The MNE and its subsidiaries at times of global disruptions: An international relations perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research Summary The global economy has recently entered a period of disruptions, increasing barriers to cross‐border business and potentially inhibiting the merits and legitimacy of integrated global strategies. We explore how three major disruptions in the global economy (reduced people mobility, divergent national regulatory institutions, and anti‐globalization populism) affect the strategies of multinational enterprises, and, in particular, the role of their foreign subsidiaries. These external disruptions call for a reassessment of theories regarding the nature of global strategy and the interaction between businesses and their political environment. Specifically, we argue that the international relations perspectives of realism, liberalism, and constructivism help explain the nature of the disruptions, and hence can inform strategy scholarship in explaining and examining strategic responses to such external disruptions. Managerial Summary Firms establish subsidiaries abroad in order to exploit the opportunities of globalization to the benefit of their shareholders and other stakeholders. However, the global economy has recently entered a period of disruptions that include reduced people mobility, divergent national regulatory institutions, and increased anti‐globalization populism. We argue that these disruptions will not only create new operational challenges for global strategies and new needs for local adaptation but may even challenge the legitimacy of global business models. We turn to political science for explanations and find that three paradigms of international relations offer contrarian predictions not only on the big disruptions but also on the ability of MNEs to influence political processes driving the disruptions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".