Author:
Bhaumik Sumon Kumar,Estrin Saul,Narula Rajneesh
Abstract
AbstractThe international business (IB) literature has emphasised the heterogeneity of firm strategies in shaping MNE–state bargaining, but largely ignored the heterogeneity of states. In contrast, the international political economy (IPE) literature provides a more nuanced consideration of state strategies and their economic and political priorities. We seek to address this oversight by making two related contributions. In the context of MNE–state bargaining, we first discuss how differences in political systems and the political and economic objectives of states may affect their negotiating stance with MNEs. We consider the impact of changes in the balance of state objectives by considering how much importance governments assign to improving the welfare of its broader population, relative to how important they are concerned with the “private benefits” that accrue to the political elites. This enables us to add micro-foundations to the characterisation of the state. Second, we apply a Nash bargaining framework to MNE–state negotiations that vividly captures the relative bargaining powers of the MNE and the state, including how “outside options” available to these two actors can influence the shape of actual bargains. We discuss the implications of these two contributions for future research.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management of Technology and Innovation,Strategy and Management,Economics and Econometrics,General Business, Management and Accounting,Business and International Management
Reference75 articles.
1. Acemoglu, D. (2008). Oligarchic vs. democratic societies. Journal of the European Economic Association, 6(1), 1–44.
2. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2023). Weak, despotic, or inclusive? How state type emerges from state versus civil society competition. American Political Science Review, 117(2), 407–420.
3. Amsden, A. H. (1989). Asia’s next giant: South Korea and late industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Baldwin, R. E., & Robert-Nicoud, F. (2007). Entry and asymmetric lobbying: Why government picks losers. Journal of European Economic Association, 5(5), 1064–1093.
5. Binmore, K., Shaked, A., & Sutton, J. (1989). An outside option experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(4), 753–770.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献