But there are limits to how much of those are beneficial to companies. It's not like doubling the amount of them will double the number of companies you have, t

But there are limits to how much of those are beneficial to companies. It's not like doubling the amount of them will double the number of companies you have, there are limits to ROI there. As long as their employees can get to work in the morning, aren't feeling unsafe, the courts aren't corrupt and so on, the corporate need for rule of law is rather limited, and too much rule of law can easily turn into abusive lawsuits or stifling regulation that nails down whatever the status quo happens to be at the time. As for generic infrastructure, most companies need roads, but other infrastructure is often handled by the private sector e.g. airports, ports, telecoms. Realistically lots of countries can meet this minimum bar and it doesn't require high tax rates to do so. The countries that have lower corporate tax rates than this new attempt at a minimum standard do have working rule of law, stability and infrastructure. They aren't Somalia. So it's unclear how much scope countries have to compete in this area. On the other hand, efficiency provides scope for more or less unlimited competition. Minimum global tax rates are pretty directly an attempt to end competition on the axis that is both very important and also has most scope for improvement.