Causal analysis of the internationalization and performance relationship based on neural networks — advocating the transnational structure

Although the impact of internationalization on firm performance is still controversial, we find that internationalization does not have an ongoing positive performance effect. The international expansion of MNEs needs to be managed carefully, especially after a certain level of international involvement is surpassed. One theoretically highly accepted, but empirically neglected, driver of the success of international business is the establishment of an appropriate international organizational structure. This paper is the first to empirically address the question of how international organizational structure decisions affect performance by means of a new analysis technique — a causal analysis based on neural networks. Referring to UNCTAD's 100 most international corporations, the key finding of this study is that successful high internationalization involves a transnational structure in which elements of centralization and decentralization are well balanced.     

New Rage,New Perspectives?

The Eurozone crisis has led to a long and remarkable protest wave. Civil society raised its voice against the ever-harsher austerity measures implemented to deal with the crisis. The article focuses on the role of civil society and its potential to contribute new perspectives to the debate. Such a contribution would depend on two preconditions: 1. Civil society actors need to mobilize successfully to make their voices heard. 2. Civil society actors contribute a perspective that differs to the perspectives of actors from institutionalized politics. Both preconditions are analyzed empirically for two countries that are in very different situations in the crisis scenario: Greece and Germany. Greece has been hit most severely by the crisis; Germany is the most prominent country defining the crisis management, and it provides the largest share of credit guarantees for “crisis countries.” Social movement theory is used to explain the differing evolution of protests in the two countries. In the early phase of the crisis, the established landscape of political parties in both countries offered few opportunities for their citizens to vote in opposition to the crisis management, which is conducive to extra-parliamentary protest. Differences in deprivation, discursive opportunities and the resource basis of mobilization structures can explain differences in protest frequency but also to some extent the evolution of protest over time. Taking up Habermas’ argument regarding the specific perspective of civil society actors in the public debate, we then analyze to which extent the arguments of civil society actors deviate from those of more institutionalized actors. A discursive actor attribution analysis unveils that civil society actors are more sensitive to social problems and grand systemic questions. Moreover, civil society actors are less hesitant to blame actors on the EU level and other EU Member States, even though their overall contribution to the crisis debate is rather marginal.