How does the embeddedness in institutional structures enable or constrain the economic evolution of manufacturing regions? The history of these regions explains the origins and persistence of certain region-specific institutions. In this article the embeddedness in institutions-as the products of historically situated interactions, conflicts and negotiations among different socioeconomic actors and groups-is compared in the development of two manufcturing regions: the Uddevalla region in Sweden and the Southeast Brabant region in the Netherlands. This comparative investigation of two manufacturing regions suggests that the type of manufacturing seems to be decisive for the possibility to adapt. Since social capital, or embeddedness, has been strong in both regions, it is not a sufficient factor alone to explain why one of the regions has managed to transform better than the other.

In this article we want to show how conceptions about collaboration for local eocnomic development in Sweden are constructed on national and local levels. We also show how these conceptions have been realized in two different company networks; in the city of Ö stersund ("Odenskog företagsstaden") and in the city of Karlskrona ("Telecom City"). In politics and research, local collaboration or cluster formation are viewed as important tools and levers for local economic development. However, we argue that the local labour markets and unemployment rates in our case studies do not differ significantly, despite very different strategies for collaboration. Therefore, we suspect that the political focus on collaboration is a way of legitimizing the change in regional policy rather than a delegation of real power to the local level. If this continues, we fear that the current regional policy is reduced to a discourse of popular concepts rather than a real instrument for local economic development.

This study explores the role of relational power and discursive positioning in the knowledge integration process of an interdisciplinary project developing a steam turbine. As boundaries are an important focus of study for knowledge integration studies, more engagement is needed to not only map boundary work in the knowledge integration process, but also to acknowledge the role of power in this context. With help of governmentality and positioning theory, we show how power struggles are manifested as boundary work that both reinforces and undermines temporal and domain-specific boundaries. The study concludes that these reinforcements and underminings are central for our understanding of how knowledge integration develops. In addition, the study shed lights on the significance of the co-existence of domination and freedom in the project work. By acknowledging power relations and studying them as they are played out in discursive talk, the study contributes to an increased understanding of the nuances and intricacies of knowledge integration processes.

A central focus of cross-cultural management research is how individuals and organizations differ across national cultures and how that fundamentally shapes their thoughts and actions and serves as a unit of identification. In this article, we critically reconsider the essential categorical nature of culture, problematizing categorization and questioning national culture as the primary basis of differentiation. We draw on intersectionality, an approach that helps understand how multiple categories are experienced by the individual, and on relationality, an approach that conceptualizes people, organizations, and their actions within dynamic patterns of relations and cultural meanings. Both approaches challenge the primacy, unity, and separateness of any given category, the a priori determination of categories (and associated boundaries) in research, and the nature and stability of boundaries. Based on this we advance notions of boundary work and boundary shifting that help explore how today's sociocultural groups and categories, and the boundaries that separate them, emerge and change. We conclude that, while the extant crosscultural literature has come far in identifying differences, relationality and intersectionality can enable cross-cultural scholars to engage in research practice that better reflects the complexities of sociocultural life. We contribute to theory by suggesting why and how these two approaches can be used to explore complex cross-cultural management phenomena.

No abstract