Emerging Market Multinationals: a Decolonial Perspective
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Emerging markets multinationals: the presence of the state and state owned enterprises Abstract: In this article we argue that we should go beyond the dominant idea that the extension of traditional Euro-American theorizing is enough for a proper explanation of the internationalization of EMNC. The author of this article argues that we should take a decolonial turn instead, and direct our theorizing at the borders of the South. By embracing theories and knowledge that relate more specifically to the region, we can provide a better understanding of the internationalization of MNC not only from the North, but also from the South. Accordingly, we consider that history, geography and politics should be brought back into the theoretical debate from a specific locus of theorizing. A decolonial perspective from the South shows that a major issue involving the role of government and state companies, which are more obviously important in the South, but no less important in the North, remains largely overlooked or misrepresented. Key words: decolonial perspective; emerging market multinationals; state owned enterprises Introduction Emerging markets multinationals (EMNC) were first studied by authors from the North in the early 1980s during the Cold War period when they were still called Third World multinationals (Wells, 1983; Lall, 1983). Decades marked by a sound belief that Multinational Corporations (MNC) are a solely Euro-American institution, have resulted in a great deal of mobilization of Euro-American theories, frameworks and concepts to explain the internationalization path of MNC from the so-called emerging economies (Dunning, Kim and Park, 2008; Johanson and Vahlne, 2009; Rugman, 2009), at the expense of other knowledges and proper understanding. This is at odds with the decay of Euro- American hegemony of knowledge demarcated by the crisis started in Wall Street in 2008, and the many claims put forward by management studies literature informed by postcolonial perspectives (Jack, Calás, Nkomo and Peltonen, 2008; Levy, 2008; Westwood and Jack, 2007). In this article, and by definition, we consider EMNC as those corporations that are not from developed countries, that is, not from countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2012). In so doing, our intention is not to set EMNC aside as representing some kind of homogenous group, quite the contrary in fact. Actually, we understand that even within the group of countries which take part into OCDE, MNC are embedded into national or regional specificities. We should go beyond the prevailing idea in the North that all that is needed is an ‘extension’ of traditional internationalization theories to explain the internationalization of EMNC (Buckley and Casson, 2009; Dunning et al, 2008; Johanson and Vahlne, 2009). The author of this article argues that we should take a decolonial turn instead, thus “shifting the geography of reasoning” (Mignolo, 2011: 136). The objective of this article is to investigate the traditional theorizing of EMNC within the field of international business studies (IBS) from the borders of the South and to embrace theories and knowledges from the region, theorizing other-wise and providing a better understanding of the trajectory of EMNC. We need to break away from the idea that “in the three worlds of distribution of scientific labor, the First World had indeed the privilege of inventing the classification and being part of it” (Mignolo, 2011: 129). By doing this, we may realize that contemporary literature fails to address not only political actors and the specificities of countries and companies from the South, but mainly the (geo)politics of knowledge and theorizing (Mignolo, 2011). The decolonial perspective from the South, adopted in this article, shows that a major issue, namely the role of government and state companies, which are more obviously important in the South, but no less important in the North, remains largely overlooked or misrepresented. 1 Emerging markets multinationals: the presence of the state and state owned enterprises Accordingly, from such position, we aim to bring history, geography and politics back into the debate from a specific locus of enunciation (or, more specifically, an-other locus of theorizing). We claim that an engagement with politics – an obviously important dimension of any process of internationalization, and one which has been ignored by dominant theorizing constrained by the geopolitics of knowledge (Mignolo, 2011) – may lead us, researchers and practitioners from both North and South, to a better understanding of the political role of both EMNC and MNC from developed countries (Guedes and Faria, 2010). The engagement with history and geography from such a perspective enables us to understand how MNC from the North engage with global transnational organizations (International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, World Bank; see Cooke, 2010, as an example on the latter), and how they interact with home and host countries and international non-governmental organizations (INGO; Guedes, 2010). EMNC: traditional theorizing within IBS from a decolonial perspective IBS is a subfield of strategic management studies formed at the intersection with the field of international business (IB; Peng and Zhou, 2006). It may also be found in the literature designated as Global Strategy, International Strategy Management and International Business Studies. International business (IB) scholars have long pleaded for more interdisciplinary research to be carried out, and for the excessive emphasis on economics to be avoided. Dymsza (1984), after analyzing the academic literature for nine years from his position as editor-in-chief of JIBS, urged scholars to the need of interdisciplinary research. Apparently, his call was in vain given that twenty years later Meyer (2004) renewed the same call for more interdisciplinary studies, and mentioned the fact that economics had been the most influential approach in the previous two decades. Shenkar (2004) also supported the call for more interdisciplinary research and suggested the inclusion of an international relations perspective. Ironically, the plea for an interdisciplinary research combining an international relations perspective would not be met by scholars from the North, but from the South (see Faria, Ibarra-Colado and Guedes, 2010). Alfred Chandler is considered the founder of the field of strategic management (Whittington, 2008). What he does in his seminal work – Strategy and Structure (Chandler, 1962), to date the most cited book in strategic management – is to define managerial capitalism as the motor of the American economy led by the big private company in which top managers formulate the strategic decisions. Later Chandler (1977) went even further, and stated that these managers effectively represented the “visible hand” that determines the best allocation of resources in order to optimize social interests. In terms of the role of the state, Chandler (1962) considered it beyond scope. Emphasis on the big private company and the power of the manager, while the state is considered irrelevant, has certainly had a big influence on IBS perspectives. Chandler’s work has been influenced by geo-political issues at the time (see Wanderley and Faria, 2012), and has certainly not only influenced IBS perspectives that have been developed in the North, but also constrained the development of perspectives from the South. This process has undoubtedly corresponded to a particular moment in the history of the US, but should not necessarily be considered as a universal truth. Boddewyn (2004) considers that management is a historically and socially constructed concept that carries a strong American accent, hence particular consideration should be taken before considering it universal. Jack et al (2008) suggest that the literature dealing with IB and international management (IM), or management research that focuses on MNC, is strongly rooted in the positivist-functionalist tradition and that authors often fail to go through a reflexive process of their corresponding epistemological consequences. Furthermore, drawing upon a postcolonial perspective, they suggest that research carried out within the American context does not take into consideration its cultural and ideological content, because US knowledge has become ‘ideologically’ framed as universal within the dominant academic setting. In the Cold War period, the field of strategic management studies embraced economics in order to build its academic legitimacy (Pettigrew, Thomas and Whittington, 2002); in tandem it 2 Emerging markets multinationals: the presence of the state and state owned enterprises debunked political and state-centered ideas for its association with communism in the US (Kelley, Cooke and Mills, 2006). Starting in early 1950s, “the export of ‘the American way of life’ and ideas about the role of education in development” (Parmar, 2002: 26) promoted by US institutions, represented a way to bar the growth of communism (Parmar, 2002), and to colonize the world with strategic discourse (Knights and Morgan, 1991). As a result, the field has not only overlooked politics, geography and history for more than 50 years, but also constrained academic dialogues across the North-South divide (Faria and Guedes, 2010). Consequently, government’s role and state companies, which are obviously important in the South, not least in the North, remains overlooked or misrepresented (e.g.,