MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Why the Home Region Matters: Location and Regional Multinationals

2012· article· en· W2170137007 on OpenAlexaff
Alan M. Rugman, Chang Hoon Oh

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInternational Business and FDI
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationTriad (sociology)Variance (accounting)Economic geographyBusinessUnit (ring theory)Focus (optics)Empirical evidenceInternational businessRegional scienceIndustrial organizationMarketingInternational tradeEconomicsGeographyManagementSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much of the literature in international business analysing the multinational enterprise uses the country as the relevant environmental parameter. This paper presents both theoretical and empirical evidence to demonstrate that country‐level analysis now needs to be augmented by analysis at the ‘regional’ level of the broad triad markets of Europe, North America and the Asia Pacific. The great majority of the world's 500 largest firms concentrate their activities within their home region of the triad. This study uses variance component analysis and finds that this home region effect outperforms the country effect. Together, the regional and industry effects explain most of the geographic expansion of multinational enterprises (MNEs), whereas country, firm and year effects are very minor. The new data and variance component analysis on the activities of large MNEs reported here suggest that new thinking is required about the importance of large regions of the triad as the relevant unit of analysis for business strategy to supplement the conventional focus on the country.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations119
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of ManagementSame topicInternational Business and FDIFrench-language works237,207