Back
to the Great Illusion?
Global Governance and International Nonmarket Strategies for the 21st Century
Villanova School of Business
Villanova University
School of Management & Business
Aberystwyth University
- Toshiya
Ozaki (corresponding contact)
College of Business, Rikkyo University
Tokyo, Japan 171-8501
Submissions will be double blind reviewed according to JWB procedures. Below is
a rough timeline for consideration of papers and publication of the special
issue. A workshop at which promising submissions will be presented and
discussed is planned for January 27 and 28, 2014, at the London School of
Economics. Professor Steve Kobrin of the Wharton School of Business will be the
keynote presenter. Additional details will be provided once submissions are
received and reviewed.
Submissions will be double blind reviewed according to JWB procedures. Below is
a rough timeline for consideration of papers and publication of the special
issue. A workshop at which promising submissions will be presented and
discussed is planned for January 27 and 28, 2014, at the London School of
Economics. Professor Steve Kobrin of the Wharton School of Business will be the
keynote presenter. Additional details will be provided once submissions are
received and reviewed.
- Fall 2013:
First round decisions
- January 27 –
28, 2014: Workshop,
LSE, London, UK
- March 1, 2014:
Revisions due
- June 1,
2014: Second
round decisions
- September 1, 2014: Third
round decisions/Final papers due and decision letter issued
- 2014/2015:
Special issue published
Professor of International Business
College of Business, Rikkyo University
Tokyo, Japan 171-8501
Tel: +81-3-3985-4077
The Journal of World
Business is
soliciting papers to contribute to a special issue on the state of global
governance and international nonmarket strategy in the 21st century. This
special issue is focused on exploring the antecedents, processes and outcomes
of the interaction between global governance systems and institutions and the
international nonmarket strategies of multinational enterprises (MNEs).
BACKGROUND
The global political
economy is increasingly integrated and interdependent. In his book, The Great Illusion (1910),
Norman Angell advanced the view that because of the increasing global
interdependencies that linked nation states together in the first part of the
20th century, countries would hesitate before engaging in conflicts because
they would be self- destructive. The two World Wars proved Angell wrong, and
revealed one critical condition that was missing in his account: stable and
sustainable economic interdependence requires well designed and well founded
institutions on which cross-border commercial activities may flourish. The
business community, especially MNEs in the United States and Europe, played an
important role in helping policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic to design
and develop the postwar international economic system. It is significant to
note that these firms assumed the role not simply because of their altruism or
social responsibility, but because of their self-interest in sustained
international growth, facilitated by the Bretton Woods inspired global governance
system. Similarly, the more recent rise of emerging markets MNEs owes much of
their international success to the international regulatory system that
catalyzed market activity both within and between home country economies.
Global business
environments, and especially institutional arrangements to govern and sustain
global trade and commerce, increasingly show strains and fissures. As Kobrin
(2009) has argued, we may be entering a new uncharted phase of opportunities
and challenges characterized by new types of participants (governments, firms,
nongovernmental organizations) who have more diverse and unaligned interests,
purposes and preferences than in previous eras. This complex environment is
also characterized by more difficult and vexing issues – climate change,
cyber-terrorism, and financial dependencies and volatility, to name a few –
that may undermine traditional forms of global governance and render
cooperation more difficult. The advancement of information and communication
technology (ICT), which lowers barriers and allows firms and individuals to
equip themselves with information and intelligence, exacerbates these
challenges, but also offers new opportunities for addressing them.
The international
business field has long been concerned with the structure and nature of
business-government relations in the global environment and the institutional
architecture that governs firm-state relations. In the area of MNE-government
interactions, the seminal work of Vernon (1971), Fagre and Wells (1982), and
Kobrin (1987) explored the delicate interactions among states and firms as they
navigated an increasingly integrated global economy. More recent literature has
addressed how governments shape the varying institutional contexts – both
national and supranational (Henisz, 2002) – that firms encounter, as well as
how firms themselves are able to adapt and adjust – and influence – the
emerging institutional environments (Boddewyn & Brewer, 1994; Kostova &
Roth, 2002). With the proliferation of additional actors in global
business-government interactions, international business scholars have
incorporated international institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO) as formal
participants in the traditional business-government bargaining model (Prakash,
2002; Ramaurti, 2001). Most recently, the emerging presence of civil society
and nongovernmental institutions as important players in these increasingly
complex and multifaceted business-government-institutions-nongovernmental
relationships has drawn the attention of IB scholars who seek to broaden and
expand the scope of the global business system in which MNEs operate (Boddewyn
& Doh, 2010; Kobrin, 1998b; Teegen, Doh & Vachani, 2004; Lucea, 2009).
Dramatic changes in
global governance systems and processes and the dissolution of traditional
global alliances are reshaping and reformulating the system of global
governance that has dominated the post-war period (McGuire, 2012). For example,
the decades-long global coalition of countries and firms in support of
increasingly liberalized trade has apparently fractured, climate change
negotiations have reached an impasse, and there is little consensus as to how
best to manage and regulate the increasingly complex and interlinked global
financial system. Given this reality, it is appropriate to revisit some of the
assumptions and approaches that have prevailed in the treatment of global
governance systems and the actors that shape and are shaped by it. Further, it
is important and timely to explore the current state of governance for global
business, the sustainability of its underlying institutions, and alternative
governance arrangements that may be emerging from private and nongovernmental
actors. In addition to these macro-level considerations, the special issue will
focus on the nonmarket strategies (Baron, 1997) of firms responding to these
changing conditions, and how MNES are themselves influencing the systems that
are emerging. Finally, just as the governance system for global business may be
undergoing a fundamental shift, studies of international business have come a
long way in their efforts to integrate various disciplines and approaches in
examining these governance systems and understanding consequent firm nonmarket
strategies. We believe the time is ripe to look back and reflect on these
achievements, but also to call attention to unanswered questions.
Kobrin (1977, 1978,
1987, 1998a, 1998b, 2004, and 2009) is one of the key contributors to our
understanding of the interactions between politics, economics and international
business. He has sought to account for the impact of political
distance/difference between countries on international business and examined
different levels and types of political risk and how risk contributes to
differing firm strategies and structures (Kobrin, 1977, and 1978). More
recently, Kobrin has turned his attention to changes in global governance and
nonmarket activity, and has called attention to the potential fracturing of the
global governance systems and the emergence of alternative actors and
approaches (1998a, 1998b, 2004, and 2009). Building on this work, this issue
will focus on the complex interactions of economic liberalization, the role and
responsibilities of international institutions, and global firm strategy. In
particular, we encourage papers that examine how the changing role of
international institutions like the IMF, World Bank and WTO is influencing
firms’ nonmarket strategies. We also encourage submissions that explore the
emergence of substitute institutional arrangements such as private regulations,
codes and other forms of “soft” regulation, and how these complementary forms
of global governance are influencing how firms develop and advance their social
and political strategies. In addition to submissions that explore how Western
MNEs are responding to this new global governance architecture, we also
encourage submissions that explore the evolution of emerging market firms as
corporate actors at the international level, especially as they increasingly
interact with foreign governments, global institutions, and private regulation.
POTENTIAL TOPICS
We seek conceptual,
theoretical, empirical and review papers that address this broad topic. While
the focus of the special issue is intentionally broad and integrative, below
are potential topics and questions that could be relevant to the call, although
they are certainly not exhaustive.
- · How has the nature,
influence and effectiveness of global governance systems evolved in the
post-World War Two period? What does this mean for the study of IB generally,
and MNE nonmarket strategies in particular?
- · Does the changing and
evolving nature of global governance mechanisms call for the development of a
theory of transnational corporate political and/or social activity? If so, what
theory or theories could inform this phenomenon?
- · What is the
relationship between levels of governance (regional, multilateral) and
nonmarket (political and social) strategy?
- · What is the impact on
MNE nonmarket strategy of global private regulation and codes of conduct such
as the UN Global Compact, Global Reporting Initiative, ISO 1400 and 2100? Are
these new forms of regulations substitutes or complements to traditional
international law and regulation?
- · How has the emergence
of individual nongovernmental organizations (e.g. Greenpeace, WWF, Amnesty;
Oxfam) and collectives of NGOs and associations of NGOs and firms influenced
how firms direct their nonmarket strategies? Are firms refocusing their
energies on these new actors and downplaying traditional global institutions?
- · How do the nonmarket
(political and social) strategies of emerging market firms, especially those
directed at supranational institutions, compare to those of firms from
developed countries?
- · How can corporate
interests be aligned across national boundaries, societies and cultures such as
they continue to support global institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO and so on)
while also recognizing the changing nature of global governance?
PROCESS AND TIMING
Key Dates
September 1, 2013:
Submissions due to co-editors at email address above
REFERENCES
Angell, N. (1910).The Great Illusion:
A study of the relation of military power in nations to their economic and
social advantage. New York/London: Putnam.
Baron, D.P. (1997).
Integrated strategy, trade policy, and global competition. California
Management Review 39: 145-169.
Boddewyn J., &
Doh, J. (2011). Global strategy and the collaboration of MNEs, NGOs, and
governments for the provisioning of collective goods in emerging markets. Global
Strategy Journal, 1: 345-361
Boddewyn, J.J., &
Brewer, T.L. (1994). International Business Political Behavior: New Theoretical
Directions. Academy of Management Review, 19: 119-143
Fagre, N., &
Wells, L.T. (1982). Bargaining power of multinationals and host
governments. Journal of International Business Studies, 13:
9-23
Henisz, W.J. (2000).
The institutional environment for multinational investment. Journal of
Law Economics & Organization, 16: 334-364
Kobrin, S. J. (1978).
When does political instability result in increased investment risk?The
Columbia Journal of World Business, 14: 113-122
Kobrin, S.J. (1979).
Political risk : A review and reconsideration. Journal of
International Business Studies, 10: 67-80.
Kobrin, S.J. (1987).
Testing the bargaining hypothesis in the manufacturing sector in developing
countries. International Organization 41: 609-638.
Kobrin, S.J. (1998a).
Back to the future: Neomedievalism and the postmodern digital world
economy. Journal of International Affairs, 51:
361–86.
Kobrin, S J.
(1998b). The MAI and the clash of globalizations. Foreign Policy,
Fall, 97-109.
Kobrin, S.J. (2004).
Safe harbours are hard to find: the Trans-Atlantic data privacy dispute,
territorial jurisdiction and global governance. Review of
International Studies, 30: 111-131.
Kobrin, S J. (2009).
Private political authority and public responsibility: transnational politics,
transnational firms and human rights, Business Ethics
Quarterly, 19: 349-374.
Kostova, T., &
Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational
corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of
Management Journal 45: 215-233
Lucea, R. (2010). How
we see them versus how they see themselves: A cognitive perspective of firm-NGO
relationships. Business & Society, 49: 116-139
McGuire, S (2012).
What Happened to the Influence of Business? Corporations and organized labour
in the WTO. In Narlikar, A, Staunton, M. & Stern, R. (eds) The
Oxford Handbook on the World Trade Organization, (pp. 320-339), Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Prakash, A. (2002).
Beyond Seattle: globalization, the nonmarket environment and corporate
strategy. Review of International Political Economy, 9:
513-537
Ramamurti, R. (2001).
The obsolescing “bargaining model”? MNC-host developing country relations revisited, Journal
of International Business Studies, 32: 23-39.
Teegen, H., Doh,
J.P., & Vachani, S. (2004). The importance of nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) in global governance and value creation: an international business
research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 35:
463-483
Vernon R.
(1971). Sovereignty at Bay:The multinational spread of U.S. enterprises.
New York: Basic Books.
Toshiya Ozaki, PhD
