24
THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF
INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT
EDUCATION AND ITS
LIMITATIONS
Lars Engwall and Matthias Kipping
Introduction
There can be no doubt that higher education has been international for a very long time. As early as the Middle Ages students were moving between various universities in different countries (see, e.g., Haskins, 1929;Mietke, 1985; Schwinges, 1988). And so were professors. In this way universities obtained cosmopolitan student bodies and faculties. As different scientific disciplines developed and expanded, particularly during the latter part of the last century, the world of scholars became truly international. It could therefore be claimed that academic institutions have longer traditions of internationalization than corporations, which are the focus of theories of internationalization. At the same time, there are reasons to believe that the character of education has significant effects on the internationalization process, which makes it somewhat different from that of corporations. The main reason for these differences is that academic education to a high extent is locally embedded. Although we see a globalization of markets of various kinds, labor markets, with a few exceptions, have remained mainly national so far. This is due to cultural differences, personal ties, and, not the least, the national construction of reputation among academic institutions. Of course, this is being challenged in times of accreditation and ranking, which have been particularly important in the field of management education.
In terms of internationalization, so our main argument goes, this means that academic institutions will generally be less internationalized than corporations—even those providing management education. Second, we would expect this limited internationalization to be driven mainly by a quest to increase reputation, in international and even more so their home market. Third, given the limited internationalization of business schools as institutions, international management education is likely to take place through the development of internationally oriented content, i.e., textbooks, courses, and even complete degree programs geared towards international management, mainly at the Master's level. To support these arguments, in what follows we will first present the general characteristics of academic education and then discuss the different ways in which academic institutions, and in particular those in management education, can internationalize, drawing loosely on the sequential internationalization process model developed by the so-called Uppsala school. For each of the different stages, we will highlight the important role played by reputation. To illustrate our general propositions an empirical section will examine the degree and form of internationalization of the top 100 business schools listed in the 2011 Financial Times Global MBA ranking. The concluding section will then discuss what consequences our arguments and the evidence presented have for the provision of international management education. It will also highlight the limitations of our approach and propose possible directions for future research.
Reputation and the internationalization of higher education
The significance of reputation for higher education
Higher education is unique in at least three ways. First, by definition, a prospective student should not know its content in advance; otherwise they would not devote time to acquire it. Second, a student cannot be expected to go through the same education more than once. Third, the value of the “product” is often difficult to estimate in the short-term perspective. These three characteristics imply that students, in comparison to customers of most corporations, are relatively uninformed. Hence, the institutional reputation constitutes a crucial component in fields of higher education. In addition to these three characteristics it should be pointed out that links to research are very important for the legitimacy of higher education. This is particularly the case in areas like management education, which can be delivered by a number of other actors such as consultancies (Kipping and Amorim, 2003). And, for research too, reputation is highly significant, maybe even more significant than for education. This goes for individual faculty members, research groups, departments as well as whole universities. Although a basic curiosity is always behind the efforts of scholars, their goal is to receive acknowledgment for their ideas and research results from their peers.
Reputation is of course also important for modern corporations (e.g., Fombrun, 1996; McMillan, 2010). However, corporations differ from universities in that they tend to use reputation as another means to make profit, while reputation can be considered a goal in itself for universities. Instead of their profitability, academic institutions are assessed by means of the success of their students and their faculty members. Nevertheless, by increasing their reputation in order to attract better students and better faculty members, academic institutions might also increase their revenues, at least in the North American context, since a higher reputation helps them to obtain more research grants and more money both from their alumni and other donors. This leads to a virtuous cycle, because more research and highly visible endowments increase reputation even further, attract yet better students (who might also be prepared to pay higher fees) and better researchers, who get yet more grants, and so on…. The role of alumni is particularly important in this respect. Even if they were not happy with their education, they are unlikely to spread negative information about it. Instead they are likely to support it strongly given the money and time they invested. Reputation, which is so important when students select an educational institution, therefore becomes even more important when they graduate. The higher the reputation an institution has, the better positions graduates will obtain and the better career possibilities will open to those who follow them, and so on….
In the past, the reputation of academic institutions was largely a function of their—relative— age, exemplified by the response of a Harvard President to the question of what made a “great university”: “350 years” (quoted by McMillan, 2010). These venerable universities have what economists call “first mover advantages” (Williamson, 1975, pp. 34–35). Not surprisingly therefore, old universities like Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard are usually placed at the top in rankings such as the ones by the Times Higher Educational Supplement or the Shanghai JiaoTong University. First mover advantages are of course also important in other industries (Chandler, 1990: 34–36). They nevertheless appear much more significant in higher education, given its uninformed customers and the consequent importance of reputation.
More importantly, while the more venerable institutions of higher education often top the rankings, these rankings do not use age as a proxy for reputation, but have introduced a number of research-related indicators to measure and compare their quality, such as Nobel Prizes, Field medals, highly cited researchers, Nature and Science publications and citations in the Web of Science. By contrast, size is only taken into account to a marginal extent, accounting for 10 percent of the overall total (see, further, Liu and Cheng, 2005). Similarly, the rankings of business schools rest on combinations of indicators related, on the one hand, to the characteristics and quality of their faculty, measured, for instance, through research output, faculty with doctorates, female faculty, international faculty, and, on the other hand, to graduate success in the labor market, looking in particular at employment opportunities, career progress, salary, and salary increase (see, further, Wedlin, 2006: 89–92). The most important consequence of these rankings is that, due to the indicators they use, reputation has now become more manageable for those running these universities or business schools. This in turn has meant that the competition among these institutions for better students and better faculty to kick-start the virtuous cycle of improving their reputation has increased significantly—a competition, which seems to take place increasingly at an international level.
Nevertheless, in this respect significant differences remain between students and faculty in terms of their local embeddedness. Thus, research is increasingly internationally defined through a strong institutionalization of scientific work, i.e., through an increasing number of scientific associations, scientific journals, and evaluations (Drori et al., 2003). By contrast, student recruitment still has a less international focus, because labor markets, despite deregulation and internationalization, continue to be nationally embedded, with higher education institutions serving as a selection mechanism for national elites (e.g., Bourdieu, 1989). And, the more successful an academic institution has been in a national context the stronger its support and reputation. One distinction that is important to make here with regard to management education concerns the different programs one can normally find within business schools. Thus, the above reasoning applies in particular to undergraduate and to a lesser extent to MBA or other Master's programs. By contrast, Executive MBA programs will be much more internationally oriented, since the related labor markets tend to be found within multinational corporations.
Modes of internationalizing academic education
When it comes to the internationalization process of corporations, the so-called Uppsala school (see, e. g., Johanson and Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975) considers the expansion into a foreign country as a sequential process starting from domestic activities. Thus, as export opportunities are developing, or domestic markets saturate, companies engage agents in importing countries. Successful exporters eventually find that arrangement insufficient and move to a third stage, implying the establishment of a sales company abroad. Finally, in cases when sales are growing, the company may move into the fourth stage, which means the investment in production facilities. The four phases reflect a successive knowledge development and increasing market commitments (Johanson andVahlne, 1977, 2009; Forsgren and Johanson, 2010). In this process the psychic or cultural distance is expected to play an important role (cf. Hallén and Wiedersheim-Paul, 1979), i.e., companies are likely to go, at first, to culturally close markets rather than to more distant ones.
Although this model has been subject to scrutiny over the years, it is still an often-used basic approach (see, e.g., Johanson and Vahlne, 2009; Forsgren and Johanson, 2010), leading Barkema
| Location of delivery | ||
| Origin of students | Home country | Host country |
| Home country | (1) Import of ideas | (2) Outsourcing |
| Foreign country | (3) Insourcing | (4) FDI |
and Drogendijk (2007: 1132) to conclude “that sequential internationalization strategies do still matter, and that companies have to balance exploitation and exploration in internationalization.” Nevertheless, with respect to the significance of cultural factors there are indications that these vary across industries. For example, in a study of the internationalization of Swedish banks Engwall and Wallenstål (1988) found that, although the sequential process seemed to be confirmed, banks made their first foreign direct investments rather late in comparison with manufacturing companies and did it in international financial centers rather than in culturally close markets.
The Uppsala model of internationalization, we contend, can be adapted to the internationalization of academic institutions taking into account the specific characteristics of higher education, namely regarding reputation. Such an adaptation also needs to consider the fact that both the “products” (i.e., the content of higher education), and its “customers” (i.e., the students) are movable, which means that there are two significant dimensions for the analysis: (1) the location of the delivery and (2) the origin of the students. The resulting four modes of internationalization—import of ideas, outsourcing, insourcing, and FDI—are summarized in Table 24.1 and explained in some more detail subsequently.
Import of ideas
The arguments above imply that we expect that the characteristics of education and the local character of reputation will hamper the international expansion of academic institutions. This does not mean that they are closed to the rest of the world, though. First, and foremost, the international character of research already mentioned is extremely important. Second, most academic institutions have foreign role models, and this has particularly been the case in management education. Thus, there has been a significant body of research on the worldwide influence of the French and German models of commercial schools during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (e.g., Engwall and Zamagni, 1998; Engwall, 2004). Both had a significant influence in other European countries but also in Japan, and even in the United States before the establishment of what is often mentioned as the front runner among US business schools: the Wharton School founded in 1881. After World War II the US model of the graduate business school has become dominant—even if its influence has been moderated by country-specific institutional factors (e.g., Kieser, 2004; Kipping, Üsdiken, and Puig, 2004; Tiratsoo, 2004; Üsdiken, 2004; Engwall, 2007). In the first post-World War II decades this process was partially driven by active exporters of such models, such as the Ford Foundation (see Djelic, 1998: 212; Gemelli, 1998) or the Harvard Business School, which assisted in the introduction of its “template,” for instance, at the University of Western Ontario in Canada (now the Richard Ivey School of Business) or in the creation of IESE of the Universidad de Navarra in Barcelona. But the import of these models was also motivated by the need of the new institutions to borrow the reputation of established institutions given the significant resistance of academic elites against their foundation and development (Engwall, Kipping and Üsdiken, 2010).
Table 24.2 Origin of the textbooks in Nordic business schools in the mid-1990s (%)
Source: Engwall (2000:12, Table 2).
Another manifestation of the import of ideas is the strong development and worldwide circulation of international textbooks authored by well-reputed US business school professors, gurus, or consultants. Thus, irrespective of whether students are nationals or not, whether they study at home or abroad, they may be exposed to similar ideas and material. Evidence of this is provided by a study of the curricula of eight Nordic business schools in the mid-1990s (Engwall, 2000). As shown in Table 24.2, around 50 percent of the titles used had their origin in the United States or, to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom.
An analysis of the titles used by more than two of the eight institutions (Table 24.3) confirms the dominance of US publishers.
While the import of ideas thus implies a significant degree of internationalization, it does not require any movement of students. This is different for the next stage of internationalization.
Outsourcing
Even if most academic institutions still have the bulk of their teaching directed towards nationals for domestic labor markets, there has been a considerable internationalization during the postwar period through various kinds of arrangements to expose students to international experiences. Such programs are probably the most widespread way for business schools to internationalize—or at least demonstrate their international credentials. Basically they imply that academic institutions are outsourcing two of their core activities: teaching and quality control. This fact seems to have been forgotten to a considerable extent as student exchange programs expanded in the 1980s and 1990s. At that time, academic leaders from various countries could be seen at international academic meetings discussing possible exchanges. The ambition to present their own students with many opportunities to study abroad seems to have led them, in a number of cases, to put quantity before quality. Since then, information about the quality of education in foreign institutions has improved considerably, although, for the reasons discussed in the previous section, the quality of education is difficult to assess—and even more so when comparing providers in different countries.
With respect to such partnerships, reputation again plays an important role. It is likely that newer institutions wanting to establish a good reputation are looking for partners who already have such a reputation, which might, however, be hesitant to collaborate with institutions of lower reputation. For the assessment of partners the development of international rankings has
| Title | Publisher | No. of schools |
| Brealey and Myers (1991) | McGraw-Hill | 6 |
| Porter (1980) | The Free Press | 5 |
| Arens and Loebbecke (1994) | Prentice-Hall | 4 |
| Cooper and Kaplan (1991) | Prentice-Hall | 4 |
| Foster (1986) | Prentice-Hall | 4 |
| Hull (1993) | Prentice-Hall | 4 |
| Stern and El-Ansary (1992) | Prentice-Hall | 4 |
| Yin (1984) | Sage | 4 |
| Anthony and Govindarajan (1995) | Irwin | 3 |
| Bradley (1995) | Prentice-Hall | 3 |
| Copeland andWeston (1988) | Addison-Wesley | 3 |
| Douma and Schreuder (1991) | Prentice-Hall | 3 |
| Drury (1992) | Chapman and Hall | 3 |
| Eiteman, Stonehill and Moffett (1994) | Addison-Wesley | 3 |
| Gadde and Håkansson (1993) | Studentlitteratur | 3 |
| Grönroos (1990) | Lexington Books | 3 |
| Kaplan and Atkinson (1989) | Prentice-Hall | 3 |
| Kotler (1994) | Prentice-Hall | 3 |
| Lambert and Stock (1993) | Irwin | 3 |
| Loustarinen and Welch (1990) | Helsinki School of Economics | 3 |
| Morgan (1986) | Sage | 3 |
| Ryan, Scapens and Theobald (1992) | Academic Press | 3 |
| Welford and Gouldson (1993) | Pitman | 3 |
| Yukl (1989) | Prentice-Hall | 3 |
Source: Engwall (2000:18,Table 7).
had significant effects. The most important consequence is probably that academic leaders are more selective in choosing their partners. Yet again, the local character of educational markets is important to mention. Thus, even if a foreign institution is considered to have a lower international reputation, it may still be a possible partner if it has a sufficient ranking in the country in question. The importance of the reputation of the counterpart can also be expected to vary with the formalization of the collaboration. Thus, for simple student exchanges partner schools might not require the same standards from each other that they would require for joint degrees or joint ventures, which are forms of foreign direct investment (and are therefore discussed in the corresponding section below).
While most of these agreements will be directly between two institutions, there are also broader, multilateral arrangements. Thus, European business schools will be able to participate in the Europe-wide Erasmus and Leonardo programs. There are also more specific educational networks, which require schools to become members of a sort of “club.” Within the area of international management education, two networks are particularly noteworthy: PIM and CEMS. The Partnership in International Management was created in 1973 by three business schools: École des Hautes Etudes Commerciales (HEC) in Paris, the School of Business at New York University (NYU), now Stern, and the London Business School (LBS). At the beginning of 2012 the PIM network had grown to include 58 institutions worldwide, of which 19 were European, 15 Asian, 14 North American, seven South American, two Australian, and one African (www.pimnetwork.org). The Community of European Management Schools and International Companies (CEMS) was founded in 1988 by Università Bocconi in Milan, ESADE in Barcelona, HEC Paris, and the University of Cologne. As of January 2012 it had 26 academic members, 75 corporate partners, and three Social partners (CARE International, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International, and The United Nations Alliance of Civilizations). It describes itself as “a global alliance of academic and corporate institutions dedicated to educating and preparing future generations of international business leaders,” and offers a Master in Management, for which courses can be completed at all participating institutions. The majority of the members (20) are European, and the remaining six come from Asia (3), Australia (1), North America (1),and South America (1) (www.cems.org).
The outsourcing of education to foreign partners has thus become an important feature of management education. Although it provides opportunities for students to acquire international perspectives, it does not directly affect the outsourcing institution. Above all, it appears as a feature to enhance the reputation of the institution in its home market by (a) offering exciting experiences abroad to national students, and (b) showcasing its relationships with reputable foreign partners. Interestingly enough, there are indications that outsourcing may even reinforce national networks. This can be the case when more than one elite institution of a specific country is sending students to a foreign exchange partner. The reason is that, when at the foreign partner schools, nationals tend to stick together and, in so doing, are likely to develop and strengthen their national ties more than their international ones, since it is these national ties that will determine their future career opportunities. Once again, this will differ depending on the kind of program students participate in. Thus, Executive MBA students, for example, who already should have a good national network, might prefer to participate in more internationally oriented programs to develop their international ties—also depending on the kind of company or sector they work or are planning to work in.
It should be noted here that, obviously, these exchanges work in both directions: institutions not only send their own (national) students abroad for part of their programs, but they also attract foreign students. What we therefore refer to as “insourcing” will be examined in some more detail in the following section, which will also discuss how home country institutions might try to make this form of internationalization more permanent.
Insourcing
The other way in which academic institutions have traditionally internationalized is by attracting foreign students. A significant part of this type of internationalization is of course the other side of the student exchanges discussed in relation to outsourcing. These exchange agreements imply that institutions that send out students also have to receive students from their partners. While outsourcing, as mentioned above, does not have a strong impact on the domestic programs, insourcing has. Of course, outsourcing means that students are away for a semester or two, which has some indirect effect on curricula. Insourcing, by contrast, has a drastic effect in countries with languages which are not widely spoken. In a world where English has become the new lingua franca this has led a large number of institutions in countries, where English is not the mother tongue, to change the language of delivery to English, partially or completely. Since higher education to such a large extent is dependent on the ability to understand and communicate, this transformation can be expected to have effects on the quality of education. The obvious reason is that non-native speakers are likely to perform less well in class using their second or even third language, teaching students who may be even worse in that language. Nevertheless, the teaching in English in countries with other languages is increasing significantly.
In addition to exchange agreements, there is also the option that home country institutions recruit foreign students on a more permanent basis to complete their whole degree program there. When, or rather if they return to their country of origin, they take the knowledge acquired at the institution of higher education with them—a process which can be seen as an “export” in terms of the corporate internationalization process. As a consequence, the insourcing may have interesting effects on the home country of the foreign students. It should be noted here that the education of foreign nationals has been used and will continue to be used actively as a means of disseminating ideas and culture and should therefore be seen, at least partially, in a colonial and postcolonial context.
For instance, significant parts of African elites have been and continue to be educated at Oxford and Cambridge. Similarly, the “Americanization” of Western Europe after World War II was at least partially driven by the educational experience of its elites in the United States. Thus, many of the people who contributed to the modernization of France after 1945 had spent time in the United States during the inter-war period, as exchange students or faculty (Kuisel, 1993). Possibly inspired by this apparent success, the US government placed (and paid for) significant numbers of students from Western Europe into leading educational institutions as part of its “productivity drive” during the 1950s (McGlade, 1998). More in general, during the Cold War both blocks were attracting students from abroad through scholarships. Thus, a large number of students, particularly from developing countries, were studying in the Soviet Union. As a result, the knowledge exported (like the models imported after World War II) tended to be of US American or Soviet origin, not unlike what happened in the corporate world (e.g., Kipping and Bjarnar, 1998; Zeitlin and Herrigel, 2000)—part of a broader process of “Americanization” or, less well known, “Sovietization.”
While, historically, this kind of insourcing was limited to mainly old (or new) elites studying at a few highly reputable foreign universities, in recent years international student recruitment seems to have become more common and more intentional, leading to a significant increase in the number of foreign students without a balancing exchange and to growing competition among educational institutions for international students. It can also be noted that the market for students has become somewhat institutionalized through different educational fairs worldwide. Motivations for this kind of more permanent insourcing differ widely. For some institutions, it is a response to globalization driving the need to extend their networks beyond the national context. For instance, the leading French engineering school Ècole Poly technique, which supplies a significant portion of the country's corporate and political elite, in addition to its annual intake of 400 highly selected students from France, is now recruiting an additional 100 students from the top engineering schools in the emerging economies, mainly China, India, and Russia (based on a personal communication to the authors). In the British case, the recruitment of foreign students is mainly intended to make up for the growing shortfall of government funding. As a consequence, in many Master's-level programs, foreign full-fee-paying students now make up the vast majority of participants. In the Japanese case, the main driver is demography with universities actively recruiting in other parts of Asia, once again mainly at the graduate level, to make up for the dwindling numbers of home-grown students. Similarly, Swedish institutions of higher education that have had difficulties filling their quota in terms of student numbers and examinations have recruited outside the country. However, after it was questioned whether Swedish taxpayers should finance the education of foreign students, and fees were introduced for students from outside the European Economic Area in the fall of 2011, this market was drastically reduced (Högskoleverket, 2011).
Nevertheless, one should not overestimate the flows of students and the export of knowledge, not only historically but also today. Even among English-speaking institutions, there seem to be limitations to international recruitment. Thus, Ayobi and Massoud (2007) found that less than 50 percent of 117 UK universities were highly active in international recruitment, 37 percent (“international speakers”) were stressing internationalization in mission statements without living up to these ambitions, while 15 percent (“international losers”) neither spoke about nor were active in international recruitment. Among the remaining universities, 37 percent (“international winners”) were both talking and acting internationally, while 11 percent (“international actors”) had a highly international student body without referring to it in their mission statement. These findings also underline the fact that a number of international exchange agreements, signed by Vice-Chancellors or other university leaders with lots of pomp, have turned out to be just ceremonial.
Insourcing is not limited to students, however. It is also a question of recruitment of faculty members on the international academic labor market. This has become even more pronounced as research performance has increasingly become crucial for academic institutions, often leading to a view that foreigners are able to make better contributions to research performance than nationals, or at least that they will be able to teach the nationals how to behave in the publishing game or just incite them to perform better. This may of course happen, but the recruitment of international faculty is not without problems for institutions in non-English-speaking countries. Taking a job in such a country implies a particular tension for the recruited. Even if English is the working language in teaching and research, they have to live in an environment where they have difficulties communicating in everyday situations. Needless to say, the complications are even worse in relation to the internal university politics, which in all countries require considerable tacit knowledge. On top of that it is of course an open question whether the top candidates in a field would prefer to go to peripheral countries with less reputable institutions. Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that non-academic motives, including personal relationships, have played an important role for international academic mobility. Advantageous conditions in terms of salary and teaching load can of course also be expected to be important for mobility.
Insourcing of students and faculty thus constitute an important feature of the internationalization of academic institutions, which has much stronger effects on the institutions than outsourcing. Nevertheless, we should expect, for the reputational reasons discussed above, that for most institutions national students will outnumber the foreign ones, in particular at the undergraduate level. We should also expect that foreign students are more likely to come from countries where higher education is less developed.
Foreign direct investments
The fourth ideal type of internationalization, foreign direct investments (FDI), is the one requiring most commitments and implying the highest financial risks. While outsourcing and insourcing agreements can be changed through renegotiations or just made inactive, FDI requires a contractual commitment that is more difficult to rescind and requires some form of upfront investment. As the research in international business has shown, the necessary commitment and the inherent risk mean that FDI has tended to be a very late step in the internationalization process. The obvious reason is that such an undertaking requires extensive investments but above all a profound knowledge of the target market. In the same way, not the least because of the significance of reputation discussed above, we should expect academic institutions to be both cautious and late in foreign direct investment. As argued above, education is to a very high extent nationally embedded, and adding foreign “customers,” i.e., students, can to a certain extent be handled by means of insourcing.
There might nevertheless be good reasons for academic institutions to invest abroad. Thus, as noted above, some programs benefit from being very international, in particular at the Executive MBA level, where participants might work for multinational enterprises or aim at extending their personal networks beyond the national level. Second, having an investment abroad might increase the overall reputation of an institution in what is increasingly perceived as a global market for higher education, distinguishing it from the many that “only” have foreign partnerships. This might help the institution attract better domestic students, which in turn might lead to a growing reputation at home. Last but not least, there are limits to how many foreign students can be “insourced” from any single country without starting to dominate the student body at the home institution, and also prompting these foreign students to ask why they actually went abroad, if most of their fellow students are from their own country. The other limit on insourcing concerns the cost of living and studying abroad. An institution can significantly increase its market by offering a similar education at a lower cost to the foreign students in their own home country. This might prompt institutions to invest in large and fast-growing emerging economies. However, like with any foreign direct investment, quality control is the key issue here. Any failing in this respect might also have a negative knock-on effect on the institution's reputation at home.
Like in the case of corporations, such a foreign investment does not immediately mean a full commitment in terms of a secondary campus abroad. Thus, the institution can set up a joint venture, either limited to a program or covering the full range of educational offerings. Such a joint venture can also involve outside partners. Thus, for example, the China Europe International Business School (CEIBS) was established in 1994 as a joint venture between the European Commission (EC), the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation, and Shanghai JiaoTong University, supported by the IESE Business School from Barcelona. Similarly, the Indian School of Business was founded in 1996 as a private—public partnership between several business leaders, including two McKinsey directors of Indian origin, and the governments of India and the state of Andhra Pradesh, and received support from Wharton, Kellogg, and the London Business School. It should be noted here that in both cases, despite providing technical assistance, the foreign business schools refrained from taking an equity stake in these ventures.
The particular mode of foreign market entry is a choice which each institution will have to make—trading off risk (notably in terms of quality) and commitment (notably in terms of financial investment). For example, the two major business schools based in the Chicago area, Booth and Kellogg, have chosen rather different modes to internationalize their Executive MBA programs. The former has two subsidiary locations: London (where it moved from Barcelona) and Singapore (http://www.chicagobooth.edu/execmba/campuslocations/index.aspx). The latter has a second domestic campus in Miami (albeit intended to serve the Latin American market), but for the rest of the world opted to cooperate with local partners: the Schulich School of Business at York University in Canada, the German WHU in Europe, Recanati in Israel, and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) in South East Asia. While these programs are structured like 50:50 joint ventures, in terms of the sharing of teaching between Kellogg and local instructors and of profits, they also have the features of franchise agreements, since Kellogg provides both the know-how (in terms of the curriculum, which is only marginally adapted locally) and most of the brand equity.
In sum
Overall therefore, it seems fair to say that, in terms of students, the internationalization of universities, like charity, begins at home. It is first a question of foreign role models, and textbook selection. Second, outsourcing through student exchanges has been used to expose national students to international experiences but also to strengthen the reputation of institutions. The other side of these exchange agreements is what we have called insourcing, foreign students attending the institution, which implies, particularly in non-English-speaking countries, a need for adaptation in curricula. Insourcing also includes the recruitment of foreign students outside exchange programs, and the recruitment of international faculty. As more and more foreign students come to an institution and go back to their home country, which is not always the case, the more the international reputation of the institution will increase, and the more attractive it will become for other foreign students. However, it is important to keep in mind that the local character of labor markets is likely to put a restriction on student mobility. This circumstance is also important for the hampering of FDI, which requires a significant commitment of resources from the investing institution and implies corresponding financial and reputational risks.
An empirical analysis of the top 100 business schools
Data and methodology
The above framework will now be used to analyze the internationalization of management education. In so doing, we will focus on the business schools listed in the 2011 Financial Times ranking of Global MBAs (GMBA) (see http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings). By taking part in this ranking institutions present themselves as being at the forefront of internationalization. Thus, if we see limitations in internationalization among these schools, which indeed represent the tip of the large iceberg of business schools all over the world, there could be reasons to believe that the internationalization of the rest is even more limited.
The FT ranking list contains 100 business schools, for which we have selected data regarding the following criteria used by the rankers:
1 The share of foreign students, defined as “percentage of students whose citizenship differs from the country in which they are studying.”
2 The share of foreign faculty, defined as “percentage of faculty whose citizenship differs from their country of employment.”
3 Language requirements, defined as “number of extra languages required on completion of the MBA” and “number of additional languages required on graduation from the Master's program,” respectively. In the calculations, the ranking has also included “additional courses for MBA students for which additional language skills are required” but just marked this by an asterisk in the list. In these cases the asterisk has been translated to 0.5.
4 The share of foreign board members, defined as “percentage of the board whose citizenship differs from the country in which the business school is based.”
5 The international experience rank, defined as “weighted average for four criteria that measure international exposure during the MBA program.”
6 The location of the school, defined as the country/countries provided in the ranking list.
Of these, the first two have been merged into an internationalization index constituted by their average.
In addition, in order to analyze outsourcing we have gone through the websites of the 100 business schools (see Appendix 24.1) for information about international exchanges. In so doing, we have screened each of the websites by reading them as well as by searching them for the two expressions “international exchange” and “international partners” by means of the search engine. This has produced a database with information on exchanges, partnerships, etc.
Findings
In presenting the results of our analysis we deal with the four modes of internationalization in the reverse order than above, i.e., we start with FDI, then turn to insourcing and outsourcing, and finally present some evidence regarding the import of ideas. In this way we will move from the most advanced to least advanced stage in the internationalization process.
Foreign direct investment
Our analysis of the 100 schools in the Global MBA ranking reveals that, according to the lists, there are just three of them that have foreign campuses (Table 24.4). The most internationalized of these is the SP Jain Center of Management (www.spjain.org) with campuses in Dubai and Singapore with a third one to be opened in Sydney in 2012 and a sister campus in Mumbai. It reports 100 percent foreign faculty and foreign students, but no foreign language requirements. The school has strategic partnerships with the Australian School of Business at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, and the Schulich School of Business at York University in Toronto. It should be noted that it is part of a larger institution, the S.P. Jain Institute of Management & Research, which offers a variety of programs at its campus in Mumbai (www.spjimr.org/aboutus.asp).
Second to the SP Jain Center of Management comes INSEAD (www.insead.edu), which in addition to its European campus in Fontainebleau has two Asian campuses, one in Singapore (opened in 2001) and one in Abu Dhabi (opened in 2010). The internationalization index is 91 and two foreign languages are required. Third among the multi-campus schools is Hult International Business School (www.hult.edu) with campuses in Boston, Dubai, London, San Francisco, and Shanghai. It was founded as a corporate university in Boston in 1964 by the consultancy Arthur D. Little, which filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2001. In 2003 it received a major donation from the Swedish entrepreneur Bertil Hult and, consequently, changed its name from Arthur D. Little School of Management to Hult International Business School. It has a very high share of international students and about half of the faculty have foreign origins, leading to an internationalization index of close to 70. It has language requirements in additional courses.
In addition to these three there are another two schools that are listed as belonging to more than one country: the Grenoble Graduate School of Business (www.grenoble-em.com) and the Bradford School of Management (www.brad.ac.uk/management). However, a closer inspection of their websites reveals that they do not belong to the multi-campus group, since their additional locations refer to academic partnerships.
Table 24.4 The three multi-campus business schools on the GMBA list
Insourcing
If we leave out the three multi-campus schools and move to the internationalization at the home campuses of the others we find that among the remaining 97 GMBA schools only one out of five (18 schools) have a majority of both foreign students and foreign faculty (Table 24.5).
Most institutions with a majority of foreign students and foreign faculty are located in countries where English is an official language. Exceptions are IMD in Switzerland, IE Business School in Spain, HEC in France, and EM Lyon Business School in France. Among these, IMD has, like INSEAD, been a truly international business school for a long time. Among the remainder, the top scores for Saëd and Judge are particularly noteworthy, because of their late entry, and should be interpreted as a sign of the benefit these schools have derived from the reputation of their mother institutions. They have no language requirements in addition to English, a characteristic they share with six other schools on the list.
In terms of location it is just Switzerland (IMD) and Australia with their two schools that fulfill the condition of a majority of foreign students and foreign faculty, while the UK, Benelux, and the Latin countries qualify with respect to a foreign student majority (Table 24.6). Canada, on the other hand, is just below 50 percent in terms of foreign students but above in terms of foreign faculty. The low figures for the US institutions are particularly noteworthy: around 30 percent for both international students and international faculty, but not necessarily surprising given the large size of their home market and their early establishment relative to many business schools elsewhere.
| School name | Country | Students (%) | Faculty (%) | Languages |
| IMD | Switzerland | 100 | 98 | 1.0 |
| University of Oxford: Saëd | UK | 95 | 56 | 0.0 |
| University of Cambridge: Judge | UK | 94 | 52 | 0.0 |
| Hong Kong UST Business School | China | 93 | 88 | 1.5 |
| London Business School | UK | 92 | 85 | 1.5 |
| Melbourne Business School | Australia | 90 | 72 | 0.0 |
National University of Singapore School of Business |
Singapore |
88 |
59 |
0.0 |
| Nanyang Business School | Singapore | 87 | 61 | 0.5 |
| IE Business School | Spain | 87 | 54 | 1.0 |
| Durham Business School | UK | 85 | 66 | 1.0 |
| HEC Paris | France | 83 | 65 | 1.5 |
| Warwick Business School | UK | 80 | 56 | 1.0 |
| Australian School of Business:AGSM | Australia | 78 | 61 | 0.0 |
| City University: Cass | UK | 77 | 58 | 0.0 |
| Imperial College Business School | UK | 70 | 79 | 0.0 |
| York University: Schulich | Canada | 69 | 70 | 0.0 |
| EM Lyon Business School | France | 68 | 51 | 0.5 |
| McGill University: Desautels | Canada | 61 | 77 | 0.5 |
Table 24.6 Internationalization of the 97 single-campus business schools in the 2011 FT ranking of global MBAs
Note: The three schools with multi-campuses have been excluded.
Outsourcing
As we turn to outsourcing we find, first, as far as can be judged from their websites, that one out of five (17) schools do not have, or at least do not boast about, exchange programs for their students (Table 24.7).
Several of the schools listed in Table 24.7 belong to old elite institutions: Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College, Purdue, Columbia, Berkeley, Stanford, and Harvard. The business schools of the first two, together with the Spanish business school EADA founded in 1957, have a very high degree of internationalization in terms of students: above 90 percent. In addition to these three, also Imperial College has a majority of foreign students. The three mentioned British institutions, together with Columbia, are also the only ones having a majority of foreign faculty. Several of the others have low shares of international students and international faculty. It is also worth noting that all of the business schools in Table 24.7, except Stanford and Berkeley, provide below-average international exposure in comparison with the other 83, i.e., they have received international exposure ranks above 50. Only the two schools in Spanish-speaking countries have direct language requirements, while Berkeley, Irvine, and Georgetown provide language electives. However, the important thing to note is that they have abstained from outsourcing through exchange agreements.
The prudence in relation to outsourcing is one way to handle the above-discussed risks to hand over the education and quality control to other institutions. Another strategy is constituted by the formal networks PIM and CEMS, which together have attracted 28 of the 100 institutions on the GMBA list (Table 24.8). Six of them (Rotterdam, National University of Singapore, ESADE, HEC Paris, SDA Bocconi, and University of Western Ontario: Ivey) belong to both networks, while 21 belong to PIM only and one to CEMS only. It is particularly noteworthy that almost half among the institutions in Table 24.8 (13) have a majority of foreign students, nine of them even more than 80 percent. The group as a whole also has a higher average international
Table 24.7 Business schools on the 100 GMBA list lacking exchange programs
student ratio (55 percent) compared to those with no exchange programs (44 percent). They also have a higher international faculty ratio (45 percent) than the other group (37 percent). Their stronger internationalization profile is also underlined by their more advantageous average international experience ranking (36 vs. 67). These results seem to demonstrate the symbiosis between the strategic networks and their members: the former choose members with an international profile, and the latter can promote their international reputation through their membership.
Of the remaining 52 institutions the majority have extensive lists of exchange agreements, some of which include PIM and CEMS members. A few have been cautious and have been content with just one agreement: IMD, the University of Rochester, Carnegie Mellon, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the University of Southern California. All in all, the 100 top GMBA schools thus vary considerably in their approach to outsourcing. At one extreme there is a group that is not considering this at all, another group works with a few bilateral agreements, and a third has a large number of partners.
Import of ideas
Earlier we have shown how the Nordic business schools have exhibited a considerable import of ideas through the texts used. For obvious reasons it would be difficult to make a similar analysis of the 100 business schools in the present study. However, the FT ranking provides an interesting indicator that can be used as a proxy for foreign inspiration: “the percentage of the board whose
Table 24.8 Members of PIM and CEMS in the GMBA 100 population
Notes: S (%), share of international students; F (%), share of international faculty; IER, international experience rank; L, language requirement (0/1); PIM, member of PIM (0/1); CEMS, member of CEMS (0/1).
Sources: http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings and www.pimnetwork.org
citizenship differs from the country in which the business school is based.” An analysis of this indicator (Table 24.9) shows considerable geographic variation. While on average almost nine out often of the board members in the three multi-campus institutions are foreigners, the corresponding figure for the 52 US schools is the reverse: about one out often. In addition to the multi-campus schools, averages implying a majority of foreign board members are also found for
Table 24.9 Average degree of internationalization of boards of the 100 business schools in comparison with other internationalization variables
Switzerland (IMD), the four Latin countries, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The percentages correspond fairly well to the share of students, with three notable exceptions: the UK, Australia, and the United States. The upper extremes are the SP Jain Center of Management andVlerick Leuven Gent Management School with foreign board members only. At the other end of the spectrum there are ten institutions with no foreigners at all: one Indian (the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad) and nine in the United States (Arizona State University: Carey, College of William and Mary: Mason, Pennsylvania State University: Smeal, Pepperdine University: Graziadio, Texas A & M University: Mays, University of Florida: Hough, University of Georgia: Terry, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Wisconsin School of Business). This is particularly noteworthy, since we are dealing with top institutions in the field of Global MBA education.
Our arguments, evidence, and implications
The point of departure for this chapter has been that the internationalization of academic institutions is hampered by the significance of reputation for students in their choice of studies. This is an effect of the fact that students are uninformed customers due to three specific characteristics of education: (1) the contents should by definition not be known beforehand, (2) a specific education is never taken more than once, and (3) the qualities of an education cannot be evaluated by the individuals until after several years in their careers. In their choice of educational institution students therefore have to use a proxy for quality in the form of reputation, which is highly dependent on the success of alumni in the labor market. And, this reputation still, despite widespread rhetoric about globalization, appears to be mainly constructed at the national level.
Against this background we have, in order to study to which extent higher education is internationalized, identified four modes of internationalization in higher education based on a distinction between (1) the location of the delivery (home country and host country), and (2) the origin of the students (nationals and foreigners). Of these the internationalization of education in the home country to nationals is associated with the import of ideas, mainly through international textbooks. As these nationals go abroad through exchanges and partnerships, internationalization implies an outsourcing of education, while the inflow of foreign faculty and students to an institution implies internationalization through insourcing. The most advanced case, finally, is constituted by the investment in foreign campuses for the education of foreigners abroad.
In an empirical analysis of the 100 business schools listed on the Global MBA ranking list of the Financial Times we have found that, in accordance with our expectations, the most advanced type of internationalization (FDI) is rare. However, we have also seen indications of limitations regarding insourcing, i.e., in terms of the inflow of foreign students and faculty. Among the 97 single-campus schools only one out of five (18) had a majority of both foreign students and foreign faculty. Among the rest, more than half of them are located in the United States having a much lower rate for both indicators of internationalization than non-US institutions: around 30 percent. And, in terms of outsourcing, 12 of these US schools, among them Purdue, Columbia, UC Berkeley, Stanford and Harvard, as well as the business schools at the two prestigious UK universities Oxford and Cambridge, do not seem to have any exchange programs at all. About 30 percent of the schools rely on formal networks for their outsourcing thereby reducing uncertainty, while half of them have turned to bilateral agreements.
Finally, in the same way as US business schools have exhibited a lower degree of internationalization in terms of multi-campus investments, insourcing, and outsourcing, they are also less internationalized with respect to the import of ideas as measured by the percentage of foreigners on their boards. The empirical results indicate that even among business schools, which can be expected to be advanced in internationalization—since they participate in the Financial Times Global MBA ranking, there are considerable limitations to internationalization. Prestigious institutions, particularly in the United States, seem to focus on delivery at their home base for nationals. If this is the case for the top Global MBA schools, we can expect that the rest of the business schools, which do not profile themselves as global players, are even less internationalized. This is also in accordance with our arguments above regarding the local construction of reputation and labor markets.
So, what do these findings mean for international management education? Simply put, the limited internationalization of business schools, even those identifying themselves as global, suggests that very few students will receive experience-based education in international management, with a unified curriculum delivered to a mix of home and foreign students by a mix of national and foreign faculty at campuses in the home and one or several other countries. Only three among the institutions participating in the FT ranking of Global MBA programs meet all of these criteria—and even for them it is questionable to what extent students easily move between the various campuses. It seems still possible for students to gain international experience by spending all or part of their studies outside their home country through what we have called insourcing and outsourcing. But a closer inspection of this option is also likely to reveal its limits. For those spending a term or a year at a partner institution through exchange agreements, we have already pointed to the likelihood that they will spend much of their time with nationals from their home country broadening their domestic rather than international networks. As for those pursuing all their studies at a foreign institution, we have already highlighted the fact that most will move from the lesser developed to the more developed countries, with, in addition, many of them subsequently opting to stay abroad. But even for those returning to their country of origin the export of knowledge from the home country of the educational institution amounts to some form of neo-colonialism.
This only leaves what we call the import of ideas as a major way to promote international management education. Put differently, at the moment most of those wanting to learn about international management will only do so through the content of their education rather than through first- or even second-hand experiences (with the latter referring to contact with foreign students or faculty). As we have shown, this international content is transmitted frequently through foreign textbooks. However, given their predominant origin in the United States and the UK, one could see it as a process of “Anglo-Americanization” rather than internationalization. While these textbooks cover different subject matters, there are also specific courses on international business and international or cross-cultural management, even if the two are far from being identical (see the contribution by Eden et al., Chapter 4, this volume) and the former is clearly predominant—based on the number of available textbooks as a proxy.
Finally, there are whole degree programs dedicated to international management—but their number is also limited. Thus, among the 65 Master's in Management programs ranked by the FT in 2011, only 12 have “International” in the name of the degree and one “Global”; and only four of them are Master's in “International Management,” with the one delivered by the CEMS network ranked highest at number two. There are two Masters in “International Business and Management,” three in “International Business,” and two in “International Business Administration” (see Appendix 24.2 for details). What is probably most surprising is that only a few of them are ranked highly in terms of their “international course experience,” suggesting that in the other cases the name of the program is somewhat deceptive, the content being less internationally oriented than participants would have expected. The degree program ranked highest on this score is a “Master in Management” offered by ESCP Europe, which has campuses in France, the UK, Germany, Spain, and Italy—a program ranked third overall. In terms of its degree of internationalization, this institution seems similar to the three identified in the Global MBA ranking (SP Jain, Insead, and Hult), albeit with a focus on Europe only.
Overall therefore, despite frequent declarations to the contrary, international management education has remained limited. This is very clear at the level of the internationalization of institutions—even if students at some of them can gain international experience through participation in exchange programs. The same is true in terms of the content, where some international transfer of ideas can be found through use of foreign textbooks and through courses and even Master's degree programs dealing explicitly with international business and/or management, but where their number is also smaller than one might expect. None of this should come as a surprise, given that, as we have argued in this chapter, managerial labor markets and the reputation of educational institutions continue to be constructed almost exclusively at the national level. Unless that changes, which seems unlikely except for a small transnational elite (Morgan, 2001), the internationalization of management education will remain, with a few exceptional cases, based on rhetoric and labels rather than action.
This apparent gap between rhetoric and labels and action is one of the areas where further research is needed, especially with respect to the content of courses and programs and the extent to which these truly educate participants in international management. Second, there is also a need to ask students (and alumni) themselves about their educational and practical experiences with international management. Did the term spent studying at a foreign partner school actually make a difference in terms of their skills and subsequent careers? Last but not least, our exploratory analysis has largely been confined to the most recent data. More historical and comparative analysis is required to identify long-term trends regarding the ups and downs of international management education in different countries and regions of the world.
Bibliography
Anthony, R. N. and Govindarajan, V. 1995. Management Control Systems. Chicago, IL: Irwin (8. ed.).
Arens, A. A. and Loebbecke, J. K. 1991. Auditing: An Integrated Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall (5. ed.).
Ayobi, R. M. and Massoud, H. K. 2007. The Strategy of Internationalization in Universities: A Quantitative Evaluation of the Intent and Implementation in UK Universities. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(4): 329–349.
Barkema, H. G. and Drogendijk, R. 2007. Internationalising in Small, Incremental or Larger Steps? Journal of International Business Studies, 38(7): 1132–1148.
Bourdieu, P. 1989. La Noblesse d'Etat. Grandes Ecoles et Esprit de Corps. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Bradley, F. 1995. International Marketing Strategy. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall (2. ed.).
Brealey, R. A. and Myers, S. C. 1991. Principles of Corporate Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill (3. ed.).
Chandler, A. D.Jr. (1990). Scale and Scope. The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Cooper, R. and Kaplan, R. S. 1991. The Design of Cost Management Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Copeland, T. E. and Weston, J. F. 1988. Financial Theory and Corporate Policy. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley (3. ed.).
Djelic, M.-L. 1998. Exporting the American Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Douma, S. and Schreuder, H. 1991. Economic Approaches to Organizations. London: Prentice-Hall.
Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F. O. and Schofer, E. 2003. Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Drury, C. 1992. Management and Cost Accounting. London: Chapman and Hall (3. ed.).
Eiteman, D. K., Stonehill, A. I. and Moffett, M. H. 1994. Multinational Business Finance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley (7. ed.).
Engwall, L. 2000. Foreign Role Models and Standardisation in Nordic Business Education. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 15(1): 1–24.
Engwall, L. 2004. The Americanization of Nordic Management Education. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 109–117.
Engwall, L. 2007. The Anatomy of Management Education. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 23(1): 4–35.
Engwall, L., Kipping, B. and Üsdiken, B. 2010. Public Science Systems, Higher Education, and theTrajectory of Academic Disciplines: Business Studies in the United States and Europe, in: Whitley, R., Gläser, J. and Engwall, L. (eds.), Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 325–353.
Engwall, L. and Wallenstål, M. 1988. Tit forTat in Small Steps. The Internationalization of Swedish Banks. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 4(3): 147–155.
Engwall, L. and Zamagni, V. (eds.). 1998. Management Education in Historical Perspective. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Fombrun, C. F. 1996. Reputation. Realizing Value from Corporate Image. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Forsgren, M. and Johanson, J. 2010. A Dialogue about the Uppsala Model of Internationalization, in: Andersson, U. and Holm, U. (eds.), Managing the Contemporary Multinational. The Role of Headquarters. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 283–304.
Foster, G. 1986. Financial Statement Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gadde, L.-E. and Håkansson, H. 1993. Professionellt inköp (Professional Purchasing). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Gemelli, G. 1998. The Ford Foundation and Europe, 1950's–1970's: Cross-Fertilization of Learning in Social Science and Management. Brussels: European Interuniversity Press.
Grönroos, K. 1990. Service Management and Marketing. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Hallén, L. and Wiedersheim-Paul, F. 1979. Psychic Distance and Buyer—Seller Interaction. Organisasjon, Marked og Samfunn, 16(5): 308–324.
Haskins, C. H. 1929. The Life of Mediaeval Students as Illustrated by their Letters, in: Haskins, C. H. (ed.), Studies in Mediaeval Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1–35.
Högskole-verket, 2011. Avgiftsreformen: Lärosätenas första erfarenheter (The Fee Reform: The First Experiences of the Seats of Learning), Rapport 2011: 17 R. Stockholm: Högskole-verket.
Hull, J. C. 1993. Options, Futures and Other Derivative Securities. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall (2. ed.).
Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.-E. 1977. The Internationalization Process of the Firm. A Model of Knowledge Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8: 23–32.
Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.-E. 2009. The Uppsala Internationalization Process Model Revisited: From Liability of Foreignness to Liability of Outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40: 1411–1431.
Johanson, J. and Wiedersheim-Paul, F. 1975. The Internationalization of the Firm. Four Swedish Cases. Journal of Management Studies, 12: 305–322.
Kaplan, R. S. and Atkinson, A. A. 1989. Advanced Management Accounting. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kieser, A. 2004. The Americanization of Academic Management Education in Germany. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 90–97.
Kipping, M. and Amorim, C. 2003. Consultancies as Management Schools, in: Amdam, R. P., Kvålshaugen, R. and Larsen, E. (eds.), Inside the Business Schools. The Content of European Business Education. Oslo: Abstrakt, 133–154.
Kipping, M. and Bjarnar, O. 1998. The Americanisation of European Business. The Marshall Plan and the Transfer of US Management Models. London: Routledge.
Kipping, M., Üsdiken, B. and Puig, N. 2004. Imitation, Tension, and Hybridization: Multiple ‘Americanizations’ of Management Education in Mediterranean Europe. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 98–108.
Kotler, P. 1994. Marketing Management. Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall (8. ed.).
Kuisel, R.F. 1993. Seducing the French. The Dilemma of Americanization. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lambert, D. M. and Stock, J. R. 1993. Strategic Logistics Management. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Liu, N.C. and Cheng, Y. 2005. Academic Ranking of World Universities. Methodologies and Problems. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2): 127–136.
Loustarinen, R. and Welch, L. 1990. International Business Operations. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.
McGlade, J. 1998. The Big Push: The Export of American Business Education to Western Europe after World War II, in: Zamagni, V. and Engwall, L. (eds.), Management Education in an Historical Perspective. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 50–65.
McMillan, C. 2010. From Applause to Notoriety: Organizational Reputation and Corporate Governance, in: Burke, R. J., Martin, G. and Cooper, C. L. (eds.), Corporate Reputation: Managing Opportunities and Threats. Farnham: Gower, 161–180.
Mietke, J. 1985. Die Studenten, in: Moraw, P. (ed.), Unterwegssein im Spaetmittelalter. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 49–70.
Morgan, G. 1986. Images of Organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage (2. ed. 1997).
Morgan, G. 200. . Transnational Communities and Business Systems. Global Networks: A Journal of Transnational Affairs, 1(2): 113–130.
Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: The Free Press.
Ryan, B., Scapens, W. and Theobald, M. 1992. Research Method and Methodology in Finance and Accounting. New York: Academic Press.
Schwinges, R.C. 1988. Migration und Austausch. Studentenwanderungen im Deutschen Reich des Späten Mittelalters, in: Jaritz, G. and Müller, A. (eds.), Migration in der Feudalgesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 141–155.
Stern, L. W. and El-Ansary, A. I. 1995. Marketing Channels. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall (5. ed.).
Tiratsoo, N. 2004. The ‘Americanization’ of Management Education in Britain. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 118–126.
Üsdiken, B. 2004. Americanization of European Management Education in Historical and Comparative Perspective: A Symposium. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 87–89.
Wedlin, L. 2006. Ranking Business Schools. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Welford, R. and Gouldson, A. 1993. Environmental Management and Business Strategy. London: Pitman.
Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: Free Press.
Yin, R. K. 1984. Case Study Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Yukl, G. A. 1989. Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall (2. ed.).
Zeitlin, J. and Herrigel, G. 2000. Americanization and Its Limits. Reworking US Technology and Management in Post-War Europe and Japan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Appendix 24.1 Websites consulted (January 1–2, 2012)
| Name of school | Website address |
Arizona State University: Carey |
|
Australian School of Business: AGSM |
|
Babson College: Olin |
|
Birmingham Business School |
|
Boston College: Carroll |
|
Boston University School of Management |
|
Bradford School of Management/ TiasNimbas Business School |
|
Brigham Young University: Marriott |
|
Carnegie Mellon: Tepper |
|
Ceibs |
|
City University: Cass |
|
College of William and Mary: Mason |
|
Columbia Business School |
|
Cornell University: Johnson |
|
Cranfield School of Management |
|
Dartmouth College:Tuck |
|
Duke University: Fuqua |
|
Durham Business School |
|
EADA |
|
EM Lyon Business School |
|
Emory University: Goizueta |
|
ESADE Business School |
|
Georgetown University: McDonough |
|
Georgia Institute of Technology |
|
Harvard Business School |
|
HEC Paris |
|
Hong Kong UST Business School |
|
Hult International Business School |
|
IAE Business School |
|
IE Business School |
|
Iese Business School |
|
IMD |
|
Imperial College Business School |
|
Incae Business School |
|
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA) |
|
Indian School of Business |
|
Indiana University: Kelley |
|
INSEAD |
|
Ipade |
|
Lancaster University Management School |
|
Leeds University Business School |
|
London Business School |
|
Manchester Business School |
|
McGill University: Desautels |
|
Melbourne Business School |
|
MIT Sloan School of Management |
|
Nanyang Business School |
|
National University of Singapore School of Business |
|
New York University: Stern |
|
Northwestern University: Kellogg |
|
Ohio State University: Fisher |
|
Pennsylvania State University: Smeal |
|
Pepperdine University: Graziadio |
|
Politecnico di Milano School of Management |
|
Purdue University: Krannert |
|
Rice University:Jones |
|
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University |
|
SDA Bocconi |
|
SMU: Cox |
|
SP Jain Center of Management |
|
Stanford University GSB |
|
Texas A & M University: Mays |
|
Thunderbird School of Global Management |
|
UCLA: Anderson |
|
University College Dublin: Smurfit |
|
University of British Columbia: Sauder |
|
University of California at Berkeley: Haas |
|
University of California at Irvine: Merage |
|
University of California: Davis |
|
University of Cambridge: Judge |
|
University of Cape Town GSB |
|
University of Chicago: Booth |
|
University of Edinburgh Business School |
|
University of Florida: Hough |
|
University of Georgia: Terry |
|
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign |
|
University of Iowa:Tippie |
|
University of Maryland: Smith |
|
University of North Carolina: Kenan-Flagler |
|
University of Notre Dame: Mendoza |
|
University of Oxford: Saëd |
|
University of Pennsylvania: Wharton |
|
University of Rochester: Simon |
|
University of South Carolina: Moore |
|
University of Southern California: Marshall |
|
University of Strathclyde Business School |
|
University of Texas at Austin: McCombs |
|
University of Toronto: Rotman |
|
University of Virginia: Darden |
|
University of Washington Business School: Foster |
|
University of Western Ontario: Ivey |
|
Vanderbilt University: Owen |
|
Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School |
|
Wake Forest University: Babcock |
|
Warwick Business School |
|
Wisconsin School of Business |
|
Yale School of Management |
|
York University: Schulich |
Sources:
http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings
www.cems.org
www.pimnetwork.org
www.spjimr.org/aboutus.asp
Appendix 24.2 FT ranking of Masters in management, 2011
| Rank | Institution | Country | Degree | Intl. |
1 |
University of St Gallen |
CH |
Master in Strategy and International Management |
5 |
2 |
CEMS |
various |
Masters in International Management |
3 |
9 |
Grenoble Graduate School of Business |
France, Singapore |
Master in International Business |
7 |
10 |
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University |
NL |
MSc in International Management |
4 |
Esade |
Spain |
Master in International Management |
44 |
|
18 |
WU (Vienna University of Economics and Business) |
Austria |
Masters International Business Administration |
11 |
26 |
Università Bocconi |
Italy |
MSc in International Management |
21 |
28 |
Maastricht University School of Business and Economics |
NL |
MSc International Business |
57 |
31 |
Aston Business School |
UK |
MSc International Business |
45 |
37 |
Eada |
Spain |
International Master in Management |
41 |
41 |
Antwerp Management School |
Belgium |
Master of Global Management |
50 |
55 |
Tilburg University, TiasNimbas |
NL |
MSc in International Business Administration |
52 |
58 |
Manchester Business School |
UK |
MSc International Business and Management |
62 |
60 |
University College Dublin: Smurfit |
Ireland |
MSc in International Business/Management |
56 |
Note: Intl. stands for “International course experience rank.”