Abstract
Do domestic firms benefit from the presence of foreign multinational firms? The FDI spillovers literature addresses this very issue, primarily examining whether the presence of foreign firms in a host market leads to technology spillovers and upgrading in domestic firms. A key finding is that spillovers depend on the absorptive capacity of the domestic firm. Yet, in conceptualizing absorptive capacity, scholars have largely overlooked how social structure shapes it. Integrating insights from social networks, technology upgrading, and innovation literatures, I emphasize that a domestic firm's ability to absorb spillovers depends on the social structure it is embedded in. I argue that ties with foreign firms reduce the constraints that domestic firms usually face in searching for and transferring in foreign technologies. However, while search benefits from sparse network structures, transfer is facilitated by cohesive ones. Also, while affect-based ties might motivate foreign firms sufficiently to share information with domestic firms at the search stage, reciprocal benefits and social monitoring conferred by common third-party ties are necessary in the transfer stage. Any effect of ties also depends on the routine repertoire of domestic firms. Put together, these arguments offer a more socialized account of the spillover process.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In this paper, I use the terms “technology spillovers,” “productivity spillovers,” and “FDI spillovers” interchangeably, and to mean the same thing: spillovers of technology know-how from foreign to domestic firms in the host country.
I thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing out that the autonomy of the MNE subsidiary is also an important precondition for spillovers. A tightly controlled subsidiary may not have the discretion to share knowledge with domestic firms. But, at the same time, autonomy without incentives is not helpful. An autonomous subsidiary will not share knowledge unless there are sufficient incentives or motivating factors. I build on this point in the lead up to Proposition 4.
An early precursor to this idea is Hirschman's (1958) theory of unbalanced growth. Hirschman challenged the concept of “balanced economic growth” prevalent at the time, and argued that because of the linkages between sectors, the planned development of only some of them – that is, unbalanced growth – would automatically stimulate latent entrepreneurial activity in related sectors. A rise in demand and price in one sector would therefore stimulate latent entrepreneurship in sectors that supplied complementary products. Linkages could also take the form of direct relationships between firms in vertically related industries, with foreign firms providing technical and managerial support to bring domestic suppliers up to speed (Lall, 1980). While these are in effect formal transfers to domestic suppliers, Markusen and Venebles (1999) and Rodriguez-Clare (1996) extend the argument to include indirect effects. That is, as foreign firms establish backward linkages that build and strengthen supply industries, this in turn benefits other domestic firms in downstream sectors that source intermediates from these industries.
I thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this point.
Data requirements are obviously more demanding. First, I would need to move away from the large-scale multi-industry data approach in conventional spillovers studies to single-industry or geographically contained studies, so that data collection is more tractable. Second, missing data become a more important concern (Borgatti, Carley, & Krackhardt, 2006), because “each missing case removes the N−1 possible relationships with other network actors” (Ingram & Roberts, 2000: 399). Common method bias can also be a problem if the dependent variable is collected from the same survey. Yet I do not see these as significant hindrances, but rather as issues of which scholars need to be aware and careful (McDermott & Corredoira, 2010). Some scholars have handled common method bias by collecting data on dependent and independent variables from sequential surveys of the same respondents (Tsai, 2002).
References
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. -W. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27 (1): 17–40.
Aldrich, H. E., & Auster, E. R. 1986. Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and their strategic implications. Research in Organization Behavior, 8: 165–198.
Amburgey, T. L., Kelly, D., & Barnett, W. P. 1993. Resetting the clock: The dynamics of organizational change and failure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (1): 51–73.
Appleyard, M. M. 1996. How does knowledge flow? Interfirm patterns in the semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (winter special issue): 137–154.
Arrow, K. 1974. Essays in the theory of risk bearing. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.
Ayyagari, M., & Kosova, R. 2010. Does FDI facilitate domestic entry? Evidence from the Czech Republic. Review of International Economics, 18 (1): 14–29.
Bae, J., & Coo, J. 2008. Information loss, knowledge transfer cost and the value of social relations. Strategic Organization, 6 (3): 227–258.
Baranson, J. 1969. Industrial technologies for developing economies. New York: Praeger.
Barron, J. N., West, E., & Hannan, M. T. 1994. A time to grow and a time to die: Growth and mortality of credit unions in New York City, 1914–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 100 (2): 381–421.
Bechky, B. A. 2003. Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14 (3): 312–320.
Blalock, G., & Gertler, P. J. 2009. How firm capabilities affect who benefits from foreign technology. Journal of Development Economics 90 (2): 192–199.
Blalock, G., & Simon, D. H. 2009. Do all firms benefit equally from downstream FDI? The moderating effect of local suppliers’ capabilities on productivity gains. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (7): 1095–1112.
Blomström, M., & Kokko, A. 1998. Multinational corporations and spillovers. Journal of Economic Surveys, 12 (3): 247–277.
Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. 2003. A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49 (4): 432–445.
Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. 2011. On network theory. Organization Science, 22 (5): 1168–1181.
Borgatti, S. P., Carley, K. M., & Krackhardt, D. 2006. On the robustness of centrality measures under conditions of imperfect data. Social Networks, 28 (2): 124–136.
Bullnheimer, B., Dawid, H., & Zeller, R. 1998. Learning from own and foreign experience: Technological adaptation by imitating firms. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 4 (3): 267–282.
Burt, R. S. 1987. Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. The American Journal of Sociology, 92 (6): 1287–1335.
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carlile, P. R. 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15 (5): 555–568.
Centola, D., & Macy, M. 2007. Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology, 113 (3): 702–734.
Chang, S. -J., & Xu, D. 2008. Spillovers and competition among foreign and local firms in China. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (5): 495–518.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1): 128–152.
Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Supplement): S95–S120.
Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Menzel, H. 1966. Medical innovation. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Corredoira, R. A. 2009. Embedded exploration: The role of inter-firm networks in channelling organizational search, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Delacroix, J., & Swaminathan, A. 1991. Cosmetic, speculative and adaptive change in the wine industry: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (4): 631–661.
Dougherty, D. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3 (2): 179–202.
Durkheim, E. 1984. The division of labour in society. New York: Free Press.
Dyer, J. H., & Hatch, N. W. 2006. Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: Creating advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (8): 701–719.
Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. 2000. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (3): 345–367.
Eden, L. 2009. Letter from the editor-in-chief: FDI spillovers and linkages. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (7): 1065–1069.
Feinberg, S. E., & Majumdar, S. K. 2001. Technology spillovers from foreign direct investment in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (3): 421–437.
Findlay, R. 1978. Relative backwardness, direct foreign investment, and the transfer of technology: A simple dynamic model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 92 (1): 1–16.
Galbraith, C. 1990. Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high technology firms. California Management Review, 32 (4): 56–70.
Gilbert, N. 2007. Agent-based models. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Girma, S. 2005. Absorptive capacity and productivity spillovers from FDI: A threshold regression analysis. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67 (3): 281–306.
Giuliani, E. 2007. The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: Evidence from the wine industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 7 (2): 139–168.
Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. 2005. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: Evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34 (1): 47–68.
Giuliani, E., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. 2005. Upgrading in global value chains: Lessons from Latin American clusters. World Development, 33 (4): 549–573.
Görg, H., & Strobl, E. 2001. Multinational companies and productivity spillovers: A meta-analysis. The Economic Journal, 111 (475): 723–739.
Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6): 1360–1380.
Granovetter, M. S. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3): 481–510.
Greve, H. R. 1996. Patterns of competition: The diffusion of a market position in radio broadcasting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (1): 29–60.
Gu, Q., & Lu, J. W. 2011. Effects of inward investment on outward investment: The venture capitalist industry worldwide 1985–2007. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (2): 263–284.
Gulati, R. 2007. Managing network resources: Alliances, affiliations, and other relational assets. New York: Oxford.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. 2000. Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (3): 203–215.
Hall, G., & Johnson, R. 1970. Transfer of US aerospace technology to Japan. In R. Vernon (Ed.), The technology factor in international trade: 303–364. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hamel, G., Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. K. 1989. Collaborate with your competitors and win. Harvard Business Review, 67 (1): 133–139.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49 (April): 149–164.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1989. Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. 2003a. The fog of change: Opacity and asperity in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48 (3): 399–432.
Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. 2003b. Cascading organizational change. Organization Science, 14 (5): 463–482.
Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. 2004. The evolution of inertia. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13 (1): 213–242.
Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (1): 82–111.
Hansen, M. T., Mors, M. L., & Lovas, B. 2005. Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (5): 776–793.
Harrison, J. R., Lin, Z., Carroll, G. R., & Carley, K. M. 2007. Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Academy of Management Review, 32 (4): 1229–1245.
Haskel, J. E., Pereira, S. C., & Slaughter, M. J. 2002. Does inward foreign direct investment boost the productivity of domestic firms?, NBER Working Paper 8724, National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington DC.
Haveman, H. 1993. Organizational size and change: Diversification in the savings and loan industry after deregulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (1): 20–50.
Helfat, C. E. 2000. Guest editor's introduction to the special issue: The evolution of firm capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (10–11): 955–959.
Helper, S., MacDuffie, J. P., & Sabel, C. 2000. Pragmatic collaborations: Advancing knowledge while controlling opportunism. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9 (3): 443–488.
Hennart, J.-F. 1982. A theory of multinational enterprise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hirschman, A. O. 1958. The strategy of economic development. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hoetker, G., Swaminathan, A., & Mitchell, W. 2007. Modularity and the impact of buyer–supplier relationships on the survival of suppliers. Management Science, 53 (2): 178–191.
Huber, G. P., Sutcliffe, K. M., Miller, C. C., & Glick, W. H. 1993. Understanding and predicting organizational change. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds), Organizational change and redesign: 215–263. New York: Oxford.
Hymer, S. 1976. The international operations of national firms: A study of direct foreign investment. Boston: MIT Press.
Ingram, P., & Lifschitz, A. 2006. Kinship in the shadow of the corporation: The interbuilder network in Clyde river shipbuilding, 1711–1990. American Sociological Review, 71 (2): 334–352.
Ingram, P., & Roberts, P. W. 2000. Friendships among competitors in the Sydney hotel industry. American Journal of Sociology, 106 (2): 387–423.
Javorcik, B. S. 2004. Does foreign direct investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages. American Economic Review, 94 (3): 605–627.
Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. 2010. Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates. Academy of Management Annals, 4 (1): 317–357.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3 (3): 383–397.
Kotabe, M., Martin, X., & Domoto, H. 2003. Gaining from vertical partnerships: Knowledge transfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the US and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (4): 293–316.
Kraatz, M. S. 1998. Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (6): 621–643.
Krackhardt, D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (2): 342–369.
Krackhardt, D. 1992. The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action: 216–239. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kreps, D. M., & Wilson, R. 1982. Reputation and imperfect information. Journal of Economic Theory, 27 (2): 253–279.
Krugman, P. 1991. Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99 (3): 483–499.
Labianca, G., & Brass, D. J. 2006. Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31 (3): 596–614.
Lall, S. 1980. Vertical inter-firm linkages in LDCs: An empirical study. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 42 (3): 203–226.
Larson, A. 1992. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 (1): 76–104.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (S2): 95–112.
Lin, N. 2001. Social capital. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lipsey, R. E., & Sjoholm, F. 2005. The impact of inward FDI on host countries: Why such different answers?. In T. H. Moran, E. M. Graham, & M. Blomström (Eds), Does foreign direct investment promote development? 23–43. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Liu, X., Siler, P., Wang, C., & Wei, Y. 2000. Productivity spillovers from foreign direct investment: Evidence from UK industry level panel data. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (3): 407–423.
Liu, X., Wang, C., & Wei, Y. 2009. Do local manufacturing firms benefit from transactional linkages with multinational enterprises in China? Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (7): 1113–1130.
Liu, X., Lu, J., Filatotchev, I., Buck, T., & Wright, M. 2010. Returnee entrepreneurs, knowledge spillovers, and innovation in high-tech firms in emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (7): 1183–1197.
MacDougall, G. D. A. 1960. The benefits and costs of private investment from abroad: A theoretical approach. Economic Record, 36 (73): 13–35.
Markusen, J. R., & Venebles, A. J. 1999. Foreign direct investment as a catalyst for industrial development. European Economic Review, 43 (2): 335–356.
McDermott, G. A., & Corredoira, R. A. 2010. Network and composition, collaborative ties, and upgrading in emerging-market firms: Lessons from the Argentine autoparts sector. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (2): 308–329.
McDermott, G. A., Corredoira, R. A., & Kruse, G. 2009. Public-private institutions as catalysts of upgrading in emerging market societies. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (6): 1270–1296.
McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. 2005. Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (11): 1033–1055.
McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. 1999. Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (12): 1133–1156.
Meyer, K. 2004. Perspectives on multinational enterprises in emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (4): 259–276.
Meyer, K. E., & Sinani, E. 2009. When and where does foreign direct investment generate positive spillovers? A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (7): 1075–1094.
Miller, D., & Chen, M. J. 1994. Sources and consequences of competitive inertia: A study of the US airline industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (1): 1–23.
Moran, T. H. 2001. Parental supervision: The new paradigm for foreign direct investment. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
Mors, M. L. 2010. Innovation in a global consulting firm: When the problem is too much diversity. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (8): 841–872.
Mowery, D., & Rosenberg, N. 1989. Technology and the pursuit of economic growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Obstfeld, D. 2005. Social networks, the Tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (1): 100–130.
Peteraf, M., & Shanley, M. 1997. Getting to know you: A theory of strategic group identity. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (S1): 165–186.
Phene, A., & Almeida, P. 2008. Innovation in multinational subsidiaries: The role of knowledge assimilation and subsidiary capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (5): 901–919.
Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. 2011. Global value chains meet innovation systems: Are there learning opportunities for developing countries? World Development, 39 (7): 1261–1269.
Podolny, J. M. 1993. A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98 (4): 829–872.
Podolny, J. M. 1994. Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (3): 458–483.
Podolny, J. M. 2001. Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107 (1): 33–60.
Polidoro Jr., F., Ahuja, G., & Mitchell, W. 2011. When the social structure overshadows competitive incentives: The effects of network embeddedness on joint venture dissolution. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (1): 203–223.
Porter, M. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. London: Macmillan.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48 (2): 240–267.
Rodriguez-Clare, A. 1996. Multinationals, linkages, and economic development. American Economic Review, 86 (4): 852–873.
Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. 2000. Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (3): 369–386.
Safford, S. 2007. Why the garden club couldn’t save Youngstown: Civic infrastructure and mobilization in economic crises, MIT Local Innovation Systems Working Paper 04-003, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Sako, M. 1996. Suppliers’ associations in the Japanese automobile industry: Collective action for technology diffusion. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 20 (6): 651–671.
Saxenian, A. 1994. Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schrader, S. 1991. Informal technology transfer between firms: Cooperation through information trading. Research Policy, 20 (2): 153–170.
Sinani, E., & Meyer, K. E. 2004. Spillovers of technology transfer from FDI: The case of Estonia. Journal of Comparative Economics, 32 (3): 445–466.
Singh, J. 2007. Asymmetry of knowledge spillovers between MNCs and host country firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (5): 764–786.
Smelser, N. J., & Swedberg, R. 2005. Introducing economic sociology. In N. J. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds), The handbook of economic sociology, (2nd edn): 3–25. Princeton, NJ: Russell Sage Foundation/Princeton University Press.
Spencer, J. W. 2008. The impact of multinational enterprise strategy on indigenous enterprises: Horizontal spillovers and crowding out in developing countries. Academy of Management Review, 33 (2): 341–361.
Strang, D., & Macy, M. W. 2001. In search of excellence: Fads, success stories, and adaptive emulation. American Journal of Sociology, 107 (1): 147–182.
Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. 1998. Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 265–290.
Stuart, T. E., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. C. 1999. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (2): 315–349.
Suarez, F. F. 2005. Network effects revisited: The role of strong ties in technology selection. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (4): 710–720.
Tan, D., & Meyer, K. 2011. Country of origin and industry FDI agglomeration of foreign investors in an emerging economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (4): 504–520.
Teece, D. J. 1977. Technology transfer by multinational firms: The resource cost of transferring technological know-how. Economic Journal, 87 (346): 242–261.
Teece, D. J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15 (6): 285–305.
Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. 2007. Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 32 (3): 774–786.
Tortoriello, M., & Krackhardt, D. 2010. Activating cross-boundary knowledge: The role of Simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (1): 167–181.
Tsai, W. 2002. Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13 (2): 179–190.
Uzzi, B. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1): 35–67.
von Hippel, E. 1987. Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how trading. Research Policy, 16 (6): 291–302.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27 (2): 185–203.
Zajac, E. J., & Shortell, S. M. 1989. Changing generic strategies: Likelihood, direction, and performance implications. Strategic Management Journal, 10 (5): 413–430.
Zhang, Y., Li, H., Li, Y., & Zhou, L.-A. 2010. FDI spillovers in an emerging market: The role of foreign firms’ country origin diversity and domestic firms’ absorptive capacity. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (9): 969–989.
Zuckerman, E. W., & Sgourev, S. V. 2006. Peer capitalism: Parallel relationships in the US economy. American Journal of Sociology, 111 (5): 1327–1366.
Acknowledgements
I thank Anand Swaminathan and three anonymous reviewers, Arjen Slangen, Chinmay Pattnaik, Rekha Krishnan, Roger Smeets, and Vikas Kumar for their helpful comments on this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Accepted by Anand Swaminathan, Area Editor, 19 December 2011. This paper has been with the author for three revisions.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eapen, A. Social structure and technology spillovers from foreign to domestic firms. J Int Bus Stud 43, 244–263 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.2