Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New frontiers in international strategy

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

Abstract

This paper studies a new frontier in the understanding of International Strategy (IS). To explore it, we propose the analogy of the ecology of firms and places as a way to emphasize that the real problem is the colocation of different places with different types of firms. Locations are in fact the distinctive content of International Business Strategy. We deal with this problem with four different perspectives. First, differences across countries must be addressed with integrative frameworks able to represent the multidimensionality of ‘semiglobalization’, or intermediate states between total localization and total integration. Second, differences in the development of intermediary markets in a particular place influence firm positioning and industry structure in that place, but their impact also crosses different places, and it is endogenous to the ecology of places and firms in a systemic, integrative way that makes simplifications extremely risky in the design of competitive strategy in an international context. Third, places, firms, and strategies form a complex ecology that can be studied with a framework focused in understanding the geography–strategy link that incorporates different levels of analysis, new economic actors, and a set of primitives. Finally, firms around the ecology of places face the challenge of developing strategies and business models to serve the majority of humanity today excluded from world trade. It is a fundamentally different way to think about the ecology of places and firms. Overall, we present an intriguing New Frontier, with the capacity to impact both research and practice in the field of international strategy, based in understanding the interplay among firms and places.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Admittedly, at this polar extreme there would still be room for interesting cross-country comparative research aimed at correcting for the US-centric approach that continues to pervade most ‘mainstream’ strategic thinking. However, such research should properly be classified as a contribution to single-country strategy: that is, domains 1 or 2 of the matrix in Table 3, rather than domains 3 or 4.

  2. If pressed to unbundle the CAGE framework further, it would probably involve splitting the administrative category into institutional precommitments, government policies and interest group politics/political preferences that have the power to influence policies over time. It would also be necessary to elaborate further on variations in the usage specificity of the relevant economic factors, inputs, infrastructure, etc.

  3. Porter's diamond framework does afford more degrees of freedom than, for example, the Global Competitiveness Index because of its industry specificity, the attractions of which are discussed below. However, the point about indexicality continues to apply to the diamond framework, given its focus on competitiveness without systematic attention to the variations in distance, along various dimensions, between countries.

  4. For a somewhat more extended discussion of indexicality in a broader social science context, see Abbott (2001), especially pp 11–12 and Chapter 6.

  5. According to Pike: ‘The etic view is cross-cultural in that its units are derived by comparing many systems and by abstracting from them units that are synthesized into a single scheme that is then analytically applied as a single system. The emic view is monocultural with its units derived from the internal functional relations of only one individual or culture at a time.’

  6. Whereas one can posit conceptual links between institutional voids and sustainability, we know of no formal work that establishes whether positions are sustained for differentially long periods based on ambient institutional voids.

  7. The field study also reached similar conclusions about Indian business groups during the several years following deregulation of cross-border activity (1991–1997).

  8. Outside the realm of economic reasoning that informs this section, the issue of effects of multinationals is one that continues to receive much attention. For example, do multinationals compromise national sovereignty? Do multinationals crowd out local culture? and so on

  9. Including CK Prahalad (University of Michigan), C Christensen (Harvard Business School), MA Rodríguez (IESE Business School), S Sharma (Wilfrid Laurier University), A Hammond (World Resources Institute), I Gomez and N Guttierez (Tec Monterrey), and J Johnson, T London, M Milstein, E Simanis, and L Jones (University of North Carolina).

  10. The BOP Learning Lab's contributing members include DuPont, HP, J&J, P&G, SC Johnson, Ford, Dow, Coke, and Tetrapak. Non-profit organizations such as the Grameen Foundation and the World Resources Institute are also actively involved.

References

  • Abbott, A.D. (2001) Chaos of Disciplines, University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. and Robinson, J.A. (2002) ‘Reversal of fortune: geography and institutions in the making of the modern world income distribution’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 117(4): 1231–1294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aitken, B.J. and Harrison, A.E. (1999) ‘Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment?’, Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review 89(3): 605–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof, G. (1970) ‘The market for lemons: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 84(3): 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D. and Quelch, J. (1998) ‘New strategies in emerging markets’, Sloan Management Review 40(1): 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D.B. (2000) ‘Knowledge, Globalization, and Regions: An Economist's Perspective’, in Dunning JH (ed.) Regions, Globalization, and the Knowledge-Based Economy, Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp: 63–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1986) ‘Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy’, Management Science 32(10): 1231–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991) ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’, Journal of Management 17(1): 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) Managing Across Borders, HBS Press: Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beamish, P. (1987) ‘Joint ventures in LDCs: partner selection and performance’, Management International Review 27(1): 23–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, T. (2001) Financial Dependence and International Trade, (www.document) World Bank Working Paper No. 2609 http://econ.worldbank.org/files/2201_wps2609.pdf (Accessed September 30, 2003).

  • Bowman, E.H. and Helfat, C. (2001) ‘Does corporate strategy matter?’, Strategic Management Journal 20(7): 625–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, T.L. and Young, S. (2000) ‘The World Trade Organization: Global Rule-Maker?’, in N. Hood and S. Young (eds.) The Globalization of Multinational Enterprise Activity and Economic Development, Macmillan: London, pp: 251–277.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P.J. (2002) ‘Is the international business research agenda running out of steam?’, Journal of International Business Studies 33(2): 365–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P.J. and Casson, M.C. (1976) The Future of the Multinational Enterprise, Holmes and Meier Publishers: New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P.J. and Casson, M.C. (1996) ‘An economic model of international joint venture strategy’, Journal of International Business Studies 27(5): 849–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P.J. and Casson, M.C. (1998) ‘Analyzing foreign market entry strategies: extending the internalization approach’, Journal of International Business Studies 29(3): 539–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpano, C., Chrisman, J.J. and Roth, K. (1994) ‘International strategy and environment: an assessment of the performance relationship’, Journal of International Business Studies 25(3): 639–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caves, R.E. (1996) Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last, ITDG Publishing: London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chia, S.Y. (2000) ‘Singapore: destination for multinationals’, in J.H. Dunning (ed.) Regions, Globalization, and the Knowledge-Based Economy, Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp: 364–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C., Craig, T. and Hart, S. (2001) ‘The great disruption’, Foreign Affairs 80(2): 80–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. (1937) ‘The nature of the firm’, Economica 4: 386–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F.J., Kundu, S.K. and Hsu, C.-C. (2003) ‘A three-stage theory of international expansion: the link between multinationality and performance in the service sector’, Journal of International Business Studies 34(1): 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawar, N. and Chattopadhyay, A. (2002) ‘Rethinking marketing programs for emerging markets’, Long Range Planning 35: 457–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De, Soto H. (2000) The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, Basic Books: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y. and Prahalad, C.K. (1984) ‘Patterns of strategic control within multinational corporations’, Journal of International Business Studies 15(2): 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y., Santos, J. and Williamson, P. (2001) From Global to Metanational, Harvard Business School Press: Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J.H. (1993) Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J.H. (2000) ‘Regions, Globalization, and the Knowledge Economy: The Issues Stated’, in J.H. Dunning (ed.) Regions, Globalization, and the Knowledge-Based Economy, Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp: 7–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterly, W. (2002) The Elusive Quest for Growth, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enright, M.J. (1998) ‘Regional Clusters and Firm Strategy’, in A.D. Chandler Jr., Ö. Sölvell and P. Hagström (eds.) The Dynamic Firm: The Role of Technology, Strategy, Organization, and Regions, Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp: 315–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enright, M.J. (2000a) ‘Globalization, Regionalization, and the Knowledge-Based Economy in Hong Kong’, in J.H. Dunning (ed.) Regions, Globalization, and the Knowledge-Based Economy, Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp: 381–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enright, M.J. (2000b) ‘Regional clusters and multinational enterprise: independence, dependence, or interdependence?’, International Studies of Management and Organization 30(2): 114–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enright, M.J. (2002a) ‘Geographies and international business: a three dimensional approach’, paper delivered at the Academy of International Business Conference, San Juan.

  • Enright, M.J. (2002b) Strategy for the New Millennium, Manuscript. Hong Kong Institute for Economics and Business Strategy.

  • Enright, M.J. (2003) ‘Regional Clusters: What we Know and What we Should Know’, in J. Bröcker, D. Dohse and R. Soltwedel (eds.) Innovation Clusters and Interregional Competition, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp: 99–129.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Enright, M.J. (in press), ‘Regional management centers in the Asia-Pacific’, Management International Review.

  • Foley, F. (2002) ‘The effects of having an American parent: an analysis of the growth of US Multinational Affiliates’, Business Economics Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard Business School, Chapter 1.

  • Gates, S.R. and Egelhoff, W.G. (1986) ‘Centralization in headquarters–subsidiary relationships’, Journal of International Business Studies 17(2): 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P. (2001) ‘Distance still matters: the hard reality of global expansion’, Harvard Business Review 79(8): 137–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P. (2003a) ‘Semiglobalization and international business strategy’, Journal of International Business Studies 34(2): 138–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P. (2003b) ‘The forgotten strategy’, Harvard Business Review 81(11): 76–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P. and Mallick, R. (2003) ‘The Industry-Level Structure of International Trade Networks: A Gravity-Based Approach’, HBS Working Paper, February 2003 version.

  • Ghemawat, P. and Thomas, C. (2003) Identifying the Sources of Sustained Performance Differences: A Study of International Cement Industry, HBS Working Paper, September 15, 2003 version.

  • Ghemawat, P. (2004) ‘Global Standardization vs. Localization: A Case Study and a Model’, in J.A. Quelch and R. Deshpande, (eds.) The Global Market: Developing a Strategy to Manage across Borders, Jossey-Bass: New York, Chapter 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häikio, M. (2002) Nokia: The Inside Story, Pearson Education: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. and Christensen, C. (2002) ‘The great leap: driving innovation from the base of the pyramid’, Sloan Management Review 44(1): 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. and Milstein, M. (1999) ‘Global sustainability and the creative destruction of industries’, Sloan Management Review 41(1): 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawawini, G., Subramanian, V. and Verdin, P. (2003) ‘Is performance driven by industry- or firm-specific factors? A new look at the evidence’, Strategic Management Journal 24(1): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawawini, G., Subramanian, V. and Verdin, P. (in press),‘ The relative importance of country, industry and firm effects on firm performance’, Journal of World Business.

  • Head, K. and Mayer, T. (2000) ‘Non-Europe: the magnitude and causes of market fragmentation in the EU’, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv-Review of World Economics 136(2): 284–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, K. and Mayer, T. (2002) ‘Effet frontière, intégration economique et ‘Forteresse Europe’ (Border effect, economic integration and ‘Fortress Europe’. with English summary)’, Economie and Prévision (152–153)(1–2): 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.F. (1982) A Theory of Multinational Enterprise, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M., Dacin, M., Levitas, E., Arregle, J.-L. and Borza, A. (2000) ‘Partner selection in emerging and developed market contexts: resource-based and organizational learning perspectives’, Academy of Management Journal 43(3): 449–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskisson, R., Eden, L., Lau, C. and Wright, M. (2000) ‘Strategy in emerging economies’, Academy of Management Journal 43(3): 249–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y. and Khanna, T. (2003) ‘Can India overtake China?’, Foreign Policy, Washington, Jul/Aug 2003, pp. 74–81.

  • Hymer, S. (1976) The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Direct Foreign Investment, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • JIBS Archive (2003) [www. document] URL: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/dynasearch/app/dynasearch.taf?site_source=jibs. (Accessed: 23 July 2003).

  • Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.E. (1977) ‘The internationalization process of the firm: a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments’, Journal of International Business Studies 8(1): 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.E. (1990) ‘The mechanism of internationalization’, International Marketing Review 7(4): 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T. (2000) ‘Business groups and social welfare in emerging markets: existing evidence and unanswered questions’, European Economic Review 44: 748–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T. (2002) Local Institutions and Global Strategy, Harvard Business School: Boston, Harvard Business School Note No. 702-475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., Khurana, R. and Palepu, K. (1999) Russell Reynolds Associates, Harvard Business School: Boston, Case No. 100-039.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T. and Palepu, K.G. (1997) ‘Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets’, Harvard Business Review 75(4): 41–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T. and Palepu, K.G. (1999) ‘Policy shocks, market intermediaries, and corporate strategy: evidence from Chile and India’, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 8(2): 271–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T. and Palepu, K. (2000a) ‘Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups’, Journal of Finance 55(2): 867–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T. and Palepu, K. (2000b) ‘The future of business groups in emerging markets: long-run evidence from Chile’, Academy of Management Journal 43(3): 268–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T. and Palepu, K. (2002) Multinationals as Global Intermediaries, Harvard Business School: Boston, Harvard Business School Note No. 703-428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T. and Rivkin, J.W. (2001a) ‘Estimating the performance effects of networks in emerging markets’, Strategic Management Journal 22: 45–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T. and Rivkin, J.W. (2001b) The Structure of Profitability Around the World, Harvard Business School: Boston, Working Paper No. 01-056.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. (1985a) ‘Designing global strategies: comparative and competitive value-added chains’, Sloan Management Review 26(4): 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. (1985b) ‘Designing global strategies: profiting from operational flexibility’, Sloan Management Review 27(1): 27–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1993) ‘Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation’, Journal of International Business Studies 24(4): 625–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, L. and Stulz, R. (1993) ‘Tobin's q, corporate diversification, and firm performance’, Journal of Political Economy 102: 142–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, M. and Asakawa, K. (1999) ‘Unbundling European operations: regional management and corporate flexibility in American and Japanese MNCs’, Journal of World Business 34(3): 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leamer, E.E. and Levinsohn, J. (1995) ‘International Trade Theory: The Evidence’, in G.M. Grossman and K. Rogoff (eds.) Handbook of International Economics, Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, pp. 1339–1394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, T. (1983) ‘The globalization of markets’, Harvard Business Review 61(3): 92–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A.Y., Long, C.P. and Carroll, T.N. (1999) ‘The coevolution of new organizational forms’, Organization Science 10(5): 535–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • London, T. and Hart, S. (2003) Reinventing Strategies for Emerging Markets: Beyond the Transnational Model, University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill, Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, J.I. and Jarillo, J.C. (1989) ‘The evolution of research on coordination mechanisms in multinational research’, Journal of International Business Studies 20(3): 489–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, J.I. and Jarillo, J.C. (1991) ‘Co-ordination demands of international strategies’, Journal of International Business Studies 22(3): 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGahan, A.M. and Porter, M.E. (2002) ‘What do we know about variance in accounting profitability?’, Management Science 48(7): 834–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milstein, M. and Hart, S. (2002) Corporate Initiatives to Serve Poor Markets as a Driver for Innovation and Change: A Longitudinal Study, National Science Foundation: Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, C. (1994) ‘Corporate diversification’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(3): 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan, V.K. and Fahey, L. (2001) ‘Macroenvironmental Analysis: Understanding the Environment Outside the Industry’, in L. Fahey and R.M. Randall (eds.) The Portable MBA in Strategy, 2nd edn, Wiley: New York, pp: 189–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1998) ‘A Theory of the Firm's Knowledge-Creation Dynamics’, in A.D.Chandler Jr., Ö. Sölvell and P. Hagström (eds.) The Dynamic Firm: The Role of Technology, Strategy, Organization, and Regions, Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp: 214–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, S.L. and Brock, D.M. (2002) ‘The development of subsidiary-management research: review and theoretical analysis’, International Business Review 11(2): 139–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M. (1993) ‘The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource based view’, Strategic Management Journal 14(3): 179–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. and Luo, Y. (2000) ‘Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy’, Academy of Management Journal 43(3): 486–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, K.L. (1954) Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior, Mouton: The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. (1980) Competitive Strategy, The Free Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage, The Free Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. (1986) ‘Competition in Global Industries: A Conceptual Framework’, in M.E. Porter (ed.) Competition in Global Industries, Harvard Business School Press: Boston, pp: 15–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. (1996) ‘What is strategy?’, Harvard Business Review, Reprint 96608, November 1996.

  • Prahalad, C.K. and Doz, Y.L. (1987) The Multinational Mission: Balancing Local Demands and Global Vision, Free Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C.K. and Hammond, A. (2002) ‘Serving the world's poor, profitably’, Harvard Business Review 80(9): 48–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C.K. and Hart, S. (2002) ‘The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid’, Strategy and Business 26: 2–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C.K. and Lieberthal, K. (1998) ‘The end of corporate imperialism’, Harvard Business Review 76(4): 68–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, R.G. and Zingales, L. (1998) ‘Financial dependence and growth’, American Economic Review 88(3): 559–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root, F.R. (1987) Entry Strategies for International Markets, Lexington Books: Lexington, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A.M. (2000) The End of Globalization, Random House: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A.M. and Verbeke, A. (2001) ‘Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises’, Strategic Management Journal 22(3): 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruigrok, W. and Wagner, H. (2003) ‘Internationalization and performance: An organizational learning perspective’, Management International Review 43(1): 63–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R.P. (1991) ‘How much does strategy matter?’, Strategic Management Journal 12(3): 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, J. (1998) ‘Helping the world's poor’, The Economist, (14 August) 17–20.

  • Schmalensee, R. (1985) ‘Do markets differ much?’, American Economic Review 75: 341–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalensee, R. (1989) ‘Inter-Industry Studies of Structure and Performance’, in R. Schmalensee and R. Willig (eds.) The Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. 2, North-Holland: Amsterdam, pp. 951–1009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J.C. (1996) ‘Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal 17(1): 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spulber, D. (1996) ‘Market microstructure and intermediation’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 10(3): 135–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallman, S. (2001) ‘Global Strategic Management’, in M. Hitt, R. Freeman and J. Harrison (eds.) The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management, Blackwell Publishers: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, R. (1966) ‘International investment and international trade in the product cycle’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 80(2): 190–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, R. (1992) ‘Transnational corporations: where are they coming from, where are they headed?’, Transnational Corporations 1(2): 7–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von, Hippel E. (1988) Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, S. (2002) ‘Recent developments in international management research: a review of 20 top management journals’, Journal of Management 28(3): 277–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984) ‘A resource-based view of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal 5(2): 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, Free Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yip, G.S. (1995) Total Global Strategy: Managing for Worldwide Competitive Advantage, Business School Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on a panel at the First Annual Conference on Emerging Research Frontiers in International Business Studies, organized by the Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS), to discuss several new lines of research in international strategy. Each panelist took particular responsibility to write his corresponding section. Excluding the introduction and conclusions, the order of authorship is P Ghemawat, T Khanna, M Enright, and S Hart. We wish to acknowledge the insightful guidance of A Lewin in the developments of this paper. The support of the ‘Anselmo Rubiralta’ Center for Globalization and Strategy is highly appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona, Spain

    Joan Enric Ricart

  2. School of Business, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Michael J Enright

  3. Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Boston, USA

    Pankaj Ghemawat & Tarun Khanna

  4. Johnson School of Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, USA

    Stuart L Hart

Authors
  1. Joan Enric Ricart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J Enright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pankaj Ghemawat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stuart L Hart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tarun Khanna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joan Enric Ricart.

Additional information

Accepted by Arie Lewin, Editor in Chief, 12 February 2004. This paper has been with the author for two revisions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ricart, J., Enright, M., Ghemawat, P. et al. New frontiers in international strategy. J Int Bus Stud 35, 175–200 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400080

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400080

Keywords

Search

Navigation