Search results

In the absence of well-developed, formal institutional frameworks, informal network-based strategies have been argued to be especially viable in emerging economies. However, some empirical research has challenged these earlier theoretical arguments. In light of new evidence, this chapter develops a contingency perspective differentiating firms' networks as strong ties and weak ties. It suggests that while strong-tie networks are typically found during the early phase of institutional transitions, weak-tie networks are more likely to be developed and leveraged during the late phase of transitions. The upshot is that as the performance benefits of strong ties decline during institutional transitions, emerging weak ties' impact on firm performance is likely to increase.

This paper points out new directions for the deepening and broadening of the institution-based view, by drawing on three streams of research with which I have been involved recently: (1) outward foreign direct investment from emerging economies, (2) bankruptcy laws and entrepreneurship development, and (3) institution-based research focusing on Africa. Such deepening has been accomplished by enhancing our institution-based understanding of foreign direct investment with a focus on emerging multinationals, while broadening has been done both substantively by probing into the impact of bankruptcy laws on entrepreneurship development around the world and geographically by calling for enhanced research attention on Africa via an institution-based lens.

Extending the proposition that boards of directors influence firms’ mergers and acquisitions (M&As), studies have investigated how board interlocks – network ties formed by directors — may shape M&A processes and outcomes. While board interlocks and M&As are two streams of research, each underpinned by voluminous studies, their cross-fertilization has been relatively limited. In this chapter, the authors take stock of prior research investigating the relationship between board interlocks and M&As. Specifically, emphasizing the network features of board interlocks, the authors highlight a connection aspect and a structure aspect of board interlocks in appreciating their effects during pre-acquisition and post-acquisition phases. Based on this framework, the authors then lay out a research agenda that can further bridge board interlocks with M&As. Overall, this chapter endeavors to integrate and expand our knowledge on the acquisition implications of board interlocks.

The purpose of this paper is to examine an important yet underexplored research question in the literature: What determines the length of contract governing buyer–supplier relationships during market transitions? The length of contract is a solid indicator of the comprehensiveness of a contract. By integrating transaction costs economics, the embeddedness perspective and the institution-based view, the paper develops a model that incorporates specific investments and perceived opportunism, strategies to select suppliers and buyer firms’ confidence in the institutional environment. It further posits how buyer firms’ dependence on suppliers moderates these relationships.

Data were collected nationwide via face-to-face interviews with 328 executives in 164 Chinese firms who shared information pertaining to 774 buyer–supplier contracts. A fine-grained mixed-empirical method was designed to test the proposed hypotheses, to confirm the reliability and to generalize the research findings.

All the proposed factors significantly influence the length of the contract. Results obtained through a moderated mediating model suggest that buyers with supplier-specific investments and that choose market-based selection relative to a relationship-based tend to perceive more opportunism in buyer–supplier relationships, which will lead to shortening the length of the contract. However, the buyer’s perception of opportunism will decrease when buyers perceive higher levels of confidence in their legal institutions.

The study discusses several practical implications for B2B managers who typically involve in interfirm exchanges as well as for emerging economies’ institutions.

Leveraging theoretical insights from transaction cost economics, the institution-based view and buyer–supplier relationships literature, this empirical study adds unique contributions to B2B research in general and emerging economies’ institutional literature in particular.

One of the leading themes emerging out of recent management and organization research on China is the work on the micro–macro link – specifically, the connection between micro, interpersonal connections, ties, and networks on the one hand, and macro, interorganizational relationships, firm strategies, and performance on the other hand. This chapter provides an overview of the literature on the micro–macro link during China's institutional transitions. Based on a systematic search of the literature, we review 22 papers in nine leading journals that have empirically investigated the micro–macro link, with a focus on the antecedents, contingencies, and outcomes of managerial ties and interlocking directorates. We also propose how the network structure of managerial ties will evolve from cohesion to structural holes in different phases of China's institutional transitions. We conclude with a brief overview of the influence of China studies on research in other contexts and with a call for future research deepening our understanding of the crucial micro–macro link during institutional transitions.

Since institutions are typically conceptualized as “the rules of the game in a society” (North 1990: 3; Scott 1995), “institutional transitions” are defined as “fundamental and comprehensive changes introduced to the formal and informal rules of the game” (Peng 2003: 275). One of the most dramatic sets of institutional transitions in the last two decades has been the political, economic, and social changes sweeping across Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), the newly independent states (NIS) of the former Soviet Union, and the East Asian countries of China and Vietnam. In fact, these institutional transitions are so profound that these countries, formerly known as the Eastern bloc, have now been collectively labeled “transition economies.”

This paper aims to explore the interlock-performance relationship among mainland Chinese firms listed in Hong Kong by taking advantage of a relationship-intensive context whereby such a link is likely to be especially important. Although strategic networks such as interlocking directorates have been found to affect a number of strategic behaviors, the link connecting board interlocks and corporate performance has remained ambiguous. Considerable light has been shed on the strategic networks of firms whose shares are listed abroad, which have been under-studied despite their rising importance in the global economy.

Data come from a particularly interesting historical period – the early 1990s prior to Hong Kong’s 1997 handover to China. Both quantitative and qualitative research have been used.

Empirically, it was found that good performance in an earlier period helps draw outside directors in a later period, and that network centrality and certain types of interlocks help improve performance, albeit with varying degrees. Overall, our results answer the question whether strategic networks such as interlocks matter for corporate performance with a qualified “yes”.

Taking advantage of a relationship-intensive context, this article explores the interlock-performance relationship among mainland Chinese firms listed in Hong Kong. Focus is specifically on the two years, 1993 and 1995, due to their specific historical importance because these two years represent the beginning of Chinese firms’ listing in Hong Kong.

The paper aims to argue that the social responsibility of international business (IB) scholars is to seek truth, disseminate learning, and make a difference on issues crucial to the global economy.

Instead of making philosophical and abstract arguments on the importance of the social responsibility of IB scholars, this article focuses on a leading debate of the times: how to view the rise of China's outward foreign direct investment (OFDI)? The article argues that the so‐called “China threat” brought by such OFDI, as it is often portrayed by the (Western) media, is a myth that cannot be substantiated by evidence‐based scholarly analysis.

At present, China's OFDI stock represents a mere 1.21 percent of global OFDI stock. It would be absurd to believe that such a tiny sum can “buy up the world”. Based on findings, three hypotheses on what is behind the myth about China's OFDI are offered.

Although some IB (and management) scholarships have been criticized for their alleged lack of relevance to practitioners and policymakers, this paper disagrees. IB scholars need to engage with issues of grave importance not only to the IB field but also to the wider world, such as China's OFDI.

The article ends with a series of suggestions on how IB scholars, driven by social responsibility, can shed light on, clear the air, and steer the course of public perception, by drawing on time‐honored, evidence‐based scholarly tradition.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first article in the literature on IB scholars' social responsibility.

This study focuses on home country institutions as sources of variation in the level of foreign investment into India. Our findings support the idea that institutional voids found in India are less of a deterrent to investments from home countries with high levels of institutional development than from home countries with similar institutional voids. Overall, foreign investments in India are found to be significantly related to the strength of institutions within home countries. The levels of both approved and realized foreign direct investment (FDI) are strongly influenced by economic factors and home country regulative institutions, and weakly influenced by home country cognitive institutions. When considered separately, the cognitive institutions and regulative institutions within a given home country each significantly influence the level of approved/realized FDI into India. However, when considered jointly, only the strength of regulative institutions is predictive of FDI inflows.