Updated September 2018
With the NAFTA talks dragging on endlessly, a look at why freer trade seems to be so important to the corporate world is key to understanding who gains and who loses in a more open environment. Obviously, a regular part of Donald Trump's "raging against the machine" is his views on international trade, particularly how the United States comes out as the losing party in many of the trade deals that form part of the move toward globalization. In actuality, as recent research has shown, there is one clear winner and it might not be particularly surprising when you find out who is the clear winner.
With the NAFTA talks dragging on endlessly, a look at why freer trade seems to be so important to the corporate world is key to understanding who gains and who loses in a more open environment. Obviously, a regular part of Donald Trump's "raging against the machine" is his views on international trade, particularly how the United States comes out as the losing party in many of the trade deals that form part of the move toward globalization. In actuality, as recent research has shown, there is one clear winner and it might not be particularly surprising when you find out who is the clear winner.
A 2017 paper by
Wolfgang Keller and Willian Olney looks at a comprehensive data set that
explains this trend:
As
most of us are aware, compensation for the top one percent of earners in the
United States has risen at far greater rates than compensation for all other
earners, a trend that has led to increasing income inequality. In fact,
the vast majority of the growth in income inequality has been driven by income
gains among the top 1 percent of earners. The authors look at the role of
one key factor that may have caused this earnings growth; the growth in
exports, particularly the growth in exports that is unrelated to decisions made
by company executives and management, that is, globalization.
There
is no doubt that globalization increases access to foreign markets; this
results in an increase in sales as well as a reallocation of market share
from less productive companies to more productive companies. That said,
over the past two and a half decades, there have been other factors at work
that have increased exports, particularly improvements in computing power,
investments in capital goods including automation, improvements in
communication and improvements in transportation, all factors that have relatively little to do with who resides in the upper floor corner offices in Corporate America.
Since
there are actually many other factors that could influence both executive
compensation and exports, it is important to understand whether one trend
creates the other (i.e. are more highly compensated executives more successful
at promoting exports?). As such, the authors looked at data for the
years between 1992 and 2015, looking for a causal relationship between
export growth and executive compensation. For the purposes of the study,
the authors used a dataset which included total compensation information (i.e.
salary, bonuses, non-equity incentives, value from exercised stock options,
deferred compensation etcetera) for 44,000 top executives at 3,500 publicly
traded U.S. companies. The data for the top five executives in each company is included
in the study and all companies must have data for all of the years in the
sample (1992 to 2015). The trade data, both export and import, is taken from the United States Census Bureau with nominal trade flows converted
to real U.S. dollars using the Consumer Price Index. The two data sets
are then merged to create a complete analysis of each firm. As well, the
authors were able to use the data to ascertain insider board relationships, a
variable that may indicate whether an executive at a given firm serves on a
committee that makes executive compensation decisions at their own firm or at
another firm which has an executive serving on the board of their company.
When these data are combined, the dataset included 3,821 executives from
191 firms over 21 years for a total of 19,788 observations.
Now,
let's look at the results. The authors found that four factors had a
positive impact on executive compensation:
1.)
insider board relationships
2.)
firm size
3.)
technology
4.)
trade
The
authors found that exports are just as important in driving executive
compensation as technology, firm size and insider relationships. Even
after controlling for firm characteristics like assets and sales, exports still
have a significant positive impact on executive compensation. In fact,
the authors found that a ten percent increase in exports leads to a two
to three percent pay increase for executives that work in that industry.
In
closing, let's look at a graphic which shows how average executive compensation
for the top five executives and exports levels have risen in lockstep over the
past 25 years:
Here
is a quote from the author's conclusion:
"The
results of this paper suggest that globalization is playing a more central role
in rising top incomes than previously thought. The importance of globalization
in explaining the growth of top incomes is often dismissed using basic
comparisons across countries and occupations. Instead we use a comprehensive
data set and rigorous empirical analysis to show that globalization has played
an important role in the growth of executive compensation.
Identifying
why top incomes are increasing so quickly is an important step forward. However,
we remain cautious about interpreting these findings as a rational to restrict
international trade. Globalization has generated enormous benefits that likely
dwarf the distributional consequences highlighted here. In addition, the rapid
increase in executive compensation, while startling, seems to be at least
partly driven by the increasing difficulty of the job in a global economy.
Instead policy makers concerned about these distributional implications, should
think more carefully about how to ensure that the gains from trade are more
equitably distributed."
At least now
you know who is really benefitting from all of those freer trade deals that
governments around the world, particularly the United States, are so anxious to
make.
Then what is the result of Trump's Fair Trade?
ReplyDelete