MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152287031 · doi:10.1108/mbr-06-2014-0026

Corporate strategic responses to foreign entry: insights from prospect theory

2014· article· en· W2152287031 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Hutzschenreuter, Ingo Kleindienst, Florian Groene, Alain Verbeke

Bibliographic record

VenueMultinational Business Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversification (marketing strategy)OriginalityIndustrial organizationProduct differentiationBusinessFraming (construction)MarketingStrategic managementMainstreamConceptual frameworkEconomicsMicroeconomicsQualitative researchEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address how firms adapt their product and geographic diversification as a response to foreign rivals penetrating their domestic market by adopting a behavioral perspective to understand firm-level strategic responses to foreign entry. Design/methodology/approach – The study proposes that strategic responses to foreign entry selected by domestic incumbents have both a framing component and a related, strategic choice component, with the latter including changes in product and geographic market diversification (though other more business strategy-related responses are also possible, e.g. in product pricing and marketing). This study tests a set of hypotheses building on panel data of large US firms. Findings – The study finds, in accordance with our predictions, that domestic incumbents reduce their product and geographic diversification when facing an increase in import penetration. However, when increased market penetration by foreign firms takes the form of FDI rather than imports, the corporate response appears to be an increase in product and geographic diversification, again in line with our predictions. Originality/value – The study develops a new conceptual framework that is grounded in prospect theory, but builds on recent insights from mainstream international strategic management studies (Bowen and Wiersema, 2005; Wiersema and Bowen, 2008).

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.002

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.214 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMultinational Business ReviewSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207