Latin America (LA) increasingly acts as the headquarters of internationally oriented companies (Goldstein, 2010). The favorable development and economic growth of Latin American countries have largely contributed to the development of businesses and the emergence of multinationals, called Multilatinas. Riviera and Soto (2010) define them as “those multinationals originating from Latin America which own and control access abroad through FDI and develop value-added activities”. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay However, Cuervo-Cazurra (2007) further describes them as smaller companies, with less technology and less sophisticated resources compared to multinationals. Nevertheless, Multilatinas have expanded internationally, emerging as new challengers and survivors in unstable institutional environments due to their experience in their home countries. So, although Latin American countries are not the most stable economically and politically, they have been the most stable in times of crisis. To understand how the Multilatinas were born, we must understand the economic changes that Latin America has gone through. The region has been the leading exporter for years, but only recently (over the past 20-30 years) has it opened up to international operations. It is therefore necessary to underline the political and economic context which influenced the late process of internationalization of Multilatinas. From the 1940s until the 1980s, Latin American businesses relied on import substitution models, high levels of regulation, and strong government intervention, which protected businesses from all types of competitors (Bruton, 1998 ). Therefore, firms were more likely to use domestic consumption and export methods to exploit their competitive advantage of abundant natural resources and low labor costs at home (Vernon-Wortzel and Wortzel, 1988). to improve their competitiveness (Bruton, 1998). Nevertheless, during the 1980s and 1990s, a pro-market reform process (also known as the Washington Consensus) took place, serving as a macroeconomic stabilizer (Bullmer-Thomas, 2001). This has brought significant competition to Los Angeles, forcing businesses to consider expansion methods in order to find stability for their business operations elsewhere. Due to limited domestic markets, import barriers, opportunism, and increasing competition, Los Angeles companies began establishing overseas assets to survive. We are therefore witnessing a significant increase during the 1990s in FDI due to policies of economic opening and trade liberalization, which gave birth to Multilatinas (Cuervo-Cazurra, 2010) (Figure X). By identifying the most recognized Multilatinas in the world among the 100 largest companies in Latin America, we can observe that most of them come from the largest economies in the region; Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Chile and even Colombia (Cuervo-Cazurra, 2010) (Figure X). Furthermore, the “new Latin America” also encourages the emergence of more global multinationals, encouraged by political and social, entrepreneurial and environmental innovations. , which motivates them to establish themselves directly in developed markets (Casanova, 2010). It is therefore erroneous to assume that the internationalization process is the same for allbusinesses. Although it is influenced by common characteristics such as local market demands, economic fluctuations, and political instability, it is difficult to identify a single path to internationalization (Riviera & Soto, 2010). The sequence and speed of action are not the same, thus being out of step with theories of internationalization. Casanova and Fraser (2009) explain the internationalization of Multilatinas in 3 stages. First, the period from the 1970s to the 1990s in which Multilatinas engaged in emerging FDI. Then, between the years 1990 and 2002, their FDI expansion and the stage at which they experienced organizational restructuring to compete in the new environment, learn and survive. Eventually, in 2002 and after, Multilatinas carried out larger FDI transactions, accessing international capital markets through the acquisition of companies and strategic alliances. Theories of Internationalization The phenomenon of internationalization has been widely discussed in the literature; however, it can be difficult to define due to its variable terminology. Therefore, for the purposes of this research, internationalization and multinationality will be used interchangeably. However, we will define the concept as “the successive development of a company's international involvement in terms of geographic spread of markets, products and forms of operations” (Albaum et al., 1994). Internationalization theory further explains that the motivations and patterns that drive firms to export abroad are based on the ideas of transaction costs and the firm's potential to grow for additional profits ( Rugman, 1981). These benefits include volume savings, intelligence gathering, product improvement, operational flexibility and stability, tax arbitrage, and organizational advantage (Mitchell et al., 1993). However, becoming a multinational company requires solving other difficulties as the internationalization process expands and their knowledge of the foreign market becomes limited. Therefore, firms must balance the benefits and costs of participating in the global market (Hsu et al., 2003). Although firms might enjoy higher returns, they might also experience risks such as physical restrictions, institutional voids, or poor transferability of resources due to foreign liability (Cuervo-Cazurra et al., 2007 ). In this regard, Ramamurti and Singh (2010) question and examine the competitive advantage strategies that have enabled emerging companies like Multilatinas to aggressively internationalize in the market, which expands the international business literature (IB) by suggesting the path of mutation in emerging economies. Researchers recommend that companies recognize the internationalization process when considering global expansion to analyze the influences that could impact the pace and strategies for global success. The literature strongly suggests gradual internationalization for this purpose as a method of assessing benefits and costs at each stage. in order to assess the company's potential for survival. Johanson & Vahle (1977), founders of the theoretical model of gradual mutation known as the Uppsala model, emphasize the benefits of expanding into countries close in culture and distance for faster adaptation, risks less and less uncertainty. learning, thereby increasing their confidence in growthglobal and commitment of resources to ensure higher returns (Jian et al., 2014). Studies have shown that a firm's internationalization is strongly motivated by profit maximization (McDougall and Oviatt, 1996). Entrepreneur et al. (2003) and Dunning (1981) agree and hypothesize that foreign expansion does improve firm performance by spreading costs over a larger scale and scope. Since increasing performance is a priority for businesses, we need to look at the importance of multinationals' efficiency and how this is affected by their speed and approach to a global presence. Multinationality-Performance Relationship Empirical literature has flourished over the past decade attempting to determine whether a firm's multinationality (M) affects its performance (P). Various theoretical approaches have been proposed to predict and explain this relationship, but the results are increasingly contradictory. Hennart (2007) interprets the MP relationship based on 2 predictions: 1. Multinationals seek lower risks by internationalizing 2. Multinationals internationalize to obtain greater profits Markowitz (1959) suggests that firms face higher lower risks at a given level of return if they have activities located in a portfolio of countries that are not economically integrated. Portfolio theory supports this by suggesting that firms with operations in a diversity of countries may benefit from lower risks than those that are less geographically diversified (Kim et al., 1993). . On the other hand, transaction cost/internationalization theory (TCI) supports Hennart's (2007) second prediction, suggesting that economies of scale, flexible access to resources, better technology, and universal exposure minimize costs (Contractor et al., 2003). TCI contradicts portfolio theory by asserting that multinationals are unable to reduce risk through portfolio diversification due to their limited investments in countries with different economic cycles, which goes against the original prediction of Hennart (2007). Furthermore, researchers also criticize economies of scale leading to greater profits, as selling in many foreign countries does not necessarily offer advantages over selling in just one or even any what other (Hennart, 2006). Georges et al. (2005) warn companies that multinationality not only brings them benefits, but also increases costs, which could potentially reduce their performance. Therefore, we propose and emphasize investment in knowledge acquisition to prevent internationalization failures and performance deterioration. Linear Relationship As mentioned previously, the MP literature suffers from conflicting schools of thought. Therefore, we consider empirical research to explain the correlation in measurements rather than theories. Scholar's initial findings developed a linear relationship in which increased internationalization is positively followed by performance, demonstrating that the benefits of multinationality outweigh the costs (Hajela and Akbar, 2013; Contractor et al., 2007 Nachum, 2004). Gomes and Ramaswamy (1999) further estimate that although profitability will increase due to internationalization, it will eventually decline. Other studies suggest a negative MP relationship, which is also interpreted as a positive correlation (Singla & George, 2013; Collins,