I'm late, I'm late!

New Agenda Set.

Initiating Upload.

Change of Agenda

We live in a world where resolutions come and go.
Where the last one has more meaning than the next.
And the last one has no meaning at all.
We live in a world where "flip-flopping" is the norm.
Soon it shall be the fashion.

When it comes right down to it, I haven't got the time I wish I had, the will power I wish I had, to give this project any level of credence. There is too much that happens in this world, everyday. And this Earth of ours has enough people to document its affairs in a manner sufficiently captivating.

But there was something about the title. I liked the name of this blog. I liked the idea behind what it might have stood for. And I like the subtext, though it remains unapplied to any current material here.

It isn't as if I spent an eternity thinking of what way to take this blog. It's simply that I couldn't come around to finalising my decision until just now. But given the general significance, the potential for questioning aspects more social and human, the course is now set.

This blog shall now become more a diary of strange and intriguing happenings on the London Public Transport Network.
Why?

Well because the mystery is perhaps lessened on the grand scale, but made more shocking in how close it shall come. Perhaps one day I shall change the name of this blog. Perhaps.

Still, from now, I can at least pick up my poor forgotten child and give it a purpose beyond that which it had. And should it languish unloved, it shall not be for lack of attention.

The Long Reach of the MNC

It's a little something I wrote for uni, after spending so long reading for it I often forgot the point I was trying to make. Even now I believe it perhaps no greater purpose than separating me both from those overly liberal, and those overwhelmingly communist-ique. Though such words are tendered gently, keeping mind the strides of Chine, that still be for all intents ideological, communist. Perhaps the differentiation is more along the lines of Central Planning and laissez faire.

"Around the globe, more and more corporations are beginning to act like governments. They negotiate with guerrilla leaders, build roads, and set up schools. Increasingly, they’re setting labour standards in places where nations can’t or won’t."
—Laurent Belsie, Christian Science Monitor

Using Dell keyboards, Intel processors and resources provided by universities miles away is hardly a glaring example of the proliferation of firms across all conceivable boundaries. But look a little deeper and one can find the expanding presence of firms, crossing the state commonly referred to as a “Multi-national Enterprise”, an increasingly common occurrence. As a CEO of AT&T stated, future firms have two options. Go global or go bankrupt. But a slightly more realistic view shows that while we are not at such an impasse, the ability, and in fact inevitability of larger firms going global is growing at an accelerated pace. The sheer breadth of information relating to the growing power of firms in several spheres of influence, and their enhanced interaction with the global political economy automatically limits the scope of this undertaking. Therefore, the aim here shall be to provide a preferably unbiased view of how firms operate in relation to states. It must of course begin with an overview of why the issue of a firm having any say in such affairs of the state arises, as well as dispelling common myths and conspiracy theories. We follow with a comparison, both between state and firm power, and the degree of differentiation in control available to states in varying regions. After putting forward some examples of state-corporation conflict, a range of “solutions” as presented by advisors from a plethora of sources shall be presented, if not as a firm conclusion then only to show where the debate is heading as the intensity of friction retains the potential to grow to alarming proportions.

When the issue of influencing states arises, and working in the international arena, then the presence of MNE’s is the dominating firm type. Though Jan Aart Scholte would prefer to refer to them as global firms, insisting they retain some sort of national identity. In the greater scheme of things this gains importance, as firms functioning abroad may then be seen as representative of the intentions and policies of their origin nation. The functioning of firms in various countries has come up for a large amount of both for-and-against sides. In brief, some of the arguments put forwards by the sides include those of the neo-liberal boosters, who argue that MNCs provide stable capital inflows, jobs, technology transfer and investment to "host countries", while increasing growth and employment in the "home" countries. On the other hand, critics contend that international capital mobility in general and MNCs in particular are creating a "race to the bottom" around the globe, enhancing profits and political power for multinational corporations and local elites who benefit from their presence, while eroding wages, tax bases, social protections and the environment around the globe. Here though we must isolate their reactions in the political and economic spheres.

A large amount of material exists depicting the spread of such corporations and the accompanying “globalisation” as the death of cultural identity and economic and political self-sufficiency. But the truth is that all negative effects are balanced by the positive counters, to some scale that allow for these firms to flourish. Perhaps it is only a matter of there being no proper checking procedures, but the outright dismissal as seen in anti-globalisation protests and the mobilisation of certain movements is absurd and impractical. A large part of their power in relation to states comes in fact from their economic power. The political clout they flourish is often a direct result of the dependency of a country upon its Foreign Direct Investment, coming in from such sources. Twenty-nine of the worlds 100 largest economic entities, including national economies, are MNEs. One measure using corporate sale figures against country GDPs puts 51 corporations in the largest 100 economies in the world. Further to this, MNCs are growing faster than national economies, accounting for only 3.5 percent of the worlds GDP in 1990, and rising to 4.3 percent in 2000. In terms of FDI, inward FDI to developing countries reached a record $208 billion in 1999, which equalled 24% of global investment, down from nearly 40% in 1997. This amount is larger by levels of magnitude than official development assistance—"foreign aid"— received by the developing countries of the world. The amounts are not even close: about $60 billion in development assistance vs. $208 billion in investment. The fact that such a large amount of this investment comes from corporations, coupled with the increasing dependency of these countries on FDI as a large proportion of their GDP (often in excess of 20%, even for many “developed” countries) goes some way towards explaining their rising power. Continued production and work there not only increases the country’s income but also opens up the avenue for further investment and access to global markets.

A slight pause here before any further forays into the role that firms might play compared to states in manoeuvring in the international economy. It is essential to disregard, at least for the purpose of informed debate, the idea that firms are in the international arena for any ulterior motives to specifically undermine states. There aims, for the large majority, are to maximise their profits. What happens as a result of this aim is more the action of obstacle removal than a concerted effort to overthrow global institutions and legal structures. Therefore the so-called functioning of MNCs outside the particular framework of any one country, and hence their supposed invulnerability remains inaccurate. Why some countries can not, or will not take any action against them was evident even in the opening quote stating their ability to work where the nation couldn’t. Hence they seem to have what is a free reign in some countries while remaining subject to strict controls, at least in some areas, in other countries, more generally those of the “North”.

The example of Angola here shall be used in an attempt to justify what are seemingly rather broad sweeping statements with regards to the relationship between states and firms. Angola is the second biggest oil producer in Africa, yet its citizens are amongst the poorest in the world, with half of Angolan children not reaching the age of five. Without transparency citizens of many poor countries reliant upon extractive industries cannot hold corrupt governments to account for how they spend revenues. The role of the firms in this scenario is not only concealing payments details but also exploiting labour and disregarding human rights for the purposes of profit-maximisation. Yet the ability of the state to actually control the firm may be limited, it does retain the right to expropriate. That would result in an all-out eviction of the corporation by the state, leaving it with final power over its own affairs. The moves by MNCs to hire paramilitary forces and engage in activities that may be detrimental to a nations security and social prosperity is therefore never incontestable. Chile, Tanzania and Algeria have all followed this course of action in the past. However the ability of a firm to bribe the local government and retain a far greater say than is appropriate in its political affairs, such as the controversial case of Shell in Nigeria remains a worrying possibility.


The fact that firms from nations that would never allow such activities on their own soil go on to take part in such actions abroad is often cited as the support of countries for their national corporations. But Robert Reich in 1990 countered this support of countries for their firms. While not denying the fact that a nation should be responsible for those corporations as are originally from it, and that function within it, preference should be given to those producing there, and not simply to a firm that has its origins in the country. In purely economic terms, there is greater opportunity for gain from foreign firms producing locally, than local firms producing internationally.

The inability of some nations in the South to effectively tackle corporations interference in their political and economic spheres does merit a great deal of attention. Areas of concern include a country that is very dependent on foreign investment may be pressured to take actions that are unpopular. A country could lose control of sensitive sectors of the economy to foreign interests.
Important decisions can be made outside the host country, and not in the host country’s best interests. In transferring technology MNCs can set prices high and restrict sales. MNCs centralization and control of key functions in their home countries can perpetuate a neo-colonial dependence of the host country. MNCs can introduce superfluous products that do not contribute to social needs and that perpetuate class distinctions, a failing of which Susan Strange was especially critical. Through artificial transfer pricing, MNCs can undermine attempts by governments to manage their country’s economic affairs. The best jobs can be given to citizens of the country in which an MNE has its headquarters. National labour interests can be undermined because of MNCs global activities. And yet while these potential disadvantages remain a very real and pressing concern, developing countries, due to the stark differences between this form of investment and other manners of receiving economical boosts, can not afford to disregard such options. The bargaining power of MNCs is furthered by the concentration of investment in the developed world, the small number of MNCs that control a large share of the investment, the relative unimportance of any particular site to MNCs and the relative importance at the margin of foreign investment to a large number of developing countries, the small amount of foreign aid and the low levels of aggregate demand in much of the world. As a result, many countries are willing to buckle to the pressure and liberalize their economies and sign bilateral and regional investment agreements that reduce their control over investment and lead them to bid for it.

In terms of support for such countries against the overbearing influence of corporations, countries such as the UK and the US are beginning to take responsibility for the actions of their firms on foreign soil. The Alien Tort Law act has been used in the US, while Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in 2003 “… how can we develop cross-border systems of accountability under which companies are not owned but work in developing countries accept there should be scrutiny of their actions”. The political say of firms is starkly visible in the GATT/WTO resolutions in favour of the firm that benefit no state and only the MNEs.
1. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights enhances the power of multinational corporations to enforce patents, trademarks and copyrights while impeding governments in developing countries to put conditions on multinational corporation investment.
2. The Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures prevents governments from requiring multinational corporations to engage in a variety of socially responsible activities such as hiring and training of local citizens, promotion of local equity participation or the use of domestic content in manufacturing processes.
3. The General Agreement on Trade and Services limits governments in regulating multinational corporations through restrictions on repatriation of profits and capital in service sectors.
Even the North is not free from the political controlling influence of MNCs. Wal-Mart and its managers gave more than $2 million to federal candidates in the last U.S. electoral cycle, more than any oil company, and almost triple the level the company donated in the 2000 elections. The involvement of corporations also continues, though with mass publicised reports when one is actually brought down. Just a review of the last quarter of 2004 for Halliburton shows:
Swiss authorities shut down bank accounts allegedly used by Halliburton for bribing the Nigerian government;
A high-level Army whistleblower claimed that Army officials illegally favoured Halliburton in contracting decisions — sparking an FBI investigation;
Accusations emerged that company officials demanded bribes from subcontractors in Kuwait;
In filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission Halliburton admitted it may have paid bribes in Nigeria;
An audit by the Inspector General for the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq found that Halliburton could not account for over a third of the items it handled in Kuwait while working for the occupation authorities.
The level of information, as the opening made clear, is phenomenal. Every year corporations around the world are reviewed by independent bodies, NGOs and activists that bring their economic, political and other spheres of covert influence to the forefront. The large amounts make for a lot of contradictory material however, but not all of it is needed to show the considerable influence of firms in relation to the state, especially in the south, and even in the north where they fund political moves and as a result of good CSR can often escape heavy fines when caught red-handed. A case in point would be Shell when it got dumping permission from the government only to be blocked by civil groups. A somewhat rocky conclusion based on the pros and cons can only put forward some of the many recommended reforms to check the proliferation of unelected firms political and economic power. This includes a range of suggestions from increased transparency, global cooperation by countries to disallow firms from using disagreements to their advantage, global codes of law, environment, tax, etc to limit the bargaining power of firms and a revision of OECD and WTO principles with regards to the rights and responsibilities of MNEs as their powers continue to grow. Countries must have the autonomy to pursue their own economic plans, including prioritizing social needs over the needs of multinational corporations. It is undeniable that MNCs have had a large positive impact coupled with globalisation, and such political and economic power as is gained is not necessarily abused by all. But adoption of proposals, and ensuing disagreements will not make such a system perfect, but shall help to deter the rolling destructive effects of what James Burke called global neo-liberalism.

It's still a strange read. But where curbing such exploitation might result in a sudden lack of interest, what little good such coin-gobblers have done ould be immediatly undone. Truly they take more than they give, but when there are no others to give, and a perfect world order is but a dream, there are worse ways to bring prosperity to the needy.

To set the record straight

Those as do wander here, or are herded to these shores of inky darkness by the hand that flicks the keys would do well not to look here for answers. For it is not for answers that these lands were opened. Not for well-researched facts, and long-winded reports born of UN documentation. Their purpose, is something far more sinister. Not to explore 42, but to find the question. Life, the universe, and everything. But we begin with humble Earth. And those matters that plague her, and along with her your ever humble dweller of the black lagoon. The political, the moral, the social. Not questions on philosophy, nor on psychology, but on theology. On the servings of our friends at CNN and Yahoo News. From Reuters to MPAC, from scholars to hacks. Conspiracies and confusions. And as islands can be lonely, and the darkness stifling, oft shall I answer for myself. For when the answers are known, only a question can answer a question.

And so they rant and rave. Against the lands and those upon them. Until the kings are torn from their pedestals and the beggars in their shades share of their security.