The evolving contributions in international strategic ...igup.urfu.ru/docs/Bank English_Transleted...

Journal of International Management

9 (2003) 193–213

The evolving contributions in international strategic

management research

Jane W. Lu*

Department of Business Policy, National University of Singapore, 1 Business Link, 117592 Singapore

Abstract

In this study, I systematically investigate the evolving contributions and gaps that exist in

the international strategic management (ISM) literature. The research I present here reviews

leading international business and strategic management journals from 1991 through 2000.

The research investigates the topics that have been examined in ISM research, theoretical

perspectives employed, outlets for publication, and the breadth of contributions to ISM research.

The article also highlights areas in the literature that may provide promising avenues for future

research.

D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: International management; Strategic management; Review

1. Introduction

International strategic management (ISM) research saw rapid growth through the 1980s

(Ricks et al., 1990) and the 1990s (Werner, 2002). Although efforts have been made to

review this growing literature, a systematic review and update of the international

management literature could help managers to alter and improve their management

activities and academics to build on existing research.

In this article, I review ISM studies to highlight areas in which key contributions have

been made and to identify areas in which further work could be conducted. I make

1075-4253/03/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S1075-4253(03)00006-1

* Tel.: +65-6874-1695; fax: +65-6779-5059.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J.W. Lu).

J.W. Lu / Journal of International Management 9 (2003) 193–213194

this review of ISM studies by examining several leading strategic management and

international management journals to highlight topics investigated in ISM studies. I

consider these topics in terms of the major research streams in strategic management,

which include the environment, leadership and organization, strategy, and performance

(Summer et al., 1990), to understand how ISM research has evolved in the past 10–15

years. I also examine the evolution of theoretical perspectives employed in these ISM

studies.

In this review, I also consider how different publication outlets have been used to develop

ISM research. My review next considers institutional and author contributions to ISM

research to identify leading institutions and authors and to examine the diversity of

contributors to ISM research. A wide and diverse base of scholars helps generate a

multiplicity of paradigms and avoids the development of strong cultural biases in ISM

research (Thomas et al., 1994).

After making this form of review, I try to identify areas of research that require further

work. I make this identification in the hope of providing some guide as to what directions

could prove to be promising for future ISM research to aid managers’ understanding of ISM

topics.

In the mid-1990s, Lohrke and Bruton (1997) (hereafter LB) completed a comprehensive

analysis of the ISM literature. I extend their work by adding five new years of data, with their

data and analyses from 1991 to 1995 used essentially ‘‘as is.’’ This article, thus, has

consistency in methodology, structure, and content, which enables a ready comparison of the

developments in ISM research to the year 2000.

2. Research domain

The Academy of Management provides the following definition of the domain of strategic

management.

Roles and problems of general managers—those who manage multi-business or multi-

functional business units. Major topics include: strategic formulation and implementa-

tion; strategic planning and decision processes; strategic control and reward systems;

resource allocation; diversification and portfolio strategies; competitive strategy;

selection and behavior of general managers; and the composition of top management

teams.

I used this definition to identify which strategic management journals to review for

international management related research. Using MacMillan’s (1991) survey of the

quality of several journals as outlets for strategic management research, LB identified

journals of ‘‘outstanding quality’’ as the ones for their review. Those of ‘‘significant

quality’’ and ‘‘appropriate quality’’ were not included. I followed the same classification

as journals rated as significant or appropriate quality have been shown to change their

ratings substantially over time (MacMillan, 1989, 1991). The six journals I reviewed for

J.W. Lu / Journal of International Management 9 (2003) 193–213 195

their ISM contributions were Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management

Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Harvard Business Review, Management Science,

and Strategic Management Journal.

Unlike the strategic management literature, the bounds of international management

research are not as well defined (Ricks et al., 1990). LB and I used the definition of

international management as provided by Ricks (1991).

. . .The core of international business research deals with the multinational enterprise

(MNE), the exporting or importing firm, and the problems encountered by these firm.

Topics of importance include: the theory of the MNE; the role of the MNE; MNE versus

domestic corporation issues; government–MNE issues; the problems of managing

international trade, and also functionally oriented topics such as international financial

management, international marketing management, international accounting manage-

ment, international strategy, international management, etc. . .Studies which describe

how business is done in one country are not considered international business research,

but comparative studies are.

As with the definition, journal rankings are not as clear-cut in international management

research as in strategic management research. In one sense, the growth of international

management research has been reflected positively in the proliferation of international

journals. In another sense, this proliferation creates concerns about the quality of journals

(Dunning, 1989). The quality of international management journals has improved, and is

improving, over time (Aulakh and Kotabe, 1993), but the number of high quality journals

devoted to international management research is less than that for strategic management

research. Aside from LB, several studies point to three leading international management

journals (Ebrahimi et al., 1991; Dubois et al., 2000; Aulakh and Kotabe, 1993; Madura and

McCarty, 1989; Morrison and Inkpen, 1991; Thomas et al., 1994). These journals are

(Columbia) Journal of World Business, Journal of International Business Studies, and

Management International Review.

After developing this list of nine journals, I looked for articles that could be included in the

sample. For an article to be included, it had to be published in one of these nine journals and

meet criteria for both strategic management and international management.

3. Methodology

The genealogy of the classification system I used for ISM research has its most

immediate forebear in Shrivastava’s (1987) review of the strategic management literature.

Shrivastava’s classification system was drawn from Schendel and Hofer (1979). LB made

minor changes to eventually make Shrivastava’s and Schendel and Hofer’s classification

schemes relevant to ISM research. I took LB’s system as the base for my classification, but

extended it to include two new categories: ‘‘internal coordination’’ and ‘‘scenario devel-

opment.’’


4. Results

LB followed a system of multiple rater assessments of articles to identify articles falling

into the domain of ISM research. LB’s original review identified 222 articles, of which 170

were selected by both Lohrke and Bruton. Fifty-two articles were identified by one or the

other author. After reviewing these 52 articles together, LB considered 15 to be outside the

domain of ISM research, leaving a sample of 207 ISM articles, 134 of which were for the

1991–1995 period.

I followed a similar process for drawing articles for the 1996–2000 period. Two ISM

scholars reviewed all publications in the nine journals over this period. The two scholars

identified a total of 291 ISM articles. One hundred and ninety-two of these articles were

identified by both scholars for an agreement rate of 66%. This list was then reviewed by a

third scholar. First, a third scholar suggested that 14 of the 192 articles did not meet the

specified criteria, which was confirmed after discussions among all three scholars. Next, the

third scholar reviewed the 99 other articles that only one of the two initial scholars

originally selected as relevant. Another 18 articles were not considered to be in the domain

of ISM research, leaving an additional 81 articles to be added to the base of 178 for a total

of 259 articles. I added these 259 articles to LB’s 1991–1995 total of 134 articles for a

grand total to 393. Table 1 summarizes these articles and the categories to which they

relate.

4.1. Environment

The first category listed in Table 1 is the environment. LB define the environment

according to developments about ‘‘open-system’’ views of organizations (Andrew, 1971;

Katz and Kahn, 1966) in which environmental forces represent key variables for firms

(Summer et al., 1990). ISM studies examining environmental topics can be categorized into

three groups. The first group concerns studies about a firm’s general or industry environment

in which research has looked at perceived environmental uncertainty (e.g., Shrader et al.,

2000), environmental forces behind a firm’s success in a given location (e.g., Sanchez and

McKinley, 1995; Shaver and Flyer, 2000) and forces influencing a firm’s decision to invest in

a given location (e.g., Loree and Guisinger, 1995).

The second group concerns analysis of the cultural environment. This research stream has

been very rich. It involves both the identification of dimensions of culture relevant to

international operations, as well as tests of how cultural variance influences firm strategy and

performance.

The third group concerns political risk analysis. Political variance is greater cross-

nationally than subnationally (Boddewyn and Brewer, 1994). Political forces can have

adverse influences on a firm’s profitability or inhibit its pursuit of its goals (Clegg et al.,

1996).

The broad trend across these three groups has been from theory development to theory

testing, as one might expect, but the focus on the latter, even to 2000, has not been as

extensive as it could have been. Developments in the latter half of the 1990s have led to

Table 1

Summary of ISM literaturea

Environment

Environmental/industry

analysis

Birkinshaw and Hood (2000), Ghemawat and Ghadar (2000), Shaver and

Flyer (2000), Shrader et al. (2000), Thomas III and Waring (1999), Miller

and Reuer (1998), Anand and Kogut (1997), Tse et al. (1997), Hanon

(1996), Peng and Heath (1996), Rivoli and Salorio (1996), Werner et al.

(1996), Elenkov (1995), Loree and Guisinger (1995), Sanchez and

McKinley (1995), Miller (1993),Woodward and Rolfe (1993), Grant

(1991), Kogut (1988), and Rosenzweig and Singh (1991)

Culture (national) Makino and Neupert (2000), Salk and Brannen (2000), Steensma et al.

(2000), Steensma et al. (2000), Hennart and Larimo (1998), Morosini et al.

(1998), Gomez-Mejia and Palich (1997), Barkema et al. (1996), O’Grady

and Lane (1996), Franke et al. (1991), and Schneider and DeMeyer (1991)

Scenario development/political

risk analysis

Delios and Henisz (2000), Uhlenbruck and De Castro (2000), Nehrt (1998),

Rugman and Kirton (1998), Rugman and Verbeke (1998), Clegg et al.

(1996), Brouthers (1995), Vachani (1995), Boddewyn and Brewer (1994),

and Howell and Chaddick (1994)

Leadership and organization

Internal coordination Andersson and Forsgren (2000), Furu (2000), Gupta and Govindarajan

(2000), Hakanson and Nobel (2000), Lindqvist et al. (2000), Teigland et al.

(2000), Gupta et al. (1999), Lehrer and Asakawa (1999), O’Donnell (1999),

St. John et al. (1999), Zeira and Newburry (1999), Birkinshaw et al. (1998),

Nobel and Birkinshaw (1998), Birkinshaw (1997), Dasu and De La Torre

(1997), Anderson and Fredriksson (1996), Birkinshaw (1996), Apte and

Mason (1995), Birkinshaw and Morrison (1995), Gencturk and Aulakh

(1995), Johnson (1995), Kim and Campbell (1995), Murray et al. (1995),

Murray et al. (1995), Roth (1995), Zaheer (1995), Daniel and Reitsperger

(1994), Ghoshal et al. (1994), Sohn (1994), Kao (1993), Bartlett and

Ghoshal (1992), Roth (1992), Sundaram and Black (1992), Gupta and

Govindarajan (1991), Kobrin (1991), and Martinez and Jarillo (1991)

Boards of directors Daily et al. (2000), Athanassiou and Nigh (1999), Athanassiou and Nigh

(1999), Kedia and Mukherji (1999), Li et al. (1999), Beldona et al. (1998),

Murtha et al. (1998), Sanders and Carpenter (1998), Eriksson et al. (1997),

Geletkanycz (1997), Hitt et al. (1997), Krug and Hegarty (1997),

Sambharya (1996), and Kriger (1991)

Decision-making Baldauf et al. (2000), Mitchell et al. (2000), Seth et al. (2000),

Padmanabhan and Cho (1999), Shaver (1998), Kumar and Subramaniam

(1997), Calori et al. (1994), Kobrin (1994), Roth and Ricks (1994), Jones

et al. (1992), and Kriger and Solomon (1992)

Structure Beamish et al. (1999), Martin et al. (1998), Rubach and Sebora (1998),

Kuemmerle (1997), Allen and Pantzalis (1996), Liouville and Nanopoulos

(1996), Malnight (1996), and Habib and Victor (1991)

Culture (corporate) Very et al. (1997), Bates et al. (1995), Meschi and Rogers (1994), and

Nohria and Ghoshal (1994)

(continued on next page)


Strategy

Strategy typologies Harzing (2000), Bensaou et al. (1999), Birkinshaw and Hood (1998),

Rugman and Verbeke (1998), Kutschker and Baurle (1997), Kutschker

et al. (1997), Taggart (1997), Carpano et al. (1994), Morrison and Roth

(1992), and Baden-Fuller and Stopford (1991)

Enterprise strategy (social issues) Nigh and Cochran (1994)

Corporate strategy formulation Calori et al. (2000), Peng and Wang (2000), Song et al. (1999), Burpitt and

Rondinelli (1998), Dunning (1998), Gedajlovic and Shapiro (1998),

Mudambi (1998), Peng and Ilinitch (1998), Taggart (1998), Yip et al.

(1997), Anand and Delios (1996), Leonidou and Katsikeas (1996),

Mascarenhas (1996), Taylor et al. (1996), Millington and Bayliss (1995),

Birkinshaw et al. (1995), Fleenor (1993), Leong and Tan (1993), Oxelheim

and Wihlborg (1991), and Sullivan and Bauerschmidt (1991)

Corporate strategy

implementation

Arnold (2000), Guillen (2000), Luo (2000), Madhok and Osegowitsch

(2000), Cantwell and Piscitello (1999), Kostova and Zaheer (1999),

Kostova (1999), McCarthy and Puffer (1997), Vanhonacker (1997), Grosse

(1996), Kim and Mauborgne (1996), Johansson and Yip (1994), Kim and

Mauborgne (1993a,b), Kim and Mauborgne (1991), and Nohria and

Garcia-Pont (1991)

International diversification Arora and Fosfuri (2000), Autio et al. (2000), Bartlett and Ghoshal (2000),

Brouthers and Brouthers (2000), Burton et al. (2000), Ellis (2000), Eriksson

et al. (2000), Geringer et al. (2000), Loree et al. (2000), Mottner and

Johnson (2000), Pan and Li (2000), Pan and Tse (2000), Ramamurti (2000),

Reuer and Leiblein (2000), Zahra et al. (2000), Brouthers et al. (1999),

Capron (1999), Delios and Beamish (1999), Delios and Beamish (1999),

Gomes and Ramaswamy (1999), Hoopes (1999), Kuemmerle (1999), Liesch

and Knight (1999), Luo and Peng (1999), Mascarenhas (1999), Mathews

and Cho (1999), Pan and Chi (1999), Pan et al. (1999), Sarkar et al. (1999),

Aulakh et tal. (1998), Barkema and Vermeulen (1998), Buckley and Casson

(1998), Chen and Chen (1998), Contractor and Kundu (1998), Cui (1998),

Katrishen and Scordis (1998), Lee and Caves (1998), Luo (1998),

Penner-Hahn (1998), Anand and Delios (1997), Anderson (1997),

Andersson et al. (1997), Hadjikhani (1997), Hennart and Reddy (1997),

Hitt et al. (1997), Ito (1997), Khanna and Palepu (1997), Madhok (1997),

Newburry and Zeira (1997), Oesterle (1997), Oviatt and McDougall (1997),

Qian (1997), Shaver et al. (1997), Swan and Ettlie (1997), Williamson

(1997), Banerji and Sambharya (1996), Fina and Rugman (1996), Nitsch

et al. (1996), Padmanabhan and Cho (1996), Tallman and Li (1996), Tan

and Vertinsky (1996), Brouthers et al. (1996), Aswicahyono and Hill

(1995), Chang (1995), Datta and Puia (1995), Fladmoe-Lindquist and

Jacque (1995), Kwon and Hu (1995), Li (1995), Malnight (1995), Mirza

et al. (1995), Sambharya (1995), Hennart and Park (1994), Li (1994),

Markides and Ittner (1994), Mitchell et al. (1994), Sullivan (1994),

Woodcock et al. (1994), Hennart and Park (1993), Kim et al. (1993), Kish

and Vasconcellos (1993), Mitchell et al. (1993), Agarwal and Ramaswami

(1992), Kim and Hwang (1992), Mascarenhas (1992), Mitchell et al.

(1992), Doz and Prahalad (1991), Erramilli (1991), Parkhe (1991), and

Vachani (1991)

Table 1 (continued)


Strategy

Strategic alliances Cullen et al. (2000), Dussage et al. (2000), Elg (2000), Hitt et al. (2000),

Isobe et al. (2000), Kotabe et al. (2000), Merchant and Schendel (2000),

Merchant (2000), Reuer and Koza (2000), Reuer (2000), Steensma and

Lyles (2000), Child and Yan (1999), Glaister and Buckley (1999), Hennart

et al. (1999), Hoon-Halbauer (1999), Tallman (1999), Tsang (1999), Walsh

et al. (1999), Wang et al. (1999), Yan and Zeng (1999), Chang et al. (1998),

Kashlak et al. (1998), Lin and Germain (1998), Luo (1998), Makino and

Beamish (1998), Osland and Cavusgil (1998), Parkhe (1998), Sim and Ali

(1998), Yan (1998), Barkema and Vermeulen (1997), Barkema et al. (1997),

Baughn et al. (1997), Brouthers and Bamossy (1997), Dacin et al. (1997),

Inkpen and Beamish (1997), Lei et al. (1997), Park and Ungson (1997),

Reuer and Miller (1997), Buckley and Casson (1996), Chi and McGuire

(1996), Hagedoorn and Narula (1996), Johnson et al. (1996), Lyles and

Salk (1996), Lyles et al. (1996), Makino and Delios (1996), Nordberg

et al. (1996), Pan and Tse (1996), Pan (1996), Bensaou and Venkatraman

(1995), Cullen et al. (1995), Demirbag et al. (1995), Dussage and Garrette

(1995), Elenkov (1995), Hagedoorn (1995), Kotabe and Swan (1994, 1995),

Kumar (1995), Lee and Beamish (1995), Luo (1995), Madhok et al.

(1995), Millington and Bayliss (1995), Beamish (1994), Hagedoorn and

Schakenraad (1994), Kvint (1994), Lyles and Baird (1994), Tallman and

Shenkar (1994a,b), Yan and Gray (1994), Abramson et al. (1993), Burgers

et al. (1993), Hurry (1993), Lawrence and Vlachoutsicos (1993), Parkhe

(1993), Schroath et al. (1993), Blodgett (1992), Hu et al. (1992), Hung

(1992), Shenkar and Zeira (1992), Bleeke and Ernst (1991), Blodgett

(1991), Geringer (1991), Geringer and Hebert (1991), Hamel (1991),

Hennart (1991), Parkhe (1991), Shan (1991), and Shan and Hamilton (1991)

Business-level strategy

formulation

Aulakh et al. (2000), Balabanis (2000), Brouthers et al. (2000), Davis et al.

(2000), Domke-Damonte (2000), Abramson and Ai (1999), Aggarwal

(1999), Buller and McEvoy (1999), Campa and Guillen (1999), Dawar and

Frost (1999), Erdener and Torbiorn (1999), Hagigi et al. (1999), Myers

(1999), O’Donnell (1999), Tsurumi and Tsurumi (1999), Beamish and

Inkpen (1998), Luo (1998), Miller and Parkhe (1998), Piercy et al. (1998),

Stroh and Caligiuri (1998), Yan (1998), Erramilli et al. (1997), Ferdows

(1997), Papanastassiou and Pearce (1997), Piercy et al. (1997), Tsang

(1997), Chen (1999), Craig and Douglas (1996), Lyles and Steensma

(1996), Nehrt (1996), Roth and O’Donnell (1996), Bird and Beechler

(1995), Kotha et al. (1995), Beamish et al. (1993), Dominguez and

Sequeira (1993), Reitsperger et al. (1993), Swamidass and Kotabe (1993),

Collis (1991), and Tallman (1991)

Business-level strategy

implementation

Lord and Ranft (2000), Weldon and Vanhonacker (1999), Dyer et al.

(1997), Holm et al. (1996), and Roth et al. (1991)

Turnaround/decline Mata and Portugal (2000), Benito and Welch (1997), Stopford and

Baden-Fuller (1994), and Parker and Helms (1992)

Performance

Relative performance Brouthers (1998), Hundley and Jacobson (1998), and Brown et al. (1994)a Reference information for the articles listed in this table can be accessed at: http://www.fba.nus.edu.sg/

depart/bp/bizluj/jim.htm.

Table 1 (continued)


http:\\www.fba.nus.edu.sg\depart\bp\bizluj\jim.htm




improvements in the quantification of heretofore difficult-to-operationalize items, which has

facilitated the development of theory testing. In the 2000s, research is likely to continue in

this direction.

4.2. Leadership and organization

The next category in Table 1 is leadership and organization. Leadership and organization in

ISM is most often equated with the first group of studies in this category, which is called

internal coordination. Studies in this group tend to look at challenges involved in managing

foreign subsidiaries. Such challenges include issues of the control (Nobel and Birkinshaw,

1998) and coordination (e.g., Martinez and Jarillo, 1991) of international subsidiaries.

Research has also examined knowledge flows in the organization (e.g., Ghoshal et al.,

1994; Gupta and Govindarajan, 1991) and a firm’s need for internal coordination (Roth, 1995).

The second and third group of studies in this category are boards of directors and decision-

making. Research on decision-making has focused on the effectiveness of planning (Jones et

al., 1992), sometimes as contingent on the profiles and effectiveness of boards of directors

(Kriger, 1991). The fourth group in this category is called structure, which is effectively

organizational structure in which studies have investigated the performance implications of

different structures (Habib and Victor, 1991). The final group has parallels with one of the

groups from the environment category, culture, but this time concerns corporate culture issues

(Very et al., 1997).

The most significant development in this category in the 1990s has been on internal

coordination and boards of directors issues. In the case of internal coordination, this attention

likely results from practitioner and academic interest in the challenges associated with

managing international subsidiaries. In the case of board of directors, the quantifiable nature

of the data (e.g., directors’ ages and backgrounds) has no doubt helped stimulate empirical

research in this area.

4.3. Strategy

The next category is the largest and most vibrant areas of research among all the

categories of research listed in Table 1. Strategy, defined as the combination of a firm’s

present and planned resource deployments and its environmental interactions (Ansoff,

1965; Hofer and Schendel, 1978), can be analyzed at three different levels. The first level

is ‘‘enterprise strategy’’ (Schendel and Hofer, 1979), which includes research topics such

as social responsibility (Meznar et al., 1991) and stakeholder analysis (Freeman, 1984).

The second level is ‘‘corporate strategy,’’ which includes research topics such as

diversification, vertical integration, mergers and acquisitions, and internal venturing

(Summer et al., 1990). The third level is ‘‘business strategy,’’ which includes research

topics such as the choice of competitive weapons (e.g., cost, differentiation, focus) and

product/market selection (Summer et al., 1990). Given the prevalence of environmental

effects such as the Asian financial crisis, I have added a new group called ‘‘turnaround

strategy’’ to classify studies investigating firms experiencing financial trouble.


Across these groups and levels of research, corporate strategy was among the most vital

areas of research in the 1990s. Research concerned with corporate strategy typologies,

corporate strategy formulation and implementation, international diversification, and strategic

alliances accounted for about half of all ISM research between 1991 and 2000, with

international diversification and strategic alliances representing the two largest research

streams.

The choice and performance of diversification mode had been one of the most popular

areas of research in the field of international business in the 1990s. Studies investigating

diversification mode have focused on whether firms chose to diversify via internal

development, licensing, joint venture, or acquisition (Barkema and Vermeulen, 1998; Pan

and Tse, 2000). These studies have examined transaction cost (e.g., Agarwal and Ramas-

wami, 1992), cultural (e.g., Brouthers and Brouthers, 2000), and strategic (Delios and

Beamish, 1999) effects on diversification mode.

One notable trend is that much of the research on entry mode choice had moved its focus

from the choice between foreign direct investment and licensing to the choice of foreign

direct investment mode. Within this stream, several researchers have focused on the choice

between greenfield and acquisition entries (e.g., Barkema and Vermeulen, 1998; Hennart and

Reddy, 1998; Brouthers and Brouthers, 2000), while others have focused on the choice of

subsidiary ownership structure (Makino and Beamish, 1998; Hennart and Larimo, 1998;

Delios and Beamish, 1999; Makino and Neupert, 2000). A handful of researchers have

examined the financial performance and survival implications of entry mode choice

(Woodcock et al., 1994; Nitsch et al., 1996; Barkema et al., 1996; Makino and Beamish,

1998; Pan and Chi, 1999).

A recent area of emerging research is on the timing of international diversification. This

stream draws from a well-established literature in marketing, as it emerged in the 1990s in the

field of international business (e.g., Mascarenhas, 1992; Mitchell et al., 1992, 1993, 1994;

Tan and Vertinsky, 1996; Luo, 1998; Pan and Tse, 1999; Isobe et al., 2000).

Studies investigating strategic alliances have examined the advantages and disadvantages

of forming alliances as well as fundamental aspects of managing alliances (e.g., Beamish,

1994; Tallman and Shenkar, 1994). Researchers have increasingly turned to look at alliance

formation by Western businesses in emerging markets, such as China (Luo, 1995; Shan,

1991), Russia (Lawrence and Vlachoutsicos, 1993), Turkey (Demirbag et al., 1995),

Hungary, and Poland (Lyles and Baird, 1994).

In business strategy studies, researchers have examined the performance implications of

strategic choices (e.g., Beamish et al., 1993; Dominguez and Sequeira, 1993; Reitsperger et

al., 1993). Business strategy research has also looked at strategy implementation issues (e.g.,

Roth et al., 1991). Meanwhile, research on enterprise strategy is considerably less dense

(Nigh and Cochran, 1994).

4.4. Performance

Research in ISM and strategy has the goal of understanding the performance implications

of strategic choices to improve firm performance (Summer et al., 1990). Firm performance


thus constitutes the fourth major category of research. There is much debate about what

constitutes performance (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986), and studies in this vein

account for the majority of the research in this category. Comparative performance studies

have looked at the performance of U.S. firms and firms from other countries. For example,

Brown et al. (1991) compared financial statements of U.S. and Japanese firms using the

COMPUSTAT and NEEDS databases. As can be noted by the presence of only few articles

in this area, however, ISM studies have not yet examined this topic closely. Even so, the lack

of studies in this category does not mean that researchers in ISM have not been concerned

with performance. Indeed, it is the opposite case. A review of the other three categories

shows that performance frequently emerges as key dependent variables in studies concerned

with corporate strategy, business strategy, leadership, organizational, and environmental

issues.

5. Theoretical perspectives

Transaction cost theory and internalization theory have been the mainstream theoretical

perspectives employed in ISM studies. Three other theoretical perspectives have emerged in

the 1990s: institutional theory, organizational learning/knowledge management (OL/KM)

theory, and the resource-based view of the firm (RBV).

The application of institutional theory to international business has become quite popular

in the 1990s. Many researchers have focused their attention to the institutional framework of

national environments (e.g., Rosenzweig and Singh, 1991; Peng and Heath, 1996; Elenkov,

1997; Khanna and Palepu, 1997; Kostova, 1999; Kostova and Zaheer, 1999; Davis et al.,

2000; Guillen, 2000).

OL/KM theories have been applied to the research of international market expansion

(Chang, 1995; Mathews and Cho, 1999), entry mode choice (Barkema and Vermeulen, 1998),

interorganizational learning in an international joint venture (Parkhe, 1991; Inkpen and

Beamish, 1997; Tsang, 1999; Dussauge et al., 2000), intraorganizational knowledge transfer

within a multinational company (Gupta and Govindarajan, 1991), and interorganizational

imitation in market entry (e.g., Martin et al., 1995; Shaver et al., 1997; Martin et al., 1998;

Padmanabhan and Cho, 1999).

A few researchers have adopted other newly emerging theories such as procedural justice

theory (Kim and Mauborgne, 1991, 1993, 1996), strategic option theory (Chi and McGuire,

1996), and network theory (Malnight, 1996).

The above observations suggest that the theoretical perspective adopted in the field of ISM

has been shifting from economic theories to multidisciplinary approaches. In addition to this

general trend, there existed several studies that ‘‘revived’’ the classic ideas in the field of

international business. Some researchers (e.g., Ito, 1997; Tsurumi and Tsurumi, 1999)

revisited the theory of oligopolistic competition (Knickerbocker, 1994; Flowers, 1976; Yu

and Ito, 1988). Other researchers (e.g., Chang, 1995; Malnight, 1995; Fina and Rugman,

1996; Eriksson et al., 2000; Cui, 1998) revisited internationalization theory (Johanson and

Vahlne, 1977).


6. Outlets

In my review of the leading journals, I found the following distribution across the different

journals. The Journal of International Business Studies had 124 studies. Strategic Manage-

ment Journal had 80. This was followed by Management International Review (75),

(Columbia) Journal of World Business (49), Academy of Management Journal (26), Harvard

Business Review (15), Management Science (12), Academy of Management Review (12), and

Administrative Science Quarterly (1).

Recently, Werner (2002) reviewed international management research in 20 journals for

the 1996–2000 period. Among them, six journals were identical to this study (Journal of

International Business Studies, Strategic Management Journal, Management Science,

Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, and Administrative

Science Quarterly). Of the 158 articles included in this study in the same six journals for

the 1996–2000 period, 139 articles were also in Werner (2002), an 88% correspondence

rate.

The present findings indicate two encouraging points for scholars interested in conducting

ISM research. First, as might be expected the Journal of International Business Studies and

Management International Review, have been very receptive outlets for ISM research.

Between 1991 and 2000, these journals published approximately half of all ISM research.

Second, mainstream strategic management journals, in particular, Strategic Management

Journal, have become more readily accessible outlets for the publication of ISM literature.

7. Authors and school affiliations

To assess the breadth and diversity of contributions to the ISM field, I examined author and

institutional contributions. To review contributions, I adopted the method employed by other

discipline-based reviews (e.g., Heck and Cooley, 1988; Inkpen and Beamish, 1994; Morrison

and Inkpen, 1991) to construct absolute and adjusted count measures of authors and

institutions.

For the absolute appearance of authors, I accorded an author a one full credit as long as his

or her name appeared on the article published. Even if an author coauthored the article with

others, he or she takes one full credit. There is no distinction between the first author and the

second author; each takes one full credit.

For the adjusted appearances of authors, I adjust the author’s appearance based on the

number of authors in the article. If an author coauthored the article with one more author,

each takes 0.5 credit ( = 1 article divided by 2 authors). If an author coauthored the article

with two more authors, each takes 0.33 credit ( = 1 article divided by 3 authors). There is

no distinction between the first author and the second author; the authorship is equally

divided.

For the absolute appearance of institutions, an institution takes one full credit as long as its

name appears on the article published. Sometimes, however, an author was affiliated with two

different institutions at the same time. In this case, each institution takes 0.5 credit ( = 1


institution/co-affiliation = 1/2). Because of this dual institutional affiliation, we can see

decimal points (0.5) in the column. There is no distinction between the affiliation with the

first author and that with the second author. All practitioners’ affiliations are classified as

‘‘industry.’’

For the adjusted appearances of institutions, an institution takes one full credit if the

author (who was affiliated with that institution) solely authored the article published. An

institution takes 0.5 credit ( = 1 article/2 different institutions) if the author (who is

affiliated with that institution) coauthored the article with one more author (who was

affiliated with a different institution). An institution takes 0.33 credit ( = 1 article/3

different institutions) if the author (who was affiliated with that institution) coauthored

the article with two more authors (with all different institutions). Note that an institution

takes one full credit if an author coauthored the article with one more author who was

affiliated with the same institution ( = 1 article/1 same institution with 2 different authors).

The same rule applies to the author team of 3 ( = 1 article/1 same institution with 3

different authors). As noted above, sometimes, an author was affiliated with two different

institutions at the same time. If an author was affiliated with two different institutions and

coauthored the article with one more author who was affiliated with a different institution,

the institution with which the former author was co-affiliated takes only 0.25 credit ( = 1

institution/co-affiliation/2 authors = 1/2/2). If a co-affiliated author coauthored the article

with two more authors (in all different institutions), the institution with which the former

author was co-affiliated takes only 0.167 credit ( = 1 institution/co-affiliation (2)/3

authors = 1/2/3).

My review generated a total of 517 authors affiliated with 238 institutions. The top 30

contributing institutions and authors in ISM research are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively

(expanded tables are available on request from the author).

Five observations should be noted from the tables. First ISM research has received

significant contributions from practitioners. Even when all authors citing joint academic and

business appointments are classified by academic appointment, industry remains the fourth

leading affiliation of ISM scholars. Given the applied nature of strategic management

(Summer et al., 1990) and growing concerns of the relevance of academic investigations

to practitioners, this finding that practitioners devote time and effort in helping bring such

research to fruition provides evidence that ISM research enjoys continued relevance to

business.

Second, comparing Table 2 with other surveys of international business research

demonstrates that it is not necessary for a school to be a center for all types of international

business research to be productive in ISM research (Inkpen and Beamish, 1994).

Third, in terms of contributor diversity, Table 2 provides evidence that contributions to

ISM research originate from institutions in a variety of countries. For example, 12 of the top

30 institutions (including the top 2) are outside the United States. This diversity provides

encouraging evidence that scholars investigate complex ISM topics from different cultural

perspectives and academic backgrounds.

Fourth, the number of appearances per author in Table 3 indicates that a wide variety of

authors have contributed to ISM research, providing further evidence that a diverse set of

Table 2

Author’s affiliations in ISM literature (1991–2000)

Affiliation Adjusted appearances Total appearances

1. University of Western Ontario 14.2 32.5

2. INSEAD 13.5 26

3. University of Pennsylvania 12.8 18.5

4. Industry 10.7 20

5. Harvard University 10.5 16

6. Rutgers University 9.4 14.5

7. University of South Carolina 9.3 17

8. University of Michigan 9.1 23.5

9. University of Hawaii-Manoa 8.6 13

10. Indiana University-Bloomington 8.1 13

11. Stockholm School of Economics 7.2 15

12. New York University 6.8 14.5

13. University of Utah 6.3 10.5

14. Boston University 5.5 9

15. Thunderbird-AGSIM 5.2 10

16. University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign 4.8 9.5

17. Uppsala University 4.6 12

18. Chinese University of Hong Kong 4.3 9

19. University of Strathclyde 4.3 6

20. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology 4.1 9.5

21. Purdue University 4.0 7

22. University of Reading 4.0 6.5

23. Southern Methodist University 3.7 6

24. Tilburg University 3.6 9.5

25. London Business School 3.5 6

26. University of Limburg 3.3 6

27. Temple University 3.2 10

28. University of Minnesota 3.2 7

28. University of Bath 3.2 7

30. Georgetown University 3.1 5.5

University ranks are based primarily on the number of adjusted appearances and secondarily on the number of

total appearances.


scholars contributes to ISM research. Of the 517 authors in the present review, only 38 have

adjusted appearance scores of 2.0 or greater.

Finally, even only 5 years after LB, the list of most prolific authors has changed

significantly. While there are a small number of ISM researchers who have consistently

remained at a high level (i.e., Beamish, Parkhe, Roth, Tallman), there are numerous scholars

who are now among those with high appearance levels (i.e., Luo, Birkinshaw, Pan, Delios,

Reuer, Taggart, L. Brouthers, Shaver, K. Brouthers, Makino), as well as those whose

contribution levels in these particular journals have not remained near the top (i.e., Kim,

Ghoshal, Kriger, Geringer, Contractor, Kogut, Grant).

Interestingly, while the list of major contributors has undergone fairly significant change,

the top institutional contributors have seen much less change. The top three institutions

Table 3

Author’s appearances in ISM literature (1991–2000)

Author Adjusted appearances Total appearances

1. Luo, Yadong 5.50 6

1. Parkhe, Arvind 5.50 6

3. Beamish, Paul W. 5.25 11

4. Birkinshaw, Julian 5.00 9

5. Roth, Kendall 4.17 7

6. Tallman, Stephen 4.08 7

7. Pan, Yigang 3.67 7

8. Hennart, Jean-Francois 3.33 6

9. Mascarenhas, Briance 3.33 4

10. Li, Jiatao 3.25 4

11. Delios, Andrew 3.00 6

12. Reuer, Jeffrey J. 3.00 5

13. Taggart, James H. 3.00 3

14. Brouthers, Lance Eliot 2.83 6

14. Shaver, J. Myles 2.83 6

16. Kotabe, Masaaki 2.67 7

17. Kim, W. Chan 2.67 6

18. Brouthers, Keith D. 2.67 5

19. Makino, Shige 2.50 6

20. Madhok, Anoop 2.50 3

20. O’Donnell, Sharon Watson 2.50 3

20. Sambharya, Rakesh B. 2.50 3

23. Mitchell, Will 2.33 7

24. Lyles, Marjorie A. 2.33 5

25. Peng, Mike W. 2.00 4

25. Rugman, Alan M. 2.00 4

27. Hagedoorn, John 2.00 3

27. Miller, Kent D. 2.00 3

27. Yan, Aimin 2.00 3

27. Zaheer, Srilata 2.00 3

Author ranks are based primarily on the number of adjusted appearances and secondarily on the number of total

appearances. If authors are tied on these two factors, they are given the same rank.


for ISM research continued to be Ivey (Western Ontario), INSEAD, and Wharton

(Pennsylvania).

8. Future directions

The review reported in this study identifies many ISM topics that have received

growing research attention in the 1990s. The bulk of this has been focused on but two

topics: international diversification and strategic alliances. Although a considerable

number of topics have been explored by ISM researchers, a review of Table 1 points

out that many of these topics have received minimal attention. Among these, enterprise


and business strategies have received limited attention, with only one article investigating

enterprise strategy (Nigh and Cochran, 1994). Given increased importance of business

ethics and the management of stakeholder interests in both home country and host

countries, this topic requires additional research. Business strategy has received limited

attention, particularly relative to research conducted on business-level strategy in domestic

settings (e.g., Dess and Davis, 1984). Compared to the nine articles reported by LB,

the number of papers in business-level formulation has increased to 39; yet only six

articles investigating implementation have been published in leading journals. Develop-

ments in business-level taxonomies (e.g., Birkinshaw and Hood, 1998; Carpano et al.,

1994; Morrison and Roth, 1992), however, should help promote ISM research on this

topic.

A second area that has received minimal investigation is performance, with the caveat

that the minimal investigation of performance relates to topics concerned fundamentally

with understanding the dimensions of performance, not articles that examine the perform-

ance implication of a strategy. This lack of attention can be problematic as performance is a

fundamental dependent variable for strategy research. The problems associated with a lack

of attention are exacerbated by the greater number of potential performance variables in

ISM research as compared to general strategy research. As an example, the topic of

strategic alliances presents challenges for performance measurement that must be addressed.

Companies may form strategic alliances for several reasons consequently, traditional

performance measures employed in strategic management research (e.g., return on invest-

ment) may produce misleading results when applied to strategic alliances, but other

alternate performance measures need to be identified, defined, and accepted by the

academic community as standards for the field. Clearly, further research on the measuring

of performance is required.

Although some areas of research may lag when compared to corporate strategy research,

some of these areas have shown considerable growth. Top management team research, as an

example, has received dramatically increased attention. In the first half of the 1990s, there

was only one paper on this topic (Kriger, 1991). Yet, in the second half of the 1990s, the

number of top management team articles grew to at least 13.

This review has also noted a shift from the dominance of economic theories (transaction

cost theory, I/O theory, etc.) to multidisciplinary approaches. Therefore, opportunities exist to

study ISM topics through different theoretical lenses. Even for topics receiving substantial

research attention, employing different theories may prompt additional insights. For example,

in the international diversification literature, several studies have employed portfolio theory to

assess the performance implications of diversification (e.g., Collins, 1990; Michel and

Shaked, 1986; Shaked, 1986). Recent studies (e.g., Dess et al., 1995; Lubatkin and

Chatterjee, 1994), however, have questioned the relevance of modern portfolio theory to

the active management of business portfolios. Such debate presents an opportunity for future

research.

Before concluding, the limitations of this analysis should be noted. First, the time frame is

comprehensive and incorporates a great deal of contemporary research in ISM, but the

coverage of review was limited to nine journals. Significant contributions can and do appear


in books and journals that were not reviewed in the present study. In this sense, the study

works from a sample, which should be representative of the general trends in the field.

Second, the placement of relevant articles into individual categories relied on multiple

independent evaluations by researchers, but ultimately these are qualitative assessments in

which the inclusion (or exclusion) of individual articles within particular categories can be

debated. Although discrepancies might exist, the review does provide a useful review of ISM

research.

9. Conclusion

ISM research has developed significantly since Shrivastava’s (1987) review. This review

found that ISM scholars have devoted substantial efforts to understanding international

diversification and strategic alliances. The review also found, however, that several other

areas await investigation. These gaps in recent research represent limits to managerial and

academic understanding of the field that can be overcome by the pursuit of research into these

areas. Additionally, the review signals the health of the field of ISM in terms of the breadth of

contributing authors and institutions, the availability of multiple quality outlets, and the active

participation by practitioners in ISM research. All these should promote the continued

development of ISM research in the 21st century.

Acknowledgements

Invaluable assistance from Changwha Chung and Jaechul Jung is gratefully acknowl-

edged, as is the base material from F. Lohrke and G. Bruton, which the present article builds

upon. Thanks are also due to G. Bruton, M. Kotabe, and two anonymous referees for helpful

comments on earlier versions of this article.

References

Agarwal, S., Ramaswami, S., 1992. Choice of foreign market entry mode: Impact of ownership, location and

international factors. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 23, 1–27.

Andrew, K., 1971. The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Irwin Press, Homewood, IL.

Ansoff, H., 1965. Corporate Strategy. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Aulakh, P.S., Kotabe, M., 1993. An assessment of theoretical and methodological development in international

marketing: 1980–1990. J. Int. Mark. 1 (2), 5–28.

Barkema, H.G., Vermeulen, F., 1998. International expansion through start-up or acquisition: A learning perspec-

tive. Acad. Manage. J. 41 (1), 7–26.

Barkema, H.G., Bell, J.H.J., Pennings, J.M., 1996. Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and learning. Strateg. Manage.

J. 17 (2), 151–166.

Beamish, P.W., 1994. Joint ventures in LDCs: Partner selection and performance. Manag. Int. Rev. 34, 60–74

(special issue).


Beamish, P.W., Craig, R., McLellan, K., 1993. The performance characteristics of Canadian versus UK exporters

in small and medium sized businesses. Manag. Int. Rev. 33, 121–137.

Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N., 1998. Multinational subsidiary evolution: Capability and charter change in foreign-

owned subsidiary companies. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23 (4), 773–795.

Boddewyn, J., Brewer, T, 1994. International business political behaviors: New theoretical directions. Acad.

Manage. Rev. 19, 119–143.

Brouthers, K.D., Brouthers, L.E., 2000. Acquisition or greenfield start-up? Institutional, cultural and transaction

cost influences. Strateg. Manage. J. 21 (1), 89–97.

Brown, P., Soybel, V., Stickney, C., 1994. Comparing US and Japanese corporate-level operating performance

using financial statement data. Strateg. Manage. J. 15, 75–83.

Carpano, C., Chrisman, J., Roth, K., 1994. International strategy and environment: An assessment of the perform-

ance relationship. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 25, 639–656.

Chang, S., 1995. International expansion strategy of Japanese firms: Capability building through sequential entry.

Acad. Manage. J. 38, 383–407.

Chi, T., McGuire, D.J., 1996. Collaborative ventures and value of learning: Integrating the transaction cost and

strategic option perspectives on the choice of market entry modes. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 27 (2), 285–307.

Clegg, J., Kamall, S., Leung, M., 1996. European multinational activity in telecommunications services in the

Peoples’ Republic of China: Firm strategy and government policy. Manag. Int. Rev. 36 (1), 111–137 (specialissue).

Collins, J., 1990. A market performance comparison of U.S. firms active in domestic, developed and developing

countries. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 21, 271–287.

Cui, G., 1998. The evolutionary process of global market expansion: Experiences of MNCs in China. J. World

Bus. 33 (1), 87–110.

Davis, P.S., Desai, A.B., Francis, J.D., 2000. Mode of international entry: An isomorphism perspective. Journal of

International Business Studies. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 31 (2), 239–258.

Delios, A., Beamish, P.W., 1999. Ownership strategy of Japanese firms: Transactional, institutional, and experi-

ence influences. Strateg. Manage. J. 20 (10), 915–933.

Demirbag, M., Mirza, H., Weir, D., 1995. The dynamics of manufacturing joint ventures in Turkey and the role of

industrial groups. Manag. Int. Rev. 35, 35–51.

Dess, G., Davis, P., 1984. Porter’s (1980) generic strategies as determinants of strategic group membership and

organizational performance. Acad. Manage. J. 27, 467–488.

Dess, G.G., Gupta, A.K., Hennart, J.-F., Hill, C., 1995. Conducting and integrating strategy research at the

international, corporate, and business levels: Issues and directions. J. Manage. 21 (3), 357–393.

Dominguez, L., Sequeira, C., 1993. Determinants of LDC exporters’ performance: A cross-national study. J. Int.

Bus. Stud. 24, 19–40.

Dubois, F.L., Reeb, D., 2000. Ranking the international business journals. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 31 (4), 689–704.

Dunning, J.H., 1989. The study of international business: A plea for a more interdisciplinary approach. J. Int. Bus.

Stud. 20, 411–436.

Dussauge, P., Garrette, B., Mitchell, W., 2000. Learning from competing partners: Outcomes and durations of

scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia. Strateg. Manage. J. 21 (2), 99–126.

Ebrahimi, B., Ganesh, C., Chandy, P., 1991. International and non-international business journal awareness and

evaluation: Perceptions of active researchers. Manag. Int. Rev. 31, 347–364.

Elenkov, D.S., 1997. Strategic uncertainty and environmental scanning: The case for institutional influences on

scanning behavior. Strateg. Manage. J. 18 (4), 287–302.

Eriksson, K., Johanson, J., Majkgard, A., Sharma, D.D., 1997. Experiential knowledge and cost in the interna-

tionalization process. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 28 (2), 337–360.

Fina, E., Rugman, A.M., 1996. A test of internalization theory and internationalization theory: The Upjohn

Company. Manag. Int. Rev. 36 (3), 199–213.

Flowers, E.B., 1976. Oligopolistic reactions in European and Canadian direct investment in the United States. J.

Int. Bus. Stud. 7 (Fall/Winter), 43–55.


Freeman, R., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman Publishing, Boston.

Geringer, J., Beamish, P., daCosta, R., 1989. Diversification strategy and internationalization: Implications for

MNE performance. Strateg. Manage. J. 10, 109–119.

Ghoshal, S., Korine, H., Szulanski, G., 1994. Interunit communication in multinational corporations. Manag. Sci.

40, 96–110.

Guillen, M.F., 2000. Business groups in emerging economies: A resource-based view. Acad. Manage. J. 43 (3),

362–380.

Gupta, A.K., Govindarajan, V., 1991. Knowledge flows and the structure of control with multinational corpo-

rations. Acad. Manage. J. 16, 768–792.

Habib, M., Victor, B., 1991. Strategy, structure, and performance of U.S. manufacturing and service MNCs: A

comparative analysis. Strateg. Manage. J. 12, 589–606.

Hamel, G., 1991. Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances.

Strateg. Manage. J. 12, 83–104 (special issue).Heck, J., Cooley, P., 1988. Most frequent contributions to the finance literature. Financ. Manage. 17 (3), 100–108.

Hennart, J.-F., Larimo, J., 1998. The impact of culture on the strategy of multinational enterprises: Does national

origin affect ownership decisions? J. Int. Bus. Stud. 29 (3), 515–538.

Hennart, J.-F., Reddy, S.B., 1997. The choice between mergers/acquisitions and joint ventures: The case of

Japanese investors in the United States. Strateg. Manage. J. 18 (1), 1–12.

Hofer, C., Schendel, D., 1978. Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts. West Publishing, St. Paul.

Inkpen, A.C., Beamish, P.W., 1994. An analysis of twenty-five years of research in the journal. J. Int. Bus. Stud.

25 (4), 703–713.

Inkpen, A.C., Beamish, P.W., 1997. Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint

ventures. Acad. Manage. Rev. 22 (1), 177–202.

Isobe, T., Makino, S., Montgomery, D.B., 2000. Resource commitment, entry timing, and market performance of

foreign direct investments in emerging economies: The case of Japanese international joint ventures in China.

Acad. Manage. Rev. 43 (3), 468–484.

Ito, K., 1997. Domestic competitive position and export strategy of Japanese manufacturing firms: 1971–1985.

Manag. Sci. 43 (5), 610–622.

Johanson, J., Vahlne, J.-E., 1977. The internationalization process of the firm—a model of knowledge develop-

ment and increasing foreign market commitments. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 8 (1), 23–32.

Jones, R., Jacobs, L., van’t Spijker, W., 1992. Strategic decision processes in international firms. Manag. Int. Rev.

32, 219–236.

Katz, D., Kahn, R., 1966. The Social Psychology of Organizations. Wiley, New York.

Khanna, T., Palepu, K., 1997. Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard. Bus. Rev. 75

(4), 41–51.

Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R., 1991. Implementing global strategies: The role of procedural justice. Strateg. Manage.

J. 12, 125–143 (special issue).

Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R., 1993. Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top management compliance with

multinationals’ corporate strategy decisions. Acad. Manage. J. 36, 502–526.

Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R.A., 1996. Procedural justice and managers’ in-role and extra-role behavior: The case of

the multinational. Manag. Sci. 42 (4), 499–515.

Knickerbocker, F., 1994. Introduction, Oligopolistic Reaction and Multinational Enterprise, Division of Research.

Harvard Business School, Boston.

Kogut, B., 1988. Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strateg. Manage. J. 9 (4), 319–332.

Kostova, T., 1999. Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: A contextual perspective. Acad.

Manage. Rev. 24 (2), 308–324.

Kostova, T., Zaheer, S., 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multi-

national enterprise. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24 (1), 64–81.

Kriger, M., 1991. The importance of the role of subsidiary boards in MNCs: Comparative parent and subsidiary

perceptions. Manag. Int. Rev. 31, 317–331.


Lawrence, P., Vlachoutsicos, C., 1993. Joint ventures in Russia: Put the locals in change. Harvard Bus. Rev. 71

(1), 44–51.

Lohrke, F.T., Bruton, G.D., 1997. Contributions and gaps in international strategic management literature. J.

Internat. Manage. 3 (1), 25–57.

Loree, D., Guisinger, S., 1995. Policy and non-policy determinants of US equity foreign direct investment. J. Int.

Bus. Stud. 26, 281–299.

Lubatkin, M., Chatterjee, S., 1994. Extending modern portfolio theory into the domain of corporate diversifica-

tion: Does it apply? Acad. Manage. J. 37 (1), 109–136.

Luo, Y., 1995. Business strategy, market structure, and performance of international joint ventures: The case of

joint ventures in China. Manag. Int. Rev. 35, 241–264.

Luo, Y., 1998. Timing of investment and international expansion performance in China. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 29 (2),

391–407.

Lyles, M., Baird, I., 1994. Performance of international joint ventures in tow Eastern European countries: The case

of Hungary and Poland. Manag. Int. Rev. 34, 313–329.

MacMillan, I.C., 1989. Delineating a forum for business policy scholars. Strateg. Manage. J. 10 (4), 391–395.

MacMillan, I.C., 1991. The emerging forum for business policy scholars. Strateg. Manage. J. 12 (2), 161–165.

Madura, J., McCarty, D., 1989. Research trends and gaps in international financial management: A note. Manag.

Int. Rev. 29 (1), 75–79.

Makino, S., Beamish, P.W., 1998. Performance and survival of joint ventures with non-conventional ownership

structures. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 29 (4), 797–818.

Makino, S., Neupert, K.E., 2000. National culture, transaction costs, and the choice between joint venture and

wholly owned subsidiary. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 31 (4), 705–713.

Malnight, T.W., 1995. Globalization of an ethnocentric firm: An evolutionary perspective. Strateg. Manage. J. 16,

119–141.

Malnight, T.W., 1996. The transition from decentralized to network-based MNC structures: An evolutionary

perspective. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 27 (1), 43–65.

Martin, X., Mitchell, W., Swaminathan, A., 1995. Recreating and extending Japanese automobile buyer-supplier

links in North America. Strateg. Manage. J. 16, 589–619.

Martin, X., Swaminathan, A., Mitchell, W., 1998. Organizational evolution in the interorganizational environment:

Incentives and constraints on international expansion strategy. Adm. Sci. Q. 43 (3), 566–601.

Martinez, J., Jarillo, J., 1991. Coordination demands of international strategies. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 22, 429–444.

Mascarenhas, B., 1992. Order of entry and performance in international markets. Strateg. Manage. J. 13, 499–510.

Mathews, J.A., Cho, D.-S., 1999. Combinative capabilities and organizational learning in latecomer firms: The

case of the Korean semiconductor industry. J. World Bus. 34 (2), 139–156.

Meznar, M., Chrisman, J., Carroll, A., 1991. Social responsibility and strategic management: Toward an enterprise

strategy classification. Bus. Prof. Ethics J. 19 (1), 47–66.

Michel, A., Shaked, I., 1986. Multinational corporations vs. domestic companies: Financial performance and

characteristics. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 17 (3), 89–100.

Mitchell, W., Shaver, J., Yeung, B., 1992. Getting there in a global industry: Impacts on performance of changing

international presence. Strateg. Manage. J. 13, 419–432.

Mitchell, W., Shaver, J., Yeung, B., 1993. Performance following changes of international presence in domestic

and transition industries. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 24, 647–669.

Mitchell, W., Shaver, J., Yeung, B., 1994. Foreign entrant survival and foreign market share: Canadian companies’

experience in United States medical sectors. Strateg. Manage. J. 15, 555–567.

Morrison, A., Inkpen, A.C., 1991. An analysis of significant contributions to the international business literature.

J. Int. Bus. Stud. 22 (4), 729–754.

Morrison, A., Roth, K., 1992. A taxonomy of business-level strategies in global industries. Strateg. Manage. J. 13,

399–418.

Nigh, D., Cochran, P.L., 1994. Issues management and the multinational enterprise. Manag. Int. Rev. 34,

51–59 (special issue).


Nitsch, D., Beamish, P.W., Makino, S., 1996. Entry mode and performance of Japanese FDI in Western Europe.

Manag. Int. Rev. 36 (1), 27–43.

Nobel, R., Birkinshaw, J., 1998. Innovation in multinational corporations: Control and communication patterns in

international R&D operations. Strateg. Manage. J. 19 (5), 479–496.

Padmanabhan, P., Cho, K.R., 1999. Decision specific experience in foreign ownership and establishment strat-

egies: Evidence from Japanese firms. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 30 (1), 25–44.

Pan, Y., Chi, P.S.K., 1999. Financial performance and survival of multinational corporations in China. Strateg.

Manage. J. 20 (4), 359–374.

Pan, Y., Tse, D.K., 2000. The hierarchical model of market entry modes. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 31 (4), 535–554.

Pan, Y., Li, S., Tse, D.K., 1999. The impact of order and mode of market entry on profitability and market share. J.

Int. Bus. Stud. 30 (1), 81–104.

Parkhe, A., 1991. Interfirm diversity, organizational learning, and longevity in global strategic alliances. J. Int.

Bus. Stud. 22, 579–601.

Peng, M.W., Heath, P.S., 1996. The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organ-

izations, and strategic choice. Acad. Manage. Rev. 21 (2), 492–528.

Reitsperger, W., Daniel, S., Tallman, S., Chismar, W., 1993. Product quality and cost leadership: Comparable

strategies? Manag. Int. Rev. 33, 7–21.

Ricks, D., 1991. A letter from the editor-in-chief. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 22 (1), v.

Ricks, D., Toyne, B., Martinez, Z., 1990. Recent developments in international management research. J. Manage.

16, 219–253.

Rosenzweig, P., Singh, J., 1991. Organizational environments and the multinational enterprise. Acad. Manage.

Rev. 16, 340–361.

Roth, K., 1995. Managing international interdependence: CEO characteristics in a resource-based framework.

Acad. Manage. J. 38, 200–231.

Roth, K., Schweiger, D., Morrison, A., 1991. Global strategy implementation at the business level: Operational

capabilities and administrative mechanisms. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 22, 369–402.

Sanchez, C., McKinley, W., 1995. The effect of product regulation on business global competitiveness: A con-

tingency approach. Manag. Int. Rev. 35, 293–305.

Schendel, D., Hofer, C., 1979. Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning. Little, Brown

and Company, Boston.

Shaked, I., 1986. Are multinational corporations safer? J. Int. Bus. Stud. 17 (1), 83–107.

Shan, W., 1991. Environmental risks and joint venture sharing arrangements. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 22, 555–578.

Shaver, J.M., Flyer, F., 2000. Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investment in the

United States. Strateg. Manage. J. 21 (12), 1175–1193.

Shaver, J.M., Mitchell, W., Yeung, B., 1997. The effect of own-firm and other-firm experience on foreign direct

investment survival in the United States, 1987–92. Strateg. Manage. J. 18 (10), 811–824.

Shrader, R.C., Oviatt, B.M., McDougall, P.P., 2000. How new ventures exploit trade-offs among international risk

factors: Lessons for the accelerated internationization of the 21st century. Acad. Manage. J. 43 (6), 1227–1247.

Shrivastava, P., 1987. Rigor and practical usefulness of research in strategic management. Strateg. Manage. J. 8

(1), 77–92.

Summer, C., Bettis, R., Duhaime, I., Grant, J., Hambrick, D., Snow, C., Zeithaml, C., 1990. Doctoral education in

the field on business policy and strategy. J. Manage. 16, 361–398.

Tallman, S., Shenkar, O., 1994. A managerial decision model of international cooperative venture formation. J.

Int. Bus. Stud. 25, 91–113.

Tan, B., Vertinsky, I., 1996. Foreign direct investment by Japanese electronics firms in the United States and

Canada: Modeling the timing of entry. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 27 (4), 655–681.

Thomas, A., Shenkar, O., Clarke, L., 1994. The globalization of our mental maps: Evaluating the geographic

scope of Journal of International Business Studies coverage. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 25 (4), 675–686.

Tsang, E.W.K., 1999. A preliminary typology of learning in international strategic alliances. J. World Bus. 34 (3),

211–229.


Tsurumi, Y., Tsurumi, H., 1999. Fujifilm-Kodak duopolistic competition in Japan and the United States. J. Int.

Bus. Stud. 30 (4), 813–830.

Venkatraman, N., Ramanujam, V., 1986. Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A compar-

ison of approaches. Acad. Manage. Rev. 11, 801–814.

Very, P., Lubatkin, M., Calori, R., Veiga, J., 1997. Relative standing and the performance of recently acquired

European firms. Strateg. Manage. J. 18 (8), 593–614.

Werner, S., 2002. Recent development in international management research: A review of 20 top management

journals. J. Manage. 28 (3), 277–305.

Woodcock, C., Beamish, P.W., Makino, S., 1994. Ownership-based entry mode strategies and international

performance. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 25, 253–273.

Yu, C.-M.J., Ito, K., 1988. Oligopolistic reactions and foreign direct investment: The case of the U.S. tire and

textiles industries. J. Int. Bus. Stud., 449–460 (Fall).

The evolving contributions in international strategic ...igup.urfu.ru/docs/Bank English_Transleted...

Documents

Transcript of The evolving contributions in international strategic ...igup.urfu.ru/docs/Bank English_Transleted...