Received internationalization theory argues that firms occupy domestic space before going abroad; in other words, large, oligopolistic firms are most likely to internationalize. The experience of China, whose economy is fragmented and whose firms are small by global standards, suggests otherwise. We construct a model of small firm internationalization driven by the relative transaction costs of crossing domestic (in the case of China, provincial) and international borders. When the costs of crossing domestic borders exceed the costs of crossing international borders, firms will internationalize at a relatively early stage of development. In the case of China, local protectionism and inefficient domestic logistics increase the costs of doing business domestically; moreover, protection of property rights in the West and the advantages afforded Chinese owned firms reconstituted as foreign entities operating in China decrease the costs of ‘going out’. We coin the term ‘institutional arbitrage' to capture Chinese firms’ pursuit of efficient institutions outside of China. We argue that strategic exit from the home country rather than strategic entry into foreign markets may explain the internationalization of many Chinese firms.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2008.00116.x

Which Way through the Open Door? Reflections on the Internationalization of Chinese Firms

Traditional environmental and resource economics uses rational choice theory to guide the evaluation of alternative policy options to correct market failure Behavioral economics, however, has chal 

On Behavioral-Environmental Economics

Rural North America has undergone a major economic transformation over the past century due to labor-saving technological progress, reductions in transport costs, and rising household incomes. The results are greater rural economic diversity, selected rural population decline, increased rural-urban interdependence, emergent exurban areas, and amenity-led rural growth. We summarize key research insights and provide a selected review of the economics literature over the past 100 years with a focus on this economic transformation of rural places, its implications for rural communities, and key modeling innovations and applications. The many important contributions by agricultural economists are highlighted.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/AJAE_AJAEAJAEAAQ008.pdf?abstractid=3569190&mirid=1

A Century of Research on Rural Development and Regional Issues

This literature survey distinguishes between public administration and economics, identifies some issues common to both fields and some reasons why public administration is not economics. Finally, it briefly surveys the contributions and limits of three bodies of economic literature that have in recent years profoundly influenced the study of public administration in America: public choice, modern corporate finance - and the contemporary macroeconomics it has inspired, and the new economics of organization.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID877923_code249171.pdf?abstractid=749368&mirid=1

The Political Economy of Public Administration

The article discusses a conceptual framework for evaluating interdependence in inter-organizational and intra-organizational relations. The method includes: a referent system common to both relational contexts; six dimensions that define interdependence; and five variables that influence the perception of interdependence. Interdependence occurs when the action of one unit affects the action or work outcome of another unit. Six dimensions in a transactional approach to interdependence include the number of different resources involved, the frequency of transactions per unit of time, and the composite value of the resource.

An Approach for Assessing and Managing Inter-Unit Interdependence

Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Economy in Government, Congress of the United States, The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures: the PPB System. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969, xiv + 1241 ($5.75)

ISHALL begin this paper with the observation that a nation of generally wealthy and prosperous individuals finds itself relatively poor with respect to public goods. We also find communities of poverty within our midst-communities where many public services are either lacking or of a disgraceful quality. Faced with this kind of situation, the arguments for additional expenditures are vague expressions of need, and the arguments against follow the theme that in spite of all our wealth we simply cannot afford additions to the public sector. Economists generally, agricultural economists in particular and administrators in the USDA-land-grant university system must bear a large part of the responsibility for this lack of more definitive knowledge. It is astonishing that agricultural economists should know so much about how to produce or how to control the production of feed grains, wheat, and cotton and at the same time know so little about the way people live or the costs and effects of improving the manner in which they live. Some notion of our priorities can be gained by a perusal of the "Long Run Research study" and noting the recommended increases in scientific manyears1 devoted to people problems as compared to production problems. It is my contention that our priorities reflect the critical issues of a day long since past and that although some progress is being made in the rearrangement of our priorities the rate of progress is far too slow. I choose to define the problem of community services as one of public goods or services. Further, I accept as a definition of a public good2 that which meets at least one of three conditions: (1) jointness of supply (that is, consumption of the good does not preclude its consumption by others: the lighthouse is a classic example), (2) existence of external effects which accrue to other persons or communities and for which it is infeasi-

Lee M. Day

Papers

Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Economy in Government, Congress of the United States, The Analysis and Evaluation of Public Expenditures: the PPB System. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969, xiv + 1241 ($5.75)

Community Facilities and Services: An Economic Framework for Analysis