Search results

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

John Dunning introduced the OLI (Ownership‐Location‐Internalization) paradigm 37 years ago to explain the origin, level, pattern, and growth of MNEs’ offshore activities. Over the years, OLI has developed into perhaps the dominant paradigm in international business (IB) studies. However, the costs of being a paradigm are reflected in Dunning’s efforts to include an ever‐expanding array of IB theories and phenomena under the OLI “big tent.” In this paper, we focus specifically on the O in the OLI paradigm, tracing the history of Dunning’s ownership advantages. We argue that the modifications of O advantages over the past 37 years, as Dunning attempted to bring all IB phenomena and IB‐related theories under the OLI “big tent,” has had mixed results. However, we continue to believe that the typology of ownership advantages retains its relevance for IB scholars; that O advantages cannot and should not be subsumed within internalization advantages; and that O advantages are necessary for explaining the existence and success of the MNE as an organizational form

The eclectic paradigm of Dunning (1980) (with its OLI and four motives for FDI framework) can be reconciled with the firm and country matrix of Rugman (1981). However, the fit is not perfect. The main reason for misalignment is that Dunning is focused upon outward FDI into host economies, whereas Rugman’s matrix is for firm‐level strategy covering MNE activity in both home and host countries

The New Development Paradigm (NDP) integrates the theoretical and empirical views on development that have gained prominence since the mid‐1990s. In particular the multifaceted nature of development objectives‐including social and ecological development next to economic growth‐and the critical role of institutions in the development process characterize the NDP. This new perspective has important consequences for understanding the role of Multinational Enterprises in fostering development. This paper addresses these implications and delineates a research agenda that pays systematic attention to the wide variety of direct and indirect, active and passive ways in which MNEs can (and do) affect sustainable development

The eclectic paradigm as developed by Dunning evolved in response to the changing IB milieu. I argue that this continual expansion threatens to make the paradigm tautological, without an honest “gatekeeper.” Continual expansion to address new lacunae begins to have decreasing returns, either because the gatekeeper cannot expect to have the specialized knowledge, or because the number of extensions makes the final product unwieldy. I propose a return to a basic eclectic paradigm, which I refer to as “EP‐lite,” that can then be complemented by other frameworks and theories as needed. In a similar vein, the growing number of sub‐categories of ownership advantages does not in itself provide greater clarity. Besides, the “correct” definition of what constitute O advantages is relative to the purpose for which it is being used.

The paper investigates the relationship between China’s net direct foreign investment position and economic development and the investment development path (IDP) theory introduced by Dunning (1981). Using annual data for the period 1979 to 2005 and a fourth order single variable polynomial function we demonstrate that form of the IDP for China and conclude that China entered stage 3 of the path postulated by the IDP theory. By analyzing key factors which have impacted FDI inflows and outflows we find that certain idiosyncratic characteristics of Chinese companies and institutional factors may limit the significant increase in the multinationalization of Chinese firms which would be required for the country to move along the IDP.

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.

One of my major research thrusts over the past 40 years – and particularly since the mid-1970s – has been to construct, and regularly update and refine, an eclectic paradigm (EP) which seeks to identify and evaluate the determinants of international business (IB) activity. Within this activity, a range of operationally testable and specific economic and business theories might be accommodated.

Globalisation is generally defined as the “denationalisation of clusters of political, economic, and social activities” that destabilize the ability of the sovereign State to control activities on its territory, due to the rising need to find solutions for universal problems, like the pollution of the environment, on an international level. Globalisation is a complex, forceful legal and social process that take place within an integrated whole with out regard to geographical boundaries. Globalisation thus differs from international activities, which arise between and among States, and it differs from multinational activities that occur in more than one nation‐State. This does not mean that countries are not involved in the sociolegal dynamics that those transboundary process trigger. In a sense, the movements triggered by global processes promote greater economic interdependence among countries. Globalisation can be traced back to the depression preceding World War II and globalisation at that time included spreading of the capitalist economic system as a means of getting access to extended markets. The first step was to create sufficient export surplus to maintain full employment in the capitalist world and secondly establishing a globalized economy where the planet would be united in peace and wealth. The idea of interdependence among quite separate and distinct countries is a very important part of talks on globalisation and a significant side of today’s global political economy.