*Call for Papers Special Issue: Multinational Business Review *

*Open for Business in a Closed World: Managing MNE Nonmarket Strategy in
Times of *

*Populism and Geopolitical Uncertainty *

*Guest Editors: *George O. White III, Tazeeb S. Rajwani and Thomas C.

*Paper Submission deadline: *1 March 2020

*Context *

Multinational enterprises (MNEs) operating in this era of nationalist
rhetoric and mercantilist behavior encounter growing nonmarket threats and
uncertainty. Increased anti-globalization sentiment and legislation require
MNEs to adjust and adapt their corporate strategies (Doh, Lawton, and
Rajwani, 2012). There is extensive literature on political risk and
regulatory uncertainty (Brewer, 1993; García-Canal and Guillén, 2008;
Henisz and Delios, 2001; Henisz and Zelner, 2003; John and Lawton, 2017;
Kobrin, 1979; White, Boddewyn, and Galang, 2015). In contrast, with a few
notable exceptions (White, Hemphill, Joplin, and Marsh, 2014), there is
scant research on multinational nonmarket strategy that explores both
socio-political risks and uncertainty derived from government policies,
particularly arising from increased nationalism and protectionism.

Compared to the post-Cold War 1990s, when firms flourished due to the
neo-liberal environment that embraced globalization, the decade since the
2008 global economic crisis has been characterized by increased populism
and skepticism towards globalization. Populist movements and leaders have
largely focused on inequality and those left behind by globalization, but
also on new technologies, as low skilled workers in advanced economies have
increasingly become redundant due to automation, outsourcing, and
offshoring (Oestreich, 2002). These sentiments and resultant nationalism
were evident, for instance, in the 2016 U.S. presidential election results,
as well as election results in the Philippines, Hungry, Mexico and Turkey,
the 2017 Brexit referendum vote, and the 2018 Italian election leading to
the first populist government in a large EU country. There is increased
evidence to suggest a new world order is emerging due to greater focus by
governments on national interests rather than multinational solutions
(Globerman, 2017). The issues underlying this surge in populism are giving
rise to viable political associations, parties and interests, which have
largely elicited dismissive and passive aggressive responses from the
established political classes, both at national and international levels
(Avioutskii and Tensaout, 2016). This can be evidenced in the defensive
response of the EU institutional leadership to populist victories in member
countries including Greece, Hungary, and Italy. As a result, this standoff
has increased uncertainty for MNEs pondering investment, expansion
opportunities, and locational choices.

Many economies around the world are now framed by weaker political and
regulatory institutions, resulting in nonmarket threats such as border and
migration disputes, judicial arbitrariness, increased regulatory
uncertainty, and rising social inequality. Therefore, many MNE strategic
decisions are seriously challenged, and constrained, due to these
institutional uncertainties and shortcomings. Further, whereas some MNEs
benefit from these developments, most are dealing with increased costs,
time, and insecurity burdens in their markets and supply chains. Numerous
countries also face rising threats of terrorism, an increase in arbitrary
legal rulings, government instability, lop-sided and underdeveloped
consumer markets, and potentially destabilizing levels of youth
unemployment. Much of the blame for these problems is apportioned to free
trade, opportunistic foreign direct investment practices, liberal
immigration policies and open borders, thus giving rise to
anti-globalization movements. Therefore, these countries have developed far
reaching new laws on migration, climate change, and corporate tax. MNE
corporate strategies are undoubtedly challenged by this populist and
anti-globalization sentiment. In response to these institutional shifts,
MNEs are going through major strategic changes that involve new capability
development or rethinking capabilities in nonmarket arenas.

Given the implications for international business and management research
during this new wave of nationalism (Meyer, 2017), and the attendant
socio-political risk and regulatory uncertainty, there is a salient need
for more research focused on MNE nonmarket strategies. Therefore, the aims
of this special issue are to focus on (1) the conceptualization of
responses that MNEs can develop to manage and mitigate these anti-global
challenges; and (2) theorization concerning the types and forms of
nonmarket strategies that can be adopted and implemented in order to
enhance competitive advantage in contexts where nationalism and
geopolitical risk is high. Academic research on these issues can generate
new theoretical insights into the relationship between nonmarket threats
and corporate level strategic decision-making, in relation to government
policies, socio-political risk, institutional uncertainty, and an
anti-global business environment.

*Key Issues*

Papers should preferably investigate how anti-globalization and
mercantilist nonmarket threats are shaping MNE structures and operations,
governance, strategic principles and practices, and outcomes. Papers could
deal with the following issues (although innovative work in related and
relevant areas will also be welcome):

•       MNE nonmarket capability development and the local political
economy, with a focus on anti-globalization policies

•       Corporate strategy and nonmarket risk management in Europe, North
America, the Middle East, or Asian regions

•       How MNEs are affecting institutional changes in different countries
and regions characterized by populist movements

•       How MNEs engage external stakeholders, such as religious and
ideological groups, political institutions, legal and regulatory

         powerful political actors and civil society organizations, to
mitigate anti-globalization movements

•       Resilience and recovery from anti-globalization following the
closure of MNE subsidiaries

•       MNE nonmarket strategy and business model innovation in
nationalistic environments

•       The possibilities and limits of corporate social responsibility,
corporate power, authority and legitimacy in an era of anti-globalization

•       Local governments, global talent strategies, and corporate
strategies: how anti-globalization sentiment and forces impact winners and

        in international competition

•       Nonmarket strategy, anti-globalization, market entry mode and
corporate structures

•       How does the convergence of factors such as corruption and
de-institutionalization within countries undergoing ultra-populist

        influence MNE strategies?

•       Re-shoring, tax configuration, M&A, and corporate divestments as
MNE responses to anti-globalization sentiment and nationalist policies

•       Are political ties and relationships still important? Do lobbying
practices need to adapt to a changing world? What role do they play during

        this period of anti-globalization?

The special issue is open and competitive with submitted papers undergoing
the normal rigorous double-blind review process to ensure relevance and
quality. The key criteria for acceptance of manuscripts are (1) relevance
to the theme of the special issue; (2) scholarly rigor of analysis; and (3)
novel and innovative arguments and findings. Papers focused on the
development of theory and/or testing the boundaries of theory are
particularly welcome. Submitted papers must be original work not under
consideration by any other journal or outlet. Reviewers for papers
submitted to the Special Issue will be drawn from the Special Issue
Editorial Review Board and the MBR Editorial Review Board. No submission
will be reviewed prior to the closing date.

*Submission Process*:

Between January 1 and March 1, 2020, authors should submit their
manuscripts online. A guide for authors and other relevant information for
submitting papers are available on MBR’s web page.  All submissions should
be submitted electronically to
*SI as the article type.

*For more information*:

Prospective authors are urged to contact the guest editors with their
initial proposals or ideas well in advance of the deadline for final paper

*Contact details*:

•       Dr. George O. White III, University of Michigan-Flint & Asian
Institute of Management

         (*[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>*)

•       Dr. Tazeeb S. Rajwani, University of Surrey (*[log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>*)

•       Dr. Thomas C. Lawton, University College Cork & University of
Surrey (*[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>*)

*Sample of relevant references:  *

Avioutskii, V. and Tensaout, M. (2016), “Does politics matter? Partisan FDI
in Central and Eastern Europe”, *Multinational Business Review*, Vol. 24,
pp. 375-398.

Brewer, T. L. (1993), “Government policies, market imperfections, and
foreign direct investment”, *Journal of International Business Studies*,
Vol. 24, pp. 101-120.

Doh, J. P., Lawton, T. C. and Rajwani, T. (2012), “Advancing nonmarket
strategy research: Institutional perspectives in a changing world”, *Academy
of Management Perspectives*, Vol. 26, pp. 22-39.

Garcia-Canal, E. and Guillen, M. F. (2008), “Risk and the strategy of
foreign location choice in regulated industries”, *Strategic Management
Journal*, Vol. 29, pp. 1097-1115.

Globerman, S. (2017), “A new era for foreign direct investment?”,
Business Review*, Vol. 25, pp. 5-10.

Henisz, W. J. and Delios, A. (2001), “Uncertainty, imitation, and plant
location: Japanese multinational corporations, 1990-1996”, *Administrative
Science Quarterly*, Vol. 46, pp. 443-475.

Henisz, W. J. and Zelner, B. A. (2005), “Legitimacy, interest group
pressures, and change in emergent institutions: The case of foreign
investors and host country governments”, *Academy of Management Review*,
Vol. 30, pp. 361-382.

John, A. and Lawton, T. C. (2017), “International political risk
management: Perspectives, approaches and emerging agendas”, *International
Journal of Management Reviews*,

Kobrin, S. J. (1979), “Political risk: A review and reconsideration”, *Journal
of International Business Studies*, Vol. 10, pp. 67-80.

Meyer, K. E. (2017), “International business in an era of
anti-globalization”, *Multinational Business Review*, Vol. 25, pp. 78-90.

Oestreich, J. E. (2002), “What can businesses do to appease
anti-globalization protestors?”, *Business & Society Review*, Vol. 107, pp.

Viatcheslav, A. and Tensaout, M. (2016), “Does politics matter? Partisan
FDI in Central and Eastern Europe”, *Multinational Business Review*, Vol.
24, pp. 375-398.

White, G. O., Boddewyn, J. J. and Galang, R. M. N. (2015), “Legal system
contingencies as determinants of political tie intensity by wholly owned
foreign subsidiaries: Insights from     the Philippines”, *Journal of World
Business*, Vol. 50, pp. 342-356.

White, G. O., Hemphill, T. A., Joplin, J. R. W. and Marsh, L. A. (2014),
“Wholly owned foreign subsidiary relations-based strategies in volatile
environments”, *International Business Review*, Vol. 23, pp. 303-312.
George O. White III, J.D., LL.M., Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Strategic Management
School of Management, University of Michigan-Flint
Email: [log in to unmask]
Office Phone: 810-762-3114/Cell Phone: 915-217-4571
Fax: 810-762-3282/Skype: gowhiteiii
School Website <>/Personal Website

Core Faculty, International & Global Studies Program, University of
Michigan-Flint <>
Faculty Affiliate, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, University of
Michigan (Ann Arbor) <>
Non-Resident Research Fellow, Asian Institute of Management (Makati City)

Guest Editor: Multinational Business Review, Open for Business in a Closed
World: Managing MNE Nonmarket Strategy in Times of Populism and
Geopolitical Uncertainty

AIB-L is brought to you by the Academy of International Business.
For information:
To post message: [log in to unmask]
For assistance:  [log in to unmask]
AIB-L is a moderated list.