Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol

In a survey carried out in Italy (Isnart 1997) by interviewing only persons who go on vacation habitually, only the expenses for food and daily living were judged ‘‘more necessary’’ than those for traveling. The expenses for car use and maintenance and those undertaken to dress were lower than those for the consumption of vacations.

There often exists a link among subjective motivations, perception of the visited localities, and the objective connotations of those localities. Some connotations are always valid (effectiveness and efficiency, a proper quality–price ratio, a satisfactory environmental quality, the hospitality and warmth of the residents). Other connotations assume a nearly cyclical course: They gain a special reputation for one or two seasons and then fade out.

However, five major categories of motivations more or less summarize what this article has described so far:

1.Subjectivity: the sense of curiosity, interest, discovery, opportunity, and ‘‘digression’’ of the vacation

2.Security: the sense of confidence that vacation places must transmit and the possibility of relaxing (nearly the opposite of the insecurity of large cities)

3.Transgression: the willingness to have a good time, to push the limits, to have ‘‘extraordinary’’ and ‘‘sensual’’ experiences

4.Budget: the search for something that does not divert too many resources from other needs and opportunities

5.Status: the idea that travel is first of all social gratification, something to show, a reached goal (Isnart 1997, p. 16)

Among these categories of motivations, subjectivity prevails, with status and transgression not far behind. Obviously, budget is much more a concern of the elderly (who also appreciate security) and young people (who do not care much about status). Some of these differences are related to socioeconomic class.

THE IMPACT OF TOURISM

The tourist’s role is a total one: ‘‘He cannot hide his own externality from the local population and all his relations are imprinted and denoted, in the

first place, by the tourist role. In the same way, he is recognized as such from other tourists, regardless, in some manner, of his social condition, nationality, origin and race’’ (Savelli 1998, pp. 129–130).

The tourist’s presence therefore cannot pass unnoticed, and the increase of tourism can carry, besides the obvious economic advantages, some negative consequence in the countries that receive tourist flows. In this regard, there are pessimistic visions that are valid, especially for developing countries. These are the countries in which tourism can be expected to show steadily increasing rates of growth and in which there is more to earn from this development.

Tourist destinations are vulnerable, and one can even speak about economic colonialism, because investments and the largest part of demand are controlled by the developed countries. Exploitation can be not only economic but also social and environmental, inasmuch as community displacement, societal dislocation, and cultural transformation may occur (Ryan 1991): ‘‘Village farmland is appropriated, there is inter-generational stress as younger groups succumb to the ‘demonstration effect’ of tourist material wealth and behavior, intra-family stress as male-female role balance shifts, and community disharmony as religious ceremonies and artforms are commercialized’’ (Prosser 1994, p. 29).

Therefore, it is necessary to foster a sustainable tourism that tries ‘‘to sustain the quantity, quality, and productivity both of human and natural resources systems over time, while respecting and accommodating the dynamics of such systems’’ (Prosser 1994, pp. 31–32). This alternative form of tourism must ‘‘search for spontaneity, enhanced interpersonal relations, creativity, authenticity, solidarity, and social and ecological harmony’’ (Pearce 1989, p. 101).

The social relations between tourists and indigenous populations are complex and can lead to conflict as a result of several factors. Among the more important ones are the number of tourists who visit a place in relation to the size of the hosting population, the type of organization of the tourist industry, the effects of tourism on preexisting agricultural and industrial activities, economic and social differences between the visitors and the majority of the hosts, and the degree to which

visitors demand particular standards of lodging and service, that is, the expressed desire to be locked in an ‘‘environmental bubble’’ for protection from the ‘‘disappointing’’ characteristics of the hosting society (Urry 1990, p. 90).

As a counterbalance of these potential dangers, one has to consider that the cost of a new workplace in the tourist sector has been estimated at £4,000, compared with £32,000 in the manufacturing industry and £300,000 in mechanical engineering (Lumley 1988, cited by Urry 1990, p. 114). These are older figures, and therefore are not necessarily still valid, but the ratios probably continued to be valid. The ‘‘tourist prescription’’ therefore can be recommended particularly for countries that do not have many financial resources.

For tourism to be sustainable and respectful of the natural and social environment, the attitudes and behaviors of the three main actors must change:

•The attitudes of tourists must change. Tourists tend to believe that other tourists are the problem. Thus, their attitudes remain elitist and short-term.

•The destination areas must assume a longerterm attitude. An equilibrium between optimization of the revenues and protection of the resources must be found. Populations must be involved in all phases of development: ideation and planning, construction and implementation, conduction and management, and monitoring and modification.

•The tourist industry must find an equilibrium between opposing requirements. There is an unavoidable push for environmental control from foreign investors and operators in order to obtain greater profits that can be detrimental to local populations and governments. At the same time, the tourist industry feels the need

to appear to be ecologically responsible (Prosser 1994, p. 32).

It has been proposed that tourism should be considered only a preliminary stage in which resources are obtained, that can be used later for ‘‘true’’ development through investment in other sectors. That is reasonable, because diversification is a key factor in economic security and stability, especially if tourism can be defined as a fashion

industry. However, one may question whether the impact of other industrial initiatives is less harmful and more sustainable than that of tourism. This opinion results from a dated attitude characterized by an ideologically rooted prejudice that is disappearing: ‘‘In the last few years in Britain many Labour councils have enthusiastically embraced local tourist initiatives, having once dismissed tourism as providing only ‘candy-floss jobs’’’ (Urry 1990, p. 115).

POSTMODERN TOURISM

While the countries that receive tourist flows need to find a balance between the advantages and disadvantages and search for a sustainable ‘‘receipt,’’ the benefits for tourists seem to be without shortcomings. Krippendorf (1987) speaks about ‘‘travel’’ that represents recuperation and regeneration, compensation and social integration, escape, and communication, intellectual expansion, freedom and self-determination, self-realization, and happiness.

The fact that the tourist industry continues to grow indicates that it is able to give a satisfactory answer to tourists’ expectations; otherwise there would be frustration, and the phenomenon would recede. One can ask why tourists continue to travel and their numbers continue to increase in spite of the ‘‘alarm bells’’ that call attention to the problem of overcrowding and the relative nonauthenticity of the tourist experience.

This article has dealt with the problem of overcrowding in its characterization of the tourist product as a ‘‘positional good.’’ This pessimistic thesis has been criticized by Beckerman (1974), who raises two interesting issues. First, the concern about the effects of the mass tourism is basically a ‘‘middle-class’’ anxiety (like many other environmental concerns) because the really rich ‘‘are quite safe from the masses in the very expensive resorts, or on their private yachts or private islands or secluded estates’’ (Beckerman 1974, pp. 50–51). Second, most people who are affected by mass tourism benefit from it, including the ‘‘pioneers,’’ who, when they return to a place, find services that were not available when the number of visitors was small.

One also can criticize the applicability of the scarcity concept to the tourist industry. The im-

plicit scarcities in the tourist industry are complex, and strategies can be adopted that allow the enjoyment of the same object by a greater number of persons. Thus, one must distinguish between the ‘‘physical capacity’’ and ‘‘perceptive capacity’’ of a tourist place (Walter 1982).

One also has to consider that in addition to the ‘‘romantic’’ tourist gaze, which emphasizes solitude, privacy, and a personal, quasi-spiritual relation with the observed object, there is an alternative ‘‘collective’’ gaze with different characteristics. The collective gaze demands the participation of wide numbers of other people to create a particular atmosphere: ‘‘They indicate that this is the place to be and that one should not be elsewhere.’’ (Urry 1990, p. 46). This is the case for major cities, whose uniqueness lies in their cosmopolitan character: ‘‘It is the presence of people from all over the world (tourists in other words) that gives capital cities their distinct excitement and glamour’’ (Urry 1990, pp. 46).

Some people prefer to move around in compact formations because otherwise they will not enjoy themselves, while others prefer to travel in solitude. Therefore, Hirsh’s (1978) thesis on scarcity and positional competition should be applied mainly to tourism characterized by the romantic gaze. When the collective gaze is more important, the problem of crowding and congestion is less marked. Moreover, the scarcity thesis would be totally applicable only if one maintained that there are severe limits to the number of ‘‘objects’’ worthy of the admiration of the tourist. However, ‘‘if Glasgow can be remade as a tourist attraction, one might wonder whether there are in fact any limits to the tourist, or post-tourist, gaze’’ (Urry 1990, p. 156).

Another issue refers to the nonauthenticity of the tourist experience. Turner and Ash (1975) describe a tourist who is placed at the center of a rigorously circumscribed world (the ‘‘environmental bubble’’). Travel agents, couriers, and hotel managers are described as surrogate parents who relieve the tourist of every responsibility, protect the tourist from harsh reality, and decide for the tourist which objects are worthy to be admired.

Various types of tourists exist, and they are pushed by various needs and motivations for which various means are available to realize the tourist experience. In an age that is being defined as postmodern, the posttourist also is being redefined.

The post-tourist knows that they are a tourist and that tourism is a game, or rather a whole series of games with multiple texts and no single authentic tourist experience. The posttourist thus knows that they will have to queue time and time again, that there will be hassles over foreign exchange, that the glossy brochure is a piece of pop culture, that the apparently authentic local entertainment is as socially contrived as an ethnic bar, and that the supposedly quaint and traditional fishing village could not survive without the income from tourism. (Urry 1990, p. 100).

The post-tourist knows that ‘‘he is not a timetraveller when he goes somewhere historic, not an instant noble savage when he stays on a tropical beach, not an invisible observer when he visits a native compound. Resolutely ‘realistic,’ he cannot evade his condition of outsider’’ (Feifer 1985, p. 271). This means that many travelers appreciate the ‘‘not-authenticity’’ of the tourist experience and ‘‘find pleasure in the multiplicity of tourist games. They know that there is no authentic tourist experience, that there are merely a series of games or texts that can be played’’ (Urry 1990, p. 11).

REFERENCES

Beckerman, W. 1974 In Defense of Economic Growth. London: Jonathan Cape.

Bugguley, P. 1987 Flexibility, Restructuring and Gender: Changing Employment in Britain’s Hotels. Lancaster: Lancaster Regionalism Group, Working Paper no. 24.

Cohen, E. 1974 ‘‘Who Is a Tourist? A Conceptual Clarification.’’ Sociological Review 4:527–556.

Feifer, M. 1985, Going Places. London: Macmillan.

Gottlieb, A. 1982 ‘‘Americans’ Vacations.’’ Annals of Tourism Research 9:165–187.

Hirsh, F. 1978 Social Limits to Growth. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Hunziker, W. and K. Krapf 1942 Grundriss der allgemeine Fremdenverkehrslehre. Zurig.

Istituto Nazionale Ricerche Turistiche (National Institute for Tourism Research) 1997 1997 Dove vanno in vacanza gli italiani. Milan: Unioncamere.

Kovacshazy, M. C. 1998 ‘‘Le tourisme des seniors en 2010.’’ Futuribles 233:47–64.

Krippendorf, J. 1987 The Holiday Makers. London:

Heinemann.

Lodge, D. 1992 Paradise News. London: Penguin.

Lumley, R. (ed.) 1988 The Museum Time-Machine. Lon-

don: Routledge.

Mishan, E. 1969 The Costs of Economic Growth. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Pearce, D. 1989 Tourist Development. Harlow, UK:

Longman.

Plog, S. V. 1973 ‘‘Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity.’’ Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, November, pp. 13–16.

Prosser, R. 1994 ‘‘Societal Change and the Growth in Alternative Tourism.’’ In E. Carter and G. Lowman, eds., Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? New York: Wiley.

Ryan, C. 1991 Recreational Tourism. London: Routledge.

Savelli, A. 1986 ‘‘Turismo.’’ In F. Demarchi, A. Ellena, and B. Cattarinussi, eds., Nuovo dizionario di sociologia. Rome: Paoline.

——— (1998), Sociologia del turismo. Milan: Angeli.

Schwaninger, M. 1989 ‘‘Trends in Leisure and Tourism for 2000–2010.’’ In S. F. Witt and L. Moutinho, eds.,

Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice-Hall.

Turner, L., and J. Ash 1975 The Golden Hordes. London:

Constable.

Turner, V., and E. Turner 1978 Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.

Urry, J. 1990 The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Society. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Veblen, T. [1899] 1970 The Theory of the Leisure Class. London: Allen & Unwin.

Walter, J. 1982 ‘‘Social Limits to Tourism.’’ Leisure Studies 1:295–304.

GIOVANNI DELLI ZOTTI

TRANSNATIONAL

CORPORATIONS

A transnational corporation (TNC) is ‘‘any enterprise that undertakes foreign direct investment, owns or controls income-gathering assets in more than one country, produces goods or services outside its country of origin, or engages in international production’’ (Biersteker 1978, p. xii). Variously termed multinational corporations (MNCs) and multinational enterprises (MNEs), transnational corporations are formal business organizations that have spatially dispersed operations in at least two countries. One of the most ‘‘transnational’’ major TNCs is Nestlé, the Swiss food giant; 91

percent of its total assets, 98 percent of its sales, and 97 percent of its workforce are foreign-based (UNCTAD 1998, p. 36).

TNCS AND THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

Although TNCs existed before the twentieth century (colonial trading companies such as the East India Company, the Hudson’s Bay Company, and the Virginia Company of London were precursors of the modern TNC), only since the 1960s have they become a major force on the world scene (World Bank 1987, p. 45). Table 1 corroborates this by listing the foreign direct investment (FDI) stock of corporations by country from the beginning of the century to 1997. In 1900, only European corporations were major transnational players, but by 1930, American TNCs had begun to make their presence felt. The year 1960 marks the beginning of a new era in corporate transnationalization. In each of the decades from 1960 to the present, world FDI stock has more than tripled, whereas it only doubled during the first half of the century.

The phenomenal increase in transnational corporate activity in the latter part of the twentieth century can be accounted for in large part by technological innovations in transportation, communication, and information processing that have permitted corporations to establish profitable worldwide operations while maintaining effective and timely organizational control. The actual difference in foreign direct investment up to and after 1960 is even greater than the figures in Table 1 indicate. FDI for 1960 and before includes foreign portfolio investment, which is undertaken mainly by individuals, as well as foreign direct investment, which almost always is made by TNCs. These two types of investment were not reported separately for most countries before 1970. Thus, total FDI stocks are inflated. For example, Wilkins (1974, pp. 53–54) reports that in 1929–1930, U.S. foreign portfolio and direct investments were almost equal. American direct investment abroad was only $7.5 billion; the remaining $7.2 billion recorded in Table 1 was foreign portfolio investment.

Table 1 reveals that TNCs from only eleven countries accounted for almost 85 percent of all FDI in 1997. American TNCs accounted for more than one-quarter of total foreign investment, and

corporations based in the Triad (United States, European Union, and Japan) were responsible for nearly four-fifths of world FDI stock (UNCTAD 1998, pp. 379–384). Clearly, TNCs largely operate out of and invest in the developed countries of the global economy.

The magnitude of FDI flow in the world is revealed by the fact that worldwide sales of foreign affiliates in 1997 totaled $9.5 trillion, almost one and a half times more than world exports of goods and services of $6.4 trillion (UNCTAD 1998, p. 5). Global sales of affiliates are considerably more important than exports in delivering goods and services to markets worldwide, underlining the importance of TNCs in structuring international economic relations. In 1997, 53,607 TNCs controlled nearly 450,000 foreign affiliates throughout the world (UNCTAD 1998, p. 4).

Table 2 presents the top 30 TNCs ranked by foreign assets. Although fewer than one-quarter of these corporations are American in origin, most names are well known in the United States. It is the

nature of transnational enterprise to generate this degree of familiarity. Among the top 100 TNCs in terms of foreign assets, 41 originate in the European Union, 28 in the United States, and 18 in Japan (UNCTAD 1998, p. 317). Most FDI inflows and outflows take place within the Triad. In 1996, approximately one-quarter of all foreign sales was accounted for by these top 100 firms. Among the major industries in which these TNCs operate, electronics and electrical equipment account for the largest number (17), followed by chemicals and pharmaceuticals (16), automotive (14), petroleum and mining (14), and food and beverages (12). In 1996, these transnational giants employed nearly 6 million foreign workers (UNCTAD 1998, pp. 35–43).

REASONS FOR BECOMING

TRANSNATIONAL

The move toward integrated transnational investment can be seen as a logical and rational decision by business enterprises to adapt to their environ-

Reasons for Corporations Becoming Transnational

1.Cost-Related Reasons

a.To take advantage of differences in technological development, labor potential, productivity and mentality, capital market, and local taxes

b.Reduction of transport costs

c.Avoidance of high tariff barriers

d.To take advantage of local talents when establishing R&D overseas

2.Sales Volume Reasons

a.Foreign middlemen unable to meet financial demands of expanded marketing

b.For quicker adaptation to local market changes and better adaptation to local conditions

c.Following important customers abroad

d.Keeping up with competitors

e.Persuasion and coercion of foreign governments

f.To obtain a better international division of labor, larger production runs, and better utilization of available economies of scale

g.To avoid home country regulations, e.g., fiscal and antitrust legislation

3.Reasons Related to Risk Factors

a.To avoid exclusion from customers’ and suppliers’ markets, promoting forward and backward integration

b.To counter inflexibility and avoid country-specific recessions

c.To reduce risks of social and political disruption by establishing operations in a number of host countries

Table 3

SOURCE: Taylor and Thrift (1982), p. 21.

ment. Historically, there have been several distinct strategies: (1) expansion in the size of operations to achieve economies of scale, (2) horizontal integration, or the merging of similar firms to increase market share, (3) vertical integration, or the acquiring of firms that either supply raw materials (backward integration) or handle output (forward integration) to attain greater control, (4) spatial dispersion or regional relocation to expand markets, (5) product diversification to develop new markets, and (6) conglomeration or mergers with companies on the basis of their financial performance rather than what they produce (Chandler 1962, 1990; Fligstein 1990). Establishing an integrated TNC simply represents a new strategy in this evolutionary chain. Furthermore, depending on how a corporation is set up and with recent innovations in communications and information technology, a TNC can incorporate all these strategies so that the newly structured enterprise has far

greater control and a much less restricted market than it had previously.

Table 3 presents a list of reasons why it may be profitable for an organization to become transnational. First, direct costs for raw materials, labor, and transportation as well as indirect cost considerations such as tariff barriers and trade restrictions, local tax structures, and various government inducements obviously loom large in the decision to establish operations transnationally. Second, market factors may be equally important in that decision. Direct and easy access to local markets unfettered by foreign trade quotas and other legislative restraints can give TNCs an edge over their nontransnational competitors. Finally, the decision to become transnational may hinge on factors related to organizational control. Control over raw materials (backward integration) and markets (forward integration) and achieving sufficient regional and product diversification to withstand temporary economic downturns are other reasons for transnational relocation.

TNCS, NATION-STATES, AND

GLOBALIZATION

Integrated TNCs traversing real-time electronic networks that span the global economy have produced a ‘‘borderless world’’ (Ohmae 1991). These technologically enhanced corporations also operate in the nonnationally controlled interstices of the planet (i.e., oceans, seabeds, airwaves, sky, and space), sometimes leaving toxic, life-threatening indicators of their presence. Existing in a sort of parallel world, they are responsible only to amorphous groups of shareholders. Gill and Law (1988, pp. 364–365) state that there is a ‘‘growing lack of congruence between the ‘world economy,’ with its tendencies to promote ever-greater levels of economic integration, and an ‘international political system’ comprised of many rival states.’’ The rivalry between these two systems of world organization is revealed by the fact that 51 of the 100 largest economies in the world are TNCs (Karliner 1997).

The increasing domination of the world economy by TNCs directly challenges national sovereignty. Historically, the sovereignty and therefore the power of a nation-state lay in its ability to achieve compliance with whatever it commanded its territorially defined space. Borderlines physi-

cally defined what was territorially sovereign and what was not. If a state’s sovereignty was challenged from outside its territory, it could resort to force to maintain control. However, as a result of various technological developments, the idea of a physically bounded and sealed state is now open to question. These developments underlie the transnational corporate threat to state sovereignty along the following three dimensions:

1.Permeability of borders. Borderlines between nation-states have been rendered permeable and porous in a number of innovative ways, erasing many of the tradi-

tional distinctions between ‘‘inside’’ and ‘‘outside.’’ For example, what borders

do electronic communications and atmospheric pollutants observe? Under whose borders do oil and gas reserves lie? Do space satellites invade territorial integrity? The new permeability of borders diminishes the capacity of nation-states to distinguish and determine what occurs ‘‘inside’’ their territory.

2.Mobility across borders. Developments in transportation, communication, and information technology not only have increased the rate of cross-border mobility among TNCs but also have increased the speed or velocity with which cross-border transactions take place. Concurrently measuring both the location and the velocity of TNC activity often produces ‘‘uncertain’’ results, generating ‘‘inderminacy’’ for a state.

3.Border straddling. To the extent that TNCs operate simultaneously in different sovereign jurisdictions, which jurisdiction has precedence over which corporate activities at what time? This complex issue blurs the legal boundaries between states. It also confuses the notion of ‘‘citizenship’’ and its attendant rights and responsibilities.

Through the use of these and other innovative strategies, TNCs have manipulated the concept of borders to their advantage. What exactly is the advantage that TNCs achieve through their crossborder flexibility? They gain between-border variability. The fact that different states have different laws and standards regarding all aspects of economic activity contributes to the power of TNCs that strategically play off one country’s set of rules

against another’s. For example, variations in national laws on tariffs, financing, competition, labor, environmental protection, consumer rights, taxation, and transfer of profits are all carefully weighed by TNCs in deciding where and how to conduct business. Together, these considerations form what has come to be known as ‘‘the policy environment’’ (UNCTAD 1993, pp. 173–175). In the internation competition to attract foreign investment by creating a ‘‘favorable policy environment,’’ between-border variability encourages a ‘‘race to the bottom’’ (Chamberlain 1982, p. 126), resulting in a continuing erosion of sovereignty. Whereas TNCs operate in a de facto borderless world created by technological ingenuity, de jure political and legal distinctions still mark the boundaries on a world map composed of nation-states. This represents the crux of the inherent conflict between TNCs and nation-states as they are currently structured.

Never before has there been a situation in which foreign organizations have been granted license almost as a matter of course to operate freely within the legally defined boundaries of a sovereign state. This, together with the fact that TNCs and nation-states are different organizational forms, established for different purposes, administered by different principles, and loyal to different constituencies, means that structural problems are bound to arise.

TNCS AND WORLD DEVELOPMENT

Although only 30 percent of FDI stock is in developing countries (UNCTAD 1998, p. 373), because of the immense power of many TNCs, great concern has arisen about the impact of TNCs on world development. Because the goals of transnational capitalist enterprise and indigenous national government are fundamentally different, many scholars have debated whether TNCs are an aid or a hindrance to world development. According to Biersteker (1978), the major points of contention in this debate are the degrees to which TNCs (1) are responsible for a net outflow of capital from developing countries, (2) displace indigenous production, (3) engage in technology transfer, (4) introduce capital-intensive, labor-displacing technologies, (5) encourage elite-oriented patterns of consumption, (6) produce divisiveness within local social structures owing to competing loyalties

to TNCs and nation-states, and (7) exacerbate unequal distributions of income.

In a study of many of these issues, Kentor (1998, p. 1025) analyzed a fifty-year data set consisting of seventy-five developing countries to determine whether the modernization thesis (i.e., FDI in developing countries promotes ‘‘economic growth by creating industries, transferring technology, and fostering a ‘modern’ perspective in the local population’’) or dependency theory (i.e., FDI results in disarticulated economic growth, repatriation of profits, increased income inequality, and stagnation) better explains the long-term results of foreign direct investment. Kentor (p. 1042) summarizes his findings as follows:

The results of this study confirm that peripheral countries with relatively high dependence on foreign capital exhibit slower economic growth than those less dependent peripheral countries. These findings have been replicated using different measures of foreign investment dependence, GDP data, countries, time periods, and statistical methods. This is a significant and persistent negative effect, lasting for decades. Further, a structure of dependency is created that perpetuates these effects. The consequences of these effects, as described in

the literature, are pervasive: unemployment, overurbanization, income inequality, and social unrest, to name a few.

Given current conditions, it would appear that overreliance on foreign investment by developing countries will widen the already huge global rift between rich and poor nations.

TNCS AND REGULATION

In the late 1960s, the United Nations (UN) reached the opinion that ‘‘transnational corporations had come to play a central role in the world economy and that their role, with its transnational character, was not matched by a corresponding understanding or an international framework covering their activities’’ (UNCTC 1990, p. 3). In the 1970s, the UN produced a draft ‘‘Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations.’’ However, twenty years later, after much political wrangling, UN delegates concluded in 1992 that ‘‘no consensus was possible on the draft Code,’’ and thus the process of trying to achieve some effective legal

reconciliation between the goals of TNCs and those of host governments was brought to ‘‘a formal end’’ (UNCTAD 1993, p. 33).

Currently, although several international voluntary guidelines monitor the activities of TNCs, generally they have not been very successful (Hedley 1999). As of 1997, 143 countries had legislation in effect that specifically governs foreign direct investment (UNCTAD 1998, p. 53). Although initially most of those laws were framed to control the entry and regulate the activities of TNCs, legislative changes increasingly have become more favorable to foreign investment. For example, from 1991 to 1997, of the 750 changes to foreign investment policy made by countries worldwide, 94 percent were in the direction of liberalization (UNCTAD 1998, 57). In 1997, in attempts to ease high debt loads and survive a worldwide economic downturn, seventy-six developed and developing countries introduced 135 legislative inducements along the following lines: more liberal operational conditions and frameworks (61), more incentives (41), more sectoral liberalization (17), more promotion (other than incentives) (8), more guarantees and protection (5), and more liberal entry conditions and procedures (3) (UNCTAD 1998, p. 57). In their competition to attract foreign investment by creating favorable policy environments, these countries are yielding ever more control to TNCs.

Given the increasing dominance of TNCs in the global economy, the reasons why corporations become transnational, the diminishing sovereignty of nation-states, and the long-term effects of FDI on world development, one may question whether the move toward liberalization is in the interests of the countries and people who are encouraging it. What is called for is nothing short of a revolution in world governance. To regulate transnational corporations, it is necessary to introduce trans- or supranational legislation. To maintain national sovereignty in a global economy, authority must be coordinated and shared across borders. Legislative harmonization, although entailing an initial loss of sovereignty for participating states, can restore their authority over TNCs operating within their jurisdictions. By these means, corporate accountability can be imposed according to the needs and wishes of civil society. Whether or when such legislative harmonization will occur is open to question. However, in the view of the U.S. Tariff

Commission, ‘‘It is beyond dispute that the spread of multinational business ranks with the development of the steam engine, electric power, and the automobile as one of the major events of economic history’’ (cited in Lall and Streeton 1977, p. 15).

REFERENCES

Biersteker, Thomas J. 1978 Distortion of Development? Contending Perspectives on the Multinational Corporation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Buckley, Peter J. 1985 ‘‘Testing Theories of the Multinational Enterprise.’’ In Peter J. Buckley and Mark Casson, eds., The Economic Theory of the Multinational Enterprise. London: Macmillan.

Chamberlain, Neil W. 1982 Social Strategy and Corporate Structure. New York: Macmillan.

Chandler, Alfred D., Jr. 1962 Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

——— 1990 Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Fligstein, Neil 1990 The Transformation of Corporate Control. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Gill, Stephen, and David Law 1988 The Global Political Economy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hedley, R. Alan 1999 ‘‘Transnational Corporations and Their Regulation: Issues and Strategies.’’ International Journal of Comparative Sociology 40(2):215–230.

Karliner, Joshua 1997 The Corporate Planet: Ecology and Politics in the Age of Globalization. Sierra Club Books. Available at http://www.sierraclub.org/books/.

Kentor, Jeffrey 1998 ‘‘The Long-Term Effects of Foreign Investment Dependence on Economic Growth, 1940–1990.’’ American Journal of Sociology

103(4):1024–1046.

Lall, Sanjaya, and P. Streeton 1977 Foreign Investment,

Transnationals, and Developing Countries. London:

Macmillan.

Ohmae, Kenichi 1991 The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy. Hammersmith, UK: Fontana.

Taylor, M. J., and N. J. Thrift 1982 The Geography of Multinationals: Studies in the Spatial Development and Economic Consequences of Multinational Corporations. London: Croom Helm.

UNCTAD 1993 World Investment Report 1993: Transnational Corporations and Integrated International Production. New York: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

——— 1998 World Investment Report 1997: Trends and Determinants. New York: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

UNCTC 1990 The New Code Environment, Series A, No. 16. New York: United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations.

Wilkins, Mira 1974 The Maturing of Multinational Enterprise: American Business Abroad from 1914 to 1970. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

World Bank 1987 World Development Report 1987. New York: Oxford University Press.

R. ALAN HEDLEY

TRANSSEXUALS

See Sexual Orientation.

TRANSVESTITISM

See Sexual Orientation.

TRIBES

See Indigenous Peoples.

TYPOLOGIES

A typology is a multidimensional classification. The study of typological procedures is impeded by the use of a plethora of terms, some of which are used interchangeably. ‘‘Classification’’ can be defined as the grouping of entities on the basis of similarity. For example, humans can be classified into female and male. A related term is ‘‘taxonomy.’’ According to Simpson (1961, p. 11), taxonomy ‘‘is the theoretical study of classification, including its bases, principles, procedures, and rules.’’ Interestingly, the term ‘‘classification’’ has two meanings: One can speak of both the process of classification and its end product, a classification. The terms ‘‘classification,’’ ‘‘typology,’’ and ‘‘taxonomy’’ are all used widely and somewhat interchangeably in sociology.

Any classification must be mutually exclusive and exhaustive. This requires that there be only one cell for each case. For example, if humans are being classified by sex, this requires that every case