As I drive to work every morning I listen to the news and have recently paid more attention to the talk of corporation mergers. Specifically how many of these companies have tried to move their headquarters to other parts of the world, often with more lenient tax breaks and less government control. In light of what we’ve been talking about recently with authority and global corporations, it’s apparent that this is an important issue. On a national level, the U.S. government has intervened in mergers, one example being with healthcare corporations this past summer. Overall, the concept corporate authority in the international scale is concerning - as there is the question of who has control ultimately?
As Cutler mentions in her article Private International Regimes and Interfirm Cooperation, these corporations are given what often constitutes governmental power, as she refers to them as regimes. She also brings about the question of morality when it comes to these regimes because they “are basically functioning like governments” (p. 32). While we often trust that the government is supposed to work in the best interest of citizens due to the power that has been handed them (whether that happens is another argument), these corporations pose an entirely different threat. They exercise authority over themselves and become involved in politics on a national and international level.
These corporations have authority and yet are fighting for what is in their best interest. This is a scary reality as countries like the United States may have the system, power, and knowledge to recognize and try to keep these organizations in line, others may not. We see corporations getting involved in the politics of developing countries and whose interest are they really looking out for? For example, in Guatemala the government was unable to protect its citizens from Nestle, specifically their Gerber baby brand, that decided to break into the market to sell its formula in a developing country. Now, there are many infants who are malnourished because their families cannot afford formula and breastfeeding is looked down upon. The World Trade Organization allowed for this to happen as the Guatemalan government was too weak to fend off Nestle corporation and allowed it to essentially trump national laws, and in the process putting the lives of infants at risk. This is only one example where these corporations act in their own best interests and are not stopped or even when questioned, put up a fight until they win.
Claire Cutler, “Private International Regimes and Interfirm Cooperation” in The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance, ed. Tom Biersteker and Rodney Bruce Hall (Cambridge, 2002).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some great points about the corporations having authority and only fighting for their own interests. You are right about their influence especially in the developing countries. While in the case of Guatemala the government was too weak to fight against the Nestlé corporation and protect its citizens, unfortunately in other developing countries the governments not only are too weak, but they do not want to fight against the corporations even if they could. They prefer to look the other way because they are more concerned with the money that these corporations bring into the country than the lives of their own citizens. In Bangladesh, for example, Western textile companies employ citizens and bring money into the country, while at the same time they use the rivers, that many poor people use for their drinking water, as their garbage cans. Instead of protecting its citizens and fighting against these companies, the government rather looks the other way.
ReplyDeleteJessica, I think you raise an excellent point in that many times the idea of "what is best" is a very subjective point. These large corporations that you exemplify often think that expanding manufacturing oversees is the best thing to do while others view that has a violation of human rights. These are such different sides of the same coin.
ReplyDeleteWhile we always complain about who should be in politics, we often think that politicians themselves are deceitful people. Therefore, is there really an identity out that would serve as "good" politicians for everybody? Is this an unrealistic ideal?