We now draw together the strands of argument in preceding chapters to indicate the types of new questions we believe should be asked both by those who study international relations or international political economy and by those whose main concern is with corporate strategy and management. All our findings suggest that many of the conventional frameworks of analysis fail to deal adequately with the contemporary dynamism of change. The most common reason why they fail is that they do not take sufficiently into account either the broad structural changes in the global political economy, nor the highly differentiated conditions of individual states, where social, cultural and political forces often clash with economic imperatives. In looking at host-state/foreign firm relations we see governments typically perceiving themselves as caught between the upper millstone of structural change that forces them to compete for world market shares and the nether millstone of their dependence for survival both on foreign investors and on local political support. We also see foreign investors feeling caught between the same upper millstone of structural change and the nether one of the rooted resistance of third world governments to more accommodating policies.

In suggesting new questions to be asked, we also attempt to provide some advice for both governments and managers. That task is extraordinarily difficult, for there are few generalisations that hold up to scrutiny in particular circumstances. Advice that might be appropriate for Brazil may be wholly inappropriate for Kenya.