Modern multinationals avoid the high cost and risk of securing foreign markets themselves. Instead, they 'draft' behind the U.S. government, which uses its diplomatic and military power to create favorable conditions. This effectively socializes geopolitical risk for corporations while they privatize the profits.

Related Insights

When governments become top shareholders, corporate focus shifts from pleasing customers to securing political favor and appropriations. R&D budgets are reallocated to lobbying, and market competition devolves from building the best product to playing the policy game most effectively, strangling innovation.

A board member's role includes flagging strategic risks, including geopolitical exposure that could drastically limit future acquirers or prevent an IPO. Advising a CEO to relocate teams from a high-risk country is not operational meddling, but a core governance duty.

Luckey argues that US foreign policy is shifting away from direct military intervention. The new, more effective strategy is to arm allies, turning them into "prickly porcupines" that are difficult to attack. This approach maintains US influence and economic benefits while avoiding the political and human cost of deploying troops.

Twenty years ago, globalization and open markets (geopolitical tailwinds) created new opportunities for businesses. Today, rising nationalism, trade barriers, and security concerns act as headwinds, creating obstacles and increasing the complexity of international operations.

In a world of aging, export-dependent economies like China and Korea, the U.S. is the only large, first-world nation that is a net consumer. This makes access to its market an incredibly powerful negotiating tactic, allowing the U.S. to leverage its consumer base as a tool of foreign policy.

In Russia, nominally private companies like Gazprom function as direct extensions of the state. Their international investments are designed not just for profit but to achieve geopolitical goals, creating a system where foreign policy, business interests, and the personal wealth of the ruling class are completely inseparable.

After WWII, the U.S. used its naval dominance to guarantee global trade. In exchange for writing its allies' security policies, it allowed open access to its market. This economic "unfairness" was the strategic cost of building a global coalition against the Soviet Union, effectively bribing nations into an alliance.

Geopolitical shifts mean a company's country of origin heavily influences its market access and tariff burdens. This "corporate nationality" creates an uneven playing field, where a business's location can instantly become a massive advantage or liability compared to competitors.

Anne Applebaum highlights a disturbing shift where high-stakes foreign policy, like the Ukraine peace plan, is conducted by businesspeople seeking personal financial gain. This mirrors the kleptocratic systems of autocratic states, prioritizing private profit over national or allied interests, and raises questions about who American foreign policy truly serves.

Large corporations can afford lobbyists and consultants to navigate geopolitical shifts, but their size makes strategic pivots notoriously difficult. This creates opportunities for agile startups and SMEs, which can adapt their strategies and organizations much faster to the changing landscape.

Corporations 'Draft' Off U.S. Foreign Policy to Outsource Geopolitical Risk | RiffOn