ماهیت و عوامل موثر بر رشد بهره وری شعبه های خارجی در کشورهای مرکزی و شرق اروپا
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|11561||2009||17 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 9020 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
|شرح||تعرفه ترجمه||زمان تحویل||جمع هزینه|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت عادی||هر کلمه 90 تومان||13 روز بعد از پرداخت||811,800 تومان|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت فوری||هر کلمه 180 تومان||7 روز بعد از پرداخت||1,623,600 تومان|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Economic Systems, Volume 33, Issue 2, June 2009, Pages 168–184
The paper examines the determinants of productivity growth in foreign manufacturing subsidiaries in five Central and East European (CEE) countries by analysing patterns of control, nature of firms’ capabilities and firms’ market orientations. Building on the so-called ‘subsidiary development’ perspective, we show that productivity growth is determined jointly by corporate governance, production capability and market orientation variables. Within a dominantly production-oriented mandate, CEE subsidiaries have a relatively high level of autonomy in the control of their business functions. Majority foreign equity shareholding has a significant and positive impact on subsidiaries’ productivity growth. Our results show strong regional characteristics.
One of the key drivers of catch-up in the European Union (EU) new member states is the narrowing of the productivity gap with older member states. So far, foreign direct investment (FDI) has been an important vehicle for these economies’ increased productivity. FDI has a mainly direct impact, i.e. through higher productivity of foreign subsidiaries, whether greenfields or acquisitions, rather than productivity growth in indigenous enterprises (Hunya, 2000, Holland et al., 2000 and Jindra, 2006). The indirect effects of FDI captured by econometric research suggest that horizontal spillovers are either absent or negative (Damijan et al., 2003, Konings, 2001, Jensen, 2002 and Gorg and Greenaway, 2002), but that there are vertical spillovers (Damijan et al., 2003 and Smarzynska Javorcik, 2004), although more evidence is needed on this latter aspect. The economic perspective has advanced our understanding of the effects and role of FDI in Central and East European (CEE) economies. However, research on spillovers suffers from definitional problems, i.e. what is being measured, and from poor proxies (Harris and Robinson, 2004). We also know little about the micro-mechanisms through which FDI exerts its influence in these economies. To advance our understanding of the micro-elements of FDI requires new concepts and new types of data (Meyer, 2003). In this paper, we try to address some of these deficiencies by examining the micro-level, based on a large-scale survey of FDI subsidiaries in CEE economies. We explore the factors explaining productivity changes in foreign subsidiaries, in the manufacturing sectors of five CEE economies (Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). Specifically, we try to answer the following questions. What are the factors that determine productivity growth in foreign subsidiaries? What types of subsidiaries in terms of competencies are present in CEE countries? What is the level of strategic, marketing and operational control of foreign parent companies? How do competence and control issues affect the productivity growth of subsidiaries? Our investigation should complement existing economic perspectives and help to explain the rather inconclusive evidence from national level studies. In conceptual terms, we build on the ‘subsidiary development’ perspective to examine productivity growth in FDI subsidiaries (Birkinshaw and Hood, 1998, Birkinshaw et al., 1998 and Birkinshaw, 2001; for a review of this literature see Paterson and Brock, 2002 and Birkinshaw, 2003). The idea underlying this stream of research is that multi-national corporations (MNCs), as the vehicles of FDI, have become ‘differentiated networks of subsidiaries’ (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989). This has enabled subsidiaries to develop resources and capabilities, and to grow either autonomously or through different degrees of integration with their headquarters. In the context of CEE this perspective could shed light on aspects of FDI that remain obscure when analysed from a spillovers perspective. In addition, this type of empirical research should contribute to the emerging literature that bridges between international business and growth theories (Ozawa and Castello, 2001). This paper reports the results of a study based on a questionnaire survey of 433 foreign subsidiaries in the manufacturing sectors of five CEE countries. Section 2 of this paper briefly reviews the relevant literature and outlines our conceptual approach. Section 3 describes the sample. Section 4 presents a descriptive analysis. Sections 5 and 6, respectively, describe the econometric model used to explore the determinants of productivity growth in foreign subsidiaries, and interpret the results. The conclusions are presented in Section 7.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper aimed to assess the determinants of productivity growth in manufacturing foreign subsidiaries in five CEE countries. Empirical analysis shows that industrial integration through FDI has led to considerable increases in productivity, technology and quality. We can draw the following conclusions on productivity growth and control in foreign subsidiaries, based on the results of our model: (a) CEE subsidiaries have relatively strong autonomy in business functions, but within a dominantly production-oriented mandate. This basically confirms Birkinshaw and Hood's (1998) proposition that subsidiaries are autonomous entities constrained by the demands of head office managers and the opportunities offered by their local environments; (b) The level of foreign parent company overall control, and the level of its control of marketing and strategic functions, are significant and positive determinants of productivity growth in the foreign subsidiary. The higher the level of overall control and control of marketing and strategic functions, the higher the subsidiary's productivity growth. Table 2 shows that foreign parents exhibit higher levels of control over marketing and especially strategic functions than operational functions; (c) Introducing a dummy for foreign equity share in the model makes control of business functions irrelevant for productivity growth, while majority foreign equity share is significantly and positively related to productivity growth. This suggests that foreign equity share determines control of business functions. The levels of overall foreign control and control of management and strategic business functions are positively correlated to the level of foreign equity shareholding; (d) The model points to a strong explanatory role of the types of capabilities acquired by subsidiaries. The highest coefficient of quality control suggests that CEE subsidiaries are mainly production-oriented, i.e. competitive advantage is based on production, not technological or marketing capability; (e) Subsidiaries with higher proportions of sales to foreign parent companies or other foreign buyers experience higher changes in productivity. This points again to close orientation to the parent, which is reinforced by production-oriented mandate; (f) Contrary to the predictions in the subsidiary development literature, national differences do not significantly affect subsidiaries’ upgrading. The model also points to some other determinants of productivity growth in subsidiaries: (g) Large subsidiaries achieve significantly higher average changes in productivity compared to small and medium sized subsidiaries. This can be explained by economies of scale, lower transaction costs and higher resource commitments of large subsidiaries; (h) Subsidiaries in high-tech sectors exhibit significantly lower changes in productivity than subsidiaries in low-tech sectors. We explain this result by existing levels of development in CEE economies, which offer greater scope for productivity growth in medium high than in high-tech sectors, and by the fact that subsidiaries in CEE are most often located in low value-added segments of high-tech sectors. The key to productivity growth in subsidiaries would seem to be foreign parent companies devolving responsibility for operational management to the subsidiaries. If subsidiaries have production-oriented mandates which are focused on quality, they are dependent on their parent companies for strategic and marketing functions. Our results confirm Szalavetz's (2000) proposition on the relevance of marketing capability for further upgrading of subsidiaries. Within production-oriented mandates where quality seems to be paramount, high productivity growth is ensured if subsidiaries are left to their own devices. This further reinforces the view of MNCs as differentiated networks of subsidiaries that operate within given mandates. In CEE, these mandates seem to be mainly production-oriented. Subsidiaries are the main initiators of change, especially in the organisation of business functions, i.e. they control ‘how’ things will be done, but have significantly less control over strategic issues such as what LOB will be pursued. Our research suggests that capabilities (resources) and quality, as proxies for production capability, are as important as corporate governance or control variables for an understanding of what drives productivity growth. Corporate governance or control variables need to be understood in relation to the subsidiaries’ resources. They operate in tandem with strategic or market-oriented variables. At the theoretical level, our analysis suggests that a better understanding of productivity growth at the subsidiary level could be achieved by combining the managerial and resource-based theories of the firm (for a similar argument see Filatotchev et al., 2003).