Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Internationalization Decisions in Family Firms: The Impact of Bifurcation Bias

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Family Firm Internationalization

Abstract

Family firms possess unique features that shape their international strategies. These features include family-based asset specificity and associated resource constraints when embarking on internationalization, as well as an inherent propensity towards bifurcation bias: a dysfunctional decision rule that de facto favours family-based (“heritage”) assets and routines over those assets and routines that do not have a direct connection to the family (“commodity”). Bifurcation bias creates affect-based governance practices that may clash with (boundedly) rational economic considerations to guide international strategy. Using internalization theory as our conceptual lens, we explore the impact of bifurcation bias on governance-related aspects of international strategy. We argue that in the long run, the internalization theory prediction holds, whereby only efficient governance structures will be retained. In the short- to medium-term, bifurcation-biased family firms may deviate from efficient international governance choices, which will negatively affect their success in host markets. We explore factors that influence the firm’s propensity toward bifurcation bias and the magnitude of the bias’s dysfunctional effect on international strategy These factors include: macro- and micro-level cultural characteristics, the firm’s ability to implement anticipative and corrective safeguards, and the firm’s recombination capability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bounded rationality is one of two behavioural assumptions which undergird Williamsonian TCE. Bounded rationality was defined canonically by Herbert Simon as behaviour which is “intendedly rational, but only limitedly so” (Simon, 1961, p. xxiv). Simon’s concept of bounded rationality provides a more useful and realistic cognitive-behavioural framework than strict rationality (as found in neoclassical economics) for describing the actions of economic actors with limited capacities for accessing and processing complex information, evaluating options and making optimal decisions.

  2. 2.

    Bounded reliability explains sources of commitment failure and is an extension of the second behavioural assumption of Williamsonian TCE—opportunism, described by Williamson as “self-interest seeking with guile” (Williamson, 1981, p. 1545), or “calculated efforts to mislead, distort, disguise, obfuscate or otherwise confuse” (Williamson, 1985, p. 47). Bounded reliability still allows for opportunistic behaviour as a cause of commitment failure, but also recognizes cases of commitment failure that materialize despite the ex ante good faith intentions of the unreliable actor (Verbeke & Greidanus, 2009), and includes such distinct manifestations as benevolent preference reversal and identity-based discordance (Kano & Verbeke, 2015). Thus, the behavioural assumption of bounded reliability takes into account the propensity of human actors (assumed technically competent) to fail in their commitments, but without the default assumption of malevolence implied by the narrower concept of opportunism.

  3. 3.

    While extant international business research has tended to use Hofstede’s (1980) framework of values as a default measurement instrument of cross-cultural differences, Schwartz’s dual theory of values has been somewhat underutilized, with some notable exceptions—see, for example, Duran et al. (2017). Although Schwartz’s dual theory is somewhat more complicated—Schwartz himself has acknowledged this difficulty (Schwartz, 2011)—the allowance which it makes for within-country variation of individual values provides for a subtlety of analysis which is useful when examining the critical role played by the individually held values of influential family firm owners and managers. Other conceptualizations of values commonly used in IB, such as Hofstede or GLOBE, appear to confuse the level of the individual with the level of the society (Schwartz, 2011), which makes Schwartz’s model superior for the purpose of our analysis.

  4. 4.

    The interview was conducted in 2017 as part of data collection for a large-scale family firm governance research project.

References

  • Alessandri, T. M., Cerrato, D., & Eddleston, K. A. (2018). The mixed gamble of internationalization in family and nonfamily firms: The moderating role of organizational slack. Global Strategy Journal, 8(1), 46–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arregle, J.-L., Duran, P., Hitt, M. A., & van Essen, M. (2017). Why is family firm’s internationalization unique? A meta-analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5), 801–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arregle, J.-L., Hitt, M. A., & Mari, I. (2019). A missing link in family firms’ internationalization research: Family structures. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(5), 809–825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arregle, J.-L., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2007). The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 73–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banalieva, E. R., & Eddleston, K. A. (2011). Home-region focus and performance of family firms: The role of family vs non-family leaders. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(8), 1060–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banfield, E. C. (1958). The moral basis of a backward society.. Glencol.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauweraerts, J., Sciascia, S., Naldi, L., & Mazzola, P. (2019). Family CEO and board service: Turning the tide for export scope in family SMEs. International Business Review, 28(5), 101583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennedsen, M., & Foss, N. (2015). Family assets and liabilities in the innovation process. California Management Review, 58(1), 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berta, G. (2006). La Fiat dopo la Fiat. Mondadori.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boellis, A., Mariotti, S., Minichilli, A., & Piscitello, L. (2016). Family involvement and firms’ establishment mode choice in foreign markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(8), 929–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bricco, P. (2017). Quarta acquisizione in due anni: Se il “made in Italy” non e solo una preda. Il Sole 24 Ore-Digital Replica Edition. March 2017.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M., Dieleman, M., & Taussig, M. (2016). How are institutional capabilities transferred across borders? Journal of World Business, 51(6), 882–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M., Gedajlovic, E., & Strike, V. M. (2014). Dead money: Inheritance law and the longevity of family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(6), 1261–1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerrato, D., & Piva, M. (2012). The internationalization of small and medium-sized enterprises: the effect of family management, human capital and foreign ownership. Journal of Management & Governance, 16(4), 617–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., De Massis, A., Frattini, F., & Wright, M. (2015). The ability and willingness paradox in family firm innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(3), 310–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Memili, E., & Misra, K. (2014). Nonfamily managers, family firms, and the winner’s curse: The influence of noneconomic goals and bounded rationality. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(5), 1103–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciravegna, L., Kano, L., Rattalino, F., & Verbeke, A. (2020). Corporate diplomacy and family firm longevity. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 44(1), 109–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (2008, May 2). Life in Mars: reclusive dynasty behind one of world’s most famous brands. The Guardian. Retrieved November 18, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/may/02/mars.wrigley.secretive

  • Collinson, S., & Narula, R. (2014). Asset recombination in international partnerships as a source of improved innovation capabilities in China. Multinational Business Review, 22(4), 394–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz, C., Larraza-Kintana, M., Garcés-Galdeano, L., & Berrone, P. (2014). Are family firms really more socially responsible? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(6), 1295–1316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. (2019, January 3). Why family businesses matter so much to the world economy. Family Capital. Retrieved October 20, 2019, from https://www.famcap.com/2019/01/why-family-businesses-matter-so-much-to-the-world-economy/

  • De Massis, A., Di Minin, A., & Frattini, F. (2015). Family-driven innovation: Resolving the paradox in family firms. California Management Review, 58(1), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Massis, A., Kotlar, J., Chua, J. H., & Chrisman, J. J. (2014). Ability and willingness as sufficiency conditions for family-oriented particularistic behavior: Implications for theory and empirical studies. Journal of Small Business Management, 52(2), 344–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Massis, A., Kotlar, J., Mazzola, P., Minola, T., & Sciascia, S. (2018). Conflicting selves: Family owners’ multiple goals and self-control agency problems in private firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(3), 362–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duran, P., Kammerlander, N., van Essen, M., & Zellweger, T. (2015). Doing more with less: Innovation input and output in family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1224–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duran, P., Kostova, T., & van Essen, M. (2017). Political ideologies and the internationalization of family-controlled firms. Journal of World Business, 52(4), 474–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, W. G. (2006). Examining the “family effect” on firm performance. Family Business Review, 19(4), 253–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eddleston, K. A., Sarathy, R., & Banalieva, E. R. (2019). When a high-quality niche strategy is not enough to spur family-firm internationalization: The role of external and internal contexts. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(5), 783–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdener, C., & Shapiro, D. M. (2005). The internationalization of Chinese family enterprises and Dunning’s eclectic MNE paradigm. Management and Organization Review, 1(3), 411–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EY & University of St. Gallen. (2019, February 18). EY and University of St. Gallen global family business index. How the world’s largest family businesses are responding to the Transformative Age. Retrieved October 20, 2019, from http://familybusinessindex.com/

  • Fainsilber, D. (2014, February 19). Les difficiles relations des patrons du groupe avec la famille Peugeot. Les Echos. Retrieved November 18, 2019, from https://www.lesechos.fr/2014/02/les-difficiles-relations-des-patrons-du-groupe-avec-la-famille-peugeot-273495.

  • Ferguson, N. (1998). The House of Rothschild: Money’s Prophets, 1798-1848. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández, Z., & Nieto, M. J. (2006). Impact of ownership on the international involvement of SMEs. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 340–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrero Italia. (2017). Storia. Retrieved March 25, 2017, from https://www.ferrero.it/azienda/il-gruppo/una-storia-di-famiglia/una-grande-azienda.

  • Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 137–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glemser, A.-C., & Leleux, B. (2011). The Mercks of Darmstadt: What a family can do (A). Lausanne, Switzerland: IMD International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Haynes, K. T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K. J. L., & Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Makri, M., & Larraza-Kintana, M. L. (2010). Diversification decisions in family-controlled firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 223–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, C., & Thomas, J. (2006). Internationalization of Australian family businesses: A managerial capabilities perspective. Family Business Review, 19(3), 207–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, C., & Thomas, J. (2008). Determinants of internationalization pathways of family firms: An examination of family influence. Family Business Review, 21(2), 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grøgaard, B., & Verbeke, A. (2012). Twenty key hypotheses that make internalization theory the general theory of international strategic management. In Handbook of research in international strategic management (pp. 7–30). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.-F. (2009). Down with MNE-centric theories! Market entry and expansion as the bundling of MNE and local assets. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1432–1454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.-F., Majocchi, A., & Forlani, E. (2019). The myth of the stay-at-home family firm: How family-managed SMEs can overcome their internationalization limitations. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(5), 758–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.-F., & Park, Y. R. (1993). Greenfield vs. acquisition: The strategy of Japanese investors in the United States. Management Science, 39(9), 1054–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, D. T., & Daspit, J. J. (2015). Diagnosing innovation readiness in family firms. California Management Review, 58(1), 82–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilias, N. (2006). Families and firms: Agency costs and labor market imperfections in Sialkot’s surgical industry. Journal of Development Economics, 80(2), 329–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, J. E., Dempsey, D., & James, A. E. (2018). Bifurcated HR practices in family firms: Insights from the normative-adaptive approach to stepfamilies. Human Resource Management Review, 28(1), 68–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 1411–1431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kano, L., Ciravegna, L., & Rattalino, F. (2021). The family as a platform for FSA development: Enriching new internalization theory with insights from family firm research. Journal of international Business Studies, 52(1), 148–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kano, L., & Verbeke, A. (2015). The three faces of bounded reliability: Alfred Chandler and the micro-foundations of management theory. California Management Review, 58(1), 97–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kano, L., & Verbeke, A. (2018). Family firm internationalization: Heritage assets and the impact of bifurcation bias. Global Strategy Journal, 8(1), 158–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kano, L., Verbeke, A., & Ciravegna, L. (2020). Internationalization of family firms: When is a managerial focus on socio-emotional wealth effective? In K. Mellahi, K. Meyer, R. Narula, I. Surdu, & A. Verbeke (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international business strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao, M. S., Kuo, A., & Chang, Y. C. (2013). How family control influences FDI entry mode choice. Journal of Management & Organization, 19(4), 367–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D. (2013, January 17). Mars Incorporated: A pretty sweet place to work. Fortune. Retrieved November 18, 2019, from https://fortune.com/2013/01/17/mars-incorporated-a-pretty-sweet-place-to-work/.

  • Kets de Vries, M. F. (1996). Family business: Human dilemmas in the family firm. London: International Thomson Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • König, A., Kammerlander, N., & Enders, A. (2013). The family innovator’s dilemma: How family influence affects the adoption of discontinuous technologies by incumbent firms. Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 418–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kontinen, T., & Ojala, A. (2010). The internationalization of family businesses: A review of extant research. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(2), 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. S., Lim, G. H., & Lim, W. S. (2003). Family business succession: Appropriation risk and choice of successor. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 657–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, M., & Celo, S. (2017). Boundary-spanning and boundary-buffering in global markets: A German perspective on the internationalization of family firms. Review of International Business and Strategy, 27(2), 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin, M. H., Schulze, W. S., Ling, Y., & Dino, R. N. (2005). The effects of parental altruism on the governance of family-managed firms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(3), 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majocchi, A., D’Angelo, A., Forlani, E., & Buck, T. (2018). Bifurcation bias and exporting: Can foreign work experience be an answer? Insight from European family SMEs. Journal of World Business, 53(2), 237–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majocchi, A., & Strange, R. (2012). International diversification: The impact of ownership structure, the market for corporate control and board independence. Management International Review, 52(6), 879–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mars. (2017). About Mars: History timeline. Retrieved March 28, 2017, from http://www.mars.com/uk/en/about-mars/history.aspx

  • Memili, E., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2011). Transaction costs and outsourcing decisions in small- and medium-sized family firms. Family Business Review, 24(1), 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memili, E., Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Chang, E. P., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2011). The determinants of family firms’ subcontracting: A transaction cost perspective. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 2(1), 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metsola, J., Leppäaho, T., Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E., & Plakoyiannaki, E. (2020). Process in family business internationalisation: The state of the art and ways forward. International Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101665

  • Miller, D., Wright, M., Le Breton-Miller, I. L., & Scholes, L. (2015). Resources and innovation in family businesses: The Janus-face of socioemotional preferences. California Management Review, 58(1), 20–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray Brown, J. (2017). Ferrero appoints first non-family CEO. The Financial Times-Online. Retrieved May 31, 2017, from https://www.ft.com/content/b0583c87-40b5-3fb3-979c-b3878009f56d

  • Mustafa, M., & Chen, S. (2010). The strength of family networks in transnational immigrant entrepreneurship. Thunderbird International Business Review, 52(2), 97–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R. (2014). Exploring the paradox of competence-creating subsidiaries: Balancing bandwidth and dispersion in MNEs. Long Range Planning, 47(1-2), 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R., & Verbeke, A. (2015). Making internalization theory good for practice: The essence of Alan Rugman’s contributions to international business. Journal of World Business, 50(4), 612–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, A., & Tapies, J. (2007). Balancing family and business needs at Merck KGaA. IESE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P. C., & Chrisman, J. J. (2014). Risk abatement as a strategy for R&D investments in family firms. Strategic Management Journal, 35(4), 617–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinho, J. C. (2007). The impact of ownership: Location-specific advantages and managerial characteristics on SME foreign entry mode choices. International Marketing Review, 24(6), 715–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. M. (1994). Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 458–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pukall, T. J., & Calabrò, A. (2014). The internationalization of family firms: A critical review and integrative model. Family Business Review, 27(2), 103–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuber, A. R. (2016). An assemblage-theoretic perspective on the internationalization processes of family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(6), 1269–1286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Extending the theory of the multinational enterprise: Internalization and strategic management perspectives. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2), 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., Verbeke, A., & Nguyen, Q. T. K. (2011). Fifty years of international business theory and beyond. Management International Review, 51(6), 755–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative sociology, 5(2–3), 137–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Values: Individual and cultural. In S. M. Breugelmans, A. Chasiotis, & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Fundamental questions in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 463–493). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Studying values: Personal adventure. future directions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(2), 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 1010–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sestu, M. C., & Majocchi, A. (2018). Family Firms and the Choice Between Wholly Owned Subsidiaries and Joint Ventures: A Transaction Costs Perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1042258718797925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1961). Administrative behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D. A., & Gaur, A. S. (2013). Governance structure, innovation and internationalization: Evidence from India. Journal of International Management, 19(3), 300–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spoerer, M. (2016). C&A: Ein Familienunternehmen in Deutschland, den Niederlanden und Großbritannien. CH Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tagliabue, J. (2003). Giovanni Agnelli, Fiat patriarch and a force in Italy dies at 81. The New York Times-Online. Retrieved March 25, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/25/business/giovanni-agnelli-fiat-patriarch-and-a-force-in-italy-dies-at-81.html

  • Verbeke, A. (2013). International business strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., & Fariborzi, H. (2019). Managerial governance adaptation in the multinational enterprise: In honour of Mira Wilkins. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(8), 1213–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., & Greidanus, N. S. (2009). The end of the opportunism vs trust debate: Bounded reliability as a new envelope concept in research on MNE governance. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9), 1471–1495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., & Kano, L. (2012). The transaction cost economics theory of the family firm: Family-based human asset specificity and the bifurcation bias. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(6), 1183–1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., & Kenworthy, T. P. (2008). Multidivisional vs metanational governance of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6), 940–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., Yuan, W., & Kano, L. (2019). A values-based analysis of bifurcation bias and its impact on family firm internationalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. Retrieved October 20, 2019, from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10490-018-9598-4

  • Ward, J. L. (2004). Perpetuating the family business: 50 lessons learned from long-lasting, successful families in business. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1981). The modern corporation: Origins, evolution. attributes. Journal of Economic Literature, 19, 1537–1568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanisms of governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Steier, L. P. (2014). Family enterprise and context. London: SAGE Publications Sage CA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, K., Hitt, M. A., & Dai, L. (2020). International diversification of family-dominant firms: Integrating socioemotional wealth and behavioral theory of the firm. Journal of World Business, 55(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2019.101071

  • Yamin, M. (2011). A commentary on Peter Buckley’s writings on the global factory. Management International Review, 51(2), 285–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. (2003). International expansion of US manufacturing family businesses: The effect of ownership and involvement. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 495–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2012). Family Control and Family Firm Valuation by Family CEOs: The Importance of Intentions for Transgenerational Control. Organization Science, 23(3), 851–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Liena Kano, Alain Verbeke & Andrew Johnston

  2. Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium

    Alain Verbeke

  3. Henley Business School, University of Reading, Reading, UK

    Alain Verbeke

Authors
  1. Liena Kano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alain Verbeke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew Johnston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liena Kano .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. LUT University, Lappeenranta, Finland

    Tanja Leppäaho

  2. House of Innovation, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden

    Sarah Jack

  3. Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster, UK

    Sarah Jack

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kano, L., Verbeke, A., Johnston, A. (2021). Internationalization Decisions in Family Firms: The Impact of Bifurcation Bias. In: Leppäaho, T., Jack, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Family Firm Internationalization. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66737-5_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation