The Role of the Multinational Corporation: Discussion

Abstract

In his thought-provoking paper, Goldberg points out that national food systems have become more and more internationalized and intertwined with each other, and that this interdependent global food system has gravitated, on whole, toward North America, which is the only significant surplus grainproducing area in world. He foresees a further expansion of this globally integrated food system as a result of population pressure and an ever-rising need for food, especially on part of developing countries, whose agricultural sector is still largely subsistent and noncommercial, with an extremely low level of productivity. Against this backdrop, Goldberg then explains how new opportunities have been and will continue to be created for key operators in a vertical food system to cross national boundaries and operate in foreign markets, that is, to become multinational. As we all know, multinational corporations generally are regarded as a mixed bag of malevolent and benevolent forces or as institutions with psychotic behavioral patterns somewhat like those of Jekyll and Hyde. At one extreme, for example, Marxists consider multinationals nothing but a devilish instrument of capitalistic exploitation and neo-imperialism. At other extreme, neoclassical liberals--and managers of big business in general-consider multinationals a dynamic engine of economic development and coprosperity, a savior of mankind from economic inefficiency and backwardness, and lament that its messianic mission is hampered only by parochial interests of sovereign states. Both views have some validity, depending on circumstances under which multinationals are allowed to operate. The multinational corporation is by nature monopolistic in terms not only of size of its operation but also of superior knowledge it g nerates and tries to possess exclusively, and it is efficient at exploiting such knowledge; but its monopolistic power is an inevitable cause of inequity when it operates in developing countries where, in general, countervailing power either does not exist or if it does exist, s not judiciously exercised. Goldberg describes very well Dr. J kyll side of multinationals by citing several socially useful cases. All these are good citizen citations, as they are judged, in his opinion, to be contributing to agribusiness needs of developing host countries. These examples of socially useful operations are indeed encouraging. Yet, I am still left uncomfortable about Mr. Hyde side of multinationals. Goldberg does give us a warning of he power of multinationals, but he does so only implicitly by quoting a statement made by Galbraith. Goldberg says nothing about our recent experiences with abuse of such power by multinationals. Perhaps we are too familiar with it to need to be reminded of tragedies that occurred recently when infants in developing countries were fed'baby formula marketed on a caveat emptor basis by multinationals.