Imitation of location choices for rare foreign ventures: Tax‐motivated relocations of headquarters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research Summary Peer firms tend to imitate each other's location choices for foreign subsidiaries. We examine whether they also engage in location choice imitation when undertaking rare, high‐stakes foreign ventures in the form of tax‐motivated relocations of headquarters. Although location choices for such relocations will likely be made meticulously, we propose that these choices are nevertheless subject to imitation among compatriots, and particularly among domestic rivals. Applying organizational institutionalism, we argue that by imitating these peers, relocating firms reduce the uncertainty they perceive and partly legitimize their relocation. We also predict moderating effects of relocating firms' presence in a location and of their subnational home region's cultural tightness. We find support for these ideas studying the location choices announced by US relocating firms between 1996 and 2017. Our study extends global strategy research on location choice imitation to the corporate level, revealing that such imitation even occurs among firms undergoing international transformations. Managerial Summary Similar companies, or “peers,” often follow each other to the same location when setting up operations abroad. We examine whether peers also imitate each other's location choices when relocating their headquarters abroad for tax reasons. While firms making this rare and bold move will likely choose a destination carefully, we argue that they nevertheless tend to imitate their compatriots' and especially their domestic rivals' location choices, so as to reduce the uncertainty they experience about countries' attractiveness and justify their relocation domestically. We also propose that a firm's tendency to imitate peers' most popular location choices depends on the firm's knowledge of foreign locations and the strength of social norms in its subnational home region. We find support for these ideas in a study of US firms that announced relocations between 1996 and 2017. Firms thus even engage in location choice imitation when undergoing international transformations.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".