What drives firm strategy in international business (IB)? What determines the success and failure of firms around the world? These are some of the most fundamental questions confronting the IB field (Peng, 2004a). Traditionally, there are two perspectives that address these two questions. An industry-based view, represented by Porter (1980), argues that conditions within an industry, to a large extent, determine firm strategy and performance. A resource-based view, exemplified by Barney (1991), suggests that it is firm-specific differences that drive strategy and performance. These influential views have been developed primarily in the field of strategic management. While IB and strategy are closely allied fields (Peng, 2006; Ricart, Enright, Ghemawat, Hart, & Khanna, 2004), what are the contributions of IB research that can add to our understanding of the two crucial questions raised earlier?
A benefit from focusing on the strategies of domestic firms in emerging economies is that some of them may embark upon their own internationalization in the near future, thus becoming a new breed of MNE (Mathews, 2006; Peng & Delios, 2006; Ramamurti, 2004). How they internationalize, in addition to being influenced by industry- and resource-based considerations, is inherently shaped by the domestic and international institutional frameworks governing these endeavors. Given IB's traditional focus on MNEs from developed economies, we currently know very little about how firms from emerging economies internationalize (such as how they overcome antidumping regimes erected as entry barriers) (Khanna & Palepu, 2006; Wright et al., 2005). If the field aspires to remain globally relevant, it seems imperative that more research be devoted to these crucial strategic issues (Brouthers et al., 2005; Dunning, 2006; Mathews, 2006; Narula, 2006).
Global Strategic Management Mike W Peng Download Pdf
Download Zip: https://adit0dapo.blogspot.com/?an=2vHI0K
As a tool for the professionalization of the management of business schools, adopting any formal list of journals entails both pros and cons (van Fleet et al. 2000). On the positive side, there is clear value in the emergence of a globally acknowledged, explicit certification measure, as opposed to engaging in the time-consuming and politically sensitive process of generating journal lists locally (Graffin and Ward 2010). In contrast to the UTD list of 24 journals and the FT list of 50 journals, the UK-based Association of Business Schools maintains a list for Academic Journal Quality Guide with 1040 journals (Harvey et al. 2007). A survey of U.S. management departments reports 1008 outlets on the lists compiled by 35 departments (van Fleet et al. 2000, p. 851). The average list has 72 journals, with one institution reporting 287 outlets. Obviously, such proliferation of items on journal lists contributes to the continued fragmentation of business and management disciplines that have little consensus on standards of excellence (Pfeffer 1993). 2ff7e9595c
Comments