Search results

Recent international business research finds that state-owned multinational enterprises (SOMNEs) invest relatively more in politically risky host countries than do privately-owned multinational enterprises (MNEs). This study aims to investigate theoretically and empirically whether state ownership mitigates the impact of host-country political risk on subsidiary economic risk.

The authors link theoretical arguments on state ownership to arguments from non-market strategy literature to outline mechanisms whereby state ownership can buffer subsidiaries from political risk, weakening the link between host-country political risk and earnings volatility in subsidiaries. Using a data set on Norwegian MNEs’ foreign subsidiaries across almost two decades, the authors test this prediction using both matching methods and panel regressions.

While standard panel regressions provide empirical support only for the infrastructure sector and for the highest political risk contexts, nearest-neighbour matching models – comparing only otherwise similar private- and SOMNE subsidiaries using the full sample – reveal more general support for the political risk mitigation hypothesis.

The study presents the first comprehensive analysis of whether state ownership can mitigate the effect of political risk on subsidiary economic risk.

This study, a perspective piece, aims to argue that one particular slice of political institutional operations – the conduct of international relations – offers a clue to the possible risks that businesses face from geopolitics.

The authors examine the various facets of international relations and diplomacy, including the processes and arenas, to show the relevance of statecraft for firms looking to minimize political risk.

By understanding the role of diplomacy and statecraft as a process, firms can better prepare themselves for events that have far-reaching ramifications. This is very different than minimizing risk from inherent geopolitical tensions and allows for a more flexible approach to understanding risk levels in the global arena.

International business scholarship has focused on institutions and their effects on firms and has recently begun to re-examine the role of geopolitics and political risk on firm performance and decisions. However, the current literature continues to have a superficial understanding of institutional processes and their impact on business, especially when it comes to the daily workings of political institutions.

In this research, we designed and implemented a unique vignette experiment to study the effect of managers' perceptions of institutional distance on foreign location choice, as well as the moderating effect of managerial international experience and preferred entry mode on this relationship.

We employ an experimental vignette methodology (EVM) approach applied in the context of Chinese managers to test the causal relationships depicted in our hypotheses. In this way, we measure the decision-makers' perceptions ex ante, i.e. in conjunction with and prior to a decision about a foreign location choice.

Our findings show that managers' ex-ante perceptions of institutional distance negatively affect decisions on foreign location choice. Also, we find that managerial international experience and preference for high commitment entry modes mitigate the negative effect of managers' perceptions of institutional distance on foreign location choice.

This research study adds to our understanding of the effect of managers' perceptions of institutional distance and managerial contingencies on foreign location decisions. Further, it advances novel experimental design in international business research in general and on foreign location choice in particular.