Green Exercise and Directed Attention

Introduction

The article by Jones and Geoffrey (2004) argues that players in the International Business should change oratory from the comparatively uncontroversial notion that indeed history is significant to examining “examining how it matter” (Jones & Geoffrey 2004:453). The authors provide three distinct reasons to account for this behavior. These include historical variations, moving beyond the widely-recognized significance of issues related to exploring the origins of Penrosian resources and un-addressable issues. This submission will analyses the journal article Bringing history (back) Into International Business by Jones, G and Khanna T published in 2006 in the Journal of International Business Studies. This will be done by providing evidence of meaningful as well as appropriate arrangement of concepts and arguments, analysis of evidence of comprehension and application of issues relevant to the analysis and conclusion of the review and presentation of evidence relating to the use of appropriate and consistent referencing methods.

Jones, G., & Khanna, T. (2006). Bringing History (Back) into International Business. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(4), 453-468.

Objectives

This article seeks discus conceptual conduits followed through which the importance of history in International Business matters by illustrating major examples to prove that history matters in this regard. The key concepts studied to publication of the article are: moving beyond assumptions that history matters in the realm of International Business and examining its importance in this respect; importance of longitudinal analysis to understanding the issue; and the need to consider history in the same rigorous manner as traditional statistical analysis. The argument therefore presented by the authors is predicated upon the assertion that players in the International Business argue that the field should change its rhetoric from the moderately uncontroversial notion that indeed history is significant to examining “examining how it matter”(Jones & Geoffrey 2004:453).

Theory

The article does not provide the reader with an explicit theoretical framework but there are a number of important theoretical assumptions throughout the reading. Rhetoric in International Business should move from relatively uncontroversial notion that history is significant to examining “it matters”, longitudinal analysis is important in understanding the importance of history to the field and that history can be viewed in in the same rigorous manner as traditional statistical analysis.

Concepts

The key concepts or arguments studied to publication of the article are: moving beyond assumptions that history matters in the realm of International Business and examining its importance in this respect; importance of longitudinal analysis to understanding the issue; and the need to consider history in the same rigorous manner as traditional statistical analysis. The concepts are clearly defined and illustrated with relevant examples to confirm the argument that indeed players in the International Business should change pomposity from the comparatively uncontroversial notion that indeed history is significant to examining “examining how it matter”(Jones & Geoffrey 2004:453)

Argument

The authors argue that it is important to the rhetoric in International Business to shift away from the relatively conventional notion that history matters and train its attention on how it actually matters (Jones & Khanna, 2006). This argument seems to underscore the importance of examining how history impacts on the way International Business functions, but also on how societies behave. In this regard, history acts an information store that players in the realm of global business can use to understand the operations of different actors in the field and societies based on the fact that it is actually difficult to do so (Jones, 1996).

Further, it is important to study how history affects or else matters to International Business in that it is an important tool for gaining access to vast repository of human experiences in within the global business setting with a view of acquiring reasonable and applicable habits with regard to the mind in addition to fundamental data concerning the influences that impact of the field from a personal and professional perspective (Dlabay & Scott, 2005). The end result is the emergence of players with the requisite set of skills as well as improved capacity required to become an informed and therefore an integral member of the International Business realm with respect to simple awareness as well as critical thinking (Neelankavil & Rai, 2014).

Although the principle argument is clearly illustrated, there are no hypotheses and therefore no methods to test this. However, the authors of this article have engaged in extensive literature search and analysis to defend their argument.

Evidence

For each of the being studied with a view of validating the assertion, the authors have provided sufficient evidence in the form of corresponding examples and succinct explanations. To support the first argument or concept (moving beyond assumptions that history matters in the realm of International Business and examining its importance), the authors present an argument predicated on the importance of enlarging origins of variations with respect to the role as well as importance of business assemblages in modern contemporary markets and in history (Jones & Khanna, 2006). Towards this end, current evidence focuses on two corresponding but distinctively conceived research streams regarding the role of business groups within the context of emerging markets vi-sa-vi the contemporary global business setting (Jones & Geoffrey 2004).

This example basically illustrates as well as confirms the manner through which studies relating to the phenomenon beyond the exploitation of contemporary or rather cross-sectional differences can be complemented by applying the under-utilized variations in time-series as provided by history (Taoka & Beeman, 2011). The second argument in this respect underlines the significance of enlightening path dependence or else engaging in a critical examination of the origins of Penrosian Resources (Jones & Geoffrey 2004).

This is important as further research on how history matters to Global Business confirms that indeed the history of an organization within the International Business context in now widely considered a critical determinant of the firm’s or organization’s unique competences (Jensen, 2003).This argument is therefore hinged on Edith Penrose’s  Theory of the Firm where she confirms that the principle assumptions underpinning the theory explaining growth of firms are predicated on the argument that history does matter in international business (Penrose, 2009). Growth in this sense basically represents a dynamic process based on the aggregate expansion of shared knowledge with the setting of purposeful firms or organizations (Spulber, 2009).

The final piece of evidence with regard to examining how history matters seeks to explain the third construct or concept under study-the need to consider history in the same rigorous manner as traditional statistical analysis. The authors thus argue that it is important to expand the domain of inquiry with a view of conceiving development and FDI in the actual long-term (Jones & Khanna, 2006). These issues are just examples of broad aspects that have remained unattended for a lengthy period and as such, can only be addressed through rigorous approaches that incorporate historical dimensions to the conduct of international business.

 The most important aspect in this regard is the implications global business portends for development. Interestingly, Fortanier (2004) notes that considering the serious as well as apparently expanding inequality in terms of income and the significant emphasis placed on the importance of Foreign Direct Investment in stimulating global business growth by different policy makers, it is perplexing that research and therefore literature on development as well as FDI remains at best inconclusive. The reasons accounting for this inability include the limited research methodologies in International Business, in addition to the apparent disinclination by players in the field to engage gathered historical evidence in regards to political as well as economic ramifications of multinationals as significant causal factors (Fortainer, 2004).

Values

The article provides clear value positions as opposed to implicit ones in that each argument presented in support of the overall argument or theoretical framework is backed by sufficient and relevant examples as well as pertinent scholarly materials. This is an important aspect of the article as it allows the reader to differentiate the arguments from those presented by other researchers con the same subject matter. It therefore limits the tendency to generalize or apply the findings of other studies to these findings as every argument is clearly stated and explained thus affording the audience the chance to understand from the subject matter and how it differs from similar studies.

Literature

Multinational enterprises started emerging as areas of interest, focus as well as controversy for both the public and economists (Taoka & Beeman, 2011). Apart from significant pioneering work a few economists like Charles Kindleberger, John Dunning and Raymond Vernon, most of the literature pertaining to the subject matter in that era provided restricted perspectives in terms of time regarding the phenomenon of the how history matters to international business (Rugman, 2002).

Literature in the period indicates the propensity among many economists then to conceive firms with activities spanning the globe as products or else by-products the global financial integration as well as in the post-World war II epoch with respect to advancements in transport as well as communication technologies (Neelankavil & Rai, 2014)s.

Jones and Geoffrey are therefore part of this global community of scholars interested in multinationals within the context of international business as demonstrated by the review and analysis of various studies on the subject matter based on the history of this business setting. The article hence fits into the wider literature on the matter under study in that they overriding aim in writing the article is essentially informed by need to synthesize literature on the significance of history to international business and how this history matters to the field. Though not explicitly stated, the aim of the research is obviously to present the findings of the article as an introductory survey into how history drives Intentional Business and multinationals in the conventional and contemporary sense.

Moreover, the article fits into the wider literature in that it makes substantial contribution to the understanding of the chronological importance of International Business, which it broadly defines to include the traditional categorization of multinationals mere providers of Foreign direct Investment. Towards this end, the article by Jones and Geoffrey provides an appropriate overview regarding the international dimensions of the subject matter in addition to an intelligible framework for analyzing monumental issues and trends emerging from relevant literature.

Contribution

For the very reasons that allow the findings of the article to fit into the wider literature, the work advances our knowledge of the subject as it provides an appropriate overview regarding the international dimensions of the subject matter in addition to a logical framework for analyzing important issues and trends emerging from relevant literature.

Style

Despite the article being relatively brief, it covers a broad ra1nge of issues as well as topics concerning the origins as well as the theory surrounding International Business in a succinct and balanced style. The style adopted by the authors is therefore appropriate for this level of analysis as it employs simple but precise language and expressions as well as the correct approach to referencing for an academic paper for this level.

Conclusion

Scholars of dynamics in International Business regularly discuss history and its role in the field but rarely treat it with the seriousness it deserves. In this regard, Jones and Khanna present novice approaches researching business assemblages with respect to history and modern emerging markets, path-dependent and resource-based theories relating to the firm as well as development and Foreign Direct Investment over time.

Bibliography

Dlabay, L, & Scott, J. (2005). International Business. Cengage Learning.

Fortainer, F. (2004). The Impact of Foreign Direct Investment on Development: Bridging the Development Economics, International Economics and International Business. AIB, 23-76.

Jensen, M. C. (2003). A Theory of the Firm: Governance, Residual Claims, and Organizational Forms. Harvard University Press,.

Jones, G. (1996). The Evolution of International Business: An Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jones, G., & Khanna, T. (2006). Bringing History (Back) into International Business. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(4), 453-468.

Neelankavil, J. P., & Rai, A. (2014). Basics of International Business. New York, NY: Routledge.

Penrose, E. (2009). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford University Press.

Rugman, A. M. (2002). International Business: Theory of the multinational enterprise. Melbourne, Australia: Taylor & Francis.

Spulber, D. F. (2009). The Theory of the Firm: Microeconomics with Endogenous Entrepreneurs, Firms, Markets, and Organizations. London: Cambridge University Press.

Taoka, G. M., & Beeman, D. R. (2011). International business: environments, institutions, and operations. HarperCollins.