The Impact of Actors and the Aspect of Time in Institutional Change Processes in a Developing Country Context

  • Kristin Brandl
  • Izzet Darendeli
  • Robert D. HamiltonIII
  • Ram Mudambi
Part of the The Academy of International Business book series


The rise of developing countries is undeniably evident in the global business arena. There is increasing evidence of innovative and highly intellectual business activities from these countries, for example in the form of new drug developments from India and technological innovation from China. These innovations often require searching for and utilising tacit knowledge (Asheim and Coenen, 2005) which is prone to asymmetric information problems and intellectual property (IP) abuse. Thus, a firm that operates in these environments emphasises either loose or stringent IP protection standards which then influences the firm’s decision regarding the nature and location of innovative activities, in addition to capability endowments and cost calculations (Buckley and Casson, 1976; Dunning, 1988; Teece, 2006). As a result, governments are in continuous search for optimal levels of IP protection standards (varying from high to low levels) to ensure that there is a conducive environment for the advancement of local innovation systems (Chaminade et al., 2012; Jaffe et al., 1993). This is especially true in developing countries.


Innovation System World Trade Organization Institutional Change Foreign Firm Innovative Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Asheim, B.T. and Coenen, L. (2005), ‘Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters’, Research Policy, 34(8), 1173–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Awate, S., Larsen, M.M., and Mudambi, R. (2012), ‘EMNE catch up strategies in the wind turbine industry: Is there a tradeoff between output and innovation capabilities?’ Global Strategy Journal, 2(3): 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boddewyn, J.J. and Brewer, T.L. (1994), ‘International-business political behavior: New theoretical directions’, Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 119–143.Google Scholar
  4. Boli, J. and Thomas, G.M. (1999), Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations since 1875, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bonardi, J.P., Hillman, A.J. and Keim, G.D. (2005). ‘The attractiveness of political markets: Implications for firm strategy’, Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandl, K. and Mudambi, R. (2014), ‘EMNCs and catch-up processes: The case of four Indian industries’. In Cuervo-Cazurra, A., and Ramamurti R. (eds) (2014), Understanding Multinationals from Emerging Markets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Buckley, P.J. and Casson, M. (1976), The Future of the Multinational Enterprise (vol. 1). London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cantwell, J. and Mudambi, R. (2005), ‘MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates’, Strategic Management Journal, 26(12), 1109–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cantwell, J., Dunning, J.H., and Lundan, S.M. (2010), ‘An evolutionary approach to understanding international business activity: The co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment’, Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4), 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carney, M. and Gedajlovic, E. (2002), ‘The co-evolution of institutional environments and organizational strategies: The rise of family business groups in the ASEAN region’, Organization Studies, 23(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaminade, C., Intarakumnerd, P., and Sapprasert, K. (2012), ‘Measuring systemic problems in national innovation systems. An application to Thailand’, Research Policy, 41(8), 1476–1488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coriat, B. and Weinstein, O. (2002), ‘Organizations, firms and institutions in the generation of innovation’, Research Policy, 31(2), 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2006), ‘Who cares about corruption?’ Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 807–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dacin, M.T., Goodstein, J., and Scott, W.R. (2002), ‘Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum’, Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darendeli, I.S. and Hill, T.L. (forthcoming), ‘Uncovering the complex relationships between political risk and MNE firm legitimacy: Insights from Libya’, Journal of International Business Studies forthcoming.Google Scholar
  16. Delgado, M., Kyle, M., and McGahan, A.M. (2013), ‘Intellectual property protection and the geography of trade’, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 61(3), 733–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dolowitz, D.P. and Marsh, D. (1996), ‘Who learns what from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature’, Political Studies, 44(2), 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. — (2000), ‘Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making’, Governance, 13(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunning, J.H. (1988), ‘The eclectic paradigm of international production: A restatement and some possible extensions’, Journal of International Business Studies, 1–31.Google Scholar
  20. Dunning, J.H. and Lundan, S.M. (2008), ‘Institutions and the OLI paradigm of the multinational enterprise’, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(4), 573–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edquist, C. (2001) ‘The systems of innovation approach and innovation policy: An account of the state of the art’. In DRUID Conference, Aalborg, 12–15 June.Google Scholar
  22. Feinberg, S., Hill, T.L., and Darendeli, I.S. (2015), ‘An institutional perspective on non-market strategy for a world in flux’. In Lawton, T. (ed.) Companion to Nonmarket Strategy, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Fisman, R. (2001), ‘Estimating the value of political connections’, American Economic Review, 1095–1102.Google Scholar
  24. Greenwood, R. and Suddaby, R. (2006), ‘Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms’, Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamdan-Livramento, I.M. (2009), ‘How compliant are developing countries with their TRIPS obligations?’ No. CEMI-WORKING PAPER-2009–001.Google Scholar
  26. Hillman, A.J. and Hitt, M.A. (1999), ‘Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decision’, Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 825–842.Google Scholar
  27. Jacobson, H.K. and Weiss, E.B. (1998), ‘Assessing the record and designing strategies to engage countries’, Engaging Countries: Strengthening Compliance with International Environmental Accords, 511.Google Scholar
  28. Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M., and Henderson, R. (1993), ‘Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kale, D. (2010), ‘The Distinctive Patterns of Dynamic Learning and Inter-firm Differences in the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry’, British Journal of Management, 21(1), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kale, D. and Wield, D. (2008), ‘Exploitative and explorative learning as a response to the TRIPS agreement in Indian pharmaceutical firms’, Industry and Innovation, 15(1), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keupp, A.P.M.M., Beckenbauer, P.C.A., and Gassmann, O. (2010), ‘Enforcing intellectual property rights in weak appropriability regimes’, Management International Review, 50(1), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Khanna, T., Palepu, K.G., and Sinha, J. (2005), ‘Strategies that fit emerging markets’, Harvard Business Review, 83(6), 4–19.Google Scholar
  33. Kumaraswamy, A., Mudambi, R., Saranga, H., and Tripathy, A. (2012), ‘Catch-up strategies in the Indian auto components industry: Domestic firms’ responses to market liberalization’, Journal of International Business Studies, 43(4): 368–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li, J.T., Tsui, A.S., and Weldon, E. (2000), Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li, Q. and Resnick, A. (2003), ‘Reversal of fortunes: Democratic institutions and foreign direct investment inflows to developing countries’, International Organization, 57(01), 175–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li, X. (2008), ‘The impact of higher standards in patent protection for pharmaceutical industries under the TRIPS agreement: A comparative study of China and India,’ The World Economy, 31(10), 1367–1382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Makino, S., Isobe, T., and Chan, C.M. (2004), ‘Does country matter?’ Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 1027–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nill, J. and Kemp, R. (2009), ‘Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies: From niche to paradigm?’ Research Policy, 38(4), 668–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. North, D.C. (1990), Inst it ut ion s, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. — (2006), Understanding the Process of Economic Change. New Delhi, India: Academic Foundation.Google Scholar
  41. Oliver, C. (1992), ‘The antecedents of deinstitutionalization’, Organization Studies, 13(4), 563–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paraskevopoulou, E. (2012), ‘Non-technological regulatory effects: Implications for innovation and innovation policy’, Research Policy, 41(6), 1058–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Park, W.G. (1995), ‘International R&D spillovers and OECD economic growth’, Economic Inquiry, 33(4), 571–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peng, M.W., Wang, D.Y.L., and Jiang, Y. (2008), ‘An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies’, Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5), 920–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Qian, Y. (2007). ‘Do national patent laws stimulate domestic innovation in a global patenting environment? A cross-country analysis of pharmaceutical patent protection’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3), 436–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scholte, J.A. (2001), ‘Globalisation, governance and corporate citizenship’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2001(1), 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scott, W.R. (2001), Institutions and Organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Suchman, M.C. (1995), ‘Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches’, Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  49. Sun, P., Mellahi, K., and Thun, E. (2010), ‘The dynamic value of MNE political embeddedness: The case of the Chinese automobile industry’, Journal of International Business Studies, 41(7), 1161–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Teece, D.J. (2006), ‘Reflections on profiting from innovation’, Research Policy, 35(8), 1131–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Waguespack, D.M., Birnir, J.K., and Schroeder, J. (2005), ‘Technological development and political stability: Patenting in Latin America and the Caribbean’, Research Policy, 34(10), 1570–1590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Williamson, O.E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  53. World Trade Organization [WTO] (2012), Country Documents, [accessed June 2015].
  54. Yang, D. and Sonmez, M. (2013), ‘Integration and divergence of patent systems across national and international institutions’, Journal of World Business, 48(4), 527–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kristin Brandl, Izzet Darendeli, Robert D. Hamilton III and Ram Mudambi 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristin Brandl
  • Izzet Darendeli
  • Robert D. HamiltonIII
  • Ram Mudambi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations