ABSTRACT
According to the Flemish novelist Oskar van der Hallen, he ‘who has struggled for a long time trying to find solutions to problems, has done nothing but enrich his vocabulary’ (1965). Although we do not subscribe to this pessimistic view, it is undeniable that the study of international restructuring has produced a glut of elusive and often unrelated concepts. In this book, we have argued that this conceptual jungle is the gloomy outcome of different types of analytical perspectives:
Different levels of analysis:
both restructuring, internationalisation and international trade have been analysed at the micro, meso and macro levels, producing rival conclusions on strategies or policies to implement;
Different objects of research (stakeholders) and different stakes:
theories on restructuring, internationalisation and international trade have tended to focus on companies and/or governments only. Often, the choice for a level of analysis depends solely on the scientific discipline from which a scholar originates, fostering one-dimensional approaches and isolated concepts, and hindering an interdisciplinary study of what is truly a multi-faceted object of research;
Different time horizons:
strategies or configurations which appear as self-evident today are the product of historical formation processes. Companies, governments and industrial networks cannot be seen as a tabula rasa, but carry with them established bargaining practices and mind-sets;
Different national backgrounds:
interpretations of corporate strategies or international affairs often originate from specific national settings, creating divisions in audiences along rival national lines.
