Influence of Institutional Differences on Firm Innovation from International Alliances

Filiou, Despoina; Golesorkhi, Sougand

doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2014.09.005

Cited by 21 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 132 publications

(222 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, one of the rare research topics is the institutional differences between partners. Notably, Filiou & Golesorkhi [82] explored the contribution of the institutional perspective in understanding firm innovation returns from international alliances. They argued that formal and informal national institutions are of different nature, and give rise to explicit and tacit differences respectively between alliance partners.…”

Section: Alliance Portfoliosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Innovation Cooperation Performance: What Do We Know and What Should We Know?

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The involvement of firms in innovation cooperation with different partners has become a widespread phenomenon in the contemporary business landscape. Our paper provides a review of extant alliance, innovation, open innovation and inter-firm collaboration literature and organizes it based on a conceptual framework featuring three levels of analysis: (a) the dyadic level, (b) the network level, and (c) the location level. The article identifies roadmaps in each of these areas and also highlights existing gaps in the present understanding of innovation cooperation. Thereby, it outlines a research agenda by identifying key research questions and issues in the areas where further research is needed and encouraged.Sustainability 2018, 10, 4517 3 of 32 changes that create the economic space of a given country [29] In this space, which Freeman called the National Innovation System, there are more or less formalized networks of cooperating companies and institutions. Indeed, as Fomina et al. [30] argue, the stability of economic development is determined by the features of the network structure in a collaborative engagement of enterprises. Therefore, it is legitimate to explore whether and how the location of companies and other institutions influence their cooperation for the development of innovation, and the performance outcomes thereof.Economic geography has developed the concept of proximity to explain the formation of networks and clusters of innovative companies in industrial districts [31,32]. The different dimensions of proximity may explain some of the positive externalities, such as knowledge creation and transfer, as well as innovation, which are generated by companies that are co-located [33]. According to Boschma [34], proximity implies similarity between actors and organizations, including both a geographical or spatial dimension and other non-spatial dimensions. Knoben and Oerlemans [35] note that "the concept of proximity has been used in many different ways in the literature, this including different measures and definitions".Boschma [34] identifies five types of proximity:

show abstract

Section: Alliance Portfoliosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Innovation Cooperation Performance: What Do We Know and What Should We Know?

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research on international alliances is only beginning to consider language differences between partners (Brannen & Salk, 2000;Liu et al, 2015;Joshi & Lahiri, 2015). Although past international business research has explored the impact of institutional differences on the performance of international alliances (e.g., Filiou & Golesorkhi, 2016;Lavie & Miller, 2008), we took this issue down to a more disaggregated level by addressing the specific effect of language on organization-based performance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also control for the potential effect of culture, as follows. In measuring cultural distance between MFBs and their international partners, we apply Kogut and Singh's (1988) cultural distance index, which is based on Hofstede's indices (e.g., Dow & Karunaratna, 2006;Meyer et al, 2005;Filiou & Golesorkhi, 2016). In addition, we control for geographical distance as it often relates to transportation, communication, and other transactional activities that a firm conducts when collaborating with partners (Eden & Miller, 2004).…”

Section: Control Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of language use on the financial performance of microfinance banks: Evidence from cross-border activities in 74 countries

Golesorkhi

Mersland

Piekkari

et al. 2019

Journal of World Business

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This multi-year study examines the relationship between financial performance and language use, observing 405 partnerships between microfinance banks and their international financial partners in 74 countries. Drawing on language research in international business, we find that microfinance banks based in English-speaking, French-speaking, and Spanish-speaking countries have higher performance. Furthermore, the linguistic distance between the home country of a microfinance bank and the home country of its international partner(s) is negatively related to its financial performance. Our large-scale study confirms the effect of language use on organization-level financial performance and extends research on language in multinationals from intra-firm to inter-firm relationships.

show abstract

“…There are several competing understandings regarding this relationship. Some scholars view national culture as a major content of a country's informal institutions (Pejovich, 1999); some view informal institution and national culture are identical concepts (e.g., Alesina & Giuliano, 2015;Filiou & Golesorkhi, 2016). By contrast, some authors believe that these two terms are not synonymous but have a causal relationship (Redding, 2008).…”

Section: Clarifying Informal Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating the Web of Informal Institutions When Investing in a Strange Land: Chinese Multinational Enterprises in Australia

Zhang

Lu²,

Zhu

et al. 2020

ABR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multinational enterprises (MNEs) need to understand and handle various informal institutions in host countries to survive and succeed. How MNEs effectively manage informal institutional characteristics of host countries is an important question for both practitioners and scholars. This paper addresses this important but neglected topic based on an in-depth longitudinal qualitative study. It identifies some key informal institutions in Australia, examines how such institutional distinctiveness shapes the behaviour of Chinese expatriates and MNEs and how they handle such informal institutional differences between China and Australia. Our findings challenge some taken-for-granted assumptions regarding informal institutions in the literature and demonstrate that informal institutions of host countries significantly shape the behaviour of expatriates and firm-level strategies of MNEs.

show abstract

Influence of Institutional Differences on Firm Innovation from International Alliances

Cited by 21 publications

References 132 publications

Determinants of Innovation Cooperation Performance: What Do We Know and What Should We Know?

Determinants of Innovation Cooperation Performance: What Do We Know and What Should We Know?

The effect of language use on the financial performance of microfinance banks: Evidence from cross-border activities in 74 countries

Navigating the Web of Informal Institutions When Investing in a Strange Land: Chinese Multinational Enterprises in Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About