The MNE as the “crown of creation”?: a commentary on mainstream theories of multinational enterprises

IF 2 Q3 BUSINESS
M. Forsgren, M. Yamin
{"title":"The MNE as the “crown of creation”?: a commentary on mainstream theories of multinational enterprises","authors":"M. Forsgren, M. Yamin","doi":"10.1108/cpoib-05-2022-0048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this paper is twofold: to analyse what theories assume about multinational enterprises (MNEs) when they claim these are superior and to discuss possible explanations for why MNE superiority seems to be dominant in the international business (IB) research field.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA common theme in mainstream IB theories is that multinational enterprises (MNEs) are superior in terms of cost efficiency and innovativeness compared with other types of organizations. A closer look at transaction cost economics (TCE)/internalization theory, evolutionary theory and dynamic capability theory reveal a bias toward MNE supremacy because of how MNEs are conceptualized as firms and therefore fail to explain the essence of “multinational advantage”. These revelations and the strong dependence on the benevolence to provide unbiased data means that MNE supremacy posited by mainstream IB theories is as much a rationalized myth as an empirical fact.\n\n\nFindings\nAlthough mainstream theories differ when it comes to the building blocks that constitute MNE supremacy, they have one attribute in common: they are silent as to why MNEs are superior compared with, for example, domestic firms or other types of economic agents. Irrespective of whether the focus is the strength of the hierarchy, the skill of managers or a common identity, nothing in the theories tells us that these factors are more pronounced in MNEs than in other types of economic actors.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThe paper deals with the issue of multinational advantage. It claims that mainstream theories of MNEs tend to assume, explicitly or implicitly, that MNEs are superior in terms of cost efficiency and innovativeness compared with other types of economic agents. The analysis demonstrates that this tendency is a consequence of how MNEs are conceptualized as firms in the different theories as well as of the strong dependence in IB research on the benevolence of MNEs to provide unbiased data. It is concluded that MNE supremacy posited by mainstream IB theories is as much a rationalized myth as an empirical fact.\n","PeriodicalId":46124,"journal":{"name":"Critical Perspectives on International Business","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Perspectives on International Business","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-05-2022-0048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is twofold: to analyse what theories assume about multinational enterprises (MNEs) when they claim these are superior and to discuss possible explanations for why MNE superiority seems to be dominant in the international business (IB) research field. Design/methodology/approach A common theme in mainstream IB theories is that multinational enterprises (MNEs) are superior in terms of cost efficiency and innovativeness compared with other types of organizations. A closer look at transaction cost economics (TCE)/internalization theory, evolutionary theory and dynamic capability theory reveal a bias toward MNE supremacy because of how MNEs are conceptualized as firms and therefore fail to explain the essence of “multinational advantage”. These revelations and the strong dependence on the benevolence to provide unbiased data means that MNE supremacy posited by mainstream IB theories is as much a rationalized myth as an empirical fact. Findings Although mainstream theories differ when it comes to the building blocks that constitute MNE supremacy, they have one attribute in common: they are silent as to why MNEs are superior compared with, for example, domestic firms or other types of economic agents. Irrespective of whether the focus is the strength of the hierarchy, the skill of managers or a common identity, nothing in the theories tells us that these factors are more pronounced in MNEs than in other types of economic actors. Originality/value The paper deals with the issue of multinational advantage. It claims that mainstream theories of MNEs tend to assume, explicitly or implicitly, that MNEs are superior in terms of cost efficiency and innovativeness compared with other types of economic agents. The analysis demonstrates that this tendency is a consequence of how MNEs are conceptualized as firms in the different theories as well as of the strong dependence in IB research on the benevolence of MNEs to provide unbiased data. It is concluded that MNE supremacy posited by mainstream IB theories is as much a rationalized myth as an empirical fact.
跨国公司是“创造之冠”?:对跨国企业主流理论的评述
本文的目的有两个:分析理论在声称跨国企业(MNEs)优越时对它们的假设,并讨论为什么跨国企业的优势似乎在国际商务(IB)研究领域占据主导地位的可能解释。主流IB理论的一个共同主题是,与其他类型的组织相比,跨国企业(MNEs)在成本效率和创新方面具有优势。仔细研究交易成本经济学(TCE)/内部化理论、演化理论和动态能力理论就会发现,由于跨国公司是如何被概念化为公司的,因此无法解释“跨国优势”的本质,因此对跨国公司霸权存在偏见。这些启示和对提供公正数据的仁慈的强烈依赖意味着,主流IB理论所假定的跨国公司霸权既是一个经验事实,也是一个合理化的神话。尽管主流理论在跨国公司优势的构成要素方面存在分歧,但它们有一个共同点:它们对跨国公司为什么优于国内公司或其他类型的经济主体保持沉默。无论关注的焦点是等级制度的力量、管理者的技能还是共同的身份,这些理论都没有告诉我们,这些因素在跨国公司中比在其他类型的经济行为体中更为明显。本文主要研究跨国优势问题。它声称,跨国公司的主流理论倾向于明确或隐含地假设,与其他类型的经济主体相比,跨国公司在成本效率和创新性方面更胜一筹。分析表明,这种趋势是跨国公司在不同理论中如何被概念化为公司的结果,也是跨国公司研究强烈依赖跨国公司提供公正数据的结果。结论是,主流IB理论所假定的跨国公司霸权既是一个理性的神话,也是一个经验事实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
15.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: In recent years, the business practices and management philosophies of global enterprises have been subject to increasingly close scrutiny by commentators in the fields of journalism and academia. Such scrutiny has been motivated by a growing desire to examine the nature of globalisation, its impact on specific communities and its benefits for society as a whole. Coverage includes, but is not restricted to, issues of: ■Globalization ■Production and consumption ■Economic change ■Societal change ■Politics and power of organizations and governments ■Environmental impact
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信