What determines the scope of the firm over time? A focus on institutional relatedness

Academy of Management Review

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 622-633

  Peng, Mike W ^a,d   Lee, Seung Hyun ^b   Wang, Denis Y L ^c,e  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

^c CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^d OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 13444276200     PISSN: 03637425     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2005.17293731     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Adler, P., & Kwon, S. 2002. Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27: 17-40.
2. Au, K., Peng, M. W., & Wang, D. 2000. Interlocking directorates, firm strategies, and performance in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 17: 29-47.
3. Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120.
4. Chang, S., & Hong, J. 2000. Economic performance of group-affiliated companies in Korea: Intragroup resource sharing and internal business transactions. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 429-449.
5. Child, J. 1994. Management in China during the age of reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Collis, D., & Montgomery, C. 1997. Corporate strategy. Chicago: Irwin.
7. Davis, G., Diekmann, K., & Tinsley, C. 1994. The decline and fall of the conglomerate firm in the 1990s: The deinstitutionalization of an organizational form. American Sociological Review, 59: 547-570.
8. Delias, A., & Beamish, P. 1999. Geographic scope, product diversification, and the corporate performance of Japanese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 711-727.
9. Fisman, R. 2001. Estimating the value of political connections. American Economic Review, 91: 1095-1102.
10. Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481-510.
11. Guillen, M. 2000. Business groups in emerging economies: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 362-380.
12. Henisz, W. 2003. The power of the Buckley and Casson thesis: The ability to manage institutional idiosyncrasies. Journal of International Business Studies, 34: 173-184.
13. Hoskisson, R., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. 2000. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal 43: 249-267.
14. Ilinitch, A. Y., & Zeithaml, C. 1995. Operationalizing and testing Galbriath's center of gravity theory. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 401-410.
15. Ingram, P., & Silverman, B. 2002. Introduction. In P. Ingram & B. Silverman (Eds.), The new institutionalism in strategic management: 1-30. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
16. Jones, G., & Hill, C. 1988. Transaction cost analysis of strategy-structure choice. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 159-172.
17. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 1997. Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4): 41-51.
18. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 1999. Policy shocks, market intermediaries, and corporate strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 8: 271-310.
19. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000. The future of business groups in emerging markets: Long-run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 268-285.
20. Khanna, T., & Rivkin, J. 2001. Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 45-74.
21. Kogut, B., Walker, G., & Anand, J. 2002. Agency and institutions: National divergence in diversification behavior. Organization Science, 13: 162-178.
22. Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. 1967. Organization and environment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
23. Lee, K. B., Peng, M. W., & Lee, K. 2003. From diversification premium to diversification discount during institutional transitions. Working paper, Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
24. Lenway, S., & Rehbein, K. 1991. Leaders, followers, and free riders: An empirical test of variation in corporate political involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 893-905.
25. Li, S. 1999. The benefits and costs of relation-based governance: An explanation of the East Asian miracle and crisis. Working paper, City University of Hong Kong.
26. Liebeskind, J. 2000. Internal capital markets: Benefits, costs, and organizational arrangements. Organization Science, 11: 58-76.
27. Matsusaka, J. 1993. Takeover motives during the conglomerate merger wave. RAND Journal of Economics, 24: 357-379.
28. Mayer, M., & Whittington, R. 2003. Diversification in context: A cross-national and cross-temporal extension. Strategic Management Journal 24: 773-781.
29. Moore, L., & Jennings, P. D. 1995. Human resources management on the Pacific Rim: Institutions, practices, and attitudes. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
30. North, D. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31. Oliver, C. 1997. Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 679-713.
32. Palich, L., Cardinal, L., & Miller, C. 2000. Curvilinearity in the diversification-performance linkage: An examination of over three decades of research. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 155-174.
33. Peng, M. W. 2000. Business strategies in transition economies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28: 275-296.
35. Peng, M. W. 2006. Global strategy. Cincinnati: Thomson South-Western.
36. Peng, M. W., & Heath, P. 1996. The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. Academy of Management Review, 21: 492-528.
37. Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. 2000. Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 486-501.
38. Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (Eds.). 1991. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Rumelt, R. 1974. Strategy, structure, and economic performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
40. Rumelt, R., Schendel, D., & Teece, D. (Eds.). 1994. Fundamen tal issues in strategy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
41. Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42. Shaffer, B., & Hillman, A. 2000. The development of business-government strategies by diversified firms. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 175-190.
43. Shenkar, O., & Yuchtman-Yaar, E. 1997. Reputation, image, prestige, and goodwill: An interdisciplinary approach to organizational standing. Human Relations, 50: 1361-1381.
44. Toulan, O. 2002. The impact of market liberalization on vertical scope: The case of Argentina. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 551-560.
45. Wan, W., & Hoskisson, R. 2003. Home country environments, corporate diversification strategies, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 27-45.
46. Williamson, O. 2000. The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38: 595-613.
47. Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R., & Peng, M. W. 2005. Guest editors' introduction: Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 1-33.
48. Zaheer, S., Albert, S., & Zaheer, A. 1999. Time scales and organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 24: 725-741.