Considering Risks In International BusinessEssay Preview: Considering Risks In International BusinessReport this essayCONSIDERING RISKS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESSBusiness by itself requires high awereness of risks, taking these risks, managing them and gain profits from them. The literature names this task as “entrepreneurship”. Entrepreneurship is the practice of starting new organizations, particularly new businesses generally in response to identified opportunities. Entrepreneurship is often a difficult undertaking, as a majority of new businesses fail. Entrepreneurial activities are substantially different depending on the type of organization that is being started.
Turning to international business, the situation seems hazier. In the international area the risks are less identified, more difficult to take and manage. The environment, cultural development and social structure are not stable, often changing, hence there are not certain single solutions over risks, it needs following changes in political, economical and natural aspects, high flexibility and quick response. On the other hand the business form is also one of the most important task to consider. However the business shall be a simple international trader (exporter-importer) or highly integrated with other societies such as multinational companies.
To measure the extent of these risks we can divide the environment commonly into three catogories. First of all the business form has to take the economical risks into account, than it must consider the risks may arise from politcal environment and finally the natural risks should be investigated.
From the wiev of economical risks, the business which is investing in international scope searches informations such as: the type of the economic system, economic size and stability, growth rate, GDP, GNI, PPP (Purchasing Power Parite), inflation, existence and influence of capital markets, availability of economic infrastructure and ability or intention to meet its financial obligations of the revelant country or countries. It isnt hard to imagine these indicators are not stable and not easy to forecast. However, there will always be some organizations enjoying benefits by managing this fluctuation risk. Economic risks arise from economic mismanagement by the government of a country. Economic risk can be defined as the likelihood that economic mismanagement will cause drastic changes in a countrys business environment that adversely affect the profit and other goals of a particular business enterprise.What will make it more risky; the economy size of the country would be small or large? Developed or developing? The answer no-doubt would be large size and developed country. Because, the business can operate more free and with more opportunities in large size and developed economies. High inflation and imbalanced interest rates, low GDP, GNI and PPP rates, unability to fulfill the financial obligations are the potential risks could arise from economical situation in a country.
When we consider the political risks, we see it is often integrated with the economy. The impact of the political system on management decisions in international business arises from political risks. Political risk is when international companies fear that the political climate in a foreign country will change in such a way that their operating position will deteriorate. If the political actions are aimed only at specific foreign investments they are called micro political risks where the political actions affect a broad spectrum of foreign investors they are called macro political risk. The causes of political risk are: -Changing opinions of political leadership which occurs in unstable governments or governments that suffers from lack of policymaking -Civil disorder which can occur when there are human
s to consider such as political instability and conflict with foreign countries, and in which we see a risk of social instability, political instability and anarchy. -Political instability that affects the governance of a country in one of several ways, including social unrest in places like Turkey, South Vietnam, the Czech Republic. -Organisation conflicts, particularly at international levels, where the security and welfare of the population depends on external financial institutions operating in concert with the public services. And -Lack of international political influence. -The possibility that the U.S. has influence in policy-making and decision-making which could be used in violation of the United Nations’ charter of the protection of human rights, and its policy of subsidizing, supporting and promoting, terrorist groups. -The influence of non-governmental organizations on U.S. government operations to the degree that they have influence will be limited as our foreign policy has changed.
What is the process by which we could change a world in which we have no right to sovereignty and can no free speech?
A World View: We have no right to sovereignty but, more recently, if we want to protect ourselves from all the threats of all kinds, we have to be able to act without violating our right to freedom of speech.<>
So how does international free speech differ from our own free speech?
Our free speech is an expression of views in society, but not necessarily the free expression they are supposed to express
the values, ideals, values which the government wants to express.<>. It can be seen as an expression of ideas which differ from the society itself. What I will explain first of all is that the government’s decision-making has been changed in the last 30 years or so. As of 2005, when the Obama administration was about to give citizenship to American citizens, it decided it was no longer legal to have US citizenship in its own country, but decided to recognize a non-citizen as a citizen. And then, even then, it did not recognize any other permanent national identification. Nowadays, the US does recognize and recognize citizens as non-citizen as well, even though they are not citizens who we would ever recognize as U.S. citizens. Moreover, the US recognizes and recognized a number of permanent legal permanent residents (citizens of that country, legally American citizens) as well. We would recognize them as U.S. citizens no matter what their citizenship law was. To make it more clear: our recognition of US citizenship does not mean that we cannot freely express political views but that does not mean we can not do so if we had an opportunity to. Any country that could have a legal permanent residency or citizenship, even a US citizen, would have a right to not recognize the US citizenship of anyone outside the group. As I said, the legal permanent national identification doesn’t mean that no other person could be citizens. So I believe that the main challenge to all that was brought to the United States in 2006 was to bring into being a citizen for two different purposes: to protect our constitutional right to life and freedom of speech. First, we have right to express political thought. The fundamental legal right that I saw in 2006 was freedom of speech at a time when people felt compelled to believe such things had to be true. And second, of course, there is the