JAPAN MNE Insights
Volume 2, Issue 1
July, 2015

Academy of Multinational Enterprises (Japan)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Special Essay:
Japan and the Global
Factory
2 Special Essay:
Kojima Theory VS
Reading School Retrospective andtoday significance of
1980's controversy

www.mne-jp.org

Special Essay:
Japan and the Global Factory
Roger Strange, Ph.D.
Professor of International Business, University of Sussex
Buckley & Strange (2015) have highlighted the major changes in
the global location of economic activity over the past 30 years, with the
emerging economies assuming greater shares relative to the advanced
economies. They noted that the major drivers of these changes included
inter alia economic restructuring and market liberalization in many
countries in Asia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere; financial deregulationand the integration of world financial markets; trade and investment
liberalization (including the proliferation of multilateral and bilateralpreferential trading arrangements); and technological advances,
particularly in information and communication technologies (ICT) andtransportation/logistics. The associated international fragmentation ofvalue chains has also increased the importance of intermediate goods
trade in the global economy. Trade in intermediate goods now
dominates global trade flows, accounting for over 60 percent of world
exports, although this overall figure masks marked differences between
countries and between products (UNCTAD 2013: 122).
The shifts in the global location of economic activity have beensignificant, and have excited much interest both in the academic
literature and inpolicy circles. These shifts have led many commentators
to refer to the idea of the global factory, but in several ways. Gereffi(1989) used the term global factory to represent “the emergence of a
global manufacturing system in which production capacity is dispersed
to an unprecedented number of developing as well as industrializedcountries”. The greater dispersion of activity had been associated with awidening of corporate ownership on a global scale, with many more

1Vol.2 Issue 1

JAPAN MNE Insights
firms controlled by a more diverse set of owners in many different countries.
In contrast, Grunwald & Flamm (1985) conceived of the global factory as theresult of the growth of foreign assembly facilities, and highlighted the factthat many MNEs from advanced economies had undertaken foreign direct
investment (FDI) and established offshore assembly operations to meet thecompetition of low-cost imports. Many value chain activities had been
relocated to emerging economies, but these activities were still integrated(internalised) under common ownership within MNEs headquartered inadvanced economies notwithstanding their geographic dispersion. ClearlyJapanese MNEs have been a major part of this story, especially considering
the flows of Japanese FDI to South-east Asia over the past three decades.

"The greater dispersion ofactivity had been
associated with awidening of corporate
ownership on a global
scale, with many more
firms controlled by amore diverse set ofowners in many different
countries."

A third possibility is that this offshoring of activities has beenaccompanied by an outsourcing (externalization) of some of the value chain
activities to independent suppliers (Buckley & Ghauri, 2004). Outsourcing
involves the lead firm externalising stages of its value chain and involves anorganisational fragmentation of production, whilst offshoring refers to therelocation of production overseas and involves an international fragmentationof production. Outsourcing and offshoring are conceptually different, andhave different determinants. Outsourced activities may take place within thesame country, or involve the relocation of production overseas. Offshoredactivities may take place under the control of the lead firm (FDI), or
independently. Outsourcing involves not only a physical ‘slicing-up’ of thevalue chain, but also a change in its ownership. Here the global factory is seen
as a complex strategy by the MNEs to reduce location and transaction costs,
with global value chains linked together by international flows of intermediate
products. Importantly, the lead firms are assumed still to control the resultant
distributed networks of activities even though they have relinquished equity
ownership.
Now there is a substantial literature on the activities of MNEs fromadvanced economies (including Japan) and, more recently, MNEs fromemerging economies, and much extant theorising about the motives for FDI.
In contrast, theoretical explanations for the growth in outsourcing
relationships are less persuasive (Strange, 2011). One popular explanationsuggests that lead firms engage in outsourcing because they wish to focus on
their core competencies. A second explanation highlights internal deficiencies,
and suggests that outsourcing allows the lead firm to complement its own
scarce resources and capabilities with those owned by the external suppliers.
A third explanation is that external suppliers may be able to secureadvantages in terms of innovation and cost savings because they are able to2Vol.2 Issue 1

JAPAN MNE Insights

specialize in production. A common feature of these explanations is that
outsourcing is the preferred organizational form for many lead firms
because external suppliers are somehow able to provide the requisite
goods and services at lower cost than the firm is able to do internally - i.e.
it is more efficient to externalize than to internalize production. The
arguments have merit as explanations for the growth of outsourcing of IT
and other support activities, but they have less convincing as explanations
for the growth in outsourcing of primary activities (e.g. manufacturing). Yet
many firms in many industries have outsourced key manufacturing
activities to independent suppliers: well-known examples include Apple
and Nike. The lead firms in all these cases have chosen to externalize
various primary activities even though it appears unlikely that there are
efficiency gains from using external suppliers. This is true both when theoutsourced activities are undertaken within the home country of the leadfirms, and when they are also offshored.
An alternative explanation for outsourcing emphasizes theasymmetric power relationships between lead firms and their suppliers, andargues that outsourcing takes place when lead firms have the ability toleverage their power in value chains to extract higher profits (Strange,2011). ICT advances have reduced the costs of searching for potential
suppliers by lead firms, and increased competition between suppliers at
various stages of the value chains. This has shifted power within value
chains away from suppliers towards the lead firms, who are able to control
the interface with the final customers through a variety of isolating
mechanisms (Rumelt, 1984; 1987) such as formal property rights, technicalknowledge, branding and other marketing capabilities, and first-moveradvantages (Lawson et al, 2012). Firms that control these interfaces withthe final customer are able to relinquish ownership and externalise theproduction of various intermediate goods and/or services within their value
chains, whilst crucially still retaining effective control over the chains.

"A common feature of these
explanations is that
outsourcing is the preferredorganizational form formany lead firms because
external suppliers are
somehow able to provide
the requisite goods andservices at lower cost than
the firm is able to dointernally"

But the efficacy of many isolating mechanisms will tend to dissipate
over time as competitors emerge to imitate successful strategies andproducts, and as resource and capability asymmetries erode. Furthermore,
the very act of contracting an outsourcing relationship undermines thepower asymmetries between the lead firm and its supplier, and increases
the lead firm’s dependence upon the supplier. Suppliers may also upgrade
their positions within value chains, and develop their own distinctive
resources and capabilities. There is thus an inherent dynamic to theoutsourcing relationship, and the relationship will tend towards balance3Vol.2 Issue 1

JAPAN MNE Insights
unless the lead firm is able to maintain its isolating mechanisms and tocounteract this tendency towards over-reliance on its supplier by only
forming short-term contractual relations. Many authors have pointed tothe high rates of instability in outsourcing arrangements, although thereasons and implications of this instability have yet to be satisfactorily
investigated.

"Japan is a particularly
good empirical context inwhich to explore
empirically these
theoretical ideas given thewidespread use ofoutsourcing relationships
in manufacturing industry."

Abundant data are available from public sources on FDI flows, but
comprehensive empirical data on the scale of global outsourcing activities
are difficult to find. UNCTAD (2011: 132-3) estimate that cross-bordermanufacturing outsourcing amounted to about $1100-1300 billion
worldwide in 2010. Data by industry (UNCTAD 2011: 135) shows thatmany of the most active sectors are related to some of the most strategic
sectors in Japan, such as electronics (with $240bn of cross-borderoutsourced sales, and 1.7m employees), auto components ($220bn sales,
1.4m employees), garments and apparel ($200bn sales, 7m employees),and pharmaceuticals ($30bn sales, 0.2m employees). Furthermore, there islittle or no empirical information focusing on the evolving power
relationships and dynamics of outsourcing relationships (though see
Denicolai et al, 2015 for an analysis of the relationship between Apple andthe Foxconn Technology Group).
Japan is a particularly good empirical context in which to explore
empirically these theoretical ideas given the widespread use ofoutsourcing relationships in manufacturing industry. In their survey of5528 Japanese manufacturing firms (out of 14,062 firms with more than
50 employees), Ito et al (2007) reported that 3391 firms (61.3%) were
outsourcing to domestic suppliers and 1136 firms (20.6%) were
outsourcing to overseas suppliers in 2006. Over 55% of the domestic
outsourcing involved the production of intermediate or final goods, whilst
this figure was over 70% for offshore outsourcing. Furthermore, Ito et al(2007: 9) note that the extent of outsourcing had increased over the five
years from 2001, and that “more and more firms are engaged inoutsourcing to suppliers in the same country and in procurement fromforeign sources, but the growth of offshore outsourcing clearly outpaced
these two modes.” My guess is that the extent of outsourcing will haveincreased still further by 2015, and I conclude by suggesting that a
research project involving both the collection of up-to-date informationon outsourcing in Japanese manufacturing industry and some detailed
longitudinal case studies exploring the dynamics of the relationships
between the lead firms and their suppliers would be timely.

4Vol.2 Issue 1

JAPAN MNE Insights

REFERENCES
Buckley, P.J. & Ghauri, P.N. (2004). ‘Globalisation, economic geography and the strategy ofmultinational enterprises.’ Journal of International Business Studies, 35(3): 255-255.
Buckley, P.J. & Strange, R. (2015). ‘The governance of the global factory: location and control ofworld economic activity.’ Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(2): 1-13.
Denicolai, S., Strange, R. & Zucchella, A. (2015). ‘The dynamics of the outsourcing relationship.’ In
R. Van Tulder, A Verbeke & R. Drogendijk (eds), Multinational enterprises and theirorganizational challenges. Progress in International Business Research volume 10. Bingley:
Emerald.
Gereffi, G. (1989). ‘Development strategies and the global factory.’ Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 505: 92-104.
Grunwald, J. & Flamm, K. (1985). The global factory: foreign assembly in international trade.
Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.
Ito, B., Tomiura, E. & Wakasugi, R. (2007). ‘Dissecting offshore outsourcing and R&D: a survey ofJapanese manufacturing firms.’ RIETI Discussion Paper 07-E-060.
Lawson, B., Samson, D. & Roden, S. (2012). ‘Appropriating the value from innovation: inimitability
and the effectiveness of isolating mechanisms.’ R&D Management, 42(5): 420-434.
Rumelt, R.P. (1984). ‘Towards a strategic theory of the firm.’ In R. Lamb (ed), Competitive strategic
management, pp.566–570. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rumelt, R.P. (1987). ‘Theory, strategy and entrepreneurship.’ In D.J. Teece (ed), The competitive
challenge: strategies for industrial innovation and renewal, pp.137–158. Cambridge MA:
Ballinger.
Strange, R. (2011). ‘The outsourcing of primary activities: theoretical analysis and propositions.’
Journal of Management and Governance, 15(2): 249–269.
UNCTAD (2011). World investment report 2011: non-equity modes of international production
and development. New York & Geneva, 2011.
UNCTAD (2013). World investment report 2013: global value chains: investment and trade fordevelopment. New York & Geneva, 2013.

5

Vol.2 Issue 1

JAPAN MNE Insights

Special Essay:
Kojima Theory VS Reading School Retrospective and today significance of
1980's controversy
Masahiro Ida, Ph.D.
Professor of International Business & Economics,
Hannan University

Introduction
The so-called "Kojima theory" which had been formed gradually fromthe 1970s to the mid 80s, in the research field of MNEs and FDI, has had asignificant impact in Japan. Kojima tried to integrate the international tradeand FDI by the same principle of comparative production costs, as a macro
economic theory. He also contemplated to allow the effects analysis of
economic welfare to both investment countries and host countries. It is anachievement that can be called a monumental work in Japan. As well, it isthought to have been a big contribution in the world of main international
economics.
On the other hand, the "Reading School" was raised in the United
Kingdom at the almost same time. This school was formed a so-called"Internalization Theory" as the core of international business literature, by
paying attention to the micro phenomena of international companies’
operations. It highlighted the "internal transactions of companies" than"market transactions" with uncertainty. In the field of international business, it
has been internationally regarded as the dominant theory to explain behavior
of MNEs.
The two different academic tidal currents intersected each other in the
1980s, when Buckley and Rugman who were powerful members of Reading
School introduced the "Kojima Theory". Kojima regarded an "Internalization"
as the theory to justify monopoly or oligopoly by MNEs from the point ofview of the international division of labor. In this essay, about the 80's
controversy, we will clarify the issue, and consider the subsequent academic
development and contemporary significance.

"In this essay, about the
80's controversy, we will
clarify the issue, andconsider the subsequentacademic development
and contemporary
significance."

Assertion by Kojima
The Reading School that had been formed in England in about thesame time along with Kojima theory from the 1970s, exchanged several
papers with each other in the 1980s, which led to the deployment of their
theory. At the time, Kojima considered trying to build the "integration theoryof international trade and FDI", and it was necessary to subsume the macroeconomic approach and the International Management Approach(International Business). On the other hand, the focus of the Reading School6Vol.2 Issue 1"Until 70s, Kojima theory
was appropriate to be called"macro-economic theory of
FDI". Thereafter he had
actively incorporated micro
factors of companies. This isa constructive criticism of
the Reading School, so thatthose toward a new horizonof international economics
could appreciate its
significance.”

JAPAN MNE Insights
was "Internalization" which focused on investment of companies inoverseas subsidiaries. According to Kojima (1984a), a feature ofInternational Management Approach that is representative in
Reading School was as follows.
IB approach emphasizes special factors of companies, such as
intangible capital, ownership advantage, and management assets.
Companies make their organization and activities multinational inorder to save a variety of transaction costs such as transport expense,
selling expenses, and information cost. Thus "internalization" isachieved in the company. The concept of these IB approach, can be a
powerful description principle of MNEs, and Kojima (1984b) was
evaluating it. But, the IB approach was too much grounded inbusiness factors. As a result, the works of the Reading School were
not considered at all. This point was felt as the major problem for
Kojima. On the other hand, Kojima being from the field ofinternational economics had recognized there were problems withthis approach. Traditional trade theory of international economics
ignored all transaction costs such as transport costs and advocatedthat the direction of trade should be guided by the principle ofcomparative production costs. Kojima thus set up to address the
weakness.
Until 70s, Kojima theory was appropriate to be called "macroeconomic theory of FDI". Thereafter he had actively incorporated
micro factors of companies. This is a constructive criticism of theReading School, so that those toward a new horizon of international
economics could appreciate its significance. In fact, Kojima (1984)
built-in micro companies’ variable such as transaction costs (T) andcompany’ capacity (E), which was the emphasis of Reading School.
However, the task of integrating the "macro-economic theory" and"corporate behavior of micro" was rather difficult, and we cannot
overlook that a big gap in the basic point of view existed between
Kojima and Reading.
Kojima’s macroeconomic approach dwelled on the benefit oftrade to the national economy, and not profit maximization incompanies and what would be the most suitable action by theindividual company. What he wanted to contemplate was how an
optimal allocation of endowment resources could take place was,within the framework of an open national economy. This was
supposed to contribute to increase of national welfare, and set thedevelopment direction of the national economy, as well as maximize
the economic welfare of partner countries. In contrast, the IB
approach pursued how profits of individual companies could
increase, and how market share could expand. The critique of Kojima
thus uncovered that IB theory had ignored the perspective of
optimal allocation of resources, and maximization of economic
welfare of the national economy.
Kojima dismissed Dunning’s (1980) theory because arguing it

7Vol.2 Issue 1

JAPAN MNE Insights

was impossible to theorize the many factors that extend to a total of 32
listed as "eclectic theory". In addition, Kojima criticized the OLI triad itself.
First, the OLI paradigm was a company point of view of all micro
factors that total upto 32 and it completely ignored the national
economic general equilibrium and national economic welfare.
Furthermore, by highlighting the advantage of the use of the internalmarket in companies as a response to a defect in the market, the OLI
ignored the inevitable defect of monopoly. This was unacceptable to
Kojima. Secondly, in the IB approach, FDI is deemed because the MNEs
has excellent ability than other foreign companies in the same industry,
therefore MNEs is able to obtain the benefits of internalization, and at
the same time it can obtain locational advantages to use inexpensive
resources. Kojima pointed out that “Internalization” and “Locational
advantages” are unclear. Third, Kojima argued that the IB approach isintended to justify, the overseas expansion of the international
production and sales activities from the point of view of private
corporate profits, exports, and technology. It does not mention at all thebenefits of host country. Kojima have claimed, FDI must be elucidated
from macro-economic point on the issue of national economic welfare
and development promotion of the host country. And, companies’ ability(E) model he adopted has been the position of the macro-economic
approach. The above is the issue of the Reading School by Kojima.

Assertion by Reading
Rugman (1981) from Reading School first criticized Kojima theory.
Rugman argues the premise of Kojima model is different from the reality.
His claims are as follows.
Kojima model is based on the world of competitive market andthe Heckscher - Ohlin model. Products are always assumed to behomogeneous products, and it was a mistake to ignore the dynamic
nature of the technology cycle. Kojima argues that FDI from the US
based on the premise of comparative advantage in the US is tradedestructive.
However, contrary to the claims of Kojima, Rugman mentions thatmost FDI from the US is not trade destructive. According to Rugman, FDI
is an alternative to free trade as there was a need to exercise control over
information used, and for MNEs to reap the private reward of knowledge
creation investment. For MNEs, FDI could avoid the dissipation risk of its
technical knowledge. When exports are obstructed by the barriers, suchas tariffs, FDI replaces exports. Thus FDI is rather a trade substitute thantrade destructive in Rugman. So, internal control is a matter of necessity
for companies in order to avoid "Dispersion risk of the technicalknowledge" according to Rugman. In addition, as a means to avoid tradebarriers, MNEs would prefer in some cases FDI. We can think that "FDI ofreverse trade" in Kojima as "FDI of trade substitute" in Rugman.

"Kojima have claimed, FDI
must be elucidated frommacro-economic point on
the issue of national
economic welfare anddevelopment promotion of
the host country."8Vol.2 Issue 1

JAPAN MNE Insights

Today, taking the cue of Kojima we might regard the claim ofRugman as a "justification of private interests". Buckley (1983) asked,
what's the Kojima theory? According to him, Kojima theory should belabelled by words such as "macro-economic approach," "factor
endowments approach," "forward trade type FDI", "Japanese-style FDI".
Buckley says what is the most appropriate theory amongst these is notclear. Buckley (1985) then pointed there are some common matches in
research methods between Reading School and Kojima theory.

"Today, taking the cue of
Kojima we might regard
the claim of Rugman as a‘justification of privateinterests’."1) The importance of locational factors, the concept of "factor
endowments" are the same in both.
2) With respect to entry modes, both approaches emphasized the push
not only of "export" and "FDI", but also other modes the "licensing" and"general trading company".
3) Insofar as the relationship between FDI and economic welfare,
Reading also admitted a close importance. For example, Buckley himself
cites, as a "problem of internalization", benefits of entry barriers andvertical integration, such as a company within the cartel by bid-rigging.
"Justification of monopoly" which Kojima pointed out, is never in
Reading.
4) As an approach of minimization of "transaction cost" (T) which
Kojima is attempting, his model itself resembles the Reading techniquethat incorporates an "internal market" and the "external market".
5) Kojima points out institutional factors of nation, for example, theconsent of the government, procurement of raw materials, tax
incentives, deregulation, wage levels, are also included in Reading
approach.
6) The same principle applies to the market creation function as raisond'etre of MNEs.
7) With respect to the study of a general trading company (SogoShosha) by Kojima and Ozawa (1984b/d), their claims of "new form" is"false economies of scale" to pursue private interests, while reducing thetrade cost. Buckley argues that in Japan which has the background of a
relatively underdeveloped capital market, general trading companies
have emerged to use internal capital markets. In contrast, theorganization of information available in the same "confidential way" in
the West is performed by multinational banks.
In general, it can be said that the criticism of Kojima by Buckley
is piecemeal.

Today’s significanceAs it is well-known, in "International Economics", the integrity ofthe theory is very important. On the other hand, in the "International
Business theory", company behaviors apparently depict the real picture.

9Vol.2 Issue 1

JAPAN MNE Insights

Is it possible that academic dialogue can draw from an intersection of bothstreams?
About the future of international business approach, how was
Kojima thinking? The advocacy of Kojima was as follows. According to
Kojima (1984), he predicted that IB approach would be remaining relevant
only in case studies. Because too many ownership advantages exist, forexample the number of transportation means and routes, tariff rates,transaction costs, ways of sale etc., IB approach would not be possible toconstruct a theory. Is this prophecy correct when viewed from today?
Since the encounter of Kojima theory and Reading School in the 1980s,
international economics and international business have separated fromeach other without much convergence. For the side of the IB approach,general theory of MNEs including the interests of the international divisionof labor and the national economy cannot be said to have been admitted.
However, discussion of internalization and monopoly by huge companies
that Kojima was concerned with since the 1990s, seems to have been
overcome by the recognition of the new realities as "strategic alliance" ,"outsourcing" and "downsizing". Today, there have been many discussions
by huge companies. They are lots of topics, such as "the external market
and internal market segregation", "selection and concentration by MNEs","internationalization by small and medium-sized companies ", "cybercompanies by IT", and " Born Global Companies". These studies may
somewhat reassure Kojima. Thus "international Business" and"international economics" is studying the same phenomenon of MNEs and
FDI. If we lose the opportunity to learn sincerely from each other, it isreally unfortunate. The experience and time that existed in between
Kojima and Reading in the 1980s is a great event to be noted for us today.

"Thus ‘international
Business’ and‘international economics’
is studying the same
phenomenon of MNEs and
FDI."

10

Vol.2 Issue 1

JAPAN MNE Insights

REFERENCES

Buckley, P. J. & Casson, M. (1976). The Future of the Multinational Enterprise. Macmillan, London.
Buckley, P. J. & Casson, M. (1981). ‘The Optimal Timing of a Foreign Direct Investment.’ Economic
Journal, 91 March: 75-87. Reprinted in their(1985). The Economic Theory of The Multinational
Enterprise, Macmillan, Chapter 5.
Buckley, P. J. (1983). “Macroeconomic versus International Business Approach to Direct Foreign
Investment: A Comment on Professor Kojima’s Interpretation,” Hitotsubashi Journal of
Economics, No.24: 95-100.
Buckley, P. J. (1985). ‘THE ECONOMIC ANALYSYS OF THE MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISE: READINGVERSUS JAPAN?’ Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, No.26: 117-124.
Casson, M.(2000). Economics of International Business –A New Research Agenda. Edward Elgar UK.
Dunning, J. H. (1977). ‘Trade, Location of Economic Activity and the MNE:A Search for an Eclectic
Approach.’ In Betil Ohlin et.al. (eds), The International Allocation of Economic Activity.
Macmillan.
Dunning, J. H. (1979). ‘Explaining Changing Patterns of International Production: in defense of theeclectic theory.’ Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol.41, No.4.
Dunning, J. H. (1980). ‘Explaining Changing Patterns of International Production: In Support of theEclectic Theory.’ Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol.41, No.4, November. Reprinted
in his (1981). International Production and the Multinational Enterprise, Chapter 5.
Dunning, J. H. (1981). International Production and Multinational Enterprises. George Allen and
Unwin, London.
Kojima, K. (1973). ‘A Macroeconomic Approach to Foreign Direct Investment .’ Hitotsubashi
Journal of Economics, No.14: 1-21.
Kojima, K. (1978). Direct Foreign Investment : A Japanese Model of Multinational Business
Operations , Croom Helm, London.
Kojima, K. (1982). ‘Macroeconomic versus International Business Approach to Direct Foreign
Investment.’ Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, No.23: 1-19.
Kojima, K. & Ozawa, T. (1984a). 『総合商社の挑戦－経済開発のマーチャント』産業能率大学出版
部 in Japanese.
Kojima, K. (1984b). 「貿易・海外直接投資の統合理論」一橋大学研究年報『経済学研究』25: 3-60
in Japanese.
Kojima, K. & Ozawa, T. (1984c). ‘Micro and Macro Economic Models of Direct Foreign Investment.’
Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, No.25: 1-20.
Kojima, K. & Ozawa, T. (1984d). JAPAN’S GENERAL TRADEING COMPANIES –MERCHANTS OFECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, OECD, Paris.
Rugman, A. M. (1980). ‘Internalization as a General Theory of Foreign Direct Investment: A ReAppraisal of Literature.’ Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Band 116, Heft 2.
Rugman, A. M. (1981). Inside the Multinationals, Croom Helm, London.

11Vol.2 Issue 1

JAPAN MNE Insights

Japan MNE Insights will be published twice a year on the AMNE official website(www.mne-jp.org). Please feel free to contact with the editorial team if you have any question
or request.

Japan MNE Insights Editorial Team
Editor-in-Cheif
Chie Iguchi, Keio University

EditorMasashi Arai, Asia University
Tamiko Kasahara, University of Shizuoka
Tetsuya Usui, Nihon University
Japan MNE Insights Editorial Team is currently located at
Office of Dr. Tamiko Kasahara,
University of Shizuoka, School of Management and Information
52-1 Yada, Suruga-ku, Shizuoka, 422-8526, Japan
TEL/FAX:+81-54-264-5435 (direct)
Contact e-mail address: kasahara@u-shizuoka-ken.ac.jp
Copyright @ Academy of Multinational Enterprises (Japan)

12