The role of state ownership and home government political support in Russian multinationals’ internationalization

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to look into state ownership and political support as two factors that influence the process of internationalization of Russian MNEs. Design/methodology/approach The authors observe the theory and empirical evidence behind the phenomenon. Findings The authors find that state ownership and governmental political support are two mechanisms of the transformation of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to MNEs in Russia. Originality/value The topic is not covered sufficiently in the literature. The paper is based on the recent findings by the paper co-authors.

Spatial Differentiation of Variegated Capitalisms: A Comparative Analysis of Russian and Australian Oil and Gas Corporate City Networks

“…Internationally, Russian NOCs and private firms concentrate activity in a limited set of cities in countries that are strategic to the Russian state, many of which are either current or exsocialist nations, or form the geopolitical pivot of Eurasia, much as Mackinder and his contemporaries have described conceptualizing Russia's geopolitical identity based on the Eurasian continentality (Bassin and Aksenov 2006). This signals that firms capitalize on the transboundary connections of the state or reinforce state activity abroad (Panibratov and Michailova 2019). Moreover, our network shows strong links to Cyprus, and connections exist with the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, and the Isle of Man as prominent THOFCs.…”

“…Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, such locations have become important for companies and individuals wishing to avoid public and government scrutiny of profits and use opportunities of round-tripping (Ledyaeva et al 2015). The current networks also depict the relative insularity of the Russian energy sector for foreign firms because of recent international sanctions (Vatansever 2020) and the increasingly strategic nature of oil and gas projects, too sensitive to be controlled by foreign actors (Panibratov and Michailova 2019). This finding is not surprising because in Russia state control over resources, the companies that handle them, resource-rich territories, and revenues has been increasingly crucial for the maintenance and exercise of state power (Charokopos and Dagoumas 2018).…”

“…The reach of large Russian companies also expanded into international upstream production and downstream ventures. The Russian government encouraged Lukoil to invest in the Kazakhstan oil fields (Panibratov and Michailova 2019). Projects in Iraq (the West Qurna Phase 2) and Syria (the South Kishma oil field) were developed by Lukoil and Tatneft after negotiations between the respective governments with Russia (Kuznetsov 2016).…”

Russian Multinational Direct Investment in East Central European Countries

“…Good diplomatic relations can be used when expanding abroad. A strong but 'grey' tool is international lobbyism for a company (Panibratov and Michailova 2019). Finally, state ownership can offer a kind of guarantee when participating in a risky project and during a crisis.…”

Implementing a Sustainable Model for Anti-Money Laundering in the United Nations Development Goals

“…The threat of money laundering is underlined by De Koker and Turkington [45], and by Panibratov and Michailova [46]. Money laundering is one of the essential types of organizational pathologies that can be perceived through the prism of its impacts on the state, banking system, individual business, and individuals.…”