Preview

Liability of Foreigness

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
8536 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Liability of Foreigness
Journal of International Management 8 (2002) 223 – 240

Liability of foreignness to competitive advantage: How multinational enterprises cope with the international business environment
Deepak Sethi*, Stephen Guisinger 1
University of Texas at Dallas, P.O. Box 830688, Richardson, TX 75083-0688, USA

Abstract An expanded and holistic conceptualization of the liability of foreignness (LOF) is presented that goes beyond the traditional foreign subsidiary – local firm dyad in the host country. Taking the strategy process perspective, we contend that this liability is the aggregated effect of the firm’s interaction with all elements of the international business environment (IBE), not merely in the initial entry mode decisions but throughout its foreign operations. Viewing the antecedents and consequences of this liability holistically, we argue that accurate reading of the complex and volatile IBE, formulation of a compatible strategy and its effective implementation together contribute to good performance. As the resource-based perspective suggests the degree to which firms develop such tacit skills, differentially affects their performance. Firms that excel in these environment-reading skills and are agile enough to quickly adapt to its changes can transform this liability into a competitive advantage. D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Liability of foreignness; International business environment; Competitive advantage

1. Introduction Forty years after the path-breaking contribution by Hymer (1960), the notion of liability of foreignness (LOF), though widely acknowledged in scholarly works, still eludes precise theoretical delineation. The fact that a firm, accustomed to functioning in its home country

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-972-883-2372; fax: +1-972-883-6164. E-mail address: deepak@utdallas.edu (D. Sethi). 1 Deceased. 1075-4253/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 0 7 5 - 4



References: Amit, R., Schoemaker, P.J.H., 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Manage. J. 14, 33 – 46. Anderson, E., Gatignon, H., 1986. Modes of foreign entry: transaction costs and propositions. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 17, 1 – 26. Andrews, K., 1971. The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Irwin, Homewood, IL. Ansoff, H.I., Sullivan, P.A., 1993. Optimizing profitability in turbulent environments: a formula for strategic success. Long Range Plann. 26 (5), 11 – 23. Barkema, H.G., Bell, J.H.J., Pennings, J.M., 1996. Foreign entry, cultural barriers and learning. Strategic Manage. J. 17, 151 – 166. Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manage. 17 (1), 99 – 120. Bartlett, C., Ghoshal, S., 1987. Managing across borders: New strategic requirements. Sloan Manage. Rev., 6 – 17 (Summer). Brewer, T.L., Young, S., 2001. The multilateral regime for FDI: institutions and their implication for business strategy. In: Rugman, A., Brewer, T. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Business. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. Buckley, W., 1967. Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Buckley, P.J., Casson, M., 1976. The Future of the Multinational Enterprise. Macmillan, London. Casson, M., 1997. Information and Organization: A New Perspective on the Theory of the Firm. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Caves, R.E., 1971. Industrial corporations: The industrial economics of foreign investment. Economica 38, 1 – 27 (February). Click, R., Harrison, P., 2000. Does multinationality matter? Evidence of value destruction in U.S. multinational corporations. Working paper. Conner, K.R., 1991. A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? J. Manage. 17 (1), 121 – 154. D. Sethi, S. Guisinger / Journal of International Management 8 (2002) 223–240 239 Denis, D., Denis, D., Yost, K., 2000. Global diversification, industrial diversification and firm value. Working paper. Dierickx, I., Cool, K., 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Manage. Sci. 35 (12), 1504 – 1511. Dunning, J.H., 1988. The eclectic paradigm of international production: A restatement and some possible extensions. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 19 (1), 1 – 31. Dunning, J.H., 1993. Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Encarnation, D.J., Vachani, S., 1985. Foreign ownership: when hosts change the rules. Harv. Bus. Rev. 63 (5), 152 – 161. Fagre, N., Wells, L.T., 1982. Bargaining power of multinationals and host governments. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 3, 9 – 23. Farmer, R., Richman, B., 1970. Comparative Management and Economic Progress. Cedarwood Publishing Co. Irwin Bloomington, Indiana. Fayerweather, J., 1973. Elite attitudes towards multinational firms. Int. Exec. 15 (1), 6 – 8. Freeman, O., 1999. Competitor intelligence: Information or intelligence? Bus. Inf. Rev. 16 (2), 71 – 77. Ghoshal, S., 1988. Environmental scanning in Korean firms: Organizational isomorphism. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 19 (1), 69 – 87. Ghoshal, S., Westney, D.E., 1993. Organization Theory and the Multinational Corporation. St. Martin’s Press, New York. Gomes-Casseres, B., 1990. Firm ownership preferences and host government restrictions: an integrated approach. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 21, 1 – 22. Gray, P., 1999. Global Economic Involvement. Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen. Guisinger, S., 2001. From OLI to OLMA: incorporating higher levels of environmental and structural complexity into the eclectic paradigm. Int. J. Econ. Bus. 8 (2), 257 – 272. Guisinger, S., Bond, E., 1985. Investment incentives as tariff substitutes: A comprehensive measure of protection. Rev. Econ. Stat. 67 (1). Hamel, G., Prahalad, C.K., 1994. Competing for the Future. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Hofstede, G., 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Hymer, S.H., 1960. The international operations of national firms: a study of direct investment. PhD Thesis, MIT. Hymer, S.H., 1976. The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Direct Investment. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Johanson, J., Vahlne, J.E., 1977. The internationalization process of the firm—a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 8, 23 – 32. Kindleberger, C.P., 1969. American Business Abroad. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT. Knickerbocker, F.T., 1973. Oligopolistic Reaction and the Multinational Enterprise. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Knight, G., 1995. Educator insights: international marketing blunders by American firms in Japan—some lessons for management. J. Int. Mark. 3 (4), 107 – 129. Kobrin, S.J., 1997. Transnational integration, national markets and nation-states. In: Toyne, B., Nigh, D. (Eds.), International Business: An Emerging Vision. USC Press, Columbia. Kobrin, S.J., 2001. Sovereignty at bay: globalization, the international political system and the multinational enterprise. In: Rugman, A., Brewer, T. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Business. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. Kogut, B., Zander, U., 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organ. Sci. 3, 383 – 397. Kostova, T., Zaheer, S., 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: the case of the multinational enterprise. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24 (1), 64 – 81. March, J.G., 1994. A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. Free Press, New York. Mason, P., Moore, K., 1999. The Impact of Globalization on Company Performance. Templeton College, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. 240 D. Sethi, S. Guisinger / Journal of International Management 8 (2002) 223–240 Mintzberg, H., 1994. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning: Reconceiving Roles for Planning, Plans and Planners. Free Press, New York. Nelson, R., Winter, S., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA. Ostry, S., 2001. The multilateral trading system. In: Rugman, A., Brewer, T. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Business. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. Peppard, J., 1999. Information management in the global enterprise: An organizing framework. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 8 (2), 77 – 94. Peteraf, M.A., 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Manage. J. 14, 179 – 188. Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G.R., 1978. The External Control of Organizations. Harper & Row, New York. Porter, M.E., 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Free Press, New York. Porter, M.E., 1991. Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Manage. J. 12, 95 – 117 (Special Issue). Prahalad, C.K., Hamel, G., 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harv. Bus. Rev. 66 (May/June). Ricks, D., 1993. Blunders in International Business. Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Rosenzweig, P.M., Singh, J.V., 1991. Organization environments and the multinational enterprise. Acad. Manage. Rev. 16, 340 – 361. Rumelt, R., 1984. Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In: Lamb, R.B. (Ed.), Competitive Strategic Management. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Schoemaker, P.J.H., 1995. Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Manage. Rev., 25 – 40 (Winter). Scott, W.R., 1998. Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Simon, H.A., 1960. The New Science of Managerial Decision. Harper & Row, New York. Simon, N.J., 1999. CI personnel: Requirements for the multicultural organization. Compet. Intell. Mag. 2 (1), 43 – 44. Spar, D., 2001. National policies and domestic policies. In: Rugman, A., Brewer, T. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Business. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. Stinchcombe, A.L., 1965. Social structure and organizations. In: March, J.G. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations. Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 142 – 193. Sundaram, A.K., Black, J.W., 1992. The environment and internal organization of multinational enterprises. Acad. Manage. Rev. 17 (4), 729 – 758. Teece, D., 1982. Towards an economic theory of the multi-product firm. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 3, 39 – 63. Toyne, B., Nigh, D., 1999. A more expansive view of international business. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 29, 863 – 877. UNCTAD, 1997. World Investment Report. United Nations, New York, p. 319. Vernon, R., 1966. International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Q. J. Econ. 80, 190 – 207. Vernon, R., 1973. Sovereignty at Bay. Harmondsworth, Penguin. Weick, K.E., 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Wernerfelt, B., 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Manage. J. 5, 171 – 180. Williamson, O.E., 2000. The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead. J. Econ. Lit. 38, 595 – 613. Zaheer, S., 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Acad. Manage. J. 38 (2), 341 – 360. Zaheer, S., Mosakowski, E., 1997. The dynamics of the liability of foreignness: a global study of survival in financial services. Strategic Manage. J. 18 (6), 439 – 464.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Mgmt 485

    • 4109 Words
    • 17 Pages

    Hitt, M. A. , Ireland, R.D., Hoskisson, R.E. (2012). Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalization: Concepts and Cases, 10e. ISBN-10: 1111825874 ISBN-13: 9781111825874…

    • 4109 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Assignment 1

    • 3095 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Smelser, N. and Baltes, P. (2014). Multinational corporations. [online] www.columbia.edu. Available at: https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/bkogut/files/Chapter_in_smelser-Baltes_2001.pdf) [Accessed 3 Aug. 2014].…

    • 3095 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Cited: 1. Hitt, M., Ireland, R., & Hoskisson, R. (2011). Strategic Management: Competitiveness & Globalization (10th ed). Mason, OH: South Western, Cengage Learning.…

    • 6870 Words
    • 21 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Midterm Study Guide

    • 3957 Words
    • 16 Pages

    * multinational company - more than 2 countries. the market-based, cost-based, and strategic motives a firm has to expand internationally. After this, we studied how global companies exploit economies of scale, economies of scope, and national differences to achieve their three generic objectives: (1) efficiency in current operations, (2) managing risks, and (3) innovation, learning, and adaptation. We concluded by introducing the nature and complexity of the international environment of international companies. (University 20)…

    • 3957 Words
    • 16 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The manager's perspective in the fields of international payments, international trade, and investment are analyzed. Emphasis is given to the materials and concepts that illuminate the strategies, structure, practices, and effects of multinational enterprises.…

    • 2449 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Best Essays

    The case analysis:Bata Shoe

    • 3574 Words
    • 15 Pages

    20. Richard M. Hodgetts & Fred Luthans. International management: culture, strategy, and behavior, 5th ed. Boston, Mass.: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2003,p279-302.…

    • 3574 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    References: Luthans, F, and Doh, J. P. (2012). International management: Culture, strategy, and behavior (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin. ISBN 978-0-078-11257-7…

    • 750 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Bibliography: Michael A. Hitt, R. Duane Ireland, Robert E. Hoskisson. 2005. Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalization. Thomson-South Western.…

    • 2189 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    competitve advantage

    • 1858 Words
    • 5 Pages

    With the global trade network more integrated, according to Pearce and Robinson (2009), firms tend to enter foreign market to gain more profit due to the maturity of domestic market, excess capability, and potential purchasing power in foreign market. Therefore, as a firm has already achieved success in its domestic country it might consider enter a new market. Before it operates in a new market, it has to consider the barrier of market entry, such as the barrier of political, social, economic or technology in a new market. And as foreign entry decision (Peng, 2009) model presents three aspects: where, when and how should be considered before enter in a new market. In addition, as a manager of a company should adjust its competitive advantage to adapt different market. Based on the study of Hill (2013), changes in the forces which include macroeconomics, social, technological, global, political and legal, and demographic may give great influence in competitive force model. Therefore, the ability of a firm to solve problems by the impact of different forces then build new competitive advantage by its resource advantage and competences significant as it enters a new overseas market. This essay will present some specific example of the firms which may enter a new overseas market and face different issues during the process of entering a new market and offer solutions to each issue.…

    • 1858 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    * Strategic issues – multinational firms operate in the context of worldwide conditions, including the external contexts of industry, nation, region, and inter-organisational networks and alliances. These factors not only impact on IHRM strategy and practice but also on MNE goals.…

    • 2557 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Syllabus

    • 2713 Words
    • 11 Pages

    The manager's perspective in the fields of international payments, international trade, and investment are analyzed. Emphasis is given to the materials and concepts that illuminate the strategies, structure, practices, and effects of multinational enterprises.…

    • 2713 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Discuss the various political ideologies and their impact on foreign direct investment. The radical view writers argue that the multinational enterprise (MNE) is an instrument of imperialist domination. The free market view argues that international production should be distributed among countries according to the theory of comparative advantage. The pragmatic nationalist view is that FDI has both benefits and costs. The radical view has a dogmatic radical stance that is hostile to all inward FDI. The free market view is at the other extreme and based on noninterventionist principle of free market economics. Between these two extremes is an approach called pragmatic nationalism. 44. Describe the situations when licensing is not a good option for a firm. Licensing is not a good option in three situations. First, licensing is hazardous in high-tech industries where protecting firm-specific expertise is very important. Second, licensing is not attractive in global oligopolies where tight control is necessary so that firms have the ability to launch coordinated attacks against global competitors. Finally, in industries where intense cost pressures require that MNEs maintain tight control over foreign operations, licensing is not the best option. 46. Discuss Michael Porter's interpretation of value creation and competitive advantage. According to Michael Porter, low cost and differentiation are two basic strategies for creating value and attaining a competitive advantage in…

    • 3133 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Ibm Text Book

    • 10852 Words
    • 44 Pages

    Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this textbook appear…

    • 10852 Words
    • 44 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Over the years, many typologies of multinational companies (MNCs) have been developed. As such, Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) provided the most extensive typologies regarding MNCs. Besides, Harzing (2000) uses a different division of the multinational companies and separates them in relation to organizational design and subsidiary role, local responsiveness and interdependence. The identified types are: Multidomestic, Global and Transnational (Harzing, 2000). Multidomestic typology combines high national responsiveness and domestic competition, implying that the company responds to national differences and has a decentralized structure, although scores low on global competition and economies of scale. In contrast, Global typology characterizes high global competition, economies of scale, and low national responsiveness, as companies tend to build cost advantages through economies of scale. Finally, the Transnational cluster combines both typologies focusing on economies of scale as well as national responsiveness. Verbeke (2009) describes four archetypes of administrative heritage, namely the ‘centralized exporter, ‘international projector’, ‘international coordinator’, and ‘multi-centred MNE’ which regard to a specific routine of internationally transferring FSAs. In comparison to Harzing’s (2000) typology, these four archetypes of administrative heritage describe how a company’s FSAs are internationally transferred and its location advantages, while Harzing’s typology discusses the types of MNCs and its measurement to various elements. In 1986, Bartlett and Ghoshal…

    • 1686 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Luthans, F., and Doh, J.P. 2009. International management: Culture, Strategy and Behaviour, 7th ed. New York: McGraw Hill/Irwin.…

    • 999 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Better Essays