Immigration rules and relative poverty mean that workers can't threaten to move in the same way. Furthermore, governments need business, and business's tax revenues to provide their citizens with expected services. State citizens also expect to be provided with good job prospects and rising incomes, or governments will lose power. Multinational business can manipulate these needs (and perhaps, sometimes, use straight bribery) to press governments to pursue business-friendly policy: keeping down corporate tax, wages and environmental or health and safety regulations. If policy is less attractive, business can threaten to move somewhere else, thus creating difficult choices for government about the balance between the need to keep business in place and the desire to tax and regulate it in the interests of the electorate. For the developing world, "doing what you are best at" in trade may mean providing sweatshop labour so that consumers in Europe can have cheaper trainers or electronic goods. Economic efficiency can mean maximum exploitation of workers, rather than technological innovation. Globalization, then, can be said to increase the exploitation of workers everywhere "and rising global inequalities will testify to such a fact.".
Marxist and liberal approaches assume the globalization of production as a fact, and concentrate on the effects that globalization has on people's welfare. However, there exists a third approach, an agency-centred approach that does not rule out liberal or Marxist perspectives but shifts attention to concentrate on how government policy can shape the consequences of globalization. It asks where globalization came from, who wanted it, who didn't want it, and how the people that did want it got their way.
It is necessary to understand that advances in transport and communications technology do not always lead to greater trade or business relocation.