Journal of International Business Policy

What explains variation in preferential trade agreements’ (PTAs) intellectual property rights (IPRs)? Conventional wisdom holds that PTAs include IPRs because in fear of losses from imitation of their innovations, the developed North demands IPRs, and the less developed South gives in to secure market access. However, recently also Southern innovators emerged, which urges for a refinement of this simple distinction. I argue that a PTA member state’s capacity to innovate shapes demand for IPRs. Innovative economies that rely on intellectual property (IP) generation favor IPRs because IP-reliant industries press for IPRs’ inclusion when governments negotiate PTAs with less innovative economies. By contrast, PTAs between non-innovators remain sparse in IPRs because no industries on either side demand IPRs. PTAs among innovators include IPRs as both expect gains. Analyzing novel data on IPR provisions in 495 PTAs signed between 1988 and 2018 and their signatory states shows that heterogeneity in PTA members’ innovativeness indeed increases IPR comprehensiveness. My findings help to understand preferences towards IPRs in PTA negotiations, shed light on reasons for varying IPRs, while offering a refinement of the conventional wisdom that adds to our understanding of PTA design.

This study examines the dynamic evolving synergies between the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This is among the first studies to present an in-depth comparative treatment and evaluation of these monumental change-oriented undertakings in terms of their interlinks, complementarities, and synergistic potential to mobilize and transform public policy and managerial decision-making in the pursuit of sustainable development. In our study, we identify BRI focus areas, goals, and modalities and explore their manifold interactions with the 17 SDGs, including by reference to dozens of recent BRI and AIIB projects. Our findings strongly suggest ongoing alignment and convergence between the SDGs and BRI, as exemplified by the recent overt inclusion of BRI within the UN’s 2030 Agenda. However, realization of such promising synergies hinges on several variables, including the geopolitical and public health environments, the adoption of more holistic trade and investment strategies, and greater openness and inclusiveness towards non-Chinese and local businesses, particularly regarding their participation in BRI sustainable infrastructure investment projects. Public policy efforts will be essential to steer BRI in more open, liberal, and integrative directions so that BRI can function optimally as an effective vehicle for achievement of the SDGs.

Government policy can add to the costs of doing international business. It can distort the construction of and raise the costs of operation of global value chains (GVCs), to the detriment of the participating economies. Given rising technological and market-driven headwinds confronting GVCs, countries seeking to attract GVC activities have greater incentives to identify and address policies that negatively affect international business investment. Cooperation of businesses with regulators, analysts, and researchers has the scope to develop better policy. This paper suggests principles for the design and operation of such cooperation, drawing on the experience with multi-stakeholder value chain partnerships and the policy responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.

This paper seeks to derive rational policies towards multinational enterprises (MNEs) from extant international business theory. It examines the impact of national institutions and policies on both inward and outward direct foreign investment. It adopts a theory-based perspective utilising internalisation, transaction cost and institutional approaches to the operations of MNEs. It contrasts the received policy process by which MNEs react to policy initiatives with a potential “direct” policy model whereby strategic decisions of MNEs embody policy goals. The paper suggests that transparent national policies with robust supranational monitoring are the best solution for world economic welfare.

The globalization of the world economy, the growing boundary-less nature of the workforce, and the reduction in immigration and emigration barriers to the movement of people have helped fuel a “war for talent” (Chambers et al. in McKinsey Q 3(3):44–57, 1998) worldwide. In this paper, we study the immigration policies of three of the most popular destinations of skilled immigrants – the US, Canada, and Australia. According to the 2018 Global Talent Competitiveness Index (Global Talent Competitiveness Index, 2018), these three countries were among the top 15 most attractive destinations in the world, attracting two-thirds of all skilled immigrants worldwide. We analyze the policy frameworks of these countries in terms of attracting skilled immigrants and their evolution over time. We compare and contrast these frameworks and explain how they are similar to and different from each other. We also analyze the background of the immigrants and their overall success in integrating into their host societies. Finally, we provide recommendations on how to make these policies more effective, and how they could help countries in the global battle for talent.

Maritime shipping lines and global terminal operators have benefited from economies of scale to expand geographically and functionally their infrastructure, leading to a corporatized network. Terminal operators are key asset managers seeking value creation by expanding the global maritime container terminal infrastructure network. While corporatization has systematically ensured that terminal capacity was created to accommodate the rise in global trade volumes, the network hit its boundaries when confronted with COVID-19 induced global supply chain disruptions. This paper provides a better understanding of the importance of infrastructure and observed corporatization as a framework for explaining economic processes, notably when transport infrastructures are extensive and capital-intensive. The structure of the global container shipping network is analyzed to unveil the realities of liner service networks operated by shipping lines, and the market structure and consolidation in container shipping and terminal operations. The discussion on the corporatization of the global maritime infrastructure network for container handling is embedded in international business literature. This study also extracts the main implications of the current structure and governance of the global maritime infrastructure network for international business policy, with a particular focus on the current market structure and network resilience.

A project on social enterprises in South Africa yielded two key insights for international business. First, partnering with policymakers can strengthen both the relevance and the rigor of research. Second, both the (relatively few) large, multinational social enterprises that obtain funding and operate across multiple countries (whether global or intra-African), and the myriad single-location, informal micro social enterprises are globally connected. Micro social enterprises are linked to the formal and often multinational sector through their main source of funding: corporate social investment. This suggests that the social implications of cross-border businesses are more complex than previously understood.