Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
66..85
Jeppe Christoffersen
Department of Accounting and Auditing, Copenhagen Business School, Solbjerg Plads 3,
DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Email: jc.acc@cbs.dk
This paper provides a systematic review of 165 empirical studies on the antecedents of
performance in international strategic alliances. It provides the most detailed display
of definitions, rationales, measures and findings currently available. Hence, this stateof-the art literature review creates an accessible pool of knowledge that is highly relevant
for future research on international strategic alliances. Further, it draws on this knowledge pool to build a model which highlights the quite different rationales advanced
by researchers to explain associations between the antecedents and performance. The
model makes the different rationales explicit and will aid researchers in identifying tests
that can be performed to examine the links between antecedents and performance as
well as the mechanisms through which such associations operate. Finally, the synthesized
evidence is used to suggest that researchers should give increased attention to achieving
congruence between measures of antecedents and performance.
Introduction
As strategic alliances in general and international
strategic alliances (ISAs) in particular have proliferated over the past half century, so research has
increased knowledge about causes and consequences
of this organizational design. The earliest studies
include Friedmann and Kalmanoff (1961), Tomlinson (1970) and Franko (1971), and research in alliances and particularly ISAs has subsequently
expanded dramatically, initially focusing primarily
on broad aspects (such as motivation for collaborating), on joint ventures (JVs) and on their popularity
as a mode of entry into new countries (e.g. Janger
1980; Killing 1983). Sparked to an extent by studies
by Harrigan (1988) and by Kogut (1988b) in a
Management International Review special issue on
co-operative ventures, later studies increasingly
67
underexplored variables (Reus and Rottig 2009,
p. 607). That is exactly what Ren et al. (2009) do,
by exploring a larger number of potential performance antecedents: bargaining power, commitment,
control, trust, conflict, co-operation, cultural distance, justice, goal compatibility and conflict resolution mechanisms. However, given the greater number
of constructs spread out over a relatively modest
sample size (54 articles), the empirical backing for
each construct is considerably lower than is the case
in those considered by Reus and Rottig (2009).
This paper, which provides a review of empirical
research pertaining to antecedents of ISA performance, builds on these recent reviews and particularly
the two last-quoted: specifically, it also reviews particular constructs (rather than broader concepts and
issues) and finally presents them in a model that
proposes links between individual constructs, rather
than a framework suggesting relations between the
broader issues, thus combining the fairly broad scope
of constructs found in Ren et al. 2009 with the substantial empirical backing found in Reus and Rottig
(2009). I draw a sample of 165 cross-sectional studies
not only of JVs but also of non-equity alliances to
identify the antecedents of ISA performance.
I do not present more antecedents than Ren
et al. (2009), but whereas their model includes (for
instance) conflict resolution mechanisms and bargaining power, which are only considered (respectively) in one and three of their sample articles, the
antecedents suggested in my model are all considered in five or more articles, which I believe allows
me to claim that they are core constructs in the literature, and to identify which rationales linking constructs to performance can be considered dominant
and which alternative. Finally, this greater sample
provides a more extensive pool of findings, which
gives me greater security in assessing empirical
support for theoretical arguments. Compared with
Reus and Rottig (2009), I do not present more
empirical backing for each antecedent included in
my model. However, while they focus on four antecedents for which they are able to find large quantities of empirical evidence which is necessary for
their meta-analytical approach I suggest many
more antecedents, responding to their suggestion that
future models should include more antecedents.
Considering these differences, the first contribution
of this review is to provide a comprehensive reference list of core constructs in the ISA literature,
supported by definitions, the dominant rationales
used in linking them to ISA performance, the ways in
68
J. Christoffersen
which they have been measured and, finally, the findings: this level of detail is unprecedented in previous
reviews.
The detailed review of dominant rationales linking
constructs to performance reveals that, in most cases,
researchers suggest several mechanisms through
which they affect performance, even in some cases
showing how mechanisms may produce opposing
effects (e.g. arguing that national cultural distance
affects performance positively (via complementary
resources) against the more common argument of
a negative effect associated with less trust and
co-operation and greater conflict). My second contribution is to bring attention to the different roles
which researchers suggest constructs play, elaborating on individual constructs as they are reviewed and
then integrating them into a model. This model is
thus the first to demonstrate explicitly that the roles
which researchers presume core constructs play
are often very different: using it may enable future
research to enhance knowledge about whether a
given construct can predict performance, and also via
which mechanism(s).
Sample selection
The first step in preparing this paper consisted of
identifying the relevant literature. As IJMR publishes
authoritative literature reviews in the field of business and management (Armstrong and Wilkinson
2007, p. 81), I first identified journals from the business and management subject categories of the
Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) (also used by
Armstrong and Wilkinson 2007). For the 25 journals
with the highest one-year impact factor, I calculated
the proportion of journal issues in the last 20 years
for which there were bibliographic records in the
EBSCO article database and found the percentage
was 98%, and 95% over the last 30 years: this strong
level of coverage of the relevant domains allowed me
to choose it as the primary database for my literature
search. I made searches of the titles, abstracts, keywords and subject terms of all articles that appeared
in all peer-reviewed scholarly journals for which
EBSCO had bibliographic records, identifying all
those which included at least one ISA keyword and
one performance keyword.1 I identified relevant top
1
69
rationales and findings are used to develop a model
that will organize the constructs that it considers.
Knowledge acquisition is often used as a measure
of performance (even to the extent that Ren et al.
(2009) treat it as such in their review), so I make one
deviation from the rule that all constructs suggested
as antecedents in five or more studies are included,
and leave knowledge acquisition in a grey zone in
that it neither clearly constitutes performance nor
clearly constitutes an antecedent to performance
which reflects its position in the literature. (For an
excellent review of research on knowledge in the
context of strategic alliances, see Meier (2011).)
Performance measures
This sub-section presents five types of performance
measures used in the alliance literature, defines them,
explains how they are obtained and what they reflect,
and finally assesses their appropriateness under different circumstances.
Subjective measures. The sample contains 102
studies employing subjective performance measures,
obtained by soliciting assessments from alliance or
partner firm managers. In their work on differences
and similarities between performance measures,
Ario (2003) and Geringer and Hbert (1991)
divide subjective measures into measures of overall
satisfaction and of achievement of partner goals/
objectives. However, a review of the subjective performance measures in this sample reveals that, while
these categories predominate, many subjective performance measures cannot be assigned to them.
Some measures contain several items and thus
combine items from both categories (e.g. Krishnan
et al. 2006); some reflect satisfaction not only with
overall performance, but also with very specific
aspects such as sales, market share, technology
development, customer service and reputation (e.g.
Luo et al. 2001). Thus, since subjective measures
cannot all be assigned to one of the two categories
(overall satisfaction and goal achievement), I do not
make that distinction at all, but assign all such performance measures to the same category, labelled
subjective.
Subjective measures have been widely discussed
in the literature, with their proponents arguing
that they are appropriate because they reflect all
the advantages that firms seek when partnering
(Anderson 1990). But, of course, the results are
sensitive to the questions asked for example Ario
70
J. Christoffersen
71
relationship. Dimensions of commitment include calculative commitment, involving reasoning about the
relative costs and benefits of the alliance, and affective
commitment, involving partners identification with
the alliance and the other partner (Geyskens et al.
1996; Voss et al. 2006). While (in this sample) only
Voss et al. (2006) specifically account for this distinction, most authors implicitly draw on one or both
dimension when developing their hypotheses. When
calculative commitment exists, it is argued that
partners weigh the costs and benefits of leaving, and
when the latter are more than outweighed, partners
become more determined to work to make the alliance
work. Where affective commitment is at play, while
the effort exerted to make the alliance work is
expected to give rise to a positive effect, the original
motivation for exerting that effort is seen as arising
from feelings of affection towards the partner, rather
than from a cost/benefit assessment (Voss et al. 2006).
The motivation to make the alliance work also entails
sacrificing individual opportunities in pursuit of
the common goals that can be achieved through
co-operation (Kwon 2008).
The variation in measures used is extensive. The
majority of researchers using the calculative commitment argument use measures consisting of partners
assessments of the extent of relation-specific investments that they have made, which indicate higher
costs of switching and thus of the intention to stay in
the relationship (Parkhe 1993b). Where the arguments are based on affective commitment, the measures reflect the partners assessment of their sense of
belonging and emotional attachment to both alliance
and partner(s) (Voss et al. 2006). No matter which
measures are used, the results are fairly consistent in
suggesting a positive relationship, and this seems to
be true regardless of whether commitment is measured from the point of view of one or both partners.
Trust. Sixteen articles address the performance
implications of trust, which has been defined as
Objective (10)
Objective (13)
Objective (16)
Objective (17)
Subjective (13)
Subjective (2), Objective (11)
Objective (13)
Objective (14)
Subjective (1), Objective (12)
Subjective (1), Objective (8)
Subjective (2), Objective (5)
Subjective (4), Objective (5)
Subjective (10), Objective (4)
12
4
6
11
8
9
9
10
8
6
7
8
Measurement of antecedenta
11
16
5
12
No. of articles
2
8
13
13
11
13
9
1
0
0
0
13
21
19
7
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
3
0
0
12
13
17
13
0
0
0
0
12
Hypotheses
2
3
6
8
4
3
3
4
0
4
0
8
16
14
5
0
5
5
2
4
2
5
6
5
8
10
5
5
13
3
8
5
10
Results
3
0
2
0
2
0
1
4
3
10
5
0
0
0
0
8
The table presents the constructs of interest, the number of articles hypothesizing and testing a direct linear relationship with performance, how the antecedent has been measured, how the
dependent variable has been measured, the hypothesized influence, and the empirical findings. Many articles present results for numerous tests of the same hypotheses, owing to e.g. different
specifications including different control variables. Therefore, one unit increase in the numbers in all columns but the No. of studies column represents a summary of coefficients from tests
using exactly identical antecedent measures in combination with dependent variables falling within the same of the five types for performance measures presented above. Thus there is an
increase for even minor measurement differences in the antecedents, whereas differences in the performance measures only imply increases in these numbers if the difference is large enough
for the measures to belong to different types. If all tests within a summary are positive (negative) and significant, a 10% significance level one unit is added to the column indicated by +
(-). If not, one unit is added to the column indicated by 0.
a
Subjective measures of antecedents are those subjectively assessed by a representative of the alliance or partner companies, whereas objective measures of antecedents are those based on
archival information, but also antecedents based on survey information in those cases where the survey information does not consist of subjective assessments, but rather fairly objective
ones.
b
The number of hypotheses exceeds the number of results because Beamish and Jung (2005) use the same results to test hypotheses with opposite signs.
c
The number of hypotheses exceeds the number of results because Hu and Chen (1996) use the same results to test hypotheses with opposite signs.
Behavioural attributes
Commitment
Trust
Co-operation
Conflict
Dissimilarities
Size dissimilaritiesb
National cultural distance
Index of differences on cultural dimensions
Differences on individual cultural dimensions
Country/region comparisons
Organizational cultural distance
Relatedness
Experience
Alliance experience
International experience
International alliance experience
Prior relationships
Control
Dominant partner control
Dominant control by foreign partnerc
Dominant control by focal partner
Construct
72
J. Christoffersen
73
Alliance experience
International experience
Prior relationships
Relatedness
Size dissimilarities
Commitment
Co-operation
Performance
Trust
Dominant control
Dominant control by foreign partner
74
J. Christoffersen
studies distinguishes explicitly between these different dimensions, they all implicitly refer to task and
process conflicts by referring to disagreements over
functional areas (Ding 1997), and to relationship
conflict by referring to negative feedback loops
between conflict and trust (Steensma and Lyles
2000). Authors generally argue that conflicts affect
performance negatively, as they are likely to lead to
misunderstandings, distrust and anxiety and so result
in less than efficient integration of activities, while
the effort required to unravel them may take up time
needed for important decisions (Steensma and Lyles
2000). The measures used to reflect conflict include
JV and partner representatives assessments, and
generally fall into two types, one mainly related to
task and process conflict through items reflecting
the frequency of disagreement in various functional
areas and the other to relationship conflicts,
through items reflecting the extent of cultural misunderstandings, inter-partner distrust, conflicting goals
and personality conflicts. Regardless of the measures
used, the results consistently suggest that conflict has
a negative influence on performance.
Implications for the model. In line with researchers dominant rationales reflected above, one positive impact arrow in Figure 1 points directly from
commitment to performance, which represents the
increased effort the parties are willing to make to
ensure that the alliance works (Voss et al. 2006). A
positive arrow points to co-operation, reflecting the
pursuit of common rather than individual benefits
(Kwon 2008), and (for the same reason) another
positive arrow points from trust to co-operation
(Nielsen 2007), which is supplemented by a negative impact arrow, suggesting (as proposed above)
that trust reduces conflict (Krishnan et al. 2006).
The notion illustrated that co-operation and conflict
mediate (in part) the effects of trust and commitment
is in line both with the arguments presented above,
and also with Robson et al.s (2002) review of the
strategic alliance literature on the behavioural antecedents of performance, which argued that trust
and commitment are the fundamental ties that bind
partners, and that co-operation and conflict relate
to behaviours that may vary as a consequence of
varying degrees of trust and commitment.
Given that the evidence for the behavioural constructs is fairly conclusive, the main opportunities
for enhancing knowledge through future research lie
not in testing whether and why on average these
constructs affect performance, but rather in testing
whether these effects are independent of other conditions. Researchers of trust who have started such
work have found that (for example) the effect of
trust on performance is moderated positively by risk
commensuration, commitment (Luo 2002a), interdependence (Krishnan et al. 2006; Luo 2002a) and
economic integration, but is moderated negatively
by alliance age, market uncertainty (Luo 2002a),
alliance size (Robson et al. 2008) and legalism as a
conflict resolution strategy (Lin and Wang 2008).
While such moderation of trusts effects has received
attention from a fairly wide range of researchers,
only Luo and Park have tested the moderation of
co-operations effects, finding that the effect of
co-operation on performance is moderated positively
by contingency adaptability, term specificity (Luo
2002b) market uncertainty (Luo and Park 2004) and
equity in the alliance (Luo 2008). None of the studies
consider moderation of the effects of commitment
and conflict, which is somewhat surprising, at least in
the case of conflict, given that the team conflict literature has long demonstrated that the effects of conflict may be less clearly negative than suggested for
instance, Jehn (1995) finds that, while task conflict
may be detrimental to groups that perform routine
tasks, it may in fact be beneficial to those performing
non-routine tasks. Following up these findings and
numerous others from the team conflict literature
can inform future alliance conflict research, which
has so far focused mainly on providing depth by
researching the efficacy of different conflict resolution strategies (e.g. Lin and Germain 1998; Lin and
Wang 2008; Lu 2006).
Dissimilarities. Many researchers have focused
on identifying the characteristics of a good fit
between partners, some suggesting that dissimilarities between partners and others that similarities
may play important roles. While the literature has
suggested many other examples of both including
dissimilarities in alliance experience, age, strategic
scope, strategic content, goals, ownership type and
reputation (Lowen and Pope 2008; McCutchen et al.
2008; Park and Ungson 1997; Saxton 1997; Yeheskel
et al. 2001) only size and cultural dissimilarities (at
both national and organizational levels) and relatedness have been suggested in a sufficient number of
the sample studies to be included in the review.
Size dissimilarities. A construct considered particularly in early studies is size dissimilarity, where
size relates to the complexity, structures and styles of
75
give rise to complementarities and thus synergies and
innovation.
While most researchers (with this notable exception) agree with the general hypothesis, there is less
agreement with respect to measurement: in fact
national cultural distance is measured in three
different ways which even require separate explanations as is reflected by the three separate subentries (in italics) in Table 1. Most studies use an
index of several dimensions of cultural distance
between the local and foreign partners home countries. In all but one study (which used Globes nine
dimensions (see House et al. 2004), the index used
was based on Hofstedes four (later updated to five)
dimensions of national cultural distance: but their
results for these indices were almost as mixed as
they could be, nearly equally distributed between
positive, negative and insignificant results. A small
group of researchers examined the possibility that
some cultural distance dimensions may be harmful,
while others are not. While three studies which
follow this line do not directly suggest different
effects of individual dimensions, Barkema and Vermeulen (1997) argue (and find some support for the
idea) that only differences in uncertainty avoidance and in long-term orientation should have a
negative impact on performance. However, across
the studies in general, there is no overwhelming
support for a difference between the effects of
individual dimensions, as almost all the remaining
results are insignificant. Finally, a third group of
researchers use dummy variables or other comparisons of the performance of groups of alliances that
represent supposedly varying extents of cultural distance based on partners nationalities or regional
locations. Chiao et al. (2009), Hanvanich et al.
(2003) and Makino and Beamish (1998) offer the
most refined approach, which distinguishes between
the cultural distance between partners and that
between the country of location and the partners
when none is local. In this way, they divide the
concept of cultural distance into two categories
which could be termed location cultural distance
and partner cultural distance which are in effect
intertwined in traditional settings where one of the
partners is local (Hanvanich et al. 2003). While the
studies that apply the simplest country or region
dummies mainly provide insignificant results, this
latter approach provides results which support the
assumption that cultural distance both between partners and between partners and local actors may have
negative effects.
76
J. Christoffersen
77
1997), and thus the liability of foreignness (Lu
and Beamish 2006). While these arguments suggest
a positive path from experience to performance,
Lowen and Pope (2008) and Lu and Beamish (2006)
suggest that a negative path is also possible if performance is measured in terms of stability. They
argue that the more a foreign partner has learned
about the business setting, the more likely it is that it
will opt for a wholly owned subsidiary instead of an
alliance. There is great diversity in the measurement
of international and host country experience, but
most researchers measure it as the number of years of
such involvement, the number of prior or current
wholly owned subsidiaries, or as sales percentages in
international settings or in a given country/region.
Results are also mixed: with stability as the performance measure, some find a positive influence, others
find a negative influence, while the majority find no
influence; in studies using other performance measures, results are either positive or insignificant.
International alliance experience. Some researchers have investigated the double learning opportunity
arising not just from having participated in alliances
or doing business in an international context, but in
fact doing both in one setting thus gaining international alliance experience (addressed in ten articles). Arguments in the articles studied suggest the
beneficial effects of alliance experience and of international experience are combined, and so propose a
positive relationship between international alliance
experience and performance (Barkema et al. 1997;
Meschi 2004). While the measures of experience are
again fairly mixed and similar to those mentioned
above, the findings are fairly consistent in suggesting
that relationships are either positive or insignificant.
Prior relationships. A final experience construct
qualifying for this review is prior relationships,
which refers to the learning opportunity provided by
partners prior business relationships with each
other. This construct was addressed in eight articles:
two looked specifically at prior alliances between the
partners, while the remaining eight took a broader
outlook to also encompass other types of prior relationships between the partners. Two main arguments
are advanced to support a positive effect on performance one relates to the knowledge that partners
have gained about each other, which is expected to be
useful for understanding, for instance, resources and
capabilities (Nielsen 2007; Saxton 1997); the other
relates to prior relationships creating social relations
78
J. Christoffersen
which provide the basis for trust and mutual understanding in a later JV (Glaister and Buckley 1999;
Greve et al. 2010). Again, the measures used to
reflect experience and performance are diverse, as
are the results there are a few positive and negative
results, but most are insignificant.
Implications for the model. In line with the findings
and the rationales presented above, Figure 1 shows
that alliance experience directly affects performance
positively, reflecting the argument that alliance
experience enables partners to avoid mistakes and
increases the likelihood of them making the right
decisions (McCutchen et al. 2008; Merchant and
Schendel 2000). Similarly, skills and capabilities
accumulated through international experience allow
firms to tune into foreign conditions, as suggested
above and reflected by the direct positive arrow from
international experience to performance (Barkema
et al. 1997). The figure also reflects the argument that
international experience moderates the damaging
effects of cultural distance by reducing the liability
of foreignness (Lu and Beamish 2006). Although the
findings show negative associations between international experience and stability in line with the
theoretical arguments that firms with more international experience would be more inclined to go it
alone (Lowen and Pope 2008; Lu and Beamish 2006)
there is no negative arrow pointing towards performance, as the effect on stability does not reflect an
effect on performance rather it reflects an improvement in that alternative. To avoid making Figure 1
overly complex, I do not illustrate international alliance experience explicitly the suggested effects of
that construct only combine those of alliance experience and international experience so the models
only remaining experience construct is prior relationships. Two arrows emanate from this construct, both
positive: one points directly towards performance
which reflects the argument that partners with prior
relationships understand each others resources and
capabilities and thus are better able to exploit them
effectively and efficiently (Nielsen 2007; Saxton
1997) and the other towards trust, reflecting the
argument that prior relationships create social relations which enhance trust and mutual understanding
(Glaister and Buckley 1999; Greve et al. 2010).
Control. In common with previous recent reviews
(e.g. Nippa et al. 2007; Ren et al. 2009), I find that
control issues have received consistent attention
from the earliest literature up to now. A number of
79
control by one partner will reduce managerial
complexity and thus also the potential for conflicts
(Merchant 2002). The less common and opposing
argument is that control by one partner may frustrate
the other and thus increase conflict (Hbert 1996;
Pangarkar and Lee 2001): recognizing this alternative (and the diverging empirical findings), I also
include a positive arrow towards conflict: which of
them prevails is likely to depend on conditioning
factors (such as, for instance, goal congruence or
culture). Turning to dominant control by the foreign
partner, the model includes the same two arrows
towards conflict, but also a positive direct arrow
towards performance, which reflects the argument
that dominant foreign partners from developed countries will possess advanced managerial skills and
technology, so that their dominance should enhance
performance (Calantone and Zhao 2001; Ding 1997).
A note on measurement
While the model I have built up considers components at the construct level, it is clear that measurement issues may influence empirical research
findings. In particular, the review of the performance
measures used indicated that they should be chosen
with care. One concern was the use of stability measures as performance measures, particularly when
considering antecedents that could be imagined to
affect stability through other mechanisms than by
affecting performance negatively. Another concern
was the simultaneous use of subjective measures of
both an antecedent construct and of performance,
which may give rise to same-source variance that
could bias the findings. Such concerns suggest
greater attention needs to be paid to the combination
of measures of performance and measures of antecedents in empirical research in this area.
Table 2 brings support to this suggestion by summarizing the test coefficients on which Table 1 is
based. The numbers in bold indicate how many
statistical tests employed subjective vs. objective
measures of antecedents in combination with each of
the five types of performance measures presented.5
Most importantly, these numbers show that, in 200
5
0
2
2
0
4
4
0
7
7
0
8
8
4
2
6
10
17
27
14
27
41
0
9
9
0
26
26
0
13
13
0
48
48
0
4
4
0
46
46
3
41
44
3
91
94
1
16
17
44
49
93
155
16
171
1
38
39
48
125
173
There is no doubt that research enhancing understanding of antecedents of ISA performance has
advanced dramatically, especially over the past
couple of decades. But this review shows that there
is still much that we could understand better, even
about those antecedents of performance that have
been considered most frequently. Robson et al.
(2002) found the literature on IJVs remains chaotic
and to a large extent ambiguous, and I echo this
assessment for the broader ISA literature. This paper
Subjective antecedent
Objective antecedent
Total
217
254
471
168
91
259
200
81
281
0
Sup.
Opp.
Conclusion
All
Sup.
All
Sup.
Opp.
All
Sup.
Opp.
All
Sup.
Opp.
All
Sup.
Opp.
All
External
Accounting
CAR
Stability
Subjective
Total
Table 2. Measurement
0
1
1
J. Christoffersen
Opp.
80
81
popularity for this purpose. This paper identifies the
typical combinations of antecedent and performance
measures, and thus also points to the possibilities of
challenging those combinations to assess whether
measurement issues impact findings. The studys
review of the individual antecedents presents both
measurement choices and results of prior studies
(summarized in Table 1, detailed in Appendix S2
(available in electronic version only)), thus providing
an easily accessible source for comparing the
alternative outcomes of different combinations of
choices.
The second potential source of ambiguity identified in this review is that different explanations have
been advanced about the mechanisms via which a
number of well-known constructs might affect performance, but without these different explanations
being tested empirically. Thus, while numerous theoretical explanations about such causal mechanisms
are available, most of them have little empirical
support, which gives rise to ambiguity in various
areas. For constructs for which research has produced divergent results, ambiguity about the causal
mechanisms for some constructs is quite obvious.
One example is national cultural distance, where
results are almost equally divided between insignificant, negative and positive. This paper suggests that
the ambiguity about constructs which yield divergent
results can be reduced considerably by testing the
causal mechanisms already suggested in the literature. In the case of the example at hand, national
cultural distance, this would entail testing the causal
mechanisms with different impacts on performance
that have been suggested in prior research; a positive
effect arising because of complementary resources
(Beamish and Kachra 2004), and a negative effect
via decreased trust and co-operation and increased
conflict (Glaister and Buckley 1999; Kim and Parkhe
2009; Makino et al. 2007). For other constructs
where the results all point in the same direction the
ambiguity about causal mechanisms is less obvious.
In these cases, previous research may indicate a relationship with performance, but empirical results shed
little light on why it exists. One such example concerns prior relationships between partners. Do they
influence performance positively because the partners know each others resources well, which enables
efficient integration of resources (Nielsen 2007;
Saxton 1997), or because partners have already
developed mutual trust (Glaister and Buckley 1999;
Greve et al. 2010)? Only if we know the answers to
these questions will we be able to convincingly
82
J. Christoffersen
References
Anderson, E. (1990). Two firms, one frontier: on assessing
joint venture performance. Sloan Management Review,
31, pp. 1930.
Argyle, M. (1991). Cooperation. The Basis of Sociability.
London: Routledge.
Ario, A. (2003). Measures of strategic alliance performance: an analysis of construct validity. Journal of International Business Studies, 34, pp. 6679.
Armstrong, S. and Wilkinson, A. (2007). Processes, procedures and journal development: past, present and future.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, pp.
8193.
Aulakh, P.S., Kotabe, M. and Sahay, A. (1996). Trust and
performance in cross-border marketing partnerships: a
behavioral approach. Journal of International Business
Studies, 27, pp. 10051032.
Barkema, H.G. and Vermeulen, F. (1997). What differences
in the cultural backgrounds of partners are detrimental
for international joint ventures? Journal of International
Business Studies, 28, pp. 845864.
83
Journal of International Management, 11, pp. 313
329.
Kim, J. and Parkhe, A. (2009). Competing and cooperating
similarity in global strategic alliances: an exploratory
examination. British Journal of Management, 20, pp.
363376.
Kim, K. and Park, J.-H. (2002). The determinants of value
creation for partner firms in the global alliance context.
Management International Review (MIR), 42, pp. 361
384.
Kogut, B. (1988a). Joint ventures: theoretical and empirical
perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9, pp. 319
332.
Kogut, B. (1988b). A study of the life cycle of joint ventures.
Management International Review (MIR), 28, pp. 39
52.
Kogut, B. (1991). Joint ventures and the option to expand
and acquire. Management Science, 37, pp. 1933.
Koh, J. and Venkatraman, N. (1991). Joint venture formations and stock market reactions: an assessment in the
information technology sector. Academy of Management
Journal, 34, pp. 869892.
Krishnan, R., Martin, X. and Noorderhaven, N.G. (2006).
When does trust matter to alliance performance?
Academy of Management Journal, 49, pp. 894917.
Kwon, Y.C. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of
international joint venture partnerships: a social exchange
perspective. International Business Review, 17, pp. 559
573.
Li, M., Zhang, Y. and Jing, R. (2008). Does ownership and
culture matter to joint venture success? International
Management Review, 4, pp. 90102.
Lin, X. and Germain, R. (1998). Sustaining satisfactory
joint venture relationships: the role of conflict resolution
strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 29,
pp. 179196.
Lin, X. and Wang, C.L. (2008). Enforcement and performance: the role of ownership, legalism and trust in international joint ventures. Journal of World Business, 43, pp.
340351.
Lowen, A. and Pope, J. (2008). Survival analysis of international joint venture relationships. Journal of Business &
Economic Studies, 14, pp. 6280.
Lu, J.W. and Beamish, P.W. (2006). Partnering strategies
and performance of SMEs international joint ventures.
Journal of Business Venturing, 21, pp. 461486.
Lu, J.W. and Xu, D. (2006). Growth and survival of international joint ventures: an externalinternal legitimacy
perspective. Journal of Management, 32, pp. 426448.
Lu, L.-T. (2006). Conflict resolution strategy between
foreign and local partners in joint ventures in China.
Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge,
8, pp. 236240.
Luo, Y. (1997). Partner selection and venturing success: the
case of joint ventures with firms in the peoples republic
of China. Organization Science, 8, pp. 648662.
84
J. Christoffersen
85
Sim, A.B. and Ali, Y. (2000). Determinants of stability in
international joint ventures: evidence from a developing
country. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 17, pp.
373397.
Simonin, B.L. (2004). An empirical investigation of the
process of knowledge transfer in international strategic
alliances. Journal of International Business Studies, 35,
pp. 407427.
Steensma, H.K. and Lyles, M.A. (2000). Explaining IJV
survival in a transitional economy through social
exchange and knowledge-based perspectives. Strategic
Management Journal, 21, pp. 831851.
Tomlinson, J.W.C. (1970). The Joint Venture Process in
International Business: India and Pakistan. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Voss, K.E., Johnson, J.L., Cullen, J.B., Sakano, T. and
Takenouchi, H. (2006). Relational exchange in
USJapanese marketing strategic alliances. International
Marketing Review, 23, pp. 610635.
Yan, A. and Gray, B. (2001). Antecedents and effects of
parent control in international joint ventures. Journal of
Management Studies, 38, pp. 393416.
Yeheskel, O., Zeira, Y., Shenkar, O. and Newburry, W.
(2001). Parent company dissimilarity and equity international joint venture effectiveness. Journal of International
Management, 7, pp. 81104.
Supporting information
Additional supporting information may be found in the
online version of this article at the publishers web site:
Appendix S1. Sample (Word document)
Appendix S2. Detailed findings (Word document)
Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the
content or functionality of any supporting materials supplied
by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material)
should be directed to the corresponding author for the
article.