The major issue that the human race faces on the global scale in today's world is the distribution of wealth, and how to better spread out the available economic resources to prevent starvation, disease, and civil war in regions devoid of infrastructure to compete in the global market. This is due to the fact that everything produced, whether it is malaria vaccines, food, or even clean water, is a good made for profit. Therefore, when experts argue over the best way to develop the impoverished regions of the world it often ends with the same conclusion, these regions need more business in order for the people living there to live like many western civilizations. However, while business may be the answer to the issue in a certain light it can also inflame the issue when corruption enters the picture in these economic models. These third world nations, which often have the most plentiful natural resources that the developed world relies on, usually also, have the least powerful and most corrupted governments that give no thought about the people whom they govern. These governments will let multinational corporations establish their presence in poor areas with resources and cheap labor available in exchange for hidden deals / bribes with political leaders. One example of this can be seen in the nation of Papua New Guinea with Exxon where top government officials have been bribed in exchange for lands which are owned by the native people, but on paper could be signed away for oil drilling. These conflicts of morals held by our political and economic leaders have sparked the debate for whether or not we should have a system of Laizze Faire (hands off) economic policies with overseas trade or more of a socialist, regulated model. The argument for keeping government out of business is that in a capitalist market it is survival of the fittest, and our nation's businesses need to expand in order to keep money flowing into our country. People on this side of the argument also believe that government red tape will ultimately prevent business growth and kill motivation for entrepreneurship. The argument against unregulated economic systems in favor of socialist policies is that businesses will inevitably keep expanding by whatever means necessary and they cannot be trusted, therefore we must have red tape in place to prevent corruption from working its way into economies with government regulation. My approach is somewhere in the middle to dealing with the issue of "Third World Multi-Nationals" or companies that take advantage of poor regions of the planet, and that is by attacking specifically the harsh/unregulated contracts that are established with the defenseless impoverished populations through business, specifically through corporate law firms. According to Harvard's school of business, there are four tiers to international business according to who is buying the products and at what price. The top tier is sold to only the wealthiest populations in the world, and is the tier that only the large international corporations can produce cheap enough to handle the transportation and marketing to sell to. The next level is made up of the populations that live in semi-established countries, such as India and China, which can afford quality goods but are not up to the standards of the most powerful nations such as the United States and many Western European countries. The third tier is made up of management level buyers in underdeveloped regions of the world, who can afford semi-quality goods or at least more than those living around them in third world countries. Finally, the fourth tier is made up of a majority of the world's population which lives below the poverty line, who can afford only what is the very cheapest and can be provided for them. Often the grassroots businesses in the economically developing regions of the world can only afford to sell to the lower tiers and sometimes, if they are very successful, the second highest tier. This is mainly due to the fact that these countries have little to no infrastructure (due to poor or corrupted governments) and businesses have no way to move their goods into the flourishing markets of the world, and lack the expertise necessary to market their goods properly. Unfortunately, a majority of the world's money and resources (that the developing countries desperately need) rests in the hands of the few, but wealthy, top tier. So to me it makes more sense that goods should be sold from grass-roots firms in third world countries to the economic giants through their only means to do so, large multinational corporations, but under expert legal representation and the utilization of unions (as was done in the United States during the industrial revolution).

I personally take a major interest in this subject as I have always wondered the question of "why did I deserve to be born in the United States, but other kids are born into immediate violence and poverty?" The answer to which is I never "deserved" anything, I happened to hit the jackpot by being born into a nation which went through our industrial revolution over a century ago and has developed accordingly since then, far above the rest of the world. With this experience in negotiating, the United States has been able to remain hegemonic on the world stage, often at the expense of others. It is my belief that the only hope these poor nations have to compete in the international marketplace is through expert advice from educated members of the countries who have been bleeding them for resources, and it is what I hope to work in when I am older if I can get into law school so that I can specialize in corporate law. My experience with this subject has only consisted of personal research, and my attendance to a seminar for international relations at American University in Washington D.C. At this seminar, I was shown a film of how terrible life is in third world countries on a day to day basis and my attention has stayed on the subject ever since. However, I am only qualified to write about this purely because I am a student assigned to the subject. 

The first article that I used to research my project is "Emerging Giants: Building World-Class Companies in Developing Countries" written by members of Harvard's Business Review. The major claim to this article is what I briefly summarized earlier in this essay, relating multinational corporations to the four tiers of buyers in the world and how the firms which are started in developing countries cannot access the highest tiers for profit due to a lack of infrastructure and expertise in international marketing. It also goes on to discuss how contracts made by start-up businesses in these weak nations can make decent money by selling to elite members of nearby countries at lower prices than competitors. This is a credible source due to the fact that it is based purely on research and data, which can be interpreted as biased or unbiased, and because employees at what is typically ranked as one of the best schools in the world wrote the article.

My second article, "Human Rights Clinic Exposes Corrupt Oil, Mining Contracts" was written by Paul Wachter, a staff member of Columbia Law School. This article focuses mainly on the concept that large companies have made contracts with the corrupted governments of impoverished, but resource packed, nations behind closed doors. It goes on to discuss how such contracts should legally be made public but are protected by the corrupted public officials that run the political systems of third world countries so that these political figures can continue to receive bribes without the world's attention. This article was written with a definite bias against large corporations who secretly contract with dictators, however it is a credible source nonetheless as it was written through expert testimony by a professor at one of the leading law schools in the world.

My third source comes from an article written by Texas Tech's professor Benjamin Powell, "The Anti-Sweatshop Movement." This article focused mainly on the historical development of sweatshops in developing areas of the world, and how many of the western economic giants today have gone through a similar stage of extreme wealth inequality and harsh labor policies at one time. It goes on to talk about how the United States once dealt with such injustices, but political movements eventually forced large companies out to find cheap labor and resources elsewhere in the world. This article is written again with a definite bias against large companies however it remains credible due to the fact that Benjamin Powell is renown as one of the leading researchers of these international issues. 

My research topic is arguable in that there are many ways of how to deal with economic inequality in the world, but nearly every political system in the world cannot come to a definite conclusion for solving the issue. It is the argument of whether or not businesses should be interfered with by policies created by government officials, or whether businesses should be allowed to expand naturally as they can so that economies will grow rather than redistribute wealth. I can revise my research topic by specifying how contracts are able to avoid the public eye, and how they are written to sound advantageous to poor populations when in reality the rhetoric is being used to hide the true intentions of companies.
