Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:English of Global Economics. Учебное пособие
.pdf
220
global challenges. The result is usually that the role of headquarters
is not as pronounced. P. Barnevik has described ABB’s headquarters
as the place where the mail arrives before important letters are
faxed to where he may be. These companies have many global
centres of different kinds dispersed throughout the world. So if
you want to learn more about managing across borders look to
European firms such as Philips, Electrolux, Nokia, Heineken,
Unilever, TetraPak, and Nestlé, rather than Chrysler or Mitsubishi.
And then there is the fourth and most important stage of
globalization — attitudes. No company we have ever come across
is truly global in attitude. Home-country standards are often
applied relatively uniformly. Key persons usually come from the
same country. Products are mostly developed at home with the
requirements of the local market in mind. The typical multinational
is still parochial and ethnocentric. Foreigners are often regarded
as strange. Or as the Dutch expert on cross-cultural management
puts it “Understanding culture still seems like a luxury item to
most managers”. Letting one of these managers loose in another
culture is like inviting an elephant to dance in a china store.
Yet, only when we have become truly global in attitude can
we reap all the other benefits of new business. To succeed, we need
to move from conf lict to reconciliation. We’re not saying that it
is easy to work in a global organization. Differences in culture
and languages and large geographical distances provide demanding
challenges. There will be disagreements and misunderstandings
aplenty. A few years ago a successful European MNC was given
two prestigious awards for promoting equality between the sexes.
Before being presented with the awards, the chief executive
officer wanted to know exactly how equal the company was, in
case someone asked. So, he sent a fax to all the subsidiaries
asking for a report on the composition of the top management
team broken down by sex. After two hours he received the first
response. It was from Finish subsidiary: “Dear Mr. President, we
have no one in the top management team broken down by sex.
However, we have one alcoholic”. Globalization may be seen by
many as a necessary evil, but that does not make it less essential
Unit Six
9
.
to leverage [!li:vərid‚] использовать рычаг, воздействовать; leverage ðû
чаг, воздействие (для достижения цели); attitude-based leverage рычаг
понимания жизненных позиций потребителя; industrial leverage от
раслевой рычаг (воздействие на фирму при вхождении в отрасль);
brand-based leverage рычаг торговой марки; a theme park тематический
-
-
MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS
221
парк с аттракционами; competence-based leverage рычаг профессиона
льной компетенции; logo (logotype) логотип; a midget MNC миниатюр
ная МHК; to relegate классифицировать; parochial [p
íûé; ethnocentric этноцентричный; cross-cultural management управле
ние в многонациональной среде; aplenty ðàçã. в достаточном количест
ве; to break down 1. разбивать (на группы, категории) 2. потерять здо
ровье.
ə!roukjəl] ìåñò
Ex. 14. Debate on the following topics. Keep the conversation going in
a round table framework.
1. The biggest multinational corporations of the world and their
activities.
2. Multinational corporations in Third World countries.
3. Different forms of participation of multinationals in foreign
economies.
4. The evolution and nature of multinationals.
5. The impact of multinational corporations on international
economic relationships.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Supplements
GLOBALIZATION
I. Many see globalization as a primarily economic phenomenon,
involving the increasing interaction, or integration of national
economic systems through the growth of international trade,
investment and capital f lows. One can also point to a rapid
increase in cross-border social, cultural and technological exchange
as part of the phenomenon of globalization. Others define it
as a process in which geographic distance becomes a factor of
diminishing importance in the establishment and maintenance
of cross-border economic, politica and socio-cultural relations.
Some critics of globalization define the word quite differently,
presenting it as worldwide drive towards a globalized economic
system dominated by supranational corporate trade and banking
institutions that are not accountable to democratic process or
national governments.
For good or ill, globalization has become the economic
buzz-word of the 1990s. National economies are undoubtedly
becoming steadily more integrated as cross-border f lows of trade,
investment and financial capital increase. One positive view is that
globalization is an unmixed blessing, with the potential to boost
productivity and living standards everywhere. This is because a
globally integrated economy can lead to a better division of labour
between countries, allowing low-wage countries to specialize in
labour-intensive tasks while high-wage countries use workers in more
productive ways. It will allow firms to exploit bigger economies
of scale. And with globalization, capital can be shifted to whatever
country offers the most productive investment opportunities, not
trapped at home financing projects with poor returns.
Critics of globalization take a gloomier view. They predict that
increased competition from low-wage developing countries will
destroy jobs and push down wages in today’s rich economies. There
GLOBALIZATION
will be a “race to the bottom” as countries reduce wages, taxes,
welfare benefits and environmental controls to make themselves
more “competitive”. Pressure to compete will erode the ability of
governments to set their own economic policies. The critics also
worry about the increased power of financial markets to cause
economic havoc, as in the European currency crises of 1992 and
1993, Mexico in 1994—95 and South-East Asia in 1997.
The trend towards globalization is clear. But its extent can
be exaggerated. While product and capital markets have become
increasingly integrated, labour markets have not. Tens of millions
of people currently work outside their home countries. Yet labour
is less mobile than it was in the second half of the 19th century,
when some 60 million people left Europe for the New World. Even
within the European Union, which gives citizens of any member
state the right to work and live in any other, only a small proportion
of workers ventures across national borders. Language, cultural
barriers, and incompatible educational and professional qualifications
all combine to keep labour markets national.
This does not mean that globalization is just a myth. In some
new and different ways, the world economy is becoming more
internationally integrated than it was at the turn of the century.
And yet, the world economy is still far from being genuinely
integrated. In future, however, new technology is likely to encourage
further integration. The Internet and its companion technologies,
for example, are expected to help to make markets more transparent,
allowing buyers and sellers to compare prices in different countries.
Telecommunication prices will fall even more sharply over the next
decade.
223
II. So technology will continue to power the globalization train.
This poses a challenge for governments. By allowing more efficient
use of world resources, globalization should boost average incomes.
However, the costs and the benefits will be unevenly distributed.
The gap in incomes between the 20% of the world’s population
in the richest and poorest countries has grown from 30 to 1
in 1960 to 82 to 1 in 1995, and Third World conditions have in
many respects worsened. Per capita incomes have fallen in more
than 70 countries over the past 20 years; some 3 billion people —
half the world’s population, live on under two dollars a day;
and 800 million suffer from malnutrition. In the Third World
unemployment and underemployment are rampant, massive poverty
224
Supplements
exists side-by-side with growing elite aff luence, and 75 million
people a year or more seeking asylum or employment in the North,
as Third World governments allow virtually unrestricted capital
flight and seek no options but to attract foreign investment.
Major institutional reforms are globally needed, to work against
the inequalities and unfairness of the current economic and political
order. They are needed not because the defenders of globalization
are wrong to detect the vast scientific, technological, economic
and social opportunities that globalization offers. These opportunities
are indeed real and immense. Precisely for that reason, fairness
requires that they be shared more equitably, without the monumental
disparities that characterize the contemporary world.
Institutional change is possible. If well designed it could also
be effective. The market economy quickly responds to different
incentives; a deliberate change, for example, in the functioning
of trade agreements, the working of patent laws and the operation
of credit facilities can help to reduce the imbalance. It would
be politically naive to expect that there is a real chance of
making major “transfers” of assets and resources across the
border of the rich and poor worlds. But the scope for this can be
broadened to some extent by the use of innovative arrangements
such as the “Tobin tax” on international financial transactions,
and by instituting special drawing rights linked to, but independent
of, international financial institutions, for expanding “public goods”.
The opportunities for the poor are restricted not only by antecedent
poverty but also by two types of structural faults. First, “global
omissions” include the absence of an adequately strong, globally
shared effort to combat the lack of educational facilities and health
care. And second, “global commissions” can take many different
forms, including one-sided institutional arrangements such as the
existing patent laws.
These adversities call also for local efforts at rectification in
the poor countries themselves. But there is global responsibility as
well. Regarding global omission, there is an urgent need for a more
comprehensive program of worldwide co-operation in eradicating
illiteracy and untreated illnesses, which exterminate people’s ability
to help themselves and help others. There is a strong case for
strengthening the hands of those who are trying to broaden the
reach of international policy within the existing institutional structure
(including the UN and The World bank). We should also consider
a broadening of the international institutional architecture set up
GLOBALIZATION
by the Bretton Woods agreement in the 1940s (when the world
was a very different place and global disparities were more easily
tolerated).
There is another — and less discussed — global commission that
causes intense misery as well as lasting deprivation: the involvement
of the world powers in trade in arms. Local wars and military
conflicts draw not only on regional tensions, but also on the global
trade in arms and weapons. Indeed, the world leaders who express
deep frustration at the irresponsibility of anti-globalization protesters,
lead the countries that make the most money in this terrible trade.
The share of G8 countries in the world export of arms was 87%
during 1996—2000.
The world establishment is firmly entrenched in this business:
the permanent members of the Security Council of the United
nations are together responsible for 81% of conventional arms
exports. The share of the United States alone is close to 50% of
the total sales in the world. And, furthermore, as much as 68%
of the American arms exports go to developing countries.
The arms are used not only with bloody results, but also with
devastating effects on the economy and the society. Historically
in the genesis of political militarism in Africa, these powers played
a big part. During the cold-war decades, when military overlords —
Mobuto, Savimbi or whoever — busted social and political
arrangements (and ultimately economic order too) in Africa, they
could rely on support either from the United States or from the
USSR, depending on their military alliances. The world powers
bear an awesome responsibility in the subversion of democracy in
Africa. Global arms exports continue that evil tradition. The recent
refusal of the United States to agree to a joint crackdown even
on illicit sales of small arms illustrates the difficulties involved.
A change in priorities is urgently needed
1
.
225
List of Words
I
supranational национальный
buzz-word популярный профессиональный термин
welfare benefits социальные выплаты
to erode (постепенно) разрушать
havoc смута, паника
226
to venture решиться, отважиться
incompatible несовместимый
Supplements
II
rampant угрожающий, безудержный
inequality неравенство
inequity несправедливость, неравенство
equitable [!ekwit
equity 1. справедливость 2. þð. право справедливости
disparity 1. неравенство, несоответствие 2. различие
special drawing rights специальные права заимствования (рас
ч¸тные денежные единицы в рамках Международного валют
ного фонда)
public goods общественные блага (товары и услуги, предостав
ляемые государством)
antecedent [
structural faults структурные недостатки
“global omissions” глобальное бездействие, глобальное упущение
“global commissions” глобальные деяния, глобальное попусти-
тельство
adversity несчастье, напасти
rectification исправление, поправка, уточнение
to strengthen sb’s hands поддержать кого-либо
deprivation лишения, нужда
to express deep frustration выражать глубокое разочарование
to entrench окапываться, закрепляться
genesis [!d
crackdown воздействие, нажим
illi´cit sales незаконные продажи
əbl] справедливый
nti!si:dənt] предшествующий, предыдущий
!
enisis] возникновение, происхождение, генезис
-
-
-
Questions
I
1. Which of the definitions given in the text is closer to your
understanding of the phenomenon? How would you define
“globalization”?
2. What are positive and negative views on globalization?
3. What do critics of globalization predict?
4. To what extent are labour markets integrated?
5. What is the role of technology in the process of globalization?
GLOBALIZATION
II
1. How would you explain the big gap in average incomes of rich
and poor countries? Why is it increasing over time?
2. What institutional reforms are needed to put an end to the
inequalities and unfairness of the current economic order in
the world?
3. How do you think public goods can be expanded?
4. What structural faults are typical of the world economic
order? How do you understand “global omissions” and “global
commissions”?
5. What can you say concerning global arms export? Why are
leading countries so reluctant to stop it?
Task 1. Read the following text and discuss the problems the
European Union faces in connection with its enlargement.
On one side stand economists armed with formulae and tables
of data, arguing that migration from the poor countries of central
Europe to the rich countries of western Europe will be modest
and manageable after ten new members join the European Union.
On the other stand Eurosceptics, trade unions and some governments,
worried that enlargement will bring a rush of migrants chasing jobs
and social-security benefits. Almost drowned out are voices from
the poor countries themselves, demanding the rights and freedoms
of EU membership, but fearing a drain of skilled workers.
Free movement of workers across borders is a basic EU policy.
But it poses problems of scale when the EU is gaining ten
countries, with a combined population of 75 million, that have
wage levels and living standards far below the 15 existing member
countries (and 380 million people). Cyprus and Malta apart, the
new members include eight central European countries with an
average income per head of only 23% of the EU average in 2002.
That figure falls to 18% if Bulgaria and Romania, which hope to
join in 2007, are added.
Given such a big income gap, and high unemployment in many
of the new countries, the question should perhaps not be why so
many workers might want to leave, but why so many might choose
to stay. One answer is that prices are lower in central Europe,
making those low average incomes worth more like 35—45%
of their west European counterparts. But that still leaves plenty
of incentive for workers to go overseas, send money home, and
come back to spend it later. Already more than 400,000 migrants
227
228
Supplements
from central Europe are working legally in the EU, and many
others are doing so illegally.
Fears of a big new migration wave from central Europe after
enlargement have provoked a policy split among EU governments,
already hard-pressed by asylum seekers and illegal immigrants
from farther afield. Germany and Austria, which border the new
members, oppose a quick opening-up of labour markets. They have
secured agreement that EU members can restrict labour inf lows
from central Europe for up to seven years, although this should
not affect students or tourists.
Britain and Ireland are among the countries taking a quite
different view. They have promised to open their labour markets
immediately, seeing workers from the new countries as a timely
source of cheap, skilled labour. Some EU governments have yet
to state final positions, though the European Commission hopes
they will do so in the near future. They all have the option to bar
workers from central Europe for an initial two years, and to renew
this bar for another three years in 2006. A further extension of
two years will be possible for countries that still fear “serious
disturbances” in labour markets.
Recent academic simulations have predicted that as many as
3—4 million people will migrate from central to western Europe
in the 25 years after enlargement, about 1% of the present EU
population. Roughly half of those will be workers. There will be
a first surge of migrants for two or three years, then a falling
away. Based on past trends, at least half the migrants will head
for Germany.
Those who think the rate of migration will be higher point
to German unification, when over 7% of the population moved
from east to west in ten years, despite a huge f low of subsidies
from west to east. Those who think it will be lower cite the EU’s
experience with Spain and Portugal, which joined in 1986. There
was no big outf low then: rather the opposite, as strong growth
at home attracted Spaniards and Portuguese back from other
countries. But when they joined, Spain and Portugal had living
standards much closer to the EU average than the countries of
central Europe do now. Spanish purchasing power was about
two-thirds of the EU average. For Poland, the biggest country in
central Europe, the figure is about 40%.
Even diligent and legal migrant workers from central Europe
could pose political problems for western European governments,
GLOBALIZATION
if they come in large enough numbers and seem to price locals
out of jobs. But they will still be valuable economically, because
they are likely to contribute more in work than take out in pay.
The bigger worry for rich-country governments concerns
migrants in search of state benefits. Central Europe’s Roma
minorities — about 9% of the population in Slovakia, 5% in
Hungary and 3% in the Czech Republic — are a particular cause
for concern. The poorest Roma villages, especially in eastern
Slovakia, are among the most desperate places in Europe, with
no work and little schooling. A f low of Roma migrants claiming
political asylum led Britain to reintroduce temporary visas for
Slovaks a few years ago. Such barriers will be illegal after EU
enlargement.
Yet whatever problems migration may pose, short-term restrictions,
such as those proposed by Germany and Austria, will not be a
solution. At best they may merely delay or divert f lows. A two-year
or even five-year delay is not much when set against the
50—90 years that it might take the countries of central Europe to
catch up with west European living standards. If the incentive to
migrate from central Europe is strong in 2004, it will be strong
in 2009 — unless western Europe’s economies do remarkably badly.
A better way to deter too much movement of people would be
through investment in the poorest parts of central Europe, especially
improving infrastructure such as roads. This should bring businesses
and jobs, making it less likely that people will migrate. That is
a good argument for directing eastwards the subsidies that the
EU gives to poor regions.
Even so, east-west migration will be a fact of life in the EU
for at least the next 30 years. The trick is to make the best use
of it. This means fine-tuning benefit systems to shut out short-stay
claimants, as Denmark is doing, and improving incentives to
work. It means deregulating labour markets so that jobs can be
created cheaply but legally for the workers who want them.
Migration will be less of a challenge, and more of an opportunity,
2
if it forces such reforms on recalcitrant governments
.
229
formulae [!fɔmjuli:] pl oт formula формула; migration [mai!greiʃn] мигра
öèÿ; to migrate [mai!greit] мигрировать; migrant [!maigr
asylum [
íèå; diligent усердный, старательный; Roma [!r
íå; to deter сдерживать; claimant претендент; recalcitrant [ri!k
не поддающийся (воздействию), упорствующий.
ə3sailəm] убежище; afield издалека; simulation çä. моделирова
ɔmə](pl îò Rom) öûãà
ənt] мигрант;
lsitrənt]
-
-
-
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]