Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 40, Issue 7, pp 1192–1205 | Cite as

Local, regional, or global? Quantifying MNE geographic scope

  • Christian Geisler AsmussenEmail author


This paper proposes a multidimensional index of regional and global orientation that can be used in confirmatory studies with econometric methodologies. Unlike extant measures, the index is objectively scaled, and controls for home country orientation and market size differences. The index is shown to be consistent with models of internationalization that incorporate different assumptions about investment choice and global competition. Preliminary results show that large multinationals follow home region oriented internationalization paths, although much of the regional effect reported by previous studies in fact reflects strong home country biases.


internationalization theory measurement issues regional strategy globalization liability of foreignness 



I thank Professors Alan M Rugman, Bent Petersen, Alina Kudina, André Sammartino, Tom Osegowitsch, and Torben Pedersen for valuable comments on this manuscript, and Professors Rugman and Alain Verbeke for providing the dataset for the empirical section of the paper. I also acknowledge the support of the Indiana University Center for International Business Education and Research (IU CIBER). I also thank Editor-in-Chief Professor Arie Y Lewin for his guidance, and two anonymous JIBS reviewers for comments that were very helpful in developing the final version of the paper.


  1. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across borders: The transnational solution. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  2. Buckley, P. J., Devinney, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. 2007. Do managers behave the way theory suggests? A choice-theoretic examination of foreign direct investment location decision-making. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (7): 1069–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collinson, S., & Rugman, A. M. 2008. The regional nature of Japanese multinational business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (2): 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Frankel, J. A., & Rose, A. K. 2002. An estimate of the effect of common currencies on trade and income. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117 (2): 437–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ghemawat, P. 2003. Semiglobalization and international business strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (2): 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hutzschenreuter, T., Pedersen, T., & Volberda, H. W. 2007. The role of path dependency and managerial intentionality: A perspective on international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (7): 1055–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hymer, S. H. 1976. The international operations of national firms: A study of direct investment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Miller, S. R., & Parkhe, A. 2002. Is there a liability of foreignness in global banking? An empirical test of banks' X-efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 23 (1): 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nachum, L. 2003. Liability of foreignness in global competition? Financial service affiliates in the City of London. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (12): 1187–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Osegowitsch, T., & Sammartino, A. 2008. Reassessing (home-)regionalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (2): 184–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. L. 1987. The multinational mission: Balancing local demands and global vision. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ramaswamy, K., Kroeck, K. G., & Renforth, W. 1996. Measuring the degree of internationalization of a firm: A comment. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (1): 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rugman, A. M. 2005. The regional multinationals: MNEs and “global” strategic management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rugman, A. M., & Brain, C. 2003. Multinational enterprises are regional, not global. The Multinational Business Review, 11 (1): 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rugman, A. M., & Girod, S. 2003. Retail multinationals and globalization: The evidence is regional. European Management Journal, 21 (1): 24–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rugman, A. M., & Hodgetts, R. 2001. The end of global strategy. European Management Journal, 19 (4): 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2005. Towards a theory of regional multinationals: A transaction cost economics approach. Management International Review, 45 (1): 5–17.Google Scholar
  20. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2007. Liabilities of regional foreignness and the use of firm-level versus country-level data: A response to Dunning et al. (2007). Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (1): 200–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2): 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zaheer, S., & Mosakowski, E. 1997. The dynamics of the liability of foreignness: A global study of survival in financial services. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (6): 439–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Strategic Management and Globalization, Copenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations