At the beginning of the 20th century, the publication of The Modern Corporation and Private Property opened the debate about the potential negative consequences associated with ownership dispersion. Since then, governance scholars aimed at understanding which corporate governance mechanisms could help companies both to prevent the agency problems connected with managerial opportunism, and to improve the strategic decision-making at the top of the firm. These early studies were mostly (or almost only) focused on the corporate governance of widely held companies listed in Anglo-American countries, thus neglecting for a long time the investigation of governance issues and mechanisms in other geographical settings. In addition, the main objective of these studies was to identify universal best practices (like an independent board, the separation of the CEO and Chair positions, or the use of high-powered incentives) that could address the agency problems of large listed companies. An implicit assumption in this stream of research was that firm-level agency problems do not vary across industry and macro environments, i.e., industry- and macro-environmental variables cannot either aggravate or attenuate agency problems.
This long-standing tradition has been increasingly criticized by scholars arguing that industry- or macro-environmental variables could directly (or indirectly through their influence on governance mechanisms) affect corporate governance problems. Based on this idea, they started to develop sound theoretical models and to adopt rigorous empirical research methods in order to investigate if and how the characteristics of industry and macro environments could address firm-level agency problems. A first stream of studies argued and empirically analyzed whether some industry conditions (e.g., high competitiveness) could attenuate managerial discretion and, thus, partly solve firm-level agency problems. A second stream of research argued and empirically tested whether, instead, the high quality of the macro environment (e.g., the national or supranational level of investor protection, transparency, or rules enforcement) could directly address corporate governance problems, with beneficial effects on firm performance.
More recently, scholars started to develop a multilevel investigation of corporate governance problems and mechanisms by including firm-, industry- and macro-environmental variables in their theoretical frameworks. In particular, through building new theoretical frameworks (e.g., based on the resource dependence or the institutional theory) and profiting from the development of new statistical techniques (like the multilevel statistical analysis or the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis), scholars increasingly explored if and how the interaction among firm-level governance mechanisms and industry- and/or macro-environmental variables could address agency problems and produce positive consequences on firm long-term results. This new research stream suggests that the industry and macro environments affect the effectiveness of governance mechanisms and processes, and so represents boundary conditions that limit the generalizability of our research findings outside a specific context. In this way, they invite governance scholars either to contextualize their theories and results about firm-level governance mechanisms within a specific industry and macro context, or to explore the potential influence of one or more contextual variables (e.g., at the industry, country, or supranational level). Thanks to the results of this new stream of research, scholars and practitioners have been able to develop a richer and more contextual understanding of both (a) the relationships among corporate governance mechanisms and industry- and/or macro-environmental conditions, and (b) their direct and indirect impact on various company results.
Article
A Multilevel Perspective on Corporate Governance: Firm, Industry, and Macro Environments
Alessandro Zattoni and Hans van Ees
Article
The Application of Real Option Approach in International Business Research
Tailan Chi and Yan Huang
The real option theory (ROT), a theory on investment decision making under uncertainty, has been applied to analyzing a broad range of questions in international business (IB). In the face of uncertainty, any discretion that the managers of a multinational enterprise (MNE) have over the timing, scale, speed, and sequence of investing or using the firm’s resources, in the forms of physical or intellectual capital or managerial time and effort, can be a real option. Such options confer upon the managers the right, but not the obligation, to exploit the upside potential while limiting the downside risk. Uncertainty, irreversibility, and absence of immediate and complete preemption are three necessary conditions for a real option to create value. Uncertainty offers opportunities to gather more information in the future, and such information can help managers make better decisions or alter prior decisions for improvement. Irreversibility is defined as the proportion of the investment committed to a project that cannot be recouped if the project is abandoned. Preemption refers to the revocation of the decision-making discretion that nullifies the option.
It is possible to distinguish seven types of real options that have been examined in IB studies: (a) option to defer, (b) option to abandon/exit, (c) option to exchange, (d) option to grow/scale up, (e) option to contract/scale down, (f) option to switch, and (g) compound options. These types of options are found to influence a firm’s international market-entry strategies (e.g., location, timing, scale, speed, and mode) and the configuration and organization of the firm’s geographically dispersed production network.
ROT has also been integrated with other economic theories, such as transaction cost economics and resource-based view, to better understand these decisions. Although ROT assumes a strong form of rationality on the part of the decision maker, it is also possible to incorporate cognitive or cultural biases into the theory and give the theory’s analysis greater realism. ROT represents a theoretical approach that can be integrated with various economic and noneconomic theories. More work in such theoretical integration can potentially help researchers gain deeper or more complete understandings of IB questions.
Extant studies in IB typically analyze only a single type of option in isolation. But the global production network of a MNE typically has a portfolio of different types of options embedded, and the different types of options inevitably interact. The study of interactions among two or more types of options under different sources of uncertainty is likely to yield new insights on the strategy and organization of the MNE.
Article
Business Groups as an Organizational Model
Asli M. Colpan and Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra
Business groups are an organizational model in which collections of legally independent firms bounded together with formal and informal ties use collaborative arrangements to enhance their collective welfare. Among the different varieties of business groups, diversified business groups that exhibit unrelated product diversification under central control, and often containing chains of publicly listed firms, are the most-studied type in the management literature. The reason is that they challenge two traditionally held assumptions. First, broad and especially unrelated diversification have a negative impact on performance, and thus business groups should focus on a narrow scope of related businesses. Second, such diversification is only sustainable in emerging economies in which market and institutional underdevelopment are more common and where business groups can provide a solution to such imperfections. However, a historical perspective indicates that diversified business groups are a long-lived organizational model and are present in emerging and advanced economies, illustrating how business groups adapt to different market and institutional settings. This evolutionary approach also highlights the importance of going beyond diversification when studying business groups and redirecting studies toward the evolution of the group structure, their internal administrative mechanisms, and other strategic actions beyond diversification such as internationalization.
Article
De-Internationalization: The Other Side of Internationalization
Gabriel R. G. Benito
Companies rightly regard internationalization decisions as strategic; they are long-term, require and bind up resources, and have important implications for companies’ performance. But internationalization is inherently demanding and risky, changes are likely to happen, and there is no guarantee of a positive outcome. The notion of de-internationalization captures the other side of internationalization: actions that reduce a company’s engagement in or exposure to international or border-crossing activities. One important dimension of de-internationalization is its extent, which ranges from a total withdrawal from international operations to partial retractions, such as exiting from a particular market, and minor adjustments, such as downscaling activities. Another key dimension is the volition aspect of de-internationalization, which distinguishes between de-internationalization decisions that are principally taken by the companies themselves, and those that have been imposed upon the companies by other actors, such as host-country authorities. There are three main types of de-internationalization: reductions in trade volume, market withdrawals, and divestments. Extant research, while limited, has tended to take either a behavioral perspective or an economics perspective. The latter takes a choice (or decision) perspective on de-internationalization, while the former emphasizes the process aspects of such actions. De-internationalization does not need to be the end of the road for companies’ foreign involvement. There is mounting evidence that de-internationalization can be temporary, with companies re-entering foreign markets after a time-out period, often by implementing better suited approaches when retrying.
Article
External Corporate Governance Mechanisms: Linking Forces to Behaviors
G. Tyge Payne and Curt Moore
Corporate governance research has a long and varied history, having evolved from a broad number of scholarly disciplines, including sociology, law, finance, and management. Across these various disciplines, it is maintained that governance is essential to corporate success, as it provides strategic and ethical guidance to the company. While research has largely focused on internal mechanisms through which governance is enacted (such as ownership arrangements, board structures, managerial rewards and incentives, etc.), external forces and mechanisms are increasingly important to modern businesses. External corporate governance mechanisms emanate from outside the organization and support forces that promote governance structures, processes, and practices by top executives and board directors. Institutions, industries, markets, networks, and strong individual external stakeholders all work to influence corporate governance decisions and behaviors both directly and indirectly. The external forces induce mechanisms that influence desirable behaviors or intervene when internal mechanisms are compromised or ineffective.
Recent literature on external governance mechanisms can help scholars and practitioners develop a better understanding of this important area of inquiry, and future research should consider three broad suggestions to move the field forward: differentiating between forces and mechanisms; recognizing unique stakeholders, boundaries, and levels of analysis; and improving empirical designs to better recognize and understand what factors matter in instituting governance adjustments and behavior changes.
Article
From Absorptive Capacity in International Business to Strategic Flexibility of Multinational Corporations
Carine Peeters
Both the absorptive capacity (AC) and international business (IB) literatures are interested in knowledge processes and learning in organizations. Although originating from different streams of research, AC and IB were thus meant to meet and reinforce each other.
Fundamentally, the role of AC in IB is to condition the performance outcome of firms’ internationalization efforts. Firms benefit from their IB activities conditional on being able to absorb new knowledge and learn. In other words, multinational corporations (MNCs) need to have the necessary AC to overcome their liabilities of foreignness and outsidership. Short of AC, the costs and challenges of entering foreign markets and operating across countries are likely to outweigh potential performance gains. Moreover, AC plays a role in the technological upgrade and economic development of nations, as it helps firms in emerging economies to benefit from spillovers of foreign direct investments by MNCs from more economically advanced economies. And national governments can play an important role to facilitate this effect by developing appropriate economic and innovation policies that support knowledge creation and learning.
Firms can also proactively develop AC. For instance, MNCs can nurture a broad knowledge base that can be leveraged in different contexts and opt for a decentralized structure with mechanisms that help subsidiaries access the knowledge base of the parent organization. They can also practice specific routines to identify and access relevant knowledge from their external environment, transfer that knowledge in their organization, and assimilate it in their own knowledge creation processes. Moreover, MNCs can adopt human resources management practices that help raise the capacity and motivation of their employees to acquire and exploit new knowledge.
Ultimately, the most important contribution of AC in IB might be to help MNCs develop the strategic flexibility that enables them to thrive in dynamic environments. High-AC MNCs may indeed be in a better position than other firms to (a) build diverse options to prepare for uncertain evolutions in the market, (b) access flexible resources to allocate to new courses of actions, and (c) redeploy resources across options over time. Unpacking the exact mechanisms as well as boundary conditions for the role of AC in building strategic flexibility offers ample opportunities for future research on a highly relevant topic for MNCs.
Article
Global Strategy and Multinational Corporation Capabilities
Donald R. Lessard and D. Eleanor Westney
Strategy in a global setting involves competition in industries that extend across national boundaries and among firms with different national home bases that may tap into strategic resources in more than one location. The resources that the firm accesses from its home country provide it with international competitive advantage only if they are relevant in other markets, if the value they create is appropriable, and if they are transferable to those markets (RAT), These resources include tangible assets and factors of production, but, importantly, also the capabilities the firm develops. Similarly, the resources that it taps from other contexts provide it with further competitive advantage only if these resources are complementary to the firm’s existing resources, appropriable, and transferable to the locations where it can exploit them (CAT). These two sets of factors—RAT and CAT—provide a framework for international strategic decisions that emphasizes developing, acquiring, and transferring capabilities.
Article
The Impact of Corporate Governance on Firms’ International Strategies
Gabriele Galli and Antonio Majocchi
The structure and characteristics of firms’ corporate governance influence the internationalization choices of companies, impacting different and heterogeneous features. The international business literature focuses on two fundamental characteristics of corporate governance: ownership and board of directors. The features of different shareholders and the level of ownership shares result in different global strategies and objectives for multinational companies. Considering the executive level, the characteristics of the different directors involved in the governance may influence investment choices and relations with different stakeholders in different countries. Corporate governance is therefore a fundamental dimension to be taken into account in international business research, with special reference to two particular types of companies: family- and state-owned firms. Ownership and the board of directors of these companies present specific corporate governance features and dynamics that expand the classical theory of internationalization. The focus on these two types of firms helps to understand and describe the current global context and the set of decisions and different policies that influence the different choices related to firms’ internationalization strategies.
Article
An Institutional Perspective on Corporate Governance
Ilir Haxhi
Concerned with the structure of rights and responsibilities among corporate actors, corporate governance focuses primarily on the monitoring of executive boards, the protection of minority shareholders, corporate reporting and disclosure, and the improvement of employee participation in the corporate decision-making process. An institutional theory–driven approach helps position corporate governance as a social construct that reflects formal institutional rules as well as the informal practices that prevail when formal rules are absent, weak, or ambiguously defined. The institutional context thus constitutes a framework for corporate governance that captures not only the internal structures of corporations but also the institutional arrangements and national business systems in which these corporations are embedded. The actor-centered institutional perspective provides a comprehensive, in-depth, and nuanced picture not only of current governance structures but also of the characteristics and practices that prevail within and across different corporate governance models. Overall, adopting an institutional perspective underscores the importance of recognizing that corporate governance at the national level remains a key unit of analysis for explaining its diversity because it highlights the role of national institutions and their powerful institutional actors.
Article
International Research and Development and Knowledge Sourcing by Multinational Corporations
Kazuhiro Asakawa and Jaeyong Song
Internationalization of R&D facilitates knowledge sourcing of multinational corporations (MNCs) on a global scale. As MNCs internationalize R&D, they not only engage in domestic-driven R&D but are actively involved in overseas-driven R&D. And accordingly, the role of overseas R&D laboratories often evolves, from applying the HQ-generated innovation to local market, to innovating locally and contributing to the parent company. Within an MNC boundary, knowledge flows have become multidirectional: on top of the most typical knowledge flows from headquarters (HQ) to a subsidiary, reverse knowledge flows from a subsidiary to HQ as well as horizontal knowledge flows among overseas subsidiaries have become more salient. In addition to knowledge flows within a firm, increasing attention has been paid to external knowledge sourcing, i.e., knowledge sourcing from foreign locations outside the firm. MNCs commonly engage in local knowledge sourcing, i.e., sourcing knowledge from an overseas local environment, to tap into local hotbeds of innovation. But MNCs are also increasingly conducting global knowledge sourcing, i.e., sourcing knowledge from around the world, to practise global open innovation. Theoretically, knowledge sourcing in international R&D has often been examined from the capability and embeddedness perspectives. The effect of capability has been discussed in connection with motivation, autonomy, and mandates of subsidiaries. The effect of embeddedness has been discussed in connection with complementarity between external and internal embeddedness. As future research agenda, the following are suggested. First, cross-fertilization among the research fields of international R&D, global innovation, and open innovation deserves further attention. Second, greater research focus can be placed on managerial processes of global knowledge sourcing. Third, further research can be advanced on global knowledge sourcing at the team level. Fourth, the association between corporate governance and global knowledge sourcing can be investigated further. Fifth, much more attention needs to be paid to microfoundations of global knowledge sourcing. And lastly, further evolving patterns of global knowledge sourcing by advanced country multinationals (AMNCs) and emerging economies multinationals (EMNCs) continue to be relevant.
Article
The Concept, Treatment, and Future of Language in Contemporary Business and Management
Terry Mughan
In the literature of business and management, language, unlike the contiguous concepts of culture and communication, did not have a recognized place until the early part of the 21st century. Isolated publications about language might have appeared occasionally in journals in subdisciplines such as marketing, communication, and international business (IB), but there was no real visible research community or concentration of output in the field. Special issues appearing in International Studies of Management and Organization, 2005 and the Journal of World Business, 2011 were significant steps in demonstrating the emergence of active researchers at this time. In 2014, the Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS), the top-ranked IB journal and the only such journal used by the Financial Times for its global journal rankings, published its first special issue on the subject. This landmark issue attracted 78 submissions, of which 14 were published in JIBS over two issues, and this represented a breakthrough in terms of both quality and quantity that captured the attention of all in the IB field. Many explanations have been proffered for the delay in breaching this barrier, from tacit resistance on the part of monolingual executives and institutions to methodological bias in favor of numerical data to the daunting definitional complexity of the term “language” itself and its relation to nation-level phenomena.
Article
Leader–Member Exchange: A Commentary on Long-Term Staying Power and Future Research Directions
Terri A. Scandura and Kim Gower
In 1975, the phrase “vertical dyad linkage” (VDL) was introduced to begin examining the quality of the roles between the leaders and direct reports, and it was soon discovered that the linkages ranged between high quality and low quality. That linkage progressed into “leader–member exchange” (LMX) in 1982. In essence, research reached a point where it found a continuum of the quality of the relationship between the two members. High-quality relationships put the employees into the leader’s “ingroup,” while low-quality relationships left employees on the outside looking in. It followed that those in the ingroup would have some say in the decision-making, would have easier access to the leader, and would garner more respect and “liking.”
Researchers have used the LMX-7 to examine how the quality of superior/subordinate relationships affects individual, interpersonal, and organization factors like job satisfaction, communication motives, and organizational identification (as did the original LMX scale). Although the LMX-7 remains one of the most prominent psychometric measures of LMX, researchers still debate whether the construct should be considered unidimensional or multidimensional.
While the intricacies of LMX-7 versus LMX have been argued, and with teams becoming more of an organizational resource, team–member exchange (TMX) was found to be a supported extension of LMX. While at this point TMX is lacking in the volume and pace of research, due to the difficulties of measurement among a group of people who might have a variety of leaders during the process, the existing research has produced some results that are extremely relevant, now and in the future. Examples of what has been found when the team exchange relationship is high include reduced stress, increased psychological empowerment, increased creativity, increased team performance, increased individual performance, increased organizational citizenship behaviors, increased organizational commitment, and increased job satisfaction, just to name a few.
In sum, the investigation into LMX provides a history of the field of LMX and its many iterations and the role it plays in leadership studies. This research includes LMX antecedents, consequences, moderators, mediators, and outcomes, as any field in which over 4,500 papers have been published needs an effective way to highlight the progress and pathways.
Article
The Liability of Foreignness
Jesper Edman
The liability of foreignness—or LOF—is the additional cost that multinational enterprise (MNE) subsidiaries face relative to local competitors in foreign markets. The LOF arises in the form of unfamiliarity costs, relational costs, and discrimination costs in host country markets. Because these costs are unique to foreign firms, the LOF constitutes a difference in both kind and degree that distinguishes the MNE from other organizations. LOF has been addressed from a wide array of theoretical perspectives, including internalization theory, institutional theory, the resource-based view, network theory, cross cultural management, and organizational identity. The antecedents of LOF can be found in inter-country distance and dissimilarity, country-specific institutional arrangements, as well as firm-level experiences. Scholars have traced the implications of LOF to many of the critical attributes of the MNE, including internationalization patterns and country selection, entry mode choice, subsidiary performance and survival, localization strategies, and the development of firm-specific advantages. As such, the LOF constitutes one of the foundational assumptions of the international business domain..
Several research gaps and controversies remain in the LOF literature. LOF is often used as a catch-all term for the MNE’s disadvantages and costs in general, rather than the extraordinary costs faced by foreign-owned subsidiaries. Although numerous works invoke LOFs in their overall framing and theoretical argumentation, few studies explain the mechanisms behind the extraordinary costs facing subsidiaries. Empirical measurement of LOFs is rare, with many works using inter-country distance and institutional voids as proxies for LOF. Conceptually, LOF is often confounded with proximate but nonetheless distinct constructs, including the liability of newness, the liability of origin, and the liability of emergingness. A critical issue for extant and future work is to clarify the scope, boundary conditions, and operationalizations of LOF.
Article
Privatization of State-Owned Enterprises
David Parker
Theoretical developments in economics, alongside evidence that state-owned enterprises were often inefficient and unresponsive to consumers, led to a substantial program of privatizations from the 1980s. Privatization can take a number of forms, from the outright sale of state-owned assets to private investors to forms of public-private partnership, such as contracting out and franchising of public services. Privatization was promoted in both developed and developing countries, and large-scale privatizations occurred in Europe, Latin America, China, and the former communist economies of Central and Eastern Europe, in particular. Privatization revenues rose substantially from the late 1980s internationally. Taking the years 1988 to 2016, revenues from sales are estimated to have been around $3,634bn. In terms of main sectors of the economy affected, privatizations have particularly occurred in telecommunications, transport and logistics (mainly railways, airlines, and airports), other utility businesses (especially energy companies), and finance. Numerous empirical studies suggest that the performance of the privatized businesses and services has been mixed. While privatization has led to some impressive economic gains, in a number of countries, wider governance issues relating to political and legal systems have led to disappointing outcomes. Privatization has not always led to the removal of state interference in the management of businesses and services. Corruption and cronyism have blighted a number of privatizations. State sell-offs have led to income and wealth redistribution with gainers and losers from the process. Some privatizations have led to spectacular capital gains for investors. The impact of privatization on employment and working conditions remains unclear.
There are a number of issues that deserve further investigation, namely the consequences of privatization for technological change and innovation, competition policy, and income and wealth distribution. A further subject for investigation is how the effective and efficient management of state-owned enterprises can be best achieved. The boundary between the private and public sectors remains fluid, with a number of enterprises returning to state ownership as political and economic conditions change.
Article
Qualitative Comparative Analysis in Business and Management Research
Johannes Meuer and Peer C. Fiss
During the last decade, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) has become an increasingly popular research approach in the management and business literature. As an approach, QCA consists of both a set of analytical techniques and a conceptual perspective, and the origins of QCA as an analytical technique lie outside the management and business literature. In the 1980s, Charles Ragin, a sociologist and political scientist, developed a systematic, comparative methodology as an alternative to qualitative, case-oriented approaches and to quantitative, variable-oriented approaches. Whereas the analytical technique of QCA was developed outside the management literature, the conceptual perspective underlying QCA has a long history in the management literature, in particular in the form of contingency and configurational theory that have played an important role in management theories since the late 1960s.
Until the 2000s, management researchers only sporadically used QCA as an analytical technique. Between 2007 and 2008, a series of seminal articles in leading management journals laid the conceptual, methodological, and empirical foundations for QCA as a promising research approach in business and management. These articles led to a “first” wave of QCA research in management. During the first wave—occurring between approximately 2008 and 2014—researchers successfully published QCA-based studies in leading management journals and triggered important methodological debates, ultimately leading to a revival of the configurational perspective in the management literature.
Following the first wave, a “second” wave—between 2014 and 2018—saw a rapid increase in QCA publications across several subfields in management research, the development of methodological applications of QCA, and an expansion of scholarly debates around the nature, opportunities, and future of QCA as a research approach. The second wave of QCA research in business and management concluded with researchers’ taking stock of the plethora of empirical studies using QCA for identifying best practice guidelines and advocating for the rise of a “neo-configurational” perspective, a perspective drawing on set-theoretic logic, causal complexity, and counterfactual analysis.
Nowadays, QCA is an established approach in some research areas (e.g., organization theory, strategic management) and is diffusing into several adjacent areas (e.g., entrepreneurship, marketing, and accounting), a situation that promises new opportunities for advancing the analytical technique of QCA as well as configurational thinking and theorizing in the business and management literature. To advance the analytical foundations of QCA, researchers may, for example, advance robustness tests for QCA or focus on issues of endogeneity and omitted variables in QCA. To advance the conceptual foundations of QCA, researchers may, for example, clarify the links between configurational theory and related theoretical perspectives, such as systems theory or complexity theory, or develop theories on the temporal dynamics of configurations and configurational change. Ultimately, after a decade of growing use and interest in QCA and given the unique strengths of this approach for addressing questions relevant to management research, QCA will continue to influence research in business and management.
Article
Risk in Strategic Management
George M. Puia and Mark D. Potts
Although risk is an essential element of the business landscape and one of the more widely researched topics in business, there is noticeably less scholarship on strategic risk. Business risk literature tends to only delineate characteristics of risk that are operational rather than strategic in nature. The current operational risk paradigm focuses primarily on only two dimensions of risk: the probability of its occurrence and the severity of its outcomes. In contrast, literature in the natural and social sciences exhibits greater dimensionality in the risk lexicon, including temporal risk dimensions absent from academic business discussions. Additionally, descriptions of operational risk included minimal linkage to strategic outcomes that could constrain or enable resources, markets, or competition.
When working with a multidimensional model of risk, one can adjust the process of environmental scanning and risk assessment in ways that were potentially more measurable. Given the temporal dimensions of risk, risk management cannot always function proactively. In risk environments with short risk horizons, rapid risk acceleration, or limited risk reaction time, firms must utilize dynamic capabilities.
The literature proposes multiple approaches to managing risk that are often focused on single challenges or solutions. By combining a strategic management focus with a multidimensional model of strategic risk, one can match risk management protocols to specific strategic challenges. Lastly, one of more powerful dimensions of risky events is their ability to differentially affect competitors, changing the basis of competition. Risk need not solely be viewed as defending against potential losses; many risky occurrences may represent new strategic opportunities.
Article
Stock Repurchases: Antecedents, Outcome, and Implications
Abdul A. Rasheed, Jenny Gu, and Greg Bell
Since the early 1980s in the United States and the early 1990s in Europe and Asia, there has been a notable surge in the volume and frequency of share repurchases by companies. There are many different types of repurchases such as open-market repurchases, repurchase tender offers, privately negotiated repurchases, and accelerated share repurchases. Prior research on share repurchases has identified many different motivations identified in prior literature, such as undervaluation, tax advantages, flexibility, takeover defense, and optimal capital structure. In addition, prior research has identified a number of organizational characteristics that can cause a firm to repurchase their shares such as the compensation structure of the executives, managerial characteristics, and managerial entrenchment. A large number of empirical studies have investigated the factors that motivate repurchases and implications of repurchases for stockholders, creditors, executives, and the economy in general. The results of these studies suggest that any generalizations about the benefits of repurchases may be inappropriate and that both the positive and negative effects may be context specific. Stock buybacks are becoming common in countries other than the United States. Empirical research on repurchases in different countries suggests that the motivations, incentives, and effects of repurchases may vary based on not only firm-specific factors but also country-level institutional conditions. We identify several avenues for future research such as the potential for principal–principal conflicts, the implications of governance characteristics for repurchase decisions, different executions strategies, and application of new methodological tools.
Article
The Uppsala Model in the Twenty-First Century
Jan-Erik Vahlne
When it was developed in 1977, the Uppsala internationalization process model (Uppsala model for short) had three basic premises: process ontology, behavioral assumptions, and the presence of uncertainty. Multinational business enterprises (MBEs), among all actors, were in their infancy, and their future could not be known. Later on, the model was extended to cover the evolution of the MBEs, with factors such as internationalization, globalization, and the development of characteristics prompting changes and making them possible. Likewise, the knowledge concept was substituted for by capabilities, operational and dynamic, fitting well the other concepts of the model. The neoclassical view of the firm as an independent unit on the market is considered unrealistic. Instead, firms, MBEs, and small and medium enterprises are seen as embedded in networks with other cooperating and competing actors. The mechanisms of the 2017 version, though, are the same as in the original version. Hopefully, the latest version can be used as a tool within the scope of the “theory of the firm” research and as a platform for more studies on causal mechanisms, later to be applied in normative conclusions. It follows that static cross-sectional statistical methods are not fully satisfactory. Application of dynamic analytical methods requires investment in longitudinal data collection, which is costly, and has to be performed by institutions rather than individuals. A dream is that the Uppsala model can be used as a stepping stone in the construction of realistic macro-level studies of the economy.
