Taking an institution-based view, we investigate how entrepreneurs respond to immature regulatory environments in order to be listed on stock markets in countries with an emerging economy. Unlike stock markets in developed countries, in emerging markets, gaining government approval for listing is a critical and more unpredictable process for entrepreneurs. Hence, entrepreneurs who are preparing for a public offering might give substantially discounted shares to venture capital (VC) investors. This will lead to higher investment returns in pre-IPO deals than those at earlier stages, which distorts the risk-return tradeoff found in developed markets. In particular, the VC investors affiliated with powerful organizations that can promise entrepreneurs preferential access to stock market gatekeepers will gain even higher pre-IPO investment returns. The associated additional institutional rents earned by VC investors, however, are expected to decrease over time, as the stock markets mature. Related hypotheses with regard to the investment timing, VC firm affiliations with government agencies, securities traders, and universities are tested using data from ChiNext in China (2009–2013). This study highlights that institutional factors impact the behavior of participants in emerging markets. It extends current theories derived almost exclusively from developed markets.

The Internet era embraces disruptive dynamics of both organizational and management models. Management scholars and entrepreneurs worldwide are exploring new management theories and business models such as the management model of Rendanheyi (人单合一in Chinese, translated as ‘Maker-Customer Integration’) that has been evolving for 12 years since it was initiated by Haier in 2005. This model has successfully transformed Haier, and has also drawn much attention from the world with its salient implications for a new management paradigm (Cao, 2014; Fischer, Lago, & Liu, 2013).

I wish to congratulate the editorial team on their forthright lead article in MOR12.4 regarding the state of empirical research in our field. I strongly endorse the aspiration of making the field more scientific. I understand the need to regain confidence in published empirical social science. But I would not wish readers to come away with the idea that such concerns define the heart of the discipline. The paper was quite properly concerned with bringing empirical research up to the highest standards. But let us not forget that there is another endeavor running in partnership, and in any review, it should not be taken for granted. I refer to theory-building.

Transforming economies such as the BRIC countries – Ex-Soviet Republics, or Eastern European countries – share national aspirations of becoming innovation economies. These aspirations have stimulated a push for entrepreneurship and experimentation with new ways of doing things. This has created a fascinating context for research on business model innovation, relating to the way incumbent firms adapt their business models or come up with entirely new models. Similarly, new business models may be originated by start-up companies that often are challenging and leapfrogging the ‘tired’ old business models or simply invent new ones. However, research that specifically explores indigenous business model innovation in the context of these transforming economies is still in its early stages. The MOR special issue on ‘Business Model Innovation in Transforming Economies’ aims to address this gap by soliciting research uncovering successful new business models that is indigenous to these economies, as they transition to becoming innovation economies themselves and contribute to strategy and management theory development.

We appreciate this invitation to comment on the paper on Western perceptions of Chinese culture, to provide an insider perspective. Because of its unique perspective on Chinese historical teachings, the study reminds us about the challenges in learning and applying indigenous knowledge. For example, it compares the lens of war and business in many dimensions, such as a focus on an enemy (war) or on customers (business), a matter of life and death (war) or not (business), one competitor (war) or a number of competitors (business), deception (war) or secrecy (business), or a one-time relationship (war) or a long-term relationship (business). The paper offers us a striking warning about the risk of overdrawing historical analogies in management research.

The Second MOR Research Frontiers Conference explored knowledge creation and innovation capacity of SMEs on the economic development of transforming economies. The theme echoed the new trend in China that the economy has entered the ‘new normal’ (xinchangtai) stage and entrepreneurship and innovation have been regarded as the ‘twin engines’ for future growth. The majority of the conference papers paid attention to the entrepreneurial potential and innovation capacity of China's rising private sector, and pointed out for me an emerging research agenda on innovation and entrepreneurship studies in China.

This Management and Organization Review (MOR) special issue on ‘Coopetition and Innovation in Transforming Economies’ aims to explore key features of the strategic relationship between coopetition and innovation in transforming economies. It is generally accepted that innovation can be a fundamental driver for economic growth, new sources of employment, and dwindling economic disparity. However, increasingly activities of innovation no longer take place primarily within the firm but are often the outcome of the overall set of relationships of the firm. The two phenomena of competition and cooperation have become more and more inter-related, thus creating new opportunities, affecting innovation and change. This reality is of special interest in the context of transforming economies’ transition to higher value adding economic growth and development due to, for example, the specific moderating or mediating role of national cultures and philosophical inspiration (e.g., Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism) in shaping the coopetitive mindset (Dagnino, Di Guardo, & Padula, 2012) and the potential differentiation between countries and regional ecologies.

The central theme of this commentary is that The Art of War is not only highly useful for Chinese business historically in particular, but also universally relevant for global business (including Chinese business as an integral part) in general at the present time and also in the future. We will discuss three issues to elaborate the above central theme: (1) the essence of The Art of War, (2) its historical relevance, and (3) its modern and global implications.

The Management and Organization Review (MOR) special issue on ‘Doing Qualitative Research in Emerging Markets’ aims to advance the quality, diversity, and understanding of qualitative research methods in management in the context of emerging markets. The value of qualitative research is increasingly embraced by management scholars thanks to its merits for building new theories and testing existing ones, as well as exemplifying new phenomena by surfacing contextual idiosyncrasies (Bansal & Corley, 2011; Birkinshaw, Brannen, & Tang, 2011; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Rynes, 2007; Welch, Piekkari, Plakoyiannaki, & Paavilainen-Mantymaki, 2011). As Bansal and Corley (2011: 234) suggest ‘The beauty of qualitative research is that it accommodates different paradigms and different styles of research and research reporting. Although there are merits to having norms emerge for the style of qualitative research manuscripts, we do not want to stifle creativity’.

Recently, we attended the Second MOR Research Frontiers Conference hosted by Indian Institute of Management Bangalore in India. The theme of the conference was ‘The SME Ecology of Transforming Economies: Knowledge Creation, Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth’. As Professor Peter Murmann stressed, the purpose of this frontier conference was about collectively exploring and extending the frontier of research, and therefore, a number of emerging topics were discussed. The conference highlighted for us the great potential of research about India or comparative studies across transitional economies, especially between India and China. Below we highlight a few thoughts or reflections.

Transforming economies such as the BRIC countries – Ex-Soviet Republics, or Eastern European countries – share national aspirations of becoming innovation economies. These aspirations have stimulated a push for entrepreneurship and experimentation with new ways of doing things. This has created a fascinating context for research on business model innovation, relating to the way incumbent firms adapt their business models or come up with entirely new models. Similarly, new business models may be originated by start-up companies that often are challenging and leapfrogging the ‘tired’ old business models or simply invent new ones. However, research that specifically explores indigenous business model innovation in the context of these transforming economies is still in its early stages. The MOR special issue on ‘Business Model Innovation in Transforming Economies’ aims to address this gap by soliciting research uncovering successful new business models that is indigenous to these economies, as they transition to becoming innovation economies themselves and contribute to strategy and management theory development.

This Management of Organization Review (MOR) special issue aims to explore the key features of the innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem in India. There is recent evidence that innovation and entrepreneurship dynamics in transforming economies differ from like processes in advanced market economies in significant ways (e.g., Maimone, Mudambi, Navarra, & Baglieri, 2016). Therefore, applying the dominant theoretical lens developed to study innovation and entrepreneurship in advanced market economies may be inappropriate. For instance, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) surveys clearly demonstrate the composition of total entrepreneurial activity (TEA) for advanced and transforming economies is substantially different, with a significantly higher level of ‘need-based’ entrepreneurship in the latter. Hence the typical advanced economy transition from wage employment to a larger share for entrepreneurship may be reversed in transforming economies. Transforming economies also witness a significant role of the transnational diaspora in their entrepreneurial and innovation processes (Riddle, Hrivnak, & Nielsen, 2010). Further, at the level of corporate entrepreneurship, London and Hart (2004) argue that results of studies of subsidiary entrepreneurship undertaken in advanced market economies may not generalize to transforming market economies. In summary, a fundamental question is whether entrepreneurship and innovation in transforming economies are diverging from the norms of advanced economies as these countries get wealthier and develop entirely new trajectories (Hill & Mudambi, 2010).

This Management of Organization Review (MOR) special issue aims to explore the key features of the innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem in India. There is recent evidence that innovation and entrepreneurship dynamics in transforming economies differ from like processes in advanced market economies in significant ways (e.g., Maimone, Mudambi, Navarra, & Baglieri, 2016). Therefore, applying the dominant theoretical lens developed to study innovation and entrepreneurship in advanced market economies may be inappropriate. For instance, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) surveys clearly demonstrate the composition of total entrepreneurial activity (TEA) for advanced and transforming economies is substantially different, with a significantly higher level of ‘need-based’ entrepreneurship in the latter. Hence the typical advanced economy transition from wage employment to a larger share for entrepreneurship may be reversed in transforming economies. Transforming economies also witness a significant role of the transnational diaspora in their entrepreneurial and innovation processes (Riddle, Hrivnak, & Nielsen, 2010). Further, at the level of corporate entrepreneurship, London and Hart (2004) argue that results of studies of subsidiary entrepreneurship undertaken in advanced market economies may not generalize to transforming market economies. In summary, a fundamental question is whether entrepreneurship and innovation in transforming economies are diverging from the norms of advanced economies as these countries get wealthier and develop entirely new trajectories (Hill & Mudambi, 2010).

Management and Organization Review (MOR) aims to be the premier journal for advancing our knowledge of management and organizations in China and other transforming economies. It is a multidisciplinary journal rooted in the behavioral and social sciences underlying management research, broadly defined. MOR seeks to publish research from diverse social science disciplines, such as organization behavior, organization theory, strategic management, economics, economic geography, development studies, innovation theories, anthropology, political science, public administration, urban planning, cross-cultural and social psychology, international business, sociology, cognitive science, and institutional theory.