عملکرد شرکت و تنوع بخشی بین المللی: مزایای رقابتی داخلی و خارجی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|305||2010||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 7614 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Business Review, Volume 19, Issue 6, December 2010, Pages 607–618
This paper examines (a) the relation between the institutional framework of a firm's home country and the firm's development of its internal and external competitive advantages, and (b) whether—and if so, how—a firm's preference for, or dependency on, either internal or external capabilities affects the relation between international diversification and firm performance. Based on a sample of more than 1,500 manufacturing firms in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Denmark, the results show that countries’ institutional factors (i.e., capital markets, financial intermediaries, and skilled workforce) significantly impact both internal and external competitive advantages of the firms. The paper also sheds light on how the mix of internal and external competitive advantages affects the relation between international diversification and firm performance. Accordingly, the results support an S-shaped relation structured in three different phases, irrespective of the firms’ orientation toward internal or external capabilities.
Literature on international diversification has covered many topics (see Buckley and Casson, 2009, Buckley and Ghauri, 1999, Coviello and McAuley, 1999, Johanson and Vahlne, 2009 and Rugman, 2009 for comprehensive reviews). One of the most promising fields among of them is the relation between firm performance and both international diversification/internationalization. Although the literature agrees that international diversification impacts firm performance (Ansoff, 1965, Auruškevičienė et al., 2008, Brock and Yaffe, 2008 and Vissak, 2009), exactly how it affects performance—and in which direction—remains an open and sometimes divisive question. Whereas some studies have shown a positive link (Delios and Beamish, 1999 and Grant et al., 1988), others have found a negative linear (Denis et al., 2002 and Michel and Shaked, 1986), a U-shaped (Lu & Beamish, 2001), an inverted U-shaped (Kotabe, Srinivasan, & Aulakh, 2002), or a horizontal S-curve relation (Li, 2005 and Lu and Beamish, 2004). To reconcile these conflicting results, some authors (e.g., Capar and Kotabe, 2003, Contractor, 2007 and Contractor et al., 2003) propose a model that incorporates three stages. Likewise, Lu and Beamish (2004), and Li (2005), in their studies of internationally operating Japanese firms, present a three-stage theoretical framework represented by a horizontal S-curve. In the same vein, Hennart (2007) bases on the transaction cost theory to state that there is no theoretical basis for expecting a systematic relationship between a firm internationalization and its performance. However, none of these models account for the institutional environment, such as the country's financial system or skilled labor market, which can greatly impact the internationalization process (Beck et al., 2001, Carlin and Mayer, 2003, Levine, 1998, Rajan and Zingales, 1995 and Rajan and Zingales, 2003). All multinational firms must exploit a set of specific assets, which are directly affected by the home country's institutional framework. Internal capabilities are defined as the firm's ability to generate added value and include, for example, developing a corporate culture3 and work organization, generating innovative ideas, creating a culture of innovation, and raising funds for innovation. External capabilities allow the firm to reach the greatest added value in a more cost-effective way by, for example, good use of external information from partners, competitors, and banks; a stronger market orientation; a strong management team dynamic; and partnerships with scientific institutions that help develop capital and labor endowments. Of particular importance, given the importance of social relations to provide organizational legitimacy, is the creation of social capital (i.e., the ability to mobilize extramural resources and attract customers, conditioned by social external networks; Granovetter, 1985). The success of internationalization is dependent on the exploitation of these firm-specific assets (e.g., organizational advantages, technological knowledge, and reputation; Caves, 1996 and Dunning, 1993). Depending on the institutional framework, these capacities may be difficult to exploit through the market and, thus, may be more useful when internalized by the firm. On the other hand, institutional structures of individual countries may boost the combination of external and internal firms’ capabilities and, thus, strengthen their competitiveness. Therefore, a country's institutional environment impacts how internationally functioning firms balance their internal and external capabilities to achieve their highest performance. The paper has two goals. First, we examine the relation between institutional development of countries and the exploitation of internal and external competitive capabilities. Specifically, we explore the relation (a) between countries’ relevant financial variables and their firms’ external competitive advantages and (b) the relation between skilled labor and firms’ internal competitive advantages. Second, we examine whether firms’ preference for, or dependency on, either internal or external capabilities affects the relation between international diversification and firm performance. This study employs social capital theory and the resource-based view (Agndal et al., 2008, Fahy, 2002, Presutti et al., 2007 and Yli-Renko et al., 2002). Specifically, included in social capital theory is an emphasis on the importance of a firm's capacity to use external capabilities to build business, information, research and social networks including customers, suppliers of funds, equipment, material, and other partners in the corporate group (Landry et al., 2002, Pennings et al., 1998, Rasiah, 2003 and Wignaraja, 2007). Conversely, a resource-based view emphasizes the existence of unique resources within the firms, which allows them to set up internal capabilities that foster internal competitive advantages such as investment in intangible assets. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the theoretical background and hypotheses. Section 3 details the data, method, and variables. Section 4 reports the main empirical findings, and Section 5 summarizes the main findings.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper examines the relation between the institutional development of countries and the exploitation of internal and external competitive capabilities by firms as it relates to firms’ DOI. Specifically, the study analyzes how the mix of—that is, the preference for or dependence on—internal and external competitive advantages may affect the relation between international diversification and firm performance. Two questions are examined. First, can countries’ financial structure and skilled labor be related to the firms’ internal and external competitive advantages? Second, can the reliance of firms on either internal or external competitive advantages modify the relation between DOI and performance? Based on a sample of more than 1,500 manufacturing firms in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Denmark between 1991 and 2001, the analysis of canonical correlation and quadratic and cubic regression models shows that countries’ institutional factors significantly impact on both the internal and external competitive advantages of the home countries’ firms. Another result is that the relation between international diversification and firm performance can be structured in three clearly differentiated phases (S-shaped). This relation holds both for countries whose firms are oriented to external competitive advantages (i.e., Spain), countries that rely primarily on internal competitive advantages (i.e., France), and countries that use both types of advantages (i.e., Germany, the United Kingdom, and Denmark). This S-shaped relation can be due to technology and reputation barriers among countries, transaction costs, the development of the specific capabilities of the firms, the implementations of suitable coordination and governance mechanisms in firms, and diseconomies of scale along the different stages of internationalization. This research has clear applied implications. Managers who do not take into account the role of the country's institutional environment may fail to develop the most appropriate firm capabilities and international diversification strategies. Given the differences across countries, firms’ managers should carefully consider which firm capabilities and international diversification strategies are most appropriate based on the countries in which they compete. Also, the approach used in this paper may have important implications for public policy makers who face critical issues, such us privatization and corporate restructuring. Reforms that are untaken without a foundational understanding of the country's institutional environment may lead to negative outcomes. Therefore, the challenge for policy makers is to attain a detailed understanding of the country's institutional environments and firm capabilities to implement the most suitable measures. The findings are limited insofar as the data are collected only from Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Denmark. This sampling of countries leaves open the question of whether the findings would change if the markets in which the firms entered were very different. Thus, an unexplored area for research is on firm strategy in emerging and less developed countries. The role of ownership is another promising avenue for future research on this topic. Rather than a country-level effect, a firm-level analysis would be of interest, given the relation among firms’ ownership structure and some other characteristics such as size, financial leverage, and DOI. Finally, future research could also expand the analysis including not only information from databases but from interviews, which would broaden the analysis to provide a multidimensional measure of DOI