University of York

The York Management School

Working Paper No. 54
ISSN Number: 1743-4041
March 2010

Using history to help refine international

business theory: ownership advantages
and the eclectic paradigm

by Teresa da Silva Lopes

Professor of International Business and Business History
Director of the Centre for Evolution of Global Business and Institutions
(CEGBI)

This paper is circulated for discussion purposes only and its contents should be
considered preliminary and use of any of its contents prohibited.

1
 Using History to Help Refine International Business Theory:
Ownership Advantages and the Eclectic Paradigm

Abstract

In John Dunnings eclectic paradigm firms need to have ownership, location, and

internalisation advantages in order to cross borders and engage in foreign direct

investment. By drawing on historical evidence on the evolution of a group of leading

marketing-based multinationals in consumer goods, this paper claims that, despite its

richness, the eclectic paradigm, and in particular the concept of ownership

advantages, needs to be revised and extended, to take into account different levels of

institutional analysis. For the eclectic paradigm to give a rounded view of the

internationalising firm it needs to acknowledge the critical importance of firm-specific

ownership advantages such as the role of the entrepreneur.

Key words: Dunnings eclectic paradigm, asset ownership advantages, internalisation

theory, business history, entrepreneur, multinational enterprise.

2
1. Introduction

John Dunnings eclectic paradigm, which considers that firms need to have
ownership, location, and internalisation advantages (OLI) in order to cross borders
and engage in foreign direct investment, is widely acknowledged as a key tool in the
research and teaching of international business (Rugman, 2009; Verbeke, 2009). The
paradigm is an all-encompassing framework which takes into account different and
often competing theories, such as transaction costs economics and the resource-based
view of the firm, and provides an overall analytical framework of empirical
investigation. Hence Dunning called it an envelope for economic and business
theories of the multinational activity (Dunning, 1998).
When theories or frameworks such as the eclectic paradigm become well
established, a critical literature usually emerges challenging, confirming and
extending those theories. Raymond Vernons product life-cycle theory and Michael
Porters diamond that explain countries national competitiveness are examples of
such frameworks and theories that have now become of widespread use, helping
systematize and explain international business phenomena. Both of these have already
been subject to criticism and extensions (Vernon, 1974; Porter, 1990, Kogut, 1984,
Rugman and Verbeke, 1993).
In the same vein, the eclectic paradigm has also been challenged (Casson, 1986;
Itaki, 1991; Cantwell and Narula, 2003; Rugman and Collinson, 2006). Dunning
himself acknowledged some of the limitations of his framework and incorporated
several extensions and changes over time (Dunning, 1987, 1988, 1998). In keeping
with the tradition of constructively critical work, this paper aims to show that the
paradigm fails to reflect a sufficiently rounded view of the firm. Some of the variables
Dunning classified as ownership advantages require reclassification, and a new
typology of ownership advantages which clearly distinguishes different levels of
institutional analysis can provide a fuller account of the internationalising firm. This
paper argues that the eclectic paradigm, although currently very useful in the analysis
of industries and countries foreign direct investment strategies (Dunning and Narula,
1996), needs to pay more attention to firm-specific ownership advantages, and in
particular to the role of the entrepreneur.
Firms are established to help entrepreneurs implement ideas. The multinational
enterprise is a special case of a firm whose boundaries have crossed borders, adding

3
value in different parts of the world. Ownership advantages may be interpreted as a
measure of the net wealth accruing from past entrepreneurial activity, a thus they have
a dynamic role in Dunnings eclectic paradigm (Casson, 1986). The concept of
entrepreneur used here is a stretched one (Lopes and Casson, 2007). The entrepreneur
is someone who specialises in taking judgemental decisions about the coordination of
scarce resources with an economic aim and under conditions of uncertainty. This
means that the entrepreneur is not necessarily a capitalist or an inventor, but instead is
someone who has the capacity to synthesize information from diverse sources, is not
afraid to take ,risks and gets things done (Schumpeter, 1947; Casson, 1982). The
stretched concept of entrepreneur allows us to consider innovative management,
developed over a period of time within an industry and often by the same firm. While
researchers such as Schumpeter tend to associate the role of the entrepreneur with
invention and innovation in technology-based industries, the industries analysed here
are marketing-based, suggesting that innovation may encompass other activities, in
particular, as the cases discussed here indicate, relating to the globalisation of
marketing and brands.
Very few international business scholars have so far acknowledged and used the
entrepreneur in their theory formulation. This can be explained by the fact that they
tend to differ widely in their choice of unit of analysis, and also by the difficulties that
exist in quantifying entrepreneurial behaviour, as it refers to initiatives such as: the
ability to identify profit opportunities, the capacity to judge them, and the tactical
awareness to exploit these opportunities properly. The group of international business
scholars that look at the manager of the multinational enterprise as an entrepreneur is
relatively limited. They include Bartlett and Ghoshal, and Birkinshaw, who analyse
the decision taking processes of managers of headquarters and subsidiaries within
inter-organizational networks (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989; Birkinshaw, 1997).
This essay takes an historical view. There have been recent attempts by
international business and business history scholars to promote business history more
within international business research (Jones and Khanna, 2006; Buckley, 2009).
Business history is an area of academic enquiry which is mainly concerned with the
study of the growth and development of business as an institution (Wilkins, 1988).
While it is common for business historians to use concepts from international business
theory to help them create generalisations, put forward propositions and hypotheses,
and resolve different issues separately, there exist, however, many fewer cases of

4
international business scholars drawing on business history research. Dunning,
Casson, Hennart, and Vernon, are some of the exceptions (Dunning, 1998; Casson,
1986; Hennart, 1986; Vernon, 1966). They often cite the work of business historians
such as Chandler, Wilkins and Jones. As the work by these international business
scholars shows, business historians can bring valuable insight to international
business theory. The very rich evidence they generate permits international business
researchers to test models rigorously. More importantly, perhaps, the longue dure of
business historical work allows international business researchers to analyse the
dynamic and evolving nature of firms and to test the staying power of theories over
long periods of time. They can also take into account the complexity of the
environment, and monitor, for example, the failure as well as success of firms.
The article draws on the evolution of a group of leading multinationals in the
foods, drinks and cosmetics industries ranking among the worlds largest industrials
(Fortune 1000, 2009). They include Pernod-Ricard (a leading alcoholic drinks
multinational), Nestl (a leading food producer), LOral (a leading cosmetics
company), and Unilever (an Anglo-Dutch diversified multinational with strong focus
on foods and toiletries). The period of analysis starts in the 1960s and goes to the
present day. This period is of great relevance in the development of multinational
business. It is characterised by fast globalization, liberalization of markets, and the
emergence of revolutionary innovations in communications and distribution systems
(Pollard, 1997). It is also a period when firms in the sectors analysed went through
large merger waves. The information presented here is essentially qualitative, and
gives a brief overview of the types of entrepreneurs that took internationalization
decisions which led to mergers and acquisitions over time. The evidence provided
draws on multiple primary sources of information such as companies archives and
other public documents such as merger reports and consultants reports, and also on
interviews with managers. It also uses secondary sources such as companies
biographies, industry magazines, and British and foreign newspaper articles.
This paper is organised in four parts. Section two provides a brief overview of the
eclectic paradigm and its OLI typology. A special emphasis is given to ownership
advantages (O) as a necessary condition for sustained profitability and growth. A
discussion about the limitations of the current typology of ownership advantages is
followed by a proposal of a new typology of ownership advantages. Section three
offers the historical evidence which forms the basis for the proposed new typology for

5
Dunnings ownership advantages which are general ownership advantages, firm-
specific ownership advantages, and product-specific ownership advantages. Finally
section four acknowledges the continuing importance of Dunings eclectic paradigm
and the benefits that exist in extending and reclassifying his types of ownership
advantages. The use of different levels of institutional analysis highlights the
importance of firm-specific ownership advantages, such as the role of the
entrepreneur, and also provides a fuller account of the development of the
internationalizing firm over time.

2. Reclassifying Dunnings Asset Ownership Advantages

The eclectic paradigm of international production, first developed by Dunning in

1977, identifies and evaluates the significance of factors that influence the level and
structure of a firms value adding activities in foreign markets. This paradigm
considers that the extent, form and pattern of international production is determined
by three sets of advantages as perceived by internationalising enterprises - ownership
advantages, location advantages and internalisation advantages (Dunning, 1977, 1980,
1981, 1988). The ownership advantages (O), which are the focus of this study,
provide the initial framework for analysing the expansion of a firm in international
markets. They are essentially concerned with the production activity, nature and
nationality of the ownership of the investing firm, and are a necessary condition for
sustained profitability and growth. Location advantages (L) relate to the where of
production. They deal with host country factors such as natural resources, market size,
labour force, government behaviour, and other environmental factors. Finally, the
internalisation advantages (I) which draw on Buckley and Cassons (1976)
internalisation theory, refer to the alternative ways in which the firm may organize the
creation and exploitation of its core competencies, and take advantage of location
attractions in different countries and regions. Internalization advantages reflect the
greater organizational efficiency of hierarchies or their ability to exercise monopoly
power over the assets under their governance (Buckley and Casson 1976, Rugman,
1981). The eclectic paradigm further considers a contextual variable which provides
the precise configuration of the OLI parameters facing a particular firm (Dunning,
1977, 1980, 1998).

6
In the 1980s Dunning explored the concept of ownership advantages further, and
added that the most successful multinationals are those that are best able to nurture
and exploit both asset ownership advantages (Oa) and transactional ownership
advantages (Ot) (Dunning, 1981, Dunning and Rugman, 1985). In 2008 a new
category of institutional assets advantages (Oi) was introduced (Dunning and
Lundan, 2008). Asset ownership advantages (Oa) reflect Bain and Hymer type
advantages and refer to structural imperfections and monopolistic benefits which
enhance the power of the multinational enterprise (Bain, 1956; Hymer, 1960, 1968).
They include the possession of superior technology, scale economies, product
differentiation, distribution networks, and privileged access to financial capital. These
increase market power by closing markets to market imperfections.
Transaction ownership advantages (Ot) relate to the capacity of the
multinational enterprise to capture the transactional benefits and minimize transaction
costs. They result in efficiency benefits and include the advantages of common
governance (of organising Oa with complementary assets), the ability to coordinate
multiple and geographically dispersed value added activities, and the capacity to
capture gains associated with diversification. They are a result of the size, product
diversity and learning experience of the firm, and also of its exclusive access to inputs
in the host country, to information and to product markets. Finally, Institutional
assets advantages (Oi) refer to the codes of conduct, norms and corporate culture,
incentive systems and appraisal, and leadership within the firm.
This typology of ownership advantages has nonetheless some limitations.
Several of the variables currently under transaction ownership advantages (Ot) relate
in fact to location advantages and internalisation advantages. It is therefore suggested
that those variables currently classified as Ot such as exclusive access by the
multinational enterprise to inputs, information and product markets in the host
country, should be reclassified as location advantages (L). Other variables currently
under Ot such as operational flexibility, better information about international markets
and the ability to take advantage of differences in factor endowments, should be
reclassified into internalisation advantages (I). Only the variables currently under
asset ownership advantages (Oa) and institutional asset advantages (Oi) translate
into genuine ownership advantages as they are specific to the country of origin and
industry, the firm or the product/service.

7
 The historical evidence on the development of multinationals presented in section
three serves as the basis for a new typology of ownership advantages. The proposed
new categories for Dunnings ownership advantages (O) are: general ownership
advantages (Og), firm-specific ownership advantages (Of), and product-specific
ownership advantages (Op). General ownership advantages (Og) are specific to the
country or industry in which the firm operates. They include variables such as the
cultural, legal and institutional environment, labour and natural resources, and capital
markets.
Firm- specific ownership advantages (Of) refer to the Chandlerian type advantages
which are generic across products. The doyen of business historians, Alfred Chandler,
in his research on the largest US industrial firms, and subsequently in his work on the
largest British and German firms, highlighted the importance of resources such as the
professionalization of management, the capacity of firms to implement effective
management succession systems; and the willingness of the management of firms to
recruit top professionals (Chandler, 1962, 1977 and 1990). Other important firm-
specific ownership advantages, of relevance in marketing-based global industries, are
the presence of accumulated marketing knowledge within firms, the capacity to trade
knowledge and other types of intellectual property, and the possession of distribution
networks. Marketing knowledge is defined here as the intelligence and skills that exist
within the firms concerning the management of brands and distribution channels
(Lopes, 2007). These Chandlerian type advantages agree, to a great extent, with
Penroses core competencies and dynamic capabilities of the resource-based view of
the firm, and also with Rugmans concept of firm-specific advantages (Penrose, 1959,
1995; Rugman and Verbeke, 2003; Rugman, 2010). While in periods characterized by
fragmented markets and local competition, the Hymer type ownership advantages are
sufficient for firms to successfully cross borders, in periods of globalizalisation, other
types of knowledge (here part of the Chandlerian type ownership advantages),
become more important in explaining successful internationalization.
Following the same line of reasoning, where ownership advantages relating to
different levels of institutional analysis are segregated in different categories,
institutional ownership advantages (Oi), should be reclassified as firm-specific
ownership advantages (Of), as they relate to firm-specific variables such as norms
and corporate culture, incentive systems and appraisal and also leadership. Finally,
product-specific ownership advantages (Op) which are the advantages specific to the

8
product, include variables such as patents, trademarks and copyrights, the capacity of
the firm to differentiate its products or services, to obtain scale economies and to
produce innovations.

3. The Evidence

The period from the 1960s to 2000s is one in which competition changed
dramatically, initially being played at a domestic level to become global by the end of
the twentieth century. Table 1 divides the period from the 1960s until 2000s into three
different stages of competition played in the industries: domestic, multimarket, and
global competition. The types of ownership advantages that were sufficient for firms
to cross borders successfully are also highlighted. They rely on the new proposed
typology of ownership advantages: general ownership specific advantages (Og), firm-
specific ownership advantages (Of), and product-specific ownership advantages (Op).
The sample of four leading multinationals also includes some of their major
predecessors, the largest firms they merged and acquired over the years. They are
used here to illustrate the dynamic evolution of what are considered to be, at each
moment in time, critical ownership advantages for international growth and survival.

Insert Table 1 here

From the analysis of Table 1 it is clear that, over time, firm-specific ownership
advantages (Of) are the most important sources of ownership advantages. Og and Op
are sufficient for foreign growth and survival at earlier stages of globalisation. Once
competition becomes global, Og and Op are no longer sufficient ownership advantages
for firms to internationalize. General ownership advantages (Og), such as tax
incentives and other home country or industry advantages, become obsolete. Product-
specific ownership specific advantages (Op) also lose distinctiveness once it becomes
possible to trade brands and trademarks and other forms of intellectual property rights
through mergers and acquisitions or even on their own. The firm-specific advantages
which relate to the resources of the firm, and in particular the knowledge to manage
brands, trademarks and other intellectual property rights, and also to the superior
management skills, become the crucial source of ownership advantages for
globalising firms.

9
Domestic Competition, 1960s 1970s

During the 1960s - 1970s there was a merger wave in the developed world, mainly
characterised by a domestic consolidation of firms positions. The foods, drinks and
cosmetics industries were also affected by such waves (Lopes, 2002; Jones, 2005,
2010). The mergers between the British confectionary firms Rowntree and
Mackintosh in 1969, the French alcoholic beverages firms Pernod and Ricard in 1975,
and the acquisition of the American cosmetics firm Helena Rubinstein by the US
leader in toiletries Colgate-Palmolive in 1979 are all important illustrations.
The two leading British confectionary firms, Rowntree and Mackintosh, merged
in 1969. This was a period when the confectionary market was stagnated,
international competition intensified, and the management of firms believed that the
best way to grow was through diversification, scale or internationalization. Rowntree
had previously made attempts to diversify but failed. Donald Barron, the chairman of
Rowntree, believed that a merger with the right partner at that point was important to
achieve size, scale and expand internationally. In 1969, just before the merger with
Mackintosh, Rowntree was subject to a takeover bid by the US giant in the food
industry General Foods, which was rejected. The merger with Mackintosh which took
place later in the same year was preferred as it was a natural development from the
joint arrangements these two firms already had in overseas markets for many years.
The possibility of closer association had been discussed by the two companies for
some time. Many benefits followed from this consolidation of activities of the two
companies, such as enhanced size and corporate capabilities, shared support for
advertising investment in brands, and economies of scale and scope in production,
research and development, marketing, transport and exports. Other factors such as the
common Christian ethos, and management approach, and also the uncertainty of
succession at Mackintosh, were also considered to be important in this merger
decision.
The merger that formed Pernod-Ricard in 1975, brought together two French
family firms, Pernod and Ricard. Like Rowntree, these firms had already made
attempts to diversify into other businesses, such as tea and coffee, which did not
succeed. This merger was also a natural development from the alliances the two
companies had formed for some years in distribution. The aim was to form a large

10
company with national coverage, and to diversify within alcoholic beverages
developing a significant international business.
Helena Rubinstein, an entrepreneur concerned since the beginning of her activity
with internationalizing her cosmetics brand and with product and marketing
innovation, died in the late 1950s, at a time when her cosmetics brand was one of the
most popular luxury beauty product suppliers in the United States. After not investing
in the brand for a long time, in 1974, family members decided to sell it to Colgate-
Palmolive. Colgate-Palmolive was a leader in mass market production of toiletries,
with functionality being the main imagery they used in the marketing and advertising
of their brands. Their lack of understanding of the beauty industry, and the lack of
capacity to hire entrepreneurial managers with skills to invest in the exclusive
personality of the brand explain why Colgate-Palmolive targeted, without success, the
Helena Rubinstein brand to mass-markets.
Apart from consolidating their domestic positions through mergers and
acquisitions, and diversifying both their portfolios of products and geographically,
some large firms were already quite internationalised by the 1960s and 1970s, the
main motivations for investing abroad being resource-seeking and market-seeking,
i.e. to source inputs for value added activity and to better serve existing markets, or to
penetrate new market segments (Dunning, 1992). Unilevers acquisition of Lipton
International in 1972 is an illustration of that. Unilever acquired T.J. Lipton in the
United States soon after World War II. T. J. Lipton had been founded at the end of the
nineteenth century by Sir Thomas Lipton, who is claimed to have taught the
Americans to drink tea, and always kept his North American business separate from
the tea business in rest of the world, having developed the latter into Lipton
International. However, it was only in the 1970s, after the acquisition of Lipton
International, that Unilever developed its tea business at a global level.

Multi-Market Competition, 1980s

In the 1980s a new global merger wave took place, characterized by multi-market
competition, including multinationals home countries. A large number of investments
were asset-seeking, but market-seeking investments still remained quite important.
Firms were acquiring other firms especially for their brands which had the potential to
become global, and also for their superior managerial marketing capabilities. Some

11
examples are the acquisition by Pernod Ricard of its American distributor Austin
Nichols, who owned the bourbon brand Wild Turkey in 1988, and also had an
important distribution network in the US market; the acquisition of Helena Rubinstein
by LOral in 1987; and the acquisition of Rowntree-Mackintosh by Nestl in 1988.
Colgate- Palmolive and Albi Enterprises (which also owned the firm between
1980 and 1984) had not invested in the elitist image of the brand Helena Rubinstein
while under their ownership, having changed its imagery to a mass-market cosmetic.
By the early 1980s the brand was being sold in United States drugstores at very cheap
prices and was not receiving much merchandising support. It had a better positioning
outside the United States, in particular in Europe, Japan and Asia, where it was still
considered up-market. In 1987, as part of LOrals strategy to cover all the different
segments of the beauty market and to increase its presence in the United States, it
acquired Helena Rubinstein. Under the new management of Lindsay Owen Jones, the
exclusive imagery of the brand was restored and it was also transformed into a truly
global upmarket brand. Owen Jones was an ambitious British manager hired by the
LOral family as CEO, who combined business knowledge with a passion for
business. He was also very entrepreneurial in his behaviour and proactive at detecting
global opportunities (Jones, 2010). While in the 1960s only 3 percent of the volume of
sales of Helena Rubinstein were in foreign markets, by 2000 over 50 percent sales
were generated outside Europe. Overall, it took ten years for the changes in the
international distribution strategy of Helena Rubinstein to become effective and for
the brand to become truly global.
Rowntree-Macintosh was acquired by Nestl in 1988 in a hostile takeover.
Despite its very respectable financial performance and its innovative record,
Rowntree was perceived as an underperformer in stock market terms, as there was a
general view that the company could have done better. The high price Nestl paid for
Rowntrees shares reflected the companys powerful brands, such as KitKat and Rolo,
and their potential for profitable expansion into world markets, where Nestl already
had a presence with factories in over twenty countries. The two main reasons for this
acquisition were, however, to establish a significant position in the UK market, and to
become one of the leading manufacturers of chocolates in the world. Additionally, the
new portfolio of products complemented Nestls own activity in this field. Nestl
had been until then concentrated mainly on the production of chocolate bars, while
Rowntree-Mackintosh specialized in chocolate covered bars.

12
 The relationship between the top managers of the two companies, Helmut
Mancher from Nestl and Kenneth Dixon from Rowntree, developed under great
secrecy in 1981. Initially the two firms merely cooperated commercially. In 1988
when Jacob-Suchard, another Swiss manufacturer, acquired 15 percent of Rowntree,
Nestl felt forced to make a hostile takeover bid for Rowntree. A new strategic unit
was set up for chocolates, candies and cookies, which was placed under the control of
Kenneth Dixon, the former chairman of Rowntree. Nestl was therefore able to gain
additional knowledge in confectionary items and chocolates, while providing a wider
scope for the geographical expansion of Rowntree-Mackintosh brands such as KitKat
and Rolo.

Global Competition, 1990s-2000s

Finally the 1990s and 2000s are decades of global competition. Efficiency seeking
becomes an additional common motivation for international mergers and acquisitions.
New foreign direct investments speed up connections and allow firms to benefit from
cross border cost reductions, and economies of scale and scope. Some illustrations are
the acquisitions of the French bottled water firm Perrier by Nestl in 1992, and the US
cosmetics firm Maybelline by LOral in 1996, and also the partial acquisition of the
alcoholic beverages business of the Canadian multinational Seagram by Pernod-
Ricard in 2000.
Perrier water was created in 1898, and the business was originally developed by a
British entrepreneur . From its formation, Perrier was exported to foreign markets, in
particular to Britain and the British Empire. The brand underwent another period of
successful internationalization in the 1970s, when the new owner of the brand,
Gustave Leven, took the brand successfully to the US market (despite the advice of
consultants that it would be foolish to try to sell sparkling water in the land of Coca
Cola and gin and tonic drinkers). The firm continued to grow internationally
throughout the 1980s. However, in the early 1990s Leven retired, and the brand
started suffering some erosion under the new management. Perrier ended up being
acquired by Nestl in 1992. Nestls entrepreneurial management turned Perrier into a
truly global brand through its worldwide distribution networks. Additionally, they
invested in the bottled water business, by acquiring sources and water firms in foreign
markets, and broadening the scope of successful local brands.

13
 The acquisition of Maybelline cosmetics by LOral in 1996 is another illustration
of Owen Jones entrepreneurial skills and strategy of acquiring brands with potential
to become global. When it was acquired in 1996, Maybelline held nearly one-fifth of
the American mass cosmetics market. After the acquisition, LOral launched a
radical new make-up collection which transformed the brands aging image. Within
five years it had become the US leader in colour cosmetics, and had been launched in
80 new countries.
The acquisition of the alcoholic beverages business of Seagram by Pernod-Ricard
jointly with Diageo, the worlds leading multinational in alcoholic beverages, took
place in 2000. This alliance turned out to be an innovative way of allowing what were
already large firms to grow in size. It addressed anti-trust concerns that would have
been raised in the case of an acquisition of the whole alcoholic business of Seagram
by a single firm. The deal was suggested by Jack Keenan, the CEO of Diageo, to
Thierry Jacquillat, the CEO of Pernod-Ricard, who saw this as a good opportunity to
target new geographical regions, broaden the scope of brands within the firms
portfolios, and also obtain economies of scale and scope and other costs reductions at
a global level.

4. Conclusion

This paper has discussed and illustrated the power of the OLI paradigm in explaining
multinational activity over time. It has highlighted, however, that in order to provide a
full account of which ownership advantages are important for the internationalizing
firm over time, it is important to distinguish different levels of institutional analysis.
Dunnings ownership advantages should therefore be categorised into general
ownership advantages (Og), firm-specific ownership advantages (Of) and product-
specific ownership advantages (Op). Firm-specific ownership advantages (Of) are,
however, the enduring type of ownership advantages, as they prevail as such even in
hostile environments characterised by high competition. General ownership specific
advantages (Og) tend to obsolete as markets become global, and product-specific
ownership advantages (Op) can easily be appropriated through merger and acquisition
(due to its increasing smoothness). To illustrate the advantages of such typology, a
study of some of the main mergers and acquisitions of a group of leading

14
multinationals in foods, drinks and cosmetics from the 1960s to 2000s was carried
out.
It is believed that the new typology has several advantages. First, it allows a
better assessment of the origins of profitability and growth of firms. Second, it enables
the distinction between short-term ownership advantages (such as brands that can be
acquired quickly via merger or acquisition), from long-term advantages that can only
be generated by resources concentrated in the firm over a period of time. Third, it
facilitates the critical sources of ownership advantages of firms over time. A key point
of this article is to show that, as a result of increased competition, liberalisation and
globalisation of markets the Chandlerian type advantages or firm-specific ownership
advantages (Of) are the main type of advantages which explain successful
internationalisation over time. These advantages prevail in both benign and hostile
environments characterised by fierce competition, and they also acknowledge the role
of the entrepreneur or entrepreneurial manager in the internationalization strategies of
the firm.

15
 Table 1 Ownership advantages and the evolution of global marketing-based industries

1960s/1970s 1980s 1990s/2000s

Domestic consolidation Multimarket competition Global competition

Ownership advantages General (Og) Firm-specific (Of) Firm-specific (Of)

Firm-specific (Of) Product-specific (Op)
Product-specific (Op)

Industry/Sample Firms

Alcoholic Beverages Pernod, Ricard (merger, 1975) Pernod Ricard, Austin Nichols Pernod Ricard and part of Seagram
(acquisition, 1988) (acquisition, 2000)

Foods Rowntree, Mackintosh (merger, 1969) Nestl, Rowntree-Mackintosh Nestl, Perrier (acquisition, 1992)
(acquisition, 1988)

Cosmetics Colgate-Palmolive, Helena Rubinstein LOral, Helena Rubinstein LOral, Maybelline (acquisition,
(acquisition, 1969) (acquisition, 1987) 1996)

Note: For those cases of acquisitions the acquirer is the firm to appear first, and the acquired firm is the second. Eg. in 1969 Colgate Palmolive
acquires Helena Rubinstein.

16
References

Bartlett, C.A. and S. Ghoshal (1989) Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution,.
Harvard Business School Press: Cambridge, MA.

Birkinshaw, J. (1997) Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: the characteristics of

subsidiary initiatives, Strategic Management Journal, 18 (3): 207-229.

Buckley, P.J. (2009) Business History and International Business, special issue of Business
History 51 (3).

Buckley, P.J. and Casson, M. (1976) The Future of Multinational Enterprises, Macmillan:
London.

Cantwell, J. and Narula, R. (2003) International Business and the Eclectic Paradigm:
Developing the OLI Framework, Routledge: London.

Casson, M. (1982) The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory, Martin Robertson: Oxford.

Casson, M. (1986) General theories of the multinational enterprise: a critical examination, in

P. Hertner and G. Jones (eds.) Multinationals: Theory and History, Aldershot &
Brookfield: Gower.

Chandler Jr., A.D. (1962) Strategy and Structure, The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

Chandler Jr., A.D. (1977) The Visible Hand, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Chandler Jr., A.D. (1990) Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism, Harvard
University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Coase, R.H. (1937) The nature of the firm, Economica NS.4: 386-405.

Dunning, J.H. (1998) Location and the multinational enterprise: a neglected factor, Journal
of International Business Studies 29(1): 45-66.

Dunning, J.H. (1958) American Investment in British Manufacturing Industry, Allen and
Unwin: London.

Dunning, J.H. (1980) Toward an eclectic theory of international production: some empirical
tests, Journal of International Business Studies 11(1): 9-31.

Dunning, J.H. (1981) International Production and the Multinational Enterprise, Allen and
Unwin: London.

Dunning, J.H. (1987) The eclectic paradigm of international production: a restatement and
some possible extensions, Journal of International Business Studies 19 (1): 1-31.

Dunning, J.H. (1988) Explaining International Production, Unwin Hyman: London.

Dunning, J.H. (2000) The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business
theories of the MNE activity, International Business Review 9: 163-90.

Dunning, J.H. (2002) Revisiting UK FDI in US manufacturing and extractive industries in

1960, in G. Jones and L. Galvez-Munoz (eds.) Foreign Multinationals in the United
States, Routledge: London: 50-69.

17
Dunning, J.H. and Lundan, S. (2008) Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy,
Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 2nd ed.

Dunning, J.H. and Narula, R. (1996) The investment development path revisited, in J.H.
Dunning and R. Narula, Foreign Direct Investment and Governments, Routledge: London: 1-
41.

Dunning, J.H. and Rugman, A.M. (1985) The influence of Hymers dissertation on the
theory of foreign direct investment, American Economic Review - Papers and Proceedings,
75 (2): 228-232.

Hennart, J.F. (1986) Internalization in practice: early foreign direct investments in Malaysian
tin mining, Journal of International Business Studies 17(2): 131-143.

Hymer, S.H. (1960) The international operations of national firms: A study of direct foreign
investment. PhD. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Hymer, S.H. (1968) The large multinational corporation: an analysis of some motives for the
international integration of business, Revue Economique 19 (6): 949-73.

Itaki, M. (1991) Critical assessment of the eclectic paradigm of the MNE, Journal of
International Business Studies 22: 445-60.

Jones, G. (2005) Renewing Unilever: Transformation and Tradition, Oxford University Press:
Oxford.

Jones, G. (2010) Beauty Imagined A History of the Global Beauty Business, Oxford
University Press: Oxford.

Jones, G. and Galvez-Munoz, L. (eds.) (2002) Foreign Multinationals in the United States,
Routledge: London.

Jones, G. and Khanna, T. (2006) Bringing history (back) into international business, Journal
of International Business Studies 37(4): 453-468.

Kogut, B. (1984) Normative observations on the international value-added chain and

strategic groups, Journal of International Business Studies 15 (2): 151-167.

Lopes, T.S. (2002) Brands and the evolution of multinationals in alcoholic beverages,
Business History 44 (3): 1-30.

Lopes, T.S. (2007) Global Brands, Cambridge University Press: New York.

Lopes, T.S. and Casson, M. (2007) Entrepreneurship and the development of global brands,
Business History Review 81: 651-680.

Penrose, E. (1959, 1995) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford University Press:
Oxford.

Pollard, S. (1997), The International Economy Since 1945, Routledge: London.

Porter, M.E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press: New York.

Rugman, A.M. (1981) Inside the Multinationals, Crook Helm: London.

18
Rugman, A.M. (2009) Rugman Reviews International Business, Palgrave Macmillan: New
York.

Rugman, A.M. (2010) Reconciling internalization theory and the eclectic paradigm, Journal
of Multinational Business, 18 (1).

Rugman, A.M. and Collinson, S. (2006) International Business, Prentice Hall: London, 4th
Ed.

Rugman, A.M. and Verbeke, A. (1993) Foreign subsidiaries and multinational strategic
management: an extension and correction of Porters single diamond framework,
Management International Review 33 (2): 71-84.

Rugman, A.M. and Verbeke, A. (2003). Extending the theory of the multinational enterprise:
internalization and strategic management perspectives, Journal of International Business
Studies, 34 (2): 125-137.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1947). The creative response in economic history, Journal of Economic
History VII (2): 149-59.

Verbeke, A. (2009) International Business Strategy, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Vernon, R. (1966) International investment and international trade in the product cycle,
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80 (2):190-207.

Wilkins, M. (1988) Business history as a discipline, Business and Economic History 17: 1-7.

19