Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 322–340 | Cite as

The determinants of MNE subsidiaries' political strategies: evidence of institutional duality

  • Amy J HillmanEmail author
  • William P Wan


In this study, we develop and test a model of the determinants of political strategies used by foreign subsidiaries of multinational enterprises (MNEs). Using recent theoretical advances in institutional theory that recognize that MNE subsidiaries are confronted with pressures for isomorphism within the corporation (internal legitimacy) and within the host country (external legitimacy), we integrate international business and political strategy literatures to create a multilevel model of subsidiary, host country and parent determinants of political strategy. Our hypotheses are tested using survey and archival data from Western European subsidiaries of US MNEs.


political strategies institutional theory MNE coordination 



We are grateful to Departmental Editor Lorraine Eden and the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions during the review process.


  1. Aldrich, H. and Fiol, C. (1994) ‘Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation’, Academy of Management Review 19: 645–670.Google Scholar
  2. Ambrose, M.L. and Schminke, M. (2003) ‘Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust’, Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, D.P. (1995) ‘Integrated strategy: market and nonmarket components’, California Management Review 37: 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1989) The Transnational Corporation, Free Press: New York.Google Scholar
  5. Baum, J. and Oliver, C. (1991) ‘Institutional linkages and organizational mortality’, Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 187–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baysinger, B. (1984) ‘Domain maintenance as an objective of business political activity: an expanded typology’, Academy of Management Review 9: 248–258.Google Scholar
  7. Birkinshaw, J.M. and Morrison, A.J. (1995) ‘Configurations of strategy and structure in subsidiaries of multinational corporations’, Journal of International Business Studies 26: 729–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumentritt, T.P. and Nigh, D. (2002) ‘The integration of subsidiary political activities in multinational corporations’, Journal of International Business Studies 33: 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boddewyn, J.J. (1988) ‘Political aspects of MNE theory’, Journal of International Business Studies 19: 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boddewyn, J.J. (1993) ‘Political Resources and Markets in International Business: Beyond Porter's Generic Strategies’, in A. Rugman and A. Verbeke (eds.) Research in Global Strategic Management, Vol. 4. JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, pp: 162–184.Google Scholar
  11. Boddewyn, J.J. and Brewer, T.L. (1994) ‘International business political behavior: new theoretical directions’, Academy of Management Review 19: 119–143.Google Scholar
  12. Brewer, T. (1992) ‘An issue-area approach to the analysis of MNE–government relations’, Journal of International Business Studies 23: 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bureau of Economic Analysis (1999) ‘US Direct Investment Position Abroad’, [www document] diasurv.html.
  14. Caves, R.E. (1996) Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  15. Chatterjee, S. and Price, B. (1991) Regression Analysis by Example, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons: New York.Google Scholar
  16. Coleman, W. (1988) Business and Politics: A Study of Collective Action, McGill-Queen's University Press: Kingston, Canada.Google Scholar
  17. Deephouse, D.L. (1996) ‘Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal 39: 1024–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1983) ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’, American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunning, J.H. (1988) Explaining International Production, Unwin Hyman: London.Google Scholar
  20. Dunning, J.H. (1992) Multinational Enterprises and The Global Economy, Addison-Wesley: Wokingham.Google Scholar
  21. Fombrun, C. (1996) Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  22. Geringer, J.M., Beamish, P.W. and daCosta, R.C. (1989) ‘Diversification strategy and internationalization: implications for MNE performance’, Strategic Management Journal 10: 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Getz, K. (1993) ‘Selecting Corporate Political Tactics’, in B. Mitnick (ed.) Corporate Political Agency, Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, pp: 152–170.Google Scholar
  24. Grant, R.M., Jammine, A.P. and Thomas, H. (1988) ‘Diversity, diversification, and profitability among British manufacturing companies, 1972–1984’, Academy of Management Journal 31: 771–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grosse, R. and Behrman, J. (1992) ‘Theory in International Business’, Transnational Corporations 1: 93–133.Google Scholar
  26. Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1990) ‘Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations’, Academy of Management Review 16: 768–792.Google Scholar
  27. Hayes, M. (1992) Incrementalism and Public Policy, Longman: New York.Google Scholar
  28. Heinz, J., Laumann, E., Nelson, R. and Salisbury, R. (1993) The Hollow Core, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  29. Hillman, A. (2003) ‘Determinants of political strategies in US multinationals’, Business & Society 42: 455–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hillman, A. and Hitt, M.A. (1999) ‘Corporate political strategy formulation: a model of approach, participation level and strategy decisions’, Academy of Management Review 24: 825–842.Google Scholar
  31. Hillman, A. and Keim, G. (1995) ‘International variation in the business–government interface: institutional and organizational considerations’, Academy of Management Review 20: 193–214.Google Scholar
  32. Hitt, M.A., Hoskisson, R.E. and Kim, H. (1997) ‘International diversification: effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms’, Academy of Management Journal 40: 767–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hull, R. (1993) ‘Lobbying Brussels: A View from Within’, in S. Mazey and J. Richardson (eds.) Lobbying in The EC, Oxford University Press: New York, pp: 4–29.Google Scholar
  34. Jacobson, C.K., Lenway, S.A. and Ring, P.S. (1993) ‘The political embeddedness of private economic transactions’, Journal of Management Studies 30: 453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keim, G. and Baysinger, B. (1988) ‘The efficacy of business political activity’, Journal of Management 14: 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klein, K.J., Dansereau, F. and Hall, R.J. (1994) ‘Levels issue in theory development, data collection, and analysis’, Academy of Management Review 19: 195–229.Google Scholar
  37. Kobrin, S.J. (1991) ‘An empirical analysis of the determinants of global integration’, Strategic Management Journal 12: 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kostova, T. (1999) ‘Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: a contextual perspective’, Academy of Management Review 24: 308–324.Google Scholar
  39. Kostova, T. and Roth, K. (2002) ‘Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: institutional and relational effects’, Academy of Management Journal 45: 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kostova, T. and Zaheer, S. (1999) ‘Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: the case of the multinational enterprise’, Academy of Management Review 24: 64–81.Google Scholar
  41. Kreft, I. and de Leeuw, J. (1988) Introducing Multilevel Modeling, Sage: Thousands Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  42. Lau, C.-M., Tse, D.K. and Zhou, N. (2002) ‘Institutional forces and organizational culture in China: effects on change schemas, firm commitment and job satisfaction’, Journal of International Business Studies 33: 533–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lehmbruch, G. (1982) ‘Introduction: Neo Corporatism in Comparative Perspective’, in G. Lehmbruch and P. Schmitter (eds.) Patterns of Corporatist Policy-Making, Sage: London, pp: 1–28.Google Scholar
  44. Lijphart, A. and Crepaz, M. (1991) ‘Corporatism and consensus democracy in eighteen countries: conceptual and empirical linkages’, British Journal of Political Science 21: 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Luo, Y. (2001) ‘Toward a cooperative view of MNC–host Government relation building blocks and performance implications’, Journal of International Business Studies 32: 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mauri, A.J. and Phatak, A.V. (2001) ‘Global integration as inter-area product flows: the internalization of ownership and location factors influencing product flows across MNC units’, Management International Review 41: 233–249.Google Scholar
  47. Meyer, J. and Rowan, B. (1977) ‘Institutionalized organizations: formal structures as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Meyer, J. and Scott, R. (1983) ‘Centralization and the Legitimacy Problems of Local Government’, in J. Meyer and R. Scott (eds.) Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality, Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, pp: 199–215.Google Scholar
  49. Murtha, T. and Lenway, S. (1994) ‘Country capabilities and the strategic state: how national political institutions affect multinational corporations' strategies’, Strategic Management Journal 15: 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nooteboom, B., Berger, H. and Noorderhaven, N. (1997) ‘Effects of trust and governance on relational risk’, Academy of Management Journal 40: 308–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Porter, M.E. (1986) Competition in Global Industries, Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  52. Porter, M.E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rasbash, J. and Browne, W.J. (2001) ‘Modeling Non-Hierarchical Structures’, in A.H. Leyland and H. Goldstein (eds.) Multilevel Modeling of Health Statistics, Wiley: New York, pp. 93–103.Google Scholar
  54. Raudenbush, S. and Bryk, A. (2002) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  55. Rosenzweig, P.M. and Singh, J.V. (1991) ‘Organizational environments and the multinational enterprise’, Academy of Management Review 16: 340–361.Google Scholar
  56. Roth, K. and Morrison, A.J. (1990) ‘An empirical analysis of the integration-responsiveness framework in global industries’, Journal of International Business Studies 22: 541–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rugman, A.M. and Eden, L. (1985) Multinationals and Transfer Pricing, Croom Helm: London.Google Scholar
  58. Salisbury, R. (1969) ‘An exchange theory of interest groups’, Midwest Journal of Political Science 12: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schmidt, M. (1982) ‘Does Corporatism Matter? Economic Crisis, Politics and Rates of Unemployment in Capitalist Democracies in the 1970s’, in G. Lembruch and P. Schmitter (eds.) Patterns of Corporatist Policy-Making, Sage Press: London, pp: 221–237.Google Scholar
  60. Schmitter, P. (1982) ‘Interest Intermediation and Regime Governability in Contemporary Western Europe and North America’, in S. Berger (ed.) Organizing Interests in Western Europe, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp: 122–146.Google Scholar
  61. Schuler, D., Rehbein, K. and Cramer, R. (2002) ‘Pursuing strategic advantage through political means: a multivariate approach’, Academy of Management Journal 45: 659–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Scott, W. (1995) Institutions and Organizations, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  63. Sethi, P. (1982) ‘Corporate political activism’, California Management Review 24: 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Singh, J., Tucker, D. and House, R. (1986) ‘Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness’, Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Snijders, T. and Bosker, T. (1999) Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  66. Stinchcombe, A. (1965) ‘Social Structure and Organizations’, in J. March (ed.) Handbook of Organizations, Rand-McNally: Chicago, pp: 142–193.Google Scholar
  67. Suchman, M. (1995) ‘Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches’, Academy of Management Review 20: 571–610.Google Scholar
  68. Sundaram, A.K. and Black, J.S. (1992) ‘The environment and internal organization of multinational enterprises’, Academy of Management Review 17: 729–757.Google Scholar
  69. Tallman, S. and Li, J. (1996) ‘Effects of international diversity and product diversity on the performance of multinational firms’, Academy of Management Journal 39: 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vernon, R. (1971) Sovereignty at Bay, Basic Books: New York.Google Scholar
  71. Wan, W.P. and Hoskisson, R.E. (2003) ‘Home country environments, corporate diversification strategies, and firm performance’, Academy of Management Journal 46: 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weaver, R. and Rockman, B. (1993) ‘Assessing the Effects of Institutions’, in K. Weaver and B. Rockman (eds.) Do Institutions Matter?, The Brookings Institute: Washington, DC, pp: 2–18.Google Scholar
  73. Westney, E. (1993) ‘Institutionalization Theory and the MNE’, in S. Ghoshal and E. Westney (eds.) Organization Theory and the Multinational Corporation, St Martin's Press: New York, pp: 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilson, G. (1990) Business and Politics, Chatham House Publishing: Chatham, NJ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Xu, D. and Shenkar, O. (2002) ‘Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise’, Academy of Management Review 27: 608–618.Google Scholar
  76. Yaziji, M. (2004) ‘Turning gadflies into allies’, Harvard Business Review 82: 110–115.Google Scholar
  77. Zaheer, S. (1995) ‘Overcoming the liability of foreignness’, Academy of Management Journal 38: 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zardkoohi, A. (1985) ‘On the political participation of the firm in the electoral process’, Southern Economic Journal 51: 804–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Global Business DepartmentThunderbird, The Garvin School of International ManagementGlendaleUSA

Personalised recommendations