Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From internationalization to evolution: The Uppsala model at 40 years

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

Abstract

The original Uppsala model that was published in 1977 explains the internationalization process of firms. We have further developed the model several times in the intervening years. The present article is our latest effort: a general model of the evolution of the multinational business enterprise (MBE), from early steps abroad to being a global firm. The updated, augmented model explains MBE evolution in general, not only characteristics of the internationalization process in a narrow sense. We believe that the newest iteration, anchored in process ontology, will be useful in conducting longitudinal empirical studies.

Resume

Le modèle initial d’Uppsala, qui a été publié en 1977, explique le processus d’internationalisation des entreprises. Nous avons ensuite développé le modèle plusieurs fois au cours des années. Cet article est notre dernière contribution : un modèle général sur l’évolution de l’entreprise d’affaires multinationale (EAM), des premiers pas à l’étranger jusqu’à la constitution d’une firme mondiale. Le modèle actualisé et amélioré explique l’évolution en général des EAM, pas seulement les caractéristiques d’un processus d’internationalisation dans un sens étroit. Nous pensons que cette nouvelle itération, ancrée dans l’ontologie du processus, sera utile dans la conduite d’études empiriques longitudinales.

Resumen

El modelo original de Uppsala que fue publicado en 1977 explica el proceso de internacionalización de las empresas. Hemos seguido desarrollando el modelo varias veces en los años transcurridos. El presente artículo es nuestro último esfuerzo: un modelo general de la evolución de la empresa, desde los primeros pasos en el exterior hasta convertirse en una empresa global. El modelo actualizado y aumentado explica la evolución general de la empresa multinacional, no sólo las características en el proceso de internacionalización en un sentido estricto. Creemos que la última iteración, anclada en un proceso ontológico, será útil para llevar a cabo estudios empíricos longitudinales.

Resumo

O modelo de Uppsala original que foi publicado em 1977 explica o processo de internacionalização das empresas. Nós aprimoramos o modelo várias vezes nos anos seguintes. O presente artigo é o nosso mais recente esforço: um modelo geral da evolução do empreendimento de negócios multinacional (MBE), desde os primeiros passos no exterior até se transformar em uma empresa global. O modelo atualizado e ampliado explica a evolução do MBE em geral, não apenas as características do processo de internacionalização em sentido estrito. Acreditamos que a mais recente iteração, ancorada na ontologia do processo, será útil na realização de estudos empíricos longitudinais.

概要

1977年发表的原版的乌普萨拉模型解释了企业的国际化进程。我们在随后的几年里几次进一步拓展了这个模式。本文是我们的最新努力: 跨国企业(MBE)演变的通用模式, 从早期的国外走向到成为一家全球企业。经过更新和扩充的模型总体上解释了MBE的进化, 而不仅仅是狭义上解释国际化进程的特征。我们认为, 锚定在过程本体论中的最新迭代将有助于进行纵向实证研究。

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal, R., Barney, J. B., Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. 2009. Heterogeneous resources and the financial crisis: Implications of strategic management theory. Strategic Organization, 7(4): 467–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, R., & Helfat, C. E. 2009. Strategic renewal of organizations. Organization Science, 20(2): 281–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agndal, H., & Chetty, S. 2007. The impacts of relationships on changes in internationalization strategies of SMEs. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12): 1449–1474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aharoni, Y. 2014. A few lessons from my long experience in IB research – Opinion/Editorial. AIB Insights, 13(4): 17–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almódovar, P., & Rugman, A. M. 2015. Testing the revisited Uppsala model: Does insidership improve international performance? International Marketing Review, 32(6): 686–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. 1992. The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1): 18–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansoff, H. I. 1965. Corporate Strategy: Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvanitis, S., Fuchs, B., & Woerter, M. 2015. Opening up the innovation process: Outside-in involvement of innovation users and established firms´ innovation performance. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19(2): 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asmussen, C. G., Pedersen, T., & Petersen, B. 2007. How do we capture ‘global specialization’ when measuring firms’ degree of globalization? Management International Review, 47(6): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augier, M., & Teece, D. J. 2008. Strategy as evolution with design: The foundations of dynamic capabilities and the role of managers in the economic system. Organization Studies, 29(08/09): 1187–1207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. 1997. Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1): 93–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. 1986. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy. Management Science, 42(10): 1231–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barreto, I. 2010. Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 36(1): 256–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. C., & Rao, H. 2004. Evolutionary dynamics of organizational populations and communities. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation: 212–258. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benito, G. R. G., Petersen, B., & Welch, L. S. 2009. Towards more realistic conceptualisations of foreign operation modes. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1455–1470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. London: Penguin University Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., Healy, M. P., Suddaby, R., & Weber, K. 2014. Debating the future of management research. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1): 38–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1): 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. 1976. The Future of the Multinational Enterprise. London: McMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica, 6(4): 386–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1): 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, A., Cornelissen, J., Delios, A., & Harley, B. 2014. Variety, novelty, and perceptions of scholarship in research on management and organizations: An appeal for ambidextrous scholarship. Journal of Management Studies, 51(1): 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coviello, N. E. 2006. The network dynamics of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5): 713–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. D., & March, J. G. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretative systems. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 284–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Rond, M., & Thietart, R.-L. 2007. Choice, chance, and inevitability in strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5): 535–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denrell, J., Arvidsson, N., & Zander, U. 2004. Managing knowledge in the dark: An empirical study of the reliability of capability evaluations. Management Science, 50(11): 1491–1503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devinney, T. M. 2013. Is microfoundational thinking critical to management thought and practice? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2): 81–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35(12): 1504–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson, M. 1993. Learning, trust, and technological collaboration. Human Relations, 46(1): 77–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dopfer, K., & Potts, J. 2014. Evolutionary realism: A new ontology for economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 11(2): 195–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11(3): 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., & Marengo, L. 2007. On the evolutionary and behavioral theories of organizations: A tentative roadmap. Organization Science, 18(3): 491–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. 2008. Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H., & Rugman, A. M. 1985. The influence of Hymer’s dissertation on the theory of foreign direct investment. The American Economic Review, 75(2): 228–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Economist. 2017. January 14.

  • Eisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. 2000. Dynamic capabilities, what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10): 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericson, M. 2013. On the dynamics of fluidity and open-endedness of strategy process toward a strategy-as-practicing conceptualization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(1): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farjoun, M. 2010. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2): 202–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1): 94–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. 2005. Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic Organization, 3(4): 441–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figueira de Lemos, F., Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 2013. Risk management in the internationalization process of the firm: A note on the Uppsala model. Journal of World Business, 46(2): 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsgren, M. 2002. The concept of learning in the Uppsala internationalization process model: A critical view. International Business Review, 11(3): 257–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. 2012. Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment – A New Approach to the Firm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fransson, A., Håkansson, L., & Liesch, P. W. 2011. The underdetermined knowledge-based theory of the MNC. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(3): 427–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. 1953. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. E. 2000. Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1): 113–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghauri, P., Hadjikhani, A., & Johanson, J. 2005. Managing Opportunity Development In Business Networks. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1): 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. 1990. The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network. The Academy of Management Review, 15(4): 603–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. 1996. Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 13–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. 1992. Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In N. Nohria & R. G. Ecclles (Eds), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form and Action: 25–56. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadjikhani, A., Hadjikhani, A. I., & Thilenius, P. 2013. The internationalization process model: A proposed view of firms’ regular incremental and irregular non-incremental behavior. International Business Review, 23(1): 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hägg, I., & Johanson, J. 1982. Företag I nätverk (Firms in networks). Stockholm: SNS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson, H. 1989. Corporate Technological Behavior: Cooperation and Networks. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. 2006. No business is an island: The network concept of business strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22(3): 256–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, M. J. 2004. Dynamics in organizational culture. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation: 190–211. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., et al. 2007. Dynamic Capabilities, Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.-F. 1982. A Theory of Multinational Enterprise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernes, T. 2014. A Process Theory of Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L., Hwang, P. C., & Kim, W. C. 1990. An eclectic theory of the choice of international entry mode. Strategic Management Journal, 11(2): 117–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hohenthal, J., Johanson, J., & Johanson, M. 2014. Network knowledge and business-relationship value in the foreign market. International Business Review, 23(1): 4–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutzschenreuter, T., Voll, J. C., & Verbeke, A. 2011. The impact of added cultural distance and cultural diversity on international expansion patterns: A Penrosean perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 305–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hymer, S. 1976. International Operations of National Firms. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobides, M. G., & Winter, S. G. 2012. Capabilities: Structure, agency, and evolution. Organization Science, 23(5): 1365–1381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M., Stoopendaal, A. M. V., & Putters, K. 2015. Situated novelty: Introducing a process perspective on the study of innovation. Research Policy, 44(10): 1974–1984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P. A., Le, J. K., & Feldman, M. S. 2012. Toward a theory of coordinating: Creating coordinating mechanisms in practice. Organization Science, 23(4): 907–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Mattsson, L.-G. 1987. Interorganizational relations in industrial systems: A network approach compared with the transaction cost approach. International Studies of Management and Organizations, 17(1): 34–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J. & Vahlne, J-E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(Spring/Summer): 23‒32.

  • Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 1990. The mechanism of internationalization. International Marketing Review, 7(4): 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 2009. The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1411–1431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. 2011. Markets as networks: Implications for strategy-making. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 39(4): 484–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kano, L., & Verbeke, A. 2015. The three faces of bounded reliability. California Management Review, 58(1): 97–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2013. Temporal work in strategy making. Organization Science, 37(5): 790–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katkalo, V. S., Pitelis, C. N., & Teece, D. J. 2010. Introduction: On the nature and scope of dynamic capabilities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4): 1175–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, N. M. 2005. Penrose and the growth of multinational firms. Managerial and Decision Economics, 26(2): 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. M. 1973. Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingebiel, R., & De Meyer, A. 2013. Becoming aware of the unknown. Decision making during the implementation of a strategic initiative. Organization Science, 24(1): 133–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. 2000. The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3): 405–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3): 383–397.

    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): 625–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachmann, L. M. 1956. The Structure of Capital. Kansas City, MO: Sheed Andrews and McNeel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A. 1995. Strategic management and the exploration of diversity. In C. A. Montgomery (Ed.), Resource-Based and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm: Towards a Synthesis: 19–42. Boston, MA: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainela, T., & Puhakka, V. 2009. Organizing new business in a turbulent context: Opportunity discovery and effectuation for IJV development in transition markets. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 7(2): 111–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. 1982. The technology of foolishness. In J. G. March & J. P. Olsen (Eds), Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations: 69–81. Bergen: Universitetsförlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. 1987. Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33(11): 1404–1418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvie, A., Haynie, J. M., & Gustavsson, V. 2011. Unpacking the uncertainty concept: Implications for entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3): 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. 1985. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3): 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3): 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murmann, J. P. 2013. The coevolution of industries and important features of their environments. Organization Science, 24(1): 58–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R., & Verbeke, A. 2015. Making internalization theory good for practice: The essence of Alan Rugman’s contributions to international business. Journal of World Business, 50(4): 612–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. 2002. Evolutionary theorizing in economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(2): 23–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nightingale, P. 2008. Meta-paradigm change and the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(3): 533–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandza, K., & Thorpe, R. 2009. Creative search and strategic sense-making: Missing dimensions in the concept of dynamic capabilities. British Journal of Management, 20(1): 118–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. 1991. Key characteristics of the large innovating firm. British Journal of Management, 2(1): 41–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitelis, C. N., & Teece, D. J. 2011. Cross-border co-creation, dynamic capabilities and the entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4): 1247–1270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyndt, J., & Pedersen, T. 2006. Managing Global Offshoring Strategies. Fredriksberg: Copenhagen Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M. 1981. Inside the Multinationals: The Economics of Internal Markets. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A., & D’Cruz, J. R. 2003. Multinationals as Flagship Firms: Regional Business Networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2004. A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1): 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., Verbeke, A., & Nguyen, Q. T. 2011a. Fifty years of international business theory and beyond. Management International Review, 51(6): 755–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A., Verbeke, A., & Yuan, W. 2011b. Re-conceptualizing Bartlett and Ghoshal’s classification of national subsidiary roles in the multinational enterprise. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 253–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvato, C. 2003. The role of micro-strategies in the engineering of firm evolution. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1): 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandén, P. & Vahlne, J-E. 1976. The Advantage Cycle. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Business Studies, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden.

  • Santangelo, G. D., & Meyer, K. E. 2011. Extending the internationalization process model: Increases and decreases of MNE commitment in emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(7): 894–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarasvathy, S. 2001. Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2): 243–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarasvathy, S., Kumar, K., York, J.G. & Bhagavatula, S. 2013. An effectual approach to international entrepreneurship: Overlaps, challenges, and provocative possibilities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, November: 1‒23.

  • Shackle, G. L. S. 1979. Imagination and the Nature of Choice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4): 448–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snehota, I. 1990. Notes on a Theory of Business Enterprise. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Business Studies, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden.

  • Steen, J. T., & Liesch, P. W. 2007. A note on Penrosean growth, resource bundles and the Uppsala model of internationalization. Management International Review, 47(2): 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. 2009. Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4): 689–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. 2007. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. 2014. A dynamic capabilities-based approach entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1): 8–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Schuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, E. W. K. 2006. Behavioral assumptions and theory development: The case of transaction cost economics. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11): 999–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. 2003. Do we really understand tacit knowledge? In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge: 410–427. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vahlne, J.-E., & Ivarsson, I. 2014. The globalization of Swedish MNEs: Empirical evidence and theoretical explanations. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(3): 248–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vahlne, J.-E., Ivarsson, I., & Johanson, J. 2011. The tortuous road to globalization for Volvo’s heavy truck business: Extending the scope of the Uppsala model. International Business Review, 20(1): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vahlne, J.-E., & Johanson, J. 2013. The Uppsala model on evolution of the multinational business enterprise – from internalization to coordination of networks. International Marketing Review, 30(3): 189–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vahlne, J.-E., & Johanson, J. 2014. Replacing traditional economics with behavioral assumptions in constructing the Uppsala model: Towards a theory on evolution of the multinational business. enterprise. In J. Boddewyn (Ed.), Multidisciplinary Insights from New AIB Fellows: 159‒176. New York: Emerald.

  • Vahlne, J.-E., & Jonsson, A. 2017. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability in the globalization of the multinational business enterprise (MBE): Case studies of AB Volvo and IKEA. International Business Review, 26(1): 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H. 1992. Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13(1): 169–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., & Hargrave, T. J. 2004. Social, technical, and institutional change. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation: 259–303. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. 1999. The Innovation Journey. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Tulder, R., Verbeke, A., Carneiro, J., & Gonzalez-Perez, M. A. 2016. The Challenge of BRIC Multinationals. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Veblen, T. 1904. Theory of Business Enterprise. Augustus: M. Kelley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A. 2013. International Business Strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., & Asmussen, C. G. 2016. Global, local, or regional? The locus of MNE strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 53(6): 1051–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., & Kano, L. 2016. An internalization perspective on the global and regional strategies of multinational enterprises. Journal of World Business, 51(1): 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., Zargarzadeh, M., & Osiyevskyy, O. 2014. Internalization theory, entrepreneurship and international new ventures. Multinational Business Review, 22(3): 246–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4): 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, C., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. 2013. Putting process (back) in research on the internationalization process of the firm. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2): 245–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. 2013. Small forces and large firms: Foundations of the RBV. Strategic Management Journal, 34(6): 635–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. 1979. Transaction cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2): 236–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. 1996. The Mechanism of Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. 1987. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In D. J. Teece (Ed.), The Competitive Challenge: 159–184. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. 2003. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 991–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. 2012. Purpose and progress in the theory of strategy: Comments on Gavetti. Organization Science, 23(1): 288–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. 2013. Habit, deliberation, and action: Strengthening the microfoundations of routines and capabilities. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2): 120–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. 2002. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3): 339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to a number of friends and colleagues who have read and commented upon earlier versions of this article, as well as to two anonymous JIBS reviewers for their constructive criticism.

Our editor, Alain Verbeke, has been very helpful in improving the quality of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, Economics and Law, Centre of International Business Studies, University of Gothenburg, Box 610, 40530, Göteborg, Sweden

    Jan-Erik Vahlne

  2. Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Jan Johanson

Authors
  1. Jan-Erik Vahlne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Johanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan-Erik Vahlne.

Additional information

Accepted by Alain Verbeke, Editor-in-Chief, 16 August 2017. This article has been with the authors for two revisions and was single-blind reviewed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vahlne, JE., Johanson, J. From internationalization to evolution: The Uppsala model at 40 years. J Int Bus Stud 48, 1087–1102 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0107-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0107-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation