The Rise of the New Public Service Transnationals: European or Global Phenomenon?

  • Judith Clifton
  • Francisco Comín
  • Daniel Díaz-Fuentes


Transnational Corporations (TNCs) and public enterprises are usually perceived as organisations that evolve in separate, not to say antagonistic, economic and ideological spheres. Public enterprises are usually associated with national or subnational organisations, often operating as publicly protected monopolies, subject to government policy and interference. TNCs, on the other hand, operate, by definition, across national borders, and are usually associated with private enterprises subject to market forces, financially accountable to shareholders and relatively independent of government interference. During the interwar period and the years following the end of the Second World War, many enterprises in Europe were nationalised, in order to limit the influence of TNCs over the national economy, amongst other reasons. Yet, from the 1980s, privatisation, liberalization, de(re)regulation1 and integration policies have been accompanied by a pronounced return of TNCs to Europe. Among the most important of these newcomers is the transnational public enterprise, particularly those that operate in networks, such as communications, transportation, electricity, gas, postal/logistic and water sectors. Though there was some, limited, public network service transnationalisation during the C19fh — mainly undertaken by private entrepreneurs2 — the rise of the transnational public network service at the end of the C20th is dramatic in scope and importance. During the first few years of the 1990s, public network services were entirely absent from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) list of the world’s top fifty non-financial TNCs: just one decade later, they constituted thirteen of the top fifty.3


European Union Foreign Direct Investment Public Service North American Free Trade Agreement Public Enterprise 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The term de(re)regulation is used because the deregulation of industry and services has usually led to the emergence of new regulatory bodies. See M Thatcher (2002) Regulation after deregulation: independent regulatory agencies in Europe, J European Public Policy 9(6) pp. 954–972.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See R Millward (2005) Public and Private Enterprise in Europe: Energy, telecommunications and transport 1830–1990, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    UNCTAD (1993–2006) World Investment Report, Geneva: UNCTAD.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See A Aune (2001) Selling the Free Market, New York & London: Guildford Press, for how ‘free trade’ was sold using think tanks and funding world-wide. See M Shirley (1999)’ Bureaucrats in Business: The roles of privatisation versus corporatization in State-owned Enterprise Reform, World Development 27(1), pp. 115–36 for a positive approach to private enterprise, and see J Stiglitz (2003) Globalization and its Discontents, New York: W. Norton & Company, for a critical view.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J Clifton, F Comín & D Diaz-Fuentes (2003) Privatisation in the European Union, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See (eds.) J Clifton, F Comín & D Díaz-Fuentes (2007) Transforming Public Enterprise in Europe and North America: Networks, Integration and Transnationalisation, London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    J Clifton, F Comín & D Díaz-Fuentes (2005) Empowering Europe’s Citizens? On the Prospects for a Charter of Services of General Interest, Public Administration Review, 7(3) pp. 417–443.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    UNCTAD (2005).Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    Y Aharoni (2005) ‘The globalizer than cannot globalise: the world airline industry’, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  10. 13.
    For a classic account of European champions, see (ed.) J Hayward (1995) Industrial Enterprise and European Integration, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 15.
    The definition of Europeanisation used here is from C Radaelli (2003) “The Europeanisation of Public Policy’ in K Featherstone and C Radaelli (eds.) The Politics of Europeanisation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 16.
    Whilst D Parker (ed) (1998) Privatisation in the European Union, London: Routledge highlights diversity of EU privatisation, J Clifton, F Comín & D Díaz-Fuentes (2003 and 2006) point to some common, European logics.Google Scholar
  13. 17.
    Although P Ghauri and L Oxelheim (2004) European Union and the Race for Foreign Direct Investment in Europe, Oxford: Elsevier, highlight a ‘race’ for FDI within the EU, most attention continues to be paid to the manufacturing sector, failing to recognise the trend of FDI in telecommunications, electricity, gas and water in the region. A Rugman (2005) The Regional Multinationals, Oxford: Oxford University Press, has developed his thesis on regional multinationals, but, again, there is little focus on the network services. The important exception is the UNCTAD World Investment Report published in 2004, subtitled The Shift Towards Services. Google Scholar
  14. 19.
    See M Castells (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, Oxford: Blackwells, and C Freeman & L Soete (1994) Work for all or Mass Unemployment! London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  15. 20.
    V Schneider (2002) ‘The institutional transformation of telecommunications between Europeanisation and Globalization’, in (ed.) J Jordana, Governing Telecommunications and the New Information Society in Europe, Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  16. 21.
    Schneider (2002) p. 39.Google Scholar
  17. 24.
    For the last two decades, debate on enterprise has been dominated by a dichotomisation of public and private ownership with their associated merits: this dichotomy has exaggerated and over-simplified differences in enterprise. For more discussion see J Clifton, F Comín and D Díaz-Fuentes (2003).Google Scholar
  18. 30.
    See T Presser (2005) The Limits of Competition Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 31.
    For a classic definition of New Public Management see C Hood (1991) A Public Management for all Seasons? Public Administration, 69, pp. 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 32.
    H Schröeter (1994) ‘Foreign Direct Investment and Mentality: the Nearby factor in Austrian, German and Swiss Investment’ in H Pohl (ed.) Transnational Investment from the 19th Century to the Present, Stuttgart, pp. 205–226.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith Clifton
    • 1
    • 2
  • Francisco Comín
    • 3
  • Daniel Díaz-Fuentes
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of CantabriaSpain
  2. 2.European University Institute and the Open UniversitySpain
  3. 3.University of Alcalá de HenaresSpain
  4. 4.University of Cantabria and Salvador de MadariagaSpain
  5. 5.European University InstituteSpain

Personalised recommendations