we are all trying to better ourselves in some way. This might be an ethnocentric view, but it is a valid point.One of the last effects placed on the table, that Multinational corporation intervention can produce, is the idea that the host country's sovereignty and economic independence will be affected. Multinationals often make decisions, which affect the long-term welfare of citizens in host countries, particularly about environmental matters. Multinationals often have no incentive to consult host governments about the use of non-renewable resources. Furthermore, multinationals often influence the political processes of host countries. In 1973, for example, “American multinational, International Telephone and Telegraph, backed a military coup in Chile, during which the democratically elected president, Salvador Allende, was assassinated and replaced by the notorious General Pinochet. IT&T's”(3). Continued financial support allowed Pinochet's dictatorship to survive until 1990, much as “Shell's generosity is facilitating the present military dictatorship in Nigeria”(3).Not only do multinationals themselves influence the political processes, but home country governments often become involved, too. For example, “…the United States, backed General Pinochet's coup in 1973, largely because President Allende's plans to nationalise the Chilean telecommunications industry would have threatened IT&T's profits.”(4)FDI clearly has the potential to benefit as well as cost the host countries. It can lead to increased output,as well as an increase in the overall well being of the country. However, how beneficial is FDI? Because MNCs often distort or prevent the emergence of indigenous enterprise, distort consumption patterns, and exacerbate inequality and other social problems in the host country, it is unclear in practice whether FDI benefits the host economy.There are different policies which the h...
