Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Solving theoretical and empirical conundrums in international strategy research: Linking foreign entry mode choices and performance

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several theoretical and empirical developments in the literature on foreign entry mode and performance, and on (international) strategy more generally, were influenced or prefigured by Brouthers’ (2002) JIBS Decade Award winning paper. Regarding theory, Brouthers is an archetype of the integration of transaction cost and institutional perspectives. I argue that it is also relevant to the growing literature that aims at synthesizing these and other perspectives. Methodologically, Brouthers (2002) contributed several uniquely direct and rich measures. Furthermore, it not only displayed awareness of endogeneity (specifically self-selection) issues, but also was among the pioneers in the comparative analysis of governance choices for a given firm or transaction. I elaborate on the promising if challenging use of such “what if” imputation to identify the impact of more or less well-aligned choices. Overall, I argue that such methodological advances cannot be decoupled from the conceptual advances that enable them, and which they reinforce.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1

Notes

  1. By modes of entry, I mean all possible means of expanding into a foreign market. The studies discussed here typically focus on a binary choice such as wholly owned vs jointly owned (Brouthers, 2002) or acquisition vs greenfield entry (Shaver, 1998). MOEs also include licensing and exporting (e.g., Martin & Salomon, 2003a). In the penultimate section of this paper, I return to the challenges that arise when considering the diversity and potential combinations of MOEs.

  2. I refer by “theoretical perspective”, or “theory” in short, to a coherent set of concepts and assumptions that has achieved sufficient paradigmatic recognition to have both theoretical weight and meaning as a commonly understood perspective. While this provides convenient shorthand in academic debate, it remains that the development of specific refutable hypotheses from such a theory requires researchers to explicate causal linkages specific to their topic (Thomas, Cuervo-Cazurra, & Brannen, 2011).

  3. It is of course possible, and not uncommon, to combine types and forms of theorizing. Thus Lu (2002) integrates transaction cost and institutional arguments, and adds an experiential contingency on institutional effects. As another example, Martin and Salomon (2002, 2003b) create a functional synthesis of internalization and knowledge-based arguments depending on tacitness, and then develop a further contingency analysis based on firm capabilities, presented via subgroup representation (see below).

  4. Also, JIBS editors have duly advised on the need for rigor in combining theory (Bello & Kostova, 2012; Cheng, Henisz, Roth, & Swaminathan, 2009).

  5. It is of course common and often proper to conduct an interaction analysis, and then ascertain the robustness and perhaps the directionality of the results though subgroup analysis. Here, I focus on maximizing the insights from either approach and in particular from subgroup analysis. This does not preclude cumulating the two approaches, but entails that each method be used to its full potential. Furthermore, subgroup analysis is compelling for certain nonlinear estimators, where the interpretation of interaction terms is fraught (e.g., Penner-Hahn & Shaver, 2005).

  6. The latter measure is not exclusively an institutional variable, as Brouthers (2002) recognized in classifying his independent variables. However, elements of (perceived) risk from cultural, political, social and economic conditions are now acknowledged to be intrinsic components of the institutional environment (Martin, Salomon, & Wu, 2010).

  7. As Bascle (2008) points out, if the source of endogeneity is errors-in-variables or simultaneous causation, then the researcher should consider instrumental variable methods other than the Heckman approach and its derivatives, on which I focus below.

  8. Reeb et al. (2012) point to a related concern with fixed effects: if unobserved heterogeneity is associated with time-invariant or slow-changing phenomena of interest, then the fixed effects absorb the relevant variance and thus impede studying it. I would add that this might be avoided where the variance in question is at a level that can be used for subgroup analysis (see also Peterson et al., 2012).

  9. Reeb et al. (2012) do not specifically discuss the Heckman method, but as described below it can be considered a form of instrumental variable approach (see also Bascle, 2008).

  10. In a related approach, Aulakh and Kotabe's (1997) study of international channel integration employed a first-stage logit (of the multinomial and ordered kind, which I return to below) and made insightful use of a MANOVA to show both the irrelevance of choices as such, and the relevance of predicted fit.

  11. The representation in Figure 1(b) would require a different split than Shaver's (1998), based on inferred optimal choices rather than observed choices. As such its interpretation is less straightforward, and subject to the ambiguities of finding a proper cutoff. Sampson (2004: Table 8) illustrates this approach. I present Figure 1(b) here to facilitate the comparison with Brouthers and the theoretical discussion to follow.

  12. For this reason, space considerations allowing, it is desirable to report on the impact of adding the self-selection parameter in greater detail. Some applications of the Heckman correction may appear to add little value – for instance, Krishnan, Martin, and Noorderhaven (2006) had to report a first-stage and Heckman correction for an MOE variable that was but a control variable, and an insignificant one at that, in the performance model of interest. However, for the most part JIBS authors and reviewers are prone to err in the opposite direction, with many papers providing few or even no details about how the endogeneity correction was implemented.

  13. The apparent overall effect in terms of (mis)fit, as in Figure 1(b), would depend on the proportions of firms making each type of mistake. The preceding quote by Caves (1998) corresponds to a case of absolute advantage, assuming that firms with weak opportunities and firms with strong opportunities would both be better off with “policy A”.

  14. An ordered probit (or logit) could apply where choices so fit. So might a nested logit. Where predictors are characteristics of the choice rather than (or in addition) of the chooser, a conditional model is relevant, although the conditional probit is less well developed computationally than the conditional logit.

References

  • Abdi, M., & Aulakh, P. S. 2012. Do country-level institutional frameworks and interfirm governance arrangements substitute or complement in international business relationships? Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (5): 477–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S. W., & Dekker, H. C. 2005. Management control for market transactions: The relation between transaction characteristics, incomplete contract design, and subsequent performance. Management Science, 51 (12): 1734–1752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, H. J. 1982. Moderator variables: A clarification of conceptual, analytic, and psychometric issues. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29 (2): 143–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arregle, J.-L., Hébert, L., & Beamish, P. 2006. Mode of international entry: The advantages of multilevel methods. Management International Review, 46 (5): 597–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aulakh, P. S., & Kotabe, M. 1997. Antecedents and performance implications of channel integration in foreign markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 28 (1): 145–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bascle, G. 2008. Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 6 (3): 285–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bello, D. C., & Kostova, T. 2012. From the Editors: Conducting high impact international business research: The role of theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (6): 537–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, O. 2011. What goes around, comes around: Effects of offshore outsourcing on the export performance of firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (2): 334–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourguignon, F., Fournier, M., & Gurgand, M. 2007. Selection bias corrections based on the multinomial logit model: Monte Carlo comparisons. Journal of Economic Surveys, 21 (1): 174–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, B. K., Haynes, K. T., Hitt, M. A., Bergh, D. D., & Ketchen, D. J. 2012. Contingency hypotheses in strategic management research: Use, disuse, or misuse? Journal of Management, 38 (1): 278–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouthers, K. D. 2002. Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (2): 203–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouthers, K. D. 2013. A retrospective on: Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 44 (1): 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouthers, K. D., & Hennart, J.-F. 2007. Boundaries of the firm: Insights from international entry mode research. Journal of Management, 33 (3): 395–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. E., & Werner, S. 2008. Real options, international entry mode choice and performance. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (5): 936–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouthers, L. E., Brouthers, K. D., & Werner, S. 1999. Is Dunning's eclectic framework descriptive or normative? Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (4): 831–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. 2002. The future of the multinational enterprise (25th anniversary edn). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. 2005. MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (12): 1109–1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J., Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. 2010. An evolutionary approach to understanding international business activity: The co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (4): 567–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caves, R. E. 1998. Research in international business: Problems and prospects. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (1): 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caves, R. E. 2007. Multinational enterprise and economic analysis (3rd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. L. C., Henisz, W. J., Roth, K., & Swaminathan, A. 2009. From the Editors: Advancing interdisciplinary research in the field of international business: Prospects, issues and challenges. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (7): 1070–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, T., & Roehl, T. W. 1997. The structuring of interfirm exchanges in business know-how: Evidence from international collaborative ventures. Managerial and Decision Economics, 18 (4): 279–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, T., & Seth, A. 2008. A dynamic model of the choice of mode for exploiting complementary capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (3): 365–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, L., & Jiang, F. 2009. FDI entry mode choice of Chinese firms: A strategic behavior perspective. Journal of World Business, 44 (4): 434–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, L., & Jiang, F. 2012. State ownership effect on firms’ FDI ownership decisions under institutional pressure: A study of Chinese outward-investing firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (3): 264–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuypers, I. R. P., & Martin, X. 2010. What makes and what does not make a real option? A study of equity shares in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (1): 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dastidar, P. 2008. International corporate diversification and performance: Does firm self-selection matter? Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (1): 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmestri, G., & Wezel, F. C. 2011. Breaking the wave: The contested legitimation of an alien organizational form. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (6): 828–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirbag, M., Tatoglu, E., & Glaister, K. 2008. Factors affecting perceptions of the choice between acquisition and greenfield entry: The case of Western FDI in an emerging market. Management International Review, 48 (1): 5–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dikova, D., & van Witteloostuijn, A. 2007. Foreign direct investment mode choice: Entry and establishment modes in transition economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (6): 1013–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S.M . 2008. Multinational enterprises and the world economy (2nd edn). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durand, R., & Vaara, E. 2009. Causation, counterfactuals, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 30 (12): 1245–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaba, V., Pan, Y., & Ungson, G. R. 2002. Timing of entry in international market: An empirical study of US Fortune 500 firms in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (1): 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. 2011. Econometric analysis (7th edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu, Q., & Lu, J. W. 2011. Effects of inward investment on outward investment: The venture capital industry worldwide 1985–2007. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (2): 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillén, M. F. 2003. Experience, imitation, and the sequence of foreign entry: Wholly owned and joint-venture manufacturing by South Korean firms and business groups in China, 1987–1995. Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (2): 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, B. H., & Nickerson, J. A. 2003. Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 1 (1): 51–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.-W. 2002. Acquisitions versus greenfield investments: International strategy and management of entry modes. Strategic Management Journal, 23 (3): 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashai, N. 2011. Sequencing the expansion of geographic scope and foreign operations by “born global” firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (8): 995–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, M. L. A., & Hambrick, D. C. 1997. Explaining the premiums paid for large acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1): 103–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47 (1): 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.-F. 1988. A transaction costs theory of equity joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 9 (4): 361–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.-F. 1991. The transaction-costs theory of joint ventures: An empirical study of Japanese subsidiaries in the United States. Management Science, 37 (4): 483–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.-F. 1993. Explaining the swollen middle: Why most transactions are a mix of “market” and “hierarchy”. Organization Science, 4 (4): 529–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.-F. 2009. Down with MNE-centric theories! Market entry and expansion as the bundling of MNE and local assets. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (9): 1432–1454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, X., Rode, J. C., & Schroeder, R. G. 2011. Organizational structure and continuous improvement and learning: Moderating effects of cultural endorsement of participative leadership. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (9): 1103–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen Jr., D. J., Griffith, D. A., Chabowski, B. R., Hamman, M. K., Dykes, B. J., Pollitte, W. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. 2008. An assessment of the measurement of performance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (6): 1064–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalnins, A. 2007. Sample selection and theory development: Implications of firms’ varying abilities to appropriately select new ventures. Academy of Management Review, 32 (4): 1246–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24 (4): 625–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotabe, M., Martin, X., & Domoto, H. 2003. Gaining from vertical partnerships: Knowledge transfer, relationship duration and supplier performance improvement in the US and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (4): 293–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan, R., Martin, X., & Noorderhaven, N. G. 2006. When does trust matter to alliance performance? Academy of Management Journal, 49 (5): 894–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laamanen, T., Simula, T., & Torstila, S. 2012. Cross-border relocations of headquarters in Europe. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (2): 187–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leavitt, K., Mitchell, T. R., & Peterson, J. 2010. Theory pruning: Strategies to reduce our dense theoretical landscape. Organizational Research Methods, 13 (4): 644–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G. K., & Lieberman, M. B. 2010. Acquisition vs internal development as modes of market entry. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (2): 140–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, L.-F. 1983. Generalized econometric models with selectivity. Econometrica, 51 (2): 507–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiblein, M. J., Reuer, J. J., & Dalsace, F. 2002. Do make or buy decisions matter? The influence of organizational governance on technological performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23 (9): 817–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J. W. 2002. Intra- and inter-organizational imitative behavior: Institutional influences on Japanese firms’ entry mode choice. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (1): 19–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maekelburger, B., Schwens, C., & Kabst, R. 2012. Asset specificity and foreign market entry mode choice of small and medium-sized enterprises: The moderating influence of knowledge safeguards and institutional safeguards. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (5): 458–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, X., & Salomon, R. 2002. Knowledge transfer capacity and cooperative strategies: When should firms leverage tacit knowledge through licensing and alliances? In F. J. Contractor & P. Lorange (Eds), Cooperative strategies and alliances: 729–750. Amsterdam and New York: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, X., & Salomon, R. 2003a. Knowledge transfer capacity and its implications for the theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (4): 356–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, X., & Salomon, R. 2003b. Tacitness, learning and international expansion: A study of foreign direct investment in a knowledge-intensive industry. Organization Science, 14 (3): 297–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, X., Swaminathan, A., & Mitchell, W. 1998. Organizational evolution in an interorganizational environment: Incentives and constraints on international expansion strategy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (3): 566–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, X., Swaminathan, A., & Tihanyi, L. 2007. Modeling international expansion. In D. J. Ketchen & D. D. Bergh (Eds), Research methodology in strategy and management: 103–119. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, X., Salomon, R. M., & Wu, Z. 2010. The institutional determinants of agglomeration: A study in the global semiconductor industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19 (6): 1769–1800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masten, S. E. 1993. Transaction costs, mistakes, and performance: Assessing the importance of governance. Managerial and Decision Economics, 14 (2): 119–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masten, S. E. 2002. Modern evidence on the firm. American Economic Review (AEA Papers and Proceedings), 92 (2): 428–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, K. J., & Nickerson, J. A. 2005. Antecedents and performance implications of contracting for knowledge workers: Evidence from information technology services. Organization Science, 16 (3): 225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. W., & Zucker, L. G. 1989. Permanently failing organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nachum, L., & Song, S. 2011. The MNE as a portfolio: Interdependencies in MNE growth trajectory. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (3): 381–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, T., Petersen, B., & Sharma, D. 2003. Knowledge transfer performance of multinational companies. Management International Review, 43 (Special issue 3): 69–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penner-Hahn, J., & Shaver, J. M. 2005. Does international research and development increase patent output? An analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (2): 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. F., Arregle, J.-L., & Martin, X. 2012. Multilevel models in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (5): 451–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W. 1987. Hybrid organizational arrangements: New forms or transitional development? California Management Review, 67 (1): 67–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabe-Hesketh, S., Skrondal, A., & Pickles, A. 2002. Multilevel selection models using gllamm. Maastricht: Stata User Group Meeting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeb, D. M., Sakakibara, M., & Mahmood, I. P. 2012. From the editors: Endogeneity in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (3): 211–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root, F. R. 1998. Entry strategies for international markets. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runkel, P. J., & McGrath, J. E. 1972. Research on human behavior: A systematic guide to method. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, R., & Wu, Z. 2012. Institutional distance and local isomorphism strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (4): 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. C. 2004. The cost of misaligned governance in R&D alliances. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 20 (2): 484–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmertmann, C. P. 1994. Selectivity bias correction methods in polychotomous sample selection models. Journal of Econometrics, 60 (1–2): 101–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, J. M. 1998. Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode affect FDI survival? Management Science, 44 (4): 571–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, J. M. 2013. Do we really need more entry mode studies? Journal of International Business Studies, 44 (1): 23–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirower, M. L. 1997. The synergy trap: How companies lose the acquisition game. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slangen, A. H. L., & Hennart, J.-F. 2008. Do multinationals really prefer to enter culturally distant countries through greenfields rather than through acquisitions? The role of parent experience and subsidiary autonomy. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (3): 472–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. C., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Brannen, M. Y. 2011. From the editors: Explaining theoretical relationships in international business research: Focusing on the arrows, NOT the boxes. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (9): 1073–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N. 1989. The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14 (3): 423–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, G., & Poppo, L. 1991. Profit centers, single-source suppliers, and transaction costs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (1): 66–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. 1991. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (2): 269–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D., Zhou, C., & Phan, P. H. 2010. A real options perspective on sequential acquisitions in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (1): 166–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yiu, D., & Makino, S. 2002. The choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary: An institutional perspective. Organization Science, 13 (6): 667–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, M. 2006. Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection. Management Science, 52 (8): 1185–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., & Poppo, L. 2010. Exchange hazards, relational reliability, and contracts in China: The contingent role of legal enforceability. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (5): 861–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for discussions with Keith Brouthers, Susan Feinberg, Mazhar Islam, Shige Makino, Ram Mudambi and Myles Shaver, as well as comments from an anonymous reviewer, and participants at a presentation at Temple University. Koen van den Oever provided superb research assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CIR and Department of Organization & Strategy, CentER, School of Economics and Management, Tilburg University, The Netherlands

    Xavier Martin

Authors
  1. Xavier Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xavier Martin.

Additional information

Accepted by John Cantwell, Editor-in-Chief, 24 August 2012. This paper was single-blind reviewed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, X. Solving theoretical and empirical conundrums in international strategy research: Linking foreign entry mode choices and performance. J Int Bus Stud 44, 28–41 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.29

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2012.29

Keywords

Search

Navigation