European Economic Perspectives  

  EEP Home   EuroCOIN™   Discussion Papers   Hot Topics   Viewpoints   Forthcoming   EU Events   Press   CEPR

 

Issue: July 2005

Other Discussion Papers

US External Adjustment Is Easier Than You Think

French ZEP education programme has no effect on results

Culture explains a large amount of the differences in fertility rates across time and countries

Tough asylum polices deter applications in Australia, New Zealand and the UK

Putin's assurances count for nothing: Russian stock market fall caused by Yukos affair

UK company directors who govern pension funds act in the interest of shareholders, not the pension fund

Skilled workers in higher per capita GDP countries are more likely to have pro-immigration views

Other articles

EU Needs Fiscal Watchdog to Replace Stability and Growth Pact

Researcher's Viewpoint

Discussion Paper Highlights

EuroCOIN™ this month

Forthcoming CEPR activities

What's going on in the EU

Study Finds Concerns of Pension Funds Losing Value are Exaggerated

Chief Executive's Column

Discussion Papers

View the latest

EEP Back Issues

2004 April

2003 June

2003 April

Regional and local governments uses subsidises to attract industry headquarters

DP5070 Why and Where do Headquarters Move?

Authors: Vanessa Strauss-Kahn (INSEAD) and Xavier Vives (INSEAD, ICREA-UPF and CEPR)

May 2005

The locations of headquarters tend to be concentrated (the top 20 centres accumulate 75% of the headquarters weighted by sales in the United States) and the rate of movement is statistically significant between 1996 and 2001. There is some evidence that metropolitan areas with a higher number and more diversified headquarters have higher income per capita. When headquarters do move, municipalities and regional governments worry about the possible negative externalities in terms of direct and indirect employment losses and decrease in market thickness. Indeed, this was the case in two notorious examples when the Bank of America moved its headquarters from San Francisco following a merger and when Boeing decided to move from Seattle. Boeing explicitly stated that it wanted to distance management from its traditional manufacturing base and look for a central location that could better accommodate a global and diversified aerospace company.

When Boeing moved its main headquarters from Seattle it induced competition among Chicago, Dallas, and Denver as potential business locations. Chicago offered the most generous package with incentives worth more than $50 million. According to their analysis, the negative aspects of Chicago are: highest wage levels; high taxes (Dallas and Seattle are very low while Denver taxes are slightly higher than Chicago); largest population and therefore congestion costs; less specialized in transport equipment than Denver or Dallas. The positive aspects of Chicago are: highest levels of total headquarters and transport equipment headquarters and higher specialization on finance and business services, except for Denver, which is more specialized in business services. In conclusion, Chicago may have subsidized relevant businesses and services in order to counterbalance the negative aspects of the city and the headquarters' cluster effects may have played a large part in Boeing's relocation decision. The authors believe that regional and local governments subsidize the location of headquarters because of external effects. Their theoretical model estimates that a 10% increase in the number of headquarters from the same industry increases headquarters' production by 2%.



Purchase
Publications

  EEP Home   EuroCOIN™   Discussion Papers   Hot Topics   Viewpoints   Forthcoming   EU Events   Press   CEPR    Up