No abstract

Purpose – Latin America has been neglected in management and international business (IB) knowledge for a long time. Such a picture reflects the enduring power of the dark side of the geopolitics of knowledge that “international” sub-fields in management knowledge have to tackle as a key condition of possibility for the co-creation of a truly “international” field of “international business”. In this position paper, the authors aim to analyze the extent to which CPoIB has been a key instrument to tackle Anglo-Saxon hegemony in IB knowledge over the last ten years. Design/methodology/approach – The authors follow a decolonizing perspective to analyse the impact of CPoIB for Latin America international business knowledge production. Findings – The paper argues that CPoIB has given voice to authors who are from Latin America and, most important, work in the region. By doing that, CPoIB has triggered the mobilization of mechanisms of recognition and redistribution that are necessary to offset the neo-imperial side of “international business” and management knowledge. The journal has also helped to foster the co-creation of “pluriversal international business”. Originality/value – The paper uses a decolonial perspective from Latin America in order to open new questions and challenges to the field of IB.

This special issue (SI) editorial contributes to ongoing efforts worldwide to decolonise management and organisational knowledge (MOK). A robust pluriversal discussion on the how and why of decolonisation is vital. Yet to date, most business and management schools are on the periphery of debates about decolonising higher education, even as Business Schools in diverse locations function as contested sites of neocolonialism and expansion of Western neoliberal perspectives. This editorial and special issue is the outcome of a unique set of relationships and processes that saw Organization host its first paper development workshop in Africa in 2019. This editorial speaks to a radical ontological plurality that up-ends the classical division between theory and praxis. It advocates praxistical theorising that moves beyond this binary and embraces decolonising knowledge by moving into the realm of affect and embodied, other-oriented reflexive, communicative praxis. It underscores the simultaneous, contested and unfinished decolonising-recolonising doubleness of praxis and the potential of borderlands locations to work with these dynamics. This special issue brings together a set of papers which advance different decolonising projects and grapple with the nuances of what it means to ‘do’ decolonising in a diversity of empirical and epistemic settings.

PurposeThis paper aims to problematize the lack of different worldviews on international management (IM), and the virtual silence in Latin America regarding this field within the context of the ongoing crisis of neoliberal policies and discourse.Design/methodology/approachThis paper embraces a decolonial Latin American perspective based on developments in international relations (IR). A major reason for this dialogue is that critical debates within IR have been overlooked by both mainstream and critical literature on management, despite the intrinsic relation between decolonial arguments and IR and the increasing importance of management, and IM, within the realm of international relations to both “centers” and “peripheries”.FindingsThe interdisciplinary dialogue put forward in this paper goes beyond those borders established by the “center” and imposed on subalterns. Accordingly then, this might be taken as a particular way of putting into practice a decolonial Latin American perspective. It aims to go beyond some “universal” standpoint as the IR literature shows that the universal standpoint in relation to the “peripheries” tends to be mobilized by the “centers”. It is understood that the construction of a critical Latin American perspective is a way of creating better conditions for “cross‐cultural encounters” not only in global terms, but also within Latin America.Practical implicationsRethinking IM through a critical perspective inspired by IR has implications for teaching, research and other types of practice in both IM and IR in Latin America.Originality/valueThe paper aims to foster a Latin American perspective rather than a general perspective. Instead of merely disengaging the “center”, the paper embraces, from a critical position inspired by IR, the current argument in US literature that the core of IM comprises a strong commitment to cross‐cultural issues, diversity, and eclecticism.

This paper shows that, although an encounter between the ideas of Alfred Chandler (from the USA) and Celso Furtado (from Brazil) within the Cold War period could have avoided the crisis of legitimacy faced by strategic management, it was only Chandler who became a universal authority in this field. Chandler and Furtado approached corporations and governments from different perspectives for more than 50 years, and this partially explains the disencounter between them. Although the contemporaneous crises of both US hegemony and strategic management suggest that a multipolar and pluriversal field of strategy is needed, influential authors from the USA have overlooked history and stood for the reinforcement of North/South coloniality to tackle global problems, which they enunciate from a universal and unilateral standpoint. A de-colonial historical analysis of the (dis)encounter between these two authors is undertaken by two Brazilian authors, in this paper, to show that their works are inseparable parts of the same phenomenon, in the same way as modernity and coloniality are. We develop a framework with three levels of analysis to re-frame such a North/South (dis)encounter: at the macro level, the grand narrative of the Cold War; at the meso level, the subaltern knowledges produced by the Economic Commission for Latin America and Caribbean (ECLAC) and by Celso Furtado; and at the micro level the national identity espoused by each author. We argue that the Chandler–Furtado encounter we produce in this paper helps create conditions for the development of a multipolar and pluriversal field of strategy in the post-Cold War period, which moves beyond the North/South divide.