Search

Introduction Efforts to maintain political neutrality and economic independence are some of the basic, historically rooted features of Swedish foreign trade policy. Although situated in a remote corner of Europe and rather small in terms of population, Sweden has developed into a technologically sophisticated industrial country, particularly since the Second World War. Compared to home market sales the volume of Swedish foreign trade, always relatively large and decisively important for economic growth, has increased proportionately as Sweden's economy, like that of other industrial nations, has gone through a prolonged process of concentration. To what extent the degree of concentration is comparable to that of other countries is hard to judge, as a comparative study of the development of Swedish enterprises along the lines drawn up by Professor Alfred D. Chandler, Jr, has yet to be made. Still lacking, too, is a modern history of the banking economy. However, these gaps should be filled before long. The purpose of this paper is to provide some insight into the interrelations between the Swedish export economy and the major powers. Sweden as a strategic component of the economies of the Great Powers Obviously, sustaining neutrality and independence involves special problems. Thus the lack of coal on the part of neutral states during the First World War enabled Britain to pursue a stiff price policy. Her coal exports served as an argument for depressing the prices of vital British imports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For an understanding of multinational enterprise it is necessary to include an analysis of international cartels. Between the wars they formed an important structural characteristic of the world economy. According to contemporary reckoning in the 1930s between 30% and 50% of world trade was controlled or influenced by international agreements or ‘loose associations’. Up until the early years after the Second World War they held the attention of scholars, journalists and politicians in the same manner as the multinational concerns have since the 1960s. And like the latter they have been judged in highly differing, or contradictory manners. International cartels performed a number of functions, which are fulfilled today by multinational enterprises. In individual cases an international cartel could even become a multinational concern; occasionally it is described as a ‘forerunner’ of multinational enterprise. International cartels are generally less stable and their resources more limited than those of multinational concerns or national cartels, although they can, as Alice Teichova has pointed out, react to changes swiftly and with flexibility, and represent a more effective instrument of economic penetration than direct investment. Mainly – although not always – large enterprises were the driving force in the formation of international cartels. They preferred, according to region and product, to secure the market by direct investment or an agreement with competitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]