Search results

This research seeks to understand the drivers of outward foreign direct investments (FDIs) by state-owned emerging economy firms, the characteristics of their overseas FDI projects and investment locations, and the effects of home and host institutions on the market entry strategies, taking into account the legitimacy of state ownership.

The discussion is based on a comprehensive review of conceptual and empirical literature, as well as case studies available from recognized journals in the field.

State-owned emerging economy firms pursue outward FDIs to respond to policy incentives of the home government and to reduce its political influence over the firm. FDI projects are often large and risky and have low business values. They often enter countries where state ownership is perceived as more legitimate while engaging in legitimacy-building activities in these countries. When their home country has a high level of institutional restrictions, they are less likely to use acquisitions or hold high levels of equity control in foreign subsidiaries. To strengthen local legitimacy, they often use greenfield investments or share equity control with local firms in foreign subsidiaries, particularly when the host country is endowed with strategic assets or when it has a high level of institutional restrictions. However, when having high levels of state ownership or strong political connections, they often commit a high level of resources and hold a high level of equity control in foreign subsidiaries.

The literature mostly investigates the FDI of firms that are structurally separate from the institutions. When the institutions are endogenous as presented in this research, their strategic choices are substantially influenced by noncommercial political motives and perception on their political image.

We contend that the concept of liability of foreignness is inadequate to describe the set of disadvantages faced by emerging economy multinational enterprises (MNEs) in international markets. In order to address this theoretical gap, we develop the concept of “liabilities of origin” (LOR). We propose that the concept of LOR explains how the national origins of the MNE shape its disadvantages in international markets through three distinctive contexts of the MNE's ongoing activity: the home country context, the host country context, and the organizational context. We argue that in order to understand how emerging economy MNEs overcome their LOR, we need to engage simultaneously with the theoretical perspectives provided by the institutional entrepreneurship and organizational identity literatures. We suggest, further, that the concept of LOR may be useful to understand the character of MNE disadvantage in any international foray where the national origins of the MNE engender legitimacy-based and capability-based disadvantages for the MNE in a host country.

We investigate the effect of distance – political, economic, cultural and spatial, on developed-economy multinational enterprises’ (MNEs’) ownership decisions in cross-border (CB) acquisitions. We start with the premise that distance discourages full and majority ownership in CB acquisitions, and further investigate the moderating role of distance-reducing factors. We examine how the relationship between distance and acquisition ownership decision is moderated by firm-specific characteristics, such as firm size, general international experience, and specific host country experience. Our data sample consists of 1,041 CB acquisitions under taken by Finnish MNEs in 58 countries during the time period 1990–2010. We find substantial support for all our hypotheses and conclude that the negative effects of distance on CB acquisition equity stake are positively moderated by the three firm-specific resources but their individual importance is conditional on the host country type (developed or emerging).

In this chapter we study the intra-group transactions between the parent bank and its foreign subsidiaries in European Union (EU) countries during the crisis. We use hand-collected data from annual statements on related party transaction and find that they may create a serious problem for the stability of the foreign banks’ subsidiaries. Moreover, as some of those subsidiary banks were large by assets in some of the member states the related party transactions with the parent bank created a serious threat to the host countries’ financial system stability. We attribute this transaction to the weak governance in foreign subsidiaries. We suggest improvements in governance as well as greater disclosure of related party transactions in bank holding companies in Europe.

This study examines the effect of host government interference with foreign investors’ assets on foreign direct investment (FDI) inflow. The author hypothesizes that the relationship between host government interference and FDI inflow takes the form of an inverted U shape. The author tests this hypothesis using data from the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes between 1996 and 2017. The results support the above hypothesis. While host government interference with the assets of a few foreign investors may not deter FDI inflow, frequent interferences, which result in an increasing number of host state–foreign investor disputes, reduces FDI inflow in a host country. The analysis also shows that when faced with an increasing host country uncertainty, investors adopt a wait and see strategy. However, how long investors wait depends on the economic situation of the host country. For high-income countries, investors wait until approximately 10 disputes before reducing investments level in a host country, while for low-income countries, this waiting period is a mere two disputes. The findings of this study suggest that countries seeking to attract more FDI should not interfere with the activities of foreign investors, however, if they do, disputes should be settled at home, not in international arbitration courts, because doing so frequently may poison the host environment and deter other foreign investors from investing in the host country.

Through comparative analysis, this study attempts to uncover the differences and similarities among transnational company (TNC) investments in various host countries. After empirically analyzing the panel data collected from the US and Japanese TNCs' foreign R&D investments, it looks into the influences of the host countries' economies, technologies, and institutional factors on absorbing TNCs' foreign R&D investment from different countries. The host countries' market size and potential are still the main influencing factors in making the choice. The US TNCs focus mainly on host countries' scientific and technological capabilities and potentials, whereas those of Japan are concentrated more on the scientific and technological capabilities and personnel, so as to improve R&D. Moreover, the US TNCs show more attention to host countries' intellectual property protection than do those from Japan.

In developed markets, emerging market multinational enterprises (EMNEs) seem to be more discriminated by host country nationals than foreign developed market multinational enterprises (DMNEs). They are challenged with host country nationals’ prejudices and face a stigma of being from emerging markets. While literature agrees that EMNEs suffer from additional disadvantages due to their country-of-origin, research fails to identify those factors that may lead to a higher discrimination against EMNEs than against foreign DMNEs.

Based on institutional theory, we look at institutional-related and resource-related antecedents that have an impact on various forms of direct and indirect discrimination by host country nationals.

Our framework analyzes the crucial differences between host country nationals’ perception of EMNEs and foreign DMNEs and the resulting challenges for EMNEs in the developed world. It enhances our understanding of the importance of institutional environments in explaining differences in host country nationals’ discrimination against foreign MNEs.

This paper seeks to explain the serial persistence as well as the substantial number of zeros characterizing global bilateral investment holdings. We explore the different sources of serial persistence in the data (unobserved country pair effects, genuine state dependence, and transitory shocks) and examine the crucial factors affecting the decision to invest in a host country.

Based on a gravity setup, we consider investment behavior at the extensive (participation) margin and employ dynamic first-order Markov probit models, controlling for unobserved cross-sectional heterogeneity and serial correlation in the transitory error component, in order to explore the sources of persistence. Within this modeling framework we explore the importance of institutional quality of the host country in attracting foreign investment.

The data support that the strong persistence is driven by true state dependence, implying that past investment experiences strongly impact on the trajectory of future investment holdings. Institutional quality appears to play a significant role to attract foreign investment.

The empirical findings suggest that due to the existence of genuine state dependence, inward-investment stimulating policy measures could have a more pronounced effect since they are likely to induce a permanent change to the future trajectory of inward investment.

Both the substantial number of zeros and the salient persistence characterizing bilateral investment holdings decision have been previously overlooked in the literature. A study modeling jointly the levels and the selection mechanism could prove a fruitful direction for future research.

We examine the determinants of multinational firms’ propensity to conduct R&D activities in host countries, with specific attention to the influence of host countries’ university research. We consider heterogeneous locational drivers related to the type of R&D activity: basic research, applied research, development for local markets, and development for global markets. Drawing on official survey data on R&D activities by 498 Japanese multinational firms in 24 host countries and estimating two-stage models, we find that the likelihood that firms conduct R&D in a host country is generally increasing in the strength of university research. Conditional on a firm’s R&D presence, university research strength is associated with a greater propensity to conduct (basic) research activities rather than (local) development, while the intensity of host country university–industry collaboration is most strongly associated with applied research. Host country experience and the depth of the firm’s manufacturing presence are also associated higher propensities to engage in research.

Research suggests that context matters for MNEs’ international business strategy. MNEs’ strategies vary when different intertwined contexts interact with each other. While International Business scholars understand well the influence of the institutional environments on firms’ international strategies and operations, some contextual differences are less understood as is the case involving African countries and firms. In this study we investigate how different institutional contexts and legitimacy challenges combine to impact ownership strategic choices of African firms in their cross-border acquisitions (CBAs). Specifically, we study the influence of the host country institutional development and two institutional dimension distances: administrative distance and knowledge distance. Methodologically, we use a sample of 314 CBAs made by acquirers from 24 African countries in 71 host countries worldwide to test a number of theoretically driven hypotheses. This study contributes to our understanding of how foreign investors from less institutionally developed countries that are more likely to face higher legitimacy barriers use ownership strategies to achieve legitimacy abroad.