Advertisement

Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 36–47 | Cite as

Adjusting to and learning from institutional diversity: Toward a capability-building perspective

  • Sarianna M. LundanEmail author
  • Jiatao Li
Commentary

Abstract

This paper identifies two main dimensions – institutional diversity and dynamism – in the research stream that has substantively engaged with the important contribution of Jackson and Deeg (J Int Bus Stud 39(4):540–561, 2008). Taking into account their core criticism that institutional analysis in international business research is often de-contextualized, and building on these two dimensions, we present two possible paths for institutional analysis that are sensitive to context. The first is a methodological shift towards configurational analyses, and specifically the analysis of counterfactual scenarios that could reveal new information about decision alternatives. The second is a shift away from a focus on costs, and towards the possibility of MNEs building capabilities in an exploratory manner when confronted with institutional diversity. Both approaches build on an understanding of MNEs as strategic actors that co-evolve with their environments.

Keywords

institutional theory institutional diversity institutional change dynamic capabilities qualitative comparative analysis decade award 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to Editor-in-Chief Alain Verbeke and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback during the review process. The research is supported in part by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (HKUST#16501814 and #16505817). This commentary benefited greatly from joint work on dynamic capabilities with Jialin Du and Jingtao Yi.

REFERENCES

  1. Arregle, J. L., Miller, T. L., Hitt, M. A., & Beamish, P. W. 2016. How does regional institutional complexity affect MNE internationalization? Journal of International Business Studies, 47(6): 697–722.Google Scholar
  2. Barkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. 1998. International expansion through start-up or acquisition: A learning perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1): 7–26.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Beukel, K., & Zhao, M. 2018. IP litigation is local, but those who litigate are global. Journal of International Business Policy, 1(1–2): 53–70.Google Scholar
  5. Birkinshaw, J., Brannen, M. Y., & Tung, R. L. 2011. From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: Reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 573–581.Google Scholar
  6. Brookes, M., Brewster, C., & Wood, G. 2017. Are MNCs norm entrepreneurs or followers? The changing relationship between host country institutions and MNC HRM practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(12): 1690–1711.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Brouthers, K. D. 2013. A retrospective on: Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(1): 14–22.Google Scholar
  9. Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. E., & Werner, S. 2008. Resource-based advantages in an international context. Journal of Management, 34(2): 189–217.Google Scholar
  10. Buckley, P. J., Doh, J. P., & Benischke, M. H. 2017. Towards a renaissance in international business research? Big questions, grand challenges, and the future of IB scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9): 1045–1064.Google Scholar
  11. Cantwell, J., Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. 2010. An evolutionary approach to understanding international business activity: The co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4): 567–586.Google Scholar
  12. Casson, M. C., & Lundan, S. M. 1999. Explaining international differences in economic institutions: A critique of the “national business system” as an analytical tool. International Studies of Management & Organization, 29(2): 25–42.Google Scholar
  13. Corredoira, R. A., & Mcdermott, G. A. 2014. Adaptation, bridging and firm upgrading: How non-market institutions and MNCs facilitate knowledge recombination in emerging markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(6): 699–722.Google Scholar
  14. Coviello, N. E. 2006. The network dynamics of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5): 713–731.Google Scholar
  15. Crilly, D. 2011. Predicting stakeholder orientation in the multinational enterprise: A mid-range theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 694–717.Google Scholar
  16. Cuervo-Cazurra, A. 2006. Who cares about corruption? Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 807–822.Google Scholar
  17. Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12): 1504–1511.Google Scholar
  18. Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. 2010. The institutional origins of dynamic capabilities in multinational enterprises. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4): 1225–1246.Google Scholar
  19. Edwards, T., Sánchez-Mangas, R., Jalette, P., Lavelle, J., & Minbaeva, D. 2016. Global standardization or national differentiation of HRM practices in multinational companies? A comparison of multinationals in five countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(8): 997–1021.Google Scholar
  20. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11): 1105–1121.Google Scholar
  21. Eriksson, K., Johanson, J., Majkgard, A., & Sharma, D. D. 1997. Experiential knowledge and cost in the internationalization process. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2): 337–360.Google Scholar
  22. Fang, E. E., & Zou, S. 2009. Antecedents and consequences of marketing dynamic capabilities in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(5): 742–761.Google Scholar
  23. Fogel, K. S., Lee, K. K., Lee, W. Y., & Palmberg, J. 2013. Foreign direct investors as change agents: The Swedish firm experience. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21(6): 516–534.Google Scholar
  24. Fortwengel, J. 2017. Understanding when MNCs can overcome institutional distance: A research agenda. Management International Review, 57(6): 793–814.Google Scholar
  25. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. 2011. Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 317–371.Google Scholar
  26. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. 2001. An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In P. A. Hall & D. Soskice (Eds.): Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage: 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Heidenreich, M. 2012. The social embeddedness of multinational companies: A literature review. Socio-Economic Review, 10(3): 549–579.Google Scholar
  28. Holmes, R. M., Miller, T., Hitt, M. A., & Salmador, M. P. 2013. The interrelationships among informal institutions, formal institutions, and inward foreign direct investment. Journal of Management, 39(2): 531–566.Google Scholar
  29. Hutzschenreuter, T., & Matt, T. 2017. MNE internationalization patterns, the roles of knowledge stocks, and the portfolio of MNE subsidiaries. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(9): 1131–1150.Google Scholar
  30. Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. 2008. Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 540–561.Google Scholar
  31. Judge, W. Q., Fainshmidt, S., & Lee Brown, J., III. 2014. Which model of capitalism best delivers both wealth and equality? Journal of International Business Studies, 45(4): 363–386.Google Scholar
  32. Kogut, B. 1989. Research notes and communications a note on global strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 10(4): 383–389.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 64–81.Google Scholar
  35. Lessard, D., Teece, D. J., & Leih, S. 2016. The dynamic capabilities of meta-multinationals. Global Strategy Journal, 6(3): 211–224.Google Scholar
  36. Li, J. T., Tian, L., & Wan, G. 2015. Contextual distance and the international strategic alliance performance: A conceptual framework and a partial meta-analytic test. Management and Organization Review, 11(2): 289–313.Google Scholar
  37. Li, J. T., & Wan, G. 2016. China’s cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A contextual distance perspective. Management and Organization Review, 12(3): 449–456.Google Scholar
  38. Li, J. T., Yang, J., & Yue, D. 2007. Identity, community, and audience: How wholly owned foreign subsidiaries gain legitimacy in China. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 175–190.Google Scholar
  39. Lundan, S. M. 2018. From the editor: Engaging international business scholars with public policy issues. Journal of International Business Policy, 1(1–2): 1–11.Google Scholar
  40. Luo, Y. 2001. Determinants of entry in an emerging economy: A multilevel approach. Journal of Management Studies, 38(3): 443–472.Google Scholar
  41. Mathews, J. A., & Zander, I. 2007. The international entrepreneurial dynamics of accelerated internationalisation. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(3): 387–403.Google Scholar
  42. Matysiak, L., Rugman, A. M., & Bausch, A. 2018. Dynamic capabilities of multinational enterprises: The dominant logics behind sensing, seizing, and transforming matter! Management International Review, 58(2): 225–250.Google Scholar
  43. Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S. K., & Peng, M. W. 2009. Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(1): 61–80.Google Scholar
  44. Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. 2016. Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management, 43(1): 255–282.Google Scholar
  45. Nachum, L., & Song, S. 2011. The MNE as a portfolio: Interdependencies in MNE growth trajectory. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(3): 381–405.Google Scholar
  46. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  47. North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. North, D. C. 2005. Understanding the process of economic change. London: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Pajunen, K. 2008. Institutions and inflows of foreign direct investment: A fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 652–669.Google Scholar
  50. Parto, S. 2005. Economic activity and institutions: Taking stock. Journal of Economic Issues, 39(1): 21–52.Google Scholar
  51. Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y., & Jiang, Y. 2008. An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5): 920–936.Google Scholar
  52. Prashantham, S., & Floyd, S. W. 2012. Routine microprocesses and capability learning in international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(6): 544–562.Google Scholar
  53. Ragin, C. C. 2000. Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Ragin, C. C. 2008. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  55. Regnér, P., & Edman, J. 2014. MNE institutional advantage: How subunits shape, transpose and evade host country institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(3): 275–302.Google Scholar
  56. Saka-Helmhout, A., & Geppert, M. 2011. Different forms of agency and institutional influences within multinational enterprises. Management International Review, 51(5): 567–592.Google Scholar
  57. Santangelo, G. D., & Meyer, K. E. 2011. Extending the internationalization process model: Increases and decreases of MNE commitment in emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(7): 894–909.Google Scholar
  58. Sapienza, H. J., Autio, E., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. 2006. A Capabilities perspective on the effects of early internationalization on firm survival and growth. Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 914–933.Google Scholar
  59. Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. 2018. Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1): 390–439.Google Scholar
  60. Schneider, M. R., Schulze-Bentrop, C., & Paunescu, M. 2010. Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 246–266.Google Scholar
  61. Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Shenkar, O. 2001. Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): 519.Google Scholar
  63. Shi, W. S., Sun, S. L., Yan, D., & Zhu, Z. 2017. Institutional fragility and outward foreign direct investment from China. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(4): 452–476.Google Scholar
  64. Smarzynska Javorcik, B. K. 2004. The composition of foreign direct investment and protection of intellectual property rights: Evidence from transition economies. European Economic Review, 48(1): 39–62.Google Scholar
  65. Soda, G., & Furnari, S. 2012. Exploring the topology of the plausible: Fs/QCA counterfactual analysis and the plausible fit of unobserved organizational configurations. Strategic Organization, 10(3): 285–296.Google Scholar
  66. Stahl, G. K., Tung, R. L., Kostova, T., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. 2016. Widening the lens: Rethinking distance, diversity, and foreignness in international business research through positive organizational scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(6): 621–630.Google Scholar
  67. Teece, D. J. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13): 1319–1350.Google Scholar
  68. Teece, D. J. 2014. A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1): 8–37.Google Scholar
  69. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533.Google Scholar
  70. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Van Hoorn, A., & Maseland, R. 2016. How institutions matter for international business: Institutional distance effects vs institutional profile effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(3): 374–381.Google Scholar
  72. Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. 2002. Pace, rhythm, and scope: Process dependence in building a profitable multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 23(7): 637–653.Google Scholar
  73. Wei, S.-J. 2000. How taxing is corruption on international investors? Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
  74. Weitzel, U., & Berns, S. 2006. Cross-border takeovers, corruption, and related aspects of governance. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 786–806.Google Scholar
  75. Whitley, R. 1999. Divergent capitalisms: The social structuring and change of business systems. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Witt, M. A., de Castro, L. R. K., Amaeshi, K., Mahroum, S., Bohle, D., & Saez, L. 2018. Mapping the business systems of 61 major economies: A taxonomy and implications for varieties of capitalism and business systems research. Socio-Economic Review, 16(1): 5–38.Google Scholar
  77. Witt, M. A., & Redding, G. 2009. Culture, meaning, and institutions: Executive rationale in Germany and Japan. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(5): 859–885.Google Scholar
  78. Xie, Z., & Li, J. T. 2015. Demand heterogeneity, learning diversity and innovation in an emerging economy. Journal of International Management, 21(4): 277–292.Google Scholar
  79. Xie, Z., & Li, J. T. 2018. Exporting and innovating among emerging market firms: The moderating role of institutional development. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(2): 222–245.Google Scholar
  80. Yang, J., Li, J. T., & Delios, A. 2015. Will a second mouse get the cheese? Learning from early entrants’ failures in a foreign market. Organization Science, 26(3): 908–922.Google Scholar
  81. Zhou, N., & Guillén, M. F. 2015. From home country to home base: A dynamic approach to the liability of foreignness. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6): 907–917.Google Scholar
  82. Zhu, J. S., Zhu, C. J., & De Cieri, H. 2014. Chinese MNCs’ preparation for host-country labor relations: An exploration of country-of-origin effect. Human Resource Management, 53(6): 947–965.Google Scholar
  83. Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3): 339–351.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair in International Management and Governance, Faculty of Business Studies and EconomicsUniversity of BremenBremenGermany
  2. 2.Aalto UniversityHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Lee Quo Wei Professor of Business, School of Business and ManagementHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyClear Water BayHong Kong

Personalised recommendations