A Strategic Management Analysis of Ownership Advantages in the Eclectic Paradigm

Multinational Business Review

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 89-108

  Verbeke, Alain ^a   Yuan, Wenlong ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LETHBRIDGE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Eclectic paradigm; FDI; MNE; Multinational enterprise; OLI; OOwnership advantages

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859021634     PISSN: 1525383X     EISSN: 20541686     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/1525383X201000012     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. Arvidsson, N. 1999. The ignorant MNE-The role of perception gaps in knowledge management. PhD diss., Institute of International Business, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.
2. Bartlett, C., and S. Ghoshal. 1989. Managing across borders: The transnational solution. 1st ed. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
3. Bartlett, C., and S. Ghoshal. 1993. Beyond the M-form: Toward a managerial theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 14: 23-46.
4. Bartlett, C.A., S. Ghoshal, and J. Birkinshaw. 2004. Transnational management: Text and cases. 4th ed. Boston: Irwin/McGraw Hill.
5. Birkinshaw, J. and N. Hood. 1998. Multinational subsidiary evolution: Capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies. Academy of Management Review 23(4): 773-795.
6. Birkinshaw, J., N. Hood, and S. Jonsson. 1998. Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: The role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal 19(3): 221-241.
7. Birkinshaw, J., P. Braunerhjelm, U. Holm, and S. Terjesen. 2006. Why do some multinational corporations relocate their headquarters overseas? Strategic Management Journal 27(7): 681-700.
8. Cantwell, J., and R. Mudambi. 2005. MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates. Strategic Management Journal 26(12): 1109-1128.
9. Denrell, J., N. Arvidsson, and U. Zander. 2004. Managing knowledge in the dark: An empirical study of the reliability of capability evaluations. Management Science 50(11): 491-503.
10. Dunning, J. 1979. Explaining changing patterns of international production: In defence of the eclectic theory. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 41(4): 269-295.
11. Dunning, J. 1980. Toward an eclectic theory of international production: Some empirical tests. Journal of International Business Studies 11(1): 9-31.
12. Dunning, J. 1983a. Changes in the structure of international production: The last 100 years. In The growth of international business, ed. M.C. Casson. London: Allen & Unwin.
13. Dunning, J. 1983b. Market power of the firm and international transfer of technology. International Journal of Industrial Organisation 1: 333-51.
14. Dunning, J. 1988. The eclectic paradigm of international production: A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies 19(1): 1-31.
15. Dunning, J. 1993. Multinational enterprises and the global economy. 1st ed. New York: Addison-Wesley.
16. Dunning, J. 1995. Reappraising the eclectic paradigm in an age of alliance capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies 26(4): 461-491.
17. Dunning, J. 2000. The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity. International Business Review 9(2): 163-190.
18. Dunning, J. 2001. The eclectic (OLI) paradigm of international production: Past, present and future. International Journal of the Economics of Business 8(2): 173-190.
19. Dunning, J. 2006. Comment on Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 23(2): 139-141.
20. Dunning, J., and A. Rugman. 1985. The influence of Hymer's dissertation on the theory of foreign direct investment. American Economic Review 75(2): 228-232.
21. Dunning, J., and S. Lundan. 2008a. Multinational enterprises and the global economy. 2nd ed. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
22. Dunning, J., and S. Lundan. 2008b. Institutions and the OLI paradigm of the multinational enterprise. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 25(4): 573-593.
23. Dunning, J., and S. Lundan. 2009. The internationalization of corporate R&D: A review of the evidence and some policy implications for home countries. Review of Policy Research 26(1-2): 13-33.
24. Engardio, P., M. Kripalani, and A. Webb. 2001. Smart globalization: Being first and biggest in an emerging market isn't always the best way to conquer it. A better tactic: Learn local cultures--and build a presence carefully. Business Week. August 27, 2001, p. 132
25. Ghemawat, P. 2001. Distance still matters. Harvard Business Review 79(8): 137-147.
26. Guisinger, S. 2001. From OLI to OLMA: Incorporating higher levels of environmental and structural complexity into the eclectic paradigm. International Journal of the Economics of Business 8(2): 257-272.
27. Hansen, M., and B. Lovas. 2004. How do multinational companies leverage technological competencies? Moving from single to interdependent explanations. Strategic Management Journal 25(8/9): 801-822.
28. Hu, Y.-S. 1995. The international transferability of the firm's advantages. California Management Review 37(4): 73-88.
29. Kogut, B. 1985. Designing global strategies: Comparative and competitive value-added chains. Sloan Management Review 26(4): 15-28.
30. Kostova, T., K. Roth, and M. Dacin. 2008. Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review 33(4): 994-1006.
31. Kuemmerle, W. 1997. Building effective R&D capabilities abroad. Harvard Business Review 75: 61-72.
32. Kumar, N. 2001. Determinants of location of overseas R&D activity of multinational enterprises: The case of US and Japanese corporations. Research Policy 30(1): 159-174.
33. Lundan, S., and J. Hagedoorn. 2001. Alliances, acquisitions and multinational advantage. International Journal of the Economics of Business 8(2): 229-242.
34. Madhok, A., and A. Phene. 2001. The co-evolutional advantage: Strategic management theory and the eclectic paradigm. International Journal of the Economics of Business 8(2): 243-256.
35. Mathews, J. 2006. Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 23(1): 5-27.
36. Mcdermott, D. 1997. Citibank uses Latin American lessons in Asia Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition). December 21, 1997, p. 1.
37. Morrison, A. J., and K. Roth. 1993. Developing global subsidiary mandates. Business Quarterly 57: 108.
38. Mudambi, R. 2008. Location, control and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of Economic Geography 8: 699-725.
39. Penrose, E. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Prahalad, C., and Y. Doz. 1987. The multinational mission. New York: Free Press.
41. Rugman, A. 1979. International diversification and the multinational enterprise. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
42. Rugman, A., and A. Verbeke. 2001. Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal 22(3): 237-250.
43. Tallman, S. 2004. John Dunning's eclectic model and the beginnings of global strategy. In Managing multinationals in a knowledge economy: Economics, culture and human resources, ed. J.L. Cheng and M.A. Hitt. Oxford: Elsevier.
44. Tolentino, P. E. 2001. From a theory to a paradigm: Examining the eclectic paradigm as a framework in international economics. International Journal of the Economics of Business 8(2): 191-209.
45. Verbeke, A. 2008. Review of Multinational enterprises and the global economy, by J.H. Dunning and S. Lundan. Journal of International Business Studies (39): 1236-1238.
46. Verbeke, A. 2009. International business strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47. Verbeke, A., and W. Yuan. 2005. Subsidiary autonomous activities in multinational enterprises: A transaction cost perspective. Management International Review 45(SI2): 3152.
48. Verbeke, A., and W. Yuan. 2007. Entrepreneurship in multinational enterprises: A Penrosean perspective. Management International Review 47(2): 241-258.
49. Xu, D., and O. Shenkar. 2002. Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review 27(4): 608-618.