This initiative examined systematically the extent to which a large set of archival research findings generalizes across contexts. We repeated the key analyses for 29 original strategic management effects in the same context (direct reproduction) as well as in 52 novel time periods and geographies; 45% of the reproductions returned results matching the original reports together with 55% of tests in different spans of years and 40% of tests in novel geographies. Some original findings were associated with multiple new tests. Reproducibility was the best predictor of generalizability—for the findings that proved directly reproducible, 84% emerged in other available time periods and 57% emerged in other geographies. Overall, only limited empirical evidence emerged for context sensitivity. In a forecasting survey, independent scientists were able to anticipate which effects would find support in tests in new samples.

Although the internationalization of economies is driven by specific industry conditions or business-specific differences, the institutions that exist as background conditions directly determine firms’ strategies and interactions in the international environment. This paper contributes to the discussion on the relationship between institutional quality and outward FDI (OFDI). We used 30 indicators in 48 emerging economies in the period 2007–2017; we collected the indicators from alternative secondary sources. After we applied Factor Analysis, six factors were retained. We named the components as follows: “Transparency of government” (F1), “Research, development and innovation, R&D+I” (F2), “Inequality” (F3), “Rules on inward FDI (IFDI)” (F4), “Education and training” (F5), and “Financial market” (F6). The panel data model outcomes suggest that Factor 2, Research, development and innovation, has a significant and positive effect on OFDI. Factor 6, the Financial market, has a significant and negative effect on OFDI. When we include lagged values of OFDI stocks the results also show that the government measures transparency positively and significantly affects OFDI stocks. These findings imply that the institutional environment creates two streams of OFDI: leverage and escapism.

Studying firms from emerging economies has been receiving more attention in recent decades. However, the host‐ and home‐country perspectives have allowed understanding, to a significant extent, of the firms' expansion abroad. We argue the necessity of investigating the interaction of home and host‐country institutional conditions to advance the understanding of the internationalization strategies of firms from emerging economies. Employing a sample of 1387 firms from 17 Latin American countries, we examine how their operations expanded from 2003 to 2019 by undertaking 2636 cross‐border greenfield projects in 94 host countries. Results indicate that the interaction of home and host countries' weak institutional conditions drives the decision‐making process for the internationalization of Latin American firms.

PurposeBased on the rankings of the global competitiveness index and the fragile states index, this paper aims to suggest alternative approaches to shed some light on the effectiveness of rankings in helping emerging economies improve their competitiveness from an institutional standpoint.Design/methodology/approachThe statistical analysis consisted of a two-stage analysis; the first stage consisted of constructing an updated Alternative Institutional Quality Index (AIQI), intending to design a comparative measure between dimensions over time. The second stage consisted of evidencing the structure of each of the observed dimensions' variance to evidence the existing changes or gaps of the AIQI and its components. The authors incorporated the Kruskas–Wallis (KW) model to test the results.FindingsThis paper demonstrates that the analyzed countries generally maintain their competitive position, even though changes in their scores are reflected. This makes invisible the development and progress factors generated by the countries that are mainly found with low scores and only reflect stable structures that allow them to maintain their position.Research limitations/implicationsThe current study has a limitation because it concentrated on a few selected indicators based on the literature review. The limitations of this research may be overlooked in the future by adding additional variables and observations. The paper could be improved by including intra- and inter-regional approaches to control based on the occurrence of specific circumstances (i.e. informal institutions, economic development or factor endowments).Practical implicationsThe paper contributes to the applicable measurement of competitiveness and its structural change over time.Originality/valueThis paper proposed an alternative and simple methodology to assess the evolution of the competitiveness indicators; this methodology could be used to measure structural changes at different levels, which may be an input for the design and implementation of policies to foster competitiveness.