Jibs Theory Development

---
name: jibs-theory-development
description: Use when building the theoretical mechanism and deriving hypotheses for a Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS) manuscript — specifying cross-level (country/culture → firm/individual) logic, boundary conditions, and an explicit contribution to international-business theory. Builds the argument; it does not test it (jibs-data-analysis) or pick the design (jibs-methods).
---

# Cross-Level IB Theory Development (jibs-theory-development)

## When to trigger

- Your hypotheses read as "A relates to B" with no IB mechanism
- Country or culture appears in the model but is not theorized as a level
- You are unsure whether your moderator is a cross-level or same-level effect
- A reviewer says "the theoretical contribution to IB is unclear"

## Theorize across levels, not just across borders

JIBS's signature is that **country and culture are levels of analysis**. Strong JIBS theory makes the cross-level logic explicit:

- **Name the levels.** Individual, firm/subsidiary, and country. State which level the focal construct, the cause, and the outcome each live on.
- **Specify the cross-level mechanism.** How does a country/culture-level condition (institutions, cultural values, distance, political risk) shape a firm- or individual-level process? Avoid "anthropomorphizing" a country — translate the macro condition into the micro mechanism it operates through.
- **Distance and asymmetry.** If you invoke "distance" (cultural, institutional, geographic, psychic), theorize its *direction* and *asymmetry* — the effect of country A on B need not equal B on A. Treat distance as a mechanism, not a black-box covariate.
- **Boundary conditions.** State the conditions under which the IB mechanism holds or reverses across contexts; JIBS prizes boundary conditions over universal claims.

## Anchor in an IB theoretical tradition

Ground the argument in a recognizable IB lens — internalization/transaction-cost, the OLI/eclectic paradigm, the Uppsala internationalization-process model, institutional theory (including institutional voids and distance), the resource-/knowledge-based view applied to the MNE, springboard/LLL perspectives for emerging-market MNEs, or cross-cultural value frameworks. Then state precisely how you extend, qualify, or challenge it. Borrowing a non-IB theory is welcome only if you show what it adds *to IB*.

## Hypotheses

Derive hypotheses *a priori* from the mechanism (not after seeing results). For internationalization-as-process arguments, be explicit that the relationship may be dynamic and path-dependent — this foreshadows the dynamic-endogeneity concern reviewers will raise in analysis. Each hypothesis should name the level, the direction, and the boundary condition.

## Output format

```
【Levels & mechanism】country/culture-level condition → micro process → outcome ...
【IB lens】internalization / OLI / Uppsala / institutional / springboard / ...
【Distance logic】direction & asymmetry theorized? ...
【Hypotheses】H1..Hk with level, sign, boundary condition (a priori) ...
【IB contribution claim】what the field learns ...
【Next step】jibs-literature-positioning then jibs-methods
```

## Anti-patterns

- Anthropomorphizing countries ("Japan prefers...") instead of theorizing the micro mechanism.
- Using cultural/institutional distance as an unexplained covariate with no directional logic.
- HARKing — presenting post hoc hypotheses as a priori.
- A generic management mechanism with the word "international" added but no IB content.