Globalization and Multinational Enterprises

Survey of the Theories of
GLOBALIZATION

by
Wendy M. Jeffus
Southern New Hampshire University

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. Internationalization versus Globalization Multinational Enterprises Exporting Licensing/Franchising Strategic Alliances Joint Ventures Wholly-Owned Subsidiary Emerging Economies Developed Economies Universalizers versus Particularists World-systems Diversity of Cultures Global Mindset

III. HYPERGLOBALIZATION Conflicting Goals Environmental Consequences Social Consequences Extended Product Responsibility Subsidies and Preferential Treatment of the Corporation Lack of Accountability Misaligned Incentives Short-term Profits Money versus Spirituality Borderless Economy Liberalization Conflicting Goals Misaligned Incentives Short-term Solutions versus Long-Term Growth Protection of Natural Resources Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics Standardization versus Adaptation Regional Focus New Paradigm

IV. GLOBALIZATION AND STRATEGY Global versus Multidomestic Strategies Service Industry Common Global Misunderstandings Developing and Implementing a Global Strategy Organizational Culture

V. GLOBALIZATION AND PUBLIC POLICY Approaches to Economic Organization Historical Review Determinants of Economic Organization Corporate Political Strategy International Environmental Policy Performance Requirements Global Political Economy International Financial Markets International Relations

VI. Globalization as a Discourse Capitalist Globalization Democracy and Free Markets Corporate Environmentalism

VII. Globalization as an empirical phenomena Nationalities of Corporations Information and Communication Technologies and the Digital Divide

I. INTRODUCTION

This survey seeks to address theories of globalization. Globalization has been defined by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as the increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through trade and financial flows. (IMF, 2000) As economies become integrated issues emerge with regards to the benefits and costs of such integration and which outweighs the other. The first section “Internationalization versus Globalization” addresses this debate. It begins with a definition of the multinational enterprise and corporate globalization in its many forms and goes on to address the role of globalization in both developed and emerging economies. The way in which managers perceive globalization’s costs and benefits has an affect on corporate decisions to expand abroad. The first section concludes with the idea of a “global mindset” described by Gupta and Govindarajan (2002).

Hyperglobalization
The next section discusses “Hyperglobalization.” The views of David Korten, a strong critic of corporate globalization, are compared to the views of Kenichi Ohmae and Theodore Levitt, who both support globalization. Korten’s book When Corporations Rule the World discusses the conflicting goals between the environment and corporate growth. He also attributes corporate growth to increasing social problems such as a widening gap between the poorest and richest citizens. He calls for extended product responsibility that includes the environmental consequences of production and condemns the subsidies and preferential treatment that corporations receive when expanding abroad. In addition, he believes corporate managers have a lack of accountability for their actions, misaligned incentives which focus only on short-term profits. Finally, he posits that money and spirituality are incompatible.

On the other hand, Ohmae looks at the reality of an increasingly borderless economy and points out that liberalization has increased cross border economic activity. Ohmae notes that corporate managers are not the only ones with conflicting goals. For example, citizens do not want benefits such as public schools and public highways reduced; but as taxpayers, they do not want to pay for them. It is because of this that in an attempt to gain votes politicians do not always act in the public’s best interest, creating what is an inevitably self-destructing cycle. In addition as politicians feel pressure from industries to implement government subsidies, trade restrictions, regulations, and other forms of protection motivation for efficiency is lost. Finally Ohmae argues that statistic do not accurately represent the facts and that the arguments for the protection of natural resources is a separate issue from that of globalization.

In the context of the realities of globalization and from the stand point that the benefits outweigh the costs Theodore Levitt and Kenichi Ohmae discuss the concept of standardization. Standardization is the idea that as societies move up the economic ladder (past $5,000 per capita), they become increasingly similar in terms of tastes and preferences. (Ohmae, 1995) This trend would have an incredible impact on companies in terms of their abilities to exploit economies of scale in terms of product design, marketing, and research and development. In fact, Levitt (1983) feels that the new paradigm will shift from customized items to globally standardized products that are advanced, functional, reliable, and low priced. He believes that long term success depends on what “everyone wants rather than worrying about the details of what everyone thinks they might want.” But not everyone agrees that the “tastes and preferences” of societies are becoming homogenized. The section concludes with two articles about the “Myth of Globalization” that criticize the idea of standardization.

Globalization and Strategy
From the discussion of globalization and its many facets to a discussion of the costs and benefits to globalization this survey moves to a discussion of “Globalization and Strategy” where the options for a multinational firm are introduced. This section begins with a discussion of the various strategies for global corporations. The four basic strategies are a multi-domestic strategy, an international strategy, a global strategy or a transnational strategy. A multi-domestic strategy is where a company has operations in more than one country. The goal of a multi domestic strategy is to optimize local competitive advantages, revenues, and profits. A global strategy is where a company has integrated operations in more than one country. A global strategy seeks to maximize worldwide performance through sharing and integration. An international strategy is where core competencies are centralized and other activities are decentralized. Finally a transnational strategy is a typically a global matrix that seeks to be both locally responsive and efficient. This strategy is based on the simultaneous attainment of location and experience curve economies, local responsiveness, and global learning.

In this section a recent article by Bartlett and Ghoshal (2003) is discussed. These authors present four types of managers for the transnational organization. The four types of managers are the business manager, the country manager, the functional manager, and the corporate manager. This is dicussed in greater detail in the “Globalization and Strateygy” section. The survey goes on to introduce the factors that affect a corporation’s strategy to invest abroad. Yip (1989) discusses four industry drivers that affect this decision: market drivers, cost drivers, government drivers and competitive drivers. Market drivers include the level of homogeneous needs, global customer base, available global channels, and transferable marketing. Cost drivers include economies of scale and scope, learning and experience curves, favorable logistics, differences in country costs and skills, and product development costs. Governmental drivers include favorable trade policies, compatible technical standards, and common marketing regulations. Finally, competitive drivers include the interdependence of countries and competitors who are global or becoming global. Lovelock and Yip (1996) apply this analysis to the service industry.

As we explore the opportunities of corporate strategies with regards to globalization Rugman (2000), adds a word of caution “a pure globalization strategy” that is typified by high economic integration and low national responsiveness will not always work in the 21st century. It is along these lines that he emphasizes a regional focus and discusses five lessons that have been learned as corporations go beyond national boundaries. The five lessons are (1) learn to deal with different cultures and be nationally responsive rather than assuming an integrated global market, (2) managers should develop network organizational competencies rather than relying on international divisions or global product divisions, (3) organizations should make alliances and foster cross-cultural awareness in senior managers (4) managers should develop analytical methods for assessing regional drivers of success, and (5) managers should “think regional, act local – and forget global.” Rugman (2000) seems to see the benefits of globalization but with cautious optimism, and emphasizes a regional focus rather than a purely global strategy.

In summary, globalization has many facets and the decision to invest abroad is not a straightforward one. In fact, managers must weigh both the benefits and costs of a corporate strategy to determine the appropriate opportunities to exploit. Managers today face a dual challenge—managers need to figure out what the global strategy is and then must successfully implement the strategy. Many authors such as Rugman (2000) and Rugman and Moore (2001) seem to be leaning towards a regional focus rather than a global one. Finally, in determining the appropriate global strategy the existing organizational culture must be taken into consideration.

Globalization and Public Policy
The fifth section of this survey covers “Globalization and Public Policy.” This section refers to the many aspects of public policy that affect the globalization process. The section begins with a discussion of the two distinct functions of government as an administrator and an owner of assets. A review of the evolution of thought on capitalism is summed up by Dunning (1997) as three stages of market-based capitalism: entrepreneurial capitalization (1770-1875), hierarchical capitalism (1875-1980, and alliance capitalism (1980-?). Dunning’s review leads him to six conclusions Dunning (1997) finds six conclusions as to the way in which capitalist economies should be organized: (1) no universally applicable organizational model exists (2) widespread benefits and costs of alternative modes of governance have only recently been considered (3) opinions of scholars have reflected the timeframe of their analysis (4) the new optimal structure of organizations has become more objective in terms of a transaction cost perspective, (5) the complexity of society has created a new recognition of the need for government, and (6) the context of the argument will lead to the conclusions. Dunning also discusses the determinants of economic organization in three different economies: a closed economy, a partially opened economy, and a fully open economy.

With regard to corporate political strategy Ring, Lenway, and Govekar (1990) discuss the value of the home base of the firm as a core source of competitive advantage. The authors go on to discuss the affects of corrupt officials. Corruption is a reality of international business and originations must create clear policies for managers who are faced with such situations. The ability to internalize operations or become politically active may result from an attempt to overcome this obstacle. Another major issue with any corporation is environmental policy. Rugman and Verbeke (1998) analyze the interactions between international environmental policy and multinational corporate strategy. They conclude that at the firm level, compliance to environmental policies is based on economic costs and benefits. Rugman and Verbeke (1998) give four managerial responses to economic policies: performance-driven compliance, unconditional non-compliance, compliance driven enforcement, and conditional non-compliance. These concepts are discussed in greater detail in the fifth section of this survey.

Not only do global corporations deal with corruption and environmental issues, they also deal with various regulations and performance requirements. Safarian (1993) reviews the extent of performance requirements with respect to joint ventures and domestic equity, export performance, technology, research and development, and employment and training for foreign direct investment in developed countries. For example, foreign ownership is often restricted to a minority position in a number of sectors. These sectors include: services considered close to national identity (i.e. media), aspects of finance where monetary control might be an issue, natural resources, high technology sectors, and defense sectors. The idea behind this to protect the host country’s sovereignty, but is often used as a way to control foreign direct investment in an attempt to advantage the host country as the disadvantage of multinational companies. More recently countries who believe in the benefits of foreign direct investment have begun to implement policies designed to attract multinational firms. These policies include: fiscal incentives for declining sectors, increased non-tariff barriers such as anti-dumping laws, and strategic trade and foreign investment promotion. Safarian (1993) gives the following advice to governmental policy makers: (a) clarify key objective(s); (b) require short-run, measurable, enforceable commitments; (c) recognize constraints in integrated trade areas; (d) ensure a degree of policy independence; and (e) attempt to achieve as much policy continuity as possible.

Liberalization is also a key issue with regards to government policy. As alluded to in the previous section international markets have become increasingly liberalized in recent years. This increase is a reflection of the growth of international banking markets, an increasing number of multinational enterprises, and improved technology. In addition, firm strategies, such as evasion and exit have influenced governments to remain competitive. Goodman and Pauly (1993) point out that pressure for liberalization are deeply embedded in firm structure and strategy, and the adoption of policies to influence short-term capital flows would now have a clearer impact on long-term investment decisions. The bottom line is that attempts to understand and manage the effects of short-term capital mobility should be considered in terms of the cross-national coordination of financial policies.

The section of “Globalization and Public Policy” concludes with a review of the article “States, Firms and Diplomacy.” Strange (1992) proposes three answers to the increasing importance of firms as actors in world politics: (1) structural changes in the world economy and society, (2) a change in the nature of diplomacy towards greater negotiating power of firms with nations, and (3) the influence of firms in transnational relations.

Technological change has sped up the internationalization of production and the dispersion of manufacturing to newly industrialized countries, increased capital mobility, and cheaper transnational communications. Additionally, producers can supply markets with new products, product and process lifetimes have shortened, costs of R&D have risen, firms have been forced to expand internationally, cross-border capital flows have increased, and markets have been liberalized. Industrialization has raised living standards, and people have become better educated. With these structural changes competition has intensified among states and firms for world market share.

The diversity of government responses to structural changes reflects the policy dilemmas particular to the society. To address these changes managers should pinpoint the policy dilemmas where the objectives of the firm and the state clash. Firms should cut out the administrative delays and inefficiencies that impede the work of local managers. Strange (1992) also suggests that the governments break up monopolies and enforce competition among products. States must scan the environment and be ready to adapt to change.

Globalization as a Discourse
The sixth section “Globalization as a Discourse” addresses the argument that rather than globalization being a real phenomenon, it is actually a political and social discourse that justifies the current organization of the world economy. This section begins with a pont from Rosemond (1999) who notes that the term “globalization did not enter discourse until the mid to late 1980s. The term is loosely defined and can represent rapid changes in communication, transport and technology, or the integration of markets. Additionally, academics debate whether globalization is taking place or has already occurred, what the connection is to prosperity and problems, and the historical significance.

Sklair (2000) points out three definitions of globalization. The first is the international or conception of globalization where internationalization and globalization are used interchangeably. The second definition of globalization is the transnational conception of globalization, where the basic units of analysis are transnational practices, forces, and institutions. The third is the globalist conception of globalization in which the state is actually said to be in the process of disappearing.

From this introduction the section covers Sklair’s concept of a new “transnational capitalist class” that favor a freer market over state intervention and democracy over the alternatives. Sklair (2000) believes that the discourse of national and international competitiveness is used to impose more intensive discipline on the workforce and in some cases to impose unnecessarily high standards that drive smaller competitors out of the market. Sklair (2000) goes on to say that the imposition of World Best Practice and benchmarking beyond the narrow confines of manufacturing industries is another important step towards the cultural ideology of consumerism.

Along these lines, environmental protection had been seen by corporations and the transnational capitalist class as a defensive, negative, anti-progress concept. Corporate environmentalism is the concept of sustainable growth and sustainable development. This new concept of sustainable growth had replaced the idea of conservation; and limits to growth were no longer seen as limits on supplies but rather limits on the disposal of resources used and transformed in the productive process. Accepting that industry has to operate within existing frameworks, it can, nevertheless, act to use these frameworks for its own advantage by taking the offensive and shaping ecological legislation.

Sklair (2000) concludes that the combination of the discourse of sustainable development with that of national and international competitiveness provides powerful weapons for the transnational capitalist class. In this context globalization is not a Western term but a “globalizing capitalist ideology,” whose discourse and practices are necessary to stop the growing class polarization and ecological crises characteristic of this latest stage in the long history of capitalism.

Globalization as a Empirical Phenomena
In the final section “Globalization as an Empirical Phenomena” the empirical validity of globalization is discussed. Key, critical, empirical studies of globalization are reviewed keeping in mind lessons from earlier sections especially the balance between the costs and benefits of globalization. This section begins with a review of a book by authors who believe that the costs of globalization are greater than the benefits. In Globalization in Question Hirst and Thompson (1997) question the idea of a genuinely global economy.

Hirst and Thompson are cited as “global skeptics” and “critics of the so-called globalization thesis.” Hirst and Thompson (1997) note the dramatic inequalities of contemporary capitalism in terms of life expectancy, income, wealth, and the exclusion of the vast majority from the benefits to be derived from the present system. They claim that, to the extent a globalized economy exists, it is oligopolistically organized and hardly the outcome of the perfect market competition. Additionally, they link the increased dominance of finance to the growth of income inequality.

Hirst and Thompson’s (1997) core argument is that prosperity and growth of the world economy are more likely in an open market and that environmental concerns are best addressed by diverting revenues from growth in a prosperous international economy. Hirst and Thompson (1997) recommend a close coordination between the major capitalist powers to promote employment in the advanced countries. (Tabb, 2001)

Pauly and Reich (1997) argue that while the world political economy is becoming globalized, leading corporations maintain national characteristics. The idea that markets are becoming globally integrated is based on increasingly mobile capital and technological and financial incentives; but Pauly and Reich (1997) point out that the institutional and ideological legacies of distinctive national histories continue to significantly shape the core operations of multinational firms based in Germany, Japan, and the United States.

Pauly and Reich (1997) note that distinct national histories affect the core structures of firms and important firm strategies. The authors found that multinational corporations tend to maintain most of their research and development spending at home and show stark differences in their willingness to export new technology from the home base. Pauly and Reich (1997) posit that a modified domestic strategy approach provides a better fit with which to make appropriate decisions. Pauly and Reich (1997) note four implications of their analysis. First, the home country of the corporation appears to remain a vital determinant of the location of future innovation. Second, multinational corporations adapt themselves at the margins but not at the core. Third, power is shifting within societies rather than away from them. Finally, Pauly and Reich (1997) conclude that further comparative elaboration and domestic structures approach to international theory at the firm level is recommended.

Finally, Wade (2002) argues that information and communication technologies are being oversold as a solution to higher efficiency of corporate and public organizations and to stronger responsiveness of government to citizen-customers. Wade (2002) posits that efforts to bridge the digital divide may cause developing countries to depend on the West. Less developed countries need more representation in the standard-setting bodies. Additionally, current attempts do not address issues of sustainability, such as computer servicing and training. According to Wade (2002), less developed countries are disadvantaged by lack of income, skills, infrastructure, and in terms of standards and rules that are part of the international system. Because of this, Western suppliers have a disproportionate advantage.

A Final Note
This survey covers topics from the origins of globalization as a concept and how the concept developed from empirical observations of the ways in which the world economy has developed to the idea of hyperglobalization. The contributions of strategy theorists are examined along with the role of public policy as a driver of globalization. The notion that globalization may be merely a political and social discourse used to justify the current organization of the world economy is addressed. Finally, the empirical validity of globalization is the focus of the last section. The many questions of globalization leave room for future debates.

II. Internationalization versus Globalization

The distinction between international and global business can be viewed as a distinction between an internationalization process in which economic activities are extended across national boundaries and a globalization process in which economic activity is also functionally integrated. From this definition two groups exist. First, the hyperglobalists argue that we live in a borderless world where the word “national” is no longer relevant. Giddens (1999) writes “Globalization is political, technological and cultural, as well as economic.” (Dicken, 1998) The second group are skeptics who believe that we live in an international world in which national forces remain highly significant. Ruigrok and van Tulder (1995) write “Globalization seems to be as much an overstatement as it is an ideology and an analytical concept.” (Dicken, 1998) This paper will look at the many dynamics of the current state of economic integration and interdependence. The first step is to take a look at the multinational enterprise.

Multinational Enterprises
Multinational enterprises (MNE, MNC) or transnational corporations (TNC) are all terms that describe a firm that has the power to coordinate and control operations in more than one country. (Dicken, 1998) The number of multinational enterprises in the world is in the thousands, and the subsidiaries of these organizations play a major role in the world economy. (Vernon, 1998) Helpman (1984, 1985) and Markusen (1984) posited that the multinational enterprise has a place in the formal general equilibrium model of international trade by recognizing the critical role played by scale economies in the decisions of producers and in the patterns of international trade. (Vernon, 1998) Host countries can benefit from multinational enterprise through capital, technology, job creation, workforce improvement, and access to foreign markets (Vernon, 1998); but two conflicting ideologies arise. Nation-states are built on the principle that the people of the nation have a right to maximize their well-being, while the multinational enterprise wants to maximize the well-being of its stakeholders. Each unit of a multinational enterprise is “inescapably committed” to the long-term interests of the enterprise as a whole. (Vernon, 1998) While host countries want the benefits of multinational enterprises, they seek ways to minimize the consequences.

Multinational firms see the world as a chess board, and the game is one of movement: identifying rivals and weakening them where possible, penetrating new markets, maintaining efficient sources of supply, and developing new products and services with which to wage future battles. (Vernon, 1998) One of the major decisions a multinational firm faces is the mode of entry. Firms choose from many strategies— from exporting their goods to a foreign market to setting up a wholly owned subsidiary.

Figure 1: Entry Modes
[pic]

Exporting
Exporting is a natural first step for global expansion. There are two distinct advantages to exporting. First is the low level of commitment to the foreign country since the investment is minimal. The second advantage is the ability to realize scale economies. The disadvantages of exporting are possible high transportation costs, potential trade barriers, and less control over marketing, distribution, etc.

Licensing/Franchising
Two modes of entry that share the advantage of low development costs and risks are licensing and franchising. Licensing is an arrangement where a license is granted for a specified period in return for a royalty fee. Licensing can take the form of patents, inventions, formulas, processes, designs, and copyrights and trademarks. (Hill, 2003) Licensing is utilized primarily by manufacturing firms. Franchising is a specialized form of licensing where the franchiser sells a trademark in exchange for both a royalty payment and an agreement to abide by strict rules of business. Franchising is utilized primarily by service firms.

Strategic Alliances
Strategic alliances are collaborative ventures between firms. There are three major modes of involvement in strategic alliances: research-oriented, technology-oriented, and market-orientated. The advantages of a strategic alliance include: access to markets, facilitating entry into unfamiliar markets, cost sharing, access to new technology, and economies of synergy. The motivations for strategic alliances are often very specific and often are developed between competitors. (Dicken, 1998)

Joint Ventures
A joint venture is the establishment of a firm that is jointly owned. The most popular joint venture is a 50/50 venture where each firm owns a 50 percent stake. (Hill, 2003) The advantages to a joint venture are an in-house knowledge of competitive conditions, culture, language, political systems, and business systems with shared resources and risks. Joint ventures are also potentially more politically acceptable than other modes of entry.

Wholly-Owned Subsidiary
There are two ways to form a wholly-owned subsidiary. The first is to acquire an existing firm, and the second is to set up a new organization known as a “green-field” venture. While wholly-owned subsidiaries have high costs and high risks, firms are often attracted by the high control. Firms engaging in wholly-owned subsidiaries are more capable of protecting proprietary technology, realize location and experience economies, and engage in global strategic coordination. (Hill, 2003) The propensity for multinational enterprises to use the units they control for the collective benefit of the enterprise helps to explain the common preference for the wholly-owned subsidiary over a joint venture or license agreement. (Vernon, 1998)

Emerging Economies
Multinational enterprises exist in practically every emerging economy. In most instances emerging countries serve as host countries to multinational enterprises. (Vernon, 1998) As stated earlier, multinational firms and host governments have very different agendas; and while their goals often align, they also face many challenges. One example is in terms of employment in developing countries. When a multinational firm enters a market, it brings job opportunities, which drives wages and demand in an economy. Increased employment opportunity brings job skills and new technologies. Additionally, any export-driven income could have a positive impact on development, inter-firm linkages, and overall competitiveness. (Dicken, 1998) Not all of the impact on a host country is positive, in fact increased wages may not be distributed evenly and, therefore, would increase inequality (or the “wage-gap”) within an economy. Since multinational organizations have overall profit rather than social welfare in mind, new standards might be lower, or corporate policies might lead to social unrest.

Developed Economies
Emerging countries are not the only ones who face both the pros and cons to multinational enterprises. The positive effects of globalization lead to cheaper imports and growth; but as higher-skilled jobs have begun to migrate overseas, many developing nations are beginning to panic. Additionally, developed nations stand by a desire to keep security and agriculture within their jurisdiction. Vernon (1998) points out that governments worry that resources like food and petroleum could allow foreign suppliers to affect distribution in periods of conflict.

Universalizers versus Particularists
The division of the sciences from one of the most influential debates was between nomothetic and idiographic knowledge. (Wallerstein, 1972) Nomothetic knowledge relates to the discovery of universal laws. Idiographic knowledge, on the other hand, emphasizes individuals by concentrating on the unique traits of individuals, rather than on broad generalizations about human behavior. Universalizers argue that human behavior was a natural phenomenon and could be studied using the scientific method. Particularists argue that human life has two distinct characteristics that negate generalizations. First is the idea of a “soul” that is resistant to uniformity, and second is the idea that one cannot unbiasedly observe oneself. The first group is associated with economics, sociology, and political science. The second group is associated with history and anthropology. Both groups agree that the individual society is the basic unit of analysis and that the world is composed of multiple societies.

Although there is agreement that the world is composed of multiple societies, whether these societies are in the form of a “state,” a “nation,” or a “people,” and whether they progress down the same path at different rates or down completely different paths remains debatable. It is from this that the post World War II reforms were based. The idea was that all societies were capable of achieving a similar set of desired results. Wallerstein (1972) points out that despite the economic theories and reform efforts, the gap between the developed and developing countries was growing larger. An alternate framework was developed which Wallerstein calls a “world-system perspective.” Rather than looking at the world as units, academics began to look at the existence or nonexistence of political, cultural, and theoretical unity.

World-systems
Wallerstein (1972) posited that mini-systems existed that were small in physical scope and short-lived historically. Short is defined as six generations; and the end to a mini-system is accounted for through warfare, reorganization, or ecological adjustment. World-systems are larger and have longer lives than mini-systems. Two basic forms of world-systems exist: the world empire and the world economy. World empires have existed since the Neolithic Revolution (10,000 B.C.) when civilization began. Empires exhibit a cyclical pattern: first expansion, followed by surplus-appropriation to the point where costs outweigh benefits, and then decline and retraction. The world economy is fundamentally different from the world empire in terms of structure and mode of production. Structurally, a world economy is defined as a single division of labor in which multiple cultures exist. A world economy does not have a political structure to redistribute surplus via the market; therefore, the capitalist mode is the mode of production.

Capitalism is the modern world system that competes with a socialist world government. In this capitalist society the buyer rewards efficiency, and the seller uses his political power to prevent buyer power. Wallerstein (1972) posits that the “rise of the middle classes” is politically destabilizing because it deprives the top strata of a high enough prize. Additionally, he notes that the lower strata are becoming better organized, leading to a socialist world government.

Diversity of Cultures
Diversity is a persistent feature that requires a balance between completely ignoring its challenges and becoming a slave to them. (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2002) Dicken (1998) uses the following definition of culture from Terpstra and David (1991): culture is “a learned, shared, compelling, interrelated set of symbols whose meanings provide a set of orientations for members of a society. These orientations, taken together, provide solutions to problems that all societies must solve if they are to remain viable.” Dicken (1998) goes on to provide Hofstede’s (1980) four distinct cultural dimensions: individualism versus collectivism, large versus small power distance, strong versus weak uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity versus femininity.

Gupta and Govindarajan (2002) point out that the way managers perceive and interpret the global environment has an important impact on the strategies that they pursue. They summarize the basic research on how people make sense of the world in which they live. The challenge of processing large amounts of information is addressed through cognitive filters that are products of past experiences. When new information is introduced that contradicts existing knowledge, individuals are challenged to either reject the new information or change existing beliefs. Organizations evolve in four primary ways (1) through new experiences, (2) through management changes, (3) through changes in communication processes, and (4) through employee turnover.

Global Mindset
Gupta and Govindarajan (2002) define a global mindset as one that combines an openness and awareness of diversity across cultures and markets with a propensity and ability to synthesize across this diversity. A global mindset contrasts a parochial mindset where one is an expert in a narrow field and a diffused mindset where one’s knowledge is spread thinly across broad areas. As shown below, a global mindset has high integration— the ability to integrate diversity across cultures and markets and high differentiation— openness to diversity across cultures and markets.

Figure 3: Alternative Mindsets
[pic]
Source: Gupta and Govindarajan (2002)

A global mindset breeds competitive advantages, such as early-mover advantages, a better understanding of the trade-off between local adaptation and global standardization, coordination across complementary activities, new product development and technology, and cross-border learning. Gupta and Govindarajan (2002) determine that the road to a global mindset is affected by four factors: 1) a curiosity and a commitment to learning, 2) an understanding of current mindsets, 3) an exposure to diversity, and 4) an ability to integrate a diverse knowledge base. They propose formal education, participation in cross-border projects, expatriate assignments, and job rotations across geographic regions as some of the methods to help develop a global mindset for the organization.

III. HYPERGLOBALIZATION

Regarding globalization, David Korten explained in an interview with Sarah van Gulder, “to most people the term globalization refers to increasing international exchange, communication, and awareness of the planet as a whole; trends that probably are inevitable and that most of the protestors strongly favor.” He goes on to say that “our opposition is to corporate globalization, that is the corporate domination of the planet, the use of trade agreements to strengthen corporate rights and to remove constraints to their pillage of the Earth. This type of globalization is an artificial product of rules made through undemocratic and illegitimate processes by people seeking to free themselves from democratic accountability for their actions.” (Van Gulder, 2001)

Conflicting Goals
Korten (1995) states that the world is experiencing accelerating social and environmental disintegration –as revealed by a rise in poverty, unemployment, inequality, violent crime, failing families, and environmental degradation. The book’s theme is that corporations are becoming too powerful. He continues with the idea that two conflicting goals exist: governments are responsible for public good, while corporations seek financial gain. But he believes that in the battle between the two goals, the corporations are winning at an alarming expense to both the environment and human welfare. “Corporate libertarianism is not about creating the market conditions that market theory argues will result in optimizing the public interest. It is not about the public interest at all. It is about defending and institutionalizing the right of the economically powerful to do whatever best serves their immediate interests without public accountability for the consequences. It places power in institutions that are blind to issues of equity and environmental balance.” (Korten, 1995) His evidence of the power of the corporations is in larger mergers and the consolidation of banking, media, and agribusiness. (Van Gelder, 2001)

Environmental Consequences
Korten (1995) notes that although economic output has experienced a fivefold increase since 1950, the ecosystem cannot sustain its present growth. He believes that it is more than a failure of government bureaucracies. The process of economic globalization is shifting power away from governments responsible for the public good and toward a handful of corporations and financial institutions driven by a single imperative—the quest for short-term financial gain. (Korten, 1995) His position is not a moderate one. In an interview with YES! Magazine he states that “global corporations are programmed to destroy life — the lives of working people, the life of community, and the living wealth of the planet — to make money for the already wealthy. The threat will not be resolved until the publicly traded, limited liability corporation is effectively eliminated as an organizational form.” (Van Gelder, 2001)

Social Consequences
Korten (1995) believes that the inequalities between the wealthiest and the poorest groups is widening. He states that globalization has allowed massive economic and political power to be in the hands of an elite few. For example, in Asia the policies the United States advocate for the world have created a Third World within its own borders as revealed in its growing gap between rich and poor, dependence on foreign debt, deteriorating educational systems, rising infant mortality, economic dependence on the export of primary commodities—including its last remaining primary forests—indiscriminate dumping of toxic wastes, and the breakdown of families and communities.

Extended Product Responsibility
He posits that both public welfare and the environment suffer because corporations are not held accountable for all of the costs of doing business. “One of the most basic rules of market economics is that participants in market transactions must bear the full costs of their decisions—in addition to reaping the benefits. In practice, market players commonly go to considerable lengths to capture the benefits of success for themselves and pass the costs to others. This creates a tension between what efficient markets require and what self-interested market players are prone to do.” The idea of extended product responsibility (EPR) is based on the premise that the responsibility for waste generated during the production process (including extraction of raw materials) and after the product is discarded is that of the producer of the product. (Franklin, 1997)

There are five basic types of producer responsibility. The first is liability in which the producer is responsible for environmental damage caused by the product in question. The second is economic responsibility, where the producer covers all or part of costs for collection, recycling, or final disposal of products they manufacture. The third type of producer responsibility is physical responsibility, where the manufacturer is involved in physical management of the products or of the effect of the products. This can range from merely developing the necessary technology to managing the total "take back" system for collecting or disposing of products they manufacture. The fourth type of producer liability is ownership, which is where the producer assumes both physical and economic responsibility. The final type of producer responsibility is informative responsibility in which the producer is responsible for providing information on the product or its effects at various stages of its life cycle. (Lindhquist, 1992)

Subsidies and Preferential Treatment of the Corporation
Korten (1995) is against policies to attract foreign investment and multinational corporations saying that they cause more harm than good. “If economic rationalists and market liberals had a serious allegiance to market principles and human rights, they would be calling for policies aimed at achieving the conditions in which markets function in a democratic fashion in the public interest. They would be calling for measures to end subsidies and preferential treatment for large corporations, break up corporate monopolies, encourage the distribution of property ownership, internalize social and environmental costs, root capital in place, secure the rights of workers to the just fruits of their labor, and limit opportunities to obtain extravagant individual incomes far greater than productive contributions.” (Korten, 1995)

Lack of Accountability
Korten (1995) states that market players are attracted to the corporation as a form of business organization because the legal nature and structure of the corporation tend to exempt both the corporation and its decision makers from accountability. He points out that the actual shareholders rarely have any voice in corporate affairs and bear no personal liability beyond the value of their investments. Within a corporation, Korten (1995) believes that directors and officers are protected from financial liability for acts of negligence or commission by insurance policies paid for by the corporation.

Misaligned Incentives
One example that he uses is CEO compensation. Since many CEO employment contracts use stock options, he feels that short-term objectives override long-term objectives. For example, the actual value of the options depends on the growth of the stock price, which provides a powerful incentive for the CEO, to keep their attention focused exclusively on maximizing short-term return to shareholders. Korten (1995) says that the CEO of a major corporation may sit “at the top of an authoritarian organizational structure that gives him command authority over economic resources greater than those of most countries.” In addition, “the law, the financial incentives of his compensation package, and his board of directors all tell him that this power is to be used exclusively to increase shareholder return.” He adds that “the legal structure of publicly traded corporations disconnects the rights and powers of ownership from the consequences of their use by institutionalizing an extreme form of absentee ownership; owners are kept unaware of the actions taken in their name for their exclusive benefit and shielded from any liability for the consequences of those actions.” Korten (1995) concludes this line of thought with that idea “that the publicly traded, limited liability corporation is designed to encourage and facilitate the abuse of power for the exclusive benefit of a privileged elite.”

Short-term Profits
Korten (1995) believes that an emphasis on short-term profits forces companies to make decisions such as downsizing, mergers, acquisitions, and strategic alliances. This short-term profit emphasis forces both subcontractors and local communities into a standards-lowering competition with one another to obtain the market access and jobs that global corporations control. (Korten, 1995) It also deepens the public’s dependence on destructive technologies that sacrifice the physical, social, environmental, and mental health of citizens for corporate profits. (Korten, 1995)

Money versus Spirituality
Korten (1995) also believes that “the more dominant money has become in our lives, the less place there has been for any sense of the spiritual bond that is the foundation of community and a balanced relationship with nature.” He goes on to say that “The pursuit of spiritual fulfillment has been increasingly displaced by an all-consuming and increasingly self-destructive obsession with the pursuit of money—a useful but wholly substanceless and intrinsically valueless human artifact.” (Korten, 1995)

Korten (1995) says that because of the imperative to replicate money, the system treats people as a source of inefficiency. He points out that “the first industrial revolution reduced dependence on human muscle” and now “the information revolution is reducing dependence on our eyes, ears, and brains.” The consequence of this, according to Korten (1995), is that “the redundant now end up as victims of starvation and violence, homeless beggars, welfare recipients, or residents of refugee camps.” Finally he says that “continuing on our present course will almost certainly lead to accelerating social and environmental disintegration.” (Korten, 1995)

Borderless Economy
Ohmae (1995) writes that the economy is increasingly becoming a true global marketplace. The current nation-state is an inadequate organizational form which cannot deal with both the threats and the opportunities of the new global economy. He goes on to say that as market forces take over, governments have less and less power. For example, global capital markets control exchange rates leaving governments vulnerable to market forces. At the same time nation-to-nation linkages are losing relevance. In fact, it has become increasingly difficult to attach an appropriate national label to goods and services. Additionally, technology has linked societies with global information. Technology makes it possible for capital to shift instantly across borders. It has also allowed managers to become more flexible and respond more quickly to consumer preferences. According to Ohmae (1995), the result of the borderless economy is better access to low-cost, high-quality products that are not produced domestically.

Liberalization
Ohmae (1995) points out that economic activity increasingly crosses borders. This is in part a result of economic liberalization. Historically, international equity markets have had restrictions on investments from outsiders. When the domestic economy is closed and investors’ access is restricted, there is no reason to expect domestic assets to be priced internationally. (Solnik, 2000) But in the late 1980s and early 1990s many markets decided to open to outside investors. (Henry, 2000)

Conflicting Goals
Returning to the idea of conflicting goals, Ohmae (1995), government must meet the demands of the voters in areas including: welfare, unemployment compensation, public education, pension plans, and health insurance. Citizens do not want benefits reduced; but as taxpayers, they do not want to pay for them. This creates a cycle where both services and the costs for those services increase. Ohmae (1995) points out that this cycle inevitably leads to the decreased motivation of a society’s workforce. Ohmae (1995) claims that this system will inevitably fail in a borderless society where prolonged detachment from the public is unsustainable.

“If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you 've already got half the vote.”
-Aegyptophilus

Misaligned Incentives
Ohmae restates the idea that in an attempt to gain votes politicians do not always act in the public’s best interest. He says “Elected political leaders gain power by giving voters what they want.” This is the idea that politically active groups, like trade unions and lobbyists, may not have the same interests as the general public. For example, keeping open an inefficient factory with subsidies may not increase quality and reduce prices for the goods and services. Only when government officials find it in their best interest to serve the public interest will they act accordingly. He continues to say that governments are “remarkably inefficient engines of wealth distribution.” Many of the arguments for privatization are consistent with his views.

Short-term Solutions versus Long-Term Growth
When governments feel pressure to respond to demands of industries that under perform yet employ politically active citizens, they tend to lean toward remedies that stifle long-term economic wellbeing. Politicians feel pressure from industries who seek to avoid job loss to implement government subsidies, trade restrictions, regulations, and other forms of protection. Instead of competitive forces creating more efficient industries where the optimal combination of value added create higher quality goods at lower costs, these short-term solutions create long-term problems. This creates a vicious cycle that stifles long term growth in exchange for short-term remedies.

Protection of Natural Resources
One popular argument against globalization is the protection of natural resources. This is part of a common non-economic argument against foreign direct investment “to protect national security.” Based on a fear that critical resources like food and petroleum will be in scarce supply in times of political unrest, governments often protect these resources with trade barriers and subsidies. Ohmae (1995) calls this the “resource illusion” and says that in fact, countries are actually slowing their own growth. He goes on to say that growth depends on leveraging value-adding economic linkages that ignore political borders.

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
-[Franciscon D 'Anconia], Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics
Ohmae (1995) notes that the flows of activity as measured by official trade statistics only represent a small part of the economic linkages between nations. He points out that although these statistics receive a great deal of attention from politicians and the media, they are unreliable and incomplete. For example, they do not count revenues from services, licenses, or intellectual property, or from goods manufactured by firms outside of the country in which the parent company is located. In addition nations operate under different systems in taxation, banking, and in other areas for which statistics are gathered. Some countries count life insurance as savings, while other countries count life insurance as an expense. Some countries treat government-funded pensions as part of individual income while other countries count it as a public liability. Mortgage investment is seen as an investment in home consumption in some countries, while in others it is seen as a form of savings. Devices like microwaves can be counted as white goods, consumer electronics, or furniture depending on the country. His point is that the statistics from which decisions are made do not reflect reality. (Ohmae, 1995)

Standardization versus Adaptation
Standardization of products and brands is quite tempting to multinational enterprises. It seems that economies of scale and scope could be maximized thus decreasing per unit costs. Ohmae (1995) notes that as societies move up the economic ladder (past $5,000 per capita), they become increasingly similar in terms of tastes and preferences. Access to media and technology plays an important role in this transformation. (Ohmae, 1995)
Levitt (1983) states that the “multinational and the global corporation are not the same thing.” According to Levitt (1938), multinational corporations operate in many countries and adjust production and practices in each but that the new global corporation can operate with consistency as if the entire world were a single entity.

The forces behind standardization are technology and the possibilities of economies of scale in production, distribution, marketing, and management. (Levitt, 1983) But many academics argue that standardization is only one tool in a basket of options for an international focus. Douglas and Wind (1987) feel that universal standardization is oversimplistic and “ignores the inherent complexity of operations in international markets.” They would disagree with Levitt’s (1983) statement that “the world’s needs and desires have been irrevocably homogenized.”

In fact Douglas and Wind (1987) take a deep look at the underlying assumptions to the standardization philosophy. According to Douglas and Wind (1987), the key assumptions are that customer needs are becoming increasingly homogenized, people are willing to sacrifice preferences for lower price, and substantial economies of scale are possible. As stated earlier, Douglas and Wind (1987) find evidence of increasing diversity. Regarding price over preference, they point out that competing on the basis of price does not offer a long-term competitive advantage and that any cost advantages may be negated by transportation and distribution costs. Finally, to counter the argument that the greatest economies of scale are possible through standardization, Douglas and Wind (1987) point to technological advancement like flexible factory automation. They also point out that the cost of production is only one component of the total cost and that strategy should take into account other factors such as positioning, packaging, brand name, advertising, public relations, trade promotion, and distribution.

Douglas and Wind (1987) do find a place for global standardization when three factors exist. First, global standardization works when a global market segment can be identified, such as in industrial and consumer markets. Second, global standardization might prove beneficial with synergistic effects like global image and with opportunities to transfer ideas between countries. Third, when an international communication and distribution infrastructure is available, global standardization could prove to be effective. Douglas and Wind (1987) counter these notions with some of the operational constraints to the implementation of a standardization strategy. These restraints that could inhibit global standardization are governmental restrictions, trade barriers, infrastructure differences, the effectiveness of national media, available resources, resource costs, and the nature of competition. When the world is not homogeneous, standardization can be challenging.

Regional Focus
Rugman and Moore (2001) point to a change from a national focus to a regional one. Evidence of this shift comes from the increased activity of trade blocks such as NAFTA. They posit that for many multinational corporations a regional strategy works best. They go on to say that as the world’s economy becomes more networked, a “local” emphasis becomes more important. In fact, they claim that location remains fundamental to competition. Multinational firms must adapt their products to the national market. Another dynamic of a regional focus is the prevalence of regional clusters. Clusters are geographic concentrations of interconnected firms and institutions in a particular field. Clusters may take years and even decades to develop.

In Ohmae’s (1995) “borderless” world he points to natural economic zones as dominating. He says that regions are economic units that “are anything but local in focus.” Ohmae (1995) believes that efficient scale for production and advertising will be found at the regional rather than national scale. He goes on to say that in this regional world where true economies of service can exist, religious, ethnic, and racial distinctions are not as important.

New Paradigm
Ohmae (1995) posits that enlightened leaders encourage citizens to work together. New- region states welcome foreign investment, foreign ownership, and foreign products when they help employ domestic citizens improving their quality of life by giving them access to the best and cheapest products from anywhere in the world. The ability to take advantage of the global system requires the ability to function as a part of a global economy.

Levitt (1983) feels that the new paradigm will shift from customized items to globally standardized products that are advanced, functional, reliable, and low priced. He believes that long term success depends on what “everyone wants rather than worrying about the details of what everyone thinks they might want.” Success according to Levitt (1983) depends on efficiency in production, distribution, marketing, and management. The most effective world competitors will incorporate superior quality and reliability into their cost structures. (Levitt, 1983)

Rugman and Moore (2001) say that the new paradigm is a regional focus. They state, “there is no trend toward globalization.” Rugman and Moore (2001) say that globalization, as it has been presented, is a myth. Multinational enterprises operate in regions or clusters but not on a global standardized scale. Douglas and Wind (1987) believe that while global products and brands may be appropriate for certain markets, for many companies product market adaptation to local or regional differences may yield better results.

IV. GLOBALIZATION AND STRATEGY

Bartlett and Ghoshal (2003) suggest that multinational companies need four types of managers. The first type of manager is a business manager whose primary goal is to further the company’s global scale efficiency. This objective is accomplished through three roles: the strategist, the architect, and the coordinator. As the strategist the business manager looks for a way to align corporate objectives with the activities of the firm. As the architect the business manager relies on input from regional and functional heads and uses the information to decide where major plants, technical centers, and sales offices should be located or closed. The role of coordinator is the most time intensive. The business manager works to achieve the most efficient distribution of assets and resources while protecting and leveraging the existing competencies.

The second type of manager is the country manager. A country manager’s primary objective is to be sensitive and responsive to the local market. This objective is accomplished through three roles: the sensor, the builder, and the contributor. As the sensor the company manager looks for and interprets local opportunities and threats. A country manager must predict potential outcomes and then communicate the relevance of those forecasts to the rest of the organization. Another critical role played by the country manager is that of the builder whose job is identifying, developing, and leveraging national resources and capabilities. Finally as the contributor, the country manager can leverage access and control to strategically important information and assets to participate in product-development committees, product-market task forces, and global strategy conferences.

The third type of manager is the functional manager. Functional managers link technical, manufacturing, marketing, human resources, and financial experts worldwide. The primary objective of the functional manager is to transfer specialized knowledge while also connecting scarce resources and capabilities across national borders. The three roles of the functional manager are the scanner, the cross-pollinator, and the champion. As the scanner, the functional manager detects trends and transforms piecemeal information into strategic intelligence. As the cross-pollinator, functional managers connect areas of specialization throughout the organization. Finally, functional managers play an important role as the champion of innovations.

The fourth type of manager is the corporate manager. The corporate managers are responsible for coordinating the previous three specialists: the business managers, the country managers, and the functional managers. Corporate managers integrate the many levels of responsibility. This is accomplished through three roles: the leader, the talent scout, and the developer. As the leader, corporate managers lead in the broadest sense and also at the personal level. As the talent scout, the corporate manager must make recruitment development and training a top priority. As the developer, the corporate managers provide opportunities for achievement that allow business, country, and functional managers to handle negotiations in a worldwide context. (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 2003)

The transnational strategy is based on the simultaneous attainment of location and experience curve economies, local responsiveness, and global learning. (Hill, 2002) Today, sophisticated transnational companies have separated the notions of coordination and centralization. Additionally, a transnational firm’s greater access to human capability is a definite advantage when compared to strictly local companies or old-line multinationals. (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 2003)

Figure 4: Firm Strategies
|Structure & Controls |Multi-domestic |International |Global |Transnational |
|Vertical differentiation |Decentralized |Core competency |Some centralized |Mixed |
| | |centralized; other | | |
| | |decentralized | | |
|Horizontal |Area structure |Product division |Product division |Informal matrix |
|differentiation | | | | |
|Need for coordination |Low |Moderate |High |Very high |
|Integrating mechanisms |None |Few |Many |Very many |
|Performance ambiguity |Low |Moderate |High |Very high |
|Need for controls |Low |Moderate |High |Very high |

Source: Hill (2002)

Global versus Multidomestic Strategies
In the multinational approach (also known as the multidomestic strategy) companies set up country subsidiaries that design, produce, and market products or services tailored to local needs. A multidomestic strategy seeks to maximize worldwide performance by maximizing local competitive advantages, revenues, and profits. In a global strategy companies seek to integrate expansion into a worldwide strategy. A global strategy seeks to maximize worldwide performance through sharing and integration. Three steps are essential to develop a total worldwide strategy: (1) development of core strategy (source of sustainable competitive advantage), (2) internationalize the core strategy through international expansion of activities through adaptation, and (3) globalize the international strategy across countries.

Industry globalization drivers such as underlying market conditions, costs, and other industry conditions are externally determined. Drivers create the potential for a multinational business to achieve the benefits of a global strategy. Five strategic dimensions or “strategy levers” are required to decide between multidomestic and global strategies. These strategic dimensions are market participation, product offering, location of value-added activities, marketing approach, and competitive moves.

Figure 5: Globalization Strategic Dimensions
|Dimension |Pure Multidomestic Strategy |Pure Global Strategy |
|Market Participation |No particular pattern |Significant share in major markets |
|Product Offering |Fully customized in each country |Fully standardized worldwide |
|Location of Value-Added Activities |All activities in each country |Concentrated—one activity in each country |
|Marketing Approach |Local |Uniform worldwide |
|Competitive Moves |Stand-alone by country |Integrated across countries |

Source: Yip (1989)

Benefits of a global strategy include cost reductions, improved quality of products and programs, enhanced customer performance, and increased competitive leverage. The costs of a global strategy include management costs through increased coordination needs, reporting requirements, and added staff. Over centralization may lead to reduced motivation and morale in the local markets. A global strategy may incur greater commitment to a market than is warranted on its own merits. Product standardization may result in a product that does not entirely satisfy any customers. The concentration of activities may increase currency risks. Uniform marketing can reduce adaptation to local customer behavior. Finally, integrated competitive moves can lead to a sacrifice of revenues, profits, or competitive position in individual countries.

The ideal strategy matches the level of strategy globalization to the globalization potential of an industry. Yip (1989) says that according to many executives, “far more businesses suffer from insufficient globalization than from excessive globalization.” Industry drivers that affect the decision for globalization are market drivers, cost drivers, governmental drivers, and competitive drivers. Market drivers include the level of homogeneous needs, global customer base, available global channels, and transferable marketing. Cost drivers include economies of scale and scope, learning and experience curves, favorable logistics, differences in country costs and skills, and product development costs. Governmental drivers include favorable trade policies, compatible technical standards, and common marketing regulations. Finally, competitive drivers include the interdependence of countries and competitors who are global or becoming global.

Industry evolution will also impact the decision to globalize as well as the actions of competitors and worldwide acceptance of standardized products. Additional factors that affect the decision to pursue a global strategy include the business and parent company position and resources, as well as organizational limitations. (Yip, 1989)

Service Industry
The service industry has distinctive characteristics that make globalization particularly challenging. Traditionally, these characteristics were defined along four generic dimensions: intangibility of product, variety of customer experiences, expiration of output, and simultaneous production and consumption. Yip and Lovelock (1996) define eight new characteristics that define the service industry as the nature of the output (performance rather than a product), customer involvement in production, customers as a part of the experience, quality control challenges, evaluation challenges for the customer, lack of inventories, a critical time factor, and the availability of electronic channels of distribution. Lovelock and Yip (1996) take a look at the service industry in the context of Yip’s (1989) globalization strategic dimensions.

Lovelock and Yip (1996) assign core services to one of three broad categories: people-processing services, possession-processing services, and information-based services. People-processing services are businesses such as passenger transportation, health care, food service, and lodging; that require the customer to be present. Possession-processing services include freight transport, warehousing, equipment installation and maintenance, car repair, laundry, and waste disposal; where tangible actions are performed to physical objects. Information-based services involve the collection, manipulation, interpretation, and transmission of data. Information-based services include: accounting, banking, consulting, education, insurance, legal services, and news.

Core services are surrounded by supplementary services that fall into eight categories that Lovelock calls the flower of service. These eight categories are information, consultation, order-taking, hospitality, safekeeping, information, billing, and payment. Lovelock and Yip (1996) compare the service industry to the industry globalization drivers that determine what type of strategy is best for the organization.

Figure 6: Supplementary Services Surrounding the Core Product
[pic]
Source: Lovelock and Yip (1996)

The eight industry drivers are common customer needs, favorable logistics, global customers, information technology, global channels, governmental policies and regulations, global economies of scale, and the transferability of competitive advantage. These were discussed in a generic sense in the previous section.

Figure 7: Globalization Framework for Service Businesses
[pic]
Source: Lovelock and Yip (1996)

In terms of the service industry the service characteristic of “people as a part of the service experience” limits the potential commonality of customer needs and tastes. As far as global customers, standardization can become an asset. For example, as customers become global, they might seek firms who can handle all of their corporate banking, insurance, and logistic needs on a consistent global scale within the context of national rules and regulations. Similarly, global channels are becoming important. Although few distributors have yet advanced to adequate worldwide coverage, the trend to globalize exists. Cost globalization drivers may be less favorable for services that are primarily people-based and face fewer benefits from economies of scale and lower experience curve effects. Favorable logistics is seldom a barrier to globalization for information-based services. For example, banking in the Cayman Islands is for tax benefits rather than location benefits. With regards to information technology, significant economies of scale may be gained by centralizing “information hubs” on a global basis.

The government policies and regulation drivers are based on host governments who affect globalization potential through import tariffs and quotas, non-tariff barriers, export subsidies, local content requirements, currency and capital restrictions, technical and other standards, ownership restrictions, and requirements on technology transfer. For people-processing services government barriers to global strategy include country differences in social policies affecting labor costs, the role of women in front-line jobs, and hours or days that work can be performed. For possession-processing services, tax laws, environmental regulations, and technical standards may affect the costs of globalization. Finally, for information-based services, social policies on education, censorship, public ownership of communications, and infrastructure quality may apply.

According to Lovelock and Yip (1996) the most important competitive advantage driver arises from the transferability of competitive advantage. For service “customer involvement in production” and “lack of inventories” limit the leverage of competitive advantage of labor productivity but do affect management systems. These many drivers of the globalization decision in the services industry point out the importance of conducting a systematic evaluation of globalization drivers for individual industries.

Lovelock and Yip (1996) also use Yip’s (1989) four “global strategy levers” to determine whether international strategies should be global. The four “global strategy levers” are: global market participation, global products and services, global location of value-adding activities, and global marketing. In terms of global market participation countries are selected on the basis of stand-alone attractiveness and in terms of potential contribution to globalization benefits. Global products and services refers to a standardized core product or service that requires a minimum of local adaptation. The global location of value-adding activities is where the value chain is broken up and each activity can be conducted in a different country. Finally, global marketing is a uniform marketing approach that is applied around the world.

Key issues in globalization include the constraints imposed by language, culture, and government regulations. Core service products that are sold globally are more likely to be standardized than customized. Service firms should be looking for opportunities to exploit differences in national comparative advantages as they seek to build more efficient value chains. Hospitality and safekeeping will always have to be provided locally because they are responsive to the physical presence of customers and their possessions. According to Lovelock and Yip (1996), companies can develop effective global strategies by systematically analyzing the specific globalization drivers affecting their industries and the distinctive characteristics of their service businesses.

Common Global Misunderstandings
Globalization has been defined as the production and distribution of similar products and services on a worldwide basis. One myth of globalization is that companies produce homogenous products across all borders. In actuality most of the sales of “global” companies are made on a “triad-regional” basis. Another misunderstanding of globalization is that multinational enterprises are globally monolithic and excessively powerful politically. In fact, the process of regional competition does not allow companies to produce a strong political advantage or sustainable long-term profits. A third misunderstanding is that multinational enterprises are able to dominate local markets everywhere. The truth is that multinational firms have to produce products for local markets. World trade is actually highly regional. (Rugman, 2000)

According to Rugman (2000), a pure globalization strategy that is typified by high economic integration and low national responsiveness will not always work in the 21st century. The best strategy will depend on the specific situation. Rugman (2000) points out five lessons. First, managers should not assume that there is an integrated global market. A global strategy goes beyond the idea of globalization and regional trade, and investment agreements should be taken into account. Additionally, managers should learn to deal with different cultures and be nationally responsive. Second, organization structures should be designed so that triad-based internal know-how and capability is recognized. Managers should develop network organizational competencies rather than relying on international divisions or global product divisions. Third, managers should develop new ways to think about regional business networks and triad-based clusters, as well as assessing the similar attributes of triad competitors. Organizations should make alliances and foster cross-cultural awareness in senior managers. Fourth, managers should develop analytical methods for assessing regional drivers of success. Finally managers should “think regional, act local – and forget global.” (Rugman, 2000)

Developing and Implementing a Global Strategy
Managers have to face the increasing globalization of markets and competition. American firms in particular face two conflicting challenges: the need to complete their internationalization by increasing their adaptation to local needs and at the same time to make their strategies more global. This creates a dual challenge—managers need to figure out what the global strategy is and then must successfully implement the strategy.
There are five dimensions of globalization: domination of major markets, core product standardization, concentrating of value-adding activities, adopting uniform market positioning and marketing mix, and an integrated competitive strategy.

The benefit of domination in major markets brings several benefits in terms of corporate strategy. First, larger economies of scale, learning benefits from each country, the ability to manage countries as a portfolio and to exploit differences in product life cycles, and participation in countries that lead development will allow the company to be at the cutting edge of the product category. Standardizing the core product and customizing superficial aspects can be a way for companies to meet the dynamics of global and local demands. The benefits of concentrating value-adding activities in a few countries include gaining economies of scale and leveraging the special skills or strengths of particular countries. Adopting a uniform marketing positioning and marketing mix allows companies to save in the cost of developing marketing strategies and programs. A uniform marketing position and marketing mix also gives the companies internal focus. Finally integrating competitive moves across countries allows countries to view the world as a competitive battleground and to cross-subsidize. Cross-subsidizing allows a company to move cash generated in a profitable high-market-share country to a strategically important but low-market-share country.

Figure 8: External Drivers of Industry Potential for Globalization
[pic]
Source: Yip, et al (1988)

In addition to the five dimensions of globalization there are two aspects that a company must look at when creating the corporate strategy—external and internal business factors. External business forces involve the interaction of industry drivers of globalization and the different ways in which a business can be global. (Yip et al, 1988) The industry’s potential for globalization is driven by market, economic, environmental, and competitive factors. (see Figure 8) Market forces determine the customers’ receptiveness to a global product, economic factors determine whether pursuing a global strategy can provide a cost advantage, environmental factors show whether the necessary infrastructure exists, and competitive factors provide the incentive for action. (Yip et al, 1988) Managers should analyze these four industry forces to determine if they are competing in an industry that is global or globalizing.

Internal business factors play a role in determining how well a company can implement its global strategy. Four factors influence a company’s ability to develop and implement a global strategy: organization structure, management processes, people, and culture. The organizational structure of a global company should be centralized so that the business focus will dominate the country focus. The management processes are also important. Cross-country coordination, global planning, global budgeting, global performance review and compensation, and international groups and forums are examples of global management processes. The people in a global firm are also important. The use of foreign nationals, a requirement for multi-country careers, frequent travel, and clear global intentions are important for a global strategy. Culture is important in any global strategy. A national identity might hinder a global organization. A worldwide commitment to employment is a necessity. Finally, a global organization must be interdependent.

Figure 9: Internal Factors that Facilitate a Global Strategy
[pic]
Source: Yip, et al (1988)

Yip et al (1988) suggest a global strategy audit to assess how global the industry is and where it is headed in the future, to better understand how global the firm’s current strategy is and how it compares to competitors in the industry, to understand the potential for further globalization, to identify the organizational factors that will facilitate or hinder a move towards globalization, and to give the firm a broad action plan in terms of strategic and organizational change priorities. The steps for the strategic audit are shown in Figure 10. The first step involves identifying business unit. The next step is to evaluate industry potential for globalization. If there is no potential then the company should compete locally. If there is potential for globalization, then the company should look at business/external factors such as market participation, product standardization, activity concentration, marketing uniformity, and integration of competitive movers. These factors help a firm evaluate the extent of globalization. The fourth step is to identify the strategic need for change in the extent of globalization. The fifth step is to evaluate organization factors such as structure, management processes, people, and culture. The sixth step is to identify the organizational ability to implement globalization. Finally, the seventh step is to diagnose the scope and direction of required changes.

Figure 10: The Steps of the Global Strategy Audit
[pic]
Source: Yip, et al (1988)

Organizational Culture
Hofstede (1994) defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one category (i.e. national, regional, gender, age, social class, profession) of people from another. He first describes the five dimensions of national culture: power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long term versus short term orientation. Power distance is the distribution of power in terms of the way subordinates expect inequality. For example, in some cultures subordinates are simply told what to do; while in other cultures they are consulted, and suggestions are implemented by upper management. Individualism versus collectivism is the extent to which individuals are integrated into groups. In an individualist society everyone is expected to look out for oneself, while in a collectivist society individuals are integrated into groups. The third dimension, masculinity versus femininity, is based on competitiveness versus negotiation. The fourth dimension, uncertainty avoidance, refers to the ability to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity. The final dimension of national culture defined by Hofstede is a long term versus a short term orientation. This is the ability to pursue long term goals.

Hofstede (1994) points out that while cultural dimensions are important, there are limits in the organizational setting. For example, while performance appraisals seem to work in western cultures, in collectivist societies indirect feedback is more appropriate. Management by objectives is where subordinates negotiate goals and can work well in cultures with a low power distance. Additionally, the concept of strategic management only works in societies that can accept uncertainty. Finally, humanization of work where tasks are made to be more interesting and enjoyable for employees has to be adjusted for different cultures.

Organizational culture is different from national culture in that it is partial and voluntary where national culture is permanent and involuntary. Hofstede (1994) looks at organizational culture and defines six dimensions: process-oriented versus results-oriented cultures, job-oriented versus employee-oriented cultures, professional versus parochial cultures, open system versus closed system cultures, tightly versus loosely controlled cultures, pragmatic versus normative cultures. Process-oriented cultures are dominated by technical and bureaucratic routines while results-oriented cultures focus on outcomes. Job-oriented cultures only assume responsibility for the employees’ job performance while employee-oriented cultures assume responsibility for the employees’ well-being. In professional cultures members identify with their profession while in parochial cultures members identify with the organization for which they work. In an open system outsiders are welcome while it is harder for newcomers to be admitted into closed system cultures. In tightly controlled organizations there is more formality and punctuality while loosely controlled organizations are more flexible. Finally, in pragmatic cultures organizations are more flexible with customers while normative cultures are more rigid.

Once the organizational culture of an organization is assessed, top management should decide whether to optimize the existing culture or attempt to change it. If the decision is made to change the existing culture, a cost benefit analysis should first be considered. Changing an organization’s culture requires appealing to feelings are well as intellect; gaining support from key management and employees; adapting new functions, departments, locations, and tasks, as well as recruitment, training and promotion.

Hofstede (1994) proposed that structure should follow culture. The purpose of an organization’s structure is to co-ordinate activities. The best structure at any given moment depends on the company’s people, resources, and goals. The integration of organizations across national borders requires managers to have insight into organizational structures, leadership styles, motivation patterns, and training and development models as they relate to organizational and national culture.

V. GLOBALIZATION AND PUBLIC POLICY

Dunning (1997) traces academic thought on the respective roles of markets, hierarchies, inter-firm alliances, and governments as modes of organizing economic activity. Governments perform two distinct functions: administrator and owner of assets. The debate in academics deals with the balance between the two functions. Dunning (1997) looks at the evolution of thought on capitalism and identifies three stages of market-based capitalism: entrepreneurial, hierarchical, and alliance. These stages are a result of the increasing complexity and specialization of economic activity, the growing interdependence of many intermediate product markets, the accelerating movement towards an information- and innovation-driven economy, the widening territorial boundaries of firms, the increasing significance of created assets such as human skills and technological capacity in the value adding process, the development of new institutions and organizational forms, and a reevaluation of cultures and behavioral norms. They have all impacted the costs and benefits of alternative resource allocative systems and the relative advantages of markets, firms, and governments.

Figure 11: Three Ages of Capitalism
| |Entrepreneurial Capitalism |Hierarchical Capitalism |Alliance Capitalism |
| |(1770-1875) |(1875-1980) |(1980-?) |
|Markets |Small and fragmentary, local and |National or international: |Regional and global: dynamic and |
| |national: mainly competitive |increasingly oligopolistic |more competitive |
|Specialization |Simple and modest, based mainly on |Becoming more complex: both |Extensive and interdependent: the |
| |distribution of natural assets: |national and international |paradox of increasing global |
| |national | |division of labor based on location|
| | | |of created assets, together with |
| | | |the sub-national clusters of |
| | | |economic activity |
|Key Resources |Natural resources, such as fruits |Physical and some knowledge capital|Tangible assets such as |
| |of the land and relatively | |infrastructure and technological |
| |unskilled labor | |capacity. |
| | | |Intangible assets such as human |
| | | |competence and knowledge, |
| | | |information, organizational and |
| | | |learning capability. |
|Mobility of assets |Little except for finance capital, |Gradually increasing via MNE |Substantial mobility of |
| |and some emigration |operations |firm-specific created assets. But |
| | | |less mobility of some |
| | | |location-specific assets |

Source: Dunning (1997)

Entrepreneurial capitalism emerged in 1770 at the time of Adam Smith. The institution of political democracy was still in its infancy and public administrators had neither the experience nor the motivation to organize economic activity effectively. The dominant theoretical paradigm was laissez-faire. This concept was dominant because of the idea that market intervention would have more costs than benefits. Around 1875, hierarchial capitalism brought the emergence of the multi-activity firm and gradual internationalization. Political economists like Alexander Hamilton (1751-1804) and Friedrich List (1798-1864) began arguing for protectionism. Social welfare was promoted and governments began to engage in new activities such as transportation systems and education. The concepts of externalities and the distinction between social and private costs and benefits were debated, and economists such as John Maynard Keynes (1936) began to call for more positive interventionism by national governments. Scholars such as Commons (1924, 1934) began pointing out the costs of coordinating economic activity.

In the 1970’s Ronal Coase would introduce the role of transaction costs in determining the organization of economic activity. Two distinctive features of alliance capitalism are the emphasis on the partnership between the various organizational modes of resource allocation and the role assigned to government as the overseer of the economic system.

Approaches to Economic Organization
Dunning (1997) identifies approaches to the role of government in a market-oriented economy. The first is the philosophical/ideological view of how economic activity should be organized. The Mercantilists believed that the political and economic interests of the state should be the principal justification for economic activity. As a reaction to the Mercantilists’ philosophy, the French Physiocrats believed in the natural order of things.

“laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui-même[1]”

After the Industrial Revolution a new school of thought emerged, the French historian Jean Charles Simonde de Sismondi (1773-1843) introduced the social welfare school of social economics. Social economics then divided into socialist economics and welfare economics. Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a strong proponent of socialist economics, the collective ownership of property and the active role of the state in economic affairs. Welfare economics was based on the concept of the social welfare of the community and the distribution of the national dividend.

The second approach to the role of government in a market-oriented economy that Dunning (1997) identifies is the cost benefit view of organizational forms. The premise for this view is that markets are the best instrument for allocating resources and that the only justification for external intervention is when markets fail to perform in a Pareto optimal fashion. Dunning (1997) points out five reasons for market imperfections: structural market distortions; externalities and social welfare; the issue of structural unemployment; institutions, transactions, and coordination costs; and technology and organizational change.

Historical Review
Dunning (1997) finds six conclusions to his historical analysis academic opinions regarding the way in which capitalist economies should be organized. First, there is no universally applicable organizational model. Second, only recently has attention been given to the endemic benefits and costs of alternative modes of governance. Third, the opinions of scholars have reflected the timeframe of their analysis. For example, classical economists based their opinions on the belief that the wealth of nations rested in its natural resources. Later, economists saw the ability to create new assets and capabilities as the requirement for advancement. More recently, economic growth is seen as a result of technological and organizational innovation, involving large expenditures on human resource development and a supporting inventory physical structure. Fourth, the new optimal structure of organizations has become more objective in terms of a transaction cost perspective. Fifth, the complexity of society has created a new recognition of the need for government. Sixth, the issue under discussion strongly reflects the effectiveness of alternative organization forms. For example, government intervention is often proposed with the economic justification of protecting emerging industries. Additionally, government intervention has been proposed with the economic justification of reducing unemployment. Government intervention has also been proposed to foster competitiveness through market-facilitating and strategically related policies. To summarize this final point, the context of the argument will lead to the conclusions.

Determinants of Economic Organization
Dunning (1997) finds different determinants of economic organization in three different economies: a closed economy, a partially opened economy, and a fully open economy. A closed economy is completely isolated from the world. The main feature of this type of economy is the equivalence between political and economic space due to exclusive product and factor markets and absence of cross-border trade. In a closed economy the costs and benefits of economic organization are determined by the structure of domestic resources and capabilities, institutional arrangements and consumer tastes. A partially open economy is one in which there are limited cross-border transactions. Government can impose policy instruments such as tariffs, quotas, and subsidies which can be market facilitating or market distorting. Opening a partially open economy is likely to pose new problems for the organization of domestic resources. While structural market imperfections may be reduced transaction and coordination costs of domestic economic activity may override any benefits from comparative advantage and scale economies. A fully open economy is structurally integrated with the rest of the world. Fully opened economies have a plethora of economic transactions such as foreign direct investment and multinational enterprises. In a fully open economy the increasing mobility of firm-specific resources and capabilities, the growing significance of cross-border transactions, the reduction in transportation and communication costs, and the growing importance of location-bound assets such as an educated workforce or sophisticated infrastructure are all determinants of economic organization.

Corporate Political Strategy
Ring, Lenway, and Govekar (1990) explore the effects of institutional arrangements on corporate political strategy. The authors note that the home base of the firm remains the core source of its competitive advantage. Firms are more likely to maintain their key assets and resources in their home country rather than a host nation state, although there may be some variations for global industries depending on the internal geocentric orientation of the firm. Ring et al (1990) explain the use of international alliances by the desire of firms to share the ownership of their foreign subsidiaries with local firms in order to reduce the uncertainties that can arise from a hostile regulatory environment.

Ring, Lenway, and Govekar (1990) note that heavy involvement with corrupt officials has been directly and indirectly associated with numerous social and commercial maladies but may also offer some firms opportunities to internalize environmental threats through absorption. The multinational enterprise’s political behavior can be both a defense against threats from the state as well as a means to create economic opportunities for the firm. While the state can create market imperfections to the advantage of multinational enterprises, they can reduce the risk of government intervention if they can co-opt officials through engagement in corrupt transactions. Corruption creates the opportunity for political behavior by multinational enterprises. (Rodriguez, Uhlenbruck, and Eden, 2002)

International Environmental Policy
Rugman and Verbeke (1998) analyze the interactions between international environmental policy and multinational corporate strategy. First they considered the types of international environmental policy regimes in terms of firm level compliance behavior. At the firm level, compliance to environmental policies is based on economic costs and benefits. At issue is whether the benefits are driven by expected improvements in industrial performance such as market share or profitability or by sanctions associated with non-compliance. In terms of non-compliance it is the strength of the administrative enforcement that determines compliance. Rugman and Verbeke (1998) give four managerial responses to economic policies. In the first quadrant performance-driven compliance prevails. In the second quadrant administrative enforcement is not an issue; and, therefore, unconditional non-compliance goes unpunished. In the third quadrant the economic benefits are only in the form of avoiding punishment so enforcement is compliance driven. Finally, in the fourth quadrant environmental regulations are not enforced, and the firms are conditionally not complying with regulations. Rugman and Verbeke (1998) note that these quadrants have served as the basis for international environmentally related policies such as the OCED non-binding environmental regulations, policies and principles (Quadrant 1), International agreements (Quadrant 2), the environmental standards of the EU (Quadrant 3), and NAFTA (Quadrant 4).

Figure 12: A Managerial Perspective on Compliance with International Environmental Policies
[pic]
Source: Rugman and Verbeke (1998)

Second, Rugman and Verbeke (1998) assessed the significance of “green strategic management” through a resource-based reinterpretation of Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989). In this analysis Rugman and Verbeke (1998) account for a broader range of strategies open to firms faced with environmental regulations. In the first quadrant strategies are directed towards developing capabilities as a response to environmental regulations resulting from international agreements. In the second quadrant strategies are developed that do not aim to create green capabilities as a source of competitive advantage. In the third quadrant the firm attempts to develop green capabilities as a response to both national and international regulations. Finally, in the fourth quadrant strategies are primarily directed towards developing green capabilities as a response to home country regulations. Rugman and Verbeke (1998) also point out the concept of eco-labeling as a marketing strategy for firms to attract customers who are environmentally sensitive. Eco-labels have been used on products like dishwashers, light bulbs, batteries, paper, packaging, detergents, and shoes.

Figure 13: Corporate Strategy with National and International Environmental Pressures
[pic]
Source: Rugman and Verbeke (1998)

Third, Rugman and Verbeke (1998) looked at the Porter (1995) hypothesis. In this section the focus was on two countries with a strong trading relationship where one country is larger in terms of market size. Porter and van der Linde (1995) argue that it is good policy for a government to pass strict environmental regulations. Porter and van der Linde (1995) argue that this will force firms to develop new core competencies in environmentally sensitive manufacturing. Rugman and Verbeke (1998) point out that this strategy will only work for a large triad-based economy such as the United States or European Union in which the economic influence on the world economy is strong. Additionally, the home country must have the foresight to anticipate the environmental regulations of other countries that will be modeled after those of the home country.

Performance Requirements
Safarian (1993) reviews the extent of performance requirements with respect to joint ventures and domestic equity, export performance, technology, research and development, and employment and training for foreign direct investment in developed countries. Between 1960 and 1980, a number of developed countries regulated the operations of transnational corporations, both at entry into a country and subsequent expansion in response to concerns about the micro- and macroeconomic impact of such firms, their effect on income distribution, political independence and the distribution of power. In the 1970s and 1980s the incidence of performance requirements was much higher for developing than developed countries and also relatively high in industries where transnational corporations were concentrated.

According to theoretical literature on performance requirements, welfare results will depend on the model used and the local, regional, or global context of the analysis. For example, where tariffs or other forms of protection cannot be removed and oligopoly exists, performance requirements can improve host welfare by reducing the market power of transnational corporations and playing a developmental role. Additionally, optimal intervention in the face of market failure indicates that choosing the right policy involves important information and implementation issues.

Three sets of countries can be distinguished with regard to policies in performance requirements: (1) countries with some form of review mechanism for inward foreign direct investment, (2) two host countries that lack formal review mechanisms but with substantial incentive programs, and (3) home countries that lack formal review mechanisms. The first set of countries could be divided between five smaller natural-resource host countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden, and two other countries: France and Japan. The second set of countries is Belgium and Ireland. The third set includes: Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States.

Foreign ownership is often restricted to a minority position in a number of sectors. These sectors include: services considered close to national identity (i.e. media), aspects of finance where monetary control might be an issue, natural resources, high technology sectors, and defense sectors. All of the reviewed countries, with or without review mechanisms, also found ways to review and often stop takeovers of “key” firms by foreign interests. However, such domestic ownership requirements were generally uncommon in manufacturing, where other performance requirements were the preferred form of regulation.

The requirement of majority domestic ownership is designed to capture some of the rents on such projects in the absence of a capital gains tax and in the face of heavy subsidies. This policy can cause foreign ownership in a particular sector (such as mining in Australia) to fall, while overall foreign direct investment flows continued to rise. All the countries studied had some form of ownership restraints. Only Canada, France and Japan put major emphasis on other performance requirements in the review process. In Canada, to correct for dependency effects, negotiations were formally monitored.

The less formal French review process to study the effects of capital flows attempts to measure the amount of investment or employment generated. The key issue is how well foreign direct investment policy was integrated with industrial policy, including the attempts to maintain a degree of French ownership in some high-value-added sectors which are also competitive internationally. Skillful application of industrial policy, specifically on FDI, certainly helped in this process; but so did other factors, such as a large growing market, political and policy continuity, reasonable macro policies at the time, the existence of strong domestic firms as joint venture partners, and some aspects of business government labor relations which worked well for some decades in furthering these ends.

Part of the issue for Ireland and Belgium, both small countries in a common market, is whether the incentive systems worked in attracting export-oriented transnational corporations. They apparently did work in the sense that a great deal of FDI was attracted to each country for a period; and the performance of the transnational corporations in terms of wages, exports, productivity, and other factors was relatively strong. In each case, however, the older domestically owned firms did not benefit as much from the incentives; and internal linkages were weak. Both countries revised their policies to focus more, for example, on attracting international service projects and developing demands for skilled labor and advanced technologies, including linkages to other domestic firms.

During the 1980s, policy on foreign direct investment became less restrictive. Foreign direct investment was allowed into some sectors where it was formerly limited or prohibited, review mechanisms were ended or sharply limited, and incentives to foreign direct investment were increased. This was an aspect of a more strategic approach to trade and investment policy in a world where transnational corporations were also moving to a more globalized structure of operations. The new approach involved at least three sets of policies: (1) fiscal incentives for declining sectors, (2) increased non-tariff barriers such as anti-dumping laws, and (3) strategic trade and foreign investment promotion. The success of such strategic policies is complicated by, among other things, the constraints posed by integrated trade areas and by the spread of transnational corporations.

Safarian (1993) concludes that foreign direct investment in the presence of market distortions can harm welfare. Performance requirements combined with incentives in some cases to ensure the targeted welfare outcomes. Additionally, there is a case for first-best policy provided that the market failure or distortion is domestic. This involves two policy instruments aimed at two targets: removing tariffs and the performance requirement, which the tariff may require if foreign direct investment has entered in response to it. Where the market failure lies elsewhere, one solution is to aim for increased competition from other transnational corporations or from strengthened domestic firms. If first-best policies are not feasible, the key is to set up a process which is most likely to be effective. That depends partly on the policy capacity of a country. Japan 's success with Japanese-controlled joint ventures was dependent on the presence of increasingly strong local partners as well as an unusual degree of skillful government – business collaboration. Countries without such policy capacity can try to develop it or rely on other modes of technology transfer.

According to Safarian (1993), any effective approach based on performance requirements requires reducing information costs in dealing with firms whose strategies vary and reducing policy implementation costs, while continuing to attract the desired FDI. Several policy design issues need to be resolved: (a) Clarifying the key objective(s) so that trade-offs are possible with any secondary conflicting objectives; (b) Requiring relatively short-run, measurable, enforceable commitments, depending on policy capacity; (c) Recognizing that there are constraints in integrated trade areas, hence a need to design these areas so that the constraints are known and acceptable in advance (NAFTA, EU); (d) Ensuring the agency a degree of policy independence; (e) Attempting to achieve as much policy continuity as possible in the interest of policy planning and in that of transnational corporations. Policy design is ultimately decided by politicians and government officials who will have to balance issues of economic welfare with a variety of other objectives.

Global Political Economy
Evans (1997) notes that current debates are less about the form of public institutions than the extent to which private power can be checked by public authority. This is due in part to the growth of economic transactions which undermine the power of the state’s authority. Evans (1997) argues that the structural logic of globalization and the recent history of the global economy can be read as providing rationales for “high stateness” as well as “low stateness.” The absence of a clear logical connection between economic globalization and low stateness leaves the impact of ideology a key determinant of stateness.

The inclusion or exclusion of nations in the global economy depends on the decisions of private firms. Additionally, access to capital and technology depends on strategic alliances rather than control of territory. In fact according to Evans (1997), in the new global economy resources such as labor and land can be more of a burden than an opportunity. Threats to profit and threats to sovereignty can be connected to political aspirations. For example, political decisions deemed “unwise” by private firms will be “punished” by capital movements.

High stateness might be a source of competitive advantage in a globalizing economy. High stateness or a strong government can also insulate a domestic government from external traumas. Evans (1997) explains that small countries bargaining with large transnational corporations may do better if a competent, unified national agenda participates in the bargaining on the local side. Evans (1997) also notes that the increasing number of intangible products, such as software and media images, is changing the implications of economic theory. A stronger state is needed to protect the assets of these firms.

International Financial Markets
Goodman and Pauly (1993) discuss the relationship between international and domestic variables in the context of capital flows. In the 1960s strong theoretical support for the use of capital controls was proposed by J. Marcus Flemming and Robert Mundell who posited that government can achieve, at most, two of the following three conditions: capital mobility, monetary autonomy, and a fixed exchange rate. But the analysis ignored the feedback effects between exchange rates and domestic prices. Additionally, since the postwar period, international markets have become increasingly liberalized. This has been a reflection of the size of international banking markets, an increasing number of multinational enterprises, and improved technology. Government decisions to abandon capital controls during the 1980s reflected fundamental changes in terms of capital flow.

In an analysis of France, Italy, Germany, and Japan Goodman and Pauly (1993) concluded that capital controls were sometimes abandoned as a consequence of earlier policy decisions rather than as conscious effort. Firm strategies, such as evasion and exit, influenced governments to remain competitive. Goodman and Pauly (1993) point out that the current convergence of policies in favor of capital mobility has dramatically reduced the ability of governments to set autonomous economic policies. Goodman and Pauly (1993) point out that pressure for liberalization are deeply embedded in firm structure and strategy, and the adoption of policies to influence short-term capital flows would now have a clearer impact on long-term investment decisions. Additionally, attempts to understand and manage the effects of short-term capital mobility should be considered in terms of the cross-national coordination of financial policies.

International Relations
Strange (1992) proposes three answers to the increasing importance of firms as actors in world politics. First are the structural changes in the world economy and society. Second is a change in the nature of diplomacy towards greater negotiating power of firms with nations. Third is the influence of firms in transnational relations.

Technological change has sped up the internationalization of production and the dispersion of manufacturing to newly industrialized countries, increased capital mobility, and cheaper transnational communications. Additionally, producers can supply markets with new products, product and process lifetimes have shortened, costs of R&D have risen, firms have been forced to expand internationally, cross-border capital flows have increased, and markets have been liberalized. Industrialization has raised living standards, and people have become better educated. With these structural changes competition has intensified among states and firms for world market share.

The diversity of government responses to structural changes reflects the policy dilemmas particular to the society. To address these changes managers should pinpoint the policy dilemmas where the objectives of the firm and the state clash. Firms should cut out the administrative delays and inefficiencies that impede the work of local managers. Strange (1992) also suggests that the governments break up monopolies and enforce competition among products. States must scan the environment and be ready to adapt to change.

VI. Globalization as a Discourse

Rosamond (1999) suggests that globalization can be a powerful component of the social construction of external context that, in turn, helps to legitimize certain sorts of policy at the EU level. He notes that the term “globalization did not enter discourse until the mid to late 1980s. Rosamond (1999) points out that the concept of globalization has spread beyond the academic world and is frequently employed to signify worldwide economic changes of profound significance. Globalization is a term that is loosely defined; it can represent rapid changes in communication, transport and technology, or the integration of markets. Academics debate whether globalization is taking place or has already occurred, what the connection is to prosperity and problems, and the historical significance.

Rosamond (1999) notes that the term “globalization” has entered policy discussions, but it should be used carefully because it means different things to different people. For example, some people use the term “globalization” as a term for “market liberalization;” but the voting public often thinks of it in terms of corruption or the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Rosamond (1999) found that the use of discourses of globalization is most prevalent in agenda-setting contexts. He posits that the reason for this may lie in an attempt to legitimize European level action in particular sectors rather than in the context of “policy.”

Rosamond (1999) discusses the connections between globalization and European integration. The European Union (EU) was created to address the following variables: perceptions of inefficient European economic fragmentation, the increasing persuasiveness of supply-side economics to a range of policy actions, the processes of globalization, the redundancy of national economic solutions, and the rise of European solutions. Rosamond (1999) finds that the term “globalization” is used by the European Commission as an “’empty’ signifier.” It is also used to impose the idea that there is “no alternative.” Rosamond (1999) also found evidence of an attempt to define globalization as “desirable” and “synonymous with global economic liberalization.” It is also used to justify both European level regulatory competence and neo-liberal policy options. In this context the idea is that “globalization is good and should be encouraged, but it attacks the capabilities of national governments.” Rosamond (1999) concludes that it is clear that politicians in the EU have used the concept of globalization to create cognitive allegiances to the idea of European integration.

Capitalist Globalization
Sklair (2000) focuses on the transnational capitalist class and its four divisions: owners and controllers of transnational corporations and their local affiliates; globalizing bureaucrats and politicians; globalizing professionals; and consumerist elites (merchants and media). According to Sklair (2000) this “transnational capitalist class” constitutes a “global power elite.” Sklair (2000) notes that the transnational capitalist class is opposed not only by anti-capitalists who reject capitalism as a way of life but also by capitalists who reject globalization.

Sklair (2000) points out three definitions of globalization. The first is the international or conception of globalization where internationalization and globalization are used interchangeably. The second definition of globalization is the transnational conception of globalization, where the basic units of analysis are transnational practices, forces, and institutions. The third is the globalist conception of globalization in which the state is actually said to be in the process of disappearing.

According to Sklair (2000) the transnational capitalist class is becoming more global in several aspects: increasing economic integration, involvement in international politics, outward-oriented perspectives, higher education, and a desire to be seen as citizens of the world. The first aspect, increasing economic integration, stems from the increasing mobility of capital and technologies. Corporations are globalizing in terms of four criteria: foreign investment; world best practice and benchmarking; corporate citizenship; and global vision. Shareholder-driven growth and the liberalization of capital movements also drive increasing economic integration. The next few characteristics are driven by a growth in business education with a global focus and by an emphasis on free trade and the shift from import substitution to export promotion. The transnational capitalists tend to have higher educations, access to exclusive clubs and expensive restaurants, and private forms of travel. Finally, the transnational capitalist class strives to be seen as citizens of both their home country and of the world.

Democracy and Free Markets
A transnational capitalist will favor a freer market over state intervention and democracy over the alternatives. These thoughts are communicated through the ideas of national competitiveness. Additionally, the term “World Best Practice” (WBP) is widely used to label measures of performance achieved through various systems of benchmarking. From this came the concept of the total quality management (TQM), which has had the affect of increasing global competition. According to Sklair (2000), “The TQM movement ensured that all aspects of company performance, from manufacturing widgets to answering telephones, from delivering and servicing the product to monitoring energy use in factories and offices, were liable to be benchmarked.” Sklair (2000) believes that the discourse of national and international competitiveness is used to impose more intensive discipline on the workforce and in some cases to impose unnecessarily high standards that drive smaller competitors out of the market. Sklair (2000) goes on to say that the imposition of World Best Practice and benchmarking beyond the narrow confines of manufacturing industries is another important step towards the cultural ideology of consumerism.

Corporate Environmentalism
Environmental protection had been seen by corporations and the transnational capitalist class as a defensive, negative, anti-progress concept until a Swiss billionaire began to introduce the concept of corporate environmentalism. Corporate environmentalism is the concept of sustainable growth and sustainable development. This new concept of sustainable growth had replaced the idea of conservation; and limits to growth were no longer seen as limits on supplies but rather limits on the disposal of resources used and transformed in the productive process. Accepting that industry has to operate within existing frameworks, it can, nevertheless, act to use these frameworks for its own advantage by taking the offensive and shaping ecological legislation. This concept as a social movement and as a discourse co-existed easily with this moderate conception of sustainability in the corporate world viewpoint.

Multiple environmental challenges will be the critical test for the success of the sustainable development historical bloc. The basis on which the CSD approached its task of measuring consumption and production was with sustainable consumption and production as two sides of the same coin. For example, sustainable consumption addresses the demand side by examining what goods and services are required to meet needs and improve the quality of life and to be delivered in a way that reduces the burden on the Earth’s carrying capacity. However, the emphasis of sustainable production is also on the supply side, focusing on improving environmental performance in key economic sectors such as agriculture, energy, industry, tourism, and transport. Sklair (2000) concludes that the combination of the discourse of sustainable development with that of national and international competitiveness provides powerful weapons for the transnational capitalist class. In this context globalization is not a Western term but a “globalizing capitalist ideology,” whose discourse and practices are necessary to stop the growing class polarization and ecological crises characteristic of this latest stage in the long history of capitalism.

VII. Globalization as an empirical phenomena

According to Hirst and Thompson (1997) globalization is not new; and its extent is not much larger than in the past, particularly in the periods before World War II.
Hirst and Thompson are cited as “global skeptics” and “critics of the so-called globalization thesis.” In both political and academic discussions the assumption is commonly made that the process of economic globalization is well under way and that this represents a qualitatively new stage in the development of international capitalism. Hirst and Thompson (1997) question the idea of a genuinely global economy.

Hirst and Thompson argue that: the present highly internationalized economy is not unprecedented, genuinely transnational companies appear to be relatively rare, contemporary capital mobility is not producing a massive shift of investment and employment from the advanced to the developing countries, foreign direct investment is actually highly concentrated among the advanced countries, the Third World remains marginal in both investment and trade, the world economy is far from being genuinely global, and global markets are by no means beyond societal capacity to regulate transnational capital. Hirst and Thompson (1997) do not deny trends towards increased internationalism, rather that there is still a major role for nation-state level policy measures.

Hirst and Thompson (1997) note the dramatic inequalities of contemporary capitalism in terms of life expectancy, income, wealth, and the exclusion of the vast majority from the benefits to be derived from the present system. They claim that, to the extent a globalized economy exists, it is oligopolistically organized and hardly the outcome of the perfect market competition. Additionally, they link the increased dominance of finance to the growth of income inequality.

Hirst and Thompson point out that International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailouts protected these foreign creditors but brought little benefit to local economies. Hirst and Thompson (1997) observe that the labor market characteristics in Europe, which conventionally appear under the heading of "harmful rigidities," such as protective labor standards, job protections, unionization, and high unemployment benefits have no observable impact on unemployment.

The degree of international exposure per se is not the issue, rather the domestic response to it is what counts. The nature of local politics and policies matter less than the struggles over control of the public realm and the extent of freedom of the market. Hirst and Thompson (1997) suggest that such people have been as dazed and confused as the average citizen concerning how the financial system operates. Hirst and Thompson also note that there are clear indications that the project of creating a world economy based solely on market forces is "if not in full retreat, at least in suspension."

Hirst and Thompson’s (1997) core argument is that prosperity and growth of the world economy are more likely in an open market and that environmental concerns are best addressed by diverting revenues from growth in a prosperous international economy. Hirst and Thompson (1997) recommend a close coordination between the major capitalist powers to promote employment in the advanced countries. (Tabb, 2001)

Nationalities of Corporations
Pauly and Reich (1997) argue that while the world political economy is becoming globalized, leading corporations maintain national characteristics. For example, the internal governance and long-term financing structures, approaches to research and development, overseas investments, and intra-firm trading strategies reflect the home country of the organization. The idea that markets are becoming globally integrated is based on increasingly mobile capital and technological and financial incentives; but Pauly and Reich (1997) point out that the institutional and ideological legacies of distinctive national histories continue to significantly shape the core operations of multinational firms based in Germany, Japan, and the United States.

Figure 14: National Differences that Condition Corporate Structures and Strategies
| |United States |Germany |Japan |
|Political |Liberal Democracy |Social Democracy |Developmental Democracy |
|Institutions |Divided Government |Weak Bureaucracy |Strong Bureaucracy |
| |Highly Organized Interest Groups |Corporate Bureaucracy |“Reciprocal Consent” Between State |
| | |Corporatist Organizational Legacy |and Firms |
|Economic |Decentralized |Organized Markets |Guided, Bifurcated, |
|Institutions |Open Markets |Tiers of Firms |Difficult-to-penetrate markets |
| |Unconcentrated Fluid Capital Markets|Bank-centered |Bank-Centered Capital Markets |
| |Antitrust Tradition |Capital Markets |Tight Business Networks/Cartels in |
| | |Universal Banks |Declining Industries |
| | |Certain Cartelized Markets | |
|Dominant Economic |Free Enterprise Liberalism |Social Partnership |Technonationalisn |
|Ideology | | | |

Source: Pauly and Reich (1997)

Pauly and Reich (1997) note that distinct national histories affect the core structures of firms and important firm strategies. While firms must continuously adapt to dynamic markets, there are still systematic and important national differences in the operations of multinational corporations in terms of internal government, long-term financing, research and development, and investment and trading strategies. To study this hypothesis Pauly and Reich (1997) looked at institutions that embodied durable ideologies that link states and firms in distinctive ways; and although these ideologies may be seen as dynamic, they change more slowly than the firm-level operations. Pauly and Reich link these intuitional and ideological structures to the most fundamental behavior of multinational corporations in a comparative context.

Figure 15: Multinational Corporate Structures and Strategies
| |United States |Germany |Japan |
|Direct Investment |Extensive Inward and Outward |Selective/Outward Orientation |Extensive Outward |
| | | |Limited Competition for Inward |
|Intrafirm Trade |Moderate |Higher |Very High |
|Research and |Fluctuating |Narrow base/process, Diffusion |High, Steady Growth |
|Development |Diversifies |Orientation |High Technology and Process |
| |Innovation Driven | |Orientation |
|Corporate Governance |Short-term shareholding |Managerial Autonomy Except During |Stable Shareholders |
| |Managers highly constrained by |Crises |Network-constrained Managers |
| |Capital Markets |No Takeover Risk |Takeover Risk Only within |
| |Risk-seeking, Financial-centered |Conservative, Long-term Strategies |Network/Aggressive Market |
| |Strategies | |Share-Centered Strategies |
|Corporate Financing |Diversified, Global Funding |Concentrated, Regional Funding |Concentrated, National Funding |
| |Highly Price Sensitive |Limited Price Sensitivity |Low Price Sensitivity |

Source: Pauly and Reich (1997)

Pauly and Reich (1997) found that multinational corporations tend to maintain most of their research and development spending at home and show stark differences in their willingness to export new technology from the home base. Pauly and Reich (1997) posit that a modified domestic strategy approach provides a better fit with which to make appropriate decisions. Pauly and Reich (1997) note four implications of their analysis. First, the home country of the corporation appears to remain a vital determinant of the location of future innovation. Second, multinational corporations adapt themselves at the margins but not at the core. Third, power is shifting within societies rather than away from them. Finally, Pauly and Reich (1997) conclude that further comparative elaboration and domestic structures approach to international theory at the firm level is recommended.

Information and Communication Technologies and the Digital Divide
Wade (2002) argues that information and communication technologies are being oversold as a solution to higher efficiency of corporate and public organizations and to stronger responsiveness of government to citizen-customers. Wade (2002) posits that efforts to bridge the digital divide may cause developing countries to depend on the West. Less developed countries need more representation in the standard-setting bodies. Additionally, current attempts do not address issues of sustainability, such as computer servicing and training.

Wade (2002) addresses several common beliefs regarding information and communication technologies. First, the digital divide is a major unequalizing force in the world economy. Second, supplying more information and communication technologies to developing countries will solve the unequalization. Third, information and communication technologies will overcome infrastructural obstacles of developing countries. Fourth, normal cost/benefit analysis cannot be applied to information and communication technologies. Fifth, the high failure rate of information and communication technologies projects is a reflection of the need for more training. Wade (2002) disagrees with these beliefs; he posits that the digital divide is actually a reflection of the income division. He also disagrees that the spread of computers will cause efficiency gains in firms and public administrations and lower transaction costs. Wade (2002) believes that organization inefficiencies will override potential benefits. Furthermore, the addition of information and technology communications in developing countries that do not have the capacity to maintain such systems will create a new “e-dependence” on developed countries. Developing countries get incentives from the World Bank to introduce new information and communication technologies, but this then ties them to open-ended commitments to suppliers for continued support. According to Wade (2002), less developed countries are disadvantaged by lack of income, skills, infrastructure, and in terms of standards and rules that are part of the international system. Because of this, Western suppliers have a disproportionate advantage.

REFERENCES

Aldershot, Edward Elgar. (2002). “The Use and Impact of Performance Requirements in the Developed Countries”, paper prepared for UNCTAD, September 2002, mimeo

Bartlett, Christopher A.; Ghoshal, Sumantra 2003. “What is a Global Manager?” Harvard Business Review, Aug 2003, Vol. 81 Issue 8, p 101.

Dicken, Peter. 1998. Global Shift: Transforming the Global Economy. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Douglas, Susan P. and Yoram Wind (1987), “The Myths of Globalization,” Columbia Journal of World Business, 22(4), 19-29.

Dunning, John "Governments and the Macro-Organization of Economic Activity: An Historical and Spatial Perspective," Review of International Political Economy 4 (1, 1997): 42-86.

Felkins, Leon 1995. “Voter’s Paradox” Available at www.magnolia.net/~leonf/sd/vp-brf.html

Franklin, Pat (1997) “Extended Producer Responsibility” Presented on November 18, 1997, at the Take it Back! '97 Producer Responsibility Forum.

Gupta, Anil K.; Govindarajan, Vijay. 2002, “Cultivating a global mindset” Academy of Management Executive, VOl. 16, Issue 1.

Helpman, Elhanan 1984. “A Simple Theory of International Trade with Multinational Corporations,” Journal of Political Economy, 92: 3, 451-471.

Helpman, Elanan 1985. “Multinational Corporations and Trade Structure,” Review of Economic Studies, 52, 443-457.

Henry, Peter Blair, 2000, Stock market liberalization, economic reform, and emerging equity prices, Journal of Finance 55, 529-564.

Hill, Charles W.L. International Business. Competing in the Global Marketplace. 2002 McGraw Hill 2003, 4th Edition.

Hirst, Paul and Thompso Grahame (1997). Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance. London: Polity Press, chapters 1 and 9.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences. London: Sage.

International Monetary Fund, 2000, Globalization: Threat or Opportunity?, corrected January 2002 (Washington)

Levitt, Theodore (1983), “The Globalization of Markets,” Harvard Business Review, 61 (3), 92-102.

Lindhquist, Thomas, (1992) “Extended Producer Responsibility as a Strategy to Promote Cleaner Production,” Proceedings of an invitational expert seminar, Sweden, May.

Markusen, James R. 1984. “Multinationals, Multi-Plant Economies, and the Gains from Trade,” Journal of International Economics, 16, 205-226.

Rodriguez, Peter, Uhlenbruck, Klaus, and Eden Lorraine (2002) “Corrupt Governments Matter: How corruption affects the entry strategies of multinationals.” Working Paper.

Rugman, Alan and Moore, Karl, (2001) “The Myths of Globalization” Ivey Business Journal 66 (1) Spetember, 64-68.

Safarian, A.E. (1993). Multinational Enterprise and Public Policy: a Study of the Industrial Countries.

Solnik, Bruno, 2000 International Investments 4th edition Published by Addison-Wesley Copyright Addison Wesley Longman

Strange, Susan. (1992) ‘States, Firms and Diplomacy,’ International Affairs (London), vol. 68, no. 1 (1992), pp. 1-15

Tabb, William K. (2001) Monthly Review Foundation, Inc..

Terpstra, Vern; David, Kenneth. 1991. Cultural Environment of International Business,
Cincinnati, OH; South-Western College Publishing.

Van Gelder, Sarah Ruth (2001) “What to Do When Corporations Rule the World: an interview with David C. Korten” YES! Magazine

Vernon, Raymond. 1998. In the Hurricane’s Eye: The troubled Prospects of Multinational Enterprises Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wallerston, Immanuel. 1976. “A world-system perspective on the social sciences,” British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 27, Issue 3.

Yip, George. 1989. “Global strategy in a world of nations?” Slone Management Review 30: 29-41.

-----------------------
[1] “let do and let alone and the world goes by itself.”

References: Aldershot, Edward Elgar. (2002). “The Use and Impact of Performance Requirements in the Developed Countries”, paper prepared for UNCTAD, September 2002, mimeo Bartlett, Christopher A.; Ghoshal, Sumantra 2003 Dicken, Peter. 1998. Global Shift: Transforming the Global Economy. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Douglas, Susan P. and Yoram Wind (1987), “The Myths of Globalization,” Columbia Journal of World Business, 22(4), 19-29. Dunning, John "Governments and the Macro-Organization of Economic Activity: An Historical and Spatial Perspective," Review of International Political Economy 4 (1, 1997): 42-86. Felkins, Leon 1995. “Voter’s Paradox” Available at www.magnolia.net/~leonf/sd/vp-brf.html Franklin, Pat (1997) “Extended Producer Responsibility” Presented on November 18, 1997, at the Take it Back! '97 Producer Responsibility Forum. Gupta, Anil K.; Govindarajan, Vijay. 2002, “Cultivating a global mindset” Academy of Management Executive, VOl. 16, Issue 1. Henry, Peter Blair, 2000, Stock market liberalization, economic reform, and emerging equity prices, Journal of Finance 55, 529-564. Hill, Charles W.L. International Business. Competing in the Global Marketplace. 2002 McGraw Hill 2003, 4th Edition. Hirst, Paul and Thompso Grahame (1997). Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance. London: Polity Press, chapters 1 and 9. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences. London: Sage. International Monetary Fund, 2000, Globalization: Threat or Opportunity?, corrected January 2002 (Washington) Levitt, Theodore (1983), “The Globalization of Markets,” Harvard Business Review, 61 (3), 92-102. Lindhquist, Thomas, (1992) “Extended Producer Responsibility as a Strategy to Promote Cleaner Production,” Proceedings of an invitational expert seminar, Sweden, May. Markusen, James R. 1984. “Multinationals, Multi-Plant Economies, and the Gains from Trade,” Journal of International Economics, 16, 205-226. Rodriguez, Peter, Uhlenbruck, Klaus, and Eden Lorraine (2002) “Corrupt Governments Matter: How corruption affects the entry strategies of multinationals.” Working Paper. Rugman, Alan and Moore, Karl, (2001) “The Myths of Globalization” Ivey Business Journal 66 (1) Spetember, 64-68. Safarian, A.E. (1993). Multinational Enterprise and Public Policy: a Study of the Industrial Countries. Solnik, Bruno, 2000 International Investments 4th edition Published by Addison-Wesley Copyright Addison Wesley Longman Strange, Susan Tabb, William K. (2001) Monthly Review Foundation, Inc.. Terpstra, Vern; David, Kenneth. 1991. Cultural Environment of International Business, Cincinnati, OH; South-Western College Publishing.   Van Gelder, Sarah Ruth (2001) “What to Do When Corporations Rule the World: an interview with David C. Korten” YES! Magazine Vernon, Raymond Wallerston, Immanuel. 1976. “A world-system perspective on the social sciences,” British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 27, Issue 3. Yip, George. 1989. “Global strategy in a world of nations?” Slone Management Review 30: 29-41.