Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 23–27 | Cite as

Do we really need more entry mode studies?

  • J Myles Shaver
Commentary
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This commentary's title is not meant to be a rhetorical question. In congratulating Brouthers (2002) for the JIBS Decade Award, we have an opportunity to assess where we are within this field of inquiry, and what is our trajectory. I believe that we have accomplished a lot in this area of study. Nevertheless, I am concerned about its current trajectory, so much so that I think we should seriously question whether we need more entry mode studies – especially if we are going to get more of the same.

Keywords

entry mode international business research agenda Decade Award 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I appreciate helpful comments from an anonymous reviewer, Keith Brouthers, Xavier Martin, Miguel Ramos, and Rob Salomon. All opinions, errors, and omissions are mine.

References

  1. Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. 1986. Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17 (3): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brouthers, K. D. 2002. Institutional, cultural, and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (2): 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brouthers, K. D. 2012. A retrospective on: Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 44 (1): 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hennart, J.-F. 2009. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hymer, S. H. 1960. The international operations of national firms: A study of direct investment, PhD Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Johanson, T., & 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): 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Martin, X. 2012. Solving theoretical and empirical conundrums in the study of foreign entry mode choices and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 44 (1): 28–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Martin, X., & Salomon, R. 2003. Knowledge transfer capacity and its implications for the theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (4): 356–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Masten, S. E. 1993. Transaction costs, mistakes, and performance: Assessing the importance of governance. Managerial and Decision Economics, 14 (2): 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mitchell, W., Shaver, J. M., & Yeung, B. 1992. Getting there in a global industry: Impacts on performance of changing international presence. Strategic Management Journal, 13 (6): 419–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shaver, J. M. 1998. Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Science, 44 (4): 571–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shaver, J. M. 2006. Interpreting empirical findings. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (4): 451–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shaver, J. M., Mitchell, W., & Yeung, B. 1997. The effect of own-firm and other-firm experience on foreign direct investment survival in the United States, 1987–92. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (10): 811–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • J Myles Shaver
    • 1
  1. 1.Carlson School of Management, University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations