Отношения между правительствами и международными корпорациями (Relations between national government...
From my point of view we should
begin the discussion from the description of international trade. I like the
description given in one of the books. Authors are saying that international
trade is
“the exchange of products between
countries” 1. Although I like this explanation of international trade I think
it is not full enough. From my point of view we must change the word products
into the word something. Because when we say products we usually think about
something that is materially however states can change not only the materially
stuff it can also trade in valuables like knowledge ( for example). Also I have
to say that for me both states in the person of government and companies are
actually the same. Because all in all their main target is their own
prosperity.
So let’s go to discuss
about the relations between National Governments in multinational enterprises.
After I red some articles I came to a conclusion that this relations are always
very different but usually they are good if both companies and governments have
one common aim. Now it is an era of euphemisms language and some things more
likely not to be told. In the same time if we take the book written in 1962 by
John S. Ewing and Frank MEISSNER in the preface we can read very interesting
thing “American businessmen invest more capital abroad than entrepreneurs
of any other country: the U.S government pours great amounts of taxpayers’
money into foreign countries to help friendly nations advance economically and
socially, and to strengthen their defenses against the forces of communism”2.
Here we can see the situation when there is only one purpose that purse
companies and government is to defend themselves against another force.
On the other hand I can
show you an example, when because of different purposes the company was
destroyed by a state. Everybody in Europe now a days knows about conflict in Russia between oil company YKOS and the Russian government. Of course somebody can say that
YKOS actually is not real multinational enterprise however I will not agree
with it because though the main % of safety stock was in the hands of Russian
citizen there were other keepers from different part of the world including
UKSA ( U.K USA). As I already sad everybody know about the conflict and only
few know what was happening in reality. In early 90 this company was privatized
by Mikhail Hodorkowsky . But the way it was privatized was not really legal.(
it is very wide question so I will not discuss it in my work). And of course
state helped him to do it. Everything was O.K until Mikhail hasn’t wanted to
brake the rules. The thing is that though we do not have such strong legal laws
as in Europe and America we’ve got a lot of illegal rules that are necessary to
obey. The first one – you should not try to go against authorities the second-
you can not change the rules by your own wish. Actually there are 2 versions
why everything has started .The firs one is that he wanted to become a
President, the second is that he wanted to sell the company to foreign people.
And nothing is bad in this deal except one thing. In 1990’s The company was
bought for only 6.000.000 but the real price was something about 7.000.000. And
this difference was like a debt on the owner and that’s how the state could control
him. In the case he sales it the buyers will be we can translate it like
conscientious buyers. It means that they buy this company legally and have no
responsibility with the state so the government will lose the opportunity to
control the company and to get money from it. As a result YKOS is a state’s
company now . I think it is very good example what relations between state and
company can be and how they can change. Because in the beginning Hodorkowsky
was in brilliant relations with the government ,and authorities.
But it is unusual
situation, usually relations are different from the relation I have just
described.
Now days we can see the
increasing of globalization. In Europe there are no borders anymore the
political situation is different ,companies are truing to assimilate new
countries. And governments can not stay a side . The have got 2 ways. The
first one is the way of protectionism. The second one is the way of free trade.
Both of them have advantages and disadvantages.
“international trade
activity now affects domestic policy more than ever. ….. Governments can not be
expected, for the sake of theoretical ideal of “free trade” to sit back and
watch the effects of deindustrialization on their countries”3. Some followers
of the ”free trade” theory might say that formation of some countries with
strong economy today was taken place in the conditions of “free trade market.
And this fact will be correct but from my point of view it exact reason why now
a days they do not want to apply this practice anymore. As we’ve already
decided that there are not so many differences between state and the company,
and the main target of a state is to protect itself and be reach, we can make
the conclusion that protectionism is an instrument used by state to protect
it’s economical safety and helps their own producers. However from the other
point of view , protectionism may lead to some problems. I truly believe that
company may work only when it compete with the others because then it has to
innovate their production, to seek for new marketing ideas e.t.c But in the
conditions of protectionism very often they loose every wish to do it. And
actually I can understand them. Why do you need to spend your money for
innovation if even without it you can have a big profit, people will buy your
product anyway. The second problem with protectionism is the more limitation
you make the more limitation made against you. ( only in case when the sides
are similar in their opportunities). So you are not allowed to export as many
products as you wanted to.
On the other hand “free
trade” gives the opportunity of wealth competition in market. And sometimes it
might be very good for economical condition but bad for security “ more often,
economic security and national security were seen as competing with each
other”3-1.
So we can see that it is
not simple question and not only because there are a lot of types of
protectionism but also because it touches not only economical but also
political fields. As for me, I think that all this instruments may be used but
only after deep researching of situation.
At the end I would
like to say that a government has got a huge possibility to control business it
has a lot of instruments either to draw multinational enterprises or to push of
by giving them either good advantages or bad. However if a state wants to be
wealthy and strong it needs business because business means investments into
state’s economy. Sometimes some not very strong governments might be under the
control of big multinational but anyway, they will be under the control of
strong governments. Government and business are inseparable and for the time
they exist they will have to compound. But the further economy and world is
developing the more difficult will be manage all the problems.
References
2) International business management
John S.Ewing Frank Meiisner 1964 ( page 5)
3) International Business Michael R .
Chinkota a 7 th edition (page 698), 3-1 (page 699)
4) Boris Berezovski Kremlin’s god
father. Paul Khlebnikov 1999.
5) Internet.
International
business
Assessment:
Relations
between national governments and multinational enterprises
Student
1521222