Week 2 [Laamanen, Simula & Torstila, 2012]

Question 1

What data is used in the [Laamanen, Simula & Torstila, 2012] study?
[Laamanen, Simula & Torstila, 2012]

Answer 1

Data on 52 European HQ relocations during 1996-2006 and a control sample of 200 non-relocating HQ

Question 2

What do [Laamanen, Simula & Torstila, 2012] label as “international HQ relocation?”
[Laamanen, Simula & Torstila, 2012]

Answer 2

Legal transfer of a firm’s corporate or regional HQ from one country to another
(‘legal transfer’, there might still be parts left)

Question 3

Which three (3) costs effect the likelihood of a HQ moving?
 [Laamanen, Simula & Torstila, 2012]

Answer 3

(Move to area depending on;)

1. Wage levels (low wages)
2. Taxes (low corporate taxes)
3. Employment rate

Question 4

According to Strauss-Kahn and Vives (2009) results, which firms tend to relocate more often (4)?
[Laamanen, Simula & Torstila, 2012]

Answer 4

1. Larger HQ
2. Younger HQ
3. Foreign firms
4. Firms that are the outcome of a merger

Question 5

To what areas do HQs tent to relocate (5)?

Answer 5

1. Low corporate taxes
2. Low wages
3. Good business services
4. Same-industry specialization, and HQ agglomeration
5. Good air traffic connections

Question 6

What are some pull (2) and push (2) factors that increase the likelihood of HQ relocation (results)?
[Laamanen, Simula & Torstila, 2012]

Answer 6

1+2. Pull = central location and low taxes

3+4. Push = high taxes and high employment rate

Question 7

In terms of ‘catalyzing factors, do regional or corporate HQs move?
[Laamanen, Simula & Torstila, 2012]

Answer 7

Regional HQs have a higher tendency to relocate.

easier to move regional HQ