Latin America (LA) increasingly serves as the headquarters of internationally oriented companies (Goldstein, 2010). The favorable evolution and economic growth of Latin American countries have largely contributed to the development of businesses and the emergence of multinationals, called Multilatinas. Riviera & Soto (2010) define them as “those multinationals originating in Latin America that own and control access abroad through foreign direct investment and develop value-added activities”. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay. However, Cuervo-Cazurra (2007) further describes them as smaller companies, with less technology and less sophisticated resources than multinationals. However, multi-Latinas have grown internationally by proving themselves to be emerging challengers and survivors in volatile institutional environments due to their home country experience. Therefore, although Latin American countries have not been the most stable economically and politically, they have been the most stable in times of crisis. To understand how the Multilatinas came into being, we must understand the economic changes Latin America has gone through. The region has been the main exporter for years, but only recently (in the last 20-30 years) has it been opened to international operations. It is therefore necessary to highlight the political and economic context that influenced the late internationalization process of Multilatinas. From the 1940s through the 1980s, Latin American companies relied on import substitution models, high levels of regulation, and high government intervention, which protected companies from all types of competitors (Bruton, 1998). As a result, firms were more likely to source domestic consumption and export methods to exploit the competitive advantage resulting from abundant natural resources and low labor costs at home (Vernon-Wortzel & Wortzel, 1988). Because of this, Los Angeles companies had no pressure and little initiative. improve one's competitiveness (Bruton, 1998). However, during the 1980s and 1990s, a pro-market reform process (also known as the Washington Consensus) took place that served as a macroeconomic stabilizer (Bullmer-Thomas, 2001). This brought significant competition to Los Angeles, forcing companies to consider expansion methods to find stability for business operations elsewhere. Due to limited domestic markets, import barriers, opportunism, and increasing competition, Los Angeles companies have begun building assets abroad to survive. We therefore witness a significant increase during the 1990s in FDI as a result of the policies of economic openness and trade liberalization, which gave rise to Multilatinas (Cuervo-Cazurra, 2010) (Figure X). When we identify the most globally recognized multi-Latinas among the top 100 companies in Latin America, we can observe that the majority of them derive from the largest economies in the region; Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Chile and even Colombia (Cuervo-Cazurra, 2010) (Figure X). Furthermore, the “New Latin America” is also encouraging the emergence of more global multi-Latinas, spurred by political, social, entrepreneurial and environmental innovations. , which motivates them to move directly into developed markets (Casanova, 2010). Therefore, it is wrong to believe that the internationalization process is the same for all companies. Despite being 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 experiencing a discrepancy with internationalization theories. Casanova and Fraser (2009) explain the internationalization of Multilatinas in 3 phases. First, the period between the 1970s and 1990s in which multi-Latinas engaged in emerging foreign direct investment. Then, between the 1990s and 2002, their FDI expansion and the phase in which they experienced organizational restructuring to compete in the new environment, learn and survive. Finally, in 2002 and thereafter, Multilatinas entered into larger foreign direct investment transactions, accessing international capital markets through corporate acquisitions 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 subsequent development of a firm's international commitment in terms of geographical spread of markets, products and operational forms” (Albaum et al, 1994). Internationalization theory further explains that the motivations and patterns by which firms go abroad are based on the ideas of transaction costs and the firm's growth potential for further benefits (Rugman, 1981). These advantages include economies of volume, information gathering, product improvement, operational flexibility and stability, tax arbitrage, and organizational advantage (Mitchell et al., 1993). However, becoming a multinational requires solving additional difficulties as the internationalization process extends and foreign market knowledge becomes limited. Consequently, firms must balance the benefits and costs of participating in the global market (Hsu et al., 2003). While firms may profit from higher returns, they may also experience risks such as physical restrictions, institutional voids, or poor resource transferability as a consequence of the responsibility of being foreign (Cuervo-Cazurra et al., 2007). In this regard, Ramamurti and Singh (2010) question and examine the strategies for competitive advantage that have enabled emerging firms such as Multilatinas to aggressively internationalize in the market, which develops the international business (IB) literature by suggesting the path of multinationalization in emerging economies. The researchers recommend that companies recognize the internationalization process when undertaking global expansion in order to analyze influences that could influence the pace and strategies for global success. The literature strongly suggests incremental internationalization for this purpose as a method to evaluate benefits and costs at each stage, in order to assess the potential survival of the firm. Johanson and Vahle (1977), founders of the theoretical model of gradual mutinationalization known as the Uppsala model, highlight the advantages of expanding into countries with cultural proximity and distance for faster adaptation, lower risks and less uncertainty. Therefore, enable companies to cultivate experiential learning, increasing their confidence in overall growth and resource commitment to ensure higher returns (Jian et al., 2014). Studies have shown that the internationalization of a firm is strongly motivated by profit maximization (McDougall & Oviatt, 1996). Contractor et al. (2003) eDunning (1981) agree and hypothesize that foreign expansion improves firm performance by spreading costs over a greater scale and scope. Since increasing performance is a priority for businesses, we need to address how the multinational impacts their efficiency and how this is affected by their speed and approach to global presence. Multinationality-performance relationship Empirical literature has flourished in the last ten years attempting to discover whether the multinationality of the company (M) influences its performance (P). Various theoretical approaches have been proposed to predict and explain the relationship, however, the results have been increasingly contradictory. Hennart (2007) interprets the MP relationship based on 2 predictions: 1. Multinationals seek lower risks by internationalizing 2. Multinationals internationalize to obtain higher profits Markowitz (1959) suggests that firms experience lower risks at any level of performance if they have assets located in a portfolio of countries that are not economically integrated. Portfolio theory supports this by suggesting that firms with operations in a variety of countries may enjoy 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 reduce the costs to a minimum (Contractor et al., 2003). TCI contradicts portfolio theory by arguing that multinationals are unable to achieve risk reduction through portfolio diversification due to its limited investments in countries with different business cycles, which defeats Hennart's (2007) initial prediction. Furthermore, researchers also criticize economies of scale that lead to higher profits, since selling in many foreign countries does not necessarily offer advantages over selling in just one or even none (Hennart, 2006). George et al. (2005) warn businesses that multinationality not only provides benefits to businesses, but also increases costs that could potentially reduce their performance. Therefore, we propose and emphasize investments in knowledge acquisition to prevent internationalization failures and performance deterioration. Linear Relationship As mentioned above, the literature on PD suffers from conflicting schools of thought. Therefore, we look to empirical research to explain correlation in measures rather than theories. Initial Scholar findings developed a linear relationship in which increasing internationalization is positively followed by performance, demonstrating that the benefits of multinationality are greater than the costs (Hajela and Akbar, 2013; Contractor et al., 2007; Nachum, 2004). Gomes and Ramaswamy (1999) also suggest that despite the increase in profitability resulting from internationalization, it will ultimately have a decreasing rate. Other studies suggest a negative MP relationship, which is similarly interpreted as a positive correlation (Singla & George, 2013; Collins, 1990). The researchers also suggest that in the linear MP relationship, firms that engage in FDI perform better than those that do not during a financial crisis. This is criticized by Yang and Driffield (2010) who state that multinationals struggle to access resources for long-term investments during critical periods, thus showing no effect. Curvilinear Relationship Further studies suggest a curvilinear relationship depicted as a U-shape to explain how companies