Companies cannot thrive in failed states nor can they become global players.
Those that are relatively successful in a failed state cannot compete in global markets and their insignificant local success is bound by their ability to kowtow to their local governments.
Nonetheless, one should not ignore the fact that many global giants of today, despite them not being founded in failed states, have become such because of their relationships with their respective local governments and their state’s strong economic position in the global markets.
In today’s highly competitive markets, an innate monopoly, a wielder of a patented, well-protected, and inimitable proprietary technology, or a government contractor owning exclusive and never-ending business rights are players whose successes are surest.
Nevertheless, all such sure-to-succeed models, one way or another, are reliant on the very existence of governments and relationships with governments.
In this article, I will explain how companies with close ties to their respective governments thrive through these connections, providing real-world examples of innate monopolies, technology companies, and government contractors. I will elaborate on how these relationships impact the operations of the companies and why such companies succeed regardless of the political and economic system in the original country. I will also expand on why a shinise like Nintendo is an exception and the role of competition.
