De‐internationalization through the lens of intellectual property rights

Abstract

Many studies have focused on internationalization, with few shedding light on de-internationalization. In this article, we contended that de-internationalization is common in a world of matured globalization, yet it remains underexplored. We sought to build on the seminal articles on de-internationalization by extending our understanding of the concept from a voluntary to an involuntary perspective. In particular, we used intellectual property rights as an institutional coercive dimension and set theory as a discerning mechanism to enrich our understanding of de-internationalization. Our article, which demonstrates the multi-faceted conditions of de-internationalization, should benefit formal institutions and policy makers in developing a greater understanding of the relationship between public policies and focal firms' decisions to de-internationalize. We also hope that our article will contribute to greater visibility of de-internationalization and make the concept more approachable to our international business audience.

Economic Modelling at thirty-five: A retrospective bibliometric survey

“…This evidence has three key implications. First, prospective authors (Lim, 2021) as well as the modern digital, platform and sharing economy (Lim, 2020;Lim et al, 2021) and the de-internationalization phenomenon (Lim and Mandrinos, 2020;Mandrinos et al, 2021). Equally, this could be achieved by exploring topics that have not been jointly explored (i.e., topics in Figure 2 without any links -e.g., corporate social responsibility as a means to address income inequality).…”

Setbacks, interruptions and turnarounds in the internationalization process: a bibliometric and literature review of de-internationalization

“…Voluntary exits usually occur for financial or strategic reasons (Kotabe and Ketkar 2009 ), but they are always part of a decision made internally (Boddewyn 1983 ). In contrast, involuntary exits typically happen due to external reasons such as political or exchange risks, warfare, intellectual property rights issues, or even expropriation (Benito and Welch 1997 ; Kotabe and Ketkar 2009 ; Mandrinos et al 2022 ). Although partial or full withdrawal are easy concepts to grasp, Benito and Welch ( 1997 ) theorize that the probability of a full exit from international operations declines as the internationalization process evolves; the same cannot be said about partial withdrawal, however, because companies often reduce some of their international operations over time as part of a bigger picture.…”

Ushering a new era of Global Business and Organizational Excellence: Taking a leaf out of recent trends in the new normal

“…The eleventh theme (apple green cluster) relates to globalization in global business . Noteworthily, this theme highlights and reaffirms the point that global business exists because of “globalisation.” This finding is significant to alleviate concerns and misguided thoughts about the potential of de‐globalization (i.e., regional level), which is unlikely to occur; instead, what is more likely to occur is de‐internationalization and re‐internationalization (i.e., firm‐level) in accordance with the cycles and waves of internationalization among firms (Kafouros et al., 2022; Mandrinos et al., 2022).…”