Over the past few weeks we have discussed corporations and their ability to manipulate the state or civil society. One topic we have overlooked thus far is the ability of a multinational corporation to create more peace between the countries it occupies.
The most famous example of this is the McDonald's theory. New York Times published this piece in 1996, and I believe it has since-then been disproven. Yet the idea remains. The spread of corporate offices throughout the world has made it more and more difficult to countries to go to war with each other. Economic binds restrict them from being able to cut off ties for one reason or another.
Whether that reason is because the country needs the particular product or service of the company, the domestic political implications would be too great, or the government is corruptly hiding deep within the corporation's pocket is probably variable. However, the implications of these connections are worth investigating further and even possibly producing a quantitative study on.
What level of economic integration makes it nearly, if not completely, impossible for countries to go to war with one another? Is this even a valid theory? Perhaps it makes no difference whether or not business has spread from one country into another.
Taylor, I do agree the effects of multinational corporations is often overlooked, however, I think because corporations are so "replaceable" it is less impactful than perhaps trade with another country. Cutting ties with one corporation can be replaced by a similar corporation, however, cutting ties with a nation that supplies something to you is harder to replace. For example, a state not wanting to work with McDonald's can replace it with a similar fast food establishment. Cutting ties with another state where you import all of your beef or grain from is a lot harder to replace. This difficulty to replace another state is probably a stronger factor in avoiding war (or at least prolonging "the fuse") as opposed to multinational corporations. I am not saying this aspect shouldn't be looked at, in fact it's probably as you pointed out, often overlooked and an interesting/different perspective. Particularly, the point you bring up about some governments using corporations to conceal corruption, those corporations are probably harder to cut ties with.
ReplyDelete