Internationalization trajectories--a cross-country comparison: Are large Chinese and Indian companies different?

Abstract

This paper explores whether the internationalization trajectories -patterns over time in the level, pace, variability and temporal concentration of international expansion -of large firms from China and India are fundamentally different from those of developed country firms. A longitudinal cross-country comparative study of 256 large firms for the 1990-2004 period shows that, although internationalization trajectories of large and leading Chinese and Indian firms are indeed different, there are also considerable similarities between established developed country firms and the new firms from emerging markets, not in the least because they often interact within the same sector

Interdependence Across a Firm's International Trajectories

“…In bringing the interdependence across the firm's international trajectories to the forefront, we highlight a driving force in the internationalization of the firm that has been neglected in the literature (Fortanier & Tulder, 2009;Salgado, 2011). In doing so, we put forward an alternative, yet complementary (and more nuanced) view of the internationalization of the firm.…”

“…In doing so, we put forward an alternative, yet complementary (and more nuanced) view of the internationalization of the firm. Rather than an aggregation of discrete international trajectories (Fortanier & Tulder, 2009;Maitland et al, 2005), we suggest that the internationalization of the firm is better conceptualized as a pool of interdependent international trajectories. In this sense, this first result can be viewed as a response to Johanson and Vahlne's (1990) plea.…”

“…Broadly speaking, models of the internationalization of the firm that are more history-, contextand process-oriented (Benito et al, 2009) aim to shed light on a firm's international trajectory (Fortanier & Tulder, 2009), that is, a sequence of causally connected events that is triggered as the firm ventures into a foreign market (Gao & Pan, 2010).…”

“…The scholarly field of internationalization, especially those represented by theoretical and empirical works grounded on more history-, context-and process-oriented approaches (Benito, Petersen, & Welch, 2009) such as Innovation-Related Internationalization Models (Bilkey & Tesar, 1977) and the Uppsala Internationalization Model (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977, 1990Vahlne, Ivarsson, & Johanson, 2011;Vahlne & Johanson, 2013) has traditionally regarded the internationalization of the firm as a pool of processes, herein international trajectories, that independently unfold in different host countries (Fortanier & Tulder, 2009). As neatly summarized by Hadjikhani, Hadjikhani and Thilenius (2014), the ordinary explanation of the internationalization of the firm comes from studies that single out a particular international trajectory to examine the driving forces that induce the firm's international trajectories to evolve in rhythms and paces that are particular to each one.…”

“…Notwithstanding, as recently remarked by Nachum andSong (2011), Shaver (2013) and C. Welch and Paavilainen-Mäntymäki (2014), inquiry into it is still parsimonious and sketchy. Consequently, the interdependence across the firm's international trajectories remains backstage in accepted explanations of the internationalization of the firm (Fortanier & Tulder, 2009;Salgado, 2011). As a matter of fact, interdependence is only acknowledged, albeit from a static point of view (Estrin, Meyer, Wright, & Foliano, 2008), in the literature of configuration and coordination of a multinational's operations, in particular subsidiary development (Paterson & Brock, 2002).…”