Search results

The purpose of this paper is to extend the purview of internalisation theory in understanding the global allocation of resources in different institutional contexts.

Theoretical extensions of internalisation theory are proposed in response to a comment.

The traditional focus of internalisation theory can be extended beyond the normal market exchange context, first, by expanding the range of transactions; second, by including non-market actors; and third, by expanding the relevant welfare criteria.

Comparative institutional analysis is enhanced by expanding the consideration of the range of intermediate goods that are traded, the potential providers examined and extending the criteria of assessment beyond efficiency to include equity, sustainability and legitimacy. These extensions add value to the internalisation theory.

This paper aims to conduct a theoretical enquiry into the questions as to whether emerging country multinationals’ competitiveness derives from country-specific advantage (CSA) or firm-specific advantages (FSA). The case of China is also examined.

CSAs and FSAs are examined both in theory and in the specific case of China as explicators of outward foreign direct investment from emerging countries.

FSAs and CSAs are found to be imprecise explanatory mechanisms to explain the competitiveness of emerging country multinationals. The examination of imperfections in emerging markets and in global markets and the internalisation responses of firms in different contexts is found to be a superior explanation of the financial flows classified as “outward direct investment”.

Internalisation theory requires a focus on mechanisms to convert home country attributes into competitive advantages and suggests that FSAs are context dependent, ephemeral and subject to negation by the competitive actions of rival firms.

The purpose of this paper is to show that the market-internalization framework can be applied to non-economic institutions because society’s non-market sub-systems – political, social and cultural – are subject to failures just like economic markets, and firms can contribute to their repair or replacement by selectively, strategically and responsibly internalizing the market and non-market arenas for these sub-systems’ functions.

Internalization theory is applied to a new area – that of societal failures.

Internalization theory can be applied to the joint failures of economic and non-economic institutions, and this helps explain the growing “political role” of multinational enterprises in economies in transition as well as the phenomenon of increasing multinational firm activity in underdeveloped economies.

The limits and implications of internalization are drawn in terms of theory development, legitimacy and managerial strategies.

This paper is the first to analyze the selective internalization of societal failures by the multinational enterprises. It extends internalization theory and examines the contested notion of “public goods”.

This chapter complements the one that appeared as “History of the AIB Fellows: 1975–2008” in Volume 14 of this series (International Business Scholarship: AIB Fellows on the First 50 Years and Beyond, Jean J. Boddewyn, Editor). It traces what happened under the deanship of Alan Rugman (2011–2014) who took many initiatives reported here while his death in July 2014 generated trenchant, funny, and loving comments from more than half of the AIB Fellows. The lives and contributions of many other major international business scholars who passed away from 2008 to 2014 are also evoked here: Endel Kolde, Lee Nehrt, Howard Perlmutter, Stefan Robock, John Ryans, Vern Terpstra, and Daniel Van Den Bulcke.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

I ATTENDED the Famous Extra‐ordinary General Meeting of the la on January 6 as an ‘observer’ (which is all they would allow, shoving me in the back row next to Charles Ellis, to whom I made indecorous remarks as the proceedings unfolded). Few of the speeches bore much relationship to the motions and amendments under debate, the prize for irrelevance going to a smarmy young woman who droned on interminably about the unfairness of not doubling staff pay‐packets every five weeks or so; but this didn't much matter, as the audience had clearly arrived with the intention of passing the motion calling for more information about the financial crisis, and chucking out the ones aimed at personalities.

Yair Aharoni is a Professor Emeritus at the Faculty of Management, Tel-Aviv University. He received his DBA from the Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration. His doctoral dissertation – The Foreign Investment Decision Process – was published in a book version and was translated to Spanish and Japanese. He is a Fellow of the International Academy of Management and the Academy of International Business. During his long and distinguished academic career, Aharoni was the Daniel and Grace Ross Professor of International Business and later the Issachar Haimovic Professor of Business Policy – both at Tel Aviv University. He was the Thomas Henry Caroll Ford Foundation Visiting Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration (1978–1979). He was also the J. Paul Stitch Visiting Professor of International Business at Duke University (1987–1995) and the director of CIBER (Center of International Business Education and Research) (1992–1995). He published several dozens books and monographs in Hebrew and in English, more than 100 papers and chapters in books and more than 150 cases. For his academic achievements he was awarded both Landau Prize (2007) and Israel Prize in management science (2010).

The British Food Journal has had a long and distinguished career as an information source both for those involved in regulation and those who produce within the food industry. Indeed, in 1988 the journal enters its 90th year of this service. A review of its past also provides a review of key trends and evolutions in food manufacture and control. The article highlights key issues and developments from 1899 to 1988.