Search results

Business groups often contain banks or near banks that can protect group firms from economic shocks. A group bank subordinate to other group firms can become an “organ bank” that selflessly bails out distressed group firms and anticipates a government bailout. A group bank subordinating other group firms can extend loans to suppress their risk taking to default risk, preserving risk-averse low-productivity zombie firms. Actual business groups can fall between these polar cases. Subordinated group banks magnify risk taking; subordinating group banks suppress risk taking; yet both distortions promote business group firms’ survival. Limiting intragroup income and risk shifting, severing banks from business groups, articulating Business Group Law, or dismantling business groups may mitigate both distortions but also limits business groups’ internal markets, which are thought to be important where external markets work poorly.

This chapter complements the one that appeared as “History of the AIB Fellows: 1975–2008” in Volume 14 of this series (International Business Scholarship: AIB Fellows on the First 50 Years and Beyond, Jean J. Boddewyn, Editor). It traces what happened under the deanship of Alan Rugman (2011–2014) who took many initiatives reported here while his death in July 2014 generated trenchant, funny, and loving comments from more than half of the AIB Fellows. The lives and contributions of many other major international business scholars who passed away from 2008 to 2014 are also evoked here: Endel Kolde, Lee Nehrt, Howard Perlmutter, Stefan Robock, John Ryans, Vern Terpstra, and Daniel Van Den Bulcke.

This chapter uses the intellectual journey of Geoffrey Jones as an international business scholar to suggest that crises have been the norm rather than the exception in the history of international business. Over the last 100 years world wars, regional conflicts, the Great Depression, and decolonization are among the shocks which have transformed the political economy of global business. For businesses active in emerging markets, shocks have been regular occurrences. Scholars need to address the role of crises and rare events in international business, along with the wider social implications, by employing unconventional methodologies, and making bold claims. Robust evidence on climate change and multiple geo-political tensions suggest a prolonged period going forward when global business will encounter turbulence and crisis.

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.

The history of international business has generated a growing literature. Over the AIB's fifty years, scholars associated with AIB have contributed to this literature but it has been a far broader one. This chapter surveys a sample of the wide variety of works on the history of multinational enterprise, published from the 1950s onward. The works are not only in business history but also in diplomatic and legal history. The literature makes it clear that the multinational enterprise has a long history and is far from a post-World War II or post-1989 phenomenon. The chapter shows the variety in the accumulation of studies in business history directly related to international business as well as the forums where business historians present their findings. It considers why and how international-business history matters for international-business research.

This chapter reflects on how global value chain resilience can be achieved in the aftermath of recent crises. Drawing on the view that globalization is not linear, and that contextualization is an important part of the international business discipline, the author argues that global value chain resilience needs to also be viewed from the perspective of emerging market supplier firms. Building resilience from international production restructure to create more flexibility may enhance multinational lead firms’ resilience in the aftermath of recent crises. But they may not be viable options for emerging market supplier firms that are location- and activity-bound. Building resilience from supplier firms’ perspective may have more to do with increasing operational efficiency in their value chain. Contextualizing resilience from the perspective of emerging market firms should contribute to ongoing discussions and debate on future global value chain resilience.

Business history has long been recognized as providing an important dimension to international-business (IB) studies. Much of this historical work has focused on mapping historical growth patterns of multinational enterprises (MNEs) but there is also a growing literature on the long-term impact of MNE investment on host economies, and this paper reviews this research. The focus is primarily on developing-country host economies, and more broadly on the global distribution of wealth and poverty. The article suggests three major arguments. First, it is necessary to take a long-time horizon when assessing impact on host economies. Second, it is necessary to incorporate societal and cultural impacts alongside more traditional measures of economic impact. Third, there is weak historical evidence that MNE’s have had a substantial positive impact over the long run on the development of host developing economies. A hypothesis is suggested that, given adequate domestic growth-supporting institutions and human-capital development, developing countries achieve more sustained development from excluding foreign-owned MNEs rather than hosting them.

International business (IB) as a discipline has given limited attention to contemporary grand challenges of inequality, global warming, aging populations, endemic health crises, and de-globalization, in all of which multinationals are either central to the problem or may offer some solutions. A historical perspective makes clear the reason for this neglect. IB theory and implicit assumptions were shaped during the discipline’s formative period during the 1960s and the 1970s. This has left it excessively focused on the growth of manufacturing multinationals, and with naïve assumptions about the linear and benevolent progress of globalization. This mental toolkit is ill-equipped to understand the present. Engaging deeply with history can also enhance the contextual intelligence of IB. Academy of International Business’s founders barely questioned the positive impact of multinationals, yet historical evidence points to many negative outcomes, and to globalization driving inequality. Understanding how implicit assumptions and biases arose is the first step to re-set IB with research questions and methodologies relevant to a turbulent and de-globalized age.