE

 

 

.564

 

 

 

SIZE

 

 

.510

 

 

 

CLIM

 

 

.489

 

 

 


Table 1. (continued)

Rotated Factor Matrix

 

Trade & International Business

NEXP

 

 

 

.717

 

 

NHDQ

 

 

 

.678

 

 

N3RD

 

 

 

.645

 

 

NNET

 

 

 

.598

 

 

TRDE

 

 

 

.482

.463

 

NPRT

 

 

 

.447

 

 

NPOP

 

 

 

.425

 

 

NIND

 

 

 

.411

 

 

LMGT

 

 

 

.293

 

 

Logistics

TRAC

.359

 

 

 

.568

 

NSPL

 

 

 

 

.566

 

NNPT

 

 

 

 

.547

.382

TSVC

.374

 

 

 

.527

 

SEAP

 

 

 

 

.436

 

Market Proximity

NBYR

 

 

 

 

 

.613

NCNS

 

 

 

 

 

.473

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization

 


Table 2.

Results of MANOVA�s Indicating Between � Subjects Effects for Non-metric Firm-Specific Variables

 

 

Firm-Specific Variables

Omnibus

Test

Wilks� l

Factor 1:

Local Business Environment

Factor 2:

Incentives

Factor 3: Community Environment

Factor 4:

Trade

Factor 5:

Logistics

Factor 6:

Market Proximity

Nationality

4.09 (.000)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.73

(.144)

5.74 (.000)

7.82

(.000)

2.91 (.022)

4.66 (.001)

1.96 (.100)

Industry

3.32 (.000)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.873

(.481)

1.28 (.282)

2.63

(.036)

5.12 (.001)

5.05 (.001)

4.87 (.001)

Type of Plant

1.81 (.097)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.020

(.888)

7.49 (.007)

1.57

(.193)

1.28 (.258)

.270 (.603)

.002 (.967)

Method of Entry

2.32 (.033)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.61

(.033)

5.13 (.024)

.011

(.917)

.990 (.321)

2.42 (.121)

.303 (.582)

First Plant Status

8.01 (.000)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.99

(.015)

.001 (.981)

1.85

(.175)

1.39 (.239)

34.40 (.000)

1.734 (.189)

Notes: Bold indicates significance at p < .05.

Results reported are F statistics with significance indicated in ( ).

 


Table 3.

Firm-Specific Variables Regressed onto Location Factors

 

 

 

Significance of Beta: t(sig.)

Dependent Variables

R Square

Number of Employees

Capital Investment

Number of Operations

Time

Location

Factor 1

.049

.595 (.552)

1.16 (.246)

2.53 (.012)

-.197 (.844)

Location

Factor 2

.018

1.42 (.157)

.284 (.777)

-.952 (.342)

.954 (.341)

Location

Factor 3

.067

3.26 (.001)

-.605 (.545)

-2.74 (.007)

1.07 (.285)

Location

Factor 4

.010

.478 (.633)

-.452 (.651)

-1.44 (.151)

.201 (.841)

Location

Factor 5

.111

-1.27 (.204)

2.29 (.023)

-5.33 (.000)

-1.56 (.120)

Location

Factor 6

.013

-1.38 (.169)

.849 (.396)

.892 (.373)

.950 (.343)

Notes: Bold indicates significance at p < .05.

 


�������������������������� APPENDIX

���������������� LOCATION-SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES*

CAPITAL CONCERNS:

����� 1.������ Cost of local capital

����� 2.������ Availability of local capital

COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT:

����� 3.������ Size of community

����� 4.������ Education facilities

����� 5.������ Housing Facilities

����� 6.������ Police and fire protection

����� 7.������ Climate

����� 8.������ Suitability to expatriates and families

����� 9.������ Facilities for children

����� 10.���� Social environment for wives

����� 11.���� Hotel accommodations

����� 12.���� Crime level

LAND & TRANSPORTATION SERVICES:

����� 13.���� Availability of suitable plant sites

����� 14.���� Cost of suitable land

����� 15.���� Space for expansion

����� 16.���� Construction costs

����� 17.���� Availability of transportation services

����� 18.���� Transportation costs

����� 19.���� Availability of seaports

INPUT LOGISTICS:

����� 20.���� proximity to suppliers

����� 21.���� proximity to raw material sources

MARKET LOGISTICS:

����� 22.���� To buyers

����� 23.���� To end-consumers

SYNERGY LOGISTICS:

����� 24.���� To other company-owned plants

����� 25.���� To partner-owned plants

����� 26.���� To other plants of same country

����� 27.���� To other MNCs

LOCAL LABOR & ATTITUDES:

����� 28.���� Level of Unionization

����� 29.���� Labor turnover rate

����� 30.���� Attitudes of government officials

����� 31.���� attitudes of local citizens

����� 32.���� Labor laws

����� 33.���� Labor attitudes

����� 34.���� Salary and wages

����� 35.���� Availability of unskilled labor

����� 36.���� Unemployment insurance rates

����� 37. ��� Labor productivity

����� 38.���� Availability of Utilities

����� 39. ��� Cost of utilities

SKILLED HUMAN RESOURCE AVAILABILITY:

����� 40.���� Availability of managerial & technical personnel

����� 41.���� Availability of skilled labor

TAX RATES:

����� 42.���� Local tax rates

����� 43.���� State tax rates

INTERNATIONAL CONCERNS:

����� 44.���� Trade facilities

����� 45.���� Proximity to operations in a "third country"

����� 46.���� Proximity to home operations

����� 47.���� Proximity to export markets outside the U.S.

INCENTIVES:

����� 48.���� State financial assistance

����� 49.���� Local financial assistance

����� 50.���� State tax breaks

����� 51.���� Local tax breaks

����� 52.���� Business assistance

����� 53.���� Employee training

����� 54.���� Construction infrastructure

����� 55.���� Trade or enterprise zones

����� 56.���� Site improvements

����� 57.���� Site selection assistance

����� 58.���� Land grants

 

*Grouped based on the factor analysis