The paper "Bringing History into International Business by Jones and Khanna" is an outstanding example of a business article. In their research paper titled “ Bringing History (Back) into International Business, ” Jones and Khanna’ s (2006) study appeared to fill a gap in the literature on the significant role of integrating to determine various aspects, such as decision-making processes and market failures. The researchers used a longitudinal study, through document analysis to review 43 articles as their research method. The depth of research makes it sufficient to assert that Jones and Khanna (2006) offered an objective review by tracking how history has been integrated into the field of international business over time.
Indeed, the rationale for the study, as mentioned by the researchers, was to assess how history has been integrated into business historically. Essentially, therefore, Jones and Khanna’ s (2006) succeeded in realising the objective of their study. Jones and Khanna’ s (2006) hypothesized that the field of international business needs to change its rhetoric from the comparatively less controversial idea that 'history is crucial for exploring the significance of international business. From this, it is clear that the authors used rigorous methods to analyse small samples and qualitative data in cases where traditional regression techniques failed to apply. This article review will provide a critical assessment of the ideas and arguments that Jones and Khanna’ s (2006) put in their paper. ARTICLE REVIEW Jones and Khanna’ s (2006) selected journals and research papers from the field of international business for analysis and review.
Their techniques were thorough. Their aim was to amalgamate the findings previously reported into a single paper that could be the basis for future studies on the significance of history in international business.
Indeed, what formed the basis of their study is that while it is widely acknowledged that history matters, few studies have attempted to explain how it matters.
Bator, F. (1958). The Anatomy of Market Failure. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 72(3): 351-379
Foss, N. (1998). Edith Penrose and the Penrosians - or, why there is still so much to learn from The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Prepared for a Special Issue of Cahiers de l’ISMEA - Série Oeconomica
Gupta, P., Guha, S. and Krishnaswami, S. (2013). Firm growth and its determinants. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 2(1): 2-15
Jones, G. & Khanna, T. 2006. Bringing History (Back) into International Business. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(4): 53-468
Hathaway, I. Litan, R. 2014. Declining Business Dynamism in the United States: A Look at States and Metros. Brookings Institution, 1-7
Hayne, M & Husan, R. 2002. Market Failure, State Failure, Institutions, and Historical Constraints in the East European Transition. Journal of European Area Studies, 10(1): 105-129
Rugman, A. & Verbeke, A. (2002). Edith Penrose’s Contribution To The Resource-Based View Of Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal 23(1): 1 769–780
Weick, K. & Quinn, R. 1999. Organizational Change And Development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1999. 50(1): 361-386