The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 14 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation
Open accessAbstract
Firms are social communities that specialize in the creation and internal transfer of knowledge. The multinational corporation arises not out of the failure of markets for the buying and selling of knowledge, but out of its superior efficiency as an organizational vehicle by which to transfer this knowledge across borders. We test the claim that firms specialize in the internal transfer of tacit knowledge by empirically examining the decision to transfer the capability to manufacture new products to wholly owned subsidiaries or to other parties. The empirical results show that the less codifiable and the harder to teach is the technology, the more likely the transfer will be to wholly owned operations. This result implies that the choice of transfer mode is determined by the efficiency of the multinational corporation in transferring knowledge relative to other firms, not relative to an abstract market transaction. The notion of the firm as specializing in the transfer and recombination of knowledge is the foundation to an evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
60 Own interpretation · 9 Own result · 8 Own method · 7 No full text of the sources · 5 Sources not found · 5 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“strong support was found for the proposition that the choice of transfer mode is explained by the degree of tacitness of technology.”
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
“They consistently show that the more tacit the technology is, the more likely it will be transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Abstract
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The empirical results show that the less codifiable and the harder to teach is the technology, the more likely the transfer will be to wholly owned operations.”
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
“They consistently show that the more tacit the technology is, the more likely it will be transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The following investigation is meant to show that knowledge that is difficult to codify or teach and is also complex will tend to be transferredwithin the firm.”
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
“The positive coefficient to Complexity indicates that as technologies increase in their complexity, they are more likely to be transferred to wholly owned subsidiaries.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ourresults suggest, though, that there remains a distinguishable boundary in the knowledge between the partner firms.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also partitionedthe sample by groupingjoint venturesand wholly owned subsidiaries together.The significance levels of the coefficients deteriorated.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect of age of the technology is insignificant.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The above results provide support for the contention that firms specialize in the transfer of knowledge that is difficult to understandand codify.”
- Also stated in: § 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming]. · hedged
“Ourfindings suggesting that firms specialize in the transfer of relatively tacit and idiosyncratic knowledge are consistent with this broader evolutionary perspective.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming]. · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The coefficients to the variables Codifiabilityand Teachabilityarenegative and significant, indicating that as the knowledge becomes more codified and more easily taught, the more likely it will be transferred to a third party rather than to a wholly owned subsidiary.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What firms do is to specialize in the creation and transfer of specialized knowledge.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The positive coefficient to Complexity indicates that as technologies increase in their complexity, they are more likely to be transferred to wholly owned subsidiaries.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Knowledge is transferredby joint ventures, but for uncodified knowledge, the preferred vehicle is transfer between wholly owned units.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of previous transfers is negatively related to transfer to wholly owned subsidiaries, contrary to expectation, but the relationship is insignificant.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The multinational corporation arises not out of the failure of markets for the buying and selling of knowledge, but out of its superior efficiency as an organizational vehicle by which to transfer this knowledge across borders.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firms are social communities that specialize in the creation and internal transfer of knowledge.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is difficult to discuss and analyze the growth of the firm, and its boundaries, in the context of comparative statics.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather, these costs are derived from the efforts of codifying and teaching complex knowledge to recipients; more efforts must be expended, the less capable the user.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > DIRECT INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGEAS A PUBLIC GOOD
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And surely, when such a decision is considered, an importantaspect would be the extent to which a firm has an advantage in specialized knowledge of cooperating with agents and the extent to which their shared knowledge will further accumulate and provide platforms for future opportunities.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Horizontal foreign direct investment is, therefore, the transferof knowledge within the firm and across borders, and in this regard, such transfers are the primary expression of the growth of the firm.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another interpretation,rarely discussed in the literature,is that technologies that are difficult to codify also representplatforms for expansion into future markets.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multiple respondents for an innovation were not used, though, for some questionnaires, one individual scored the basic information and another answered the section dealing with the manufacturing process.(As the questions did not reflect on the respondent's performance, the risk of misattributionis low.)”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A response rate of 80% was attained; the remaining 20% were similar in size and industry affiliation to the responding organizations.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By our results, tacitness will increase the costs of transfer and decrease the speed by which knowledge is transferred within the firm or between partners.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What our propositions and empirical tests have sought to put forth is the view that the attributes of knowledge influence the decision of where to draw the boundaries of the firm.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, the decision to license is not simply based on the costs of this made relative to an internal transfer; it is also influenced by the expectation of revenues that would be foregone by failing to accumulate experiential knowledge in the foreign market.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We include these additional two variables in our estimations, as it is unlikely that the three scales measuring codifiability, teachability, and complexity (or any set of measures) can fully specify the tacitness of technology.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These findings are perfectly consistent with Teece's discovery that the costs of transfer vary widely.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Teece
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, it is reasonable to conclude that age and previous transfers act as proxies for a latent variable of tacitness; once more direct measures are provided, their influence should disappear.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These costs declined with each subsequent transfer and with the experience of the recipient of the technology.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > DIRECT INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGEAS A PUBLIC GOOD
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Teece [1977] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Davidson and McFetridge [1984] similarly found that transferto unaffiliatedrecipients is promoted if the firm has transferred technology in the past.However, experience in internal transfers encourages more internal transfers in the future.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Experience with the technology again points to the important relationship between the currentstate of knowledge andlearningcapabilitiesof the adopter.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Davidson and McFetridge [1984] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Competition among firms is based upon their differential capabilities, and their abilities to expand by the creation and replication of new knowledge faster than the imitative and innovative efforts of competitors.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The cost of the transfer of technologies should differ among firms, and these differences should have an effect on the desirability to transfer technology within the firm or by license, independent of the issue of opportunism.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > DIRECT INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGEAS A PUBLIC GOOD
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firms compete on the basis of the superiority of their information and know-how, and their abilities to develop new knowledge by experiential learning.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In its more advanced evolution, this process alters the global knowledge of the firm and may result in its transformationtowards a network of subsidiaries characterized by the cross-border transfer of learning.20”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20] 20. Semi-Synthetic Penicillin:PENGLOBE1970 (ASTRA) 24. Selective Beta-Blocker:SELOKEN1970 (HASSLE/ASTRA) 25. Roller Bearing: CC 1972 (SKF)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this sense, the view that we put forth is compatible with an evolutionary perspective on the growth of the firm.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One interpretationof this result is that firms are able to transfer these technologies at a lower cost to wholly owned subsidiaries than to third parties.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Contractor[1981] found thattechnologytransfer(via licensing) increases with the number of other firms using a technology, suggesting that spillovers can create a generalized and cumulative capability in its use.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Experience with the technology again points to the important relationship between the currentstate of knowledge andlearningcapabilitiesof the adopter.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Contractor [1981]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The standardizationof evaluation systems and procedures is an expression of the shared knowledge, values, and assumptions and eases the transfer of knowledge within the firm.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Experience with the technology again points to the important relationship between the currentstate of knowledge andlearningcapabilitiesof the adopter.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These scales measure the latent construct of the tacitness of knowledge.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At any point in time, given the current stock of knowledge of the firm, managers will face the problem of deciding how to service a foreign market: by license, export, or direct investment.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time, novel technologies are likely to be less codified.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Discriminant validity could not be tested by factor analysis, but a comparison within and between correlations of the items indicated reasonably strong discrimination.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Construction of the Measures
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings lend themselves to the interpretationthatthe experience in internal transfers is codified in a way idiosyncratic to the firm, but once a firm has invested in codifying knowledge for the purpose of licensing, external transfers are subsequently promoted.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Experience with the technology again points to the important relationship between the currentstate of knowledge andlearningcapabilitiesof the adopter.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a seminal paper, Teece [1977] established that technology is not a public good, estimating the costs of transfer to range from 2% to 59% of total costs of the twenty-seven projects he analyzed.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > DIRECT INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGEAS A PUBLIC GOOD
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Teece [1977] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The more complex a manufacturing technology, the more difficult it should be to transfer or to imitate.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But what is more important, the second point suggests a notion of team skills independentof individualswhich is difficult to reconcile with a belief that internalization defines the boundary of the firm.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One explanation is simply that such a procedure grouped fifty-three cases of transfer into the joint venture/wholly owned category, and only twentynine into the licensing/contract choice; given the sample size, this imbalance may have affected the results.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgedconditionaln = 53- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The problem with the argument that the firm exists due to market failure is that it is overdetermined; the assumption of opportunism is not needed, only the differential in costs in the transmission of knowledge within the firm as opposed to between firms.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > DIRECT INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGEAS A PUBLIC GOOD
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We recognize that this test is by no means fully specified.In particular,we do not look at the capabilities of the recipient.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The 35 Swedish innovations and 82 transfer cases are representative of technology transfer by multinational corporations generally.
“The innovations were identified from a studyby Walhmark andMcQueen [1986] on 100 majorSwedish innovations.”
“The sample size of the tests thus consists of the eightytwo instances of the transfer of the capability to manufacture.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Markets are imperfect even if they rarely fail, and human behavior can be motivated by self-interest.
“Markets, even if they rarely fail, are imperfect; human behavior can be motivated by self-interest.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Knowledge transfer is not trivial even within the firm.
“That the transfer of knowledge is not trivial even within the firm is a fundamental observation.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
“The number of previous transfers is negatively related to transfer to wholly owned subsidiaries, contrary to expectation, but the relationship is insignificant.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
“As a secondary interest, we test the variables of the age and previous times transferred,as suggested by Teece and others, and predict a negative relationship to the choice of wholly owned subsidiaries.”
Citations
Cites
Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203710753-35 · Cited by 37,670
An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Loasby, B. J., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1983) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2232409 · Cited by 21,426
Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).
Sitgreaves, R. (1979) · Contemporary Psychology · doi:10.1037/018882 · Cited by 14,384
Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications.
O'Brien, D. P., & Williamson, O. E. (1976) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2230812 · Cited by 13,469
Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 · Cited by 12,939
Self-citationTransaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations
Williamson, O. E. (1979) · The Journal of Law and Economics · doi:10.1086/466942 · Cited by 10,190
An evolutionary theory of economic change
Winter, & Sidney, G. (1982) · Cited by 6,343
Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis: Frontmatter
Casson, M., & Caves, R. (1984) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511619113 · Cited by 3,745
Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives
Kogut, B. (1988) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250090403 · Cited by 3,333
Self-citationMarkets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications.
Ouchi, W. G., & Williamson, O. E. (1977) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392191 · Cited by 2,733
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- [7]7. Quintus Type Steel Press for Use in the ASEA-STORA Process 1962 (ASEA)
- [15]15. Isostatic Press for Steel Processing 1967 (ASEA)
- [33]33. Casson, Mark. 1987. Thefirmnand the mlarket.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- [39]39. Hall, G. & R. Johnson. 1970. Transfers of United Aerospace Technology to Japan. In Raymond Vernon, editor, The technology factor in international trade. New York: Columbia University Press.
- [44]44. Hymer, Stephen. 1976. The international operations of national firms: A study of direct investment. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press (reprint of Ph.D. thesis, Department of Economics, MIT, 1960).
- [45]45. Johnson, Harry. 1970. The efficiency and welfare implications of the multinational corporation. In Charles Kindleberger, editor, The international corporation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- [53]53. Nunnally, John C. 1978 (second edition). Psychomletric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
- [55]55. Rogers, Everett. 1962. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 3,101–3,200 of 3,993
Unfolding Evolutionary Growth Within a Subsidiary: The Case of a Sales Subsidiary in the Middle East
Jakobsson, J. (2015) · Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive (Gothenburg University) · Cited by 1
Knowledge-based Vertical Integration: The Nature of Knowledge and Economic Firm Boundary Location
van den Berg, H. A. (2008) · TSpace (University of Toronto) · Cited by 1
Ding, Q. (2011) · Research Commons (University of Waikato) · Cited by 1
Reverse knowledge transfer in Indian MNEs
Nair, S. (2013) · UPT. Syiah Kuala University Library (Syiah Kuala University) · Cited by 1
van Zuilekom, F. P. V. (2013) · Cited by 1
Giarratana, M. S., & Torrisi, S. (2009) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1
Management localization and performance of MNCS in China : a contingent resource-based view
Huang, S. (2005) · Digital Commons - Lingnan (Lingnan University) · doi:10.14793/mkt_etd.12 · Cited by 1
Brahmi, B. (2008) · Archipel (Université du Québec à Montréal) · Cited by 1
Formal and Strategic Appropriability Strategies of Multinational Firms: A Cross Country ComparisonPreprint
de Faria, P., & Sofka, W. (2008) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1
Kidney, R. (2013) · Dublin City University Open Access Institutional Repository (Dublin City University) · Cited by 1
What Makes Foreign Knowledge Attractive to Domestic Innovation Managers?Preprint
Sofka, W. (2007) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1015224 · Cited by 1
Transférer la connaissance : de quoi parlons-nous ? Une illustration empirique
Berthon, B. (2003) · Base Institutionnelle de Recherche de l'université Paris-Dauphine (BIRD) (University Paris-Dauphine) · Cited by 1
International diversification: entry mode, location decision and performance
Vilas-Boas, R. D. S. (2010) · doi:10.14201/gredos.76598 · Cited by 1
Strategic Drivers of International Low-Carbon Technology TransferPreprint
Rai, V., Schultz, K., & Funkhouser, E. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2273544 · Cited by 1
Münich, D., Srholec, M., Moritz, M. L., et al. (2012) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1
Challenges New Zealand companies face when entering the Brazilian market
Schoen, M. (2009) · Tuwhera (Auckland University of Technology) · Cited by 1
The Effects of Cultural Differences on Knowledge Assets and U.S. MNCS' Firm ValuePreprint
Yatrakis, P. G., & Norton, K. M. (2008) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1086515 · Cited by 1
How to Succeed in Knowledge Transfer - Case Study of Scandinavian Alliance in Ukraine
Lesyk, O. (2005) · Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja · Cited by 1
Pawlik, K. (2005) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1
SALOMON, R. M., & Martín, X. (2005) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.825087 · Cited by 1
Mendi, P. (2005) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1
Regional Diversification and Performance: Conceptualization and Competing Strategic Objectives
Kelley, K. J. (2013) · doi:10.25148/etd.fi13080906 · Cited by 1
Assets with "Warts": How Reliable is the Market for Technology?
Palermo, V., Higgins, M. J., & Ceccagnoli, M. (2015) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w21103 · Cited by 1
Carafa, A. (2009) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1403465 · Cited by 1
Essays on Attractiveness of Multinational Corporations
Anguelov, N. (2012) · TigerPrints (Clemson University) · Cited by 1
Dealing with knowledge sharing hostility: insights from six case studiesPreprint
Michailova, S., & Husted, K. (2001) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 1
A VIRTUOUS CIRCLE? LONGITUDINAL EVIDENCE ON INFORMAL INVESTMENT ACTIVITY IN THE UK (SUMMARY)
Cowling, M., Harding, R., Harrison, R., & Murray, G. C. (2007) · Frontiers of entrepreneurship research · Cited by 1
Transacting in a cultural industry
Gander, J., & Rieple, A. (2002) · Cited by 1
Foreign Direct Investment and Economic IntegrationPreprint
Pitelis, C. N. (2009) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1481817 · Cited by 1
Bordei, A. (2010) · Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) · Cited by 1
Rugman, A. M. (2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511614071.008 · Cited by 1
Chen, V. Z. (2012) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2062736 · Cited by 1
The resource-based theory of the transnational corporation: conceptual and empirical issues
Pitelis, C. N. (2001) · Global Business and Economics Review · doi:10.1504/gber.2001.006164 · Cited by 1
Simon, S. J., & Middleton, K. L. (1998) · Journal of Global Information Technology Management · doi:10.1080/1097198x.1998.10856234 · Cited by 1
Inside the MNC: Structuring of Ownership of Firm-Specific Advantages
Magelssen, C., & Feinberg, S. (2014) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2014.14690abstract · Cited by 1
Changing Relationships by Deepening International Involvement of Small Business
Lamb, P., & Liesch, P. W. (1996) · Small Enterprise Research · doi:10.5172/ser.4.3.17 · Cited by 1
Knowledge Complexity and the Performance of Inter-Unit Knowledge Transfer StructuresPreprint
Kim, S., Zhao, Z., & Anand, J. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2600662 · Cited by 3
Multinationals' sins pave the way to the expansion of domestic companies
Wyciślak, S. (2010) · Business Strategy Series · doi:10.1108/17515631011013087 · Cited by 1
Can Australia Compete Internationally? The Old Question Revisited in the Light of New Evidence
Lewis, G., & Zalan, T. (2005) · Asia Pacific Business Review · doi:10.1080/13602380500068516 · Cited by 1
Minin, A. D., & Zhang, J. (2009) · Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy · doi:10.1109/acsip.2009.5367844 · Cited by 1
MNC Subsidiary Closure: What Stays When the MNC Leaves?
de Faria, P., Preto, M. T., & Sofka, W. (2013) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2013.15708abstract · Cited by 1
McHardy, R. D. (2012) · The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) · Cited by 1
Wahab, S. A. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1949208 · Cited by 1
Social Embeddedness in Low-Income Markets: Influential Factors and Positive OutcomesPreprint
Ricart, J. E., Rodríguez, M., & Sánchez, P. (2006) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.875591 · Cited by 1
Foreign Market Development As Well As Entry: An Empirical Analysis of Two Fast-Food Chains.
Leibsohn, D. (2007) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan) · Cited by 1
Strategic alliance and technology transfer: an extended paradigm
Russ, M., & Camp, S. M. (2003) · doi:10.1109/iemc.1992.225261 · Cited by 1
Kruesi, M. A. (2015) · Tuwhera (Auckland University of Technology) · Cited by 1
Techno-Globalism and Techno-Nationalism: an Interpretative FrameworkPreprint
Montresor, S. (1998) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.6092/unibo/amsacta/4979 · Cited by 1
Knowledge management in consultancies and high-tech companies: a social systems perspective
Kasper, H., Mühlbacher, J. I. 0.-0.-4.-5., & Müller, B. (2008) · International Journal of Learning and Change · doi:10.1504/ijlc.2008.018867 · Cited by 1
Resource Allocation, Level of International Diversification and Firm PerformancePreprint
Bakay, A., Elkassabgi, A., & Moqbel, M. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1827072 · Cited by 1
Internal knowledge accumulation and the acquisition of external technology: is there a trade-off?
Palermo, V. (2014) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2014.16854abstract · Cited by 1
Wahab, S. A. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1949216 · Cited by 1
Adaptive replication: Knowledge reuse in fast-paced industries
Miraglia, S. (2012) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2012.16069abstract · Cited by 1
Firms or Networks: In Search of the Locus of Innovation
Novikova, J. (2005) · Cited by 1
Leih, S., & Teece, D. J. (2018) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-00772-8_429 · Cited by 1
Gentile-Lüdecke, S., & Lundan, S. M. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2505966 · Cited by 1
Bruneel, J. (2009) · Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) · Cited by 1
Governance of Knowledge-teams in the MNC: The Case of HeidelbergCement
Mahnke, V., & Venzin, M. (2003) · Gabler Verlag eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-322-90232-0_4 · Cited by 1
Ghorbani, M. (2012) · Summit (Simon Fraser University) · Cited by 1
Internationalization of Brazilian MNCs in Cement Industry: A Knowledge Flow ApproachPreprint
João, B. D. N., Oshikiri, M. I., & Brunhara, A. J. (2010) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1690813 · Cited by 1
Zimmermann, J., & Sofka, W. (2013) · Econstor (Econstor) · doi:10.2791/42155 · Cited by 1
Enhancing subsidiary absorptive capacity
Colakoglu, S. S. (2009) · Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) · doi:10.7282/t3cf9q94 · Cited by 1
Pateman, H. (2015) · UTAS Research Repository · doi:10.25959/23242328 · Cited by 1
How organizational knowledge can affect the choice of entry mode
Hjelm, Y. H., Bryntesson, S., & Ingbrand, M. (2007) · Cited by 1
Foreign subsidiaries in Brazil: location determinants for high value-added activities
Kramer, C. (2026) · e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) · doi:10.83056/mmu.32436393 · Cited by 1
Lawlor, K. B. (2009) · SHAREOK (University of Oklahoma; Oklahoma State University; Central Oklahoma University) · Cited by 1
The role of identity and attitudes in intra-organisational knowledge sharing.
Willem, A., & Buelens, M. (2002) · Cited by 1
An aspirational community theory of the firm
Li, X. (2013) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2013.15502abstract · Cited by 1
Cultural aspects of globalizing university-industry knowledge interaction in China
Hong, J. J. (2010) · LUTPub (LUT University) · Cited by 1
Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation
Leih, S. (2017) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_89-1 · Cited by 1
Lee, C., Niu, K., & Ho, J. C. (2007) · Journal of international technology and information management · doi:10.58729/1941-6679.1187 · Cited by 1
Entrepreneurial Spawning Across Product Markets: Skills and PerformancePreprint
Huang, J., & Shi, Z. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2544521 · Cited by 1
Foreword KM: knowledge networks
Fernandez, V., & Rivard, S. (2007) · Annals of Telecommunications · doi:10.1007/bf03253286 · Cited by 1
Asian Economic Success and Crisis: Knowledge and Financial Capital
Choi, C. J., & Millar, C. (2000) · International Business · doi:10.1057/9780230596740_3 · Cited by 1
YVES DOZ AND INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
Inkpen, A. C. (2004) · Advances in international management · doi:10.1016/s0747-7929(04)16003-4 · Cited by 1
Knowledge‐based Views of the Firm
Foss, N. J. (2005) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/0199240647.003.0004 · Cited by 1
Bulcke, D. V. D., & Zhang, H. (2004) · Advances in international marketing · doi:10.1016/s1474-7979(00)10016-x · Cited by 1
Multinationals and home economies
Jones, G. G. (2004) · doi:10.1093/0199272093.003.0009 · Cited by 1
Internal Capital, External Knowledge, and Random Draws: Three Drivers of Organizational Structure
Rios, L. A. (2016) · DukeSpace (Duke University) · Cited by 1
Offstein, E. H. (2004) · VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) · Cited by 1
Inside the new sites of innovation: how user communities influence complex enterprise technologies
Mozaffar, H. (2013) · Edinburgh Research Archive (University of Edinburgh) · Cited by 1
How Subsidiaries Attempt to Direct HQ Attention to New Business Opportunities
Holm, D. B., Drogendijk, R. H., & Haq, H. U. (2015) · Progress in international business research · doi:10.1108/s1745-886220150000010014 · Cited by 1
Determinants of Organizational Learning and Result Appropriation in R&D Cooperation
Ingham, M., & Mothe, C. (1998) · Gabler Verlag eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-322-82441-7_3 · Cited by 1
Acid Tests of Corporate AdvantagePreprint
Harrigan, K. R. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2544364 · Cited by 1
The Evolving Indian Offshore Services Environment: Greater Breadth, Depth, and Scope
Dossani, R. K., & Kenney, M. F. (2007) · Industry Studies Working Papers (University of Pittsburgh) · Cited by 1
External Entry and the Evolution of Clusters: A Study of the Biotechnology Industry in Canada
Hennessy, D. A. (2008) · TSpace (University of Toronto) · Cited by 1
The New MNE: From ‘Internalisation’ to a Theory of OrchestrationPreprint
Pitelis, C. N., & Teece, D. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3020389 · Cited by 1
Drivers of International Investment Decisions: The Role of Safety Risk
DeGhetto, K., Lamont, B. T., & Holmes, R. M. (2017) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2017.17270abstract · Cited by 1
Dillon, S. M. (2018) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.116378 · Cited by 1
Governance Configurations: Testing the Global Value Chain Framework
AlBuloushi, N. (2018) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.116771 · Cited by 1
Green Innovation: an empirical analysis of technology, skills and policy
Perruchas, F. (2019) · doi:10.4995/thesis/10251/119965 · Cited by 1
Knowledge sharing hostility in acquisitions
Gammelgaard, J., Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2002) · OpenArchive@CBS (Copenhagen Business School) · Cited by 1
The Motivational Foundations of Knowledge Sharing
Reinholt, M. (2009) · Econstor (Econstor) · Cited by 1
Inventor Commingling and Innovation in Technology Startup Mergers & Acquisitions
Chen, Q., Hsu, D. H., & Zvilichovsky, D. (2020) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2020.20543abstract · Cited by 1
Ballas, A. A., Filiou, A., Naoum, V.-C., et al. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3229029 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Kogut, B., & Zander, U.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Stockholm School of Economics (SE)
- Venue
- Journal of International Business Studies
- Published
- 1993-12
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 625-645
- ISSN
- 0047-2506 (ISSN-L)
- 1478-6990
- OpenAlex
- W3152457815
- Cited by
- 3,967
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 83 · 2025: 89 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 100 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 107 · 2020: 111 · 2019: 139 · 2018: 157 · 2017: 166 · 2016: 164 · 2015: 196 · 2014: 222 · 2013: 220 · 2012: 214
- FWCI
- 43.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of International Business Studies (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › International Business and FDI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Outsourcing and Supply Chain Management
- Keywords
- multinational corporations, evolutionary theory of the firm, tacit knowledge, knowledge transfer, wholly owned subsidiaries, firm specialization, internal knowledge transfer, technology transfer
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
