The mobility capacity of the manufacturing multinational enterprise: a framework and two case studies
In this paper, I try to develop a framework, which presents the factors influencing the mobility capacity of the manufacturing activity of a multinational enterprise (the difficulty/ease with which it can transfer its manufacturing activity from the initial host territory to another territory). I differentiate five factors: (1) the nature (generic vs. specific) of the territorial resources used by the multinationalâ€™s subsidiary; (2) market access offered by production in the host territory; (3) the durability and specificity of the fixed assets owned by the multinational enterprise in the host territory; (4) other barriers making exit out of the host territory difficult (redundancy costs, interrelatedness of the subsidiaryâ€™s activity with other units of the multinational enterprise, etc.); and (5) the availability of substitute plants by the multinational enterprise that can take over the production of the host territoryâ€™s subsidiary. Once the framework is presented, I use it to analyse the mobility potential of the activities of two multinational enterprises: a Taiwanese company (Nien Hsing Textile Co.) that was assembling trousers in Nicaragua (fieldwork in 1998 and 2007) and a Japanese company (Sony) that was assembling television sets and manufacturing cathode ray tubes in Wales (fieldwork in 2000-2001). The study shows the importance, in the short run, of the heaviness of the capital goods used in production as factor limiting mobility. In the long run, however, the degree of specificity (uniqueness) of the territorial resources employed by the multinational enterprise (qualified labour, specialised suppliers, etc.) is crucial. The study shows also the risk of the â€œno-upgrading trapâ€ of inward manufacturing investment for peripheral host territories. Indeed, multinational enterprises that realise small profit margin activities, and in which labour costs occupy an important share in total production costs, will want to maintain their international mobility capacity to be able to respond swiftly to changes in the configuration of location advantages. Therefore, they will restrict their sunk investments (in fixed assets, in training, in collaborations with local suppliers, etc.) in the host territory. This strategy counters the local embeddedness of the subsidiary and limits its structural economic impact on the host territory.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- James Faulconbridge, 2007. "Global shift. Mapping the changing contours of the world economy (5th edition)," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(6), pages 599-779, November.
- Susan Helper, 2000. "Economists and Field Research: "You Can Observe a Lot Just by Watching."," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 228-232, May.
- Jie-A-Joen,Clive & Belderbos,René & Sleuwaegen,Leo, 1998. "Local content requirements, vertical cooperation, and foreign direct investment," Research Memorandum 001, Maastricht University, Netherlands Institute of Business Organization and Strategy Research (NIBOR).
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa11p1787. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gunther Maier)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.