Dear friends!
Some years ago, I wrote an article about the Uppsala Model of internationalisation. Uppsala is my alma mater so my question is twofold, firstly, how relevant do you think the original Johansson & Vahlne (1977) model is? Secondly, DO you think think the model can be further developed?
My article which is a good introduction to the discussion can be found here: Article The Uppsala Model of internationalisation and beyond:
I find the topic of the Uppsala School of Economics quite intriguing, and I'm inclined to assert that its relevance endures in the contemporary economic landscape. Here's my take on the matter:
However, it's crucial to acknowledge that the business landscape continues to evolve. While the Uppsala School's core principles endure, contemporary researchers and practitioners may supplement these theories with insights that account for the unique challenges posed by the current global economic context.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this and engage in a deeper discussion on how the Uppsala School of Economics fits into the broader discourse on international business theories.
Also! Feel free to cite! Warm wishes Henrik
Hello. I read your article. In my opinion, it is an interesting framework for related analysis. Because there are aspects such as export methods and the amount and frequency of companies' exports, cultural issues and distances in trade. In fact, I think the discussion of networks is very important. Commercial issues cannot be considered separately and independently. The framework of complex networks and centrality and betweenness indicators are very useful in nodes, and very good studies have been done in the field of oil trade, and etc. with these models. The breadth of study frameworks, help us make better decisions. The cultural dimension is very important for international business. For example, countries like Afghanistan and Iraq have traditionally been Iran's export destinations, and we Iranians are well acquainted with the culture and business taste of these two countries.
In general, this particular field is not compatible with my knowledge, and I have not studied much in the field of international trade, but overall, it was an attractive topic and framework in my opinion.
Thanks to the respected friend and researcher, Mr Henrik G.S. Arvidsson .
Hello Henrik,
Thanks for bringing an interesting topic to discuss.
I think that the Uppsala model remains having some validity, but some important topics are, as far as I see, not explained by the Uppsala model.
Born global firms. They do not follow the traditional model. Not only "just born" globals, but also start-ups that quickly spread internationally.
De-internationalization. Firms that voluntarely cease to export, or dismantle their internatonalization path (for instance, reshoring cases)
Determinants. Although some determinants can be identified in the original Uppsala model, there are other ones that the literature has confirmed and were not included in the original model.
Internationalization modes different from FDI or exports (franchises..). They allow to exploit the firm's resources internationally, but without the gradual learning that the original model proposed.
I cannot say at what extent they limit its validity or call for extra developments, but in any case I feel they do not fit well in the Uppsala model framework as it was formulated. Of course, I am happy to hear other points of view.!