Skip to main content
Log in

How institutions matter for international business: Institutional distance effects vs institutional profile effects

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

Abstract

Extant institutional research has failed to make a distinction between the effects of institutional profile and institutional distance on MNEs. The problem stems from the fact that, due to the use of a single reference country, variation in institutional distance between the reference country and partner countries is essentially equal to variation in the institutional profiles of these partner countries, making institutional distance and institutional profile effects indistinguishable. This research begins by demonstrating that the problem of profile – distance conflation is relevant for virtually all possible countries as reference points, and then showing how this problem is mitigated by using more than one country as reference points from which to calculate institutional distance. We conclude that current institutional research in international business is unable to explain how institutions matter for MNEs and that a more careful theoretical and empirical distinction between the effects of institutions and institutional distance on cross-border business activities is essential for pushing the institutional perspective in international business studies forward. Multiple reference point research designs are required to achieve this.

Abstract

La recherche institutionnelle existante n'a pas réussi à distinguer les effets du profil institutionnel et de la distance institutionnelle sur les FMN. Le problème vient du fait que, en raison de l'utilisation d'un seul pays de référence, la variation de la distance institutionnelle entre le pays de référence et les pays partenaires est sensiblement égale à la variation des profils institutionnels de ces pays partenaires, ce qui rend les effets de la distance institutionnelle et du profil institutionnel impossible à distinguer. Cette recherche commence par démontrer que le problème de confusion entre le profil et la distance est pertinent pour pratiquement tous les pays pris comme points de référence, puis elle montre comment ce problème est atténué par l'utilisation de plus d'un pays pris comme point de référence pour calculer la distance institutionnelle. Nous concluons que la recherche institutionnelle actuelle en international business est incapable d'expliquer comment les institutions influencent les FMN et qu'une distinction théorique et empirique plus minutieuse entre les effets des institutions et de la distance institutionnelle sur les activités d’affaires transfrontalières est essentielle pour valoriser le point de vue institutionnel dans les études en international business. Plusieurs modèles de recherche de référence sont nécessaires pour atteindre cet objectif.

Abstract

La existente investigación institucional ha fracasado en hacer una diferenciación entre los efectos del perfil institucional y la distancia institucional de las empresas multinacionales. El problema yace en el hecho de que, debido al uso de un solo país de referencia, la variación entre la distancia institucional entre el país de referencia y los países socios es esencialmente igual a la variación en los perfiles institucionales de estos países socios, haciendo los efectos de la distancia institucional y el perfil institucional indistinguible. Esta investigación comienza demostrando que el problema de la fusión de perfil-distancia es virtualmente relevante para todos los países posibles como puntos de referencia, luego muestra cómo este problema es mitigado mediante el uso de más de un país como punto de referencia a partir del cual se calcula la distancia institucional. Concluimos que la actual investigación institucional en negocios internacionales es incapaz de explicar cómo las instituciones son importantes para las empresas multinacionales y que una distinción teórica y empírica más cuidadosa entre los efectos de las instituciones y la distancia institucional en actividades transfronterizas es esencial para el avance de la perspectiva institucional en estudios de negocios internacionales. Se requieren múltiples diseños de investigación sobre puntos de referencia para lograr esto.

Abstract

A pesquisa institucional existente não conseguiu fazer uma distinção entre os efeitos do perfil institucional e da distância institucional sobre as empresas multinacionais. O problema decorre do fato de que, devido ao uso de um único país de referência, a variação na distância institucional entre o país de referência e os países parceiros é essencialmente igual à variação nos perfis institucionais desses países parceiros, tornando os efeitos da distância institucional e do perfil institucional indistinguíveis. Esta pesquisa começa por demonstrar que o problema do perfil – mescla da distância é relevante para praticamente todos os possíveis países como pontos de referência e, em seguida, mostra como esse problema é atenuado pelo uso de mais de um país como ponto de referência a partir do qual calcula-se a distância institucional. Concluímos que a atual pesquisa institucional não é capaz de explicar como as instituições são importantes para as empresas multinacionais e que uma distinção teórica e empírica mais cuidadosa entre os efeitos das instituições e distância institucional sobre as atividades comerciais transfronteiriças é essencial para o avanço da perspectiva institucional nos estudos de negócios internacionais. Múltiplos desenhos de pesquisa sobre pontos de referência são necessários para alcançar este objetivo.

Abstract

现有的制度研究未能将制度轮廓与制度距离对跨国公司的影响区分开。这个问题源于这一现实: 由于使用一个单一的参照国家, 参照国家和伙伴国家之间制度距离的变化与这些伙伴国家的制度轮廓变化基本相等, 这使制度距离与制度轮廓的效果难以区分。这一研究从显示轮廓-距离合并问题实际上对所有可能作为参照点的国家都相关开始, 然后展示了这一问题如何通过使用超过一个国家作为参照点而从中计算制度距离得到缓解。我们得出结论 : 当前国际商务中的制度研究不能解释制度如何对跨国公司重要, 对制度和制度距离对跨境商务活动的影响更仔细的理论和实证的区分本质上将会推动国际商务研究中制度视角的向前发展。需要多个参考点研究设计来实现这个。

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The countries covered by Table 1 are all examples that we use to demonstrate empirically the point that a diverse set of reference countries helps researchers disentangle institutional distance and institutional profile effects. Results are similar for yet other combinations of (sets of) reference countries that are similarly institutionally diverse as the combinations depicted in Table 1.

  2. As the conflation of institutional distance and institutional profile is independent of the phenomenon studied, be it ex ante location or entry mode choice or ex post outcomes such as subsidiary performance, this recommendation is independent of the phenomenon studied.

References

  • Bae, J. H., & Salomon, R. 2010. Institutional distance in international business research. In T. Devinney, T. Pedersen, & L. Tihanyi (Eds), The past, present and future of international business and management. Advances in International Management, Vol. 23: 327–349. Bingley: Emerald.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, H., Guillén, M., & Zhou, N. 2010. An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (9): 1460–1480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beugelsdijk, S., Maseland, R., Onrust, M., van Hoorn, A., & Slangen, A. 2015. Cultural distance in international business and management: From mean-based to variance-based measures. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26 (2): 165–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., Clegg, L. J., Cross, A. R., Liu, X., Voss, H., & Zheng, P. 2007. The determinants of Chinese outward foreign investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (4): 499–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, L., & Miller, S. 2004. Distance matters: Liability of foreignness, institutional distance and ownership strategy In M. A. Hitt, & J. L. C. Cheng (Eds), The evolving theory of the multinational firm. Advances in International Management, Vol. 16: 187–221. Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke, G. R., & Richey, Jr.., R. G. 2010. Improving generalizations from multi-country comparisons in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (8): 1275–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, D., & Mallery, P. 2003. SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update. 4th edn. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P. 2001. Distance still matters; The hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review, 79 (8): 137–146.

    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 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. 1997. Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75 (4): 41–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., Palepu, K. G., & Sinha, J. 2005. Strategies that fit emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 83 (6): 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. 2006. A quarter century of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (3): 285–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T. 1997. Country institutional profiles: Concept and measurement. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings 180–184.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. 2008. Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33 (4): 994–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., & Wang, S. L. 2012. Foreign direct investment strategies by developing country multinationals: A diagnostic model for home country effects. Global Strategy Journal, 2 (3): 244–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S. K., & Peng, M. W. 2009. Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (1): 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, K., & Kostova, T. 2003. The use of the multinational corporation as a research context. Journal of Management, 29 (6): 883–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. 2008. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tihanyi, L., Griffith, D., & Russell, C. 2005. The effect of cultural distance on entry mode choice, international diversification, and MNE performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (3): 270–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wan, W. P. 2005. Country resource environments, firm capabilities, and corporate diversification strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 42 (1): 161–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. 2014. Worldwide Governance Indicators Project, 1996–2013, http://www.govindicators.org, accessed 18 November 2014.

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, S., Schomaker, M. S., & Nachum, L. 2012. Distance without direction: Restoring credibility to a much-loved construct. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (1): 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

An earlier draft of this paper circulated under the title “Why the Institutional Distance Literature in Management is About Institutional Profiles, not Distance, and What to Do About It.” The authors thank Keith Brouthers and Vincent Kunst for extensive feedback on and stimulating discussion of earlier drafts. We further thank Anne-Wil Harzing, Markus Pudelko, and participants of the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management Workshop on International Strategy and Cross Cultural Management in Reykjavik 2012 for their comments. Helpful remarks by participants of the Academy of International Business Annual Conference in Istanbul 2013, the European International Business Academy Annual Conference in Bremen 2013, two anonymous referees, and Mona Makhija are also gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Accepted by Mona Makhija, Area Editor, 15 December 2015. This Research Note has been with the authors for two revisions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Hoorn, A., Maseland, R. How institutions matter for international business: Institutional distance effects vs institutional profile effects. J Int Bus Stud 47, 374–381 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2016.2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2016.2

Keywords

Navigation