Foreign Market Strategies of European and United States Transnational Management-Consulting Firms in South East Asia: The Case of Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The share of transnational corporations' (TNCs) foreign investment in the global investment has increased over the years. In this context, the international activities of transnational service corporations (TSCs) have become an important topic of discussion for international managers, governments, researchers, and academics. An even greater expansion has taken place in the case of management consulting services. The core subject of this study are entry strategies and FDI motives observed among transnational management-consulting firms (TMCFs) from the United States, Europe and Asia operating in Thailand. A management interview approach was the major tool for data collection in this study. Eighteen foreign TMCFs operating in Thailand were the main source of primary research data, which were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The results indicate that TMCFs prefer full-ownership participation as an entry mode into the Thai market. As to their FDI motives, the most important one identified is to exploit the existing market opportunities in host countries. Other important motives include: market expansion, exploitation of competitive advantage, and following the client's international involvement.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".