11
INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT IN BRAZIL

An international and interdisciplinary perspective

Ana Guedes and Alex Faria

 

 

Introduction

Even though Brazil has transited from the status of a Third World country to a rising power (Lima and Hirst, 2006), the field of international management (IM) may be adequately regarded as being in its infancy in Brazil when compared with the USA and Europe according to the classificatory institutions and schemes ruled by advanced economies. The field of IM has gone through a process of institutionalization within the Brazilian Academy of Management (ANPAD—the National Association of Graduate Programs in Administration), which illustrates such a state. More specifically, IM was only established as an autonomous academic division in ANPAD in 2001, alongside other traditional academic divisions such as Marketing, Finance, Organization Studies, Public Administration, and Strategy in Organizations. However, in 2005, IM became a sub-theme within the Strategy in Organizations division (Imasato and Guedes, 2008). More recently, in 2011, IM was replaced by International Business (IB) as a sub-theme¹ within the Strategy in Organizations division, in parallel with an increasing interest of local scholars in the rising field of International Strategy (IS), and the corresponding efforts mobilized by scholars and institutions in the USA for building the institutional legitimacy of this new field in emerging economies.

This process is quite different from the path for the institutionalization of IB and IM fields in the USA: the Academy of International Business was established in 1959, and the International Management Division of the Academy of Management was established in the 1970s. Compared with the process for institutionalization in the USA, one might argue that the path of IM in Brazil is a little concerning. Nevertheless, given the debates on the extent to which IM (and IB) in the USA remains “ethnocentric” and “national” rather than truly international (Dunning, 1989; Boddewyn, 1999; Boddewyn,Toyne, and Martínez, 2004; Contractor, 2000; Martínez and Toyne, 2000;Buckley, 2005; Guedes and Faria, 2010), the fact that IM research and education are in their infancy in Brazil should not be taken as something necessarily bad. One may argue that, due to a number of issues related to international political economy (Levy, 2008) and geopolitics of knowledge (Ibarra-Colado, Faria, and Guedes, 2010), “international” disciplines on management, in general, in Brazil and other countries of Latin America, are in their infancy.

In the USA, the advanced stage of institutionalization put forward by powerful knowledge networks, comprising a range of actors and institutions which share a dominant view of the world order, has become part of the problem to the construction of IM as a truly international field of knowledge able to represent the world without biases and prejudices, and it enables the construction of a multipolar world (Clegg and Carter, 2007; Mahbubani, 2010; Mignolo, 2011). It is worth pointing out that US-led knowledge networks have been criticized for their capacities, according to Parmar (2012: 257), to “bestow prestige on insiders and draw the boundaries of what constitutes valuable knowledge. They act as gatekeepers of ideas and approaches, certifying some and delegitimizing others.”

What is particularly important from this incipient process of institutionalization of IM in Brazil is that local researchers, practitioners, and students make no clear distinction between the fields of IM, IB, and IS. As a result, research on IB and IM published in mainstream journals in the USA and Europe has been democratically used as a reference by researchers across the many academic divisions of the ANPAD conference—from organizational studies to information technology, for instance—rather than just in one specialized division.This state of affairs contrasts with the US monopoly of classification and design of international disciplines and academic debates regarding the boundaries on what IM is or should be (Boddewyn, 1999; Contractor, 2000; Martínez andToyne, 2000; Boddewyn, Toyne and Martínez, 2004) without much appreciation of political issues which informs how such deliberations might be accepted and reproduced by the rest of the world. The incipient state of institutions in Brazil should not be taken as a major problem vis-à-vis the critical argument that the USA has grown at a very fast pace from parochial and inward looking to one that “considers the management of the very global order itself as not just a national interest but its God-given duty” (Parmar, 2012: 256). This state of infancy in Brazil might be taken as an opportunity for us to think and theorize IM “otherwise.” As it has been designed, IM represents the position of the most powerful within the international context, at the expense of the “others.”

In this chapter we focus on IM research undertaken by higher education institutions in Brazil. Those institutions have major importance not only within the Brazilian academic setting, but also within society at large. Undergraduate and graduate education (including executive education) in both Management and IM have been accomplished mainly by the same institutions which lead the production of research throughout the country with rare exceptions (such as the case of the Dom Cabral Foundation²).

A look at IM research in Brazil

We start our analysis by drawing upon the most comprehensive investigation of the field undertaken so far in the country (Silva and Campos Filho, 2008). The authors analyzed the production on IM published in Brazilian academic journals classified as “A” by CAPES (the regulatory agency of the Brazilian Education Ministry, which, among other attributions, is responsible for ranking academic journals) and conference papers presented at EnANPADs—the annual conference organized by ANPAD, which attracts about 2,000 participants from different regions of the country and very often invites scholars from the USA and Europe as keynote speakers.

The study shows that, from 1997 to 2006, the academic institutions with the largest number of publications were the University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo Business School (EAESP-FGV), and Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). The academic journals which published most papers on IM were REAd,³ RAE,⁴ RAC,⁵ RAUSP,⁶ RAE online,⁷ and Organizações & Sociedade.⁸ The study shows that the main topics of the papers were country studies, marketing, and organizations. Other institutions also published on IM in the same journals, such as the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS); Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio); University of the Rio dos Sinos Valley (UNISINOS); Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC); Brazilian School of Public and Business Administration (EBAPE-FGV), and Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG). Besides, the list was completed by Fundacao Dom Cabral (FDC), Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais (PUC-Minas), and University of Fortaleza (UNIFOR), among those with the largest number of contributions, in terms of papers presented at ANPAD's annual conference.

The study by Silva and Campos Filho (2008) also shows a list of the most important authors in IM. Based on the information available in the official CVs of these authors, we were able to build a corresponding picture of IM education⁹ in Brazil. It does not aim to be a conclusive study, but an exploratory attempt to illustrate the institutional status of IM research and education in Brazil.

The findings show that at PUC-Minas two authors teach IB, IS, and IM; at EBAPE-FGV two scholars (the authors of this chapter) teach IB, IM, and IS; at USP one author (formerly at PUC-SP and EAESP-FGV) teaches IB, IS, and IM, and other authors teach just IM; at UFRJ one quite important author in IM used to teach IB (this author moved to PUC-Rio very recently and she still teaches IB); and, finally, at UNISINOS one author teaches IB. Although the analysis shows that PUC-Minas, USP, and EBAPE/FGV seem to have a more consistent offer of IB, IS, and IM courses since the early 2000s, the overlapping of IB, IM, and IS is more interesting when we focus on the teaching of IM in Brazil.

We might point out the virtual absence of the disciplines of international entrepreneurship, international marketing, and business ethics among the courses under the responsibility of the authors mentioned above. But that should not be a surprise, as these subjects can be regarded as being out of the scope of IM as a non-institutionalized field in Brazil.

There is also a geographical issue that calls our attention. The most prolific authors in IM are found in institutions located in the following states: Minas Gerais (PUC-Minas, UFMG, and Fundacao Dom Cabral); São Paulo (PUC-SP, EAESP-FGV, and USP); Rio de Janeiro (EBAPE-FGV, UFRJ, PUC-Rio); Rio Grande do Sul (UNISINOS, UFRGS), and Santa Catarina (UFSC). It clearly shows the concentration of IM research and teaching in the southeast and south regions of Brazil, the wealthier regions in the country, and where the largest (both Brazilian and foreign) business organizations are located.

International management in Brazilian higher education institutions

In order to ground our argument that IM is in its infancy in Brazil, we accomplished a broad (and qualitative) search at the websites of the institutions mentioned above. The results are briefly presented here with regard to the evidence or not of IM education, namely the existence or not of the disciplines that define the scope of IM education in this book. The same picture with regard to the virtual lack of distinction between IB, IM, and IS in academic publications has been observed in education.

In Minas Gerais, UFMG¹⁰ runs a course of international management and marketing at the graduate level. Fundacao Dom Cabral¹¹ is not a typical higher education institution in Brazil, though it involves both research and education, due to its major focus on executive education (such as Executive MBA), in which the international business course is offered. Another set of courses (called Learning Journeys in Brazil, with focus on Brazilian culture) is aimed at foreigners or multinational expatriates.

PUC-Minas¹² has been mentioned among the institutions with a greater contribution to IM research. It has a research line in IM both in Masters (academic, since 2007, and professional, since 2000) and doctoral (since 2007) degrees in administration. Among the other courses, we identified ethic and corporate social responsibility, internationalization in the management of multinational companies, and intercultural management. Its undergraduate degree has an international marketing course.

In São Paulo, EAESP-FGV¹³ (the second institution in the list produced by Silva and Campos Filho, 2008) claims that its Master's program in Business and Management (MBM), created in 2011, with courses such as ethics and society, is a pioneer in Brazil. The fact that EAESP-FGV is a member of CEMS (Global Alliance in Management Education) deserves special attention; it is part of MIM (Master in International Management)—an international network of schools which grants double degrees. The Master's and doctoral courses in administration comprise disciplines on international strategy, investments, and emerging markets. The MBA program in Foreign Trade and International Business comprises international business plans, international business games, international marketing, and internationalization of companies. The MBA in Business Management has an international business discipline, and the MBA in Marketing has an international marketing discipline. EAESP-FGV has two international partnerships focused on international business and management issues, namely the joint program in Business Administration with Ohio University (which organizes an international business seminar), and the Global MBA, which is the International MBA of the Manchester Business School held in Brazil.

More importantly, EAESP-FGV has a professional Master's course in IM that has the following disciplines: international marketing management, cross-cultural management, global business management, international trade for emerging markets, and international supply chain management. Finally, there is also a professional Master's course in administration, started in 1993, with the disciplines of international business administration, strategy in emerging economies, and cultural aspects of internationalization.

FEA-USP¹⁴ (the first in the list produced by Silva and Campos Filho, 2008) has a long tradition in IB research, focused on the internationalization process of Brazilian companies. The Master's and doctoral programs in administration comprise the international business management course.

In Rio Grande do Sul, UNISINOS's¹⁵ Master's and doctoral programs in administration have among their disciplines international marketing and internationalization of the company. The professional Master in Business Management offers a course in strategy in internationalization of the company. The MBA in International Business has a module on strategic management of internationalization structured with courses about international business planning, international marketing research, internationalization strategies, and international marketing, and a workshop on internationalization and a seminar on ethics.

It is worth mentioning that UNISINOS has a tradition in the study of IB and management with special focus on the internationalization processes of medium and small Brazilian companies. The MBA in Global Business Management offers courses about international marketing strategies, international negotiations, and a workshop on global companies. The international business and international marketing courses are listed on the online MBAs, such as an MBA in Business Strategic Management and an MBA in Business Management, as well as at the online undergraduate courses. Finally, the MBA in Business Management has an interesting course about international business and relations.

UFRGS¹⁶ has courses about company internationalization and strategies and practices in the Economics and International Relations undergraduate courses. An international business course is listed in the graduate program in Business Management. In addition, the “international executive” MBA has an international marketing course. The Master's (since 1972) and doctoral (since 1994) programs in administration include an international business course (with focus on the Mercosul and economic integration).

In Rio de Janeiro, UFRJ¹⁷ (the third in the list produced by Silva and Campos Filho, 2008) has a long tradition (since the late 1970s on international marketing) in research and teaching focusing on internationalization processes in Brazilian companies grounded on behavioral approaches. In the Master's program (since 1973), the area of marketing and international business has been developed with a focus on consumer behavior and marketing strategies. The doctoral program in administration has fostered a major focus on cultural aspects of organizations and cross-cultural issues on international businesses. The cross-cultural framework developed by Geert Hofstede was embraced by both researchers and students, and this resulted in a national process of diffusion and legitimation of a contribution which remains powerful both in IM and IB. Currently, it offers MBA programs with courses about culture and international management and internationalization projects.

PUC-Rio¹⁸ has fostered an IB approach to IM; the courses about international marketing and international finance have become key components of both the Master's (academic and professional) and doctoral programs in administration since 2008, as well as an MBA in Management and MBA in Marketing. The international business research group was created in 2009, grounded on the expertise shared with a similar group at UFRJ.

Last, but not least, EBAPE-FGV¹⁹ (where the authors of this chapter have worked since 2003 and 2004, respectively) offered the international management course as a seminar (from 2005– 2009) and later (from 2010) as a workshop for doctoral students in administration. The Master's program on Business Management has since 2003 been the international business course and later on (2005) it added the strategy and society: an international perspective course, which has been developed from an interdisciplinary and international perspective. Up until 2009, the exchange program was the international business and management course, but since 2012 it has been incorporated into the Master's program in Administration. Since 2009, the business undergraduate program has been the international business course. Similarly, FGV online²⁰ has an undergraduate course on technologies for managerial process, in which the international business course is available. In parallel, FGV-Rio²¹ has several nationwide MBA programs, one of which, the MBA in Foreign Trade and International Business, has among its courses international business games, international marketing, and internationalization of the company.

In Ceara, UNIFOR²² created an international marketing course for the business undergraduate program in 2011, which has been offered, since 2005, in the Foreign Trade undergraduate program. In the Department of Economics another international marketing course has been created. As of 2012, the doctoral program in administration has included two new courses: international business strategies and internationalization strategies. The Master's program shares these same courses. Finally, the graduate program in Trade and International Finance Management has an international marketing course.

This picture shows that IM is in its infancy in Brazil for both research and education. One of the main issues in its path to institutionalization has been the loss of the status of autonomous discipline, which was granted in the early 2000s by ANPAD. Nowadays, the field overlaps at large with IB, but such overlapping has been marked by the subordination of IM with regard to IB from both the perspective of ANPAD and the leading higher education institutions in Brazil. It is arguable that the trajectory of IM and IB in Brazil will be both constrained and enabled by the recent transformation of IB into a sub-theme in the strategy by ANPAD.

It is arguable that, in spite of the paramount political importance held by the concept of management in the USA, it does not fit the reality in Brazil and most emerging economies. The eclectic feature of IB as a field of knowledge less bounded by the purpose of converting or translating all “business” practices and knowledge experiences (mobilized by governments, state-based organizations, social organizations, and market-based organizations) around the world into “management” seems to better accommodate the many worlds which do not fit the hegemonic representation of a managerial world order conveyed in the USA. However, it is not clear to us the extent to which the current subordination of IB to strategy in Brazil represents a transitory and promising stage within the process of institutionalization of both IM and IB or a final stage that marks the defeat of the eclectic and virtuous features of IB (Dunning, 1989), by the top-down economism disciplining features conveyed by the field of Strategic Management. We might take into account that this picture in Brazil resonates the dispute between Strategic Management and IB in the USA about control of the rising field of IS.

Moreover, it is worth pointing out that most studies in IM and IB in Brazil have not engaged the academic debate regarding the ethnocentric or colonial features of knowledge produced in the USA and Europe. However, it is worth mentioning the interdisciplinary developments undertaken by local researchers (Misoczky, 2010; Alcadipani, 2010; Faria and Guedes, 2010, Alcadipani and Rosa, 2011), who have stressed the limitations of IM (and IB) to address international political economy issues and the dimensions of geopolitics of knowledge that inform academic knowledge in IM in particular and management in general. It is also worth noting that some Brazilian scholars have questioned, more recently, the limits of the mainstream approaches to explain the internationalization process of Brazilian (state and private-based) multinational companies (Fleury and Fleury, 2007; Oliveira Jr., 2010). Nevertheless, the local contributions which put forward in a particular way the de-ethnocentric agendas claimed by academics in the US literature face difficulties in fostering dialogue with local academic productions as a result of the incipient degree of institutionalization of IM in Brazil. In this regard, we argue that the current picture of incipient institutionalization might be correctly taken as a constraint for further development of the IM field in Brazil, but also as an opportunity for the development of interdisciplinary perspectives (Guedes and Faria, 2010) which could advance in particular ways the claims for a more international field, capable of representing the world without biases and prejudices and committed to the purpose of building a multipolar world in which many worlds (and knowledge experiences) can coexist (Mignolo, 2011).

Embracing the overlapping of IM, IB, and IS

This section highlights the efforts and challenges for the construction and institutionalization of IB and IM in the Anglo-American academic world, a context where the dominant approaches have been developed and institutionalized by networks comprising researchers, academic institutions, large private companies, international organizations, and governments (Dunning, 1989), to argue that this regional Anglo-American concentration of the development of “international” areas reflects not only the asymmetric expansion of foreign direct investment (FDI) and multinational enterprises (MNEs) from industrialized countries (or First World) towards less developed countries (or Third World) after the Second World War, but also the Eurocentric management of the realm of geopolitics of knowledge.

For some authors, such concentration reproduces colonial features across west—east and north—south divides (Jack et al., 2008; Guedes and Faria, 2010). Drawing upon either economic or (geo)political perspectives to explain such concentration, it is arguable that a more critical approach, particularly if one takes the perspective of less developed countries on the institutionalization of both fields and classificatory analyses focused on stages of development of international disciplines on management. Historic and (geo)political economy considerations should not be neglected by the IB and IM areas, and also the complexity of international business practice in the contemporary context.

Apart from the contributions from multiple perspectives (economic, behavioral, cultural, management, and the bargain between governments and multinational companies) on international business and management, there are important gaps in the IB and IM areas, particularly the study of international and supranational institutions, comparative national systems, government-company relations, social, environmental, and regulatory impacts of managerial and business activities of MNEs in developing countries, and of MNEs from developing and emerging countries. The recent literature concentrates, instead, on topics such as mergers and acquisitions, knowledge management, globalization, the role of non-governmental organizations, and study of emerging economies, particularly China and India (Shenkar, 2004; Buckley, 2002).

In spite of many theoretical and empirical developments, the argument that IB and IM have both become autonomous disciplines is not accepted by the whole academic community (Boddewyn, 1999) especially (but not only) from the perspective of those who were excluded from most academic debates. The absence of a large empirical question within the current Anglo-American research agenda fires debates on the legitimacy of IB as an autonomous discipline. Moreover, it challenges the interfaces of IB with the other functional areas of management (including IM) and social sciences (Buckley, 2002) not only from a westernized approach.

Buckley (1996) sets the case for a clear difference between IB and IM. The author claims that while IB is deductive, analytic, and axiomatic, IM is practical, empirical, and prescriptive. He also claims that the orthodox MNEs theory, based upon the internalization approach, allows only a small role for management. However, and according to the assumptions of the international strategy management approach, the management decision process has a key role in the definition of the scope and direction of company growth opportunities. In spite of the divergences of research aims between both areas, the literatures of IB and international strategic management deal with similar research questions; thus “cross-fertilization” seems to be the route to be followed.

Parallel to the discussion about the constitution and differentiation of the fields of IM, IB, and IS, researchers of these areas face a major challenge: understanding globalization. Clark and Knowles (2003) point out the predominance of a pro-globalization view and the need of interdisciplinary developments within the field of IB. Globalization has created more complex environments which, independent of any prevailing ideology, forces us to engage a broader notion of “international business and management.” Such a broad notion implies not only revising the unit of analysis and, perhaps, establishing more clearly the distinctions and overlapping between the scopes of IB, IM, and IS (Boddewyn, Toyne and Martínez, 2004; Contractor, 2000; Martínez and Toyne, 2000; Buckley, 1996), but also engaging the many debates on globalization (Santos, 2006).

The main common characteristic among the areas, and what makes them different from other ones, is the use of multiple analysis levels (Martinez and Toyne, 2000), respectively: global, international, regional, and national, as well as inter-organizational and intra-organizational and individual. These levels reflect complexities and interdependences regarding the realms of international business and management which are not observed in other areas. However, the investigation of strategies and practices of multinational companies requires the adoption of multidisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary approaches with other fields for both areas to move beyond the narrow focus on FDI and MNEs (Martínez and Toyne, 2000; Boddewyn, Toyne and Martínez, 2004).

Expanding the scope of IM and IB demands the return to themes and approaches of political economy (such as government—company relations and comparative national systems) which were taken as relevant in the IB agenda during the 1970s. It is also interesting to notice that even though the initial IB agenda was broad and eclectic, the economic approaches and the contributions from US researchers have become predominant (Shenkar, 2004). Such a parochial feature of IB is partially explained by the advanced stage of institutionalization of a field supposed to represent the world rather than the position and interests of the Great Power.

According to Behrman (1997: 83) the

[…] domain of IB is multifaceted—formed by multiforces in a multinational, multigovernment, multiorganizational world composed of multicultures interacting in response to multiexpectations of the future based on multiperceptions of the past and of present pressures and conditions. The “domain of IB” is not definable, even conceptually, without injecting significant potential error from the standpoint of one or more of the major players, based on their own cultures, education, and value sets.

This internal debate in IB has stimulated similar debates in the IM field, but it has changed neither the research agenda nor the major contents of the academic journals.²³ We aim to go one step further with the proposal of an interdisciplinary framework, as presented in the next section.

An interdisciplinary perspective: bringing the international to IM

The unidirectional cross-border design of IM as it has been constructed in the USA does not fit the governance features of “international management” from a Brazilian perspective. A Brazilian perspective on “international management,” grounded on the colonial difference (Mignolo, 2011), regards the many processes and actors, spread in space and time, focused on the “management” of the “Third World.” Even though Brazil has been upgraded by the US institutional designs for classification of the “other,” it is still portrayed by transnational institutions as part of “the rest of the world.” Accordingly, this section supports the idea that academics, practitioners, and authorities in Brazil should challenge US dominance in IM and foster interdisciplinary developments mainly with International Relations (IR) and International Political Economy (IPE). In order to engage in a more geopolitical fashion with the arguments from the USA that “IM is, or should be, the most eclectic of all” fields (Contractor, 2000), we accept that management is a “historically and socially constructed institution” (Boddewyn,Toyne and Martínez, 2004).

Similarly, Boddewyn (1997: 51) states that he is “much more inclined to analyze business and its international variant in the context of the disciplines of political economy and economic sociology.” But he stresses that we should also take into account some of the “international” divides of the world which both enable and constrain not only the field of “international management” but most (if not all) fields of knowledge labeled as “international.”

[…] this broadening of the economic analysis of IB may still be considered to be too ethnocentric because relying on “Western” and particularly “Anglo-Saxon” views of economic activity—with their peculiar emphasis on the market system (and its rational, impersonal, and contractual bases) which is far from being common around the world and it is even rejected for being alien to other types of society.

(Boddewyn, 1997: 51)

These questions reveal the fuzzy limits of the concept “international.” European practitioners and scholars have long been puzzled by the typically US dichotomy between “domestic” (at home) and “international” (abroad, overseas, foreign). For them, all business is really international on account of the economic interdependence of European nations with each other and with the rest of the world.

(Boddewyn, 1997: 58)

Accordingly, this section examines the contributions of IR—a field recognized as interdisciplinary, pluralist, and capable of offering a number of critical perspectives²⁴—to IM—a field that “has remained […] firmly rooted in traditional functionalist-positivism, with little reflexivity about the claims and consequences of such epistemological stance” (Jack et al., 2008: 5). More specifically, it is argued that IM draws upon a narrow managerialist perspective informed by globalism, colonialism, and neoliberalism. At this stage, from a perspective of geopolitics of knowledge, there is a long way for IM to become a truly international discipline. IM should be correctly taken as a parochial discipline that has the power of traveling “freely” to other countries, because it comes from the USA.

Moreover, a major aim of this section is to argue that interdisciplinary developments between the fields of IM, IR, and IPE are very important for the construction of a truly international perspective in IM in accordance with the claims from both the USA (Martínez and Toyne, 2000) and the rest of the world (Jack et al., 2008; Guedes and Faria, 2010). The main reason for embracing those fields which have been put aside due to the excesses imposed by managerial capitalism and neoliberalism is that IR has a historical focus on states and governments and IPE has a focus on the interfaces between states, markets, and corporations. Those fields challenge the narrow perspective reproduced and critically reinforced by the IM literature. Moreover, IR and IPE recognize, from a governance standpoint, the increasing power of MNEs and their interactions and relations to states and governments both in home and in host countries (Figure 11.1).

From such an interdisciplinary perspective, IM overlooks not only governance issues “managed” by MNEs, but also the interests, voices, and “international management” practices of other key agents in this country, such as governments, international organizations, transnational institutions, development agencies, public administration, and state companies. This explains why there is a need for the creation of knowledge sub-areas, such as international management of international organizations, international management of transnational institutions, international management of public—private networks, international management of public companies, and international public administration or international public management.

Overall, this section emphasizes that IM, from a Brazilian perspective, must take into account issues of “governance” and also to problematize its intersection with other areas, such as IR and IPE. This comprehensive view enables IM to contribute to the field of IR and IPE, especially, but not only, in Brazil, in what regards the understanding that MNEs are now much more complex and globally interdependent than in the past, as a result of sophisticated structures and

Figure 11.1 An interdisciplinary framework. Source: based on Stopford and Strange's (1991: 22) triangular model, and on comments from Grosse and Behrman, (1992:100, footnote 4) in what regards knowledge areas in the domains of the triangular model.

organizational processes they can mobilize. Through different types of management policies and practices in developing (and emerging) countries, they have the power to influence the administration and governance of international organizations, international development agencies, national governments, and public and private companies.

Concluding remarks

This chapter argues that researchers from Brazil should foster interdisciplinary developments with IR and IPE²⁵ (Tickner, 2003a; Buzan and Little, 2001; Palan, 1999). This would allow the field to embrace the argument that “IM is, or should be, the most eclectic of all” fields (Contractor, 2000:7) and take seriously the argument that IM “has been perhaps the most resistant [management subfield] to adopt a critical metatheoretical reflexivity on the knowledge it has produced for over fifty years” (Jack et al., 2008: 871).

IR should be recognized, primarily, because states are still major players in the international system (Halliday, 1994; Strange, 1996). The field of IM reproduces the discourse on the erosion of the state (Marens, 2008), but it is obvious that states and government matter (Dolowitz, 2006; Farazmand, 2001; Peters and Pierre, 1998). A second reason is that IR researchers following an IPE perspective shifted their traditional focus on states towards the increasing power of MNEs and their interactions and relations with states and governments both in developed and developing countries (Gilpin, 2001; Lawton et al., 2000; Strange, 1991, 1994).

This chapter argues that the field of IM has been developed from a dominant US perspective which is partisan to the interests of MNEs. One of the most concerning outcomes of this perspective is the neglect of governance issues mobilized by MNEs and by the field of IM itself. Besides suppressing the interests and voices of other key agents, such as the government, it suppresses the voices and interests of other countries and regions (Tickner, 2003b). Accordingly, by embracing an interdisciplinary development with the fields of IR and IPE, researchers in Brazil could raise the relevance of the IM field. Thus, the main objective of this chapter is to show that interdisciplinary developments between the fields of IM, IR, and IPE are needed, from the standpoint of developing (and emerging) countries. The difficulties we face to define management and governance are, to some extent, very similar to the difficulties faced by IR and IPE scholars to define state and nation (Halliday, 1994) or to separate politics from economics (Strange, 1970, 1992).

The increasing importance of the IM field over the last 20 years (Werner, 2002) and the excessive focus of IM researchers on a particular representation of “managerial” issues, at the expense of governance issues,²⁶ have to do with the dominance of an extremely pro-business theory of globalization within the academy of management, especially in the USA (Cowling and Tomlinson, 2005; Kedia, 2006; Clark and Knowles, 2003; Banerjee and Linstead, 2001).

Drawing upon the IPE literature, this chapter points out that a governance standpoint in IM should focus on political and economic exchanges and practices (Bieler and Morton, 2008; Langley, 2000; Brown, 2007; Strange, 1994; Biersteker, 1993; Stopford and Strange, 1991) of transnational institutions, governmental authorities, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, local institutions, and networks and coalitions (Sklair, 1995; Levy and Newell, 2002; Stone, 2004; Levy, 2008) comprised by these powerful actors.

More specifically, we argue that the extraordinary process of worldwide spread and reach of management studies is capable of blocking interdisciplinary developments between management and IR and IPE that could challenge the US leadership in IM through the recognition of important political issues that remain neglected in the USA and “forbidden” to scholars from different regions or countries. Moreover, the increasing proximity of the field of IM to organizations and agents that are privileged by IR and IPE—notably governments and states, in spite of the different definitions presented in the specialized literature—within an era of growing “managerialism,” “marketization,” and neoliberalism, which actually means lessening diversity and pluralism (Banerjee and Linstead, 2001), increases the possibility that those powerful organizations and agents use IM, in the name of a particular type of diversity and at the expense of important debates within IR and IPE, in order to impose and legitimize particular norms, rules, and policies in Brazil. These issues explain why we argue that the perspective pursued in this chapter should move beyond the disciplinarian boundaries established by “management.” In other words, we argue that IM is too important to be dominated by the USA and addressed exclusively by the field of management in Brazil (Alcadipani and Caldas, 2012).

The contemporaneous IM literature claims for diversity—based on the argument that “substantial differences remain across nations in economic geography, institutions and politics” (Contractor, 2000: 8), within an era of globalization in spite of the power of convergence discourses grounded on a specific theory of globalization—but overlooks the specific interests and influences of political organizations and actors—such as national and subnational governments, international organizations, military organizations, diplomats, and policymakers— from developed countries over developing countries.

On the one hand, this picture is problematic from a Brazilian perspective because of the historical importance of governments, international organizations, and business corporations from the USA in the imposition on the country of particular norms, ideas, knowledge, and policies based on what they define as development into the region (Stavenhagen, 1974; Escobar, 1984–1985; Mortimore, 2000;Tickner, 2003a). On the other hand, it is also problematic because of the importance of local governments and civil society in historical processes of different types of resistance (Wade, 2003; Sader, 2008; Lima and Hirst, 2006; Spence and Shenkin, 2008; Otto and Böhm 2006; Assies, 2003). These issues help explain our claim for local interdisciplinary developments with IR and IPE from a Brazilian perspective.

Notes

1 Among the topics listed are internationalization process and theories, managerial models of multinational companies, international networks and internationalization of clusters, international entrepreneurship, standardization versus adaptation of products to foreign markets, public policies related to internationalization, globalization and regionalism, institutional environment of the host country, modeling of international performance, internationalization process of Brazilian companies and of companies from emerging markets, typologies of Brazilian multinational company, born global (available at anpad.org.br or www.anpad.org.br/evento.php?acao=subsecao&cod_edicao_subsecao=794&cod_evento_edicao=63; accessed August 31, 2012).

2 As stated at the website, a 35-year development center for executives, entrepreneurs, and public managers that produces studies on Brazilian businesses (see www.fdc.org.br/en/about_fdc/Pages/description.aspx; accessed September 11, 2012).

3 REAd—Revista Eletrônica de Administração. Available at: www.read.ea.ufrgs.br/; accessed August 31, 2012.

4 RAE—Revista de Administração de Empresas. Available at: http://rae.fgv.br/rae; accessed August 31, 2012.

5 RAC—Revista de Administração Contemporânea. Available at: www.anpad.org.br/periodicos/content/frame_base.php?revista=1; accessed August 31, 2012.

6 RAUSP—Revista de Administração da Universidade de São Paulo. Available at: www.rausp.usp.br/; accessed August 31, 2012.

7 RAE Eletrônica. Available at: www.scielo.br/revistas/raeel/iaboutj.htm; accessed August 31, 2012.

8 O & S—Organizações e Sociedade. Available at: www.revistaoes.ufba.br/; accessed August 31, 2012.

9 According to the guidelines from the editor of this book, IM education is represented by the following disciplines: international business, international strategy, international management, international entrepreneurship, international marketing, and business ethics.

10 UFMG—Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Available at: https://www.ufmg.br/; accessed September 2, 2012.

11 FDC—Fundação Dom Cabral. Available at: www.fdc.org.br; accessed September 2, 2012.

12 PUC-MINAS—Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais. Available at: www.pucminas.br; accessed September 2, 2012.

13 EAESP—FGV: Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo—FGV. Available at: http://eaesp.fgvsp.br/; accessed September 2, 2012.

14 FEA—USP: Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade da USP.Available at: www.fea.usp.br; accessed September 2, 2012.

15 UNISINOS—Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos. Available at: www.unisinos.br/; accessed September 2, 2012.

16 UFRGS—Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Available at: ww.ufrgs.br/; accessed September 2,2012.

17 UFRJ—Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Available at: www.ufrj.br/; accessed September 2, 2012.

18 PUC-Rio—Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Available at: www.puc-rio.br/; accessed September 2, 2012.

19 EBAPE—FGV: Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas—FGV. Available at: http://ebape.fgv.br/; accessed September 2, 2012.

20 FGV online—Fundação Getulio Vargas online. Available at: www5.fgv.br/fgvonline/; accessed September 2, 2012.

21 FGV-Rio. Available at: http://mgm-rio.fgv.br; accessed September 2, 2012.

22 UNIFOR—Universidade de Fortaleza. Available at: www.unifor.br/; accessed September 2, 2012.

23 See a similar and important debate in Eden, Dai and Li, Chapter 4, this volume.

24 The recognition of these contributions does not mean that the field of IR is free from internal debates over theoretical approaches, the meaning of the international, the prominence of US scholars and journals (Waever, 1998; Brown, 2007; Farrands and Worth, 2005).

25 Cox affirms that the “disciplinary boundaries marked out by international political economy (and international relations, too) are in an important sense obsolete, because there are other things that must be now considered” (Hoogvelt et al., 1999: 393), such as identity, cultural, and gender questions.

26 See Acedo and Casillas (2005) for the main paradigms within the IM field without differentiating IM from IB. See also Ricks, Toyne and Martínez (1990) for the results of a survey undertaken in 1988 in which business—government relations were pointed out by respondents as one of the eight key areas in IM.

Bibliography

Acedo, F. and Casillas, J. 2005. Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation analysis. International Business Review, 14(5): 619–639.

Alcadipani, R. 2010. From Latin America to the World: Notes on the (possible) Latin American management styles. In Guedes, A. and Faria, A. (eds) International Management and International Relations: A Critical Perspective from Latin America. New York: Routledge, pp. 136–158.

Alcadipani, R. and Caldas, M. P. 2012. Americanizing Brazilian management. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 8(1): 37–55.

Alcadipani, R. and Rosa, A. R. 2011. From global management to local management: Latin American perspectives as a counter-dominant management epistemology. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28(4): 453–466.

Assies, W. 2003. David versus Goliath in Cochabamba. Water rights, neo-liberalism, and the revival of social protest in Bolivia. Latin American Perspectives, 30(3): 14–36.

Banerjee, S. and Linstead, S. 2001. Globalization, multiculturalism and other fictions: Colonialism for the new millennium? Organization, 8(4): 683–722.

Behrman, J. B. 1997. Discussion of “the conceptual domain of international business”. In Toyne, B. and Nigh, D. (eds) International Business An Emerging Vision. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, pp. 82–90.

Bieler, A. and Morton, A. 2008. The deficits of discourse in IPE: Turning base metal into gold? International Studies Quarterly, 52(1): 103–128.

Biersteker, T. 1993. Evolving perspective on international political economy: Twentieth-century contexts and discontinuities. International Political Science Review, 14(1): 7–33.

Boddewyn, J. 1997. The conceptual domain of international business: Territory, boundaries and levels. In Toyne, B. and Nigh, D. (eds) International Business An Emerging Vision. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, pp. 50–61.

Boddewyn, J. 1999. The domain of international management. Journal of International Management, 5: 3–14.

Boddewyn, J., Toyne, B. and Martínez, Z. 2004. The meanings of “International Management”. Management International Review, 44(2): 195–212.

Brown, C. 2007. Situating critical realism. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 35(2): 409–416.

Buckley, P. 1996. The role of management in International Business theory: A meta-analysis and integration of the literature on International Business and International Management. Management International Review, 36(1): 7–54.

Buckley, P. 2002. Is the international business research agenda running out of steam? Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2): 365–373.

Buckley, P. 2005. What is International Business?. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Buzan, B. and Little, R. 2001. Why international relations has failed as an intellectual project and what to do about it. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 30(1): 19–39.

Clark, T. and Knowles, L. 2003. Global myopia: Globalization theory in International Business. Journal of International Management, 9(2): 361–372.

Clegg, S. and Carter, C. 2007. The sociology of global organizations. In Ritzer, G. (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Globalization. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 272–290.

Contractor, F. 2000. The raison d'être for International Management as a field of study. Journal of International Management, 6: 3–10.

Cowling, K. and Tomlinson, P. 2005. Globalisation and corporate power. Contributions to Political Economy, 24: 33–54.

Dolowitz, D. 2006. Bringing back the states: Correcting for the omissions of globalization. International Journal of Public Administration, 29(4): 263–280.

Dunning, J. 1989. The study of International Business: A plea for a more interdisciplinary approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 20(3): 411–436.

Escobar, A. 1984–1985. Discourse and power: Michel Foucault and the relevance of his work for the third world. Alternatives, 10(3): 377–400.

Farazmand, A. 2001. Globalization, the state and the public administration: A theotherical analysis with policy implications for developmental states. Public Organization Review, 1(4): 437–463.

Faria, A. and Guedes, A. 2010. Introduction: What is International Management? In Guedes, A. and Faria, A. (eds) International Management and International Relations: A Critical Perspective from Latin America. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–26.

Farrands, C. and Worth, O. 2005. Critical theory in global political economy: Critique? Knowledge? Emancipation? Capital & Class, 85(Spring): 43–61.

Fleury, A. and Fleury, M.T. 2007. Internacionalização de países emergentes. São Paulo: Atlas.

Gilpin, R. 2001. Global Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Grosse, R. and Behrman, J. 1992. Theory in International Business. Transnational Corporations, 1(1): 93–126.

Guedes, A. and Faria, A. 2010. International Management and International Relations: A Critical Perspective from Latin America. New York: Routledge.

Halliday, F. 1994. Rethinking International Relations. London: Macmillan Press.

Hoogvelt, A., Kenny, M. and Germain, R. 1999. The Millennium Symposium: Conversations with Manuel Castells, Robert Cox and Immanuel Wallerstein. New Political Economy 4(3): 379–408.

Ibarra-Colado, E. 2010. Neoliberal globe/centrismo and International Management blindness: The indispensable decolonial turn. In Guedes, A. and Faria, A. (eds) International Management and International Relations: A Critical Perspective from Latin America. New York: Routledge, pp. 29–60.

Ibarra-Colado, E., Faria, A. and Guedes, A. L. 2010. Introduction to the special issue on critical international management and international critical management: perspectives from Latin America. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 6(2/3): 86–96.

Imasato, T. and Guedes, A. L. 2008. Contribuições das teorias institucionais para o estudo de subsidiárias de corporações multinacionais. Cad. EBAPE.BR, 6(2): 1–13.

Jack, G., Calás, M., Nkomo, S. and Peltonen, T. 2008. Critique and International Management: An uneasy relationship? Academy of Management Review, 33(4): 870–884.

Kedia, B. 2006. Globalization and the future of international management. Journal of International Management, 12(2): 242–245.

Langley, P. 2000. Confronting globalization: International political economy and its critics. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 29(2): 461–469.

Lawton, T. C., Rosenau, J. N. and Verdun, A. C. (eds) 2000. Strange Power. Shaping the Parameters of International Relations and International Political Economy. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Levy, D. 2008. Political contestation in global production networks. Academy of Management Review, 33(4): 943–964.

Levy, D. and Newell, P. 2002. Business strategy and international environmental governance: Toward a neo-Gramscian synthesis. Global Environmental Politics, 2(4): 84–101.

Lima, M. R. and Hirst, M. 2006. Brazil as an intermediate state and regional power: Action, choice and responsibilities. International Affairs, 82(1): 21–40.

Mahbubani, K. 2010. Beyond the universal. The cultural myopia of US social science. Harvard International Review, Winter: 72.

Marens, R. 2008. Getting past the “Government Sucks” story: How government really matters. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1(2): 84–94.

Martínez, Z. and Toyne, B. 2000. What is international management, and what is its domain? Journal of International Management, 6(1): 11–28.

Mignolo, W. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Misoczky, M. C. 2010. Green deserts in the south of Latin America: The role of international agencies and national states. In Guedes, A. and Faria, A. (eds) International Management and International Relations: A Critical Perspective from Latin America. New York: Routledge, pp. 201–228.

Mortimore, M. 2000. Corporate strategies for FDI in the context of Latin America's New Economic Model. World Development, 28(9): 1611–1626.

Oliveira, M.Jr. (ed.) 2010. Multinacionais Brasileiras. São Paulo: Bookman.

Otto, B. and Böhm, S. 2006. “The people” and resistance against international business: The case of the Bolivian “water war”. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 2(4): 299–320.

Palan, R. 1999. Susan Strange 1923–1998: A great international relations theorist. Review of International Political Economy, 6(2): 121–132.

Parmar, I. 2012. Foundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie, & Rockfeller Foundations in the Rise of American Power. New York: Columbia University Press.

Peters, G. and Pierre, J. 1998. Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2): 223–243.

Ricks, D., Toyne, B. and Martínez, Z. 1990. Recent development in the international management research. Journal of International Management, 16(2): 219–253.

Sader, E. 2008. The weakest link? Neoliberalism in Latin America. New Left Review, 52: 5–18.

Santos, B. S. 2006. Globalizations. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2–3): 393–398.

Shenkar, O. 2004. One more time: International business in a global economics. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2): 161–171.

Silva, R. C. and Campos Filho, L.A. 2008. Gestão Internacional: A produção científica brasileira entre 1997 e 2006. REAd, ed. 61, 14(3).

Sklair, L. 1995. The Sociology of the Global System, 2nd edn. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Spence, C. and Shenkin, M. 2008. The rebirth of politics in Bolivia: The role of popular resistance to business. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 4(4): 344–366.

Stavenhagen, R. 1974. The future of Latin America: Between underdevelopment and revolution. Latin American Perspectives, 1(1): 124–148.

Stone, D. 2004. Transfer agents and global networks in the “transnationalization” of policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3): 545–566.

Stopford, J. and Strange, S. 1991. Rival States and Rival Firms: Competition for World Market Shares. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Strange, S. 1970. International economics and international relations: A case of mutual neglect. International Affairs, 46(2): 304–315.

Strange, S. 1991. Big business and the state. Millennium — Journal of International Studies, 20(2): 245–250.

Strange, S. 1992. States, firms and diplomacy. International Affairs, 68(1): 1–15.

Strange, S. 1994. States and Markets, 2nd edn. London: Pinter Publishers.

Strange, S. 1996. The Retreat of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tickner, A. 2003a. Seeing IR differently: Notes from the Third World. Millennium — Journal of International Studies, 32(2): 295–324.

Tickner, A. 2003b. Hearing Latin American voices in international relations studies. International Studies Perspectives, 4(4): 325–350.

Wade, R. 2003. What strategies are viable for developing countries today? The World Trade Organization and the shrinking of “development space”. Review of International Political Economy, 10(4): 621–644.

Waever, O. 1998. The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in international relations. International Organization, 52(4): 687–727.

Werner, S. 2002. Recent developments in international management research: A review of 20 top management journals. Journal of Management, 28(3): 277–305.