Search results

The ownership of affiliates of international companies has become a critical issue in many host countries. Inevitably, the issue of ownership has become a serious matter for the parent companies. In the discussion that has developed, things are not always what they seem, or what is presumed to be the case. Reality diverges from several unexamined presumptions.That host countries take the question of ownership very seriously is evident from the increasing requirements that foreign shareholdings be sold to locals or to the government itself, from the regulations preventing new acquisitions of existing companies (thereby reducing the shifts in ownership to foreigners), and from the moves toward bringing labor into ownership. This last item is represented by the comtnunidad industrial of Peru, which progressively hands over1 to labor larger percentages of the shares, and by those in Europe who advocate that labor take over ownership and control of some companies or industries.

A major objective of economic policies among nations is to achieve industrial development in ways which not only accelerate national industrial integration, but also integrate regional and international economies. The new phenomenon of the multinational enterprise, and the resulting international production, is a means of gaining industrial integration. But the resulting pattern of production and trade is not likely to be that which would have arisen with free trade under classical assumptions. At the national level, the multinational enterprise (ME) can respond to inducements to locate in "depressed" areas, helping to integrate the economy. Regionally, it is more responsive to policies directed at integration among members than are most local companies, and it has in fact been a catalyst for integration in the European Common Market, though it has not been permitted to be such in the Central American Common Market or in the Latin American Free Trade Association. At the international level, it is already integrating the advanced economies, but the pattern of industrial integration between the advanced and developing countries leaves much to be desired, partly because the MEs are not being used effectively. In addition, some restrictions are imposed by states, not so much because of the fact that the firm is "foreign," but because it will not necessarily produce the kind of integration sought by host countries. If governments moved to cause the multinational enterprise to support objectives of industrial integration at all levels—national, regional, and international—it would become a more acceptable addition to Western economic institutions. To achieve this, new governmental guidelines are necessary.

International cooperation through multilateral organizations sharply distinguishes the post-World War II economic policies of the United States from those it employed following World War I. After World War I, the United States eschewed any form of international economic organization, which some governments thought should be continued; early in the more recent conflict, United States officials pressed hard for the acceptance of world-wide institutional cooperation. The purpose of the present article is to review, through an examination of its policy toward multilateral financial arrangements, some of the important discussions and decisions which moved the United States towards internationalism in economic relations; to emphasize the role of political factors in the development of financial organizations, in the retreat from international "democracy," and in the growth of regional cooperation; and to examine some of the difficulties of international financial cooperation.A primary objective of the United States government's postwar policy preparations was the re-creation of amethodof conducting international economic transactions which would not result in economic warfare; the major technique was that of international agreement on accepted rules for conducting transactions. Government officials considered that this approach was not only desirable but also possible, in view of the success of wartime collaboration.