• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Stefano Marcuzzi",
    "Alessio Terzi"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "EU",
    "Economy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Europe

Are Multinationals Eclipsing Nation-States?

In the absence of government action to address today’s most pressing global problems, multinational corporations are stepping up to offer their own solutions.

Link Copied
By Stefano Marcuzzi and Alessio Terzi
Published on Feb 1, 2019

Source: Project Syndicate

When much of the world’s business elite gathered in the Swiss mountain resort of Davos in late January 2019, the assembled CEOs, hedge fund managers, and other business titans pontificated on many issues, except one: the extent to which they are wielding powers once reserved for governments. At a time when the capacity of governments to deliver for their constituents is shrinking, large corporations’ political clout is expanding, sometimes dramatically so, as in the case of Big Tech companies like Facebook and Google.

In the face of today’s most urgent challenges – including cybersecurity, climate change, geopolitical turmoil, and migration – nation-states seem incapable of marshalling both the will and the resources to mount an adequate response. Will big business be the solution, or is it part of the problem?

Consider the issue of election security. In response to the growing threat of foreign interference, Google recently unveiled a plan to prevent online meddling with the upcoming European Parliament elections. To compensate for the absence of an EU framework governing the process, the company announced that it was ‘creating a pan-European policy’ of its own. Likewise, Facebook and Twitter used last November’s midterm elections in the United States to test new technologies for detecting and removing fake news and misinformation from their platforms.

In each case, the tech giants were responding to public demands. Within the confines of their increasingly influential platforms, leading social-media companies are now expected to act as all three branches of government. In addition to setting their own guidelines for behaviour online, they also oversee the enforcement of those rules and impose sentences – temporary suspensions, permanent bans, and so forth – on users who are found to be in violation.

These are hardly the only examples of multinational corporations designing and enforcing their own public policies. Microsoft recently pledged USD 500 million to expand the availability of affordable housing in Seattle, which would generally be the job of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and other public agencies, both state and federal. And at the Paris Peace Forum last November, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and other tech giants joined 50 governments in signing a new multilateral cybersecurity agreement. Notably absent were the governments of the US, Russia, and China.

Read Full Text

This article was originally published by © Project Syndicate.

About the Authors

Stefano Marcuzzi

Former Visiting researcher, Carnegie Europe

Marcuzzi was a visiting researcher at Carnegie Europe, where he focused on EU-NATO cooperation, in particular on the Mediterranean and Libya.

Alessio Terzi

Alessio Terzi, a Visiting Fulbright Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government between 2016-2018, is a former Affiliate Fellow at Bruegel.

Authors

Stefano Marcuzzi
Former Visiting researcher, Carnegie Europe
Alessio Terzi

Alessio Terzi, a Visiting Fulbright Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government between 2016-2018, is a former Affiliate Fellow at Bruegel.

EUEconomyEurope

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Moldova Floats a New Approach to Its Transnistria Conundrum

    Moldova’s reintegration plan was drawn up to demonstrate to Brussels that Chișinău is serious about the Transnistria issue—and to get the West to react.

      Vladimir Solovyov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Does Russia Have Enough Soldiers to Keep Waging War Against Ukraine?

    The Russian army is not currently struggling to recruit new contract soldiers, though the number of people willing to go to war for money is dwindling.

      Dmitry Kuznets

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Lithuania’s Potash Dilemma Raises Questions About Sanctions’ Effectiveness

    What should happen when sanctions designed to weaken the Belarusian regime end up enriching and strengthening the Kremlin?  

      Denis Kishinevsky

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is There Really a Threat From China and Russia in Greenland?

    The supposed threats from China and Russia pose far less of a danger to both Greenland and the Arctic than the prospect of an unscrupulous takeover of the island.

      Andrei Dagaev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Ukrainian Villages Are a Bigger Prize for Putin Than a Deal With Trump

    Western negotiators often believe territory is just a bargaining chip when it comes to peace in Ukraine, but Putin is obsessed with empire-building. 

      Andrey Pertsev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.