Call for papers. Special issues. How Does a Multinational Company’s Home Country Matter?

Journal of World Business

A Special Issue on

How Does a Multinational Company’s Home Country Matter?

Submissions open January 1-31, 2017

Special Issue Editors:

• Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra, Northeastern University
• Yadong Luo, University of Miami
• Ravi Ramamurti, Northeastern University

Supervising Editor:

• Siah Hwee Ang, Victoria University of Wellington

Objective of the Special Issue:

“The multinationalizing trend (is) widely recognized as similar in nature irrespective of the nationality of the parent company” – Raymond Vernon (quoted in Wilkins 1986: 202)
Vernon’s quote above presents an interesting hypothesis that is worthy of deeper examination. Does the home country of a multinational company (MNC) not matter much, as he asserts, or does it, and if so how? That is the main question explored in this special issue of the Journal of World Business.
The rise of new multinationals from emerging markets serves as a valuable natural experiment for probing the impact of a firm’s home country on its international strategy and behavior (Ramamurti, 2009). By 2015, emerging market multinational companies (EMNCs) accounted for one-quarter of world outward foreign direct investment (FDI) flows and one-fifth of the largest firms in the Fortune Global 2000. This growth led to a surge in academic interest in these firms, including special issues and volumes dedicated to their analysis (e.g. Aulakh, 2007; Cuervo-Cazurra, 2012; Cuervo-Cazurra & Ramamurti, 2014; Gammeltoft, Barnard & Madhok, 2010; Luo & Tung, 2007; Ramamurti & Singh, 2009; Williamson et al., 2013). However, there has also been a growing debate on the value of studying them as a distinct type of MNC (see Aharoni, 2014; Cuervo-Cazurra, 2012; Dunning, Kim & Park, 2008; Godley, 2014; Ramamurti, 2012; Rugman, 2010). Part of the debate and associated confusion emerges from the flawed comparison that some of the analyses make, particularly in disentangling the impact of a multinational’s home country from that of other variables. Some unique features of these firms may be not so much associated with their home country but rather with their industry of operation, stage of internationalization, ownership structure, and international experience (Ramamurti, 2012). An appropriate comparison of EMNCs with firms from other countries, such as advanced country multinational companies (AMNCs), may reveal which features of EMNCs are truly unique because of the country they come from and which are common to all MNCs regardless of their home country.

Many of the current MNC theories have paid limited attention to an MNC’s home country. Location has received relatively less attention than other firm characteristics (Dunning, 1998). Even those studies that tackle location explicitly have tended to focus on how characteristics of the host country affect the expansion of foreign firms, such as the host country’s level of development, its institutional and political system, or its economic size and degree of economic openness (e.g., Barkema, Bell & Penning, 1996; Chung & Beamish, 2005; Delios & Henisz, 2003; Meyer et al., 2013). Other studies have examined how the “distance” between the home and host country affects the international expansion of companies (e.g., Johanson & Vahlne, 1977; Ghemawat, 2001; Luo & Shenkar, 2011). More recently, a few studies have started paying attention to the impact of home country characteristics on a firm’s innovations and foreign expansion (e.g., Cuervo-Cazurra, 2006; Cuervo-Cazurra & Genc, 2008; del Sol & Kogan, 2007; Garcia-Canal & Guillen, 2008; Govindarajan & Ramamurti, 2011; Holburn & Zelner, 2010; Hoskisson et al., 2013; Luo & Wang, 2012).

In this special issue we propose to go beyond these studies and expand theories and models of the multinational by explaining how the home country affects the internationalization of the firm. This includes not only analyses of EMNCs, but also studies of AMNCs as well as comparisons of the behavior of EMNCs and AMNCs. Studies of EMNCs are a natural laboratory for extending existing models of the multinational because these have been built implicitly on the experience of AMNCs. Hence, studies that focus on EMNCs can provide new insights because their variation in home country characteristics and lower levels of economic, social, and political development facilitate the identification of mechanisms and a comparison of differences with current models. Moreover, home country tends to be more important to EMNCs than to incumbent AMNCs, providing another base for understanding how the home country affects internationalization. Studies of AMNCs can provide useful insights as long as they focus on advancing our theoretical understanding of the role of home country on internationalization. Comparative studies of companies from multiple home countries are particularly welcome if they tease out the role of the home country on internationalization. Single-country studies that pay particular attention to the mechanisms by which the home country affects a firm’s internationalization are also welcome. We welcome papers using diverse methodologies, including theoretical essays, large-sample analyses, and qualitative studies, as long as they provide a clear and detailed explanation of theoretical mechanisms and a strong theoretical contribution.

The objective of the special issue is to develop a better understanding of the theoretical mechanisms that explain how the home country influences the internationalization of the firm. The following topics are meant to illustrate the range of submissions rather than limit the ideas; authors are welcome to contact the guest editors to discuss the appropriateness of other topics related to theme of this Special Issue:

• 1. How do companies coming from countries at different levels of economic or political development differ in their global strategies? How do early globalizers from emerging countries differ from late globalizers as their home country conditions have changed quickly over time? How does the change in the home country (economic growth, pro-market reforms, pro-market reversals, political change, etc.) affect the global expansion of firms?
• 2. How do the home country and its relationships with particular host countries affect the international expansion of firms? How do changes in relationships among home and host countries (economic integration, political conflict, increased immigration, etc.) alter firm internationalization? 
• 3. How does the level of development of the country affect the innovativeness and types of innovations that firms create and use in their global expansion? How do innovations for the base of the pyramid in the home country become global innovations? What adaptations are made to these to use abroad and how are they transferred?
• 4. What can one learn from EMNCs about the process by which firms become multinationals? How does this process vary across different home countries, and how does it compare with the process by which earlier generations of MNCs emerged out of Japan, South Korea, the United States, or Western Europe?
• 5. How do firms develop resources and capabilities to deal with the particular economic, geographic, political and social conditions of their home countries and use these abroad? How are these resources and capabilities transferred and adapted to other countries? How do EMNCs adapt and modify their strategies developed in the home country to address differing conditions of countries that are more or less developed than their home country?
• 6. What is the role of the government in the international expansion of firms? Under what conditions does it facilitate internationalization? Under which conditions does it hinder it? How do state-owned firms differ from private firms when it comes to internationalization? How do these patterns vary across countries?
• 7. How do EMNCs establish home-host country technological, organizational and operational links? How do they differ from AMNCs in organizing and managing such links? What are some effective mechanisms through which EMNCs orchestrate home-host country links? How do they integrate their acquired foreign strategic assets with their home base operations, and then use this stronger home base to reverberate to and further nurture international operations?

Submission Process:

Between January 1 and 31, 2017, authors should submit their manuscripts online via the Journal of World Business submission system: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-world-business. To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for consideration for this Special Issue, it is important that authors select ‘SI: MNC Home Country’ when they reach the “Article Type” step in the submission process.

Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the Journal of World Business Guide for Authors available at https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-world-business/1090-9516/guide-for-authors. All submitted manuscripts will be subject to the Journal of World Business’s double blind review process.

We will organize a workshop designed to facilitate the development of papers that will be held at Northeastern University in June of 2017. The workshop will be sponsored by the Center for Emerging Markets at Northeastern University and the Center for International Business Education and Research at the University of Miami. Authors of manuscripts that have progressed through the revision process will be invited to it. Presentation at the workshop is neither a requirement for nor a promise of final acceptance of the paper in the Special Issue.

Questions about the Special Issue may be directed to the guest editors: Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra, Northeastern University (a.cuervocazurra@neu.edu); Yadong Luo, University of Miami (yadong@miami.edu); Ravi Ramamurti, Northeastern University (r.ramamurti@neu.edu) and JWB Supervising Editor Siah Hwee Ang, Victoria University of Wellington (SiahHwee.Ang@vuw.ac.nz).

References:

Aharoni, Y. (2014). Theoretical debates on multinationals from emerging economies. In A. Cuervo-Cazurra & R. Ramamurti (Eds.), Understanding multinationals from emerging markets (pp. 15-30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Aulakh, P. S. (2007). Emerging multinationals from developing economies: motivations, paths, and performance. Journal of International Management, 13, 338-355.

Barkema, H. G., Bell, J., & Pennings, J. M. (1996). Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and learning. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 151-166.

Chung, C. C., & Beamish, P. W. (2005). The impact of institutional reforms on characteristics and survival of foreign subsidiaries in emerging economies. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 35-62.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Genc, M. (2008). Transforming disadvantages into advantages: Developing country MNEs in the least developed countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 957-979

Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2006). Who cares about corruption? Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 803-822.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2012). How the analysis of developing country multinational companies helps advance theory: Solving the Goldilocks debate. Global Strategy Journal, 2, 153-167.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Ramamurti, R. (2014). Understanding multinationals from emerging markets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

del Sol, P., & Kogan, J. (2007). Regional competitive advantage based on pioneering economic reforms: The case of Chilean FDI. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 901-927.

Delios, A., & Henisz, W. J. (2003). Political hazards, experience and sequential entry strategies: The international expansion of Japanese firms, 1980-1998. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1153-64.

Dunning, J. H. (1998). Location and the multinational enterprise: A neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies, 29, 45-66.

Dunning, J.H., Kim, C., & Park, D. (2008). Old wine in new bottles: a comparison of emerging-market TNCs today and developed-country TNCs thirty years ago. In K. Sauvant (Ed.), The Rise of Transnational Corporations from Emerging Markets: Threat or Opportunity? (pp. 158-180). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Gammeltoft, P., Barnard, H., & Madhok, A. (2010). Emerging multinationals, emerging theory: macro- and micro-level perspectives. Journal of International Management, 16, 95-101.

Garcia-Canal, E., & Guillen, M. F. (2008). Risk and the strategy of foreign location choice in regulated industries. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1097-1115

Ghemawat, P. (2001). Distance still matters. Harvard Business Review, 79 (8), 137-147.

Godley, A. (2014). What does history add to EMNC research? In A. Cuervo-Cazurra & R. Ramamurti (Eds.), Understanding multinationals from emerging markets (pp. 31-49). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Govindarajan, V., & Ramamurti, R. (2011). Reverse innovation, emerging markets, and global strategy. Global Strategy Journal, 1, 191-205.

Holburn, G. L. F., & Zelner, B. A. (2010). Political capabilities, policy risk and international investment strategy: Evidence from the global electric power industry. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 1290-1315.

Hoskisson, R., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I. & Peng, M. W. (2013). Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 1295-1321.

Johanson, J., & 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, 23-32.

Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. (2007). International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 481-498.

Luo, Y. & Shenkar, O. (2011). Toward a perspective of cultural friction in international business. Journal of International Management, 17, 1-14.

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, 244-261.

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

Ramamurti, R. (2009). What have we learned about emerging market multinationals? In R. Ramamurti & J. V. Singh (Eds.) Emerging multinationals in emerging markets (pp. 399-426). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ramamurti, R. (2012). What is really different about emerging market multinationals? Global Strategy Journal, 2, 41-47.

Ramamurti, R., & Singh, J. V. (Eds.). (2009). Emerging multinationals from emerging markets. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rugman, A.M. (2010). Do we need a new theory to explain emerging market MNEs? In K. P. Sauvant, W. A. Maschek & G. A. McAllister (Eds.), Foreign direct investments from emerging markets: The challenges ahead. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sauvant, K. P. (Ed.). (2008). The rise of transnational corporations from emerging markets: Threat or opportunity? Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Wilkins, M. (1986). Japanese multinational enterprises before 1914. Business History Review, 60, 199-232.

Williamson, P., Ramamurti, R., Fleury, A., & Fleury, M. T. (Eds.). (2013). Competitive advantages of emerging country multinationals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Call for special issue paper: Contextualizing Research: Rigor and Relevance

Call for Journal of World Business Special Issue

Contextualizing Research: Rigor and Relevance

Guest Editors: Mary B. Teagarden, Mary Ann Von Glinow and Kamel Mellahi

Deadline: 1 November 2015

Contextualizing international business research to achieve research rigor and practical relevance is a challenge faced by all sub-disciplines within the IB domain. Contextualizing IB research focuses on the big question, 'How do we identify and integrate context into our IB research?' and a corollary, 'Why should we identify and integrate context into our IB research?' We seek submissions for this special issue that explore the implications of context for IB theory building, research design and methodology including methodological approaches to build more robust IB theories; articles that focus on the conceptualization and meaning of context; and limitations of contextualization. Additionally, submissions that demonstrate novel methodological approaches for integrating context into IB theory building are welcome.

When Peter Buckley (2002) questioned the distinctiveness of IB research, he responded to his own question and argued for more integration of culture, more use of comparative studies and of distinctive methods in IB research. Many argue contextual dimensions are what differentiate domestic research from international business and international management research (Buckley, 2002; Child, 2009; Oesterle & Wolf, 2011). Oesterle and Wolf (2011) raised the question, 'how international are our international journals?' And concluded that context was not adequately or at best modestly addressed in most of our research. We concur.

Despite the urging of thought leaders in IB for more contextualization, our approaches to contextualization appear limited, for example, focusing on categorical data or concepts like country or nationality (Von Glinow & Shenkar, 1994). They are static since our methods do not appear to be changing despite calls to do so (Buckley, 2002; Child, 2009; Teagarden, et al. 1995). Perhaps, most importantly, the scope of IB is expanding dramatically and our research contextualization appears inadequate, given the shift in business from the United States and Europe toward more 'exotic' emerging markets in Asia, Latin America and Africa with more pronounced differences in business and cultural environments. For our IB research to remain relevant we must more adequately contextualize our theory building.

Contextualization has been viewed through many lenses, and at multiple levels of analysis. While focusing on theory building, Whetten (2009) and Tsui (2004) differentiate context-specific and context-bound theory development, and Child (2009) discusses an 'outside in' versus 'inside out' perspective of contextualization. Von Glinow, Shapiro and Brett (2004) and Shapiro, Von Glinow and Xiao (2007) suggest a more complex perspective when they contrast 'single contextuality' with 'polycontextuality' or the multiple and qualitatively different contexts embedded within one another. Each of these studies acknowledges that context is important in IB theory building and each offer prescriptive recommendations for incorporating context.

Strategists and behaviorists assert that location, one form of context, has an impact on theory (Gelfend, Erez & Aycan, 2007; Ricart et al., 2004; Rugman & Verbeke, 2001; Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Khanna (2002) explores institutions and institutional voids in locations. Ghemawat (2001, 2003) examines country differences and offers the CAGE (Culture, Administrative, Geographic and Economic) framework to guide analysis. Ghemawat (2007) argues that despite globalization, there are significant locational differences that must be considered. Cheng (1994) suggests that context-embedded research ought to include '…a nation's social, cultural, legal, and economic variables as predictors and organizational attributes as dependent variables. Enright (2002) urges the use of multilevel analysis including supranational, macro, meso, micro and firm levels in the integration of location into competitive strategy. House and colleagues (2004) in their seminal GLOBE study discuss societies and their impact on leadership. Von Glinow and colleagues (2002 a, 2002 b) and Von Glinow & Teagarden (1988, 1990) identify locational influences on human resource management best practices. Shapiro and colleagues (2007) identify numerous contextual variables, including location, that address the multiple and qualitatively different contextual variables that influence understanding behavior in China. Regardless of sub-discipline, there is ample opportunity to contribute to the IB research contextualization dialog.

Given the magnitude of possible contexts, researchers are challenged to comprehend the contextual and polycontextual dynamics in a limited number of cultures or societies. Tsui (2004) argues for inside-out, context specific indigenous research, and this represents one possible solution to the context challenge. Teagarden and Schotter (2013) and Enright (2002) argue for the importance of multilevel analysis to contextualize research and provide a deeper understanding of phenomena. Teagarden and colleagues (1995) suggest that team-based comparative-management studies provide the collective understanding to contextualize and make sense of multiple contexts in a single research project. There have been numerous examples that demonstrate the effectiveness of this latter approach (House, et al., 2004; Von Glinow, Teagarden & Drost, 2002a, 2002b). This highlights the opportunity to question the research methods currently used to contextualize IB research.

The list of topics below is merely suggestive of the range of topics appropriate for the Special Issue, which ideally seeks inputs from scholars across a number of disciplines related to conducting research on organizational, institutional and environmental contexts. Through contributions to this special issue, we aspire to expand the boundaries of rigor and relevance in international business research.


Contributors are invited to submit manuscripts focus on topics and themes such as:

• · How important is context to conducting IB research?
• · What are the various methodological approaches used to measure context?
• · How does indigenous research help us uncover multiple contexts?
• · What is context-embedded research, and why is it important?
• · What role do institutions and institutional voids play in establishing context in IB research?
• · How does the use (or abuse) of context affect rigor or relevance in our theory development?
• · How does the use of context help us expand theory in IB?
• · What research methods are most appropriate to uncovering the different and multiple contexts that underlie most international settings?

Submission process:

By November 1, 2015, authors should submit their manuscripts online via the new Journal of World Business EES submission system. The link for submitting manuscript is: http://ees.elsevier.com/jwb.

To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for consideration for this Special Issue, it is important that authors select ‘SI: Contextualizing Research’ when they reach the “Article Type” step in the submission process

Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the Journal of World Business Guide for Authors available at http://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-world-business/1090-9516/guide-for-authors. All submitted manuscripts will be subject to the Journal of World Business’s blind review process.

We may organize a workshop designed to facilitate the development of papers. Authors of manuscripts that have progressed through the revision process will be invited to it. Presentation at the workshop is neither a requirement for nor a promise of final acceptance of the paper in the Special Issue.

Questions about the Special Issue may be directed to the guest editors:

• Mary B. Teagarden, Thunderbird School of Management, Arizona State University, USA (mary.teagarden@asu.edu)
• Mary Ann Von Glinow, Florida International University, USA (vonglino@fiu.edu)
• Kamel Mellahi, Warwick Business School, UK (Kamel.Mellahi@wbs.ac.uk)

References:

• Buckley, P.J. (2002) 'Is the international business research agenda running out of steam?', Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2): 365-373.
• Cheng, J.L.C. (1994) 'On the concept of universal knowledge in organization science: implications for cross-national research', Management Science, 40: 162-168.
• Child, J. (2009) 'Context, Comparison, and methodology in Chinese Management Research', Management and Organization Review, 5(1): 57-73.
• Enright, M.J. (2002) '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.
• Gelfend, M.J., Erez, M.and Aycan, Z. (2007) 'Cross-cultural organizational behavior', Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 479-514.
• Ghemawat, P. (2001) 'Distance still matters', Harvard Business Review, 79(8), September: 137-147.
• Ghemawat, P. (2003) 'Semiglobalization and international business strategy', Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 138-152.
• Ghemawat, P. (2007) 'Why the world isn't flat', Foreign Policy, March-April: 54-60.
• House, R. J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004) Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Sage.
• Khanna, T. (2000) Local Institutions and Global Strategy, Harvard Business School: Boston, Harvard Business School Note No. 702-475.
• Oesterle, M.J. and Wolf, J.M. (2011) '50 years of MIR and IB/IM research; an inventory and some suggestions for the fields development',Management International Review, 51: 735-757.
• Ricart, J.E., Enright, M.J., Ghemawat, P., Hart, S.L., and Khanna, T. (2004) 'New frontiers in international strategy', Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 175-200.
• Rousseau, D.M. and Fried, Y. (2001) 'Location, location, location: contextualizing organizational research', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 1-13.
• Rugman, A.M. and Verbeke, A. (2001) 'Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises', Strategic Management Journal, 23(3): 237-250.
• Shapiro, D.L., Von Glinow, M.A. and Xiao Z. (2007) 'Toward polycontextually sensitive research methods', Management and Organization Review, 3(1): 129-152.
• Shenkar, O. and Von Glinow, M.A. (1994) 'Paradoxes of organizational theory and research: using the case of China to illustrate national contingency', Management Science, 40: 56-71.
• Teagarden, M.B. and Schotter, A. (2013) 'Favor prevalence in emerging markets: a multi-level analysis of social capital', Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30(2): 447-460.
• Teagarden, M.B., M.A. Von Glinow, D. Bowen, C. Frayne, S. Nason, P. Huo, J. Milliman, M.C. Butler, M.E. Arias, N.H. Kim, H. Scullion and K.B. Lowe (1995). 'Toward building a theory of comparative management research methodology: An idiographic case study of the best international human resources management project', Academy of Management Journal, 38(5): 1261-1287.
• Tsui, A.S. (2004) 'Contributing to global management knowledge: a case for high quality indigenous research', Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21: 491-513.
• Von Glinow, M.A. and Teagarden, M.B. (2009) 'The future of Chinese management research: rigor and relevance redux', Management and Organization Review, 5(1): 75-89.
• Von Glinow, M.A. and Teagarden M.B. (1990). 'Contextual determinants of human resource management effectiveness in international cooperative alliances: evidence from the People's Republic of China', International Human Resource Management Review, 1: 75-93.
• Von Glinow, M.A. and Teagarden M.B. (1988). 'The transfer of human resource management technology in Sino-U.S. cooperative ventures: problems and solutions', Human Resource Management, 27(2), Summer: 201-229.
• Von Glinow, M.A, Teagarden, M.B. and Drost E. (2002a). 'Converging on IHRM best practices: lessons learned from a globally-distributed consortium on theory and practice', Human Resource Management, Special Issue, 41(1): 123-140.
• Von Glinow, M.A, Teagarden, M.B. and Drost E. (2002b). 'Converging on IHRM best practices: lessons learned from a globally-distributed consortium on theory and practice', Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resource Management, Special Issue, 40 (1): 123-140.
• Whetten, D. (2009) 'An examination between context and theory applied to the study of organizations in China', Management and Organization Review, 5(1): 29-55.

Call for papers. Special issue of the Journal of World Business

Business Group Affiliation and Internationalization of Emerging Market Firms

Submission Deadline: March 1, 2015

Guest Editors: Ajai Gaur, Jane Lu, Vikas Kumar, Robert Hoskisson

Business groups are prevalent in both developed and emerging markets (Ghemawat & Khanna, 1998) and constitute the dominant organizational form in many emerging markets (Chung & Luo, 2008; Khanna & Rivkin, 2001). Scholars have utilized multiple theoretical perspectives, including institutional economics, sociology and resource-based view to define, characterize and comprehend business groups. Business groups play an important role in emerging markets by filling institutional voids and creating their own internal capital, labor and product markets (Khanna & Palepu, 2000a). There are important differences between group affiliated and unaffiliated firms in emerging economies, in terms of their underlying resource base and embeddedness in the institutional and social fabric of the local market. To add to this complexity, institutional environments in emerging economies are constantly evolving and thereby impacting strategy, particularly of organizations such as business groups that are highly embedded in the domestic context (Hoskisson, Eden, Lau, & Wright, 2000; Hoskisson, Wright, Filatotchev, & Peng, 2013). Internationalization of business group firms under such tumultuous conditions presents a rich context for advancing internationalization theory and, in particular, contributing to a better understanding of the strategic adaptation of emerging market firms.

The extant literature on business group has primarily focused on how groups as a whole and/or firms affiliated to groups perform in their home countries (e.g. Chacar & Vissa, 2005; Chang, Chung, & Mahmood, 2006; Douma, George, & Kabir, 2006; Khanna & Palepu, 2000a; 2000b; Khanna & Rivkin, 2001). There are only a few studies that have explored the impact that affiliation to a business group has on the degree of internationalization of the focal firm, and present inconclusive findings (e.g. Chang, 1995; Kim, Kim, & Hoskisson, 2010). Examining not only institutional differences but also factor market difference between home and host countries also seems to matter with regard to internationalization from emerging economies (Kim, Hoskisson, & Lee, 2014). In the wake of the recent widespread and accelerated internationalization of emerging market firms, including many that are affiliated to larger business groups, the internationalization of business group affiliated firms warrants a deeper and systematic investigation from a variety of theoretical and empirical approaches.

As emerging economies develop and become mid-range economies (Hoskisson, et al., 2013), how does this change the nature of business groups and their internationalization strategies. Do they restructure their portfolios as transaction cost theory would imply (Hoskisson, Johnson, Tihanyi, & White, 2005)? Do they substitute domestic product diversification for more internationalization (Meyer, 2006)? How are they structured and governed differently (Chittoor, Kale, Puranam, 2014) as the country settings change and as they pursue increased innovation and internationalization (Yiu, Hoskisson, Bruton, Lu, 2014)? How does government ownership influence their corporate and internationalization strategies (White, Hoskisson, Yiu, & Bruton, 2008)?

Many studies simply use dummies to distinguish group affiliates from independent firms. This approach assumes all affiliates benefit equally, which is questionable due to differences in value capture.  For example, research shows that affiliate firms differ in their ability to capture benefits from internationalization; in this study more powerful group firms benefit from internationalization compared to less powerful affiliates (Wan, Hoskisson, & Kim, 2004). However, we have limited understanding of differences in power and of value capture among affiliates because few scholars examine heterogeneity among group affiliates.

The special issue solicits scholarly contributions that provide a finer-grained analysis of the internationalization of business group affiliated firms from emerging markets, encapsulating the unique attributes of business groups as well as that of the institutional and cultural contexts where they prosper. The following is an illustrative list of questions:

1.     How is the efficacy of business groups affected due to the rapidly changing institutional environment in EEs?

2.     Business groups are social structures deeply embedded in the broader institutional environment of EEs. How does this embeddnesses affect the internationalization propensity of their affiliates?

3.     What are the similarities and differences between business groups from different emerging economies as well as developed economies and how do these similarities/differences affect their internationalization behavior?

4.     How are business groups organized and managed differently in different country institutional and factor market settings? What organizational transformation are business groups undergoing to respond to the changes in the external institutional environment?

5.     What are the unique resources and capabilities of business groups?  How do these capabilities help group affiliated firms in internationalization?

6.     Are the advantages and/or disadvantages of affiliation to business group context-dependent?  How do individual business affiliate firms benefit more or less from group affiliation?

7.     Do advantages and/or disadvantages transfer to foreign markets when EE firms internationalize their operations?

8.     How do business groups extend their group like structure in foreign markets?

9.     How does the presence of a business group in an industry affect the industry-wide innovation and internationalization?

10.  How do the foreign market entry modes different between group affiliated and unaffiliated firms?

We encourage potential contributors to examine the internationalization of business groups from different theoretical perspectives and empirical approaches, including multi-level models and case studies.  Authors should not merely be testing the existing theories in the context of business groups, but make use of the novel context to develop new theories and explanations, and thereby enrich our understanding of firm internationalization behavior in general, and of business group internationalization behavior in particular.

Submission Process:

By March 1, 2015 all manuscripts should be submitted using the online submission system.  The link for submitting manuscript is: http://ees.elsevier.com/jwb. 

To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for consideration for this Special Issue, it is important that authors select ‘SI: Business Groups’ when they reach the “Article Type” step in the submission process.

We may organize a workshop designed to facilitate the development of papers. Authors of manuscripts that have progressed through the revision process will be invited to it. Presentation at the workshop is neither a requirement for nor a promise of final acceptance of the paper in the Special Issue.

Questions about the special issue may be directed to any of the following guest editors:

Ajai Gaur, Rutgers University, USA ajai@business.rutgers.edu   

Jane Lu, University of Melbourne, Australia jane.lu@unimelb.edu.au 

Vikas Kumar, University of Sydney, Australia vikas.kumar@sydney.edu.au

Robert E. Hoskisson, Rice University robert.hoskisson@rice.edu

 References

Chacar, A., & Vissa, B. (2005). Are emerging economies less efficient? Performance persistence and the impact of business group affiliation. Strategic Management Journal,26(10): 933-946.

Chang, S.J. (1995). International expansion strategy of Japanese firms: capability building through sequential entry.  Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 383-407.

Chang, S., Chung, C., & Mahmood, I.P. (2006). When and how does business group affiliation promote firm innovation? A tale of two emerging economies. Organization Science, 17(5): 637-656.

Chittoor, R., Kale, P., & Puranam, P. (2014). Business groups in developing capital markets:  Towards a complementarity perspective.  Strategic Management Journal, forthcoming.

Chung, C., & Luo, X. (2008). Human agents, contexts, and institutional change: the decline of family in the leadership of business groups. Organization Science, 19(1): 124-142.

Douma, S., George, R., & Kabir, R. (2006). Foreign and domestic ownership, business groups, and firm performance: evidence from a large emerging market. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7): 637-657.

Ghemawat, P., & Khanna, T. (1998). The nature of diversified business groups: a research design and two case studies.  Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(1): 35-61.

Hoskisson, R.E., Eden, L., Lau, C.-M., & Wright, M. 2000. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 249–267.

Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A., Tihanyi, L. & White, R. E. (2005). Diversified business groups and corporate refocusing in emerging economies. Journal of Management, 31: 941-965.

Hoskisson, R.E., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Peng, M. (2013). Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50(7): 1295-1321.

Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000a). Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance, 55(2): 867-891.

Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000b). The future of business groups in emerging markets: long-run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 268-285.

Khanna, T., & Rivkin, J.W. (2001). Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22(1): 45-74.

Kim, H., Hoskisson, R.E., & Lee, S.-H. (2014). Why strategic factor markets matter: ‘New’ multinationals’ geographic diversification and firm profitability. Strategic Management Journal, Forthcoming.

Kim, H., Kim, H., & Hoskisson, R.E. (2010). Does market-oriented institutional change in an emerging economy make business-group-affiliated multinationals perform better? An institution based view. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 1141-1160.

Meyer, K.E. (2006). Globalfocusing: From domestic conglomerate to global specialist. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5): 1109-1144.

Kim, H., Hoskisson, R. E. & Wan, W. P. 2004. Power dependence, diversification strategy and performance in keiretsu member firms, Strategic Management Journal, 25: 613-636.

White, R. E., Hoskisson, R. E., Yiu, D. & Bruton, G. (2008). Employment and market innovation in Chinese business group-affiliated firms: The role of group control systems,Management and Organization Review, 4: 225-256.

Yiu, D. Hoskisson, R. E., Bruton, G. & Lu, Y. (2014). Dueling institutional logics and the effect on strategic entrepreneurship in Chinese business groups. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(3): 195-213.

Call for Special Issue: Emerging Market Multinationals: Perspectives from Latin America

Journal of World Business

Call for papers for a special issue

Submission deadline: May 4, 2015

Emerging Market Multinationals: Perspectives from Latin America 

Guest Editors:

• Ruth Aguilera
• Luciano Ciravegna
• Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra
• Maria Alejandra Gonzalez-Perez

“Name some Brazilian multinationals. Even harder than "famous Belgians", isn't it? Despite Brazil being the world's eighth-largest economy, with plenty of big, profitable firms, few of them have a reasonable share of their operations abroad and are thus genuinely multinational.” The Economist, Sept 21, 2000.

“For the first time Brazil has a crop of companies that can be described as multinationals. Some of them are already well known outside Brazil: Petrobras; Vale, one of the world’s largest mining companies; and Embraer, the world’s third-largest maker of passenger jets.” The Economist, November 12, 2009.

These two quotes from the British newspaper The Economist reflect the change in view about Multilatinas, or Latin American multinational companies. The reason is not that there were no Multilatinas before 2000. In fact, there have been Multilatinas for over a century. For example, the Argentinean shoemaker Alpargatas was created in 1885 and established subsidiaries in Uruguay in 1890 and in Brazil in 1907. The reason is that there were few studies analyzing Multilatinas before the 2000s. This was part of a general trend in the international business literature that appeared to have ignored the region. For example, a review of articles in two leading journals in the field of international business (Journal of International Business Studies and Management International Review) in the period 1987-1997 indicated that fewer than 6% of the articles mentioned Latin America (Elahee and Vaidya, 2001). This paucity of studies on the region had not changed in recent times. A review of studies in four leading international business journal (Journal of International Business Studies, Management International Review, Journal of World Business, and International Business Review) in 2001-2005 indicated that only 2.75% of articles studied firms in the region (Perez-Batres, Pisani and Doh, 2010). Nevertheless, a few analyses of multinationals have indicated that firms from this region are becoming multinational rapidly and some of them are becoming leaders in their industries (Casanova, 2009; Cuervo-Cazurra, 2008,; Fleury and Fleury, 2010; Santiso, 2013).

In this special issue we plan to take stock of what is known about these firms and identify potential avenues for future research. Other special issues of the Journal of World Business have analyzed various regions of the world such as India (Varma and Budhwar, 2012), China (Laforet, Paliwoda and Chen, 2012), Africa (Kamoche, 2011), the Middle East (Mellahi, Demirbag and Riddle, 2011), and Korea (Paik and Lee, 2008). This special issue contributes to the global scope of the Journal of World Business by studying firms from Latin America, which have, thus far, been underrepresented in the management and business literature (Brenes, Montoya and Ciravegna, 2014).  With this special issue, we aim to not only increase our understanding of Multilatinas, but also to identify the particular characteristics of their internationalization and how it compares with the internationalization of firms from other regions.

The rise of emerging market multinationals has been well documented (for example see the papers in the special issues edited by Aulakh, 2007; Cuervo-Cazurra, 2012; Gammeltoft, Barnard and Madhok, 2010; Luo and Tung, 2007; and in the books edited by Cuervo-Cazurra and Ramamurti, 2014; Ramamurti and Singh, 2007, Sauvant, 2008; Williamson et al., 2013), yet the literature on emerging market multinationals has thus far focused mainly on firms from regions other than Latin America. With this Special Issue of Journal of World Business, we aim to fill this gap, contributing to the international business literature and the body of knowledge documenting the practices of multinational companies.

This call is an attempt to integrate different aspects that might have influenced the growth and internationalization of Latin American firms. We welcome theoretical, empirical, methodological and case studies submission addressing, but not limited to, the following issues:

• ·         Successful Multilatinas expanding outside their region
• ·         Comparative ownership advantages/disadvantages of Multilatinas
• ·         Internationalization patterns of Latin American firms
• ·         The internationalization of state-owned Latin American firms
• ·         Institutional constraints for Latin American companies to internationalize
• ·         Foreign performance of Latin American firms
• ·         Effects of exports promotion agencies on the internationalization of Latin American firms
• ·         Governance in Multilatinas
• ·         The internationalization of Latin American business groups  
• ·         Global leadership in Multilatinas
• ·         Dimensions of management diversity in Multilatinas
• ·         Determinants of outward FDI from Latin America
• ·         The role of governments in Latin American International Business
• ·         Corporate social responsibility and sustainable practices in Multilatinas
• ·         The role of family-owned business conglomerates in Multilatinas
• ·         Oligopolistic structures and internationalization in Multilatinas
• ·         Multilatinas and economic and political crises
• ·         Cultural challenges in doing business from Latin America
• ·         The role of Latin American diaspora and returning emigrants in international business

Submission process:

By May 4, 2015, authors should submit their manuscripts online via the new Journal of World Business EES submission system. The link for submitting manuscript is: http://ees.elsevier.com/jwb. 

To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for consideration for this Special Issue, it is important that authors select ‘SI: Latin American MNCs’ when they reach the “Article Type” step in the submission process

Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the Journal of World Business Guide for Authors available at http://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-world-business/1090-9516/guide-for-authors . All submitted manuscripts will be subject to the Journal of World Business’s blind review process.

We may organize a workshop designed to facilitate the development of papers. Authors of manuscripts that have progressed through the revision process will be invited to it. Presentation at the workshop is neither a requirement for nor a promise of final acceptance of the paper in the Special Issue.

Questions about the Special Issue may be directed to the guest editors:

• ·         Ruth V. Aguilera, Northeastern University, United States (r.aguilera@neu.edu)
• ·         Luciano Ciravegna, King’s College, London, UK, (Luciano.ciravegna@kcl.ac.uk)
• ·         Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra, Northeastern University, United States (a.cuervocazurra@neu.edu)
• ·         Maria Alejandra Gonzalez-Perez, Universidad EAFIT, Colombia (mgonza40@eafit.edu.co)

References:

Aulakh, P. S. (2007). Emerging multinationals from developing economies: motivations, paths, and performance. Journal of International Management, 13, 338-355.

Brenes, E. R., Montoya, D., & Ciravegna, L. (2014). Differentiation strategies in emerging markets: The case of Latin American agribusinesses. Journal of Business Research, 67, 847-855.

Casanova, L. (2009). Global Latinas: Latin America's emerging multinationals. Palgrave Macmillan.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2008). The multinationalization of developing country MNEs: The case of Multilatinas. Journal of International Management, 14, 138-154.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2012). How the analysis of developing country multinational companies helps advance theory: Solving the Goldilocks debate. Global Strategy Journal, 2, 153-167.

Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Ramamurti, R. (2014). Understanding multinationals from emerging markets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Economist. (2001). Brazil's Gerdau: Who dares wins. The Economist. www.economist.com/node/374586

Economist. (2009). Special Reports Economist Brazil. The Economist. www.economist.com/node/14829517

Elahee, M. N., & Vaidya, S. P. (2001). Coverage of Latin American business and management issues in cross-cultural research: An analysis of JIBS and MIR 1987-1997. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 4, 21-31. 

Fleury, A. & Fleury, M. T. L. (2011). Brazilian multinationals: Competences for internationalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Gammeltoft, P., Barnard, H., & Madhok, A. (2010). Emerging multinationals, emerging theory: macro- and micro-level perspectives. Journal of International Management, 16, 95-101.

Kamoche, K. (2011). Contemporary developments in the management of human resources in Africa. Journal of World Business, 46, 1-4.

Laforet, S. Paliwoda, S. and Chen, J. (2012). Introduction. Journal of World Business, 47, 1-3.

Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. (2007). International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 481-498.

Mellahi, K., Demirbag, M., & Riddle, L. (2011). Multinationals in the Middle East: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of World Business, 46, 406-410.

Paik, Y., & Lee, S. H. (2008). Introduction. Journal of World Business, 43, 1-4.

Pérez-Batres, L.A., Pisani, M.J., & Doh, J.P. (2010). Latin America’s Contribution to IB Scholarship. Academy of International Business Insights, 10, 3-7. 

Ramamurti, R., & Singh, J. V. (eds). (2009). Emerging multinationals from emerging markets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Santiso, J. (2013). The decade of the Multilatinas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sauvant, K. P. (ed). (2008). The rise of transnational corporations from emerging markets: Threat or opportunity? Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Varma, A., & Budhwar, P. (2012). International Human Resource Management in the Indian context. Journal of World Business, 47, 157-338.

Williamson, P., Ramamurti, R., Fleury, A., & Fleury, M. T. (eds). (2013). Competitive advantages of emerging country multinationals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Call for Papers: Journal of World Business Special Issue on Business Group Affiliation and Internationalization of Emerging Market Firms

Journal of World Business

Special Issue on Business Group Affiliation and Internationalization of Emerging Market Firms.

Business Group Affiliation and Internationalization of Emerging Market Firms

Submission Deadline: March 1, 2015

• Guest Editors: Ajai Gaur, Jane Lu, Vikas Kumar, Robert Hoskisson

Business groups are prevalent in both developed and emerging markets (Ghemawat & Khanna, 1998) and constitute the dominant organizational form in many emerging markets (Chung & Luo, 2008; Khanna & Rivkin, 2001). Scholars have utilized multiple theoretical perspectives, including institutional economics, sociology and resource-based view to define, characterize and comprehend business groups. Business groups play an important role in emerging markets by filling institutional voids and creating their own internal capital, labor and product markets (Khanna & Palepu, 2000a). There are important differences between group affiliated and unaffiliated firms in emerging economies, in terms of their underlying resource base and embeddedness in the institutional and social fabric of the local market. To add to this complexity, institutional environments in emerging economies are constantly evolving and thereby impacting strategy, particularly of organizations such as business groups that are highly embedded in the domestic context (Hoskisson, Eden, Lau, & Wright, 2000; Hoskisson, Wright, Filatotchev, & Peng, 2013). Internationalization of business group firms under such tumultuous conditions presents a rich context for advancing internationalization theory and, in particular, contributing to a better understanding of the strategic adaptation of emerging market firms.

The extant literature on business group has primarily focused on how groups as a whole and/or firms affiliated to groups perform in their home countries (e.g. Chacar & Vissa, 2005; Chang, Chung, & Mahmood, 2006; Douma, George, & Kabir, 2006; Khanna & Palepu, 2000a; 2000b; Khanna & Rivkin, 2001). There are only a few studies that have explored the impact that affiliation to a business group has on the degree of internationalization of the focal firm, and present inconclusive findings (e.g. Chang, 1995; Kim, Kim, & Hoskisson, 2010). Examining not only institutional differences but also factor market difference between home and host countries also seems to matter with regard to internationalization from emerging economies (Kim, Hoskisson, & Lee, 2014). In the wake of the recent widespread and accelerated internationalization of emerging market firms, including many that are affiliated to larger business groups, the internationalization of business group affiliated firms warrants a deeper and systematic investigation from a variety of theoretical and empirical approaches.

As emerging economies develop and become mid-range economies (Hoskisson, et al., 2013), how does this change the nature of business groups and their internationalization strategies. Do they restructure their portfolios as transaction cost theory would imply (Hoskisson, Johnson, Tihanyi, & White, 2005)? Do they substitute domestic product diversification for more internationalization (Meyer, 2006)? How are they structured and governed differently (Chittoor, Kale, Puranam, 2014) as the country settings change and as they pursue increased innovation and internationalization (Yiu, Hoskisson, Bruton, Lu, 2014)? How does government ownership influence their corporate and internationalization strategies (White, Hoskisson, Yiu, & Bruton, 2008)?

Many studies simply use dummies to distinguish group affiliates from independent firms. This approach assumes all affiliates benefit equally, which is questionable due to differences in value capture. For example, research shows that affiliate firms differ in their ability to capture benefits from internationalization; in this study more powerful group firms benefit from internationalization compared to less powerful affiliates (Wan, Hoskisson, & Kim, 2004). However, we have limited understanding of differences in power and of value capture among affiliates because few scholars examine heterogeneity among group affiliates.

The special issue solicits scholarly contributions that provide a finer-grained analysis of the internationalization of business group affiliated firms from emerging markets, encapsulating the unique attributes of business groups as well as that of the institutional and cultural contexts where they prosper. The following is an illustrative list of questions:

• 1. How is the efficacy of business groups affected due to the rapidly changing institutional environment in EEs?
• 2. Business groups are social structures deeply embedded in the broader institutional environment of EEs. How does this embeddnesses affect the internationalization propensity of their affiliates?
• 3. What are the similarities and differences between business groups from different emerging economies as well as developed economies and how do these similarities/differences affect their internationalization behavior?
• 4. How are business groups organized and managed differently in different country institutional and factor market settings? What organizational transformation are business groups undergoing to respond to the changes in the external institutional environment
• 5. What are the unique resources and capabilities of business groups? How do these capabilities help group affiliated firms in internationalization?
• 6. Are the advantages and/or disadvantages of affiliation to business group context-dependent? How do individual business affiliate firms benefit more or less from group affiliation?
• 7. Do advantages and/or disadvantages transfer to foreign markets when EE firms internationalize their operations?
• 8. How do business groups extend their group like structure in foreign markets?
• 9. How does the presence of a business group in an industry affect the industry-wide innovation and internationalization?
• 10. How do the foreign market entry modes different between group affiliated and unaffiliated firms?

We encourage potential contributors to examine the internationalization of business groups from different theoretical perspectives and empirical approaches, including multi-level models and case studies. Authors should not merely be testing the existing theories in the context of business groups, but make use of the novel context to develop new theories and explanations, and thereby enrich our understanding of firm internationalization behavior in general, and of business group internationalization behavior in particular.

Submission Process:

By March 1, 2015 all manuscripts should be submitted using the online submission system. The link for submitting manuscript is: http://ees.elsevier.com/jwb.
To ensure that all manuscripts are correctly identified for consideration for this Special Issue, it is important that authors select ‘SI: Business Groups’ when they reach the “Article Type” step in the submission process.
We may organize a workshop designed to facilitate the development of papers. Authors of manuscripts that have progressed through the revision process will be invited to it. Presentation at the workshop is neither a requirement for nor a promise of final acceptance of the paper in the Special Issue.

Questions about the special issue may be directed to any of the following guest editors:

• Ajai Gaur, Rutgers University, USA ajai@business.rutgers.edu<mailto:ajai@business.rutgers.edu>
• Jane Lu, University of Melbourne, Australia jane.lu@unimelb.edu.au<mailto:jane.lu@unimelb.edu.au>
• Vikas Kumar, University of Sydney, Australia vikas.kumar@sydney.edu.au<mailto:vikas.kumar@sydney.edu.au>
• Robert E. Hoskisson, Rice University robert.hoskisson@rice.edu<mailto:robert.hoskisson@rice.edu>

References

• Chacar, A., & Vissa, B. (2005). Are emerging economies less efficient? Performance persistence and the impact of business group affiliation. Strategic Management Journal, 26(10): 933-946.
• Chang, S.J. (1995). International expansion strategy of Japanese firms: capability building through sequential entry. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 383-407.
• Chang, S., Chung, C., & Mahmood, I.P. (2006). When and how does business group affiliation promote firm innovation? A tale of two emerging economies. Organization Science, 17(5): 637-656.
• Chittoor, R., Kale, P., & Puranam, P. (2014). Business groups in developing capital markets: Towards a complementarity perspective. Strategic Management Journal, forthcoming.
• Chung, C., & Luo, X. (2008). Human agents, contexts, and institutional change: the decline of family in the leadership of business groups. Organization Science, 19(1): 124-142.
• Douma, S., George, R., & Kabir, R. (2006). Foreign and domestic ownership, business groups, and firm performance: evidence from a large emerging market. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7): 637-657.
• Ghemawat, P., & Khanna, T. (1998). The nature of diversified business groups: a research design and two case studies. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(1): 35-61.
• Hoskisson, R.E., Eden, L., Lau, C.-M., & Wright, M. 2000. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 249–267.
• Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A., Tihanyi, L. & White, R. E. (2005). Diversified business groups and corporate refocusing in emerging economies. Journal of Management, 31: 941-965.
• Hoskisson, R.E., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Peng, M. (2013). Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50(7): 1295-1321.
• Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000a). Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance, 55(2): 867-891.
• Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000b). The future of business groups in emerging markets: long-run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 268-285.
• Khanna, T., & Rivkin, J.W. (2001). Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22(1): 45-74.
• Kim, H., Hoskisson, R.E., & Lee, S.-H. (2014). Why strategic factor markets matter: ‘New’ multinationals’ geographic diversification and firm profitability. Strategic Management Journal, Forthcoming.
• Kim, H., Kim, H., & Hoskisson, R.E. (2010). Does market-oriented institutional change in an emerging economy make business-group-affiliated multinationals perform better? An institution based view. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 1141-1160.
• Meyer, K.E. (2006). Globalfocusing: From domestic conglomerate to global specialist. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5): 1109-1144.
• Kim, H., Hoskisson, R. E. & Wan, W. P. 2004. Power dependence, diversification strategy and performance in keiretsu member firms, Strategic Management Journal, 25: 613-636.
• White, R. E., Hoskisson, R. E., Yiu, D. & Bruton, G. (2008). Employment and market innovation in Chinese business group-affiliated firms: The role of group control systems, Management and Organization Review, 4: 225-256.
• Yiu, D. Hoskisson, R. E., Bruton, G. & Lu, Y. (2014). Dueling institutional logics and the effect on strategic entrepreneurship in Chinese business groups. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8(3): 195-213.