*Special Issue of the Journal of International Business Studies*


*Special Issue Editors:*

-       Stephanie Lu Wang ([log in to unmask]), Indiana University

-       Rosalie L.Tung ([log in to unmask]), Simon Fraser University
-       Joseph Lampel ([log in to unmask]), University of
-       Paul Hirsch ([log in to unmask]), Northwestern
-   Marjorie Lyles ([log in to unmask]), Florida International University

*Deadline for submission: *January 31, 2023


The notion of cultural industries is attracting growing scholarly
attention. From artworks, music, movies, sports, to tourism, cultural
industries produce and distribute cultural goods, or "‘non- material goods
directed at a public of consumers for whom they generally serve as an
aesthetic or expressive, rather than clearly utilitarian function"(Hirsch,
1972: p. 641-642). Scholars have also used the term “creativity industries”
to emphasize how these industries leverage culture—values, norms,
traditions, lifestyles and symbols shared by a social group— as key
resources in spurring creativity. Scholars have long utilized this
distinctive context to develop new constructs and theories (see Wang, Gu,
Von Glinow, and Hirsch (2020) for a comprehensive summary). Rooted in
sociology, scholars have developed the culture production perspective
(Bourdieu, 1979; Hirsch, 2000; Peterson & Anand, 2004), the construct of
authenticity (Jones, Anand, & Alvarez, 2005; Peterson, 1997), the cultural
entrepreneurship literature (Lounsbury, Gehman, & Glynn, 2019; Lounsbury &
Glynn, 2001), to name just a few. Scholars have also developed cultural
economics, highlighting the distinctive supply, demand, pricing,
international trade, and government policies of cultural goods (Throsby,
1994; Towse, 2011).

For international business (IB) scholars, the growing attention to cultural
industries reflects a dual global paradigm: (1) building new
creativity-based economies, and (2) achieving sustainable and inclusive
growth worldwide. On the one hand, cultural industries have become one of
the fastest- growing sectors in post-industrialized economies (UNESCO,
2007, 2016). Because of the creative, symbolic, and knowledge-intensive
nature, cultural industries serve increasingly as underlying drivers of
innovation and competitiveness. Even firms from traditionally non-cultural
industries are applying cultural resources, to varying degrees and in
varying ways, to improve their creativity (Lampel, Lant, & Shamsie, 2000).
Meanwhile, global connectedness has augmented the attractiveness of foreign
cultural products and services (Etemad & Motaghi, 2018; Li, Brodbeck,
Shenkar, Ponzi, & Fisch, 2017). On the other hand, the international
community has increasingly recognized the distinctive role of cultural
industries in non-monetized social benefits, particularly in emerging and
developing countries. Due to the diversity of history, heritage, culture,
values, and resources, there exists sizeable cultural capital in all
countries. There are hopes that the people- centered and place-based
approach of cultural production could foster inclusive growth, such as
empowerment to women and indigenous people (UNCTAD, 2010). Yet, whereas
cultural capital is globally sourced, the dominant players are still
concentrated in the major global cities. Finally, digital technological
advances and the emergence of social media have generated new forms of cultural
“travel”, but meanwhile raised new challenges such as the protection of
intellectual properties.

The goal of this Special Issue is, therefore, to encourage research that
(a) broadens our understanding of the nature and dynamics of cultural
industries in today’s new global contexts (e.g., aesthetic, economic,
socio-geographic, moral, temporal, technical, legal, social environments),
and (b) deepens theoretical insights into how related actors in cultural
industries interact and co-evolve with the global transformation in
technologies and societies. Given the complex, multi-level, and cross-
disciplines nature of the cultural industry context, we welcome different
approaches of research, hoping to provide broad theoretical insights and
timely practical guidance. We particularly welcome studies that can
stimulate a dialogue among different scholarships and disciplines.

Possible Research Topics

Below are some illustrative topics (but not exclusive) that would be
suitable for the Special Issue.

1.     *Conceptualizing and theorizing the “new” cultural industries*. The
scope and essence of cultural industries have evolved. Cultural production
has been increasingly computerized, fueled by the power of algorithmic
engineering and artificial intelligence technologies; cultural consumption
has been increasingly virtual and socialized, powered by the influence of
the new social media (Cochoy, Licoppe, McIntyre, & Sörum, 2020). With the
pervasive self-content generation and mature of social algorithms, we are
witnessing heightened engagement and interaction between cultural
production and consumption. This change is further augmented by digital and
social platforms such as Spotify, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, and
so on. This new space of cultural production and consumption pushes us to
revisit the formulas generated by traditional cultural industries. Thus, we
welcome studies that conceptualize and theorize the “new” cultural
industries in 2020s and beyond. For instance, what are the “new” cultural
industries? What is the nature of new cultural practices and business
models? How can digitally mediated access to cultural resources and
experiences affect traditionally venue-based cultural sectors (such as
museums, performing arts, cinema, etc.)? What locations are more suited to
sponsor the “new” cultural industries? Shall we be worried about being
trapped in a new “silicon cage”? What are the corresponding economic,
social, and policy implications?

2.     *Opportunities and tensions during the internationalization of
cultural industries. *We welcome studies on opportunities and tensions
during the internationalization of cultural industries by integrating
classic theories of multinationals enterprises (MNEs) and IB. National
variations in cultural, historical, legal, economic, social, and political
characteristics significantly influence international variations in
aesthetic standards in cultural production and consumption. Although
scholars have debated whether foreignness is an asset, instead of a
liability, for cultural products (Brannen, 2004; Li et al., 2017;
Vendrell-Herrero, Gomes, Collinson, Parry, & Bustinza, 2018), many
questions remain unanswered. For instance, as the authenticity of cultural
production is a driver of place-based competitive advantages, what are the
implications of authenticity in cross-border or multiple country contexts?
How can MNEs leverage cultural and symbolic strategies to mitigate the
risks of international expansion (Seong & Godart, 2018)? How can MNEs
leverage place-based cultural capital or exoticism as a firm-specific asset
(FSA)? With the evolution of values and culture across countries (Tung &
Verbeke, 2010), do we see an erosion of place-based authenticity? What are
the implications for MNE theories, particularly for non-location bound and
location-bound FSAs (Etemad & Motaghi, 2018; Narula & Verbeke, 2015; Rugman
& Verbeke, 2003)? What are the concerns associated with cultural
use and misuse of cultural stories and styles by outsiders (Matthes, 2016;
Schneider, 2003), and how do they interact with the country of origin and
ethnicism-related stereotypes (Javalgi, Khare, Gross, & Scherer, 2005)?
Shall we worry about cultural homogenization due to globalization (Speck &
Roy, 2008; Venkatraman & Nelson, 2008)?

3.     *Paradoxes of creativity and innovation in the digital era*. Human
creativity, at both the individual and organizational levels, is the key
driver of cultural industries. In the age of digital platforms, the volume
of cultural goods circulating on the internet is growing exponentially, and
revenues are mounting. The creativity ecosystems have become more complex
because they are now built on more internationalized, digital, and open
knowledge markets (Aoyama & Izushi, 2003). For instance, artificial
intelligence-generated content may challenge traditional rules for
authorship. Meanwhile, as digital technologies have undoubtedly made
information sharing easier (Bhattacharjee, Gopal, Lertwachara, & Marsden,
2007), problems of copyright infringement are also more serious. Thus, we
welcome studies that analyze paradoxes of creativity for cultural
industries in the new era. For instance, how do digital artists, self-
distributing creators, digital distribution platforms transfer the formats
of creativity? What are the tensions between crafts-incentive and
technology-intensive cultural production? How do MNEs face and cope with
such paradoxes differently in different host countries? How do we protect
intellectual property rights in digital cultural industry markets? Should
we worry that the use of artificial technologies to generate content harm
cultural and linguistic diversity, and thus creativity in the long run? How
can international alliances and collaborations affect knowledge acquisition
and learning (Lyles & Salk, 2007) in this context?

4.     *Catch-up of cultural industries in emerging markets. *The classic
theory of the cultural industries was originally formulated from
observations of organizations from developed countries. English
language-based cultural products have dominated exports worldwide
(Marvasti, 1994). Yet, we witness rising visibility and influence of
cultural industries from emerging markets. The rise of cultural industries
in emerging markets is in part facilitated by the growing popularity of
leisure and entertainment activities there. Yet, it is unclear in terms of
the mechanisms behind the catch-up. For instance, what has accounted for
the popularity of Korean culture (be that K-pop or soap operas) and
Bollywood movies? What types of cultural goods are more exportable from
emerging markets? What is the role of government support (e.g., subsidy,
promotion or other official support, national planning frameworks)?
Meanwhile, we welcome analyses on the overall ecosystem of cultural
production (Lorenzen & Mudambi, 2013; Sunley, Pinch, Reimer, & Macmillen,
2008). Emerging markets offer the opportunity to observe the new
competitive strategies of cultural industries, going beyond traditional
producer-centric research. For instance, Chinese companies Tencent,
Alibaba, Wanda have been funding Hollywood movies. While the themes of
these movies are not necessarily pro-China, at least they tend to put
Chinese characters in a more favorable light (e.g., Skull, Kong Island).
Thus, we encourage scholars to expand theories of emerging market firms
(Luo & Tung, 2018) from the lens of cultural industries.

5.     *Addressing global sustainability challenges*. Cultural industries
are uniquely positioned to reduce and enlarge global sustainability
challenges simultaneously. On the one hand, there are distinctive
opportunities to improve diversity and inclusion in cultural industries.
The global value chain of cultural industries is more inclusive in informal
sectors where local marginalized groups locate. The development of certain
cultural industries is closely linked to the preservation of humanities and
historical assets. On the other hand, there are unique obstacles associated
with global sustainability. For instance, there is a distinctive disparity
(e.g., skewed income distribution) in the artistic labor market (Menger,
1999). Industries such as tourism encounter environmental conservation and
poverty alleviation challenges (Medina-Muñoz, Medina-Muñoz, &
Gutiérrez-Pérez, 2016). Thus, we welcome a broad inquiry into social and
environmental sustainability in the context of cultural industries. For
instance, what are the enablers and barriers for inclusive value chains?
What are the implications for the actionability of sustainability goals for
MNEs (Van Zanten & Van Tulder, 2018)? What are the new sustainability
tensions due to demographic shifts, migration, international trade, and
economic volatility?

6.     *New dynamics of international intermediaries. *We welcome studies
analyzing the evolving roles of international intermediaries. The
uncertainty of cultural products is exacerbated in foreign markets due to
unfamiliarity between producers and consumers (Kim & Jensen, 2014; Knight,
Holdsworth, & Mather, 2007; Sasaki, Nummela, & Ravasi, 2020). Thus,
international intermediaries play a vital role as gatekeepers in shaping
standards for authenticity. We encourage scholars to analyze new dynamics
of traditional international gatekeepers such as experts and critics
(Hirsch, 1972; Peterson & Anand, 2004) as well as the role of new digital
intermediaries. It is enlightening to investigate the mechanisms by which
evaluation standards evolve and how firms can collaborate with new digital
intermediaries. Scholars are also welcomed to examine the role of
nongovernmental organizations. For instance, it is fruitful to explore the
role of UNESCO who has been protecting and promoting the diversity of
cultural expressions, and yet the results are uncertain. Scholars are
encouraged to study how international NGOs and MNEs affect each other, thus
revisit core assumptions about what determines the success of private
firms. We also welcome studies that examine interactions and coevolution
among intermediaries in home and host countries. It is rewarding to conduct
analyses at various levels, such as communities, cities, countries, and

7.     *The role of informal institutions. *Careful attention to informal
institutions (i.e., shared values, norms, and unwritten practices and
conventions) is critical to understanding enablers and constraints to the
growth of cultural industries (Chua, Roth, & Lemoine, 2015; Fauchart & von
Hippel, 2008). A country’s informal institutions create expectations and a
shared understanding of taste and aesthetic standards of cultural goods.
Informal institutions are also important to foster relational networks
among artists, firms, and intermediaries, thus triggering learning and
innovation in cultural industries. Thus, we welcome theoretical development
and empirical verification of how a country’s informal institutions
influence the competitiveness of cultural industries both within and
outside their own country. It is fruitful to investigate how informal
institutions are associated with the geographic cluster of cultural
industries. During the inquiries, it is worthwhile to distinguish among
different dimensions of informal institutions, such as
behaviorally-oriented, demand-oriented, and technology-oriented ones
(Sartor & Beamish, 2014). We also welcome studies to explore interactions
and possibly misalignment between informal institutions and formal

8.     *Solving methodological challenges in analyzing global cultural
industries. *There are numerous methodological challenges in analyzing
cultural industries on a global scale. Countries do not follow
international standards in providing statistical data on cultural
industries (UNESCO-UIS, 2009; UNESCO, 2007). The lack and inaccuracy of
comparable cultural statistics is a significant barrier for scholars to
quantify the economic and social impact of cultural industries. We see the
prevalence of qualitative studies, and the concentration of quantitative
studies on certain cultural industries such as film and music industries
due to data availability (Wang et al., 2020). We welcome studies to discuss
innovations in research design and solutions of methodological challenges
the broaden the scope of empirical analyses.

Submission Process and Deadlines

Manuscripts must be submitted through between
January 17, 2023, and January 31, 2023. All submissions will go through the
JIBS regular double-blind review process and follow standard norms and
processes. For more information about this call for papers, please contact
the Special Issue Editors or the JIBS Managing Editor (
[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>).

Workshop and Symposium

To help authors who receive an R&R further develop their papers, we intend
to organize a paper development workshop in late 2023 or early 2024. In
addition, we plan to have a symposium at a major conference in 2024 for the
final set of papers accepted for publication to increase their visibility
and impact. We encourage multi-disciplinary co-author teams.


Aoyama, Y., & Izushi, H. 2003. Hardware Gimmick or Cultural innovation?
Technologial, Cultural, and Social Foundations of Japanese Video Game
Industry. *Research Policy*, 32(3): 423–444.

Bhattacharjee, S., Gopal, R. D., Lertwachara, K., & Marsden, J. R. 2007.
The Effect of Digital Sharing Technologies on Music Markets : A Survival
Analysis of Albums on Ranking Charts. *Management Science*, (November 2018).

Bourdieu, P. 1979. *Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of
taste*. Routledge.

Brannen, M. Y. 2004. When Mickey Loses Face: Recontextualization, Semantic
Fit, and the Semiotics of Foreignness. *Academy of Management Review*,
29(4): 593–616.

Buckley, P. J., & Verbeke, A. 2016. Smiling and crying curves in
international business. *International Business Review*, 25(3): 749–752.

Cochoy, F., Licoppe, C., McIntyre, M. P., & Sörum, N. 2020, January 2.
Digitalizing consumer society: equipment and devices of digital
consumption. *Journal of Cultural Economy*. Routledge.

Etemad, H., & Motaghi, H. 2018. Internationalization pattern of
creative-cultural events: Two cases from Canada. *International Business
Review*, 27(5): 1033–1044.

Hirsch, P. M. 1972. Processing Fads and Fashions: An Organization-Set
Analysis of Cultural Industry Systems. *American Journal of Sociology*,
77(4): 639–659.

Hirsch, P. M. 2000. Cultural Industries Revisited. *Organization Science*,
11(3): 356–361.

Javalgi, R. G., Khare, V. P., Gross, A. C., & Scherer, R. F. 2005. An
application of the consumer ethnocentrism model to French consumers.
Business Review*, 14(3): 325–344.

Jones, C., Anand, N., & Alvarez, J. L. 2005. Manufactured Authenticity and
Creative Voice in Cultural Industries. *Journal of Management Studies*,
42(5): 893–899.

Kim, H., & Jensen, M. 2014. Audience heterogeneity and the effectiveness of
market signals: How to overcome liabilities of foreignness in film
exports? *Academy
of Management Journal*, 57(5): 1360– 1384.

Knight, J. G., Holdsworth, D. K., & Mather, D. W. 2007. Country-of-origin
and choice of food imports: An in-depth study of European distribution
channel gatekeepers. *Journal of International Business Studies*, 38(1):

Lampel, J., Lant, T., & Shamsie, J. 2000. Balancing Act : Learning from
Organizing Practices in Cultural Industries. *Organization Science*, 11(3):

Li, C., Brodbeck, F. C., Shenkar, O., Ponzi, L. J., & Fisch, J. H. 2017.
Embracing the foreign: Cultural attractiveness and international
strategy. *Strategic
Management Journal*, 38(4): 950–971.

Lorenzen, M., & Mudambi, R. 2013. Clusters, connectivity and catch-up:
Bollywood and bangalore in the global economy. *Journal of Economic
Geography*, 13(3): 501–534.

Lounsbury, M., Gehman, J., & Glynn, M. 2019. Beyond Homo Entrepreneurus:
Judgment and the Theory of Cultural Entrepreneurship. *Journal of
Management Studies*, (2012): 3–23.

Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. 2001. Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories,
legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. *Strategic Management Journal*,
22(6–7): 545–564.

Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. 2018. A general theory of springboard MNEs. *Journal
of International Business Studies*, 49(2): 129–152.

Lyles, M. A., & Salk, J. E. 2007. Knowledge acquisition from foreign
parents in international joint ventures: An empirical examination in the
Hungarian context. *Journal of International Business Studies*, 38(1): 3–18.

Marvasti, A. 1994. International trade in cultural goods: A cross-sectional
analysis. *Journal of Cultural Economics*, 18(2): 135–148.

Matthes, E. H. 2016. Cultural Appropriation Without Cultural
Essentialism? *Social
Theory and Practice*, 42(2): 343–366.

Medina-Muñoz, D. R., Medina-Muñoz, R. D., & Gutiérrez-Pérez, F. J. 2016. A
Sustainable Development Approach to Assessing the Engagement of Tourism
Enterprises in Poverty Alleviation. *Sustainable Development*, 24(4):

Menger, P.-M. 1999. Artistic labor markets and careers. *Annual Review of
Sociology*, 25(1): 541–574.

Narula, R., & Verbeke, A. 2015. Perspective: Making internalization theory
good for practice: The essence of Alan Rugman’s contributions to
international business. *Journal of World Business*, 50: 612–622.

Peterson, R. A. 1997. *Creating Country Music: Fabricating Authenticity*.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Peterson, R. A., & Anand, N. 2004. The Production of Culture
Perspective. *Annual
Review of Sociology*, 30: 311–34.

Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. 2003. Extending the Theory of the
Multinational Enterprise: Internalization and Strategic Management
Perspectives. *Journal of International Business Studies*, 34(2): 125–137.

Sasaki, I., Nummela, N., & Ravasi, D. 2020. Managing cultural specificity
and cultural embeddedness when internationalizing: Cultural strategies of
Japanese craft firms. *Journal of International Business Studies*, 52(2):

Schneider, A. 2003. On ‘appropriation’. A critical reappraisal of the
concept and its application in global art practices. *Social Anthropology*,
11(2): 215–229.

Seong, S., & Godart, F. C. 2018. Influencing the influencers:
Diversification, semantic strategies, and creativity evaluations. *Academy
of Management Journal*, 61(3): 966–993.

Speck, S. K., & Roy, A. 2008. The interrelationships between television
viewing, values and perceived well-being: A global perspective. *Journal of
International Business Studies*, 39(7): 1197–1219.

Sunley, P., Pinch, S., Reimer, S., & Macmillen, J. 2008. Innovation in a
creative production system: The case of design. *Journal of Economic
Geography*, 8(5): 675–698.

Throsby, D. 1994. The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of
Cultural Economics. *Journal of Economic Literature*, 32(1): 1–29.

Towse, R. 2011. *A handbook of cultural economics*. Cheltenham, United
Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing.

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

UNCTAD. 2010. *Creative Economy Report 2010*. *UN Organization*.

UNESCO-UIS. 2009. *2009 UNESCO Framework For Cultural Statistics*.

UNESCO. 2007. Statistics on Cultural Industries.
<> UNESCO. 2016. *The
globalisation of cultural trade: a shift in consumption*.
Van Zanten, J. A., & Van Tulder, R. 2018. Multinational enterprises and the
Sustainable Development

Goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement. *Journal of
International Business Policy*, 1(3): 208–233.

Vendrell-Herrero, F., Gomes, E., Collinson, S., Parry, G., & Bustinza, O.
F. 2018. Selling digital services abroad: How do extrinsic attributes
influence foreign consumers’ purchase intentions? *International Business
Review*, 27(1): 173–185.

Venkatraman, M., & Nelson, T. 2008. From servicescape to consumptionscape:
A photo-elicitation study of starbucks in the New China. *Journal of
International Business Studies*, 39(6): 1010–1026.

Wang, S. L., Gu, Q., Von Glinow, M. A., & Hirsch, P. 2020. Cultural
industries in international business research: Progress and prospect. *Journal
of International Business Studies*, 51(4): 665–692.

About the Guest Editors

*Stephanie Lu Wang *is an Associate Professor of International Business at
the Kelley Business School, Indiana University. Stephanie's primary
research interests lie at the intersection of internationalization and
social and environmental sustainability topics. She is particularly
interested in the rise of emerging market multinationals and cultural
industries as the research contexts. Stephanie has won numerous awards,
such as the Alan Rugman Fellow in 2021, International Management Division
Emerging Scholar Award at the Academy of Management (AOM) in 2019, Academy
of International Business (AIB) Best Paper Award in 2018, the Woman AIB
Emerging Scholar Award in 2017. Stephanie is a consulting editor for *the
Journal of International Management *and an editorial board member for
the *Journal
of International Business Studies *and *Global Strategy Journal.*

*Rosalie L. Tung *is the Ming & Stella Wong Professor of International
Business, Simon Fraser University (Canada). She is a past President of the
AIB (2015-2016) as well as a past President of the AOM (2003-2004). She
also served as Dean of the Fellows, Academy of International Business
(2017-2020). She was formerly a Wisconsin Distinguished Professor,
University of Wisconsin System. She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of
Canada, the AOM, the AIB, and the British Academy of Management. She has
published many books and articles on international human resource
management, international business negotiations and comparative management.
She serves on the editorial board of many academic journals.

*Joseph Lampel *is Eddie Davies Professor of Enterprise and Innovation
Management at Alliance Manchester Business School, University of
Manchester. He is the author of more than fifty articles in scholarly and
practitioner journals. He has edited eleven (11) journal special issues,
including an *Organization Science *special issue on ‘Cultural Industries:
A Laboratory of Ideas for New Organizational Forms’ (2000), and *Journal of
Business Research *on ‘Creative Industries: A Think Tank for Innovative
Practices in Management, Strategy and Organization? (2016). Joseph Lampel
is co-author of the ‘Business of Culture’ with Jamal Shamsie and Theresa
Lant (2005), and ‘Handbook of Organizational and Entrepreneurial Ingenuity’
with Benson Honig and Israel Drori (2014). He is also co-author with Henry
Mintzberg and Bruce Ahlstrand of the following books: ‘Strategy Safari: A
Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Strategic Management’ (1998/2009),
Strategy Bites Back’ (2005), and Management? Think Again!’ (2010).

*Paul Hirsch *is the James Allen Professor of Strategy & Organization at
Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. He has written
extensively about culture and communication and received the "Distinguished
Scholar" award of the Academy of Management’s Organization and Management
Theory Division. He was among the first scholars to publish papers on
cultural industries in management journals. In particular, two papers, one
titled “Processing fads and fashions: An organization-set analysis of
cultural industry systems” published at *American journal of sociology *and
one “Cultural industries revisited” published at *Organization Science*,
are recognized as the most influential to management research on this
context. Hirsch teaches in Kellogg’s MBA and Executive programs in Chicago,
Prague, and China.

*Marjorie Lyles *is the International Business Distinguished Research
Fellow at Florida International University College of Business Department
of International Business. She is Past President of the Strategic
Management Society and was incoming president of AIB. She is a Chancellor’s
Emeritus Professor of Global Strategic Management at Indiana University
Kelley School of Business and was an Adjunct Professor at Lilly Family
School of Philanthropy. She is a Fellow of the Strategy Management Society,
Academy of Management, and the Academy of International Business. Her
research focused on emerging economies since the mid-1980s. She worked on
projects in China since 1985 when she was a consultant with the U.S.
Department of Commerce Dalian programs. Her mixed method and longitudinal
research required her to seek research grants which included two National
Science Foundation grants that developed organizational learning and the
knowledge-based perspectives by studying alliances in emerging economies.
Lyles has worked with governmental,

non-profit, and corporate entities across the globe. She has consulted with
the USIS, World Bank, and UNDP.

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.