We accept

Role of possession advantage in theory of MNE

Consider this: you are the CEO of a firm and are thinking of taking your business overseas. At what level should you examine the situation to ascertain your firm's moves? According to the macro-level theory of overseas direct investment (FDI), business in capital-intensive countries will invest in capital-poor, but labour-intensive countries to be able to maximise income. Hymer (1960) criticised this theory to be too basic, as it generally does not take into account the anomalies that happen to be associated with a bird's eye view of a situation; details cannot be seen and are thus not accounted for. Inspired by Ronald Coase, Hymer offered an alternative: a micro-level theory, which was firm-specific, rather than country-specific. Dunning (1993) extended on this ground-breaking approach, presenting his controversial eclectic paradigm, which emphasised the importance of an firm's ownership advantages. This essay will focus on the continual development and emergence of concepts, observing that each new theory, whether regarded as a replacement or a noticable difference, is influenced by its predecessor in understanding and predicting the nature and success of the multinational organization (MNE).

This newspaper is split into two parts, with the first section briefly determining the macro-level theory of FDI and Hymer's micro-level theory of the MNE, as reported by Caves (1999), Dunning & Rugman (1985), Pearce (2005), and Yamin (2000). This can be followed by an explanation as to the reasons it was generally decided that the first theory was to be replaced by the next.

The second part of this essay will look at criticisms of Hymer, such as Yamin (2000), Dunning & Rugman (1985), and Cantwell (2000), and will quickly compare his use Coase's Nature of the Firm (1937). Cantwell (2000), Caves (1999), and Dunning (1993) will discuss the scope to which Dunning's eclectic paradigm can be accepted as another generation of financial theory, as it features the macro-level theory, Coase and Hymer into its platform.

The essay will conclude that possession advantages arising from transactional, alternatively than structural market failures are today regarded as more important in determining the role of the MNE. However, due to the unpredictable characteristics of the world's changing economies, we will be developing and increasing upon theories, recommending that the role of the MNE might not exactly remain centered on ownership advantages permanently.

The Birth of a Phoenix

"Hymer is the pioneer of the economic theory of the multinational company"

The traditional classical macroeconomic theory of FDI hypothesises that the pace of profit has a tendency to drop in industrialised countries, often anticipated to home competition, which creates the propensity for firms to engage in FDI in underdeveloped countries. The neo-classical procedure states that, because of the scarcity of and relatively high charge of labour in affluent countries, they tend to transfer production facilities to poorer, labour-intensive countries. In both situations, capital moves from capital-intensive countries to capital-poor countries, as firms make an effort to increase overall profits.

In 1960, Hymer unveiled a microeconomic theory of the organization, focusing on international production rather than trade, which Dunning & Rugman (1985) point out to be Hymer's great understanding. It considered the key requirements for a person firm in confirmed industry to invest overseas and thus become an MNE, including tradable possession advantages and the removal of competition. The thesis drew affect from Coase's Mother nature of the Firm (1937), which examined the firm in relation to international activities, and discussing the effective allocation of investments to dispersed locations.

Like the phoenix which goes up from the ashes from its predecessor, the micro-level theory of the MNE was regarded essential to replace the seemingly redundant macro-level theory of FDI, because of its flaws. Hymer observed four discrepancies : (1) the older theory advised that move of capital was one directional, from developed to underdeveloped countries, whereas in reality, in the post-war years, FDI was two-way between developed countries; (2) a country was supposed to either take part in outward FDI or receive inward FDI only. Hymer detected that MNEs, in fact changed in both directions across national boundaries in industrialised countries, signifying countries all together received inward and engaged in outward FDI; (3) the level of outward FDI was found to alter between industries, meaning that if capital availableness was the drivers of FDI, then there must be no deviation, as all sectors would be evenly able and determined to invest in foreign countries; (4) as overseas subsidiaries were financed locally, it didn't fit that capital relocated from one country to another.

These points suggest that the neo-classical capital-arbitrage theory was insufficient in detailing the moves and factors behind MNEs; there seemed to be another element traveling firms abroad. Indeed, traditional the macro-level theory was predicated on the idea of a correctly competitive market, where in fact the upsurge in demand and subsequent super-normal revenue gained in an industry in a single country would cause revenue to eventually drop with the flooding of the market with new entrants. When a foreign firm got into the market, the extra costs of being international would drive them out of business when prices lowered, meaning that they can have to have something which offset the cons of being overseas.

Hymer argued that MNEs can only just exist within an imperfect market, where firms have non-financial possession advantages vis a vis other firms in the same industry, and therefore the driver for the MNE lies with the average person firms, as opposed to the country's capital availableness. Another consequence of structural market failure is removing conflict between companies within confirmed industry. Hymer discusses the type of the "market electric power" approach of businesses and their "oligopolistic" interdependence, as they concentrate on the domination of the marketplace, the bringing up of entry obstacles and the removal of conflict, all by collusive agreements. Businesses, in theory then invest abroad in order to dominate more markets, raise earnings and create more conflict-removing oligopolies. Hymer also suggests that only the major of companies, such as those within an oligopoly, could sufficiently offset the expenses of being foreign with the strong possession advantages.

Hymer vs. The Eclectic Paradigm

"The idea of MNE activity stands at the intersection between a

macro-economic theory of international trade and a

micro-economic theory of the organization. "

Although Hymer was considered the "pioneer" of the economic theory on the multinational business, criticisms have been made, casting a shadow of doubt on his observations. Dunning & Rugman (1985) explain that Hymer centers too much on the market-power procedure and everything but completely ignores Coase's deal costs. Cognitive market failures require transaction-specific possessions to minimise these costs, but Hymer only includes tradable, Bain-type advantages, such as scale economies and technologies. Yamin (2000) and Cantwell (2000) lengthen this argument, proclaiming that Hymer discusses the idea behind why and how firms invest in foreign countries, but that he does not focus on how a firm operates successfully in other countries, including its use of advantages.

Yamin observes that Hymer assumes firms to be simply reacting to structural market failures, whereas organizations are in fact proactive in their use of advantages. Rather than actively employing and developing possessions, and thus improving their inner efficiency, the Hymer presses that firms' main goal be to get profits through growth. For example, Yamin concludes that oligopolies be successful through their size rather than having an ownership advantages, as the purpose of oligopolies is to remove conflict, whereas possessions increase competition and encourage development. He suggests that Hymer's theory is incorrect, as the economist thought that the goal of ownership advantages was to reduce competition via the creation of oligopolies. Furthermore, today it is no more only oligopolist companies which may invest abroad, which suggests that the range (or market power)-as-endgame strategy is needless and that possession advantages are key to the creation of successful MNEs.

Hymer's theory is thus more like the macro-level theory of FDI than on first glace, as both emphasise capital and extension. In addition, Yamin identifies a few of Hymer's ownership possessions as actually location advantages, as mentioned by Dunning below, like the inclination of American workforce to opt to benefit American companies, over foreign ones. Therefore again that Hymer, albeit inadvertently, includes components of the macro-level theory of FDI into his own theory of the organization. When the microeconomic theory requires elements of the macro-level theory, this suggests that both ideas are relevant, as you looking at the firm and the other considering the context, meaning that each is incomplete if taken in isolation.

From these observations, Cantwell postulates the need for a theory which focuses more on "a longer-term reorientation of MNCs away from income associated with market vitality and towards profits through invention", and the one that encompasses components of both macro- and microeconomic theories.

Dunning's eclectic paradigm (1977), referred to by Kindelberger (1984) as the "University or college of Reading" school of thought, will just this, although it is less a theory than a general construction of analyses to be examined from various perspectives in order to understand the activities of foreign managed creation. Unlike Hymer's normative theory of the MNE, the eclectic paradigm evaluates the condition of existing MNEs, or in Dunning's words, the paradigm clarifies "'what is', rather than 'what should be'". The eclectic construction revolves around exploiting property, categorised as possession, location and internalisation advantages, which encompass components of both the macroeconomic theory of FDI and the microeconomic theory of the MNE.

With relation to macroeconomic theory, Dunning discusses country-specific resources, or location advantages, such as labour costs, societal infrastructure, and governmental control. He combines this with an growth of Hymer's ownership advantages, which he differentiates from location advantages through their range of motion, offering comprehensive ways for what sort of company may effectively co-ordinate its assets in several countries. It is as though Dunning has considered Hymer's work one step further and made ownership advantages the most important facet of his framework. Not just that, the paradigm revolves around competition and creativity, rather than the collusion of Hymer's oligopolies, predicated on the assumption a firm's success abroad is based not only on its possession of a secured asset, but about how with the ability to co-ordinate it to get a competitive edge over indigenous firms

Unlike Hymer, Dunning includes Coase's exploration of purchase costs, as the set of resources and their romantic relationship to the organization and location advantages is in a way that he break up them into two interdependent categories: possession of possessions (Oa) and the ones advantages that happen to be specifically made to reduce transfer costs (Ot). Oa include tangible and intangible possessions, such as technologies and skill pieces, while Ot includes factors which are generally intangible, like the ability to talk effectively with others within and between companies. Oa and Ot are blended in MNE activities, becoming "collective" possessions and therefore making many ownership advantages nigh on impossible to market, because they are closely linked with the infrastructure and culture of the firm. This is contrary to Hymer's assumption that belongings are tradable.

Dunning also considers another factor up to now overlooked by his predecessors: time. He observes that ownership advantages are not static creatures which firms invest overseas to improve upon them. Caves (1999) also notes that property can deteriorate, which can cause businesses to divest.

With these additions to the microeconomic theory of the MNE, Dunning combines Coase and Hymer's discussions with internalisation theory, where he strains that possession advantages need to be safeguarded and developed within a firm, somewhat than sold or licensed, as recommended by Hymer. Choosing to internalise value-adding activities is an exemplory case of transactional market inability, whereas ownership advantages rely on structural market inability. Transactional market failures range from the risk of potential dishonesty and misunderstanding of foreign markets, meaning that the transaction-specific advantage (Ot) like the ability to communicate effectively with other ethnicities, maybe better than relying on an outside source to do the work. Cantwell adds to the benefits associated with internalisation, posing the possibility of economies of scope from the higher co-ordination of activities.

Caves argues that "the proprietary investments that drive foreign investment in some business services seem to be to be highly transaction-specific". This suggests that today the idea of MNEs revolving around general ownership advantages has evolved from Hymer's Bain-type ownership advantages into assets which specifically give attention to transaction-cost economies. Again, it appears that another economical theory, Dunning's eclectic paradigm, has risen from the ashes of another, building after the data gained by its predecessor. Indeed, the macro-level theory of FDI and Hymer's micro-level theory of the MNE do not account for irrational and unstable human behaviour and seem to expect that information is cost free and flawlessly symmetrical. Dunning and Coase, however, are aware of transactional failures such as asymmetric information, opportunism, impactedness, and moral risk.

As with all ideas, Dunning's has been criticised by Horaguchi & Toyne (1990) for not being original, as Hymer had already considered the mentioned quarrels. Alternatively, none of them of the other scholars seem to be to acknowledge, arguing that Hymer's conclusions about MNEs are incomplete, whereas the paradigm fills in the gaps.

The next thing is always to consider where direction the idea of the MNE will develop, given that it has developed from externalised to internalised resources. Cantwell says that Dunning's modified paradigm (1995) talks about "alliance capitalism", where companies 'revert' back to a Hymer-type situation of creating alliances to safeguard and develop possession advantages, alternatively than for market vitality. This suggests a sort of 'joint-internalisation' venture, but whether financial theory will move towards this inclination or another remains unclear.


There can only be one phoenix, but it is probably inextricably associated with previous phoenixes, as it attains life only from their ashes. Thus an economic theory increases from the fatality of its predecessors, but either intentionally or inadvertently absorbs a few of their information into its own. The macro-level theory of FDI emphasised capital-arbitrage, but was criticised as it only functioned in perfect market segments and incorrectly expected flows of FDI. In its place Hymer drew from Coase along with his micro-level theory of the MNE, which centered on a firm's potential international moves through its resources and ability to remove issue. His work was seen as fully replacing the prior theory, but it's been shown that the economist included macroeconomic factors into his explanation of ownership advantages.

Evolving out of Hymer's work, Dunning's eclectic paradigm re-orientated the theory towards ownership advantages as a competitive aspect, alternatively than one for the removal of conflict. The platform included both macroeconomic location advantages and microeconomic possession advantages, as its loose analytical construction allowed it to do so, demonstrating their interdependence that they are imperfect if used isolation. Dunning's paradigm also included Coase's transfer costs, taking into account the irrational and possibly dishonest character of humans, concluding that internalisation and transaction-specific ownership advantages are a key factor to successful MNEs. However, it's been realised that the eclectic paradigm is not impervious to improve, as the modified version considers the alliance of companies while keeping competition. This implies that current conclusions about the importance of ownership advantages to explaining the MNE will progress into something else.

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
Check the price
for your assignment