the domestic national market" (Mann 1997:479). Furthermore, as Wilkinson states, "[i]t is a common error [...] to assume that the MNC is 'sovereign' and that 'globalization' has destroyed the capacity of the state to strike back at MNCs [...] They can and do seize MNC assets, expel MNC personnel, nationalize MNCs, impose draconian fines and punishments for alleged violations of laws, and so on" (2007:69). Secondly, regarding the changed nature of financial flows, while the unprecedented mobility of capital has certainly altered the state's level of market control, it should be remembered that "[s]tates are engaged with the global economy as direct market actors (for example, central bank operations in currency and bond markets); [and] as legal and administrative regulators of markets both domestically and in the context of international economic institutions like WTO or the European single market" (Goldblatt et al. , 1997:74). Wade (1996) remarks that companies' shares are usually attached to particular national stock exchanges, and also laws and accountancy practices of a given state. Mosely too notes mixed interaction patterns between states and financial markets: "[w]hile capital market openness provides governments with greater access to capital, it also subjects them to external discipline; investors' capacity for exit provides them with political voice" (2005:357). States are not utterly at the mercy of the markets, but their role has changed, and they must "attend more closely to the economic and political requirements of financial markets and MNCs" (Goldblatt et al. 1997:74). Nation-states "may now be just actors among