Saturday’s presentation was interesting in relating many of the class concepts to the speaker’s experience and research. One thing I would have liked to hear more about is the role of culture in a multinational’s expansion and success in a new international market. This article speaks to many of the governmental and legal obstacles that led to Google’s failure and eventual withdrawal from China, but also mentions the many cultural mistakes the company made along the way.
American’s assume that all countries’ governments and cultures are as interwoven as our own if not more (as they are in China). There are many countries, however, that that the two often behave independently of one another. In Europe Italy is a good example of the public’s relatively low attachment to political figures and ideologies, the same being true in much Latin America. Companies seeking markets in such countries are better suited gaining the support of influential cultural icons rather than supposedly powerful government officials or lobbyists. Uber generated legions of vocal fans among its users who acted as governmental lobbyists; a strategy that proved to be a far cheaper and faster way of building business than wading through years of litigation and policy reform in each new market.
I also would have liked to hear about the speaker’s reflections on multi-nationals’ evolution in the last two decades since the passing of the anti-bribery bill. Most emerging and developing markets have ingrained processes of corruption built into their economic and political systems; How has big business been able to navigate these since the reforms? Are there advantages to such systems? I contend that many American and other developed global companies quietly prefer such markets, particularly those involved in natural resources. How would the BP oil spill have affected the company if it had occurred off the shores of West Africa and not the United States??