¹ Seminal works in this area are Mitrany, David, A Wording Peace System (Chicago: Quadrangle, 1966)Google Scholar; Deutsch, Karl W., and others, Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1957)Google Scholar; and Haas, Ernst B., The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces, 1950–1957 (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1958)Google Scholar.

² The difficulty of acquiring data can be accounted for by the fact that governments do not collect data on a mandatory basis from companies although the United States Department of Commerce has recently begun to do this. Further, what data is collected often conflicts with data from other sources, e.g., European Economic Community (EEC) and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) statistics may differ.

³ The reason for choosing INTELSAT is that this international entity is part intergovernmental and part nongovernmental. It does not fit easily into die traditional categories of the international economists or the students of international organization. Is it unique or a member of a growing species?

⁴ Wilbur, Marguerite Eyer, The East India Company and the British Empire in the Far East (New York: Richard R. Smith, 1945), p. 386Google Scholar.

⁵ Beck, Lewis White (ed.), Perpetual Peace (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1957)Google Scholar. Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957)Google Scholar, chapter 1.

⁶ Waltz, Kenneth N., Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959)Google Scholar, chapter 4.

⁷ John Herz has undertaken such an analysis and finds diat his previous projection of the demise of the territorial state is wrong. Herz, John H., “The Territorial State Revisited: Reflections on the Future of the Nation-State,” Polity, Fall 1968 (Vol. 1, No. 1), pp. 11–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Singer, J. David, “The Global System and Its Subsystems: A Developmental View,” in N., JamesRosenau (ed.), Linkage Politics: Essays on the Convergence of National and International Systems (New York: Free Press [for the Princeton Center of International Studies], 1969), p. 25Google Scholar.

⁹ Modelski, G., “The Corporation in World Society,” yearbook, of World Affairs, 1968, ed. by Keeton, George W. and Schwarzenberger, Georg (London: Steven & Sons [under the auspices of the London Institute of World Affairs], 1968), p. 78Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Smoker, Paul, International Processes Simulation: A Man Computer Model (Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press, 1969)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Kindleberger, Charles, American Business Abroad (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1969), p. 207Google Scholar.

¹² Ibid., pp. 179, 184. The three types of firms are distinguished from each other by their managements' attitudes toward foreign exchange risks and equalization of profits. National firms with foreign operations are short on foreign currency but will never go short in the currency of the parent company. A multinational firm views it as a breach of good faith to go short of a foreign currency, and an international firm may even go short of the home country's currency if exchange risks are too great. A national firm with foreign operations will only maintain this status if its foreign investments receive a higher rate of return than its home investments because it views the risks as higher. A multinational company tries to maintain a good citizen image and would not close down a subsidiary just because its long-range profit prospects are below what could be earned elsewhere, but the international firm will try to equalize its profits everywhere.

¹³ Perlmutter, Howard, “Super-Giant Firms in the Future,” Wharton Quarterly, Winter 1968Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Perlmutter, Howard V., “The Tortuous Evolution of the Multinational Corporation,” Columbia Journal of World Business, 01–02 1969 (Vol. 4, No. 1), pp. 9–18Google Scholar. Perlmutter is an interdisciplinary scholar holding a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a doctorate in psychology from Kansas University; he is at present director of the Division of Research on and Development of Worldwide Institutions at die Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

¹⁵ Vernon, Raymond, “The Role of U.S. Enterprise Abroad,” Daedalus, Winter 1969 (Vol. 98, No. 1), p. 129Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Barber, Arthur, “Emerging New Power: The World Corporation,” War-Peace Report, 10 1968 (Vol. 8, No. 8), p. 7Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Sampson, Anthony, Anatomy of Europe: A Guide to the Wordings, Institutions and Character of Contemporary Western Europe (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), p. 84Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 87.

²⁰ Servan-Schreiber, J. J., The American Challenge, translated by Steel, Ronald (New York: Atheneum, 1968), p. 11Google Scholar.

²¹ Ibid., pp. 40, 175, and passim.

²² See footnote 2 above. Besides the attempt of the Department of Commerce to alleviate the problem of partial information, the studies of the Harvard Business School and the Wharton School should increase information. In addition, I am sending a questionnaire to hundreds of firms, but the replies so far have been insufficient or nonexistent.

²³ Jack N. Behrman of the Graduate School of Business at the University of North Carolina contends that there are close to 200 United States-based multinational firms if one postulates that a firm becomes multinational when foreign operations constitute 25 percent of total activity. See Behrman, Jack N., Some Patterns in the Rise of Multinational Enterprise (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969), P. 13Google Scholar.

²⁴ Ibid., pp. 5–7.

²⁵ Miles, Caroline M., “The International Corporation,” International Affairs (London), 04 1969 (Vol. 45, No.2 ), pp. 259–268Google Scholar.

²⁶ Littlejohn, Edward, “The Influence of Multinational Corporations on International Affairs,” a paper delivered at the ninth annual convention of the International Studies Association, 03 28–30, 1968, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ EFTA Reporter, July 11, 1969, p. 1.

²⁸ Barber, , War/Peace Report, Vol. 8, No. 8, p. 6Google Scholar.

²⁹ For a debate on this subject see Solow, Robert M. v. Galbraith, John Kenneth in The Public Interest, Fall 1967 (No. 9), pp. 100–119Google Scholar.

³⁰ Galbraith, John Kenneth, The New Industrial State (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967), p. 171Google Scholar.

³¹ Vernon, , Daedalus, Vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 115–116Google Scholar.

³² Modelski, , Yearbook of World Affairs 1968, p. 74Google Scholar.

³³ For some historical perspective on this point see Behrman, p. 14 and passim, Hobson, John A., Imperialism (1902)Google Scholar, and Staley, Eugene, War and the Private Investor: A Study in the Relations of International Politics and International Private Investment, Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, Doran & Co., 1935Google Scholar.

³⁴ Vernon, , Daedahu, Vol. 98, No. 1, p. 129Google Scholar.

³⁵ Haas, Ernst B., Beyond the Nation-State: Functionalism and International Organization (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1964), p. 26Google Scholar.

³⁶ Ibid., p. 28.

³⁷ Ibid., p. 29. A recent condition definition is “[Political integration] is a relationship or pattern of behavior, the ability to work out… conflict with a minimum of violence and without one party always making important concessions, that marks the condition of successful political integration.” Bruce M. Russett, International Regions and the International System: A Study in Political Ecology (Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1968), p. 96.

³⁸ Galtung, Johan, “A Structural Theory of Integration,” Journal of Peace Research, 1968 (No. 4), p. 377Google Scholar.

³⁹ Ibid., p. 376.

⁴⁰ Coser, Lewis, Continuities in the Study of Social Conflict (New York: Free Press, 1967)Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Halpern, Manfred, “A Redefinition of the Revolutionary Situation,” Journal of International Affairs, 1969 (Vol. 23, No. 1), pp. 54–75Google Scholar.

⁴² Nye, Joseph S., “Comparative Regional Integration: Concept and Measurement,” International Organization, Autumn 1968 (Vol. 22, No. 4), p. 858CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ United States Treaties and Other International Agreements (hereafter referred to as TTAS) No. 5646, 1964 (Vol. 15, Part 2), pp. 1705–1744 and 1745–1780, respectively.

⁴⁴ If INTELSAT is analogous to a public utility, a comparative analysis might well sec it in relation to international public unions such as the Universal Postal Union (UPU) or, at least, organizations such as the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which has been quite successful in the field of commercial aviation. However, these associations are more like regulatory agencies. They do not own post offices and airplaces, as INTELSAT owns the space communications satellites.

⁴⁵ To increase the sophistication of the analysis the relative importance of different structures and functions could be weighted by a figure expressing the average contribution of that structure to the total system and a figure expressing the average level of fulfillment of the function. One would then have a weighted additive index on which one could place different structures and functions, producing a continuum of integration-disintegration.

⁴⁶ Galtung, , Journal of Peace Research, No. 4, p. 386Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ TIAS No. 5646, pp. 5–6. Interview, Stephen E. Doyle (Foreign Affairs Officer, Office of Telecommunications, Department of State), July 23, 1969.

⁴⁸ TIAS No. 5646, pp. 77–106.

⁴⁹ Telephone conversation with Dr. Richard Renfield (International Affairs Division, Comsat), December 15, 1969.

⁵⁰ Comsat, Report to the President and Congress for Calendar Year 1968, appendix 5.

⁵¹ INTELSAT, Report of the Interim Communications Satellite Committee on Definitive Arrangements for an International Global Communications Satellite System, p. 16Google Scholar.

⁵² Executive Office of the President, Annual Report on Activities and Accomplishments under Communications Satellite Act of 1962, 1968 (Washington, 1969), p. 19Google Scholar and appendices A and B.

⁵³ Comsat, Report to Shareholders, Third Quarter, 1969.

⁵⁴ Ibid.

⁵⁵ INTELSAT, p. 23.

⁵⁶ I am indebted to Professor Edward E. Azar for the phrase internal spillover and external spillover.

⁵⁷ The only functioning domestic system is the Soviet Union's ORBITA. Canada and India plan to have domestic systems in 1972. The United States will probably not have an operational system in the near future due to opposition by vested interests, although Alaska may force the FCC's hand in this matter. In peculiar geographic circumstances, e.g., Hawaii and the continental United States, INTELSAT does integrate domestic traffic.

⁵⁸ International Telecommunication Union, Telecommunications in the Space Age (Paris: Institute Geografico de Agostini, 1966), p. 29Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ A good article on the differing impacts of the mass media in the West, Communist countries, and developing nations is Pool, Ithiel de Sola, “The Mass Media and Their Interpersonal Social Functions in the Process of Modernization,” in Dexter, Louis Anthony and White, David Manning (ed.), People, Society, and Mass Communications (London: The Free Press of Glencoe, Collier-Macmillan, 1964), pp. 429–443Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Washington Post, March 10, 1969, p. A6.

⁶¹ New York Times, March 23, 1969, p. 31.

⁶² Washington Post, June 23, 1969, p. DII. The pressure to share contracts equally rather than in line with ability has undermined several European technological organizations. I am thinking of European Launcher Development Organization (ELDO) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM).

⁶³ Johnscn, Katherine, “Japan, Australia Offer INTELSAT Compromise,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, 03 2, 1970, p. 20Google Scholar.