Search results

This paper seeks to explicate a dynamic theory of competition, i.e. the resource‐advantage theory of competition, with the aim of developing a theoretical foundation for the eclectic paradigm of foreign production.

The paper is conceptual in approach.

The paper develops a set of five criteria that should be met by any theory that attempts to ground the eclectic paradigm. In addition, it demonstrates that the resource‐advantage theory of competition meets all of these criteria.

By providing a theoretical foundation for the eclectic paradigm of foreign production, the paper provides researchers with a broader perspective from which to investigate multinational enterprise competition.

The usefulness of frameworks, such as the eclectic paradigm of foreign production, is limited when they are not grounded in positive theories. By grounding the eclectic paradigm of foreign production, this paper enhances the paradigm's usefulness.

The eclectic paradigm as developed by Dunning evolved in response to the changing IB milieu. I argue that this continual expansion threatens to make the paradigm tautological, without an honest “gatekeeper.” Continual expansion to address new lacunae begins to have decreasing returns, either because the gatekeeper cannot expect to have the specialized knowledge, or because the number of extensions makes the final product unwieldy. I propose a return to a basic eclectic paradigm, which I refer to as “EP‐lite,” that can then be complemented by other frameworks and theories as needed. In a similar vein, the growing number of sub‐categories of ownership advantages does not in itself provide greater clarity. Besides, the “correct” definition of what constitute O advantages is relative to the purpose for which it is being used.

John Dunning introduced the OLI (Ownership‐Location‐Internalization) paradigm 37 years ago to explain the origin, level, pattern, and growth of MNEs’ offshore activities. Over the years, OLI has developed into perhaps the dominant paradigm in international business (IB) studies. However, the costs of being a paradigm are reflected in Dunning’s efforts to include an ever‐expanding array of IB theories and phenomena under the OLI “big tent.” In this paper, we focus specifically on the O in the OLI paradigm, tracing the history of Dunning’s ownership advantages. We argue that the modifications of O advantages over the past 37 years, as Dunning attempted to bring all IB phenomena and IB‐related theories under the OLI “big tent,” has had mixed results. However, we continue to believe that the typology of ownership advantages retains its relevance for IB scholars; that O advantages cannot and should not be subsumed within internalization advantages; and that O advantages are necessary for explaining the existence and success of the MNE as an organizational form

The eclectic paradigm is one of the most enduring frameworks in international business today. It is difficult to find a major area of international business thinking and research that has been unaffected, either directly or indirectly, by Dunning’s articulation of the nature of multinational enterprise (MNE) production and the factors affecting the distribution of MNE activity. His structuring of the factors underlying the choice of production location and internalization of intermediate product transactions laid the foundation for much of the research conducted over the last three decades on the distribution and character of the global operations of multinational corporations. More indirectly, the deeper questions raised by Dunning’s work, as well as the criticisms leveled at it, have spawned an ever widening array of research thought. The continuing importance of this work can be seen in the fact that, today still, even the earliest work on the eclectic paradigm continues to be cited by scholars at a fairly steady rate (see Chandy & Williams, 1994; Phene & Guisinger, 1998).¹

According to John Dunning’s eclectic paradigm, firms need to have ownership, location, and internalization advantages in order to cross borders and engage in foreign direct investment. By drawing on historical evidence on the evolution of a group of leading marketing‐based multinationals in consumer goods, this paper claims that, despite its richness, the eclectic paradigm, and in particular the concept of “ownership advantages,” needs to be revised and extended to take into account different levels of institutional analysis. For the eclectic paradigm to give a rounded view of the internationalizing firm, it needs to acknowledge the critical importance of firm‐specific ownership advantages, such as the role of the entrepreneur.

The eclectic paradigm of Dunning (1980) (with its OLI and four motives for FDI framework) can be reconciled with the firm and country matrix of Rugman (1981). However, the fit is not perfect. The main reason for misalignment is that Dunning is focused upon outward FDI into host economies, whereas Rugman’s matrix is for firm‐level strategy covering MNE activity in both home and host countries

The aim of this paper is to examine the emergence of multinational universities through the lens of Dunning’s eclectic paradigm.

An analytical framework combining the eclectic paradigm with the three missions of universities is proposed to explore the motives behind the cross-border activity of universities.

Although the analogy between a university and a multinational enterprise is flawed, this paper shows how the eclectic paradigm can still serve the purpose of better understanding why universities locate fully pledged campuses or research departments in foreign locations. A set of implications for universities and host countries are also discussed.

The internationalization of universities has been widely analyzed in the higher education literature, but few attempts have been made to draw connections with international business research. The originality of this paper lies in addressing this cross-disciplinary gap.

This paper proposes a new typology of Ownership (O) advantages as a function of their differential managerial implications in established multinational enterprises (MNEs). We argue that the mainstream typology of O advantages proposed in Dunning’s eclectic paradigm does not recognize the uniqueness of individual firms. We therefore propose a new typology of O advantages, which distinguishes among four types, based on the geographic source of such advantages and their transferability across borders. Moreover, we acknowledge the importance of resource recombination advantages. Two case examples illustrate the implications of the new typology for established MNEs.

This study investigates the impact of geopolitical disruptions on the manufacturing supply chain (SC) location decision of managers in UK multinational firms. The context of study is the UK manufacturing sector and its response to the UK's decision to leave the European Union (EU), or Brexit.

The study adopts an abductive, theory elaboration approach and expands on Dunning's eclectic paradigm of international production. A Delphi study over four iterative rounds is conducted to gather and assess insights into manufacturing SC location issues related to Brexit. The panel consisted of 30 experts and managers from a range of key industries, consultancies, governmental organisations, and academia. The Delphi findings are triangulated using a focus group with 38 participants.

The findings indicate that the majority of companies planned or have relocated production facilities from the UK to the EU, and distribution centres (DCs) from the EU to the UK. This was because of market-seeking advantages (being close to major centres of demand, ease of access to local and international markets) and efficiency-seeking advantages (costs related to expected delays at ports, tariff and non-tariff barriers). Ownership and internalisation advantages, also suggested by the eclectic paradigm, did not play a role in the location decision.

The study elaborates on the OLI framework by showing that policy-related uncertainty is a primary influencing factor in the manufacturing location decision, outweighing the importance of uncertainty as an influencer of governance mode choices. The authors find that during geopolitical disruptions managers make location decisions in tight time-frames with incomplete and imperfect information, in situations of high perceived uncertainty. The study elaborates on the eclectic paradigm by explaining how managerial cognition and bounded rationality influence the manufacturing location decision-making process.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse international business (IB) scholarship and present current gaps and new realities to enhance scholarly discourse.

The paper divides the scholarship into three distinct sections. First, it interrogates the changing definitions of the field from the 1880s to date. Secondly, IB paradigms are cross-examined while highlighting the understudied emerging interaction paradigm. Lastly, literature gaps, methodological gaps and new realities in IB are presented.

This research shows that IB inquiry has concentrated on firm-level paradigms, leaving the emerging interaction paradigm understudied. As a result, there is a deficit of novel ideas and limited research on critical emerging issues affecting IB. Further, simplistic methodologies are prevalent, making IB scholarship weak. Additionally, a majority of studies concentrate on the Americas, Europe and Asia, leaving Africa understudied.

This research augments the need for scholars to cross-examine the best approach to apply in IB discourse and presents gaps calling for new insights and future research directions.