4.7 Review

Home Country Institutions and the Internationalization-Performance Relationship: A Meta-Analytic Review

期刊

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT
卷 42, 期 5, 页码 1075-1110

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0149206315624963

关键词

internationalization; performance; meta-analysis; home country institutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We propose that the mixed findings of research on the internationalization-performance (I-P) relationship reflect its failure to adequately consider the moderating role of firms' home country formal and informal institutions. This general hypothesis is supported in a meta-analysis of the firm-, industry-, home country-, and host country-level factors driving the I-P relationship across 32 countries between 1972 and 2012 from 359 primary studiesthe largest sample of primary studies of any meta-analysis on this topic to date. We make three main contributions to the I-P and global strategy literatures. First, we develop a novel integration of the theoretical logics from the I-P research and the institution-based view of strategy to explain how embeddedness in home country institutions affects the strength of the I-P relationship. Second, we show the importance of including both formal and informal institutions in analyses of firms' institutional embeddedness, thereby extending our knowledge of the effects of institutional complexity. Our third contribution is methodological and reflects our use of advanced meta-analytical techniques based on both product-moment and partial correlations as effect sizes, which allow us to address unresolved debates about the sign and shape of the I-P relationship. Our results show that the I-P relationship is positive, although the overall effect is small and varies greatly across firms' home countries. We conclude by discussing the findings' relevance and promising future research avenues, including novel research questions, multilevel theoretical and empirical frameworks, and improvements in methodological rigor.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据