International Business Research and Latin America

International business research has tried vividly to advance through several efforts to establish a theoretical base and agreed lines of analysis. The international product life cycle described by Raymond Vernon (1966) probably was the first major theory of the movement of firm’s production overseas, rather than just to explain international trade; since then, several theories have been put forward without any of them gaining acceptance. The theories currently in use in international business research have been borrowed from different disciplines with different views and assumptions underlying their theoretical construct. Each is partial in some significant sense, however, none addresses holistically the essential nature of international business. Therefore, the development of a common theoretical base to provide rich framework to investigate the discipline should be considered among international business scholars and researchers. Key Words International Business, Theories, International Trade, Behavioural theories, Government Policies

The purpose of this focused issue is to advance understanding of qualitative research methods in the international business context. Debates on qualitative research methods in the key international business (IB) journals have been rare. There has been no focused issue on this topic previously, either in mir or in other journals in the field, making this a 'special' issue. During the process of editing a recent handbook on qualitative research methods (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004), we realized that while this collection covered many topics, often for the first time in the IB field, there were many others still outstanding. There was thus scope for continuing a dialogue about qualitative methods in the IB research community. The challenge of making qualitative research count in the quantitative world of IB remains. Qualitative research is difficult to define, since the term encompasses many different research traditions, research strategies and methods for data collection and analysis (Prasad 2005). A typical definition is that everything non-numerical is qualitative research (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004, p. 19). However, even this very simplistic definition soon breaks down, since research strategies which are typically considered to be qualitative, such as case studies, can combine numerical with non-numerical data (Hurmerinta-Peltomaki/Nummela 2004). There is also no clear divide between qualitative and quantitative research in terms of research traditions, with much qualitative research in management and IB sharing the positivist assumptions of quantitative research (Prasad/Prasad 2002). This focused issue is not about reporting the empirical findings of IB studies applying qualitative methods; rather it is about the process of undertaking qualitative research in the IB field. Of course, there is a large volume of literature on qualitative research methods already. However, we would argue that the IB context warrants special treatment. As the authors of this focused issue discuss, the distinctiveness of the field stems from its multiple linguistic and cultural settings; organizational complexity; and its intellectual roots in post-War academic institutions in the USA. These issues receive little treatment in general texts on qualitative methodology. There has been some methodological debate in previous issues of mir. Earlier articles in mircan be grouped into three categories: first, reviews of existing methodological practices in IB publications (e.g., Cavusgil/Das 1997, Nasif et al. 1991); second, proposals for new quantitative techniques (e.g., the use of key informants in cross-cultural studies, as proposed by Lenartowicz and Roth 2004 and a linguistic-based measure of cultural distance as developed by West and Graham 2004); and third, calls for new methodological approaches (Boddewyn/Iyer 1999). The absence of qualitative research methods in this debate perhaps reflects the limited amount of empirical qualitative research published in this journal. A recent analysis of mir issues between 1990 and 1999 revealed that only 5 percent of articles published in this period used qualitative methods (Welch/Welch 2004). This focused issue is therefore a response to those, such as Boddewyn and Iyer (1999) in this journal, who have called for alternatives to surveys and secondary data analysis. This focused issue attracted 39 submissions from more than 15 countries. Given that there have been limited outlets for methodological articles in IB, this is a considerable number. It perhaps suggests a level of interest to which IB journals have not responded to date. Of the total number of submissions, 11 were selected for review. On the basis of reviewers' comments, six of these papers were ultimately rejected. The final five papers underwent two and, in some cases, up to four rounds of revisions. In selecting the articles, we used the following criteria: appropriateness of the topic for the focused issue; demonstrated knowledge of IB and methodological literature; quality of argument; originality and innovativeness of the contribution to IB methodology; organization and clarity of the paper; and potential application to research practice in IB. …

To set the scene, we will start by providing a compact overview of the emergence and further development of international business studies. Shenkar (2004) suggests that initial theory in international business owed much to context-sensitive academic disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, political science and area studies. We posit that only shortly afterwards, however, international business research established itself by seeking legitimacy through emulating the “hard disciplines” of international economics and subsequently strategy, a discipline that itself was heavily influenced by economics. As such, its main concern became to produce mostly quantitative, generalizable results on the narrow basis of concepts and paradigms from economics-based strategy and largely irrespective of contextual specificities. This is in our view all the more deplorable as international business scholars should possess the strongest competitive advantage to unearth valuable context-embedded insights (Brannen & Doz, 2010), given that they are “more knowledgeable about foreign and international environments and about ‘cross-bordering’” (Boddewyn, 1999: 13). Yet, with the understanding that international economic activities can only be fully understood by considering human behavior, a significant number of scholars shifted their attention from economics-based to human-centered, psychology-based research (Evans et al., 2002). It was also increasingly understood that societal context, and in particular culture, was of relevance and therefore had to be included in the study of international business phenomena. As a result, the dominating research paradigm shifted from a “culture-free” orthodoxy (Lammers & Hickson, 1979) to what we call a “culture-inclusive” paradigm. These developments, we argue, provided a fertile ground from which cross-cultural management studies gradually emerged in the 1980s, joining strategy as a second pillar of international business (Brannen & Doz, 2010). A further powerful stimulus proved to be one particular development in the world economy: the rise of the Japanese economy in the 1980s and the painful realization for Western 86business people and business scholars that economic success could be achieved on the basis of management principles that were very different from those common in the West (Ouchi, 1981).

journal of International Business Studies (2011) 42, 573-581. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2011.19 It is exhilarating to write the introduction to this Special Issue as it presents an important opportunity for qualitative research to reclaim its position as an integral part of international business (IB) research. The field of IB was founded on a rich qualitative research legacy (e.g., Bartlett, 1979; Crozier, 1965; Fayerweather, 1969; Johanson & Vahlne, 1977; Kindleberger, 1956; Prahalad, 1975; Wilkins, 1970, 1974). Over time, however, such methods have been progressively marginalized in our field as quantitative methods have become the norm. This shift in emphasis has mirrored the broader trend toward more positivistic empirical methods in the social sciences. The field of IB is multidisciplinary in scope, and interdisciplinary in content and methodology (statement of JIBS editorial policy). However, as our respective home disciplines came under growing pressure to solidify their legitimacy as scientific endeavors that merit scholarly attention, it is not surprising that we began to take on the norms propagated within our own academic communities that typically equated quantitative data with hard science. While there are clear merits associated with quantitative methods, the multi-cultural, multi-dimensional and dynamic nature of the field of IB lends itself to a broad range of research methodologies, qualitative methods being one of them. In order to understand the complexities of emergent and evolving phenomena scattered over distance, and the differentiated contexts typical to many topics under investigation in IB, it is often inappropriate to engage in large-scale, cross-sectional studies or reductionist methods in the absence of well-developed theory. Rather, thick description, exploratory research and comparative case analysis that focus on inductive theory building and hypotheses generation may be more suitable.

PurposeThis study aims to draw researchers’ attention to the need to differentiate within the emerging market multinational companies (EMNCs) category. This study focuses on international business in Latin America to argue that the region’s specific institutional characteristics have consequences for within-firm decision-making regarding internationalization strategies. Additionally, the study suggests that to develop a more specific understanding of international business in emerging markets, it is important to consider how decision-makers define value and how they can capture such value.Design/methodology/approachThe approach used in this study draws on the bathtub analogy used in micro-foundations research in international business. It proposes a multilevel analysis in which micro-level variation in within-firm decision-making is considered, while accounting for the conditioning effects of macro-level contextual factors.FindingsThe study identifies characteristics of the Latin American institutional context that are relevant to international business strategies and that potentially differ from other emerging market contexts. These include the pendular shifts to and from pro-market economic reform, fragmented government intervention in business, underdeveloped capital markets, low competition among firms and polarized labor markets. The study explains how these characteristics shape the definition of value and firm strategies to capture value in international markets, and provides examples from firms in different industries.Originality/valueThis study applies a value creation and capture perspective to international business in Latin America, allowing for the simultaneous consideration of macrolevel institutional characteristics and microlevel variation in decision-making regarding internationalization strategies. This perspective not only helps to distinguish Latin American EMNCs from companies from other emerging market contexts, but also explains the considerable variation in the internationalization strategies of firms within the region.

Purpose In this viewpoint, the author critically aims to examine the papers by Sinkovics and Archie-Acheampong (2019, this issue) “The social value creation of MNEs – a literature review across multiple academic fields” and by Rygh (2019, this issue) “Social value creation by multinational enterprises: the next “big question” for international business research?” and offer an appraisal of the papers’ merits as well as thoughts for further development of research on social value creation, critical international business and work that can conceivably contribute to scholarship on global grand challenges. Design/methodology/approach The author’s approach is a reflexive review of two papers in the Critical Perspectives on International Business special issue “social value creation of MNEs.” The underpinning tenet is that by shifting the domain of international business (IB) research from an exclusive focus on the MNEs’ economic success or failure to the role and responsibility of MNEs in global communities, IB’s contributions can be strengthened. Findings A reorientation of the IB disciplinary focus toward global grand challenges will contribute by improving the engagement with other allied disciplines such as political science, sociology and international relations and exchanging ideas and insights with those disciplines, providing a platform to speak to not just business communities but also policy and civil society communities and bring a sophisticated knowledge base to those discussions, and connecting some of our personal interests, beliefs and values with those of our disciplinary research. Research limitations/implications The papers covered in this special issue on social value creation underscore the diversity, plurality and richness of IB. In the early days of IB, scholars such as Hymer (1960), Vernon (1971) and others naturally position IBs and MNEs within a broader societal context and were open to exploring the various interactions and cross currents between and among business, government and civil society in the global environment. Against this background, this special issue and its papers thus widen the scope of our field again. Practical implications IB scholars may be able to broaden their contributions to include values-based and even normative judgements into their research process. Social implications If assumptions and biases are made explicit, critical and normative issues may suitably be incorporated in IB work and thus contribute to tackling grand societal challenges. Originality/value The papers discussed in this viewpoint and the “social value creation” special issue more broadly offer contemporary contributions regarding the role and responsibilities of business in the global commons. This is of significant value for further conceptual and empirical work that is critically and societally engaged.

Differences in informal and or cultural environments of host and home countries influence the choices and international strategies of multinational enterprises (MNEs) significantly. The Hofstede and Global Leadership and Organization Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) cultural dimensions have undoubtedly been two of the most widely applied indices in measuring and operationalizing differences in institutional environments of countries in international business research. The objective of this article is twofold; to offer a detailed review and analysis of the Hofstede-GLOBE cultural dimensions as applied in international business research and to offer suggestions towards their improvement and enhancement in works of similar nature. To help improve knowledge in this area our methodology involves a comprehensive review of the empirical studies on the use of Hofstede-GLOBE cultural dimensions in international business research. This study will help researchers who wish to conduct cross-cultural research in international business to be able to overcome some of the perceived biases and flaws embedded in the two studies. The research is expected to contribute to the institution-based view of international business (IB) strategy and cross-cultural studies.

Purpose This study aims to discuss an argument that the social value creation of multinational enterprises (MNEs), beyond creating economic value for the shareholders, could be the next “big question” for international business (IB) research. The authors also provide examples of promising research topics associated with this research agenda. Design/methodology/approach The paper is conceptual. Findings Although a new paradigmatic question for IB in terms of social value creation would lead IB outside familiar territory in terms of the previous focus on financial performance, IB scholars are well equipped to take on this broader question. IB scholars arguably have their key strengths in understanding the inner workings of firms, as well as in understanding the role of context for business. Moreover, to the extent that this new agenda requires IB scholars to acquire new capabilities and form new partnerships with relevant disciplines, this could contribute to revitalising the IB field. As illustrated by the suggested topics, such an agenda could both increase the relevance of IB research and contribute to theory development. Originality/value The paper is amongst the first to explore the notion that a broader view of the outcome of MNE activities, beyond MNEs’ own financial outcomes, should be a key goal of future IB research.

Cross-national development and validation of an international business measurement scale: the COISCALE

Managing “forced” technology transfer in emerging markets: The case of China

The purpose of this paper is to examine ways in which cross-cultural research in international business can use emic–etic approaches more effectively. The majority of research conducted in the field has been etic, while the cross-cultural data used by the researchers have been emic in nature. This resulted in producing ethnocentric results which are biased towards Western perspectives. We call for a re-evaluation of the importance of in-depth qualitative analysis in international business research. We go back to the origins of emic and etic in linguistics and conduct a linguistic and philosophical analysis of these terms to demonstrate that the emic–etic distinction is not helpful for adequately studying cross-cultural data. We provide examples from linguistics, kinship, and from international business research on German-Polish acquisitions. We demonstrate that what conventional etic cross-cultural research perceives to be a problem is often an opportunity to gain deep insight. We find that emic matters in some cases more that etic, and that the emic can often add value beyond the etic. We conclude that a research strategy employing emic and etic approaches is a vital step to enable cross-cultural researchers to obtain more adequate and meaningful results. While most of researchers have treated emic and etic as dichotomous, we demonstrate the benefits of treating them as complementary approaches.

In the managerial and organizational cognition (MOC) literature, cognition is often studied by considering the observable characteristics of decision-makers. However, these studies have largely neglected cognitive differences stemming from the cultural, national, ethnical, and geographical (CNEG) characteristics of decision-makers – ones that are commonly studied in the field of international business (IB) research. Despite the contributions of IB research within the domain, the advancements have not found their way to the broader literature on MOC. In order to remedy this deficiency, this chapter seeks to introduce the work conducted within the IB field on the cognitive differences and the resultant cognitive distance stemming from decision-makers’ CNEG characteristics. This work has generated original insights on: (1) cognitive distances; (2) cognitive structures; (3) the legacy of the home country; and (4) tolerance to cognitive differences. As a result, this chapter strengthens the foundations for cumulative knowledge building by providing an integrative understanding of cognitive research based on the characteristics of managers.

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development’s (UNCTAD) annual World Investment Report (WIR) provides crucial yearly updates on global foreign direct investment (FDI) and investment policy trends, as well as insights into the sustainable investment landscape. It also introduces readers to a pertinent and contemporary topic that sits at the heart of today’s global investment agenda. This year’s 35th report focuses on investment in the digital economy (for previous WIR reviews in this journal, see, for instance, Giroud (2024) on investing in sustainable energy for all or Giroud &amp; Bonilla-Feret (2025) on investment facilitation and digital government). The review follows the usual structure, where Chapter 1 covers global trends in FDI and multinational enterprise (MNE) activities over the past year; Chapter 2 presents national and international investment policies; Chapter 3 introduces recent changes in sustainable finance and responsible investment; whilst Chapter 4, the thematic chapter, deepens the readers’ understanding of international investment in the digital economy. In this review, we examine the recurring chapters (i.e. chapters 1, 2, 3), offer a critique of Chapter 4, and conclude with suggestions for future International Business (IB) research related to this chapter. Specifically, we develop suggestions on how IB research can create impact by engaging with research on investments in the digital economy and discuss how the ‘new reality’ of a more digital economy provides fruitful avenues for research in IB, specifically on global strategy and global sustainability.<br/><br/>

International marketing research, in most cases, involves at least two levels (e.g. firms within countries) that make the Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) a suitable data analysis technique. Due to its robustness, the use of HLM in the International Business (IB) research has increased substantially over the last decade. However there is still a lack of standardization in the fundamental issues that hinders the wide spread use of HLM. This study provides unified approach to HLM use in IB research by providing standards for appropriate use of HLM. To achieve this goal, a detailed analysis of the method’s use in 42 IB studies is provided and these studies are compared with 104 non-international studies to determine where IB research stands in terms of HLM use. Finally this study focuses on the good HLM practices and offers suggestions designed to maximize the effective use of HLM and potential in international business studies.

Purpose — We investigate the contribution of international business as a distinct academic area whose domain spans comparative and cross-border environments and institutions and the business behaviour of their major players. Methodology/approach — We investigate knowledge flows into and from international business, using cross-citations between the Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS) and leading management journals over a 13-year period. Findings — We find JIBS to be a net importer, especially of strategy; however, in the most recent period, the journal has become a net knowledge exporter. Despite the improvement over time in JIBS' network position, international research published in JIBS appears to have less impact on management knowledge than management outlets have on international business research. Practical implications — Findings confirm that international business is at a crossroads and international business scholars would do well to capitalise on global presence, by expanding into areas of growth and developing integration and cross-fertilisation capabilities. Specifically, international business should build on its comparative advantages to develop theory that is useful to scholars in other areas through multidisciplinary research. Originality/value of chapter — This study is a pioneering attempt to extensively review and conduct an aggregate analysis of all papers in a range of journals in order to identify the narratives that comprise the field of international business.