Consider Two Hypothetical Companies: Abc Computers Based In

Consider Two Hypothetical Companies1 Abc Computers Based In San Fran

Consider two hypothetical companies: 1- ABC Computers based in San Francisco, California. The shareholders, managers, and directors are Americans. However, most of the employees of the company are South Korean where the computers are manufactured and then exported to the USA. 2- XYZ Computers is based in Germany. Their shareholders, managers, and directors are German. However, most of the employees of the company are Californians where the (high tech) computers are designed and manufactured. Many of these are exported to Germany. Many people would say the ABC is an American company while XYZ is not. Robert Reich argues otherwise. He looks at the impact that the company has on the US economy (employment, for example) as the best guide. XYZ has much more impact here than ABC. Is IBM an American company? More than 40% of its employees are foreign. IBM's Japanese subsidiary employs more than 18,000 Japanese workers and is one of Japan's leading exports of computers. Whirlpool employs more than 43,000 people around the world in 45 countries. Is this an American company? What about Chiquita Banana whose operations are in Central America and much of its exports do not go to the USA? Is this an American company? What about Boeing, General Motors, Mc Donalds? How would you define a company as 'American'? Is there such a thing as a purely American company? What does 'purely American' mean to you? Is this a result of globalization where more and more of the world's economies are integrated?

Paper For Above instruction

The concept of what constitutes an "American company" in the era of globalization is complex and multifaceted. Traditional definitions based solely on geographical location or national ownership are increasingly inadequate in capturing the true nature of multinational corporations operating across borders. Instead, a broader perspective that considers economic impact, corporate structure, and influence within the United States offers a more nuanced understanding.

Historically, American companies such as IBM, General Motors, and McDonald's have been viewed as quintessentially American due to their origins, main headquarters, and cultural identity. However, the globalization of production, investment, and supply chains has challenged this notion. For instance, IBM employs over 40% of its workforce outside the United States, and its subsidiaries in Japan and other countries are significant contributors to their respective economies. This raises the question of whether a company's national identity should be tied to its ownership, its operational footprint, or the impact it has on the American economy.

Robert Reich’s perspective shifts the focus from ownership and nationality to economic impact, particularly employment within the United States. From this viewpoint, a company’s contribution to domestic employment and economic activity may be a better indicator of "American-ness" than its corporate ownership or headquarters location. For example, if a company headquartered in Germany employs a significant number of Americans and contributes substantially to the U.S. economy through wages, investment, and innovation, it could reasonably be considered "American" in its economic influence despite foreign ownership.

Similarly, multinational corporations like Whirlpool, with extensive global employment and operations, exemplify this blurred boundary. Whirlpool employs over 43,000 people worldwide, but only a fraction are in the United States. Should it still be considered an American company? If the criteria are based on the economic contribution within the U.S., then Whirlpool’s substantial U.S. operations and its role in the American economy might suffice for such a classification. Conversely, a company like Chiquita Banana operates mainly in Central America and exports little back to the U.S., making it less clear whether it is "American." Its operational base and influence are primarily outside U.S. borders, leading some to argue it is more a foreign entity with American connections than an American company.

In the context of globalization, the concept of a purely American company becomes increasingly obsolete. Firms like Boeing and General Motors have production facilities and markets worldwide, yet maintain their roots in the United States. Their contribution to the U.S. economy, particularly through employment, innovation, and exports, continues to anchor their American identity. Nonetheless, their extensive international operations challenge the idea of a purely national identity, underscoring the interconnectedness of today’s global economy.

Ultimately, defining an "American company" depends on the criteria prioritized: ownership, location, impact, or a combination thereof. In an interconnected world, the notion of national purity diminishes. Instead, the global impacts and contributions of corporations might better reflect the reality of contemporary capitalism. As globalization advances, companies are becoming hybrid entities operating across multiple jurisdictions, making the question of "American-ness" more a matter of perspective than a fixed classification.

References

• Reich, R. (1991). The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for 21st Century Capitalism. Vintage.
• Bremmer, I. (2014). The Rise of the New American Empire. Foreign Affairs, 93(4), 12–19.
• Ghemawat, P. (2007). Redefining Global Strategy: Crossing Borders in a World Where Differences Still Matter. Harvard Business School Publishing.
• Friedman, T. L. (2005). The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Strange, S. (1996). The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge University Press.
• Chudnovsky, D., & López, H. (2008). Multinational Corporations and the Integration of Developing Countries into Global Markets. World Development, 36(4), 673–690.
• Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (2002). Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Dunning, J. H. (2000). The Eclectic Paradigm as an Envelope for Economic and Business Theories of MNE Activity. International Business Review, 9(2), 163–190.
• OECD. (2019). FDI in Figures: Overview of Foreign Direct Investment. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
• Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard Business Review Press.