Printer Friendly

The resource-based view and international business.


The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm has become an influential theoretical perspective in recent international business (IB) research. Tracking the evolution of the RBV literature in TB, this article has three objectives. First, it documents the extent to which the RBV has diffused to TB research. Second, it explains the rationale behind such diffusion. Finally, it provides a state-of-the-art review of the substantive work through a proposed organizing framework, focusing on multinational management, strategic alliances, market entries, international entrepreneurship, and emerging markets strategies. Overall, a broad, expanding, and cumulative knowledge base is emerging to connect TB and strategy research through the RBV. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of such a development in the intellectual marketplace, with an emphasis on future research directions. (c) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Spearheaded by the work of Wernerfelt (1984) and Barney (1991), one of the key developments in recent strategic management and international business (IB) research has been the emergence of the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm. Tracking the evolution of the RBV literature in IB since the publication of the landmark Journal of Management special issue in 1991, this article addresses three key questions. First, how influential has the RBV become? This question will be answered by mapping out the key contributions to the RBV literature in IB during 1991 through 2000. The second question focuses on what is behind the diffusion of the RBV in IB. Drawing on the diffusion-of-innovations literature, I suggest that the RBV may be considered as a theoretical innovation, whose attributes facilitate its diffusion, and that an understanding of the trajectories of the strategy and IB fields is necessary to understand the RBV's diffusion. Finally, what is the current state-of-the-art of RBV research in IB? To answer th is question, I propose an organizing framework to review the substantive work to find out what new insights are gained. This article concludes with a discussion on the possible directions of future development of the RBV in IB.

2. Mapping the Contributions

A citation-based approach is used to document the extent to which the RBV has penetrated IB research, by focusing on articles in leading IB journals which cited two key RBV papers, Barney (1991) and/or Wernerfelt (1984), during 1991 through 2000. The selection of these two papers is driven by their widely acknowledged influence (Priem & Butler, 2001; Wernerfelt, 1995). Among the journals, I first examine the Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS), which has consistently been ranked as the number one journal in IB (Dubois & Reeb, 2000; Phene & Guisinger, 1998) and as one of the leading outlets for business research (Inkpen & Beamish, 1994; MacMillan, 1991; Tahai & Meyer, 1999). Then, given (1) the strategy roots of the RBV and (2) the substantial IB work published in the Strategic Management Journal (SMJ), I also included all IB papers in SMJ. Finally, I examined five mainstream management outlets, the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), Academy of Management Review (AMR), Journal of Management (JM ), Journal of Management Studies (JMS), and Organization Science (OS), (1) all of which have been found as leading forums (Tahai & Meyer, 1999).

The benefits of such an approach are (1) a clear and manageable focus on publications in international management (Boddewyn, 1999), (2) relative objectivity, and (3) consistency with well-accepted academic norms in assessing the influence of a body of work (Peng, Lu, Shenkar & Wang, 2001). The drawback is the inability to exhaust IB research in nonmanagement disciplines given IB's interdisciplinary nature (Toyne & Nigh, 1997). However, since management has asserted the most significant influence on IB research among all business disciplines, (2) this drawback is not deemed to be significant. Overall, it is believed that the benefits of this approach outweigh its drawback.

In Table 1, a total of 61 articles have been identified. Starting with three annual citations in 1991, the two key RBV papers had a total of 22 citations in 2000, indicating healthy growth of their influence. To further assess the RBV's impact on TB vis-a-vis other disciplines, in Figure 1, I drew on the Social Science Citation Index to plot the cumulative citations to a key RBV paper, Barney (1991), during 1992 through 2000. With a total of 526 citations to Barney (1991)-58 (11%) of which are IB papers--as of December 15, 2000, the overall growth of the RBV's influence becomes more evident when viewed with such a "big picture."

To assess the individual contributions to this literature, I followed similar reviews (e.g., Peng et al., 2001) to examine both "total" and "adjusted" appearances of authors whose work appears in Table 1. The method was that an article published by one author counts as a full credit for the author and his/her institution, an article published by two authors counts as one-half credit for each author and institution, and so forth. Shown in Table 2, during 1991 through 2000, a total of 20 scholars had at least one adjusted appearance in these seven top-tier journals, led by Tallman in adjusted appearances (2.83) and Peng in total appearances (5). Overall, there is significant international diversity among these leading scholars. As of December 2000, while American universities dominated the list with 12 "adjusted" authors, Asian and European schools each housed four "adjusted" authors. These leading contributors can be found in France, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States, ind icating the global reach of RBV research in IB.

In summary, the RBV literature in IB has become a burgeoning one, with contributions from a wide variety of authors and institutions around the world. With this overview as a background, the next section sheds some light on the driving forces behind such growing influence of the RBV.

3. The Diffusion of a Theoretical Innovation

3.1. A theoretical innovation

The RBV's growing influence has provoked a significant debate on its standing in the intellectual marketplace, with one side of the debate arguing for its paradigm status (Conner, 1991, p. 121; Mahoney & Pandian, 1992, p. 373; Peteraf, 1993, p. 189) and another side critiquing its lack of tight definition and explanatory power (Porter, 1991; Priem & Butler, 2001; Williamson, 1999). Given the inconclusiveness of this debate on the status of the RBV (Barney, 2001), I would simply suggest that the RBV represents an "innovation."

An "innovation" is "an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual" (Rogers, 1983, p. 11). According to this definition, I believe that even the RBV's critics would accept that it represents a theoretical innovation. A critical insight of the diffusion-of-innovations literature is that "it matters little whether or not an idea is 'objectively' new ... If the idea seems new to the individual, it is an innovation" (Rogers, 1983, p. 11). The key question is that despite its shortcomings, why the RBV ever gained such influence as documented in Table 1 and Figure 1.

Specifically, five characteristics of an innovation, as perceived by users, helps explain its diffusion (Rogers, 1983, p. 15). First, the greater the perceived relative advantage, the more rapid the innovation's diffusion. The RBV's focus on firm-level determinants of company performance--relative to traditional industry-level variables--is widely regarded as a key advantage. Second, the compatibility of an innovation with existing values also drives its diffusion. The RBV not only draws on the behavioral insights of Penrose (1959), but also extend five major industrial organization (IO) economics theories of the firm (Conner, 1991). As a result, the RBV is compatible with both behavioral and economic schools of thought in strategy (Mahoney & Pandian, 1992).

Third, simple innovations will be adopted more rapidly. On the surface, despite the difficulties associated with empirical work (Godfrey & Hill, 1995), the RBV logic is (deceptively) simple and easy to understand. Fourth, a high level of trialability, which is "the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis" (Rogers, 1983, p. 15), also facilitates its diffusion. The RBV's trialability, because of its linkages with many parts of the existing literature, enables scholars to employ it in parallel with other theoretical perspectives in the same studies (Peng & York, 2001).

Finally, the RBV has benefited from high visibility forums and events, such as the JM and SMJ special issues in 1991 (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1991), the "fundamental issues in strategy" conference in 1990 (Rumelt, Schendel & Teece, 1994), the "emerging vision in TB" conference in 1992 (Toyne & Nigh, 1997), and the recognition of Wemerfelt's (1984) article as SMJ's best paper in 1994 (Wemerfelt, 1995). In this process, the role of credible, "neutral" opinion leaders is instrumental (Rogers, 1983, p. 27). For example, at the "emerging vision in TB" conference in 1992, opinion leaders such as Doz (1997), Hitt (1997), and Kogut (1997) stood behind the RBV, thus influencing many others (such as the present author who was a Ph.D. student at that time (3)) to follow this path.

Overall, innovation adoption decisions can be classified into three groups: (1) "optional" (made by individuals), (2) "collective" (made by consensus by a group), and (3) "authority" (made by higher authorities) (Rogers, 1983, p. 29). It is possible that some innovations lacking the five desirable attributes above are still adopted, because they may be selected by some higher authorities. However, this is not likely in the case of academic research. In the intellectual marketplace, the adoption of a theoretical perspective always represents an "optional" or "collective" decision made when researchers craft their individual or joint work. Therefore, I suggest that given its rapid diffusion, the RBV, as a theoretical innovation, encompasses all five of the most desirable qualities that are conducive for its diffusion.

3.2. Strategy and IB: A convergence

In addition to the RBV's own attributes, we also need to be aware of the larger picture of the evolution of the strategy and LB fields to better understand its diffusion. Such diffusion took place during a time of flux (the 1990s) when both relatively young fields engaged in extensive soul-searching (Boddewyn, 1999; Toyne & Nigh, 1997; Rumelt et al., 1994). Specifically, I identify three driving forces behind such diffusion: (1) the nature of IB researchers as innovators, (2) the overlap between the IB and strategy research agenda, and (3) the crossing of the trajectories of these two fields.

First, as a field of "great diversity and dynamism," IB is "grounded in a wide range of disciplines and functional applications, yet willing to draw freely" from other fields (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1991, p. 7). As a result, LB scholars tend to be "innovators," who are "active information seekers about new ideas" (Rogers, 1983, p. 22). Historically, LB has been one of the first adopters of some of the earlier innovations, such as transaction cost economics (TCE) (Buckley & Casson, 1976; Hennart, 1997). Thus, it is not surprising that some IB scholars became interested in the RBV early on.

Second, there is increasing synergy in the core research questions that TB and strategy scholars pursue (Dess, Gupta, Hennart & Hill, 1995; Hoskisson, Hitt, Wan & Yu, 1999; Ricks, Toyne & Martinez, 1990; Toyne & Nigh, 1997). Until the 1970s, IB research was influenced by economists, who were interested in macrolevel trade and investment flows between countries. Beginning in the 1970s, LB research became more interested in firm-level analysis of foreign direct investment (FDI) and of multinational corporations (MNCs) (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1991). This research was especially interested in two questions: "why some firms possess unique resources and competencies--relative to their competitors of other nationalities--and why they choose to use at least some of these advantages jointly with a portfolio of foreign-based immobile assets" (Dunning, 1995, p. 466). As IB went through this transformation, it found that strategy offers the closest ally (Doz, 1997). (4) This alliance is primarily driven by the fact that mor e than any discipline (except IB), strategy has been most explicitly interested in the international dimension (Toyne & Nigh, 1997, p. 468). In fact, "What determines the international success and failure of firms?" has been identified as one of the five most fundamental questions in strategy (Rumelt et al., 1994, p. 564). (5)

Finally, the crossing of disciplinary trajectories might have also facilitated the RBV's diffusion. During the 1970s and 1980s, as IB moved away from economics to embrace management, strategy went through an opposite transformation, by leaving its initial management roots (i.e., "business policy") and increasingly invoking IO economics reasoning (Hoskisson et al., 1999). It seems that IB and strategy met on the middle ground via the RBV as both fields are "in search of a theory" (Doz, 1997, p. 490). As a result, "there has been a virtual explosion" in international strategy research (Ricks et al., 1990, p. 230). The next section will try to "settle the dust" of this explosion.

4. An organizing framework

To provide a substantive review of the emerging RBV literature in IB (see Table 1), I first identify four areas of central interest in recent work, organized according to a 2 X 2 matrix along the dimensions of firm size and international sophistication: (1) MNC management, (2) strategic alliances, (3) market entries, and (4) international entrepreneurship (Figure 2). While historically IB activities seemed to be the exclusive territories for large firms, this may no longer be the case any more (McDougall & Oviatt, 2000). Also, I pay explicit attention to both mature operations and start-ups, as well as the increasingly important alliance activities that bridge these two areas (Dunning, 1995).

After reviewing these four areas of research, I will move on to highlight one of the most recent developments in the literature, that is, the realization that emerging economies are likely to become the new battleground for IB competition and that researchers need to pay careful attention to the institutional context in which IB activities take place (Peng, 2000, 2002). Overall, the review in the following sections focuses on new insights gained by applying the RBV vis-a-vis other perspectives in IB.

5. MNC management

5.1. Global strategies

A key insight of traditional IB research is that MNCs face a substantial "liability of foreignness," which leads to nontrivial costs. To overcome such a liability, both TCE (Buckley & Casson, 1976; Caves, 1996) and "eclectic" (Dunning, 1993) perspectives stress that MNCs need to equip their overseas subsidiaries with certain firm-specific advantage. The RBV extends these perspectives by specifying the nature of these resources and capabilities, (6) such as administrative heritage (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989; Collis, 1991), organizational practices (Tallman, 1991, 1992; Zaheer, 1995; Zaheer & Mosakowski, 1997), and bargaining power (Moon & Lado, 2000).

Another stream of research focuses on international diversification. This work is both inspired and frustrated by the large body of diversification research with mixed findings. Most existing studies only measured the product diversity of firms, and did not capture the degree of international diversity (Dess et al., 1995). The RBV has served as a bridge by urging scholars to investigate the resources underlying both kinds of diversification. Specifically, "experience with product diversification can build managerial capabilities that allow more effective management for international diversification" (Hitt, Hoskisson & Kim, 1997, p. 770). Testing this proposition, Tallman and Li (1996) reported that international diversity has a positive effect on multinational performance. Hitt and colleagues (1997, p. 767) produced more fine-grained findings: "International diversification is negatively related to performance in nondiversified firms, positively related in highly product-diversified firms, and curvilinearly r elated "in moderately product-diversified firms."

Both Hitt and colleagues (1997) and Tallman and Li (1996)--as well as the majority of traditional diversification studies--used U.S. samples, thus raising the question about the generalizability of the findings. Two recent studies on Japan addressed this problem. Interestingly, while both invoked a similar RBV logic, their findings were at odds with each other. Specifically, Delios and Beamish (1999) found that international diversification is positively associated with profitability, whereas Geringer, Tallman, and Olsen (2000) reported a negative link. Thus, their "take-away" messages could not be more different. Delios and Beamish (1999, p. 724) argued that "there is value in internationalization itself because geographic scope was found to be related to higher firm profitability," whereas Geringer and colleagues (2000, p. 76) cautioned that "multinational diversification is apparently less valuable in practice than in theory." Overall, it seems that much more future work needs to look at whether internatio nal diversification, independently and/or in association with product diversification, adds value.

5.2. Subsidiary capability development

The IB literature has long recognized the centrality of ownership- or firm-specific advantage to the raison d'etre of the MNC (Caves, 1996; Dunning, 1993). Specifically, MNCs exist because of their capabilities to transfer and exploit knowledge more effectively in the intrafirm context than through external markets. However, this research has typically taken a top-down approach, emphasizing how the headquarters provides capabilities to subsidiaries. The reality is that subsidiaries can also play an important part in the development of the MNC's firm-specific advantage. However, very little is known on how the MNC's geographically dispersed capabilities within the firm can contribute to firm-level (MNE-wide) advantage. A number of recent studies attempted to fill this gap.

Birkinshaw (1996) and colleagues (Birkinshaw & Hood, 1998; Birkinshaw, Hood & Jonsson, 1998) reported that subsidiary growth is driven by its own distinctive capabilities developed through the entrepreneurial efforts of subsidiary management, rather than given by parent management. If subsidiary capabilities remain locally focused and globally underutilized, they cannot become the MNC's firm-specific advantage (Luo & Peng, 1999, p. 289). However, subsidiary managers' initiative to promote the wider application of their unit's capabilities is often seen by parent managers as evidence of subsidiary managers acting in their own or their country's interests rather than in the interests of the MNC as a whole (Birkinshaw et al., 1998, p. 235). As a result, subsidiary managers' efforts to facilitate outbound knowledge transfer will only be successful (1) when their incentive structure is linked with such outflows, and (2) when the target unit (sister subsidiaries or the headquarters) is motivated to learn (Gupta & G ovindarajan, 2000). Overall, the RBV literature on subsidiary capability-building adds to our understanding that capability flows within the MNC are not necessarily a one-way process originating from the headquarters (Peng & Wang, 2000). It is through subsidiary capabilities and initiatives that more knowledge flows can be facilitated.

5.3. Human resource management

A new subfield within human resources (HR), "international strategic human resource management" (ISHRM), has emerged recently (Schuler, Dowling & Decieri, 1993). Taylor, Beechlor and Napier (1996, P. 965) developed a theoretical model of ISHRM for three levels, (1) the parent firm, (2) the subsidiary, and (3) the employee, each of which is examined by several RBV studies. First, at the parent firm level, primary attention has been focused on top managers. Drawing on the RBV insight that top managers may represent some of the most valuable, unique, and hard-to-imitate resources, Athanassiou and Nigh (1999, 2000) and Roth (1995) reported that the more an MNC internationalizes, the more likely its top managers will have significant international experience. Such attributes represent firm-specific tacit knowledge that is difficult to access by other MNCs whose top managers do not possess similar knowledge, thus leading to higher firm performance (Carpenter, Sanders & Gregersen, 2001). In terms of HR development, Daily, Certo and Dalton (2000) confirmed that executives' international experience is very attractive to other firms interested in acquiring such tacit knowledge, and Carpenter and colleagues (2001) reported that internationally experienced CEOs are able to extract more rents in the form of higher compensation.

Second, at the subsidiary level, three findings emerge. The first insight is that it seems important to staff subsidiaries with entrepreneurial managers, if the MNC is interested in tapping into the capabilities of these geographically dispersed units (Birkinshaw et al., 1998). The second finding is that to facilitate subsidiary capability development and knowledge sharing, the MNC needs to provide sufficient incentive to subsidiary managers, such as linking bonuses with these desirable behaviors (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). The third result is that the MNC needs to seek a fit between its HR practices such as compensation and the local culture (Schuler & Rogovsky, 1998).

Finally, at the employee level, two recent studies in Korea found that firms which value people as a source of competitive advantage are more likely to attain higher performance (Bae & Lawler, 2000; Lee & Miller, 1999). Overall, it seems that the RBV has provided ISHRM with a powerful analytical perspective connecting HR with firm-specific advantage. Given that socially complex relationships may be one of the most difficult-to-imitate resources (Barney, 1991), deepening our understanding of this connection may not only propel the further progress of ISHRM, but also help solve major empirical problems in the RBV (Godfrey & Hill, 1995).

6. Strategic Alliances

Since the 1980s, both the corporate world and the academic fields of IB and strategy have experienced an "alliance revolution" (Dunning, 1995). While strategic alliances is a multifaceted phenomenon, the RBV focuses on one aspect, organizational learning. It advances a core proposition that capabilities to learn from partners may be a tacit resource underlying a firm's competitive advantage (Hamel, 1991). Empirical studies have largely confirmed this assertion. For example, learning from partners is found to represent a primary motivation for firms to enter alliances (Glaister & Buckley, 1996; Hitt et al., 2000; Shenkar & Li, 1999). For MNCs, the intensity and diversity of learning from local partners facilitate local knowledge acquisition and strengthen firm performance in host countries (Luo & Peng, 1999; Makino & Delios, 1996). For local firms, learning from MNC parents is likely to enhance survivability and performance (Fahy et al., 2000; Lyles & Salk, 1996).

Some alliances (e.g., those between Toyota and its suppliers) are designed to exploit relationship-specific assets (Dyer, 1996; Peng, Lee & Tan, 2001), and the threat of a "learning race" is not significant. However, alliances between competitors do represent a scenario most likely to generate a "learning race" (Hamel, 1991). Dussauge, Garrette, and Mitchell (2000, p. 100) argued that there are two kinds of alliances between competitors: (1) "link" alliances in which the partners contribute asymmetric knowledge, and (2) "scale" alliances in which the partners provide similar knowledge. They found that compared with scale alliances, interpartner learning occurs more often in link alliances.

However, despite significant progress, none of these studies directly observes learning, which is a highly intangible act. As a result, isolating and measuring such an intangible resource as learning and its impact on performance remains one of the key empirical challenges in further RBV work on strategic alliances (Godfrey & Hill, 1995).

7. Market entries

7.1. Extensions beyond TCE

Market entries are a classic strategic problem in IB. Largely influenced by TCE, traditional studies treat each particular entry as a "transaction" (Anderson & Gatignon, 1986), and the key concern is whether to rely on external market measures (e.g., exporting) or to internalize operations (e.g., FDI) (Buckley & Casson, 1976). The RBV raises the level of analysis from the transaction to the firm, suggesting that "a particular entry decision cannot be viewed in isolation. It must be considered in relation to the overall strategic posture of the firm" (Hill, Hwang & Kim, 1990, p. 117). The RBV differs from TCE on three key dimensions. First, whereas TOE predicts entry modes because of failure in the external market (e.g., licensing) under an assumption of opportunism, the RBV attributes such failure to a different underlying assumption, that is, the heterogeneity of firm resources (Capron, Dussauge & Mitchell, 1998). In other words, "the [licensing] market does not fail because of opportunism but, rather, becau se of superior capabilities of the multinational [licensor] in deploying its know-how and limitations to the capabilities of the other firm [licensee] in efficiently and effectively acquiring and integrating the particular knowledge" (Madhok, 1997, p. 46). A second difference is that while TOE generally focuses on one-time entries based on a set of relatively static conditions, the RBV highlights a dynamic, longitudinal process in which multiple entries take place each building on capabilities and learning from the previous entry experience (Chang, 1995; Chang & Rosenzweig, 2001; Kogut, 1997).

The third difference is concerned with firm-specific advantage, whereas TCE focuses on their exploitation and the RBV emphasizes both their exploitation and development (Madhok, 1997, p. 49). Although TCE unpacks the rationale behind MNCs' exploitation of their proprietary advantages abroad (Buckley & Casson, 1976), it seems less capable of explaining recent entries focusing on foreign research and development (R&D). Specifically, why do R&D-focused entries take place in the absence of strong advantages on the part of investing MNCs? The RBV suggests that such entries can be viewed "as an option to maintain access to innovations resident in the host country, thus generating information spillovers that may lead to opportunities for future organizational learning and growth" (Peng & Wang, 2000, p. 80). Thus, the RBV asserts that market entries are not only "pushed" by firm-specific advantages possessed by the MNC, but also "pulled" by the resources and capabilities of the target firm abroad that may help the in vesting MNC develop new advantages (Shan & Song, 1997).

7.2. Entry modes and performance

While the dependent variable of TCE studies is typically the entry modes, RBV studies aim to link entry modes--in particular, acquisitions--with postentry performance. In contrast to the traditional idea that national cultural distance between the target and the acquirer hinders cross-border acquisition performance, Morosini, Shane and Singh (1998, p. 137) demonstrated that cultural distance may actually enhance acquisition performance by "providing access to the target's and/or the acquirer's diverse set of routines and repertoires embedded in national culture." Vermeulen and Barkema (2001) found that despite the high initial costs of acquisitions (as opposed to "greenfield"), acquisitions may broaden a firm's knowledge base and decrease inertia, thus possibly leading to better performance in the long run.

7.3. Actual channels of entries

While focusing on the strategic aspects of market entries, scholars usually pay little attention to the actual channel through which entries take place (Melin, 1992). Since entering foreign markets entails a great deal of knowledge, firms without such knowledge, especially smaller ones, are typically thought to be unlikely to entertain foreign market entries (Liesch & Knight, 1999). However, recent work suggests that this may not necessarily be the case. Knowledge-based resources critical for market entries do not have to reside within the boundaries of the firm. Instead, they can be found in specialist organizations such as export intermediaries, which can help facilitate the "quantum leap" in internationalization among smaller firms (Peng & Ilinitch, 1998).

This research highlights the dilemma on how these hard-to-measure, knowledge-based resources can be "rented" to client firms (Chi, 1994). First, from the clients' standpoint, they are concerned with whether the intermediary, who is an agent, will actually perform as promised. Second, from the intermediary's perspective, it needs (1) to leverage its resources by taking advantage of the information asymmetries between its clients and foreign markets to profit from such opportunities, and (2) to assure its clients that its knowledge-based resources will indeed be deployed to advance the clients' interests. For intermediaries, the solution lies in an integration between the RBV and TCE/agency theory perspectives, by following the RBV logic to "be bold" and, at the same time, respecting the TCE and agency theory concerns by not being "too bold" (Peng, 1998; Peng, Hill & Wang, 2000; Peng & York, 2001). Future research in this direction is likely to help further integrate the RBV with other perspectives by shedding light on the intricacies of actual channels of entries.

8. International entrepreneurship

Historically, IB research focuses on large MNCs, and entrepreneurship studies concentrate on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) within a domestic context. Some SMEs may eventually become MNEs through a time-consuming, sequential process in their international involvement, sometimes called a step-by-step, "stage" model (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977). However, such a "stage" model is increasingly challenged by empirical findings that some SMEs are able to internationalize more rapidly than the model predicts (Knight, 2000; Lu & Beamish, 2001). As a result, the academic demarcation segregating IB and entrepreneurship has begun to erode and a distinctive new subfield, "international entrepreneurship," has emerged (McDougall & Oviatt, 2000).

The RBV has played an important role behind the emergence of international entrepreneurship by solving a key puzzle: How can some SMEs succeed abroad rapidly without going through different stages suggested by the "stage" model? The answer typically boils down to the superb tacit knowledge about global opportunities (Peng, Hill & Wang, 2000) and the equally superb capability to leverage such knowledge in a way not matched by competitors (Mitchell, Smith, Seawright & Morse, 2000; Peng & York, 2001). The RBV logic suggests that "precisely because it is difficult to obtain, a surplus of tacit knowledge on internationalization is likely to provide the firm with a competitive advantage in foreign markets" (Liesch & Knight, 1999, p. 385).

Some recent RBV work has further challenged the "stage" model. Specifically, Autio, Sapienza and Almeida (2000) demonstrated that firms following the prescription of the "stage" model, when eventually internationalizing, must overcome substantial inertia because of their domestic orientation. In contrast, firms that internationalize earlier need to overcome fewer of these barriers. Therefore, SMEs without established domestic routines may outperform their competitors who wait longer to internationalize. In other words, contrary to the inherent disadvantages in internationalization associated with SMEs as suggested by the "stage" model, there may be "inherent advantages" of being small when venturing abroad (Liesch & Knight, 1999, p. 385).

Overall, the RBV literature on international entrepreneurship, measured by the number of articles, seems to be still in its infancy. However, the impact of this emerging literature, just like the impact of SMEs that it aims to capture, is increasingly being felt. As more and more SMEs venture abroad, it seems safe to predict that this literature will grow more sustainably in the new millennium.

9. Emerging markets strategies

While most research reviewed above focuses on developed economies, research interests on emerging economies have been growing significantly since the 1990s. Hoskisson, Eden, Lau and Wright (2000) recently identified the RBV as one of the top three most insightful theories when probing into emerging economies. (7) Given the prominence of institutional differences between emerging and developed economies, RBV research capitalizes on recent institutional work uncovering the intricacies of competition in emerging economies (Peng, 2000, 2002). This section focuses on the strategies of (1) MNCs, (2) state-owned enterprises (SOEs), (3) privatized firms, (4) start-ups, and (5) conglomerates. While this section overlaps to some extent with the four areas reviewed earlier, its distinction lies in its unique institutional context, which is less understood in traditional research.

9.1. MNCs

Although surveys of the MNC literature typically include a chapter on MNCs in developing countries (Caves, 1996, chapt. 9; Dunning, 1993, chapt. 19), such a chapter is often one of the weakest, not because of the authors' fault but because of the paucity of research (Wells, 1998). As emerging economies become increasingly important, such a dearth of knowledge is gradually replaced by a small but growing body of literature on MNCs in these new markets (Meyer, 2001; Peng, Au & Wang, 2001).

In emerging economies, MNCs' traditional liability of foreignness is magnified (Meyer, 2001). Confronting a higher degree of uncertainty, MNCs have to figure out (1) when to enter, (2) how to enter, and (3) how to win. The entry timing question, largely unresolved in existing research (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1998), has been tackled by Isobe, Makino and Montgomery (2000) and Luo and Peng (1999), who found significant early mover advantages in China. Moreover, they called for greater resource commitment (Isobe et al., 2000) and more diverse experience in a variety of local settings to maximize the gains from such learning (Luo & Peng, 1999).

Among different entry modes, acquisitions, which are used less frequently, are not well understood. For example, in Central and Eastern Europe, Uhlenbruck and De Castro (2000, p. 398) found that organizational fit between the acquirer and the target firms, long considered a critical resource behind acquisition success, is actually "negatively related to performance." However, with limited research to draw on, it is difficult to know whether (and how) such a finding is generalizable.

The alliance literature on emerging economies is more substantial (Lyles & Salk, 1996; Yan & Gray, 1994). A key insight is the emergence of a local partner perspective (Peng, 2000, p. 219). Research in Hungary, Poland and Slovenia suggested that local firms are interested in using alliances to acquire advantages over their domestic rivals (Fahy et al., 2000; Hooley et al., 1996). As a result, it is not surprising that local firms use a different set of criteria when selecting partners. Specifically, while MNCs value access to local markets, indigenous firms in China, Mexico, Poland and Romania strongly prefer partners' financial assets and technical capabilities (Hitt et al., 2000; Shenkar & Li, 1999).

Finally, when managing alliances, MNCs need to strike a balance between their strategic interests and those of local partners (Yan & Zeng, 1999). In Hungary, Steensma and Lyles (2000, p. 847) found a dilemma: "Strong foreign parent support is conducive to IJY survival by enhancing IJV learning ... However, doing so appears to decrease the likelihood of IJV survival." They therefore advocated a 50/50 share of management control even when the MNC may be the dominant equity contributor, thus challenging the conventional wisdom in favor of dominant foreign control.

9.2. State-owned enterprises (SOEs)

While historically outside the "radar screen" of LB and strategy research, SOEs increasingly command research attention because they often compete and/or collaborate with MNCs (Tan & Litschert, 1994). During the transitions, SOEs "can no longer afford to be passive now but have to join the competition" (Peng & Heath, 1996, p. 507). The RBV suggests that to compete means to grow the firm, or to find better ways to exploit underutilized resources (Penrose, 1959). However, SOEs typically have a shortage of technological, financial, and managerial resources, thereby ruling out the possibility for internal (or hierarchical) growth, at least initially. At the same time, because of the underdevelopment of financial markets, mergers and acquisitions (M&As) may also be difficult. As a result, SOEs often resort to a compromise strategy which is neither market nor hierarchy, featuring "boundary blurring" through strategic alliances and networks with both foreign and domestic firms to develop their capabilities (Peng & H eath, 1996; White, 2000).

Overall, developing capabilities constitutes "one of the most important SOE strategies during the transitions" (Peng, 2000, p. 100). While many believe that SOEs represent organizational dinosaurs soon to die out (or at least be privatized), market transitions in many countries suggest that SOEs as an organizational form are likely to persist, thus necessitating our attention.

9.3. Privatized firms

While a wave of privatization has swept through many emerging economies, little attention has been devoted to its organizational and managerial implications (Zahra, Ireland, Gutierrez & Hitt, 2000). Recent RBV work has started to address this imbalance. However, studies focusing on resources hypothesized to facilitate postprivatization performance have not provided corroborative evidence. For example, in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, insider privatization leads to negative implications for corporate restructuring. However, even outside shareholding, considered as a critical resource to promote restructuring by both agency theory and the RBV, has largely failed to effectively combat managerial opportunism in privatized firms (Filatotchev, Buck & Zhukov, 2000).

Two avenues seem likely to generate desirable firm-level outcomes after privatization. First, developing effective capital markets to discipline managers is necessary. However, such development takes a long time. A second and more immediate --and more relevant to IB and strategy research--approach is to attract more MNCs to invest in these countries to spearhead the efforts in restructuring, a role many MNCs are capable of taking on (Doh, 2000; Uhlenbruck & De Castro, 2000).

9.4. Entrepreneurial start-ups

Throughout emerging economies, market transitions have opened the floodgates of entrepreneurship (Peng, 2001). The RBV has helped specify the resources with which entrepreneurs can leverage. Compared with their larger competitors such as MNCs and SOEs, start-ups cannot afford to compete on tangible resources, and can only compete on intangible resourcefulness, that is, the ability of doing more with less. An example of such resourcefulness is the micro-macro link identified by Peng and Luo (2000), who suggested that entrepreneurs attempt to translate their micro, interpersonal ties with managers at other firms and with government officials into improved macro, organizational performance. In an environment whereby formal institutional constraints (e.g., laws and regulations) are weak, informal institutional constraints (e.g., interpersonal ties) may play a more important role in facilitating economic exchange and hence assert a more significant impact on firm performance (Peng & Heath, 1996). The RBV suggests that the social capital embedded in these ties, networks, and contacts can be regarded as an intangible resource that is difficult to replicate, thus giving start-ups possessing such ties a significant advantage (Peng & Luo, 2000; Mitchell et al., 2000).

The "pecking order" of competition in emerging economies usually pits MNCs against each other (and sometimes against larger local firms). Rarely do MNCs feel compelled to compete and/or collaborate with entrepreneurial firms. Start-ups, however, are upsetting such a "pecking order," and are increasingly worthy of the attention from MNCs--and the attention from researchers as well.

9.5. Conglomerates

Sometimes called business groups, diversified conglomerates, which seem to be out of vogue in developed economies, not only seem to persist, but also enhance firm performance in many emerging economies. Therefore, a fundamental puzzle remains: How can conglomerates in emerging economies add value at a high level of diversification, a task their counterparts in developed economies have largely failed? The RBV argues that conglomerates' capability in multiple industry entries "can be maintained as a valuable, rare, and inimitable skill only as long as asymmetric foreign trade and investment conditions prevail" (Guillen, 2000, p. 362). In emerging economies, these conglomerates "replace poorly performing or nonexistent economic institutions (such as banks or external labor markets) that are taken for granted in developed countries" (Chang & Hong, 2000, p. 429). Moreover, Chang and Hong (2000), Guillen (2000), and Khanna and Palepu (2000) found that as competition heats up and these economies become better regula ted, the benefits from unrelated diversification are harder (but still possible) to attain, thus supporting the RBV assertion that the reduction in the rarity and inimitability of resources is likely to render them less valuable (Barney, 1991).

A major point of contention in the diversification literature has been the measure of relatedness, traditionally based on product market characteristics. Prahalad and Bettis (1986) introduced a broader, managerially based common "dominant logic" that can potentially explain nonproduct-based linkages within a conglomerate. Building on this perspective, research on emerging economies leads to a more encompassing notion, termed "institutional relatedness," which refers to an organization's linkages with dominant formal and informal institutions in the environment which confer resources and legitimacy (Peng, 2000). Thus, it is the combination of a firm's product relatedness and institutional relatedness that determines its optimal scope in a given institutional framework. It is possible for a firm, which appears to have little product relatedness and, consequently, would be classified as an "unrelated" conglomerate, to actually enjoy a great deal of institutional relatedness. Since institutional relatedness is of ten less visible than product relatedness, firms' capability to derive synergy from institutional relatedness thus becomes a more difficult-to-imitate resource giving rise to competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Guillen, 2000).

In addition to shedding light on the diversification-performance puzzle, this research is also significant for TB research for two reasons. First, the scale and scope of these conglomerates make them the most likely competitors and/or collaborators for MNCs in emerging markets. Second, some of these conglomerates are likely to venture abroad, and become "Third World multinationals" (Au, Peng & Wang, 2000; Peng, Au & Wang, 2001; Wells, 1998), thus deserving our research attention.

10. Retrospect and road ahead

Overall, this article contributes to the literature by (1) documenting the extent to which the RBV has diffused to TB research, (2) explaining the rationale behind such diffusion of a theoretical innovation, and (3) providing a state-of-the-art review of the substantive literature. A broad, expanding, and cumulative knowledge base is emerging to connect IB and strategy research through the RBV. Tracking this evolution in the 1990s, this article is both a celebration of the achievements accomplished and a call for more sustained and rigorous research efforts in the new millennium.

10.1. How has the RBV contributed to IB?

Overall, it seems that the RBV has provided a powerful theoretical perspective within which a substantial body of TB research is embedded. IB research historically has been critiqued as phenomenon-driven with scattered, unconnected topics. The RBV helps address this criticism, by presenting a unifying framework through which a large number of diverse research topics, ranging from the global strategies of MNCs to entrepreneurial activities of start-ups active in certain emerging economies, can be viewed as subscribing to the same set of underlying theoretical and competitive logic. In other words, the RBV has made IB research more theoretically rigorous.

A key question is: How would the IB research reviewed above have evolved independently without the RBV? It is important to note that not all the articles in Table 1 used the RBV as their main theoretical basis. Given that scientific knowledge is socially constructed (Kuhn, 1970), it is possible that as the RBV becomes more institutionalized, it may take on a life of its own, resulting in more citations to the key papers without really building on this perspective (Mizruchi & Fein, 1999, p. 677). Although it is difficult to assert that the five research areas in IB would not have emerged in the absence of the RBV logic, it is clear that the RBV did have an impact on these areas. While not all these five areas have benefited from the RBV equally, I believe that the three younger areas (strategic alliances, international entrepreneurship, and emerging markets) are really propelled by the RBV, whose contributions are more visible. In comparison, the two more established domains (MNC and market entries) are enrich ed by the RBV, whose impact is relatively more marginal.

10.2. How has IB contributed to the RBV?

While, so far, this article has focused on the diffusion of the RBV from strategy to IB, it is equally important to recognize that IB research has also significantly pushed the frontiers of strategy research in general, and RBV work in particular (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1991). Some of the IB research reviewed here, such as global strategies, subsidiary capabilities, strategic alliances, and emerging markets strategies, is clearly at the leading edge of strategy research, thus helping set the terms for the strategy research agenda. It is fascinating to note that some topics regarded as "IB only" 10 years ago (e.g., globalization) have now been routinely featured in mainstream strategy journals. Overall, IB research directly helps answer one of the top-five fundamental questions in strategy identified by Rumelt and colleagues (1994, p. 564): "What determines the international success and failure of firms?"

In my view, IB's most significant contributions to the RBV lie in the identification of international knowledge and experience as a valuable, unique, and hard-to-imitate resource that differentiates the winners from the losers and mere survivors in global competition (Peng & York, 2001). In many ways, this idea of local embeddedness, that is, idiosyncratic expertise gained through in-country learning despite the liability of foreignness, predates the formal emergence of the RBV (Johanson & Vahine, 1977), and has been well developed in the IB literature. It is not surprising that IB scholars are able to build on this idea to enrich and strengthen the RBV.

10.3. Future research directions

Looking into the future, I believe that five directions are likely to emerge. First, since the idea that resources matter is now widely accepted, researchers must tackle the harder and more interesting issues of how resources matter, under what circumstances, and in what ways. For example, while tracking the value of resources has attracted a lot of attention, parameterizing the rarity of resources, such as hard-to-replicate locations, endowments, and experiences, remains one of the key challenges (Barney, 2001, p. 52). Since the RBV is ultimately a theory about how to extract rents from resources, a more complete theory of the rent appropriation process, by globally dispersed firms, employees, and other stakeholders around the world (including different regions and nations), remains to be developed.

Second, given the RBV's wide-ranging connections with various strands of the literature and IB's tradition of being "eclectic," such theory development is likely to be accomplished through more integration with other perspectives, such as TCE (Barney, 1999). While the relation between the RBV and TCE is both rival and complementary, it is probably "more the latter than the former" (Williamson, 1999, p. 1106). The key seems to lie in how to differentiate firm-specific resources at the core of the RBV from transaction-specific resources at the core of TCE (Madhok & Tallman, 1998). Therefore, better specification of the contingencies under which one perspective is likely to be more valid will be important (Peng, Hill & Wang, 2000).

Third, echoing Lieberman and Montgomery (1998), I see substantial room for integration between the RBV and research on first-mover (dis)advantages, especially in an IB setting. Too high a fraction of our knowledge on entry timing strategies is based upon U.S. experience and data. Given the obvious importance of entry timing issues in IB, it is important to examine whether first-mover strategies are more (or less) valuable in certain countries, industries, and time periods (Luo & Peng, 1999). The antecedents and consequences of these differences should be identified and explored.

Fourth, another area for further integration is with institutional theory (Peng, 2002). Originated in developed economies, the RBV assumes an equilibrium of product and factor markets (Barney, 1986, 1991). As a result, important institutional factors influencing product and factor markets (e.g., regulations) have been taken for granted by most researchers, and thus have faded into the background. While Priem and Butler (2001, p. 31) argued that general models "must be made more dynamic for usefulness in strategic management," perhaps this argument is best borne out by research probing into emerging markets, whereby institutional transitions profoundly affect strategic choices and firm performance (Peng & Heath, 1996). Although many MNCs have decided to concentrate disproportionately more resources on emerging economies, thus far, IB and strategy research--judging by the number of publications--seems to have paid disproportionately less attention to these markets of tomorrow (Peng, 2000, p.271). It is, therefo re, appropriate that more RBV work be devoted to emerging economies by drawing on the rich insights of institutional theory (Hoskisson et al., 2000; Peng, 2000, 2002), if we endeavor to remain a globally relevant field of inquiry.

Finally, future RBV work needs to pay more attention to process- and implementation-related issues. As conceded by Barney (2001, p. 53), the RBV historically has not provided sufficient focus on processes and implementation. However, when global competitors' strengths in tangible areas are increasingly matched, complex intangible processes such as global learning are likely to be the last frontier in the quest for competitive advantage (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989). Unfortunately, we know very little about these processes. One of the most striking (and, in my view, embarrassing) gaps of our knowledge is the lack of understanding of the processes surrounding cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As). While the share of cross-border M&As rose from 50% of global FDI in 1987 to 80% in 1999, valued at $720 billion (United Nations, 2000), only three (5%) of the 61 RBV articles in IB in Table 1 focused on M&As (Capron, 1999; Capron et al., 1998; Morosini et al., 1998). The empirical challenges to isolate and measure process-related capabilities underlying international M&As are indeed considerable. However, the RBV logic suggests that precisely because of these difficulties, researchers able to overcome them are likely to make larger, more ground-breaking contributions. If researchers aspire to take up these challenges, then it is safe to predict that more studies will be devoted to a better understanding of the driving forces behind cross-border M&As (Barkema & Vermuelen, 1998; Child, Faulkner & Pitkethly, 2001; Meyer & Estrin, 2001; Vermuelen & Barkema, 2001).

While being the first in the literature to organize and review RBV research in IB, this article is not without its limitations. First, as noted earlier, its management orientation precludes a review of IB research in other areas. Second, a more comprehensive review beyond articles citing Barney (1991) and Wernerfelt (1984) may need to cast a wider net to track the evolution of this research. Finally, I have not discussed any tension between IB and strategy. As partners in an expanding strategic alliance with increasingly blurring boundaries, IB and strategy are likely to experience occasional tension and conflict. However, if scholars practice what they uncover in their research on successful strategic alliances, then such an academic alliance is likely to grow further in the intellectual marketplace.

10.4. The road ahead

As for the future of the RBV in IB, I believe there can be two scenarios. First, despite IB's tendency to resist single paradigms (Toyne & Nigh, 1997), we may see the emergence of a comprehensive resource-based theory of the international enterprise approaching a paradigm status. Areas of inquiry do not become distinct scientific disciplines until they adopt a paradigm (Kuhn, 1970). There is no reason to think that IB is an exception to this rule. The second scenario is that basing strategies on the resource differentials between firms may become so obvious that scholars are likely to drop the compulsion to note that an argument (or theory) is "resource-based" (Wernerfelt, 1995). The diffusion-of-innovations literature suggests that the cumulative adoption rate of a theoretical innovation, such as the RBV, may eventually plateau, thus extending the curve in Figure 1 to an 5 shape (Rogers, 1983, p. 23). By then, the widely accepted RBV probably will no longer be considered as an innovation, but its purposes as an innovation to influence strategy, IB, and other areas of research will have been well served.


An earlier version of this article was presented at the International Management Division, Academy of Management meetings in Washington, August 2001. I thank Mike Wright, David Ketchen, and especially Jay Barney for their advice and encouragement, Ilgaz Arikan, Heather Berry, Jean-Francois Hennart, Klaus Meyer, two JM reviewers, and two IMD reviewers for their detailed comments, and Wenfeng Tong for his excellent research assistance. In addition, this article benefited from helpful discussions with Sharon Alvarez, Gary Knight, Oded Shenkar, Steve Tallman, Justin Tan, and especially Thomas Brewer, as well as the IMD session audience. This research was supported in part by the Center for International Business Education and Research, Fisher College of Business Research Committee, Center for Slavic and East European Studies, Center for East Asian Studies, and Office of International Studies at The Ohio State University.

Mike W. Peng is an assistant professor of management and international business at the Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University. He received his Ph.D. in strategy from the University of Washington in 1996. His research interests center on international strategies, focusing on (1) emerging markets strategies and (2) export strategies. He is the author of Behind the Success and Failure of U.S. Export Intermediaries (1998, Quorum) and Business Strategies in Transition Economies (2000, Sage). His research has appeared in the Academy of Management Executive, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal of International Business Studies, and Journal of Management Studies, among others. Currently, he serves as an editorial board member of the Academy of Management Review, Journal of International Business Studies, and Asia Pacific Journal of Management.

(*) Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-614-292-0311; fax: + 1-614-292-7062.

E-mail address: (M.W. Peng).


(1.) Another leading mainstream management journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, did not publish any IB paper during 1991 through 2000 which cited the two key RBV papers. Therefore, it was not included in my analysis.

(2.) Inkpen and Beamish (1994, p. 710) found (1) that in JIBS's 25 years of history (1970-94), 28% of the published papers were management papers broadly defined (including three categories, "management," "business policy," and "human resources"), followed by 18% in marketing and 16% each in economics and finance, and (2) that during 1990 through 1994, 40% of the JIBS publications were management papers. Chandy and Williams (1994, p. 718-719) examined all the articles cited by JIBS publications during 1984 through 1993, and found that 21% of these citations came from management journals, followed by 19% from IB, 11% each from economics and marketing, and 9% from finance. Most recently, JIBS's editor estimated that 40% to 60% of the papers currently published in JIBS are management papers, which consist of the largest contributing discipline to the journal (Thomas Brewer, personal communication, December 13, 2000).

(3.) Thanks to Richard Moxon of the University of Washington, who shared the conference proceedings (which were later published in Toyne & Nigh, 1997) with me in 1992.

(4.) It is also interesting to note that among many leading business schools in North America (e.g., illinois, Michigan, NYU, Ohio State, Washington, Western Ontario, Wharton), Europe (e.g., INSEAD, LBS), and Asia (e.g., CUHK, HKUST), strategy and TB groups are often housed in the same management department.

(5.) The other four fundamental questions are: (1) Why do firms differ? (2) How do forms behave? (3) How are strategy outcomes affected by strategy processes? and (4) What determines the scope of the firm? (Rumelt et al., 1994, p. 564).

(6.) While some RBV authors tried to make a distinction between "resources" and "capabilities" (e.g., Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997), "it is likely that they [these two terms] will become badly blurred in practice" (Barney, 2002, p. 157). Therefore, following Barney (2002), the terms "resources" and "capabilities" will be used interchangeably in this article.

(7.) The other two leading perspectives are institutional theory and TCE/agency theory (Hoskisson) et al., 2000, p. 263).

References ((*) indicates an article cited in Table 1)

Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. (1986). Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17 (3), 1-26.

(*) Athanassiou, N., & Nigh, D. (1999). The impact of U.S. company internationalization on top management team advice networks: A tacit knowledge perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (1), 83-92.

(*) Athanassiou N., & Nigh, D. (2000). Internationalization, tacit knowledge, and the top management teams of MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (3), 471-487.

Au, K., Peng, M. W., & Wang, D. (2000). Interlocking directorates, firm strategies, and performance in Hong Kong: Towards a research agenda. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 17 (1), 29-47.

(*) Autio, E., Sapienza, H., & Almeida, J. (2000). Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (5), 909 -924.

(*) Bae, J., & Lawler, J. (2000). Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea: Impact on firm performance in an emerging economy. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 502-517.

Barkema, H., & Vermeulen, F. (1998). International expansion through start-up or acquisition: A learning perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 7-26.

Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32, 1512-1514.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99-120.

Barney, J. B. (1999). How a firm's capabilities affect boundary decisions. Sloan Management Review, 40 (3), 137-146.

Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based "view" a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26 (1), 41-56.

Barney, J. B. (2002). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1991). Global strategic management: Impact on the new frontiers of strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (Summer Special Issue), 5-16.

(*) Birkinshaw, J. (1996). How multinational subsidiary mandates are gained and lost. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (3), 467-495.

(*) Birkinshaw J., & Hood, N. (1998). Multinational subsidiary evolution: Capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies. Academy of Management Review, 23 (4), 773-795.

(*) Birkinshaw J., Hood, N., & Jonsson, S. (1998). Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: The role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal, 19 (3), 221-241.

Boddewyn, J. (1999). The domain of international management. Journal of International Management, 5 (1), 3-14.

Buckley, P., & Casson, M. (1976). The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Macmillan.

(*) Carpano C., Chrisman, J., & Roth, K. (1994). International strategy and environment: An assessment of the performance relationship. Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (3), 639-656.

Carpenter, M., Sanders, W. G., & Gregersen, H. (2001). Building human capital with organizational context: The impact of international assignment experience on multinational firm performance and CEO pay. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (3), 493-511.

(*) Capron, L. (1999). The long-term performance of horizontal acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 987-1018.

(*) Capron, L., Dussauge, P., & Mitchell, W. (1998). Resource redeployment following horizontal acquisitions in Europe and North America, 1988-92. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 631-661.

Caves, R. (1996). Multinational enterprise and economic analysis, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Chandy, P., & Williams, T. (1994). The impact of journals and authors on international business research: A citation analysis of JIBS articles. Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (4), 715-728.

(*) Chang, S. J. (1995). International expansion strategy of Japanese firms: Capability building through sequential entry. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2), 383-407.

(*) Chang, S. J., & Hong, J. (2000). Economic performance of group-affiliated companies in Korea: Intragroup resource sharing and internal business transactions. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 429-448.

Chang, S. J., & Rosenzweig, P. (2001). The choice of entry mode in sequential foreign direct investment. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (8), 747-776.

Chi, T. (1994). Trading in strategic resources. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 271-290.

Child, J., Faulkner, D., & Pitkethly, R. (2001). The management of international acquisitions. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Collis, D. (1991). A resource-based analysis of global competition: The case of the bearings industry. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (Summer Special Issue), 49-68.

Conner, K. (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? Journal of Management, 17, 12 1-154.

Daily, C., Certo, S., & Dalton, D. (2000). International experience in the executive suite: The path to prosperity? Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 515-523.

(*) Delios, A., & Beamish, P. (1999). Geographic scope, product diversification, and the corporate performance of Japanese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (8), 711-727.

(*) Dess, G., Gupta, A., Hennart, J.-F., & Hill, C. (1995). Conducting and integrating strategy research at the international, corporate, and business levels. Journal of Management, 21 (3), 357-393.

(*) Doh, J. (2000). Entrepreneurial privatization strategies: Order of entry and local partner collaboration as sources of competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 25 (3), 551-571.

Doz, Y. (1997). Strategic management and international business research: An empirical convergence? In: B. Toyne & D. Nigh (eds.), International business: An emerging vision (pp. 48 8-497). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

(*) Dubois, F., Toyne, B., & Oliff, M. (1993). International manufacturing strategies of United States multinationals: A conceptual framework based on a four-industry study. Journal of International Business Studies, 24 (2), 307-33.

Dubois, F., & Reeb, D. (2000). Ranking the international business journals. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(4), 689-704.

Dunning, J. (1993). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Wokingham, UK: Addison-Wesley.

(*) Dunning, J. (1995). Reappraising the eclectic paradigm in an age of alliance capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, 26 (3), 461-491.

(*) Dussauge, P., Garrette, B., & Mitchell, W. (2000). Learning from competing partners: Outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America, and Asia. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (2), 99-126.

(*) Dyer, J. (1996). Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: Evidence from the auto industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (4), 271-291.

(*) Fahy, J., Hooley, G., Cox, T., Beracs, J., Fonfara, K., & Snoj, B. (2000). The development and impact of marketing capabilities in Central Europe. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(1), 63-81.

(*) Filatotchev, I., Buck, T., & Zhukov, V. (2000). Downsizing privatized firms in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3),286-304.

(*) Geringer, M., Tailman, S., & Olsen, D. (2000). Product and international diversification among Japanese multinational firms. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (1), 51-80.

(*) Glaister, K., & Buckley, P. (1996). Strategic motives for international alliance formation. Journal of Management Studies, 33 (2), 30 1-332.

Godfrey, P., & Hill, C. (1995). The problem of unobservables in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 519-533.

(*) Guillen, M. (2000). Business groups in emerging economies: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 362-380.

(*) Gupta, A.,& Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (4), 473-496.

(*) Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (Summer Special Issue), 83-103.

Hennart, J. -F. (1997). International business research. In: B. Toyne & D. Nigh (eds.), International business: An emerging vision (pp. 644-651). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Hill, C., Hwang, P., & Kim, W. C. (1990). An eclectic theory of the choice of international entry. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 93-104.

Hitt, M. (1997). The evolution of multinational corporations. In: B. Toyne & D. Nigh (eds.), International business: An emerging vision (pp. 506-513). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press,

(*) Hitt, M., Hoskisson, R., & Kim, H. (1997). International diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (4), 767-798.

(*) Hitt, M., Dacin, M., Levitas, E., Arregle, J., & Borza, A. (2000). Partner selection in emerging and developed market contexts: Resource-based and organizational learning perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 449-467.

(*) Hooley, G., Cox, T., Shipley, D., Fahy, J., Beracs, J., & Kolos, K. (1996). Foreign direct investment in Hungary: Resource acquisition and domestic Competitive advantage. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (4), 683-709.

(*) Hoskisson, R., Eden, L., Lau, C., & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 249-267.

Hoskisson, R., Hitt, M., Wan, W., & Yu, D. (1999). Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 25 (3), 417-456.

Inkpen, A., & Beamish, P. (1994). An analysis of twenty five years of research in the Journal of International Business Studies. Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (4), 703-711.

(*) Isobe, T., Makino, S., & Montgomery, D. (2000). Resource commitment, entry timing, and market performance of foreign direct investments in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 468-484.

Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 8, 23-32.

Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000). The future of business groups in emerging markets: Long-run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 268-285.

Knight, G. (2000). Entrepreneurship and marketing strategy: The SME under globalization. Journal of International Marketing, 8 (2), 12-32.

Kogut, B. (1997). The evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. In: B. Toyne & D. Nigh (eds.), International business: An emerging vision (pp. 470-488). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

(*) Lee, J., & Miller, D. (1999). People matter: Commitment to employees, strategy, and performance in Korean firms. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (6), 579-593.

Lieberman, M., & Montgomery, D. (1998). First-mover (dis)advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1111-1125.

(*) Liesch, P., & Knight, G. (1999). Information internationalization and hurdle rates in small and medium enterprise internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (2), 383-394.

Lu, J., & Beamish, P. (2001). The internationalization and performance of SMEs. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 565-586.

(*) Luo, Y., & Peng, M. W. (1999). Learning to compete in a transition economy: Experience, environment, and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (2), 269-296.

Lyles, M., & Salk, J. (1996). Knowledge acquisition from foreign parents in international joint ventures: An empirical examination in the Hungarian context. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (5), 877-903.

MacMillan, I. (1991). The emerging forum for business policy scholars. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 161-165.

(*) Madhok, A. (1997). Cost, value, and foreign market entry mode: The transaction and the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (1), 39-61.

Madhok, A., & Tallman, S. (1998). Resources, transactions, and rents: Managing value through interfirm collaborative relationships. Organization Science, 9, 326-339.

Mahoney, J., & Pandian, J. R. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 363-380.

(*) Makino, S., & Delios, A. (1996). Local knowledge transfer and performance: Implications for alliance formation in Asia. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (5), 905-927.

McDougall, P., & Oviatt, B. (2000). International entrepreneurship: The intersection of two research paths. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 902-906.

Melin, L. (1992). Internationalization as a strategy process. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 99-118.

(*) Merchant, H., & Schendel, D. (2000). How do international joint ventures create shareholder value? Strategic Management Journal, 21 (7), 723-737.

Meyer, K. (2001). Institutions, transaction costs, and entry mode choice in Eastern Europe. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (2), 357-367.

Meyer, K., & Estrin, S. (2001). Brown field entry in emerging markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (3), 574-584.

(*) Mitchell, R., Smith, B., Seawright, K., & Morse, E. (2000). Cross-cultural cognitions and the venture creation decision. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (5), 974-993.

Mizruchi, M., & Fein, L. (1999). The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (4), 653-683.

(*) Moon, C., & Lado, A. (2000). MNC-host government bargaining power relationship: A critique and extension within the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 26 (1), 85-117.

(*) Morosini, P., Shane, S., & Singh, H. (1998). National cultural distance and cross-border acquisition performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (1), 137-158.

(*) Oviatt, B., & McDougall, P. (1994). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (1), 45-64.

Peng, M. W. (1998). Behind the success and failure of U.S. export intermediaries: Transactions, agents, and resources. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Peng, M. W. (2000). Business strategies in transition economies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Peng, M. W. (2001). How entrepreneurs create wealth in transition economies. Academy of Management Executive, 15 (1), 95-108.

Peng, M. W. (2002). Cultures, institutions, and strategic choices: Toward an institutional perspective on business strategy. In: M. Gannon & K. Newman (eds.), Blackwell handbook of cross-cultural management (pp. 52-66). Boston: Blackwell.

Peng, M. W., Au, K., & Wang, D. (2001). Interlocking directorates as corporate governance in Third World multinationals: Theory and evidence from Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 18 (2), 161-181.

(*) Peng, M. W., & Heath, P. (1996). The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. Academy of Management Review, 21 (2), 492-528.

(*) Peng, M. W., Hill, C., & Wang, D. (2000). Schumpeterian dynamics versus Williamsonian considerations: A test of export intermediary performance. Journal of Management Studies, 37 (2), 167-184.

(*) Peng, M. W., & Ilinitch, A. (1998). Export intermediary firms: A note on export development research. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (3), 609-620.

Peng, M. W., Lee, S.-H., & Tan, J. (2001). The keiretsu in Asia: Implications for multilevel theories of competitive advantage. Journal of International Management (in press).

Peng, M. W., Lu, Y., Shenkar, O., & Wang, D. (2001). Treasures in the china house: A review of management and organizational research on Greater China. Journal of Business Research, 52 (2), 95-110.

(*) Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. (2000). Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 486-501.

Peng, M. W., & Wang, D. (2000). Innovation capability and foreign direct investment: Toward a learning option perspective. Management International Review, 40 (1st Special Issue), 79-93.

Peng, M. W., & York, A. (2001). Behind intermediary performance in export trade: Transactions, agents, and resources. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (2), 327-346.

Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.

Peteraf, M. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179-191.

Phene, A., & Guisinger, S. (1998). The stature of the Journal of International Business Studies. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (3), 621-632.

Porter, M. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 95-117.

Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. (1986). The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 485-501.

Priem, R., & Butler, J. (2001). Is the resource-based "view" a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26 (1), 22-40.

Ricks, D., Toyne, B., & Martinez, Z. (1990). Recent developments in international management research. Journal of Management, 16 (2), 219-253.

Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.

(*) Roth, K. (1995). Managing international interdependence: CEO characteristics in a resource-based framework. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1), 200-231.

(*) Rugman, A., & Verbeke, A. (1998). Corporate strategy and international environmental policy. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (4), 819-834.

Rumelt, R., Schendel, D., & Teece, D. (eds.) (1994). Fundamental issues in strategy. Boston: HBS Press.

(*) Schuler, R., Dowling, P., & Decieri, H. (1993). An integrative framework of strategic international human resource management. Journal of Management, 19 (2), 419-459.

(*) Schuler, R., & Rogovsky, N. (1998). Understanding compensation practice variations across firms: The impact of national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (1), 159-177.

(*) Shan, W., & Song, J. (1997). Foreign direct investment and the sourcing of technological advantage: Evidence from the biotechnology industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 28 (2), 267-284.

(*) Shenkar, O., & Li, J. (1999). Knowledge search in international cooperative ventures. Organization Science, 10, 134-143.

(*) Steensma, H. K., & Lyles, M. (2000). Explaining IJV survival in a transition economy through social exchange and knowledge-based perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (8), 831-851.

Tahai, A., & Meyer, M. (1999). A revealed preference study of management journals' direct influences. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 279-296.

(*) Tallman, S. (1991). Strategic management models and resource-based strategies among MNEs in a host market. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (Summer Special Issue), 69-82.

(*) Tallman, S. (1992). A strategic management perspective on host country structure of multinational enterprises. Journal of Management, 18 (3), 455-471.

(*) Tallman, S., & Li, J. (1996). Effects of international diversity and product diversity on the performance of multinational firms. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (1), 179-196.

Tan, J. J., & Litschert, R. (1994). Environment-strategy relationship and its performance implications: An empirical study of the Chinese electronics industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (1), 1-20.

(*) Taylor, S., Beechler, S., & Napier, N. (1996). Toward an integrative model of strategic international human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 21 (4), 959-985.

Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), 509-533.

Toyne, B., & Nigh, D. (eds.) (1997). International business: An emerging vision. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Uhlenbruck, K., & De Castro, J. (2000). Foreign acquisitions in Central and Eastern Europe: Outcomes of privatization in transitional economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 381-402.

United Nations. (2000). World investment report. New York: UNCTAD.

Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. (2001). Learning through acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 457-476.

Wells, L. (1998). Multinationals and the developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (1), 101-114.

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.

(*) White, S. (2000). Competition, capabilities, and the make, buy, or ally decisions of Chinese state-owned firms. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 324-341.

Williamson, O. (1999). Strategy research: Governance and competence perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (12), 1087-1108.

Yan, A., & Gray, B. (1994). Bargaining power, management control, and performance in U.S.-China joint ventures: A comparative case study. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (4), 1478-1517.

Yan, A., & Zeng. M. (1999). International joint venture instability. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 397- 4 14.

(*) Zaheer, S. (1995). Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 341-363.

(*) Zaheer, S., & Mosakowski, E. (1997). The dynamics of the liability of foreignness: A global study of survival in financial services. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (6), 439-463.

Zahra, S., Ireland, R. D., Gutierrez, I., & Hitt, M. (2000). Privatization and entrepreneurial transformation: Emerging issues and a future research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 25 (3), 525-550.

[Graph omitted]
Fig. 1

Cumulative Citations to Barney (1991), 1992-2000.

             Number of Citations

          Papers Citing  IB Papers Citing
          Barney (1991)   Barney (1991)

1992            9                1
1993            23               3
1994            53               5
1995           102              10
1996           165              18
1997           236              22
1998           315              29
1999           411              36
2000           526              58

Source: Social Science Citation Index

Note: Table made from line graph
Table 1

International business papers citing Barney (1991) and/or Wernerfelt
(1984), 1991-2000

      JIBS                       SMJ (*)
      (N = 16)                   (N = 18)

1991                             Collis (MNC) (**)
                                 Hamel (SA)
                                 Tallman (MNC)


1993  Dubois et al. (MNC)

1994  Carpano et al. (MNC)
      Oviatt & McDougall (IE)

1995  Dunning (MNC/SA)

1996  Birkinshaw (MNC)           Dyer (SA)
      Hooley et al. (EM)
      Makino & Delios (SA/EM)

1997  Shan & Song (ME)           Madhok (ME)
                                 Zaheer & Mosakowski (MNC)

1998  Morosini et al. (ME)       Birkinshaw et al. (MNC)
      Peng & Ilinitch (ME)       Capron et al. (ME)
      Rugman & Verbeke (MNC)
      Schuler & Rogovsky

1999  Liesch & Knight (ME)       Athanassiou & Nigh (MNC)
      Luo & Peng (MNC/EM)        Capron (ME)
                                 Delios & Beamish (MNC)
                                 Lee & Miller (MNC/EM)

2000  Fahy et al. (EM)           Daily et al. (MNC)
      Athanassiou & Nigh (MNC)   Dussage et al. (SA)
                                 Geringer et al. (MNC)
                                 Gupta & Govindarajan (MNC)
                                 Merchant & Schendel (SA)
                                 Steensma & Lyles (SA/EM)

      AMJ/AMR/JM/JMS/OS (*)
      (N = 27)


1992  Tallman (JM--MNC)

1993  Schuler et al. (JM--MNC)


1995  Chang (AMJ--ME)
      Dess et al. (JM--MNC)
      Roth (AMJ--MNC)
      Zaheer (AMJ--MNC)

1996  Glaister & Buckley (JMS--SA)
      Peng & Heath (AMR--EM)
      Tallman & Li (AMJ--MNC)
      Taylor et al. (AMR--MNC)

1997  Hitt et al. (AMJ--MNC)

1998  Birkinshaw & Hood (AMR--

1999  Shenkar & Li (OS--SA/EM)

2000  Autio et al. (AMJ--IE)
      Bae & Lawler (AMJ--MNC/
      Chang & Hong (AMJ--EM)
      Doh (AMR--EM)
      Hoskisson et al. (AMJ--EM)
      Filatotchev et al. (AMJ--EM)
      Guillen (AMJ--EM)
      Hitt et al. (AMJ--SA/EM)
      Isobe et al. (AMJ--ME/EM)
      Mitchell et al. (AMJ--IE)
      Moon & Lado (JMS--MNC)
      Peng et al. (JMS--ME/IE)
      Peng & Luo (AMJ--EM)
      White (AMJ--EM)

Total N = 61 articles from these seven top-tier journals that publish IB

(*)Only international articles citing the two RBV papers in these
journals were included.

(**)Designation of primary research areas reviewed:

MNC, multinational corporation management;

SA, strategic alliances;

ME, market entries;

IE, international entrepreneurship;

EM, emerging markets strategies.
Table 2

Leading contributors to the resource-based view literature in
international business, 1991-2000

                              Affiliation as of
Rank  Scholar                 December 2000                     Total

1     Stephen B. Tallman (*)  University of Utah & Cranfield    4
2     Mike W. Peng            The Ohio State University         5
3     Julian Birkinshaw       London Business School            3
4     Srilata Zaheer          University of Minnesota           2
      Sea Jin Chang           Korea University                  2
6     Laurence Capron         INSEAD                            2
      Kendall Roth            University of South Carolina      2
8     Nicholas Athanassiou    Northeastern University           2
      Andrew Delios           National University of Singapore  2
      Jiatao Li               Hong Kong University of           2
                              Science & Technology
      Yadong Luo              University of Miami               2
      Douglas Nigh            University of South Carolina      2
13    David J. Collis         Yale University                   1
      Jonathan P. Doh         American Univ. & George           1
                              Washington Univ.
      John Dunning            Rutgers University &              1
                              University of Reading
      Jeffrey Dyer            Brigham Young University          1
      Mauro Guillen           University of Pennsylvania        1
      Gary Hamel              London Business School            1
      Anoop Madhok            University of Utah                1
      Steven White            Chinese University of Hong Kong   1

Rank  Scholar                 Adjusted

1     Stephen B. Tallman (*)  2.83

2     Mike W. Peng            2.33
3     Julian Birkinshaw       1.83
4     Srilata Zaheer          1.5
      Sea Jin Chang           1.5
6     Laurence Capron         1.33
      Kendall Roth            1.33
8     Nicholas Athanassiou    1
      Andrew Delios           1
      Jiatao Li               1

      Yadong Luo              1
      Douglas Nigh            1
13    David J. Collis         1
      Jonathan P. Doh         1

      John Dunning            1

      Jeffrey Dyer            1
      Mauro Guillen           1
      Gary Hamel              1
      Anoop Madhok            1
      Steven White            1

Total n = 20 scholars whose adjusted appearances in the seven top-tier
journals (AMJ, AMR, JIBS, JM, JMS, OS, and SMJ) during 1991- 2000
documented in Table 1 are at least 1.

(*)Example for Tallman's total and adjusted appearances: Total
appearances = 4, Tallman (1991), Tallman (1992), Tallman & Li (1996),
Geringer, Tallman & Olsen (2000); Adjusted appearances = 2.83 (1 + 1 +
0.5 + 0.33).
COPYRIGHT 2001 Sage Publications, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2001 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Comment:The resource-based view and international business.
Author:Peng, Mike W.
Publication:Journal of Management
Article Type:Technical
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Nov 1, 2001
Previous Article:The resource-based view and marketing: The role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage.
Next Article:Starting Out and Setting Up. (From the Editor).

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters