متنوع سازی بین المللی شرکت های نوظهور بازار: بررسی چند سطحی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|13741||2013||16 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||10040 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Business Review, Volume 22, Issue 2, April 2013, Pages 421–436
This study develops a cross-level research model based on insights from the capabilities view and institutional theory. We examine the drivers of international diversification for firms from emerging economies, specifically how top managers’ prior experiences and a favorable institutional environment for human capital affects the international diversification of emerging-market enterprises (EMEs). This research demonstrates that firm- and country-level factors collectively influence the international diversification of EMEs. We find that an EME whose top managers have global managerial and technological experiences is more likely to venture into international markets when a favorable institutional environment provides globally competitive, highly skilled human capital. This study demonstrates that for a multidimensional phenomenon such as EMEs’ international diversification, a more complete picture emerges given a theoretical framework that builds on diverse perspectives which are empirically tested across levels.
Over the last three decades, the prevalence of economic liberalization has led to the internationalization of enterprises in emerging economies, which has become a phenomenon with important consequences for the global economy (Ramamurti, 2009 and Yang et al., 2009). On one hand, the rise of emerging-market enterprises (EMEs) from select emerging economies reflects individual firm efforts toward developing resources and capabilities; on the other hand, this phenomenon underscores the role of institutional support in providing a favorable environment for growth and internationalization (Peng et al., 2008 and Ramamurti, 2009). In the 1970s and 1980s, less-developed countries (LDCs) geared their institutions into playing an enabling role so that their firms could meet future global aspirations (Peng et al., 2008 and UNCTAD, 2009). They did so by creating an environment that allowed firms to compete and grow in the global marketplace rather than shackling them to bureaucratically regulated growth within domestic markets (Gelbuda, Meyer, & Delios, 2008). For their part, firms made a major shift toward competing in the global marketplace by exploiting institutionally nurtured firm resources and capabilities. Thus, EMEs and supporting institutions began to focus on internationalization through exports and foreign direct investments (FDI) (Luo, Zhao, Wang, & Xi, 2011). Over time, development of capabilities and institutional support have allowed the transition of select LDCs of yesteryears (e.g., the BRICS group—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) to become major emerging economies in the first decade of the twenty-first century (Mathews, 2006 and Ramamurti, 2009). Firms like Embraer, Haier, Huawei, Tata, and Infosys could successfully develop their competencies with institutional support and attain competitive advantage in the global markets (Khanna and Palepu, 2010 and Ramamurti, 2009). Their followers from emerging economies, though not as visible, are also on the rise and by 2050 may emerge as key players in their own sectors if the growth rate projected by Wilson and Purushothaman (2003) holds and conditions remain stable. In general, EMEs are fast becoming notable players on the global stage, evidenced by the dynamic growth rate of outward FDI, averaging 82% from 2003 to 2008 and resulting in an outward foreign investment of approximately US$351 billion by 2008 (Sauvant, Wolfgang, & McAllister, 2010, p. 5). Consistent with the growth in FDI of emerging-market multinationals, there are around 23,000 multinationals from developing countries (Sauvant et al., 2010, p. 6; UNCTAD, 2009). Given the growing importance of this phenomenon, scholars have called for greater attention to the issues relating to international diversification of EMEs. As Peng et al. (2008) state, “We currently know very little about how firms from emerging economies internationalize….if the field aspires to remain globally relevant, it seems imperative that more research be devoted to these critical strategic issues”. Ramamurti (2009) echoes this statement, claiming that EME internationalization issues have been the “least studied [and] neglect(ed) … situations that extant international business theory fails to explain well”. This was supported when our primary search revealed that none of the extant studies has focused on the role of managerial experience and favorable institutional environment as the potential drivers of internationalization.2 Results of this search are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Sample studies on international diversification (2000–2010). Reference Theoretical perspective used Research question/description Nature of study Context Role of managerial experience Role of environment for human capital Chittoor, Sarkar, Ray, & Aulakh (2009, OS) Resources and capabilities, Business Group, Examines whether Indian pharmaceutical firms’ access to international technological and financial resources enables internationalization Quantitative Indian pharmaceutical firms Technological and financial None Lopez, Kundu, and Ciravenga (JIBS, 2009) Theory of internationalization—gradual process of capability build-up versus Born global Examines whether born-global firms are prevalent in knowledge-based industries, and especially in small countries with open economies Quantitative Software industry of Costa Rica None None Elango and Pattnaik (JIBS, 2007) Uppsala model of internationalization, Network theory How firms from India build capabilities to operate in international markets through learning from parental networks Quantitative Indian manufacturing industries None None Aybar and Ficici (JIBS, 2009) M&A announcement and Value Creation Examine value implications of EME acquisition announcements Quantitative 13 countries, variety of industries None None Zhou, Barnes, and Lu (JIBS, 2010) Liabilities of newness and foreignness, learning advantages of newness, Knowledge and Network capability Examines how young international new ventures acquire learning advantages and avoid the liabilities of newness and foreignness for learning advantages of newness in their internationalization Quantitative China None None Luo and Tung (JIBS, 2007) Springboard perspective on internationalization of EMNEs Discusses unique traits that characterize the international expansion of EMEs, and the motivations Theory Development N/A Yes Yes Zhou, Wu, and Luo (JIBS, 2007) Social Networks Explains the purported relationship between internationalization and firm performance in the context of born-global small and medium enterprises Quantitative China None None Demirbag, McGuinness, and Altay (MIR, 2010) Dunning's eclectic/OLI perspective, TCE, risk management Investigates executives’ perceptions of uncertainty in decisions of joint venture versus owned subsidiary Quantitative Turkey None None Aulakh, Kotabe, and Teegan (AMJ, 2000) Cost leadership, differentiation, standardization models, and geographical diversification Develops a framework for examining the export strategies EMEs and their performance Quantitative Brazil, Chile, and Mexico None None Chittoor and Ray (JIM, 2007) Institutional theory; Strategic group analysis Diverse internationalization paths in response to institutional changes; exploration and exploitation of markets Qualitative Indian pharmaceutical firms None None Cuervo-Cazurra (JIM, 2008) Incremental internationalization model; OLI Paradigm Sequence of multi-nationalization of value-chain activities; role of home country location advantages and imperfections in transferability Qualitative Latin American firms None None Table options Indeed, firms from the developed triad of the U.S., Europe, and Japan have traditionally garnered most of the attention in the internationalization literature (Luo, 2003, Ohmae, 2005 and Peng et al., 2008). Extant research has paid attention to foreign entry decisions by firms in developed countries as they enter emerging economies (Mathews, 2006 and Yiu et al., 2007). As a result, there is scant literature on the drivers of internationalization for EMEs as well as the conditions that motivate EMEs to internationalize (Ramamurti, 2009, Wright et al., 2005 and Yiu et al., 2007). In view of numerous calls by scholars to address issues related to EMEs (e.g., Peng et al., 2008, Ramamurti, 2009, Yiu et al., 2007 and Wright et al., 2005), we believe it is time for a nuanced exploration of EME strategies, antecedents, and consequences. We begin with the premise that factors such as top management experience, capabilities, and institutions play an important role in the diversification of EMEs; and investigate key drivers of international diversification for firms from emerging economies. Consistent with Hitt, Tihanyi, Miller, and Connelly (2006), we believe that “labels as internationalization, geographic diversification, international expansion, globalization, and multinationality tend to refer to the same strategic management construct (i.e., international diversification)” (emphasis added), and use these terms interchangeably. This construct focuses on the strategy by which a firm expands sales of goods or services into different geographic locations or markets. We draw upon resource- and capability-based views and institutional theory to present a complementary view from the side of emerging economies. Specifically, we discuss the role of capabilities combined with an institutional environment for the internationalization of EMEs, applying an interactionist perspective that asserts that a combination of drivers at the firm and institutional levels will motivate geographic diversification ( Griffiths and Zammuto, 2005, Hitt et al., 2006, Ingram and Silverman, 2002 and Rugman and Verbeke, 1992). We have developed a multi-level theoretical model to examine the interactions between country-level institutional environment and firm-level resources. There have been numerous calls for multi-level theory in organization science and given the multidimensional nature of internationalization, scholars have called for reviewing the dependence on a unilevel approach and supplementing it with multilevel analysis (e.g., Bruton et al., 2008, Gupta et al., 2007 and Ramamurti, 2009). The literature review summary table (Table 1) also shows that issues related to EME internationalization are usually examined using a unilevel analysis (Bruton et al., 2008). Although unilevel studies at firm- or country-levels have made notable contributions, we propose that a more complete picture of the phenomenon will emerge when these effects are considered in combination. This is because of the following issues associated with the unilevel research approach: First, focusing only on one level of analysis assumes that most heterogeneity is located at the chosen level (e.g., firm level) with an assumption that alternate levels of analysis (e.g., institutional or country-levels) are more or less homogeneous ( Gupta et al., 2007 and Rothaermel and Hess, 2007). Second, by considering only one level of analysis, researchers presume that the focal level of analysis is basically independent of interaction with other levels of analysis ( Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994). For example, firm-level heterogeneity (e.g., a variation in technological and human capital within firms across countries) is assumed to be relatively independent of the institutional environment that affects firms operating in different contexts. Overall, the use of a single level of analysis implies homogeneity in and independence of alternate levels of analysis that could render spurious empirical findings ( Rothaermel & Hess, 2007). We analyze international diversification across levels and use Hierarchical Linear Modeling to simultaneously estimate country-level and firm-level parameters supplementing extant findings. Theoretically, this study is developed around an overarching theme: Within the context of an EME, a combination of favorable institutional environment for human capital, top management team's (TMT's) global managerial experience, and TMT's experience with vanguard technologies motivates the use of international diversification strategy. Methodologically, we use a hierarchical, nested analysis to analyze how the drivers of internationalization at one level of analysis are linked to those at another. This approach considers threats of homogeneity and independence by accounting for the potential heterogeneity both in and across firm and country levels. A combined use of this multilevel approach will provide a richer and more complete perspective of this complex, multidimensional process (Klein et al., 1994 and Rothaermel and Hess, 2007). In sum, we seek to contribute to the literature by developing a multilevel theoretical framework that builds on the insights of capabilities and institutional frameworks, while applying hierarchical modeling to test the proposed theoretical framework in the context of EMEs. Whether an alignment of institutional support with firm capabilities translates to EMEs’ internationalization is the empirical question that we hope to address in this study. We begin by discussing resources and capabilities and their role in the internationalization process (e.g., Kumar, 2009). Next, we present our theoretical model and develop hypotheses at firm, country, and cross-levels. Third, we test these hypotheses using a database of approximately 25,000 firms from 25 countries.3 Fourth, we discuss the results of our analyses. Finally, we present conclusions, implications and suggestions for future research.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Table 2 presents means, standard deviations and correlations of the all variables used in this study. In Appendix A, we provide additional descriptive statistics on those variables that are included in the final model. In order to avoid any potential distortion by sample sizes, we checked the correlations separately for each level (Marrone, Tesluk, & Carson, 2007). Because correlations at the individual level do not take into account the nested nature of the data (e.g., non-independence), we interpret these results with caution by not considering these results as definitive.