Top

Asia Pacific Journal of Management

Published in:

01-12-2008

Institutions and the OLI paradigm of the multinational enterprise

Authors: John H. Dunning, Sarianna M. Lundan

Published in: Asia Pacific Journal of Management | Issue 4/2008

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The prevailing ownership-based theories of the firm are increasingly being challenged by new forms of organising, as exemplified by the Asian network multinational enterprise (MNE). We believe that an institutional approach, that tries to bridge both the macro and micro levels of analysis, and that encompasses both formal and informal institutions, offers a promising way to advance our understanding of the different forms of the contemporary MNE. This paper introduces a theoretical framework that draws substantially on the work of Douglass North, and examines how an institutional dimension can be incorporated into the three components of the OLI paradigm.

next article The many futures of Asian business groups

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Our conception is similar to that of Madhok (2002), who considers three kinds of factors, namely the governance structure, transaction and resource attributes, to explain the boundaries of firms.

See e.g. Chen (2005), who analysed not just failures in the market for technology (the original licensing vs. FDI decision), but also those in the market for manufacturing (the OEM vs. FDI decision

A notable exception is the attempt by Oliver (1997) to integrate the resource based and institutional views in explaining the sustainable competitive advantages of firms.

This is in spite of the fact that the knowledge-based theory of the firm essentially rejects transaction costs or market failure as an explanation for the internalisation of technology transfer. See also Verbeke (2003).

Some of the organising principles are also likely to be industry rather than firm specific, cf. the industry recipes described by Spender (1989).

Adam Smith’s underlying theory of human nature is articulated in his Theory of Moral Sentiments (1790).

Historical examples of inventions that led to non-ergodic change include the advent of marine insurance, and the evolving technologies of warfare. In both cases, subsequent changes to the physical and human environment were profound, but unforeseen at the time of each invention (North, 2005).

See also Casson and Lundan (1999) for a critique of the top-down approach of comparative institutional studies. Instead of explaining how national level institutions constrain or enable economic activity, they suggest a bottom-up approach centred on explaining differences in rates of entrepreneurship.

Nelson (2002) uses the metaphor of a makeshift road across a swamp. While the road restricts where one can travel on the swamp, focusing on this restriction is to miss the point of the possibilities created by the existence of a road.

Noorderhaven and Harzing (2003) define the country-of-origin effect in MNEs as the tacit beliefs and implicit values of key decision makers.

For example, a recent ideological shift that has directly affected the goods and services supplied by firms is the open source movement, which has emphasised the value of maintaining a “knowledge commons” to encourage innovation (von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003). This can be contrasted with the strategies of many large ICT and pharmaceutical firms, which have focused on extending the boundaries of private knowledge through extensions to IPR law (Weber, 2006).

Both Zysman (2004) and Nelson (2005) provide arguments that highlight the importance (and difficulty) of conscious experimentation to achieving growth in an increasingly uncertain environment.

Ozawa (2005) has also recently examined how US MNEs have contributed to the institutional transformation ongoing in Japan. In his words ‘foreign multinationals which are now eagerly welcomed in Japan to revitalise its corporate business sector are serving as renovators that can remodel Japan’s inner set of institutions more closely in accordance with the norms of the outer set’.

See also Ostry (1998) on the emerging challengers to the Western ‘universal’ model of the firm.

For example, Lenovo, following its acquisition of IBM’s PC business in 2005, is an example of an unusual mix of a Chinese cultural background, imported management principles and technology, strong rules-based values imposed by a visionary CEO, and the ambition to create entirely new ways of conducting business by absorbing the considerable institutional legacy of a major foreign MNE.

Although our focus in this discussion is mainly on the national level, the co-evolution of firms and industry-level institutions is equally important, and may sometimes be more important than the national institutional structure in shaping (and being shaped by) the behaviour of MNEs. See e.g. Djelic and Quack (2003) for several European case studies on such patterns of evolution.

The role of formal and informal institutions at the national level is examined further in Chapter 10 of Dunning and Lundan (2008).

On occasions, e.g. political or economic revolutions, there may be rapid institutional realignment, even though the effects of such a realignment may take some time to work themselves through. The fall of communism and the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis might be considered examples.

See e.g. Pauly and Reich (1997) and Amable (2000). A partial exception is the work of Yeung (2002) which focuses on the impact of domestic institutions on entrepreneurship and the internationalisation of firms from Hong Kong and Singapore.

The influence of institutions on the product and geographical scope of the firm is explored further by Peng and Delios (2006). See also Lu (2006) for an interesting theoretical discussion suggesting that institutional relatedness can offer both an Oi and Oa/Ot advantage, in so far as it may affect the performance resulting from the appropriate diversification strategy.

The volume by Dunning and Lundan (2008) summarises and evaluates the contribution of internalisation scholars such as Peter Buckley, Mark Casson, Alan Rugman, and Jean-Francois Hennart to our understanding of the emergence and growth of the MNE.

Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. 2001. The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5): 1369–1401.CrossRef

Amable, B. 2000. Institutional complementarity and diversity of social systems of innovation and production. Review of International Political Economy, 7(4): 645–687.CrossRef

Boisot, M. H. 1998. Knowledge assets: Securing competitive advantage in the global economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. 1997. Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3): 999–1023.CrossRef

Brouthers, K. D. 2002. Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2): 203–221.CrossRef

Cantwell, J. A. 1989. Technological innovation and multinational corporations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Cantwell, J. A. 2001. Innovation and information technology in the MNE. In A. M.Rugman & T.Brewer (eds.). The Oxford handbook of international business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Casson, M. C. 1982. The entrepreneur: An economic theory. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

Casson, M. C. 1993. Cultural determinants of economic performance. Journal of Comparative Economics, 17(2): 418–442.CrossRef

Casson, M. C. 1997. Information and organization: A new perspective on the theory of the firm. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.

Casson, M. C., & Lundan, S. M. 1999. Explaining international differences in economic institutions: A critique of the ‘national business system’ as an analytical tool. International Studies of Management & Organization, 29(2): 25–42.

Casson, M. C. & Godley, A. (Eds.). 2000. Cultural factors in economic growth. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.

Chan, C. M., Makino, S., & Isobe, T. 2006. Interdependent behavior in foreign direct investment: The multi-level effects of prior entry and prior exit on foreign market entry. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5): 642–665.

Chandler, A. D. 1990. Scale and scope: The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard/Belknap.

Chang, S.-J., & Rosenzweig, P. M. 2001. The choice of entry mode in sequential foreign direct investment. Strategic Management Journal, 22(8): 747–776.CrossRef

Chen, S.-F. S. 2005. Extending internalization theory: A new perspective on international technology transfer and its generalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(2): 231–245.

Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. 2001. Globalization and the environment: Determinants of firm self-regulation in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3): 439–458.CrossRef

Coase, R. H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica, 1(Nov): 386–405.CrossRef

Collinson, S., & Rugman, A. M. 2007. The regional character of Asian multinational enterprises. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(4): 429–446.CrossRef

Davis, P. S., Desai, A. B., & Francis, J. D. 2000. Mode of international entry: An isomorphism perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2): 239–258.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.CrossRef

Djelic, M.-L. & Quack, S. (Eds.). 2003. Globalization and institutions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Doz, Y. L., Santos, J., & Williamson, P. 2001. From global to metanational: How companies win in the knowledge economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Dunning, J. H. 1958. American investment in British manufacturing industry. London: Allen and Unwin.

Dunning, J. H. 1986. Japanese participation in British industry. London: Croom Helm.

Dunning, J. H. 2003a. The contribution of Edith Penrose to international business scholarship. Management International Review (MIR), 43(1): 3–119.

Dunning, J. H. 2003b. Some antecedents of internalization theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1): 108–115.CrossRef

Dunning, J. H. 2004a. An evolving paradigm of the economic determinants of international business activity. In J. L. C.Cheng & M. A.Hitt (eds.). Managing multinationals in a knowledge economy: Economics, culture, and human resources, Vol. 15: 3–27. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Dunning, J. H. 2004b. Relational assets: The new competitive advantages of MNEs and countries. In J. H.Dunning & R.Narula (eds.). Multinationals and industrial competitiveness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Dunning, J. H. 2006. Comment on Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(2): 139–141.CrossRef

Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. 2008. Multinational enterprises and the global economy. 2nd edn. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 660–679.CrossRef

Eden, L., Dacin, M. T., & Wan, W. P. 2001. Standards across borders: Crossborder diffusion of the arm’s length standard in North America. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 26(1): 1–23.CrossRef

Eden, L., & Molot, M. A. 2002. Insiders, outsiders and host country bargains. Journal of International Management, 8(4): 359–388.CrossRef

Eggertsson, T. 2005. Imperfect institutions: Possibilities & limits of reform. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ferner, A., Almond, P., & Colling, T. 2005. Institutional theory and the cross-national transfer of employment policy: The case of ‘workforce diversity’ in US multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3): 304–321.CrossRef

Florida, R., & Kenney, M. 1994. Institutions and economic transformation: The case of postwar Japanese capitalism. Growth & Change, 25(2): 247–262.CrossRef

Glaeser, E. L., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. 2004. Do institutions cause growth? Cambridge, MA: NBER Working Papers: 10568.

Gray, H. P. 1996. Culture and economic performance: Policy as an intervening variable. Journal of Comparative Economics, 23(3): 278–291.CrossRef

Grosse, R. (Ed.). 2005. International business and government relations in the 21st century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Guillén, M. F. 2000a. Organized labor’s images of multinational enterprise: Divergent foreign investment ideologies in Argentina, South Korea, and Spain. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 53(3): 419–442.CrossRef

Guillén, M. F. 2000b. Business groups in emerging economies: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 362–380.CrossRef

Guillén, M. F. 2003. Experience, imitation, and the sequence of foreign entry: Wholly owned and joint-venture manufacturing by South Korean firms and business groups in China, 1987–1995. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 185–198.CrossRef

Guler, I., Guillén, M. F., & Macpherson, J. M. 2002. Global competition, institutions, and the diffusion of organizational practices: The international spread of ISO9000 quality certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 207–232.CrossRef

Hellman, J. S., Jones, G., & Kaufmann, D. 2002. Far from home: Do foreign investors import higher standards of governance in transition economies. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Henisz, W. J. 2003. The power of the Buckley and Casson thesis: The ability to manage institutional idiosyncrasies. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 173–184.CrossRef

Hollister, H. T. 2005. ‘Shock therapy’ for aktiengesellschaften: Can the Sarbanes–Oxley certification requirements transform German corporate culture, practice and prospects? Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 25(2): 453–484.

Jones, E. L. 1995. Culture and its relationship to economic change. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 151(2): 269–285.

Jones, G. 2000. Merchants to multinationals: British trading companies in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Jones, G. 2004. Multinationals and global capitalism: From the nineteenth to the twenty first century. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kipping, M. & Bjarnar, O. (Eds.). 1998. The Americanisation of European business: The Marshall plan and the transfer of US management models. London: Routledge.

Kobrin, S. J. 2001. Sovereignty @ bay: Globalization, multinational enterprise, and the international political system. In A. M.Rugman & T. L.Brewer (eds.). Oxford handbook of international business. 181–205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Kogut, B. 1992. National organizing principles of work and the erstwhile dominance of the American multinational corporation. Industrial & Corporate Change, 1(2): 285–325.CrossRef

Kogut, B. (Ed.). 1993. Country competitiveness: Technology and the organizing of work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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.CrossRef

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1996. What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 7(5): 502–518.CrossRef

Kogut, B., & Parkinson, D. 1998. Adoption of the multidivisional structure: Analyzing history from the start. Industrial & Corporate Change, 7(2): 249–273.

Kogut, B., Walker, G., & Anand, J. 2002. Agency and institutions: National divergences in diversification behavior. Organization Science, 13(2): 162–178.CrossRef

Kostova, T. 1999. Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2): 308–324.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Lu, Z. 2006. Institutional relatedness, strategic assets and performance variation of diversification strategy. Beijing: Guanghua School of Management, mimeo.

Lundan, S. M. 2004. Multinationals, NGOs and regulation: Greenpeace and the global phase-out of chlorine bleaching. In S. M.Lundan (ed.). Multinationals, environment and global competition. 147–170. Oxford: JAI (Elsevier).

Madhok, A. 2002. Reassessing the fundamentals and beyond: Ronald Coase, the transaction cost and resource-based theories of the firm and the institutional structure of production. Strategic Management Journal, 23(6): 535–550.CrossRef

Maitland, E., & Nicholas, E. 2003. New institutional economics: An organizing framework for OLI. In J.Cantwell & R.Narula (eds.). International business and the eclectic paradigm. 47–73. London and New York: Routledge.

Mathews, J. 2006a. Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(1): 5–27.CrossRef

Mathews, J. A. 2006b. Response to professors Dunning and Narula. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(2): 153–155.CrossRef

Meyer, K. E. 2001. Institutions, transaction costs, and entry mode choice in Eastern Europe. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(2): 357–367.CrossRef

Meyer, K. E., & Nguyen, H. V. 2005. Foreign investment strategies and sub-national institutions in emerging markets: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 63–93.CrossRef

Meyer, K. E., & Peng, M. W. 2005. Probing theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe: Transactions, resources, and institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6): 600–621.CrossRef

Modén, K.- M., & Oxelheim, L. 1997. Why issue equity abroad? Corporate reasons and stock market responses. Management International Review (MIR), 37(3): 223–241.

Mudambi, R., & Navarra, P. 2002. Institutions and international business: A theoretical overview. International Business Review, 11(6): 635–646.CrossRef

Mudambi, R., Navarra, P., & Sobbrio, G. (Eds.). 2003. Economic welfare, international business and global institutional change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Narula, R. 2006. Globalization, new ecologies, new zoologies, and the purported death of the eclectic paradigm. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(2): 143–151.CrossRef

Nelson, R. R. 1991. Why do firms differ, and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12: 61–74.CrossRef

Nelson, R. R. 2002. Bringing institutions into evolutionary growth theory. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1/2): 17–28.CrossRef

Nelson, R. R. 2005. Evolutionary social science and universal Darwinism. New York: Columbia University.

Nelson, R. R. 2006. Economic development from the perspective of evolutionary economic theory. Columbia University, mimeo.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Nelson, R. R., & Sampat, B. N. 2001. Making sense of institutions as a factor shaping economic performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 44(1): 31–54.CrossRef

Noorderhaven, N. G., & Harzing, A.-W. 2003. The ‘country-of-origin effect’ in multinational corporations: Sources, mechanisms and moderating conditions. Management International Review, 43(2): 47–66.

North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

North, D. C. 1994. Economic performance through time. American Economic Review, 84(3): 359–368.

North, D. C. 2005. Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Oliver, C. 1997. Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9): 697–713.CrossRef

Oliver, N., & Wilkinson, B. 1988. The Japanization of British industry. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Ostry, S. 1998. Technology, productivity and the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1): 85–99.CrossRef

Oxelheim, L., & Randøy, T. 2003. The impact of foreign board membership on firm value. Journal of Banking & Finance, 27(12): 2369–2392.CrossRef

Ozawa, T. 2003. Japan’s network capitalism in evolution. In J. H.Dunning & G.Boyd (eds.). Alliance capitalism and corporate management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Ozawa, T. 2005. Institutions, industrial upgrading and economic performance in Japan. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Pauly, L. W., & Reich, S. 1997. National structures and multinational corporate behavior: Enduring differences in the age of globalization. International Organization, 51(1): 1–30.CrossRef

Peng, M. W. 2001. The resource-based view and international business. Journal of Management, 27(6): 803–829.CrossRef

Peng, M. W. 2002. Towards an institution-based view of business strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2/3): 251–267.CrossRef

Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 275–296.CrossRef

Peng, M. W., Lee, S.-H., & Wang, D. Y. L. 2005. What determines the scope of the firm over time? A focus on institutional relatedness. Academy of Management Review, 30(3): 622–633.

Peng, M. W., & Delios, A. 2006. What determines the scope of the firm over time and around the world? An Asia Pacific perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(4): 385–405.CrossRef

Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y. L., & Jiang, Y. 2008. An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (forthcoming).

Penrose, E. T. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Peoples, J., & Sugden, R. 2000. Divide and rule by transnational corporations. In C.Pitelis & R.Sugden (eds.). The nature of the transnational firm. London and New York: Routledge.

Pitelis, C. (Ed.). 2002. The growth of the firm: The legacy of Edith Penrose. New York: Oxford University Press.

Redding, G. 2001. The smaller economies of Pacific Asia and their business systems. In A. M.Rugman & T.Brewer (eds.). The Oxford handbook of international business. 760–784. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Rodrik, D. 2000. Institutions for high-quality growth: What they are and how to acquire them. Studies in Comparative International Development, 35(3): 3–31.CrossRef

Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. 2002. Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. Cambridge, MA, NBER Working Papers: 9305.

Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2002. Edith Penrose’s contribution to the resource-based view of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8): 769–780.CrossRef

Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and organizations. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smith, A. 1790. The theory of moral sentiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Spender, J. C. 1989. Industry recipes: The nature and sources of managerial judgement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Strange, R. 1993. Japanese manufacturing investment in Europe. London and New York: Routledge.

UNCTAD. 2005. World investment report 2005: Transnational corporations and the internationalization of R&D. New York and Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

UNCTAD. 2006. World investment report 2006: FDI from developing and transition economies—Implications for development. New York and Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

Verbeke, A. 2003. The evolutionary view of the MNE and the future of internalization theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6): 498–504.CrossRef

von Hippel, E., & von Krogh, G. 2003. Open source software and the ‘private-collective’ innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2): 209–223.CrossRef

Weber, M. 1920. The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner & Sons.

Weber, S. 2006. From Linux to Lipitor: Pharma and the coming reconfiguration of intellectual property. In J.Zysman & A.Newman (eds.). How revolutionary was the revolution? National responses, market transitions, and global technology. 217–233. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Westney, D. E. 1993. Institutionalization theory and the multinational corporation. In Ghoshal, S. & Westney, E. D. (Eds.). London: Macmillan.

Westney, D. E., & Zaheer, S. 2001. The multinational enterprise as an organization. In A. M.Rugman & T.Brewer (eds.). The Oxford handbook of international business. 349–379. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Wilkins, M. 2001. The history of multinational enterprise. In A. M.Rugman & T.Brewer (eds.). The Oxford handbook of international business. 3–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

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

Williamson, O. E. 2000. The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3): 595–613.

Xu, D., & Shenkar, O. 2002. Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 27(4): 608–618.CrossRef

Yeung, H. W.-C. 2002. Entrepreneurship and the internationalisation of Asian firms: An institutional perspective. Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar.

Yiu, D., & Makino, S. 2002. The choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary: An institutional perspective. Organization Science, 13(6): 667–683.CrossRef

Zeitlin, J. & Herrigel, G. (Eds.) 2000. Americanization and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zysman, J. 2004. Creating value in a digital era: How do wealthy nations stay wealthy? University of California, Berkeley: BRIE Working Paper 165.

Title: Institutions and the OLI paradigm of the multinational enterprise
Authors: John H. Dunning
Sarianna M. Lundan
Publication date: 01-12-2008
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Asia Pacific Journal of Management / Issue 4/2008
Print ISSN: 0217-4561
Electronic ISSN: 1572-9958
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-007-9074-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 4/2008

Arbitrary decisions in ranking studies: A commentary on Xu, Yalcinkaya, and Seggie (2008)

Managerial ties, firm resources, and performance of cluster firms

Are strategy-performance relationships contingent on macroeconomic environments? Evidence from Japan’s textile industry

A strategic analysis of surging Chinese manufacturers: The case of Galanz

The many futures of Asian business groups

Are decisions “Arbitrary” in our international business ranking study? A response to Harzing (2008)

Premium Partner