Political hazards and entry modes of Chinese investments in Africa

Africa has achieved the fastest growth rate of inward foreign direct investment (FDI) recently. Yet heightened political hazards present substantial challenges to foreign firms in Africa. This study examines the entry strategies that firms may take to mitigate such hazards by exploring the relationship between political hazards and entry mode choices in Africa. We further consider how an investing firm’s host country experience and foreign aid provided by its home country government to host countries in Africa can influence this relationship. In a sample of listed Chinese firms’ investments in Africa from 2000 to 2014, we find that Chinese firms tend to use the joint venture mode when political hazards are high in an African country. This relationship is weakened when they accumulate host country experience and when the Chinese government’s foreign aid to an African country increases. Our findings point to firm-level strategies to mitigate political hazards as well as instruments available to home country governments to help their multinational firms operating in host countries characterized by unstable political environments.     

Firm non‐market capabilities and the effect of supranational institutional safeguards on the location choice of international investments

Research Summary : We investigate the extent to which firms rely on supranational institutional safeguards versus their non‐market capabilities to offset the risks of investing abroad. We argue that firms with non‐market capabilities are insensitive to supranational institutional safeguards when choosing the location of their international investments. We show that supranational agreements between an investor's home and host nation, operationalized as bilateral investment treaties (BITs), increase the likelihood of investment, but there is substantial firm heterogeneity with respect to this relationship. Firms with various forms of non‐market capabilities are not sensitive to BITs, whereas other firms are more likely to invest under BITs. We advance the understanding of how firm non‐market capabilities can substitute for supranational institutional arrangements in addressing risks associated with host country institutional weaknesses. Managerial Summary : The risk of expropriation is one of the main concerns companies have when investing abroad. Because of this, many countries implement bilateral investment treaties (BITs) to safeguard foreign investments, alleviate foreign investor concerns, and promote investments. We show that only those companies without political competence or political connections favor countries with BITs when choosing where to invest. Companies with political competence or political connections, on the other hand, ignore BITs and apparently rely on their ability to influence governments whenever their foreign investments face expropriation threats. As a result, politically connected or competent companies can enter markets most of their competitors lacking these capabilities shy away from. They can, therefore, do business in environments in which they face less competition.     

Entry mode irreversibility,host market uncertainty,and foreign subsidiary exits

We examine how the exits of multinational companies’ foreign subsidiaries from host countries are foreshadowed by the irreversibility intrinsic to firms’ entry modes and the environmental uncertainty in host countries. For empirical testing, we run a Cox proportional hazard rate model on STATA 10 and deploy a dataset of Korean foreign direct investments (FDIs) for the period 1990–2007. We find a negative association between the greater irreversibility typical of wholly owned Greenfield investments or full acquisitions and subsidiary exits. We also note that host market uncertainty strengthens the impact of irreversible entry modes on subsidiary exits. Our findings support the argument that irreversible investments and uncertain environments are closely related to the probability of a subsidiary exiting.     

Economic and strategic considerations surrounding Chinese FDI in the United States

The growth of outward investment from China has generated expressions of concern from policymakers in the United States regarding the economic and national security impacts of such investments. While inward foreign direct investment (FDI) has come to be viewed by most observers as generally imparting net economic benefits to the host economy, acquisitions of US companies by Chinese multinational companies (MNCs) have been criticized on several grounds. One is based on the mode of entry itself: some critics believe that entry by acquisition brings lower benefits than greenfield entry. A second and more prominent concern is that acquisitions of US companies by Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) may be motivated by non-commercial objectives which, in turn, make those acquisitions of questionable value to the host economy. In this paper, we argue that Chinese FDI in the United States is more likely to take the form of acquisitions than greenfield investments for the foreseeable future. However, there is no strong case to be made that the host country economic benefits from Chinese FDI would be larger if entry took place primarily through greenfield investments. Furthermore, most of the alleged costs to the US economy from inward FDI from China are either unlikely to occur or are already anticipated by existing US laws and regulations, thus necessitating no additional, specific legislation.

The effect of own-firm and other-firm experience on foreign direct investment survival in the United States, 1987–92

We argue that foreign firms operating in a host country generate information spillovers that have potential value for later foreign direct investment. We test two predictions. First, we expect foreign direct investments by firms with experience in a host country to be more likely to survive than investments made by first-time entrants. Second, foreign direct investments will be more likely to survive the greater the foreign presence in the target industry at the time of investment, subject to two contingencies. The first contingency is that the relationship will be weak or nonexistent among firms with no experience in the host country, because these firms have difficulty evaluating and taking advantage of the information spillovers. The second contingency is that the presence of other foreign firms will not affect investment survival among firms that already have a presence in the target industry and undertake expansion. These firms already possess general information about the target industries and are unlikely to gain additional benefit from information spillovers. We find supportive evidence based on the survival to 1992 among 354 U.S. investments undertaken by foreign firms in manufacturing industries during 1987. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Political capabilities,policy risk,and international investment strategy: evidence from the global electric power generation industry

Whereas conventional wisdom holds that multinational enterprises (MNEs) invest less in host countries that pose greater policy risk—the risk that a government will opportunistically alter policies to expropriate an investing firm's profits or assets—we argue that MNEs vary in their response to host‐country policy risk as a result of differences in organizational capabilities for assessing such risk and managing the policy‐making process. We hypothesize that firms from home countries characterized by weaker institutional constraints on policy makers or greater redistributive pressures associated with political rent seeking will be less sensitive to host‐country policy risk in their international expansion strategies. Moreover, firms from home countries characterized by sufficiently weak institutional constraints or sufficiently strong redistributive pressures will seek out riskier host countries for their international investments to leverage their political capabilities, which permit them to attain and defend attractive positions or industry structures. We find support for our hypotheses in a statistical analysis of the foreign direct investment location choices of MNEs in the electric power generation industry during the period 1990–1999, the industry's first decade of internationalization. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Country—specific advantage and international cooperation

This paper tests the hypothesis that country-specific advantage embedded in firms of a particular nationality is a motivation for international interfirm cooperation. A sample of domestic and international cooperative relationships formed by Japanese firms in the commercialization of biotechnology is used to identify factors which differentiate domestic from foreign partners. The findings support our hypothesis that country-specific advantage is a significant variable in explaining differences between cooperative relationships with partners of different countries. The results of this study indicate that interfirm cooperation has implications for the international competitiveness of both firms and nations in high technology industries.     

State ownership of Chinese firms and their outward foreign direct investment: Political and economic contingencies

The extant literature offers inconsistent predictions and conflicting evidence regarding the relationship between state ownership and the internationalization of emerging market firms (EMFs). Drawing on institutional theory, we examine the moderating roles of political and economic institutions at the subnational and national levels in the link between state ownership and EMFs’ outward foreign direct investment (OFDI). Based on a sample of 1421 OFDI projects involving 286 Chinese listed firms in 115 host countries between 2003 and 2016, we find that state ownership can scale up OFDI when Chinese firms are headquartered in subnational regions with high institutional development or low economic development, or when political relationships between home and host countries are amicable or market growth in a host country is slow; otherwise, state ownership hinders OFDI. These findings offer new insights into the relationship between state ownership and the internationalization of EMFs.

     

Does international research and development increase patent output? An analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms

Internationalizing research and development is often advocated as a strategy for fostering the development of technological capabilities. Although firms conduct international R&D to tap into knowledge bases that reside in foreign countries, we argue that in order to benefit from international R&D investments firms must already possess research capabilities in underlying or complementary technologies. We examine the international R&D expansion activities, research capabilities, and patent output of 65 Japanese pharmaceutical firms from 1980 to 1991. We find that firms benefit from international R&D only when they possess existing research capabilities in the underlying technologies. In addition to refining our understanding of when international R&D enhances firm innovation, our results integrate asset‐seeking and asset‐based theories of foreign direct investment. Internationalizing R&D to tap into foreign knowledge bases is consistent with asset‐seeking theories of foreign direct investment, while the contingent nature by which firms benefit from international R&D is consistent with asset‐based theories of foreign direct investment and the notion of absorptive capacity. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Ownership strategy of Japanese firms: transactional,institutional, and experience influences

We compare the effects of transactional, institutional, and experience influences on the ownership strategies of Japanese investors. Our theoretical development suggests that the equity position of a foreign investor should increase as the specificity of the assets transferred to the foreign affiliate increases, but a lower equity position should be assumed when the foreign investor requires complementary assets to establish a foreign entry. International experience and a strong institutional environment also should lead to increases in the equity position of the foreign investor. These relationships were tested with data on more than 1000 Japanese investments in nine countries of East and South‐East Asia. The results demonstrate that experience and institutional factors were the most important influences on the ownership position taken in the foreign investment, while transactional factors had a much less important and a more ambiguous role. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Change and continuity in Japanese corporate governance

Previous studies on Japanese corporate governance were largely based on the agency theory framework, and can be seen as attempts to understand the unique monitoring mechanisms in the Japanese context. This paper briefly reviews prior research and then discusses the recent changes in the environment that have been affecting Japanese corporate governance. Our central argument is that there is both change and continuity in Japanese Corporate Governance. We also present emerging research from an institutional theory perspective. In this line of research, corporate governance is treated as part of a nation’s institutional framework and hence, researchers need to understand unique institutional arrangements that affect corporate governance practices and their change or continuity.

Shareholder valuation of foreign investment and expansion

This study analyzes when different foreign investment location choices are value creating for firms at different stages of international expansion. I argue that because direct investment in developing countries is riskier than in advanced countries, shareholders may not value a firm's investment in developing countries until that firm has experience from previous international investments and capabilities to better manage and hedge the higher levels of risk and uncertainty. Using a panel of 191 U.S. manufacturing firms and their foreign investments over a 20‐year period (1981–2000), the empirical results show that firm investments in advanced and developing countries are valued differently by shareholders, depending on the firm's prior international expansion, the firm's capabilities and experiences, and the knowledge intensity of the firm's industry. These results highlight the importance of considering firm location decisions, prior experiences, and resources when analyzing. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Strategic investments in Japanese corporations: do foreign portfolio owners foster underinvestment or appropriate investment?

This paper investigates the effect of foreign ownership on strategic investments in Japanese corporations. Foreign owners are typically portfolio investors who frequently buy and sell shares and hold diversified portfolios of small stakes in many firms. Prior research has presented two conflicting perspectives on the role of such investors: (a) their frequent trading leads to pressure for short‐term returns that fosters underinvestment; (b) their active trading fosters appropriate investments. We investigated the relationship between foreign ownership and strategic investments using dynamic panel data analysis of a sample of 146 Japanese manufacturing firms from 1991 to 1997. We found that foreign ownership enhances strategic investments (in R&D and capital intensity) to a greater extent when firms have growth opportunities than when they lack such opportunities. We conclude that foreign ownership fosters appropriate investment. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Competing capitalisms: capital investment in American,German, and Japanese firms

This study explains one way the home country institutional environment causes strategy differences across firms from different countries. It contrasts the investment conduct of American, German, and Japanese firms in the 10 largest manufacturing industries. We find profound national differences among these firms that are stable across industries. These differing conducts are tied to the institutional environments of the home market. The shareholder firms of the United States make investments primarily in response to expected investment returns, measured by Tobin’s Q ratio. The coalitional firms of Germany and Japan make investments primarily in response to the availability of internal finance, measured by operating cash flow. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The relevance of political affinity for the initial acquisition premium in cross‐border acquisitions

Research summary : In the context of economic nationalism, we investigate the relevance of political affinity between countries to the initial acquisition premium offered in cross‐border acquisitions. Political affinity is defined as the similarity of national interests in global affairs. We argue that political affinity affects how foreign acquirers anticipate their bargaining position in their negotiations with domestic target firms. With decreasing political affinity, the host government becomes increasingly likely to intervene against foreign firms in an acquisition deal. Consequently, foreign acquirers need to provide a more lucrative initial offer to dissuade target firms from leveraging government intervention to oppose the acquisition. Our prediction is supported by strong evidence that political affinity, as revealed by UN general assembly voting patterns, leads to lower initial acquisition premiums. Managerial summary : Media reports suggest that politics plays an important role in international business transactions. However, we still know very little about how bilateral political relations affect corporate decision‐making. In this article, we analyze the influence of the quality of bilateral political relations on the bidding behavior of foreign acquirers in cross‐border acquisitions. We argue that the host government is more likely to intervene against the foreign acquirer during deal negotiations if the quality of bilateral political relations is poor. A lower political affinity between countries therefore decreases the bargaining power of the acquirer and pushes up the initial bid premium the acquirer has to offer to the local target. Our empirical results confirm our argument. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

防范和控制国有石油公司海外直接投资的法律风险

海外油气投资金额巨大、法律关系复杂,属于国资委《中央企业全面风险管理指引》规定的重大风险管理对象。中国国有石油公司海外直接投资中的法律风险主要来自于并购或投标阶段以及项目经营阶段。防范海外直接投资法律风险,根本在于转变国有石油公司风险管理理念,全面建立法律风险防控体系。为此,在项目并购过程中,应加强团队协作,对项目进行详尽法律尽职调查;评估法律风险,设计收购协议谈判方案。在项目经营过程中,应重视项目并购后的整合,加强中国国有石油公司内部并购人员和项目经营人员的工作交接,完善标的公司治理结构;重视对资源国投资环境、行业惯例的研究;重视利益相关方关系建设。     

Absolute and relative resources as determinants of international acquisitions

Although it is established that firms sometimes expand abroad to augment their capabilities, previous studies have generally focused on technological determinants of foreign expansion. We analyze capability‐seeking aspects of foreign direct investment by examining the relationship between upstream (technological) and downstream (marketing) capabilities and the choice between acquisition and greenfield modes of international entry. In analyzing 2175 entries by British, German, and Japanese investors into the United States, we find that for downstream capabilities, which tend not to be geographically fungible, the absolute level of capabilities in the entered industry explains the mode choice. However, for upstream capabilities, which tend to be geographically fungible, the acquisition motive stems from a relative capability differential between host and home country firms. These results have implications for the concept of fungibility in the resource‐based view of the firm as well as for the literature on sourcing of resident assets by foreign firms, which has thus far ignored issues of entry mode and downstream assets. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Japanese joint ventures with western multinationals: Synthesising the economic and cultural explanations of failure

Many research studies have been done to explain the reasons for the tensions and failures observed in joint ventures between Japanese and Western multinational enterprises. These studies have identified, with various degrees of sophistication, the existence of cultural differences as a primary determinant of failure. Alternative explanations focus upon a transaction cost approach, emphasising opportunism and the danger of cheating in such strategic alliances. This paper synthesises the literature through the development of a new conceptual framework. This framework, which distinguishes between economic and cultural reasons for failure, provides a new lens to view the literature. It is demonstrated that the simple view of cultural incompatibility needs to be replaced by an awareness of the combined impact of cultural and economic forces on the viability of joint ventures between Japanese and Western firms.Lee T. Brown is a doctoral candidate in the Faculty of Management at the University of Toronto. Alan M. Rugman is Royal Bank Visiting Professor at the University of Alberta and Professor of International Business at the University of Toronto. Alain Verbeke is Assistant Professor of International Business at the University of Toronto. Helpful comments have been received from Nancy Adler, Mark Casson, Martin Evans, Tom Roehl, Mark Warner and Ken Watson.     

A comparative analysis of the internationalization of Chinese and Japanese firms

This paper integrates institution-, industry-, and resource-based views of internationalization and demonstrates that industrial characteristics, firm resources, and institutional factors can significantly explain the differences and similarities of international expansion of Chinese and Japanese multinational enterprises (MNEs). In particular, this paper maps the growth of Chinese MNEs since economic reforms in 1978 and that of Japanese MNEs after World War II. We illustrate the similarities and differences between Chinese and Japanese MNEs with two case studies: foreign direct investment (FDI) of Haier and Matsushita. We suggest that how firms internationalize, in addition to being influenced by industry- and resource-based considerations, is inherently shaped by the domestic and international institutional frameworks governing these endeavors.

Personal value systems of Japanese trainees and managers in a changing competitive system

A study of personal values held by Japanese and foreign students, trainees and managers showed recent Japanese trainees slightly more conservative than their 1979 cohorts. Foreign students and foreign managers held more pro-American work values than either Japanese managers or trainees. Finally, for the Japanese respondents, there was some evidence of specific shifts away from the Japanese employment system in the areas of thenenko compensation and promotion systems in their organisations.Roy J. Adams is a Professor of Industrial Relations in McMaster University; Richard B. Peterson is a Professor of Management and Organization in the University of Washington; Hermann F. Schwind is an Associate Professor in St. Mary's University.