EN :

The article argues that the state plays, and has always played, a key role in the internationalization of firms and that theoretical explanations of MNE should take that role into account. The first part of the paper deals with the place of the state in the theories of multinational firms ; most theories can be classified into three currents : those arguing the decline of the Nation-State as a consequence of the growth of MNE, those seeing the territorial expansion of the state as a natural consequence of multinationalism and those arguing the direct but weak thrust of the State in favour of MNE. The second section of the paper analyses the main types of government intervention pushing national firms into foreign operations. The third section studies the most evident case of government intervention on multinationalisation : the case of multinational state enterprises. The article concludes that the state should be included - an increasingly so - as a major purveyor of advantages to national firms seeking to initiate or pursue foreign activities.

EN :

This paper assumes that the analysis of the social costs and benefits of the MNE is not only possible but also necessary. This kind of analysis is not easy because there are different rival theoretical models, because of the oligopoliste market structures that characterize multinational industries, and because the often clashing interest of home and host countries. However the author is able to identify the main costs and benefits for each group of countries. The home countries are often able to export products and factors, and to import steady flows of cheap raw materials and intermediate goods thanks to MNE. However they risk the loss of taxes, jobs and capital; besides they can suffer from MNE speculation against their own currency and balance of payments imbalances. Host countries show positive gains in terms of economic development, and eventual access to foreign markets. However they can loose taxes, suffer the extra-territorial implementation of home countries' laws and policies as well as transfer-pricing and balance-of-payments desequilibra.

EN :

The rapid development of transnational firms and banks during the 1960's and 1970's, and their search for increasing autonomy vis-à-vis the national governments of host countries is the main theme of this paper. The author concludes that MNE and MNB are increasingly able to avoid national regulations. However the massive use of the U.S. dollar in international transactions gives the American government a disproportionate influence on global economic relations and trends. MNE try to maximize short term return on investments and the international coherence and integration of their own network. All these trends contribute to the desarticulation of the national economies of the host countries. Besides, MNE conceive strategies for "socializing" (i.e. transferring to the host state) many costs and risks. The whole picture is one of diminishing state capabilities in the host countries.

EN :

The article is a case study of the relationship between the American government and US multinational corporation. It argues that while the state - MNE relationships vary from country to country, the US pattern is one of a very limited transnational role for government. Main factors in this pattern are the division of powers between the various branches and agencies of the US government, and changes in administrative staff following each national election. Few cases of government effort at business guidance are found: antitrust policy, foreign aid to friend governments, ineffectual protests again nationalisation of foreign subsidiaries of US MNE, exceptional cases of purposeful intervention, and the US adherence to international guide lines to MNE conduct sponsored by OECD. The article studies in more detail the case of oil, in which the US government is supposed to have intervened in a more direct way. The article concludes that US foreign policy is too complex to be understood simply in terms of government support of US multinational abroad. Besides us industry and the American government are themselves too split to produce a single and homogeneous pattern of policy.

EN :

The article maintains that, with its long tradition of an open economy the State could not play the role of guiding the economic development of the country. The investment of foreign MNE in the Belgian economy has had major destabilizing effects in the regional structure: foreign direct investment was almost entirely done in Flanders. Simultaneously, the Belgian MNE disinvest in order to flee to the fiscal heaven of the neighbour Luxembourg. If the nation-state has played any role toward both foreign and local MNE, it has promoted multinationalization.