Advertisement

Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 47, Issue 6, pp 697–722 | Cite as

How does regional institutional complexity affect MNE internationalization?

  • Jean-Luc ArregleEmail author
  • Toyah L Miller
  • Michael A Hitt
  • Paul W Beamish
Article

Abstract

International business research is only beginning to develop theory and evidence highlighting the importance of supranational regional institutions to explain firm internationalization. In this context, we offer new theory and evidence regarding the effect of a region’s “institutional complexity” on foreign direct investment decisions by multinational enterprises (MNEs). We define a region’s institutional complexity using two components, regional institutional diversity and number of countries. We explore the unique relationships of both components with MNEs’ decisions to internationalize into countries within the region. Drawing on semiglobalization and regionalization research and institutional theory, we posit an inverted U-shaped relationship between a region’s institutional diversity and MNE internationalization: extremely low or high regional institutional diversity has negative effects on internationalization, but moderate diversity has a positive effect on internationalization. Larger numbers of countries within the region reduces MNE internationalization in a linear fashion. We find support for these predicted relationships in multilevel analyses of 698 Japanese MNEs operating in 49 countries within 9 regions. Regional institutional complexity is both a challenge and an opportunity for MNEs seeking advantages through the aggregation and arbitrage of individual country factors.

Keywords

regional strategy or strategies institutions and international business semiglobalization foreign direct investment mixed models 

Abstract

La recherche en management international commence à développer une théorie et des preuves mettant en relief l’importance des institutions régionales supranationales pour expliquer l’internationalisation des entreprises. Dans ce contexte, nous proposons une nouvelle théorie et des preuves concernant l’effet de la « complexité institutionnelle » d’une région sur les décisions d’investissement direct à l’étranger des entreprises multinationales (EMN). Nous définissons la complexité institutionnelle d’une région en utilisant deux composantes, la diversité institutionnelle régionale et le nombre de pays. Nous explorons les relations uniques des deux composantes avec les décisions des EMN de s’internationaliser dans les pays d’une même région. En nous appuyant sur les recherches menées sur la semi-globalisation et la régionalisation ainsi que la théorie institutionnelle, nous postulons une relation en forme de U entre la diversité institutionnelle d’une région et l’internationalisation des EMN : une diversité institutionnelle extrêmement faible ou forte a des effets négatifs sur l’internationalisation, mais une diversité modérée a un effet positif sur l’internationalisation. Des nombres plus grands de pays dans une région réduisent l’internationalisation des EMN de façon linéaire. Ces relations prédictives sont validées par le biais d’analyses multi-niveaux effectuées sur un échantillon de 698 EMN japonaises opérant dans 49 pays dans 9 régions. La complexité institutionnelle régionale constitue à la fois un défi et une opportunité pour les EMN qui recherchent des avantages par l’agrégation et l’arbitrage de facteurs spécifiques aux pays.

Abstract

La investigación en negocios internacionales está apenas comenzando a desarrollar teoría y a evidenciar la destacada importancia de las instituciones regionales supranacionales para explicar la internacionalización empresarial. En este contexto, ofrecemos una nueva teoría y evidencia sobre los efectos de la “complejidad institucional” de una región en las decisiones de inversión extranjera directa por parte de las empresas multinacionales (EMN). Definimos la complejidad institucional de una región usando dos componente, la diversidad institucional regional y el número de países. Exploramos las relaciones únicas de ambos componentes con las decisiones de multinacionales de internacionalizarse en los países de la región. Con base en la investigación en semiglobalización y regionalización y en teoría institucional, postulamos una relación en forma de U invertida entre la diversidad institucional de la región y la internacionalización de la multinacional: la diversidad institucional en la región extremadamente baja o alta tiene efectos negativos en la internacionalización, pero una diversidad moderada tiene un efecto positivo en la internacionalización. Un mayor número de países en la región reduce la internacionalización de la multinacional en una manera linear. Encontramos apoyo para estas relaciones anticipadas en análisis de multinivel de 698 multinacionales japonesas con operaciones en 49 países en 9 regiones. La complejidad institucional regional es tanto un reto como una nueva oportunidad para multinacionales buscando ventajas mediante la agregación y el arbitraje de factores individuales de país.

Abstract

A pesquisa em negócios internacionais está apenas começando a desenvolver teoria e evidências que destaquem a importância das instituições regionais supranacionais para explicar a internacionalização de empresas. Nesse contexto, nós oferecemos nova teoria e evidências sobre o efeito da "complexidade institucional" de uma região sobre as decisões de investimento direto estrangeiro por empresas multinacionais (MNE). Nós definimos complexidade institucional de uma região usando dois componentes, diversidade institucional regional e número de países. Nós exploramos as relações únicas de ambos os componentes com as decisões das MNE para internacionalizarem-se em países da região. Baseando-nos em semiglobalização, pesquisa sobre regionalização e teoria institucional, postulamos uma relação em forma de U invertido entre a diversidade institucional de uma região e internacionalização da MNE: diversidade institucional regional extremamente baixa ou alta tem efeito negativo sobre a internacionalização, mas diversidade moderada tem um efeito positivo na internacionalização. Um maior número de países na região reduz a internacionalização da MNE de forma linear. Nós encontramos suporte para essas previsões em análises multiníveis de 698 empresas multinacionais japonesas que operam em 49 países e 9 regiões. A complexidade institucional regional é tanto um desafio quanto uma oportunidade para MNE que buscam vantagens através da agregação e arbitragem de fatores individuais de cada país.

Abstract

国际商务研究刚刚才开始开发理论和证据展示超国家区域制度的重要性以解释公司的国际化。在这个情境里, 我们提供了关于区域的“制度复杂性”对跨国公司 (MNEs) 外国直接投资决策影响的新理论和证据。我们用两个组件来定义一个区域的制度复杂性, 即区域制度多样性和国家数目。我们探寻了这两个组件与MNEs向该区域内国家国际化决策的独特关系。借鉴半全球化和区域化研究和制度理论, 我们假定区域制度多样性和MNE国际化之间有一个倒U形关系: 过高或过低的区域制度多样性对国际化有负面影响, 但适度的多样性对国际化有积极作用。该区域内国家数目如果更大将减少跨国公司线性方式的国际化。我们在对9个地区49个国家运营的698家日本MNEs的多层次分析中发现了对这些预期关系的支持。区域制度的复杂性对通过个别国家因素的聚集和套利以寻求优势的MNEs来说既是一个挑战又是一个机会。

Notes

References

  1. Abdi, M., & Aulakh, P. S. 2012. Do country-level institutional frameworks and interfirm governance arrangements substitute or complement in international business relationships. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(5): 477–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguilera, R. V., Flores, R. G., & Vaaler, P. M. 2007. Is it all a matter of grouping? Examining the regional effect in global strategy research. In S. Tallman (Ed), International strategic management: A new generation: 209–228. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Aldrich, H. E. 1979. Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Amit, R., & Livnat, J. 1988. Diversification and the risk – return trade-off. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1): 154–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arregle, J. L., Beamish, P. W., & Hebert, L. 2009. The regional dimension of MNE’s foreign subsidiary localization. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(1): 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arregle, J. L., Hebert, L., & Beamish, P. W. 2006. Mode of international entry: Advantages of multilevel methods. Management International Review, 46(5): 597–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arregle, J. L., Miller, T., Hitt, M. A., & Beamish, P. W. 2013. Do regions matter? An integrated institutional and semiglobalization perspective on the internationalization of MNEs. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8): 910–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Asmussen, C. G. 2009. Local, regional, or global? Quantifying MNE geographic scope. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(7): 1192–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Asmussen, C. G., & Goerzen, A. 2013. Unpacking dimensions of foreignness: Firm-specific capabilities and international dispersion in regional, cultural, and institutional space. Global Strategy Journal, 3(2): 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Banalieva, E. R., & Dhanaraj, C. 2013. Home-region orientation in international expansion strategies. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(2): 89–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Banalieva, E. R., & Santoro, M. D. 2009. Local, regional, or global? Geographic orientation and relative financial performance of emerging market multinational enterprises. European Management Journal, 27(5): 344–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baskerville, R. F. 2003. Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Batjargal, B., Hitt, M. A., Tsui, A. S., Arregle, J. L., Webb, J. W., & Miller, T. 2013. Institutional polycentrism, entrepreneurs’ social networks, and new venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4): 1024–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Beamish, P. W., Delios, A., & Lecraw, D. J. 1997. Japanese multinationals in the global economy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Belderbos, R., & Zou, J. 2006. Foreign investment divestment and relocation by Japanese electronics firms in East Asia. Asian Economic Journal, 20(1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Hendi, A. S. 2014. Is there convergence across countries? A spatial approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(4): 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bettis, R. A., & Hall, W. K. 1982. Diversification strategy, accounting determined risk, and accounting determined return. Academy of Management Journal, 25(2): 254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Beugelsdijk, S., McCann, P., & Mudambi, R. 2010. Introduction: Place, space and organization – Economic geography and the multinational enterprise. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(4): 485–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Biemann, T., & Kearney, E. 2010. Size does matter: How varying group sizes in a sample affect the most common measures of group diversity. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3): 582–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bowman, E. H., & Helfat, C. E. 2001. Does corporate strategy matter? Strategic Management Journal, 22(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Boyd, B. 1990. Corporate linkages and organizational environment: A test of the resource dependence model. Strategic Management Journal, 11(6): 419–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Boyd, B. K., Gove, S., & Hitt, M. A. 2005. Construct measurement in strategic management research: Illusion or reality? Strategic Management Journal, 26(3): 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Brandenburger, A., & Nalebuff, B. 1996. Co-opetition: A revolution mindset that combines competition and cooperation. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  24. Buckley, P. J., & Ghauri, P. N. 2004. Globalization economic geography and the strategy of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2): 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. 2004. Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods and Research, 33(2): 261–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Busenitz, L. W., Gomez, C., & Spencer, J. W. 2000. Country institutional profiles: Unlocking entrepreneurial phenomenon. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 994–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Busse, M., & Hefeker, C. 2007. Political risk, institutions and foreign direct investment. European Journal of Political Economy, 23(2): 397–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. 2013. Regression analysis of count data, 2nd edn Cambridge, MA: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Campbell, D. J. 1988. Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13(1): 40–52.Google Scholar
  30. Chan, C. M., Isobe, T., & Makino, S. 2008. Which country matters? Institutional development and foreign affiliate performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(11): 1179–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Chao, M. C. H., & Kumar, V. 2010. The impact of institutional distance on the international diversity–performance relationship. Journal of World Business, 45(1): 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Collinson, S., & Rugman, A. M. 2008. The regional nature of Japanese multinational business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2): 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Delios, A., & Henisz, W. J. 2003. Policy uncertainty and the sequence of entry by Japanese firms 1980–1998. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(3): 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. 1984. Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1): 52–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Downey, H. K., Hellriegel, D., & Slocum Jr., J. W. 1975. Environmental uncertainty: The construct and its application. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(4): 613–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dunning, J. H. 1993. Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  38. Enright, M. J. 2005. The role of regional management centers. Management International Review, 45(1): 83–102.Google Scholar
  39. Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., & Herbsleb, J. D. 2007. Familiarity, complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development. Organization Science, 18(4): 613–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Estrin, S., Baghdasaryan, D., & Meyer, K. E. 2009. The impact of institutional and human resource distance on international entry strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 46(7): 1171–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fitzmaurice, G. M., Laird, N. M., & Ware, J. H. 2004. Applied longitudinal analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  42. Flores, R., & Aguilera, R. 2007. Globalization and location choice: An analysis of US multinational firms in 1980 and 2000. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(7): 1187–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Flores, R., Aguilera, R. V., Mahdian, A., & Vaaler, P. M. 2013. How well do supranational regional grouping schemes fit international business research models? Journal of International Business Studies, 44(5): 451–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Frankel, J. A., & Rose, A. K. 1996. Currency crashes in emerging markets: An empirical treatment. Journal of International Economics, 41(3): 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. 2002. The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31(6): 899–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gaur, A., Delios, A., & Singh, K. 2007. Institutional environments, staffing strategies, and subsidiary performance. Journal of Management, 33(4): 611–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gaur, A. S., & Lu, J. W. 2007. Ownership strategies and survival of foreign subsidiaries: Impacts of institutional distance and experience. Journal of Management, 33(1): 84–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ghemawat, P. 2003. Semiglobalization and international business strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ghemawat, P. 2007. Redefining global strategy: Crossing borders in a world where differences still matter. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  50. Goerzen, A., & Beamish, P. W. 2003. Geographic scope and multinational enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13): 1289–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Goerzen, A., & Beamish, P. W. 2005. The effect of alliance network diversity on multinational enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(4): 333–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Palich, L. E. 1997. Cultural diversity and the performance of multinational firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2): 309–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Gould, W. 2011. Use Poisson rather than regress. Statablog, http://blog.stata.com/2011/08/22/use-poisson-rather-than-regress-tell-a-friend, accessed 15 April 2013.
  54. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. 2011. Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 317–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Grilli, V., & Roubini, N. 1992. Liquidity and exchange rates. Journal of International Economics, 32(3): 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Gulati, R., & Singh, H. 1998. The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4): 781–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Guler, I., & Guillén, M. F. 2010. Institutions and the internationalization of US venture capital firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hedeker, D., Gibbons, R. D., Du Toit, M., & Cheng, Y. 2008. SuperMix. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Henisz, W. J. 2000. The institutional environment for economic growth. Economics & Politics, 12(1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Henisz, W. J., & Delios, A. 2001. Uncertainty imitation and plant location: Japanese multinational corporations 1990–1996. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3): 443–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hilbe, J. M. 2008. Brief overview on interpreting count model risk ratios: An addendum to negative binomial regression, http://courses.statistics.com/count/HILBE_NBR_OVERVIEW_ON_INTERPRETING_RISK_RATIOS.pdf, accessed 12 March 2012.
  63. Hilbe, J. M. 2011. Negative binomial regression, 2nd edn Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. 2007. Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1385–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Uhlenbruck, K., & Shimizu, K. 2006. The importance of resources in the internationalization of professional service firms: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6): 1137–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. 1997. International diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4): 767–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values behaviours institutions and organizations across nations, 2nd edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Hox, J. 2010. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. 2000. Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1): 19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & de Luque, M. S. 2006. Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6): 897–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Jensen, N. 2008. Political risk, democratic institutions, and foreign direct investment. The Journal of Politics, 70(4): 1040–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. 2009. The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1411–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Keats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A. 1988. A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3): 570–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Kim, W. C., Hwang, P., & Burgers, W. P. 1993. Multinationals’ diversification and the risk‐return trade‐off. Strategic Management Journal, 14(4): 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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
  80. Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. 2008. Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4): 994–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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
  82. Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2002. Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Kumar, M. V. S. 2009. The relationship between product and international diversification: The effects of short-run constraints and endogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, 30(1): 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Larsen, M. M., Manning, S., & Pedersen, T. 2013. Uncovering the hidden costs of offshoring: The interplay of complexity, organizational design, and experience. Strategic Management Journal, 34(5): 533–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Lee, S. H., & Makhija, M. 2009. Flexibility in internationalization: Is it valuable during an economic crisis? Strategic Management Journal, 30(5): 537–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Lee, Y., & Nelder, J. A. 2004. Conditional and marginal models: Another view. Statistical Science, 19(2): 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lewellyn, K. B., & Bao, S. R. 2014. A cross-national investigation of IPO activity: The role of formal institutions and national culture. International Business Review, 23(6): 1167–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Li, Q., & Resnick, A. 2003. Reversal of fortunes: Democratic institutions and foreign direct investment inflows to developing countries. International Organization, 57(1): 175–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N. L., Saari, M., & Latham, G. P. 1981. Goal setting and task performance. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1): 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Lu, J. W. 2002. Intra- and inter-organizational imitative behavior: Institutional influences on Japanese firms’ entry mode choice. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(1): 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. 2004. International diversification and firm performance: The S-curve hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4): 598–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Maitland, E., & Sammartino, A. 2015. Managerial cognition and internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(7): 733–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Makino, S., Isobe, T., & Chan, C. M. 2004. Does country matter? Strategic Management Journal, 25(10): 1027–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  95. McCann, P., & Mudambi, R. 2005. Analytical differences in the economics of geography: The case of the multinational firm. Environment and Planning, 37(10): 1857–1876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. McNamara, G., & Vaaler, P. 2000. The influence of competitive positioning and rivalry on emerging market risk assessment. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2): 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. McSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1): 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Meyer, K. E., Mudambi, R., & Narula, R. 2011. Multinational enterprises and local contexts: The opportunities and challenges of multiple embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 235–252.Google Scholar
  99. Morosini, P., Shane, S., & Singh, H. 1998. National cultural distance and cross border acquisition performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1): 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Nachum, L., & Zaheer, A. 2005. The persistence of distance? The impact of technology on MNE motivations for foreign investment. Strategic Management Journal, 26(8): 747–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Naya, S., & Plummer, M. 1997. Economic cooperation after 30 years of ASEAN. ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 14(2): 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Nichols, A. 2010. Regression for non-negative skewed dependent variables. Stata annual conference, Boston, www.stata.com/meeting/boston10/boston10_nichols.pdf, accessed May 2012.
  104. Nikon. 2015. Q&A of Conference for the Medium Term Management Plan in 2010, www.nikon.com/about/ir/management/midtermbusiness/qa/2010/index_2.htm, accessed 10 March 2015.
  105. Noorderhaven, N., & Harzing, A. W. 2003. The “country-of-origin effect” in multinational corporations: Sources, mechanisms and moderating conditions. Management International Review, 43(2): 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. North, D. C. 1990. Institutions institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. North, D. C. 1991. Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1): 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. North, D. C. 1994. Economic performance through time. American Economic Review, 84(3): 359–368.Google Scholar
  109. Oh, C. 2009. The international scale and scope of European multinationals. European Management Journal, 27(5): 336–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Ostrom, E. 2010. Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3): 641–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Ostrom, V. 1999a. Polycentricity (Part 1). In M. McGinnis (Ed), Polycentricity and local public economies: 52–74. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  113. Ostrom, V. 1999b. Polycentricity (Part 2). In M. McGinnis (Ed), Polycentricity and local public economies: 119–138. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  114. Oxelheim, L., & Ghauri, P. 2004. European Union and the race for inward FDI in Europe. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  115. Palmer, T. B., & Wiseman, R. M. 1999. Decoupling risk taking from income stream uncertainty: A holistic model of risk. Strategic Management Journal, 20(11): 1037–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Payne, J. W. 1976. Task complexity and contingent processing in decision-making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2): 366–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Peterson, M. F., Arregle, J. L., & Martin, X. 2012. Multilevel models in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(5): 451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Phene, A., & Tallman, S. 2012. Complexity, context, and governance in biotechnology alliances. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1): 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  120. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. 2012. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata, Volume II: Categorical response, counts and survival. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  121. Rangan, S. 2000. The problem of search and deliberation in economic action: When social networks really matter. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 813–828.Google Scholar
  122. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. 2002. Hierarchical linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  123. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R. T., & du Toit, M. 2011. HLM 7. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  124. Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. 2013. Mapping world cultures: Cluster formation, sources and implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(9): 867–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Rugman, A. M. 2005. The regional multinationals: MNEs and ‘global’ strategic management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Rugman, A. M., & Brain, C. 2004. The regional nature of the world’s banking sector. Multinational Business Review, 12(3): 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2004. A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1): 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2005. Towards a theory of regional multinationals: A transaction cost economics approach. Management International Review, 45(1): 5–17.Google Scholar
  129. 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. (2007). Journal of International Business Studies, 38(1): 200–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Rugman, A. M., Verbeke, A., & Yuan, W. 2011. Re-conceptualizing Bartlett and Ghoshal’s classification of national subsidiary roles in the multinational enterprise. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 253–277.Google Scholar
  131. Sanders, W. M. G., & Carpenter, M. A. 1998. Internationalization and firm governance: The roles of CEO compensation, top team composition, and board structure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(2): 158–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Santos Silva, J. M. C., & Tenreyro, S. 2006. The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4): 641–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Santos Silva, J. M. C., & Tenreyro, S. 2011. Further simulation evidence on the performance of the Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood estimator. Economics Letters, 112(2): 220–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Schneider, F., & Frey, B. S. 1985. Economic and political determinants of foreign direct investment. World Development, 13(2): 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  137. Scott, W. R. 2005. Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In K. G. Smith, & M. A. Hitt (Eds), Great minds in management: 460–484. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  138. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Simon, H. A. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6): 467–482.Google Scholar
  140. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Tallman, S., & Li, J. 1996. Effects of international diversity and product diversity on the performance of multinational firms. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1): 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Tang, L., & Koveos, P. E. 2008. A framework to update Hofstede's cultural value indices: Economic dynamics and institutional stability. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6): 1045–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group. 2014. How can I compute predictive margins for xtmelogit with random effects? www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/faq/predictive_margins_xtmelogit.htm, accessed 27 June 2014.
  145. United Nations Statistics Division. 2008. Standard country or area codes for statistical use, http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm, accessed 27 March 2008.
  146. Wan, W. P., & Hillman, A. J. 2006. One of these things is not like the others: What contributes to dissimilarity among MNE subsidiaries’ political strategy? Management International Review, 46(1): 85–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Wiersema, M. F., & Bowen, H. P. 2009. The use of limited dependent variable techniques in strategy research: Issues and methods. Strategic Management Journal, 30(9): 679–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Williams, R. 2012. Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. The Stata Journal, 12(2): 308–331.Google Scholar
  149. Winkelmann, R. 2010. Econometric analysis of count data, 5th edn Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  150. Yamaha. 2015. Changes to the company, http://global.yamaha-motor.com/ymgn/headoffice/2014/0124/, accessed 8 April 2015.
  151. Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. 2000. International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 925–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Zhou, K. Z., & Poppo, L. 2010. Exchange hazards, relational reliability, and contracts in China: The contingent role of legal enforceability. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(5): 861–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Luc Arregle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Toyah L Miller
    • 2
  • Michael A Hitt
    • 3
  • Paul W Beamish
    • 4
  1. 1.EM Lyon Business SchoolEcullyFrance
  2. 2.Jindal School of Management, The University of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA
  3. 3.Mays Business School, Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  4. 4.Ivey Business School, Western UniversityOntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations