Search results

The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate that, despite the extensive literature on firm-specific advantages (FSAs) and country-specific advantages (CSAs) produced since Rugman’s classic matrix (1981), little progress has been made in empirically operationalizing the second concept.

Through a review of the international business (IB) literature that refers to the CSA concept, we identify the “vagueness” in the usage of this concept. First, we present a concise literature review of the CSA construct, with a link to the “double diamond” theoretical model of Rugman and D’Cruz (1993) and Rugman and Verbeke (1993). Second, we present the results of the bibliographic analysis on the use of the construct by a variety of authors.

We demonstrate the weak conceptual grounding of the CSA concept by reviewing the literature on host-CSAs attracting Chinese overseas foreign direct investment (OFDI). Apart from the fact that various authors use different sources of data, an important reason for contradictory results is the fact that each author tests host-CSA through different indicators. Here, we propose a list of variables and indicators based on the “double diamond” model and test these empirically.

IB researchers should start conducting serious studies on home-CSAs and host-CSAs instrumental to attracting investments, defining clear indicators and using replicable data based on publicly available information. This chapter is the first to show that the concepts developed by Rugman (1981) and expanded by Rugman, A. M. and Verbeke, A. (2008) (Internalization theory and its impact on the field of international business. Research in Global Strategic Management, 14, 155–174) are relevant to advance in the quantitative operationalization of concepts within IB theory.

The extant literature on emerging market multinationals (EMNEs) suggest that they derive their advantages from factors such as economies of scale, and that they internationalise, in large measure, to access technology. However, support for this framework typically comes from analysis of static data, comparing EMNEs and OECD MNEs at a point in time. Little attention is paid to their development paths in a dynamic setting. We examine these propositions directly using an approach that enables us to decompose productivity growth of firms into its components, namely, changes in scale economies, technological progress and technical efficiency. We compare Chinese MNEs with their non-MNE domestic counterparts and developed country MNEs that have operations in China. We demonstrate that Chinese MNEs continue to derive much of their productivity growth from changes in scale economies, while developed country MNEs continue to have an advantage with respect to technical progress. Both these types of MNEs have a significant advantage over Chinese non-MNE domestic firms.

This chapter provides a logical extension to the understanding of firm-specific advantages and disadvantages and the enabling role of existing and emerging country-specific advantages relevant to the process of Chinese firm internationalization. Its longitudinal perspective considers the changing objectives and actions of firms that enable them to compensate for disadvantages and create new or strengthen existing competitive advantages. The case study evaluation reveals that the evolution of strategic resources is the key motivator behind the internationalization of Chinese firms. Decisively encouraged by the Chinese government firms with corporate entrepreneurship aspire to alter themselves from home market leaders and regional players into globally competing multi-nationals. This process is made possible via the development of firm-specific advantages and continuous compensation for firm-specific disadvantages. The aspiration for strategic asset acquisition from developed countries combined with cost leadership and independent customer-centred innovation brought about strong firm-specific advantages stimulating the internationalization process of firms. The chapter focuses on the interdependence of country- and firm-specific advantages and disadvantages, thus recognizing the significance of the home country institutional context in Chinese outward foreign direct investment. It has been identified that corporate entrepreneurship is a significant firm-specific advantage for firm internationalization being a major force in gaining, accumulating, utilizing and leveraging resources for transforming firm-specific disadvantages into advantages. We argue that if the relational framework between governmental institutions and firms is more developed, the impact of country-specific advantages on firm-specific advantages is more favourable. This assumes that the government espouses an ideology that is favourable to corporate entrepreneurship.

This chapter proposes a framework which relates the Firm Specific Advantages (FSAs) of the multinational enterprise with the timing of entry in VUCA-type host environments, characterised by high volatility (V), uncertainty (U), complexity (C), and ambiguity (A), and which have become extraordinarily high risk. Drawing on historical evidence, in particular on Geoffrey Jones’ research - to whom this volume is dedicated - on the evolution of international business, it shows that in extraordinarily high-risk environments multinational enterprises need to have additional FSAs beyond those considered in the traditional FSAs/CSAs (country specific advantages/firm specific advantages) framework. The proposed framework distinguishes between prevention, mitigation, avoidance and withdrawal strategies carried out before and after entry in host markets that have become of extraordinary high risk.

This study is a response to the paucity of research into early internationalising firms based in India. We seek to explore the internationalisation of small and new Indian firms and the decision-making process of their entrepreneurs/managers.

The study uses original, primary data gathered from in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with the managers of six such firms to explore the factors that might facilitate, motivate, or impede the efforts undertaken by young Indian firms to embark upon a process of early internationalisation.

Our findings suggest that, in line with their counterparts from other countries, the early internationalisation of small firms from India is driven primarily by the search for more favourable demand conditions overseas and is facilitated by new technologies. However, we find no evidence suggesting that the emergence of early internationalising firms from India is driven by the search for more favourable production conditions or by the direct international experience and exposure of their founders. In line with prior scholarly work, our research suggests that government support is an important facilitator of early internationalisation of small firms.

The study provides insights into the internationalisation process of INVs from India and contributes to broadening our understanding of the behaviour of firms under a set of specific institutional conditions. Based on our findings, we develop a conceptual framework which can be useful for further empirical testing. Our study is also one of the few to be conducted on a sample of INVs from India.

International business theory leans heavily on neoclassical economics, ignoring its unrealistic assumptions and the many changes in the environment. The chapter calls for a revision of the theory to a contingency theory. The major contingent elements analysed are the political system, business–government and NGOs relations, industries, regimes, ownership patterns, the degree of reliance on ethical behaviour, the institutional environment and social norms.

I am honored to receive the Booz Allen Hamilton/strategy+business Eminent Scholar Award in International Management. I am even more honored to follow in the footsteps of such distinguished previous recipients of the AOM-IMD (Academy of Management-International Division) Distinguished Scholar Award as: John Child, Christopher Bartlett, Sumantra Ghoshal, John Dunning, and Yves Doz. Like them, I shall reflect here on my past contributions to scholarship, and then use this work as a building block for the major part of this paper, which is on the need for new and relevant theory in the field of international management.