In a well-known study of joint venture (JV) characteristics, Beamish (1985) compared the attributes and performance of JVs located in developed and developing countries. This study advances Beamish's (1985) work by circumventing some of its key limitations. It compares the structure and stock-market performance of two-party equity JVs across three host-country groups: (i) developed countries, (ii) newly industrialized countries, and (iii) developing countries (including Emerging markets and transition economies). Based on a cross-sectional sample of nearly 1100 JVs involving American firms and non-American partners, this study finds that JV characteristics diverge as well as converge vis-à-vis three host-country groups. Interestingly—unlike Beamish (1985)—differences in JV configurations across these groups do not result in differences in abnormal returns to American parents. However, some JV characteristics consistently influence firms’ shareholder value (albeit sometimes in opposite directions) whereas the valuation impact of other characteristics depends upon a particular host-country group.
The reported findings highlight systematic differences in JV characteristics across three host-country groups: (i) developed countries, (ii) newly industrialized countries, and (iii) developing countries (including Emerging markets and transition economies). The differences pertain to all four types of variables (task-related; partner-related; JV structural; institutional and country-specific) and are most pronounced for JVs located in developed and developing countries. In general, these results underscore Beamish's (1985) findings regarding differences in JV characteristics between developed and developing country groups. Nonetheless, the results also indicate specific variables where JVs located in developed and developing countries have converged (or diverged) since Beamish's study—a trend that other researchers have also observed, albeit in different settings (e.g., Boateng and Glaister, 2002, Hyder, 1999, Marangozov, 2005 and Moskalev and Swensen, 2007).
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this convergence is that stock-markets’ perception of JV performance is invariant to the ventures’ location, particularly for the parametric measure (abnormal returns). Recall that the Beamish (1985) study reported 37% and 61% of MNE managers expressed dissatisfaction with their JVs vis-à-vis developed and developing country locations respectively. 8 Presumably, 63% and 39% of MNE managers were satisfied with their JVs’ performance. In contrast, stock-market analysts expected JVs to generate cash-flows for 56% and 51% of American firms in the developed and developing groups respectively. To the extent that the two sets of numbers are comparable, it is reasonable to conclude that the gap in JV performance assessments has shrunk during the two decades since Beamish's (1985) study.
One reason for the shrinkage is that, over the past 20 years, many developing countries have enhanced their economic appeal by instituting various mechanisms supportive of inbound FDI (World Investment Report, 2004). To illustrate, shortly after Beamish's (1985) study, Contractor (1990) reported an “…unmistakable trend” in the reduction of restrictive government policies regarding FDI. Such trends would augment the performance of JVs located in developing countries. Another explanation for the observed performance gap may have to do with the way in which American firms have configured their JVs. Recent JV studies empirically demonstrate how distinct JV configurations have produced similar performance outcomes. This has occurred when American firms have offset their firm-specific strengths (weaknesses) against country-specific weaknesses (strengths) in multiple ways—each with comparable levels of performance ( Merchant, 2008).
Notwithstanding the above-mentioned convergence, managers responsible for designing their respective firms’ JVs must be careful about how they interpret the above-mentioned finding. This is because the study's results also suggest that economic development levels (which define host-country groups) delineate specific types of variables that American firms should consider vis-à-vis structuring their JVs with non-American partners. Apparently, some types of variables are universally more salient than other variables since they differ across all host-country groups; these variables merit consideration regardless of where JVs are located. For example, American firms would benefit by focusing on ‘business relatedness’ regardless of the type of JV host-country. Similarly, firms would benefit by focusing upon the pursuit of manufacturing-oriented activities via JVs. In contrast, American firms would find it more beneficial to focus on task-related and partner-related variables when considering developing country locations for their JVs, and relatively less so for NIC locations. Such discrimination on the part of corporate managers would be useful because influences on JV performance vary across host-countries.
Importantly, this study suggests that the stock-market performance of American firms whose JVs are located in different host-country contexts can be better understood if JVs are viewed within relatively homogeneous host-country groups than at coarser levels of locational aggregation. For example, much less can be deduced about the stock-market performance of American firms’ JVs located in developed countries vis-à-vis that of firms whose JVs are located, say, in NICs. It seems that there is still ample need to continue the study of JVs located in developed countries. However, this call should not imply a relatively less urgent need to study JVs involving partners from other countries because many influences on JV performance still are not well understood (Robson, Leonidou, & Katsikeas, 2002). Likewise, although some variables consistently influence the stock-market performance of American parents, most do not. The drivers of this performance measure apparently depend upon the host-country group to which American firms’ JVs belong. This underscores the crucial role host-country contexts play in influencing the stock-market performance of American firms who enter into international JVs. Such comparative analyses seem to be worthy of continued research attention (e.g., Acquaah, 2009, Beamish, 1993, Hanvanich et al., 2003 and Hyder, 1999).
