Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examine how institutional configurations, not single institutions, provide companies with institutional capital. Building on the varieties-of-capitalism approach, it is argued that competitive advantage in high-tech industries with radical innovation may be supported by combinations of certain institutional conditions: lax employment protection, weak collective bargaining coverage, extensive university training, little occupational training, and a large stock market. Furthermore, multinational enterprises engage in “institutional arbitrage”: they allocate their activities so as to benefit from available institutional capital. These hypotheses are tested on country-level data for 19 OECD economies in the period 1990 to 2003. A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis yields several interesting findings. A high share of university graduates and a large stock market are complementary institutions leading to strong export performance in high-tech. Employment protection is neither conducive nor harmful to export performance in high-tech. A high volume of cross-border mergers and acquisitions, as a form of institutional arbitrage leading to knowledge flows, acts as a functional equivalent to institutions that support knowledge production in the home economy. Implications of these findings for theory, policy, and the analysis of firm-level behavior are developed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We do not include particular measures of inter-firm relations, another institutional sphere discussed by Hall and Soskice, for lack of appropriate data. This omission is not important when explaining export performance in the high-tech sector. Hall and Soskice (2001) discuss close, informal cooperation between firms as explaining the comparative advantage of CMEs in the medium high-tech industries. For high-tech success, this cooperation is irrelevant. Rather, the provision of venture capital and the opportunity for company takeovers are mentioned as important conditions for high-tech success. This aspect of inter-firm relations is captured by the stock market size, our indicator for the financial system.

  2. Let Y denote the outcome, and I the number of cases. Then Ragin (2006) defines the consistency score of a causal condition X, or of a combination of conditions, as

  3. Let Y denote the outcome, and I the number of cases. Then the coverage rate of a necessary causal condition X, or of a combination of conditions, is defined as

  4. Let Y denote the outcome, and I the number of cases. Then the consistency score of a causal condition X, or of a combination of conditions, is defined as

  5. As a first rule of thumb, Ragin suggests a consistency of at least 0.85. A second rule of thumb is derived from the gap in consistency scores. If causal combinations are ordered by the value of their consistency score, as in our truth table, then a substantial gap between neighboring causal combinations may help to differentiate consistent causal combinations from inconsistent ones (Ragin & Pennings, 2005). In Table 4, such a gap lies between the rows 15 and 16. Drawing the line between these rows implies a cut-off value of 0.87 for the inconsistency score, which also satisfies Ragin's first rule of thumb.

  6. The intermediate solution is a compromise between complexity and parsimony of the solution. For the complex solution, only the empirically observed combinations of causal conditions are incorporated into the reduction process; those configurations lacking empirical instances (i.e., the remainders) are excluded. For the parsimonious solution, any remainder combination of causal conditions is incorporated into the reduction process. For the intermediate solution, the counterfactuals that are incorporated in the reduction process need to be specified. We do not incorporate into the reduction process so-called “difficult counterfactuals”. Here, difficult counterfactuals are those that would lead to the elimination of LME-like institutional conditions from the solution. Hence it is assumed that the presence of a large stock market and extensive university training, as well as the absence of high collective bargaining coverage, of strong employment protection, and of extensive occupational training, are linked to strong export performance. This is line with the theory, because the varieties-of-capitalism approach posits that LME-like institutional conditions are conducive to a positive outcome. For cross-border mergers and acquisition, both the presence and the absence are assumed to be linked to strong export performance.

  7. Let Y denote the outcome, and I the number of cases. Then the coverage rate of a sufficient causal condition X, or of a combination of conditions, is defined as

References

  • Allen, M. 2004. The varieties of capitalism paradigm: Not enough variety? Socio-Economic Review, 2 (1): 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M. 2005. Which variety of measure and test are best to assess the “varieties of capitalism” framework? Schmollers Jahrbuch: Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, 125 (2): 315–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M. 2006. The varieties of capitalism paradigm: Explaining Germany's comparative advantage? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M., Funk, L., & Tüselmann, H. 2006. Can variation in public policies account for differences in comparative advantage? Journal of Public Policy, 26 (1): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amable, B. 2003. The diversity of modern capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baccaro, L., & Simoni, M. 2007. Centralized wage bargaining and the “Celtic Tiger” phenomenon. Industrial Relations, 46 (3): 426–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzat, M., & Hanusch, H. 2004. Recent trends in the research on national innovation systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14 (2): 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrios, S., Dimelis, S., Louri, H., & Strobl, E. 2004. Efficiency spillovers from foreign direct investment in the EU periphery: A comparative study of Greece, Ireland, and Spain. Review of World Economics, 140 (4): 688–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bassanini, A., & Ernst, E. 2002. Labour market regulation, industrial relations and technological regimes: A tale of comparative advantage. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11 (3): 391–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belloc, M. 2006. Institutions and international trade: A reconsideration of comparative advantage. Journal of Economic Surveys, 20 (1): 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, R. 2004. New growth regimes, but still institutional diversity. Socio-Economic Review, 2 (1): 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, R. 2005. How and why capitalisms differ. Economy and Society, 34 (4): 509–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, R. 2006. How do institutions cohere and change? The institutional complementarity hypothesis and its extension. In G. Wood & P. James (Eds), Institutions, production, and working life: 13–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresser, R. K. F., & Millonig, K. 2003. Institutional capital: Competitive advantage in light of the new institutionalism in organization theory. Schmalenbach Business Review, 55 (3): 220–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. 2000. Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. Economic Journal, 110 (463): 388–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewster, C., Wood, G., & Brookes, M. 2006. Varieties of capitalism and varieties of firm. In G. Wood & P. James (Eds), Institutions, production, and working life: 217–234. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L., & Pedersen, O. K. 2007. The varieties of capitalism and hybrid success: Denmark in the global economy. Comparative Political Studies, 40 (3): 307–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B. 2006. Internationalization of innovation systems: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 35 (1): 56–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casper, S., & Whitley, R. 2004. Managing competences in entrepreneurial technology firms: A comparative institutional analysis of Germany, Sweden and the UK. Research Policy, 33 (1): 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casper, S., Lehrer, M., & Soskice, D. 1999. Can high-technology industries prosper in Germany? Institutional frameworks and the evolution of the German software and biotechnology industries. Industry and Innovation, 6 (1): 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coverdill, J. E., & Finlay, W. 1995. Understanding Mills via Mill-type methods: An application of qualitative comparative analysis to a study of labor management in southern textile manufacturing. Qualitative Sociology, 18 (4): 457–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C. 2005. Models of capitalism. New Political Economy, 10 (4): 339–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darbishire, O. 1995. Switching systems: Technological change, privatisation and work organisation. Industrielle Beziehungen, 2 (3): 156–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deeg, R. 2007. Complementarity and institutional change in capitalist systems. Journal of European Public Policy, 14 (4): 611–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Propris, L., & Driffield, N. 2006. The importance of clusters for spillovers from foreign direct investment and technology sourcing. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30 (2): 277–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, M., Roscigno, V. J., & Hodson, R. 2004. Unions, solidarity, and striking. Social Forces, 83 (1): 3–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dore, R. 1997. The uniqueness of Japan. In C. Crouch & W. Streeck (Eds), Political economy of modern capitalism: Mapping convergence and diversity: 19–32. London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dore, R. 2000. Stock market capitalism, welfare capitalism: Japan and Germany versus the Anglo-Saxons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ebbinghaus, B., & Visser, J. 1999. When institutions matter: Union growth and decline in Western Europe, 1950–1995. European Sociological Review, 15 (2): 135–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Gooderham, P., & Nordhaug, O. 2008. Human resource management in US subsidiaries in Europe and Australia: Centralisation or autonomy? Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (1): 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fioretos, O. 2001. The domestic sources of multilateral preferences: Varieties of capitalism in the European community. In P. A. Hall & D. Soskice (Eds), Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage: 213–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, P. C. 2007. A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32 (4): 1190–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. 1995. The national system of innovation in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19 (1): 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. 2001. Single-peaked versus diversified capitalism: The relation between economic institutions and outcomes. In J. Drèze (Ed.), Advances in macroeconomic theory: 139–170. New York: Palgrave.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. 2002. The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31 (6): 899–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaur, A. S., Delios, A., & Singh, K. 2007. Institutional environments, staffing strategies, and subsidiary performance. Journal of Management, 33 (4): 611–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glebe, G. 2000. The Celtic Tiger economy: Boom and hightech in Ireland (Wirtschftsboom und Hightech-Industrie in Ireland). Geographische Rundschau, 52 (1): 42–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gooderham, P., Nordhaug, O., & Ringdal, K. 1999. Institutional and rational determinants of organizational practices: Human resource management in European firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (3): 507–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gooderham, P., Nordhaug, O., & Ringdal, K. 2006. National embeddedness and calculative human resource management in US subsidiaries in Europe and Australia. Human Relations, 59 (11): 1491–1513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Görg, H., & Strobl, E. 2002. Multinational companies and indigenous development: An empirical analysis. European Economic Review, 46 (7): 1305–1322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greckhamer, T., Misangyi, V. F., Elms, H., & Lacey, R. 2008. Using qualitative comparative analysis in strategic management research: An examination of combinations of industry, corporate, and business-unit effects. Organizational Research Methods, 11 (4): 695–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haake, S. 2002. National business systems and industry-specific competitiveness. Organization Studies, 23 (5): 711–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Gingerich, D. W. 2004. Varieties of capitalism and institutional complementarities in the macroeconomy: An empirical analysis (“Spielarten des Kapitalismus” und institutionelle Komplementaritäten in der Makroökonomie: Eine empirische Analyse). Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 14 (1): 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. 2001. An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In P. A. Hall & D. Soskice (Eds), Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage: 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hancké, B., & Goyer, M. 2005. Degrees of freedom: Rethinking the institutional analysis of economic change. In G. Morgan, R. Whitley & E. Moen (Eds), Changing capitalisms? Internationalization, institutional change, and systems of economic organization: 21–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt, M., & Wood, G. 2007. The importance of employment protection for skill development in coordinated market economies. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 13 (2): 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henisz, W. J. 2000. The institutional environment for multinational investment. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 16 (2): 334–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henisz, W. J., & Swaminathan, A. 2008. Institutions and international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (4): 537–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, C. 2003. Varieties of capitalism: And then there was one? Comparative Politics, 36 (1): 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, G. 2005. Employee representation in the board compared: A fuzzy sets analysis of corporate governance, unionism and political institutions. Industrielle Beziehungen, 12 (3): 252–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, G., & Miyajima, H. 2007. Introduction: The diversity and change of corporate governance in Japan. In M. Aoki, G. Jackson & H. Miyajima (Eds), Corporate governance in Japan: Institutional change and organizational diversity: 1–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. A. 2007. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36 (5): 680–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, R., & Prange, H. 2004. The reconfiguration of national innovation systems: The example of German biotechnology. Research Policy, 33 (3): 395–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, H. C., & Darbishire, O. 2000. Converging divergencies: Worldwide changes in employment systems. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenworthy, L. 2006. Institutional coherence and macroeconomic performance. Socio-Economic Review, 4 (1): 69–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiner, M. M. 2001. Intensity of management resistance: Understanding the decline of unionization in the private sector. Journal of Labor Research, 22 (3): 519–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Ragin, C. 2006. Exploring complexity when diversity is limited: Institutional complementarity in theories of rule of law and national systems revisited. European Management Review, 3 (1): 44–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., MacDuffie, J. P., & Ragin, C. 2004. Prototypes and strategy: Assigning causal credit using fuzzy sets. European Management Review, 1 (1): 114–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvist, J. 1999. Welfare reform in the Nordic countries in the 1990s: Using fuzzy-set theory to assess conformity to ideal types. Journal of European Social Policy, 9 (3): 231–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvist, J. 2007. Fuzzy set ideal type analysis. Journal of Business Research, 60 (5): 474–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, C. 2008. National capitalisms and global production networks: An analysis of their interaction in two global industries. Socio-Economic Review, 6 (2): 227–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. H., & Yoo, T. 2007. Government policy and trajectories of radical innovation in dirigiste states: A comparative analysis of national innovation systems in France and Korea. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 19 (4): 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, M. 2001. Macro-varieties of capitalism and micro-varieties of strategic management in European airlines. In P. A. Hall & D. Soskice (Eds), Varieties of capitalism. The institutional foundations of comparative advantage: 361–386. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B. A. 2007. National innovation systems: Analytical concept and development tool. Industry and Innovation, 14 (1): 95–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. 2006. A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14 (3): 227–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, P., & Mudambi, R. 2004. The location behavior of the multinational enterprise: Some analytical issues. Growth and Change, 35 (4): 491–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J., & Dow, S. 2003. The persistence and implications of Japanese keiretsu organization. Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (4): 374–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2): 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. 1993. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (6): 1175–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miwa, Y., & Ramseyer, J. M. 2002. The fable of the keiretsu. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 11 (2): 169–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, R. 2004. Social partnership and the “Celtic Tiger” economy. In J. Perraton & B. Clift (Eds), Where are national capitalisms now?: 50–69. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 1999. Managing national innovation systems. Paris: OECD.

  • Oliveira, P. M., Roth, A. V., & Ponte, K. M. 2003. Cross-border mergers and acquisitions as a tool to transfer knowledge and foster competitive capabilities. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 3 (2): 204–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. 1996. The institutional embeddedness of economic activity. Advances in Strategic Management, 13: 163–186.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajunen, K. 2008. Institutions and inflows of foreign direct investment: A fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (4): 652–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paunescu, M., & Schneider, M. 2004. Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Dynamik institutioneller Standortbedingungen: Ein empirischer Test des “Varieties-of-Capitalism”-Ansatzes. Schmollers Jahrbuch: Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, 124 (1): 31–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paunescu, M., & Schneider, M. 2005. More on testing the varieties of capitalism. Schmollers Jahrbuch: Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, 125 (2): 323–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 (5): 920–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perraton, J., & Clift, B. 2004. So where are national capitalisms now? In J. Perraton & B. Clift (Eds), Where are national capitalisms now?: 195–261. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. New York: The Free Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. 1998. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76 (6): 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pull, K. 2003. Managerial flexibility and the comparative attractiveness of the UK as a business location. European Business Journal, 15 (2): 49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radice, H. 2004. Comparing national capitalisms. In J. Perraton & B. Clift (Eds), Where are national capitalisms now?: 183–194. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. 1987. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. 2000. Fuzzy-set social sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. 2006. Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14 (3): 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. 2008. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C., & Pennings, P. 2005. Fuzzy sets and social research. Sociological Methods and Research, 33 (4): 423–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redding, G. 2005. The thick description and comparison of societal systems of capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (2): 123–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. 2009. Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques, Applied Social Research Methods Series, 51, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

  • Rueda, D., & Pontusson, J. 2000. Wage inequality and varieties of capitalism. World Politics, 52 (3): 350–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. 2007. Qualitative comparative analysis and fuzzy sets: Ein Lehrbuch für Anwender und jene, die es werden wollen. Opladen, Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyoum, B. 2005. Determinants of level of high technology exports: An empirical investigation. Advances in Competitiveness Research, 13 (1): 64–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, J. M., & Flyer, F. 2000. Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investment in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (12): 1175–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. 2007. Asymmetry of knowledge spillovers between MNCs and host country firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (5): 764–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skaaning, S. E. 2007. Explaining post-communist respect for civil liberty: A multi-methods test. Journal of Business Research, 60 (5): 493–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streeck, W. 2003. Taking uncertainty seriously: Complementarity as a moving target, Österreichische Nationalbank Wien: Proceedings of OeNB Workshops, 1 (1): 101–115.

  • Unger, B. 2000. Innovation systems and innovative performance: Voice systems. Organization Studies, 21 (5): 941–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verkuilen, J. 2005. Assigning membership in a fuzzy set analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 33 (4): 462–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vis, B., Woldendorp, J., & Keman, H. 2007. Do miracles exist? Analyzing economic performance comparatively. Journal of Business Research, 60 (5): 531–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (Ed.) 1992. European business systems: Firms and markets in their national context. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. 1999. Divergent capitalisms: The social structuring and change of business systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. 2007. Business systems and organizational capabilities: The institutional structuring of competitive competences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Witt, M. A., & Lewin, A. Y. 2007. Outward foreign direct investment as escape response to home country institutional constraints. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (4): 579–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the editor, Witold Henisz, three anonymous reviewers, Peer Fiss, and Anja Iseke for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany

    Martin R Schneider & Conrad Schulze-Bentrop

  2. Institute for Labour Law and Industrial Relations in the European Community, Trier, Germany

    Martin R Schneider

  3. SAS Institute Austria, Vienna, Austria

    Mihai Paunescu

Authors
  1. Martin R Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Conrad Schulze-Bentrop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mihai Paunescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin R Schneider.

Additional information

Accepted by Witold Henisz, Area Editor, 26 February 2009. This paper has been with the authors for two revisions.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

See Table A1.

Table a1 Fuzzy set membership scores of causal conditions and outcome
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schneider, M., Schulze-Bentrop, C. & Paunescu, M. Mapping the institutional capital of high-tech firms: A fuzzy-set analysis of capitalist variety and export performance. J Int Bus Stud 41, 246–266 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.36

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.36

Keywords

Search

Navigation