At the Paper Development Workshop on Geopolitics, the VALPOP team, represented by Dr. Michael Wolfesberger (WU), Laurenz Tinhof (WU), and Dr. Olha Zadorozhna (Kozminski), hosted a panel discussion exploring how multinational corporations (MNCs), governments, and societal actors interact in shaping the provision of public goods in times of geopolitical uncertainty. The team introduced the project’s core idea: to systematically map how different stakeholders contribute to, or contest, the creation and distribution of public goods in Europe and beyond.

Motivating example: Chevron in Guyana

One case that vividly illustrates these dynamics is Chevron’s recent entry into Guyana’s offshore oil sector. In 2025, Chevron acquired Hess Oil’s stake in one of the country’s largest oil fields, a region with some of the lowest drilling costs worldwide. By taking over the production and revenue-sharing agreement between Hess Oil and Guyana, Chevron secures most of the profit, while Guyana retains just 12.5% of revenues plus a 2% royalty rate. These terms are widely criticized as highly unfavorable to the host country. At the same time, Venezuela has threatened to annex a large part of Guyana’s territory, raising geopolitical tensions in the region. While Guyana’s immediate economic gains may be modest, the government arguably secures a form of geopolitical insurance: Chevron operates in both Guyana and Venezuela, offering the possibility to stabilise relationships between the two countries as Chevron would be an imminently affected stakeholder in a conflict in Guyana over oil resources (Guardian, 2025).

The subsequent panel discussion focused on the influence of geopolitics on the role of MNCs, governments, and populism, as well as how shifts in geopolitics and an erosion of the rule of law affect the distribution of public goods within countries.

The role of multinational corporations, governments and populism

Multinational corporations do not only depend on public goods such as infrastructure and natural resources, but they may also contribute to their creation by investing in education, infrastructure, or even geopolitical stability. Governments act as gatekeepers in this process, regulating who has access to public goods and how they are used. This role can only function effectively if all relevant stakeholder groups are represented and if officials avoid acting purely in self-interest.

Populism complicates matters further. Populist leaders often narrow the range of stakeholders they consider legitimate and blur the lines between public and private interests. This can result in the inefficient creation and use of public goods, where certain groups are excluded, or in outright rent-seeking, such as officials allowing firms to ignore environmental regulations in exchange for bribes. Within VALPOP, we are developing methods to map societal stakeholders and their connections, to better understand when such distortions occur.

Geopolitics makes this already complex picture even more unpredictable. Instead of simply weighing welfare outcomes for firms and local communities, actors must now also calculate who else benefits politically or strategically. This shift is likely to be destructive overall, though the Chevron case in Guyana shows that the federal government may secure geopolitical advantages while the broader public loses out economically. For the creation of public goods, the broader outlook is pessimistic: pressures from both populism and geopolitics make efficient outcomes unlikely, and the damages and benefits will be unevenly distributed.

Rule of law, populism and the sovereignty trap

When the rule of law weakens, both populism and geopolitical rivalry become tools for channeling resources toward in-groups while disadvantaging out-groups. Populist leaders often frame conflicts as questions of sovereignty, which can create what is termed a “sovereignty trap”: geopolitical disputes serve to strengthen domestic populist narratives, as has been the case in Venezuela. In other parts of the world, leaders also use external threats or sovereignty claims to channel resources to loyal constituencies while marginalizing opposition areas. Hungary’s Orbán uses EU relations to justify selective municipal funding. Turkey’s Erdoğan frames public service cuts as resistance to Western interference. The key insight is that geopolitics doesn’t just affect international relations, it provides domestic political cover for discriminatory governance.

At the same time, supranational institutions, such as the WTO or the UN, which once provided a framework for global governance are weakening. Populist leaders successfully delegitimize compliance with international standards as foreign interference, turning global governance into a political liability. As these institutions lose legitimacy, international standards erode, and the global distribution of public goods becomes more distorted.

Looking ahead: the VALPOP contribution

The panel concluded with an outlook on future research questions related to the interplay of VALPOP and geopolitics: Are geopolitics and populism distinct political hazards, or do they reinforce each other? Emerging evidence suggests that they may indeed amplify one another, with profound implications for how public goods are created and distributed. Understanding this interplay is essential for designing governance mechanisms that safeguard fairness and efficiency in an era of geopolitical rivalry and populist politics.