Advertisement

Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 184–196 | Cite as

Reassessing (home-)regionalisation

  • Thomas Osegowitsch
  • André Sammartino
Article

Abstract

Alan Rugman and co-authors argue that globalisation, and with it global strategy, is a myth. This contention rests on a taxonomy of the world's largest firms based on their sales, showing an overwhelming share of home-regional firms. We question the rationales underpinning their classification scheme. When retesting the data using different schema we find that the original results are far from robust, with a significant share of firms attaining bi-regional or global status. Further longitudinal analysis shows that large firms increasingly are extending their sales beyond the home region. Our results defy regionalisation theory in its current form, and we call for refinements through further research.

Keywords

regionalisation globalisation semi-globalisation global strategy regional strategy triad 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Eric Quintane in compiling the data used in this paper. We also thank Editor-in-Chief Professor Arie Lewin and two anonymous JIBS reviewers for their efforts.

References

  1. Aharoni, Y. 1971. On the definition of a multinational corporation. Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 11 (3): 27–37.Google Scholar
  2. Aharoni, Y. 2006. Book review: Alan M. Rugman, The regional multinationals. MNEs and global strategic management. International Business Review, 15 (4): 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asmussen, C. G. 2006. Local, regional or global? Quantifying MNC geographic scope. SMG Working Paper 14/2006, Centre for Strategic Management and Globalization, Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
  4. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benito, G. R. J., & Gripsrud, G. 1992. The expansion of foreign direct investments: Discrete location choices or a cultural learning process? Journal of International Business Studies, 23 (3): 461–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cembureau 2007. 2005 World cement production by region. http://www.cembureau.be/Documents/KeyFacts/STATISTICS/World%20Cement%20Production%20by%20Region.pdf. Accessed 24 March 2007.
  7. Collinson, S. C. & Rugman, A. M. 2008. The regional nature of Japanese multinational business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (2): 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunning, J. H., Fujita, M., & Yakova, N. 2007. Some macro-data on the regionalisation/globalisation debate: A comment on the Rugman/Verbeke analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (1): 177–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Economist 1997. One world?. 18 October: 79–81.Google Scholar
  10. Economist 2007. Billion dollar pills. 25 January: 61–64.Google Scholar
  11. Enright, M. 2005. Regional management centers in the Asia-Pacific. Management International Review, 45 (Special Issue 1): 59–82.Google Scholar
  12. Euromonitor 2000. Pharmaceuticals: A world survey. World market overview. Global Report, 2 June, Global Market Information Database. https://www.euromonitor.com/. Accessed 3 January 2007.
  13. Euromonitor 2005. The world market for dairy products. Global Report, 7 June, Global Market Information Database. https://www.euromonitor.com/. Accessed 3 January 2007.
  14. Ghemawat, P. 2001. Distance still matters. Harvard Business Review, 79 (8): 137–147.Google Scholar
  15. Ghemawat, P. 2003. Semiglobalization and international business strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (2): 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. 1990. The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network. Academy of Management Review, 15 (4): 603–625.Google Scholar
  17. Ghoshal, S., & Westney, D. E. 1993. Introduction and overview. In S. Ghoshal and D. E. Westney (eds), Organization theory and the multinational corporation: 1–23. New York: St Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hejazi, W. 2007. Reconsidering the concentration of US MNE activity: Is it global, regional or national? Management International Review, 47 (1): 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johanson, J., & Wiedersheim-Paul, F. 1975. The internationalization of the firm: Four Swedish cases. Journal of Management Studies, 12 (3): 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nokia 2003. Nokia in 2002. http://www.nokia.com/A4126499. Accessed 28 March 2007.
  21. Ohmae, K. 1985. Triad power: The coming shape of global competition. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  22. Osegowitsch, T., & Sammartino, A. 2007. Exploring trends in regionalisation. In A. M. Rugman (ed.), Research in global strategic management, vol. 13, Regional aspects of multinationality and performance. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 45–64.Google Scholar
  23. Penrose, E. T. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rugman, A. M. 2000. The end of globalization. London: Random House.Google Scholar
  25. Rugman, A. M. 2005. The regional multinationals: MNEs and “global” strategic management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rugman, A. M., & Brain, C. 2003. Multinational enterprises are regional, not global. Multinational Business Review, 11 (1): 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rugman, A. M., & Hodgetts, R. M. 2001. The end of global strategy. European Management Journal, 19 (4): 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 31–43.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2004a. A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (1): 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2004b. Regional transnationals and triad strategy. Transnational Corporations, 13 (3): 1–19.Google Scholar
  32. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2005. Towards a theory of regional multinationals: A transaction cost economics approach. Management International Review, 45 (Special Issue 1): 5–17.Google Scholar
  33. 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. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (1): 200–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tan, D., & Mahoney, J. T. 2005. Examining the Penrose effect in an international business context: The dynamics of Japanese firm growth in US industries. Managerial and Decision Economics, 26 (2): 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Teece, D. J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation. Research Policy, 15 (6): 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Westney, E. 2006. Book review: The regional multinationals: MNEs and “global” strategic management. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (3): 445–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yip, G., Rugman, A. M., & Kudina, A. 2006. International success of British companies. Long Range Planning, 39 (3): 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2): 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management and MarketingUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations