The paper 'National Governments in Shaping Business Behaviors and Intervening in the Business Activities" is a perfect example of business coursework. Business activities contribute a great deal to the performance of any economy. However, since every investor is always interested in making good use of the available opportunities irrespective of the process used, then it becomes almost a constant that dubious ways find their way to the economic activities. This may have a long-term effect on the performance of any given economy (Gritton 2003). This situation is further accelerated by the fact that there is a stiff competition taking place as a result of globalization and liberation of trade whereby multinational business can cross borders with a lot of ease.
Perhaps, it is for this reason that government intervention is highly recommended. Different national governments do create different rules and frameworks which ensure that sanity is maintained as businesses try to compete for the few opportunities available. These rules and frameworks are considered to be very important governments as they always keep in check, the way businesses operate (Helm 2006).
Because of this reason, the interventions may change from time to time based on the business situation. It is from this perspective that this analysis is aimed at presenting the various business behaviors and activities that need national government intervention and the justification of those activities. The activities that will be considered in the analysis include management of subsidies and paying of taxes, changing consumer behaviors, creation of markets, public procurement, sustainability and ethical sourcing. In addition to these, the analysis will also cover the various problems that multinational companies face and which they must overcome in order to be serious global competitors.
The problems that must be overcome include cultural differences, political risks and pricing and taxation policies. Business behaviors and activities that need intervention In modern markets, government intervention is very essential. This is because both the suppliers and the sellers need to be assured of their protection especially when they enter into different contracts and when they want to own property. National government interventions in different business behaviors and activities can actually have beneficial effects. This is because the nation through different interventions will have the opportunity to protect individuals.
For instance, it is possible to ensure the safety and health of the workers if the government interventions are clear about that. In the same line, different government interventions are very critical in protecting the consumers from undue exploitation and from access to those suppliers who have not been authorized (Barrios and Strobl 2001). This is actually important in ensuring that both the supplier and the consumer are protected from any form of practice that may be considered unfair.
This is possible since only licensed suppliers will be allowed to operate. National government intervention actually entails different government policies and frameworks that administered in the market to influence different business behaviors and activities. From this sense, the national government intervention captures a very spectrum of the various actions by the government on business behaviors and activities that take place in an economy. In a number of aspects according to Gritton (2003), the impact that results from the government interventions is positive. For example, in a competitive business environment, the law on competition is used as an intervention to ensure that the consumers are no subjected to practices that are considered harmful as a result of dominating the market powers by a few suppliers.
As identified earlier, there are a number of business behaviors and activities that the national governments intervene in and they include: management of subsidies and paying of taxes, changing consumer behaviors, creation of markets, public procurement, sustainability and ethical sourcing (Schrank 2003).
Aghion, P., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P. & Prantl, S., 2009, "The effects of entry on incumbent innovation and productivity," Open Access publications from University College London, http://discovery.ucl.ac.u.
Barrios, S. H. and Strobl, J 2001, “Explaining firms’ export behavior: the role of R&D and spillovers”, GEP Research Paper, No. 01/27, University of Nottingham.
Beardsley, S., and Farrell, D. 2005, ‘Regulation that’s good for competition’, The McKinsey Quarterly, 2005 no. 2
BERR 2008a ‘Competition Law: Issues which arise for business when the Government or lobby groups seek to encourage businesses to work together to deliver desired policy outcomes.’ www.berr.gov.uk/files/file45711.pdf
BERR 2008b, ‘Public Service Industry Review’, accessed on August 22nd 2013, available online: www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46965.pdf
Crafts, M. 2001, ‘TFP Growth in British and German Manufacturing industry, CEPR Discussion Papers 3078, 1950-96.
Gritton, P. 2003, “Toyota: surviving and thriving through supplier partnerships”, Global Automotive Conference Bowling Green, Kentucky, 8 April), Western Kentucky University.
Helm, D. 2006, ‘Regulatory Reform, Capture, and the Regulatory Burden’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 2006 22(2):169-185
Keller, W. and Yeaple, S. 2002, Multinational Enterprises, International Trade and Productivity Growth: Firm Level Evidence from the United States, Rhode Island, Brown University.
Konnings, J. 2001, “The effects of foreign direct investment on domestic firms: evidence from firm level panel data in emerging economies”, CEPR Discussion Paper, No. 2586.
OFT 2003, ‘The control of entry regulations and retail pharmacy services in the UK’, www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/comp_policy/oft609.pdf
OFT 2006, ‘More competition, less waste: Public procurement and competition in the municipal waste management sector’, accessed on August 22nd 2013, available online:
OFT 2007, ‘Guidance on how to assess the competition effects of subsidies’, accessed on August 21st 2013, available online:
Schrank, A. 2003, “Luring, learning and lobbying: the limits to capital mobility in the Dominican Republic”, Studiesin Comparative International Development, vol. 37, No. 4.
Walsh, J. & Zhu, Y. 2007. ‘Local Complexities and Global Uncertainties: A Study of Foreign Ownership and Human Resource Management in China’. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18-2, 49-267.