It has become clear from the onset of this course that there is much debate within political science on the importance of MNCs. I for one usually find my beliefs and arguments aligning with that of realists. However, in the case of Multi-National Corporations there is a clear lacking within the realist perspective. This is a hole that Gilpin has seemed to fill from my point of view. Gilpin begins by crediting MNCs as the powerful economic actors which they are and describes the dangers that can befall a nation which does not keep them in mind. By exporting jobs and hollowing out industries, Gilpin argues that MNCs must be taken into account. However, unlike other theorists who believe MNCs should be left to their own devices, Gilpin believes the state must play a strong role in controlling these actors. I found this train of thought quite interesting because it still assumes nation states as the all powerful and supreme actors on the global stage but also recognizes the threat to national sovereignty which MNCs pose. Gilpin proposes constraints such as taxes and trade regulations be put on these companies so that the United States can remain in control of their economic future.

This prompted me to think about the national control which China maintains over their nationalized corporations. Although Gilpin is not proposing for nationalized or socialist enterprises, the aspect of control is shared between both cases. I wonder if a world which is increasingly globalized and economically interconnected, the US may adopt these strategies. Because MNCs are able to move freely from one state to another, the nationalization of industries may become necessary to ensure sovereign economics for a state. Without any sort of constraints or restrictions placed upon nations and their economic back bone, corporations could leave nation states stranded with no source of jobs or taxes. This to me is ironic because the free market capitalist system which has been supported by the US for so long may bite them in the back. with a market so free and with increased mobility, the US may be forced to take on aspects of the socialist policies which they have fought for so long. I would argue the only reason Americans and other western governments supported a free market is because at the time they benefited from it. If these key actors cease to gain the same benefits from a truly fluid global economy, would they also cease to support its functioning. We may already be seeing this in the mercantilist type policies of trump.