*Management and Organization Review** Call for Papers*

*Dialogue, Debate and Discussion Forum On:*


*Ramifications for MNE’s Strategies and Management *

The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has dramatically escalated
de-globalization undercurrents and global decoupling (e.g., O’Neil, 2020;
Schell, 2020). The pandemic has vividly revealed the vulnerability of
optimized global supply chains and single offshoring manufacturing hubs and
has forced MNEs to consider and adopt new configurations of loosely-coupled
ecosystems. This new reality is consistent with the framing of
de-globalization (Witt, 2019a, 2019b), and the emergence of *global
decoupling *in both business and geopolitical terms, especially between the
U.S. and China, reminiscent of the old Cold War (Petricevic & Teece, 2019).

China’s entry into the WTO in 2001 was the catalyst for a huge expansion in
global international trade and foreign direct investment. China, however,
also adroitly exploited WTO regimes for adjudicating rule infractions and
fundamentally failed to adhere to policies and practices on which the WTO
was founded and to which it committed to abiding by (Jannace & Tiffany,
2019), which fostered the antecedents of de-globalization dynamics and the
ongoing global decoupling (Petricevic & Teece, 2019).

The consequences of *de-globalization* are evident in (i) the actual
decline in overall flows of global international trade and foreign direct
investment (FDI), and (ii) the decomposition and looser coupling of the
prevailing tightly-coupled global value chains and manufacturing hubs
(Witt, 2009a). It reflects a weakening of bilateral interdependence between
China and the U.S. and their related allies (thus global decoupling), in
both economic and technological domains (Li, 2019), and in political and
ideological spheres (Dupont, 2020), consistent with China-style state
capitalism and techno-nationalism (Petricevic & Teece, 2019; Shim & Shin,
2016). This global decoupling bears far-reaching consequences (Li, 2019;
Teece, 2020; Witt, 2009b), as reflected in the ongoing cases of Tiktok,
WeChat, Huawei, ARM, Zoom, among other high-tech firms (Helberg, 2020; *The
Economist*, 2020a, 2020b).

Various perspectives have been offered to explain global decoupling, such
as *Thucydides’s Trap* (Allison, 2017), and institutional conflict relating
to ‘*bifurcated governance*’ with two incompatible ‘rules of the game’–
 the rule of law vs. rule of ruler (Petricevic & Teece, 2019). Moreover,
digital technologies reinforce this bifurcated world (Kendall-Taylor,
Frantz, & Wright, 2020).

commentaries that address two broad questions: *(1)* *What are the most
salient contextual forces driving the trend toward de-globalization and
global decoupling (e.g., global supply chains, social media, reshoring and
relocation of manufacturing hubs, software development, electronic
payments, platformization, and ecosystem). (2) How can MNEs headquartered
in liberal democracies or state capitalistic systems best adapt and respond
to these emerging dynamics?*

The Editors of *Management and Organization Review* believe that this is an
opportune time to explore the strengths and vulnerabilities of current
forms of globalization at the firm level, including their global markets,
supply chains, R&D centers, and international alliance partners across the
emerging boundaries shaping global decoupling.

This forum seeks to feature phenomenon-based empirical or theoretical
commentaries, including case studies.

Commentaries will be evaluated through a new experimental *two-week* fast
track review process.

*Topics and Scope:*

Theoretical or empirical commentaries are expected to address but are not
limited to the following main themes:

   - What are the most salient contextual forces driving the trend toward
   de-globalization in general and global decoupling in particular? And what
   are the critical implications for IB research, especially the
   underestimated role of geopolitical forces, and also the under-studied
   complex versions of state capitalism and techno-nationalism?
   - How do domestic companies and MNEs prepare for the disruption due to
   de-globalization dynamics and the new reality demanding a focus on global
   decoupling of interdependencies involving international trade, outward
   foreign direct investments, innovation and most importantly corporate
   strategies, leadership styles, and new organizations forms?
   - What new strategies, organizational structures, and managerial skills
   will companies need to compete in an environment that requires a new
   balance between tightly coupled and loosely coupled systems amidst trends
   toward digitalization (e.g., cloud computing, AI, block chain, and 3D
   printing, among others), and the possible reality of an economic and
   technological cold war between the US and China and their nexuses of
   affiliated economies?
   - How do MNEs compete simultaneously in both liberal democratic and
   state capitalistic economies? What are the implications for innovation, new
   strategies, new organizational configurations, and managerial skills that
   companies need to adopt to compete in bifurcating evolving global and
   technological competitive landscapes?
   - What new organizational forms and governance systems will emerge to
   allow companies to compete within and across distinctly different and
   possibly hostile geo-economics and geopolitical systems?
   - Will MNEs from emerging markets face greater challenges relative to
   advanced-economy MNEs?

Commentaries can be submitted beginning November 1st 2020 for initial
publication in MOR 17.1. Please submit commentaries (maximum 2000 words)
via the MOR online submission system here:

When asked to select an article type, please select the Dialogue, Debate,
and Discussion category and note in your cover letter that you are
submitting a commentary to the ‘Forum on De-globalization and Global
Decoupling’ to ensure that your submission is properly assigned.


Allison, G. T. 2017. *Destined for war: Can America and China escape
Thucydides’s Trap?* New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Dupont, A. 2020. New Cold War: De-risking US-China conflict. Hinrich

Helberg, 2020. Silicon Valley can’t be neutral in the U.S.-China Cold War:
Firms like Zoom show that ‘one company, two systems’ doesn’t work. *Foreign
Policy*. Accessed on June 23, 2020. Available at

Jannace, W., & Tiffany, P. 2019. A new world order: The rule or law, or the
law of rulers? *Fordham International Law Journal*, 42(5): 1379–1417.

Kendall-Taylor, A., Erica Frantz, E., & Wright, J. 2020. The digital
dictators: How technology strengthens autocracy. *Foreign Affairs*, 3-4:

Li, W. 2019. Towards economic decoupling? Mapping Chinese discourse on the
China-US trade war. *Chinese Journal of International Politics*, 12:

O’Neil, S. K. 2020. How to pandemic-proof globalization: Redundancy, not
re-shoring, is the key to supply-chain security. Foreign Affairs. Access on
April 1, 2020. Available at:

Petricevic, O., & Teece, D.J. 2019. The structural reshaping of
globalization: Implications for strategic sectors, profiting from
innovation, and the multinational enterprise. *Journal of International
Business Studies,* 50: 1487–1512.

Schell, O. 2020a. The ugly end of Chimerica: The coronavirus pandemic has
turned a conscious uncoupling into a messy breakup. *Foreign Policy*,
Spring Issue: 26–29.

Shim, Y. & Shin, D. H. 2016. Neo-techno nationalism: The case of China’s
handset industry. *Telecommunications Policy*, 40(2–3): 197–209.

Teece, D. J. 2020. Fundamental issues in strategy: Time to reassess? *Strategic
Management Review*, 1(1): 103–144.

*The Economist*. 2020a. China v America: Doing business with China.
Accessed on July 18, 2020. Available at

*The Economist*. 2020b. Will TikTok survive? Accessed on September 19,
2020. Available at

Witt, M. A. 2019a. De-globalization: Theories, predictions, and
implications for international business research. *Journal of International
Business Studies*, 50: 1053–1077.

Witt, M.A. 2019b. China’s challenge: Geopolitics, de-globalization, and the
future of Chinese business. *Management and Organization Review*, 15(4):

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.