Bringing history (back) into international business

Geoffrey Jones and Tarun Khanna
Additional contact information
Geoffrey Jones: Harvard Business School, Boston, USA
Tarun Khanna: Harvard Business School, Boston, USA

Journal of International Business Studies, 2006, vol. 37, issue 4, 453-468

Abstract: We argue that the field of international business should evolve its rhetoric from the relatively uncontroversial idea that ‘history matters’ to exploring how it matters. We discuss four conceptual channels through which history matters, illustrating each with a major example. First, historical variation is at least a worthy complement to contemporary cross-sectional variation in illuminating conceptual issues. As an example, we show that conclusions reached by the literature on contemporary emerging market business groups are remarkably similar to independently reached conclusions about a very similar organizational form that was ubiquitous in the age of empire. Second, historical evidence avoids spurious labeling of some phenomena as ‘new’, and by so doing may challenge current explanations of their determinants. Whereas some firm types today were also present earlier, some types have disappeared, some have appeared, and some have disappeared and reappeared later. Third, history can allow us to move beyond the oft-recognized importance of issues of path dependence to explore the roots of Penrosian resources. We argue that the choices made by Jardine's and Swire's in Asia today, for example, are an outgrowth of strategic choices first in evidence more than a century ago. These would remain obscured absent an historical analysis. Fourth, there are certain issues that are unaddressable, except in the really long (that is, historical) run. Exploring the causal relationship (if any) between foreign direct investment, a staple of the international business literature, and long-run economic development provides one important example. Throughout, we advocate embracing rigorous methods for analyzing small-sample and qualitative data when conventional regression techniques do not apply. That is, we suggest that re-embracing history in the mainstream is not tantamount to sacrificing methodological rigor. Journal of International Business Studies (2006) 37,, 453–468. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400198

Date: 2006
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (102)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/journal/v37/n4/pdf/8400198a.pdf Link to full text PDF (application/pdf)
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jibs/journal/v37/n4/full/8400198a.html Link to full text HTML (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:jintbs:v:37:y:2006:i:4:p:453-468

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... nt/journal/41267/PS2

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of International Business Studies is currently edited by John Cantwell

More articles in Journal of International Business Studies from Palgrave Macmillan, Academy of International Business
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().