Advertisement

Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 49, Issue 9, pp 1138–1153 | Cite as

The making of a construct: Lessons from 30 years of the Kogut and Singh cultural distance index

  • Ilya R P Cuypers
  • Gokhan ErtugEmail author
  • Pursey P M A R Heugens
  • Bruce Kogut
  • Tengjian Zou
Point

Abstract

The 30-year anniversary of Kogut and Singh’s (1988) groundbreaking study that introduced the concept of cultural distance and its accompanying measure provides the opportunity to take stock of what makes for a good construct. We organize our discussion around the issues of concept, algorithm, and data to clarify and gauge their contribution, before highlighting the impact of their work more generally. Many of the challenges raised by critical observers focus on one of these three dimensions. As there is value in looking systematically at the construct from concept to data, we set out the argument of the index and discuss the validity of selected lines of criticism. We identify a number of emergent and future directions for the conceptualization and measurement of cultural distance, to facilitate the continuing advancement of work on international business.

Keywords

cultural distance cultural dimensions Hofstede national culture 

Résumé

L’anniversaire des 30 ans de l’étude novatrice de Kogut et Singh ((1988)), qui a introduit le concept de distance culturelle et la mesure qui l’accompagne, offre l’occasion de faire le point sur ce qui constitue un bon construit. Nous organisons notre discussion autour des questions relatives au concept, à l’algorithme et aux données pour clarifier et évaluer leur contribution avant de mettre en évidence l’impact de leur travail à un niveau plus général. La plupart des défis soulevés par les observateurs critiques se concentrent sur l’une de ces trois dimensions. Comme il est utile d’examiner systématiquement le construit du concept aux données, nous exposons l’argumentation sur l’index et discutons de la validité des lignes de critique sélectionnées. Afin de faciliter l’avancement continu du travail concernant l’international business, nous identifions un certain nombre d’orientations émergentes et futures pour la conceptualisation et la mesure de la distance culturelle.

Resumen

El aniversario número 30 del estudio pionero de Kogut y Singht que introdujo el concepto de distancia cultural y su medida que le acompaña da la oportunidad para hacer un balance de su contribución para construir un buen constructo. Organizamos nuestra discusión en torno a las cuestiones de concepto, algoritmo, y datos para clarificar y calcular su contribución, antes resaltando el impacto de su trabajo de manera más general. Muchos de los retos planteados por los observadores críticos se enfocan en una de estas tres dimensiones. Como es valioso mirar sistemáticamente al constructo desde el concepto hasta los datos, establecemos el argumento de índice y discutimos la validez de las líneas de crítica seleccionadas. Identificamos una serie de direcciones emergentes y futuras para la conceptualización y la medida de la distancia cultural, para facilitar el avance continuo del trabajo en negocios internacionales.

Resumo

O aniversário de 30 anos do estudo inovador de Kogut e Singh ((1988)), que introduziu o conceito de distância cultural e sua forma de mensuração, oferece a oportunidade de fazer um balanço do que contribui para um bom construto. Organizamos nossa discussão em torno das questões de conceito, algoritmo e dados para esclarecer e avaliar sua contribuição, antes de destacar o impacto de seu trabalho de maneira mais geral. Muitos dos desafios levantados por observadores críticos concentram-se em uma dessas três dimensões. Dado que há valor em olhar sistematicamente o construto desde conceito até os dados, expomos a discussão do índice e debatemos a validade de algumas linhas de crítica. Identificamos uma série de direções emergentes e futuras para a conceituação e medição da distância cultural, para facilitar o avanço contínuo do trabalho em negócios internacionais.

摘要

Kogut和Singh (1988) 开创性的研究30周年, 引入了文化距离的概念及其相应的量表, 为评估什么是一个好构建提供了机会。我们围绕概念、算法和数据问题组织讨论, 以澄清和测量们的贡献, 然后在更通用的层面突出他们研究的影响。持批评观点的观察者们提出的许多挑战都集中在这三个维度中的一个维度。由于对构建从概念到数据进行系统观察是有价值的,我们列出了指数的论证, 并讨论了所选批评意见的有效性。我们确定了文化距离概念化和测量的一些新兴的和未来的方向, 以促进国际商业研究的继续发展。.

Notes

References

  1. Adler, N. J. 1983. Cross-cultural management research: The ostrich and the trend. Academy of Management Review, 8(2): 226–232.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J., & van Wincoop, E. 2003. Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93: 17–192.Google Scholar
  3. Baack, D. W., Dow, D., Parente, R., & Bacon, D. R. 2015. Confirmation bias in individual-level perceptions of psychic distance: An experimental investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(8): 938–959.Google Scholar
  4. Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Zhou, N. 2010. An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(9): 1460–1480.Google Scholar
  5. Beugelsdijk, S., Kostova, T., Kunst, V. E., Spadafora, E., & van Essen, M. 2018. Cultural distance and firm internationalization: A meta-analytical review and theoretical implications. Journal of Management, 44(1): 89–130.Google Scholar
  6. Beugelsdijk, S., Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2017. An overview of Hofstede-inspired country-level culture research in international business since 2006. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(1): 30–47.Google Scholar
  7. Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R., & Van Hoorn, A. 2015. Are scores on Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture stable over time? A Cohort Analysis. Global Strategy Journal, 5(3): 223–240.Google Scholar
  8. Brannen, M. Y. 2004. When Mickey loses face: Recontextualization, semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 593–616.Google Scholar
  9. Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. 2012. On the misuse of national culture dimensions. International Marketing Review, 29(6): 673–676.Google Scholar
  10. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. 1976. The future of the multinational enterprise. New York: Holmes & Meier.Google Scholar
  11. Caves, R. E. 1996. Multinational enterprise and economic analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chandler, A. D. 1990. Scale and scope: The dynamics of industrial competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  13. Chiang, A. C. 1984. Fundamental methods of mathematical economics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95–S120.Google Scholar
  15. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Devinney, T. M., & Hohberger, J. 2017. The past is prologue: Moving on from Culture’s Consequences. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(1): 48–62.Google Scholar
  17. Dow, D., Cuypers, I. R., & Ertug, G. 2016. The effects of within-country linguistic and religious diversity on foreign acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(3): 319–346.Google Scholar
  18. Dow, D., Håkanson, L., & Ambos, B. 2014. Perceptions versus national-level differences: A mediating model of psychic distance. In A. Verbeke (Ed.), Markets and Institutional Diversity (pp. 133–170). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  19. Dow, D., & Karunaratna, A. 2006. Developing a multidimensional instrument to measure psychic distance stimuli. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5): 578–602.Google Scholar
  20. Dunning, J. H. 2000. The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity. International Business Review, 9(2): 163–190.Google Scholar
  21. Gatignon, H., & Anderson, E. 1988. The multinational corporation’s degree of control over foreign subsidiaries: An empirical test of a transaction cost explanation. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 4(2): 305–336.Google Scholar
  22. Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. 2007. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 479–514.Google Scholar
  23. George, G., Osinga, E. C., Lavie, D., & Scott, B. A. 2016. Big data and data science methods for management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5): 1493–1507.Google Scholar
  24. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. 2009. Cultural biases in economic exchange? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3): 1095–1131.Google Scholar
  25. Håkanson, L., & Ambos, B. 2010. The antecedents of psychic distance. Journal of International Management, 16(3): 195–210.Google Scholar
  26. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. 2001. The elements of statistical learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Hendriks, G., Slangen, A. H., & Heugens, P. P. 2017. How a firm’s domestic footprint and domestic environmental uncertainties jointly shape added cultural distances: The roles of resource dependence and headquarters attention. Journal of Management Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hernandez, E. 2014. Finding a home away from home: Effects of immigrants on firms’ foreign location choice and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1): 73–108.Google Scholar
  29. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. 2010. Cultures and organizations; software of the mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGrawHill.Google Scholar
  31. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  32. Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & Van de Schoot, R. 2017. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Hutzschenreuter, T., Kleindienst, I., & Lange, S. 2016. The concept of distance in international business research: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(2): 160–179.Google Scholar
  34. Hutzschenreuter, T., & Voll, J. C. 2008. Performance effects of “added cultural distance” in the path of international expansion: The case of German multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1): 53–70.Google Scholar
  35. Hutzschenreuter, T., Voll, J. C., & Verbeke, A. 2011. The impact of added cultural distance and cultural diversity on international expansion patterns: A Penrosean perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 305–329.Google Scholar
  36. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. 2005. Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Kim, C., Rangaswamy, A., & DeSarbo, W. S. 1999. A quasi-metric approach to multidimensional unfolding for reducing the occurrence of degenerate solutions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34(2): 143–180.Google Scholar
  39. Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. 2006. A quarter century of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3): 285–320.Google Scholar
  40. Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. 2000. From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3): 211–236.Google Scholar
  41. Kogut, B., Belinky, M., & Colomer, J. 2012. Generating rules and the social science of governance. In B. Kogut (Ed.), Small worlds of governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kogut, B., & Ragin, C. 2006. Exploring complexity when diversity is limited: Institutional complementarity in theories of rule of law and national systems revisited. European Management Review, 3(1): 44–59.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Magnusson, P., Baack, D. W., Zdravkovic, S., Staub, K. M., & Amine, L. S. 2008. Meta-analysis of cultural differences: Another slice at the apple. International Business Review, 17(5): 520–532.Google Scholar
  45. Manz, C. C., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. 2006. Does culture affect economic outcomes? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2): 23–48.Google Scholar
  46. Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. 2017. Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management, 43(1): 255–282.Google Scholar
  47. Morosini, P., Shane, S., & Singh, H. 1998. National cultural distance and cross-border acquisition performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1): 137–158.Google Scholar
  48. Morschett, D., Schramm-Klein, H., & Swoboda, B. 2010. Decades of research on market entry modes: What do we really know about external antecedents of entry mode choice? Journal of International Management, 16(1): 60–77.Google Scholar
  49. Newhouse, J. P., Williams, A. P., Schwartz, W. B., & Bennett, B. W. 1982. The geographic distribution of physicians: Is the conventional wisdom correct?. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  50. Peterson, M. F., Arregle, J. L., & Martin, X. 2012. Multilevel models in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(5): 451–457.Google Scholar
  51. Ragin, C. 1987. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative methods. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  52. Reus, T. H., & Rottig, D. 2009. Meta-analyses of international joint venture performance determinants. Management International Review, 49(5): 607.Google Scholar
  53. Robins, G., & Alexander, M. 2004. Small worlds among interlocking directors: Network structure and distance in bipartite graphs. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 10(1): 69–94.Google Scholar
  54. Robinson, W. S. 1950. Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15(3): 351–357.Google Scholar
  55. Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. 1985. Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10(3): 435–454.Google Scholar
  56. Salganik, M. J. 2017. Bit by bit: social research in the digital age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Schwartz, S. H. 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4): 19–45.Google Scholar
  58. Sharma, S. 1996. Applied multivariate techniques. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. 2001. The stampede toward Hofstede’s framework: Avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): 555–574.Google Scholar
  61. Sousa, C. M., & Bradley, F. 2006. Cultural distance and psychic distance: Two peas in a pod? Journal of International Marketing, 14(1): 49–70.Google Scholar
  62. Stahl, G. K., & Voight, A. 2004. Meta-analysis of the performance implications of cultural differences in mergers and acquisitions. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2004(1): I1–I5.Google Scholar
  63. Tihanyi, L., Griffith, D. A., & Russell, C. J. 2005. The effect of cultural distance on entry mode choice, international diversification, and MNE performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3): 270–283.Google Scholar
  64. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157): 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  65. Zhao, H., Luo, Y., & Suh, T. 2004. Transaction cost determinants and ownership-based entry mode choice: A meta-analytical review. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6): 524–544.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilya R P Cuypers
    • 1
  • Gokhan Ertug
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pursey P M A R Heugens
    • 2
  • Bruce Kogut
    • 3
  • Tengjian Zou
    • 1
  1. 1.Lee Kong Chian School of BusinessSingapore Management UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Rotterdam School of ManagementErasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Sociology, Columbia Business SchoolColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations