The impact of multinational enterprises on community informal institutions and rural poverty

Abstract

Multinational enterprise (MNE) investments in developing countries can induce a range of positive and negative impacts on host economies; the international business literature has tended to emphasize the former. Drawing from research on community informal institutions and institutional ecology, we explore the potential negative impacts of MNE investments on rural areas of developing countries. Specifically, we examine the impacts of foreign MNE land acquisitions for natural-resource-seeking purposes on the rural population by studying rural communities and their informal institutions. We find that land acquisitions by foreign MNEs weaken community informal institutions and, as a consequence, exacerbate rural poverty. Our research adds to the literature on the negative impact of MNE investments and provides additional perspectives on the role of informal institutions and institutional theory more broadly.

French

Les investissements des entreprises multinationales (EMN) dans les pays en développement peuvent avoir une série d'impacts positifs et négatifs sur les économies d'accueil ; la littérature en IB a eu tendance à mettre l'accent sur les premiers. En nous inspirant de recherches sur les institutions communautaires informelles et l'écologie institutionnelle, nous explorons les impacts négatifs potentiels des investissements des EMN sur les zones rurales des pays en développement. Plus précisément, nous examinons les impacts des acquisitions de terres par les EMN étrangères - à des fins de recherche de ressources naturelles - sur la population rurale en étudiant les communautés rurales et leurs institutions informelles. Nous constatons que les acquisitions de terres par les EMN étrangères affaiblissent les institutions informelles communautaires et, par conséquent, exacerbent la pauvreté rurale. Notre recherche complète la littérature sur l'impact négatif des investissements des EMN et fournit des perspectives supplémentaires sur le rôle des institutions informelles et plus largement la théorie institutionnelle.

Spanish

Las inversiones de las empresas multinacionales en países en vía de desarrollo pueden inducir una variedad de impactos positivos y negativos en las economías anfitrionas; la literatura de negocios internacionales ha tenido a enfatizar el último. Basándonos en la investigación sobre instituciones comunitarias informales y la ecología institucional, exploramos los impactos negativos potenciales de las inversiones de las empresas multinacionales en zonas rurales en países en desarrollo. Específicamente, examinamos los impactos en la población rural de las adquisiciones de tierras por parte de las multinacionales extranjeras con el propósito de búsqueda de recursos naturales mediante el estudio de las comunidades rurales y sus instituciones informales. Encontramos que las adquisiciones de tierra por empresas multinacionales extranjeras debilitan las instituciones comunitarias informales y como consecuencia, agrava la pobreza rural. Nuestra investigación contribuye a la literatura sobre los impactos negativos de las inversiones de las empresas multinacionales y provee perspectivas adicionales sobre el rol de las instituciones informales y la teoría institucional en general.

Portuguese

Investimentos em empresas multinacionais (MNE) em países em desenvolvimento podem induzir uma série de impactos positivos e negativos nas economias anfitriãs; a literatura em IB tende a enfatizar o primeiro. Com base em pesquisas sobre instituições informais comunitárias e ecologia institucional, exploramos os potenciais impactos negativos dos investimentos de MNE em áreas rurais de países em desenvolvimento. Especificamente, examinamos os impactos de aquisições de terras feitas por MNE estrangeiras para fins de busca de recursos naturais na população rural, estudando as comunidades rurais e suas instituições informais. Descobrimos que aquisições de terras por MNEs estrangeiras enfraquecem instituições comunitárias informais e, como consequência, exacerba a pobreza rural. Nossa pesquisa contribui para a literatura sobre o impacto negativo de investimentos de MNE e fornece perspectivas adicionais sobre o papel das instituições informais e da teoria institucional de forma mais ampla.

Chinese

跨国企业 (MNE) 在发展中国家里的投资能对东道国经济产生一系列正面和负面影响; IB文献倾向于强调前者。通过借鉴对社区非正式制度和制度生态学的研究, 我们探索了MNE投资对发展中国家农村地区的潜在负面影响。具体而言, 我们通过调查农村社区及其非正式制度, 研究了外国MNE为寻求自然资源的土地购买对农村人口的影响。我们发现, 外国MNE的土地收购削弱了社区的非正式制度, 因此加剧了农村贫困。我们的研究为有关MNE投资的负面影响的文献做出了贡献, 并为非正式制度和制度理论的作用提供了另外的视角。

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1

Source: Authors’ analysis based on North (1990, 1994), UNCTAD (2009), and Nolte & Ostermeier (2017).

References

  1. Abbink, J. 2011. Land to the foreigners: economic, legal, and socio-cultural aspects of new land acquisition schemes in Ethiopia. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 29(4): 513–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Agrawal, A. 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change, 26(3): 413–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Agrawal, A. 2002. Common resources and institutional sustainability. In E. Ostrom, T. E. Dietz, N. E. Dolšak, P. C. Stern, S. E. Stonich, E. U. Weber (Eds), The drama of the commons: 41–85. Washington: National Academy Press. 

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aguilera, R. V., & Grøgaard, B. 2019. The dubious role of institutions in international business: A road forward. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(1): 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Akram-Lodhi, A. H., 2012. Contextualising land grabbing: Contemporary land deals, the global subsistence crisis and the world food system. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 22(2): 119–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anseeuw, W., Wily, L. A., Cotula, L., & Taylor, M. 2012. Land rights and the rush for land: Findings of the global commercial. Rome: International Land Coalition.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Asiedu, E. 2006. Foreign direct investment in Africa: The role of natural resources, market size, government policy, institutions and political instability. World Economy, 29(1): 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Asiedu, E., & Lien, D. 2011. Democracy, foreign direct investment and natural resources. Journal of International Economics 84(1): 99–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. De Backer, K., & Sleuwagen, L. 2003. Does foreign direct investment crowd out domestic entrepreneurship? Review of Industrial Organization, 22(1): 67–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. 1986. The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1): 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Berkes, F., & Folke, C. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Blomström, M., & Kokko, A. 1998. Multinational corporations and spillovers. Journal of Economic Surveys, 12(3): 247–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brandl, K., Darendeli, I., & Mudambi, R. 2019. Foreign actors and intellectual property protection regulations in developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 5(50): 826–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brosius, J.P., Tsing, A.L., & Zerner, C. 1998. Representing communities: Histories and politics of community-based natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 11(2): 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Buckley, P.J., Doh, J.P., & Benischke, M.H. 2017. Towards a renaissance in international business research? Big questions, grand challenges, and the future of IB scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9): 1045–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Buckley, P.J., Wang, C., & Clegg, J. 2007. The impact of foreign ownership, local ownership and industry characteristics on spillover benefits from foreign direct investment in China. International Business Review, 16: 142–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bull, A. C., Plahe, J., & Gregory, L. (2019). International Investment Agreements and the Escalation of Private Power in the Global Agri-Food System. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–15.

  18. Casson, M.C., Giusta, M., & Kambhampati, U.S. 2010. Formal and informal institutions and development. World Development, 38(2): 137–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Caves, R. 1974. Multinational Firms, Competition and Productivity in Host Country Markets. Economica, 41: 176–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chacar, A.S., Newburry, W., & Vissa, B. 2010. Bringing institutions into performance persistence research: Exploring the impact of product, financial, and labor market institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(7): 1119–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chapin III, F., Folke, C, & Kofinas, G. 2009. A framework for understanding change. In F. Chapin III, G. Kofinas, & C. Folke (Eds.), Principles of ecosystem stewardship. New York: Springer.

  22. Cárdenas, J. C. & Ostrom, E. 2004. What do people bring into the game? Experiments in the field about cooperation in the commons. Agricultural Systems, 82(3): 307–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dau, L.A. 2013. Learning across geographic space: Pro-market reforms, multinationalization strategy, and profitability. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(3): 235–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dau, L.A. & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. 2014. To formalize or not to formalize: Entrepreneurship and pro-market institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5): 668–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dell'Angelo, J., Rulli, M. C., & D'Odorico, P. 2018. The global water grabbing syndrome. Ecological Economics, 143: 276–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dell’Angelo, J., D’Odorico, P., Rulli, M. C., & Marchand, P. 2017. The tragedy of the grabbed commons: Coercion and dispossession in the global land rush. World Development, 92: 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. De Schutter, O. 2011. How not to think of land-grabbing: Three critiques of investments in farmland. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(2): 249–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(5652): 1907–1912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dippel, C., Ferrara, A., & Heblich, S. 2020. ivmediate: Causal mediation analysis in instrumental variables regressions. College Station, TX: Stata.

  30. Doh, J., Rodrigues, S., Saka-Helmhout, A., & Makhija, M. 2017. International business responses to institutional voids. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(3): 293–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dunning, J.H., & Narula, R. 1996. The investment development path revisited. In: Dunning JH, Narula R (eds) Foreign Direct Investment and Governments: Catalysts for Economic Restructuring. London: Routledge, pp 1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Fiori, S. 2002. Alternative visions of change in Douglass North’s new institutionalism. Journal of Economic Issues, 36(4): 1025–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Forastiere, L., Mattei, A., & Ding, P. 2018. Principal ignorability in mediation analysis: through and beyond sequential ignorability. Biometrika, 105(4): 979–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Foster, C. 1999. The impact of FDI in the upstream and downstream sectors on investment in agriculture in the NIS. In OECD Proceedings (eds.) Agricultural finance and credit infrastructure in transition economies. Proceedings of OECD Expert Meeting, Moscow, February 1999: 198–211.

  35. Frazier, P.A., Tix, A.P., & Barron, K.E. 2004. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1): 115–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gertler, P., Levine, D. I., & Moretti, E. 2006. Is social capital the capital of the poor? The role of family and community in helping insure living standards against health shocks. CESifo Economic Studies, 52(3): 455–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gigler, B.S. 2009. Poverty, inequality and human development of indigenous peoples in Bolivia. Georgetown University, Centre for Latin American Studies. Working paper No. 17.

  38. Gilbert, A., & Gugler, J. 1982. Cities poverty and development: Urbanization in the third world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gill, B. 2015. Can the river speak? Epistemological confrontation in the rise and fall of the land grab in Gambella, Ethiopia. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 48(4): 699–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Görg, H., & Strobl, E. 2001. Multinational companies and productivity spillovers: A meta-analysis. Economic Journal, 111: 723–F739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hausermann, H., Ferring, D., Atosona, B., Mentz, G., Amankwah, R., Chang, A., Hartfield, K., Effah, E., Asuamah, G.Y., Mansell, C. & Sastri, N. 2018. Land-grabbing, land-use transformation and social differentiation: Deconstructing “small-scale” in Ghana’s recent gold rush. World Development, 108: 103–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. 2004. Informal institutions and comparative politics: A research agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4): 725–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hicks, R., & Tingley, D. 2011. Causal mediation analysis. The Stata Journal, 11(4): 605–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Imai, K., Keele, L., & Tingley, D. 2010. A general approach to casual mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 15: 309–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Imai, K., Keele, L., & Yamamoto, T. 2010. Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science, 51–71.

  46. James, L.R., & Brett, J.M. 1984. Mediators, moderators and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 307–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Judd, C.M., & Kenny, D.A. 1981. Process Analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluation. Evaluation Review, 5: 602–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kenny, D.A. 2018. Mediation. September, 25th 2018. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm. [accessed August 10th, 2020].

  49. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K.G. 1997. Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4): 41–51.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kolk, A. 2016. The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to CSR and sustainable development. Journal of World Business, 51(1): 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J., Neter, J., & Li, W. 2004. Building the regression model I: model selection and validation. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Irwin: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  52. LMI [Land Matrix Initiative]. 2018. Land Acquisition Database. https://landmatrix.org/en/ [Accessed March 01, 2018].

  53. MacKinnon, D.P. 2008. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. A. 2010. A theory of gradual institutional change. In: Mahoney J, Thelen KA (eds) Explaining Institutional Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mair, J., Marti, I., & Ventresca, M.J. 2012. Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 819–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Makki, F., & Geisler, C. 2011. Development by dispossession: Land grabbing as new enclosures in contemporary Ethiopia. International conference on Global Land Grabbing. Land Deals Politics Initiative. 6–8 April.

  57. Meyer, K.E., & Sinani, E. 2009. When and where does foreign direct investment generate positive spillovers? A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(7): 1075–1094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Narula, R. 2018. Multinational firms and the extractive sectors in the 21st century: Can they drive development? Journal of World Business, 53(1): 85–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Nolte, K., & Ostermeier, M. 2017. Labour market effects of agricultural investment: Conceptual considerations and estimated employment effects. World Development, 98: 430–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Nolte, K., Chamberlain, W., & Giger, M. 2016. International land deals for agriculture. Fresh insights from the Land Matrix: Analytical report II. Bern, Montpellier, Hamburg, Pretoria: Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern; Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement; German Institute of Global and Area Studies; University of Pretoria; Bern Open Publishing.

  61. North, D.C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. North, D.C. 1991. Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1): 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. North, D.C. 1994. Economic performance through time. American Economic Review, 84(3): 359–368.

    Google Scholar 

  64. North, D.C. 2005. Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Oetzel, J., & Doh, J.P. 2009. MNEs and development: A review and reconceptualization. Journal of World Business, 44(2): 108–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Oliver, C., & Holzinger, I. 2008. The effectiveness of strategic political management: A dynamic capabilities framework. Academy of Management Review, 33(2): 496–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939): 419–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ostrom, E. 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4): 550–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ostrom, E., Dietz, T.E., Dolšak, N.E., Stern, P.C., Stonich, S.E., & Weber, E.U. 2002. The drama of the commons. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Peng, M.W., & Heath, P.S. 1996. The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. Academy of Management Review, 21(2): 492–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Polanyi, K. 1944. The great transformation. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Pulido, J.S., & Bocco, G. 2003. The traditional farming system of a Mexican indigenous community: The case of Nuevo San Juan Parangaricutiro, Michoacán, Mexico. Geoderma, 111(3–4): 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Rodrik, D., McMillan, M., & Sepulveda, C. (Eds.) 2017. Structural change, fundamentals, and growth: A framework and case studies. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Rugman, A.M. 1981. Inside the multinationals: The economics of internal markets. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Rugman, A., & Doh, J.P. 2008. Multinationals and development. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Santangelo, G.D. 2018. The impact of FDI in land in agriculture in developing countries on host country food security. Journal of World Business, 53(1): 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Sartor, M.A., & Beamish, P.W. 2014. Offshoring innovation to emerging markets: Organizational control and informal institutional distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(9): 1072–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Sauerwald, S., & Peng, M.W. 2013. Informal institutions, shareholder coalitions, and principal–principal conflicts. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30(3): 853–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Seaquist, J.W., Johansson, E.L., & Nicholas, K.A. 2014. Architecture of the global land acquisition system: Applying the tools of network science to identify key vulnerabilities. Environmental Research Letters, 9(11): 114006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Shapiro, D., Hobdari, B., Peng, M.W., & Oh, C.H. 2018. Multinational enterprises and sustainable development in the extractive and natural resource sectors. Journal of World Business, 43(1): 1–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Sobel, M.E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In: Leinhardt S (ed) Sociological Methodology 1982. Washington DC: American Sociological Association, pp 290–312.

    Google Scholar 

  84. van der Straaten, K., Pisani, N., & Kolk, A. 2019. Unraveling the MNE wage premium. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-019-00285-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. UNCTAD [United Nations Council of Trade and Development]. 2009. World Investment Report 2009. Transnational Corporations, Agricultural. Production and Development Part 2. New York/Geneva: United Nations Council of Trade and Development.

  86. Voigt, S. 2018. How to measure informal institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 14(1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. WBGI [World Bank Governance Indicators]. 2018. The World Bank. Worldwide Governance Indicators Database. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#home. [Accessed April 01, 2018].

  88. WDI [World Development Indicators]. 2018. The World Bank. World Development Indicators Database. https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/world-development-indicators [Accessed April 01, 2018].

  89. Williamson, C.R. 2009. Informal institutions rule: institutional arrangements and economic performance. Public Choice, 139(3–4): 371–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. World Bank. 2014. The practice of responsible investment principles in large-scale agricultural investments. Implications for corporate performance and impact on local communities. World Bank Report Number 86175-GLB.

  91. Yakovleva, N., & Vazquez-Brust, D.A. 2018. Multinational mining enterprises and artisanal small-scale miners: From confrontation to cooperation. Journal of World Business, 53(1): 52–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank JT Li for his editorial guidance and three anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback in the review process of this paper. We also thank all Special Issue Editors and participants for supportive comments at the JIBS SI workshop. Part of this research was conducted while Camille Meyer was a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Centre for Social and Sustainable Innovation (CSSI) at the Peter B. Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria, Canada. CSSI receives funding from Newmont Goldcorp Inc. All errors remain ours.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristin Brandl.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Accepted by Jiatao Li, Area Editor, 17 September 2020. This article has been with the authors for four revisions.

Appendices

Appendix 1: List of countries

Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Laos, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Note: These countries all have experienced at least one instance of land acquisition. Not all countries appear in our models due to the availability of data surrounding rural poverty, but each has experienced land acquisitions, so we include them in this list.

Appendix 2: List of intentions for MNE land acquisitions

Intentions of MNEs Number (primary intention)
Agri – unspecified 451
Biofuels 481
Conservation 53
Food crops 913
For carbon sequestration 24
For wood and fiber 221
Forest – unspecified 18
Livestock 180
Non-food agricultural commodities 178

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brandl, K., Moore, E., Meyer, C. et al. The impact of multinational enterprises on community informal institutions and rural poverty. J Int Bus Stud (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00400-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • informal institutions
  • institutional theory
  • developing countries
  • natural resources
  • rural poverty
  • communities
  • mediation analysis