Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptualizing and Measuring Distance in International Business Research: Recurring Questions and Best Practice Guidelines

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Research Methods in International Business

Part of the book series: JIBS Special Collections ((JIBSSC))

Abstract

Distance is a central concept in international business research, yet there is debate about the construct as well as its operationalization. In this editorial, we address three of the most important recurring questions posed by authors, editors, and reviewers by examining the theory, methods, and data of distance research. We discuss (1) how to theorize on distance, and (2) what method and (3) what data to use when constructing a distance index. We develop practical recommendations grounded in theory, illustrating and supporting them by calculating cross-country distance indices for all available country pairs and two of the most used distance indices: cultural and institutional. We show that, whereas a specific method to calculate distance may matter to some extent, the choice for a specific cultural or institutional framework to measure cultural or institutional distance has a major impact on country–pair distances. Overall, this editorial highlights the importance of matching data and method to the theoretical argument.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In one of the earlier explanations of this notion, Goodnow and Hansz (1972) state that, as firms enter markets further away from the United States, “government becomes less stable, the markets become poorer, the economy becomes less stable, cultural homogeneity declines, legal and geographical barriers go up and cultures become different” (Goodnow and Hansz 1972: 37). Johanson and Vahlne (1977) generalize this argument by stating that the further from the home country, the more uncertainty and the higher the costs of acquiring information.

  2. 2.

    It is interesting to note that trade, the dependent variable in gravity models, is one of the explanatory variables in the Uppsala model.

  3. 3.

    There is no grand theory in the sense of a single framework with a set of assumptions, mechanisms, and boundary conditions. That does not mean that there is no theory of national cultural differences (Adler 1983).

  4. 4.

    Theoretically, such discrete changes can also be found at other levels. For example, Ronen and Shenkar (2013) have shown that countries can be grouped into a limited number of culturally homogeneous supra-national zones.

  5. 5.

    In light of the popularity of their distance measure, it is interesting to point out that Kogut and Singh’s (1988) findings regarding the effect of uncertainty avoidance on entry mode were stronger than the cultural distance effect (see Kogut and Singh 1988: 424).

  6. 6.

    Occasionally, this is referred to as Cartesian distance (e.g., Buchner et al. 2017).

  7. 7.

    In addition to the Kogut and Singh index and the Euclidean index, some researchers have used a mix of the two. For example, Barkema and Vermeulen (1997) use a Euclidean distance index but correct for differences in the variances of each of Hofstede’s cultural dimension by multiplying the individual dimension distances by 1/vi where vi is the variance of each cultural dimension. The Kogut and Singh index adapts the scales in a similar way (see Eq. 26.1), but does not take the square root. In this case, the difference between the Kogut and Singh index and this third approach is the aggregation procedure (square root vs. dividing by the number of dimensions). Although this is not the same type of transformation, they are effectively highly correlated.

  8. 8.

    In the case of South Africa, the WVS-EVS data provide a score for the fifth and sixth dimensions of Hofstede’s framework. The four original Hofstede dimensions refer to Caucasian South Africans only. We have decided not to mix both samples, and hence exclude South Africa from the analysis.

  9. 9.

    Inglehart (1997) used the WVS-EVS data to develop two dimensions of differences in national cultural values related to degree of materialism. However, his framework is rarely used in management (it is mostly used in sociology and political science). One reason for the limited use of the WVS-EVS data in management is the fact that, despite the use of stratified nationally representative samples and the richness of the WVS-EVS data (they contain more than 200 value-related questions), the user-friendliness of the database is limited. Note also that in its fifth and sixth rounds, the WVS has included a condensed ten-item version of the Schwartz values.

  10. 10.

    These correlations do not depend on the choice of home country. Drogendijk & Slangen (2006, 372) report a correlation of.97 between the Euclidean and Kogut and Singh versions of the four-dimensional Hofstede index when using the Netherlands as a home country. For the most used home country in cultural distance research, the United States, this correlation is also. 97.

  11. 11.

    We use data for 2013, but as the QoG index is highly correlated over time (0.99 between t and t + 1), the selected year does not affect the outcome.

  12. 12.

    The Mahalanobis institutional distance based on six dimensions correlates 0.96 with the five dimensional Mahalanobis institutional distance index (using QoG data).

  13. 13.

    As the European manager of personnel research at IBM, Geert Hofstede had privileged access to the confidential IBM employee data used to develop his cross-cultural framework. The original data stayed at IBM after Geert Hofstede left IBM in 1973 (based on personal communication from Geert Hofstede).

  14. 14.

    See Ralston et al. (1997) and Ralston (2008) for an alternative view.

  15. 15.

    Although both Berry and Beugelsdijk use WVS-EVS to develop Hofstede-inspired cultural dimensions, there is only limited overlap in the WVS-EVS questions used by Berry et al. (2010) and Beugelsdijk et al. (2015). Both studies use the question on trust (WVS code a165). The correlations between the original Hofstede dimensions, and the ones developed by Berry et al. (2010) and Beugelsdijk et al. (2015) differ. Berry et al.’s (2010) individualism correlates 0.24 with Hofstede’s original individualism, Berry et al’s power distance correlates 0.25 with Hofstede’s, uncertainty avoidance correlates 0.52 with Hofstede’s and Berry et al’s masculinity correlates 0.16 with Hofstede’s. For Beugelsdijk et al. (2015), these correlations with the original Hofstede dimensions are: 0.77 for individualism, 0.74 for uncertainty avoidance, 0.72 for power distance, and 0.92 for indulgence versus restraint.

  16. 16.

    Note that the correlations shown in Table 26.3 are country-specific, because each cultural distance is calculated relative to a different home country. Hence, the correlation between two distance indices can vary depending on home country. A similar country specificity holds for the correlation between the ICRG- and EFI-based institutional distance indices. We have calculated all the cultural distance correlations shown in Table 26.3 as well as the correlation between the ICRG- and EFI-based institutional distance indices for each home country. Calculating the country-specific correlations does not change our overall conclusion.

  17. 17.

    Schwartz has described the difference between his approach and those of others (i.e., Hofstede) in the following way: “(a) It [the approach] derived the cultural orientations from a priori theorizing rather than post hoc examination of data. (b) It designated a priori the value items that serve as markers for each orientation. (c) It used as measures only items tested for cross-cultural equivalence of meaning. (d) It included a set of items demonstrated to cover the range of values recognized cross-culturally, a step toward ensuring relative comprehensiveness of cultural value dimensions. (e) It specified how the cultural orientations are organized into a coherent system of related dimensions and verified this organization, rather than assuming that orthogonal dimensions best capture cultural reality. (f) It brought empirical evidence that the order of national cultures on each of the orientations is robust across different types of samples from each of a large number of nations around the world [and using different instruments]. These distinctive features increase the promise of this approach for future research.” (Schwartz 2004: 73, and reprinted in Schwartz 2006: 179).

  18. 18.

    A similar relationship exists between institutional distance and economic distance, because high-quality institutions are generally associated with high levels of economic development (Acemoglu et al. 2005).

References

  • Abdi, M., and P.S. Aulakh. 2012. Do country level institutional frameworks and interfirm governance arrangements substitute or complement in international business relations. Journal of International Business Studies 43 (5): 477–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acemoglu, D., S. Johnson, and J.A. Robinson. 2005. Chapter 6: Institutions as a fundamental cause of long run growth. In Handbook of economic growth, ed. P. Aghion and S.N. Durlauf, 387–472. Amsterdam: Elsevier Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, N.J. 1983. Cross-cultural management research—The ostrich and the trend. Academy of Management Review 8 (2): 226–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ailon, G. 2008. Mirror, Mirror on the wall: Culture’s consequences in a value test of its own design. Academy of Management Review 33 (4): 885–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambos, B., and L. Håkanson. 2014. The concept of distance in international management research. Journal of International Management 20 (1): 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined communities. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J., and E. van Wincoop. 2003. Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review 93: 17–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ang, S.H., M.H. Benischke, and J.P. Doh. 2015. The interactions of institutions on foreign market entry mode. Strategic Management Journal 36 (10): 1536–1553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkema, H.G., and F. Vermeulen. 1997. What differences in cultural backgrounds of partners are detrimental for international joint ventures? Journal of International Business Studies 28 (4): 854–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R.F. 2003. Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckerman, W. 1956. Distance and the pattern of intra-European trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics 38 (1): 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrand, J.H. 1985. The gravity equation in international trade: Some micro economic foundations and empirical evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics 67 (3): 474–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, H., M. Guillen, and N. Zhou. 2010. An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies 41 (9): 1460–1480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beugelsdijk, S., and R. Mudambi. 2013. MNEs as border-crossing multi-location enterprises: The role of discontinuities in geographic space. Journal of International Business Studies 44 (5): 413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beugelsdijk, S., and C. Welzel. 2018. Dimensions and dynamics of national culture: Synthesizing Hofstede with Inglehart. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022118798505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beugelsdijk, S., R. Maseland, and A. van Hoorn. 2015. Are scores on Hofstede’s dimension of national culture stable over time? A cohort analysis. Global Strategy Journal 5 (3): 223–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beugelsdijk, S., T. Kostova, and K. Roth. 2017. An overview of Hofstede-inspired country level culture research in international business since 2006. Journal of International Business Studies 48 (1): 30–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beugelsdijk, S., P. Nell, and P. Ambos. 2017. When do distance effects become empirically observable? An investigation in the context of headquarters value creation for subsidiaries. Journal of International Management 23 (3): 255–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beugelsdijk, S., T. Kostova, V. Kunst, E. Spadafora, and M. van Essen. 2018. Cultural distance and firm internationalization. Journal of Management 44 (1): 89–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K.A., and A. Diamantopoulos. 2017. In defense of causal-formative indicators: A minority report. Psychological Methods 22 (3): 581–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, M.H. 2002. Reclaiming the Individual from Hofstede’s ecological analysis—A 20 year odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin 128 (1): 73–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brereton, R.G., and G.R. Lloyd. 2016. Re-evaluating the role of the Mahalanobis distance measure. Journal of Chemometrics 30: 134–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, P., and S. Venaik. 2011. Individualism-collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies 42 (3): 436–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouthers, K.D. 2002. Institutional, cultural and transaction costs influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies 33 (2): 203–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouthers, L.E., V.B. Marshall, and D.L. Keig. 2016. Solving the single-country sample problem in cultural distance studies. Journal of International Business Studies 47 (4): 471–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchner, A., S. Espenlaub, A. Khurhsed, and A. Mohammed. 2017. Cross-border venture capital investments: The impact of foreignness on returns. Journal of International Business Studies 49 (5): 575–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J.T., L. Eden, and S. Miller. 2012. Multinationals and corporate social responsibility on host countries: Does distance matter? Journal of International Business Studies 43 (1): 84–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coltman, T., T.M. Devinney, D.F. Midgley, and S. Venaik. 2008. Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research 61: 1250–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuypers, I.P.R., G. Ertug, P.M.A.R. Heugens, B. Kogut, and T. Zou. 2018. The making of a construct: Lessons from 30 years of the Kogut and Singh cultural distance index. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0181-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Maesschalck, R., D. Jouan-Rimbaud, and D.L. Massart. 2000. The Mahalanobis distance. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 50 (1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirbag, M., M. Apaydin, and E. Tatoglu. 2011. Survival of Japanese subsidiaries in the Middle East and North Africa. Journal of World Business 46 (4): 411–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dheer, R., T. Lenartowicz, and M.F. Peterson. 2015. Mapping Indiás regional subcultures: Implications for international management. Journal of International Business Studies 46 (4): 443–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., and H.M. Winklhofer. 2001. Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research 38 (2): 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., P. Riefler, and K.P. Roth. 2008. Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research 61 (12): 1203–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dikova, D., P.R. Sahib, and A. van Witteloostuijn. 2010. Cross border acquisitions abandonment and completion: The effect of institutional differences and organizational learning in the international business service industry, 1981–2001. Journal of International Business Studies 41 (2): 223–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dow, D., and A. Karunaratna. 2006. Developing a multidimensional instrument to measure psychic distance stimuli. Journal of International Business Studies 37 (5): 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drogendijk, R., and A. Slangen. 2006. Hofstede, Schwartz, or managerial perceptions? The effects of different cultural distance measures on establishment mode choices by multinational enterprises. International Business Review 15 (4): 361–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, L., & Miller, S. R. 2004. Distance matters: Liability of foreignness, institutional distance and ownership strategy. Advances in International Management, 16 (Theories of the Multinational Enterprise: Diversity, Complexity and Relevance), 187–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenstra, R., J. Markusen, and A.K. Rose. 2001. Using the gravity equation to differentiate among alternative theories of trade. The Canadian Journal of Economics 34 (2): 430–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, D.R., D.S. Carlson, L.P. Stepina, and J.D. Nicholson. 1997. Hofstede’s country classification 25 years later. The Journal of Applied Psychology 137 (1): 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flury, B.K., and H. Riedwyl. 1986. Standard distance in univariate and multivariate analysis. American Statistician 40 (3): 249–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, T.L. 2005. The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P. 2001. Distance still matters. The hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review 79 (8): 137–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. The laws of globalization and business applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodnow, J.D., and J.E. Hansz. 1972. Environmental determinants of overseas market entry strategies. Journal of International Business Studies 3 (1): 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gubbi, S.R., P.S. Aulakh, S. Ray, M.B. Sarkar, and R. Chittoor. 2010. Do international acquisitions by emerging-economy firms create shareholder value? The case of Indian firms. Journal of International Business Studies 41 (3): 397–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guiso, L., P. Sapienza, and L. Zingales. 2009. Cultural biases in economic exchange. Quarterly Journal of Economics 124 (3): 1095–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Håkanson, L. 2014. The role of psychic distance in international trade: A longitudinal analysis. International Marketing Review 31 (3): 210–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Håkanson, L., and B. Ambos. 2010. The antecedents of psychic distance. Journal of International Management 16 (3): 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Håkanson, L., and P. Kappen. 2017. The ‘casino model’ of internationalization: An alternative Uppsala paradigm. Journal of International Business Studies 48 (9): 1103–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Håkanson, L., B. Ambos, A. Schuster, and U. Leicht-Deobald. 2016. The psychology of psychic distance: Antecedents of asymmetric perceptions. Journal of World Business 51 (2): 308–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.W., and M. Pudelko. 2016. Do we need to distance ourselves from the distance concept? Why home and host country context might matter more than (cultural) distance. Management International Review 56 (1): 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, X., K.E. Brouthers, and I. Filatotchev. 2013. Resource-based and institutional perspectives on export channel selection and export performance. Journal of Management 39 (1): 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, G., A.H.L. Slangen, and P.M.A.R. Heugens. 2017. How a firm’s domestic footprint and domestic environmental uncertainties jointly shape added cultural distances: The roles of resources dependence and headquarters attention. Journal of Management Studies 55 (6): 883–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.F., and J. Larimo. 1988. The impact of culture on the strategy of multinational enterprises: Does national origin affect ownership decisions? Journal of International Business Studies 29 (3): 515–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001. Culture’s consequences; comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. The Globe debate: Back to relevance. Journal of International Business Studies 41 (8): 1339–1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G., G.J. Hofstede, and M. Minkov. 2010. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R.J., P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta, eds. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutzschenreuter, T., J.C. Voll, and A. Verbeke. 2011. The impact of added cultural distance and cultural diversity on international expansion patterns: A Penrosean perspective. Journal of Management Studies 48 (2): 305–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutzschenreuter, T., I. Kleindienst, and S. Lange. 2014. Added psychic distance stimuli and MNE performance: Performance effects of added cultural, governance, geographic, and economic distance in MNEs’ international expansion. Journal of International Management 20 (1): 38–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. 1990. Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., and W.E. Baker. 2000. Modernization, cultural change and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review 65 (1): 19–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., and C. Welzel. 2005. Modernization, cultural change and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., and J.E. Vahlne. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm—A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies 8 (1): 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies 40 (9): 1411–1431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., and F. Wiedersheim-Paul. 1975. The internalization of the firm: Four Swedish cases. Journal of Management Studies 12 (3): 305–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi. 2008. Governance matters VII: Aggregate and individual governance indicators 1996–2007. Policy research working paper 4654. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B.L., K.B. Lowe, and C.B. Gibson. 2006. A quarter century of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies 37 (3): 285–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. A retrospective on Culture’s consequences: The 35-year journey. Journal of International Business Studies 48 (1): 12–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopf, P., and P.C. Nell. 2018. How “space” and “place” influence subsidiary host country political embeddedness. International Business Review 27 (1): 186–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., and H. Singh. 1988. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies 19 (3): 411–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T. 1996. Success of the transnational transfer of organizational practices within multinational companies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., P.C. Nell, and A.K. Hoenen. 2017. Understanding agency problems in headquarters-subsidiary relationships in multinational corporations: A contextualized model. Journal of Management 3 (1): 57–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., and S.R. Miller. 2008. Alliance portfolio internationalization and firm performance. Organization Science 19 (4): 623–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenartowicz, T., and K. Roth. 2001. Does subculture within a country matter? A cross-culture study of motivational domains and business performance in Brazil. Journal of International Business Studies 32 (2): 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., X. Liu, M. Wright, and I. Filatotchev. 2014. International experience and FDI location choices of Chinese firms: The moderating effects of home country government support and host country institutions. Journal of International Business Studies 45 (4): 428–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, P., D.W. Baack, S. Zdravkovic, K.M. Staub, and L.S. Amine. 2008. Meta-analysis of cultural differences: Another slice at the apple. International Business Review 17 (5): 520–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahalanobis, P.C. 1937. Normalisation of statistical variates and the use of rectangular coordinates in the theory of sampling distributions. Sankhya 3: 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makino, S., and E.W.K. Tsang. 2011. Historical ties and foreign direct investment: An exploratory study. Journal of International Business Studies 42 (4): 545–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, S., and A. Gaur. 2014. Spatial geography and control if foreign acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies 45 (2): 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maseland, R., D. Dow, and P. Steel. 2018. The Kogutand Singh national cultural distance index: Time to start using it as a springboard rather than a crutch. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0183-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto, D., and L.H. Yoo. 2006. Toward a new generation of cross-cultural research. Perspectives in Psychological Science 1 (3): 234–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith—A failure of analysis. Human Relations 55: 89–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Dynamic diversity: Variety and variation within countries. Organization Studies 30 (9): 933–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K., A. van Witteloostuijn, and S. Beugelsdijk. 2017. What’s in a p? Reassessing best practices for conducting and reporting hypothesis-testing research. Journal of International Business Studies 48 (5): 535–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingo, S., F. Morales, and L. Dau. 2018. The interplay of national distances and regional networks: Private equity investments in emerging markets. Journal of International Business Studies 49 (3): 371–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morschett, D., H. Schramm-Klein, and B. Swoboda. 2010. Decades of research on market entry modes: What do we really know about external antecedents of entry mode choice? Journal of International Management 16 (1): 60–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nell, P.C., and B. Ambos. 2013. Parenting advantage in the MNC: An embeddedness perspective on the value added by headquarters. Strategic Management Journal 34 (9): 1086–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nell, P.C., P. Kappen, and T. Laamanen. 2017. Reconceptualising hierarchies: The disaggregation and dispersion of headquarters in multinational corporations. Journal of Management Studies 54 (8): 1121–1143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman, D., H.M. Coon, and M. Kemmelmeier. 2002. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin 128 (1): 3–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. 2003. Reviewed work: Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations by Geert Hofstede. Administrative Science Quarterly 48 (1): 127–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Reviewed work: Culture, leadership and organizations: The Globe study of 62 societies. Administrative Science Quarterly 49 (4): 641–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M., and S.L. Castro. 2006. Measurement metrics at aggregate levels of analysis: Implications for organizational culture research and the Globe project. The Leadership Quarterly 17: 506–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M., and M. Søndergaard. 2011. Traditions and transitions on quantitative societal culture research in organization studies. Organization Studies 32 (11): 1539–1558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M., M. Søndergaard, and A. Kara. 2018. Traversing cultural boundaries in IB: The complex relationships between explicit country and implicit cultural group boundaries at multiple levels. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0082-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D.A. 2008. The crossvergence perspective: Reflections and projections. Journal of International Business Studies 39 (1): 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D.A., D.H. Holt, R.H. Terpstra, and Y. Kai-Cheng. 1997. The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: A study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. Journal of International Business Studies 28 (1): 177–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D.A., et al. 2011. A twenty first century assessment of values across the global workforce. Journal of Business Ethics 104: 10–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Societal level versus individual level predictions of ethical behavior: A 48-society study of collectivism and individualism. Journal of Business Ethics 122: 283–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronen, S., and O. Shenkar. 2013. Mapping world cultures: Cluster formation, sources and implications. Journal of International Business Studies 44 (9): 867–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, R. 2016. Global vision: How companies can overcome the pitfalls of globalization. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, R., and Z. Wu. 2012. Institutional distance and local isomorphism strategy. Journal of International Business Studies 43 (4): 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S.H. 1994. Beyond individualism/collectivism; new cultural dimensions of values. In Individualism and collectivism. Theory, method, and applications, ed. U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kâğitçibasi, S.C. Choi, and G. Yoon, 85–119. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1999. Cultural value differences: Some implications for work. Applied Psychology. An International Review 48 (1): 23–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In Comparing cultures: Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective, ed. H. Vinken, J. Soeters, and P. Ester, 43–73. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology 5 (2): 137–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Studying personal values: Personal adventure, future directions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42 (2): 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal culture in light of empirical findings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 45 (1): 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenkar, O. 2001. Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies 32 (3): 519–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Beyond cultural distance: Switching to a friction lens in the study of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies 43 (1): 12–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenkar, O., Y. Luo, and O. Yeheskel. 2008. From “distance” to “friction”: Substituting metaphors and redirecting intercultural research. Academy of Management Review 33 (4): 905–923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivakumar, K., and C. Nakata. 2001. The stampede towards Hofstede’s framework; Avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies 32 (3): 555–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slangen, A.H.L., and S. Beugelsdijk. 2010. The impact of institutional hazards on foreign multinational activity: A contingency perspective. Journal of International Business Studies 41 (6): 980–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P.B. 2006. When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled: The Globe and Hofstede projects. Journal of International Business Studies 37 (6): 915–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P.B., S. Dugan, and F. Trompenaars. 1996. National culture and the values of organizational employees. A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 27 (2): 231–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., and R. Tung. 2015. Towards a more balanced treatment of culture in international Business studies: The need for positive cross-cultural scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies 46 (4): 391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., and A. Voigt. 2008. Do cultural differences matter in mergers and acquisitions? A tentative model and examination. Organization Science 19 (1): 160–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J.B. 2001. The role of national culture in international marketing research. International Marketing Review 18 (1): 30–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tihanyi, L., D.A. Griffith, and C.J. Russell. 2005. The effect of cultural distance on entry mode choice, international diversification, and MNE performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies 36 (3): 270–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tung, R.L., and A. Verbeke. 2010. Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving the quality of cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies 41 (8): 1259–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vahlne, J.E., and F. Wiedersheim-Paul. 1973. Economic distance: Model and empirical investigation. In Export and foreign establishments, ed. E. Hörnell, J.E. Vahlne, and F. Wiedersheim-Paul. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentino, A., J. Schmitt, B. Koch, and P.C. Nell. 2018. Leaving home: An institutional perspective on intermediary HQ relocations. Journal of World Business. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2018.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hoorn, A.A.J., and R. Maseland. 2016. How institutions matter for international business: Institutional distance effects vs institutional profile effects. Journal of International Business Studies 47 (3): 374–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, A., W. Yuan, and L. Kano. in press. A values-based analysis of bifurcation bias and its impact on family firm internationalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9598-4.

  • Wu, Z., and R. Salomon. 2016. Does imitation reduce the liability of foreignness? Linking distance, isomorphism and performance. Strategic Management Journal 37 (12): 2441–2462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Z., and J. Li. 2017. Exporting and innovating among emerging market firms: The moderating role of institutional development. Journal of International Business Studies 49 (2): 222–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D., and O. Shenkar. 2002. Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review 27 (4): 608–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, S., S. Beugelsdijk, and J. de Haan. 2015. Trade, trust and the rule of law. European Journal of Political Economy 37: 102–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A., and E. Hernandez. 2011. The geographic scope of the MNC and its alliance portfolio: Resolving the paradox of distance. Global Strategy Journal 1 (1–2): 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, S., M. Schomaker, and L. Nachum. 2012. Distance without direction: Restoring credibility to a much-loved construct. Journal of International Business Studies 43 (1): 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., Y. Luo, and T. Suh. 2004. Transaction cost determinants and ownership-based entry mode choice: A meta-analytical review. Journal of International Business Studies 35 (6): 524–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Heather Berry, Johannes Kleinhempel, Thomas Lindner, Laura Spierdijk, Alain Verbeke, Tom Wansbeek, Juliette de Wit, participants of the AIB 2018 professional development workshop, and our anonymous reviewers, for comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Sjoerd Beugelsdijk

  2. University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Björn Ambos

  3. Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Vienna, Austria

    Phillip C. Nell

Authors
  1. Sjoerd Beugelsdijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Björn Ambos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Phillip C. Nell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sjoerd Beugelsdijk .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Lorraine Eden

  2. The University of Sydney Business School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Bo Bernhard Nielsen

  3. Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Bo Bernhard Nielsen

  4. University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Alain Verbeke

  5. University of Reading, Reading, UK

    Alain Verbeke

  6. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Alain Verbeke

Appendices

Appendix A

Table 26.5 Overview of cross-cultural frameworks
Full size table

Appendix B

Table 26.6 Correlation table of Hofstede’s dimensions, Schwartz’s dimensions and Globe’s value dimensions
Full size table

Appendix C

Table 26.7 Correlation table of QoG dimensions, EFI dimensions and ICRG dimensions
Full size table

Appendix D

Table 26.8 Factor analysis of Hofstede’s six dimensional model
Full size table

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Beugelsdijk, S., Ambos, B., Nell, P.C. (2020). Conceptualizing and Measuring Distance in International Business Research: Recurring Questions and Best Practice Guidelines. In: Eden, L., Nielsen, B.B., Verbeke, A. (eds) Research Methods in International Business. JIBS Special Collections. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22113-3_26

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation