Advertisement

Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 58–70 | Cite as

Formalizing internationalization in the eclectic paradigm

  • Peter J Buckley
  • Niron Hashai
Article

Abstract

The paper presents a simple general equilibrium model that formalizes internationalization in the eclectic paradigm based on a reconfiguration of concepts taken from the new classical economics literature. The model enables us to address simultaneously the role of ownership, location and internalization advantages, and their interaction, in the emergence of the multinational enterprise (MNE) through a set of mathematical inequalities. Our model offers a bridge between the detached perceptions of the MNE often held by international trade economists and international business scholars, and makes specific aspects of the eclectic paradigm empirically testable.

Keywords

multinational enterprise eclectic paradigm internationalization entry mode 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Editor-in-Chief Arie Y Lewin and two anonymous JIBS reviewers for their guidance. Niron Hashai thanks the Asper Center for Entrepreneurship at the Hebrew University for its financial support.

References

  1. Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. 1972. Production, information costs and economic organization. American Economic Review, 62 (5): 775–795.Google Scholar
  2. Almeida, P. 1996. Knowledge sourcing by foreign multinationals: Patent citation analysis in the US semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue): 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brainard, S. L. 1997. An empirical assessment of the proximity-concentration tradeoff between multinational sales and trade. American Economic Review, 87 (4): 520–544.Google Scholar
  4. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. 1976. The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. 1998. Analyzing foreign market entry strategies: Extending the internalization approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (3): 539–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cantwell, J. 1995. The globalisation of technology: What remains of the product cycle model? Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19 (1): 155–174.Google Scholar
  7. Cantwell, J., & Narula, R. 2001. The eclectic paradigm in the global economy. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8 (2): 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr, D., Markusen, J. R., & Maskus, K. E. 2001. Estimating the knowledge-capital model of the multinational enterprise. American Economic Review, 91 (3): 693–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casson, M. 1985. Multinationals and intermediate product trade. In P. J. Buckley & M. Casson (Eds), The economic theory of the multinational enterprise: 144–171. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Casson, M. 2000. The economics of international business: A new research agenda. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunning, J. H. 1977. Trade, location of economic activity and the MNE: A search for an eclectic approach. In B. Ohlin, P.-O. Hesselborn, & P. M. Wijkman (Eds), The international allocation of economic activity: 395–418. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Dunning, J. H. 1981. FDI and the multinational enterprise. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  13. Dunning, J. H. 1988. The eclectic paradigm of FDI: A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 19 (1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunning, J. H. 1993. Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  15. Dunning, J. H. 1998. Location and the multinational enterprise: A neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (1): 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunning, J. H., & Narula, R. 1995. The R&D activities of foreign firms in the United States. International Studies of Management and Organization, 25 (1–2): 39–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eden, L. 2003. A critical reflection and some conclusions on OLI. In J. Cantwell & R. Narula (Eds), International business and the eclectic paradigm: 277–297. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Ethier, W. J. 1986. The multinational firm. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101 (4): 805–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. 2002. Integration vs outsourcing in industry equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117 (1): 85–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heckscher, E. 1949. The effect of foreign trade on the distribution of income. In H. S. Ellis & L. A. Metzler (Eds), Readings in international trade: 43–69. Philadelphia: The Blakiston Co.Google Scholar
  21. Helpman, E. 1984. A simple theory of international trade with multinational corporations. Journal of Political Economy, 92 (3): 451–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Helpman, E., & Krugman, P. R. 1985. Market structure and foreign trade: Increasing returns, imperfect competition and the international economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Henisz, W. J. 2005. The institutional environment for international business. In P. J. Buckley (Ed.) What is international business?: 85–109. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Hennart, J.-F. 1982. A theory of multinational enterprise. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hennart, J.-F. 1993. Explaining the swollen middle: Why most transactions are a mix of “market” and “hierarchy”. Organization Science, 4 (4): 529–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hirsch, S. 1976. An international trade and investment theory of the firm. Oxford Economic Papers, 28 (2): 258–270.Google Scholar
  27. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Horstman, I. J., & Markusen, J. R. 1987. Strategic investments and the development of multinationals. International Economic Review, 28 (1): 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hymer, S. H. 1976. The international operations of national firms: A study of direct foreign investment. Unpublished 1960 Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  30. Kogut, B., & Chang, S.-J. 1991. Technological capabilities and Japanese foreign direct investment in the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 73 (3): 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kogut, B., & Singh, H. 1988. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19 (3): 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24 (4): 625–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewin, A. Y., & Peeters, C. 2006. Offshoring work: Business hype or the onset of fundamental transformation? Long Range Planning, 39 (3): 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Linder, S. B. 1961. An essay on trade and transformation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  35. Markusen, J. R. 1984. Multinationals, multi-plant economies, and the gains from trade. Journal of International Economics, 16 (3–4): 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Markusen, J. R. 1998. Multinational firms, location and trade. The World Economy, 21 (6): 733–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Markusen, J. R. 2001. International trade theory and international business. In A. M. Rugman & T. L. Brewer (Eds), The Oxford handbook of international business: 69–87. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Markusen, J. R., & Venables, A. J. 1998. Multinational firms and the new trade theory. Journal of International Economics, 46 (2): 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Markusen, J. R., & Venables, A. J. 2000. The theory of endowment, intra-industry and multinational trade. Journal of International Economics, 52 (2): 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. 1988. Economic theories of the firm: Past, present, and future. Canadian Journal of Economics, 21 (3): 444–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ohlin, B. 1933. Interregional and international trade. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. 1985. Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10 (3): 435–454.Google Scholar
  44. Rugman, A. M. 1981. Inside the multinationals: The economics of internal markets. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Rugman, A. M. 1986. New theories of the multinational enterprise: An assessment of internalization theory. Bulletin of Economic Research, 38 (2): 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shenkar, O. 2001. Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (3): 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Solow, R. 1957. Technical progress and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39 (3): 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Teece, D. 1981. The multinational enterprise: Market failure and market power consideration. Sloan Management Review, 22 (3): 3–17.Google Scholar
  49. UNCTAD. 2005. World investment report. Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  50. Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and anti-trust applications. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  51. Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Yang, X. 1994. Endogenous vs exogenous comparative advantages and economies of specialization vs economies of scale. Journal of Economics, 60 (1): 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yang, X. 2001. Economics: New classical versus neoclassical analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  54. Yang, X., & Ng, Y. K. 1995. Theory of the firm and structure of residual rights. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 26 (1): 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.Centre for International Business, Leeds University Business SchoolUK
  2. 2.Jerusalem School of Business Administration, The Hebrew UniversityIsrael

Personalised recommendations