Multilevel theorizing in international business: the case of research on strategy implementation in MNCs

Purpose This paper aims to illustrate why an understanding of how levels of analysis interact is an essential part of multilevel research in the field of international business (IB). Using research on strategy implementation (SI) in multinational corporations (MNCs) as an example, this paper develops a taxonomy and research agenda that demonstrates the key role critical scholars can play in advancing multilevel theorization. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on the assumptions of methodological collectivism and individualism, the paper presents a four-step framework: defining the theoretical boundaries of the selected subject; juxtaposing theoretical arguments with empirical work; identifying single- and multi-level theories; and developing a research agenda. Findings Research on SI in MNCs has been dominated by one type of theorizing that focuses on the designs of organizational systems or the power of institutions. Multilevel theorization grounded in methodological individualism would offer new knowledge by including the views of under-represented stakeholders, questioning the justice of established systems and overall implications of MNC operations. Research limitations/implications The proposed four-step framework encourages scholars to adopt a systematic approach to multilevel theorizing and draw upon the untapped potential of IB theories. Originality/value The paper contributes to the IB field by introducing an approach to assessing IB research from a multilevel theorizing perspective. The actionable research agenda on SI and the taxonomy of SI research can assist scholars in making aligned choices on study design and envisioning research questions that yield meaningful contributions to theory and practice.

Methodological collectivism: social science and social policy

Methodological collectivism looks for explanations and patterns of behaviour not in the actions of individuals, but in the actions of groups - including classes, ethnic groups and societies taken as a whole. It extends beyond groups, however, to categories or blocs of people, treating them as if they can be understood in collective terms. This is the characteristic approach of sociology, but it also has an important pragmatic purpose in the development of public policy.

Preparation and implementation of the Programme SAPARD: Who might be winners and losers

The paper addresses the first experience with the SAPARD Programme in the Czech Republic. Its theoretical background refers to gradualist and shock approaches in coping with social change. These approaches are connected either with theoretical fundaments of neo-classical economic theories (shock approach and methodological individualism; homo-oeconomicus), or classical sociological theories (institutions, norms and rules, social embeddedness, methodological collectivism and Durkheim’s social fact). An empirical section of the paper is based on findings from field work and interviews with the SAPARD shareholders. It shows a sociological analysis of the origin of the SAPARD Plan and compares various measures implemented under the SAPARD Programme to indicate who was the winner (medium-scale businesses and farms understanding the SAPARD as a preparation for EU membership) and loser (and why) in competing for funding related to these measures. Also the issue how the SAPARD projects applicants master their action as for preparing and submitting projects is addressed. The role of social capital in the SAPARD Programme preparation is documented.

Mixing Economics and Ethics: Carl Menger vs Gustav Von Schmoller

Schmoller and Menger provide strictly antagonistic accounts of how ethics and economics should be related. Their contentions are mainly methodological. Whereas Schmoller hopes to integrate ethics within economics in order to improve its empirical basis, Menger wishes to identify the different behavioural mechanisms linked to the economic and the ethical perspectives, and therefore wants to keep them separate wherever possible. Menger’s critique of Schmoller’s account suggests that the integration of ethics within economics cannot rationally be grounded upon postulates of psychological realism and methodological collectivism, as Schmoller proposed.

How To Make No Sense of Marx

Professor Jon Elster advances the proposal that Marx – and Marxists–really stand for ‘methodological individualism,’ as opposed to ‘methodological collectivism.’ He defines ‘methodological individualism’ in the following terms: Social science explanations are seen as three-tiered. First, there is a causal explanation of mental states, such as desires and beliefs … Next, there is intentional explanation of individual action in terms of the underlying beliefs and desires … Finally, there is causal explanation of aggregated phenomena in terms of the individual actions that go into them. The last form is the specifically Marxist contribution to the methodology of the social sciences.1