بانک های چند ملیتی از کشورهای در حال توسعه در مقابل کشورهای توسعه یافته : رقابت در عرصه ی یکسان ؟

The emergence of global competitors from developing countries brought back the issue of how Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) from developing countries compete in international markets. As the small number of studies of MNEs from developing countries concentrates on manufacturing firms, this study examines service multinationals by comparing multinational banks (MNBs) from developing and developed countries. Managers' international strategic motivations were measured directly by collecting data on 112 new foreign ventures of banks worldwide. Findings suggest that both MNB groups are motivated to exploit ownership and internalization advantages. However, location motives, location choices and location entries differ which is attributed to different levels of capability. MNBs from developing countries are more likely to follow clients from home whereas MNBs from developed countries are more likely to enter developing countries in search for foreign market opportunities. These findings suggest that currently there is little overlap in international competition among these two groups of MNBs. Findings do not reflect the situation in manufacturing where some MNEs from developing countries became leading international competitors in their industries and therefore, more research should be directed in this area to understand how international service firms should compete internationally and what factors would improve competitiveness.

A phenomenon of the globalization of the world economy is the increasing foreign direct investment of companies based in developing countries. The emergence of global competitors of the likes of Haier, Lenovo and Cemex raises questions about how firms from developing countries compete with rivals from developed countries, a research issue identified by a number of international business scholars (Li, 2003, Ramamurti, 2004 and Yeung, 1994). Most researchers studied Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) without considering whether they originate from a developed or a developing country assuming that these two groups of MNEs are similar (Caves, 1982, Chen et al., 2004 and Dunning, 1980). However, studies of MNEs from developing countries suggested that these multinationals have certain differences compared to MNEs from developed countries; they are smaller, less international and may not possess ownership advantages during their first steps of internationalization (Giddy and Young, 1982, Mathews, 2002 and Van-Hoesel, 1999). Given that FDI theories suggest that possession of ownership advantage is a requirement for internationalization (Hymer, 1976 and Kindleberger, 1969), this raises the question of why MNEs from developing countries internationalize in the first place. This may also suggest that, more research on this issue is required before we start creating consensus (Makino et al., 2002). In addition, studies of MNEs from developing countries concentrated primarily on manufacturing firms as researchers studied mostly MNEs from South East Asia and China (Makino et al., 2002, Lecraw, 1993, Li, 2003 and Van-Hoesel, 1999). Service firms which have different characteristics from manufacturing firms such as simultaneous production and consumption and perishable products which often constraint internationalization options have not been studied from this perspective despite the fact that internationalization motives may be different. For example, a major internationalization motive of service firms is to follow their clients which have not been shown to be a major driver of manufacturing firm internationalization (Akbar and McBridge, 2004, Enderwick, 1989 and Erramilli, 1991). The purpose of this study is to compare directly multinational service firms from developing countries with similar companies from developed countries in order to understand how MNEs from developing countries compete in a globalized environment with fewer resources and less international experience. We are particularly interested to understand a) differences in foreign market strategic motives; b) differences in location choices and location entry strategies. Ownership, location and internalization related motives identified in the literature and patterns of foreign investment will be compared across the two groups in order to establish differences that may explain different FDI behaviour. Furthermore, managers' strategic motives will be measured directly rather than using proxy variables, unlike most FDI studies, because it is difficult to capture perceptual constructs like motives, with proxy variables (Cyert and March, 1963 and Makino et al., 2002). In order to control for service industry differences (Boddewyn et al., 1986) this study will focus on commercial banking. This industry is more regulated which results in differences in local markets, and assets are mostly financial which increases the cost of failure. Furthermore, this is an important topic for banks as the last two decades we saw a significant increase in internationalization from banks from developing countries. For example, HSBC started as a small bank in East Asia to become a major force in global banking by pursuing more than twenty foreign market entries the last two decades in countries like UK, US, France, Turkey, Brazil and India, which raises the question of how could a bank from a developing country with little international exposure such as Bank of China become a credible international competitor. In addition, cross-border activity in Europe such as in Eastern Europe, in the Balkans, in the Baltic countries as well as in main markets such as Italy and Germany provides the grounds for increased international competition among banks from developed and developing countries.

Banks are the pillars of developing country economies and therefore, their ability to compete internationally in a liberalized environment should be a critical issue for central bankers and policy makers. To date only a small number of studies made the distinction between multinationals from developing countries and those from developed countries and the authors are not aware of any studies that looked into service firms and consequently banking. The aim of this study was to understand how MNBs from developing countries compete internationally compared with MNBs from developed countries and identify implications for MNBs from developing countries. To achieve this we searched for differences among these two groups in terms of their strategic motivations and choices. Findings suggest that MNBs from developing countries and MNBs from developed countries compete in different arenas as their location motives, location choices and location entries differ which is attributed to different levels of capability. To upgrade their capabilities MNBs from developing countries must selectively target foreign markets and work closely with foreign banks. Furthermore, regulators should encourage more competition at home by privatizing the banking system, promoting innovation in the industry through the right policies and encouraging foreign banks to compete in mainstream local markets. 6.1. Contributions This study makes a number of contributions to the literature. This is the first comparative study that looks into how MNBs from developing countries and MNBs from developed countries compete internationally and provides evidence that these two groups of MNBs pursue different international strategies. Currently, there is no adequate volume of research on how multinational banks from developing banks compete internationally as most studies examined entries of banks from developedcountries assuming that these twogroups ofMNBs are similar( Buch,2000; Fisher and Molyneux, 1996; Miller and Parkhe, 1998 ). Consequently, this study may indicate that further research is required on this important topic. In addition, this study makes a methodology contribution as managers' strategic motives were measured directly and reliable constructs were developed which provides a more accurate method for capturing factors at firm level. Most studies of international banking employ aggregate data and use proxies to capture data at firm level which are often rough approximations of the factors under investigation ( Berger et al., 2004; Tschoegl, 1987; Ursacki and Vertinsky, 1992 ). Finally, this study makes a contribution to managers and policy makers. By studying differences among these two groups of MNBs, suggestions could be made of how MNBs from developing countries could become more competitive internationally. 6.2. Limitations This study is not without weaknesses. This is a cross-sectional study and therefore, the MNBs studied may beatdifferentstagesofinternational development.A longitudinalstudy wouldhavethe benefit of studying different stages of the internationalization process and be more precise of differences at each stage. The second weakness is that findings cannot be generalisedindiscriminately. Commercial banking is a service industry, internationalization can be constrained by national regulation and the mode of internationalization is limited to foreign direct investment. 6.3. Implications for future research As a consequence of this study a number of avenues for future research could be suggested in order to understand better how MNBs and other service multinationals from developing countries compete in international markets and what factors influence a firm's international competitive- ness. An avenue of research is to study service firms from developing countries that successfully compete in international markets in order to understand how they overcome the capability liability. Is there an optimal path of international development, and how this differs from the path followed by manufacturing MNEs? In identifying factors that influence service firms' international competitiveness, distinction could be made between MNEs from advanced developing countries such as Hungary, Korea ad Mexico and firms from developing countries such as Morocco and Indonesia. It is expected that firms from the former group could be closer to MNEs from developed countries than firms from the latter group as they would have more capabilities. Therefore, it may be that there are different stages of international development of service MNEs which may be related to the degree of development of the home country and the existence of restrictive regulation. Furthermore, comparative studies of multinationals from different service industries could provide more generalizable results and allow for comparisons between service industries. Such study could provide evidence of factors that influence international competitiveness that relate to industry characteristics such as transaction costs and costs of failure. On a final note, MNBs from developing countries unlike manufacturing multinationals such as Cemex and Haier are not competing directly with top-tier MNBs mainly because of the nature of the industry, that provides niche foreign market opportunities but also, because of the historical development of the industry where protectionism and regulatory distortions provided cushion to banks and discouraged them from creating the skills required to become international players. However, banks may be aware of these deficiencies and their entry into financial centers may indicate new internationalization strategies which aim to acquire know-how of how to better exploit foreign market opportunities and become more credible international competitors.