Skip to main content

Formalizing internationalization in the eclectic paradigm

Journal of International Business Studies volume 40, pages 58–70 (2009)Cite this 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. A similar view is also taken by Buckley and Casson (1976, 1998), Hirsch (1976), Hennart (1982, 1993) and Rugman (1981, 1986).

  2. K can be thought of as the quantity of tacit and codified technological know-how, patents and designs obtained by entrepreneurs.

  3. Physical capital costs are assumed to converge around the globe, and hence are ignored in this model (Casson, 1985). Differences in production output are expected to be mainly a function of know-how level, labor volume and labor productivity.

  4. Strictly speaking we should refer to intra-firm and inter-firm transaction costs where the latter are expected to exceed the former (Buckley & Casson, 1976; Williamson, 1975, 1985). Ignoring intra-firm transaction costs is done for simplicity and does not change the results of our model.

  5. For simplicity we assume that the parameters a and α are identical for entrepreneurs in A and in B.

  6. Or alternatively the utility of n B transactions in which K′ A was transferred by any number of A's entrepreneurs smaller than n B.

  7. This is so because such entrepreneurs will always be able to offer them marginally higher wages in terms of g (i.e., w i +ɛ, where ɛ=incremental wage difference).

  8. The case where FDI in A is selected is perfectly symmetric.

  9. Since all entrepreneurs in B are identical, enrolling a single entrepreneur will suffice.

  10. We are in debt to an anonymous reviewer for this comment.

  11. Or alternatively the utility of n A transactions in which K′ B was transferred by any number of B's entrepreneurs smaller than n A.

  12. As they appear in both the numerators and the denominators of Eqs. (11a), (11b), (11c) and (11d).

References

  • Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. 1972. Production, information costs and economic organization. American Economic Review, 62 (5): 775–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. 1976. The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J. 1995. The globalisation of technology: What remains of the product cycle model? Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19 (1): 155–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J., & Narula, R. 2001. The eclectic paradigm in the global economy. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8 (2): 155–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Casson, M. 2000. The economics of international business: A new research agenda. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dunning, J. H. 1981. FDI and the multinational enterprise. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H. 1988. The eclectic paradigm of FDI: A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 19 (1): 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H. 1993. Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H. 1998. Location and the multinational enterprise: A neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (1): 45–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ethier, W. J. 1986. The multinational firm. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101 (4): 805–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. 2002. Integration vs outsourcing in industry equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117 (1): 85–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Helpman, E. 1984. A simple theory of international trade with multinational corporations. Journal of Political Economy, 92 (3): 451–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hennart, J.-F. 1982. A theory of multinational enterprise. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.-F. 1993. Explaining the swollen middle: Why most transactions are a mix of “market” and “hierarchy”. Organization Science, 4 (4): 529–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, S. 1976. An international trade and investment theory of the firm. Oxford Economic Papers, 28 (2): 258–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horstman, I. J., & Markusen, J. R. 1987. Strategic investments and the development of multinationals. International Economic Review, 28 (1): 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A. Y., & Peeters, C. 2006. Offshoring work: Business hype or the onset of fundamental transformation? Long Range Planning, 39 (3): 221–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linder, S. B. 1961. An essay on trade and transformation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markusen, J. R. 1984. Multinationals, multi-plant economies, and the gains from trade. Journal of International Economics, 16 (3–4): 205–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markusen, J. R. 1998. Multinational firms, location and trade. The World Economy, 21 (6): 733–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Markusen, J. R., & Venables, A. J. 1998. Multinational firms and the new trade theory. Journal of International Economics, 46 (2): 183–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markusen, J. R., & Venables, A. J. 2000. The theory of endowment, intra-industry and multinational trade. Journal of International Economics, 52 (2): 209–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. 1988. Economic theories of the firm: Past, present, and future. Canadian Journal of Economics, 21 (3): 444–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohlin, B. 1933. Interregional and international trade. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. 1985. Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10 (3): 435–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M. 1981. Inside the multinationals: The economics of internal markets. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M. 1986. New theories of the multinational enterprise: An assessment of internalization theory. Bulletin of Economic Research, 38 (2): 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. 1957. Technical progress and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39 (3): 312–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. 1981. The multinational enterprise: Market failure and market power consideration. Sloan Management Review, 22 (3): 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD. 2005. World investment report. Geneva: United Nations.

  • Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and anti-trust applications. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, X. 1994. Endogenous vs exogenous comparative advantages and economies of specialization vs economies of scale. Journal of Economics, 60 (1): 29–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, X. 2001. Economics: New classical versus neoclassical analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2): 341–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for International Business, Leeds University Business School, UK

    Peter J Buckley

  2. Jerusalem School of Business Administration, The Hebrew University, Israel

    Niron Hashai

Authors
  1. Peter J Buckley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Niron Hashai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter J Buckley.

Additional information

Accepted by Arie Y Lewin, Editor-in-Chief, 30 July 2007. This paper has been with the authors for one revision.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Buckley, P., Hashai, N. Formalizing internationalization in the eclectic paradigm. J Int Bus Stud 40, 58–70 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400421

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400421

Keywords

  • multinational enterprise
  • eclectic paradigm
  • internationalization
  • entry mode