Chapter 1: Although forces in the foreign environment are the same as those in the domestic environment, they operate differently. Why is this so?
According to the text, the “forces have different values, forces can be difficult to assess, and the forces are interrelated” (Ball, D. A., International business: The challenge of global competition, pg.24). For example, the expo embargo on shipments off most goods to Cuba showed just how stiff the consequences can be for two or more entities who do not share the same values. This lack of compromise by both parties’ leads to less trade and even less communication as the sides continues to take a stance for what they believe is politically correct. Another barrier in domestic and foreign relations is the ability to assess the forces on both sides of the fence. For example, if a nationalistic law was passed in order to appeal to a specific group, other individuals from the outside looking in may look at the government as being in opposition of foreign investment. This clouded interpretation of the situation may trigger a political outcry, which can slow the process of change and prevent two foreign entities from trading with one another. The last factor or barrier between foreign and domestic environments is the interrelation of the forces. For example, the combination of high-cost capital and an abundance of unskilled labor in many developing countries may lead to the use of a lower level of technology than would be employed in a more industrialized nation. Other factors could geographical such as, re-routing a river, blasting a mountain side, building roads in the dessert, preservation of certain pieces of land, etc.

Reference:
Ball, D. A. (2010). International business: The challenge of global competition. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Chapter 3: Criticism of international institutions such as the UN or the EU often goes to sovereignty, the authority of the state to govern itself. The argument is that the institution violates the sovereignty of the nations. One of the counter-arguments to this assertion is that the benefits gained from joining the international institution can be positive and outweigh the sacrifice in sovereignty. Give an example of this counterargument, when the sacrifice of sovereignty is more than compensated for by the benefits gained from membership, drawing on institutions we have reviewed.
One of the main benefits that stands out to me on this particular issue is labor cost, and what it takes to put out a product that can compete within the market. It is all about comparative advantage, and knowing when to outsource certain services or goods that will help to stabilize economic conditions, and put the country in a position of growth rather than decline. For example, an underdeveloped or financially broken country may join the UN or EU to gain access to certain goods or services that would bring their country out of obscurity and into high state of illumination that would bring them up to speed with other developed countries. A good example of this would be the relationship the US has with the UN of outsourcing certain service jobs to the country for a cheaper rate, than employing less Americans at a higher wage rate. According to the text, labor in India “has a relatively low price due to the large Indian workforce, about 450 million, with nearly 10 million additional people entering the workforce each year” (Ball, D. A., International business: The challenge of global competition, pg. 74).

Reference:
Ball, D. A. (2010). International business: The challenge of global competition. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Chapter 4: Some societies view change differently than do Americans. What impact does this have on the way Americans operate in those areas?
My government instructor always told me that in order to have stronger laws or order, more freedom must be given up, and that the more freedom we have, the weaker our protection and laws are. This has proven to be true around the world as various political entities choose their side of having more freedom or more laws. For example, we as Americans are use to democracy and being able to have a hand in the decisions made by higher officials who oversee the welfare of this country. However, it begins to become a problem to Americans when we see a certain country behaving in a way that is oppressive or contrary to our beliefs. As a result, our awareness is heightened as we journey into unchartered territory to try and find some sort of common ground on a particular issue. In addition, different perceptions of change could make us come off as aggressive or in opposition of what is already in place with the foreign government, which could trigger wars and all out mayhem. The key to coming to a common ground is to study the political climate and figure out what took place in that country during times of change and how the government and people where able to be persuaded to open their minds to new ideas and processes.