Abstract
ABSTRACT This article examines diverse transnational corporations’(TNC) strategies in response to labor shock and specific conditions that enhance TNCs’local embedding in export processing zones (EPZs). The goal of this paper is to understand the rationale behind TNCs’choice between spatial differentiation (mobility) and spatial fmity (immobility). Based on field research and data analysis from the Masan Free Export Zone (MAFEZ) in South Korea, it is argued that TNCs do not always withdraw from EPZs in reaction to wage costs and growing labor militancy. Higher labor costs can be overridden by other advantages: existing physicalkocial inhstructure, tax benefits, fured assets, localized labor skills and technology, cultural proximity, and advantages from geographical proximity to market, raw materials, and TNCs’headquarters. This paper criticizes the overly simplistic view of capital mobility. However, TNCs that choose to remain in the EPZs use both upgrading and cheapening strategies, and their remaining does not necessarily result in upgrading labor skills or improving labor conditions. This article raises a critical question of the firm‐centered view of the global enterprise literature and the local embeddedness literature of TNCs on workers’welfare. It emphasizes the important role of firms and of unions in training workers for purposes of technology and skill upgrading.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call