USS Virginia (BB-13) in the Great White Fleet

USS Virginia (BB-13) in the Great White Fleet USS Virginia (BB-13) - Overview: Nation: United States Type: Battleship Shipyard: Newport News Shipbuilding Drydock Company Laid Down: May 21, 1902 Launched: April 6, 1904 Commissioned: May 7, 1906 Fate: Sunk as a target on September 1923 USS Virginia (BB-13) - Specifications: Displacement: 14,980 tons Length: 441 ft., 3 in. Beam: 76 ft., 3 in. Draft: 23.8 ft. Propulsion: 12 Ãâ€" Babcock boilers, 2 Ãâ€" triple-expansion engines, 2 Ãâ€" propellers Speed: 19 knots Complement: 916 men Armament: 4 Ãâ€" 12 in./40 cal guns8 Ãâ€" 8 in./45 cal guns12 Ãâ€" 6-inch guns12 Ãâ€" 3-inch guns24 Ãâ€" 1 pdr guns4 Ãâ€" 0.30 in. machine guns4 Ãâ€" 21 in. torpedo tubes USS Virginia (BB-13) - Design Construction: Laid down in 1901 and 1902, the five battleships of the Virginia-class were meant as a follow-on the Maine-class (USS Maine, USS Missouri, and USS Ohio) which was then entering service. Though intended to be the US Navys latest design, the new battleships saw a return to some features that had not been incorporated since the earlier Kearsarge-class (USS Kearsarge and USS ). These included the mounting of 8-in. guns as a secondary armament and the placing of two 8-in. turrets on top of the vessels 12-in. turrets. Supporting the Virginia-class main battery of four 12 in. guns were eight 8-in., twelve 6-in., twelve 3-in., and twenty-four 1-pdr guns. In a change from previous classes of battleships, the new type utilized Krupp armor instead of the Harvey armor that had been placed on earlier vessels. Power for the Virginia-class came from twelve Babcock boilers which drove two vertical inverted triple expansion reciprocating steam engines. The lead ship of the class, USS Virginia (BB-13) was laid down at the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company on May 21, 1902. Work on the hull proceeded over the next two years and on April 6, 1904, it slid down the ways with Gay Montague, daughter of Virginia Governor Andrew J. Montague, serving as sponsor. A further two years passed before work on Virginia ended. Commissioned on May 7, 1906, Captain Seaton Schroeder assumed command. The battleships design differed slightly from its subsequent sisters in that its two propellers turned inward rather than outward. This experimental configuration was intended to improve steering by increasing prop wash on the rudder. USS Virginia (BB-13) - Early Service: After fitting out, Virginia departed Norfolk for its shakedown cruise. This saw it operate in the Chesapeake Bay before steaming north for maneuvers near Long Island and Rhode Island. Following trials off Rockland, ME, Virginia anchored off Oyster Bay, NY on September 2 for an inspection by President Theodore Roosevelt. Taking coal at Bradford, RI, the battleship moved south to Cuba later in the month to protect American interests in Havana during a revolt against the regime of President T. Estrada Palma. Arriving on September 21, Virginia remained in Cuban waters for a month before returning to Norfolk. Moving north to New York, the battleship entered drydock to have its bottom painted. With the completion of this work, Virginia steamed south to Norfolk to receive a series of modifications. En route, the battleship sustained minor damage when it collided with the steamer Monroe. The accident occurred when the steamer was pulled towards Virginia by the inward action of the battleships propellers. Leaving the yard in February 1907, the battleship installed new fire control equipment at New York before joining the Atlantic Fleet at Guantanamo Bay. Conducting target practice with the fleet, Virginia then steamed north to Hampton Roads to take part in the Jamestown Exposition in April. The remainder of the year was spent conducting routine operations and maintenance on the East Coast. USS Virginia (BB-13) - Great White Fleet: In 1906, Roosevelt became increasingly concerned about the US Navys lack of strength in the Pacific due to the growing threat posed by Japan. To impress upon the Japanese that the United States could easily move its main battle fleet to the Pacific, he began planning a world cruise of the nations battleships. Designated the Great White Fleet, Virginia, still commanded by Schroeder, was assigned to the forces Second Division, First Squadron. This group also contained its sister ships USS Georgia (BB-15), USS (BB-16), and USS (BB-17). Leaving Hampton Roads on December 16, 1907, the fleet turned south making visits in Brazil before passing through the Straits of Magellan. Steaming north, the fleet, led by Rear Admiral Robley D. Evans, arrived at San Diego on April 14, 1908. Briefly stopping in California, Virginia and the rest of the fleet then transited the Pacific to Hawaii before reaching New Zealand and Australia in August. After taking part in elaborate and festive port calls, the fleet steamed north to the Philippines, Japan, and China. Completing visits in these countries, the American battleships crossed the Indian Ocean before passing through the Suez Canal and entering the Mediterranean. Here the fleet parted to show the flag in several ports. Sailing north, Virginia made a visit to Smyrna, Turkey before the fleet rendezvoused at Gibraltar. Crossing the Atlantic, the fleet arrived at Hampton Roads on February 22 where it was met by Roosevelt. Four days later, Virginia entered the yard at Norfolk for four months of repairs. USS Virginia (BB-13) - Later Operations: While at Norfolk, Virginia received a forward cage mast. Leaving the yard on June 26, the battleship spent the summer on the East Coast before departing for Brest, France and Gravesend, United Kingdom in November. Returning from this excursion it rejoined the Atlantic Fleet at Guantanamo Bay for winter maneuvers in the Caribbean. Undergoing repairs at Boston from April to May, 1910, Virginia had a second cage mast installed aft. The next three years saw the battleship continue to operate with the Atlantic Fleet. As tensions with Mexico increased, Virginia spent an increasing amount of time in the vicinity of Tampico and Veracruz. In May 1914, the battleship arrived at Veracruz to support the US occupation of the city. Remaining on this station until October, it then spent two years in routine duty on the East Coast. On March 20, 1916, Virginia entered reserve status at Boston Navy Yard and commenced a significant overhaul. Though still in the yard when the US entered World War I in April 1917, Virginia played an early role in the conflict when boarding parties from the battleship seized several German merchant ships that were in the Port of Boston. With the completion of the overhaul on August 27, the battleship departed for Port Jefferson, NY where it joined the 3rd Division, Battleship Force, Atlantic Fleet. Operating between Port Jefferson and Norfolk, Virginia served as a gunnery training ship for much of the next year. After a brief overhaul in the fall of 1918, it commenced duty as a convoy escort that October. Virginia was preparing for its second escort mission in early November when word arrived that the war was over. Converted to a temporary troopship, Virginia sailed on the first of five voyages to Europe to return American troops home in December. Completing these missions in June 1919, it was decommissioned at Boston the following year on August 13. Struck from the Navy List two years later, Virginia and New Jersey were transferred to the War Department August 6, 1923 for use as bombing targets. On September 5, Virginia was placed offshore near Cape Hatteras where it came under attack by Army Air Service Martin MB bombers. Struck by a 1,100 lb. bomb, the old battleship sunk a short time later. Selected Sources DANFS: USS Virginia (BB-13)NHHC: USS Virginia (BB-13)NavSource: USS Virginia (BB-13)

An Evaluation of the reasons why a multinational enterprise undertakes FDI

While it is often argued that MNCs ship capital to where it is scarce, transfer technology and management expertise from one country to another, and promote the efficient allocation of resources in the global economy, it is important to note that inspite of this, the ultimate goal of the corporation is to increase profit and improve share value for its owners and shareholders (Barris and Cabra, 2002). It is believed that while FDI helps the country at the receiving end it also benefits the organisation because FDI by their nature has multiple benefits and can offer quick growth for any organisation if carefully undertaken. According to the International Monetary Fund (2002) FDI refers to an investment made to acquire lasting or long-term interest in enterprises operating outside of the economy of the investor. It plays an important role in global business especially in an everly increasingly competitive world marked by competition and globalisation. FDI can also provide a firm with new opportunities, distribution channels, markets and cheaper production capacities including, skills, technology and financing (IMF, 2002). In the work of Zarsky (2002) he points out that MNCs who invests in other countries often tend to benefit from lower costs and higher productive efficiency amongst several other benefits, therefore for firms seeking to achieve better performance, FDI is always undertaken as a strategic decision to achieve such objective. The aim of this paper is to discuss the importance of FDI to multinational organisations and evaluate some of the most important reasons why a MNC would undertake foreign direct investment abroad. The paper looks at the varying benefits of FDI and how it particularly benefits the firm undertaking such investment. Understanding FDI UNCTAD estimates that there are over 76,000 multinational corporations with affiliates and subsidiaries running to about 770,000 worldwide (UNCTAD, 2007). In 2005, FDI was estimated to have reached over $1.5 trillion with MNCs responsible for 12% of the world’s GDP while employing over 55 million people across the world (OECD, 2007). The OECD also estimates that 100 of the largest MNCs in the world account for over 15% of foreign assets with them accounting for 1/3 of global trade. In total over 70% of MNCs are based in advanced industrial countries with increasing stake in the developing world. The increasing surge of MNCs in emerging markets over the past decade especially attests to the fact they are increasingly undertaking FDI through market expansion to diversify their portfolios and increase their presence. Some of the few examples are: Vodaphone in India, Ford in Turkey, Microsoft in the UK and Coca cola in African countries. As is inherent in some of these examples, F DI can either take the form of merger, acquisition, the development of a new firm and or joint venture participation with existing firms (OECD, 2007). According to Thomsen (2000) FDI is important in so many ways for both the host country and the firm making the FDI because it holds various advantages in the long term for both. However, while its benefit for the firm is the focus of this paper, it is important to state that FDI can stimulate competition so long as there are proper policies in the host economy. Therefore FDI investment is not only important to the multinational firm but also the host economy for which it has so many spill over effects which is enjoyed in the long term. Generally, there is outward FDI and inward FDI. Outward FDI is the type of foreign direct investment which typically leaves a country while inward FDI is one which is received by a host country (Ekholm, 2004). MNCs participate in both forms of FDI and benefits from both at the same time through their activities. While outward FDI is generally not in favour of the host economy, it is said to benefit the MNC because it offers the opportunity for reinvest ment or as profits for the owners or shareholders. Inward FDI on the other hand benefits the host economy as it creates jobs and generates tax for the government while also benefiting the multinational company in several ways. Why MNCs undertake FDI In the old economics textbook, various reasons were adduced to the motive behind MNCs undertaking of FDI in other countries. One of the main explanations is that ‘Market disequilibrium and distortions’ give MNCs the impetus to undertake foreign investment (See e.g. Knickerbocker, 1973; p. 21). In a sense, it is believed that government imposed distortions as well as temporary disequilibria for example causes the need for firms to look outside their domestic market for opportunities in other countries (Ibid). Another explanation often put forward for MNCs motive for undertaking FDI is that market imperfection drives MNCs to look outward because imperfection in a market creates opportunities and economies of scale therefore it offers the MNC a perfect opportunity to increase its profits by investing its stake (See: Ekholm, 2004). While some of these explanations are still true to some extent as to why MNCs undertake FDI, the current and most important reasons indeed surpas es what is documented in the old textbooks of economics as explained earlier. Today, MNCs undertake foreign direct investment for various reasons and one of such is the increasing pressure wielded by competition through the forces of globalisation on the MNC making the rate of risk higher as to sustain long term operation in domestic markets (Nunnenkamp, 2002). Indeed through the modern process of globalisation, competition has taken a new dimension as forces outside a country can compete with a firm irrespective of its dominance in its local market, its brand awareness or strenghth, with the power of increasing competition therefore, survival today is about thinking ahead of the game, organisational thinking through innovation, collaboration, expansion and increased presence in other markets. This can be said to be one of the main impetus for MNCs motive for undertaking FDI abroad as such investment would enable the firm to achieve its objectives of improving profits and enhancing productivity theough cost cutting. Another motive behind MNCs undertaking of foreign direct investment is to diversify risks in their markets and portfolios. As noted by (Johnson, 2005) increasingly the macro business environment is becoming characterized with operational risks as the rate of unceratinty is increasing and markets are failing. The recent recession is an example of such risks existing in the external operating environment, since the recession which first started in 2007, several well known brands have collapsed while many are still suffering from the ruins of the recession. Indeed, many organisations operating in single markets and with limited product and market portfolios were exposed to market failures and increased risks in the last recession which consequently marked major decline in their share value and profit margin. Consequently, as a result of the threats associated with the risks of operating in one single market or product, MNCs are undetaking FDI abroad in other to diversify the risks in th eir primary market. Risk for a MNC can come in various faces. It could be operational risk, market risk, product risk, and several other. Undertaking FDI therefore offers the MNC the opportunity to mitigate such risks by diversifying into other markets or products through FDI. In the recent work of Davis (2009) he suggests that by undertaking foreign direct investment the MNC is able to lower production costs while also able to avoid trade restrictions. More so, the increasing labour cost and the cost of production in industrialised economies has given more impetus to MNCs to undertake FDI in a way that would allow them to lower production costs and enjoy cheaper labour costs (Barros and Cabral 2000). Ford motors is a typical example; Since the cost of production of Ford motors has increased in the UK, the company has decided to conduct its operations from other markets like Turkey for example where the cost of labour and production is relatively low. In addition to aiming to reduce labour and production costs, MNCs also undertake FDI to take up opportunity in profitable markets (Johnson, 2005) and this especially has to do with markets where there are better opportunities for the MNC to compete and make profit while at the same time increasing its brand v alue and identity (Ibid). Most of large oil and gas firms in the industrialised countries are typical examples of this development. Most big western oil firms such as Shell, Chevron, Mobil, BP, Texaco, etc have increased their presence in oil producing nations such as Russia, Angola, Brazil, Nigeria, Qatar, etc because the oil market in such countries require huge investment and infrastructure which they can undertake through FDI yet the market is such that there is little competition and therefore when they enter such markets they are able to use their market power and experience to increase their profit and become better at what they do. Shell like many other oil firms operating in the oil industry of many countries around the world have been able to avail itself of more opportunities in the general oil and gas market as well as other related industry through FDI than it can do in its primary and domestic markets. Similarly, the oil producing companies generally have been able to learn more about the intricacies of downstream and upstream operations as well as able to diversify into other related markets while at the same time able to contribute to the development of their host communities, although there are issues concerning corporate social responsibility and the environmental degradation caused by oil companies to their local communities, however the opportunistic and growth aspect of participating in other markets which FDI offers has been the main motive of MNCs. A similar development can be seen in other industries too, like the beverages industry for example where Coca cola is a prime example, Coca cola have been able to enter over 200 countries mainly to take advantage of the gaps and opportunities in those markets for the purpose of maximising its own profits while at the same time increasing its enhancing productivity and creating edge against its competition. The question to ask indeed is why MNCs are addicted to profit making and the taking up of opportunities everywhere there isIn response to such question: Kugler (2001) suggest that large firms over the past twenty years have been operating in a tougher and competitive world where their market power is challenged by small firms and the power of globalisation, it is this which gives them the motivation to invest abroad with the aim of challenging their competitors and taking to their advantage the benefit inherent in other markets to increase their profits and stay ahead of the game. Several MNCs also take opportunities abroad through FDI with the aim to vertically integrate their operations back and forward so as to sustain their operations and maintain healthy profits. It is at this juncture that the role of greed in their motive to undertake FDI can also be located. While little research exists in the literature on greed and why MNCs undertake FDI abroad, the 2007 global financial crisis has sparked academic debates about the role of greed in the operations and investment motives of MNCs abroad. In the work of Gultung (2009) for example looking at the case of some oil firms, financial institutions and industrialised apparel firms’, he talks about grievance, greed and opportunism in the way MNCs engage in FDI. The author explores the exploitation and the activities of many multinational corporations; How they exploit local firms, resources and labour in the foreign markets in which they operate. He cited the case of Shell in Nigeria and how the firm has over the year’s completely overtaken and forsaken local communities in which they exploit natural resources. As a consequence of such exploitation – Gultung suggests that many f armers have ceased operations while many fishermen are not able to feed their families and survive because their lands and firms have been taken over by oil activities and in many cases devastated and contaminated, yet Shell announce billions of dollars in its after profit tax every year. A similar example was cited of the apparel industry and the activities of company like Primark which has over the years undertaken foreign direct investment in India and many developing countries but to take advantage of labour and other local factors. Exploitation according to the author is defined as a â€Å"means through which one party gets much more out of a deal than the other-measured by the sum of internalities and externalities†. Sadly, most MNCs always get much more out the deals they strike than others. It is in this definition that it can be further argued that many MNCs as it is across many industries in the world mostly exploit other parties with whom they engage in FDI, theref ore it can be assumed that MNCs often undertake FDI in order to improve their profits with the motive to exploit others resources and take advantage of the opportunities in such markets. Finally, MNCs undertake FDI as a result of what Gorg and Strobl (2001) describe as the Product Life Cycle effect which occurs as a result of products reaching their maturity. For example a FDI takes place when product maturity hits and cost becomes an increasingly important consideration for the MNC. Conclusions This paper has explored the foreign investment activities of MNCs and the main reasons why they undertake FDI; it has presented various motives and factors underlying MNCs quest for investment abroad and as discussed above; one of such reasons is to increase profit, diversify risks and increase their competitiveness. The motive to undertake FDI to improve competitiveness has particularly become important for many MNCs given that in the current business environment, competition has become the order of the day and irrespective of size or location, small firms are able to compete in the same market with the multinationals. For the multinationals therefore, competitiveness has been the key and that includes aggressive expansion, constant innovation, acquisition and investing in markets abroad through various means. In view of the reasons mentioned in the paper, the reasons why MNCs undertake FDI can be said to be numerous and dependent on specific factors having to do with individual MNC s. For example some MNCs would make FDI decision to avail themselves of opportunities abroad, while other would take such decision to diversify risks, or vertically integrate their operations. References Barros. P.P. and L. Cabral (2000). Competing for Foreign Direct Investment., Review of International Economics, 8, 360-371. Ekholm, K. (2004). Multinational Enterprises and their Effect on Labour Markets, in Sodersten, B. (ed.), Globalization and the Welfare State, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. OECD (2007). Global Competition and the top ten investment destination, Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Gorg, H. and E. Strobl (2001) .Multinational Companies, Technology Spillovers, and Plant Survival: Evidence from Irish Manufacturing., EIJS Working Paper 131, Stockholm School of Economics. Glass, A. and Saggi, K. (2002). Multinational Firms and Technology Transfer, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 104(3), 495-514. Galtung, J. (2009) Peace by peaceful means peace and conflict, development and civilisation. London, Sage publications International Monetary Fund (2002). FDI statistics. Johnson, A. (2005). Host Country Effects of Foreign Direct Investment: The Case of Developing and Transition Economies, Jonkoping, Singapore: Jonkoping International Business School Dissertation Series No. 031 Knickerbocker, F. T. (1973) Oligopolistic Reaction and Multinational Enterprise. Division of Research Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University: Cambridge, MA Nunnenkamp, P. (2002). Determinants of FDI in Developing Countries: Has Globalization Changed the Rules of the GameKiel, Germany: Kiel Institute for World Economics working paper No. 1122 Thomsen, S. (2000). Investment Patterns in a Longer-Term Perspective, OECD Working Paper on International Development, Number 2000/2 UNCTAD (2009). FDI statistics for multinational and Transnational’s, Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Zarsky, L. (2002). Foreign Direct Investment: No Miracle Drug [online]. Ultimate Field Guide to the US Economy, Available: http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/fdinodrug.htm An Evaluation of the reasons why a multinational enterprise undertakes FDI While it is often argued that MNCs ship capital to where it is scarce, transfer technology and management expertise from one country to another, and promote the efficient allocation of resources in the global economy, it is important to note that inspite of this, the ultimate goal of the corporation is to increase profit and improve share value for its owners and shareholders (Barris and Cabra, 2002). It is believed that while FDI helps the country at the receiving end it also benefits the organisation because FDI by their nature has multiple benefits and can offer quick growth for any organisation if carefully undertaken. According to the International Monetary Fund (2002) FDI refers to an investment made to acquire lasting or long-term interest in enterprises operating outside of the economy of the investor. It plays an important role in global business especially in an everly increasingly competitive world marked by competition and globalisation. FDI can also provide a firm with new opportunities, distribution channels, markets and cheaper production capacities including, skills, technology and financing (IMF, 2002). In the work of Zarsky (2002) he points out that MNCs who invests in other countries often tend to benefit from lower costs and higher productive efficiency amongst several other benefits, therefore for firms seeking to achieve better performance, FDI is always undertaken as a strategic decision to achieve such objective. The aim of this paper is to discuss the importance of FDI to multinational organisations and evaluate some of the most important reasons why a MNC would undertake foreign direct investment abroad. The paper looks at the varying benefits of FDI and how it particularly benefits the firm undertaking such investment. Understanding FDI UNCTAD estimates that there are over 76,000 multinational corporations with affiliates and subsidiaries running to about 770,000 worldwide (UNCTAD, 2007). In 2005, FDI was estimated to have reached over $1.5 trillion with MNCs responsible for 12% of the world’s GDP while employing over 55 million people across the world (OECD, 2007). The OECD also estimates that 100 of the largest MNCs in the world account for over 15% of foreign assets with them accounting for 1/3 of global trade. In total over 70% of MNCs are based in advanced industrial countries with increasing stake in the developing world. The increasing surge of MNCs in emerging markets over the past decade especially attests to the fact they are increasingly undertaking FDI through market expansion to diversify their portfolios and increase their presence. Some of the few examples are: Vodaphone in India, Ford in Turkey, Microsoft in the UK and Coca cola in African countries. As is inherent in some of these examples, F DI can either take the form of merger, acquisition, the development of a new firm and or joint venture participation with existing firms (OECD, 2007). According to Thomsen (2000) FDI is important in so many ways for both the host country and the firm making the FDI because it holds various advantages in the long term for both. However, while its benefit for the firm is the focus of this paper, it is important to state that FDI can stimulate competition so long as there are proper policies in the host economy. Therefore FDI investment is not only important to the multinational firm but also the host economy for which it has so many spill over effects which is enjoyed in the long term. Generally, there is outward FDI and inward FDI. Outward FDI is the type of foreign direct investment which typically leaves a country while inward FDI is one which is received by a host country (Ekholm, 2004). MNCs participate in both forms of FDI and benefits from both at the same time through their activities. While outward FDI is generally not in favour of the host economy, it is said to benefit the MNC because it offers the opportunity for reinvest ment or as profits for the owners or shareholders. Inward FDI on the other hand benefits the host economy as it creates jobs and generates tax for the government while also benefiting the multinational company in several ways. Why MNCs undertake FDI In the old economics textbook, various reasons were adduced to the motive behind MNCs undertaking of FDI in other countries. One of the main explanations is that ‘Market disequilibrium and distortions’ give MNCs the impetus to undertake foreign investment (See e.g. Knickerbocker, 1973; p. 21). In a sense, it is believed that government imposed distortions as well as temporary disequilibria for example causes the need for firms to look outside their domestic market for opportunities in other countries (Ibid). Another explanation often put forward for MNCs motive for undertaking FDI is that market imperfection drives MNCs to look outward because imperfection in a market creates opportunities and economies of scale therefore it offers the MNC a perfect opportunity to increase its profits by investing its stake (See: Ekholm, 2004). While some of these explanations are still true to some extent as to why MNCs undertake FDI, the current and most important reasons indeed surpas es what is documented in the old textbooks of economics as explained earlier. Today, MNCs undertake foreign direct investment for various reasons and one of such is the increasing pressure wielded by competition through the forces of globalisation on the MNC making the rate of risk higher as to sustain long term operation in domestic markets (Nunnenkamp, 2002). Indeed through the modern process of globalisation, competition has taken a new dimension as forces outside a country can compete with a firm irrespective of its dominance in its local market, its brand awareness or strenghth, with the power of increasing competition therefore, survival today is about thinking ahead of the game, organisational thinking through innovation, collaboration, expansion and increased presence in other markets. This can be said to be one of the main impetus for MNCs motive for undertaking FDI abroad as such investment would enable the firm to achieve its objectives of improving profits and enhancing productivity theough cost cutting. Another motive behind MNCs undertaking of foreign direct investment is to diversify risks in their markets and portfolios. As noted by (Johnson, 2005) increasingly the macro business environment is becoming characterized with operational risks as the rate of unceratinty is increasing and markets are failing. The recent recession is an example of such risks existing in the external operating environment, since the recession which first started in 2007, several well known brands have collapsed while many are still suffering from the ruins of the recession. Indeed, many organisations operating in single markets and with limited product and market portfolios were exposed to market failures and increased risks in the last recession which consequently marked major decline in their share value and profit margin. Consequently, as a result of the threats associated with the risks of operating in one single market or product, MNCs are undetaking FDI abroad in other to diversify the risks in th eir primary market. Risk for a MNC can come in various faces. It could be operational risk, market risk, product risk, and several other. Undertaking FDI therefore offers the MNC the opportunity to mitigate such risks by diversifying into other markets or products through FDI. In the recent work of Davis (2009) he suggests that by undertaking foreign direct investment the MNC is able to lower production costs while also able to avoid trade restrictions. More so, the increasing labour cost and the cost of production in industrialised economies has given more impetus to MNCs to undertake FDI in a way that would allow them to lower production costs and enjoy cheaper labour costs (Barros and Cabral 2000). Ford motors is a typical example; Since the cost of production of Ford motors has increased in the UK, the company has decided to conduct its operations from other markets like Turkey for example where the cost of labour and production is relatively low. In addition to aiming to reduce labour and production costs, MNCs also undertake FDI to take up opportunity in profitable markets (Johnson, 2005) and this especially has to do with markets where there are better opportunities for the MNC to compete and make profit while at the same time increasing its brand v alue and identity (Ibid). Most of large oil and gas firms in the industrialised countries are typical examples of this development. Most big western oil firms such as Shell, Chevron, Mobil, BP, Texaco, etc have increased their presence in oil producing nations such as Russia, Angola, Brazil, Nigeria, Qatar, etc because the oil market in such countries require huge investment and infrastructure which they can undertake through FDI yet the market is such that there is little competition and therefore when they enter such markets they are able to use their market power and experience to increase their profit and become better at what they do. Shell like many other oil firms operating in the oil industry of many countries around the world have been able to avail itself of more opportunities in the general oil and gas market as well as other related industry through FDI than it can do in its primary and domestic markets. Similarly, the oil producing companies generally have been able to learn more about the intricacies of downstream and upstream operations as well as able to diversify into other related markets while at the same time able to contribute to the development of their host communities, although there are issues concerning corporate social responsibility and the environmental degradation caused by oil companies to their local communities, however the opportunistic and growth aspect of participating in other markets which FDI offers has been the main motive of MNCs. A similar development can be seen in other industries too, like the beverages industry for example where Coca cola is a prime example, Coca cola have been able to enter over 200 countries mainly to take advantage of the gaps and opportunities in those markets for the purpose of maximising its own profits while at the same time increasing its enhancing productivity and creating edge against its competition. The question to ask indeed is why MNCs are addicted to profit making and the taking up of opportunities everywhere there isIn response to such question: Kugler (2001) suggest that large firms over the past twenty years have been operating in a tougher and competitive world where their market power is challenged by small firms and the power of globalisation, it is this which gives them the motivation to invest abroad with the aim of challenging their competitors and taking to their advantage the benefit inherent in other markets to increase their profits and stay ahead of the game. Several MNCs also take opportunities abroad through FDI with the aim to vertically integrate their operations back and forward so as to sustain their operations and maintain healthy profits. It is at this juncture that the role of greed in their motive to undertake FDI can also be located. While little research exists in the literature on greed and why MNCs undertake FDI abroad, the 2007 global financial crisis has sparked academic debates about the role of greed in the operations and investment motives of MNCs abroad. In the work of Gultung (2009) for example looking at the case of some oil firms, financial institutions and industrialised apparel firms’, he talks about grievance, greed and opportunism in the way MNCs engage in FDI. The author explores the exploitation and the activities of many multinational corporations; How they exploit local firms, resources and labour in the foreign markets in which they operate. He cited the case of Shell in Nigeria and how the firm has over the year’s completely overtaken and forsaken local communities in which they exploit natural resources. As a consequence of such exploitation – Gultung suggests that many f armers have ceased operations while many fishermen are not able to feed their families and survive because their lands and firms have been taken over by oil activities and in many cases devastated and contaminated, yet Shell announce billions of dollars in its after profit tax every year. A similar example was cited of the apparel industry and the activities of company like Primark which has over the years undertaken foreign direct investment in India and many developing countries but to take advantage of labour and other local factors. Exploitation according to the author is defined as a â€Å"means through which one party gets much more out of a deal than the other-measured by the sum of internalities and externalities†. Sadly, most MNCs always get much more out the deals they strike than others. It is in this definition that it can be further argued that many MNCs as it is across many industries in the world mostly exploit other parties with whom they engage in FDI, theref ore it can be assumed that MNCs often undertake FDI in order to improve their profits with the motive to exploit others resources and take advantage of the opportunities in such markets. Finally, MNCs undertake FDI as a result of what Gorg and Strobl (2001) describe as the Product Life Cycle effect which occurs as a result of products reaching their maturity. For example a FDI takes place when product maturity hits and cost becomes an increasingly important consideration for the MNC. Conclusions This paper has explored the foreign investment activities of MNCs and the main reasons why they undertake FDI; it has presented various motives and factors underlying MNCs quest for investment abroad and as discussed above; one of such reasons is to increase profit, diversify risks and increase their competitiveness. The motive to undertake FDI to improve competitiveness has particularly become important for many MNCs given that in the current business environment, competition has become the order of the day and irrespective of size or location, small firms are able to compete in the same market with the multinationals. For the multinationals therefore, competitiveness has been the key and that includes aggressive expansion, constant innovation, acquisition and investing in markets abroad through various means. In view of the reasons mentioned in the paper, the reasons why MNCs undertake FDI can be said to be numerous and dependent on specific factors having to do with individual MNC s. For example some MNCs would make FDI decision to avail themselves of opportunities abroad, while other would take such decision to diversify risks, or vertically integrate their operations. References Barros. P.P. and L. Cabral (2000). Competing for Foreign Direct Investment., Review of International Economics, 8, 360-371. Ekholm, K. (2004). Multinational Enterprises and their Effect on Labour Markets, in Sodersten, B. (ed.), Globalization and the Welfare State, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. OECD (2007). Global Competition and the top ten investment destination, Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Gorg, H. and E. Strobl (2001) .Multinational Companies, Technology Spillovers, and Plant Survival: Evidence from Irish Manufacturing., EIJS Working Paper 131, Stockholm School of Economics. Glass, A. and Saggi, K. (2002). Multinational Firms and Technology Transfer, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 104(3), 495-514. Galtung, J. (2009) Peace by peaceful means peace and conflict, development and civilisation. London, Sage publications International Monetary Fund (2002). FDI statistics. Johnson, A. (2005). Host Country Effects of Foreign Direct Investment: The Case of Developing and Transition Economies, Jonkoping, Singapore: Jonkoping International Business School Dissertation Series No. 031 Knickerbocker, F. T. (1973) Oligopolistic Reaction and Multinational Enterprise. Division of Research Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University: Cambridge, MA Nunnenkamp, P. (2002). Determinants of FDI in Developing Countries: Has Globalization Changed the Rules of the GameKiel, Germany: Kiel Institute for World Economics working paper No. 1122 Thomsen, S. (2000). Investment Patterns in a Longer-Term Perspective, OECD Working Paper on International Development, Number 2000/2 UNCTAD (2009). FDI statistics for multinational and Transnational’s, Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Zarsky, L. (2002). Foreign Direct Investment: No Miracle Drug [online]. Ultimate Field Guide to the US Economy, Available: http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/fdinodrug.htm

Honolulu Light Rail System Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Honolulu Light Rail System - Essay Example This is because a train can carry passengers who could have boarded several buses. As a result, the number of buses on the streets will decrease significantly as the members of the public will shift towards the rail system which is free from traffic jams (Downs, 2004). The increase in population growth in West and Central Oahu calls for a more efficient public transport that will be able to move a lot of people at the same time. Currently, the roads are being overwhelmed by the surging number of people. As a result, the rail system will go a notch higher in addressing this problem. The rail system will push more people towards the outskirts of the city. This is because more people will prefer to live in areas where rent is more affordable and away from the pressures of the city, as they can be able to move faster to their places of residence (Downs, 2004). This will play a significant role in reducing the traffic levels in the

Approaches on nursing leadership Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Approaches on nursing leadership - Essay Example Nurse turnover is a situation where registered nurses leave the service prematurely. The reasons for turnover are varied. However, most nurses level the service due to ineffective management and high workloads. In situations of high workloads, nurses tend to seek better opportunities in other professions, and private entities. Many attribute their turnover to poor management that ignore their plight or focus more on the institution rather than the person. Nurse shortage and turnover can be addressed by the manager and nurse leaders. Managers and leaders are best placed to understand the problems and possible solutions to the problems. Managers and leaders can work together to find the causes and lasting solutions to maintain the soundness of healthcare in the next decade. However, there are functional and objectives differences between how manager and leaders approach such issues. The differences and similarities on how nurse leader managers approach the issues are discussed below. Nurse leaders and managers are obligated to show competence in how they handle health-related problems. The role of nurse leaders and nurse managers is to ensure that healthcare runs smoothly by ensuring patients are attended to. In this regard, both are concerned about nurse shortages and turnover. As such, they may approach the issue by allocating resources to higher new nurses and offer a better working condition to retain the existing nurses. However, the groups have different modalities on fulfilling these functions. Managers are more concerned with administrative functions of the health institutions. As such, they work with a budgeted finances and hence act within the confines of the resources that they have (Kelly, 2009). To address nurse shortage, managers are likely to allocate more finances to hiring by cutting down spending on non-essential functions. However, the move is temporary and can be affected

90 Minutes of Perfection :: essays research papers

90 Minutes of Perfection Any pain to be suffered comes first. Instinctively you fight to live. The conscious mind does not believe any other reality could possibly exist beside the earth. We have been trained since birth to live. Life tells us who we are and we accept it’s telling. Your body wants to live and will fight to survive. Your body goes limp. Your heart stops. No more air flows in or out. You lose sight, feeling, and movement – although the ability to hear goes last. Identity ceases. The "you" that you once were becomes only a memory. There is no pain at the moment of death. Only peaceful silence. . . calm. . . quiet. But you still exist. It is easy not to breathe. In fact, it is easier and more comfortable not to breathe than to breathe. The biggest surprise for most people in dying is to realize that dying does not end life. Whether darkness or light comes next, or some kind of event, be it positive, negative, or somewhere in-between, expected or unexpected, the biggest su rprise of all is to realize you are still you. You can still think, you can still remember, you can still see, hear, move, reason, wonder, feel, question, and tell jokes. You are still alive, very much alive. â€Å"Actually, you're more alive after death than at any time since you were last born. Only the way of all this is different; different because you no longer wear a dense body to filter and amplify the various sensations you had once regarded as the only valid indicators of what constitutes life.†(Atwater) You had always been taught one has to wear a body to live. â€Å"The only thing dying does is help you release, slough off, and discard the "jacket" you once wore.†(Atwater) When you die you lose your body. That's all there is to it. Nothing else is lost. Don Piper is someone that died. He was in an accident where he was hit head on by an 18-wheeler on a small bridge over the Trinity River. When emergency personnel found no pulse he was covered up and was waiting on the justice of the peace to pronounce him dead. â€Å"Piper remembers nothing of the accident, but everything about heaven.† (Vara) While he was dead, Piper experiences this unimaginable trip to heaven and titled his book 90

Compare and Contrast role model: Richard Dawkins Essay

When choosing a role model according to my Christian worldview there are several positions taken into account. Their position and belief on Sexuality, Social Issues, and the Nature of God are areas in which our agreeing or disagreeing is a major contributing factor throughout the decision making process. Because of our foundational beliefs, Richard Dawkins does not meet the most lenient of qualifications according to my Christian worldview in order to serve as a role model. According to my Christian worldview a role model can be defined as a person whose belief system being based upon their acceptance that God is the creator of the universe, has sent his only begotten Son as the sacrifice for sin, and trusting the Holy scriptures are the inerrant and infallible word of God. Richard Dawkins once stated, Genetic engineering is important for the future of the human species and that our emerging technology of altering certain human cells will affect individual gene pool in order to dictate human behavior and gender (Harris, 1984). This statement implies humankind posses the knowledge of what it takes to create a person and to determine their sexual behavior outside of the Christian worldview. In believing human behavior has a genetic basis whereby altering specific genes we can create individual as we see fit is the very premises that Adolf Hitler used when attempting to create a master race. Professor Dawkins believes the possibility of engineering human being exist where my Christian worldview says, biblical scriptures provide the necessary truth on God not only creating humankind but also that Gods Holy Spirit will affect human behavior without gene manipulation. The Christian worldview beliefs on sexual behavior differ from Professor Dawkins suggesting it is genetically based. Christianity teaches, humanity was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26), God determines the gender of a child, and God has the ability to change the deviant behavior of people. As I continued efforts towards invalidating Richard Dawkins as a possible role model his questionable stance on abortion came to mind as I read an article entitled â€Å"Abortion and Dawkins’ Fallacious Account of the So-called ‘Great Beethoven Fallacy’. The article discussed Professor Dawkins ethical and moral understanding on abortion as it relates to the Great Beethoven Fallacy and religion. Though he bible does not speak about aborting a child directly, scripture does make a distinction between killing as a result of an act of God and killing as a result of premeditation (Exodus 21:12). Christianity foundational belief in Jesus and the teachings of Jesus stands against all forms and efforts to stop procreation among humankind. God while speaking words of encouragement to Jeremiah says, â€Å"Before you were in the belly I formed you and before you came out I gave you purpose or a reason for living† (Jeremiah 1:5). In other words, the Christian worldview stands against supporting abortion or any form of human population control efforts that cause the death of Gods children. Professor Dawkins opinion differs from a person sharing in the Christian worldview by claiming, â€Å"The measuring stick for abortion is the suffering of the fetus (McLachlan, 2009). Professor Dawkins proposing questions such as â€Å"Does the pregnant woman or the family suffer† is immaterial when God identifies with the fetus before the birthing process begins. In addition to the fetus or the family suffering in respect to aborting the child, consideration was also placed on the mental aspects of the family. For instance, terminating pregnancy due to psychological issues, health of parents or number of children could also be a deciding factor in aborting the child. The final area used to rule out the possibility of Professor Dawkins serving as a role model for me or anyone with a Christian worldview was his foundational belief concerning the existence and nature of God. Professor Dawkins book entitled The God Delusion, characterization of God in saying, â€Å"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogymstic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, fihcidal, pestilential, megalomamacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully (Baker, 2009, p. 75). † During his childlike rant Dawkins proved, he was incapable of serving as a role model to anyone whose foundational belief was Christianity. By questioning Gods absolute authority, Dawkins implied God was unable to judge humankind righteously. A person with a limited understanding of scripture yet posses the Christian worldview may feel challenged as they read Dawkins statement of God as being jealous. In all actuality the Biblical scriptures contained in the book of Exodus speaks of God being jealous but not in the context of Professor Dawkins statement. By definition, Dawkins reasoning meant someone that is envious of another because of his or her achievements and advantages. The difference in Dawkins definition of jealousy and the Holy Scripture is in the interpretation of Exodus 20:5, which does not pertain to the sin of jealously but rather the act of giving someone else something (Worship) that only belongs to God. In closing, Professor Richard Dawkins is not a person I would choose to be a role model based on the following facts, his belief that gene manipulation will determine the outcome of human behavior as compared to my believing God created us individually without gene manipulation. Professor Dawkins stance for supporting abortion says the measuring stick should be the suffering of the fetus, mother and father, as compared to my believing God identifies with us before we are formed in the mother’s womb. Finally, the argument that nullifies any chance that Professor Dawkins meet the qualification of serving as my role model was his characterizing God as having the same sinful nature of humanity.

Comparisons On The Advocacies Of Henry Thoreau vs Dr....

There is a higher law than civil law- the law of conscience- and that when these laws are in conflict, it is a citizens duty to obey the voice of God within rather than that of the civil authority without, (Harding 207). As Harding described in his brief explanation of Henry David Thoreaus Civil Disobedience, there are some instances in which it is necessary to disobey a social law. Martin Luther King, Jr., in addition to Thoreau, reasoned that should a civil law be judged unjust, one had a moral obligation not only to himself but also to those around him to disregard that particular law in exchange for a higher one voiced by God. The idea of challenging an unreasonable law is central to both King, Jr.s and Thoreaus plights, though†¦show more content†¦First we are told in Civil Disobedience to make every effort to disconnect ourselves from the unjust system of ruling, and then we are told in Walden that very few of us are actually capable of any thought warranted as intellectual. Thoreau sets himself apart from King, Jr. by making himself a moving target. Although King, Jr. took many steps beyond Thoreaus advocacies of civil disobedience, his actions rang true to the central theme of standing powerfully, and non-violently, against an unjust system of government. Both advocated disconnecting oneself from social law as to better follow the divine laws set forth by God, and despite the great diversity in which each man carried out his beliefs, the underlying fact still remains: we cannot, by total reliance on law, escape the duty to judge right and wrong (Alexander Bickel), the distinction between just and unjust rests on the shoulders of mankind and it remains the duty of each individual to act accordingly. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. WALDEN by Henry David Thoreau 2. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE by Henry David Thoreau 3. LETTER FROM A BIRMINGHAM JAIL by Martin Luther King