Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:19:57.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multinational Corporations and Political Risk in the Persian Gulf

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Charles R. Kennedy Jr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On New Year's Eve, before the tumultuous events of 1978–79, President Jimmy Carter, while toasting the Shah in Tehran, referred to Iran as an “island of stability” in the Persian Gulf. President Carter's remarks reflected the consensus opinion about Iran not only among United States government officials but among most business firms operating in Iran as well. A typical U.S. corporate attitude was represented by a 1975 Business International (hereafter BI) report about business prospects in the Middle East.

These characteristics (infrastructure development, population size and high absorptive capacity), which favorably distinguish Iran from the Arab Middle East, make the country the prime market in the area for many Western exporters. Political stability, the government's benevolent attitude toward private enterprise, and a well-protected internal market give Iran a similar edge in the eyes of foreign investors. Few international companies will thus want to stand aside as Iran races toward its goal of becoming the Japan of the Middle East.1

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , August 1984 , pp. 391 - 403
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1 Business International Corporation, Business Prospects in the Middle East, Business International, 04 1975, p. 127.Google Scholar

2 Louis, Kraar, “The Multinationals Get Smarter about Political Risks,” Fortune (03 24, 1980), 86.Google Scholar

3 “The Post-Shah Surge in Political Risk Studies,” Business Week (12 1, 1980), 69.Google Scholar

4 Because of corporate secrecy, a specific prediction made by Shell about Iran is not available. However, it is unlikely that Shell was seriously concerned with the stability of the Shah, given the fact there are no visible signs of corporate activity by Shell to reduce their vulnerability there in spite of having a major stake in Iran.

5 Haner, F. T., “General Assessments of the Foreign Environment,” in Haendel, Dan et al. , eds., The Measurement of Political Risk and Foreign Investment Strategy (Foreign Political Research Institute, 1975), pp. 36–39.Google Scholar

6 Haner, F. T., “Business Environment Risk Index, Appendix B,” BERI, Ltd. System for Selected Countries, 08 1981, p. 9.Google Scholar

7 Dan, Haendel, Foreign Investments and the Management of Political Risk, (Boulder: Westview Press, 1979), pp. 99–101; Business International, Managing and Evaluating International Risk, 1980.Google Scholar

8 Haendel, , Foreign Investments, p. 102.Google Scholar

9 Nikkei Business, “Investment Appeal Rating of 53 Nations,” The Japanese Economic Journal (08 16, 1977).Google Scholar

10 Gerald, West, “A Components Approach to the Assessment of Political Risk,” in Haendel, et al. , Measurement of Political Risk, p. 44.Google Scholar

11 Haendel, , Foreign Investments, pp. 106–113.Google Scholar

12 Robert, T. Green, “Political Structures as a Predictor of Radical Political Change,” Columbia Journal of World Business (Spring 1974), 31–35.Google Scholar

13 James, Davies, “Toward a Theory of Revolution,” American Sociological Review (02 1962), 5–19;Google Scholar and Ted, Gurr, Why Men Rebel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970).Google Scholar

14 Harald, Knudson, “Explaining the National Propensity to Expropriate: an Ecological Approach,” Journal of International Business Studies (Spring 1974), 53–55.Google Scholar

15 Rummel, R. J. and David, Heenan, “How Multinationals Manage Political Risk,” Harvard Business Review (01–02 1978), 70–76.Google Scholar

16 Douglas, Hibbs, Mass Political Violence: a Cross-National Causal Analysis (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973). pp. 3–17, 135–36, 181.Google Scholar

17 Business International (06 20, 1980), 196–97.Google Scholar

18 BERI, Executive Guide to Conducting Business in Iran (Newark, Del.: 09 1, 1975);Google Scholar personal correspondence with Haner, F. T., 11 1982.Google Scholar

19 BERI, Executive Guide, p. 2.Google Scholar

20 Ibid., p. 8.

21 Haner, , “General Assessment,” pp. 38–39.Google Scholar

22 Nikkei Business, “Investment Appeal”; Haendel, , Foreign investments, pp. 116–19.Google Scholar

23 Haendel, , Foreign investments, 112.Google Scholar

24 Knudson, , “Ecological Approach,” p. 58.Google Scholar

25 For a theoretical, general discussion of the weaknesses of the J-curve approach to revolution, see Jack, Goldstone, “Theories of Revolution: The Third Generation,” World Politics (Winter 1980), 430–35.Google Scholar

26 Samuel, P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), pp. 1–92.Google Scholar

27 Personal correspondence with Haner, F. T., 11 1982; personal interviews with a major petrochemical firm, September-October 1982.Google Scholar

28 BERI. “Users Guide,” 1982, p. 4.Google Scholar

29 James, Bill, “Iran and the Crisis of ′78,” Foreign Affairs, 57, 2 (Winter 1978–1979), 323–42.Google Scholar

30 James, Bill and Carl, Leiden, Politics in the Middle East (Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1979), pp. 24–37.Google Scholar

31 Nazli, Choucri, “Demographic Changes in the Middle East,” in The Political Economy of the Middle East: 1973–78 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), p. 29.Google Scholar