Travel time and the liability of distance in foreign direct investment: Location choice and entry mode

Journal of International Business Studies

Volumn 43, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 525-535

  Boeh, Kevin K ^a   Beamish, Paul W ^b  

^a PACIFIC LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

entry mode; FDI; geographic distance; transaction costs; travel time

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862557866     PISSN: 00472506     EISSN: 14786990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2012.10     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Andersen, O. 1997. Internationalization and market entry mode: A review of theories and conceptual frameworks. Management International Review, 37(Special Issue): 27-42.
2. Anderson, J. E., & van Wincoop, E. 2004. Trade costs. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(3): 691-751. (Pubitemid 39525566)
3. Brouthers, L. E., Yan, G., & Mc Nicol, J. P. 2008. Corruption and market attractiveness influences on different types of FDI. Strategic Management Journal, 29(6): 673-680. (Pubitemid 351716948)
4. BTS. 2011. US BTS airline on-time performance data. Washington DC: US Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
5. Buckley, P. J. 2004. Cartography and international business. International Business Review, 13(2): 239-255. (Pubitemid 38156842)
6. Cantwell, J. 2009. Location and the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(1): 35-41.
7. Coeurderoy, R., & Murray, G. 2008. Regulatory environments and the location decision: Evidence from the early foreign market entries of new-technology-based firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 670-687.
8. Coughlin, C. C., Terza, J. V., & Arromdee, V. 1991. State characteristics and the location of foreign direct investment within the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(4): 675-683.
9. Davidson, W. H. 1980. The location offoreign direct investment activity: Country characteristics and experience effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 11(2): 9-22.
10. Davidson, W. H., & Mc Fetridge, D. G. 1985. Key characteristics in the choice of international technology transfer mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 16(2): 5-21.
11. Delios, A., & Beamish, P. W. 2001. Survival and profitability: The roles of experience and intangible assets in foreign subsidiary performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5): 1028-1038.
12. Delios, A., & Henisz, W. J. 2000. Japanese firms' investment strategies in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 305-323.
13. Dunning,J. H. 1980. Towards an eclectic theory of international production: Some empirical tests. Journal of International Business Studies, 1(11): 9-31.
14. Dunning, J. H. 1998. Location and the multinational enterprise: A neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1): 45-66.
15. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Kumar, N. 2006. Make, buy, or ally: A transaction cost theory meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3): 519-543. (Pubitemid 43999080)
16. Ghemawat, P. 2001. Distance still matters: The hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review, 79(8): 137-148.
17. Goerzen, A., & Beamish, P. W. 2003. Geographic scope and multinational enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13): 1289-1306.
18. Gulati, R. 1995. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1): 85-112.
19. Hansen, M., & Lovas, B. 2004. How do multinational companies leverage technological competencies? Moving from single to interdependent explanations. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8-9): 801-822.
20. Head, K., Ries, J., & Swenson, D. 1995. Agglomeration benefits and location choice: Evidence from Japanese manufacturing investments in the United States. Journal of International Economics, 38(3-4): 223-247. (Pubitemid 26428602)
21. Hennart, J. F. 2001. Theories of the multinational enterprise. In A. Rugman &T. Brewer(Eds), Oxford handbook of international business: 127-150. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R., & Kim, W. C. 1997. International diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4): 767-798.
23. Howell, J. M., Neufeld, D. J., & Avolio, B. J. 2005. Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(2): 273-285. (Pubitemid 40426873)
24. Hymer, S. H. 1960. The international operations of national firms: A study of direct foreign investment, Ph D dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
25. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1): 23-32.
26. Johanson, J., & Vahlne,J. -E. 2009. The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1411-1431.
27. Kang, J.-K., & Kim, J.-M. 2010. Do foreign investors exhibit a corporate governance disadvantage? An information asymmetry perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8): 1415-1438.
28. Keshk, O. M. 2003. CDSIMEQ: A program to implement twostage probit least squares. Stata Journal, 3(2): 157-167.
29. Mitchell, W., Shaver, M., & Yeung, B. 1994. Foreign entrant survival and foreign market share: Canadian companies' experience in United States medical sector markets. Strategic Management Journal, 15(7): 555-567.
30. Nachum, L., & Zaheer, S. 2005. The persistence ofdistance? The impact of technology on MNE motivations for foreign investment. Strategic Management Journal, 26(8): 747-767. (Pubitemid 40948526)
31. Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. 1995. Opportunism, routines, and boundary choices: A comparative test of transaction cost and resource-based explanations for make-or-buy decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1): 42-46.
32. Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. 2002. Doformal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal, 23(8): 707-725.
33. Rangan, S., & Sengul, M. 2009. Information technology and transnational integration: Theory and evidence on the evolution of the modern multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1496-1514.
34. Rosenkopf, L., & Almeida, P. 2003. Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science, 49(6): 751-766.
35. Sinnott, R. W. 1984. Virtues of the Haversine. Skyand Telescope, 68(2): 158-170.
36. Strange, R., Filatotehev, I., Yung-chih, L., & Piesse, J. 2009. Insider control and the FDI location decision: Evidence from firms investing in an emerging market. Management International Review, 49(4): 433-454.
37. Sundaram, A. K., & Black, J. S. 1992. The environment and internal organization of multinational enterprises. Academy of Management Review, 17(4): 729-757.
38. USCB. 2007. Census 2000 survey. Washington DC: US Census Bureau, American Factfinder Database.
39. Venkatraman, N., & Grant, J. 1986. Construct measurement in organizational strategy research: A critique and proposal. Academy of Management Journal, 11(1): 71-87.
40. Williamson, O. E. 1979. Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Economic Issues, 22(2): 233-261.
41. Williamson, O. E. 1991. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2): 269-296.
42. Woodward, D. P., & Rolfe, R. J. 1993. The location of export-oriented foreign direct investment in the Caribbean basin. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(1): 121-144.
43. Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 341-363.
44. Zhao, H., Luo, Y., & Suh, T. 2004. Transaction cost determi- nants and ownership-based entry mode choice: A meta- analytical review. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6): 524-544. (Pubitemid 39665965)