Discuss the Role of Multinationals in the Globalisation of Innovation Essay

Discuss the Role of Multinationals in the Globalisation of Innovation - Essay Example Another example is Nintendo Co., Limited that was ranked number five in product improvement in 2009 by Bloomberg (2010). The improved products spread from Japan to Canada, Australia, United States and Gro?ostheim. Top forty most innovative multinationals in the world that has helped spread innovation globally is listed in table 1 (refer to appendices). In recent years, multinationals companies have been spreading to developing nations of Asia to tap into its large and expanding markets. For example, America’s Agilent Technologies began experiencing growth of its scientific and test equipment in Asia than other continents. Therefore, they had to shift base to Asia where they developed a full division of fully fledged research and development infrastructure to make it highly competitive and produce products that best suit the Asian market. Innovation centers are set in foreign countries to enable multinationals understand the foreign markets well to facilitate their entry. How m ultinational globalise innovations There are a number of ways in which multinationals spread innovations to other parts of the world from their country of origin. Practically, innovation spreads across countries or continents inform of foreign direct investments where international companies invest in setting up production facilities in foreign countries, merge or acquire foreign companies, move their expertise to work in international branches, corporate social responsibility or sell technology to other countries or companies. In addition, the mere distribution of improved products or services constitutes transfer of innovations from one place to another. Spread of innovations from one place to another is dictated by economic... This essay approves that there are a number of ways in which multinationals spread innovations to other parts of the world from their country of origin. Practically, innovation spreads across countries or continents inform of foreign direct investments where international companies invest in setting up production facilities in foreign countries, merge or acquire foreign companies, move their expertise to work in international branches, corporate social responsibility or sell technology to other countries or companies. In addition, the mere distribution of improved products or services constitutes transfer of innovations from one place to another. Spread of innovations from one place to another is dictated by economic policies of one or both countries, availability of adequate finances, economic conditions, quality and capability of skilled employees as well as company’s policy on spread of innovation among others. This report makes a conclusion that Microsoft has developed research and development in Beijing. Knowledge-intensive companies are increasing the number of their employees in developing countries. India is hosting about a quarter of Accenture employees. According to Wooldridge, large multinational companies develop innovation markets in the developing economies because developing economies have huge market potential and high economic growth rate. In addition, they are few costly legacy systems in developing countries and resources are relatively abundant and cheaper. For example, about five million and three million people graduate in China and India annually respectively, consequently most multinational have shifted their companies to Asian countries.

Should America have stronger Gun Control laws Term Paper

Should America have stronger Gun Control laws - Term Paper Example The debate seldom applies to hunter’s rights. However, outlawing handguns outright would affect hunters as well as people that simply wish to protect themselves. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, â€Å"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed† (â€Å"The Constitution†, 2006). This, as were all of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, was added by the Founding Fathers so as to provide a more clear definition of the specific rights guaranteed to Americans. Gun control advocates consider the Second Amendment to be â€Å"obsolete; or is intended solely to guard against suppression of state militias by the central government and therefore restricted in scope by that intent; or does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but one that can be limited by reasonable requirements† (Krouse, 2002). However, they only question the need for people to own firearms that are not primarily designed for sporting purposes such as hunting. Obviously, the right to own arms was of supreme importance to the Founders given that it was listed second only after the freedom of religion and speech was documented in the First Amendment. The Founders knew that by ensuring the right to own arms, citizens would have the ability to protect themselves from that which might endanger their life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. This could include bodily protection from persons and animals or from an oppressive government that threatened the freedoms outlined in the Constitution. â€Å"The Second Amendment reflects the founders’ belief that an armed citizenry, called the ‘general militia’ was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is totally foreign to the intent of the Constitution’s framersâ₠¬  (Reynolds & Caruth III, 1992). Attempting to disarm criminals is a great plan in some fairy-tale land but is a fruitless venture in the real world. â€Å"The ratio of people who commit handgun crimes each year to handguns is 1:400; that of handgun homicides to handguns is 1:3,600. Because the ratio of handguns to handgun criminals is so high, the criminals supply would continue with barely an interruption† (Department of Commerce, 1986: 171). The prohibition of guns in an effort to diminish criminal activity is as reasonable solution in much the same way the prohibition of alcohol would diminish the occurrences of driving while intoxicated (Kopel, 1988). Gun-control advocates argue that handguns serve no purpose except to shoot people. Any hunter will tell you that this is untrue. This underscores the lack of knowledge these advocates possess concerning the activity they denounce. Handguns are bought mainly for reasons of self-defense but nearly 20 percent buy handguns to use for sport-shooting, target practice and about 15 percent buy handguns as collector’s items. Hunters regularly use handguns as a protection against snakes and to hunt game animals (Aagard, 1987: 32). Anti-Thesis The prohibition of guns in an effort to diminish criminal activity is as reasonable solution in much the same way the prohibition of alcohol would diminish the occurrences of driving while intoxicated. The concept that the easy access to firearms has an important impact on the homicide rates in this country is supported by the preponderance of the evidence.