Knowledge Transfer and the K-NACK Model: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jessie Wu and Version 1 by Nasrin Sultana.

The possession of diverse knowledge is vital for countries to maintain competitive advantages as new technologies and other disruptive changes emerge. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has become an important instrument to access knowledge and innovation available in other countries with the increasing trend of globalization. However, little is known about how the knowledge base of a country can be enriched in the context of knowledge sourcing through FDI, drawing upon general contexts of knowledge and innovation in countries. 

  • outward FDI
  • knowledge sourcing
  • knowledge base
  • network analysis

1. Knowledge, Knowledge Complexity, and Knowledge Base

The knowledge base in a country can be understood as an assemblage of knowledge available in a country. The variety of knowledge present in a country provides local economic agents with a larger set of combinable knowledge and facilitates the generation of new knowledge (Antonelli et al. 2020). For example, most activities require more than one type of knowledge base and varying degrees of different knowledge (Martin and Moodysson 2013). Therefore, products produced in a country depend substantially on the knowledge and capabilities available in the country (Hidalgo and Hausmann 2009). The knowledge base of a country becomes more interconnected as countries draw complex knowledge from diverse domains of expertise and geographic locations (Cantwell and Salmon 2018). Complex knowledge can be defined as knowledge configured in a structure, the development of which requires numerous interactions and interdependencies (Cantwell and Salmon 2018; Van Wijk et al. 2008). Similarly, the complexity of an economy is manifested in the wide range of knowledge and capabilities that are combined to make different products, and countries that amass a larger set of capabilities tend to produce products that are difficult to replicate (Hidalgo and Hausmann 2009). Knowledge creation activities in a location are influenced by both local and external knowledge flows (Ardito and Petruzzelli 2017; Bathelt et al. 2004; Rodriguez et al. 2017).
Scholars have discussed the characteristics and forms of knowledge from different perspectives that build upon each other. Among those, the most well-known distinction is possibly codified knowledge and tacit knowledge. The codified knowledge can be made explicit and transferred easily, whereas the tacit knowledge embodied in humans and organizations and is considered spatially sticky (Hausmann et al. 2014; Miller 2008). Tacit knowledge is built around interpersonal contact and embodied in individual firms and networks (Balland et al. 2018). However, it can also be argued that tacit knowledge and codified knowledge are not necessarily distinct categories, but are two distinct dimensions of knowledge (Brown and Duguid 2001; Tsoukas 2005). Lundvall and Johnson (1994) went beyond this binary discussion and promoted an alternative view of knowledge—the distinction between know-what, know-why, know-how, and know-who. In this distinction, know-what refers to knowledge about mere facts, know-why refers to knowledge about principles and laws in nature and society, know-how refers to skills and the capability of doing something, and know-who refers to knowledge about possible partners for cooperation and knowledge exchange (Hausmann et al. 2014; Lundvall and Johnson 1994).
Recently, another alternative conceptualization of knowledge has been introduced by making a distinction between three types of knowledge bases: analytical knowledge base, synthetic knowledge base, and symbolic knowledge base. An analytical knowledge base prevails where knowledge creation is mainly based on formal models, codified sciences, and rational processes using scientific knowledge, whereas a synthetic knowledge base prevails where knowledge creation occurs through combining new and existing knowledge to solve practical problems. The knowledge creation in the symbolic knowledge base emphasizes the importance of cultural production and is focused on aesthetic value and images rather than a physical production process (Asheim and Gertler 2006; Asheim and Coenen 2005; Martin and Moodysson 2013). This distinction considers the tacit codified dimension and context specificity of knowledge, as well as the interaction between actors in networks in different geographies.

2. Knowledge Generation and Transfer

Scholars also have different perspectives on knowledge generation. From the economic geography perspective, the focus is mainly on the interaction between local actors to understand the localized nature of knowledge creation, whereas the international business perspective connects knowledge creation to the interaction between actors across national borders (Bathelt and Li 2020). However, the creation of new knowledge is not necessarily limited to specific local knowledge pools, because actors need to develop trans-local, trans-regional, and trans-national connections at a global scale to create new knowledge (Bathelt and Cohendet 2014; Wang and Hu 2020; Yue 2022). It is important to understand how such interactions and interdependencies are made. Combining knowledge from distant geographic locations may result in a systemic increase in the complexity of the knowledge system of a country and enrich its knowledge base. Hidalgo and Hausmann (2009) developed measures of the complexity of a country’s economy. However, they note that this interpretation says nothing about the process whereby countries accumulate capabilities and characteristics of an economy that might affect them. It is possible to understand changes in a country’s productive structure by investigating how countries accumulate new capabilities and combine them with previously available capabilities to develop new products (Hidalgo and Hausmann 2009). Therefore, the development of the knowledge base of a nation is about its ability to generate, transfer, and apply both local and foreign knowledge.
Knowledge can be transferred through technology transfer as well as adopting new management and organizational practices, contributing to the improvement in technological, managerial, and organizational capabilities of firms (Mehreen et al. 2022; Pina Stranger et al. 2023; Scott-Kennel 2007). Knowledge can also be transferred through R&D collaborations and training. Firms’ involvement in innovation collaborations with various outside parties enriches their knowledge base and develops a better ability to assimilate and exploit external knowledge (Kostopoulos et al. 2011; Kang et al. 2021; Pereira et al. 2023). For example, firms set up R&D labs close to clusters where valuable knowledge is concentrated and have the competence to absorb and transfer the knowledge in their internal network as well as external networks (Castellani et al. 2013; Turkina and Van Assche 2018). Buyers often arrange various training programs as well as technical assistance with the production process and quality control (Narula and Marin 2003; Pereira et al. 2023; Wang and Hu 2020), given that the quality of products and services exported is decided by the communication between buyer and seller (Ding et al. 2021; Lecraw 1993). Cultural exchange between actors also facilitates the complex process of knowledge generation and transfer, because the same knowledge can be interpreted and used differently by people in different organizations in different places (Van Wijk et al. 2008). The process of knowledge transfer can also be simplified by intellectual property rights (IPRs) by providing an incentive to the inventors to contribute to the production of knowledge and economic growth of a nation. Stronger IPRs enhance knowledge and technology transfer (Ben Chou and Passerini 2009; Tung 1994) and lead to strategic interaction between countries depending on their levels of knowledge structure and IPR standards (Ben Chou and Passerini 2009). For example, sharing intellectual property and technological know-how is often necessary to deal with global challenges. For example, Erfani et al. (2021) points out the necessity of an IP waiver for COVID-19 vaccines and related goods to advance global health equity.
To sum up, knowledge transfer in local and global contexts may require different tools. However, Foreign DI irect Investment (FDI) is known as an important tool to transfer knowledge across borders due to the rising cost and risks associated with other mechanisms. By being part of different networks, MNEs interact with actors in different local and international ecosystems and have access to knowledge available in these ecosystems (Li and Gao 2021; Yue 2022). MNEs have the unique ability to absorb and transfer knowledge on a global scale (Castellani et al. 2013).
Therefore, researchers attempt to elaborate our understanding of knowledge sourcing through FDI and the effect on the knowledge base of a country by arguing that FDI is a way to accumulate knowledge from diverse sources so as to increase knowledge complexity and contribute to the knowledge base of a country. Just as “the variety of inputs that go into the production of goods produced by a country affects that country’s overall productivity” (Hidalgo and Hausmann 2009), the variety of knowledge sourced by a country through direct and indirect FDI linkages contributes to the country’s knowledge base. Researchers aim to explore the context by modeling the global outward FDI network because attaining knowledge existing elsewhere requires decision and investment (Bathelt et al. 2004). This resestudyarch should be seen as an attempt to empirically underpin the argument that FDI is instrumental to sourcing knowledge from host countries and that such knowledge contributes to the knowledge base in home countries.

3. The Conceptual Framework: K-NACK Model

Interaction across spaces enables a combination of knowledge from different locations to create new knowledge. Researchers take a network approach to provide a deeper understanding of knowledge and technology transfer through outward FDI connecting to the knowledge base in a country. The network approach views FDI as a link between domestic and foreign networks and as a strategic choice to seek advanced knowledge and technologies in host countries to enhance the knowledge base in home countries (Chen and Chen 1998). Through FDI, investors can tap into knowledge in host countries that may not exist elsewhere in their networks and can absorb the knowledge to contribute to the knowledge base in their home countries. Researchers theorize that investors can source knowledge, through direct and indirect FDI linkages, from host countries to enrich the knowledge base in home countries and the absorptive capacity of countries matters in knowledge sourcing through FDI. Researchers test the theory by modeling the global outward FDI network and investigating the association between a county’s centrality position in the global outward FDI network and its knowledge base. Researchers also investigate the moderating effect of absorptive capacity in the relationship.

3.1. The Global Foreign DIirect Investment Network

Researchers have increasingly been using network analysis to understand different contexts, including the transfer of ideas, knowledge, technologies, and financial contagion (Ferrier et al. 2016; Goyal 2012; Jackson 2008; Kali and Reyes 2007; Sultana and Turkina 2020; Turkina and Van Assche 2018). By modeling a network of relationships and analyzing the structure of the network, researchers can have deeper insights into the direct and the indirect relationships between actors in a network and the structure of the network, as well as predict which structures are likely to emerge in a society (Goyal 2012; Jackson 2008). Understanding the linkages and structures of a network provides uresearchers with important insights into the relationships among actors in a network. A network can be of different forms and shapes, among which the core–periphery structure is well known. For example, “Large social networks tend to be organized in a core-periphery structure, in which high-status people are linked in a densely connected core, while the low-status people are atomized around the periphery of the network” (Easley and Kleinberg 2010). Researchers notice a similar trend in the global distribution of FDI (Bolívar et al. 2019; Sultana and Turkina 2020). Investors are constantly in search of complementary resources that will ensure the maximum return on their investment, which suggests the asymmetrical flow of FDI.
Investors try to establish operations close to the related and supporting industries, and such concentration of firms in a location facilitate the creation of global pipelines to transfer knowledge (Bathelt and Cohendet 2014). Similarly, the flow of knowledge may be geographically localized, and a key reason for geographically localized knowledge flows is the establishment of linkages between the knowledge-producing actors (Almeida and Phene 2004). Regardless of their country of origin, investors tend to seek developed countries to carry out FDI and access knowledge (Scott-Kennel 2007). Investors can develop competitive advantages by sourcing knowledge from foreign knowledge hotspots that offer differentiated streams of knowledge, so long as they can identify, transfer, and integrate the knowledge through their operations (Almeida and Phene 2004; Song and Shin 2008; Turkina and Van Assche 2018; Zahra and George 2002). Knowledge-seeking FDI is usually directed to countries that offer a relatively advanced environment to promote the advancement of different types of knowledge (Kedia et al. 2012). Therefore, the flow of outward FDI will be higher between the countries that have relatively advanced knowledge and technology, given that FDI is a major channel of knowledge and technology transfer. Investors from countries with a higher knowledge base are motivated to invest in other countries, because on the one hand, they have relatively little to learn in their own countries, and on the other hand, they are more likely to outsource knowledge from host countries that have a higher knowledge base relative to their home countries (Song and Shin 2008). Countries that are central in the global FDI network possess diverse and complex knowledge and are able to produce knowledge-intensive products.

3.2. Country Knowledge Base and Access to Knowledge through Foreign Direct Investment

Knowledge can be accumulated, transferred, and preserved when networks of individuals and organizations put that knowledge into productive use (Hausmann et al. 2014; Pina Stranger et al. 2023). By studying the network of relatedness between products, Hidalgo et al. (2007) find that most upscale products are located in a densely connected core of the network, which suggests the accumulation of knowledge in the core. Investors can access new knowledge, technology, and resources to complement or supplement their existing capabilities through FDI (Cantwell and Janne 1999; Kedia et al. 2012). While making foreign direct investments, investors usually look for complementary resources that will enable them to maintain competitiveness (Kedia et al. 2012). Since countries differ in their knowledge profile (Chung and Yeaple 2008), investors can successfully combine knowledge across country locations to generate competitive advantages that other firms will find difficult to replicate or match (Gupta and Govindarajan 2000; Zahra and George 2002). FDI enables investors to gain access to knowledge and technology as well as acquire expertise in different areas, including marketing and general management. Investors can not only exploit their ownership advantages but also access and develop ownership advantages that they did not possess prior through outward FDI (Ding et al. 2021; Hsu and Chen 2009; Lecraw 1993). Linkages between local and foreign firms are important mechanisms for transferring knowledge and technologies between firms, as well as for improving the technological, managerial, and organizational capabilities of firms (Scott-Kennel 2007). Investors can draw from diverse knowledge and technology available in host countries through outward FDI (Chung and Alcácer 2002; Almeida and Phene 2004).
MNEs are embedded in different networks (Ghoshal and Bartlett 1990), and the embeddedness in a network gives an actor access to resources of other actors in the network, resulting in superior power and status as well as the possession of superior knowledge (Bonacich 1987; Li and Gao 2021; Yue 2022). FDI can be seen as a strategic choice to seek advanced knowledge and technologies in host countries to enhance the knowledge base in home countries (Chen and Chen 1998). For instance, Ferrier et al. (2016) analyzed the effect of the trade network on technology transfer and found that in most cases, countries that are better connected to the trade network have higher technology intensities. Through outward FDI, investors can access the advanced knowledge and technology available in host countries that would otherwise have been costly and unavailable (Deng and Lu 2022; Keller 2004; Nelaeva and Nilssen 2022). Knowledge and technology transfer between investors and recipients occurs when they are exposed to one another’s products or production processes, marketing techniques, or receive technical assistance. For example, in a host country, investors from different countries often bring together knowledge and ideas from different perspectives, which facilitates further development of knowledge in a combination of the knowledge specific to investors (Lecraw 1993).
Based on the statement that societies can expand their knowledge base “by facilitating the interaction of individuals in increasingly complex webs of organizations and markets (Hausmann et al. 2014)”, it is possible to argue that forming FDI linkages is instrumental in sourcing knowledge from host countries and enriching the knowledge base in home countries. It can be argued that countries amass diverse knowledge through FDI and that countries that have more FDI linkages tend to possess more complex knowledge than the countries that have fewer FDI linkages. Therefore, countries that establish more outward FDI linkages will have a higher position in the global outward FDI network and higher knowledge bases.

3.3. Access to Knowledge through FDI and the Role of Absorptive Capacity

We understand from the literature that investors can access knowledge and technologies in host countries through networks of relationships with local actors (Bathelt and Cohendet 2014; Cantwell and Janne 1999; Deng and Lu 2022; Kedia et al. 2012; Turkina and Van Assche 2018). However, making an outward FDI does not guarantee that investors will be able to access the advanced knowledge available in host countries or contribute to the knowledge base of a country. Knowledge is often defined as tacit, which is not easily transferrable, and codified, which is easily transferable. However, the distinction might not be so easy. For example, tacit knowledge may not necessarily remain embodied in people, but can spill over when people articulate their thoughts, experiences, and viewpoints through gestures or language (Martin 2012). Similarly, the interpretation of codified knowledge depends on the subjective understanding of the actors involved (Amesse and Cohendet 2001). The effectiveness of an actor’s external knowledge-sourcing strategies to build new knowledge depends on the actor’s internal knowledge (Grigoriou and Rothaermel 2017). Therefore, investors need to have the basic capacity to understand and absorb knowledge from external sources (Nelaeva and Nilssen 2022; Sultana and Turkina 2020). Such basic capacity is defined as absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal 1990). Developing absorptive capacities is important because the incentive to accumulate depends, among other things, on how new capabilities complement existing capabilities to create new products and services (Hidalgo and Hausmann 2009; Hidalgo et al. 2007).
According to Cohen and Levinthal (1990), absorptive capacity is an actor’s ability to identify, assimilate, and exploit knowledge from their environment. The absorption of knowledge and technology from foreign sources depends on the presence of absorptive capacity (Amesse and Cohendet 2001; Bathelt and Cohendet 2014; Deng and Lu 2022). For example, the knowledge and technology available in host countries can be of a tacit nature and highly context-specific, which requires certain capabilities to be absorbed (Cohen and Levinthal 1989; Fritsch and Kauffeld-Monz 2010; Narula and Marin 2003). The existing capabilities of investors influence their motivation to source knowledge from host countries (Song and Shin 2008; Sultana and Turkina 2023). Recently, Deng and Lu (2022) found that absorptive capacity strengthens the positive relationship between transnational knowledge transfer and innovation. Therefore, whether a country will benefit from outward FDI depends on the activities undertaken in the country to enhance the absorptive capacity of investors. Following the literature, researchers use R&D expenditure to measure the absorptive capacity of a country (Sultana and Turkina 2020). R&D expenditure in a country drives technological change, innovation, and economic growth by enabling actors to both generate new information and absorb information from external sources (Cohen and Levinthal 1989; Sultana and Turkina 2020). The combined benefit of the network embeddedness and absorptive capacity for the knowledge base of a country will be stronger.

References

  1. Antonelli, Cristiano, Francesco Crespi, and Francesco Quatraro. 2020. Knowledge Complexity and the Mechanisms of Knowledge Generation and Exploitation: The European Evidence. Research Policy 51: 104081.
  2. Martin, Roman, and Jerker Moodysson. 2013. Comparing Knowledge Bases: On the Geography and Organization of Knowledge Sourcing in the Regional Innovation System of Scania, Sweden. European Urban and Regional Studies 20: 170–87.
  3. Hidalgo, César A., and Ricardo Hausmann. 2009. The Building Blocks of Economic Complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 10570–75.
  4. Cantwell, John, and Jessica Salmon. 2018. The Effects of Global Connectivity on Knowledge Complexity in the Information Age. In International Business in the Information and Digital Age. Bentley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 123–37.
  5. Van Wijk, Raymond, Justin J. P. Jansen, and Marjorie A. Lyles. 2008. Inter-and Intra-organizational Knowledge Transfer: A Meta-analytic Review and Assessment of Its Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Management Studies 45: 830–53.
  6. Ardito, Lorenzo, and Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli. 2017. Breadth of External Knowledge Sourcing and Product Innovation: The Moderating Role of Strategic Human Resource Practices. European Management Journal 35: 261–72.
  7. Bathelt, Harald, Anders Malmberg, and Peter Maskell. 2004. Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation. Progress in Human Geography 28: 31–56.
  8. Rodriguez, Mercedes, David Doloreux, and Richard Shearmur. 2017. Variety in External Knowledge Sourcing and Innovation Novelty: Evidence from the KIBS Sector in Spain. Technovation 68: 35–43.
  9. Hausmann, Ricardo, César A. Hidalgo, Sebastián Bustos, Michele Coscia, and Alexander Simoes. 2014. The Atlas of Economic Complexity: Mapping Paths to Prosperity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  10. Miller, Kent D. 2008. Simon and Polanyi on Rationality and Knowledge. Organization Studies 29: 933–55.
  11. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre, Ron Boschma, Joan Crespo, and David L. Rigby. 2018. Smart Specialization Policy in the European Union: Relatedness, Knowledge Complexity and Regional Diversification. Regional Studies 53: 1252–68.
  12. Brown, John Seely, and Paul Duguid. 2001. Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective. Organization Science 12: 198–213.
  13. Tsoukas, Haridimos. 2005. Do We Really Understand Tacit Knowledge. Managing Knowledge: An Essential Reader 107: 1–18.
  14. Lundvall, Bengt-äke, and Björn Johnson. 1994. The Learning Economy. Journal of Industry Studies 1: 23–42.
  15. Asheim, Bjørn T., and Meric S. Gertler. 2006. The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Asheim, Bjørn T., and Lars Coenen. 2005. Knowledge Bases and Regional Innovation Systems: Comparing Nordic Clusters. Research Policy 34: 1173–90.
  17. Bathelt, Harald, and Pengfei Li. 2020. Processes of Building Cross-Border Knowledge Pipelines. Research Policy 49: 103928.
  18. Bathelt, Harald, and Patrick Cohendet. 2014. The Creation of Knowledge: Local Building, Global Accessing and Economic Development—Toward an Agenda. Journal of Economic Geography 14: 869–82.
  19. Wang, Changfeng, and Qiying Hu. 2020. Knowledge Sharing in Supply Chain Networks: Effects of Collaborative Innovation Activities and Capability on Innovation Performance. Technovation 94: 102010.
  20. Yue, Wen. 2022. Foreign Direct Investment and the Innovation Performance of Local Enterprises. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9: 1–9.
  21. Mehreen, Hina, Hussain Gulzar Rammal, Vijay Pereira, and Manlio Del Giudice. 2022. Investigating the Influence of Absorptive Capacity of Recipients within Cross-Border Transfer of Knowledge: Evidence from Emerging Markets. International Marketing Review 39: 734–54.
  22. Pina Stranger, Alvaro, German Varas, and Valentin Gerard. 2023. Where Do Social Support and Epistemic Centrality Come From? The Case of Innovators in the French Biotech Industry. Administrative Sciences 13: 183.
  23. Scott-Kennel, Joanna. 2007. Foreign Direct Investment and Local Linkages: An Empirical Investigation. Management International Review 47: 51–77.
  24. Kostopoulos, Konstantinos, Alexandros Papalexandris, Margarita Papachroni, and George Ioannou. 2011. Absorptive Capacity, Innovation, and Financial Performance. Journal of Business Research 64: 1335–43.
  25. Kang, Yuanfei, Joanna Scott-Kennel, Martina Battisti, and David Deakins. 2021. Linking Inward/Outward FDI and Exploitation/Exploration Strategies: Development of a Framework for SMEs. International Business Review 30: 101790.
  26. Pereira, Vijay, Umesh Bamel, Yama Temouri, Pawan Budhwar, and Manlio Del Giudice. 2023. Mapping the Evolution, Current State of Affairs and Future Research Direction of Managing Cross-Border Knowledge for Innovation. International Business Review 32: 101834.
  27. Castellani, Davide, Alfredo Jimenez, and Antonello Zanfei. 2013. How Remote Are R&D Labs? Distance Factors and International Innovative Activities. Journal of International Business Studies 44: 649–75.
  28. Turkina, Ekaterina, and Ari Van Assche. 2018. Global Connectedness and Local Innovation in Industrial Clusters. Journal of International Business Studies 49: 706–28.
  29. Narula, Rajneesh, and Anabel Marin. 2003. FDI Spillovers, Absorptive Capacities and Human Capital Development: Evidence from Argentina. Available online: https://research-api.cbs.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/58937577/6593.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2023).
  30. Ding, Sasa, Frank McDonald, and Yingqi Wei. 2021. Is Internationalization Beneficial to Innovation? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis. Management International Review 61: 469–519.
  31. Lecraw, Donald J. 1993. Outward Direct Investment by Indonesian Firms: Motivation and Effects. Journal of International Business Studies 24: 589–600.
  32. Ben Chou, P., and Katia Passerini. 2009. Intellectual Property Rights and Knowledge Sharing across Countries. Journal of Knowledge Management 13: 331–44.
  33. Tung, Rosalie L. 1994. Human Resource Issues and Technology Transfer. International Journal of Human Resource Management 5: 807–25.
  34. Erfani, Parsa, Agnes Binagwaho, Mohamed Juldeh Jalloh, Muhammad Yunus, Paul Farmer, and Vanessa Kerry. 2021. Intellectual Property Waiver for Covid-19 Vaccines Will Advance Global Health Equity. BMJ 374: n1837.
  35. Li, Zhenhua, and Xuan Gao. 2021. Makers’ Relationship Network, Knowledge Acquisition and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Analysis from China. Technology in Society 66: 101684.
  36. Chen, Homin, and Tain-Jy Chen. 1998. Network Linkages and Location Choice in Foreign Direct Investment. Journal of International Business Studies 29: 445–67.
  37. Ferrier, Gary D., Javier Reyes, and Zhen Zhu. 2016. Technology Diffusion on the International Trade Network. Journal of Public Economic Theory 18: 291–312.
  38. Goyal, Sanjeev. 2012. Social Networks on the Web. In The Oxford Handbook of the Digital Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 434–59.
  39. Jackson, Matthew O. 2008. Social and Economic Networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press, vol. 3.
  40. Kali, Raja, and Javier Reyes. 2007. The Architecture of Globalization: A Network Approach to International Economic Integration. Journal of International Business Studies 38: 595–620.
  41. Sultana, Nasrin, and Ekaterina Turkina. 2020. Foreign Direct Investment, Technological Advancement, and Absorptive Capacity: A Network Analysis. International Business Review 29: 101668.
  42. Easley, David, and Jon Kleinberg. 2010. Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 1.
  43. Bolívar, Luis Miguel, Cristóbal Casanueva, and Ignacio Castro. 2019. Global Foreign Direct Investment: A Network Perspective. International Business Review 28: 696–712.
  44. Almeida, Paul, and Anupama Phene. 2004. Subsidiaries and Knowledge Creation: The Influence of the MNC and Host Country on Innovation. Strategic Management Journal 25: 847–64.
  45. Song, Jaeyong, and Jongtae Shin. 2008. The Paradox of Technological Capabilities: A Study of Knowledge Sourcing from Host Countries of Overseas R&D Operations. Journal of International Business Studies 39: 291–303.
  46. Zahra, Shaker A., and Gerard George. 2002. Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension. Academy of Management Review 27: 185–203.
  47. Kedia, Ben, Nolan Gaffney, and Jack Clampit. 2012. EMNEs and Knowledge-Seeking FDI. Management International Review 52: 155–73.
  48. Hidalgo, César A., Bailey Klinger, A.-L. Barabási, and Ricardo Hausmann. 2007. The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations. Science 317: 482–87.
  49. Cantwell, John, and Odile Janne. 1999. Technological Globalisation and Innovative Centres: The Role of Corporate Technological Leadership and Locational Hierarchy. Research Policy 28: 119–44.
  50. Chung, Wilbur, and Stephen Yeaple. 2008. International Knowledge Sourcing: Evidence from US Firms Expanding Abroad. Strategic Management Journal 29: 1207–24.
  51. Gupta, Anil K., and Vijay Govindarajan. 2000. Knowledge Flows within Multinational Corporations. Strategic Management Journal 21: 473–96.
  52. Hsu, Chia-Wen, and Homin Chen. 2009. Foreign Direct Investment and Capability Development: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective. Management International Review 49: 585–605.
  53. Chung, Wilbur, and Juan Alcácer. 2002. Knowledge Seeking and Location Choice of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. Management Science 48: 1534–54.
  54. Ghoshal, Sumantra, and Christopher A. Bartlett. 1990. The Multinational Corporation as an Interorganizational Network. Academy of Management Review 15: 603–26.
  55. Bonacich, Phillip. 1987. Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures. American Journal of Sociology 92: 1170–82.
  56. Deng, Ping, and Hao Lu. 2022. Transnational Knowledge Transfer or Indigenous Knowledge Transfer: Which Channel Has More Benefits for China’s High-Tech Enterprises? European Journal of Innovation Management 25: 433–53.
  57. Keller, Wolfgang. 2004. International Technology Diffusion. Journal of Economic Literature 42: 752–82.
  58. Nelaeva, Alena, and Frode Nilssen. 2022. Contrasting Knowledge Development for Internationalization among Emerging and Advanced Economy Firms: A Review and Future Research. Journal of Business Research 139: 232–56.
  59. Martin, Roman. 2012. Measuring Knowledge Bases in Swedish Regions. European Planning Studies 20: 1569–82.
  60. Amesse, Fernand, and Patrick Cohendet. 2001. Technology Transfer Revisited from the Perspective of the Knowledge-Based Economy. Research Policy 30: 1459–78.
  61. Grigoriou, Konstantinos, and Frank T. Rothaermel. 2017. Organizing for Knowledge Generation: Internal Knowledge Networks and the Contingent Effect of External Knowledge Sourcing. Strategic Management Journal 38: 395–414.
  62. Cohen, Wesley M., and Daniel A. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 128–52.
  63. Cohen, Wesley M., and Daniel A. Levinthal. 1989. Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R & D. The Economic Journal 99: 569–96.
  64. Fritsch, Michael, and Martina Kauffeld-Monz. 2010. The Impact of Network Structure on Knowledge Transfer: An Application of Social Network Analysis in the Context of Regional Innovation Networks. The Annals of Regional Science 44: 21–38.
  65. Sultana, Nasrin, and Ekaterina Turkina. 2023. Internationalization, Sustainability, and Capacity-Based Motives of Foreign Direct Investment: A Conceptual Framework. In Analyzing International Business Operations in the Post-Pandemic Era. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 15–33.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback