Search results

The purpose of this paper is to argue that culture and context (policy and environment) are key factors affecting gender inequalities within and across countries.

This paper applies conceptual and descriptive statistics.

The authors found evidence of increasing gender equality in the workplace, but only for rich countries. Gender inequalities persist in the poorest countries, and the gap between rich and poor countries appears to be widening not narrowing.

This paper demonstrates the need for a comprehensive research program on gender and international business.

The authors provided useful statistics that could possibly be picked up by newspapers. The paper also highlights the need for a more sustained research program on gender and development.

This paper demonstrates that the public perception of increasing gender equality applies only in very high development (rich) countries. In fact, gender inequality rises as economic development levels decline across countries, and the gap between very high and low countries has widened over the past 15 years.

The empirical findings with respect to gender inequality across United Nations Development Program country categories over time are, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, novel and original. Relating the gender inequality gap to culture and context highlights the roles that social issues and the environment play in affecting gender inequality across countries and across time.

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.

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 digital economy, which heralds the start of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (IR4), is upon us. What can history teach international business scholars about how firms are likely to respond to this new form of technological change? Who are the likely winners or the likely losers? For 30 years, the author has lived through, studied, and written about the Third Industrial Revolution and other major environmental shocks, ranging from new entrants to academia to regional integration to outbreak of war, looking at the fundamental issues of how individuals, firms, communities, and countries respond to and are affected by life-changing events. In this chapter, the author tells seven brief stories about living through and studying “shocks and responses.” Perhaps, some of these stories may provide useful lessons to the scholars of IR4.

Most years, several AIB members are elected as AIB Fellows on account of their excellent international business scholarship, and/or past service as AIB President or Executive Secretary. The Fellows are in charge of electing Eminent Scholars as well as the International Executive and International Educator (formerly, Dean) of the Year, who often provide the focus for Plenary Sessions at AIB Conferences. Their history since 1975 covers over half of the span of the AIB and reflects many issues that dominated that period in terms of research themes, progresses and problems, the internationalization of business education and the role of international business in society and around the globe. Like other organizations, the Fellows Group had their ups and downs, successes and failures – and some fun too!

Rapid digital transformation underway represents both a risk and an opportunity for both policymakers and firms. This can address the risk and seize the opportunity by leveraging FDI to grow digital capabilities and competitiveness through a three-part strategy. First, launching Digital FDI enabling projects (DEPs) to create “digital friendly” investment climates through enabling policies, regulations, and measures. Second, using a “SMART” test as a heuristic before a full-fledged DEP is launched, which benchmarks their economy’s digital Skills, Market functioning, Access through connectivity, Restrictions, and Trust, and provides tools to tackle limiting factors. Third, reviewing FDI trends in six sectors that are important to grow the digital economy (two of which are proposed as essential, namely Communications and Software & IT services), with graphical evidence that can guide policymakers to prioritize policy reforms and investment promotion where they are relatively weak. Throughout, particular attention should be paid to growing the digital capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). A Sustainable Technology Board – modeled after the Financial Stability Board but oriented to cooperation over new technologies – could further help address techno-competition and other concerns over Digital FDI.

Previous theoretical explanations and empirical analyses of the multinationality‐performance relationship have produced mixed arguments and results. Linear and inverted U‐shaped relationships have been theorized and confirmed empirically. Recent research has theorized that there is a three‐stage, sigmoid relationship between multinationality and performance. We contribute to the debate by showing that the impact of multinationality depends on the time dimension incorporated in the performance measure; that is, the net benefits from multinationality are likely to be higher in the longer term. The results from our sample of US manufacturing multinationals indicate that there is a three‐stage, sigmoid multinationality‐performance relationship.

I am delighted to be here today to honor the work of Alan Rugman. Alain Verbeke (Calgary) and I will discuss Alan's contributions, with me focusing primarily on his contributions to the field of international business (IB); Alain, his contributions to international management (IM).

The costs of doing business abroad (CDBA) is a well-known concept in the international business literature, measuring the disadvantages or additional costs borne by multinational enterprises (MNEs) that are not borne by local firms in a host country. Recently, international management scholars have introduced a second concept, liability of foreignness (LOF). There is confusion in the two literatures as to the relationship between CBDA and LOF, as evidenced in a recent special issue on liability of foreignness (Journal of International Management, 2002). We argue that LOF stresses the social costs of doing business abroad, whereas CDBA includes both economic and social costs. The social costs arise from the unfamiliarity, relational, and discriminatory hazards that foreign firms face over and above those faced by local firms in the host country. Because the economic costs are well understood and can be anticipated, LOF becomes the core strategic issue for MNE managers. We argue that the key driver behind LOF is the institutional distance (cognitive, normative, and regulatory) between the home and host countries, and explore the ways in which institutional distance can affect LOF. We operationalize our arguments by showing how institutional distance and liability of foreignness can provide an alternative explanation for the MNE’s ownership strategy when going abroad.