Globalization and international management: in search of an interdisciplinary approach

Abstract

This paper, based on the international relations and international political economy literature, shows that the international management field has been influenced by certain national interests, particularly from the United States, and also that it reproduces a particular theory of globalization that benefits the interests of transnational corporations. One of the most concerning outcomes of this dominant perspective is the suppression of governance issues 'managed' by these corporations and the interests of other key agents, such as governments. The interdisciplinary approach outlined in this paper challenges the hegemonic influence of the globalist theory within the international management field. The approach proposed addresses the domains of management and governance by recognizing from a multidimensional perspective on globalization, the political and economic interfaces between public and private, and more specifically, between government and transnational corporations. This could make the knowledge produced by the field relevant not only to transnational corporations but also to local governments, local managers, public administrators and policy makers in developing countries.

<b>Ciclo de vida de produtos, empreendedorismo, tecnologia e globalização: um olhar através da <i>Caverna</i> de Saramago</b> - doi: 10.4025/actascihumansoc.v35i1.20078

“…A tecnologia tem tido seu processo de disseminação acelerado por efeito da globalização que tornou possível o trânsito de empresas em vários países, possibilitando uma atuação global (ANDERSON; VINCZE, 2000;DRACHE, 1999;QUELCH;DESHPANDE, 2004;GUEDES;FARIA, 2007).…”

Delinking legitimacy: a decolonial critique of Brazilian ethanol

“…As a result, legitimacy has been seen as a way to create strategies to manage MNCs' internal (Kostova and Zaheer, 1999) and external (Gifford and Kestler, 2008; Hillman and Wan, 2005) pressures in the international setting within the IM field. Consequently, it helps explain survival, the emergence of new organizations, resource acquisition and maintenance, and stability in order to understand, for example, political relations between governments and corporations (Guedes and Faria, 2007) and the implication of MNCs when they cross national frontiers (Cowling and Tomlinson, 2005). This process of depoliticization helps explain the limited utilization of legitimacy in the IM literature, which contrasts greatly with the situation, for example, in the field of international relations (Clark, 2005; Steffek, 2003).…”

“…For example, the repression process “over the modes of knowing, of producing knowledge, of producing perspectives, images and systems of images, symbols, modes of signification” (Quijano, 2007, p. 169) during the colonization of other countries cannot be criticized by legitimacy as it is conceived in the IM field. Thus, delinking legitimacy is to uncover the hidden assumptions under the pretence of universality behind the idea that internationalization of business organizations is “beneficial‐for‐all” and, at the same, to challenge the centrality of MNCs to the analysis (Guedes and Faria, 2007). In this sense, delinking the primacy of legitimacy as it is conceived is an attempt to access the “other side” of the process of what is regarded as legitimate.…”

“…In this sense, management will face more diverse cross‐cultural organizational, regulatory, and managerial practices with the internationalization of business organizations (Acedo and Casillas, 2005; Boddewyn et al , 2004), especially with the increasing role of corporations in (and from) countries considered to be more developed (FAO, 2007). Nevertheless, the mainstream epistemological construction in the IM literature, based mostly on universalist and narrow assumptions (see Guedes and Faria, 2007; Jack et al , 2008), overlooks key legitimacy issues at stake in the internationalization of biofuels.…”

“…One historical feature of the IM literature is that it overlooks political and power issues as the internationalization of large MNCs is regarded as a “natural” (and desirable) consequence of globalization (Cowling and Tomlinson, 2005). Geopolitical and historical asymmetries and the role of governments among nations went unnoticed in IM approaches (Guedes and Faria, 2007). Accordingly, the idea that a North‐South divide in biofuels should be considered “a practical and powerful way for the North to act to protect biodiversity and help countries in the South to prevent deforestation” (Mathews, 2007, p. 3551) seems an unproblematic legitimate position from the dominant IM perspective, even with evidence that this process may be promoting a new type of colonialism (see Bachram, 2004).…”