See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318413547

A Review of Global Competitiveness Research: Past Advances and Future

Directions

Article  in  Journal of International Marketing · July 2017

DOI: 10.1509/jim.16.0053

CITATIONS READS

12 1,927

2 authors, including:

Brian Chabowski
University of Tulsa
22 PUBLICATIONS   992 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Brian Chabowski on 07 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Review of Global Competitiveness
Research: Past Advances and
Future Directions
Brian R. Chabowski and Jeannette A. Mena

ABSTRACT
The global competitiveness (GC) literature has proven to be a developing, yet critical element in international marketing
research. Broadly, GC studies have become a part of the marketing, international business, and strategic management
fields. In light of this far-reaching topic and to gain a unique understanding of the dynamics across the GC domain, this
study examines the intellectual structure of GC research at two distinct levels of analysis: overall GC publications and
marketing and international business GC articles. This review of the literature uses cocitation data to provide insight to
the field and develop a research-based model for future consideration. A total of 48 journals are included, providing
1,819 articles with 115,462 citations for examination. Applying multidimensional scaling to analyze the data, the study
introduces a GC-focused model and provides possible topics for research. The proposed organizing framework includes
elements of a market-based perspective (offering development, market orientation, and process emphasis), strategy
implementation (firm-related advantages, strategic approach, and international focus), and performance to advance the
critical nature of the marketing function in the GC literature.

Keywords: global competitiveness, international competitiveness, multidimensional scaling, cocitation analysis, in-
tellectual structure

W
ith the growing pace of globalization, competition
on a global scale among companies has become
increasingly intense. The number of multinational
enterprises (MNEs) in the world has doubled since 1990,
with companies based in emerging countries driving much
of this growth (Cavusgil and Cavusgil 2012; Dobbs et al.
2015). These new players are introducing entirely new
business models that are reflective of their unique home
country’s business climate, market structure, and man-
agement style (Porter 1990; Rugman, Oh, and Lim 2012;
Wagstyl 2011). In addition, the rise of new technologies has
enabled small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to
participate in global markets, bringing even more com-
petitors to the scene (e.g., Ernst & Young 2015; World
Trade Organization 2016). These new forms of global
competition are continually changing the rules of the game
and call for more agile and aggressive competitive moves
(e.g., Dobbs et al. 2015; McManus, White, and Botten 2008).
In particular, global competition is characterized by how “a
firm’s actions in one market affect its own and its competitors’
actions in another” (Luehrman 1990, p. 229). Accordingly,
to compete effectively, companies must develop tactics and
strategies that coordinate and integrate internationally dis-
persed activities, while considering the interdependence of
competitive positions across countries (Homburg, Fürst, and
Kuehnl 2012; Zou and Cavusgil 2002).
In view of this challenging business environment, it is not
surprising that researchers in various disciplines, including
marketing, international business, and strategic management,

Brian R. Chabowski is Associate Professor of Marketing, Collins College Journal of International Marketing
of Business, University of Tulsa (email: brian-chabowski@utulsa.edu). ©2017, American Marketing Association
Jeannette A. Mena is Associate Professor of Marketing, Muma College of Vol. 25, No. 4, 2017, pp. 1–24
Business, University of South Florida (email: mena@usf.edu). Bulent DOI: 10.1509/jim.16.0053
Menguc served as associate editor for this article. ISSN 1069-031X (print) 1547-7215 (electronic)

A Review of Global Competitiveness Research 1

have been interested in explaining the sources of global
competitiveness (GC). Based on the notion that com-
petitiveness relates to the skills and capabilities required
for success, the GC topic refers to the firm’s advantage in
managing and marketing its goods and/or services in the
global marketplace (Hult 2012). Over the years, research
on GC themes has identified and examined several in-
ternal and external factors that play an important role
in the competitiveness of the firm. These factors include
firm resources (Barney 1991; Wernerfelt 1984), firm ca-
pabilities (Day 1994; Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997),
market orientation (Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver
and Slater 1990), competitive strategies (Porter 1980,
1985), industry characteristics (Porter 1980; Roquebert,
Phillips, and Westfall 1996), and institutional forces (e.g.,
DiMaggio and Powell 1983).
Interestingly, while scholarly work on GC has made sig-
nificant progress, it mostly has developed along disparate
research traditions. The result has been fragmentation in the
GC literature, with studies often concentrating on rather
specific aspects of GC, such as a particular determinant
of competitiveness. A possible explanation for this is
the inherent complexity of the GC concept (Buckley,
Pass, and Prescott 1988), which makes it challeng-
ing for researchers to capture all the components of
competitiveness in a single study. Moreover, the inter-
disciplinary nature of the GC topic further compounds
the lack of integration across the various areas of study
within the domain. This general disconnect in the GC
literature hinders the progression of the research area,
as researchers may not have a complete understand-
ing of the scope of GC and of how the different areas
relate to each other. In this regard, international mar-
keting (IM) research, with its emphasis on interna-
tional and strategic marketing topics, is in a unique
position to bridge the distinct issues within the GC lit-
erature into an overarching framework. At the same
time, because of the domain’s position within the IM
literature, marketing’s role in driving the competitive-
ness of the firm will become more evident. This is critical,
given the ongoing discussion about marketing’s influ-
ence within the enterprise (e.g., Homburg, Workman,
and Krohmer 1999; Katsikeas et al. 2016; Verhoef and
Leeflang 2009).
Against this backdrop, this study assesses the intellectual
structure of the GC literature to gain a better understanding
of the domain’s nature. It subsequently develops an in-
tegrative framework and directs further GC research and
managerial activities in IM. To this end, this study responds
to calls in the literature to develop conceptual studies with
2 Journal of International Marketing
the purpose of advancing future research, and it surveys the
most frequently cited publications in the GC literature to
evaluate the domain’s past and present research streams
(Kuhn 1996; MacInnis 2011; Yadav 2010). Used previously
in internationally focused overviews (Hutzschenreuter,
Pederson, and Volberda 2007; Samiee, Chabowski, and
Hult 2015), this study’s implementation is based on the
fundamental bibliometric premise that the main topics
in a literature domain can be better understood by ex-
amining citations and, more importantly, cocitation pat-
terns to arrive at particular conclusions about the field
(Burt 1983; Garfield 1979; McCain 1990; Ramos-
Rodrı́guez and Ruı́z-Navarro 2004). Specifically, 1,819
articles from 48 marketing, international business, and
management journals were identified, with 115,462 total
citations, to evaluate two levels of analysis—GC publi-
cations and marketing and international business GC
articles—using multidimensional scaling (MDS). The re-
sults provide two unique network arrangements based
on the citation data that was gathered and the cocitation
data that was developed and analyzed. These results are
synthesized in an organizing framework to assist in the
development of future GC studies.
This study makes two key contributions to the GC domain
and, more broadly, to the IM literature. First, drawing on
the premise that potential opportunities result from past and
present research (Kuhn 1996), this article offers specific
directions for future GC knowledge. In particular, we de-
velop an organizing framework to inform further GC ex-
aminations. This framework advances the GC literature by
integrating the largely disconnected research base to date
into a common foundation from which future IM research
can draw. To overcome possible differences between
established and emerging GC literature, we use recent,
frequently cited articles to inform and supplement the
framework established. By offering opportunities for future
GC research that would extend the field, the relation of
recent topics provides considerable applicability to the
domain. Second, we identify a market-based perspective as
instrumental to GC and explain the process by which this
perspective facilitates the implementation of strategy and
subsequently influences performance (Morgan, Katsikeas,
and Vorhies 2012). By establishing a connection between
IM elements, a market-based perspective, and GC, this
study contends that IM is a driving force behind the domain.
Specifically, by drawing on such traditions as exporting,
market orientation, and marketing capabilities, this article is
clearly positioned to indicate that the marketing function in
an international context is critical to a company’s devel-
opment, strategic implementation, and performance. As a
result, adopting this view makes a considerable contribution
to studies emphasizing the marketing function’s current and
future influence within the firm (see Verhoef and Leeflang
2009).
The rest of the study is organized as follows. First, we
provide an overview of the concept of GC, review various
theoretical perspectives that seek to explain the domain, and
make a case for the need to integrate the theoretical per-
spectives in GC research. We then describe the method used
to conduct the analysis and present the results. Next, we
provide a discussion and implications section in which we
advance the proposed organizing framework, research
contributions, managerial implications, and limitations and
future opportunities. Finally, we present concluding re-
marks concerning the study.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
For many researchers in the fields of marketing, in-
ternational business, and strategic management, com-
petitiveness is equivalent to “the generation and maintenance
of competitive advantages” (Buckley, Pass, and Prescott
1988, p. 177). As such, it is associated with the qualities
needed for business success. Particularly in the marketing
literature, the GC concept is defined as “a measure of an
organization’s advantage (or disadvantage) in marketing
its goods and/or services in global markets” (Hult 2012,
p. 195). In this respect, a limitation of prior work is that
no consensus exists regarding the meaning of competitive
advantage (e.g., Rumelt 2003). A common approach in
the literature is to define it in terms of a firm’s positional
and performance superiority, which is based on the at-
tainment of greater differentiation or lower relative costs
(e.g., Spyropoulou et al. 2017), and the higher customer
satisfaction, loyalty, market share, and profitability that
ensue (e.g., Day and Wensley 1988).
Research on GC has mainly focused on explaining the
reasons some firms are more competitive than others in the
global marketplace. In particular, studies have identified
and examined several factors that play an important role in
the competitiveness of the firm. As these studies emphasize
distinct aspects of GC, several theoretical perspectives have
influenced and informed the GC domain. These include the
resource-based view (RBV) of the firm, dynamic capabil-
ities, market orientation, industrial organization (IO) the-
ory, institutional theory, the eclectic (OLI) paradigm,
transaction cost economics (TCE), and the internationali-
zation process model. Table 1 summarizes the key argu-
ments of these perspectives and provides key implications
for GC research. The rest of this section briefly reviews these
various theoretical perspectives within the context of this
study.
Resource-Based View of the Firm
The RBV of the firm focuses on the firm’s portfolio of
idiosyncratic resources as the main driver of competitive
advantage (e.g., Wernerfelt 1984). Broadly, firm resources
refer to the strengths of a firm (Wernerfelt 1984), including
its assets, capabilities, knowledge, relationships, and or-
ganizational processes and routines (Barney 1991). To the
extent that these resources are valuable, rare, difficult to
imitate, and nonsubstitutable, they will contribute to a
firm’s competitive advantage by facilitating the imple-
mentation of unique, value-creating strategies. In the GC
domain, this perspective has been used to gain a better
understanding of the resources that serve as potential
sources of competitiveness in foreign markets. Empirical
studies that apply the RBV find that strategic resources and
capabilities, such as innovation ambidexterity (Hughes et al.
2010), customer relationships (Luo et al. 2004), social
capital (Luo et al. 2004), product development capabilities
(Kaleka 2011; Zou, Fang, and Zhao 2003), and channel
relationship capabilities (Kaleka 2011; Lages, Silva, and
Styles 2009), can bring advantages to the firm in overseas
markets and result in superior performance. However,
despite its influence in the GC literature, the RBV is
characterized as static (Priem and Butler 2001) and in-
adequate to explain why some firms are more competitive
than others in turbulent environments (Teece, Pisano, and
Shuen 1997).
Dynamic Capabilities Framework
The dynamic capabilities framework extends the RBV by
proposing that in fast-moving markets, competitive ad-
vantage is driven by the possession and exploitation of
unique dynamic capabilities that enable the firm to adapt to
changes in the business environment (Teece, Pisano, and
Shuen 1997). Dynamic capabilities are defined as the
“firm’s processes that use resources—specifically the pro-
cesses to integrate, reconfigure, gain and release resources—
to match and even create market change” (Eisenhardt and
Martin 2000, p. 1107). Through such transformation of
resources, dynamic capabilities serve to sense opportu-
nities and threats, exploit prospects, and swiftly manage
problems, which, in turn, can enhance firm competi-
tiveness (e.g., Teece 2007). Given the complex, contin-
uously changing environment that characterizes global
competition, the dynamic capabilities framework has
been applied in the GC area to investigate the dynamic
capabilities–performance relationship. Empirical studies
A Review of Global Competitiveness Research 3
 Table 1. Theoretical Perspectives and GC Implications
Theoretical Perspective
Resource-based view of the firm (RBV)
Dynamic capabilities framework
4 Journal of International Marketing
Market orientation
Industrial organization (IO) theory
Key Argument
Firm resources that are valuable, rare, difficult to
imitate, and nonsubstitutable are the main drivers
of competitive advantage (e.g., Barney 1991;
Wernerfelt 1984).
In fast-moving markets, the possession and ex-
ploitation of unique dynamic capabilities can
create a competitive advantage by enabling the
firm to adapt to changes in the business envi-
ronment (Teece 2007; Teece, Pisano, and Shuen
1997).
Customer orientation, competitor orientation, and
interfunctional coordination are necessary for the
continuous creation of superior customer value
and, hence, lead to superior performance (e.g.,
Narver and Slater 1990).
External forces, such as the structural character-
istics of an industry, dictate the strategies that
firms can implement, which, in turn, affect the
competitiveness of firms (e.g., Porter 1980;
Roquebert, Phillips, and Westfall 1996).
Key Insights for GC
Strategic resources and capabilities such as in-
novation ambidexterity (Hughes et al. 2010),
customer relationships (Luo et al. 2004), social
capital (Luo et al. 2004), product development
(Kaleka 2011; Zou, Fang, and Zhao 2003), and
channel relationships (Kaleka 2011; Lages, Silva,
and Styles 2009) can enhance the GC of the firm.
The development of dynamic capabilities can
generate competitive advantages and result in
superior performance, particularly in the context
of exporting (Morgan, Katsikeas, and Vorhies
2012; Morgan, Kaleka, and Katsikeas 2004),
importing (e.g., Yalcinkaya, Calantone, and
Griffith 2007), and international joint ventures
(e.g., Fang and Zou 2009).
Market orientation is an important determinant of
business success in both developed and devel-
oping countries (e.g., Deshpandé and Farley
1999; Deshpandé, Farley, and Bowman 2004). It
can also give firms a competitive edge in export
markets (e.g., Cadogan, Diamantopoulos, and
Siguaw 2002; Kwon and Hu 2000) through
marketing capabilities development (e.g., Murray,
Gao, and Kotabe 2011).
A global marketing strategy can be a key driver of
firm performance when it is congruent with the
firm’s external environment and internal char-
acteristics (Zou and Cavusgil 2002). This “fit” is
also important in export market ventures (e.g.,
Cavusgil and Zou 1994) and environmental
marketing in international markets (e.g., Leonidou
et al. 2013).
 Table 1. Continued
Theoretical Perspective
Institutional theory
Eclectic (OLI) paradigm
Transaction cost economics (TCE)
Internationalization process model
A Review of Global Competitiveness Research 5
Key Argument
Institutional forces in the external environment
shape the structures, strategies, and practices of
firms, leading firms to copy others in their field to
achieve legitimacy. In turn, legitimacy contributes
to the firm’s success and survival by enabling the
firm to gain the support of key stakeholders and
access to important resources (e.g., DiMaggio
and Powell 1983; Meyer and Rowan 1977).
Three sets of advantages (ownership, location, and
internalization) determine the extent, form, and
pattern of international production undertaken
(Dunning 1980, 1988). In turn, international
production can enhance the competitive position
of the company (e.g., Dunning 1988, 1998).
The appropriate governance structure selection,
given the interplay between behavioral assump-
tions and various transaction dimensions, can
enhance firm competitiveness by minimizing
transaction costs (e.g., Rindfleisch and Heide
1997).
Firms seek to increase long-term profitability (i.e.,
growth) through international expansion,
whereby a firm progressively increases its inter-
national involvement based on the interplay be-
tween two state aspects (market knowledge and
market commitment) and two change aspects
(commitment decision and current activities)
(Johanson and Vahlne 1977, 1990).
Key Insights for GC
The institutional environment shapes the firm’s
international CSR practices (e.g., Jean et al. 2016;
Khan, Lew, and Park 2015; Rathert 2016; Young
and Makhija 2014), global marketing strategies
(e.g., Rao-Nicholson and Khan 2017), and entry
mode decisions (e.g., Davis, Desai, and Francis
2000).
The configuration of firm-specific, host country–
specific, and internalization factors influences the
firm’s entry mode selection (e.g., Agarwal and
Ramaswami 1992; Brouthers, Brouthers, and
Werner 1996, 1999), which in turn, can explain
firm performance (e.g., Brouthers, Brouthers, and
Werner 1999).
Firms that make entry mode choices based on the
prescriptions of TCE perform significantly better
than other firms (e.g., Brouthers 2002; Brouthers,
Brouthers, and Werner 2003; Brouthers and
Nakos 2004). Thus, if transaction costs are high,
hierarchies and hybrids should be favored. If such
costs are low or nonexistent, market governance
becomes efficient (e.g., Rindfleisch and Heide
1997).
Foreign market experiential knowledge, one of the
key drivers of internationalization, positively
influences firm performance (e.g., Luo 1999; Luo
and Peng 1999). The effect of this relationship is
moderated by cultural distance from a host
country (Luo 1999), environmental hostility,
dynamism, and complexity (Luo and Peng 1999).
provide evidence of the positive relationship between dy-
namic capabilities and performance, particularly in the con-
texts of exporting (e.g., Morgan, Katsikeas, and Vorhies
2012), importing (e.g., Yalcinkaya, Calantone, and Griffith
2007), and international joint ventures (e.g., Fang and Zou
2009). For example, Morgan, Katsikeas, and Vorhies
(2012) develop and test a model that links export marketing
capabilities to export marketing strategy implementation
effectiveness and export venture performance. Their find-
ings indicate that these capabilities contribute to export
venture performance outcomes by enabling the firm to de-
velop and execute value-creating strategies. However,
while the dynamic capabilities framework has been useful
in explaining firm competitiveness in high-velocity global
markets, its explanatory power seems to diminish in more
stable environments with lower rates of market dynamism
(Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997).
Market Orientation
Market orientation emphasizes the importance of identi-
fying and meeting customer needs to achieve the firm’s
performance objectives (e.g., Kohli and Jaworski 1990).
Although it is not considered a theory, it is among the most
influential concepts within the marketing discipline and the
competitiveness literature. For that reason, along with its
widespread acceptance and applicability to global markets,
its inclusion in this discussion is warranted. Market ori-
entation refers to the organizational culture that encourages
behaviors necessary for the continuous creation of greater
customer value and, hence, lead to superior performance
(Narver and Slater 1990). It consists of customer orientation
(i.e., the sufficient understanding of the needs and wants of
customers), competitor orientation (i.e., the sufficient un-
derstanding of competitors’ strengths, weaknesses, capa-
bilities, and strategies), and interfunctional coordination
(i.e., the coordinated use of firm resources in creating
superior customer value). These behavioral components
require the firm to generate market intelligence about
customers’ needs and exogenous forces, disseminate market
intelligence internally, and respond to it by taking mar-
keting action (Kohli and Jaworski 1990). Given this em-
phasis on market intelligence, the concept of market
orientation has been closely tied to the firm’s learning
processes (e.g., Hurley and Hult 1998; Slater and Narver
1995).
Market orientation research in the GC area largely has
focused on examining the connection between market
orientation and firm performance—including the inves-
tigation of mediating and moderating factors—across a
variety of contexts. In general, these studies find that market
6 Journal of International Marketing
orientation is an important determinant of business suc-
cess in both developed and developing countries (e.g.,
Deshpandé and Farley 1999; Deshpandé, Farley, and
Bowman 2004). In addition, it can give firms a competitive
edge in export markets (e.g., Cadogan, Diamantopoulos,
and Siguaw 2002), including small exporters (e.g., Kwon
and Hu 2000), through marketing capabilities development
(e.g., Murray, Gao, and Kotabe 2011). However, an im-
portant limitation of market orientation is its almost ex-
clusive focus on customers as the primary stakeholder
group, even though different stakeholder groups such as
regulators, shareholders, suppliers, employees, and com-
munity members often influence firms, especially in global
markets (Ferrell et al. 2010).
Industrial Organization
The IO theoretical perspective recognizes the role of the
external environment in firm performance. The central ar-
gument of this perspective is that external forces, such as the
structural characteristics of an industry, dictate the strategies
that firms can implement, which, in turn, affect the com-
petitiveness of firms (e.g., Porter 1980; Roquebert, Phillips,
and Westfall 1996). In particular, the attainment of an ap-
propriate fit between the firm’s strategy and the environment
has positive implications for firm performance (Venkatraman
and Prescott 1990). This perspective is closely associated with
Porter’s (1980) competitive forces framework, which
identifies five competitive forces—the entry of new com-
petitors, the threat of substitutes, the bargaining power of
buyers, the bargaining power of suppliers, and the rivalry
among existing competitors—that collectively drive the
intensity of industry competition and profit potential. To deal
with these forces, and ultimately outperform rivals in the
industry, firms can adopt at least one of three strategic ap-
plications: cost leadership, differentiation, and focus (Porter
1985). In the GC domain, IO theory has been employed to
shed light on the influence of external factors on the firm’s
strategy and performance in the global marketplace. For
example, Zou and Cavusgil (2002) find that when the global
marketing strategy is congruent with the firm’s external en-
vironment and internal characteristics, the global marketing
strategy is a key driver of firm performance in the global
market. Other studies’ findings also support the tenets of IO
theory in the context of export market ventures (e.g., Cavusgil
and Zou 1994) and environmental marketing in international
markets (e.g., Leonidou et al. 2013). However, a key limi-
tation of IO theory is that it neglects that idiosyncratic firm
attributes can influence GC, given its assumption that firms
within an industry are identical regarding the resources they
possess and the strategies they adopt (e.g., Barney 1991).
Consequently, this perspective fails to explain sustainable
differences in performance levels among intraindustry firms.
Institutional Theory
Institutional theory explains how the external environment,
through coercive, mimetic, and normative forces, shapes the
structures, strategies, and practices of firms (e.g., DiMaggio
and Powell 1983). Specifically, these isomorphic forces lead
firms to copy others in their field—especially those that
are perceived to be similar (e.g., McFarland, Bloodgood,
and Payan 2008) or more legitimate or successful (e.g.,
Haveman 1993), or those with which they have boundary-
spanning ties (e.g., Galaskiewicz and Wasserman 1989)—
in an attempt to achieve and maintain legitimacy (e.g.,
DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Meyer and Rowan 1977).
In this context, legitimacy—that is, the perception that the
firm’s actions conform to institutional rules and are thus
appropriate (Suchman 1995)—contributes to the firm’s
success and survival by enabling the firm to gain the support
and commitment of key stakeholders and access to im-
portant resources (e.g., DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Meyer
and Rowan 1977). In the GC domain, institutional theory
has been used to study the influence of the institutional
environment on firms’ international corporate social re-
sponsibility (CSR) practices (e.g., Jean et al. 2016; Rathert
2016; Young and Makhija 2014), global marketing strat-
egies (e.g., Rao-Nicholson and Khan 2017), and entry mode
decisions (e.g., Davis, Desai, and Francis 2000). For ex-
ample, in a study of firms’ motivations to engage in CSR,
Young and Makhija (2014) find that regulatory and nor-
mative institutions shape CSR responsiveness. In turn, CSR
practices are found to positively impact customer satis-
faction (Jean et al. 2016). Nonetheless, like IO theory, in-
stitutional theory does not explain the maintenance of a
competitive advantage. Instead, through its focus on le-
gitimacy as the ultimate firm objective, it explicates the
process by which firms within an industry become homo-
geneous over time (DiMaggio and Powell 1983).
Eclectic Paradigm
The OLI paradigm asserts that the configuration of three
sets of advantages (i.e., ownership, location, and inter-
nalization) determines the extent, form, and pattern of
international production undertaken by the firm (Dunning
1980, 1988). Ownership advantages refers to the com-
petitive advantages that typically arise from the possession
of superior firm-specific assets (e.g., Dunning 1988). To the
extent that ownership advantages are greater than those of
other firms, the company will be more likely to engage in
international production (e.g., Dunning 2000). Location
advantages refers to the attractiveness of alternative
countries for carrying out value-added activities. The
greater the location advantages stemming from a foreign
country, the greater the likelihood that the firm will en-
gage in international production (Dunning 1980). In-
ternalization advantages refers to the advantages attained
from internalizing firm-specific assets to produce goods in a
foreign market (e.g., Dunning 1980). As the net benefits
of internalization increase, the likelihood that the com-
pany will favor international production increases as well
(Dunning 2000). In turn, international production can
enhance the competitive position of the firm by facilitating
the achievement of resource-, market-, efficiency-, and
strategic asset–seeking objectives (e.g., Dunning 1988,
1998). In the GC domain, empirical studies have applied the
OLI paradigm to examine foreign market entry mode. In
general, these studies support the framework across dif-
ferent contexts in the United States and internationally (e.g.,
Agarwal and Ramaswami 1992; Brouthers, Brouthers, and
Werner 1996, 1999). Brouthers, Brouthers, and Werner
(1999) also find that entry mode selection based on the
configuration of the three advantages can explain firm
performance. More recently, in a conceptual study, Alcácer,
Cantwell, and Piscitello (2016) demonstrate that the OLI
framework is still relevant in today’s information age.
Specifically, they investigate recent trends in international
business that have brought changes in the activities of
companies, and they connect the competitive advantages
that result from these activities to the OLI paradigm.
However, a limitation of the paradigm is that it treats the
three sets of advantages as independent, thereby ignoring
the interdependencies that may exist among them (Dunning
2001).
Transaction Cost Economics
The TCE perspective is concerned with minimizing
transaction costs through the selection of a governance
structure—that is, market, hierarchy, or hybrid (Williamson
1975, 1985). Transaction costs, which include the expenses
incurred when negotiating contracts, monitoring agree-
ments, and enforcing compliance, exist given the behavioral
assumptions of bounded rationality, opportunism, and risk
neutrality. The interplay between these assumptions and the
various dimensions of transactions (asset specificity, be-
havioral uncertainty, environmental uncertainty, and trans-
action frequency) can lead to safeguarding, adaptation,
and performance evaluation problems (e.g., Rindfleisch
and Heide 1997). Dealing with these governance difficulties
can be costly for the firm (Heide 1994). Accordingly,
TCE proposes that if adaptation, performance evalua-
tion, and safeguarding costs are low or nonexistent,
A Review of Global Competitiveness Research 7
market governance becomes efficient. On the other hand, if
such costs are high, hierarchies and hybrids should be fa-
vored (e.g., Rindfleisch and Heide 1997). In the GC domain,
TCE has been used to study foreign entry mode selection
(e.g., Brouthers 2002) and international channel relationships
(e.g., Gençtürk and Aulakh 2007). Notably, several studies
provide empirical evidence showing that firms making entry
mode choices based on the prescriptions of TCE perform
significantly better than other firms (e.g., Brouthers 2002;
Brouthers, Brouthers, and Werner 2003). However, a lim-
itation of TCE is its focus on the individual transaction as
the unit of analysis, which does not consider the temporal
nature of interorganizational relationships (Rindfleisch and
Heide 1997).
Internationalization Process Model
The internationalization process model explains the firm’s
internationalization as a dynamic process in which the firm
progressively increases its international involvement based
on the interplay between two state aspects (market knowl-
edge and market commitment) and two change aspects
(commitment decision and current activities) (Johanson
and Vahlne 1977). Specifically, market knowledge—which
can be acquired through experience and is essential to the
learning process—is an important mechanism for reducing
market uncertainty and identifying opportunities in a foreign
market (e.g., Johanson and Vahlne 1990). Market com-
mitment consists of the amount of resources committed to a
market and the degree of commitment. Together, market
knowledge and market commitment influence decisions to
commit resources to foreign operations and the performance
of current business activities (e.g., Johanson and Vahlne
2009). In turn, these elements lead to greater mar-
ket knowledge and market commitment. The model as-
sumes that through international expansion, firms seek to
increase long-term profitability (i.e., growth). As such, the
internationalization process continues as long as per-
formance projections are positive (Johanson and Vahlne
2009). In the GC domain, this perspective has been
employed to investigate the relationship between one of the
drivers of internationalization—foreign market experiential
knowledge—and firm performance (e.g., Brouthers et al.
2009; Luo 1999; Luo and Peng 1999). For example, in a
study on learning to effectively compete in an emerging
economy, Luo and Peng (1999) demonstrate that experi-
ence in a host country positively influences financial and
market performance. However, despite the internationali-
zation process model’s popularity, it is limited in its ability
to explain the existence of born-global firms, since these
successfully expand into foreign markets from or near their
founding (Knight and Cavusgil 2004).
8 Journal of International Marketing
AN INTEGRATION IMPERATIVE
Our overview of the theoretical perspectives that inform the
GC domain shows that the perspectives differ in the way
they perceive that GC can be achieved. Some perspectives,
such as the RBV, the dynamic capabilities framework,
market orientation, and the internationalization pro-
cess model, point to the importance of firms’ internal fac-
tors (i.e., resources, capabilities, organizational culture, and
market knowledge) in explaining competitive advantage.
In contrast, IO theory and institutional theory center on
external factors as the driving GC forces. A commonality
among these perspectives, however, is that they implicitly or
explicitly emphasize the role of responsiveness in achieving
competitiveness. For example, the RBV, the dynamic ca-
pabilities framework, and IO theory explain how certain
factors facilitate strategy implementation and how this, in
turn, impacts the competitive advantage of firms.
The OLI paradigm and TCE include additional dimensions
to explain GC. Namely, the OLI paradigm proposes that
international production can enhance the competitive
position of the company (e.g., Dunning 1988, 1998). An
important aspect of this explanation is the notion that
firms can obtain advantages from internalizing firm-
specific assets to produce goods abroad. Interestingly,
according to TCE, this is not always the case. Instead,
TCE suggests that internalization can lead to firm com-
petitiveness only if, relative to other governance struc-
tures, it minimizes transaction costs (e.g., Rindfleisch and
Heide 1997).
Our overview also demonstrates that while these theoret-
ical perspectives have been instrumental in explaining
GC, their limited commonality has led to fragmentation
in the GC literature, with various research traditions
evolving, for the most part, independently. This is un-
fortunate, since some perspectives and research streams
can be used in combination to complement each other.
More importantly, this general disconnect in the GC
literature hinders the progression of the research area.
By integrating aspects of the different theoretical per-
spectives, IM researchers can gain a more complete
understanding of the scope of GC. Rooted in the idea
that potential research opportunities result from es-
tablished and current research (Kuhn 1996), the fol-
lowing sections examine the intellectual structure of GC
research. Drawing on this assessment, and driven by the
pressing need for integrative research in the GC domain,
we then develop an organizing framework that synthe-
sizes the largely disconnected research traditions to inform
future GC studies.
METHOD
We began to link the topics related to our GC overview by
establishing the database and keyword requirements for this
study. The EBSCO Business Source Complete database was
used to draw the relevant citation data required for our
analysis (Hansen, Shrader, and Monllor 2011). In aiming to
be as precise as possible, our search was guided by Harzing’s
(2015) list of marketing, international business, and man-
agement journals. Using this resource, we screened for
journals that ranked as A or higher in the ABDC 2013
category, as this ranking system was most prevalent among
the 17 different journal categorizations included. Following
other cocitation analyses utilizing a minimal number of
keywords with the purpose of maximizing the data gathered
specifically to the topic under examination (Cornelius,
Landstr öm, and Persson 2006; Schildt, Zahra, and
Sillanpää 2006), we used terms that referred to competition
in global, international, export, and foreign market con-
texts1 to search the Business Source Complete database and
include the articles gathered for further analysis.2 In all,
articles from 48 journals were identified as qualifying for
the topic focusing on “global competitiveness” as defined
for this study.3 In addition to a search of the publication
title, abstract, author-supplied keywords, and subjects in-
cluded, the aforementioned terms were also used to search
the text of articles in the Business Source Complete database
(Hansen, Shrader, and Monllor 2011).4 Any marketing,
international business, or management article in the sample
containing this study’s keywords was subsequently ana-
lyzed and verified for inclusion. In addition, indirect re-
search articles (e.g., book reviews) were excluded so the
study would have a clear understanding of the nature of
direct GC research.
As a result, 1,819 articles from 1941 through 2016, with
115,462 total citations, were identified for evaluation in the
next stage of our analysis. In fact, based on the keywords
and process used to develop the database, the number of
articles included constitutes a representative sample of the
GC literature. Following typical procedure with citation
data in bibliometrics, the information gathered was purified
and coded for consistency. In other words, discrepancies
were found in the citation patterns: some citations were
incomplete or flawed and not exactly reflective of the
particular publication cited due to the citing author’s error.
We examined these citations and determined whether to
include or exclude them based on the exact citation made
in the article. If a citation was determined for inclusion, it
was changed in the original database of gathered in-
formation to reflect the correct citation code in the data-
base for further examination.
However, rather than evaluating only the intellectual
structure of the most-cited GC publications, we also sought
to analyze the data in a dynamic and GC-specific envi-
ronment as five books appeared in the overall data. As such,
to be more precise to IM and indicate its relevance to the GC
domain, we drew and evaluated the most frequently cited
articles appearing in marketing and international business
journals from the original database. In all, two distinct data
sets were used based on the original Business Source Com-
plete data gathered.
Once the citation data for the two analyses were prepared,
cocitation matrices were developed for each condition. By
using cocitation—rather than citation—data, this study
examines the interrelationship and structure of frequently
cited GC research (Ramos-Rodrı́guez and Ruı́z-Navarro
2004). In other words, cocitations are aggregated for a
certain number of publications so that a cocitation matrix
can be developed for analysis. The cocitation matrix is the
basis for the MDS analysis and reflects the relationships
between the most frequently cited publications in a given
domain. Stated differently, the structure of the most
influential works in the GC literature in the MDS results
indicates the underlying relational configuration that
drives the domain’s research. To evaluate these relational
data, we used MDS, because its results reflect the network
established in the cocitation patterns of the articles in-
cluded in the study (Burt 1983; McCain 1990). Taken
further, MDS allows the researcher to analyze the in-
tellectual structure of the GC literature in a meaningful
way (Hair et al. 1998). Because MDS is a widely used
approach for evaluating cocitation data and producing
visual representations of bibliometric data, we de-
termined it was appropriate for this study. Its results
include interpretable spatial structures, which are ideal
for theory development (Alba and Moore 1983; Tsai and
Wu 2010; Wasserman and Faust 1994).5
Typically, about 25 publications are analyzed in MDS to
create a fair or good model (Ramos-Rodrı́guez and Ruı́z-
Navarro 2004). Our study took this approach and in-
cluded, for practicality purposes, 26 publications for the
most-cited GC publication results and 25 publications in the
most-cited marketing and international business GC articles
structure. The cocitation data that resulted from the original
citations were included to assess each model’s stress value
(goodness of fit). Including a similar amount of publications
around the limit of 25 publications in the analysis typically
results in a good (less than .10) or fair (between .10 and .20)
stress value (Kruskal 1964; Ramos-Rodrı́guez and Ruı́z-
Navarro 2004).6 To calculate the stress value as the dif-
ference between the data used and the specified model,
A Review of Global Competitiveness Research 9
MDS minimizes stress in the model. As such, this goodness
of fit measure can be specified as follows:
 2
stress = 
i<j
dij - d ij ,
where dij is the distance between objects i and j and dij
reflects the fitted distance between these two objects from
the original data (Kruskal 1964; Ramos-Rodrı́guez and
Ruı́z-Navarro 2004). In our results, the overall GC model
had a stress value of .11, while the marketing and in-
ternational business model had a .09 stress value. Thus,
each was determined to have either a highly fair or a good fit
to the data.
To assemble the items in the MDS results into research
groups, spatial distances are required to indicate the strong
interrelationships of key publications (McCain 1986; Scott
2000; Small 1999). A standardized Euclidean distance
of .25 or less was used to establish research groups that
are meaningful and interpretable in both GC research
models (Hair et al. 1998). From this, research groups
and research cliques were identified. In contrast to a two-
item research group, a research clique is an advanced
form of research group that includes three or more
publications in the MDS configurations of this study
(Alba and Moore 1983; Wasserman and Faust 1994).
The identification terms used to note each research
group were determined by a panel of researchers
knowledgeable on GC and were based on the nature of
the cited publications as well as the cited articles in-
cluded in the database. Because there may be connected
as well as unconnected research groups, groups and/or
cliques that have common publications in the intel-
lectual structure and are connected in some fashion in
the MDS results form a research chain. This becomes
particularly noteworthy with three or more research
groups forming research topics covering a broad range
of related themes.
To examine new trends in the domain, recent frequently cited
GC research was evaluated as well. This aspect of the study
pursued the most pertinent trends in the GC literature based
on the data collected. Thus, citation data were tabulated for
articles published in recent years from the information
available starting in 2011. Then, the most influential recent
GC research was determined using the threshold of one ci-
tation per year in our sample for the 2011–2015 period
(Chabowski, Samiee, and Hult 2013). This procedure
resulted in a list of 13 articles emphasizing specific topics of
current relevance in the GC domain. As a result, the evidence
gathered from these sources provides a basis from which to
supplement the organizing framework established.
10 Journal of International Marketing
RESULTS
This study’s findings indicate the differences between the
two distinct levels of GC research under examination:
overall GC publications and GC articles specific to mar-
keting and international business. By presenting these two
aspects of the overall GC literature, we show the funda-
mental, underlying structure resulting from the citation
patterns of published articles that is driving this field
of study in general and shows the specific relevance of the
IM discipline in particular. In this section, we present the
findings for both levels of the GC literature. As a result, this
aspect of the study provides considerable information from
which to base a discussion of future opportunities for GC
research.
Intellectual Structure of GC Publications
As indicated in Figure 1, seven research groups were
identified in the intellectual structure of the most-cited GC
publications. These can be classified as four unconnected,
disparate research groups of two influential publications
each (Groups 1, 3, 4, and 7), one research clique of three
publications (Group 2), and two connected groups of two
publications each (Groups 5 and 6). Taken together, this
configuration provides a view of the most influential books
and articles in GC research.
The emphasis on strategic assets and competitive advan-
tage (Group 1) provides an indication of the first general
orientation of the GC literature at this level. In fact, by
examining the long-term sustainability of establishing a
presence in the market and subsequently defending it,
an emphasis on topics critical to SMEs and MNEs alike
provides insight into the actions firms must take to maintain
competitiveness (Amit and Schoemaker 1993; Dierickx and
Cool 1989). The role of firm resources and dynamic ca-
pabilities (Group 2) continues this approach. As such, this
research topic linking our understanding of the importance
and development of skills and competencies is critical for a
firm to advance its standing across markets in a global
environment (Barney 1991; Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997;
Wernerfelt 1984). Related to this, the role of knowledge,
increasing commitment, and the internationalization pro-
cess (Group 3) in the GC literature’s intellectual structure
shows the continued importance of firm development. In
fact, the iterative process by which a firm’s information
about the market drives internal decisions and processes to
establish particular market decisions is a dynamic approach
for the firm to become more competitive in its international
activities (Johanson and Vahlne 1977, 1990). Going further,
the importance of knowledge, learning, and combinative
 1983), the two groups signify the relevance of research on
Figure 1. Intellectual Structure of GC Publications industry and national competitive advantage (Group 5) as
well as organization and industry competitiveness (Group
6). While one aspect of this research area focuses on the
V18 national conditions that form the competitiveness level of
V10 V8 V15
firms from a specific country (Porter 1990), the other facet
deals with the approaches firms use to survive in circum-
stances of industrial similarity (Meyer and Rowan 1977).
V12
V23 Group 3
V1
Group 2 Intellectual Structure of Marketing and
Group 1 V7
V11 International Business GC Articles
V24
V22 V2 V13
V5
As shown in Figure 2, we identified 11 research groups as
V4
part of the intellectual structure of GC articles specific to
Group 7 V3
V14 V26 marketing and international business. In all, there were four
V19 V16
V21 Group 4 unconnected research groups (Groups 1, 2, 5, and 6), one
Group 5 set of a conjoined research group and clique (Groups 3 and
V20 V6 4), one set of two research groups (Groups 7 and 8), and a
V25
Group 6 V17 research chain of two research groups and a research clique
V9 (Groups 9–11).

The focus on organizational capabilities and international

Notes: Stress value = .11; standardized Euclidean distance £ .25; boldface research
group indicates research clique. V1 = Amit and Schoemaker (1993); V2 = Barney
(1991); V3 = Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989); V4 = Cohen and Levinthal (1990); V5 =
Dierickx and Cool (1989); V6 = DiMaggio and Powell (1983); V7 = Dunning (1988);
V8 = Ghoshal (1987); V9 = Granovetter (1985); V10 = Jaworski and Kohli (1993);
V11 = Johanson and Vahlne (1977); V12 = Johanson and Vahlne (1990); V13 = Kogut
and Singh (1988); V14 = Kogut and Zander (1992); V15 = Levitt (1983); V16 = March
(1991); V17 = Meyer and Rowan (1977); V18 = Narver and Slater (1990); V19 =
Porter (1980); V20 = Porter (1985); V21 = Porter (1990); V22 = Prahalad and Hamel
(1990); V23 = Teece, Pisano, and Shuen (1997); V24 = Wernerfelt (1984); V25 =
Williamson (1975); V26 = Zaheer (1995). Group 1 (V1 and V5): Strategic Assets and
Competitive Advantage; Group 2 (V2, V23, and V24): Firm Resources and Dynamic
Capabilities; Group 3 (V11 and V12): Knowledge, Increasing Commitment, and the
Internationalization Process; Group 4 (V3 and V26): Foreignness and Multinational
Management; Group 5 (V6 and V21): Industry and National Competitive Ad-
vantage; Group 6 (V6 and V17): Organization and Industry Competitiveness; Group 7
(V4 and V14): Knowledge, Learning, and Combinative Capabilities.
capabilities (Group 7) indicates the relevance of these issues
to continued firm growth. More closely, the underlying
tenet of this facet of GC research emphasizes the importance
of innovative activities in sustained competitiveness (Cohen
and Levinthal 1990; Kogut and Zander 1992).
Focusing on general managerial competitiveness as the
other main area of focus in the GC literature, the impor-
tance of foreignness and multinational management (Group
4) provides an indication of this alternative approach. More
specifically, the ability of the firm to overcome the draw-
backs of being considered an outsider is critical in activities
across different markets (Bartlett and Ghoshal 1989;
Zaheer 1995). Anchored by the paradox of innovative and
imitative strategies in an industry (DiMaggio and Powell
new ventures (Group 1) indicates the need for smaller
companies to take on a global focus to become more
competitive. This is presented as prevalent in the focus
specifically on born globals as a type of international or-
ganization that combines innovation and entrepreneur-
ship to establish a position in the marketplace (Knight and
Cavusgil 2004; Oviatt and McDougall 1994). An emphasis
on the development of ties among firms is established with
research related to marketing channel relationships (Group
2). This topic reflects the importance of examining the
alliances that develop between manufacturers and dis-
tributors in their delivery of goods and services to the
global market (Anderson and Narus 1990; Webster 1992).
Centered on research emphasizing the managerial, depart-
mental, and organizational facets of an orientation toward
the market (Jaworski and Kohli 1993), the emergence of
both market orientation and capabilities (Group 3) and
market orientation and profitability (Group 4) highlights
the importance of these relationships in the GC litera-
ture. With these themes, a focus on the antecedents, con-
sequences, and environment of a market orientation, as well
as an emphasis on knowledge and learning leading to ad-
vantage, is pivotal for overall success (Day 1994; Kohli and
Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990). Another topic
critical to GC research relates to international market-
ing strategy, standardization, and performance (Group 5).
Specifically, the relevance of competitive market conditions
such as customer needs and awareness, as well as organi-
zational factors like product development and purchasing
as they relate to standardization and adaptation levels,

A Review of Global Competitiveness Research 11

 and Zou 1994). Anchored by research examining the mar-
Figure 2. Intellectual Structure of Marketing and ket entry mode trade-offs between control and resource
International Business GC Articles commitment costs (Anderson and Gatignon 1986), the two
groups associated with this topic relate to firm knowledge
and foreign entry mode (Group 7) and multinational factors
and foreign entry mode (Group 8). In this portion of the GC
V19 V4 literature’s intellectual structure, a comparison is made
V15
Group 1 V25 between themes related to exporting, licensing, joint ven-
Group 2
ture, and sole venture decisions and the level of tacit
V5
knowledge considered for transfer across national bound-
V21 V24
aries (Agarwal and Ramaswami 1992; Kogut and Zander
V22 V7 1993). A chain of research groups emphasizing inter-
Group 11
V13
V16
national production and the internationalization process
Group 3 V18
Group 10 V14 provides considerable insight as well. Centered on the
V12 Group 4 topic of national culture and international production
V20
(Group 10), two themes extend this subject by focusing on
V9Group 9V10 V6 V8 ownership, location, and internalization in international
Group 6
production (Group 9) and entry mode, culture, and the
V2
V3 V17 internationalization process (Group 11). These issues em-
Group 8 V1 phasize the importance of the eclectic paradigm, na-
V23
Group 7
tional cultural values, knowledge development, and market
Group 5
commitment to measure the ability of a firm to become
V11
more competitive (Dunning 1980, 1988; Johanson and
Vahlne 1977, 1990; Kogut and Singh 1988).

Notes: Stress value = .09; standardized Euclidean distance £ .25; boldface research
group indicates research clique. V1 = Aaby and Slater (1989); V2 = Agarwal and
Ramaswami (1992); V3 = Anderson and Gatignon (1986); V4 = Anderson and Narus
(1990); V5 = Buckley and Ghauri (2004); V6 = Cavusgil and Zou (1994); V7 = Day
(1994); V8 = Day and Wensley (1988); V9 = Dunning (1980); V10 = Dunning (1988);
V11 = Jain (1989); V12 = Jaworski and Kohli (1993); V13 = Johanson and Vahlne
(1977); V14 = Johanson and Vahlne (1990); V15 = Knight and Cavusgil (2004); V16 =
Kogut and Singh (1988); V17 = Kogut and Zander (1993); V18 = Kohli and Jaworski
(1990); V19 = Luo and Tung (2007); V20 = Narver and Slater (1990); V21 = Oviatt
and McDougall (1994); V22 = Rugman and Verbeke (2004); V23 = Samiee and Roth
(1992); V24 = Slater and Narver (1995); V25 = Webster (1992). Group 1 (V15 and
V21): Organizational Capabilities and International New Ventures; Group 2 (V4 and
V25): Marketing Channel Relationships; Group 3 (V7 and V12): Market Orientation
and Capabilities; Group 4 (V12, V18, and V20): Market Orientation and Profitability;
Group 5 (V11 and V23): International Marketing Strategy, Standardization, and
Performance; Group 6 (V1 and V6): Export Marketing Strategy and Performance;
Group 7 (V3 and V17): Firm Knowledge and Foreign Entry Mode; Group 8 (V2
and V3): Multinational Factors and Foreign Entry Mode; Group 9 (V9 and V10):
Ownership, Location, and Internalization in International Production; Group 10
(V10 and V16): National Culture and International Production; Group 11 (V13,
V14, and V16): Entry Mode, Culture, and the Internationalization Process.
shows this topic’s wide-ranging application in this domain
(Jain 1989; Samiee and Roth 1992).
Additionally, focusing on a general theme in the GC lit-
erature emphasizing marketing and international business,
the role of export marketing strategy and performance
(Group 6) provides a starting point to present topics related
to different forms of market entry and expansion. This
subject highlights the relevance of managerial perceptions
and commitment, as well as other internal and external
forces that are influential (Aaby and Slater 1989; Cavusgil
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
In this section, we respond to calls in the literature for more
conceptual development in the field of marketing at large
(MacInnis 2011; Yadav 2010). Basing our approach on the
premise that potential future research is driven by past and
present research (Kuhn 1996), we propose an organizing
framework to provide insights into GC research and ad-
vance the domain based on the findings of this study. We
relate our discussion to the recent IM literature, which is
most relevant to extant research and can provide insight
into immediate trends and possible extensions in the field
(Burrell 2003). As noted in Figure 3 and Table 2, two as-
pects of the framework are discussed and related to
established as well as emergent GC topics. Possible research
related to the relationship between a market-based per-
spective and strategy implementation is presented. Then, the
potential for studies emphasizing the impact of strategy
implementation on performance, within the context of the
ideas introduced, is provided.
GC Framework for Future Research
The proposed organizing framework introduced in Figure
3 is based on the critical aspects of the GC literature
uncovered in this study’s evaluation of the domain’s

12 Journal of International Marketing

Figure 3. A Proposed Organizing Framework for Future GC Research

MARKET-BASED PERSPECTIVE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION

Firm-Related
Offering Development Advantages Performance

Product Satisfaction
Ownership
Loyalty
Promotion Location Market Share

Sales Increase
Distribution Internalization Globalization
Glocalization Profitability
Localization
Price Cost Differen- Focus International
tiation Relationship Value
Internal Focus
Inter- External Strategic Approach
Cust. Compet.
functional
Orient. Orient.Coordination Process
Emphasis
Market Orientation

Notes: Cust. orient. = customer orientation; compet. orient. = competitor orientation.

intellectual structure. In fact, based on the theoretical (e.g., satisfaction, loyalty, market share, sales increase,
perspective of a capabilities–implementation–performance profitability, relationship value) (Asmussen 2009; Bonaglia,
relationship (Morgan, Katsikeas, and Vorhies 2012), we Goldstein, and Mathews 2007; Diamantopoulos et al.
acknowledge the critical role of a market orientation in the 2014; Magnusson et al. 2013; Pehrsson 2012; Talay,
establishment of resources and capabilities to implement
strategy (Hultman, Katsikeas, and Robson 2011; Kemper,
Engelen, and Brettel 2011; Leonidou, Palihawadana, and
Theodosiou 2011). As a part of developing this market- Table 2. Recent Frequently Cited GC Research
based perspective, the role of learning is critical for orga-
nizational advancement and strategy execution (Slater and
Times Cited Per
Narver 1995). Included in this approach is the notion
Article Year
that once implementation has begun, performance can be
measured to derive the chosen strategy’s relative success. Morgan, Katsikeas, and Vorhies (2012) 2.00
Chandra, Styles, and Wilkinson (2012) 1.40
As it concerns GC research, a market-based perspective Sheng, Zhou, and Li (2011) 1.33
that includes offering development (product, promotion,
Rugman, Oh, and Lim (2012) 1.20
distribution, or price), market orientation (customer ori-
entation, competitor orientation, or interfunctional co- Hultman, Katsikeas, and Robson (2011) 1.17
ordination), and a process emphasis (internal or external) Barnes et al. (2015) 1.00
should impact strategy implementation, which consists Boso et al. (2013) 1.00
of firm-related advantages (ownership, location, or in- Jones, Coviello, and Tang (2011) 1.00
ternalization), a strategic approach (cost, differentia-
Kemper, Engelen, and Brettel (2011) 1.00
tion, or focus), and an international focus (localization,
glocalization, or globalization) (Buckley and Ghauri 2004; Leonidou, Palihawadana, and Theodosiou 1.00
Dunning 1980, 1988; Francis and Collins-Dodd 2004; (2011)
Hsu 2011; Leonidou, Palihawadana, and Theodosiou Samaha, Beck, and Palmatier (2014) 1.00
2011; Oladottir et al. 2012; Prime, Subrahmanyam, and Sheth (2011) 1.00
Lin 2012). In turn, the joint impact developed by a specific Teece (2014) 1.00
strategy implementation should influence performance

A Review of Global Competitiveness Research 13

Townsend, and Yeniyurt 2015; Yeniyurt, Cavusgil, and
Hult 2005; Zeriti et al. 2014).
The Influence of a Market-Based Perspective on Strategy
Implementation. The topic of offering development has
been related to strategy implementation. In fact, offering
development issues have been linked to location-related
topics. These themes can cover internal product and pro-
motion development and adaptation as well as external
foreign direct investment decisions based on the relative
economic level of particular markets (Bahadir, Bharadwaj,
and Srivastava 2015; Leonidou et al. 2013; Magnusson
et al. 2013; Wilson and Baack 2012). One fruitful area
of future research could expand on this idea and pursue
the importance of a customer orientation, competitor ori-
entation, or interfunctional coordination in developing
firm-related advantages based on ownership, location, or in-
ternalization. Moreover, the link between the products
offered by firms and their global or nonglobal focus has
been established; related themes include the impact of
multinational firms’ leveraging their product and pro-
motion globalness while implementing strategy (Swoboda
and Hirschmann 2016; Talay, Townsend, and Yeniyurt
2015; Westjohn et al. 2016).
Another potentially productive area of research could ex-
pand on these topics and grow the literature by examining
the effectiveness and scope of cost, differentiation, or focus
strategies. In addition, the importance of both internal and
external emphasis has been proposed to drive not only
strategy but also advantage (Yeniyurt, Cavusgil, and Hult
2005). Research in this area indicates that internal and
external factors, such as knowledge development and learn-
ing, assist in determining the extent of globality and
headquarters locations that can be implemented through
subsidiaries and their positions in international markets
(Hada, Grewal, and Chandrashekaran 2013; Ma, Delios,
and Lau 2013; Najafi-Tavani et al. 2015; Zeriti et al. 2014).
Future studies could explore the influence of internal and
external knowledge and learning, as well as marketplace
conditions, on the decision to embark on a cost, differentia-
tion, or focus strategy. However, related to our results, scant
research has integrated the distinct topics of a market-based
perspective as related to strategy implementation in a com-
prehensive manner. Thus, a new avenue of GC research could
examine the distinct opportunities evident in the proposed
theory-based framework.
For instance, little research has examined the impact of
offering development, market orientation, and process
emphasis on the firm-related advantages that are created to
assist in strategy implementation. Given the premise that
14 Journal of International Marketing
offering development can be standardized or adapted
(Bahadir, Bharadwaj, and Srivastava 2015; Leonidou et al.
2013; Magnusson et al. 2013), how does the risk related to
establishing distribution channels influence the decision to
develop ownership advantages? Noting that there are en-
vironmental and firm-specific conditions to consider (Boso
et al. 2013), does the answer change depending on whether
the process emphasis is internal? Relating to the prospect
that partnerships are becoming more critical to developing
firm-related advantages (Prime, Subrahmanyam, and Lin
2012), does an external process emphasis encourage the
firm to instead engage in more alliances (vs. internally-
focused companies) to develop ownership advantages?
Comparable research possibilities related to customer ori-
entation could be pursued. As previous research has studied
the influences of strategic orientations and the marketplace,
are firms more likely to engage in a focus-strategic approach
with an orientation on the customer and an external process
emphasis (Theodosiou, Kehagias, and Katsikea 2012)? Is
the firm more likely to change to a differentiation- or cost-
based approach with an internal emphasis? Going further,
the level of international focus could also be based on the
market-based perspective of the company. Taking research
in the direction that focuses on implementation differ-
ences according to a firm’s region of origin (Swoboda,
Pennemann, and Taube 2012), when possessing strong
product development and interfunctional coordination,
does an external emphasis lead to a glocalization focus, or
is a customer orientation more critical than interfunctional
coordination to attain this status? Given the notion that a
firm’s brands can have a local or global scope (Guo 2013;
Özsomer 2012), does a lack of interfunctional coordination
inhibit this process and force a firm to decide between lo-
calization in a few key markets or globalization on a much
larger scale? There is limited GC research examining such
comparisons. As Figure 3 indicates in detail, there are
many possibilities for exploring the relationships between
a market-based perspective and strategy implementation
in future GC literature.
The Influence of Strategy Implementation on Performance.
Many comparisons have been made between strategy
implementation and performance vis-à-vis competitors
in the GC literature in a general sense (e.g., Barnett and
McKendrick 2004; Porter 1980, 1985). However, cus-
tomer mindset metrics, such as satisfaction and loyalty, can
provide additional insight concerning competitive standing
because they emphasize the firm’s operational success
(Diamantopoulos et al. 2014; Katsikeas et al. 2016). In
addition, as a common outcome variable in GC research,
performance has been measured with product-market and
accounting metrics such as new product success, market
share, sales increase, margin, and profitability (Chang and
Rhee 2011; Diamantopoulos et al. 2014; Katsikeas et al.
2016; Magnusson et al. 2013; Pehrsson 2012; Talay,
Townsend, and Yeniyurt 2015; Zeriti et al. 2014). On the
basis of the market-based literature, these variables have
been forwarded as critical to measuring competitive ad-
vantage because they indicate operational performance but
also focus on the achievements of the organization as a
whole (Katsikeas et al. 2016). In addition, given recent
developments concerning the relevance of alliances in
global competition (Kemper, Engelen, and Brettel 2011;
Samaha, Beck, and Palmatier 2014; Sheng, Zhou, and Li
2011; Yu, Subramaniam, and Cannella 2013), a measure
such as relationship value (Barnes et al. 2015; Eng 2005;
Skarmeas et al. 2016) could provide additional insight into
performance as well, as it extends beyond the boundaries of
the firm and introduces the notion of the firm as an entity
in a much wider network of organizations (Johanson and
Vahlne 2009).
However, a thorough examination of the influence of
strategy implementation on performance, as indicated in
Figure 3, has not yet been achieved. Thus, future research
focusing on these relationships could lead to an increase in
studies emphasizing competitiveness. For example, if a firm
enacts a focused, localization strategy, which firm-related
advantage adds the most to profitability (Magnusson et al.
2013; Zeriti et al. 2014)? If firm-related and strategic ap-
proach conditions are held constant, does a localization,
glocalization, or globalization focus render the highest
loyalty? Does deciding to locate facilities in a specific
country with a differentiation approach and localization
focus increase the value of channel relationships formed in-
country (Barnes et al. 2015; Skarmeas et al. 2016)? Will the
result hold true with a cost-based approach as well? Similar
examinations in this context could be made in relation
to other performance variables, such as satisfaction and
market share, to provide a deeper understanding of the
comparisons which could be made.
Going further, rather than examining performance as an
amalgamation of different performance categories, GC
researchers should consider explicitly defining their chosen
constructs and providing justification for their use in the
conceptual portions of future studies. In fact, multiple
performance category variables should be applied separately
(Katsikeas et al. 2016). Thus, operational performance
(customer mindset, customer behavior, product-market
performance, and customer-level performance) and or-
ganizational performance (accounting performance and
financial-market performance) measures need to be specified
independently according to their performance category. In
other words, customer mindset variables, such as perceived
quality and satisfaction, should be measured as a different
construct than the product-market performance variables of
revenue premium or new product success. A good example
of this type of implementation can be found in a study
on export segmentation effectiveness and performance
(Diamantopoulos et al. 2014). In it, a customer mindset vari-
able (customer satisfaction) is specified, as are product-market
performance (strategic export performance) and accounting
performance (financial export performance) constructs.
That stated, there are performance categories that have not
been utilized widely in the GC literature: customer behavior
and customer-level performance (Katsikeas et al. 2016).
For instance, comparisons could be made about whether
ownership, location, or internalization advantages, aligned
with a cost approach and localization focus, would con-
tribute most to customer retention or word of mouth. In
addition, the trade-offs between a differentiation or focus-
strategic approach, with ownership advantages and a
globalization focus employed, could be examined con-
cerning their distinct influences on customer-level profit-
ability or customer lifetime value. In short, given the
possibilities of evaluating performance outcomes specifi-
cally in IM, many different opportunities could be pursued
beyond those stated in this study.
Research Contributions
With the perspective that possible opportunities result from
established and current research (Kuhn 1996), this study’s
first contribution relates to a theory-driven organizing
framework that is established to indicate potential future
research directions. The originality of this research structure
is based on the integration of disparate topics studied to date
in the IM literature to provide a shared foundation from
which to draw in continuing studies. Previous as well as
recent research is used to provide potential research themes
for future academics based on the proposed organizing
framework. This study’s second contribution introduces the
market-based perspective as critical to the future develop-
ment of the GC literature. By explaining that a market-
based perspective drives strategy implementation and,
subsequently, performance, the results and future research
directions clearly indicate that IM is a vital aspect of this
tradition. As such, with topics related to exporting, market
orientation, and marketing capabilities unmistakably visi-
ble in the results, these components of GC research provide
the basis upon which to clearly state that IM is imperative
for the firm’s long-term success. Further, when performance
is measured using both operational and organizational
A Review of Global Competitiveness Research 15
metrics, a more complete understanding of SMEs and
MNEs can result.
Managerial Implications
Possible managerial implications of this study relate to
the proposed organizing framework. More specifically, the
configuration of marketing capabilities is critical to the
implementation and performance of a firm’s strategy.
Though the tactics used may be specific to particular regions
or market types, the overall strategy should be market based
and globally competitive. There may be variations in the
development of the marketing mix depending on organi-
zational culture and/or structure, due not only to an internal
or external emphasis but also to whether the structure is
centralized. As a result, strategic decisions and execution are
critical for performance at the firm level. In fact, measuring
performance using more than one metric is important to
understanding the overall health of the firm. Thus, the use of
both operational (customer-specific) and organizational
(accounting and financial) performance criteria provides a
more holistic view upon which to make managerial de-
cisions. In addition, given the interconnected nature of
firms, the value of channel relationships is much more
prevalent. As a result, whether at middle- or upper-
management levels, the consideration that firms operate in a
transactional environment is obsolete. Instead, in global
business conditions with firms competing on the basis of
value network strength, maintaining relationships with
channel partners is of the utmost importance for product
delivery and retaining a lasting international position.
Limitations and Future Opportunities
One potential limitation resides in the types of journals
chosen for inclusion in this study. Though we used a trusted
source of journal rankings as the basis for our analysis
(Harzing 2015), any approach used will be influenced by
the subjectivity of scholars’ perceptions. As a result, such
differences of opinion may result in discussions about which
journals should be considered in a study of the GC litera-
ture’s intellectual structure. However, we attempted to
balance these issues by including journals that were ranked
A or above in the ABDC 2013 category of Harzing (2015).
We chose this ranking because of its scope and with the
intent of being as inclusive as possible, yet still retaining
sufficient rigor in our conclusions.
Another issue relates to the managerial application of the
findings. While the emphasis of this study is primarily on the
advancement of GC theory, our analysis could be height-
ened by the involvement of practitioners in the development
16 Journal of International Marketing
of ideas related to the competitiveness of international firms.
More specifically, with the inclusion of managers to discuss
the findings and the major issues that emerged, a more
practically enhanced analysis and discussion of future re-
search possibilities could result.
In addition, an extension of this work could emphasize the
chronological development of GC research over time. In
fact, it could prove interesting to evaluate the intellectual
structure of the literature across past and recent time pe-
riods. Extensions based on such an evaluation may provide
additional insight into the international environment, new
business concerns, or emergent theoretical viewpoints.
Based on the analysis conducted as a part of this study, two
new perspectives may help explain the GC phenome-
non and assist future research: the opportunity-based view
and international relationship marketing. The opportunity-
based view, introduced specifically in the rapid inter-
nationalization context, refers to the ability of a firm and its
managers to identify and develop opportunities (Chandra,
Styles, and Wilkinson 2012). Related to the notion that
innovative and entrepreneurial activities matched to the
competitive environment are critical to success (Boso et al.
2013; Jones, Coviello, and Tang 2011), one opportunity
leads to more opportunities based on a constant process of
learning and adaptation to new resource and network
conditions. Also, international relationship marketing
has emerged as a theoretical base that can provide research
direction. Given the premise that firms interact to estab-
lish commitment and trust, there is considerable evidence
that developing varied forms of relationships with a mul-
titude of stakeholders is critical for success in an inter-
national marketplace (Barnes et al. 2015; Boso et al. 2013;
Samaha, Beck, and Palmatier 2014; Sheng, Zhou, and Li
2011).
Recent research also has indicated that geographic and
economic conditions have had a role in the GC phenom-
enon as well. For instance, there are studies that have
established that a considerable amount of international
competitiveness is regional in nature and not global
(Rugman, Oh, and Lim 2012). Although it is based on the
analysis of large MNCs from developed economies, the
premise forwarded is that most business activity resides in a
particular area, such as Europe, Asia, or North America.
Another approach contrasts the developed economy per-
spective with one emphasizing the emerging market context
(Sheth 2011). Some studies focus on this type of environ-
ment to extend existing theory (Sheng, Zhou, and Li 2011),
while others emphasize a perspective that compares both
emerging and developed markets (Kemper, Engelen, and
Brettel 2011; Samaha, Beck, and Palmatier 2014). How-
ever, the market heterogeneity, sociopolitical governance
structure, unbranded competition, resource shortage, and
inadequate infrastructure of emerging economies make
for differences in marketing theory, strategy, policy, and
practice that have yet to be fully explored and could provide
fruitful topics to pursue (Sheth 2011).
CONCLUSION
This study examines the GC literature with a bibliometric
approach. By using cocitation analysis, we establish the
intellectual structure of GC research across two levels of
analysis (GC publications and marketing and international
business GC articles) to provide indications of the GC
topic’s applicability to IM. To facilitate the development
of research- and managerial-based contributions, we ad-
vance a theory-based organizing framework to assist in
the development of future GC studies. By clearly linking a
market-based perspective with strategy implementation and
performance, this study takes an important step to advance
the GC literature through theory-based suggestions that
may continue to provide critical insights to the IM field and
indicate the central position that IM should have in the
future development of GC research.
NOTES
1. The exact syntax used is available upon request from
the authors.
2. The first article identified in our search of the Business
Source Complete database was published in 1941.
Because our study examines the GC literature through
2016, this bibliometric examination covers more than
seven decades to establish the details of the domain’s
intellectual structure.
3. The journals identified with GC articles were Academy
of Management Journal, Academy of Management
Learning & Education, Academy of Management
Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, American
Business Review, Australian Journal of Management,
British Journal of Management, Business & Society,
California Management Review, (Columbia) Jour-
nal of World Business, European Journal of Market-
ing, Industrial Marketing Management, International
Business Review, International Journal of Conflict
Management, International Journal of Manage-
ment Reviews, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, International Marketing Review, Journal
of Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research,
Journal of Brand Management, Journal of Business,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Journal
of Business Research, Journal of Consumer Affairs,
Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Forecasting,
Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of
International Marketing, Journal of Macromarketing,
Journal of Management Inquiry, Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Mar-
keting Management, Journal of Marketing Research,
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Journal of
Retailing, Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of
Sport Management, Journal of Strategic Marketing,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Long
Range Planning, Management International Review,
Management Learning, Marketing Letters, Marketing
Science, Public Opinion Quarterly, Public Relations
Review, and Strategic Management Journal.
4. The Web of Science database, published by Thomson
Reuters, a widely applied resource in bibliometrics,
also was used as a part of this research. In a comparison
using identical keywords, there were considerable
similarities between the results obtained from the
Business Source Complete and the Web of Science
databases.
5. Other approaches, such as factor analysis and cluster
analysis, have been used in bibliometric research.
However, MDS has proven more dynamic than factor
analysis and cluster analysis and is particularly im-
portant for the suggestion of future research op-
portunities in the business discipline (Samiee and
Chabowski 2012; Samiee, Chabowski, and Hult
2015).
6. This is another key distinction between MDS, factor
analysis, and cluster analysis. By providing a goodness
of fit measure, we can derive a more precise un-
derstanding of the statistical appropriateness of an
MDS model that is lacking in factor analysis and
cluster analysis.
REFERENCES
Aaby, Nils-Erik, and Stanley F. Slater (1989), “Management In-
fluences on Export Performance: A Review of the Empirical Lit-
erature 1978–88,” International Marketing Review, 6 (4), 7–26.
Agarwal, Sanjeev, and Sridhar N. Ramaswami (1992), “Choice
of Foreign Market Entry Mode: Impact of Ownership,
A Review of Global Competitiveness Research 17
 Location, and Internalization Factors,” Journal of Inter-
national Business Studies, 23 (1), 1–27.
Alba, Richard D., and Gwen Moore (1983), “Elite Social
Circles,” in Applied Network Analysis, R.S. Burt and M.J.
Minor, eds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 245–61.
Alcácer, Juan, John Cantwell, and Lucia Piscitello (2016),
“Internationalization in the Information Age: A New Era for
Places, Firms, and International Business Networks?” Journal
of International Business Studies, 47 (5), 499–512.
Amit, Raphael, and Paul J.H. Schoemaker (1993), “Strategic
Assets and Organizational Rent,” Strategic Management
Journal, 14 (1), 33–46.
Anderson, Erin, and Hubert Gatignon (1986), “Models of For-
eign Entry: A Transaction Cost Analysis and Propositions,”
Journal of International Business Studies, 17 (3), 1–26.
Anderson, James C., and James A. Narus (1990), “A Model of
Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working Partner-
ships,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (1), 42–58.
Asmussen, Christian Geisler (2009), “Local, Regional, or
Global? Quantifying MNE Geographic Scope,” Journal of
International Business Studies, 40 (7), 1192–205.
Bahadir, S. Cem, Sundar G. Bharadwaj, and Rajendra K.
Srivastava (2015), “Marketing Mix and Brand Sales in Global
Markets: Examining the Contingent Role of Country-Market
Characteristics,” Journal of International Business Studies,
46 (5), 596–619.
Barnes, Bradley R., Leonidas C. Leonidou, Noel Y.M. Siu, and
Constantinos Leonidou (2015), “Interpersonal Factors as
Drivers of Quality and Performance in Western–Hong Kong
Interorganizational Business Relationships,” Journal of In-
ternational Marketing, 23 (1), 23–49.
Barney, Jay (1991), “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive
Advantage,” Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120.
Barnett, William P., and David G. McKendrick (2004), “Why
Are Some Organizations More Competitive Than Others?
Evidence from a Changing Global Market,” Administrative
Science Quarterly, 49 (4), 535–71.
Bartlett, Christopher A., and Sumantra Ghoshal (1989), Man-
aging Across Borders: The Transnational Solution. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Bonaglia, Federico, Andrea Goldstein, and John A. Mathews
(2007), “Accelerated Internationalization by Emerging Mar-
kets’ Multinationals: The Case of the White Goods Sector,”
Journal of World Business, 42 (4), 369–83.
Boso, Nathaniel, Vicky M. Story, John W. Cadogan, Milena
Micevski, and Selma Kadić-Maglajlić (2013), “Firm Innova-
18 Journal of International Marketing
tiveness and Export Performance: Environmental, Network-
ing, and Structural Contingencies,” Journal of International
Marketing, 21 (4), 62–87.
Brouthers, Keith D. (2002), “Institutional, Cultural, and
Transaction Cost Influences on Entry Mode Choice and
Performance,” Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (2),
203–21.
Brouthers, Keith D., Lance Eliot Brouthers, and Steve Werner
(1996), “Dunning’s Eclectic Theory and the Smaller Firm: The
Impact of Ownership and Locational Advantages on the
Choice of Entry-Modes in the Computer Software Industry,”
International Business Review, 5 (4), 377–94.
Brouthers, Keith D., Lance Eliot Brouthers, and Steve Werner
(2003), “Transaction Cost-Enhanced Entry Mode Choices
and Firm Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, 24 (12),
1239–48.
Brouthers, Keith D., and George Nakos (2004), “SME Entry
Mode Choice and Performance: A Transaction Cost Per-
spective,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 28 (3),
229–47.
Brouthers, Lance Eliot, Keith D. Brouthers, and Steve Werner
(1999), “Is Dunning’s Eclectic Framework Descriptive or
Normative?” Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (4),
831–44.
Brouthers, Lance Eliot, George Nakos, John Hadjimarcou, and
Keith D. Brouthers (2009), “Key Factors for Successful Ex-
port Performance for Small Firms,” Journal of International
Marketing, 17 (3), 21–38.
Buckley, Peter J., and Pervez N. Ghauri (2004), “Globalisation,
Economic Geography, and the Strategy of the Multinational
Enterprise,” Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (2),
81–98.
Buckley, Peter J., Christopher L. Pass, and Kate Prescott (1988),
“Measures of International Competitiveness: A Critical Sur-
vey,” Journal of Marketing Management, 4 (2), 175–200.
Burrell, Quentin L. (2003), “Predicting Future Citation Be-
havior,” Journal of the Association for Information Science
and Technology, 54 (5), 372–78.
Burt, Ronald S. (1983), “Network Data from Archival Data,” in
Applied Network Analysis, R.S. Burt and M.J. Minor, eds.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 158–74.
Cadogan, John W., Adamantios Diamantopoulos, and Judy A.
Siguaw (2002), “Export Market–Oriented Activities: Their
Antecedents and Performance Consequences,” Journal of
International Business Studies, 33 (3), 615–26.
Cavusgil, S. Tamer, and Erin Cavusgil (2012), “Reflections
on International Marketing: Destructive Regeneration and
 Multinational Firms,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 40 (2), 202–17.
Cavusgil, S. Tamer, and Shaoming Zou (1994), “Marketing
Strategy–Performance Relationship: An Investigation of the
Empirical Link in Export Market Ventures,” Journal of Mar-
keting, 58 (1), 1–21.
Chabowski, Brian R., Saeed Samiee, and G. Tomas M. Hult
(2013), “A Bibliometric Analysis of the Global Branding
Literature and a Research Agenda,” Journal of International
Business Studies, 44 (6), 622–34.
Chandra, Yanto, Chris Styles, and Ian F. Wilkinson (2012), “An
Opportunity-Based View of Rapid Internationalization,”
Journal of International Marketing, 20 (1), 74–102.
Chang, Sea-Jin, and Jay Hyuk Rhee (2011), “Rapid FDI Ex-
pansion and Firm Performance,” Journal of International
Business Studies, 42 (8), 979–94.
Cohen, Wesley M., and Daniel A. Levinthal (1990), “Absorptive
Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation,”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), 128–52.
Cornelius, Barbara, Hans Landström, and Ole Persson (2006),
“Entrepreneurial Studies: The Dynamic Research Front of
Developing Social Science,” Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 30 (3), 375–98.
Davis, Peter S., Ashay B. Desai, and John D. Francis (2000),
“Mode of International Entry: An Isomorphism Perspective,”
Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (2), 239–58.
Day, George S. (1994), “The Capabilities of Market-Driven
Organizations,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (4), 37–52.
Day, George S., and Robin Wensley (1988), “Assessing Ad-
vantage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superi-
ority,” Journal of Marketing, 52 (2), 1–20.
Deshpandé, Rohit, and John U. Farley (1999), “Corporate Culture
and Market Orientation: Comparing Indian and Japanese Firms,”
Journal of International Marketing, 7 (4), 111–27.
Deshpandé, Rohit, John U. Farley, and Douglas Bowman
(2004), “Tigers, Dragons, and Others: Profiling High Per-
formance in Asian Firms,” Journal of International Market-
ing, 12 (3), 5–29.
Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, Amata Ring, Bodo B.
Schlegelmilch, and Eva Doberer (2014), “Drivers of Export
Segmentation Effectiveness and Their Impact on Export
Performance,” Journal of International Marketing, 22 (1),
39–61.
Dierickx, Ingemar, and Karel Cool (1989), “Asset Stock Ac-
cumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage,”
Management Science, 35 (12), 1504–11.
DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell (1983), “The Iron
Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective
Rationality in Organizational Fields,” American Sociological
Review, 48 (2), 147–60.
Dobbs, Richard, Tim Koller, Sree Ramaswamy, Jonathan
Woetzel, James Manyika, Rohit Krishnan, et al. (2015),
Playing to Win: The New Global Competition for Corporate
Profits. New York: McKinsey & Company.
Dunning, John H. (1980), “Toward an Eclectic Theory of In-
ternational Production: Some Empirical Tests,” Journal of
International Business Studies, 11 (1), 9–31.
Dunning, John H. (1988), “The Eclectic Paradigm of International
Production: A Restatement and Some Possible Extensions,”
Journal of International Business Studies, 19 (1), 1–31.
Dunning, John H. (1998), “Location and the Multinational
Enterprise: A Neglected Factor?” Journal of International
Business Studies, 29 (1), 45–66.
Dunning, John H. (2000), “The Eclectic Paradigm as an En-
velope for Economic and Business Theories of MNE Activity,”
International Business Review, 9 (2), 163–90.
Dunning, John H. (2001), “The Eclectic (OLI) Paradigm of
International Production: Past, Present, and Future,” In-
ternational Journal of the Economics of Business, 8 (2),
173–90.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., and Jeffrey A. Martin (2000), “Dy-
namic Capabilities: What Are They?” Strategic Management
Journal, 21 (10/11), 1105–21.
Eng, Teck-Yong (2005), “The Effects of Learning on Re-
lationship Value in a Business Network Context,” Journal of
Business-To-Business Marketing, 12 (4), 67–101.
Ernst & Young (2015), “Megatrends 2015: Making Sense
of a World in Motion,” http://www.ey.com/Publication/
vwLUAssets/ey-megatrends-report-2015/$FILE/ey-mega-
trends-report-2015.pdf (accessed October 24, 2017).
Fang, Eric (Er) and Shaoming Zou (2009), “Antecedents and
Consequences of Marketing Dynamic Capabilities in In-
ternational Joint Ventures,” Journal of International Business
Studies, 40 (5), 742–61.
Ferrell, O.C., Tracy L. Gonzalez-Padron, G. Tomas M. Hult,
and Isabelle Maignan (2010), “From Market Orientation to
Stakeholder Orientation,” Journal of Public Policy & Mar-
keting, 29 (1), 93–96.
Francis, June, and Colleen Collins-Dodd (2004), “Impact of
Export Promotion Programs on Firm Competencies, Strat-
egies, and Performance: The Case of Canadian High-
Technology SMEs,” International Marketing Review, 21 (4/5),
474–95.
A Review of Global Competitiveness Research 19
Galaskiewicz, Joseph, and Stanley Wasserman (1989), “Mi-
metic Processes Within an Interorganizational Field: An
Empirical Test,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 34 (3),
454–79.
Garfield, Eugene (1979), Citation Indexing: Its Theory and
Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gençtürk, Esra F., and Preet S. Aulakh (2007), “Norms- and
Control-Based Governance of International Manufacturer–
Distributor Relational Exchanges,” Journal of International
Marketing, 15 (1), 92–126.
Ghoshal, Sumantra (1987), “Global Strategy: An Organizing
Framework,” Strategic Management Journal, 8 (5), 425–40.
Granovetter, Mark (1985), “Economic Action and Social
Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness,” American Journal
of Sociology, 91 (3), 481–510.
Guo, Xiaoling (2013), “Living in a Global World: Influence of
Consumer Global Orientation on Attitude Toward Global
Brands from Developed Versus Emerging Countries,” Journal
of International Marketing, 21 (1), 1–22.
Hada, Mahima, Rajdeep Grewal, and Murali Chandrashekaran
(2013), “MNC Subsidiary Channel Relationships as Ex-
tended Links: Implications of Global Strategies,” Journal of
International Business Studies, 44 (8), 787–812.
Hair, Joseph F., Jr., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and
William C. Black (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hansen, David J., Rodney Shrader, and Javier Monllor (2011),
“Defragmenting Definitions of Entrepreneurial Oppor-
tunity,” Journal of Small Business Management, 49 (2),
283–304.
Harzing, Anne-Wil (2015), “Journal Quality List,” http://www.
harzing.com/resources/journal-quality-list (accessed January 7,
2016).
Haveman, Heather A. (1993), “Follow the Leader: Mimetic
Isomorphism and Entry into New Markets,” Administrative
Science Quarterly, 38 (4), 593–627.
Heide, Jan B. (1994), “Interorganizational Governance in
Marketing Channels,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (1), 71–85.
Homburg, Christian, Andreas Fürst, and Christina Kuehnl
(2012), “Ensuring International Competitiveness: A Config-
urative Approach to Foreign Marketing Subsidiaries,” Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (2), 290–312.
Homburg, Christian, John P. Workman Jr., and Harley
Krohmer (1999), “Marketing’s Influence Within the Firm,”
Journal of Marketing, 63 (2), 1–17.
20 Journal of International Marketing
Hsu, Yen (2011), “Design Innovation and Marketing Strategy
in Successful Product Competition,” Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, 26 (4), 223–36.
Hughes, Mathew, Silvia L. Martin, Robert E. Morgan, and
Matthew J. Robson (2010), “Realizing Product-Market Ad-
vantage in High-Technology International New Ventures:
The Mediating Role of Ambidextrous Innovation,” Journal of
International Marketing, 18 (4), 1–21.
Hult, G. Tomas M. (2012), “A Focus on International Com-
petitiveness,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
40 (2), 195–201.
Hultman, Magnus, Constantine S. Katsikeas, and Matthew J.
Robson (2011), “Export Promotion Strategy and Perfor-
mance: The Role of International Experience,” Journal of
International Marketing, 19 (4), 17–39.
Hurley, Robert F. and G. Tomas M. Hult (1998), “Innovation,
Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An In-
tegration and Empirical Examination,” Journal of Marketing,
62 (3), 42–54.
Hutzschenreuter, Thomas, Torben Pederson, and Henk W.
Volberda (2007), “The Role of Path Dependency and Man-
agerial Intentionality: A Perspective on International Business
Research,” Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (7),
1055–68.
Jain, Subhash C. (1989), “Standardization of International
Marketing Strategy: Some Research Hypotheses,” Journal of
Marketing, 53 (1), 70–79.
Jaworski, Bernard J., and Ajay K. Kohli (1993), “Market
Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Mar-
keting, 57 (3), 53–70.
Jean, Ruey-Jer “Bryan”, Zhiqiang Wang, Xiande Zhao, and
Rudolf R. Sinkovics (2016), “Drivers and Customer Satis-
faction Outcomes of CSR in Supply Chains in Different In-
stitutional Contexts: A Comparison Between China and
Taiwan,” International Marketing Review, 33 (4), 514–29.
Johanson, Jan, and Jan-Erik Vahlne (1977), “The Inter-
nationalization Process of the Firm: A Model of Knowledge
Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments,”
Journal of International Business Studies, 8 (1), 23–32.
Johanson, Jan, and Jan-Erik Vahlne (1990), “The Mechanism of
Internationalism,” International Marketing Review, 7 (4), 11–24.
Johanson, Jan, and Jan-Erik Vahlne (2009), “The Uppsala In-
ternationalization Process Model Revisited: From Liability
of Foreignness to Liability of Outsidership,” Journal of In-
ternational Business Studies, 40 (9), 1411–31.
Jones, Marian V., Nicole Coviello, and Yee Kwan Tang (2011),
“International Entrepreneurship Research (1989-2009): A
 Domain Ontology and Thematic Analysis,” Journal of
Business Venturing, 26 (6), 632–59.
Kaleka, Anna (2011), “When Exporting Manufacturers Com-
pete on the Basis of Service: Resources and Marketing Ca-
pabilities Driving Service Advantage and Performance,”
Journal of International Marketing, 19 (1), 40–58.
Katsikeas, Constantine S., Neil A. Morgan, Leonidas C.
Leonidou, and G. Tomas M. Hult (2016), “Assessing Per-
formance Outcomes in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing,
80 (2), 1–20.
Kemper, Jan, Andreas Engelen, and Malte Brettel (2011), “How
Top Management’s Social Capital Fosters the Development of
Specialized Marketing Capabilities: A Cross-Cultural Com-
parison,” Journal of International Marketing, 19 (3), 87–112.
Khan, Zaheer, Yong Kyu Lew, and Byung Il Park (2015),
“Institutional Legitimacy and Norms-Based CSR Marketing
Practices,” International Marketing Review, 32 (5), 463–91.
Knight, Gary A., and S. Tamer Cavusgil (2004), “Innovation,
Organizational Capabilities, and the Born-Global Firm,”
Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (2), 124–41.
Kogut, Bruce, and Harbir Singh (1988), “The Effect of National
Culture on the Choice of Entry Mode,” Journal of International
Business Studies, 19 (3), 411–32.
Kogut, Bruce, and Udo Zander (1992), “Knowledge of the Firm,
Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technol-
ogy,” Organization Science, 3 (3), 383–97.
Kogut, Bruce, and Udo Zander (1993), “Knowledge of the Firm
and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Cor-
poration,” Journal of International Business Studies, 24 (4),
625–45.
Kohli, Ajay, and Bernard J. Jaworski (1990), “Market Orien-
tation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial
Implications,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (2), 1–18.
Kruskal, J.B. (1964), “Multidimensional Scaling by Optimizing
Goodness of Fit to a Nonmetric Hypothesis,” Psychometrika,
29 (1), 1–27.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1996), The Structure of Scientific Revolu-
tions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kwon, Yung-Chul, and Michael Y. Hu (2000), “Market Ori-
entation Among Small Korean Exporters,” International
Business Review, 9 (1), 61–75.
Lages, Luis Filipe, Graça Silva, and Chris Styles (2009), “Re-
lationship Capabilities, Quality, and Innovation as De-
terminants of Export Performance,” Journal of International
Marketing, 17 (4), 47–70.
Leonidou, Leonidas C., Constantine S. Katsikeas, Thomas A.
Fotiadis, and Paul Christodoulides (2013), “Antecedents and
Consequences of an Eco-Friendly Export Marketing Strategy:
The Moderating Role of Foreign Public Concern and Com-
petitive Intensity,” Journal of International Marketing, 21 (3),
22–46.
Leonidou, Leonidas C., Dayananda Palihawadana, and Marios
Theodosiou (2011), “National Export-Promotion Programs
as Drivers of Organizational Resources and Capabilities: Ef-
fects on Strategy, Competitive Advantage, and Performance,”
Journal of International Marketing, 19 (2), 1–29.
Luehrman, Timothy A. (1990), “The Exchange Rate Exposure
of a Global Competitor,” Journal of International Business
Studies, 21 (2), 225–42.
Luo, Xueming, David A. Griffith, Sandra S. Liu, and Yi-Zheng
Shi (2004), “The Effects of Customer Relationships and Social
Capital on Firm Performance: A Chinese Business Illustra-
tion,” Journal of International Marketing, 12 (4), 25–45.
Luo, Yadong (1999), “Time-Based Experience and Inter-
national Expansion: The Case of an Emerging Economy,”
Journal of Management Studies, 36 (4), 505–34.
Luo, Yadong, and Mike W. Peng (1999), “Learning to Compete
in a Transition Economy: Experience, Environment, and
Performance,” Journal of International Business Studies,
30 (2), 269–95.
Luo, Yadong, and Rosalie L. Tung (2007), “International Ex-
pansion of Emerging Market Enterprises: A Springboard
Perspective?” Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (4),
481–98.
Ma, Xufei, Andrew Delios, and Chung-Ming Lau (2013),
“Beijing or Shanghai? The Strategic Location Choice of
Large MNEs’ Host-Country Headquarters in China,” Journal
of International Business Studies, 44 (9), 953–61.
MacInnis, Deborah J. (2011), “A Framework for Conceptual
Contributions in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (4),
136–54.
Magnusson, Peter, Stanford A. Westjohn, Alexey V. Semenov,
Arilova A. Randrianasolo, and Srdan Zdravkovic (2013),
“The Role of Cultural Intelligence in Marketing Adaptation
and Export Performance,” Journal of International Market-
ing, 21 (4), 44–61.
McCain, Katherine W. (1986), “Cocited Author Mapping as a
Valid Representation of Intellectual Structure,” Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 37 (3), 111–22.
McCain, Katherine W. (1990), “Mapping Authors in Intellectual
Space: A Technical Overview,” Journal of the American Society
for Information Science, 41 (6), 433–43.
A Review of Global Competitiveness Research 21
McFarland, Richard G., James M. Bloodgood, and Janice M.
Payan (2008), “Supply Chain Contagion,” Journal of Mar-
keting, 72 (2), 63–79.
McManus, John T., Don White, and Neil Botten (2008),
Managing Global Business Strategies: A Twenty-First Century
Perspective. Oxford, UK: Chandos.
Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan (1977), “Institutionalized
Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony,”
American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2), 340–63.
Morgan, Neil A., Anna Kaleka, and Constantine S. Katsikeas
(2004), “Antecedents of Export Venture Performance: A
Theoretical Model and Empirical Assessment,” Journal of
Marketing, 68 (1), 90–108.
Morgan, Neil A., Constantine S. Katsikeas, and Douglas W.
Vorhies (2012), “Export Marketing Strategy Implementation,
Export Marketing Capabilities, and Export Venture Perfor-
mance,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40 (2),
271–89.
Murray, Janet Y., Gerald Yong Gao, and Masaaki Kotabe
(2011), “Market Orientation and Performance of Export
Ventures: The Process Through Marketing Capabilities and
Competitive Advantages,” Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, 39 (2), 252–69.
Najafi-Tavani, Zhaleh, Ghasem Zaefarian, Stephan C.
Henneberg, Peter Naude, Axele Giroud, and Ulf Andersson
(2015), “Subsidiary Knowledge Development in Knowledge-
Intensive Business Services: A Configuration Approach,”
Journal of International Marketing, 23 (4), 22–43.
Narver, John C., and Stanley F. Slater (1990), “The Effect of
a Market Orientation on Business Profitability,” Journal of
Marketing, 54 (4), 20–35.
Oladottir, Asta Dis, Bersant Hobdari, Marina Papanastassiou,
Robert Pearce, and Evis Sinani (2012), “Strategic Complexity
and Global Expansion: An Empirical Study of Newcomer
Multinational Corporations from Small Economies,” Journal
of World Business, 47 (4), 686–95.
Oviatt, Benjamin M., and Patricia Phillips McDougall (1994),
“Toward a Theory of International New Ventures,” Journal
of International Business Studies, 25 (1), 45–64.
Özsomer, Ayşegül (2012), “The Interplay Between Global and Local
Brands: A Closer Look at Perceived Brand Globalness and Local
Iconness,” Journal of International Marketing, 20 (2), 72–95.
Pehrsson, Anders (2012), “Competition Barriers and Strategy
Moderations: Impact on Foreign Subsidiary Performance,”
Global Strategy Journal, 2 (2), 137–52.
Porter, Michael E. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for
Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: The Free Press.
22 Journal of International Marketing
Porter, Michael E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating
and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York: The Free
Press.
Porter, Michael E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Na-
tions. New York: The Free Press.
Prahalad, C.K., and Gary Hamel (1990), “The Core Compe-
tence of the Corporation?” Harvard Business Review, 68 (3),
79–91.
Priem, Richard L., and John E. Butler (2001), “Is the Resource-
Based ‘View’ a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management
Research?” Academy of Management Review, 26 (1), 22–40.
Prime, Penelope B., Vijaya Subrahmanyam, and Miao Lin Chen
(2012), “Competitiveness in India and China: The FDI Puzzle,”
Asia Pacific Business Review, 18 (3), 303–33.
Ramos-Rodrı́guez, Antonio Rafael, and José Ruı́z-Navarro
(2004), “Changes in the Intellectual Structure of Strategic
Management Research: A Bibliometric Study of the Strategic
Management Journal, 1980–2000,” Strategic Management
Journal, 25 (10), 981–1004.
Rao-Nicholson, Rekha, and Zaheer Khan (2017), “Standard-
ization Versus Adaptation of Global Marketing Strategies in
Emerging Market Cross-Border Acquisitions,” International
Marketing Review, 34 (1), 138–58.
Rathert, Nikolas (2016), “Strategies of Legitimation: MNEs
and the Adoption of CSR in Response to Host-Country In-
stitutions,” Journal of International Business Studies, 47 (7),
858–79.
Rindfleisch, Aric, and Jan B. Heide (1997), “Transaction Cost
Analysis: Past, Present, and Future Applications,” Journal of
Marketing, 61 (4), 30–54.
Roquebert, Jaime A., Robert L. Phillips, and Peter A. Westfall
(1996), “Markets vs. Management: What ‘Drives’ Profit-
ability?” Strategic Management Journal, 17 (8), 653–64.
Rugman, Alan M., Chang Hoon Oh, and Dominic S.K. Lim
(2012), “The Regional and Global Competitiveness of Mul-
tinational Firms,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 40 (2), 218–35.
Rugman, Alan M., and Alain Verbeke (2004), “A Perspective on
Regional and Global Strategies of Multinational Enterprises?”
Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (1), 3–18.
Rumelt, Richard P. (2003), “What in the World Is Competitive
Advantage?” working paper no. 2003-105, Anderson School
of Management, University of California, Los Angeles.
Samaha, Stephen A., Joshua T. Beck, and Robert W. Palmatier
(2014), “The Role of Culture in International Relationship
Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (5), 78–98.
Samiee, Saeed, and Brian R. Chabowski (2012), “Knowledge
Structure in International Marketing: A Multi-Method
Bibliometric Analysis,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 40 (2), 364–86.
Samiee, Saeed, Brian R. Chabowski, and G. Tomas M. Hult
(2015), “International Relationship Marketing: Intellectual
Foundations and Avenues for Further Research,” Journal of
International Marketing, 23 (4), 1–21.
Samiee, Saeed, and Kendall Roth (1992), “The Influence of
Global Marketing Standardization on Performance,” Journal
of Marketing, 56 (2), 1–17.
Schildt, Henri A., Shanker A. Zahra, and Antti Sillanpää (2006),
“Scholarly Communities in Entrepreneurship Research: A Co-
Citation Analysis,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
30 (3), 399–415.
Scott, John (2000), Social Network Analysis: A Handbook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Sheng, Shibin, Kevin Zheng Zhou, and Julie Juan Li (2011), “The
Effects of Business and Political Ties on Firm Performance:
Evidence from China,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (1), 1–15.
Sheth, Jagdish N. (2011), “Impact of Emerging Markets on
Marketing: Rethinking Existing Perspectives and Practices,”
Journal of Marketing, 75 (4), 166–82.
Skarmeas, Dionysis, Athina Zeriti, and George Baltas (2016),
“Relationship Value: Drivers and Outcomes in International
Marketing Channels,” Journal of International Marketing,
24 (1), 22–40.
Slater, Stanley F., and John C. Narver (1995), “Market Ori-
entation and the Learning Organization,” Journal of Mar-
keting, 59 (3), 63–74.
Small, Henry (1999), “Visualizing Science by Citation Map-
ping,” Journal of the American Society for Information Sci-
ence, 50 (9), 799–813.
Spyropoulou, Stavroula, Constantine S. Katsikeas, Dionysis
Skarmeas, and Neil A. Morgan (2017), “Strategic Goal Ac-
complishment in Export Ventures: The Role of Capabilities,
Knowledge, and Environment,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, forthcoming, DOI: 10.1007/s11747-017-
0519-8.
Suchman, Mark C. (1995), “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic
and Institutional Approaches,” Academy of Management Re-
view, 20 (3), 571–610.
Swoboda, Bernhard, and Johannes Hirschmann (2016), “Does
Being Perceived as Global Pay Off? An Analysis of Lead-
ing Foreign and Domestic Multinational Corporations in
India, Japan, and the United States,” Journal of International
Marketing, 24 (3), 1–30.
Swoboda, Bernhard, Karin Pennemann, and Markus Taube
(2012), “The Effects of Perceived Brand Globalness and
Perceived Brand Localness in China: Empirical Evidence
on Western, Asian, and Domestic Retailers,” Journal of In-
ternational Marketing, 20 (4), 72–95.
Talay, M. Berk, Janell D. Townsend, and Sengun Yeniyurt
(2015), “Global Brand Architecture Position and Market-
Based Performance: The Moderating Role of Culture,”
Journal of International Marketing, 23 (2), 55–72.
Teece, David J. (2007), “Explicating Dynamic Capabilities:
The Nature and Microfoundations of (Sustainable) Enter-
prise Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, 28 (13),
1319–50.
Teece, David J. (2014), “The Foundations of Enterprise Perfor-
mance: Dynamic and Ordinary Capabilities in an (Economic)
Theory of Firms?” Academy of Management Perspectives,
28 (4), 328–52.
Teece, David J., Gary Pisano, and Amy Shuen (1997), “Dynamic
Capabilities and Strategic Management,” Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 18 (7), 509–33.
Theodosiou, Marios, John Kehagias, and Evangelia Katsikea
(2012), “Strategic Orientations, Marketing Capabilities, and
Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation in the Context
of Frontline Managers in Service Organizations,” Industrial
Marketing Management, 41 (7), 1058–70.
Tsai, Wenpin, and Wu Chia-hung (2010), “Knowledge Com-
bination: A Cocitation Analysis,” Academy of Management
Journal, 53 (3), 441–50.
Venkatraman, N., and John E. Prescott (1990), “Environment-
Strategy Coalignment: An Empirical Test of Its Performance
Implications?” Strategic Management Journal, 11 (1), 1–23.
Verhoef, Peter C., and Peter S.H. Leeflang (2009), “Under-
standing the Marketing Department’s Influence Within the
Firm,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (2), 14–37.
Wagstyl, Stefan (2011), “Global Competition Drives Change,”
Financial Times (October 10), https://www.ft.com/content/
7df0e59c-f31b-11e0-8383-00144feab49a.
Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust (1994), Social Net-
work Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Webster, Frederick E., Jr. (1992), “The Changing Role of Mar-
keting in the Corporation,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (4), 1–17.
Wernerfelt, Birger (1984), “A Resource-Based View of the
Firm,” Strategic Management Journal, 5 (2), 171–80.
Westjohn, Stanford A., Mark J. Arnold, Peter Magnusson, and
Kristy Reynolds (2016), “The Influence of Regulatory Focus
A Review of Global Competitiveness Research 23
 on Global Consumption Orientation and Preference for
Global Versus Local Consumer Culture Positioning,” Journal
of International Marketing, 24 (2), 22–39.
Williamson, Oliver E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis
and Antitrust Implications. New York: The Free Press.
Williamson, Oliver E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of
Capitalism. New York: The Free Press.
Wilson, Rick T., and Daniel W. Baack (2012), “Attracting
Foreign Direct Investment: Applying Dunning’s Location
Advantages Framework to FDI Advertising,” Journal of In-
ternational Marketing, 20 (2), 96–115.
World Trade Organization (2016), “World Trade Report 2016:
Levelling the Trading Field for SMEs,” https://www.wto.org/
english/res_e/booksp_e/world_trade_report16_e.pdf.
Yadav, Manjit S. (2010), “The Decline of Conceptual Articles
and Implications for Knowledge Development,” Journal of
Marketing, 74 (1), 1–19.
Yalcinkaya, Goksel, Roger J. Calantone, and David A. Griffith
(2007), “An Examination of Exploration and Exploitation
Capabilities: Implications for Product Innovation and Mar-
ket Performance,” Journal of International Marketing, 15 (4),
63–93.
Yeniyurt, Sengun, S. Tamer Cavusgil, and G. Tomas M. Hult
(2005), “A Global Market Advantage Framework: The Role
24 Journal of International Marketing
of Global Market Knowledge Competencies,” International
Business Review, 14 (1), 1–19.
Young, Susan L., and Mona V. Makhija (2014), “Firms’ Corporate
Social Responsibility Behavior: An Integration of Institutional
and Profit Maximization Approaches,” Journal of International
Business Studies, 45 (6), 670–98.
Yu, Tieying, Mohan Subramaniam, and Albert A. Cannella Jr.
(2013), “Competing Globally, Allying Locally: Alliances
Between Global Rivals and Host-Country Factors,” Journal
of International Business Studies, 44 (2), 117–37.
Zaheer, Srilata (1995), “Overcoming the Liability of Foreign-
ness,” Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2), 341–63.
Zeriti, Athina, Matthew J. Robson, Stavroula Spyropoulou,
and Constantinos N. Leonidou (2014), “Sustainable Export
Marketing Strategy Fit and Performance,” Journal of In-
ternational Marketing, 22 (4), 44–66.
Zou, Shaoming, and S. Tamer Cavusgil (2002), “The GMS: A
Broad Conceptualization of Global Marketing Strategy and its
Effects on Firm Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (4),
40–56.
Zou, Shaoming, Eric Fang, and Shuming Zhao (2003), “The
Effect of Export Marketing Capabilities on Export Perfor-
mance: An Investigation of Chinese Exporters,” Journal of
International Marketing, 11 (4), 32–55.
 Copyright of Journal of International Marketing is the property of American Marketing
Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats