The regional and global competitiveness of multinational firms

International competitiveness ultimately depends upon the linkages between a firm’s unique, idiosyncratic capabilities (firm-specific advantages, FSAs) and its home country assets (country-specific advantages, CSAs). In this paper, we present a modified FSA/CSA matrix building upon the FSA/CSA matrix (Rugman 1981). We relate this to the diamond framework for national competitiveness (Porter 1990), and the double diamond model (Rugman and D’Cruz 1993). We provide empirical evidence to demonstrate the merits and usefulness of the modified FSA/CSA matrix using the Fortune Global 500 firms. We examine the FSAs based on the geographic scope of sales and CSAs that can lead to national, home region, and global competitiveness. Our empirical analysis suggests that the world’s largest 500 firms have increased their firm-level international competitiveness. However, much of this is still being achieved within their home region. In other words, international competitiveness is a regional not a global phenomenon. Our findings have significant implications for research and practice. Future research in international marketing should take into account the multi-faceted nature of FSAs and CSAs across different levels. For MNE managers, our study provides useful insights for strategic marketing planning and implementation.

The outsourcing strategy of local and multinational firms: A supply base perspective

Firms outsource through connecting to local and global supply bases and making such connections produces costs of search and evaluation, which are a function of transaction characteristics and firm capabilities. We argue that firms outsource more when those costs are low. Hence, domestic subsidiaries of multinational firms, with low cost access to both local and global supply bases, outsource more than either domestic firms or foreign subsidiaries, as confirmed by evidence from a large data panel. We also propose that among foreign subsidiaries, distance from the home country co-determines search and evaluation costs such that subsidiaries from more distant countries outsource less. This is confirmed for geographic distance, but a positive effect is found for political distance and a mixed effect for cultural distance.

National boundaries and the location of multinational firms in Europe

Using data on 5,102 subsidiaries established in the period 1991–1999, we examine the location choice of multinational firms of different nationalities in 47 regions of five EU countries. In particular we estimate a nested logit model and find that European multinationals consider regions across different countries as relatively closer substitutes than regions within national borders. This is consistent with the hypothesis that European regions compete to attract foreign direct investments relatively more across than within countries. However, in line with previous studies, we also find that national boundaries still play some role in choices made by non-European multinationals.

Location choices of multinational firms in Europe: the role of EU cohesion policy

Using data on 5509 foreign subsidiaries established in 50 regions of 8 EU countries over the period 1991–1999, we estimate a mixed logit model of the location choice of multinational firms in Europe. In particular, we focus on the role of EU Cohesion Policy in attracting foreign investors from both within and outside Europe. We find that, after controlling for the role of agglomeration economies as well as a number of other regional and country characteristics and allowing for a very flexible correlation pattern among choices, Structural and Cohesion funds allocated by the EU to laggard regions have indeed contributed to attracting multinationals. These policies as well as other determinants play a different role in the case of European investors as opposed to non-European ones.

Catch-up strategies in the Indian auto components industry: domestic firms’ responses to market liberalization

Market liberalization in emerging-market economies and the entry of multinational firms spur significant changes to the industry/institutional environment faced by domestic firms. Prior studies have described how such changes tend to be disruptive to the relatively backward domestic firms, and negatively affect their performance and survival prospects. In this paper, we study how domestic supplier firms may adapt and continue to perform, as market liberalization progresses, through catch-up strategies aimed at integrating with the industry's global value chain. Drawing on internalization theory and the literatures on upgrading and catch-up processes, learning and relational networks, we hypothesize that, for continued performance, domestic supplier firms need to adapt their strategies from catching up initially through technology licensing/collaborations and joint ventures with multinational enterprises (MNEs) to also developing strong customer relationships with downstream firms (especially MNEs). Further, we propose that successful catch-up through these two strategies lays the foundation for a strategy of knowledge creation during the integration of domestic industry with the global value chain. Our analysis of data from the auto components industry in India during the period 1992–2002, that is, the decade since liberalization began in 1991, offers support for our hypotheses.

Productivity and the international firm: dissecting heterogeneity

Higher productivity of multinational firms and exporters has been widely documented in the literature, but the sources of this heterogeneity are still a black box. Using an original dataset on Italian firms, we show that higher total factor productivity of international firms can be to some extent explained by higher R&D intensity and managerial capabilities. However, our results suggest that heterogeneity is more in the slope than in the constant of the production function. In particular, allowing international firms to have different return to labour and capital inputs, we are able to account for their entire productivity premium. This has implications for both labour and capital market reforms.