Some people believe that global companies bring prosperity to developing countries. Others think they mainly serve their own interests.
A full IELTS Writing Task 2 answer to this question, with a paragraph plan, ideas you can use, and the vocabulary that fits this topic.
The question
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Some people believe that global companies bring prosperity to developing countries. Others think they mainly serve their own interests.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
How to read this question
The standard essay on this topic argues that multinationals pay badly. The stronger question is: badly compared with what? Wages that look exploitative by rich-country standards are often the best locally available, which is why the jobs are competed for. Facing that honestly — and then asking why the local alternatives are so poor — produces a far better answer than either indignation or defence.
Paragraph plan
Introduction — Paraphrase both views, then state a position: the effect depends on whether skills and bargaining power transfer, which is set by the host state's terms.
Body 1 — The prosperity case — capital, employment and technology transfer, judged against the realistic local alternative rather than against rich-country wages.
Body 2 — The exploitation case — mobility gives the firm permanent leverage, and countries compete by lowering standards.
Conclusion — Neither is automatic; outcomes track the terms the host government is able to impose.
Model essay
Band 8.5–9.0 model essay
325 words
According to some, multinational corporations bring much-needed prosperity to developing countries, whereas others believe such companies are primarily driven by self-interest rather than genuine concern for local welfare. In my view, while global companies can undeniably stimulate economic growth, their contribution to genuine prosperity depends heavily on how host governments regulate their operations.
On the one hand, supporters argue that multinational investment introduces capital, technology and employment that developing economies would otherwise struggle to generate independently. To clarify, when global corporations establish manufacturing plants or regional offices, local workers gain access to training and wages considerably higher than those offered by domestic employers. For instance, foreign investment in Southeast Asian manufacturing hubs has lifted millions out of poverty over the past three decades.
On the other hand, critics contend that multinational companies prioritise their own profit margins over the welfare of host communities. This is attributable to the fact that many corporations repatriate the majority of their earnings to shareholders abroad rather than reinvesting locally, while also exploiting weaker labour and environmental regulations to minimise operating costs. Consequently, local workers and ecosystems often bear the burden of practices that would be prohibited in the companies' home countries.
From my perspective, whether these companies genuinely benefit developing nations depends chiefly on the strength of domestic regulation. To explain, when host governments enforce fair wage standards, environmental protections, and requirements for local reinvestment, multinational presence can generate lasting prosperity. In the absence of such oversight, however, corporations are far more likely to extract resources and profits while leaving local communities with little tangible benefit.
To conclude, despite the ongoing debate over whether global companies serve developing nations or merely their own interests, I believe that robust local regulation ultimately determines whether multinational investment translates into genuine prosperity or exploitation.
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to read the rest of this essay and unlock every model on the site.
This is a discussion (discuss both views) question. The essay above shows you what a strong answer looks like when it is finished. What it cannot show you is how to get there from a blank page in forty minutes.
That is what our Writing Study Library is for: the structure we teach for this exact question type, the paragraph pattern that goes with it, and the sentence openers for each stage — so the essay is planned before you start writing rather than assembled as you go.
Introduction: Paraphrase both views on whether global companies bring prosperity or serve only themselves and state that the outcome depends on host-country regulation.
Body 1: Argue that multinational investment brings capital, technology, training and higher wages to developing economies, illustrated by poverty reduction in Southeast Asian manufacturing hubs.
Body 2: Argue that multinationals often repatriate profits abroad and exploit weak labour and environmental rules to cut costs, leaving local workers and ecosystems to bear the burden.
Body 3: State that whether prosperity or exploitation results depends on whether host governments enforce fair wages, environmental protection and local reinvestment requirements.
Conclusion: Restate that robust local regulation determines whether multinational investment becomes genuine prosperity or exploitation.
Word or phrase
Meaning
Used in a sentence
capital
money or resources invested in a business or economy
multinational investment introduces capital, technology and employment that developing economies would otherwise struggle to generate independently
repatriate
to send money or profits back to one's home country
many corporations repatriate the majority of their earnings to shareholders abroad rather than reinvesting locally
exploiting
using something unfairly to one's own advantage
exploiting weaker labour and environmental regulations to minimise operating costs
regulation
official rules that control how something operates
whether these companies genuinely benefit developing nations depends chiefly on the strength of domestic regulation
reinvestment
putting earned profit back into a business or local economy
host governments enforce fair wage standards, environmental protections, and requirements for local reinvestment
oversight
official supervision or monitoring of an activity
in the absence of such oversight, however, corporations are far more likely to extract resources and profits
extract
to take out or remove, often profit or resources, for one's own benefit
corporations are far more likely to extract resources and profits while leaving local communities with little tangible benefit
exploitation
the unfair use of people or resources for one's own benefit
robust local regulation ultimately determines whether multinational investment translates into genuine prosperity or exploitation
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to see the ideas and vocabulary for this topic and unlock every model on the site.
Answers checked here may be published on this page, without your name, to help other learners. Nothing else about you is stored.
Common questions
Is it risky to defend multinational companies?
No. Examiners have no preferred view and mark only how well the argument is made. What is risky is an unexamined position of either kind — indignation with no comparison, or defence with no acknowledgement of power. Both read as thin regardless of which side they take.
How do I strengthen a moral argument?
Attach it to a mechanism. "Wages are unfair" is an assertion; "the firm can relocate and the country cannot, so every negotiation is asymmetric" is an argument. The moral point lands harder once you have shown what produces the outcome.
Should I name specific companies or countries?
It is rarely necessary and often costly. A described structure — an operation that imports its inputs and employs locals only at the lowest grades — makes the point precisely without requiring facts you would have to defend.
