De‐internationalization: An organizational institutionalism perspective

Few studies have focused on de‐internationalization. In this study, partial and full de‐internationalization are considered as export responses in the context of firms in a highly opaque field that were pursuant to a policy that would not serve their intended goals. With intellectual property rights...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Global business and organizational excellence 2023-03, Vol.42 (3), p.58-73
Main Authors: Mandrinos, Symeon, Lim, Weng Marc
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
de‐internationalization
Globalization
institutional complexity
institutional logic
Institutionalism
intellectual property rights
IPRs
organizational institutionalism
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Few studies have focused on de‐internationalization. In this study, partial and full de‐internationalization are considered as export responses in the context of firms in a highly opaque field that were pursuant to a policy that would not serve their intended goals. With intellectual property rights (IPRs) serving as a coercive policy defining the domain of inquiry and compliance as the driver for firm responses, the institutional logic of national interest, firm orientation (interests, decisions), firm maneuvering (intentional‐reactive, involuntary‐proactive), and firm response (partial and full de‐internationalization) was unpacked alongside associated institutional complexities through the lens of organizational institutionalism. Noteworthily, the organizational institutionalism theory of de‐internationalization suggests that (1) partial de‐internationalization characterized by intentional‐reactive maneuvering across three variants of means‐ends decoupling involving balancing, pacifying, and bargaining, and (2) full de‐internationalization involving involuntary‐proactive maneuvering in exiting or withdrawing from the international market may occur in response to (3) institutional constraints such as IPRs in favor of national interest. Thus, this study sheds light on the asymmetry between institutional logic and institutional complexity and the firm responses to such institutional arrangements, thereby delineating the manner in which the aforementioned concepts could relate to each other to enrich our understanding of de‐internationalization in international business.
ISSN:1932-2054
1932-2062
DOI:10.1002/joe.22195