Free Essay: The Eclectic Paradigm - 13698 Words

The Eclectic Paradigm

International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190 www.elsevier.com/locate/ibusrev

The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity
John H. Dunning
Reading University, UK and Rutgers University, USA

Abstract This paper updates some of the author’s thinking on the eclectic paradigm of international production, and relates it to a number of mainstream, but context-speciﬁc economic and business theories. It suggests that by dynamizing the paradigm, and widening it to embrace assetaugmenting foreign direct investment and MNE, activity it may still claim to be the dominant paradigm explaining the extent and pattern of the foreign value added activities of ﬁrms in a globalizing, knowledge intensive and alliance based market economy. © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Eclectic paradigm; Foreign direct investment; Multinational enterprise

1. Introduction: the contents of the eclectic paradigm For more than two decades, the eclectic (or OLI1) paradigm has remained the dominant analytical framework for accommodating a variety of operationally testable economic theories of the determinants of foreign direct investment (fdi) and the foreign activities of multinational enterprises (MNEs).2 The eclectic paradigm is a simple, yet profound, construct. It avers that the extent, geography and industrial composition of foreign production undertaken by MNEs is determined by the interaction of three sets of interdependent variables — which, themselves, comprise the components of three sub-paradigms. The ﬁrst is the comOwnership, Location and Internalization. As described, for example, in Caves (1982, 1996) and Dunning (1993). For the purposes of this article we use fdi and international production, viz. production ﬁnanced by fdi, as interchangeable terms.
2 1

0969-5931/00/$ - see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 9 - 5 9 3 1 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 3 5 - 9

164

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

petitive advantages of the enterprises seeking to engage in fdi (or increase their existing fdi), which are speciﬁc to the ownership of the investing enterprises, i.e. their ownership (O) speciﬁc advantages. This sub-paradigm asserts that, ceteris paribus, the greater the competitive advantages of the investing ﬁrms, relative to those of other ﬁrms — and particularly those domiciled in the country in which they are seeking to make their investments — the more they are likely to be able to engage in, or increase, their foreign production. The second is the locational attractions (L) of alternative countries or regions, for undertaking the value adding activities of MNEs. This sub-paradigm avers that the more the immobile, natural or created endowments, which ﬁrms need to use jointly with their own competitive advantages, favor a presence in a foreign, rather than a domestic, location, the more ﬁrms will choose to augment or exploit their O speciﬁc advantages by engaging in fdi. The third sub-paradigm of the OLI tripod offers a framework for evaluating alternative ways in which ﬁrms may organize the creation and exploitation of their core competencies, given the locational attractions of different countries or regions. Such modalities range from buying and selling goods and services in the open market, through a variety of inter-ﬁrm non-equity agreements, to the integration of intermediate product markets, and an outright purchase of a foreign corporation. The eclectic paradigm, like its near relative, internalization theory,3 avows that the greater the net beneﬁts of internalizing cross-border intermediate product markets, the more likely a ﬁrm will prefer to engage in foreign production itself, rather than license the right to do so, e.g. by a technical service or franchise agreement, to a foreign ﬁrm. The eclectic paradigm further asserts that the precise conﬁguration of the OLI parameters facing any particular ﬁrm, and the response of the ﬁrm to that conﬁguration, is strongly contextual. In particular, it will reﬂect the economic and political features of the country or region of the investing ﬁrms, and of the country or region in which they are seeking to invest; the industry and the nature of the value added activity in which the ﬁrms are engaged; the characteristics of the individual investing ﬁrms, including their objectives and strategies in pursuing these objectives; and the ˆ raison d’etre for the fdi. Regarding this last contextual variable, scholars have identiﬁed four main types of foreign based MNE activity4: 1. That designed to satisfy a particular foreign market, or set of foreign markets, viz. market seeking, or demand oriented, fdi. 2. That designed to gain access to natural resources, e.g. minerals, agricultural products, unskilled labor, viz. resource seeking, or supply oriented fdi. 3. That designed to promote a more efﬁcient division of labor or specialization of an existing portfolio of foreign and domestic assets by MNEs, i.e. rationalized
3 As, for example, set out in Buckley and Casson (1976, 1985, 1998), Hennart (1982, 1989) and Rugman (1982, 1996). 4 For an elaboration of these and other kinds of fdi (e.g. escape, support, and passive investments), see Dunning (1993) chapter 3, p. 61–3.

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

165

or efﬁciency seeking fdi. This type of fdi, though related to the ﬁrst or second kind, is usually sequential to it. 4. That designed to protect or augment the existing O speciﬁc advantages of the investing ﬁrms and/or to reduce those of their competitors, i.e. strategic asset seeking fdi. Combining our knowledge of the individual parameters of the OLI paradigm with that of the economic and other characteristics of home and host countries, and of the investing, or potentially investing, ﬁrms, it is possible to derive a wide range of fairly speciﬁc and operationally testable theories. Thus, it may be hypothesized that some sectors, e.g. the oil and pharmaceutical sectors, are likely to generate more fdi than others, e.g. the iron and steel or aircraft sectors, because the characteristics of the former generate more unique O advantages, and/or because their locational needs favor production outside their home countries, and/or because the net beneﬁts of internalizing cross-border intermediate product markets are greater. Similarly, it is possible to predict that the signiﬁcance of outward fdi will be greater for some countries, e.g. Switzerland and the Netherlands, than for others, e.g. Russia and India, simply by knowing about their economic histories, the core competencies of their indigenous ﬁrms, the size of their home markets, their experience in foreign markets, and the locational attractions of their immobile resources and capabilities, relative to those of other countries. Finally, some ﬁrms, even of the same nationality and from the same industry, are more likely to engage in fdi than others. Sometimes, this might reﬂect their size — on the whole, large ﬁrms tend to be more multinational than small ﬁrms; sometimes their attitude to risk — particularly those associated with foreign ventures and of foreign partnerships with foreign ﬁrms; and sometimes their innovating product, marketing, locational, or fdi strategies. The extent and pattern of foreign owned production will depend on the challenges and opportunities offered by different kinds of value added activity. Thus the growth of existing, and the emergence of new, markets e.g. in China, over recent years, has led to a considerable expansion of various kinds of market seeking fdi — particularly in fast growing industries, e.g. telecommunications. By contrast, the rate of expansion of several natural resource sectors has been less impressive, as many products have become less resource intensive, due, for example, to the innovation of new alloys, improved recycling techniques, the miniaturization of components, and the replacement of natural by synthetic materials. The reduction of both transport costs and artiﬁcial barriers to most forms of trade has led to more efﬁciency seeking fdi — both among developed countries and between developed and developing countries.5 While, as some kinds of technology have become more standardized and/or more codiﬁable, licensing agreements and management contracts have replaced fdi, e.g. in the hotel and fast foods sectors, in the more knowledge and trade intensive indus-

5 The former mainly in the form of the growth of horizontal, i.e. product specialization, and the latter in the growth of vertical, i.e. process specialization.

166

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

tries, e.g. pharmaceuticals, industrial electronics and management consultancy, the economies of global integration have made for a dramatic increase in merger and acquisition (M and A) activity (UN, 1998).6 Moreover, the advent of electronic commerce is not only heralding the end of the geography of some ﬁnancial and information markets, but is revolutionizing the organization of intra-ﬁrm production and trade.7 The content and predictions of the eclectic paradigm are ﬁrmly embedded in a number of different economic and business theories. Although taken separately, none of these offer a comprehensive explanation of the growth and decline of MNE business activity,8 taken together — i.e. as a group — they do so. Most of the theories, too, are complementary, rather than substitutable, to each other. Some tend to focus on particular kinds of fdi, but not others. Others are designed to explain different aspects of international production, e.g. its ownership, structure, its locational proﬁle or its organizational form Thus, location theory forms the basis of the ‘where’ of MNE activity; industrial organization and resource based theories of the ﬁrm offer some reasons ‘why’ foreign owned afﬁliates may have a competitive edge over their indigenous competitors; while the concept of the ﬁrm as a ‘nexus of treaties’ (Williamson, 1990) is critical to an understanding of the existence of MNEs, and of why ﬁrms prefer to engage in fdi rather than sell their O speciﬁc assets, or the rights to use them, to independent foreign producers. Much of this paper will, in fact, seek to demonstrate how, and in what ways, these approaches are complementary to each other; and of how the eclectic paradigm offers both an envelope of these theories, and a common analytical framework within which each can be accommodated and fully enriched in their application.9 Finally, the relevance of the individual components of the eclectic paradigm, and the system of which they are part, will depend on whether one is seeking to explain

6 Such activity is estimated to have accounted for between 55% and 60% of all new fdi ﬂows over the period 1985 to 1997 (UN, 1998). 7 As witnessed, by the growth of intra-ﬁrm trade both of intermediate and of ﬁnal products, documented, for example, by UN (1996b). 8 The explanation of foreign direct divestment by MNEs is exactly the reverse of that of foreign direct investment. It may be brought about by a decline in their O speciﬁc advantages and/or the L advantages of foreign countries, and/or a reduced motive by ﬁrms to internalize the cross-border market for buying or selling intermediate products (Boddewyn, 1985; Dunning, 1988). 9 Throughout our analysis, we shall proceed on the assumption that paradigmatic and model building theoretic structures to understanding international business activity are complementary rather than alternative scientiﬁc methodologies (Buckley & Casson, 1998b). While accepting the need for rigorous theorizing and the empirical treating of speciﬁc hypotheses, we also believe that encompassing related hypotheses into an open-ended and comprehensive conceptual framework, which not only identiﬁes and evaluates the interaction between the theories, but makes its own generic predictions, provides a useful, and in many cases, an essential, foundation to these theories. We, therefore, view the eclectic paradigm as a systemic framework which provides a set of general assumptions and boundary criteria in which operationally testable theories, germane to fdi and MNE theory, can be comfortably accommodated. It is, perhaps, the most expressive of the research tradition in international business which has evolved over the past two decades (Weisfelder, 1998). For an elaboration of the concept of a research tradition, see Laudan (1977).

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

167

the static or dynamic determinants of MNE activity. For example, one of the earliest theories of fdi, viz the product cycle theory, put forward by Raymond Vernon (1966), was concerned not only with explaining the process by which ﬁrms deepened and widened their markets,10 but also how their locational needs might change as they moved from the innovatory to the standardized stage of production. By contrast, much of extant location theory and internalization theory seeks to identify and explain the optimum spatial and organizational dimensions of the existing resources and capabilities of ﬁrms and nations. Knickerbocker’s ‘follow my leader,’ and Graham’s ‘tit for tat’ thesis (Knickerbocker, 1973; Graham, 1975) also contain a longitudinal dimension, which, for the most part, is absent in most variants of industrial organization theory, for example as originally propounded by Hymer (1960) and Caves (1971). Initially, too, the eclectic paradigm primarily addressed static and efﬁciency related issues (Dunning, 1977), but more recently has given attention to the dynamic competitiveness and locational strategy of ﬁrms, and particularly the path dependency of the upgrading of their core competencies (Dunning 1995, 1998). The kernel of this paper is directed to examining the changes in the boundaries, constraints and structure of the eclectic paradigm over the past twenty years;11 and those now being demanded of it by contemporary world events and scholarly thinking. In doing so, it will pay especial attention to the emergence of alliance capitalism12 and the growth of asset augmenting fdi (Wesson 1993, 1997; Makino, 1998; Kuemmerle, 1999). In particular, it will set its analysis in the context of four signiﬁcant happenings of the 1980s and 1990s, viz.: 1. the maturation of the knowledge-based economy,13 2. the deepening integration of international economic and ﬁnancial activity, including that fostered by electronic networks (Kobrin, 1999), 3. the liberalization of cross-border markets, and the ﬂotation of the world’s major currencies, and 4. the emergence of several new countries as important new players on the global economic stage. The next three sections will examine how the main intellectual thrust in explaining each of the OLI triumvirate of variables has evolved over this time. In particular, it will argue that, as the dynamic composition of these variables has assumed more signiﬁcance, so the value of the eclectic paradigm has increased relative to the sum
10 See also the writings of the Scandinavian school on the internationalization process (e.g. Johanson & Vahlne, 1977; Luostarinen, 1979; Welch & Luostarinen, 1988). 11 For a longer term perspective, and particularly for an appreciation of the evolution of the O advantages of ﬁrms, and their changing locational patterns and organizational modalities, see two classic studies by Mira Wilkins (Wilkins 1970, 1974). 12 A generic term which suggests that the wealth of ﬁrms and countries is increasingly dependent on the kind and quality of alliances they form with other ﬁrms and countries. This concept is explored in more detail in Dunning (1995). 13 Which elsewhere (Dunning, 1997), we suggest represents a new stage in the development of market based capitalism, the previous two stages being land based and machine based capitalism.

168

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

of its parts, with the contribution of each becoming increasingly interdependent of each other. Finally, the paper will give especial attention to the contribution of strategic cum managerial approaches to understanding the growth and composition of MNE activity, while averring that the relevance and richness of these is enhanced if set within the overarching construct of the eclectic paradigm.

2. The ownership sub-paradigm In explaining the growth of international production, several strands of economic and business theory assert that this is dependent on the investing ﬁrms possessing some kind of unique and sustainable competitive advantage (or set of advantages), relative to that (or those) possessed by their foreign competitors. Indeed, some would argue that in traditional neoclassical theory, in which the ﬁrm is a ‘black box’, no fdi is possible — as all ﬁrms have equal access to the same resources and capabilities within their own countries, while there is complete immobility of resources and capabilities between countries. When the eclectic paradigm was ﬁrst put forward (in 1977),14 it was assumed that such competitive or O speciﬁc advantages largely reﬂected the resources and capabilities of the home countries of the investing ﬁrms; and that fdi would only occur when the beneﬁts of exploiting, i.e. adding value to, these advantages from a foreign location outweighed the opportunity costs of so doing. Since the 1960s, the extant literature has come to identify three main kinds of ﬁrm or O speciﬁc competitive advantages. 1. Those relating to the possession and exploitation of monopoly power, as initially identiﬁed by Bain (1956) and Hymer (1960) — and the industrial organization (IO) scholars (e.g. Caves 1971, 1982; Porter 1980, 1985). These advantages are presumed to stem from, or create, some kind of barrier to entry to ﬁnal product markets by ﬁrms not possessing them. 2. Those relating to the possession of a bundle of scarce, unique and sustainable resources and capabilities, which essentially reﬂect the superior technical efﬁciency of a particular ﬁrm relative to those of its competitors.15 These advantages are presumed to stem from, or create, some kind of barrier to entry to factor, or intermediate, product markets by ﬁrms not possessing them. Their identiﬁcation
14 The origins of the paradigm date back to 1958, when the distinction between the O advantages of ﬁrms and the L advantages of countries was ﬁrst made, in a study by the present author, of American investment in British manufacturing industry (Dunning, 1958, revised 1998). The I component was not explicitly added until 1977, although some of the reasons why ﬁrms prefer to engage in fdi rather than cross-border licensing et al agreements were acknowledged by the author and other scholars in the early 1970s. (See the 1998 revised edition of Dunning, 1958, Chapter 11) 15 Implicitly or explicitly, this assumes some immobility of factors of production, including created assets, and that factor markets are not fully contestable. Much earlier, several kinds of competitive advantages speciﬁc to foreign owned and domestic ﬁrms were identiﬁed by such scholars as Dunning (1958), Brash (1966) and Safarian (1966).

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

169

and evaluation has been one of the main contributions of the resource based and evolutionary theories of the ﬁrm.16 3. Those relating to the competencies of the managers of ﬁrms to identify, evaluate and harness resources and capabilities from throughout the world, and to coordinate these with the existing resources and capabilities under their jurisdiction in a way which best advances the long term interests of the ﬁrm.17 These advantages, which are closely related to those set out in (2) are especially stressed by organizational scholars, such as Prahalad and Doz (1987), Doz, Asakawa, Santos and Williamson (1997) and Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989, 1993). They tend to be management, rather than ﬁrm, speciﬁc in the sense that, even within the same corporation, the intellectual et al., competencies of the main decision takers may vary widely. The relative signiﬁcance of these three kinds of O speciﬁc advantages has changed over the past two decades, as markets have become more liberalized, and as wealth creating activities have become more knowledge intensive. In the 1970s, the unique competitive advantages of ﬁrms primarily reﬂected their ability to internally produce and organize proprietary assets, and match these to existing market needs. At the turn of the millenium, the emphasis is more on their capabilities to access and organize knowledge intensive assets from throughout the world; and to integrate these, not only with their existing competitive advantages, but with those of other ﬁrms engaging in complementary value added activities. Hence, the emergence of alliance capitalism, and the need of ﬁrms to undertake fdi to protect, or augment, as well as to exploit, their existing O speciﬁc advantages (Dunning, 1995). Hence, too, the growing importance of multinationality, per se, as an intangible asset in its own right. The question at issue, then, is whether the changing character and boundaries of the O speciﬁc advantages of ﬁrms can be satisfactorily incorporated into the eclectic paradigm, as it was ﬁrst put forward. We would argue that as long as they do not undermine the basic tenets of the paradigm, and are not mutually inconsistent, they can be, although most certainly, they do require some modiﬁcation to existing subparadigms and theories. In Tables 1 and 2, we set out some of the models and hypotheses which have been sought to explain the origin, nature and extent of O speciﬁc advantages. We divide these into two categories, viz. those which view such advantages as the income generating resources and capabilities possessed by a ﬁrm, at a given moment of time, i.e. static O advantages; and those which treat such advantages as the ability of a ﬁrm, to sustain and increase its income generating assets over time, i.e. dynamic O advantages. Both kinds of advantage tend to be context speciﬁc, e.g. with respect
16 For a full bibliography, see Barney (1991), Conner (1991), Conner and Prahalad (1996), Cantwell (1994) and Dosi, Freeman, Nelson, Silverberg and Soete (1988); Foss, Knudsen, and Montgomery (1995); Saviotti and Metcalfe (1991). See also the writings of Teece (1981, 1984, 1992) and of Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997). 17 Which includes minimizing the transaction costs and of maximizing the beneﬁts of innovation, learning and accumulated knowledge.

170

Table 1 Theories explaining O speciﬁc advantages of ﬁrms. A: Group 1 Explaining Static O advantagesa 1) MS b 2) RS b 3) ES b 4) SAS b

Product cycle theory. (Vernon 1966, 1974)

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

•Country (largely US) speciﬁc resources and capabilities of ﬁrms •All asset exploiting fdi •Further hypothesizes that competitive advantages of ﬁrms are likely to change as product moves through its cycle Industrial organization theories. •Largely Oa advantages initiated, or protected, •Oa advantages based on efﬁciency of investing ﬁrms also (Hymer, 1960; Caves 1971, 1974; by entry and/or mobility barriers to product described in various empirical studies from Dunning (1958) and Dunning 1958, 1993; Teece 1981, markets. These include patent protection, and Safarian (1966) onwards 1984) marketing, production and ﬁnancial scale economies •All asset exploiting fdi •Little attention paid to asset augmenting fdi Multinationality, organizational and risk •Mainly Ot advantages, but also some Oa advantages arising from presence of investing ﬁrms in countries with diversiﬁcation theories. (Vernon 1973, different economic political, cultural regimes. Ot advantages include ability to access, harness and integrate 1983; Rugman, 1979; Kogut 1983, differences in distribution of natural and created assets and of organizational and managerial experience related 1985; Kogut & Kulatilaka, 1994; Doz to these et al., 1997; Rangan, 1998) •(Potentially could be extended to include why markets for sustaining or increasing O speciﬁc advantages are best internalized.) (continued on next page)

Table 1 (continued) 1) MS b 2) RS b 3) ES b 4) SAS b

Internalization theory. (Buckley & Casson, 1976, 1985, 1998a,b; Hennart 1982, 1989; Rugman 1982, 1996)

Capital Imperfections theory. (Aliber, 1971)

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

Follow my leader, tit for tat theory. (Knickerbocker, 1973; Graham 1975, 1990; Flowers, 1976)

•Entirely conﬁned to Oa and Ot advantages arising from internalization of intermediate product markets •All asset exploiting fdi •Largely, though not exclusively, a static theory, though some acknowledgment that relative transaction costs of markets and hierarchies may vary as ﬁrms seek to exploit dynamic market imperfections •Largely independent of type of fdi. The theory argues that ﬁrms from countries with strong exchange rates, or which discount capital at higher rates of interest will be tempted to invest, often by M and As, in countries which are economically weaker. The theory, as initially put forward, has no time (t) dimension; and, in essence, is a ﬁnancial variant of internalization theory •Mainly concerned with explaining fdi as a space related strategy among competing oligopolists. The main hypothesis is that fdi will be bunched in particular regions or countries over time; and that there is likely to be an inter-penetration of the territories occupied by the oligopolists. Though originally applied to explain assetexploiting fdi, it is now also being used to explain some asset augmenting fdi

a Oa=Ownership advantage based on the possession or privileged access to a speciﬁc asset. Ot=Ownership advantages based on capabilities to organize assets, both internal and external to the investing ﬁrm, in the most efﬁcient way. b 1) Market seeking 2) Resource seeking 3) Efﬁciency seeking 4) Strategic asset seeking

171

172

Table 2 Theories explaining O speciﬁc advantages of ﬁrms. B: Group 2 Explaining Dynamic O advantagesa 1) MS b 2) RS b 3) ES b 4) SAS b

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

•As initially formulated, mainly concerned with identifying and •FDI designed to augment domesticevaluating variables inﬂuencing sustainability of competitive based resources and capabilities advantages of ﬁrms. Less attention given to traditional barriers to entry (Wesson 1993, 1997; Makino, 1998; and more to such variables as speciﬁcity, rareness and non-imitatability Dunning, 1996; Chen & Chen, 1999) of resources, and the capabilities of ﬁrms to create and utilize them. Mainly concerned with asset exploiting fdi and only limited recognition of Ot advantages 2. Evolutionary theory. (Nelson & •A holistic and time related approach, mainly directed to identifying and evaluating dynamic Oa advantages of Winter, 1982; Nelson, 1991; Cantwell ﬁrms. Basic proposition relates to the path dependency of accumulated competitive advantages, and that the 1989, 1994; Dosi et al., 1988, more efﬁcient ﬁrms are in managing these advantages, the more likely they will have the capability to engage Saviotti & Metcalfe, 1991; Teece et al., in asset exploiting and asset augmenting fdi 1997) 3. Organizational (management related) •Essentially explain O advantages in terms of ability of managers to devise appropriate organizational structures theories. (Prahalad & Doz, 1987; and techniques to effectively access, coordinate and deploy resources and capabilities across the globe. These Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Porter, 1991; theories, in recent years, have especially focused on the cross-border sourcing of intellectual assets and the Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1993; Doz and coordination of these assets with those purchased from within the MNE Santos, 1997; Doz et al., 1997)

1. Resource based theory. (Wernerfelt 1984, 1995; Conner, 1991; Helleloid, 1992; Montgomery, 1995; Conner & Prahalad, 1996)

a Oa=ownership advantage based on the possession or privileged access to a speciﬁc asset. Ot=ownership advantages based on capabilities to organize assets, both internal and external to the investing ﬁrm, in the most efﬁcient way. b 1) Market seeking 2) Resource seeking 3) Efﬁciency seeking 4) Strategic asset seeking

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

173

to industry or country; and related to the kinds of competitive advantages (as identiﬁed earlier) which ﬁrms seek to attain or sustain. While, over the past two decades, changes in the world economic scenario and knowledge about MNE activity have led to a relative decline in market seeking (MS) and resource-seeking (RS) fdi — both of which tend to be based on the static O advantages of the investing ﬁrms —, they still help to explain a major part of ﬁrst-time fdi, particularly in developing countries (Dunning, 1999). However, one of the key characteristics of the last two decades has been the increasing signiﬁcance of fdi based on the possession of, or need to acquire, dynamic O advantages. Thus, rationalized or efﬁciency seeking (ES) fdi is only viable if: (a) the investing ﬁrm is already producing in at least one foreign country and (b) both intermediate and ﬁnal product, trade is relatively unimpeded by natural or artiﬁcial cross-border barriers. Strategic asset seeking (SAS) fdi is dependent on intellectual capital being located in more than one country, and that it is economically preferable for ﬁrms to acquire or create these assets outside, rather than within, their home countries. To successfully explain dynamic and alliance related O speciﬁc advantages, each of the particular theories of fdi identiﬁed in Tables 1 and 2 requires some modiﬁcation. Thus, the resource based theory needs to reexamine the content and signiﬁcance of existing resources and capabilities of the ﬁrm in terms of 1. their ability to sustain and/or upgrade these advantages, 2. their ability to harness and inﬂuence the quality and price of complementary assets, and to efﬁciently coordinate these with their own innovating competencies and 3. their ability to locate their value added activities in countries and regions which offer the optimum portfolio of immobile assets, both for creating or acquiring new O speciﬁc advantages, and for exploiting their existing advantages. Inter alia, such immobile assets may reﬂect the bargaining and negotiating skills of MNEs in their dealings with foreign governments (Rugman & Verbeke, 1998). While accepting much of the content of resource based theory, the evolutionary theory of the ﬁrm pays more attention to the process or path by which the speciﬁc O advantages of ﬁrms evolve and are accumulated over time. In contrast (or in addition) to internalization theory, it tends to regard the ﬁrm as an innovator of created assets, rather than a ‘nexus of treaties’. It is, by its nature, a dynamic theory, which, like the resource based theory, accepts the diversity of competencies between ﬁrms; however, unlike the latter, it focuses on the ﬁrm’s long term strategy towards asset accumulation and learning capabilities, and its implications both for established routines and the development of new ones. (Nelson & Winter, 1982; Nelson, 1991; Teece et al., 1997; Foss, Knudsen, & Montgomery, 1995). Zeroing down to management as the unit of analysis, contemporary organizational scholars, such as Prahalad and Doz (1987), Doz et al. (1997), Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989, 1993) are paying increasing attention to the harnessing, leveraging, processing and deployment of knowledge based assets as a core competence. While the subject

174

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

of interest is similar to that of the resource and evolutionary theories, the emphasis of this kind of approach is on the capabilities of management to orchestrate and integrate the resources it can internally upgrade or innovate, or externally acquire, rather than on the resources themselves. But, as with the resource based and evolutionary theories, the objective of the decision taker is assumed to be as much directed to explaining the growth of ﬁrm speciﬁc assets, as to optimizing the income stream from a given set of assets. The question now arises. To what extent are the theories relating to the origin and content of O speciﬁc advantages, as set out in Table 1 — and particularly their contemporary versions — consistent with, or antagonistic to, each other? Our reading is that, when the eclectic paradigm was ﬁrst propounded, they were largely aimed at explaining different phenomena, or offered complementary, rather than alternative, explanations for the same phenomena. It is true the unit of analysis was frequently different; and that the underlying philosophy and some of the assumptions of industrial organization theory were different than those of resource based theories (Pauwells & Matthyssens, 1997). But, in general, within their speciﬁed analytical frameworks, the predictions of the various theories were consistent with those of a general ‘envelope’ paradigm, and also the more speciﬁc predictions of the O subparadigm about the kind of competitive advantages likely to be possessed by MNEs, and the industrial sectors and countries in which their afﬁliates were likely to record superior levels of performance relative to those of their indigenous competitors (Dunning, 1993; Caves, 1996). 3. The locational sub-paradigm of countries (and regions) For the most part, until recently, neither the economics nor the business literature gave much attention as to how the emergence and growth of the cross-border activities of ﬁrms might be explained by the kind of location-related theories which were initially designed to explain the siting of production within a nation state; nor, indeed, of how the spatial dimension of fdi might affect the competitiveness of the investing entities. In the last decade or so, however, there has been a renaissance of interest by economists, (e.g. Audretsch, 1998; Krugman 1991, 1993; Venables, 1998), and industrial geographers (e.g. Scott, 1996; Storper, 1995; Storper & Scott, 1995) in the spatial concentration and clustering of some kinds of economic activity; by economists in the role of exchange rates in affecting the extent, geography and timing of fdi (Cushman, 1985; Froot & Stein, 1991; Rangan, 1998); and by business scholars (Porter 1994, 1996; Enright 1991, 1998), in the idea that an optimum locational portfolio of assets is a competitive advantage in its own right. The eclectic paradigm has always recognized the importance of the locational advantages of countries as a key determinant of the foreign production of MNEs (Dunning, 1998).18 Moreover, since the 1930s, at least, there have been numerous
18 Unlike with internalization theory, where the locational decision is normally taken to be independent of the modality of resource transference.

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

175

context-speciﬁc theories of the geographical distribution of fdi and the siting of particular value added activities of ﬁrms.19 Some of these ‘partial’ theories are set out in Table 3. They include the locational component of Vernon’s product cycle theory (Vernon, 1966), and that of Knickerbocker’s ‘follow my leader’ theory (Knickerbocker, 1973), which was one of the earliest attempts to explain the geographical clustering of fdi; and Rugman’s risk diversiﬁcation theory, which suggested that MNEs normally prefer a geographical spread of their foreign investments to having ‘all their eggs in the same (locational) basket’ (Rugman, 1979).20 However, for the most part, the question of where to locate a particular fdi, given the conﬁguration of the O and I variables, was not thought to raise new issues of interest to students of the MNE. At the same time, throughout the last three decades, there have been many empirical studies on the determinants of both the export v. fdi choice of corporations, and the spatial distribution of MNE activity.21 Once again, in conformity with our earlier analysis, and as Table 3 shows, these explanatory variables are seen to differ according to the motives for fdi, its sectoral composition, the home and host countries of the investing ﬁrms, and a variety of ﬁrm speciﬁc considerations. But, in the main, scholarly research has extended, rather than replaced, standard theories of location to encompass cross-border value added activities. In particular, it has embraced new locational variables, e.g. exchange rate and political risks, the regulations and policies of supra-national entities,22 intercountry cultural differences; and has placed a different value of other variables common both to domestic and international locational choices.23 However, these add-on or re-valued variables could be easily accommodated within the extant analytical structures.24 This marked off most pre-1990 explanations of the location (L) speciﬁc advantage of nations from those of the O speciﬁc advantages of ﬁrms. The emergence of the knowledge based global economy and asset augmenting fdi is compelling scholars to take a more dynamic approach to both the logistics of the siting of corporate activities, and to the competitive advantages of nations and/or regions. In the former case, ﬁrms need to take account not only of the presence and cost of traditional factor endowments, of transport costs, of current demand levels and patterns, and of Marshallian type agglomerative economies (Marshall, 1920); but also of distance related transaction costs (Storper & Scott, 1995), of dynamic externalities, knowledge accumulation, and interactive learning (Enright 1991, 1998; ¨ Florida, 1995; Malmberg, Solvell & Zander, 1996), of spatially related innovation and technological standards (Antonelli, 1998; Solvell & Zander, 1998), of the ¨
19 One of the ﬁrst of these studies was that of Frank Southard in 1931 on the locational determinants of US fdi in Europe (Southard, 1931). 20 Earlier, Agmon and Lessard (1977) had suggested that US MNEs commanded a higher price than their uninational counterparts because individual investors looked on the former as a means of internationally diversifying their investment portfolios. 21 For a survey of these studies, see, for example, Dunning (1993) and Caves (1996). 22 See particularly the impact of WTO agreements and dispute settlements on the locational decisions of MNEs, as documented by Brewer and Young (1999). 23 Notably, wage levels, demand patterns, policy related variables, supply capabilities and infrastructure. 24 As set out in textbooks on location theory, e.g. Lloyd and Dicken (1977) and Dicken (1998).

176

Table 3 Theories explaining L speciﬁc advantages of countries 1) MS •Demand related variables, e.g. size, character and potential growth of local and adjacent markets •Supply oriented variables, e.g. availability, quality and price of natural resources, transportation costs, artiﬁcial barriers to trade •Exchange rates •Some attention given to foli as a learning activity •Supply oriented variables, especially those related to comparative advantages of immobile assets, e.g. labor, land and infrastructure 2) RS 3) ES 4) SAS •Location and price of created assets, including those owned by ﬁrms likely to be acquired

1. Traditional location theories. (Hoover, 1948; Hotelling, 1929; Isard, 1956; Losch, 1954; Lloyd & Dicken, 1990; Weber, 1929)

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

2. Theories related to the process of internationalization. (Anderson & Gatignon, 1986; Cavusgil, 1980; Daniels, 1971; Forsgren, 1989; Hirsch, 1976; Johanson & Vahlne 1977, 1990; Luostarinen, 1979; Vernon, 1966; Welch & Luostarinen, 1988)

•Presence of competitors •Mainly MS and RS, using traditional locational variables, but also several ﬁrm speciﬁc variables and transaction costs

•Emphasis on role of psychic distance, particularly in exploiting accumulated knowledge based O advantages (Daniels, 1971; Johanson & Vahlne 1977, 1990) 3. Agglomeration theories. (Audretsch, •Some clustering of •Supply related clusters, based on static •Supply related clusters based on asset 1998; Enright 1991, 1998; Forsgren, products for external economies, e.g. pooled labor markets augmenting activities, local 1989; Krugman 1991, 1993; Malmberg convenience of accumulation of knowledge, and et al., 1996; Porter 1994, 1996; Storper, consumers, including exchange of information and learning 1995; Cantwell & Piscitello, 1997) industrial consumers experiences •Economies of scale •Economies of scale and scope and scope 4. Theories related to spatially speciﬁc •Given production and transport costs, external ties and scale economies, spatially related transaction costs are transaction costs. (Florida, 1995; Scott, hypothesized to lead to a clustering of related activities. (a) to reduce overall costs and (b) to maximize beneﬁts 1996; Storper & Scott, 1995) of inter-related innovating and learning activities (continued on next page)

Table 3 (continued) 1) MS •The presence of related activities which help lower transport costs and •As for MS, RS and ES, but directed to promote joint economies in innovation, production and marketing asset augmenting activities, and strategic networking •Especially ﬁscal and •Supply related incentives, concessionary rights •Mainly incentives to promote other incentives for exploitation of natural resource based innovation-driven alliances, and the leading to increase in sectors; intellectual property rights, tax upgrading of existing O advantages of demand for products advantages for RS and ES investing ﬁrms of MNEs •Follow my leader and other forms of oligopolistic behavior may apply to all four forms of international production, although incentives and pressures for such behavior are likely to be context speciﬁc 2) RS 3) ES 4) SAS

5. Theories related to presence of complementary assets. (Teece, 1992; Teece et al., 1997; Chen & Chen, 1998, 1999) 6. Theories related to government induced incentives. (Loree & Guisinger, 1995; UN, 1996a)

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

7. Theories related to oligopolistic behavior and product cycle. (Graham 1975, 1998; Knickerbocker, 1973; Vernon, 1974) 8. Theories of risk diversiﬁcation (Agmon & Lessard, 1977, Rugman, 1979) •Types of location speciﬁc risk vary with kind of fdi, but theory suggests that ﬁrm will diversify their portfolios to minimize their risk exposures, which include exchange, political and economic risks

•Risks of SAS fdi also relate to inappropriate timing (especially for M and As) and insufﬁcient knowledge about the assets being acquired 9. Exchange rate theories (Aliber, 1971; •Theories which assume exchange rates or changes in exchange rates, suitably discounted for risk, capture most Cushman, 1985; Froot & Stein, 1991; of the differences in cross-border locational costs, and also expectations of investors about the future course of Blonigen, 1997; Rangan, 1998) exchange rates. These embrace all kinds of fdi, but particularly that of the timing of M and As 10. Knowledge enhancing (dynamic) •See also SAS column, for 1-7 above. More speciﬁcally, dynamic •Theory is that ﬁrms will invest in theories of location. (Dunning, 1997; theories are directed to explaining locational strategy in terms of those countries which offer the greatest Kogut & Zander, 1994; Kuemmerle, sustaining and promoting location speciﬁc advantages in a world of opportunities accumulated for upgrading 1999; Porter 1994, 1998; Chen & Chen, uncertainty, learning and continuous innovation and upgrading of their existing core competencies, and 1998, 1999) products. Applies especially to research and development activity of all that such a locational strategy is path kinds of fdi. The need to exploit dynamic locational advantage dependent especially pronounced in high technology sectors

177

178

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

increasing dispersion of created assets, and of the need to conclude cross border asset augmenting and/or asset exploiting alliances (Dunning 1995, 1998). Contemporary economic events are suggesting that the nature and composition of a country or region’s comparative advantage, which has been traditionally based on its possession of a unique set of immobile natural resources and capabilities, is now more geared to its ability to offer a distinctive and non-imitatible set of location bound created assets, including the presence of indigenous ﬁrms with which foreign MNEs might form alliances to complement their own core competencies. Recent research not only reveals that some nation states are not only becoming increasingly dependent on the cross-border activities of their own and foreign based corporations for their economic prosperity (Dunning, 1996; UN, 1998);25 but that the competitiveness of these corporations is becoming increasingly fashioned by the institutional framework within which they operate (Oliver, 1997; Doremus, Keller, Pauly & Reich, 1998). In particular, both nation states and sub-national authorities are becoming more aware of the need to provide the appropriate economic and social infrastructure, both for their own ﬁrms to generate the O speciﬁc assets consistent with the demands of world markets, and for foreign investors to engage in the kind of value adding activities which advances the dynamic comparative advantage of the immobile assets within their jurisdiction (Porter, 1994; Peck, 1996; Dunning, 1998). As yet, business strategists, organizational, and marketing scholars have paid little attention to how their own explanations of the timing and geographical proﬁle of international business activity need modifying in the light of the new forms of fdi and of alliance capitalism. There is, for example, little treatment of spatially related factors in either the resource based, or the evolutionary theories of the ﬁrm; although the role of spatially related agglomerative economies is being increasingly recognized as an important source of learning and innovating capabilities. Indeed, Michael Porter has gone as far as to say that, in the modern global economy, “anything that can be moved or sourced from a distance is no longer a competitive advantage” (Porter, 1998p. 29), and that “the true advantages today are things that are sticky, that is not easily movable”. If this is correct, it may be inferred that as the dynamic gains from spatial clustering and network linkages become more pronounced,26 so will the locational choice of ﬁrms become a more critical strategic variable. It also follows that national and regional authorities should pay more attention to the fostering of immobile complementary assets and cluster related public goods as part of their policies to attract and retain mobile investment. As in the case of O speciﬁc advantages, scholarly research on the kind of L advantages most likely to explain the ‘where’ of international production has taken on a new trajectory over the past decade. More particularly, the dramatic increase in cross-

Especially small states like Switzerland, Belgium and Sweden. Chen and Chen (1998, 1999) have argued that the access to foreign located networks would both augment the O speciﬁc advantages of the investing ﬁrms, and enable ﬁrms which otherwise do not engage in fdi, so to do. The authors back up their assertion that fdi might act as a conduit for strategic linkages by drawing upon the experiences of Taiwanese ﬁrms.
26

25

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

179

border mergers and acquisitions,27 has reﬂected the availability and price of assets that ﬁrms wish to acquire or tap into to protect or augment their competitive advantages. While the exchange rate might certainly affect a timing of the fdi, the extent to which the acquired assets — together with the business environment of which they are part — advances the competitiveness and strategic trajectories of the investing ﬁrms, are the critical locational determinants. Finally, we would observe that, although several strands of intellectual thought contribute towards our understanding of the locational dynamics of MNE activity, these offer complementary, rather than alternative, explanations. This is not to deny that there are differences of emphasis or methodology among scholars,28 but we believe that they are not substantive enough to preclude their incorporation into any revised paradigm of international production.

4. The internalization sub-paradigm Given that a ﬁrm has a set of competitive or O speciﬁc advantages, and the immobile assets of a foreign country are such as to warrant locating value adding or asset augmenting activities there, what determines whether such activities are undertaken by the ﬁrms possessing the advantages, or by indigenous producers buying the advantage, or the right to its use, in the open market, or acquiring them by some other means?29 Orthodox internalization theory offers a fairly straight-forward answer, viz as long as the transaction and coordination costs of using external arm’s length markets in the exchange of intermediate products, information, technology, marketing techniques, etc. exceed those incurred by internal hierarchies, then it will pay a ﬁrm to engage in fdi, rather than conclude a licensing or another market related agreement with a foreign producer. In general, the transaction costs of using external markets tend to be positively correlated with the imperfections of those markets. Over the last two decades, an extensive literature has identiﬁed a whole range of market failures, such as those associated with bounded rationality, and the provision of public and jointly supplied products and common intangible assets, and which permit opportunism, information asymmetries, uncertainty, economies of scale, and externalities of one kind or another.30 In explaining why ﬁrms choose to engage in fdi rather than buy or sell intermediate products in some other way (the third question which any international business theorist must answer) internalization theory has provided the dominant explanation over the past two decades. Yet it has not gone unchallenged. The major criticisms

Which, within the Triad of countries, are estimated to have accounted for around three-ﬁfths of all new fdi between 1985 and 1995 (UNCTAD, 1997). 28 For example, there are several socio-economic and geographical theories of the rationale for industrial clustering, see, for example, Storper (1995). 29 E.g. by a subcontracting, or turn-key, agreement. 30 For two recent explanations of the various kinds of market failure and the response of ﬁrms and governments to these, see Lipsey (1997) and Meyer (1998).

27

180

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

have been of three kinds. The ﬁrst is that it is an incomplete theory in that it ignores other functions which a ﬁrm may perform, other than those which are transaction related; and other reasons, apart from short run proﬁt maximization, why ﬁrms may wish to engage in value added activities outside their national boundaries. For example, ﬁrms have abilities of learning, memory adaptation and the capabilities to produce — tasks which markets cannot emulate. Many cross-border M and As are undertaken to gain new resources and/or to access to new capabilities, markets, or to lower the unit costs of production, or to gain market power, or to forestall or thwart the behavior of competitors. Such objectives ﬁt less comfortably with the conception of a ﬁrm as a ‘nexus of treaties’, and more with that of a ﬁrm as a ‘collection or bundle of resources’ (Barney, 1991), or as a ‘repository of knowledge and capabilities’ (Kogut & Zander, 1994; Madhok, 1996). This does not destroy the validity of internalization theory per se. It does, however, suggest that its contents should be widened to incorporate all costs and beneﬁts associated with corporate activities; and not only those which are transaction related!31 Contemporary writings, both by resource based and evolutionary ` scholars have refocused attention on the unique characteristics of the ﬁrm,32 vis a vis those of other institutions; viz as a unit of production, whose function is to efﬁciently convert a given set of resources into economically rewarding products. The second criticism of orthodox internalization theory is that it is a static theory, and gives little guidance as to how best a ﬁrm may organize its activities to create future assets, rather than optimize the use of its existing assets. The increasing role of innovation in the contemporary global economy, and the need of ﬁrms to tap into, and exploit, resources and capabilities outside their home countries, is requiring a reappraisal of the rationale for, and economics of, extending the boundaries of a ﬁrm. It is also requiring scholars to judge the success of managerial strategy less on the criteria of short run proﬁtability, and more on that of long run asset appreciation. To be relevant in a dynamic context, extant internalization theory needs to explain why ﬁrm-speciﬁc transaction costs are likely to be less than market-speciﬁc transaction costs in the creation, as well as in the use, of resources and capabilities. Third, the growth of a range of inter-ﬁrm coalitions is resulting in de facto internalization, but without equity ownership. This is most evident in two cases. The ﬁrst is where the competitive advantage of a ﬁrm is based on its ownership of a set of proprietary rights, the use of which it can effectively control and monitor through a contractual agreement. The second is that where ﬁrms engage in collaborative agreements for a very speciﬁc purpose, which is usually time limited, e.g. a research and development project or a joint marketing arrangement in a particular country or region. Here, full internalization, which, in essence, addresses ownership issues, is not a realistic option for the participating ﬁrms. At the same time, most strategic
I am grateful for one reviewer of this paper who pointed out that orthodox internalization theory addresses a single question, viz. “where are the boundaries of the ﬁrm drawn?”. I agree. But, up to now, this particular question has been approached mainly from a transaction cost perspective, which, I would argue, cannot cope with all the issues raised by it. 32 As compared with markets.
31

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

181

partnerships now being formed cannot be construed as arms length transactions as the participants have a continuing knowledge sharing relationship with each other (Dunning, 1995; UN, 1998). The advent of alliance capitalism, which may be perceived as a variant of hierarchical capitalism, offers opportunities for new interﬁrm organizational modalities, the rationale for which internalization theory can only partly explain. In Table 4 we set out some of the mainstream theories which have attempted to explain why, given a set of O and L speciﬁc advantages, ﬁrms prefer to own their foreign value added or creating activities, rather than lease the right to use their O advantages to independently owned foreign ﬁrms. It is our contention that changing world economic events, the growing multinationality of many foreign investors, and the need for ﬁrms to engage in highly speciﬁc cross-border alliances and in asset augmenting fdi, is necessitating both a reappraisal of static organizational theories, and an integration between ‘production based’, ‘innovation based’ and ‘transaction based’ theories of the ﬁrm. Again, we do not think these approaches to internalization are mutually exclusive. At the end of the day, managers will take decisions, which in any particular context (including those of competitor ﬁrms) will come closest to meeting an amalgam of short term and long term objectives. Yet, to be effective, these decisions need to take account of, and resolve in a holistic way, conﬂicts between very speciﬁc objectives. It is extremely unlikely, for example, that a ﬁrm will be successful, at one and the same time, in minimizing short-run transaction costs, maximizing short run and long run productive efﬁciency, accessing new markets, optimizing the net beneﬁts of asset creation and asset augmenting activities, and pursuing a variety of cost-effective ` strategies to improve their competitive position, vis a vis that of their main rivals — all within a macro-economic environment of uncertainty and volatility. This, then suggests that any comprehensive explanation of the existence and the growth of the contemporary MNE must almost inevitably be ‘judiciously pluralistic’ (Foss 1996, 1997), unless the context in which the explanation is being made is very narrowly delineated. And, it is a fact that most new explanations of the territorial expansion of ﬁrms tend to be incremental to extant theories, rather than a replacement of them. Any conﬂict between alternative theories or models is, as likely as not, to be about the relevance of, or emphasis placed on, these theories or models, rather than about their logical construction. We would make one other point. In discussing alternative interpretations of the I component of the OLI triumvirate, organizational scholars such as Chris Bartlett, Sumantra Ghoshal, Yves Doz and C K. Prahalad, focus on the individual manager — rather than on the ﬁrm — as their main unit of analysis. This results in a somewhat different analytical perspective towards the rationale for existence of hierarchies and the internalization of markets, than that offered by Williamson (1985, 1986, 1990), notwithstanding the fact that, in his various writings, he incorporates the concept of managerial discretion as an explanation for the behavior of ﬁrms. Moreover, for the most part, Williamson’s analysis tends to be concerned with the efﬁciency of asset exploitation, rather than that of asset augmentation. Because of this, his focus is more on the optimal mode of coordinating the use of existing resources and capabili-

182

Table 4 Theories explaining why ﬁrms choose to own foreign value added facilities 1) MS •To capture coordinating and transactional beneﬁts of common governance of related activities; to beneﬁt (mainly through M and As), from innovating, production or marketing scale/scope economies •To reduce transaction and coordinating costs of arm’s length markets and/or non-equity contractual relations. Such costs include opportunism and shirking, and those designed to protect the reputation of the contractor. Most empirical work relates to entry modes. See, for example, Anderson and Gatignon (1986) •To reduce organizational and related risks implicit in (ii) above •To tap into learning and experience related assets and to speed up the innovation process. To capture the advantages of Schumpeterian integration and the common governance of R&D related activities •As with internalization theory, but primarily to reduce risks of external agents behaving against the interests of the principals •To reduce moral hazard and adverse selection •Growth by M and As intended to increase market power, rather than to upgrade efﬁciency •To capture scale related production economies. To raise dynamic technical efﬁciency through shared knowledge, learning experiences and management expertise. To capture the advantages of signaling •To augment existing intellectual assets, thereby increasing competitive prowess •To capture synergies of knowledge creation and augmenting activities 2) RS 3) ES 4) SAS

1. Orthodox Internalization Theory i. Resource or productivity enhancing (Caves, 1996; Dunning, 1993) ii. Cost reduction (Anderson & Gatignon, 1986; Aoki, Gustafson & Williamson, 1990; Buckley & Casson 1976, 1981, 1985, 1998a,b; Hennart 1982, 1989; Rugman 1982, 1996) iii. Risk reduction (Vernon, 1983) 2. Dynamic Internalization Theory. (Buckley & Casson, 1998a; Ghoshal, Hahn & Moran, 1997)

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

3. Agency Theory. (Eisenhardt, 1989; Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Strong & Waterson, 1987)

4. Market Power Theories. (Cowling & Sugden, 1987; Hymer, 1960, Hymer, 1976) 5. Efﬁciency Related Theories. (Caves 1982, 1996; Lie, 1998; Teece 1981, 1984) 6. Knowledge Acquisition and Sharing Theories. (Antonelli, 1998; Kogut & Zander, 1994; Makino, 1998; Wesson 1993, 1997; Teece et al., 1997)

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

183

ties, rather than on that of upgrading such resources and capabilities, by innovating and other means.

5. Conclusions: the eclectic paradigm as an envelope for complementary theories of MNE activity In the three previous sections we have suggested that, for the most part, the many and varied explanations of the extent and structure of fdi and MNE activity are complementary, rather than substitutable for, each other, and are strongly context speciﬁc. We have further observed that, as the international production by MNEs has grown and taken on new patterns, as the world economic scenario has changed, ˆ and as scholars have better understood the raison d’etre for fdi, so new explanations of the phenomena have been put forward, and existing explanations have been modiﬁed and, occasionally, replaced. According to Kuhn (1962) and Foss (1996, 1997), an existing paradigm can accommodate several contrasting theoretical models as long as these are not addressing exactly the same questions or addressing these in the same context.33 At the same time, a paradigm that leaves no issues unresolved is of dubious value as a guide to further theorizing (Loasby, 1971). By contrast, a paradigm shift may be required when new phenomena arise which cannot be addressed within the existing paradigm, or where there are serious and irreconcilable conﬂicts among the theories contained in the paradigm. However, we believe that the criteria for a successful paradigm are more demanding. More speciﬁcally, we would mention three of these. The ﬁrst is that the sum of the value of the constituent theories must be greater than the whole. This suggests that there are intellectual interdependencies or externalities to each of the theories, which a paradigm can ‘internalize’ through its integrated approach. It follows then that the more any general paradigm of international production can advance understanding about the determinants of its constituent parts, the more successful it may be judged. Viewed in this way, we would aver that dynamizing the eclectic paradigm, and recognizing the interdependence of the OLI components not only adds value of its original conception, but helps point the way to improving a variety of the individual theories it embraces. Second, we would aver that the strength of a paradigm also depends on the extent to which it can offer some generic hypotheses, or, indeed, predictions about the phenomena being studied. In the case of the earlier versions of the eclectic paradigm, we offered some general hypotheses about the nature of the relationship between the O L and I variables and fdi (Dunning 1977, 1980). However, we did not think it appropriate to put forward speciﬁc hypotheses about the relationship between parti33 Thus, for example, although the transaction cost and resource based theories of the ﬁrm offer alternative predictions of the behavior of ﬁrms, they, in fact, are addressing different aspects of that behavior, e.g. the former is concerned with deﬁning the boundaries of a ﬁrm’s activities and the latter with the origins of its competitive advantages.

184

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

cular OLI variables and particular kinds of fdi — as the paradigm itself was not context speciﬁc. In the case of the contemporary version of the paradigm, which embraces alliance related and asset augmenting MNE activity, even generic hypotheses are harder to make without knowing whether a ﬁrm is contemplating a fdi to exploit a competitive strength or to overcome, or counteract, a competitive weakness. Only by treating the search for, and acquisition of, competitive advantages as part of the dynamic and cumulative process of sustaining and advancing O speciﬁc advantages (rather than a discrete and once and-for-all transaction) can this conundrum be resolved. This, then, suggests that the eclectic paradigm might better address itself to explaining the process of international production, than to its level and composition at a particular moment of time. Third, a paradigm may be judged to be robust if it continues to address relevant problems and offers a satisfying conceptual structure for resolving them (Loasby, 1971); and if there are no serious contenders to it. Here, it would be foolish to deny there are not other paradigms which seek to offer general explanations of the internationalization process of ﬁrms and/or their international management strategies. But, for the most part, we would not consider these to be competing paradigms. Managerial related paradigms, for example, are interested in explaining the behavior of managers in harnessing and utilizing scarce resources, not the overall level and pattern of fdi or MNE activity. Moreover, unlike fdi theories, they tend to be process oriented, unlike most fdi theories (Buckley, 1996). Organizational paradigms are directed to evaluating the costs and beneﬁts of alternative institutional mechanisms for organizing a given set of resources and capabilities, independently of the location of these assets. Paradigms offered by marketing scholars usually focus on the process and/or form of international market entry and/or growth (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977; Luostarinen, 1979; Welch & Luostarinen, 1988; Anderson & Gatignon, 1986). Technologically related paradigms of international production (Cantwell 1989, 1994; Kogut & Zander, 1994) come nearest to our own approach, but cannot comfortably explain fdi in developing countries and in some service sectors. With a few exceptions (notably Gray, 1996; Markusen, 1995), modern paradigms of international trade ignore or downplay the signiﬁcance of ﬁrm speciﬁc advantages. Finance related paradigms can offer only limited insights into the growth of corporate networks and cross-border strategic alliances. We conclude, then, that an add-on dynamic component to the eclectic paradigm, and an extension of its constituent parts to embrace both asset augmenting and alliance related cross-border ventures can do much to uphold its position as the dominant analytical framework for examining the determinants of international production. We believe that recent economic events, and the emergence of new explanations of MNE activity have added to, rather than subtracted from, the robustness of the paradigm. While accepting that, in spite of its eclecticism (sic), there may be some kinds of foreign owned value added activities which do not ﬁt comfortably into its construction, we do believe that it continues to meet most of the criteria of a good paradigm; and that it is not yet approaching its own ‘creative destruction’ (Foss, 1996).34
34 For a somewhat different, and highly refreshing, approach to some of the concepts dealt with in this paper, see a recently published article by Boddewyn and Iyer (1999).

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

185

Acknowledgements I am grateful to Jean Boddewyn, John Daniels, Mira Wilkins, Stephen Young and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. References
Agmon, T., & Lessard, D. R. (1977). Investor recognition of corporate international diversiﬁcation. Journal of Finance, 32, 1049–1055. Aliber, R. Z. (1971). The multinational enterprise in a multiple currency world. In J. H. Dunning, The Multinational Enterprise (pp. 49–56). London: Allen and Unwin. Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. (1986). Modes of foreign entry: transaction costs and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17, 1–26. Antonelli, C. (1998). Localized technological change and the evolution of standards as economic insti¨ ¨ tutions. In A. D. Chandler Jr., P. Hagstrom, & O. Solvell, The Dynamic Firm (pp. 78–100). Oxford University Press.: Oxford. Aoki, M., Gustafson, B., & Williamson, O. E. (1990). The ﬁrm as a nexus of treaties. London and Newbury Park (CA): Sage Publications. Audretsch, D. B. (1998). Agglomeration and the location of economic activity. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14 (2), 18–29. Bain, J. S. (1956). Barriers to new competition. Cambridge (Mass): Harvard University Press. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120. Bartlett, C. G., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across national borders: the transnational solution. Cambridge (Mass): Harvard Business School Press. Bartlett, C. G., & Ghoshal, S. (1993). Beyond the M-form: towards a managerial theory of the ﬁrm. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (1), 23–46. Blonigen, B. A. (1997). Firm-speciﬁc assets and the link between exchange rates and foreign direct investment. American Economic Review, 87 (3), 447–465. Boddewyn, J. J. (1985). Foreign divestment theory: Is it the reverse of fdi theory? Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 119, 345–355. ´` Boddewyn, J. J., & Iyer, G. (1999). International business research: Beyond deja vu. International Management Review (in press). Brash, D. T. (1966). American investment in Australian industry. Canberra: Australian University Press. Brewer, T., & Young, S. (1999). The Effects on Firms’ Strategic Choices of the WTO Trade Investment Regime. Paper presented to a conference on The Locational Determinants of Multinational Firms, Paris, June. Buckley, P. J. (1996). The role of management in international business theory: a meta-analysis and integration of the literature on international business and international management. Management International Review, 36 (1, Special Issue), 7–54. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. (1976). The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. (1981). The optimal timing of a foreign direct investment. Economic Journal, 91, 75–87. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. (1985). The economic theory of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. (1998a). Models of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (1), 21–44. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. (1998b). Analyzing foreign market entry strategies; extending the internalization approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (3), 539–562. Cantwell, J. A. (1989). Technological innovation and multinational corporations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Cantwell, J. A. (1994). Transnational corporations and innovatory activities, United Nations library on transnational corporations, Vol. 17. London: Routledge.

186

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

Cantwell, J. A., & Piscitello, L. (1997). The emergence of corporate international networks for the accumulation of dispersed technological competence. Reading: Department of Economics, Discussion Paper 5 in International Investment and Management Series BX, No. 238, October. Caves, R. E. (1971). Industrial corporations: the industrial economics of foreign investment. Economica, 38, 1–27. Caves, R. E. (1974). Causes of direct investment: foreign ﬁrms shares in Canadian and United Kingdom manufacturing industries. Review of Economics and Statistics, 56, 272–293. Caves, R. E. (1982). Multinational ﬁrms and economic analysis. (1st ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caves, R. E. (1996). Multinational ﬁrms and economic analysis. (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cavusgil, S. T. (1980). On the internationalization process of the ﬁrm. European Research, 8 (6), 273–281. Chen, H., & Chen, T.-J. (1998). Network linkages and location choice in foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (3), 445–468. Chen, T.J., & Chen, H. (1999). Resource Advantages and Resource Linkages in Foreign Direct Investment. Paper presented to 7th International Conference on MNEs, Taipei, Chinese Culture University, December. Conner, K. (1991). A historical comparison of resource based theory and ﬁve schools of thought within industrial organization economies. Do we have a new theory of the ﬁrm. Journal of Management, 17, 121–154. Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource based theory of the ﬁrm: knowledge versus opportunism. Organizational Science, 7 (5), 477–501. Cowling, K., & Sugden, R. L. (1987). Transnational monopoly capitalism. Brighton: Wheatsheaf. Cushman, D. O. (1985). Real exchange rate risk, expectations and the level of direct investment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 67, 297–308. Daniels, J. D. (1971). Recent foreign direct investment in the United States. New York: Praeger. Dicken, P. (1998). Global shift. (3rd ed). New York and London: The Guilford Press. Doremus, P. N., Keller, W. W., Pauly, L. W., & Reich, S. (1998). The myth of the global corporation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., & Soete, L. (1988). Technical change and economic theory. London: Pinter Publishers. Doz, Y. L., & Santos, J. F. P. (1997). On the management of knowledge: from the transparency of collocation and cosetting to the quandary of dispersion and differentiation. Fontainbleau, France: INSEAD, mimeo. Doz, Y. L., Asakawa, K., Santos, J. F. P., & Williamson, P. J. (1997). The Metanational corporation. Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD Working Paper 97/60/SM. Dunning, J. H. (1958). American investment in British manufacturing industry. London: George Allen and Unwin. (New, revised and updated edition, London: Routledge, 1998). Dunning, J. H. (1977). Trade, location of economic activity and the MNE: A search for an eclectic approach. In B. Ohlin, P. O. Hesselborn, & P. M. Wijkman, The international allocation of economic activity (pp. 395–418). London: Macmillan. Dunning, J. H. (1980). Towards an eclectic theory of international production: some empirical tests. Journal of International Business Studies, 11 (1), 9–31. Dunning, J. H. (1988). Explaining international production. London: Unwin Hyman. Dunning, J. H. (1993). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Wokingham, Berkshire: Addison Wesley. Dunning, J. H. (1995). Reappraising the eclectic paradigm in the age of alliance capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 461–491. Dunning, J. H. (1996). The geographical sources of competitiveness of ﬁrms: the results of a new survey. Transnational Corporations, 5 (3), 1–30. Dunning, J. H. (1997). Technology and the changing boundaries of ﬁrms and governments In OECD, Industrial competitiveness and the global economy (pp. 53–68), Paris: OECD. Dunning, J. H. (1998). Location and the multinational enterprise: a neglected factor. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (1), 45–66.

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

187

Dunning, J. H. (1999). Globalization and the theory of MNE activity. In N. Hood, & S. Young, The globalization of multinational enterprise activity (pp. 21–54). London: Macmillan. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: an assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), 57–73. Enright, M. J. (1991). Geographic concentration and industrial organization. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard, Cambridge, Mass. Enright, M. J. (1998). Regional clusters and ﬁrm strategy. In A. D. Chandler Jr., P. Hagstrom, & O. ¨ Solvell, The dynamic ﬁrm (pp. 315–343). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ¨ Enright, M. J. (1999). The globalization of competition and the localization of competitive advantage. In N. Hood, & S. Young, The globalization of multinational enterprise activity and economic development (pp. 303–331). London: Macmillan. Florida, R. (1995). Towards the learning region. Futures, 27 (5), 527–536. Flowers, E. B. (1976). Oligopolistic reaction in European and Canadian direct investment in the United States. Journal of International Business Studies, 7, 43–55. Forsgren, M. (1989). Managing the internalization process: the Swedish case. London and New York: Routledge. Foss, N. J. (1996). Research in strategy, economics and Michael Porter. Journal of Management Studies, 33 (1), 1–24. Foss, N. J. (1997). Resources, ﬁrms and strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foss, N. J., Knudsen, C., & Montgomery, C. A. (1995). An exploration of common ground: integrating resource based and evolutionary theories of the ﬁrm. In C. A. Montgomery, Resource based and evolutionary theories of the ﬁrm: towards a synthesis. Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Froot, K. A., & Stein, J. C. (1991). Exchange rates and foreign direct investment: an imperfect market’s approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1191–1217. Ghoshal, S., Hahn, M., & Moran, P. (1997). Management competence, ﬁrm growth and economic progress. Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD Working Paper 97/21/SM. Graham, E. M. (1975). Oligopolistic imitation and European direct investment in the United States. Unpublished D.B.A. dissertation, Harvard University. Graham, E. M. (1990). Exchange of threat between multinational ﬁrms as an inﬁnitely repeated noncooperative game. International Trade Journal, 4 (3), 259–277. Graham, E. M. (1998). Market structure and the multinational enterprise: a game-theoretic approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (1), 67–84. Gray, H. P. (1996). Incorporating Firm Speciﬁc Variables into Trade Theory. Newark: Rutgers University, mimeo. Helleloid, D. (1992). A resource based theory of the multinational enterprise. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington, mimeo. Hennart, J. F. (1982). A theory of multinational enterprise. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Hennart, J. F. (1989). The transaction cost theory of the multinational enterprise. In C. N. Pitelis, & R. Sugden, The nature of the transnational ﬁrm (pp. 81–116). London: Routledge. Hirsch, S. (1976). An international trade and investment theory of the ﬁrm. Oxford Economic Papers, 28, 258–270. Hoover, E. M. (1948). The location of economic activity. New York: McGraw Hill. Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. Economic Journal, 29, 41–57. Hymer, S. H. (1960). The international operation of national ﬁrms: a study of direct investment. Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T. (Published by M.I.T. Press in 1976). Isard, W. (1956). Location and the space economy. New York: John Wiley. Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the ﬁrm: managerial behavior, agency costs, township structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the ﬁrm — a model of knowledge development and increasing market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8, 23–32. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1990). The mechanism of internationalization. International Marketing Review, 74 (4), 11–24.

188

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

Knickerbocker, F. T. (1973). Oligopolistic reaction and the multinational enterprise. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. Kobrin, S. (1999). Development after industrialization: Poor countries in an electronically integrated global economy. In: N. Hood & S. Young, The globalization of multinational enterprise activity and economic development (pp. 133–155). Basingstoke. Kogut, B. (1983). Foreign direct investment as a sequential process. In C. P. Kindleberger, & D. Audretsch, The multinational corporation in the 1980s (pp. 38–56). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Kogut, B. (1985). Designing global strategies: proﬁting from operational ﬂexibility. Sloan Management Review, 26, 27–38. Kogut, B., & Kulatilaka, N. (1994). Operational ﬂexibility, global manufacturing and the option value of a multinational network. Management Service, 40 (1), 123–139. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1994). Knowledge of the ﬁrm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24 (4), 625–646. Krugman, P. R. (1991). Geography and trade. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Krugman, P. R. (1993). On the relationship between trade theory and location theory. Review of International Economics, 1 (2), 110–122. Krugman, P. R. (1998). What’s new about the new economic geography? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14 (2), 7–17. Kuemmerle, W. (1999). The drivers of foreign direct investment into research and development: an empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (1), 1–24. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientiﬁc revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: towards a theory of scientiﬁc growth. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press. Lipsey, R. G. (1997). Globalization and national government policies: an economists view. In J. H. Dunning, Governments, globalization and international business. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Liu, S. X. (1998). Foreign direct investment and the multinational enterprise. A re-examination using signaling theory. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Publishing. Lloyd, P., & Dicken, P. (1977). Location in space. London: Harper and Row. Loasby, B. J. (1971). Hypothesis and paradigm in the theory of the ﬁrm. Economic Journal, 81, 863–885. Loree, D. W., & Guisinger, S. E. (1995). Policy and non-policy determinants of US equity foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 26 (2), 281–299. Losch, A. (1954). The economics of location. (English translation by Woglom, W. H., & Stolper, W. F.) New Haven: Yale University Press. Luostarinen, R. (1979). Internationalization of the ﬁrm. Helsinki: Acta Acadamie Oeconomicae, Helsinki School of Economics. Madhok, A. (1996). The organization of economic activity: transaction costs, ﬁrm capabilities and the nature of governance. Organizational Science, 7 (5), 577–590. Makino, S. (1998). Towards a theory of asset seeking foreign direct investment. Hong Kong: The Chinese University, mimeo. Malmberg, A., Solvell, O., & Zander, I. (1996). Spatial clustering, local accumulation of knowledge and ¨ ﬁrm competitiveness. Geographical Annals B, 78 (2), 85–97. Markusen, J. R. (1995). The boundaries of multinational enterprises and the theory of international trade. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9 (2), 169–189. Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. (8th ed). London: Macmillan. Meyer, K. (1998). Direct investment in economies in transition. Cheltenham (UK), Lyme (US): Edward Elgar. Montgomery, C. A. (1995). Resource base and evolutionary theories of the ﬁrm: towards a synthesis. Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknap Press. Nelson, R. R. (1991). The role of ﬁrm differences in an evolutionary theory of technical advance. Science and Public Policy, 18 (6), 347–352. Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (9), 697–713.

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

189

Pauwells, P., & Matthyssens, P. (1997). De-internationalization: a search for a theoretical framework. Paper presented at Round-table on Globalization and the Small Open Economy. Antwerp: Centre for International Management and Development, May 29. Peck, F. W. (1996). Regional development and the production of space: the role of infrastructure in the attraction of new inward investment. Environment and Planning Series A, 28, 327–339. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: The Free Press. Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 95–117. Porter, M. E. (1994). The role of location in competition. Journal of Economics of Business, 1 (1), 35–39. Porter, M. E. (1996). Competitive advantage, agglomerative economies and regional policy. International Regional Science Review, 19 (1/2), 85–94. Porter, M. E. (1998). Location, clusters and the new microeconomies of competition. Journal of Business Economics (in press). Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. L. (1987). The multinational mission: balancing local demands and global vision. New York: The Free Press. Rangan, S. (1998). Do multinationals operate ﬂexibly? Theory and evidence. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (2), 217–238. Rugman, A. M. (1979). International diversiﬁcation and the multinational enterprise. Lexington (MA): Lexington Books. Rugman, A. M. (1982). New theories of the multinational enterprise. London: Croom Helm. Rugman, A. M. (1996). The theory of multinational enterprises: the selected scientiﬁc papers of Alan A. M. Rugman, Vol. 1. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (1998). Multinational enterprises and public policy. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (1), 115–136. Safarian, A. E. (1966). Foreign ownership of Canadian industry. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Saviotti, P. P., & Metcalfe, J. S. (1991). Evolutionary theories of economic and technological change — present statistics and future prospects. Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers. Scott, A. J. (1996). Regional motors of the global economy. Futures, 28 (5), 391–411. Solvell, O., & Zander, I. (1998). International diversiﬁcation of knowledge: isolating mechanisms and ¨ ¨ ¨ the role of the MNE. In A. D. Chandler Jr., P. Hagstrom, & O. Solvell, The dynamic ﬁrm (pp. 402– 416). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Southard, F. A. Jr. (1931). American industry in Europe. Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin. Storper, M. (1995). The resurgence of region economies: ten years later: the region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2 (3), 191–221. Storper, M., & Scott, A. J. (1995). The wealth of regions. Futures, 27 (5), 505–526. Strong, N., & Waterson, M. (1987). Principals, agents and information. In R. Clarke, & A. McGuiness, The economics of the ﬁrm (pp. 18–41). Oxford: Blackwell. Teece, D. J. (1981). The multinational enterprise: market failure and market power considerations. Sloan Management Review, 22, 3–18. Teece, D. J. (1984). Economic analysis and strategic management. California Management Review, 26, 87–108. Teece, D. J. (1992). Competition, cooperation, and innovation: Organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 18, 1–25. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, J. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), 509–533. UN (1996a). Incentives and foreign direct investment. Geneva and New York: UN. UN (1996b). World investment report 1996: investment, trade and international policy arrangements. Geneva and New York: UN. UN (1998). World investment report 1997, transnational corporations: trends and determinants. Geneva and New York: UN. Venables, A. J. (1998). The assessment: trade and location. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14 (2), 1–6. Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, 190–207.

190

J.H. Dunning / International Business Review 9 (2000) 163–190

Vernon, R. (1973). Sovereignty at bay. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Vernon, R. (1974). The location of economic activity. In J. H. Dunning, Economic analysis and the multinational enterprise. London: Allen and Unwin. Vernon, R. (1979). The product cycle hypothesis in the new international environment. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 41, 255–267. Vernon, R. (1983). Organizational and institutional responses to international risk. In R. J. Herring, Managing international risk. Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press. Weber, A. (1929). The theory of location of industries, (English translation by Friedrich). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Weisfelder, C. J. (1998). Foreign production and the multinational enterprise: development of a research tradition from 1960 to 1990. Bowling Green Ohio: Bowling Green State University, mimeo. Welch, L. S., & Luostarinen, (1988). Internationalization: evolution of a concept. Journal of General Management, 14(2), 34–55. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the ﬁrm. Strategic Management Journal, 5 (2), 171–180. Wernerfelt, B. (1995). The resource based view of the ﬁrm: ten years after. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 171–174. Wesson, T. J. (1993). An alternative motivation for foreign direct investment. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Wesson, T. J. (1997). A model of asset seeking foreign direct investment. Proceedings International Business Division, The Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, 18 (8), 110–120. Wilkins, M. (1970). The emergence of multinational enterprise: American business abroad, from the Cololian era to 1914. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Wilkins, M. (1974). The maturing of multinational enterprise, American business abroad, from 1914 to 1970. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press. Williamson, O. E. (1986). Economic organization: ﬁrm, markets and policy control. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books. Williamson, O. E. (1990). Organization theory. New York: Free Press.

The Eclectic Paradigm

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

International Investment in the United States Insurance Industry

International Investment in the United States Insurance Industry

Discuss the usefulness of Dunning’s eclectic paradigm in helping us understand how firms internationalise

Discuss the usefulness of Dunning’s eclectic paradigm in helping us understand how firms internationalise

Power Trip

Power Trip

Welcome to the World of Sony - Unless the Yen Keeps Rising

Welcome to the World of Sony - Unless the Yen Keeps Rising

Fdi Report: the Case of Nissan in the Uk

Fdi Report: the Case of Nissan in the Uk

The Eclectic Paradigm

The Eclectic Paradigm

The Market Effects of Ceo Turnover in Australian Firms

The Market Effects of Ceo Turnover in Australian Firms

Culture Sits in Places: Reflections on Globalism and Subaltern Strategies of Localization

Culture Sits in Places: Reflections on Globalism and Subaltern Strategies of Localization

Assessing the Essence of Teh Eclectic Paradigm in Today's Globalised World.

Assessing the Essence of Teh Eclectic Paradigm in Today's Globalised World.

Dunning- Theory of International Production

Dunning- Theory of International Production

Multinational Corporations

Multinational Corporations

The Components Of Dunning OLI Theory

The Components Of Dunning OLI Theory

A Theory of Joint Venture Life-Cycles.

A Theory of Joint Venture Life-Cycles.

Eclectic Approach

Eclectic Approach

Related Literature on Cigarette Smoking

Related Literature on Cigarette Smoking

Related Topics