Chinese direct investment in the US before the global financial crisis was relatively small. For example, China's total direct investment in the US was only $585 million in 2007. Since many companies in the United States and the European Union faced serious financial difficulties because of the global financial crisis that broke out in 2008, Washington and Brussels started welcoming Chinese direct investment to emerge out of financial trouble.

Many Chinese companies, most of whom were new to the global market, seized the opportunity to enter the US and EU markets and a revolutionary change in China's outward direct investment occurred. China's direct outward investment rose dramatically from $26.5 billion in 2007 to $196.2 billion in 2016, a seven-fold increase, with the direct investment in the US increasing by 89.2 percent in 2008, 47 percent in 2009 and 103 percent in 2010.

But with the economic situation in the West improving of late, some Western media outlets and politicians that once welcomed the Chinese investment are now portraying it as "evil". This change is best exemplified by a Chinese saying: "Kill the donkey after it has done the job."

One of the main accusations against Chinese direct investment in the US is that Chinese enterprises intend to get access to US technologies through joint ventures, minority stakes, and early-stage startup investments. Some have even advised the Chinese enterprises to choose greenfield projects to invest in the US because Americans do not welcome mergers and acquisitions (M&As) by foreign companies, especially Chinese companies.

But according to statistics from ZEPHYR (a database for global M&As) from 1995 through 2015, the US invested at least $501.8 billion in other countries (through M&A activities). The US companies' major M&A target countries included the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Sweden and China, which cumulatively accounted for 56 percent of the total transactions. On the other hand, the total overseas M&As by Chinese companies during the same period were worth just $46.3 billion.

In fact, Chinese companies' M&A activities in the US were worth only $1.2 billion, accounting for 2.6 percent of the total. This means the US was not even an important destination for Chinese M&A investment from 1995 to 2015. The main target countries for Chinese companies' M&As included Brazil, Malaysia, Russia, Canada－together the four countries attracted more than 40 percent of the total Chinese M&A investment.

Moreover, if the motivation of Chinese companies to invest in the US is to gain access to key technologies, what is the motivation of US enterprises to invest in other countries?

The fact is, the US enterprises focus on a particular group of countries to acquire technologies through direct overseas investment (similar to their M&A activities). According to US Bureau of Economic Analysis data, the total R&D activities of the US companies operating in other economies added up to roughly 1 percent of the total US direct overseas investment in 2014.

What is interesting is the allocation of these R&D activities among the host countries. In general, US overseas investment used in several economies, including advanced and emerging economies, basically helps the US companies to conduct R&D activities. By comparing host-specific R&D intensity with the 1 percent average cited above, we find that the US companies carried out more R&D activities for each invested dollar in Israel than in any other country. The intensity of the US' R&D activities in Israel was 19 times the average R&D intensity across all host countries.

This pattern is also seen in several other economies, both developing and developed. For instance, in Germany, the US' R&D activities exceeded the average intensity by about six times and in China by about four times.

And what technologies have US enterprises tried to acquire from direct investment abroad? Let us look at the sector-wise distribution of the US companies' R&D activities abroad. Generally speaking, based on the US Bureau of Economic Analysis data, US enterprises' R&D activities have been mostly concentrated in four industrial sectors－chemicals ($8.5 billion), computers and electronic products ($9.2 billion), transportation equipment ($7.7 billion) and professional, scientific and technical services ($10.5 billion).

To put the sector-wise R&D distribution of US enterprises in different host economies in perspective, those country-specific share structures were compared with the average sector-wise share counterparts of the aggregate US enterprises' R&D activities. The results show the US companies' R&D activities abroad are not different from other countries' companies, as it is a common practice to take advantage of the host country's competitiveness to generate R&D output. For instance, Germany is one of the most important overseas platforms to carry out R&D activities, particularly in manufacturing production, because it enjoys comparative advantage in many manufacturing sectors.

Another example is professional, scientific and technical services. A disproportionate share of R&D activities conducted by US companies abroad in this category is concentrated in India, Israel, China, Japan and the UK because these economies possess either the relevant expertise or abundant human capital to facilitate the process.

We can draw two main conclusions from these facts. First, just like Chinese companies, US companies, too, are seeking technologies from other countries or to put is more correctly, benefiting from the technological spillover effects in the host countries. The geographic distribution of the US' R&D activities overseas is highly correlated with sectoral competitiveness of the host countries, which indicates US companies are benefiting in terms of technologies from such competitiveness (also evident in M&A activities).

Second, despite nationalism being deep-rooted in the US, the Chinese enterprises should enjoy the right to freely operate their businesses and be treated without prejudice within US legal framework. But that does not seem to be case, because in the real world (the West in particular), US companies are often seen as benefactors to the host countries whereas Chinese enterprises are accused of "stealing" technology. It's time the West, especially the US, stopped using such double standards.

Guijun Lin is the chief economist and Jiansuo Pei a research fellow at the Academy of China Open Economy Studies, University of International Business and Economics.