Outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries has been a major theme of the Kerry/Edwards campaign. During his debate with Vice President Cheney, Senator Edwards repeated the standard Democrat line: “The administration says over and over that the outsourcing of millions of American jobs is good. We’re against it.” A search of Senator Kerry’s campaign Web site turned up 176 separate statements on the evils of outsourcing.

What you won’t find on the Kerry Web site are any references to serious studies of outsourcing. The reason is that they all find the issue to be seriously overblown, responsible for a trivial amount of job losses at most, and generally a positive thing for the American economy. These include studies by former Democratic administration officials.

In July, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, economist Martin N. Baily, looked at who benefits from outsourcing. He found that for every $1 spent by an American corporation on outsourcing to India, only 33 cents stayed in India. The other 67 cents came back to America in the form of cost savings, new exports, and repatriated profits. However, productivity gains add another 45 cents to 47 cents of value to the American economy. Thus, on balance, the American economy gains $1.12 to $1.14 for every $1 invested in outsourcing.

In August, economist Charles Schultze, chairman of the CEA under President Carter, looked at the number of jobs lost to outsourcing. He found that between the end of 2000 and the end of 2003, 215,000 service-sector jobs were lost at most. This is a minuscule amount in a working population of close to 150 million. Moreover, Mr. Schultze says, the productivity gains produced by outsourcing raised real incomes and living standards in America. He concluded that outsourcing cannot be blamed for the “jobless recovery.”

Also in August, the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California looked at the costs and benefits of restricting outsourcing. It found that the cost of restricting outsourcing would greatly exceed any gains. Policies targeted toward those affected by outsourcing are far preferable to a ban on outsourcing. For this reason, Governor Schwarzenegger of California recently vetoed several bills that would have restricted outsourcing in that state.

In September, two International Monetary Fund economists, Mary Amiti and Shang-Jin Wei, did the most thorough study of outsourcing to date for the prestigious National Bureau of Economic Research. These are their findings:

American imports of computing services – the most controversial area of outsourcing – came to just four-tenths of 1% of the gross domestic product in 2003. Communist China and India, the two countries most blamed for outsourcing, actually outsourced more than we do – sixtenths of 1% of GDP for the former and 2.4% of GDP for the latter.

Contrary to popular belief, America is a large recipient of outsourcing from other countries – i.e., insourcing. In 2002, America was the world’s largest exporter of computer services, which added almost $60 billion to our exports. By contrast, India’s total exports in this area came to less than $20 billion and Red China’s were just over $10 billion.

In 2002, America ran a healthy trade surplus in the area of outsourcing – receiving $22 billion more in outsourcing from other countries than it paid in outsourcing to other countries.

The number of jobs gained from outsourcing approximately equal the number of jobs lost.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City did the most recent study of outsourcing. It concluded that outsourcing has no permanent employment effects, although there can be temporary displacements.

Finally, press reports indicate that the outsourcing boom may have already peaked. A September 22 report in the Wall Street Journal said that Red Chinese workers are now demanding better pay and more time off, which has sharply raised the number of labor disputes. This is quickly eroding the cost advantage of outsourcing to Red China.

An October 7 report in the Financial Times says that General Electric, which pioneered outsourcing to India, has decided to sell its international outsourcing business. It found that the savings from outsourcing were mostly one-time gains that tended to dissipate over time. One reason is high employee turnover. Call centers operated by G.E. in India lost 40% to 50% of their workers every year.

Perhaps for these reasons, in his debate with President Bush on October 8, Mr. Kerry backed away from some of the more extreme statements he and Mr. Edwards have previously made about outsourcing. Said Mr. Kerry, “You can’t stop all outsourcing….You can’t.” He added that anyone who says he will stop outsourcing “would be pandering.”

Mr. Kerry is right. I hope Mr. Edwards and other Democrats were listening.

Mr. Bartlett is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.