In his article, Jönsson (2017) examines the phenomenology of international organizations in terms of their global place and their impact on the market and society. In this article, the author examines three paradigms to assess the role of such international organizations: institutional, organizational, and continuous. In one section, Jönsson reports on the growing need for the academic communities that study international organizations to consider the political context, namely the impact that organizations have on states.
This strong argument has a place in the academic and public agenda. In fact, in an ever-growing global marketplace, multinational companies are among the drivers of political relations between countries. For example, it is easy to recall an example where the deterioration of Western countries’ relations with Russia was realized, among other things, through the withdrawal of a considerable number of foreign companies from the Russian market (Grozovski, 2022). This example shows that companies are guided not so much by business narratives as by their combination with the political context, which means that they have increasing political power in their hands: the departure of foreign companies affects Russia’s political and social environment. In addition, when international companies expand their presence, they inevitably enter conservative markets in which the cultures and traditions of society are strikingly different from those in which the company grew up. For example, the entry of U.S. companies into markets in the Persian Gulf may lead to a long-term redefinition of the social and political processes of Shariah countries, as societies are raised on the pluralistic culture of progressive foreign organizations. We cannot say for sure, but we can speculate that improvements in women’s rights in Saudi Arabia could be a consequence, among other things, of the increased presence of international organizations there (The World Bank, 2020). One should recognize that companies have representatives from different countries on their boards of directors, which creates the concept of a corporate summit in which participants try to combine the balance of well-being for the company and the economy of the country. Thus, in a dynamic market, international organizations have an increasingly solid political weight and can directly or indirectly influence the states in which they are present.
On the other hand, Jönsson’s argument can be seen as insufficiently robust and limited. States often have much more resources so that they can resist the influence of organizations. For example, the withdrawal of almost all international companies from Russia has affected local life. However, six months later, it has not affected the country’s economy (Grozovski, 2022). At the same time, the states are hosts for international companies, so they can impose sanctions on them or encourage their development. This is visible in the multiple examples of court cases against large companies that violate local market rules (Arntz, 2022). Finally, in an increasingly competitive environment, the importance of a particular international brand may diminish somewhat as it becomes easier to find an acceptable replacement.
Thus, today’s global market is characterized by ambiguity regarding the connection between companies and states. Jönsson’s argument that international companies severely impact states can be seen from two angles. This critical essay has shown that this argument can be classified as both strong and weak, as it has both validations and limitations.
References
Arntz, P. (2022). Apple sued for “pervasive and unlawful data tracking”. Malware Bytes. Web.
Grozovski, B. (2022). Russia’s economy at the end of 2022: Deeper troubles. WC. Web.
Jönsson, C. (2017). Theoretical approaches to international organization. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Web.
The World Bank. (2020). Saudi women rising up in business in line with Vision 2030. Web.