This study examines how changing state activism has influenced the internationalization of Czech and Hungarian MNEs after the global financial crisis. Identifying four key channels – state ownership, business and regulatory environment, industrial policies, and 'quiet politics' – we note distinctions in state-business relationships and characteristics of multinationals between the two countries. Hungary experiences a surge in state activism, while Czechia faces relative stagnation with occasional setbacks. Over time, the industrial policy and quiet politics channels have become increasingly important. This is reflected in changes among the top Hungarian multinationals, with new entrants and new owners of existing ones, while no significant changes are observed among Czech MNEs. The study introduces the concept of 'defensive internationalization' as a response to an unstable business and political environment, showcasing long-lasting impact on the location of headquarters. The increasing role of industrial policies and new EU programs may enhance the state’s influence on MNEs, yet they also raise concerns about corruption and public fund diversion.
AntalóczyKSassM (2018) The internationalisation of Richter Gedeon, the Hungarian pharmaceutical company, and entrepreneurhip in Hungary. In: TõnisMArnisSDanicaP (eds.) Entrepreneurship in Central and Eastern Europe : Development through InternationalizationLondon: Routledge, 159–176.
4.
AvlijasSMedicPUdovickiK (2023) Reconfiguring FDI dependency: SMEs as emerging stakeholders in an advanced peripheral export-led growth mode. Competition & Change. doi: 10.1177/10245294231209277, In press.
5.
AykutDSanghiAKosmidouG (2017) What to Do when Foreign Direct Investment Is Not Direct or Foreign: FDI Round Tripping. The World Bank.
6.
BeblavýMKurekováLM (2014) Into the first League: the competitive advantage of the antivirus industry in the Czech Republic and Slovakia18(5): 421–437.
7.
Becker-RitterspachFAALangeKSGAllenMMC (2022) Dominant modes of economic coordination and varieties of firm internationalisation support. International Business Review31: 42.
8.
BohleDGreskovitsB (2019) Politicising embedded neoliberalism: continuity and change in Hungary’s development model. West European Politics42(5): 1069–1093. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2018.1511958.
BrutonGDPengMWAhlstromD, et al. (2015) State-owned enterprises around the WORLD as hybrid Organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives29(1): 92–114.
13.
BuckleyPJTianX (2017) Internalization theory and the performance of emerging-market multinational enterprises. International Business Review26(5): 976–990.
14.
BulfoneF (2023) Industrial policy and comparative political economy: a literature review and research agenda. Competition & Change27(1): 22–43.
15.
BulfoneFErgenTKalaitzakeM (2023) No strings attached: corporate welfare, state intervention, and the issue of conditionality. Competition & Change27(2): 253–276.
16.
BuzádyZ (2010) The emergence of a CEE-regional multinational — A narrative of the MOL Group plc.Journal of East European Management Studies15(1): 59–76.
17.
CantwellJDunningJHLundanSM (2010) An evolutionary approach to understanding international business activity: the co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment. Journal of International Business Studies41(4): 567–586.
18.
Carballo-PerezACorinaM (2024) Foreign direct investment in the context of rising populism: the role of institutions and firm‐level internationalization. Global Strategy Journal14: 84–115.
ColliAMariottiSPiscitelloL (2013) Governments as strategists in designing global players: the case of European utilities. Journal of European Public Policy21(4): 487–508. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2013.861764.
22.
Cuervo-CazzuraAInkpenAMusacchioA, et al. (2014) Governments as owners: state-owned multinational companies. Journal of International Business Studies45: 919–942.
23.
CulpepperPD (2010) Quiet Politics and Business Power: Corporate Control in Europe and Japan. Cambridge University Press.
24.
De CastroTStuchlikováZ (2014) China-V4 Trade Relations – A Czech Perspective. In: MRÁZ, Stanislav, BROCKOVÁ, Katarína (ed.).Current Trends and Perspectives in Development of China-V4 Trade and Investment. Bratislava, 12.03.2014 – 14.03.2014. Bratislava46–60.
25.
DeweyMDi CarloD (2022) Governing through non-enforcement: Regulatory forbearance as industrial policy in advanced economies. Regulation & Governance16(3): 930–951. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12382.
26.
DosiG (2016) Beyond the ‘magic of the market’: the slow return of industrial policy (but not yet in Italy). Economia e Politica Industriale43(3): 261–264.
27.
DuanmuJ-L (2014) A race to lower standards? Labor standards and location choice of outward FDI from the BRIC countries. International Business Review23(3): 620–634.
28.
DunningJHLundanSM (2008) Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
29.
DunningJHNarulaR (1996) The investment development path revisited: some emerging issues. In: DunningJHNarulaR (eds) Foreign Direct Investment and Governments: Catalysts for Economic Restructuring. London: Routledge, 1–41.
30.
EstrinSMeyerKENielsenBB, et al. (2016) Home country institutions and the internationalization of state owned enterprises: a cross-country analysis. Journal of World Business51(2): 294–307.
FürstRTesařF (2013) China’s Comeback in former Eastern Europe: No longer Comrades. In: Not yet Strategic Partners. Prague: Institute of International Relations.
33.
GalgócziB (1998) Privatisation in Hungary. SEER. Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe1(1): 27–40.
34.
GermannJ (2023) Global rivalries, corporate interests and Germany’s ‘National Industrial Strategy 2030. Review of International Political Economy30(5): 1749–1775. DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2022.2130958.
35.
GreskovitsB (2015) The Hollowing and backsliding of democracy in East central Europe. Global Politics6(S1): 28–37.
36.
HanleySVachudovaMA (2018) Understanding the illiberal turn: democratic backsliding in the Czech Republic. East European Politics34(3): 276–296. DOI: 10.1080/21599165.2018.1493457.
37.
HennartJF (2012) Emerging market multinationals and the theory of the multinational enterprise. Global Strategy Journal2(3): 168–187.
38.
HolcombeRG (2015) Political capitalism. Cato Journal35(1): 41–66.
39.
HongJWangCKafourosM (2015) The role of the state in Explaining the internationalization of emerging market enterprises. British Journal of Management26: 45–62.
40.
HoskissonREWrightMFilatotchevI, et al. (2013) Emerging multinationals from mid-Range economies: the influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies50(7): 1295–1321.
41.
InczeE (2013) A hazai védekezőtől a regionális „támadóig” – az OTP nemzetköziesedésének időbeni alakulása (From the domestic defender to the regional striker – a timebased process of the OTP Bank’s internationalization). Vezetéstudomány44(3): 2–15.
42.
InnesA (2014) The political economy of state capture in central Europe. Journal of Communication and Media Studies: Journal of Common Market Studies52(1): 88–104.
43.
JustinekG (2023) State of economic play: European Union and economic diplomacy. International Journal of Diplomacy and Economy1(1): 81–92.
KalotayK (2010) The political aspect of foreign direct investment: the case of the Hungarian oil firm MOL. The Journal of World Investment & Trade11(1): 79–90.
46.
KalotayK (2012) Indirect FDI. The Journal of World Investment & Trade13(4): 542–555.
47.
KalotayK (2018) State-owned multinationals: an emerging market phenomenon?The Journal of Comparative Economic Studies1(13): 13–37.
Kovács-AngelM (2020) Százmilliós támogatásokkal segíti az állam Mészáros rokonságát és Orbán páholytársát (The state helps Mészáros' relatives and Orbán's cousin with hundreds of millions of euros) 24.hu. 2020, 3rd January, available athttps://24.hu/fn/gazdasag/2020/01/03/epitoipar-tamogatas-itm/. Last accessed 18/11/2024.
LandesmannMStöllingerR (2019) Structural change, trade and global production networks: An ‘appropriate industrial policy’ for peripheral and catching-up economies. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics48: 7–23.
54.
LuoYvan AsscheA (2023) The rise of techno-geopolitical uncertainty: implications of the United States CHIPS and Science Act. Journal of International Business Studies54: 1–18.
55.
LuoYXueQHanB (2010) How emerging market governments promote outward FDI: Experience from China. Journal of World Business45(1): 68–79.
56.
MariottiSMarzanoR (2019) Varieties of capitalism and the internationalization of state-owned enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies50: 669–691.
MuraLFóthyN (2022) An evaluation of Visegrad group business environment. Littera Scripta15(1): 125–141.
59.
MuraközyBBisztrayMReizerB (2018) Productivity Differences in Hungary and Mechanisms of TFP Growth Slowdown Luxembourg City. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union, 190.
60.
MyantM (2018) Dependent capitalism and the middle-income trap in Europe na East central Europe. Journal of Management and Economics54(4): 291–303.
61.
MyantMDrahokoupilJ (2013) Tranzitivní Ekonomiky: Politická Ekonomie Ruska, Východní Evropy a Střední Asie. Academia.
62.
NaczykM (2022) Taking back control: Comprador Bankers and Managerial developmentalism in Poland. Review of International Political Economy29(5): 1650–1674. DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2021.1924831.
63.
NölkeA (ed) (2014) Multinational Corporations from Emerging Markets: State Capitalism 3.0. Springer.
64.
NölkeAVliegenthartA (2009) Enlarging the varieties of capitalism: the emergence of dependent market economies in East-Central Europe. World Politics61(4): 670–702.
65.
OberfrankB (2023) Fafeldolgozástól az űriparig: hogy jutott a 4iG a NER, majd a Vodafone közelébe? (From wood processing to the space industry: how did 4iG get close to NER and then Vodafone?); Forbes, 2023, 13January, https://forbes.hu/uzlet/4ig-tortenet-felvasarlasok-tavkozles-vodafone/. Last accessed 18/11/2024.
66.
OblathGPalóczÉ (2020) Gazdasági növekedés, fogyasztás és megtakarítás Magyarországon az elmúlt évtizedben (Economic growth, consumption and savings in Hungary in the last decade). In Társadalmi Riport 2020. TÁRKI Társadalomkutatási Intézet Zrt. Budapest, 39–59.
67.
OECD (1995) Trends and Policies in Privatisation. Paris: OECD.
68.
PedersenTTallmanS (2022) Global strategy Collections: emerging market multinational enterprises. Global Strategy Journal12(2): 199–208.
69.
PenederM (2017) Competitiveness and industrial policy: from rationalities of failure towards the ability to evolve. Cambridge Journal of Economics41(3): 829–858.
70.
PengMW (2012) The global strategy of emerging multinationals from China. Global Strategy Journal2(2): 97–107.
RohacD (2021) Transitions, populism, and democratic decline: evidence from Hungary and the Czech Republic. European Politics and Society24(2): 169–187.
76.
RugmanAM (2009). Rugman reviews international business. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
77.
RugraffE (2010) Strengths and weaknesses of the outward FDI paths of the Central European countries. Post-communist Economies22(1): 1–17.
78.
SallaiDSchnyderG (2021) What is “authoritarian” about authoritarian capitalism? The dual erosion of the private–public divide in state-dominated business systems. Business & Society60(6): 1312–1348.
79.
SassM (2021) Multinationals from post-socialist countries: how large their foreign investments can Be? In: AndreffW (ed) Comparative Economic Studies in Europe : A Thirty Year Review. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 227–248.
80.
SassMKovácsO (2013) A Snapshot of the Leading Hungarian Multinationals. An ICEG EC Research Report, Emerging Market Global Players Project Led by Columbia University, the Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment. ICEG EC Budapest.
81.
SassMVlčkováJ (2019) Just look behind the data! Czech and Hungarian outward foreign direct investment and multinationals. Acta Oeconomica69(S2): 73–105.
82.
SassMAntalóczyKÉltetőA (2012) Emerging multinationals and the role of virtual indirect investors: the case of Hungary Eastern European Economics50(2): 41–58.
83.
SchedelikMNölkeAMertensD, et al. (2021) Comparative capitalism, growth models and emerging markets: the development of the Field. New Political Economy26(4): 514–526.
84.
ScheiringG (2019) Dependent development and authoritarian state capitalism: democratic backsliding and the rise of the accumulative state in Hungary. Geoforum124: 267–278. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.08.011.
85.
SchnyderGSallaiD (2020) Between a rock and a hard place: Internal-and external institutional fit of MNE subsidiary political strategy in contexts of institutional upheaval. Journal of International Management26(2): 100736. DOI: 10.1016/j.intman.2020.100736.
86.
SebőkMSimonsJ (2022) How Orbán won? Neoliberal disenchantment and the grand strategy of financial nationalism to reconstruct capitalism and regain autonomy. Socio-Economic Review20(4): 1625–1651.
87.
SutelaP (1998) Privatization in the Countries of Eastern and Central Europe and of the Former Soviet Union. Helsinki: UNU Wider. UNU Wider Working Paper No. 146.
88.
SzabóJFabókM (2020) Infrastructures and state-building: comparing the energy politics of the European Commission with the governments of Hungary and Poland. Energy Policy138: 111253. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111253.
89.
SzalavetzA (2015) Post-crisis approaches to state intervention: new developmentalism or industrial policy as usual?Competition and Change19(1): 70–83.
90.
SzanyiM (2023) The emergence of patronage and changing forms of rent-seeking in East Central Europe. Post-communist Economies34(1): 122–141.
91.
Szent-IványiB (2017) Investment promotion in the Visegrad four countries: post-FDI challenges. GalgocziBDrahokoupilJ (eds.) Condemned to Be Left behind? Can Central and Eastern Europe Emerge from its Low-Wage Model?Brussels, Belgium: European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) pp. 171–187.
TóthIJ (2022) Corruption risk and the crony system in Hungary. A brief analysis of EU funded contracts in Hungarian public procurement 2005-2021. CRCB Research Notes: 2022:3, Budapest: CRCB.
ValaskovaKGajdosikovaDPavic KramaricT (2022) How important is the business environment for the performance of enterprises? Case study of selected European countries. Central European Business Review11(4): 85–110.
VoszkaÉ (2018) Nationalisation in Hungary in the post-crisis Years: a specific twist on a European trend?Europe-Asia Studies70(8): 1281–1302.
99.
WilliamsAMBalazV (1999) Privatisation in Central Europe: different legacies, methods, and outcomes. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy17: 731–751.
WrightMWoodGMusacchiA, et al. (2021) State capitalism in international context: varieties and variations. Journal of World Business56(2): 7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101160.
102.
ZavarskáZBykovaAGrievesonR, et al. (2023) Industrial policy for a new growth model: a toolbox for EU-CEE countries (No. 469). Wiiw Research Report.
103.
ZohlnhöferREnglerFDümigK (2018) The retreat of the interventionist state in advanced democracies. British Journal of Political Science48(2): 535–562.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
