{"title":"Spatial development of technological knowledge and the evolution of international business activity across technological paradigms","authors":"John Cantwell, Pallavi Shukla","doi":"10.1016/j.ibusrev.2024.102356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>How has the spatial structure of the development of technological knowledge in international business (IB) shifted over time, moving between paradigms for IB and society? To answer this research question, we use the method of historical analysis and attempt to synthesize literature streams on international business history and technological paradigms to trace this evolution. Drawing insights from this synthesis and building on evolutionary theoretical approaches in IB, we argue that three elements - (i) technological (T), (ii) global institutional (G), and (iii) local institutional (L) – are key to understanding the spatial development of technological knowledge in IB, as these elements enable, expedite, or constrain technological and organizational change in MNEs within a paradigm and during periods of paradigmatic shifts. We conclude with a case illustration of a firm founded in the 1700s to assess its responses to (and actions that may have prompted) the shifts in the T, G, and L elements across the three technological paradigms – mechanical (1780–1880), electromechanical (1880–1980), and digital (1980-present).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51352,"journal":{"name":"International Business Review","volume":"34 1","pages":"Article 102356"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Business Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969593124001033","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
How has the spatial structure of the development of technological knowledge in international business (IB) shifted over time, moving between paradigms for IB and society? To answer this research question, we use the method of historical analysis and attempt to synthesize literature streams on international business history and technological paradigms to trace this evolution. Drawing insights from this synthesis and building on evolutionary theoretical approaches in IB, we argue that three elements - (i) technological (T), (ii) global institutional (G), and (iii) local institutional (L) – are key to understanding the spatial development of technological knowledge in IB, as these elements enable, expedite, or constrain technological and organizational change in MNEs within a paradigm and during periods of paradigmatic shifts. We conclude with a case illustration of a firm founded in the 1700s to assess its responses to (and actions that may have prompted) the shifts in the T, G, and L elements across the three technological paradigms – mechanical (1780–1880), electromechanical (1880–1980), and digital (1980-present).
期刊介绍:
The International Business Review (IBR) stands as a premier international journal within the realm of international business and proudly serves as the official publication of the European International Business Academy (EIBA). This esteemed journal publishes original and insightful papers addressing the theory and practice of international business, encompassing a broad spectrum of topics such as firms' internationalization strategies, cross-border management of operations, and comparative studies of business environments across different countries. In essence, IBR is dedicated to disseminating research that informs the international operations of firms, whether they are SMEs or large MNEs, and guides the actions of policymakers in both home and host countries. The journal warmly welcomes conceptual papers, empirical studies, and review articles, fostering contributions from various disciplines including strategy, finance, management, marketing, economics, HRM, and organizational studies. IBR embraces methodological diversity, with equal openness to papers utilizing quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method approaches.