Globally, the period from the 1980s to 2006 was characterised by growth in FDIs. Except for 1991, FDI flows increased every year between 1986 and 2000. The period was also characterized by high economic growth in the so-called emerging economies. These economies became strongly involved in the global economy in this period through an increase in inward FDIs. In some emerging economies, like China and the Baltic states inward FDIs increased even after the general setback in 2001. For example, while FDI inflows globally fell by 41 percent in 2001, and another 21 percent in 2002, it in-creased with 18 percent in 2001 and another 64 percent in 2002 in Lithuania (UNCTAD, 2003). These tendencies ask for a closer examination of the role of FDIs in the recent development of emerging economies. The paper deals with the role of MNEs and FDI in emerging economies from about 1990 by especially fo-cusing on Norwegian FDIs in Lithuania.1 This case is special because of two reasons. First, not only is Lithua-nia an example of a new emerging economy. Norway is also an example of a newcomer as a foreign investor, compared to many other industrial countries. It was not only until the mid-1980s that outward FDIs from Norway began to increase substantially (UNCTAD, 2004b), and before 1980 there were only few Norwegian companies that could be characterized as multinationals (Amdam and Hagberg, 2001). Over the last 20 years some Nor-wegain companies have developed into multinationals, among them Statoil and RIMI were among the largest foreign investors in Lithuania in 2006 . Second, the rela-tionship between Norway and Lithuania is of a special kind, since the two countries belong to a greater Nordic-Baltic region with strong cultural, political, and not at least economic relationship for centuries (Scandinavian Journal of History, 2003). They both were attached to the Hanseatic league, an informal collaboration from about 1380 to the beginning of the 17th century between trade cities gathered around the Baltic sea and extending the reach of the league as far as London, Bergen (Norway) and Novgorod (Russia). After the end of the communist period in the Baltic countries, which set back the economic cooperation be- 1 This paper is exploratory and represents a first attempt to get an over-view of Norwegian FDIs in Lithuania. Hopefully, it also represents the beginning of a new project that is under planning. tween the Baltic and the Nordic countries, the economic links are closer than ever. After the fall of the Soviet Un-ion Nordic companies have invested heavily in Lithuania as well as in other Baltic nations (Tornroos and Niemi-nen, 1999). Today, companies from the Nordic countries are dominating as top foreign investors in Lithuania. Among the top 37 top foreign investors in 2003, 20 were from Finland, Sweden, Denmark or Norway with the Swedish-Finish Amber Teleholdings Consortium (Te-lia/Soneara) (Telecom) on the top followed by SEB-Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Sweden – banking), and TDC (Tele Denmark A/S). In 2001 44.6 percent of all FDI stocks in Lithuania were from the Nordic countries with Denmark (1.982 mln. litas) and Sweden (1.720 mln. litas) as the heaviest investors (of totally 10.656 mln. litas) (UNCTAD, 2004a).2
This paper explores the development of executive education in the US from 1945 to around 1970, and its function in developing potential top executives' cultural, symbolic, and social capital. The paper shows that postwar executive education was an expression of how the academic community acted according to its societal obligations by offering the new leaders norms and values that could replace what was lost during the transformation to managerial capitalism. This function legitimized executive education within the business schools, which was at the time primarily characterized by a very different logic of scientization.
Arthur A. Daemmrich. Pharmacopolitics: Drug Regulation in the United States and Germany. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004. xiii + 203. ISBN 0-8078-2844-0, $34.95 (cloth). - Volume 5 Issue 4
The Power of Content Revisited / Rolv Petter Amdam, Ragnhild Kvalshaugen and Eirinn Larsen Part 1 Defining the Content of Business Education and its Shaping Forces The Ephemeral National Model of Management Education: A comparative Study of Five Management Programmes in France / Junko Takagi and Laurence de Carlo Educating Spanish Managers: The United States, Modernising Networks, and Business Schools in Spain, 1950-1975 / Nuria Puig Plurality in Institutional Environments and Educational Content: The Undergraduate Business Degree in Turkey / Behlul Usdiken National Heterogeneity in Standardised Programmes of Business Education / Ragnhild Kvalshaugen, Agnete Vabo and eirinn Larsen Part II Maintaining Credibility and Legitimacy through Content and Other Symbols Consultancies as Management Schools / Matthias Kipping and Celeste Amorim Cultures of Content: A Comparison of French and Norwegian Business Schools / Eirinn Larsen Shaping the Content of Business Education in Great Britian, 1945-90: Production Engineers, Accountants and Shifting Definitions of Relevance / Nick Tiratsoo, Roy Edwards and John Wilson Part III How to Deal with Anarchy and Diversity Creating an MBA Identity - Between Fiels and Organisation / Sami Boutaiba and Jesper Strandgaard Pedersen To MBA or Not to MBA? A Dilemma Accentuated by the Recent Boom in Business Education / Haldor Byrkjeflot The Europeanisation of Business Education / Tina Hedmo Notes on Contributors List of Abbreviations References
During recent years a number of studies on the diffusion of American organizational and management knowledge to Europe after the Second World War have emerged. Research on both sides of the Atlantic has moved from an initial focus on the transfer as predominantly a process of exporting knowledge from the US, to a current emphasis on the institutional, structural, and political factors in the recipient countries, and how these factors influenced the outcome of the diffusion process [Guillen, 1994]. Within this tradition, concepts like translation, transformation, rejection and adoption have been applied to analyze the processes taking place in the recipient countries [Amdam and Bjarnar, 1997; Amdam and Yttri, 1998; Kipping and Bjarnar, 1998]. Others have sought to cast new light on the interplay between actors in the US and European countries, using concepts such as cross-fertilization or networks as frameworks for their analysis [Gemelli, 1996;Amdam and Bjarnar, 1996; Djelic, 1998]. To what extent the recent focus on networks is mainly of a methodological nature, stressing the role of networks as a crucial and necessary part of empirical studies, or also implies a further theoretical development within this field of research, is a complicated question. In general, one of the challenges that continuously faces different theoretical frameworks is how to characterize and explain the apparently simultaneous phenomena of homogenization and internationalization of management models and business practices as well as the prevalence of national diversification of business arrangements [Djelic, 1998, pp. 8-14; Engwall and Zamagni, 1998]. An in-depth discussion of this question at a theoretical level is, however, beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, within the research on post-war Americanization of Europe, the reconstruction of both personal networks and business networks is an essential and integral part of studying the diffusion process and assessing its outcome.The observation that the diffusion processes should be analyzed from the senders to the actual implementation of models has important implications