Announcements

Call for Papers: Special Issues on “Techno-Nationalism, State Strategy, and Corporate Innovation in the Asia-Pacific”

Guest Editors

Jiatao Li, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Di (David) Fan, RMIT University, Australia. Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Wei Liu, Qingdao University, China. Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Siah Hwee Ang, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The Rise of Techno-Nationalism

In today’s highly digitalized and knowledge-driven global economy, technology has come to signify far more than traditional notions of productivity and efficiency. Its strategic importance has risen to the level of a critical determinant of national competitiveness, institutional security, and social stability. Against this backdrop, the emergence of techno-nationalism represents a salient new trend. Rather than prioritizing efficiency logics, techno-nationalism adopts a national security logic, situating the development, control, and application of key technologies at the very core of geopolitical competition (Petricevic & Teece, 2019; Edler et al., 2023). Its immediate manifestations include the bloc formation of national innovation systems, restrictions on cross-border R&D collaboration, the fragmentation of global supply chains (Buckley, 2022), and intensified contests over technology standards within global governance frameworks (Capri, 2020). From the fierce contests in semiconductors and artificial intelligence (Luo & Van Assche, 2023), to the unfolding policy confrontations between China’s “Made in China 2025” (MIC2025) initiative and the United States’ Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA), state strategies now play a central role in shaping firms’ innovation activities (Li et al., 2024).

Contemporary techno-nationalism is no longer merely a developmental strategy; it is increasingly characterized by protective and restrictive measures. These include export controls (Starrs & Germann, 2021), investment screening (Li et al., 2024), data sovereignty provisions, and institutionalized technology blockades (Witt, 2019). The resulting environment is one of increasingly zero-sum competition, where firms must navigate not only market logics but also the multiple tensions of national strategies, geopolitical risks, and institutional conflicts (Luo, 2021). Within this context, MNEs face heightened challenges to legitimacy, which becomes critical for their survival and growth in host countries—particularly in environments marked by diplomatic frictions (Kostova & Zaheer, 1999; Yoon et al., 2025).

Challenges of Techno-nationalism for Firms and Innovation

This environment presents highly complex challenges for firms, extending from macro-level institutional structures to firm-level strategy and organizational innovation (Wu & Fan, 2025). Specifically:

(1) Vulnerability and Dependence. Firms’ dual dependence on core technologies, key components, and strategic markets exposes them to unprecedented vulnerability when national policies shift. In particular, outward R&D investment is especially fragile due to the risks of misappropriation of intangible assets, making it more vulnerable than other forms of FDI that primarily face the risk of expropriation of tangible assets (Albino-Pimentel et al., 2022). Firms must therefore dynamically assess both “technological dependence” and “market dependence,” and strike a balance among compliance, defensive responses, and offensive strategies—such as alliance restructuring, standard-setting, and regionalized configurations (Luo, 2021).

(2) Restructuring of Innovation Networks. With the fragmentation of open innovation and global value chains (Farrell & Newman, 2020), the collaborative foundations of multinational R&D teams and innovation alliances is undergoing significant transformation. The trust deficit and geopolitical uncertainties triggered by deglobalization have increasingly constrained what was once regarded as borderless technological exchange (Zhang et al., 2024). As a result, firms are shifting away from reliance on cross-border knowledge spillovers and instead building more localized, and in some cases closed, innovation networks.

(3) Organizational Resilience and Governance Structures. Techno-nationalism is not only an external threat but also compels internal governance mechanisms and organizational architectures to be reconfigured. Regional substitution of supply chains (Kano et al., 2020), dual headquarter arrangements across jurisdictions, localized approaches to data governance, and corporate restructuring through “mirror subsidiaries” (as in the case of ByteDance’s response to U.S. regulatory pressures) (Luo, 2021) all illustrate how firms are constructing new forms of organizational resilience to cope with institutional and regulatory fragmentation.

(4) Strategic Dilemmas and Corporate Responsibility. Firms are caught in dilemmas between the logics of markets and the logics of states. This not only challenges the traditional assumptions of international business that emphasize open resources and positive-sum competition (Luo, 2021), but also raises new questions about the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and geopolitical responsibility. Against this backdrop, some MNEs have even pursued counterintuitive strategies—such as committing additional high-value R&D positions in host countries where diplomatic relations are strained—as a proactive non-market strategy to secure legitimacy (Yoon et al., 2025; Stevens & Newenham-Kahindi, 2017).

The Asia-Pacific as the Epicenter of Techno-Nationalism

The Asia-Pacific region constitutes a central stage for understanding techno-nationalism. On the one hand, the technological rivalry between China and the United States serves as the primary catalyst of this trend, with its repercussions—through export controls, entity lists, and investment screening—profoundly shaping regional supply chains and innovation ecosystems (Luo, 2021; Li et al., 2024). On the other hand, many economies in the region (such as China, South Korea, Japan, and Singapore) possess strong traditions as developmental states (Samuels, 1994). Governments actively intervene in and guide national innovation systems through industrial policies, state-led initiatives, and the promotion of “national champion” enterprises. While restricting technology outflows, these governments simultaneously implement openness-oriented policies to attract R&D-intensive FDI, aiming to accelerate technological catch-up through job creation and knowledge spillovers. This creates an institutional environment for MNEs that is inherently paradoxical (Luo, 2021; Lee & Lim, 2001).

Therefore, investigating how techno-nationalism reshapes corporate innovation and strategy can not only fill the theoretical gap in existing IB research between macro-level politics and micro-level firm practices (Koveshnikov et al., 2025; Buckley & Lessard, 2005), but also provide new insights into the resilience-building and innovation pathways of Asia-Pacific firms in this new normal. We provide an indicative list of possible topics below:

National Strategy and Institutional Environment

• How do the techno-nationalism strategies of different Asia-Pacific economies (e.g., China, Japan, South Korea, and India) differ in terms of underlying logic, strategic intent, and policy instruments? How have these differences shaped MNEs’ location choices and investment patterns?
• What unique role do state-owned enterprises (SOEs) play in advancing national techno-nationalist agendas? In what ways do their innovation motivations and behaviors diverge from those of private firms?
• How does techno-nationalism affect talent mobility across the Asia-Pacific region? How do restrictive or incentivizing policies aimed at attracting and retaining global technological talent challenge MNEs’ global talent management?
• How have emblematic policies—such as China’s MIC2025 and the United States’ FIRRMA—specifically influenced Asia-Pacific firms’ cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and venture capital decisions, including target selection, deal completion rates, and valuation?

Corporate Innovation and Strategic Responses

• Under the pressure of technological decoupling, how are MNEs restructuring their global R&D networks and knowledge management systems?
• In response to techno-nationalism, are firms developing new organizational forms and governance structures—for instance, more resilient regionalized supply chains, localized innovation hubs, or complex business reconfigurations such as the ByteDance case?
• How do MNEs manage their intellectual property (IP) portfolios across different techno-nationalist blocs in order to mitigate risks of forced technology transfer or IP leakage?
• How do engineers and scientists in cross-national R&D teams experience and negotiate potential tensions between their professional identities and national identities?
• How do MNEs engage in collective action—through industry associations or corporate alliances—to influence or buffer the effects of techno-nationalist policies?
• Faced with heightened risks of decoupling, how do MNEs evaluate and manage the dual vulnerabilities stemming from technological dependence and market dependence? How do different vulnerability combinations (e.g., high technology dependence/low market dependence) lead to divergent strategic responses?
• How do firms from smaller or non-aligned Asia-Pacific economies navigate the pressures of competing techno-nationalist blocs to sustain their innovation capabilities? 

1. Proposing its timeline.

• PDW Proposal¹: 15 April 2026
• PDW Decision: 10-15 May 2026
• PDW in the 14th AAoM Main Conference2026²: 16-20 June 2026
• Open for submission: 15 Jul 2026
• Submission deadline³: 15 Aug 2026
• First round decisions: Nov 2026
• Second round decisions: Apr 2027
• Final decision: Jul-Aug 2027

Note: 1. The guest editors will organize a paper development workshop (PDW) focusing on developing the ideas and papers intended for submission. We plan to hold the PDW for this special issue during the 14th Asia Academy of Management Main Conference (AAoM), 2026. The details of the PDW will be announced in due time.

2. All interested contributors will have an opportunity to present their work (at any stage of development) for discussion. Participation in the PDW is not a guarantee of acceptance of the paper for the special issue; it is neither a requirement for consideration of papers for inclusion in the special issue. A proposal with no more than 10 pages (excluding Tables/Figures, and References) is required for attending the PDW. The deadline for submitting the PDW proposals is planned for 15th April 2022. Proposals can be submitted to one of four guest editors via email.
3. Full Paper Submissions will be reviewed according to APJM double-blind review process, and the Special Issue is likely to be published in 2027-28. Papers for this issue should be prepared as per the Journal's guidelines available at: 

<https://link.springer.com/journal/10490/submission-guidelines>

Authors should submit an electronic copy of their manuscript via the journal's online submission system via < https://www.editorialmanager.com/apjm/default.aspx> 

REFERENCES

Albino-Pimentel, J., Dussauge, P., & El Nayal, O. (2022). Intellectual property rights, non-market considerations and foreign R&D investments. Research Policy, 51(2), 104442.

Buckley, P. J. (2022). Navigating three vectors of power: Global strategy in a world of intense competition, aggressive nation states, and antagonistic civil society. Global Strategy Journal, 12(3), 543-554.

Buckley, P. J., & Lessard, D. (2005). Regaining the edge for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6), 595–599.

Capri, A. 2020. Techno-nationalism: The US–China tech innovation race. Hinrich Foundation. https://www.hinrichfoundation.com/research/wp/us-china-tech-innovation-race.

Edler, J., Blind, K., Kroll, H., & Schubert, T. (2023). Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means. Research Policy, 52(6), 104765.

Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2020). Chained to globalization. Foreign Affairs, 99(1), 70-80.

Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. (2008). Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4), 540-561.

Kano, L., Tsang, E. W., & Yeung, H. W. C. (2020). Global value chains: A review of the multi-disciplinary literature. Journal of international business studies, 51(4), 577-622.

Koveshnikov, A., Adhur Kutty, A., Tienari, J., & Vaara, E. (in press). Nationalism and Contemporary Organizations: An Integrative Theoretical Framework and Agenda for Future Research. Academy of Management Annals. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2023.0221

Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 64-81.

Lee, J., & Lim, C. (2001). Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: Findings from the Korean industries. Research Policy, 30(3), 459-483.

Li, J., Shapiro, D. M., Ufimtseva, A., & Zhang, P. (2024). Techno-nationalism and cross-border acquisitions in an age of geopolitical rivalry. Journal of International Business Studies, 55(9), 1190-1203.

Luo, Y. (2021). Illusions of techno-nationalism. Journal of International Business Studies, 53(4), 781-799.

Luo, Y., & Van Assche, A. (2023). The rise of techno-geopolitical uncertainty: Implications of the United States CHIPS and Science Act. Journal of international business studies, 54(8), 1423-1440.

Petricevic, O., & Teece, D. J. (2019). The structural reshaping of globalization: Implications for strategic sectors, profiting from innovation, and the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(9), 1487-1512.

Samuels, R. J. 1994. Rich nation, strong army: National security and the technological transformation of Japan. Cornell University Press.

Starrs, S. K., & Germann, J. (2021). Responding to the China challenge in techno‐nationalism: Divergence between Germany and the United States. Development and Change, 52(5), 1122-1146.

Stevens, C. E., & Newenham‐Kahindi, A. (2017). Legitimacy spillovers and political risk: The case of FDI in the East African community. Global Strategy Journal, 7(1), 10-35.

Witt, M. A. (2019). De-globalization: Theories, predictions, and opportunities for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(7), 1053-1077.

Wu, S., & Fan, D. (2025). Internationalization and innovation: A multilevel meta‐analysis of national sentiments. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 42(1), 253-283.

Yoon, H. D., Sinani, E., Papanastassiou, M., & Economou, I. G. (2025). More jobs for our foes? Global R&D strategy in the age of techno-nationalism. Research Policy, 105196.

Zhang, M. M., Lu, Y., Zhu, J. C., & Zhang, K. (2024). Dealing with trust deficit and liabilities of foreignness in host countries: Chinese multinational enterprises in Australia. Management International Review, 64(1), 35-58.

Call for Papers: A Special Issue on “Inclusive Entrepreneurship in the Asia-Pacific Region: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions”

Guest Editors

Yiyi Su, Tongji University, China. Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Shaker A. Zahra, University of Minnesota, USA. Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Vikas Kumar, University of Sydney, Australia. Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Sihong Wu, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The global entrepreneurial landscape is being reshaped by geopolitical tensions, realigning supply chains, technological disruption, digital progress, and long-term climate and demographic trends (Wu et al., 2024; Zahra, 2020). As a leading engine of global economic growth, the Asia-Pacific is a critical arena in which these transformations unfold. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide both a normative compass and an actionable framework for addressing these changes. Several key SDGs—no poverty (SDG 1), gender equality (SDG 5), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), industry, innovation, and infrastructure (SDG 9), reduced inequalities (SDG 10), and sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11)—are particularly relevant to entrepreneurship in the region. However, traditional scale-up models of entrepreneurship are not well equipped to meet these challenges. As Aldrich and Ruef (2018) observe, much of the scholarship continues to center on a narrow, elite-driven model that prioritizes high-growth, well-capitalized firms and frames entrepreneurial action as a linear path toward IPOs and venture capital. Yet, this focus stands in sharp contrast to realities of the Asia-Pacific, where entrepreneurship offers many ordinary individuals a path to improve their livelihoods and achieve social integration (Bruton, Ahlstrom, & Si, 2015; Su et al., 2023).

Inclusive entrepreneurship extends beyond growth orientation to emphasize access, equity, and empowerment. Unlike conventional entrepreneurship, which prioritizes scale and profitability, inclusive entrepreneurship centers on participation and opportunity creation for marginalized groups, measuring success through social as well as economic outcomes. Despite this growing recognition, much of the existing scholarship remains anchored in traditional entrepreneurship models that overlook inclusivity. In response to this gap, scholars have advocated for inclusive entrepreneurship and sustainable development, urging recognition of diverse modes of entrepreneurial participation rather than assessing ventures solely through traditional performance metrics (Bakker & McMullen, 2023). This inclusive lens foregrounds the plurality of entrepreneurial logics and, in doing so, unlocks the potential of nontraditional or marginalized entrepreneurs, such as women, migrants, refugees, and “underdog” entrepreneurs, rather than stigmatizing them (Bakker & McMullen, 2023; Su et al., 2022). The literature shows that, despite social stigma and stereotypes, these marginalized entrepreneurs often cultivate work discipline, resilience, risk tolerance, and creativity to meet the challenges (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2017; Su et al., 2023). Within supportive institutional environments, they are better able to overcome social stigma and stereotypes and exhibit distinctive advantages in entrepreneurship (Ault, 2016; Stephan, Uhlaner, & Stride, 2015). Complementing this perspective, the International Labour Organization outlines a six‑domain approach to developing inclusive entrepreneurship ecosystems: policy, finance, culture, support, human capital, and markets.

Yet, much of the research on inclusive entrepreneurship remains rooted in Western contexts (Dutta & Forbes, 2025), which may misalign with the socio-cultural and institutional realities of the Asia-Pacific (Bakker & McMullen, 2023). Carney (2008) points out that these differences highlight the underdevelopment of entrepreneurial ecosystems in the Asia-Pacific, constrained by insufficient regulatory and institutional frameworks, local socio-cultural norms, and labor practices. For example, in India, patriarchal family structures often limit women’s access to entrepreneurial education and opportunities (Agrawal et al., 2023). China’s pervasive “996” work culture undermines the autonomy and flexibility essential for young entrepreneurs. In small open economies like Bangladesh and Vietnam, fragmented institutions and entrenched social barriers further hinder the development of inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystems (Mair et al., 2012; Zahra & Hashai, 2022). These highlight the critical importance of reassessing the social role of entrepreneurship (Zahra & Wright, 2016), particularly in promoting inclusive and sustainable initiatives in the region.

At the same time, the region’s diversity offers fertile ground for the emergence and growth of inclusive entrepreneurial practices. These contextual factors function not only as constraints but also as catalysts for novel solutions (Foo et al., 2020; Girma Aragaw et al., 2025). Singapore, for instance, has witnessed the growth of migrant entrepreneurship alongside expanding cross-border business activities, leveraging its strategic location and regional connectivity. In Japan, demographic pressures such as population aging have fostered a distinctive ecosystem for elder entrepreneurs, converting societal challenges into economic opportunities (Liang, Wang, & Lazear, 2018). Similarly, in Australia, the success of family business entrepreneurs reflects the growing recognition of the social context in entrepreneurship, with increasing emphasis on supporting local employment and the integration of immigrant entrepreneurs into the broader economy (Chavan et al., 2023). As the largest emerging economy in the Asia-Pacific region, China’s diverse ethnic composition highlights the ways in which ethnic minority entrepreneurs engage in entrepreneurial activities, illustrating significant intra-regional differences in inclusive entrepreneurship (Howell, 2019). Collectively, these diverse, emergent, and often informal practices demonstrate how inclusive entrepreneurship unfolds across diverse cultural, institutional, and social landscapes (Ault, 2016).

Despite these insights, empirical and theoretical research specifically examining inclusive ventures in the Asia-Pacific remains limited. This Special Issue therefore aims to provide a platform for advancing theories, methodologies, and practices that enhance understanding of inclusive entrepreneurship in the region. We welcome submissions addressing, but not limited to, the following themes:

Theme 1: Conceptualizing and Theorizing Inclusive Entrepreneurship

1. How is inclusive entrepreneurship defined and practiced across the Asia-Pacific’s diverse cultural, economic, and institutional contexts? How do traditions, national sentiments, spiritual beliefs, and community norms shape entrepreneurial behavior and priorities?
2. What contextual factors influence the transferability of Western entrepreneurial models to Asia-Pacific settings?
3. How do intra-regional differences, both between countries and within major economies of the Asia-Pacific region, influence the emergence, strategies, and performance of inclusive ventures, and what insights do these differences offer for advancing theory? We particularly invite studies that clarify the theoretical boundaries between inclusive and non-inclusive entrepreneurship.

Theme 2: Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Inclusive Entrepreneurship

4. How do inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystems emerge and evolve across different Asia-Pacific contexts, and how can regional entrepreneurship hubs, such as those major established hubs in Australia, Singapore, India, and China, generate spillover effects to support neighboring countries?
5. How does infrastructure development, such as the adoption of digital technologies, facilitate or constrain inclusive entrepreneurship across regional ecosystems?
6. How do entrepreneurial ecosystem elements (e.g., policy, finance, culture, support systems, human capital, and markets) and characteristics (e.g., connectivity, diversity, heterogeneity, and collaboration) shape the growth and performance of inclusive ventures?

Theme 3: Anchored in Entrepreneurial Actors and Organizations

7. How do socio-structural characteristics of the marginalized entrepreneurs, such as gender, ethnicity, migrant status, and age, influence their entrepreneurial motivation, opportunity recognition, and resource mobilization in the Asia-Pacific?
8. How do non-traditional or marginalized entrepreneurs define “success,” and in what ways do their criteria differ from conventional financial performance metrics?
9. Can solutions developed by inclusive entrepreneurs in the Asia-Pacific be transferred “in reverse” to inform innovative approaches or models for addressing similar challenges in Western contexts?
10. How do marginalized or peripheral firms, such as family-owned, migrant-led, or minority-controlled enterprises, pursue corporate entrepreneurship and innovation to overcome institutional disadvantages?

Theme 4: Inclusive Entrepreneurship, Multi-Dimensional Impacts, and Systemic Change

11. Which challenges under the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., poverty, inequality, and community development) can inclusive entrepreneurship help address?
12. How does inclusive entrepreneurship influence systemic change, including impacts on local labor markets, global and regional innovation ecosystems, and governance practices?
13. Through what mechanisms or pathways does inclusive entrepreneurship generate economic, technological, and societal impacts, and how does it drive the co-evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems and institutional frameworks in the Asia-Pacific and beyond?
14. How do national innovation policies, digital inclusion programs, or state-led industrial strategies foster or constrain inclusive entrepreneurship and shape regional competitiveness in the Asia-Pacific? 

The timeline.

References

Agrawal, A., Gandhi, P., & Khare, P. (2023). Women empowerment through entrepreneurship: Case study of a social entrepreneurial intervention in rural India. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31(4), 1122-1142.

Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2018). Unicorns, gazelles, and other distractions on the way to understanding real entrepreneurship in the United States. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 458-472.

Ault, J. K. (2016). An institutional perspective on the social outcome of entrepreneurship: Commercial microfinance and inclusive markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(8), 951-967.

Bakker, R. M., & McMullen, J. S. (2023). Inclusive entrepreneurship: A call for a shared theoretical conversation about unconventional entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 38(1), 106268.

Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Si, S. (2015). Entrepreneurship, poverty, and Asia: Moving beyond subsistence entrepreneurship. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(1), 1-22.

Carney, M. (2008). The many futures of Asian business groups. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(4), 595-613.

Chavan, M., Chirico, F., Taksa, L., & Alam, M. A. (2023). How do immigrant family businesses achieve global expansion? An embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Discoveries, 9(2), 210-237.

Dutta, S., & Forbes, D. P. (2025). Fostering entrepreneurship in nonmetro areas: Ecosystem architects as conduits of knowledge spillovers. Academy of Management Journal, 68(3), 735-759.

Foo, M. D., Vissa, B., & Wu, B. (2020). Entrepreneurship in emerging economies. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14(3), 289-301.

Girma Aragaw, Z., Haag, K., & Baù, M. (2025). Contextualizing corporate entrepreneurship: a systematic review and future research agenda. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 37(1-2), 1-37.

Howell, A. (2019). Ethnic entrepreneurship, initial financing, and business performance in China. Small Business Economics, 52(3), 697-712.

International Labour Organization. (2023). Women and men in the informal economy: A statistical update. https://www.ilo.org/publications/women-and-men-informal-economy-statistical-update.

Liang, J., Wang, H., & Lazear, E. P. (2018). Demographics and entrepreneurship. Journal of Political Economy, 126(S1), S140-S196.

Mair, J., Marti, I., & Ventresca, M. J. (2012). Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 819-850.

Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2017). Underdog entrepreneurs: A model of challenge-based entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice, 41(1), 7-17.

Stephan, U., Uhlaner, L. M., & Stride, C. (2015). Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(3), 308-331.

Su, Y., Song, J., Lu, Y., Fan, D., & Yang, M. (2023). Economic poverty, common prosperity, and underdog entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 165, 114061.

Su, Y., Zahra, S. A., & Fan, D. (2022). Stratification, entrepreneurial choice and income growth: The moderating role of subnational marketization in an emerging economy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(6), 1597-1625.

Wu, S., Chirico, F., Fan, D., Ding, J., & Su, Y. (2024). Foreign market exit in family firms: Do historical military and cultural frictions matter? Journal of World Business, 59(1), 101504.

Zahra, S. A. (2020). International entrepreneurship (IE) in the age of political turbulence. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(2), 172-175.

Zahra, S. A., & Hashai, N. (2022). The effect of MNEs’ technology startup acquisitions on small open economies’ entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of International Business Policy, 5(3), 277-295.

Zahra, S. A., & Wright, M. (2016). Understanding the social role of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 53(4), 610-629.