Hello Ayesha! Thank you this informative and interesting presentation. I have a question of a mere technical nature: You mention that for your research you located certain materials in the National Archives of Pakistan. When I consulted Pakistani colleagues some five years ago regarding the archives, I was told that literally nothing from 1947 onwards is available to scholars. Has this changed over the last few years?
This presentation really brings forward so many important issues related to state enterprises. You make it quite clear that the local population along the highway/fiber cable corridor doesn’t think the official visions of development will actually hold anything for their future. Are there competing visions of development coming from them? How are they expressed? Another question I was wondering about is whether from the viewpoint of the Pakistani official actors (military and government), is the relationship and cooperation with China here more a political or more an economic and business affair? i.e. does China appear more as a private or a state stakeholder?
Just re-voicing my admiration for the multi-layered paper. What’s fascinating is not only the different appearances of the state, is that we have the possibility of thinking of the state not only as a private stakeholder, but also as part of ostensibly “multinational” enterprises.
Thanks for this very illuminating paper on the new manifestation of the ‘state’ in MNEs. As mentioned above by Glenda, we are observing the Chinese state globally in business operations generally performed by private enterprise in the free liberal democratic world. Are we now forced to think about ‘state-owned enterprises’ as the ‘new normal’? This has significant implications for the developments around SOEs in Africa.
Dear Ayesha, very illustrative inclusion also of challenges to the monolithic state cooperation with an international partner – both technical challenges (infrastructure is most visible when it breaks down) and local opposition – if I understand correctly.
Hello Ayesha! Thank you this informative and interesting presentation. I have a question of a mere technical nature: You mention that for your research you located certain materials in the National Archives of Pakistan. When I consulted Pakistani colleagues some five years ago regarding the archives, I was told that literally nothing from 1947 onwards is available to scholars. Has this changed over the last few years?
This presentation really brings forward so many important issues related to state enterprises. You make it quite clear that the local population along the highway/fiber cable corridor doesn’t think the official visions of development will actually hold anything for their future. Are there competing visions of development coming from them? How are they expressed? Another question I was wondering about is whether from the viewpoint of the Pakistani official actors (military and government), is the relationship and cooperation with China here more a political or more an economic and business affair? i.e. does China appear more as a private or a state stakeholder?
Just re-voicing my admiration for the multi-layered paper. What’s fascinating is not only the different appearances of the state, is that we have the possibility of thinking of the state not only as a private stakeholder, but also as part of ostensibly “multinational” enterprises.
Thanks for this very illuminating paper on the new manifestation of the ‘state’ in MNEs. As mentioned above by Glenda, we are observing the Chinese state globally in business operations generally performed by private enterprise in the free liberal democratic world. Are we now forced to think about ‘state-owned enterprises’ as the ‘new normal’? This has significant implications for the developments around SOEs in Africa.
Dear Ayesha, very illustrative inclusion also of challenges to the monolithic state cooperation with an international partner – both technical challenges (infrastructure is most visible when it breaks down) and local opposition – if I understand correctly.
Looking forward to the discussion,
Annette