The globalization of state-owned multinational companies (SOMNCs) has become an important phenomenon in international business (IB), yet it has received scant attention in the literature. We explain how the analysis of SOMNCs can help advance the literature by extending our understanding of state-owned firms (SOEs) and multinational companies (MNCs) in at least two ways. First, we cross-fertilize the IB and SOEs literatures in their analysis of foreign investment behavior and introduce two arguments: the extraterritoriality argument, which helps explain how the MNC dimension of SOMNCs extends the SOE literature, and the non-business internationalization argument, which helps explain how the SOE dimension of SOMNCs extends the MNC literature. Second, we analyze how the study of SOMNCs can help develop new insights of theories of firm behavior. In this respect, we introduce five arguments: the triple agency conflict argument in agency theory; the owner risk argument in transaction costs economics; the advantage and disadvantage of ownership argument in the resource-based view (RBV); the power escape argument in resource dependence theory; and the illegitimate ownership argument in neo-institutional theory. After our analysis, we introduce the papers in the special issue that, collectively, reflect diverse and sophisticated research interest in the topic of SOMNCs.

/pdf/governments-as-owners-state-owned-multinational-companies-sigh5vqll1.pdf

Governments as owners: State-owned multinational companies

The globalization of economic activities and transnational corporations (TNCs) has led us to think that we are entering a ‘borderless’ world. Some prophets of globalization argue that it has led to the end of geography. To them, the state has ceased to be an institution capable of exerting influences on the activities of transnational capital, which has also become increasingly ‘placeless’. This paper aims to contest the issue of the alleged end-state discourse of a ‘borderless’ world. It argues that, despite the accelerated processes of globalization, national boundaries still matter in the decision-making and global reach of capital. The notion of a ‘borderless’ world is more folklore than reality. Based on theoretical and empirical literature in international political economy and business studies, the paper offers a dialectical perspective that examines the changing relationship between capital and the state, and the embedded relationship between capital and space in the organization of the global space-economy. Together, both arguments point to the importance of understanding dynamic transformations of the global economy, before considering its globalization tendencies.

Capital, State and Space: Contesting the Borderless World

This article utilizes insights from work on policy networks and John Kingdon's multiple streams approach to examine the evolution of privatization ideas in Great Britain and Germany. It is argued that differently structured networks affect policy innovation. This study elaborates the different types of networks and their impact on ideas, shows how previously adopted solutions channel subsequent debates by privileging some solutions over others, and suggests that policy ideas are associated with particular political coalitions.

Ideas, Networks, and Policy Streams: Privatization in Britain and Germany

The international trade and investment linkages that have evolved since World War II have been importantly influenced by, and have in turn greatly influenced, the growth of multinational enterprises (MNEs). We use the term enterprise rather than any more restrictive term, such as corporation, to refer to organizations engaged in business activities such as production, service, and sales, regardless of their legal form or type of ownership. In particular, both investor-owned entities and state-owned entities are included, along with various hybrid combinations. The appearance and growth of hybrids-both private-government partnerships and multinational joint ventures and strategic alliances—is a particularly significant feature of the contemporary international business environment. We follow Dunning in defining a multinational enterprise as one that “owns and controls income-generating assets in more than one country” (Dunning, ed., 1974, p. 13), or more recently as “a coordinator of value added in two or more countries” (Dunning, 1991, p. 3; see also Dunning, 1979). More elaborate terminological distinctions among such enterprises, such as those suggested by Porter (1986, 1990), Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989), and others (see Hoogvelt, 1987, for a comprehensive compilation) are useful for some purposes, and are introduced as relevant below.

Multinational Enterprises in the Global Economy

Directions in Delphi developments: Dissertations and their quality

A Paradox The Clash of Theories The Nationalistic Tendencies of the Owner-State Unfair Competition? Managing the Paradox: A Matter of Strategy From State-owned to Multinational: The Ways of Corporate Identity A Tentative Typology of State-owned Multinationals Conclusion - Nationalization and Multinationalization: The Breaking Point in Perspective.

State-owned multinationals

Les multinationales publiques

In this remarkable article the authors analyse the reasons for the success of the French arms industry. In particular they note the financial and technological support given by the French Government, the independent foreign policy which the government pursues and the technological innovation which French arms producers have consistently developed. They build a picture of close collaboration between the French Government and the arms industry and demonstrate how the French arms business has been able to create a virtual monopoly of certain market segments.

J.P. Anastassopoulos

Papers

State-owned multinationals

Les multinationales publiques

French 'savoir-faire' in selling arms: A new way of doing business?

L'armement: une spécialité industrielle à la française