【Invited Paper】
Key Research Issues for the International Business AgendaPeter J. Buckley(Centre for International Business, University of Leeds)

Abstract
This paper reviews the progress of the International Business research agenda and finds that
there a number of challenges that still are to be met. These include theory (the application to
emerging market multinationals), empirics (the implications of the rise of the middle class inemerging markets), concepts (explication of the fuzzy notion of "business models"), and aredirection of the unit of analysis away from the nation. The treatment of culture ininternational business research is still problematic. This represents a rich future research
agenda.
Keywords
International Business, Multinational Enterprises, Foreign Direct Investment, culture,research methods, globalization

Past successes of international business researchOver the past 50 years, international business research has successively tackled a numberof theoretical and empirical challenges arising from changes in the evolving global economy.
Given its close attention to empirical phenomena, these have largely been driven by salient
elements that have been detected largely by academics, but often, originally, bybusinesspeople, politicians, administrators or journalists.
The first example of this process is the explanation of flows of foreign direct investment(FDI). It should, however, be pointed out that a considerable body of research existed prior
to the first formal academic work of Dunning (1958) and Hymer (1960, published 1976).
This was largely unsystematised and fragmented, often written by non-academics for a nonacademic audience. It has been extensively treated in Buckley (2011) and will not bereconsidered here.
There were a number of unexplained factors surrounding the upsurge in FDI that followed
World War II (Buckley and Casson 1976). These included the industrial distribution and1nationality of ownership of MNEs and theoretical conundrums such as the flow of FDI from‘poorer’ to ‘richer’ countries (against standard capital movement theory) and thesimultaneous two way flow of FDI between countries.

Many of these empirical andtheoretical issues are much better understood, as this paper shows, but there are still many
unexplored and unexplained phenomena in the domain of international business.
As always, the success in explaining FDI pushed the research agenda onto new
unexplained questions. The focus of research shifted from FDI as a flow to the institution
responsible for that investment – the multinational enterprise (MNE). Following Buckley
and Casson’s (1976) internalisation theory of the MNE, based on Coase’s seminal piece(1937), the research frontier encompassed the existence, strategy and organisation of the firm.
The means by which (national) firms become international, the steps and sequence bywhich this was achieved (“internationalisation”) and the modes of doing business abroad
subsequently, and continuingly, became central aspects of international business research –and they remain so today. The “Uppsala” approach (Johanson and Vahlne 1977, 2009),
which essentially envisaged the firm moving abroad in gradual steps, determined by culturalcloseness to the home country, provoked a massive stream of research that both modified andcontradicted this path, often attributing a determinism to the process that the progenitors did
not intend (Buckley 1989). As well as the internationalisation process as envisaged in the
Uppsala models, more rapid and radical internationalisation was proposed by the so called‘born globals’ (Knight and Cavusgil 2004, Knight, 1996) and international new ventures(INV) literatures (Oviatt and McDougall

1994) whereby authors suggested thatinternationalisation was almost instantaneous at the birth of the firm, or that growth impelledinternational diversification early in the life of the firm (Zander, McDougall-Covin and Rose2014). In contrast other researchers suggested that MNEs were largely regional rather thanglobal – even the most established have a ‘home country (or home region) bias’ (Rugman andVerbeke 2004, 2005). Semi-globalisation (Ghemewat 2003, 2007) was the term used tosuggest that the world was not flat (Friedman 2007) but distinctly spikey! Studies of ‘modesof entry’ proliferated and generated further empirical and theoretical advances.1
One aspect of modes of doing business abroad that led to significant advances is the theoryof joint ventures, alliances and cooperation between firms in general. Research on joint

1

There is an argument that this has gone beyond the point of diminishing returns – see the exchange
in Journal of International Business Studies (Shaver 2013, Hennart and Slangen 2014).
2

ventures (Contractor and Lorange (1988), Buckley and Casson (1988), Beamish and Banks
1987) eventually had wider implications than simply as an analysis of a “mode of entry”.
These successes rather left open the question of integrating “culture” into the corpus ofinternational business theory. As a difficult concept, the analysis of culture raised a numberof services questions. How is culture to be conceptualised? Is it subject to measurement? (Acurrent issue of JIBS is to examine this issue). How does it relate to the other non-economicand economic variables in a more holistic approach to international business? Much of thesubsequent research has focused on Hofstede’s dimensional analysis, its accuracy, usefulness
and meaning, but this is an unnecessarily narrow approach to a set of conceptual issues thatremain unresolved (Hofstede (1980), Hofstede, Hofstede, Minkov (2010)).

An assessment of the field of international business by Buckley and Lessard (2005) suggested
that international business had been most successful when it linked empirical issues in theworld economy with theoretical explanations through a recursive and ongoing process(Figure 1). The authors further suggested that international business theory succeeded whenit created “intermediate theory” by combining disciplinary based approaches, suitable
adapted to explaining “real world” problems. The authors felt that some purchase had been
lost by a diffusion of effort by international business researchers who had not identified a ‘bigquestion’ on which to focus their collective and variegated theatrical lenses. This had led topiling up on non-cumulative case-study focussed research and uncorrected mistakes. The
danger, then and now, is of international business research falling behind the frontier of bestpractice social science research in theory and in methodology.

Figure 1: A recursive view of research in international business

Source: Buckley and Lessard (2005) p 596.
3

The Buckley and Lessard (2005) article began a research process where individualinternational business researchers (or teams) put forward a series of ‘big questions’, including
Buckley and Ghauri (2004) on new forms of global operation and Peng (2004) on identifying
success factors in international operations. There has been something of a questioning of thebasis of international business research as a consequence. Morck and Yeung (2007) echo thecall to understand the relationship between institutions and business behaviour, byintensifying the feedback between theory and observation. They argue that this is becoming
increasingly practicable because of longer runs of tractable data.

The Domain of International BusinessOne continuing issue is the proper domain (scope) of international business research. At
the very core of international business research is a comparative viewpoint. “International”
implies the comparison of two national entities.

This is facilitated if we examine theinternational, or multinational, firm because the analysis of such a firm holds one institution
constant whilst allowing the comparison of two, or more, operating environments. How thefirm copes with different economies, jurisdictions, political and social environments, businesspractices and cultures has been the stuff of international comparative business from the
beginnings of the study of the international economy. However, geographical or spatialcomparisons are only one aspect of the potential scope of analysis. A second dimension ishistorical comparators, and here again we can hold the object of our analysis; the firm,
constant and look at its development (or decline) over time. International business historians
have this as their stock-in-trade (Buckley 2009, Jones and Khanna 2006, Friedman and Jones
2013). The final mode of comparative analysis is more contested - the alternative position.
What would have happened if firm A had not invested in country X? (or not invested in aparticular technology, or not appointed a particular Chief Executive?). A carefully specified
alternative can help the analyst to pinpoint crucial decisions or turning points in thedevelopment of a firm (or a country, industry, institution).
Each of these comparators is contestable. Much is made of the excessive ‘methodologicalnationalism’ of standard international business research (Yeung 2009). Comparisons acrossmore micro spaces such as cities may now be more appropriate. The analysis of time isbedevilled by lack of appropriate data and longitudinal research is difficult and expensive.
Specification of appropriate counterfactuals are problematic and the data requirements for a4

fully specified alternative position may be prohibitive. The comparative method in all its
dimensions is difficult and must be supported by adequate theory.
The distinguishing feature of the international business research domain is that it captures
not only the strategy of the firm, its decision making and international management, but also
the relationship of the firm with its environment. This focuses research on the context of themultinational firm and its decisions in time and place and allows attention to be paid, inparticular, to the cultural environment of the firm. In one tradition of analysis this allows asystem view of the global economy (Casson 1995a, 1995b, Buckley and Hashai 2004) inwhich there is a division of the global economy’s activities between firms and between
locations (Casson 2013). This moves analysis away from a purely “MNE-centred” view
(Hennart 2009).

Policy analysis – as demonstrated in successive UNCTAD World

Investment Reports can be more objectively carried out from a system viewpoint than from afocus purely on the MNE.

Research Method in International Business

The above section has argued for a comparative basis for international business research.
The research methods deriving from this must however theoretically grounded. Theory has
to show that the analyst is not comparing apples with pears.

Factors which affect acomparison (outside the determinants) need to be held constant as far as possible. Past results
need to be considered as control variables so that new relationships can be found. The
problem of endogeneity in modelling has to be understood and dealt with.
International business is perforce an interdisciplinary subject. This is illustrated in Figure
2 where ‘disciplines’ are shown on the horizontal axis. This is combined with a key issue ininternational business – the appropriate level of analysis. Research in international businessexamines individual managers, firms, industries (or organisational field) and the macro
economy (national, regional, global). Thus a wide array or matrix is encompassed in the fieldof international business. Not only is a clear focus necessary, both by column and by row,
but also the analyst has to hold constant the other levels that impinge on their research object(see Andersson et al 2014).

Often, this can only be done imperfectly, but the researcher’s

job is to do the best possible and to be aware, and to point out, the deficiencies.

5Figure 2: The Domain of International Business
Manager
Firm
Industry/
Organisational
Field

Vast heterogeneity in each category

MacroenvironmentµLevelanalysisof

Economics, political science, sociology,social psychology, history, geography
Discipline ´

Source: Adapted from Buckley and Lessard (2005) p.596.

Current Challenges

Given the above analysis, it is not surprising that international business must confront
issues ranging from theoretical to empirical challenges, conceptual challenges, areas where achange of research emphasis is underway and areas of controversy.

Theoretical Challenge – the rise of emerging market multinationals.

A great deal of current research work examines FDI from emerging countries or “emerging
country multinational enterprises” (EMNEs). These are important issues, both for the world
economy and for international business theory.
Empirically FDI from emerging countries has become a major component in world flowsof FDI. UNCTAD (2015 p1) announced that for the first time, in 2014 developing Asia
became the world’s largest outward investor region with US$440 billion invested, followedby North America ($390 billion and Europe ($286 billion). In July 2014, Hong Kong (China)
and China were the second and third largest investors after the USA.
In terms of theory, EMNEs are important because they are an empirical phenomenon
outside the original orbit of theories of the MNE. Theories (e.g. Buckley and Casson (1976),
Dunning’s ‘eclectic theory’ (1977)) arose in a world where the overwhelming number of
MNEs were “Western” (including Japan), privately owned, manufacturing firms, largely
6monocultural in ownership, management and corporate organisation and often vertically andhorizontally integrated. EMNEs are often none of these and frequently are State OwnerEnterprises (SOEs). Their emergence is therefore a crucial test of theory.
When new phenomenon emerge, analysts often call for new theories. Alternatively, it can
be claimed that existing theory performs well. A final position is that a modification ofexisting theory will be optimal. Each of these positions have been adopted in recognising thechallenge of EMNEs to the established theory of the multinational enterprise. Matthews(2002, 2006) developed his LLL theory as a new approach for EMNEs. Theorists whochampion the ‘eclectic theory’ suggest that is performs well, so long as new ‘firm specificadvantages’ (FSAs) are specified (Rugman and Verbeke 2001, Rugman, 2009).
Internalisation theorists see EMNEs as being covered by the general theory, but requiring a
special theory, nested within the overall approach (Buckley and Casson 1976, Buckley, Clegg,
Voss, Liu, Zheng 2007). “New” empirical phenomenon often cause a reappraisal of existing
theory. This has been the case with EMNEs. It has been argued that EMNEs do not possess‘FSAs’ – at least as conventionally understood. Some analysts have responded to this byredefining FSAs – to include, for instance, ability to cope with bureaucracy. Others, moreradically, have suggested that this shows that FSAs are not necessary (nor sufficient) to
support FDI (Buckley and Hashai 2014).

Empirical Challenges – the middle class in emerging markets

As a vibrant empirical subject, international business constantly faces new challenges formchanges in the world economy. Just one current example is the rise of the middle class inemerging economies.
The rapid urbanisation of emerging markets, particularly China, in the twenty-first century
is an important element in the rise of the middle class across many middle income countries.
The rise of this “new” middle class has many implications for international business researchand practice. The growth of MNEs from these countries is an inter-related phenomena that istreated above as a theoretical challenge. In addition to urbanisation, related phenomena arerising discretionary income (reflected in increased outward tourism from these countries, forinstance), demands for improved and international-standard education, increased politicalparticipation both locally and in global institutions, changes in lifestyles and cultural values.
The response of the business community to these changes – both local firms andestablished multinationals presages a change in many of the ‘givens’ of international business7

research. The location of headquarters, of dominant firms, of industries, of innovation and of‘locational advantages’ are all subject to change. Again these fundamental changes require
an interdisciplinary response. International business researches are in a strong position to
respond, used as they are to comparative analyses over time and space. Research in cognate
areas such as sociology, with its focus on changing identities and economics, the examinationof the “middle income trap”, need to be integrated with traditional international businessconcepts and analyses. Variations both within and across countries and regions are grist to
the mill of international business research and such distinctions are important because thetensions (urban-rural for example) that are set up by this new growth trajectory are profoundand potentially destabilising, creating uncertainty as well as opportunity.

Conceptual Challenges – “Business Models”

Conceptual challenges arise when new business concepts, approaches or strategies require
explication. One such concept, as yet unincorporated in international business theory is thenotion of ‘a business model’ (and its potential extension ‘an international business model’).
The business model rubric is an attempt to specify the relationship between value
creational delivery, capture and allocation in a totalising model. Amit and Zott (2001, p 511)
define a business model as “the content, structure and governance of transitions designed so
as to create value through the exploitation of business opportunities”. Alternatively, “A
firm’s business model is the structural template of the way the firm conducts its business. It
describes the system of activities that are performed by the firm and by its partners and waysthat these activities are linked to each other through transactions in factor and productmarkets. The overall objective of a focal firm’s business model is to exploit its business
opportunities by creating value for all the parties involved; that is, to fulfil customers’ needs
and create customer surplus while generating a profit for the focal firm and its partners”.
(Amit and Zott 2015 p.1). In practice, business models are often taken as prescriptive – “theway we do business”. There is an underlying philosophy that the firm can impose its
business model on the outside world, irrespective of demand (and supply) conditions,competition and regulation. These factors must be seen as constraints on the feasibility ofany planned strategy. Issues of dynamics are also important – how does a business model
adjust to changes in internal and external factors? The stability of business models over timerequires research.

8

Business models derive from the resource based view (RBV) of the firm and, in thistradition, the firm, its strategy and its business model is seen as a formula of unique value
creation. This makes comparison across firms (business model) by definition impossible aseach is a unique bundle of resources. This sits awkwardly with the conceptual structure ofinternational business, which takes comparative methods as central for theorising. The way
forward is possibly the deconstruction of business models to their constituent parts in order tolocate the purported ‘uniqueness’ of the model and to situate this is context where lessons,both theoretical and empirical (managerial) can be learned. There are, undoubtedly, steps
forward in strategy that are packaged into ‘business models’, but the theoretical advancesfrom this literature are not (yet) clear.

Change in Research Emphasis – away from methodological nationalism

International Business has long utilised “the nation” (even “the country”) as one of its key
units of analysis.

In the analysis of location, countries have effectively been seen as

homogeneous and unitary. This is often because of data availability – national data re themost frequent, and usually the most accurate information available. However, it is clearly
untenably for many purposes to treat China, India and the US as single entities and ‘flat’locations. The move away from ‘methodological nationalism’ (Yeung 2009) is long overdue.
There is now a renewed interest in economic geography (McCann 2004, Mudambi 2005) andin more micro level analyses, notably a focus on cities. When MNEs make investment
decisions, the country may be a factor in the choice set, but rapidly this becomes a focus onexactly where to locate – most usually a city, sometimes a province. Thus the decision –Shanghai, Hangzhou or Dongguan is the focus of research in MNEs. This more fine-grained
analysis is coming to be the basis of much international business research.

A remaining area of controversy – the treatment of culture

In earlier sections of this paper, it was suggested that the integration of culture was, at best,a partial success in the achievements of international business research. The analysis ofculture remains part of the research agenda, but there is disagreement, or at least a differenceof emphasis, on how that should be taken forward.
To some, culture is definable, measurable and can be encompassed by metrics. To otherresearchers, culture is only approachable by qualitative methods and defies measurement at
9

any meaningful level. The ‘emic versus etic’ debate (Buckley, Chapman, Clegg, GajewskaDe Mattos 2014) is real and current.
On one hand, it is arguable that culture is now more understood and can be encompassed in
Hofstede’s (1980) “dimensions”.

Even more specifically many international businessresearchers use the Kogut and Singh (1988) index which collapses Hofstede’s dimensions
into a single measure of ‘cultural distance’. It is unarguable that this provides a boon toquantitative researchers who can insert this number into any analysis of cultural distance –usually between an investor and a host country - based on the notion of the MNE and its
target country. Such an approach is open to criticism from researchers who argue that thereal understanding of cultural difference is emasculated by this – a reductio ad absurdum.
There are indeed many assumptions that have to be made if this approach is to be valid. The‘values’ have to be unchanging invariant across countries, the original Hofstede values weredrawn from surveys of IBM employees across countries and these individuals have to betaken as representative of their culture. There are many more, particularly in the extreme
case of the Kogut and Singh index.
On the other hand, analyses of culture based on anthropology are far more nuanced andessentially deny the simplifying approach that provides a ‘circle’ marked ‘culture’ witharrows to other circles marked ‘business’ ‘economy’ or other macro constructs.
This debate spill over into the quantitative versus qualitative methodological divide thattypifies current international business research. The essential complementarity between the
two approaches risks being lost in debates between the two camps. There are clear, andimportant, influences that arise from different cultural backgrounds in cross-national businessdecision making and not all of these arise from the nationality of the participants (Chapman,
Gajewska-De Mattos, Clegg, and Buckley, 2008). Careful longitudinal analysis is one
solution to this dilemma, reliant on both quantitative and qualitative research materials.

The Future of International Business Research

There are many unanswered, partially answered and so far unobserved questions in the
research domain of international business. The intellectual background is likely to remain
vibrant because so many of the key research questions in business, economics, sociology andhistory are international in scope, are increasingly international in scope and can only
realistically be tackled at international level.

Issues of globalisation, climate change,

migration, optimal currency areas, global or regional expansion of companies are at the10forefront of national, regional and global policy marking institution’s agendas. The input of
research in international business has never been more important in forming policy responses
from a wide range of institutions including, of course, MNEs.
The international business research agenda is capable of being widened. In achieving this,
it is important not to lose theoretical rigor. The focus on efficiency as the key outcome of
economic activity has remained as the key focus of core theories including internalisation
theory.

However, many studies (Casson, Dark and Gulamhussen 2009, Buckley and

Boddewyn 2015) have shown that internalisation theory is capable if extension without losing
theoretical rigor. Extension therefore to the vital issues of inequality, culture, institutions andthe environment as objects of the impact of the MNE and its alternatives are potential areas of
future research focus where the basic theoretical tools are all in place. This agenda requires
imagination, but not theoretical restructuring.
Demands for training in international business are growing at all levels of education andthe impact of international business research as demonstrated by the status and impact ofactors of the key international business journals are increasing (as is membership ofinternational business scholarly associations). The institutional changes in (particularly US
universities) has been adduced to have a negative effect on international business research,
but the important issue is that international business research quantity and quality isimproving, rather than whether that research is done in specifically designated ‘International
Business Departments’.
The research agenda in international business must remain competitive with other domains
to thrive, or even survive. It is crucial therefore that international business research gets to(or stays on) the best practice research frontier, using state-of-the-art social science methods.
As this piece has shown, there are still many unanswered ‘big questions’. These must be
tackled by a vibrant, well training and motivated body of researchers, conversant withcognate fields and willing to cross-fertilise data, methods and results.

11

References
Amit, R and C. Zott 2001. Value creation in e-business, Strategic Management Journal,22(June/July): 493-520.
Amit, R and C. Zott 2015. The business model. Palgrave Encyclopaedia of Management.
DOI 10.1057/9871137294678.0061.
Andersson, U., A. Cuervo-Cuzurra and B. B. Nielsen. 2014. From the Editors: Explaining
interaction affects within and across levels of analysis. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 45(9)1063-1071.
Beamish, P. and John C. Banks. 1987 Equity Joint Ventures and the Theory of theMultinational Enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 18(2): 1-16
Buckley, P. J. 1989. Foreign direct investment by small and medium-sized enterprises: The
theoretical background. Small Business Economics, 1(2): 89-100.
Buckley, P. J. 2009. Business History and International Business. Business History, 51(3):307-333.
Buckley, P. J. 2011. The theory of International Business pre Hymer, Journal of World
Business 46(1), 61-73
Buckley, P. J. and J. J. Boddewyn. 2015. The internalisation of societal failures bymultinational enterprises. Multinational Business Review, (forthcoming).
Buckley, P. J. and M. Casson. 1976. The Future of the Multinational Enterprise. London:
Macmillan.
Buckley, P. J. and M. Casson. 1988. A Theory of Cooperation in International Business.
Management International Review, 28:19-38.
Buckley, P. J., M. Chapman, J. Clegg and H. Gajewska-De Mattos. 2014. A linguistic andphilosophical analyses of emic and etic and their use in international business research.
Management International Review, 54(4): 307-324.
Buckley, P. J., J. Clegg, A. Cross, H. Voss, Liu Xin and P. Zheng. 2007. The determinants ofChinese outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies,
38(4): 499 – 518.
Buckley, P. J. and P. N. Ghauri. 2004. Globalisation, Economic Geography and the strategy
of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2): 81-98.
Buckley, P. J. and N. Hashai. 2004. A global system view of firm boundaries. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 35(1): 33-45.
Buckley, P. J. and N. Hashai. N. 2014. Is competitive advantage a necessary condition for the
emergence of the Multinational Enterprise?. Global Strategy Journal, 4(1): 35 – 48.
Buckley, P J. and D. R. Lessard. 2005. Regaining the Edge for International BusinessResearch. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6): 595-599.
Casson M. 1995a. Entrepreneurship and Business culture. Studies in the Economics of Trust
Volume 1. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.
Casson M. 1995b. The Organization of International Business: Studies in the Economics ofTrust Volume 2. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.
Casson, M. 2013. The theory of the Multinational Enterprise from a Supply Chain
Perspective. The Journal of MNEs.
Casson, M., K. Dark and M. A. Gulamhussen. 2009. Extending internalisation theory: Fromthe multinational enterprise to the knowledge-based empire. International Business
Review, 18, (3): 236–256.

12

Chapman, M., H. Gajewska-De Mattos, J. Clegg, J. and P. J. Buckley.2008. Closeneighbours and distant friends: Perceptions of cultural distance. International Business
Review, 17(3): 217-234.
Coase, Ronald H. 1937. The Nature of the Firm. Economica 4:386-405.
Contractor, F. J. and P. Lorange, 1988. Cooperative Strategies in International Business. D.
C. Heath & Co. Lexington MA.
Dunning, J. H. 1958. American Investment in British Manufacturing Industry. London:
George Allen & Unwin.
Dunning, J. 1977. ‘Trade, location of economic activity and the multinational enterprise: a
search for an eclectic approach’ in Ohlin, B., Hesselborn P.O. and Wijkam, P.M. (eds.),
The international allocation of economic activity, New York, Holmes and Meier.
Friedman, Thomas L. 2007. The World is Flat. Picador, London.
Friedman, W. A. and Jones G. (Eds.) 2013. Business History. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham.
Ghemawat, P. 2003. Semiglobalization and International Business Strategy. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 34(2): 138-152.
Ghemewat, P. 2007. Redefining Global Strategy: Crossing Borders in a World Where
Differences Still Matter. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hennart J-F. (2009). Down with MNE�centric theories! Market entry and expansion as thebundling of MNE and local assets. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 14321454.
Hennart, J-F and A. H. L. Slangen. 2014 Yes, we really do need more entry mode studies! A
commentary on Shaver. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1): 114-122.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values.
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. and M. Minkov. 2010. Cultures and organizations: software of
the mind: 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill Professional, New York.
Hymer, S. A. 1976. The international operations of national firms: A study of direct foreign
investment. MIT, Cambridge, MA, Boston.
Johanson, J. and J. E. Vahlne, J. 1977. The Internationalization Process of the Firm: A Modelof Knowledge Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 8(1): 23-32.
Johanson, J. and J-E Vahlne. 2009. The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited:
From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International BusinessStudies, 40(9): 1411-1431.
Jones, G. and T. Khanna. 2006. Bringing History (Back) into International Business. Journalof International Business Studies, 37(4): 453-468.
Knight, G. 2004. Born global. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing.
Knight, G. A. and S.T. Cavusgil. 1996. Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the bornglobal firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (2), 124-141
Kogut, B. and H. Singh. 1988.The Effect of National Culture on the Choice of Entry Mode.
Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3): 411-432
McCann, P. and R. Mudambi, 2004. The location behavior of the multinational enterprise:
Some analytical issues Growth and Change. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(4), 491-524.
13

McCann, P. and R. Mudambi, 2005. Analytical differences in the economics of geography:
the case of the multinational firm. Environment and Planning A 37, (10), 1857-1876.
Mathews, J. A. 2002. Dragon multinational: A new model for global growth. Oxford and
New York: Oxford University Press.
Mathews, J. A. 2006. Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century globalization. Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, 23(1): 5-27.
Morck, R and Yeung, B. 2007. History in perspective: comment on Jones and Khanna‘Bringing history (back) into international business’. Journal of International BusinessStudies. 38(2): 357-360.
Oviatt, B. M. and P. P. McDougall. 1994. Toward a Theory of International New Ventures,
Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1): 45-64.
Peng, M. W. (2004). Identifying the Big Question in International Business Research. Journalof International Business Studies, 35(2), pp. 99-108.
Rugman, A.M. 2009. Theoretical aspects of MNEs from emerging economies. In Ramamurti,
R. & Singh, V.S. (Eds.) Emerging multinationals in emerging markets. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 42-63.
Rugman, A.M. and Verbeke, A. 2001. Subsidiary-Specific Advantages in Multinational
Enterprises, Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 237-250.
Rugman, A. M. and A. Verbeke. 2004. A perspective on regional and global strategies ofmultinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1): 3–18.
Rugman, A. M. and A. Verbeke. 2005. Towards a Theory of Regional Multinationals: A
Transaction Cost Economics Approach. Management International Review, 45(1): 5-17.
Shaver, J. M. 2013. Do we really need more entry mode studies? Journal of International
Business Studies, 44(1): 23-27.
UNCTAD. 2015. Global Investment Monitor No. 19 (18 May 2015). UNCTAD: Geneva.
Yeung, H. W-C (2009) Transnational Corporations, Global Production Networks and Urban
and Regional Development: A Geographer’s Perspective on Multinational Enterprises andthe Global Economy. Growth and Change, 40(2), June: 197-226.
Zander, I., P. McDougall-Covin and E. L. Rose. 2014. Born globals and international
business: Evolution of a field of research. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1):27-35.

14