Skip to main content
Log in

Fifty Years of International Business Theory and Beyond

  • Focused Issue: 50 Years of MIR
  • Published:
Management International Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

  • As the field of international business has matured, there have been shifts in the core unit of analysis. First, there was analysis at country level, using national statistics on trade and foreign direct investment (FDI). Next, the focus shifted to the multinational enterprise (MNE) and the parent’s firm specific advantages (FSAs). Eventually the MNE was analysed as a network and the subsidiary became a unit of analysis.

  • We untangle the last fifty years of international business theory using a classification by these three units of analysis. This is the country-specific advantage (CSA) and firm-specific advantage (FSA) matrix. Will this integrative framework continue to be useful in the future? We demonstrate that this is likely as the CSA/FSA matrix permits integration of potentially useful alternative units of analysis, including the broad region of the triad.

  • Looking forward, we develop a new framework, visualized in two matrices, to show how distance really matters and how FSAs function in international business. Key to this are the concepts of compounded distance and resource recombination barriers facing MNEs when operating across national borders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aharoni, Y. (1966).The foreign investment decision process. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. (2002). The strategic impact of external networks: Subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation.Strategic Management Journal, 23(11), 979–996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. (2007). Balancing subsidiary influence in the federative MNC: A business network view.Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 802–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asmussen, C. G. (2009). Local, regional, or global? Quantifying MNE geographic scope.Journal of International Business Studies, 40(7), 1192–1205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1989).Managing across borders—The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J. M. (1996). How multinational subsidiary mandates are gained and lost.Journal of International Business Studies, 27(3), 467–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J. M. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives.Strategic Management Journal, 18(3), 207–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J. M. (2000). The determinants and consequences of subsidiary initiative in multinational corporations.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practise, 24(1), 9–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J. M., & Hood, N. (1998) Multinational subsidiary evolution: Capability and charter change in foreign owned subsidiary companies.Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 773–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J. M., & Hood, N. (2001). Unleash innovation in foreign subsidiaries.Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 131–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., & Pedersen, T. (2009). Strategy and management in MNE subsidiaries. In A. M. Rugman (Ed.),The Oxford handbook of international business (2nd ed., pp. 367–388). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J. M., Hood, N., & Jonsson, S. (1998). Building firm specific advantages in multinational corporation: The role of subsidiary initiative.Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 221–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J. (2009). Internalization thinking—From the multinational enterprise to the global factory.International Business Review, 18(3), 224–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P., & Casson, M. (1976).The future of the multinational enterprise. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P., & Casson, M. (2009). The internalisation theory of the multinational enterprise—A review of the progress of a research agenda after 30 years. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1563–1580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., & Ghauri, P. N. (2004). Globalization, economic geography, and the strategy of the multinational enterprises.Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 81–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., & Hashai, N. (2005). Firm configuration and internationalization: A model.International Business Review, 14(6), 655–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casson, M. (1979).Alternatives to the multinational enterprise. New York: Holmes & Meier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casson, M. (1982).The entrepreneur. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casson, M. (1987).The firm and the market. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caves, R. E. (1971). International corporations: The industrial economics of foreign investment.Economica, 38(149), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caves, R. E. (1982, 1996).Multinational enterprises and economic analysis (1st and 2nd edn.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm.Economica, 4(16), 386–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinson, S., & Rugman, A. M. (2008). The regional nature of Japanese multinational business.Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2), 215–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963).A behavioural theory of the firm. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Cruz, J. (1986). Managing the multinational subsidiaries. In H. Etemad & L. S. Dulude (Eds.),Managing the multinational subsidiary (pp. 75–89). London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y., Santos, J., & Williamson, P. (2001).From global to metanational: How companies win in the knowledge economy. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H. (1958).American investment in British manufacturing industry. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H. (1977). Trade, location of economic activity and the MNEs: A search for an eclectic paradigm. In P. Wijikman (Ed.),The international allocation of economic activity (pp. 395–418). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H. (1988). The eclectic paradigm of international production: A restatement and some possible extension.Journal of International Business Studies, 19(1), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H. (1998). Location and the multinational enterprise: A neglected factor?Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1), 45–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H., & Rugman, A. M. (1985). The influence of Hymer’s dissertation on the theory of foreign direct investment.American economic review: Papers and proceedings, 75(2), 228–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, L. (2005). Cave! Hic Dragones! Alan M. Rugman’s contribution to the field of international business. In A. Verbeke (Ed.),Research in global strategic management: Vol. 11. Internalization, international diversification and the multinational enterprise, essays in honour of Alan M. Rugman (pp. 9–27). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, L., & Dai, L. (2010). Rethinking the O in Dunning’s OLI/eclectic paradigm.Multinational Business Review, 18(2), 13–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egelhoff, W. (1982). Strategy and structure in multinational corporations: A revision of the Stopford and Wells model.Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 435–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fina, E., & Rugman, A. M. (1996). A test of internalization theory and internationalization theory: The Upjohn company.Management International Review, 36(3), 199–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisch, J. H., & Oesterle, M.-J. (2003). Exploring the globalization of German MNCs with the complex spread and diversity measure.Schmalenbach Business Review, 55(1), 2–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsgren, M., Holm, U., & Johanson, J. (1995). Division headquarters go abroad: A step in the internationalization and the multinational corporation.Journal of Management Studies, 32(4), 475–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2002). Transferring knowledge in MNCs: The role of sources of subsidiary knowledge and organizational context.Journal of International Management, 8(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters: The hard reality of global expansion.Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 137–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P. (2007).Redefining global strategy: Crossing borders in a world where differences still matter. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaum, M., & Oesterle, M.-J. (2007). 40 years of research on internationalization and firm performance: More questions than answers?Management International Review, 47(3), 307–317, Focused Issue.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosse, R. (2005). Are the largest financial institutions really “global”?Management International Review, 45(1), 129–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grubaugh, S. J. (1987). Determinants of direct foreign investment.Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(1), 149–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2006). Strategic networks.Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 203–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedlund, G. (1986). The hypermodern MNC: A heterarchy?Human Resource Management, 25(1), 9–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hejazi, W. (2007). Reconsidering the concentration of US MNE activity: Is it global, regional, or national?Management International Review, 47(1), 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J. F. (1982).A theory of multinational enterprise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J. F. (2009a). Theories of the multinational enterprise. In A. M. Rugman (Ed.),The Oxford handbook of international business (2nd ed., pp. 125–145). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J. F. (2009b). Down with MNE centric theories! Market entry and expansion as the bundling of MNE and local assets.Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1432–1454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories.Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2006). What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’ minds.Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 882–896.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holm, U., & Pedersen, T. (2000).The emergence and impact of centres of excellence: A subsidiary perspectives. London: McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004).Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hymer, S. H. (1960).The international operations of national firms: A study of direct foreign investment. Ph.D thesis, MIT (published by MIT Press, Cambridge: MA under the same title in 1976).

  • Hymer, S. H. (1976).The international operations of national firms: A study of direct foreign investment. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Itaki, M. (1991). A critical assessment of the eclectic theory of the multinational enterprise.Journal of International Business Studies, 22(3), 445–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments.Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1990). The mechanism of internationalization.International Marketing Review, 7(4), 11–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (2009). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership.Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1411–1431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Wiedersheim, P. F. (1975). The internationalization of the firm—The four Swedish cases.Journal of Management Studies, 12(3), 305–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindleberger, C. P. (1969).American business abroad: Six lectures on direct investment. London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (1996). The born global firms: A challenge to the traditional international theory. In S. Cavusgil & T. Madsen (Eds.),Advances in International Marketing (Vol. 8, pp. 11–26). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, G. A., Madsen, T. K., & Servais, P. (2004). An inquiry into born global firms in Europe and the USA.International Marketing Review, 21(6), 645–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode.Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), 411–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2010). Social and sustainability dimensions of regionalization and (Semi) globalization.Multinational Business Review, 18(1), 51–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. H. (2010). The M curve: The performance of born-regional firms from Korea.Multinational Business Review, 18(4), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J. (1994). Experience effects and international question: strategies of service MNCs in the Asia Pacific region.Management International Review, 34(3), 217–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., & Li. D. (2007). Testing the global and regional strategies of multinational enterprise. In A. M. Rugman (Ed.),Research in global strategic management: Vol. 13. The regional aspects of multinationality and performance (pp 263–269). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Rugman, A. M. (2007). Real options and the theory of foreign direct investment.International Business Review, 16(6), 687–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, F-Y., Mahoney, J. T., & Tan, D. (2010). The relationship between location bound advantages and international strategy: An empirical investigation.Working Paper. http://www.illinois.edu/Working_papers/papers/10-0103.pdf.

  • Lopez, L. E., Kundu, S. K., & Ciravegna, L. (2009). Born global vs. born regional: Evidence from an exploratory study on the Costa Rican software industry.Journal of International Business Studies, 40(7), 1228–1238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loree, D., & Guisinger, S. (1995). Policy and non-policy determinants of US equity foreign direct investment.Journal of International Business Studies, 26(2), 281–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luostarinen, R. (1979).Internationalization of the firm. Helsinki: Academie Economicae, Helsinki School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J. T., & Pandian, J. R. (1992). The resource based view within the conversation of strategic management.Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 363–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malnight, T. (1996). The transition from decentralized to network-based MNC structures: An evolutionary perspective.Journal of International Business Studies, 27(1), 43–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Kumar B. S., & Peng, M. W. (2009). Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies.Strategic Management Journal, 30(1), 61–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, K. (1996). Capturing international responsibilities in the Canadian pharmaceutical industry.Industry Canada Working Paper.

  • Moore, K. (2001). A strategy for subsidiaries: Centres of excellence to build subsidiary specific advantages.Management International Review, 41(3), 275–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, K., & Birkinshaw, J. (1998). Managing knowledge in global service firms; centres of excellence.Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudambi, R. (2008). Location, control and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries.Journal of Economic Geography, 8(5), 699–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudambi, R., & Navarra, P. (2004). Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power, and rent- seeking within MCs.Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), 385–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R., & Hagedoorn, J. (1999). Innovating through strategic alliances: Moving towards international partnerships and contractual agreements.Technovation, 19(5), 283–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, C. H. (2010). Value creation and home region internationalization of U.S. MNEs.Multinational Business Review, 18(4), 23–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oviatt, B., & McDougall, P. (1994). Towards a theory of international new ventures.Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. (1959).The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view.Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poynter, T. A., & Rugman, A. M. (1982). World product mandates: How will multinationals respond?Business Quarterly, 47(3), 54–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. L. (1981). An approach to strategic control in MNCs.Sloan Management Review, 22(4), 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. (1987).The multinational mission: Balancing local demands and global vision. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990) The core competence of the corporation.Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M. (1980a). A test of internalization theory.Managerial and Decision Economics, 2(4), 211–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M. (1980b).Multinationals in Canada: Theory, performance and economic impact. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M. (1981).Inside the multinationals: The economics of internal markets. New York: Columbia Press. Reissued by Palgrave Macmillan in 2006 as Inside the Multinationals, (25th Anniversary Edition), Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M. (1983a). The comparative performance of U.S. and European multinational enterprises, 1970–1979.Management International Review, 23(2), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M. (1983b).Multinationals and technology transfer. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M. (1985). Internalization is still a general theory of foreign direct investment.Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 121(3), 570–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M. (2000).The end of globalization. London: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M. (2005).The regional multinationals: MNEs and “Global” strategic management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M. (2010). Reconciling internalization theory and the eclectic paradigm.Multinational Business Review, 18(2), 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman A. M., & Almodóvar, P. (2011). The born global illusion and the regional nature of international business. In R. Ramamurti & N. Hashai (Eds.),Research in global strategic management: Vol. 15. The future of foreign direct investment and the multinational enterprise (pp. 265–283). Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Bennett, J. (1982). Technology transfer and world product mandating in Canada.Columbia Journal of World Business, 17(4), 58–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Douglas, S. (1986). The strategic management of multinationals and world product mandating.Canadian Public Policy, 12(2), 320–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & D’Cruz, J. (2000).Multinationals as flagship firms: Regional business networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & McIlveen, J. (1985). Canadian multinationals: Identification, performance and strategic management.Management International Review, 25(3), 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Oh, C. H. (2007). Multinationality and regional performance, 2001–2005. In A. M. Rugman (Ed.),Research in global strategic management: Vol. 13. Regional aspects of multinationality and performance (pp. 31–43). Oxford: Elservier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Oh, C. H. (2008). Korea’s multinationals in a regional world.Journal of World Business, 43(1), 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Oh, C. H. (2010). Does the regional nature of multinationals affect the multinationality and performance relationship?International Business Review, 19(5), 479–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (1992). A note on the transnational solution and the transaction cost theory of multinational strategic management.Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4), 761–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (1993). Foreign subsidiaries and multinational strategic management.Management International Review, Special Issue, 33(2), 71–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2001). Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises.Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 237–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2002). Edith Penrose’s contribution to the resource-based view of strategic management.Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 769–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Extending the theory of the multinational enterprises: internalization theory and strategic management perspectives.Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2), 125–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2004). A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises.Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1), 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2005). Towards a theory of regional multinationals: a transaction cost economics approach.Management International Review, Special Issue, 45(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2007). Liabilities of regional foreignness and the use of firm-level versus country-level data: A response to Dunninget al. (2007).Journal of International Business Studies, 38(1), 200–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2008a). A regional solution to the strategy and structure of multinationals.European Management Journal, 26(5), 305–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2008b). A new perspective on the regional and global strategies of multinational service firms.Management International Review, 48(4), 397–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2008c). The theory and practice of regional strategy: A response to Osegowtisch and Sammartino.Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2), 326–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2009a). Location, competitiveness and the multinational enterprise. In A. M. Rugman (Ed.),The Oxford handbook of international business (2nd ed., pp. 146–180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2009b). Multinational enterprises and public policy. In A. M. Rugman (Ed.),The Oxford handbook of international business (2nd ed., pp. 228–255). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., Lecraw, D. L., & Booth, L. D. (1985).International business: Firm and environment. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., Li, J., & Oh, C. H. (2009). Are supply chains global or regional?International Marketing Review, 26(4/5), 384–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., Verbeke, A., & Yuan, W. (2011). Re-conceptualizing Bartlett and Ghoshal’s classification of national subsidiary roles in the multinational enterprise.Journal of Management Studies, 48(2), 253–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruigrok, W., & Wagner, H. (2003). Internationalization and performance: An organizational learning perspective.Management International Review, 43(1), 63–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R. P. (1984). Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In R. B. Lamb (Ed.),Competitive strategic management (pp. 556–570). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Reprinted in N. J. Foss,Resources firms and strategies: A reader in the resource-based perspective (pp. 131–145). Oxford University Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, D. (2009). Are multinational enterprises from the emerging economies global or regional?European Management Journal, 27(5), 356–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenkar, O. (2001). Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences.Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), 519–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stopford, J. M., & Wells, L. T. (1972).Managing the multinational enterprise: Organization of the firm and ownership of the subsidiaries. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuene, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.Strategic Management Journal, 18(8), 537–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tung, R., & Verbeke, A. (2010). Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving the quality of cross cultural research.Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1259–1274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A. (2009).International business strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., & Brugman, P. (2009). Triple testing the quality of multinationality—performance research: An internalization theory perspective.International Business Review, 18(3), 265–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., & Greidanus, N. S. (2009). The end of the opportunism vs trust debate: Bounded reliability as a new envelope concept in research on MNE governance.Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1471–1495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., & Kenworthy, T. (2008). Multidivisional vs. Metanational governance of the multinational enterprise.Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6), 940–956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product life cycle.The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2), 190–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, R. (1971).Sovereignty at bay: The multinational spread of US enterprises. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, R. (1991). Sovereignty at bay: Twenty years after.Millennium Journal of International Studies, 20(2), 191–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource—based view of the firm.Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach.The American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, J., & Egelhoff, W. G. (2010). Limitations of the network organization in MNCs. In J. Pla-Barber & J. Alegre (Eds.),Progress in international business research (Vol. 5, pp. 143–172). Amsterdam: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, J., & Egelhoff, W. G. (2011). Network or matrix? How information-processing theory can help MNCs answer this question. In A. Bøllingtoft, L. Donaldson, G. P. Huber, D. Døjbak Håkonsson, & C. C. Snow (Eds.),Collaborative communities of firms—Purpose, process, and design. Springer Science: Business Media B.V (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, J., Dunemann, T., & Egelhoff, W. G. (2008) Economic, psychological, and sociological theories for the explanation of home-region oriented MNCs.The best paper proceedings of the annual conference of the academy of management, Anaheim.

  • Yin, E., & Choi, C. J. (2005). The globalization myth: The case of China.Management International Review, 45(Special Issue 1), 103–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, S. (1995). Overcoming the liability of foreignness.Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 341–363.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are pleased to acknowledge helpful comments from two referees, and from Professors Peter Buckley, Mark Casson, Michael-Joerg Oesterle, and Joachim Wolf. We also received helpful comments from participants at seminars at the University of Leeds, York University and the University of Reading.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan M. Rugman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rugman, A., Verbeke, A. & Nguyen, Q. Fifty Years of International Business Theory and Beyond. Manag Int Rev 51, 755–786 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-011-0102-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-011-0102-3

Keywords

Navigation