The corporation is an interesting creature. While absolutely necessary for modern capitalism, it remains one of the free market's starkest opponent. When judging the value of the modern corporation, it is first necessary to note that each and every corporation is different. Business methods, objectives, products, and leadership all differentiate one corporation from another. So when criticizing the multinational corporation, it is important necessary to be as specific and directed as possible. It is also important to recognize that within a single corporation, different companies and branches can exist.
I based on what I said above, I don't think it's fair to say that the corporation as a whole is a bad thing. Furthermore, I don't think corporations as a whole are responsible for the current state of the developing world. I do think that overall corporations role has been extremely positive to the economic growth of the developing nations.
One of the dangers from the Left's criticism of corporations as a threat to the globe is that it homogenizes the various firms out there. By doing so, they lump the good with the bad, and assign both a moral equivalence when one definitely does not exist.
Having said all that, I feel that anyone with a true pro-market stance must approach multinationals with the same skepticism reserved for the state. Too often, individuals sympathetic to capitalism feel the need to identify with companies. However, being probusiness undermines markets. Companies have it in their interest to fix the rules of the game (through the legislative process) so that competition is minimized or outright eliminated. Any policy supported by the business community should be examined closely. One must ask who this policy favors, whether it enables more or less competition, and if said policy enables economic liberty.
I think the most valid criticism launched against large sized corporations is their role within the legislative process. TRIPS, $90 billion dollars in corporate welfare, the CAP, and other policies are all anti-market, but pro-business. These policies were crafted because of corporate influence. Imagine then, that if companies can get significant policies enacted in the developed world, then the degree of influence exerted over small, static economies must be greater.
But like Wolf said, this is an unfortunate side effect from democracy. Instead of wide reaching reform minimizing lobbying power, greater activism is needer on the part of other sectors of society, especially the free-market element. But this is a matter for another post.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment