DOI: 10.1177/1476127008090010
Copyright ©2008 Sage Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)

S O ! A P B OX

Reconceptualizing international strategy
and organization
Pankaj Ghemawat University of Navarra, Spain

Relatively little gets written about international strategy.1 According to one survey, 6 percent of the articles published in the top 20 academic management
journals in 1996–2000 had specifically international content and, of that subset, 6 percent focused on the strategies and policies of multinationals (MNCs).
The author of the survey concluded that: ‘Other than strategic alliances and
entry mode strategies there is very little research on MNC strategies’ (Werner,
2002). An attempt to update the study for the period 2002–6 leads to broadly
similar conclusions: just 5 percent of the articles published in the top 20 journals had specifically international content. MNCs’ strategies and policies
accounted for a little more of that subset than before (12 percent), but continued to trail research on international joint ventures and alliances (15 percent)
and on internationalization (14 percent) (or more specifically, measurements,
antecedents and consequences thereof) and was closely followed by research on
timing, motivation, location and consequences of foreign direct investment,
and on knowledge transfer, with 11 percent apiece (Pisani, 2007). Such classifications, while subjective, do suggest a dearth of research on issues related to
international strategy.
To some extent, this dearth may reflect the lack of data that would facilitate
large-sample analysis of strategic hypotheses: the last major data collection
effort, Raymond Vernon’s Multinational Enterprise Project at Harvard Business
School, was concluded 30 years ago.2 Remedying this constraint is complicated
by the differences that arise at national borders, and that impede not only crossborder economic activity but also the assembly of data to better understand
cross-border issues, as discussed further in the concluding section of this essay.
International strategy has also experienced some indirect pressure from the
surge of research on culture, starting in the 1980s and driven by the work of
Hofstede (Ferreira et al., 2002). However, perhaps the most direct efforts at displacement have been those made by scholars broadly interested in international
organization and management. Consider the most prominent book in this vein,
Bartlett and Ghoshal’s Managing across Borders (1989), based on a study of nine
MNCs in three industries/sectors:

Downloaded from at BI Norwegian Business School on January 28, 2015

sagepub. Focus on this choice can be traced at least as far back as John Fayerweather’s (1969) discussion of the tension between pressures for unification within companies and the fragmentation influences of different national environments.e. Prahalad and Doz (1987). The challenge was how to develop the organizational capability to do it. by transferring knowledge internationally as well as building local presence by responding to national differences and cutting costs by centralizing global-scale operations. Bartlett and Ghoshal’s proposal significantly increased Downloaded from soq. international strategy is easy – even the losers get the picture – but international organization is not. Historical review The fundamental strategic choice traditionally emphasized in the literature on international strategy concerns the extent to which a company emphasizes global integration and standardization vs differentiation and responsiveness to national/local differences. elaborated this tension into the widely cited global integration–national responsiveness tradeoff. among others. or become transnationals. In addition to downgrading the integration– responsiveness tradeoff.e. it is useful to begin with a brief review of how we got to where we are. this essay argues for enriching the fundamental strategic workhorse of international management – the integration–responsiveness tradeoff – by adding in more explicit consideration of arbitrage opportunities. To be more specific. Prahalad and Doz resisted the idea of MNCs always placing a primary emphasis on just one function or the other: they also stressed the existence of contexts in which it was necessary to be multifocal. (Bartlett and Ghoshal. i. how they deal with the differences that arise at national borders – and that this perspective also shifts the terms of the debate about how to organize. Not so Chris Bartlett and Sumantra Ghoshal (2002). to manage both dimensions well (enough): see Figure 1. and in particular. by performing three functions well rather than the (maximum of) two proposed by Prahalad and Doz. 2002: 4) In other words. Prahalad and Doz continued to respect the basic integration–responsiveness tradeoff. Throughout our five year study. but to organizational deficiencies.196 S T R AT E G I C O R G A N I Z AT I O N 6 ( 2 ) The disappointments and failures were not due primarily to inappropriate strategic analysis. To make this case.3 However. 2015 .com at BI Norwegian Business School on January 28. Despite entertaining the possibility of interior as well as corner solutions. we were continually impressed by the fact that most managers of worldwide companies recognized what they had to do to enhance their global competitiveness. This essay takes issue with this extreme perspective: it argues that there is plenty of interesting thinking to be done about international strategy content – about what functions are performed by cross-border enterprises. i. who argued that companies could transcend the tradeoff.

what is most remarkable about this line of development is its emphasis on performing multiple functions well instead of trying to beat the median competitor by performing one function particularly well. Further elaborations and reformulations such as Nitin Nohria and Ghoshal’s (1997) differentiated network and Doz et al.G H E M AWAT : R E C O N C E P T U A L I Z I N G I N T E R N AT I O N A L S T R AT E G Y organizational complexity: while Prahalad and Doz (1987) were able to recommend matrix structures for multifocal businesses. The broader conceptual point from a strategy perspective is that unless there is some degree of mutual exclusivity between integrating globally and responding locally. even if one gives up on the global integration–local responsiveness tradeoff as insufficiently sharp to be of distinctive strategic interest and looks to add a third function for MNCs to perform. Second. falls on ‘exploiting parent company knowledge and capabilities through worldwide diffusion and adaptation’ (Bartlett and Ghoshal. 2015 197 . à la Bartlett and Ghoshal. nothing as clear-cut could be specified for the transnational.’s (2001) metanational entail even more organizational complexity but maintain Bartlett and Ghoshal’s central emphasis on international knowledge at BI Norwegian Business School on January 28. So while a focus on cases in which MNCs must manage multiple functions well may enrich the discussion of organization and managerial action.sagepub. It is as exactly as if Michael Porter were. This is particularly clear when the emphasis. to recommend that companies do a good enough job on both costs and differentiation instead of primarily emphasizing one as the basis of their competitive advantage (see note 3). From a single-country or local strategy standpoint. Centrally held intangible resources that afford cross-border economies of scale Transnational Local responsiveness Multidomestic Multifocal Global International integration Figure 1 The integration–responsiveness tradeoff Downloaded from soq. in a local strategy context. the two taken together constitute more of a (short) list of standard requirements (‘both are important’) than an object of strategic choice. and looks rather questionable. that discussion is fated to take place in a strategy void since it sees companies as facing no meaningful strategic choice about what to do. 1989: 15). the frequent assumption in recent writings that international knowledge transfer is IT is never really justified.

So overlaying a focus on parentto-subsidiary (or affiliate) transfers of knowledge or other intangibles subject to increasing returns on top of the global integration–local responsiveness tradeoff could be seen as mostly double counting. in two of the three industries studied by Bartlett and Ghoshal. their treatment as a secondorder issue within knowledge transfer by. imports from which now amount to more than 60 percent of the total US market. as discussed in the next section). Consumer electronics has seen a massive shift of production to countries with low labour costs. raises questions about casting them as a third function for MNCs. However. the proposition that arbitrage is potentially of great importance to international strategy is not new: Bruce Kogut advanced it nearly 20 years ago ● Downloaded from soq. alongside local responsiveness and global integration. Trade in telecom equipment is more limited but China and Mexico are again the leading sources of imports into the US – in what most would consider a high-tech industry. With that broad framing. ● Tax arbitrage has long been common and has been shown to exert a large influence on firms’ investment and financing decisions (Desai et al. we can think of a broader way of framing a third function for MNCs.e. the differences between countries can be a source of rather than a constraint on value creation. which now account for a quarter of all investments in foreign equity by US investors (Bank of New York.sagepub. In terms of financial capital. 2006). Bartlett and Ghoshal. for at BI Norwegian Business School on January 28. one survey indicates that plant and infrastructure can cost 40–50 percent less in low labour cost countries (Gardiner and Theobald. more than 1000 non-US companies have tapped US equity markets by issuing American Depositary Receipts. for instance.4 ● Capital arbitrage can apply to real or financial capital. partly because of crackdowns on tax planning in western countries (KPMG. And its incidence may be increasing: a survey of 120 MNCs in 2006 indicated that 62 percent were planning to move assets or functions to low-cost regimes. Other kinds of knowledge flow – such as contributions by subsidiaries with varied roles and resources in different environments – do seem more clearly distinguishable from leveraging a pre-existing resource subject to increasing returns. arbitrage is possible. Fortunately. 2003). knowledge arbitrage is far from the only type of arbitrage that stands out: Labour arbitrage is prominent. i.198 S T R AT E G I C O R G A N I Z AT I O N 6 ( 2 ) and are proxied for by R&D and advertising intensity have long been known to be the major propulsive forces for global integration in MNCs (specifically horizontal ones. AAA strategies for dealing with differences One reason that diverse contributions by subsidiaries are distinguishable from the diffusion and adaptation of a central stock of knowledge is that in the former case. 2006). 2005). Of course. 2015 .. In terms of real capital.

g. while Kogut’s own interest in arbitrage evolved into a focus on dynamic flexibility in dealing with international fluctuations in exchange rates and other cost determinants. To see that. significant differences across borders – not just fluctuations – that allow for arbitrage strategies with long-term viability. Table 1 supplies one depiction. which arbitrage differences across countries by geographically separating activities (often by vertical stage). While some level of awareness of and attention to each of the three As – adaptation. as in Figure 2. which are traditionally stressed in the literature on horizontal MNCs. there is the arbitrage opportunity still presented by the economic literature on MNCs. the examples just listed suggest that arbitrage is much broader: that there are also sustained.6 This three-dimensional representation aims to provide a richer. their strategic implications extend well beyond the proposition that all three have to be kept in view. which has long distinguished between horizontal MNCs. Third. The point of pushing it here is threefold. and vertical MNCs.5 And so it supplies a systematic rationale for explicitly adding the arbitrage function (or the vertical dimension) – but conceived broadly rather than just in terms of knowledge arbitrage – to how we think overall about international strategy.g.g. This literature establishes that the horizontal vs vertical distinction has empirical traction. particularly in explaining how cross-border activities are coordinated.G H E M AWAT : R E C O N C E P T U A L I Z I N G I N T E R N AT I O N A L S T R AT E G Y (Kogut. the international flower and fresh fruit businesses. enabled by the declining costs of air transportation). First. exploiting differences in environmental laws or membership in different regional trading agreements) as well as instances of cultural arbitrage (e. it is useful to note the deep differences between the imperatives of arbitrage as a cross-border function and those of adaptation and aggregation. taking advantage of international variation in the availability of specialized inputs or in willingnessto-pay) and administrative arbitrage (e. arbitrage still does not seem. Downloaded from soq. 2015 199 . country-of-origin effects such as France’s prestige in beauty and fashion) and geographic arbitrage (e. to be very plugged into ‘mainstream’ international strategy.g. An immediate at BI Norwegian Business School on January 28. 1985b). 1985a.sagepub. based in part on but extended beyond the economic literature on the MNC enterprise. which perform (many of) the same activities in different countries. One can specify many additional forms of economic arbitrage (e. aggregation and arbitrage – is generally necessary in international competition. overall. That last observation is amplified by noting that the list of such differences provided above was meant to be illustrative rather than complete. Second. suggesting that the imperatives of arbitrage as a cross-border function differ greatly from those of the two functions traditionally emphasized by the (horizontal) focus on the integration– responsiveness tradeoff: adapting to differences to achieve local responsiveness or aggregating so as to overcome differences and achieve international scale economies. more useful perspective on the tensions that international strategy must confront than the two-dimensional integration–responsiveness tradeoff.

focusing on such fundamental differences gives one a place to stand in addressing this question in a way that focusing on similarities would Downloaded from soq. One reason is that a focus on (residual) differences suggests a richer set of international strategies than does a focus on similarities. Bartlett and Ghoshal’s summary characterization of global integration as ‘building cost advantages through centralized globalscale operations’ evokes only the logic of aggregation in pursuit of the international economies of scale. in terms of the number and identities of the locations in which each activity is performed. as well as the specific charters of each location.7 In the international strategy context. is that existing work on the integration–responsiveness tradeoff does shed some light on the third function in the figure. Another way of putting this is that while discussions of international strategy often focus on the similarities across countries. my own sense is that such references are often ritualistic. A second. And while they refer to arbitrage elsewhere in their book. mixes arbitrage with adaptation and aggregation.sagepub. even more fundamental reason relates to the Coasian question of why there is administrative coordination within and across firms as opposed to market coordination via the price mechanism. differences supply a more promising point of departure. While some of the existing work does mention the possibility of arbitrage. arbitrage deserves much more attention than it has generally attracted because of its distinctive characteristics as a cross-border function. not arbitrage in pursuit of absolute economies through international specialization. to that modest statement of intent. 2015 . particularly labour arbitrage. The broader point seems to be that irrespective of the amount of credit to be allocated to earlier citations of arbitrage possibilities. at BI Norwegian Business School on January 28. in my terminology.200 S T R AT E G I C O R G A N I Z AT I O N 6 ( 2 ) Aggregation Scale and scope economies Adaptation Local responsiveness Adjusting to differences Overcoming differences Exploiting differences Arbitrage Absolute economies of specialization Figure 2 The AAA strategy triangle in my experience. as well as the economic leverage that it affords. Anil Gupta and Vijay Govindarajan (2001) do open the door for broader consideration of arbitrage possibilities with their explicit discussion of activity architectures – but their definition of such architectures. these mentions are confined to two footnotes.

2015 201 . Implications for research The reconceptualization of international strategy proposed in this essay has fundamental implications not just for strategy research on what cross-border functions international firms choose to emphasize but also for organizational research on how they choose to pursue them. including across organizational boundaries Checks: What to watch out for strategically? Excessive variety or complexity Excessive standardization Narrowing spreads Corporate diplomacy: Which public issues need to be addressed? Potentially discreet and robust given emphasis on cultivation of a local face Appearances of and backlash against homogenization or hegemonism (especially on part of US companies) The exploitation or displacement of suppliers. This dichotomy.G H E M AWAT : R E C O N C E P T U A L I Z I N G I N T E R N AT I O N A L S T R AT E G Y Table 1 Comparing adaptation. emphasis on vertical relationships. while an oversimplification. aggregation and arbitrage Competitive advantage: Why globalize at all? Adaptation Aggregation Arbitrage To achieve local relevance through national focus (while exploiting some scale) To achieve scale and scope economies through international standardization To achieve absolute (non-scalar) economies through international specialization Configuration: Where to locate overseas? To limit the effects of cultural/administrative/ geographic/economic differences by concentrating on foreign countries that are similar to home To exploit (selected) differences by operating in more diverse countries Coordination: How should international operations be organized? By country. channels or at BI Norwegian Business School on January 28. emphasis on adjustments to achieve a local face within borders By business. and the key organizational question. The specific points discussed in this section were Downloaded from soq. potentially most prone to political disruption not: markets often do not work well across borders. then becomes understanding what advantages firms or other organizational forms have at cross-border coordination versus that baseline. is a useful basis for discussing the recent allocation of research efforts within international management. discussed in the following. emphasis on horizontal relationships to achieve economies of scale across borders By function.sagepub.

including some that seem more broadly important. The literature on the vertical MNC is of some help here but is both underdeveloped relative to the literature on horizontal MNCs and uneven in its coverage: for example. it seems better to embrace heterogeneity by adapting research designs to it than to avoid it by focusing on one country (just one data point. The literature on vertical integration (vs alternatives) in a single-country context also supplies some pertinent insights that appear not to have been fully ingested by the international strategy literature. Analogously. In addition. e. at least some research on international strategy should focus on the areas in which it has room to add to what we already know from singlecountry strategy. much has been written about the ‘obsolescing bargain’ – a holdup threat that is salient in some extractive industries involving cross-border arbitrage – but much less about many other forms of arbitrage. Insight into the relationship between the two is offered by the relationship between multi-business strategy and single-business strategy. more emphasis on arbitrage might spill over from strategy to other lines of international research. of being left with what a sceptic might characterize as less than 200 data points. it is precisely because of the limitations of existing off-the-shelf data that diligent data collection and creative research design have the potential to be highly rewarding in the international arena. ensuring cross-country concordances and. associated with aggregating heterogeneous units up to the country level. It is useful to begin by noting that research on international issues along the lines proposed here – and others – is subject to significant data constraints. we need additional work on arbitrage that treats it as potentially more central to cross-border value creation than implied by the out-of-sight/out-of-mind offshoring of non-core functions. neither work that simply emphasizes the differences between countries or the extent to which economic interactions are localized nor work that ignores the differences or distances between countries is sufficient: we also need work that allows both localized interactions and interactions at a distance – and ideally does so in a more graduated way than the dichotomy between same location and different location.sagepub. once one has done so. Even so. Since single-business strategy effectively assumes that firm at BI Norwegian Business School on January 28. international strategy has an opportunity to shed distinctive light on location specificity and its cross-locational implications. In this regard.202 S T R AT E G I C O R G A N I Z AT I O N 6 ( 2 ) selected because they flow directly from the reconceptualization of international strategy proposed in this essay: they do not purport to be comprehensive. There are intrinsic difficulties here. More broadly. In terms of research on international strategy.8 Downloaded from soq. Or to be more positive.g. resources or capabilities are totally specific to a particular business. 2015 . in terms of the characterization above). there is important room for multi-business (corporate) strategy to shed light on the causes and consequences of variations in their business specificity. such as offshoring by outsourcing. one might want to see more emphasis in work on international alliances and joint ventures on supply-side ventures. since single-country strategy assumes that activities and so forth are confined to a single location.

This could be broadened to include all the coordination arrangements. The few Chinese companies that have managed to build up significant positions overseas typically rely on arbitrage or (less frequently) adaptation to environments with some similarities to China’s ( at BI Norwegian Business School on January 28. but face ongoing challenges of achieving deeper adaptation (if they focus on China as a market) or of arbitraging more effectively (if they treat it primarily as an export platform) (Ghemawat and Hout. But within China.G H E M AWAT : R E C O N C E P T U A L I Z I N G I N T E R N AT I O N A L S T R AT E G Y Of course. Cisco recently announced the appointment of a Chief Globalization Officer based in Bangalore. along ‘South–South’ lines. General Electric’s attempts to move production quickly to low-cost countries have been aided by mechanisms such as ‘pitcher–catcher’: a ‘pitching team’ at the existing site working closely with a ‘catching team’ at the new site until the latter’s performance meets or exceeds the former’s. the most obvious focus area. – countries very different from the advanced economies in which most established MNCs are based. I am hopeful in this regard. which has been designated ‘Cisco Globalization Center East’ – a global. Downloaded from soq. for reasons that are best illustrated with an example. one’s level of excitement about such a research programme depends to some degree on the prospects for finding patterns that apply across locations as opposed to idiosyncratic variation from location to location. etc. Procter & Gamble coordinates market development organizations and global business units with an array of mechanisms.g. as in Africa) – but continue to face the challenges of upgrading and aggregating across borders. Consider a few I encountered while writing for managers about the AAA triangle: ● ● ● ● Central to IBM’s attempts to arbitrage as well as aggregate is a sophisticated matching algorithm that optimizes people’s assignments across all of its locations – a ‘human supply chain’ that is vastly more complicated than a conventional parts supply chain. Organizationally. innovations and brands before being translated into plans and budgets. Or more broadly. being tried out by leadingedge companies. MNCs tend to dominate in advertising and R&D-intensive sectors where aggregation is important. many yet to be sanctified by serious study. what stand out from this example are not fundamentally new ways of becoming multinational but conditioning by the country of origin and its stage of development that affects the strategy options selected from the same basic AAA menu. is further work on vertical coordination arrangements and the extent to which they can be effectively embedded within the same organization as (or dovetailed across organizational interfaces with) horizontal coordination arrangements. India. There is considerable discussion today of whether fundamentally new kinds of MNCs are emerging out of China. based on the discussion in this essay. developing-technology hub meant to encompass all functions and house 20 percent of top management by 2010. capped by layered reviews that start with growth objectives and cascade through strategies. 2015 203 . forthcoming).sagepub.

industries).sagepub. Downloaded from soq. Thus. One must be specific about possible intra-firm (and inter-firm) coordination mechanisms – and their limitations – to get to a comparative perspective more interesting than the assumption that while cross-border coordination via markets is subject to problems. the quote from Bartlett and Ghoshal in the introductory section of this essay at BI Norwegian Business School on January 28. Other authors used different terminology for similar ideas. Werner’s (2002) survey is suggestive in this regard: it indicates that the research on MNC strategies that has been undertaken has tended not to emphasize large-sample analysis – the dominant methodology more broadly within international management research. and from helpful research assistance by Beulah D’Souza that was supported by the Division of Research at IESE Business School.g. 1983). Bernard Yeung.204 S T R AT E G I C O R G A N I Z AT I O N 6 ( 2 ) While new cross-border coordination mechanisms are clearly being tried out. Bruce Kogut and. in particular. And to the extent that the existing allotment of attention to strategy as opposed to organization is based on an overly narrow view of strategy content. moving towards an optimum will probably involve paying proportionately more attention to strategy. Acknowledgements I have benefited from comments on earlier drafts of this essay from Richard Caves. 2007a) about global rather than international strategy. in his edited volume. In other words. 2015 . Having discussed the allocation of attention to international issues within strategy and organization. associated organizational requirements – even to emerging MNCs). a minimal body of work or knowledge about strategy is a prerequisite for sensible statements about international organization. among others: a standardized onesize-fits-all approach (see Levitt. Ghemawat. That contention should help catalyse further debate as well as conclude this essay. in the sense in which John Commons (1934) and Chester Barnard (1938) originally used that term. Notes 1 2 3 I have written elsewhere (e. it is far from clear that a new organizational form is being created (partly because of the preceding argument about the applicability of the AAA triangle – and one presumes. as he would emphasize. I use the two terms interchangeably because I think of global strategy as encompassing a broad range of strategies for competing across borders rather than being reserved for the one type of strategy emphasized by Ted Levitt. Michael Porter (1986) distinguished between the somewhat parallel categories of global vs multidomestic strategies (or. It seems more useful to note that consideration of a variety of intrafirm (and inter-firm) coordination mechanisms is complementary to rather than a diversion from the fundamental Coasian question about the cross-border contexts in which coordination by firms is favoured over market transactions. it is useful to conclude by looking briefly across them. cross-border coordination within firms is costless. Since research on international organization must be strategy-contingent. strategy seems likely to be the ‘strategic factor’ in the short to medium run.

Gardiner and Theobald (2003) ‘International Construction Cost Survey’. Kogut. E. (2001) From Global to Metanational: How Companies Win in the Knowledge Economy. B. Ghemawat. Journal of International Business Studies 34(2): 138–52. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. December. Boston. R. A. P. KPMG (2006) ‘World News Digest’. Harvard Business Review 61(3): 92–102. Downloaded from soq. Fayerweather. (2002) ‘Thirty Years of International Business Environment Research in International Business Studies’. Ghemawat. M. Cambridge. Doz. Levitt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A. C. (2007a) Redefining Global Strategy. India. (2007b) ‘Managing Differences: The Central Challenge in Global Strategy’. costs vs differentiation in the local strategy literature). B. Santos. (2007) The Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill. S. (1997) The Differentiated Network: Organizing Multinational Corporations for Value Creation. Financial Times 19 May: 6.. London: Palgrave Macmillan. For an articulation of the difference between horizontal and vertical MNCs. Sloan Management Review 27(1): 27–38. Y.. P. C. (2001) ‘Distance Still Matters: The Hard Reality of Global Expansion’. Sloan Management Review 26(4): 15–28. T. V. For further discussion. Fritz Foley. L. Ghemawat. K. S. T.. A. (1985b) ‘Designing Global Strategies: Profiting from Operational Flexibility’. and Williamson. N.. and Ghoshal. Cambridge. Academy of Management Executive 15(2): 45–56. Survey of Current Business February. Bank of New York (2005) ‘Annual DR Market Review’. and Hines. Harvard Business Review September: 137–47. The table is drawn from and discussed at greater length in a practitioner-oriented article (Ghemawat. Harvard Business Review March: 58–68.sagepub. Jr (2006) ‘Taxation and Multinational Activity: New Evidence. P. (2002) Managing across Borders: The Transnational Solution. 2007b). (1989) Managing across Borders: The Transnational Solution. 2003) and the introduction to Ariño et al. J. J. E. 3rd edn. A. P. Bartlett. Kogut. paper presented at the Academy of Management. I am grateful to Bernard Yeung for emphasizing to me the importance of the fundamental Coasian question in this context. Ghemawat. P. and Hout. Harvard Business Review Gupta. Boston. and at BI Norwegian Business School on January 28. (2004). S. P. J. 2nd edn. Desai. New Interpretations’. MA: Harvard Business School Press. 2015 205 . R.G H E M AWAT : R E C O N C E P T U A L I Z I N G I N T E R N AT I O N A L S T R AT E G Y 4 5 6 7 8 Source: US Bureau of the Census. MA: Harvard Business School Press. References Ariño. (2003) ‘Semiglobalization and International Business Strategy’. see Ghemawat (2001. P. Ghemawat. (1985a) ‘Designing Global Strategies: Comparative and Competitive Value-Added Chains’. Bartlett. D. Ghemawat. and Govindarajan. Li. and Ricart. (2001) ‘Converting Global Presence into Global Competitive Advantage’. (forthcoming) ‘The Next Multinationals? China. (1983) ‘The Globalization of Markets’. (1969) International Business Management: A Conceptual Framework. and Ghoshal. (eds) (2004) Creating Value through International Strategy. J. Nohria. Ferreira. December. MA: Harvard Business School Press. A.g. S. and Beyond’. Caves. Also note that the organizational basis for presuming some degree of the mutual exclusivity seems better established for the strategic typology in Table 1 than for many others (e. see Caves (2007). C. and Guisinger. M. MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Spain. 08034 Barcelona. June. [email: pghemawat@iese. His most recent book is Redefining Global Strategy (Harvard Business School Press. Boston. N. which won the McKinsey Award for the best article published in the Harvard Business Review in 2005. (1987) The Multinational Mission: Balancing Local Demands and Global Vision. unpublished draft. and ‘Why the World Isn’t Flat’ in Foreign Policy March/April 2007. L. Address: IESE Business School. (ed. K.‘Global Integration  Global Concentration’ (with Fariborz Ghadar).] Downloaded from soq. New York: Free Press. Games Businesses Play and Strategy and the Business Landscape. he was elected a fellow of the Academy of International Business. and in 2008.206 S T R AT E G I C O R G A N I Z AT I O N 6 ( 2 ) Pisani. (2007) ‘International Management Research: An Updated Review’. MA: Harvard Business School Press. S. University of Navarra. 2015 . 26. at BI Norwegian Business School on January 28. Werner.sagepub. Pearson. and Doz. Ghemawat’s other books include Commitment. Porter.‘Managing Differences:The Central Challenge in Global Strategy’. In 1996. (2002) ‘Recent Developments in International Management Research: A Review of 20 Top Management Journals’. IESE Business School. the lead article in August 2006 in Industrial and Corporate Change. He also serves as editor for business strategy at Management Science. 2007). the lead article in March 2007 in the Harvard Business Review. M. Pankaj Ghemawat is the Anselmo Rubiralta Professor of Global Strategy at IESE and the Tiampo Professor of Business Administration (on leave) at Harvard Business School. he has been selected as the recipient of the Fundacion BBVA-IESE prize for bridging between research and practice and the Irwin Outstanding Educator Award conferred by the Business Policy and Strategy division of the Academy of Management. C.) (1986) Competition in Global Industries. Journal of Management 28(3): 277–305. Other recent globalization-related publications include ‘Regional Strategies for Global Leadership’. Prahalad.