MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1786000805 · doi:10.1111/joms.12001

The Drivers of Multinational Enterprise Subsidiary Entrepreneurship in <scp>C</scp>hina: A New Resource‐Based View Perspective

2012· article· en· W1786000805 on OpenAlexaff
Alain Verbeke, Wenlong Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationPerspective (graphical)ChinaEntrepreneurshipBusinessResource (disambiguation)Industrial organizationEconomic geographyEconomicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper extends the resource‐based view ( RBV ) of the firm, as applied to multinational enterprises ( MN Es ), by distinguishing between two critical resource dimensions, namely relative resource superiority (capabilities) and slack . Both dimensions, in concert with specific environmental conditions, are required to increase entrepreneurial activities. We propose distinct configurations (three‐way moderation effects) of capabilities, slack, and environmental factors (i.e. dynamism and hostility) to explain entrepreneurship. Using survey data from 66 C anadian subsidiaries operating in C hina, we find that higher subsidiary entrepreneurship requires both HR slack and strong downstream capabilities in subsidiaries, subject to the industry environment being dynamic and benign. However, high HR slack alone, in a dynamic and benign environment, but without the presence of strong capabilities, actually triggers the fewest initiatives, with HR slack redirected from entrepreneurial experimentation towards complacency and inefficiency. This paper has major implications for MNEs seeking to increase subsidiary entrepreneurship in fast growing emerging markets.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management StudiesSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207