Y13 have been researching into the impacts that Transnational Corporations can have on both host countries and countries of origin.
‘TNCs are not necessarily a negative phenomena’. Peter Dickens.
To what extent do Y13 agree / disagree with this statement?
16 comments:
I think that it was not very good success because it had bought many problems, no one knew if it was an actually good idea in the first place. It did lower the population growth tremendously, but the number of infants deaths took over. Women in china are forced to give up their babies and are sometimes beaten. Males are still the leader and have the power of the family behind them. Tradition will always live in China, and a male child will always be a necessity. The family name must be carried on and the only way to do this is through a male. If they have a girl it would be very hard.
Overall I think it was a good idea but not. It was good because it lowered the population growth which meant there was enough food for everyone and other things. There were a few disadvantages about this because many parents wanted to have children but couldn’t.
Ammarah 10c
In some ways TNCs aren't necessarily a negative phenomena. This is because it has brought employment to places in which there is a high rate of unemployment, for example Sony located in Bridgend in South Wales, and now employs 1500 people. It also has political benefits as it brings improvements between the governments in the Host country with the coutry of origin, for example, Sony improved international relations between UK and Japan.
On the other hand, TNCs can be seen as a negative phenomena, this is because if you look at Chiparawe farm in Zimbabwe (a farm harvesting beans for Tesco) are working with the mindset that Tesco is a foreign country, therefore when a representative of Tesco visits to inspect, they are offer gifts, dances, songs and Tesco flags are raised. If a 'bad' bean is let through the system it could result in this plant being closed down, meaning that many people would lose their jobs and conflict between this country and the actual country of origin will occur. Also many TNCs locate their factories in LEDCs and get away with paying less than minimum wage, for example Nike pay their employees up to $2 a day.
Overall, I think that as the country of origin control their plants in the host countries, the host countries become dependent on the coutries of origin meaning that in the long run host countries accept any decision the country make, such as decisions made for the Chiparawe farm. Host countries are generally located with a great distance from the country of origin; therefore they can't see any problems that are occuring. Therefore, TNCs can be seen as a negative phenomenon when looking at the host countries, and TNCs are not necessarily a negative phenomena when looking at the countries of origin.
TNC’s can be described as a negative phenomena because energy costs may lead to national debt and very few of the local skilled workers are employed. However TNCs do bring work to countries which allow people to be employed and they also provide technology. Also TNC’s leads to the development of mineral wealth and energy resources.
Overall TNC’s can be described as a negative phenomena as they can have negative influences on countries but they do also have many positive impacts.
'TNCs are not necessarily a negative phenomena’. Peter Dickens.
An advantage transnational companies have on their host countries is that they provide that local workforce with a guaranteed income; also they improve the levels of education and technical skills of the local people. Another advantage transnational companies have on their host countries are that they improve the standards of the production, health control and environmental control in that area.
An disadvantage transnational companies have on their host countries is that due to the improvement in machineries and new modern technology, less labour force is needed reducing the size of the labour force, and providing less jobs for the local people. Another disadvantage is that the GNP grows less quickly than that of the parent company’s headquarters, widening the gap between developed and developing countries.
To conclude transnational companies have a wide range of advantages and disadvantages of the host countries. The bad points largely depend upon the transnational company and weather they follow the laws of the counties e.g. minimum wage.
Transnational corporations have many positive impacts, they broadan the relationships countries have with each other and break down barriers, enhancing the ‘global market.’ Globalistaion means every country has the chance of econmomic growth and the opportunity to import and export goods within the rest of the world.
Relisitcally though, it becomes very one sided as the power still remains within the western world. As it is companies such as Nike and Levi that move from the countries of origion (USA) and take root in within LEDC’s such as the Far East. Here they can manipulate cheaper wages and lower taxes usually in tur expoliting employees.
Overall transnational corporations in theory could be positive for world trade but realistically someone always ends up loosing out and its not the head offices and managers that are based within the western world.
Imogen Challenger 13mcb
I think in general TNC's are a negative phenomena. They do more good than bad, and they create unwanted problems. TNC's create jobs in a country normally LEDC's but by doing this they give workers poor conditions to work in, health and safety has not been taken into account. Also they exploit child labour, and have children in some areas as young as 6 working for them, giving them the equivalent of 10p per day. Another negative point about TNC's is that it makes the area dependant on them for money, if the TNC moves then the local area will have no source of income, they become totallly reliable on the TNC. When the TNC leaves it leaves the people with no money, so they cant support there family. The only main general aspect of TNC's is that it creates more jobs and more products are created.
Mitesh.
Tnc's often create lots of job opportunities by employing local residents, which in turn causes the economoy of that country to develop and helps to improve living standards. However,Tnc's are driven by maximizing profits and can easily pull out of a host coutnry, which will mean job losses, and if its an Ledc people might not have any other way to earn money in order to survive. They often pay little attention to health and safety regulations and have people working long hours.
I agree with this to some extent as TNC’s do have positive impact on the host countries as in particular in Bhopal the TNC’s provide jobs here which then sustains a guaranteed income, they also increase the GNP of a country which leads to widening of the economy base, help communities and improve the health/living conditions. TNC’s do not just have positive impacts for host country but from the country of origin as the profits are brought back to the USA, using the Bhopal example and can also provide jobs here especially in Research and Development.
I disagree with this statement to some extent as TNC’s can be a negative phenomena as they have negative impacts on the host countries such as looser employment laws in which TNC’s then exploit this e.g. Nike in particular been know to doing this and therefore just locate here for their own benefits of cheaper source of labour and also due to less pollution laws cam cause much more harm to the environments. I also disagree with this to some extent as can have negative impacts on the country of origin as some closures of branch plant in these country leads to unemployment, therefore is negative phenomena.
Overall, I think there are arguments to both side, both ultimately it depends on whether you are the host country or the country of origin to whether TNCs are not necessarily a negative phoemena. In general seems that TNCs are mostly negative phenomena to the host country rather than the country of origin.
I agree with this to some extent as TNC’s do have positive impact on the host countries as in particular in Bhopal the TNC’s provide jobs here which then sustains a guaranteed income, they also increase the GNP of a country which leads to widening of the economy base, help communities and improve the health/living conditions. TNC’s do not just have positive impacts for host country but from the country of origin as the profits are brought back to the USA, using the Bhopal example and can also provide jobs here especially in Research and Development.
I disagree with this statement to some extent as TNC’s can be a negative phenomena as they have negative impacts on the host countries such as looser employment laws in which TNC’s then exploit this e.g. Nike in particular been know to doing this and therefore just locate here for their own benefits of cheaper source of labour and also due to less pollution laws cam cause much more harm to the environments. I also disagree with this to some extent as can have negative impacts on the country of origin as some closures of branch plant in these country leads to unemployment, therefore is negative phenomena.
Overall, I think there are arguments to both side, both ultimately it depends on whether you are the host country or the country of origin to whether TNCs are not necessarily a negative phoemena. In general seems that TNCs are mostly negative phenomena to the host country rather than the country of origin.
Sometimes TNC's can have positive effects such as allowing people in the host nation greater employment opportunity. This can have positive effects on the nations such as the manufacture of Dyson vacuum cleaners in malaysia.
Another positive for the Host country is that it can have a positive multiplier effect. The regeneration caused by the new large company has knock on effects, causing other companies to locate nearby, therefore an area is regenerated.
There are also positive effects for the origin nation. This is that the products made can be sold for less money as the manufacturing costs are lessened.
However they can also be a negative phenomenon because the workers in the host country are likely to work longer hours for less money and this is a form of exploitation. This also can cause areas to be dependent on a company, such as fiat in brazil, which when production slows, the area has a unemployment crisis. The origin can also have problems because companies leave to move to less developed countries. This causes an employment shortage left behind.
I think that they do have their positives but the negatives of Transnational cooperation's are also apparent
TNCs can have a positive outcome for the economy as they provide people with jobs which would benefit a place where there is a high level of unemployment. TNCs can also improve international relations between countries.
On the other hand TNCs tend to locate their factories in LEDCs due to cheap labour, this results in poor working conditions and in some cases child labour for example Nike. Another example is Union carbide, this was located in a residential area and had negative effects on the environment as there was a toxic gas leakage which resulted in 2500 deaths, 100,000 people injured and crops damaged or destroyed which were located close by .
Overall I think that TNCS are not always negative for the country of origin as they benefit more, but the host countries (usually LEDCS) are out of the way so that the problems like poor working conditions are not seen.
There are negatives and positives to TNCs, a positive of TNCs is that they create job opportunities to places that have high unemployment, and for example Toyota moved much of its production to a number of LEDCs where stable jobs are hard to come by.
But on the other hand, it may look good of them creating jobs in LEDCs but they tend to exploit workers to cut back on costs. People in LEDCs tend to work for a very low wage because they need all the money they can get to survive. So companies like toyota will pay bare minimum. Along with these low wages you would also expect to find the working conditions abysmal due to the company trying to save as much money as possible so production levels can be higher.
Overall i feel that TNCs have positives and negatives, they offer LEDCs jobs but many exploit there workers as they desperately need the money to live.
Ell
TNCs in some ways are good and bad to the host country aswell as to the country of origin. TNCs can improve economies by providing jobs to the host country and at the same time jobs can be taken away from the country of origin. TNCs move to other countries as they may benefit by tax breaks and incentives. TNCs are overwhelmed with cheap labour in LEDCS and can exploit this cheap labour. TNCs can include poor working conditions eg Nike Vietnam, TNCs can bring environmental problems to the host country eg. pollutants ditched into rivers.(if it already does not have pollution policies).
some may have positive effects on the environment eg, through plantation of crops from agriculture and vineyards(afforestation).
Companies may over power governments in some countries.
overall, TNCs have more negative effect than positive in my opinion.
I think that TNC's are both positive and negative. They bring jobs to countries which may of had a high level of unemployment and in many LEDC's will be paying them more money than they would have being recieving before the TNC arrived. This can help boost the economy of the country and help it move forwards.
However they are also negatives such as the fact that the TNC has located there because they can give lower wages and not as many rules apply as they do in the host country meaning that the TNC can save a lot of money through lowering costs. The country can also become dependent on the company and should it close down or leave the country for any reason thousands of people will become unemployed.
I think overall TNC's help the countries that they are in however due to the fact that there priority is making money they do not take into account the affects they decisions can have on the country.
It can be argued that TNC's present both positive and negative impacts in both MEDC and LEDC's. In Bhopal, India the development of Union Carbide an American, chemical/polymers company lead to a large number of job opportunities in an area of high population and high unemployment and lead to an increase in wealth in the local community and the training of many unskilled workers. However there were negatives as this lead to significant overcrowding in the area and a fight for resources.
Sony is another example of a TNC which operates in MEDC's and has both a positive & negative impact on the local area. Sony prides itself on its new environmental incentives which help the local area and its dual shipping arrangements within Japan however the sheer level of industry has had negative impacts on the local area both socially and environmentally.
To conclude it is clear to see that TNC's present both positive and negative impacts on the areas they choose to locate in as economically they appear to improve the host countries however with this many social and environmental aspects seem to be damaged.
TNC's can be seen as a positive phenomenon as they bring employment to the host area which leads to a positive multiplier effect and strengthens the economy. Also TNC's improve international relations between countries for example the relationship between USA and Japan was strengthened by Sony.
However, they can also be seen as a negative phenomenon because whilst they may be providing employment opportunities in the host country, the country of origin suffers from unemployment as the TNC may relocate. Also TNC's have had negative environmental influences and show little consideration for the health and safety of workers. For example, there was a leak of toxic gas by Union Carbide in 1984 in Bhopai, India. This lead to 2500 deaths and 10000 injured.
Overall i think TNC's are negative phenomena because their primary objective is to make as much profit and prove this by taking advantage of cheaper labour in host countries and taking little consideration of the health and safety of workers.
Navjeet
Post a Comment