Skip to main content
Log in

The multinational enterprise, development, and the inequality of opportunities: A research agenda

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 25 May 2023

This article has been updated

There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they're falling in. —Desmond Tutu

Abstract

The potential of multinational enterprises (MNEs) to accelerate economic development and reduce inequality has been recognized since the industrial revolution, when states sought to actively engage foreign capital in industrialization. Over time, the MNE–state compact has waxed and waned in significance due to (geo-)political developments, shaped in part by how the economic surpluses of foreign capital were distributed between domestic actors. Government policies matter as to how they prioritize international competitiveness relative to domestic inequality reduction. The contemporary rise of within-country income inequality alongside increasing globalization has drawn attention to the causes of inequality (including the activities of MNEs). Scholars in development studies have examined the underlying causes of increasing income inequalities through the lens of inequality of opportunities. We discuss how adopting this lens could advance our understanding of how MNEs influence inequality directly, as well as in interaction with the policies of the state. Subsequently, we propose a research agenda, taking into account micro-, meso-, and macro-level perspectives. In our discussion, we explicitly highlight that the MNE–state compact is dynamic, continuously changing with the evolving political and socio-economic landscape. MNEs can have an impact on inequality of opportunities, contingent on the nature of their engagement with states and other stakeholders.

Résumé

Le potentiel des entreprises multinationales (Multinational Enterprises - MNEs) pour accélérer le développement économique et réduire les inégalités est reconnu depuis la révolution industrielle, lorsque les États ont cherché à faire participer activement les capitaux étrangers à l'industrialisation. Au fil du temps, le pacte MNE-État a connu des hauts et des bas en raison des évolutions (géo)politiques, en partie déterminées par la manière dont les excédents économiques des capitaux étrangers ont été répartis entre les acteurs domestiques. Les politiques gouvernementales sont importantes dans la mesure où elles donnent la priorité à la compétitivité internationale par rapport à la réduction des inégalités domestiques. L'augmentation contemporaine de l'inégalité des revenus à l'intérieur des pays, associée à une mondialisation croissante, a attiré l'attention sur les causes de l'inégalité (y compris les activités des MNEs). Les chercheurs en développement ont examiné les causes sous-jacentes de l'augmentation des inégalités de revenus sous l'angle de l'inégalité des chances. Nous examinons comment l'adoption de cette optique pourrait nous permettre de mieux comprendre comment les MNEs influencent l'inégalité, directement et en interaction avec l'État. Nous proposons ensuite un programme de recherche tenant compte des perspectives aux niveaux micro, méso et macro. Dans notre discussion, nous soulignons explicitement que le pacte MNE-État est dynamique et change continuellement en fonction de l'évolution du paysage socio-économique et politique. Les MNEs peuvent avoir un impact sur l'inégalité des chances, en fonction de la nature de leur engagement avec les États et les autres parties prenantes.

Resumen

El potencial de las empresas multinacionales (EMN) para acelerar el desarrollo económico y reducir la desigualdad se ha reconocido desde la revolución industrial, cuando los Estados trataron de involucrar activamente al capital extranjero en la industrialización. Con el paso del tiempo, el pacto entre empresas multinacionales y Estados ha ido ganando y perdiendo importancia debido a la evolución (geo)política, configurada en parte por la forma en que los superávits económicos del capital extranjero se distribuían entre los agentes nacionales. Las políticas gubernamentales importan en la medida en que dan prioridad a la competitividad internacional frente a la reducción de la desigualdad nacional. El incremento contemporáneo de la desigualdad de ingresos en los países unido a la creciente globalización ha puesto en primer plano las causas de la desigualdad (incluidas las actividades de las empresas multinacionales). Los académicos en estudios sobre el desarrollo han examinado las causas subyacentes de las crecientes desigualdades de ingresos a través de los lentes de la desigualdad de oportunidades. Discutimos cómo la adopción de estos lentes podría hacer avanzar nuestra comprensión de cómo influyen las empresas multinacionales en la desigualdad, directamente y en interacción con el Estado. Posteriormente, proponemos una agenda de investigación teniendo en cuenta las perspectivas micro, meso y macroeconómicas. En nuestro debate, resaltamos explícitamente que el pacto entre las empresas multinacionales y el Estado es dinámico y cambia continuamente con la evolución del panorama político y socioeconómico. Las empresas multinacionales pueden influir en la desigualdad de oportunidades, dependiendo de la naturaleza de su involucramiento con los Estados y otros grupos de interés.

Resumo

O potencial de empresas multinacionais (MNEs) para acelerar o desenvolvimento econômico e reduzir a desigualdade é reconhecido desde a revolução industrial, quando estados tentaram envolver ativamente o capital estrangeiro na industrialização. Ao longo do tempo, o acordo MNE-Estado ampliou-se e minguou em relevância devido a desenvolvimentos (geo)políticos, moldados em parte pela forma como os excedentes econômicos do capital estrangeiro foram distribuídos entre atores domésticos. Políticas governamentais importam em como priorizam a competitividade internacional em relação à redução da desigualdade doméstica. O aumento contemporâneo da desigualdade de renda dentro do país, juntamente com o aumento da globalização, levou a atenção para as causas da desigualdade (incluindo as atividades de MNEs) para o primeiro plano. Acadêmicos em estudos sobre desenvolvimento examinaram as causas subjacentes do aumento de desigualdades de renda por meio da lente da desigualdade de oportunidades. Discutimos como a adoção dessa lente pode avançar nossa compreensão de como MNEs influenciam a desigualdade, diretamente, e em interação com o estado. Posteriormente, propomos uma agenda de pesquisa, levando em consideração perspectivas de nível micro, meso e macro. Em nossa discussão, explicitamente salientamos que o pacto MNE-Estado é dinâmico, muda continuamente com a evolução do cenário político e socioeconômico. MNEs podem ter um impacto na desigualdade de oportunidades, dependendo da natureza de seu envolvimento com estados e outras partes interessadas.

摘要

跨国企业 (MNE) 在加速经济发展和减少不平等方面的潜力自工业革命以来就已得到认可, 当时各国都在工业化中寻求积极吸引外国资本。随着时间的推移, 由于(地缘)政治的发展, 跨国公司与国家的契约在重要性上起伏不定, 这在一定程度上取决于外国资本的经济盈余如何在国内参与者之间进行分配。就它们如何优先考虑相对于国内不平等减少的国际竞争力而言, 政府政策很重要。当代的国内收入不平等的抬头以及全球化的加剧已经引起人们对不平等原因(包括跨国公司的活动)的关注。从事发展研究的学者从机会不平等的角度审视了收入不平等增加的根本原因。我们讨论了采用这种视角如何能促进了我们对跨国公司如何直接地以及在与国家互动中影响不平等的理解。随后, 我们提出了一个研究议程, 同时考虑了微观、中观和宏观层面的观点。在我们的讨论中, 我们明确强调跨国公司与国家的契约是动态的, 它随着不断变化的政治和社会经济格局而不断变化。跨国公司可以对机会不平等产生影响, 这取决于它们与国家以及其他利益相关者互动的性质。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

REFERENCES

  • Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. 2012. Why nations fail. The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acker, J. 2006. Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20(4): 441–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amis, J. M., Mair, J., & Munir, K. 2020. The organizational reproduction of inequality. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1): 195–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, U., Brewster, C., Minbaeva, D., Narula, R., & Wood, G. 2019. The IB/IHRM interface: Exploring the potential of intersectional theorizing. Journal of World Business, 54(5): 100998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, A., & Duflo, E. 2011. Poor economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerji, A., & Jain, T. 2007. WTO rules on investment: Futility manifold. Journal of International Business Research, 6(2): 69–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bapuji, H., & Chrispal, S. 2020. Understanding economic inequality through the lens of caste. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(3): 533–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartley, T. 2018. Rules without rights: Land, labor, and private authority in the global economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourguignon, F. 2015. The globalization of inequality. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourguignon, F., Ferreira, F., & Menéndez, M. 2007. Inequality of opportunity in Brazil. Review of Income and Wealth, 53: 585–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandl, K., Moore, E., Meyer, C., & Doh, J. 2021. The impact of multinational enterprises on community informal institutions and rural poverty. Journal of International Business Studies, 53: 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucheli, M. 2005. Bananas and business. New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P., Doh, J., & Benischke, M. 2017. Towards a renaissance in international business research? Big questions, grand challenges, and the future of IB scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 1045–1064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cárdenas, E., Ocampo, J., & Thorp, R. (Eds.). 2016. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castellani, D., Lavoratori, K., Perri, A., & Scalera, V. 2022. International connectivity and the location of multinational enterprises’ knowledge-intensive activities: Evidence from US metropolitan areas. Global Strategy Journal, 12(1): 82–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciravegna, L. 2012. Promoting silicon valleys in Latin America: Lessons from Costa Rica. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Dieleman, M., Hirsch, P., Rodrigues, S., & Zyglidopoulos, S. 2021. Multinationals’ misbehavior. Journal of World Business, 56(5): 101244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, R., & Vadlamannati, K. 2013. A race to the bottom in labor standards? An empirical investigation. Journal of Development Economics, 103(C): 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi, V., Giuliani, E., & Rabellotti, R. 2018. Do global value chains offer developing countries learning and innovation opportunities? The European Journal of Development Research, 30(3): 389–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, L., & Wagstaff, M. 2021. Evidence-based policymaking and the wicked problem of SDG 5 gender equality. Journal of International Business Policy, 4(1): 28–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fainshmidt, S., Judge, W., Aguilera, R., & Smith, A. 2018. Varieties of institutional systems: A contextual taxonomy of understudied countries. Journal of World Business, 53(3): 307–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., Guy, F., & Iammarino, S. 2021. Regional income disparities, monopoly and finance. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 14(1): 25–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishwick, A. 2019. Labour control and developmental state theory: A new perspective on import-substitution industrialization in Latin America. Development and Change, 50(3): 655–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenkel, M. 2017. Gendering the MNC. In Multinational corporations and organization theory: Post millennium perspectives. Emerald.

  • Gatrell, C., Ladge, J., & Powell, G. 2021. A review of fatherhood and employment: Introducing new perspectives for management research. Journal of Management Studies, 59: 1198–1226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E., Ciravegna, L., Vezzulli, A., & Kilian, B. 2017. Decoupling standards from practice: The impact of in-house certifications on coffee farms’ environmental and social conduct. World Development, 96(C): 294–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D., & Wowak, A. 2021. CEO sociopolitical activism: A stakeholder alignment model. Academy of Management Review, 46(1): 33–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewlett, S., & Rashid, R. 2010. The battle for female talent in emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 88(5): 101–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hymer, S. 1982. The multinational corporation and the law of uneven development. In International economics policies and their theoretical foundations (pp. 325–352). Academic Press.

  • Ibarra-Olivo, J. 2021. Foreign direct investment and youth educational outcomes in Mexican municipalities. Economics of Education Review, 82(C): 102–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, R. 1991. The political economy of industrialization: A comparison of Latin American and East Asian newly industrializing countries. Development and Change, 22(2): 197–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. 2002. Merchants to multinationals: British trading companies in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. OUP Oxford.

  • Kano, L. 2018. Global value chain governance: A relational perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(6): 684–705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplinsky, R. 2008. Globalisation, inequality and climate change: What difference does China make? Geography Compass, 2: 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobrin, S. 2017. Bricks and mortar in a borderless world: Globalization, the backlash, and the multinational enterprise. Global Strategy Journal, 7(2): 159–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, N., Javorcik, B., & Abe, Y. 2018. Transplanting corporate culture across international borders: Foreign direct investment and female employment in Japan. The World Economy, 41(5): 1148–1165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., Rivera-Santos, M., & Rufin, C. 2012. Reviewing a decade of research on the “Base/Bottom of the Pyramid” (BOP) concept. Business & Society, 53(3): 338–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koveshnikov, A., Tienari, J., & Piekkari, R. 2019. Gender in international business journals: A review and conceptualization of MNCs as gendered social spaces. Journal of World Business, 54(1): 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laffineur, C., & Gazaniol, A. 2019. Foreign direct investment and wage dispersion: Evidence from French employer-employee data. International Economics, 157: 203–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lall, S. 1996. Learning from the Asian Tigers: Studies in technology and industrial policy. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes, D. 2003. The unbound Prometheus: Technological change and industrial development in Western Europe from 1750 to the present. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marin, A., & Bell, M. 2006. Technology spillovers from Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): The active role of MNC subsidiaries in Argentina in the 1990s. Journal of Development Studies, 42(4): 678–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marrero, G., & Rodríguez, J. 2013. Inequality of opportunity and growth. Journal of Development Economics, 104(C): 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, D. 2018. How men get penalized for straying from masculine norms. Harvard Business Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milanovic, B. 2016. Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R. 2019. Enforcing higher labour standards within developing country value chains: Consequences for MNEs and informal actors in a dual economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(9): 1622–1635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R., Asmussen, C., Chi, T., & Kundu, S. 2019. Applying and advancing internalization theory: The multinational enterprise in the twenty-first century. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(8): 1231–1252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R., & Pineli, A. 2019. Improving the developmental impact of multinational enterprises: policy and research challenges. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 46(1): 1–24.

  • Narula, R., & Dunning, J. 2000. Industrial development, globalization and multinational enterprises: New realities for developing countries. Oxford Development Studies, 28(2): 141–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. 2004. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15(1): 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M., & Kramer, M. 2021. Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism—And unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2): 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C., & Hart, S. 2002. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy Business, 20(26): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prebisch, R. 1950. The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems. New York: United Nations Department of Economic Affairs, Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA).

  • Ramos, X., & Van de Gaer, D. 2016. Approaches to inequality of opportunity: Principles, measures and evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys, 30(5): 855–883.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D. 2016. Premature deindustrialization. Journal of Economic Growth, 21(1): 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D. 2018. Populism and the economics of globalization. Journal of International Business Policy, 1(1): 12–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, J. 1986. Equality of resources implies equality of welfare. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101(4): 751–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, J. 1993. A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian planner. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 22(2): 146–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, H. 2018. States versus markets: Understanding the global economy. Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. 1999. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, H. 1950. The distributions of gains between investing and borrowing countries. American Economic Review, 40(2): 473–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinkovics, N., Hoque, S., & Sinkovics, R. 2016. Rana Plaza collapse aftermath: Are CSR compliance and auditing pressures effective? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(4): 617–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatoglu, E., Glaister, A., & Demirbag, M. 2016. Talent management motives and practices in an emerging market: A comparison between MNEs and local firms. Journal of World Business, 51(2): 278–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thoroughgood, C., Sawyer, K., & Webster, J. 2020. Creating a trans-inclusive workplace. Harvard Business Review, 98(2): 114–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorp, R. 1998. Progress, poverty and exclusion: An economic history of Latin America in the 20th century. IDB.

  • Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Koveshnikov, A. 2021. From cultural differences to identity politics: A critical discursive approach to national identity in multinational corporations. Journal of Management Studies, 58(8): 2052–2081.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Straaten, K., Pisani, N., & Kolk, A. 2020. Unraveling the MNE wage premium. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(9): 1355–1390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, R. 1966. International investment and international trade in the product cycle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2): 190–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, R. 1971. Sovereignty at bay: The multinational spread of US enterprises. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. 2017. The enemy between us: The psychological and social costs of inequality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(1): 11–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittenberg-Cox, A. 2013. Where the race for talent is tight, women gain speed. Harvard Business Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank 2022. Women, business and the law. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special thanks to Luciano Ciravegna and 3 anonymous reviewers, whose insightful guidance has played a key role in finalizing this paper. Elisa Giuliani would like to acknowledge funding from the University of Pisa PRA PROJECT 2020-52 “Shaky capitalism: How business and finance respond to global threats”. We would also like to acknowledge the authors of many key papers from development studies, economics, sociology, and IB that were critical to building this paper, but we were unable to cite, due to the newly introduced JIBS restriction on number of references.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajneesh Narula.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Accepted by Luciano Ciravegna, Guest Editor, 17 March 2023. This article has been with the authors for three revisions.

The original online version of this article was revised: Due to typesetting mistake, the typesetting notes were left on the published paper. They have all been deleted now.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van der Straaten, K., Narula, R. & Giuliani, E. The multinational enterprise, development, and the inequality of opportunities: A research agenda. J Int Bus Stud 54, 1623–1640 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-023-00625-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-023-00625-y

Keywords

Navigation