Parachuting internationalization: a study of four Scandinavian firms entering China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a “parachuting internationalization” metaphor as an alternative strategy that firms may choose to enter foreign markets compared to Uppsala Model and Born Global Model. This proposed new metaphor seeks to integrate the Uppsala and the Born Global Models to show that firms can attain success in the age of globalization if they are adept at devising creative strategies that help them overcome the challenges in a psychically distant environment. Design/methodology/approach This is a research paper that develops theoretical perspectives inspired by the Yin Yang thinking as well as the “thick descriptive” multiple case studies. Findings “Parachuting internationalization” embraces essential elements of the Born Global and the Uppsala Models and refers to a firm’s strategic targeting of markets with great potentials, correct positioning, swift actions, and fast learning, thus enabling the firm to circumvent the conventional wisdom of liability of foreignness, cultural distance, and psychic distance. “Parachuting internationalization” is essentially a GLOCAL approach which can be implemented in practice in terms of global vision, location, opportunity, capital, accelerated cultural learning and quick action, and logistics. Research limitations/implications The “parachuting internationalization” metaphor is derived from interviews with four Scandinavian firms’ experiences that have entered into the Chinese market. This research reveals that two seemingly opposite approaches, i.e., the Born Global and the Uppsala Models, can be fruitfully combined and reconciled to generate a third novel approach. Originality/value To date, there has been little attempt to reconcile and/or integrate the Born Global and the Uppsala Models of internationalization. The paper enriches the ongoing debate on the internationalization of firms in the international business literature that has relied primarily on the Uppsala Model or Born Global Model. The study shows that a third way, i.e. the “parachuting internationalization” is both theoretically innovative and practically feasible.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".