A Warped Catholic View

It would not be true to say that there are no faults to be found in international, multinational, or (as it is now fashionable to call them) transnational corporations. Sometimes they become strong enough to block legitimate competition, or to intervene in politics. International shipping cartels sometimes reach corrupt agreements with seamen’s unions and shore authorities to suppress competition, fly the flags of Liberia or Panama, and move their headquarters around from Britain to Norway to Greece, etc., to avoid governmental supervision. Or we have strategies such as that once outlined tomebya high executive at General Motors; namely, that GM expected to earn the highest profits, not by manufacturing cars the most economically, but by spreading its activities through as many countries as possible, and then forming political alliances with the local manufacturers to demand maximum tariffs.

Against this, however, it is clear that the multinational corporations often confer abundant benefits on the countries in which they establish subsidiaries, by greatly raising standards of business management, and also by paying high wages. (I write primarily from experience in Australia; these propositions appear to be even more true in less developed countries. ) Australian labor union leaders have developed a particular antipathy to U.S.-based international corporations on the curious grounds that these corporations will not go through the customary rigmarole of bargaining, but will just tell the personnel manager to “pay them what they want and get on with the job,” thereby reducing the role of labor Unions. And the intervention of international corporations in politics may sometimes be considered as no more than a legitimate attempt to protect their assets from unjust expropriation.

CC

About the Author

Colin Clark

Featured Tags

It would not be true to say that there are no faults to be found in international, multinational, or (as it is now fashionable to call them) transnational corporations. Sometimes they become strong enough to block legitimate competition, or to intervene in politics. International shipping cartels sometimes reach corrupt agreements with seamen’s unions and shore authorities to suppress competition, fly the flags of Liberia or Panama, and move their headquarters around from Britain to Norway to Greece, etc., to avoid governmental supervision. Or we have strategies such as that once outlined tomebya high executive at General Motors; namely, that GM expected to earn the highest profits, not by manufacturing cars the most economically, but by spreading its activities through as many countries as possible, and then forming political alliances with the local manufacturers to demand maximum tariffs.

Against this, however, it is clear that the multinational corporations often confer abundant benefits on the countries in which they establish subsidiaries, by greatly raising standards of business management, and also by paying high wages. (I write primarily from experience in Australia; these propositions appear to be even more true in less developed countries. ) Australian labor union leaders have developed a particular antipathy to U.S.-based international corporations on the curious grounds that these corporations will not go through the customary rigmarole of bargaining, but will just tell the personnel manager to “pay them what they want and get on with the job,” thereby reducing the role of labor Unions. And the intervention of international corporations in politics may sometimes be considered as no more than a legitimate attempt to protect their assets from unjust expropriation.