Search results

“First principles” of international business (IB) thinking should be applied systematically when assessing the functioning of internationally operating firms. The most important first principle is that entrepreneurially oriented firms seek to create, deliver and capture economic value through cross-border linkages. Such linkages invariably require complementary resources from a variety of parties with idiosyncratic vulnerabilities to be meshed. Starting from first principles allows bringing to light evidence-based insight. For instance, most companies are not global and even the world’s largest firms rarely change the location of key strategic functions. International new ventures (INVs), emerging economy multinational enterprises (MNEs) and family firms face unique vulnerabilities but also command resources that can be used to create value across borders. The quest for “optimal” international diversification appears to be a futile academic exercise, and in emerging economies with institutional voids, relational networks – and more broadly, informal institutions – are unlikely to function as scalable substitutes for formal institutions. In global value chains (GVCs), many lead firms and their partners have been able to craft governance mechanisms that reduce bounded rationality and bounded reliability challenges, and it is also critical for them to use governance as a tool to create entrepreneurial space. Finally, many of the world’s largest companies have been on successful trajectories toward reducing their climate change footprint for a few decades. But these firm-specific trajectories are fraught with challenges and cannot just be imposed via unilateral, macro-level targets decided upon by individuals and institutions lacking a clear understanding of innovation and capital expenditure processes in business.

A country is vulnerable when it is susceptible to shocks. This chapter uses data from 34 developing countries to investigate vulnerability trends for them since the 1990s. We find that the level of economic development is inversely related to macroeconomic vulnerability. The countries that became less primarily vulnerable belong to the upper middle-income and middle-income groups; the reverse is true for most vulnerable countries up to 2014. Argentina and Papua New Guinea became more vulnerable from 2016 to 2020. Income plays a crucial role in deciding vulnerability in the globalization era. Geographical location is a key factor in measuring vulnerability, especially in African countries. But the reverse result took place in the de-globalization era. The majority of the upper middle-income and lower middle-income countries are among the most vulnerable. Surprisingly, lower-income groups include the nations with significantly lower IMV values.