Debates help drive research forward. This paper is unique in its review of four current debates in the global strategy arena: (1) cultural vs institutional distance; (2) global vs regional geographic diversification; (3) convergence vs divergence in corporate governance; and (4) domestic vs overseas corporate social responsibility. For each debate, the history is tracked and the emerging tension highlighted. By introducing both sides of four lively and timely debates, the paper provides an innovative way of reviewing the literature and helping to advance the field. It is argued that an underlying theme connecting these four diverse debates is the institution-based view of global strategy.

No abstract

In this article we reflect on the adolescent years of Asia management research published in the Asia Pacific Journal of Management (APJM) by reviewing work published in the past 10 years (1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006). We report that during the last decade, APJM has published 223 research articles, written by 373 different authors, who are affiliated with 203 different institutions. Our discussion of the future of Asia management research is guided by Kuhn's (Kuhn, T. S. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962) perspective on the nonlinear progression of science. We argue that as a growing community, Asia management research is finding its "identity" and establishing its presence in the larger worldwide management research community. Following our analysis, we conclude that the growth of Asia management research-as captured by APJM publications-throughout its "adolescent" years has set forth a challenging and exciting path for the future. Adolescence is a period of life when many different directions seem possible. As adolescents seek answers to questions such as "Who am I?" and "Where am I Asia Pacific J Manage (2007) 24:

Licensing has become the central form of interfirm technology transfer and commercialization in the market for inventions. However, despite the large representation and growth of this business model, the resolution of key contractual provisions is still regarded as idiosyncratic, and little is known about how experience with prior relationships or bargaining power position affects contract outcomes. In an attempt to further understand how these transactions unfold, we present and test a theoretical framework disentangling experience benefits and transaction costs associated with licensors’ prior involvement in out- versus in-licensing deals and how they affect the important, yet contentious, contractual provision of nonexclusivity. Drawing on transaction cost, experiential learning, and bargaining power theories, we develop new insights explaining when licensors are likely to realize nonexclusive contracts as a function of their prior licensing deals, and when bargaining power moderates the relationships between prior deals and nonexclusivity. Leveraging a 27-year sample of bioscience licensing transactions, this study reveals the dynamic tension between the benefits and transaction costs arising from prior interfirm collaborations, and how a firm’s history of collaborations, alongside its bargaining power position, influences contractual outcomes.

Purpose -This study aims to explore the objectivity in third-party ratings. Third-party ratings are often based on some form of aggregation of various experts' opinions with the assumption that the potential judgment biases of the experts cancel each other out. While psychology research has suggested that experts can be unintentionally biased, management literature has not considered the effect of expert bias on the objectivity of third-party ratings. Thus, this study seeks to address this issue. Design/methodology/approach -Ranking data from the US News and World Report between 1993 and 2008, institution-related variables and, to represent sports prominence, NCAA football and basketball performance variables are leveraged in testing our hypotheses. A mediating-model is tested using regression with panel-corrected standard errors. Findings -This study finds that the judgments of academicians and recruiters, concerning the quality of universities, have been biased by the prominence of a university's sports teams and that the bias introduced to these experts mediates the aggregated bias in the resultant rankings of MBA programs. Moreover, it finds that experts may inflate rankings by up to two positions. Practical implications -This study is particularly relevant for university officials as it uncovers how universities can tangibly manipulate the relative perception of quality through sports team prominence. For third-party rating systems, the reliability of ratings based on aggregated expert judgments is called into question. Originality/value -This study addresses a significant gap in the literature by examining how a rating system may be unintentionally biased through the aggregation of experts' judgments. Given the heavy reliance on third-party rating systems by both academics and the general population, addressing the objectivity of such ratings is crucial.