world" (2003:349). Firstly, the influence and global nature of MNCs has been exaggerated. The fact that a given firm operates worldwide does not mean that it operates above and beyond the network of nation-states. Weiss berates this thoughtless elision of expanding transnational networks with declining national ones: "one hardly needed to go beyond the fact of rising interconnectedness to conclude that state power was in decline" (2005:532). In fact, as Hague and Harrop explain, "the relationship between Western governments and MNCs is balanced. MNCs must sell their products in the affluent and sophisticated markets of the developed world" (2004:32). Since, as Mann observes, "[t]he ownership, assets and R&D of 'multinational' corporations [...] remain disproportionately in their 'home' state, and they still lean on it for human capital (education), communications infrastructures and economic protectionism" (1997:479), "nation-states can also be key actors in shaping what multinationals do" (Carnoy 1993:93). As Goldblatt et al. summarise (1997:72): MNCs are not footloose, stateless, truly global operators. First, the sunk costs of investment, particularly in hi-tech manufacturing, are significant enough that regular relocation carries large economic penalties. Second, FDI is often undertaken to ensure local market presence, avoidance of non-tariff barriers and access to locally developed innovations; none of these can be achieved by footloose exit. Third, some domestic markets are just too big for any company to be able to walk away from. In this light, it is sobering for 'hyper-globalisers' to consider that "more than 80 per cent of world production is still for