Journal of International Business Studies最新文献

Foreign direct investment (FDI) remains a preferred mode for multinational enterprises to access international markets, resources, and technology. However, there are vigorous debates in the academic literature about the magnitude of inward FDI spillovers and their effect on the economic growth of host countries. In this paper, we argue that these empirical inconsistencies arise from the narrow “home-host” bilateral context in which inward FDI spillovers are analyzed. Further, we show that the inconsistencies can be resolved by adopting a broader, multilateral network perspective to estimate the effects of inward FDI. This perspective allows us to account for the differences in inward FDI spillovers from different investing countries and aggregate these to assess the overall impact of inward FDI. We use quantitative network-centric analysis to model the multilateral connectivity amongst nations engendered by inward FDI. Specifically, we use a panel data set of over 200 host countries spanning two decades to demonstrate that (a) the diversity of inward FDI measured by the number of investing countries and (b) the quality of inward FDI measured by the structural position of investing countries in the global inward FDI network is correlated with higher economic growth of host countries.

The international business (IB) literature has emphasised the heterogeneity of firm strategies in shaping MNE–state bargaining, but largely ignored the heterogeneity of states. In contrast, the international political economy (IPE) literature provides a more nuanced consideration of state strategies and their economic and political priorities. We seek to address this oversight by making two related contributions. In the context of MNE–state bargaining, we first discuss how differences in political systems and the political and economic objectives of states may affect their negotiating stance with MNEs. We consider the impact of changes in the balance of state objectives by considering how much importance governments assign to improving the welfare of its broader population, relative to how important they are concerned with the “private benefits” that accrue to the political elites. This enables us to add micro-foundations to the characterisation of the state. Second, we apply a Nash bargaining framework to MNE–state negotiations that vividly captures the relative bargaining powers of the MNE and the state, including how “outside options” available to these two actors can influence the shape of actual bargains. We discuss the implications of these two contributions for future research.

Trust between organizations has been recognized as crucial in international business (IB) and has attracted extensive research attention. Researchers have conceptualized and measured interorganizational trust in multiple ways, investigated numerous determinants and outcomes of interorganizational trust, and explored interorganizational trust in several types of international relationships across a range of country combinations using varied research methodologies. Our review aims to consolidate and advance this literature by focusing on (i) how interorganizational trust has been conceptualized in IB; (ii) how interorganizational trust has been operationalized in IB; (iii) what factors promote or hinder interorganizational trust in IB; (iv) what the outcomes are of interorganizational trust in IB; and (v) how interorganizational trust has been studied in IB. For each question, we analyze the literature and then provide recommendations and directions for future research. We aim to provide a solid grounding for future research that will keep this area theoretically sound, empirically robust, and phenomenologically relevant.