See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280133867

Globalization and Multinational Corporations

Research · July 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 4,133

1 author:

Jeffrey A Hart
Indiana University Bloomington
164 PUBLICATIONS   818 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cyberpolitics: Essays on the History and Politics of the Internet View project

The Politics of HDTV and Digital Television View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jeffrey A Hart on 19 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

by

Jeffrey A. Hart

First Draft

July 19, 2015

Introduction

The term “globalization” began to appear frequently in scholarly works on international political

economy (IPE) in the 1990s. One way to define globalization is in terms of an increase in international

interconnectedness, or interdependence, but its distinctiveness from interdependence derives primarily

from the increased role of multinational corporations (MNCs) 1 in the contemporary world economy.

Some authors stress the cultural side of globalization, arguing that globalization results in a

homogenization of global culture (see, for example, Appadurai 1996; Hopper 2007). They observe that

all urban centers feature the same boutiques selling products with the same logos, everyone watches

the same movies and the same TV programs, and everyone eats at the same restaurants and drinks the

same beverages. In this sense, the logos and branding efforts of MNCs are symbols of globalization.

Opponents of this viewpoint stress the continuing cultural differences within and across nations. Some

even argue that globalization enhances both convergence and divergence of cultures. Joseph Nye

(2004) has highlighted the possibility that cultural globalization, to the extent that it is dominated by

U.S. firms, is a form of “soft power.” But most of the politics of globalization focuses not on culture but

on its economic aspects and the role of MNCs in globalization.

1
Multinational corporations are also referred to as multinational enterprises (MNEs), transnational corporations
(TNCs), and transnational enterprises (TNEs).
1
 A multinational corporation is “an enterprise that engages in foreign direct investment (FDI) and

that owns or controls value-added activities in more than one country.” (Dunning 1992, p. 3) The MNCs

of the post WW2 period are different from those of earlier periods in being more focused on

manufacturing and services than on extraction of raw materials and commodities (Dicken 2015) and

more likely to be financed by a combination of foreign direct investment (FDI) and local capital rather

than international portfolio investments (Gilpin 1975). In addition, contemporary MNCs are the

predominant owners of proprietary technology. MNCs account for at least 50 percent of R&D spending

worldwide (Keller 2009; Zeile 2014). In the United States and elsewhere, most patents are awarded to

MNCs (Florida 2005; OECD 2008). In the last two decades of the twentieth century, competing MNCs

from a growing number of economies have created geographically dispersed “value chains” to take

advantage of lower R&D, production, and distribution costs made possible by lower barriers to trade

and investment flows (Borrus and Zysman 1997; Ernst and Kim 2002; Gereffi 1996; Gereffi et al 2005;

Sturgeon 2002; Sturgeon 2007; Sturgeon and Gereffi 2009).

I will concentrate here on research about the relationship between economic globalization and

multinational corporations. Economic globalization is the increasing integration of input, factor, and

final product markets coupled with the increasing salience of MNCs in the world economy and their

creation of cross-national value-chain networks (Hart and Prakash 1999). MNCs are both beneficiaries

and agents of globalization. MNC globalizing strategies would not be possible without a certain amount

of globalization; globalization increases as MNCs exercise their options to pursue these strategies. The

process of globalization is not complete and probably never will be so much of the scholarship on

globalization deals with whether there is more or less of it in a given period and what the constraints are

on increases in globalization.

The Expansion of MNC Activity

trillion in 1990. Global flows of inward and outward FDI were around $1.5 trillion in 2014, up from

around $400 billion in 1995 (UNCTAD 2015). 2 There has been substantial fluctuation in flows over the

past few decades but the general trend is up. While most outflows originate in the industrialized

nations, recently outflows from developing countries have grown more rapidly, especially from China.

The United States is still the largest source of outflows and it has the largest stock of both outflows and

inflows. Inflows are going increasingly to the developing world: 55 percent in 2014 (see Figure 1 below).

A small number of developing countries are responsible for a large proportion of the developing world’s

inflows and outflows: China is currently the largest recipient of inflows, followed by Hong Kong,

Singapore, Brazil, India, Chile, Mexico, and Indonesia (UNCTAD 2015, p. 5).

2
Stocks are a measure of cumulative flows over time. They represent the value of the MNCs’ share of fixed
investment. Whereas flows can fluctuate dramatically, stocks are somewhat more stable because they reflect the
underlying value of accumulated investments.
3
 Underlying Causes of Globalization

As to the underlying causes of globalization, some scholars emphasize the role of international

institutions, such as the World Trade Organization or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development, in setting the rules for the world economy (Simmons et al 2008). Others focus on the role

of changes in transportation and communications technologies that make it less costly to manage far

flung economic activities (Keohane and Milner 1996; Friedman 2007). Still others argue that the

preferences of key national actors, particularly the United States, are central to explaining the recent

trend toward globalization (Spero and Hart 2009). It is quite likely that all three of these factors have

played a role in recent decades. As the process of globalization continues, however, the growing

international presence of MNCs from countries other than the United States means that explanations

based solely on the preferences of the U.S. government are becoming less and less useful.

Also, it has been difficult until recently to establish a specific international regime for

investment. The international trade regime bears some of the burden of establishing rules for

investment and there are a variety of forums for the resolution of disputes over investment. There has

been rapid growth in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) (Elkins et al 2006). Nevertheless, international

investment remains more dependent on national legal systems and self-enforcement than on

international regimes.

Advances in computing and telecommunications technologies have contributed greatly to the

ability of MNCs to manage themselves and to take advantage of having operations in different countries

and in different time zones. An example of this is the widespread use of call centers in India by firms

based in the rest of the world. Thomas Friedman (2007) provides a number of other examples in his

various books on globalization.

4
 Gravity Models and Constraints on Globalization

The main obstacle to globalization is distance. Generally the costs of managing far flung

economic activities go up as distance increases. Distance is measured not just in terms of geography,

but also in terms of culture (language, ethnicity, religion, etc.). “Gravity models” are used to measure

the impact of these various forms of distance (Feenstra 2004; Fratianni et al 2011). They start from the

assumption that bilateral trade and investment flows depend primarily on the size of the markets of the

two countries involved and the distance between them. Geographic distance is a major factor in those

analyses, but so are linguistic and other cultural differences. For example, pairs of countries in which a

majority of the population speaks the same language are considerably more likely to engage in trade

and foreign direct investment. U.S. firms are more likely to invest in Britain or Ireland than in France or

Germany; Chinese firms are more likely to invest in countries with Chinese speaking populations (Oh et

al 2013; Selmier and Oh 2013). Shared religion plays an important role in enhancing trade and

investment flows among countries (Hergueux 2011).

Domestic politics constitute another form of constraint. In general, countries with democratic

regimes are more likely to trade with and invest in other countries with democratic regimes. This is

partly a function of the fact that democracies are more likely to exist in high income countries than in

low income countries. But it is also a function of a common set of institutions that are shared by

democratic systems, such as the rule of law and an independent judiciary (Bénassy-Quéré et al 2005).

Certain countries seem disinclined to encourage FDI of any sort. The Soviet Union was generally

hostile to FDI. Contemporary Japan is often singled out as a country that is hostile toward inward FDI

but not outward FDI. After the 1978 reforms and until fairly recently, China was considered to be hostile

to outward FDI but relatively accepting of inward FDI. Until recently, India did not encourage inward

FDI. Countries with authoritarian regimes tended to trade with and invest in other countries with similar

5
regimes. This was especially true during the Cold War but that pattern has continued after the breakup

of the Soviet Union.

Since the end of the Cold War, a major split has developed between the Islamic countries and

the West over a variety of conflicts which has a major cultural dimension. Orthodox Muslims are

particularly concerned about the erosion of morality that accompanies the growing presence of MNCs.

They see the culture of the West as represented in MNC merchandising to be contrary to the moral and

religious principles that they would like to see preserved in the Muslim World. They also see MNCs as

agents of Western imperialism. As a result, they are much more willing than other groups to forego

the benefits of FDI inflows (Friedman 1999).

Economic nationalists within all countries tend to oppose both outflows and inflows of FDI.

Public opinion survey research has focused on how attitudes toward trade and investment by variables

at the individual or group levels. One of the key determinants is how an individual is connected to the

national and global economies: in particular, whether or not the individual depends on goods and

services that are traded internationally. Individuals in “non-traded” goods and services industries tend

to be accepting or indifferent to increases in international trade and investment flows. Individuals in

traded sectors are accepting only if their sector is internationally competitive. If they perceive trade or

investment to be threatening to domestic employment they will oppose it (Scheve and Slaughter 1998).

In addition, support for globalization on the part of members of trade unions in the

industrialized countries tends to be declining globally because of downward pressure on wages caused

by a combination of the introduction of new production technologies and the difficulty of competing

with low-wage labor in the developing countries (Pew Research Center 2014). The managers of MNCs,

in contrast, tend to favor further liberalization of world trade and investment flows. Although they have

some stake and preserving the advantages that accrue to them from having learned about and adapted

6
to the laws and practices of a wide variety of countries, still they tend to favor liberalization because it

makes it easier for them to enter new markets.

These differences in attitudes within countries play an important role in international

negotiations over trade and investment regimes. The current debate in the United States over the Trans

Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a good example of this. U.S. trade unions are strongly opposed to the TPP

because they see it as a threat to employment. Legislators who represent districts or states where

unions are politically powerful tend to oppose the TPP. Senator Harry Reid, for example, is a strong

opponent of TPP (O’Keefe 2015). When President Obama wanted recently to visit a place where

support for the TPP was strong, he picked the world headquarters of Nike Corporation in Beaverton,

Oregon.

Two Types of FDI: Horizontal and Vertical

A central puzzle economists pose is why multinational firms choose to establish an overseas

presence rather than simply export goods and services. The two main answers are (1) to gain access to

potentially large markets that would otherwise be closed – called horizontal foreign direct investment

(HFDI) – and (2) to gain access to low-cost local inputs as part of a strategy of global competitiveness—

called vertical foreign direct investment (VFDI) (see also Cuervo-Cazurra et al 2015 for other possible

motives). In general, HFDI typifies relationships between pairs of developed economies and VFDI

typifies relationships between pairs of countries where one is developed and the other is developing

(Navaretti and Venables 2006).

MNCs sometimes set up “greenfield” operations abroad rather than simply merging with or

acquiring a local firm. Mergers and acquisitions used to account for the dominant share of FDI flows,

especially to high income countries. But greenfield investments are growing in importance because of

7
the shift toward investing in developing countries. Most host countries prefer greenfield investments

over mergers and acquisitions.

With regard to VFDI, the central question is how a firm will divide its production processes

across different locations with different factor prices in the presence of “trade costs” and “disintegration

costs.” VFDI flows between two countries will not occur unless factor endowments are sufficiently

different. However, factor price equalization will occur over time, partly as a result of VFDI flows, and so

VFDI may eventually be replaced by HFDI.

Why are the international operations of firms sometimes organized internally, in wholly owned

subsidiaries and sometimes externally, under arms-length contracts with independent local producers?

The main reason given for internalization is market failure connected with arms-length contracts.

According to Navaretti and Venables (2006), there are three types of market failures: the hold up

problem, the dissipation of intangible assets, and principal-agent relationships between multinationals

8
and local firms. The hold up problem occurs when a local firm has to make investments that are specific

to the contracting relationship. The potential losses caused by an altered relationship result in

underinvestment. The dissipation of intangible assets occurs when a foreign firm cannot avoid losing

control over valued assets because it has a contractual relationship with a local firm. The principal-

agent problem occurs because of hidden actions or hidden information about local market conditions.

The local firm may have an interest in concealing local market information from the foreign firm.

The more recent literature on global value chains argues that many MNCs have opted for

replacing or supplementing the establishment of overseas subsidiaries with contractual relationships

with local or regional firms. These MNCs have adopted modularization strategies as part of a broader

global competitiveness effort where components manufacturing and assembly may be done in low-

wage or low-cost locations. This necessarily involves a major effort to implement global standards for

technology and interfaces. Because of lower coordination and transportation costs, the final products

can be marketed anywhere in the world with sufficient guarantees of quality to make them globally

competitive (Sturgeon and Gereffi 2009). So, for example, Korean flat panel display firms contract with

Japanese and U.S. glass firms to supply them with specialized glass for displays (Murtha et al 2002), and

Taiwanese assembly firms like Foxconn help Apple to assemble iPods in Taiwan (Linden et al 2009) and

iPhones in China.

The OLI Model (also called The Eclectic Model)

Many scholars employ an eclectic model pioneered by John Dunning and his collaborators to

explain the behavior of MNCs: the so-called OLI model. OLI stands for ownership, location, and

internalization. According to this model, an MNC must have market power that derives from ownership

of some specialized knowledge. It must consider the particular foreign location advantageous for new

investments relative to alternative locations including the home market. Finally, it must prefer to
9
operate overseas facilities that it controls rather than simply contracting with local firms. Again the

focus is on the importance of market imperfections and transaction costs in creating incentives for

overseas activities of MNCs (Dunning 1992).

The OLI model has its defenders and detractors. A volume edited by Cantwell and Narula (2004)

emphasizes the need to simplify and operationalize key variables.

Globalization vs. Regionalization

Some scholars argue that what we have witnessed so far is not globalization per se, but rather

regionalization of the world economy. Alan Rugman and his collaborators have argued this forcefully in

a number of empirical studies (Rugman 2001a; Rugman 2001b; Rugman and Girod 2003; Rugman and

Oh 2008). Rugman believes that the difficulties of coordinating activities across large distances

combined with the generally long-term nature of FDI means that fully global strategies are too costly

and too risky for most multinational corporations. Most MNCs choose to focus on regional strategies

instead.

One of the reasons that the analysis of trade and FDI data seems to bear out Rugman’s

argument is the efforts of certain regions, most notably the European Union but also North America and

Latin America, to integrate their economies through free trade areas and common markets. Inter-

regional trade and investment flows are considerably higher as a result than extra-regional trade and

investment flows (Akhter and Beno 2003).

Also, some regions have fewer constraints to integration. There may have been substantial

efforts to improve regional transportation and communication infrastructures and to take advantage of

regional culture commonalities to encourage trade and investment flows. An additional impetus has

been to promote regional integration as a way of lessening dependence on extra-regional economies. In

the case of Western Europe, the challenge of competing with the United States played an important role
10
in convincing the citizenry to support regional integration efforts. In Eastern Europe, affiliation with the

European Union serves as a signal to foreign investors that FDI is welcome in an affiliated country

(Akhter and Beno 2011; Bevan and Estrin 2004).

With the recent rise of the Chinese economy and the earlier growth in Japan and Southeast Asia,

there have been significant changes in Asia-based regional integration efforts. All the factors that have

influenced regionalization in North America, Western Europe, and Latin America are starting to

influence regionalization in Asia. Besides the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Association of South

East Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the somewhat weaker South Asian Association for Regional

Cooperation (SAARC), China has recently led the way to forming an Asian Infrastructure Investment

Bank (AIIB) (Rimmer 2014, chapter 9).

The Continuing Role of the Governments of Nation-States

Some students of globalization argue that the governments of nation-states have become

increasingly irrelevant at globalization proceeds (Strange 1996). The main decision making power about

the allocation of economic resources, they argue, is increasingly in the hands of MNCs who have many

locational options and are not necessarily loyal to any particularly country, including the “home

country.” In the absence of credible global intergovernmental governance, MNCs become the main

governors of the world economy.

Others argue that the governments of nation-states still ultimately control to direction of

globalization: what has been globalized can be reversed in their view, especially during times of conflict

(Pauly and Reich 1997; Doremus et al 1998). They cite examples of historical periods in which this has

occurred, but also more recent examples of reversals of trade and investment flows. The great

reduction of investment flows during and after World War I is the main historical example (Wolf 2004,

chapter 8), while the major shifts in bilateral economic relationships between, for example, the United
11
States and Venezuela or between Russia and the Ukraine are more recent examples. War and other

forms of militarized conflict are strongly and negatively related to FDI flows (Bussman 2010).

Even in the absence of conflict, however, national governments still possess many policy

instruments that can affect the level and quality of MNC activity. The most obvious is the power to

assess and collect taxes; but there are many other sources of leverage. For example, some countries

favor domestic firms by granting them subsidies and other forms of preferential treatment. Some

nurture “national champion” firms in high technology industries (Hart 2001). Some countries offer

technical and scientific assistance to domestic firms that is not available to foreign firms. Some

governments attempt to control MNCs by limiting access to their domestic markets through licensing

requirements or other entry barriers. They may require that firms establish joint ventures instead of

wholly owned subsidiaries. Still others impose export requirements.

Finally, governments of nation-states continue to play a dominant role in international

intergovernmental institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Organization

of Economic Cooperation and Development, and the international economic summits of the Group of 8

(G8) and the Group of 20 (G20). While MNCs increasingly have a seat at the table in what used to be

exclusively intergovernmental forums (see Levy and Prakash 2003), they still cannot match the

capabilities of the governments of large and powerful nation-states in global governance.

The Consequences of MNC-Led Globalization

Who benefits and who loses when globalization increases, especially through the global spread

of MNC activities? There are clearly many benefits from globalization (see, for example, Bhagwati

2007). Consumers have access to many products and services at lower prices than they would

otherwise have. Producers and consumers may have better access to capital, technology, marketing

experience, and managerial expertise. The managers and employees of internationally competitive
12
MNCs benefit as do their shareholders and other investors. The dispersion of economic activity globally

creates job opportunities for many citizens of those host countries that have received inflows of FDI and

are successful in producing products that can be sold globally. Ideally, the presence of MNCs should

increase the level of competition in local markets (unless MNCs have used mergers or acquisitions

merely to reduce competition).

Critics of MNCs argue that they often engage in anti-competitive practices, that they do not

employ or transfer the latest technologies, that they do not adequately train local workers and

managers, that they tend to import crucial components instead of sourcing them locally (thus increasing

trade deficits), that they fail to recognize the rights of workers and exclude union members from their

facilities, that they engage in environmentally unsustainable practices, etc. (see, for example, Rodrik

2011). The most common criticism of MNCs deals with the loss of control. Even though subsidiaries of

MNCs are subject to local laws and regulations, the critics argue that local authorities are unable to

counter MNC lobbying for special treatment and that MNCs unlike local firms can credibly threaten to

move to a new location if they do not get what they want. When MNCs finance their overseas

operations entirely on local capital markets and fail to use any FDI funds to invest in a new facility, critics

argue that they are not contributing to the overall level of investment but are merely displacing local

firms and crowding them out of local capital markets. It is a matter of empirical research as to whether

the defenders or the critics of MNCs are right or wrong.

Issues Associated with Globalization and MNCs

Specific policy issues associated with globalization and MNCs include but are not limited to the

following categories:

Incentives for Inward FDI

13
 Government officials charged with promoting economic development are interested in

attracting new investment flows, both domestic and foreign. Many of the same policies that are

attractive to domestic investors are also attractive to MNCs: access to resources and infrastructure,

pools of appropriately skilled labor, business-friendly regulations, acceptable tax rates, etc.

Occasionally, officials have to go the extra mile to attract foreign firms, especially when the firms have

no experience of investing in that particular location. Besides going on trade missions to the home

country of the MNC, officials might offer tax holidays and other inducements not available to other

firms. Such inducements are not always popular with the locals, however, especially if the cost of

inducements is outsized relative to the number of resulting jobs. In addition, the temptation to relax

regulations or reduce taxes in one location can produce “races to the bottom” which end up cancelling

any local advantage (Dadush 2013).

Transfer Pricing, Tax Havens, and Inversion

One of the more controversial aspects of MNC activity is the use of creative accounting to

ensure that profits are located in countries with the lowest rates of taxation. One of the ways to do this

is with transfer pricing (Rugman and Eden 1985). A particularly graphic example recently was the very

low taxes paid globally by Apple Corporation because of a deal negotiated in 1991 with the government

of Ireland. Apple apparently shifted taxable revenue from its global operations to its Irish subsidiary in

order to avoid taxes. While the usual corporate tax rate for MNCs in Ireland is around 12.5 %, Apple

negotiated a tax rate of 2%. This deal was criticized widely by both the U.S. government and the

European Union, and Ireland was asked to end that particular tax loophole (Duhigg and Kocieniewski

2012).

The research on transfer prices indicates that MNCs engage in the practice in a limited manner,

enough to show that some taxes are shifted to low-tax locations (Grubert and Mutti 1991; Grubert
14
2012). Some firms advise MNCs on how to do this without being too obvious. There have been a

significant efforts within the OECD to promulgate guidelines on transfer pricing (OECD 2010).

More recently, public officials have expressed concerns about the attempt of some MNCs to

change their headquarters to low-tax locations. This is generally done by merging with a firm in a low-

tax location. A recent example is the attempt by the U.S. pharmaceutical firm Pfizer to become a British

corporation by merging with AstraZeneca. According the Department of the Treasury, effective U.S.

corporate tax rates declined from 29% in 2000 to 17% in 2013 as a result of inversions and transfer

pricing. President Obama called these practices “unpatriotic” in a speech delivered in July 2014 and

Secretary of the Treasury, Jack Lew, issued new regulations meant to reduce the tax savings achieved by

inversions.

So far there is no strong international regime regulating transfer pricing, tax havens, and

inversions. The OECD has adopted guidelines but they are voluntary. The global evasion of taxes by

MNCs is likely to remain an issue for a long time to come (Palan et al 2009).

Technology Transfer

Since MNCs are generally better able to generate new technologies than non-MNCs and to own

intellectual property rights associated with those technologies, a key issue is whether or not locals can

gain access to MNC technology at a reasonable price. More importantly, locals will want to participate

in the creation of new technologies themselves, if possible. These sorts of questions are lumped into a

category called “technology transfer.” Technology transfer does not require that MNCs share

intellectual property directly but simply that locals have sufficient access to the underlying technology to

develop their own solutions to problems. When this occurs, the positive spinoffs from MNC-related

technology transfer can be significant and long lasting.

15
 One of the ways this can occur is if the MNC establishes a local research and development

facility. There is a growing body of literature on the factors that influence the decision to do this (Teece

1977; Dunning 1994; Narula 2014). One important factor is strong enforcement of intellectual property

laws (Zeile 2014). Another is investment in the education and training of skilled workers (including

scientists and engineers). In some industries, a key factor is investment in physical infrastructures

necessary for research and development such as computer networks and advanced telecommunications

facilities (Donaubauer et al 2014).

MNCs from Emerging Economies

The dominance of U.S.-based MNCs was greatly reduced from the 1970s onward when first

MNCs based in Western Europe and Japan and later MNCs based in Southeast Asia (particularly Korea

and Taiwan) began to establish a strong presence outside their regions. The latest set of big players in

global FDI flows includes Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the BRICs) and the formerly communist

countries of Eastern Europe. That group of countries is often referred to as the “emerging economies.”

One key question addressed by scholars is whether these new MNCs behave differently from

older MNCs and whether a new set of theories are necessary to explain their behavior. Several scholars

argue that the answer to these questions is that existing theories are sufficient (Alon et al 2011; Ernst

and Kim 2002; Narula 2012).

Recently scholars have been paying particular attention to Chinese FDI because of the rapid

growth of the Chinese economy and a recent policy shift toward encouraging outward FDI (Shambaugh

2012). The record of inward FDI in China is also a subject of a number of studies. Most FDI inflow into

China is directed toward gaining access to the large and rapidly growing domestic market. Outflow, in

contrast, started primarily as a means to improve access to foreign deposits of energy and raw

materials. More recently, however, Chinese outflows are directed toward industrialized nations as a
16
means to gain access to advanced technology and markets for high-value-added goods and services.

Chinese outward FDI is controlled disproportionately by state enterprises and not by private firms.

Intellectual Property

Because MNCs create and own intellectual property in a variety of important technologies, the

governments of nation-states are often concerned about guaranteeing access to those technologies at

reasonable cost. Each country has its own laws governing intellectual property. Some are more strict

and more strictly enforced than others. MNCs that depend heavily on patents and licensing fees

complain frequently and loudly about the fact that their intellectual property is insufficiently protected

in some markets. For example, the U.S.-based film and recording industries want China to clamp down

on what they call the “piracy” of their intellectual property via the illegal copying of CDs and DVDs.

Several efforts have been made to create new international regimes for the protection of

intellectual property. Within the WTO, the agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property deals with

this question, but remains a thorn in the side of the governments of developing nations. A section of

17
the still secret draft of the Trans Pacific Partnership deals with this issue (for an overview see Flinn et al

2012).

Dispute Settlement

MNCs have a strong incentive to create new institutions for the settlement of investment

disputes. Although there are some legal protections available to them to prevent appropriation of their

property without adequate compensation, there is still a long way to go. From the MNC perspective, a

key issue is how to resolve disputes between themselves and other MNCs and both home and host

governments. MNCs rely increasingly on bilateral investment treaties and national courts to handle

these disputes, but there are a number of alternative forums that have evolved over time.

In 1995, the OECD began negotiations on new rules for international investment called the

Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). In February 1997, a draft of the agreement was leaked to

a public advocacy organization in the United States (Public Citizen) provoking a series of anti-

globalization rallies and demonstrations that ended with a suspension of the negotiations (Graham

2000). Since then, there have been a variety of proposals for new investment dispute resolution

regimes.

The International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) was set up within the

World Bank Group in 1966 to provide facilities for conciliation and arbitration of investment disputes.

Disputes may be referred to ICSID under the provisions agreed to in BITs and FTAs if the parties agree to

do so. The figure below shows the growth in the number of cases referred to ICSID between 1972 and

2014. Over a third of the disputes are settled or dismissed before a final ruling is made (ICSID 2015).

18
 The most recent proposal is for an Investment Framework Agreement (IFA) within the World

Trade Organization. According to proponents, the IFA would not replace existing BITs or investment

chapters in free trade agreements (FTAs) and would be open to a much broader set of countries

(Hufbauer and Stephenson 2014). So the effort to create a multilateral agreement continues alongside

the bilateral and minilateral efforts.

Extraterritoriality

When MNCs operate across national boundaries in ways that national governments consider to

be prejudicial to their interests, it becomes tempting to pass legislation or enforce laws that are

“extraterritorial:” that is they apply to the operations of firms outside the territorial jurisdiction of

national legal regimes. A good example of this is the anti-bribery laws that have been applied to the

foreign behavior of U.S.-based MNCs. Those laws apply not only to activities that occur in foreign

countries, but they also apply to the action of foreign firms that have U.S. subsidiaries. The main reason

MNCs oppose extraterritoriality is that it forces them to do what they consider to be impossible: to

comply with potentially contradictory laws and regulations in more than one jurisdiction.

19
 Issues of extraterritoriality come up whenever trade or investment sanctions are applied by

governments seeking to change the behavior of others. In 1997, the Canadian subsidiary of Wal-Mart

was required to comply with U.S. laws regarding the trade embargo with Cuba (Clark 2004). In 2012, the

U.S. government imposed restrictions on the activities of U.S. subsidiaries of foreign MNCs as part of the

larger effort to get Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons. Two foreign banks were prohibited from

having access to U.S. banks while they were doing business with Iranian firms. Organizations like the

International Chamber of Commerce are opposed to the application of exterritorial laws because, in

their view, the result is unnecessary barriers to trade and investment flows. Also opposed, for obvious

reasons, are the governments of countries negatively affected by such laws.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Because of the great variety of public image problems that have been generated by MNC

activities, many firms have adopted strategies for highlighting their potentially positive contributions by

advertising widely their goals for “corporate social responsibility (CSR).” CSR is “a self-regulatory

mechanism whereby a business monitors and ensures its active compliance with the spirit of the law,

ethical standards, and international norms (McWilliams and Siegel 2001).”

Almost every major MNC has a web site in which a number of pages are devoted to

enumeration and illustration of its CSR activities. These pages usually include information about what

the firm is doing to preserve the environment, to collect and distribute charitable contributions from its

employees, to encourage its employees to engage in public service of various kinds, and to conduct

business in an ethical manner. Skeptics claim that such activities are “window dressing” and not terribly

meaningful; but others argue that CSR can lead to a shift in corporate behavior toward good global

citizenship, particularly in the area of supporting human rights (Ruggie 2013).

20
 Conclusions

Existing research on MNCs and globalization indicates a variety of potential directions for future

research and for tasks to be undertaken by public affairs managers of both governments and MNCs

interested in changing (for the better hopefully) of the rather poor image that MNC-led globalization has

among the general population worldwide. Ironically, it is likely that these efforts are more necessary in

the industrialized world than in the developing regions because, so far at least, globalization has a good

reputation for reducing global inequality (especially in big countries like China and India) in the

developing world but not in developed regions (Pew Research Center 2014). In the industrialized world,

MNCs and MNC-led globalization are blamed for environmental degradation, exploitation of Third World

workers, undermining democracy, tax evasion, and the hollowing out of the middle classes. In the

developing world, the problem is usually one of a lack of transparency and accountability (Stiglitz 2008).

Not all of these negative images are justified, of course, but they are increasingly common and deeply

held. In short, MNC-led globalization has a legitimation problem.

It is not clear what efforts on the part of MNCs themselves can reduce this negativity. It is more

likely that strengthened international economic governance institutions with direct representation not

just of governments and MNCs but also other stakeholders are needed in a broader effort to legitimize

globalization (Higgott et al 2000; Levy and Prakash 2003; Scherer et al 2006; deBurca et al 2014).

References

Akhter, Syed, and Colleen Beno (2011) “An Empirical Note on Regionalization and Globalization,”
Multinational Business Review, 19(1): 26-35.

Alon, Ilan, John Child, Shaomin Li, and John R. McIntyre (2011) “Globalization of Chinese Firms:
Theoretical Universalism or Particularism,” Management and Organization Review, 7(2): 191-200.

21
Appadurai, Arjun (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.

Bevan, Alan A. and Sol Estrin (2004) “The Determinants of Foreign Investment into European Transition
Economies,” Journal of Comparative Economics, 32: 775-787.

Bhagwati, Jagdish (2007) In Defense of Globalization. New York: Oxford University Press.

Borrus, Michael and John Zysman (1997) “Globalization with Borders: The Rise of Wintelism
as the Future of Global Competition,” Industry and Innovation. 42(2): 141-166.

Bussman, Margit (2010) “Foreign Direct Investment and Militarized International Conflict,” Journal of
Peace Research, 47(2): 143-153.

Cantwell, John, and Rajneesh Narula, eds. (2004) International Business and the Eclectic Paradigm:
Developing the OLI Framework. New York: Routledge.

Clark, Harry L. (2004) “Dealing with U.S. Extraterritorial Sanctions and Foreign Countermeasures,”
Journal of International Law, 25(1): 455-489.

Cuervo-Cazurra, Alvaro, Rajneesh Narula, and C. Annique Un (2015) “Internationalization Motives: Sell
More, Buy Better, Upgrade, and Escape,” The Multinational Business Review, 23(1): 25-35.

Dadush, Uri (2013) “Incentives to Attract FDI,” in Global Agenda Council on Global Trade and FDI,
Foreign Direct Investment as a Key Driver for Trade, Growth, and Prosperity: The Case for a Multilateral
Agreement on Investment. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

De Burca, Grainne, Robert O. Keohane, and Charles Sabel (2014) “Global Experimentalist Governance,”
British Journal of Political Science, 44(3): 477-486.

Dicken, Peter (2015) Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy, 7th edition.
New York: The Guildford Press.

Donaubauer, Julian, Birgit Meyer, and Peter Nunnenkamp (2014) “The Crucial Role of Infrastructure in
Attracting FDI,” Columbia FDI Perspectives, No. 133.

Doremus, Paul M., William W. Keller, Louis W. Pauly, and Simon Reich (1998) The Myth of the Global
Corporation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Duhig, Charles and David Kocieniewski (2012) “How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes,” New York Times,
April 28, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-
and-nations.html?_r=0

Dunning, John H. (1992) Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy. Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley.

22
Dunning, John (1994) “Multinational Enterprises and the Globalization of Innovatory Capacity,” Research
Policy, 23(1): 67-88.

Dunning, John, and S.M. Lundan (2008) Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, 2nd edition.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Elkins, Zachary, Andrew T. Guzman, and Beth A. Simmons (2006) “Competing for Capital: The Diffusion
of Bilateral Investment Treaties,” International Organization, 60: 811-846.

Ernst, Dieter, and L. Kim (2002) “Global Production Networks, Knowledge Diffusion, and Local Capability
Formation,” Research Policy, 31(8): 1417-1429.

Feenstra, Robert C. (2004) Advanced International Trade: Theory and Evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Flinn, Sean M., Brook Baker, Margot Kaminski, and Jimmy Koo (2012) “The U.S. Proposal for an
Intellectual Property Chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement,” American University
International Law Review, 28:1: 105-205.

Flores, Ricardo G. and Ruth V. Aguilera (2007) “Globalization and Location Choice: An Analysis of U.S.
Multinational Firms in 1980 and 2000,” Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 1187-1210.

Florida, Richard (2005) “The World is Spiky,” The Atlantic, 296(3): 48-51.

Fratianni, Michele, Marchionne, F., and Chang Hoon Oh (2011) “A Commentary on the Gravity Equation
in International Business Research” Multinational Business Review, 19(1): 36-46.

Friedman, Thomas L. (1999) The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization. New York:
Anchor Books.

Friedman, Thomas L. (2007) The World is Flat, 3.0. New York: Picador.

Gereffi, Gary (1996) “Commodity Chains and Regional Divisions of Labor in East Asia,” Journal of Asian
Business, 12: 75-112.

Gereffi, Gary, J. Humphrey, and Timothy J. Sturgeon (2005) “The Governance of Global Value Chains,”
Review of International Political Economy, 12(1): 78-104.

Gilpin, Robert (1972) U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation: The Political Economy of Foreign
Direct Investment. New York: Basic Books.

Graham, Edward M. (2000) Fighting the Wrong Enemy: Antiglobal Activists and Multinational
Enterprises. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.

Grubert, Harry (2012) “Foreign Taxes and the Growing Share of U.S. Multinational Income Abroad:
Profits, Not Sales, Are Being Globalized,” National Tax Journal, 65(2): 247-282.
23
Grubert, Harry and John Mutti (1991) “Taxes, Tariffs, and Transfer Pricing in Multinational Corporate
Decision Making,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(2): 285-293.

Hart, Jeffrey A. (2001) “National Champions,” in R.J. Barry Jones, eds., Encyclopedia of International
Political Economy. London: Routledge.

Hart, Jeffrey A. and Aseem Prakash (1999) “Introduction” in Jeffrey A. Hart and Aseem Prakash, eds.
Globalization and Governance. London: Routledge.

Hergueux, Jerome (2011) “How does religion bias the allocation of Foreign Direct Investment? The role
of institutions,” International Economics 128(4): 53-76.

Higgott, Richard A., Geoffrey R.D. Underhill, and Andreas Bieler, eds. (2000) Non-State Actors and
Authority in the Global System. London and New York: Routledge.

Hopper, Paul (2007) Understanding Cultural Globalization. Boston: Polity.

Hufbauer, Gary and Sherry Stephenson (2014) “The Case for a Framework Agreement on Investment,”
Columbia FDI Perspectives, No. 116.

ICSID (2015) Background Information on the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.
Accessed at
https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/about/Documents/ICSID%20Fact%20Sheet%20-
%20ENGLISH.pdf

Keller, Wolfgang (2009) “International Trade, Foreign Direct Investment, and Technology Spillovers,”
NBER Working Paper 15442, http://www.nber.org/papers/w15442.

Keohane, Robert O., and Helen V. Milner (1996) Internationalization and Domestic Politics. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Levy, David L., and Aseem Prakash (2003) “Bargains Old and New: Multinational Corporations in Global
Governance,” Business and Politics, 5 (2003), 131-150.

Linden, Greg, Kenneth L. Kraemer, and Jason Diedrick (2009) “Who Captures Value in a Global
Innovation Network? The Case of Apple’s iPod,” Communications of the ACM, 52(3): 140-144.

Mathews, John A. (2006) “Dragon Multinationals: New Players in 21st Century Globalization,” Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, 23: 5-27.

McWilliams, Abagail and Donald Siegel (2001) “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm
Perspective,” Academy of Management Review, 26: 117-127.

24
Murtha, Thomas P., Stefanie Ann Lenway, and Jeffrey A. Hart (2001) Managing New Industry Creation:
Global Knowledge Formation and Entrepreneurship in High Technology. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press.

Narula, Rajneesh (2012) “Do We Need Different Frameworks to Explain Infant MNEs from Developing
Countries?” Global Strategy Journal, 2: 188-204.

Narula, Rajneesh (2014) Globalization and Technology: Interdependence, Innovations Systems, and
Industrial Policy (New York: Wiley, 2014).

Narula, Rajneesh, and Nigel Driffield (2012) “Does FDI Cause Development? The Ambiguity of the
Evidence and Why It Matters,” European Journal of Development Research, 24(1): 1-7.

Narula, Rajneesh, and John H. Dunning (2006) “Industrial Development, Globalization and Multinational
Enterprises: New Realities for Developing Countries,” Oxford Development Studies, 28(2): 141-167.

Navaretti, Giorgio Barba, and Anthony J. Venables (2006) Multinational Firms in the World Economy.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Nye, Joseph (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.

Oh, Chang Hoon, W. Travis Selmier, and D. Lien (2013) “International Trade, Foreign Direct Investment,
and Transaction Costs of Languages,” Journal of Socio-Economics, 40: 732-735.

O’Keefe, Ed (2015) “The Trans Pacific Partnership Is in Trouble on Capitol Hill. Here’s Why.” Washington
Post, February 9. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/02/19/why-the-trans-
pacific-partnership-is-in-trouble-on-capitol-hill/

OECD (2008) Compendium of Patent Statistics. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development.

OECD (2010) Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations. Paris:
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Palan, Ronen, Richard Murphy, and Christian Chavagneux (2009) Tax Havens: How Globalization Really
Works. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Pauly, Louis W., and Simon Reich (1997) “National Structures and Multinational Corporate Behavior:
Enduring Differences in the Age of Globalization,” International Organization, 51(1): 1-30.

Pew Research Center (2014) Faith and Skepticism about Trade, Foreign Investment. Washington, D.C.:
Pew Research Center.

Rimmer, Peter J. (2014) Asia-Pacific Rim Logistics: Global Context and Local Politics. Cheltenham,
England: Edward Elgar.

25
Rodrik, Dani (2011) The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. New
York: Norton.

Ruggie, John G. (2013) Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights. New York: Norton.

Rugman, Alan M. (2001a), The End of Globalization: What It Means for Business. New York: Random
House Business Books.

Rugman, Alan M. (2001b) “The Myth of Global Strategy,” International Marketing Review, 18(6): 583-8.

Rugman, Alan M. and Lorraine Eden, eds. (1985) Multinationals and Transfer Pricing. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.

Rugman, Alan M., and Stephane Girod (2003) “Retail Multinationals and Globalization: The Evidence is
Regional,” European Management Journal, 21(1): 24-37.

Rugman, Alan M. and C.H. Oh (2008) “Friedman’s Follies: Insights on the Globalization/Regionalization
Debate,” Business and Politics, 10(2): 1-14.

Sauvant, Karl P., ed. (2008) The Rise of Transnational Corporations from Emerging Markets: Threat or
Opportunity? Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar.

Scherer, Andreas Georg, and Guido Palazzo (2011) “The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized
World: A Review of a New Perspective on CSR and Its Implications for the Firm, Governance, and
Democracy,” Journal of Management Studies, 48(4): 899-931.

Scheve, Kenneth and Matthew Slaughter (1998) “What Determines Individual Trade Policy
Preferences?” NBER Working Paper Series, No. 6531.

Sell, Susan K. (1999) “Multinational Corporations as Agents of Change: The Globalization of Intellectual
Property Rights,” Private Authority and International Affairs, 169-197.

Sell, Susan K. (2003) Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights. New
York: Cambridge University Press.

Selmier, W.Travis and Chang Hoon Oh (2013) “The Power of Major Trade Languages in Trade and
Foreign Direct Investment,” Review of International Political Economy, 20(3): 386-514.

Shambaugh, David (2012) “Are China’s Multinational Corporations Really Multinational?” East Asia
Quarterly, 4(2): http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/06/21/are-chinas-multinational-corporations-
really-multinational/

Simmons, Beth A., Frank Dobbin, and Geoffrey Garrett (2008) “Introduction: The Diffusion of
Liberalization,” in Beth A. Simmons, Frank Dobbin, and Geoffrey Garrett, eds., The Global Diffusion of
Markets and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

26
 Spero, Joan Edelman, and Jeffrey A. Hart (2009) The Politics of International Economic Relations, 7th
edition. Boston: Cengage.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2003) Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2007) Making Globalization Work. New York: Norton.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2008) “Regulating Multinational Corporations: Toward Principles of Cross-Border

Strange, Susan (1996) The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Sturgeon, Timothy J. (2002) “Modular Production Networks: A New American Model of Industrial
Organization,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3): 451-496.

Sturgeon, Timothy J. (2007) “How Globalization Drives Institutional Diversity: The Japanese Electronics
Industry’s Response to Value Chain Modularity,” Journal of East Asian Studies, 7(1): 1-34.

Sturgeon, Timothy J. and Gary Gereffi (2009) “Measuring Success in the Global Economy: International
Trade, Industrial Upgrading, and Business Function Outsourcing in Global Value Chains,” Transnational
Corporations, 18(2): 1-35.

Teece, David (1977) “Technology Transfer by Multinational Firms: The Resource Cost of Transferring
Technological Know-How,” The Economic Journal, 87: 241-262.

UNCTAD -- United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2015) World Investment Report. New
York and Geneva: United Nations.

Wolf, Martin (2004) Why Globalization Works. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Zeile, William J. (2014) “Research Spotlight: Multinational Enterprises and International Technology
Transfer,” Survey of Current Business, 94(9): 1-9.

27

View publication stats