You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Spec mapping (AQA 7037): Paper 2, §3.2.1 Global Systems — transnational corporations (TNCs) and their global production networks; the spatial division of labour; the role of TNCs in driving globalisation; the consequences of globalisation for the regulation of capitalist enterprise; the global system promoting stability and growth but also inequalities and conflicts. Synoptic links: trade theory and the core–periphery hierarchy (Lesson 2), FDI and financial systems (Lesson 4), and sovereignty/regulation (Lesson 10). This lesson is AO1-rich (Dicken's global production networks, the NIDL, the spatial division of labour) with strong AO2 (applying theory to the Apple/Foxconn value chain) and an AO3 value-capture calculation.
Transnational corporations are arguably the single most important agents of economic globalisation. Peter Dicken argues in Global Shift that TNCs are the "primary movers and shapers" of the global economy because they coordinate dispersed production across borders into integrated networks — they do not merely trade between places, they organise the world economy.
Key Definition: A transnational corporation (TNC) is a firm that owns or controls value-adding activities in two or more countries, coordinating a geographically dispersed network of subsidiaries, affiliates and subcontractors. The "transnational" label (rather than "multinational") emphasises that the firm operates as an integrated global system, not a collection of national branches.
TNCs are distinguished by their scale, global reach, market power and brand recognition. The most striking feature is that the largest TNCs are economically larger than most nation-states.
| TNC | Revenue (approx., 2023) | Countries of operation | Employees |
|---|---|---|---|
| Walmart | US$611 billion | 24 | 2.1 million |
| Apple | US$383 billion | 175+ (sales) | ~164,000 |
| Samsung Electronics | US$244 billion | 74 | ~270,000 |
| Unilever | US$60 billion | 190+ | ~127,000 |
To put this in perspective, Walmart's revenue exceeds the GDP of Sweden or Belgium, and of the world's 100 largest economic entities, the majority — by some counts around 70 — are corporations, not countries. This structural power underpins the hyperglobalist claim (Lesson 1) that TNCs have eclipsed the state, though, as we will see, regulation is reasserting itself.
Evaluation caution: Comparing TNC revenue (a flow of sales) with national GDP (value added) is methodologically flawed — it inflates corporate size. A fairer comparison uses TNC value added, on which Walmart is more comparable to a mid-sized economy. Examiners reward this kind of data literacy.
TNCs exploit the differing characteristics of places, producing a spatial division of labour: each stage of the value chain is sited where its specific factor requirements are cheapest or best met.
| Function | Typical location | Locational logic |
|---|---|---|
| HQ / R&D / design | Core economies (USA, UK, Japan, Germany) | Skilled labour, universities, finance, IP protection, agglomeration |
| Component manufacture | Newly industrialised/semi-periphery (Taiwan, South Korea) | Specialist suppliers, mid-skill engineering |
| Assembly | Lower-cost economies (China, Vietnam, Bangladesh) | Cheap, disciplined labour; SEZs; weaker regulation |
| Back-office / IT / call centres | India, Philippines | English fluency, low wages, time-zone arbitrage |
| Resource extraction | Resource-rich periphery (DRC, Chile, Nigeria) | Location of raw materials |
| Sales / marketing | Global, focused on affluent markets | Access to consumers |
The NIDL thesis of Fröbel, Heinrichs and Kreye (1980) explains why this geography emerged: from the 1970s, falling transport/communication costs (Lesson 1) plus a "global reserve army" of cheap labour let firms relocate labour-intensive production from the Global North to the Global South, while retaining high-value functions (design, R&D, finance, branding) in the core. The result, in Wallerstein's terms (Lesson 2), is that the periphery is often locked into low-value assembly while the core captures the rents — directly linking TNC strategy to the reproduction of global inequality.
A crucial update to the NIDL — sometimes called the "new" new international division of labour — is the offshoring of services, not just manufacturing, enabled by fibre-optic cables (Lesson 1). Routine, tradeable service work can now be performed anywhere with bandwidth:
This shows the spatial division of labour is dynamic and reaches ever higher up the skills ladder — and it complicates the simple "periphery does low-value work" model, since some service offshoring transfers genuinely skilled, better-paid work to emerging economies. Richard Baldwin calls this the "second unbundling" (after the first unbundling of production from consumption): the unbundling of tasks from workers, so that what is traded is increasingly stages of work rather than finished goods — the deepest logic of the contemporary global economy.
TNCs organise production through global production networks (GPNs) — a concept developed by Dicken, Henderson, Coe and others — that link lead firms, suppliers, subcontractors, workers, states and consumers across space. The iPhone is the canonical located example.
graph TD
A["DESIGN & R&D<br/>Apple, Cupertino, California<br/>(value capture: brand, IP, software)"] --> B["KEY COMPONENTS"]
B --> B1["Processors: TSMC, Taiwan"]
B --> B2["Displays/memory: Samsung & SK Hynix, South Korea"]
B --> B3["Rare earths & cobalt: China / DR Congo"]
B1 --> C["FINAL ASSEMBLY<br/>Foxconn & Pegatron<br/>Shenzhen / Zhengzhou, China<br/>+ growing in India & Vietnam"]
B2 --> C
B3 --> C
C --> D["DISTRIBUTION<br/>global logistics & retail"]
D --> E["CONSUMPTION<br/>affluent markets worldwide"]
E -->|profit flows back| A
Teardown studies (e.g. by industry analysts) suggest that for a high-end iPhone retailing at roughly US$1,100, the bill of materials (all physical components) is around US$490. The assembly labour performed in China is estimated at only a few US dollars per phone.
Describe: Components (US$490) account for less than half the retail price; the remainder (~US$610) is gross margin captured before retail.
Manipulate: Apple's gross margin as a share of retail price is approximately 11001100−490×100≈55%. If Chinese assembly labour is, say, US$8 per phone, it represents just 11008×100≈0.7% of the retail price.
Explain: This is the "smile curve" of value capture (Stan Shih): value added is high at the ends of the chain (R&D/design and branding/marketing — both in the core) and low in the middle (physical assembly — in the semi-periphery/periphery). The lead firm captures the bulk of value through intangible assets it controls, not through making anything physically.
Evaluate: Such teardown figures are estimates and ignore amortised R&D, marketing, warranty and tax costs, so the "55% profit" headline overstates true net margin. Nonetheless, the structure is robust and explains why assembly economies struggle to escape low value-added activity — the central concern of GPN analysis and a powerful illustration of Lesson 2's core–periphery hierarchy.
FDI — investment giving a lasting controlling interest in an enterprise abroad — is the chief mechanism of TNC expansion.
Changing geography of FDI: historically North–North; since the 2000s, large North–South flows to emerging economies; and increasingly South–South flows, with Chinese and Indian TNCs investing across Africa and Southeast Asia (e.g. via the Belt and Road Initiative). FDI is highly concentrated — a handful of recipient economies absorb the majority of inflows — reinforcing uneven development.
Consider a simplified distribution of a region's inward FDI:
| Recipient group | Share of regional FDI |
|---|---|
| Top 3 economies | 64% |
| Next 7 economies | 27% |
| Remaining 20 economies | 9% |
Describe / manipulate: The top 3 economies capture nearly two-thirds (64%) of FDI, while the poorest 20 economies share less than a tenth (9%) — an average of just 209=0.45% each, against 364≈21.3% each for the top 3, a ratio of roughly 47:1.
Explain: This is "cumulative causation" (Myrdal) in action — FDI flows to places that already have infrastructure, skills, market size and stability (switched-on places, Lesson 1), reinforcing their advantage, while marginal economies are bypassed. It directly contradicts the idea that globalisation spreads investment evenly.
Evaluate: A snapshot share ignores change over time (a poor economy could be the fastest grower from a low base) and the type of FDI (resource-seeking FDI in a poor country may be enclave investment that generates little local linkage). So FDI concentration must be read alongside trend data and the quality of investment, not just its quantity.
Transfer pricing sets the prices of internal transactions between a TNC's own subsidiaries. It is legal, but can be manipulated: a subsidiary in a high-tax country "sells" intellectual property or components to an affiliate in a tax haven at an artificially low price, so that profit is booked in the low-tax jurisdiction.
The race to the bottom is the competitive lowering of labour standards, environmental rules and taxes to attract FDI.
Counter-arguments: competition for FDI can also upgrade infrastructure, skills and governance; some TNCs adopt higher voluntary standards; consumer and NGO pressure drives improvement; and frameworks such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011) create accountability norms.
A second, contrasting production network — fast fashion — deepens understanding of the spatial division of labour and shows that not all GPNs follow the Apple model.
graph TD
A["DESIGN & TREND-SETTING<br/>Inditex/Zara, Spain; H&M, Sweden<br/>(value: brand, speed-to-market)"] --> B["FABRIC & INPUTS<br/>cotton/synthetics — China, India, Turkey"]
B --> C["GARMENT ASSEMBLY<br/>Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia<br/>(value captured: very low wages)"]
C --> D["LOGISTICS<br/>rapid global distribution"]
D --> E["RETAIL / CONSUMPTION<br/>high-income markets"]
E -->|profit & data flow back| A
Fast fashion crystallises the development paradox of GPNs: integration brings real benefits (Bangladesh's poverty rate has fallen substantially as the sector grew), yet on terms that capture little value locally and impose human and environmental costs (the industry is also a major polluter and water user). It strengthens the argument that the question is not whether to integrate but on what terms — the recurring conclusion of the depth study.
Nike owns no factories: it outsources to around 500 contract factories in 40+ countries, concentrating manufacturing in Vietnam (over half of footwear), China and Indonesia, while its Beaverton (Oregon) HQ controls design, marketing and brand. In the 1990s Nike was exposed for sweatshop and child labour, with Indonesian workers earning as little as US$1.25 per day amid excessive overtime and chemical exposure. Under sustained activist pressure Nike adopted a supplier Code of Conduct, published its factory list (an industry first in transparency) and raised minimum ages and wages. Critics counter that the outsourcing model itself — chasing the lowest-cost supplier — generates structural pressure to cut corners, so monitoring is necessary but insufficient.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.