Log in

View Full Version : Multi/Trans-National Corporations



bricolage
11th August 2010, 16:57
Since the rise of globalisation rhetoric and theory there's been a lot of emphasis on multi or trans national corporations. People often like to cite examples such as Microsoft or someone else being the nth largest economy in the world as examples of a shift in the way the global economy is run. It's also said that such corporations now exist on a plane beyond that of the traditional state sytem, hollowing out the power of the state and creating a qualitatively new world economy. Multinationals themselves are not new and can be traced back prior to the mass colonical experiments what is said to be new is that they no longer have a national 'home' so to speak. Hirst and Thompson in their book Globalisation: A Necessary Myth have to this day I believe produced the strongest refutation of this theory arguing the idea of a globalised economy is largely one of myth. Much of their approach stands up today (eg. FDI and other financial flows remain largely concentrated amongst a North America-Europe-Japan Triad) yet their views on multinational corporations have always been those which I am least sure about. They argue that they are multinational, not transnational, and remain bedded to a national metropole where profits seep back to.

Wikipedia has an interesting last point on its multinational corporations page but one that is both unfinished and unreferenced;

The Economist ranks the largest transnational corporations by the dollar amount of assets they hold outside of the country that they are incorporated in. IN 2010 they were:

General Electric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric)

I think this could be a good start in ascertaining the extent to which multinationals exist beyond the state system but it quite obviously gives no answers.

In essence my question here is probably quite obvious. To what extent do people believe multinational corporations are truly multi, or trans, national, to what extent do they exist beyond the logic of the state and what evidence/methodological approach is best for analysing this and coming to conclusions?

bricolage
15th August 2010, 23:44
bump

bricolage
25th August 2010, 21:19
bump bump bump

Jazzhands
25th August 2010, 21:29
this isn't 4chan. you don't have to bump if someone doesn't notice you right away. besides, it's annoying.

To answer your question, the state can only exist in the boundaries of a single country whereas corporations can step over these boundaries. Through campaign finance contributions and other means, corporations, like any company, can bribe elected officials in their home country. I seem to remember there being laws in place to prevent corporations bribing politicians from other countries, although these people will get away with anything they can. They would most likely want to bribe politicians for trade agreements that will allow jobs to be shipped out of the country for cheaper sources of labor. China's recieving of so much foreign investment when they opened up was a result of this. On the other hand, when the USSR opened up to the capitalist world, this did not happen because George H.W. Bush (or Reagan, I can't remember) did not want to give them the chance to recover.

A transnational corporation is free of having to sign treaties and negotiations with foreign officials in order to get what they want in the way that the state has to. They do have a legal process to go through, but that's comparatively easy. Corporations exist almost completely independently of the state but they can entangle themselves however much they need to if the CEO so desires.

bricolage
26th August 2010, 12:09
this isn't 4chan. you don't have to bump if someone doesn't notice you right away. besides, it's annoying.
Well I originally posted it two weeks ago and let it slip for a long time each time. It was just something I was hoping to get a discussion on, this is learning ay?

Anyway thanks for your answer.