The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
The dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation, and relative scope
Abstract
This paper investigates how subsidiary companies are able to contribute to the firm-specific advantages of the multinational corporation (MNC). Specifically we examine the determinants of the contributory role of the subsidiary and subsidiary initiative. The study reveals the following significant relationships: (a) internal subsidiary resources in combination with initiative have a strong positive impact on the subsidiary's contributory role; (b) subsidiary initiative is strongly associated with the leadership and entrepreneurial culture in the subsidiary; and (c) contributory role is strongly associated with subsidiary autonomy and a low level of local competition. We discuss the implications of these findings and some of the theoretical issues associated with subsidiary initiative. Our provisional conclusion is that MNC subsidiaries can not only contribute to firm-specific advantage creation, they can also drive the process. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“One of the insights of our review concerns the role of private goals versus common goals (Khanna et al., 1998;Parkhe, 1993).”
From Collaboration, Coordination, and Cooperation Among Organizations: Establishing the Distinctive Meanings of These Terms Through a Systematic Literature Review (2020) · cites this paper as Khanna et al., 1998
In the citing paper
“In the literature on alliances, for instance, researchers distinguish between”
From Collaboration, Coordination, and Cooperation Among Organizations: Establishing the Distinctive Meanings of These Terms Through a Systematic Literature Review (2020) · cites this paper as Khanna et al., 1998
In the citing paper
“The baseline prediction is that”
From Collaboration, Coordination, and Cooperation Among Organizations: Establishing the Distinctive Meanings of These Terms Through a Systematic Literature Review (2020) · cites this paper as Khanna et al., 1998
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Metadata
- Published
- 1998
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation, and relative scope. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199803)19:3
- The paper
- The dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation, and relative scope. (1998). https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199803)19%3A3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
