INTRODUCTION

Since the 1960s, numerous international political economy (IPE) scholars have examined how transnational corporations (TNCs) shape political power, economic development, and technology transfer in host countries (Dunning, 1981; Gilpin, 1987; Hymer, 1977; Kindleberger, 1969; Moran, 1983; Strange, 1988; Vernon, 1971). Early debates noted that while foreign direct investment (FDI) can bring capital and know-how, it may also undermine host-state autonomy and create dependency (Hymer, 1977; Madeuf & Michalet, 1978; Vernon, 1971). Over the decades, TNCs have become central actors in globalization, evolving from primarily manufacturing and extractive industries into finance, services, and high-tech sectors. Yet despite extensive literature on TNC impacts, it remains difficult to foresee how their role will adapt amid current global uncertainties and restructuring.

Prior studies tend to focus on particular eras or theories, making it challenging to form a cohesive picture of TNCs’ future in the IPE. The present review addresses this gap by synthesizing insights across the literature and identifying five principal interpretive trends regarding TNCs and globalization. In brief, these perspectives range from critical (“adverse globalization”) to over-optimistic (“hyperglobalization”), with intermediate views emphasizing development benefits, “glocal” strategies, or an emerging “new globalization” paradigm. The goal is to distill the core arguments of each trend and examine recent revisions (e.g. sustainability and geopolitical factors) that respond to contemporary challenges. By outlining these five trends and their evolution, we provide a clearer understanding of how TNCs’ roles are interpreted today and what that implies for the future^[2].

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: EVOLVING VIEWS ON TNCs AND GLOBALIZATION

Early IPE Scholarship (1960s–1980s)

The initial wave of IPE research on TNCs highlighted the strong international reach of the United States (US) and European multinationals and the mixed consequences for host countries. On one hand, TNCs were seen as conduits for modernization—transferring technology, capital, and managerial skills to developing economies. On the other hand, critical theorists argued that these benefits came at a cost: foreign firms could displace local industries, drain resources, and erode national sovereignty, often reproducing structures of dependency.

Pioneering works by Hymer (1977), Kindleberger (1969), and Vernon (1971) examined why firms invest abroad and warned that oligopolistic corporate expansion might lead to “uneven development” and dependency in weaker states. Mainstream economists like Dunning (1981) formulated the OLI paradigm (Ownership-Location-Internalization) to explain FDI, suggesting that firms expand overseas when they have competitive advantages and find supportive host conditions. Meanwhile, voices such as Susan Strange and Robert Gilpin drew attention to the political influence of TNCs, cautioning that as firms globalize, states could lose some control over their economies (Gilpin, 1987; Strange, 1988).

In France, structuralist thinkers (e.g., Charles-Albert Michalet, 1976) similarly noted that FDI triggers bigger changes than trade alone, bringing an ambivalent mix of modernization and sovereignty concerns. By the 1980s, the consensus was that TNCs are transformative forces in the world economy: they spurred industrial growth in some locales but also exacerbated inequalities and challenged the policy autonomy of host governments. This realization set the stage for new questions about how states and other socioeconomic actors might bargain with or regulate TNCs to maximize gains and minimize harm.

Globalization Ascendant (1990s–2000s)

The post-Cold War era saw a surge of enthusiasm for globalization, accompanied by divergent analyses of TNCs’ role in it. Influential commentators proclaimed the emergence of a borderless world economy—for example, Thomas Friedman’s notion of a “flat” and frictionless world fueled by global business integration (Friedman, 1999), or Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history,” which declared liberal democracy the definitive ideological victor (Fukuyama, 1992).

Many scholars in international business argued that competitive pressures now compel firms to internationalize all facets of their operations, from R&D to production, to stay ahead (e.g., Gerybadze & Reger, 1999). At the same time, comparative political economists introduced the idea of “varieties of capitalism,” emphasizing that multinationals remain shaped by their home and host institutions. For instance, Hall and Soskice (2001) showed that TNC strategies differ between liberal market economies and coordinated economies, indicating that local institutional frameworks strongly determine how foreign firms behave.

The concept of “glocalization” also gained notable traction: firms learned to think globally but act locally, adapting products and management practices to fit local cultures while leveraging global efficiencies (Robertson, 1992). Critical perspectives persisted as well. French Regulation School theorists like Alain Lipietz argued that the new era of flexible, offshored production (or “post-Fordism”) was not a development panacea; instead, it often perpetuated peripheral dependence and social dislocation, calling for updated regulations to manage recurrent crises (Lipietz, 1985).

Another major shift in this period was the rise of emerging-market multinationals. By the 1990s, companies from East Asia, Latin America, and other developing regions began investing abroad, challenging the North-to-South flow of capital that had dominated earlier decades (Rugman, 2010). For example, the late 1990s Asian boom and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 led to a wave of Chinese, Indian, and Brazilian firms “going global” (Rugman, 2010).

This global corporate diversification meant that TNC-driven globalization was no longer a one-way projection of Western power; it became a more complex, multipolar phenomenon that deeply restructures socioeconomic balances. In sum, at globalization’s high tide (circa 2000), the narrative around TNCs was double-edged. Liberal scholars highlighted how TNCs fostered growth, integration, and innovation worldwide. More skeptical voices pointed to social fallout—sweatshop labor, financial volatility, and widening inequalities—which hinted that globalization under TNC dominance was beneficial but far from universally so (Stiglitz, 2002). These unresolved tensions set the context for the emerging “new globalization” debates of the 2010s.

After 2008: Toward a New Globalization?

The past decade and a half have shaken the previous certainty about ever-deepening globalization. A series of disruptive events—the 2008 financial crisis, a resurgence of economic nationalism (e.g., Brexit, US–China trade war), a global pandemic, and even war in Europe—have exposed the fragility of hyper-integrated markets. Scholars note that the liberal international order led by the US entered a crisis of authority and legitimacy. According to John Ikenberry, the American-led system faces a “crisis of authority” as rising powers (China and others) contest established rules and demand a greater voice (Ikenberry, 2011). Meanwhile, Dani Rodrik’s “globalization trilemma” gained renewed relevance: it posits that deep economic integration, national sovereignty, and democratic politics cannot all coexist fully (Rodrik, 2011).

In practice, the pursuit of “hyper-globalization” in the 1990s–2000s often meant sacrificing domestic priorities, a trade-off that many societies have grown unwilling to accept. Thus, recent literature questions the sustainability of the old model of globalization and explores what a rebalanced model might entail. Some emphasize that new technologies (automation, digital platforms, AI) are transforming globalization rather than reversing it—Richard Baldwin describes a “third unbundling” where telepresence and digital services allow globalization to penetrate even white-collar work (Baldwin, 2012).

Others outline scenarios for the future: for example, one set ranges from “Globalization 3.0” (a cooperative reboot of liberalization) to “Islandization,” a fragmented world of regional blocs and protectionism. Strohmer et al. (2020) depict these divergent futures: Globalization 3.0 returning to high trade and growth, as in the early 2000s, versus Islandization, marked by surging nationalism, trade barriers, and a collapse of global supply chains. Other scenarios include new polarization (a bifurcated world with rival blocs) and commonization (unprecedented global cooperation and inclusive growth).

In analyzing current trends, frameworks like the Evolutionary Structural Triptych (EST) suggest that the world economy could evolve along multiple paths, from severe fragmentation to renewed inclusive globalism, with the current trajectory falling somewhere in the middle (Vlados & Chatzinikolaou, 2025). Key features of this emerging “new globalization” include greater caution and contingency planning by firms, more regionalization of trade, and stronger demands for sustainability and resilience. The geopolitical rivalry between the US and China appears to be a major driver: as these superpowers jockey for technological and economic primacy, TNCs find themselves navigating two sets of rules and supply chain networks—effectively a partial decoupling of the global economy (Grosse et al., 2021; Luo & Witt, 2022).

Emerging-market TNCs (especially Chinese firms) now figure prominently in this dynamic, often benefitting from state support and home markets as they expand abroad. At the same time, COVID-19 and other international shocks have taught companies and governments the importance of supply chain resilience (not relying on a single country or supplier) and the need to align business models with broader social goals (Guillén et al., 2022). Both the private sector and policy discourse increasingly invoke the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and climate commitments, pressing TNCs to contribute to environmental and social objectives, not just profit (Bull & Miklian, 2019).

In short, today’s context points toward a more segmented, crisis-aware globalization in which TNCs remain pivotal but must operate under new constraints and expectations. The rest of this review will examine how the literature reflects these shifts through five distinct perspectives on TNCs in IPE.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted an integrative literature review to capture the full range of perspectives on TNCs in the international political economy (Snyder, 2019). The search (performed in Web of Science, up to January 2023) used broad keywords related to “transnational corporations” and “international political economy” in article titles and author keywords. This yielded an initial pool of academic publications without date restrictions (though the vast majority were post-1980, reflecting the field’s growth after the acceleration of globalization). We then screened the results, removing non-peer-reviewed items and clearly unrelated studies based on titles and abstracts. After this filtering, approximately 264 relevant sources were retained for in-depth qualitative analysis.^[3]

Using an iterative reading and coding process, we identified common themes and arguments across the literature. Each source was evaluated for its central thesis about TNCs and globalization, and we grouped papers with similar outlooks. This clustering revealed five predominant interpretive trends:

• “Adverse globalization” – emphasizing negative impacts of TNC-led globalization (49 papers).

• “Global development” – emphasizing positive development impacts (32 papers).

• “Glocal strategies” – focusing on how TNCs blend global integration with local adaptation (52 papers).

• “Hyperglobalization” – viewing ever-deepening globalization as inevitable and largely beneficial (67 papers).

• “New globalization” – highlighting a post-2008 reconfiguration of globalization (64 papers).

Each paper was categorized under one (primary) trend, though some spanned multiple themes. We also performed a keyword co-occurrence analysis using VOSviewer to validate these groupings. This bibliometric analysis examined the most frequent terms in article titles, abstracts, and keywords, revealing distinct vocabularies for each cluster.

The five clusters corresponded closely with our qualitative classification, lending confidence in the robustness of the identified trends. For instance, papers in the adverse globalization group used terms such as “inequality,” “human rights,” and “neoliberalism,” whereas glocal strategy papers used terms such as “management,” “localization,” and “capabilities.” Across all clusters, certain concepts, such as “crisis,” “FDI,” and “entrepreneurship,” appeared frequently, indicating shared concerns. In contrast, terms related to climate change or regionalization were notably scarce, suggesting gaps in the current literature.^[4]

In what follows, Section 4 presents the five trend areas in detail, synthesizing representative studies and arguments for each perspective. Section 5 then discusses how these perspectives relate to one another, to emerging issues (sustainability, geopolitical shifts), and to different practical and policy implications. Finally, the conclusion (Section 6) summarizes key takeaways and directions for future research.

RESULTS: FIVE INTERPRETIVE TRENDS IN THE LITERATURE

Through our analysis, the literature on TNCs and IPE can be understood as five broad interpretive frameworks or “stories.” Each presents a different evaluation of globalization’s effects and TNCs’ behavior, often grounded in particular theoretical traditions. In this section, we outline each trend, highlighting its core arguments and key supporting evidence from the literature (Figure 1).

Figure 1
The Spectrum of IPE Theories on TNCs
Source: Own elaboration.

Adverse Globalization: Critique of Neoliberal TNC Power

This perspective views globalization as driven by TNCs under neoliberal policies, as a fundamentally unequal and destabilizing process (Bartley, 2018; LeBaron, 2015; Lee & Lee, 2015; Sprague, 2009). Scholars in this camp argue that, left to their own devices, TNCs prioritize profit at the expense of workers, communities, and the environment (Bartley, 2018; Dios & Cosenza, 2019; Etzioni-Halevy, 2002; Latham & Beaudry, 2001; LeBaron, 2015; Lee & Lee, 2015; Sprague, 2009). They paint globalization as a juggernaut that exacerbates and reproduces inequalities within and between countries (Steingard & Fitzgibbons, 1995).

Empirical examples often cited include the “race to the bottom” in labor and environmental standards and the recurrence of financial crises provoked by unregulated capital flows. The speculative actions of TNCs often lead to their quick exit from markets at the initial signs of instability—this was clearly evident during the Asian financial crisis (Kwon & Pohlmann, 2018). Many critics argue that multinationals promote and sustain crony capitalism, which destabilizes economic growth in developing countries (Yeganeh, 2019).

The 2008 global financial crisis is seen as a direct result of the excessive speculation and irresponsible actions of these corporations, which prioritize profit over people's welfare and ecological sustainability. In this context, although not directly caused by TNCs, the US subprime mortgage crisis exemplifies the disastrous effects of corporate greed (Baud & Durand, 2012; Boussebaa & Faulconbridge, 2019).

A recurring claim is that TNCs wield structural power over states, pressuring governments (especially in the Global South) to adopt business-friendly policies or face capital flight. The result can be a loss of policy autonomy, where countries compete to offer tax breaks, lax regulations, or cheap labor to attract or retain investment. Several studies document cases of TNCs influencing national policies in their favor—from mining companies shaping environmental laws to pharmaceutical giants impacting public health regulations—often to the detriment of local populations (Bartley, 2018; Etzioni-Halevy, 2002; LeBaron, 2015). Even purported “mitigating” mechanisms, such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), are treated with skepticism here.

The false image of CSR only serves to further this agenda, masking the harmful practices of these corporations (Bartley, 2018; Dios & Cosenza, 2019; Etzioni-Halevy, 2002; LeBaron, 2015). They point to ongoing labor abuses in global supply chains as evidence that voluntary corporate codes often lack teeth. In short, the adverse globalization trend portrays TNCs as agents of a neoliberal globalization project that has entrenched disparities and vulnerabilities. It calls for stronger checks on corporate power—from global governance reforms to local resistance movements—to protect public interests. As a result, authors call for increased activism and advocacy to challenge the actions of these corporations and work towards creating a more equitable and sustainable world (Latham & Beaudry, 2001).

Global Development: TNCs as Engines of Growth and Integration

In sharp contrast to the above, the global development perspective highlights the positive contributions of TNCs to host economies, especially when appropriate policies are in place. In this analytical perspective, the liberalization of international trade and business is generally considered beneficial for global human welfare (Dogan, 2010).

This largely liberal view sees FDI and global business integration as catalysts for development, helping to raise incomes (improving living standards) and diffuse innovation worldwide. Research indicates that FDI leads to wage increases and does not reduce employment in host countries (Tomohara & Takii, 2011; Yamashita & Fukao, 2010). Additionally, TNCs are thought to positively influence local skills in lower-income countries over the long term (Head & Ries, 2002). Establishing TNCs in a host country involves a complex, multifactorial process influenced by governmental goals to draw their technological capabilities (Dunning, 1994). For instance, studies on the growing role of emerging economies in globalization illustrate how these nations initially attract FDI and gradually develop internal comparative advantages, which lead to the formation of more TNCs (Rugman, 2010).

According to this perspective, TNCs are crucial in transforming production, distribution, and consumption in host countries. They bring with them the latest technologies, innovative production methods, and access to vast international markets, which can contribute to upgrading the host country’s production capabilities and competitiveness (Buckley, 2006; Krueger, 2008; Schuh, 2007). Multinationals are vehicles for transferring modern technologies and business practices across borders: they introduce new products, more efficient processes, and managerial know-how that can “spill over” as local companies learn and adapt.

Beyond wages and productivity, global-development scholars argue that TNCs can promote higher standards over time. Many multinational enterprises bring stricter safety or quality controls and can disseminate norms on issues like workplace safety, diversity, or environmental protection. Openness in international trade has been shown to reduce child labor (Neumayer & De Soysa, 2005), while multinationals are increasingly prioritizing ethical and sustainable human development (Lozano & Boni, 2002). Technology transfer through R&D can also foster cross-spatial innovation linkages and improve global innovation systems in the long run (Reddy, 1997).

The global development view does acknowledge caveats: benefits are not automatic and depend on complementary international, national, and local policies. If host governments build effective institutions—investing in education, enforcing reasonable regulations, negotiating fair terms with investors—then TNCs can be harnessed for development. Overall, “global development” shows that while TNCs contribute to economic advancements in host countries, the benefits could be uneven and often accompanied by high social and environmental costs. However, when the host country has favorable institutions and the right policies in place, TNCs can play a crucial role in promoting economic growth and improving the standard of living.

Glocal Strategies: Transnational Corporations “Think Global, Act Local”

The glocal strategies perspective shifts attention from macro-level outcomes to the strategic behavior of TNCs themselves. This trend sheds light on the concept of glocalization and its impact on TNCs. As described in the theoretical background, glocalization involves balancing economic homogeneity at the global level with extensive, reproducible socioeconomic heterogeneity at the local level in the context of globalization. This relationship is deemed both inevitable and dialectical, necessitating that TNCs strike a balance between universalization and localization in their operations—as discussed by scholars such as Applbaum (2000), Chuang et al. (2011), Giulianotti and Robertson (2004), and Shenkar (2004).^[5]

The importance of TNCs incorporating glocal strategies into their operations is a recurring theme in this trend. This includes being aware of the implications of glocalization for their CSR, which requires a comprehensive understanding of national institutions and the development of a corporate image aligned with local variations (Gjolberg, 2009; Millar & Choi, 2010; Wrigley et al., 2005). Additionally, the internationalization of TNCs’ R&D activities is emphasized, with a need for compliance with national labor laws—as highlighted by Beret et al. (2003).

One key aspect is local talent and management: globally successful firms tend to hire local managers who understand the culture and can navigate host-country institutions, rather than relying solely on expatriates in leadership. The recruitment and active integration of local managers are identified as key glocal strategies for TNCs. This approach is deemed essential because local managers bring both human capital and a thorough understanding of the host country, enabling TNCs to effectively balance the forces of globalization and localization and align their operations with the host country's unique cultural and institutional contexts (Millar & Choi, 2010).

Furthermore, the glocal perspective notes that TNCs can foster local embedment by forming partnerships with domestic firms and suppliers. Instead of simply importing their entire value chain, many successful entrants build local supply networks, which both ingratiate them with host governments (through job creation) and reduce costs through local sourcing. The literature highlights organizational innovations that support glocal strategies: matrix structures that allow local units some autonomy; cross-border teams that share knowledge across subsidiaries; and regional headquarters that coordinate clusters of country subsidiaries.

A study found that many multinationals have set up regional management centers to manage regional adaptation more effectively, rather than managing each country from a single global HQ (Arregle et al., 2016). Overall, in the realm of “glocal strategies,” the focus is on how TNCs dynamically combine and harmonize global operations with local realities. This strategy is vital for TNCs to enhance their international competitiveness while adhering to local cultures and regulatory frameworks.

Hyperglobalization: Triumph of Global Capital and the Borderless World

The hyperglobalization perspective represents the high-water mark of enthusiasm for an integrated world economy led by TNCs. This research trend is characterized by the belief that globalization will continue to deepen, driven by the uninterrupted expansion of TNCs (Vahlne et al., 2018). According to this outlook, nation-states and borders were becoming increasingly irrelevant in the face of global market forces and technological connectivity. TNCs were the protagonists of this story, extending supply chains and capital flows across the globe and knitting countries into a single economic space.

These corporations are believed to promote global visions (Robbins, 2004) and undertake offshoring activities for their survival, leading to an inevitable deepening of globalized R&D (Coucke & Sleuwaegen, 2008). A key finding of this research is that dominant central coordination of smaller global centers is more critical than full decentralization, and multinationals are seen as critical drivers of this trend (Athukorala & Kohpaiboon, 2010; Gerybadze & Reger, 1999; Liu & Uzunidis, 2021). From an academic standpoint, hyperglobalization echoes an extreme form of neoliberal economic thought: it emphasizes the efficiency gains of globalization and assumes that capital, goods, and knowledge will flow to wherever they are most productive, benefiting all in aggregate.

TNCs, in this view, drive innovation and growth by allocating resources globally. Offshoring and outsourcing are portrayed not as evils but as rational responses to cost differences—allowing consumers to enjoy cheaper products and companies to reinvest savings into innovations. Ultimately, this view holds that global dynamics are driven by an irreversible homogenizing force centered on the transnational corporation.

However, the concept of hyperglobalization is not without its criticisms and challenges. A central concern is its heterogenizing effect on national democracies, as the widespread diffusion of information technologies can undermine the authority of governments and institutions, giving rise to diverse forms of “hybrid capitalisms” (Devinney, 2011).

Another issue is the impact of globalization on labor, as TNCs may exploit lower wages and weaker labor laws in developing countries, leading to exploitation and reduced opportunities for workers in developed countries (Devinney, 2011). In addition, the potential for global labor union coordination raises questions about the balance of power between corporations and workers, and the role that governments and international organizations can play in ensuring fair and equitable outcomes (Wills, 1998).^[6]

Overall, “hyperglobalization” is marked by a firm commitment to accelerating global integration, primarily driven by TNCs. Research in this field has traditionally highlighted the advantages of expanding global networks but often overlooks how they may sustain various socioeconomic, cultural, and political barriers and conflicts in the expansion and intensification of globalization structures.

New Globalization: Fragmentation, Resilience, and Rebalancing

The final trend, which has gained prominence in the literature of the 2010s and early 2020s, can be termed “new globalization.” This trend focuses on the crucial understanding required to grasp the ongoing transformation of globalization. The 2008 financial crisis was undoubtedly a crucial turning point, signaling a shift from the previously established form of globalization to a new form; however, the specific crisis that initially manifested in 2008 should not be perceived as the cause but as an exacerbation of a broader maturation process that ultimately leads to the formation of a new globalization.

Rather than expecting a return to 1990s-style business as usual, advocates of the new globalization thesis argue that we are entering a qualitatively different phase—one characterized by strategic economic integration, greater state intervention, and a realignment of TNC strategies in response to recent crises. TNCs must recognize this change and devise strategies that align with the evolving global socioeconomic landscape, which is characterized by the growth of developing nations and increased regionalization (Toporowski, 2010).

A key observation is the phenomenon of deglobalization or slowbalization: metrics like “world trade/gross domestic product” and cross-border investment flows have plateaued or declined relative to global output since around 2010. In recent times, the idea of deglobalization has gained significant attention, with protectionist forces leveraging it to resist further global interconnectivity and accusing TNCs of being both the cause and targets of anti-globalization sentiments (Petricevic & Teece, 2019; Prashantham et al., 2018; Witt, 2019).

A substantial portion of this body of literature explores how TNCs are adapting to the new form of globalization. According to Buckley and Hashai (2020), anti-globalization policies can impede the transfer of complex technological knowledge by limiting the international flow of intellectual property. As a result, TNCs must formulate strategies that consider the increased local control costs imposed by these restrictions. Additionally, Grosse et al. (2021) argue that multinationals should prioritize managing the risks generated by policy shifts linked to the rise of China and other BRICS economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), rather than focusing solely on cost-efficient global supply chains.

Given these developments, TNCs need to recognize that the global environment is increasingly oriented toward sustainability and inclusion, in response to rising volatility and uncertainty—trends reinforced by policies in the Global South that aim to secure a more balanced role in global governance institutions (Aguiar & Micussi, 2022; Bull & Miklian, 2019). To effectively manage their operations and align with local market conditions in the emerging new globalization, TNCs might establish regional headquarters or subsidiaries in various regions (Arregle et al., 2016; Berrill & Hovey, 2018).

This strategy responds to the growing instability in the global economy and the declining effectiveness of traditional international institutions, such as the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in enforcing rules (Kobrin, 2017). It demands a thorough understanding of the developing “new regionalization” (de la Torre et al., 2011).

The literature on emerging economies, particularly China, indicates a growing division in the global economy between a rather “strict-rule bloc” centered around China and a “market-driven democratic bloc.” Additionally, the trade war between the US and China exacerbates these difficulties for TNCs, even though both nations benefit from sustaining an open economic environment (Grosse et al., 2021). Luo and Witt (2022) observe that TNCs' expansion strategies are influenced by external pressures, such as increased deglobalization. This trend significantly hinders their ability to secure global resources, especially for those operating within China or in countries considered to be Chinese allies.

The interdependence fostered by TNCs, coupled with rapid technological advancements, the expansion of global production networks, and the critical need for cross-border information sharing, renders complete security and self-sufficiency unattainable in today’s globalized world (Thangavel et al., 2022). A return to pre-globalization times is not possible (Contractor, 2022). Thus, TNCs must be prepared to navigate the challenges posed by a volatile and uncertain new global economy. To do so effectively, a shift in perspective is necessary in how international business is viewed and studied. This new perspective should consider the internal and external organizational environment in a dynamic, interdisciplinary manner (Teece, 2022).

In sum, the “new globalization” trend indicates a movement towards a more fragmented, geopolitically readjusted, and regionally refined global economic system. This new global context is driven and shaped by crises like the 2008 financial meltdown and other disruptive events, which are merely the visible effects of the deeper evolutionary saturation of the previous globalization phase.

DISCUSSION

Integrating the Five Perspectives in Theoretical Context

The five interpretive trends can be mapped onto a spectrum of classic IPE theories, ranging from critical neo-Marxist stances (adverse globalization) to liberal/neoliberal positions (hyperglobalization), with hybrid approaches in between. This spectrum reflects enduring IPE debates over the relationship among capital, the state, markets, and society, and between private and public interests.

At the critical end of the spectrum, adverse globalization draws heavily on dependency theory and world-systems analysis. Scholars such as Stephen Hymer and later neo-Marxist thinkers argued that TNCs foster dependent development, in which host economies expand in distorted ways that ultimately reproduce underdevelopment and subordination to foreign capital (Hymer, 1977; Vlados, 2019).

The emphasis on inequality, loss of sovereignty, and the call for radical change (even deglobalization) harks back to the works of thinkers such as Andre Gunder Frank or Samir Amin, who viewed multinational corporations as agents of neo-imperialism (Amin, 1976; Frank, 1966). Susan Strange’s concept of structural power (that markets can dictate terms to states) also resonates strongly here (Strange, 1988). Essentially, the anti-globalization camp situates itself within the Marxian/critical tradition, suspicious of capitalist globalization and highlighting its contradictions.^[7]

On the opposite side, hyperglobalization largely aligns with neoliberal institutionalism and conventional neoclassical economics. It is the ideological descendant—albeit in a significantly modified form—of classical liberal thought, which views free markets and free trade as the primary engines of progress. This perspective recalls the optimism of modernization theory—the idea that global integration lifts all boats—and finds contemporary voice in those who celebrated the “end of history” (Fukuyama, 1992) or the flattening of the world (Friedman, 1999).

Its faith in TNCs to allocate resources efficiently across borders without much state interference channels the spirit of 1990s neoliberalism (the Washington Consensus era). Realists in international relations who focus on state power were skeptical of the notion of a borderless world. Still, hyperglobalization advocates argued that economic interdependence had fundamentally transformed international relations, making old power politics less relevant.

In between these poles, we find more balanced frameworks. The global development perspective, often associated with soft or embedded liberalism, views globalization and TNCs as broadly positive but stresses the importance of domestic and international institutions and governance in ensuring that the benefits are widely shared. This resonates with classical development economics (e.g., Arthur Lewis, 1954, who saw foreign capital as helpful for development, given the right policies) and with liberal internationalist ideas that support globalization coupled with global governance (such as the postwar Bretton Woods era thinking).

It is optimistic but with a dose of pragmatism—somewhat akin to Keynesian liberalism, which is pro-market but also pro-regulation (Vercelli, 2010). In theoretical terms, it does not reject the liberal order. Still, it calls for managing globalization (for instance, via the UN SDGs or labor standards set by the International Labor Organization) to ensure outcomes like poverty reduction and social upgrading.

The glocal strategies perspective is less about grand theory and more about meso- and micro-organizational behavior. It intersects with business theory (particularly the integration-responsiveness framework of Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1990) and with sociological institutionalism (the idea that firms must seek legitimacy within local normative contexts).

This perspective does not fit neatly into an IPE paradigm such as liberalism or Marxism; instead, it draws from management studies and cultural analysis to develop its own interpretive lens on global development. Implicitly, however, glocalization carries a constructivist undertone, suggesting that global and local norms interact to shape corporate behavior while simultaneously creating the conditions for growth within globalization.

TNCs are seen as embedded actors that negotiate between different institutional environments. This is reminiscent of John Ruggie’s concept of “embedded liberalism” (the global economy embedded in domestic social contracts), except applied at the firm level: firms embed themselves in local contexts while being part of a liberal global economy (Ruggie, 1982). The glocal perspective also links with institutionalism in IPE. For example, the “varieties of capitalism” approach, which we cited in Section 2.2, aligns with the idea that companies operate differently depending on national institutional frameworks (Hall & Soskice, 2001).

Finally, new globalization represents something of a synthesis or realignment of the old debates. It acknowledges, like the critical view, that unrestrained globalization can undermine social contracts and faces political backlash (Vlados & Chatzinikolaou, 2022). It also acknowledges, as the liberal view does, that globalization has brought tremendous gains and is necessary for tackling global challenges. In a way, new globalization thinking is akin to neo-Keynesian or neo-Polanyian ideas: it calls for re-embedding globalization within social and environmental constraints (Fraser, 2014).

One might see it as the IPE community grappling with Polanyi’s “double movement”. After a period of market expansion (the hyperglobalization era), there’s a protective countermovement (resilience, decoupling, and sustainability efforts) that seeks to reintegrate economic activity with societal needs (Polanyi, 1944).

The new globalization perspective thus often bridges prior schools: it agrees with liberals that global cooperation (on issues like climate or tech standards) is needed, but it also agrees with realists and critical scholars that state power and geopolitics play a decisive role in shaping economic outcomes. The emphasis on new multipolarity and blocs speaks to a realist understanding of IPE (power dynamics between great powers shaping the rules), while the emphasis on corporate responsibility and governance speaks to a constructivist and liberal understanding (ideas, norms, and institutions shaping behavior).

One could argue that “new globalization” is the emerging paradigm in contemporary IPE, absorbing lessons from the other four paradigms. It’s more refined than hyperglobalization (no more naive “flat world” assumptions) but more hopeful than outright deglobalization calls. It retains the developmental aims of globalization (growth, integration, innovation) but insists on tempering it with resilience, equity, and sustainability. In theoretical terms, it posits a dialectical outcome: neither a fully globalized world nor a retreat behind national borders, but a complex patchwork in which global, regional, and local forces coexist. This aligns with some current theoretical discussions in IPE about “geo-economics” (the return of geopolitics in economics) and “responsible globalization” (Vlados & Chatzinikolaou, 2025).

In summary, each trend correlates with known IPE frameworks: Adverse (Marxist, dependency, and populist critiques), Development (liberal and modernization approaches with institutional adjustments), Glocal (institutionalist and constructivist perspectives at the firm and industry level), Hyper (neoliberal globalist), and New (a hybrid synthesis of realist, liberal, and critical insights). Recognizing this spectrum helps us see that the seemingly disparate literature on TNCs is in fact part of a long intellectual lineage. It also explains the persistence of debates about their role: they engage with fundamental questions of who benefits from the evolution of global capitalism and whether, and how, it can be governed in the public interest.

Notably, these theoretical perspectives are not mutually exclusive in reality. Elements of each may appear simultaneously in policy formulation. For instance, a single country might experience adverse effects from some TNC activities (e.g., resource extraction causing local harm) even as it reaps developmental benefits from others (e.g., manufacturing FDI creating jobs). At the same time, its policymakers pursue glocal tactics (requiring foreign firms to partner with locals) and global institutions push new globalization agendas (like climate disclosure rules). The value of distinguishing the trends lies in analytic clarity—each provides a lens that foregrounds certain mechanisms and outcomes. Together, they provide a comprehensive palette to interpret the evolving role of TNCs in the world economy.

Cross-Cutting Issues and Implications for Policy and Practice

Two major cross-cutting issues transcend the five trends and hold profound implications for policy and practice: sustainable development (including climate action) and geopolitical fragmentation. These represent frontiers largely overlooked by earlier literature clusters but now fundamental to understanding globalization’s current trajectory.

It is striking how little the earlier literature clusters (especially hyperglobalization and global development) addressed environmental sustainability. Climate change remained peripheral to TNC studies. This is changing as recognition grows that TNCs must become part of climate solutions or remain significant contributors to problems.

The anti-globalization camp already frames TNCs as major contributors to environmental degradation, while mainstream voices increasingly call for corporate behavior transformation that aligns with Paris Agreement goals (Bolton & Kacperczyk, 2021). Progress is evident through multinational net-zero targets and participation in the UN Global Compact (Hale et al., 2022; Msiska et al., 2021), though skepticism persists regarding greenwashing. Research on 51 large companies showed most do too little to meaningfully limit global warming (Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor, 2024). This necessitates deeper integration of environmental criteria into TNC discussions, introducing concepts like “carbon footprint of globalization” and “stranded assets” (Mishra & Dash, 2022).

The second overarching issue concerns the reassertion of geopolitics in TNC operations. Earlier globalization narratives assumed a stable liberal international order under U.S. hegemony. Yet, this framework is now contested by U.S.–China strategic rivalry and the realignments within the BRICS grouping, which are reshaping investment patterns through export controls and drives for technological self-reliance (Hamdani & Belfencha, 2024).

The Ukraine war and Russian sanctions demonstrated how geopolitical conflicts can force TNCs to withdraw from markets overnight, underscoring that political fault lines override profit motives (Vlados & Chatzinikolaou, 2024). The rise of emerging-market TNCs, particularly from China, India, and Brazil, challenges traditional North-to-South investment flows. These firms may pursue different logics, with Chinese state-owned multinationals often aligning more overtly with Beijing’s geopolitical objectives than Western private multinationals. As power shifts, emerging economies demand greater say in international investment norms and trade rules, creating more polycentric governance.

In essence, whereas earlier IPE debates framed globalization primarily as an economic process mediated by relatively stable international regimes, the contemporary context places geopolitics and security at the forefront. What emerges is a partial return to geo-economic strategy, with states deploying economic instruments—such as trade barriers, tariffs, FDI restrictions, and sanctions—as tools of strategic competition.

TNCs are sometimes the pawns, sometimes the players in this great game. Future research needs to address questions such as: Will the bifurcation of technology and finance between US-led and China-led spheres continue, and how will firms adapt? Can global challenges like pandemics or climate force cooperation that overrides rivalries, or will rivalries impede a unified response? And importantly, what does all this mean for countries caught in the middle—many of which are in the Global South? These countries might leverage the competition (playing great powers against each other to get better deals), but they also risk being squeezed or forced to choose sides.

For the study of TNCs, incorporating a Global South lens is crucial. That means not only studying TNC impacts in developing countries (which the literature has long done) but also amplifying the perspectives and experiences from those regions. Southern scholars may interpret the five trends with varying nuance, perhaps with less optimism about “global development” given unfulfilled promises, or with a different kind of adverse globalization narrative focused on the colonial legacy and resource extraction. Also, emerging-market multinationals might inspire new theoretical developments: for instance, some argue that we need new FDI theories to explain “springboarding” —how firms from less developed contexts rapidly internationalize by acquiring strategic assets abroad (a pattern seen in some Chinese and Indian firms).

These cross-cutting challenges demand coordinated responses across three levels. National policymakers must balance openness to TNC investment with public interest protection, leveraging TNCs for development while enforcing labor, environmental, and competition regulations. Host countries need adequate bargaining power and institutional capacity, while home countries should support global standards and curb harmful practices like tax evasion. The goal is what might be termed “smart globalization,” which advances national development without excessive protectionism.

At the corporate level, sustainable business requires glocal practices, supply chain resilience, and alignment with climate and human rights norms. Companies must embed local management, adapt to local needs, and embrace frameworks protecting the environment and certain social standards. Success depends on being viewed as valued partners rather than footloose exploiters, with the agility to regionalize operations when facing geopolitical constraints.

Finally, international institutions must update 21st-century rules to establish minimum standards on corporate taxation, labor rights, and environmental impact. Global governance should facilitate inclusive development, prevent complete decoupling from technology, and orchestrate climate partnerships. The goal is reformed globalization that remains fair, accountable, and resilient while preserving economic interdependence.

The era of compartmentalizing “economics” from “politics,” or treating the environment as an externality, is over. Contemporary global developments restore a crucial interpretive role to political economy. Both the field of IPE and its key actors—TNCs, states, and civil society—now face the challenge of negotiating a new balance in which globalization is neither embraced uncritically nor dismantled, but instead rewired to become more sustainable and politically acceptable. The path forward requires a creative synthesis, akin to what the “new globalization” perspective seeks to articulate, whereby TNCs are steered toward reinforcing global public goods rather than undermining them.^[8]

CONCLUSIONS

This integrative review examined how scholarly perceptions of TNCs in IPE have shifted from polarized positions to a nuanced recognition of the complex realities of contemporary globalization. The five analytical trends—adverse globalization, global development, glocal strategies, hyperglobalization, and new globalization—represent different interpretive lenses, with the emerging “new globalization” paradigm increasingly emphasizing resilience, regionalization, and governance over unfettered market expansion.

Key findings underscore the increasing centrality of sustainability imperatives, geopolitical security, and innovation in shaping TNC operations. The rise of emerging-market multinationals, combined with renewed great-power competition, has produced a contested multipolar global economy in which economic, security, and technological logics intersect more closely than ever.

This review focused on English-language academic literature, potentially missing important Global South perspectives. Future research should examine green transformation patterns, the impacts of digital globalization, South-South investment dynamics, and the effectiveness of global governance mechanisms. Critical gaps remain in understanding climate alignment strategies and incorporating diverse regional perspectives into TNC analysis.

Neither an unimpeded, homogenizing, and linear globalization nor outright deglobalization appears viable. Instead, success depends on stakeholder collaboration across international, national, and local levels to build frameworks in which TNCs help address global challenges rather than intensify them. Emerging scholarship offers guidance for navigating this transformation, emphasizing that globalization must be reimagined for 21st-century realities rather than either abandoned or embraced uncritically.

REFERENCES

Aguiar, T., & Micussi, P. (2022). Transnational Corporations and Capitalists from the Global South: Natura & Co. And the IEDI. Latin American Perspectives, 49(5), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X221114824

Amin, S. (1976). L’impérialisme et le développement inégal. Éditions de Minuit. https://bac-lac.on.worldcat.org/oclc/299341522

Applbaum, K. (2000). Crossing borders: Globalization as myth and charter in American transnational consumer marketing. American Ethnologist, 27(2), 257–282. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.2000.27.2.257

Arregle, J., Miller, T., Hitt, M., & Beamish, P. (2016). How does regional institutional complexity affect MNE internationalization? Journal of International Business Studies, 47(6), 697–722. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2016.20

Athukorala, P., & Kohpaiboon, A. (2010). Globalization of R&D by US-based multinational enterprises. Research Policy, 39(10), 1335–1347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.004

Baldwin, R. (2012). Global supply chains: Why they emerged, why they matter, and where they are going (No. 9103; CEPR Discussion Papers). C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/9103.html

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1990). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Hutchinson Business.

Bartley, T. (2018). Transnational Corporations and Global Governance. Annual Review of Sociology, 44(1), 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053540

Baud, C., & Durand, C. (2012). Financialization, globalization and the making of profits by leading retailers. Socio-Economic Review, 10(2), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwr016

Beret, P., Mendez, A., Paraponaris, C., & Richez-Battesti, N. (2003). R&D personnel and human resource management in multinational companies: Between homogenization and differentiation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(3), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519022000031843

Berrill, J., & Hovey, M. (2018). An empirical investigation into the internationalisation patterns of UK firms. Transnational Corporations Review, 10(4), 396–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/19186444.2018.1551593.

Bolton, P., & Kacperczyk, M. (2021). Do investors care about carbon risk? Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 517–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.008

Boussebaa, M., & Faulconbridge, J. (2019). Professional service firms as agents of economic globalization: A political perspective. Journal of Professions and Organization, 6(1), 72–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joy014

Buckley, P. (2006). Stephen Hymer: Three phases, one approach? International Business Review, 15(2), 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2005.03.008

Buckley, P., & Hashai, N. (2020). Skepticism Toward Globalization, Technological Knowledge Flows, and the Emergence of a New Global System. Global Strategy Journal, 10(1), 94–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1372

Bull, B., & Miklian, J. (2019). Towards global business engagement with development goals? Multilateral institutions and the SDGs in a changing global capitalism. Business and Politics, 21(4), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2019.27

Chuang, M., Donegan, J., Ganon, M., & Wei, K. (2011). Walmart and Carrefour experiences in China: Resolving the structural paradox. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(4), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601111179519

Contractor, F. (2022). The world economy will need even more globalization in the post-pandemic 2021 decade. Journal of International Business Studies, 53(1), 156–171. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00394-y

Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor. (2024). Decade of (in)action: Are corporate 2030 climate plans fit for purpose? Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/publications/corporate-climate-responsibility-monitor-2024/

Coucke, K., & Sleuwaegen, L. (2008). Offshoring as a survival strategy: Evidence from manufacturing firms in Belgium. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(8), 1261–1277. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400403

de la Torre, J., Esperanca, J., & Martinez, J. (2011). Organizational Responses to Regional Integration Among MNEs in Latin America. Management International Review, 51(2), 241–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-011-0073-4

Devinney, T. (2011). Social Responsibility, Global Strategy, and the Multinational Enterprise: Global Monitory Democracy and the Meaning of Place and Space. Global Strategy Journal, 1(3–4), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.21

Dios, S., & Cosenza, J. (2019). Corporate Social Responsibility, Multinational Companies and Economic Globalization. Dimension Empresarial, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.15665/dem.v17i4.1964

Dogan, A. (2010). Liberalization in international trade. Filosofia Unisinos, 11(2), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.4013/fsu.2010.112.02

Dunning, J. (1981). International Production and the Multinational Enterprise. Allen & Unwin.

Dunning, J. (1994). Multinational enterprises and the globalization of innovative capacity. Research Policy, 23(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)90027-2

Etzioni-Halevy, E. (2002). Linkage deficits in transnational politics. International Political Science Review, 23(2), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512102023002006

Frank, A. (1966). The development of underdevelopment. New England Free Press.

Fraser, N. (2014). Can society be commodities all the way down? Post-Polanyian reflections on capitalist crisis. Economy and Society, 43(4), 541–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2014.898822

Friedman, T. (1999). The lexus and the olive tree: Understanding globalization. Simon and Schuster.

Gerybadze, A., & Reger, G. (1999). Globalization of R&D: recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations. Research Policy, 28(2–3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00111-5

Gilpin, R. (1987). The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400882779

Giulianotti, R., & Robertson, R. (2004). The globalization of football: A study in the glocalization of the “serious life.” British Journal of Sociology, 55(4), 545–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2004.00037.x

Gjolberg, M. (2009). The origin of corporate social responsibility: Global forces or national legacies? Socio-Economic Review, 7(4), 605–637. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwp017

Grosse, R., Gamso, J., & Nelson, R. (2021). China’s Rise, World Order, and the Implications for International Business. Management International Review, 61(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-020-00433-8

Guillén, I., Rendón, A., & Morales, A. (2022). Is Organizational Resilience a Competitive Advantage? Mercados y Negocios, 46, 57–82. https://doi.org/10.32870/myn.vi46.7670.g6738.

Hale, T., Smith, S., Black, R., Cullen, K., Fay, B., Lang, J., & Mahmood, S. (2022). Assessing the rapidly-emerging landscape of net zero targets. Climate Policy, 22(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2021.2013155

Hall, P., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199247757.001.0001

Hamdani, M., & Belfencha, I. (2024). Strategic implications of the US-China semiconductor rivalry. Discover Global Society, 2(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44282-024-00081-5

Head, K., & Ries, J. (2002). Offshore production and skill upgrading by Japanese manufacturing firms. Journal of International Economics, 58(1), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(01)00161-1

Hymer, S. (1977). The international operations of national firms: A study of direct foreign investment. MIT Press.

Ikenberry, G. (2011). The Future of the Liberal World Order: Internationalism After America. Foreign Affairs, 90(3), 56–68.

Kindleberger, C. (1969). American business abroad: Six lectures on direct investment. Yale University Press.

Kobrin, S. (2017). Bricks and Mortar in a Borderless World: Globalization, the Backlash, and the Multinational Enterprise. Global Strategy Journal, 7(2), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1158

Krueger, D. (2008). The ethics of global supply chains in China—Convergences of East and West. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(1–2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9393-5

Kwon, J., & Pohlmann, M. (2018). Globalization and Corporate Elites in South Korea: Education and Career Mobility. Korea Observer, 49(3), 543–568. https://doi.org/10.29152/KOIKS.2018.49.3.543

Latham, M., & Beaudry, M. (2001). Globalization and inequity as determinants of malnutrition: A clear need for activism. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 40(6), 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2001.9991671

LeBaron, G. (2015). Unfree Labour Beyond Binaries: Insecurity, Social Hierarchy and Labour Market Restructuring. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 17(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2013.813160

Lee, Y., & Lee, K. (2015). Economic Nationalism and Globalization in South Korea: A Critical Insight. Asian Perspective, 39(1), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1353/apr.2015.0012

Lewis, W. (1954). Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour. University of Manchester.

Lipietz, A. (1985). Mirages et miracles: Problèmes de l’industrialisation dans le Tiers Monde. Editions La Découverte.

Liu, Z., & Uzunidis, D. (2021). Globalization of R&D, Accumulation of Knowledge and Network Innovation: The Evolution of the Firm’s Boundaries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12(1), 166–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0381-9

Lozano, J., & Boni, A. (2002). The impact of the multinational in the development: An ethical challenge. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(1–2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016360823980

Luo, Y., & Witt, M. (2022). Springboard MNEs under de-globalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 53(4), 767–780. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00423-4

Madeuf, B., & Michalet, C. (1978). A New Approach to International Economics. International Social Science Journal, 30(2).

Michalet, C. (1976). Le capitalisme mondial [Global capitalism]. Presses universitaires de France.

Millar, C., & Choi, C. (2010). MNCs, Worker Identity and the Human Rights Gap for Local Managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1078-4

Mishra, A., & Dash, A. (2022). Connecting the Carbon Ecological Footprint, Economic Globalization, Population Density, Financial Sector Development, and Economic Growth of Five South Asian Countries. Energy Research Letters, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.46557/001c.32627

Moran, T. (1983). Multinational Corporations and the Politics of Dependence: Copper in Chile. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400854424

Msiska, M., Ng, A., & Kimmel, R. (2021). Doing well by doing good with the performance of United Nations Global Compact Climate Change Champions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 321. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00989-2

Neumayer, E., & De Soysa, I. (2005). Trade openness, foreign direct investment and child Labor. World Development, 33(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.06.014

Petricevic, O., & Teece, D. (2019). The structural reshaping of globalization: Implications for strategic sectors, profiting from innovation, and the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(9), 1487–1512. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00269-x

Prashantham, S., Eranova, M., & Couper, C. (2018). Globalization, entrepreneurship and paradox thinking. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-017-9537-9.

Reddy, P. (1997). New trends in globalization of corporate R & D and implications for innovation capability in host countries: A survey from India. World Development, 25(11), 1821–1837. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00079-X

Robbins, P. (2004). Global visions and globalizing corporations: An analysis of images and texts from fortune global 500 companies. Sociological Research Online, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.920

Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. Sage.

Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world economy. W.W Norton & Company. https://doi.org/10.1355/ae28-3k

Ruggie, J. G. (1982). International regimes, transactions, and change: Embedded liberalism in the postwar economic order. International Organization, 36(2), 379–415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300018993

Rugman, A. (2010). Globalization, regional multinationals and Asian economic development. Asian Business and Management, 9(3), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1057/abm.2010.12

Schuh, A. (2007). Brand strategies of western MNCs as drivers of globalization in Central and Eastern Europe. European Journal of Marketing, 41(3–4), 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560710728336

Shenkar, O. (2004). One more time: International business in a global economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400074

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Sprague, J. (2009). Transnational Capitalist Class in the Global Financial Crisis: A Discussion with Leslie Sklair. Globalizations, 6(4), 499–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747730903298835

Steingard, D., & Fitzgibbons, D. (1995). Challenging the juggernaut of globalization: A manifesto for academic praxis. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 8(4), 30–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819510090204

Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. Penguin Books.

Strange, S. (1988). States and markets. Pinter Publishers.

Strohmer, M. F., Easton, S., Eisenhut, M., Epstein, E., Kromoser, R., Peterson, E. R., & Rizzon, E. (2020). Disruptive Procurement: Winning in a Digital World. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38950-5

Teece, D. (2022). A wider-aperture lens for global strategic management: The multinational enterprise in a bifurcated global economy. Global Strategy Journal, 12(3), 488–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1462

Thangavel, P., Pathak, P., & Chandra, B. (2022). Covid-19: Globalization-Will the Course Change? Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 26(1), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262920984571

Tomohara, A., & Takii, S. (2011). Does globalization benefit developing countries? Effects of FDI on local wages. Journal of Policy Modeling, 33(3), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2010.12.010

Toporowski, J. (2010). The transnational company after globalisation. Futures, 42(9), 920–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.08.025

Vahlne, J., Ivarsson, I., & Alvstam, C. (2018). Are multinational enterprises in retreat? Multinational Business Review, 26(2), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-04-2018-0031

Vercelli, A. (2010). Mr Keynes and the “Liberals.” In R. W. Dimand, R. A. Mundell, & A. Vercelli (Eds.), Keynes’s General Theory After Seventy Years (pp. 63–90). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230276147_5

Vernon, R. (1971). Sovereignty at bay; the multinational spread of U.S. enterprises. Basic Books. https://bac-lac.on.worldcat.org/oclc/299887141

Vlados, C. (2019). Notes on the main analytical insufficiencies of the Marxist theoretical tradition for the comprehension of the contemporary global economy. Journal of Economic and Social Thought, 6(3), 132–155. https://doi.org/10.1453/jest.v6i3.1942

Vlados, C., & Chatzinikolaou, D. (2022). Mutations of the emerging new globalization in the post-COVID-19 era: Beyond Rodrik’s trilemma. Territory, Politics, Governance, 10(6), 855–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2021.1954081

Vlados, C., & Chatzinikolaou, D. (2024). Russo-Ukrainian War and the emerging new globalization: A critical review of relevant research. The Japanese Political Economy, 50(1), 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/2329194X.2024.2309594

Vlados, C., & Chatzinikolaou, D. (2025). The emergence of the new globalization: The approach of the evolutionary structural triptych. Journal of Global Responsibility, 16(1), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-04-2023-0063.

Wills, J. (1998). Taking on the CosmoCorps? Experiments in transnational labor organization. Economic Geography, 74(2), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.2307/144278

Witt, M. (2019). De-globalization: Theories, predictions, and opportunities for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(7), 1053–1077. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00219-7

Wrigley, N., Coe, N., & Currah, A. (2005). Globalizing retail: Conceptualizing the distribution-based transnational corporation (TNC). Progress in Human Geography, 29(4), 437–457. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132505ph559oa

Yamashita, N., & Fukao, K. (2010). Expansion abroad and jobs at home: Evidence from Japanese multinational enterprises. Japan and the World Economy, 22(2), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japwor.2009.10.001

Yeganeh, H. (2019). A critical examination of the social impacts of large multinational corporations in the age of globalization. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 16(3), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-01-2019-0001.

Fukuyama, F. (1992). Capitalism & democracy: The missing link. Journal of Democracy, 3(3), 100-110.

Appendix

Appendix 1

Eight-step Selection Protocol Flowchart
Source: Own elaboration.

Appendix 2.

WoS Search Criteria (January 2023)
Source: Own elaboration.

Appendix 3

Journal Distribution
Source: Own elaboration.

Appendix 4

Total Number of Pages
Source: Own elaboration.

Appendix 5

Trends of Keywords Appearing More Than 50 Times in the Full Texts
Source: Own elaboration

Notes

Información adicional

redalyc-journal-id: 5718