The Past Speaks

AS: My former colleague Mark Kuhlberg has published an important new book in the field of Canadian business history.

For forty years, historians have argued that early twentieth-century provincial governments in Canada were easily manipulated by the industrialists who developed Canada’s natural resources, such as pulpwood, water power, and minerals. With In the Power of the Government, Mark Kuhlberg uses the case of the Ontario pulp and paper industry to challenge that interpretation of Canadian provincial politics.

Examining the relationship between the corporations which ran the province’s pulp and paper mills and the politicians at Queen’s Park, Kuhlberg concludes that the Ontario government frequently rebuffed the demands of the industrialists who wanted to tap Ontario’s spruce timber and hydro-electric potential. A sophisticated empirical challenge to the orthodox literature on this issue, In the Power of the Government will be essential reading for historians and political scientists interested in the history of Canadian industrial development.

My employer, the University of Liverpool. has a joint-venture university called the Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University. The academics there are our colleagues and one of them, Professor Ron Schramm, has just published an important new book The Chinese Macroeconomy and Financial System: a US Perspective (Routledge, April 2015)

Another book to put on my summer reading pile!

The impact of political risk on multinational corporations is an important theme in the literature in the fields of International Business and Strategic Management. Traditionally, academic researchers examined the management of political risk by MNEs through either the bargaining power approach (BPA) or the political institutions approach (PIA). The BPA approach, which derives from Vernon (1971), focuses on the relative bargaining power of a MNE and a given host country government. The PIA approach, in contrast, examines the mechanisms by which public policy in a host country is determined. Authors who use the PIA approach suggest that it is easier for MNEs to manage political risk in host countries in which decision-making authority is dispersed among a variety of individuals (e.g., through the US-style separation of powers) than in host countries in which authority is concentrated is concentrated in fewer individuals.

Both of these approaches have some value, but I’ve never been happy with them, not least because they tend to exclude the analysis of the cultural and intellectual contexts in which firms operate. That’s why I was intrigued by a new piece in the Strategic Management Journal by Charles E Stevens, En Xie, Mike W Peng.

Stevens, Charles E., En Xie, and Mike W. Peng. “Toward a legitimacy‐based view of political risk: The case of Google and Yahoo in China.” Strategic Management Journal (2015).

As the authors point out, the BPA and PIA lens is applied most frequently the forms of political risk confronted by MNEs who operate in the “asset-intensive extractive and infrastructure sectors” in developing countries. While recognizing that these approaches often provide the best way of understanding political risk, they argue persuasively that these approaches are less suitable for understanding political risk in the home country  (i.e., the country where the multinational has its headquarters) and in relatively “complex and interconnected” sectors in industries such services or the high-tech sector. S

Citing such scholarly articles as  Marquis and Quin (2014), Bucheli and Salvaj (2013), Kostova and Zaheer (1999), and Bitektine (2011),  Steven et al. identify an emerging approach to writing about political risk in multinationals that they call the Legitimacy-Based View (LBV). They then proceed to develop a formal conceptual model for the LBV. The LBV recognizes that corporations are granted legitimacy by a range of actors rather than simply the state. Such actors can withhold a corporation’s “social licence” to operate. Moreover, they break down the broad term “the government”  by recognizing that each national government is a far from monolithic entity: rather than being a single actor, the government is a collection of individuals, some of whom may have  very different ideas about the legitimacy of a given MNE. [This approach will be music to the ears of most political scientists, along with all methodological individualists].

The empirical information about Google and Yahoo in the paper is interesting to me, especially since I followed the saga of Google in China, but I am most interested in the theoretical framework the authors develop as it could be applied by a wide variety of IB, strategy, and business history scholars.

About the authors: Charles Stevens teaches at Lehigh University.  En Xie teaches at Xi’an Jiaotong University. Mike W. Peng is the Jindal Chair of Global Strategy Head, Organizations, Strategy, and International Management, University of Texas Dallas.

Here are the details of my paper session panel at the Academy of Management.
Program Session #: 987 | Submission: 19863 | Sponsor(s): (ENT)
Scheduled: Monday, Aug 10 2015 9:45AM – 11:15AM at Vancouver Convention Centre in Room 219

Chair: Martine HLADY RISPAL; U. of Bordeaux;
Discussant: Wadid Lamine; Toulouse Business School;
ENT: Investigating the usefulness of qualitative methods for entrepreneurship research Research-oriented
Author: Martine HLADY RISPAL; U. of Bordeaux;
Author: Estèle Jouison-Laffitte; U. of Bordeaux;
Author: Kathleen Randerson; EDC Paris;

Whereas today the vast majority of entrepreneurship research adopts quantitative methods, the aim of this paper is to demonstrate how qualitative research can clearly and distinctly contribute to the field. More specifically, this study systematically reviews 160 qualitative articles published in three journals: the Journal of Business Venturing (JBV), Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice (ET&P) and Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (E&RD), between January 2007- December 2014.We reveal the specificities of each method, the way researchers leverage on them and the distinct contribution of each to the development of the field of entrepreneurship.

Search Terms: Entrepreneurship , qualitative methods

ENT: English-language Debates About Entrepreneurship in China, 1842-1911 Research-oriented
Author: Andrew David Allan Smith; U. of Liverpool;
This paper will examine the debates about the nature of Chinese entrepreneurship that people who wrote in English had between 1842 and 1911. These debates took place through the media of books, newspapers, and learned journals. The paper will show that these debates were informed by competing theories of culture, political institutions, and human nature. This paper will show that while some Westerners viewed Chinese entrepreneurs through Orientalist or racialist lenses, other contemporary authors depicted Chinese entrepreneurs in a fashion that drew on more universalitistic theory of human nature and which therefore tended to undermine the Us-and-Them dichotomy between the West and the non-West that underpinned Orientalist thought. Scholars of present-day entrepreneurship should draw three main lessons from this study of historical debates about entrepreneurship in late Qing China. First, it is important to remain conscious that one’s cultural biases are particularly likely to affect perceptions of entrepreneurship in other cultures. Second, observers must always be on their guard to ensure they do not unconsciously slip into Orientalist modes of thought when thinking about entrepreneurs in non-Western countries. Third, we must recognize that all lenses for viewing entrepreneurship have historical roots and philosophical foundations of which the scholar may be unconscious. By historicizing present-day theoretical debates about entrepreneurship, this paper should encourage greater scholarly reflexivity.

Search Terms: China , Colonialism , Postcolonial Thought

Selected as a Best Paper ENT: Risk, Uncertainty and Entrepreneurship: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment
Author: Martin van Koudstaal; U. of Amsterdam;
Author: Randolph Sloof; U. of Amsterdam;
Author: Mirjam Van Praag; CBS;

Theory predicts that entrepreneurs have distinct attitudes towards risk and uncertainty, but empirical evidence is mixed. To better understand the unique behavioral characteristics of entrepreneurs and the causes of these mixed results, we perform a large ‘lab-in- the-field’ experiment comparing entrepreneurs to managers – a suitable comparison group – and employees (n=2288) . The results indicate that entrepreneurs perceive themselves as less risk averse than managers and employees, in line with common wisdom. However, when using experimental incentivized measures, the differences are subtler. Entrepreneurs are only found to be unique in their lower degree of loss aversion, and not in their risk or ambiguity aversion. This combination of results might be explained by our finding that perceived risk attitude is not only correlated to risk aversion but also to loss aversion. Overall, we therefore suggest using a broader definition of risk that captures this unique feature of entrepreneurs; their willingness to risk losses.

Search Terms: Entrepreneur , Manager , Behavior

ENT: Seeing Entrepreneurs in Action: Using Video-based Gesture Analysis in Entrepreneurship
Author: Jean Siobhan Clarke; U. of Leeds;
Author: Joep Cornelissen; Erasmus U. Rotterdam;
Author: Rowena Viney; Leeds U. Business School;

In this paper, we elaborate on the potential of using video-based data as part of multi-modal research in entrepreneurship. We first demonstrate how such data record in detail the nature of entrepreneurial interactions, and then go on to illustrate how analysing such interactions multi-modally helps explain the content and effectiveness of an entrepreneur’s efforts to communicate meaning and convince stakeholders to support a venture. We particularly focus on the role of gesture as part of such behavioural displays and interactions, given that gesture is an under-researched but significant aspect of communication in most social settings, including entrepreneurship. Drawing on data collected as part of a larger study on entrepreneurship, we analyse gestures in different contexts of communication (an informal conversation and a formal pitch presentation) and compare two analytical protocols for gesture research drawn from cognitive linguistics and conversation analysis. The comparison of these protocols highlights the role of theoretical assumptions and different units of analysis in video-based gesture research. One of the most noticeable differences between the two approaches to gesture analysis is the way in which gestures are interpreted and analysed as part of communication and social interaction; i.e., as conveyors of meaning, or as pragmatic ways of managing interactions. We discuss these findings, and draw out the methodological implications for further research on entrepreneurship and new venture creation.

Search Terms: Entrepreneurship , Video , Gesture

Dr Kirsten Greer will be presenting our paper at the 2015 International Conference of Historical Geographers in London (for venue, see photo above). Details of the panel are below.

Session 97: Historical and cultural geographies of woods and forests (1)

Session abstract:

Our historical geographies are inextricably intertwined with the histories of forests and woodland. From being sites of living and work, spaces of agriculture and forestry, central in the emergence of legal systems and codifications of rights, and in inspiring much popular culture, the historical geographies of forests and woodland cut across space and time. Woodland is a complex category and its utility and the cultural values ascribed to it are diverse, whether it is tilled or grazed by domestic stock; a provider of status or symbolic power, a site of traditional management or scientific experimentation. In recent years there has been a significant revival in interest in the study of woodland and forests by cultural and historical geographers. Given this critical and creative remaking of forest history – and that 2017 will mark the 800th anniversary of England’s defining Charter of the Forest – this session seeks to bring together geographers and others in exploring emergent themes and critical congruencies in understanding our tree-bound pasts.

View abstracts online: http://conference.rgs.org/ICHG/97

Th2 | RGS-LR

Convenors Carl Griffin (University of Sussex, UK), Charles Watkins (University of Nottingham, UK)

Chair Carl Griffin (University of Sussex, UK)

I’m attending the Association of Business Historians, 23rd Annual Conference, which is being held at the University of Exeter Business School (beautiful campus by the way).

I’m going to post more about the conference later. For the time being, I’m just going to share the details of the PhD dissertations that were finalists for the Coleman Prize.

The prize is open to PhD dissertations in business history completed within the last two years, either completed at a British university or having a British subject. The value of the prize is £250 and it is sponsored by Taylor & Francis, publishers of Business History, whose support the Association of Business Historians gratefully acknowledges. The winner of the prize will be announced at the pre-dinner reception at Reed Hall on the evening of 3 July.

Tyler Goodspeed, University of Oxford (PhD awarded at Harvard University) Essays in British Financial History

David Singerman, Rutgers University (PhD awarded at Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Inventing Purity in the Atlantic Sugar World, 1860-1930

Michael Weatherburn, Imperial College London Scientific Management at Work: the Bedaux System, Management Consulting, and Worker Efficiency in British Industry, 1914-48

For the last few days, I’ve been at the joint meeting of the Business History Conference and the European Association of Business Historians in Miami. This year’s conference had inequalities as its central organizing theme. The keynote address was by Thomas Piketty, who is interested in socio-economic inequality. However,  the working definition of inequalities that informed the conference was, of course, far broader and included such as issues as differences in the capabilities of firms in the same industry.

This year’s BHC featured a number of Paper Development Workshops. I presented at the excellent PDW on the New Entrepreneurial History organized by Dan Wandhawni and Christina Lubinski.  All of the papers I heard at this workshop were excellent and it is inspiring to have been selected as part of this group. I got very useful feedback on my paper from the participants, particularly Daniel Raff, Howard Aldrich, Andrew Godley (three very established management academics) and Ellen Korsager, who is an extremely impressive newbie PhD from Copenhagen Business School.

I also attended a meeting of scholars with research interests or institutional affiliations that connect to Canada. A new organization for Canadian Business History is in the process of being formed (more details to follow, but here is a link to the website).

The main conference was equally excellent. Program committee chair Lucy Newton’s hard work in selecting papers and formed coherent panels deserves to be recognized, as does the hard work of everyone else who made the conference possible, including the superb and under-appreciated staff of the Hyatt Regency Miami.

I was part of a panel on banking history. My fellow panellists were Lucy Newton (Henley Business School), Victoria Barnes (University of Reading), and  Laurence Mussio (McMaster University). We received valuable feedback from audience members including Les Hannah, Youssef Cassis, and the aforementioned Ellen Korsager.

My favourite panels this year were: Corporations and Inequality (Robert E. Wright, Augustana College; Leslie Hannah, London School of Economics; Richard Sylla, Stern School, New York University; Roni Hirsch, University of California, Los Angeles) and The Role of History at Business Schools (Stephanie Decker, Aston Business School; Dan Wadhwani, University of the Pacific; Mads Mordhorst, Copenhagen Business School; Anders Ravn Sørensen).

Takafumi Kurosawa of Kyoto University gave a great paper “Who Are We? History and Identity of Business History Societies” that looked at how business history differs around the world (e.g., in the United States, most business historians are in history departments, in the UK they are mostly in management schools, in Japan they work in economics departments). He also presented compared the histories of the main business history organizations around the world.

The winner of this year’s Krooss Prize for best PhD thesis in business history was David Singerman, whose thesis on the development of modern sugar refining was judged to be a superb piece of work that straddled business history and the history of technology.

P.S. The membership of the BHC and EBHA overlaps with that of EGOS, which will be holding its big conference in Athens later this week. At BHC, many of the EGOS members were discussing whether it would be wise to travel to Greece in light of the actual monetary chaos and expected civil disorder there.

International Business Research, Methodological Individualism, and the Judgement-Based View: Implications for Business Historians

Mark Casson

I’m attending the Reading-UNCTAD International Business Conference, which is being held this weekend at Henley Business School. I was part of a panel on International Business History that went well, I’d like to think.  One of the other panels, Where is the individual in IB research?, focused on units of analysis in International Business research. The  Panellists were Mark Casson, University of Reading; Timothy Devinney, Leeds University Business School; Marcus Moller Larsen, Copenhagen Business School, and Dunning Fellow; Elisa Giuliani, University of Pisa.

I really enjoyed Mark Casson’s paper, which was a very robust defence of methodological individualism in International Business research.  Casson stressed that when articles in IB journals refer to the decisions and actions of firms, the authors are really using a form of verbal shorthand for referring to groups of individuals.

“Firms don’t take decisions, individuals do. When you say that a firm pursued an international strategy, you really mean that that the CEO persuaded the individuals on the board to go along with his or her strategy.” Professor Casson also pointed out that individuals establish firms to exploit their ideas. Firms founders are highly heterogeneous and firms have a character that is influenced by the personality of the founder.

In the Q&A session, Professor Casson elaborated on some of the implications for future research in IB journals of his methodological individualism. He stressed that there needs to be increased attention to entrepreneurs and more careful reflection on how we define entrepreneurship. Here, Casson appeared to me to be drawing on the Foss-Klein judgment-based view of entrepreneurship (JBV) and some of the themes that are developed in some papers in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Institutional Economics.  Casson spoke at great length about the need for research that focuses on named individuals, is based on the extensive study of primary sources in archives, takes social and political context into account, and which looks at case studies of entrepreneurs in different time periods. In effect, he was calling for the re-integration of Business History into International Business research.  

Casson’s call for more history in IB journals is consistent with a broader trend in management research, namely the so-called Historic Turn. Casson’s remarks support my view that the JBV of entrepreneurship and the approach to studying entrepreneurship developed by Business Historians are congruent and natural allies.