Search results

Using the example of the motor industry in Poland, attempts to explain why foreign direct investment (FDI) has, in this sector, during the post‐reform period (i.e. since 1990) remained rather low. This is despite the fact that the labour costs are a small fraction of those in advanced economies. Argues that other factors frequently outweigh the comparative advantage of low labour costs. Suggests the following factors: low labour productivity; internally‐controlled labour costs of an enterprise on average account for only 14 per cent per unit cost of a compact model; transport and related costs of imports; low volume production, and the necessity of substantial, ever‐increasing amounts of flexible, high‐tech equipment for start up. In combination, these factors help explain why unit costs in “non‐technology frontier areas” are frequently in excess of those prevailing in the advanced economies, and so act as a disincentive to FDI.

The considerable attention given to flexible methods of production and work organization as a fundamental determinant of achieving international levels of competitiveness in the manufacturing industry (and of late, in service industries also) in the wake of Japanese dominance over the past two decades has, as a corollary, seen a tendency to neglect the importance of economies of scale (EOS). Despite the indubitable importance of flexibility, argues that EOS remain an essential determinant for cost‐efficient production, and that without sufficient EOS, high levels of flexibility cannot alone translate into world competitive production. Summarizes the reasons for the continued importance of EOS, and provides a discussion on the levels of EOS (in particular, “minimum efficient scale”) that are necessary for efficient automotive manufacturing. It is assumed that EOS are optimal only when a plant is operating at high capacity utilization levels, and that where this is not the case penalties are severe.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

Pakistan had never been a place of serious and nuanced debate and contestation of politics of postcolonial critique, that is, the continuity of economic, political, and cultural dependency of newly independent countries (NICs) on ex-colonizers as pointed out by neocolonialism, dependency theory, and postcolonial theory, respectively. Instead, Pakistan is presented by extant liberal academic literature as a “failed nation” and a state dominated by the military and plagued by religious extremism. As opposed to this, through the literary and activists writings of Aziz-ul-Haq, this chapter will try to illustrate how cultural contestation of the nation-building project postindependence from British rule was a lot more complex and interesting in Pakistan. This was so because the nation-building project of Pakistan was, on the one hand, an amalgamation of Indo-Persian, Arab, Indian, and Western colonial and civilizational influences and, on the other hand, entailed suppression of resilient local and national cultures of its constituent nationalities developed over centuries. This was later expressed in ethno-nationalist politics. However, when it came to the politics of the marginalized in the late 1960s, there were important political, theoretical, and literary insights which caused a change in the direction of political practice in Pakistan, which paralleled the politics expressed by writers like Fanon and early Subaltern Studies influenced by the Naxal Movement in India. The contestation and confusion arising from this dialectic also entered Pakistan's literary and cultural sphere. This chapter not only tries to give a different postcolonial critique of the failure of nation-building project in Pakistan but, though at a preliminary level, is an attempt to separate the original postcolonial theory in its radical tradition from contemporary postmodern/poststructuralist postcolonial theory marked with pessimism and resignation.