Since its publication in 1990, Michael Porter's book The Competitive Advantage of Nations has attracted much consideration. The main analytical tool of the book is the diamond of competitive advantage (figure 1). This model is based on four country specific "determinants" and two external variables. Porter's four determinants and two outside forces interact in a "diamond" of competitive advantage, with the nature of a country's international competitiveness depending upon the type and quality of these interactions. However, because it is fundamentally a home-based model of international competitiveness, the diamond theory is criticized by many international business scholars. Dunning , and Rugman ¬, ¬¬ point out that the influence on competitiveness of two-way foreign direct investment (FDI) and foreign government influence and interference on trade and investment have been neglected. Rugman and Collinson have also evaluated the model and identified eight areas for comment. This essay will look at Rugman and Collinson's criticisms of Porter's model, focussing on three major areas: the role of FDI, foreign government influence and Multi National Enterprises (MNEs), before looking at developments to Porters diamond with country specific examples.
RUGMAN'S AND COLLINSON'S CRITIQUE OF PORTER'S DIAMOND
The eight areas identified for comment and evaluation namely: the model is limited by being based on ten countries, which are either industrialised or a member of a triad; the Government is of critical importance, and has been neglected by Porter; chance although critical, is difficult to predict or guard against; Porter's model must be applied in terms of company-specific considerations and not in terms of national advantages; Porter delineates only four distinct stages of national competitive development; Porter contends that only outward FDI is valuable in creating competitive advantage, and inbound foreign investment is never the solution to a nation's competitive problems; reliance on natural resources is viewed by Porter as insufficient to create worldwide competitive stature; the model does not adequately address the role of MNEs.
FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT
FDI tends to focus on opportunities in the same continental region. This often reflects attempts by multinationals to build up regional networks starting near their home base. A major conceptual problem with Porter's model is due to the narrow definition he applies to FDI. Porter defines only outward FDI as being "valuable in creating competitive advantage" and that inward FDI is "not entirely healthy" . He also states that foreign subsidiaries are importers, and that this is a source of comparative disadvantage . All of these statements are questionable and have long been refuted by Canadian-based scholars, e.g Safarian , Rugman and Crookell . They have demonstrated that the research and development undertaken by foreign-owned firms is not significantly different from that of Canadian owned firms. Rugman shows that the largest 20 U.S subsidiaries in Canada export virtually as much as they import .
Competitive advantage is also influenced by the home nation's government and its policies. It can employ subsidies as an indirect vehicle for penalizing foreign firms, or conversely use tariffs as a direct entry barrier to penalize them. However, the problem with government actions such as these is that they can backfire and end up creating a "sheltered" domestic industry that is unable to compete in the worldwide market. For example using Porter's diamond on states, whilst under Communist rule, would have potentially found them to be highly competitive internationally, however due to government restrictions on foreign competition, inferior products were produced. This resulted in the home nations firms being unable to compete successfully in many products once restrictions were lifted.
MULTI NATIONAL ENTERPRISES