توسعه بین المللی آژانس های تبلیغاتی فراملی در چین : ارزیابی رویکرد نظریه مراحل

This paper examines the expansion of multinational enterprises (MNEs) in a service industry to a country which is both developing and in transition—i.e. the advertising industry in China—to assess how useful the stages theory is in understanding internationalisation issues in today's globalised world. Three of our findings are consistent with the expectations and formal denouement of the stages approach: (a) the agencies increased their involvement in the China market over time; (b) the agencies went through organisational structure change through an incremental process; and (c) the internationalisation process was much faster for late entrants. On the other hand, some findings are not congruent with the theoretical explanations or logic of the theory. The main reason why agencies change their form of operations to a more involved mode, according to executives, was that their clients’ investment in China had increased. They argued that change in operational form is client-driven, rather than being driven by an increase in market knowledge. In sum, form must not be taken for the substance, although some aspects of the Uppsala model can explain the stages and changes of modality in MNE operations in China.

With the rapid pace of globalisation in recent years, the internationalisation process has regained interest, especially as multinational enterprises (MNE) have obtained entry into developing and transition economies from which they were previously excluded, either entirely or in part. While the “ownership-location-internalisation” (OLI) paradigm (Dunning (1977) and Dunning (1988); Dunning & McQueen 1981) is generally accepted as a “static” model of MNEs and foreign direct investment (FDI), the most prominent “dynamic” internationalisation process theory remains the so-called “stages theory” or “Uppsala model”, named after the academic location of some of the scholars who proposed the earliest versions of the concept (Johanson & Vahlne, 1977; Johanson & Wiedersheim-Paul, 1975). Evidence supporting the Uppsala internationalisation model is mixed. This paper conducts an in-depth investigation of MNEs in a service industry to a country which is both emerging and in transition—i.e. the advertising industry in China—to assess how useful the stages theory is in understanding internationalisation issues in today's globalised world (i.e. one in which most MNEs are already heavily internationalised). The choice of country and industry are significant for this paper. Until the 1980s FDI in China was rare, so the entry of MNEs into the country can be seen as one in which they go through a learning process and—if the Uppsala model1 has some credence—this will result in a number of distinct evolutionary stages which can be mapped and understood in a causal way. China is thus a tabula rasa on which the learning-induced stages of MNE activity may be visible. However, the fact that China is a country in transition from a central planning to a market based system might affect how MNE evolution in the country is interpreted. The reason why advertising is chosen is two-fold. First, unlike most manufacturing FDI in China until recently, the advertising industry is market driven—in other words the expansion of MNEs into China's market mirrors the usual Uppsala model analysis of the internationalisation of MNEs into the global market place. Secondly, by looking at the advertising industry, we can ask how well the model applies in industries or sectors apart from manufacturing.

Three of our findings are consistent with the expectations and formal denouement of the stages approach: (a) the agencies increased their involvement in the China market over time; (b) the agencies went through organisational structure change through an incremental process; and (c) the internationalisation process was much faster for late entrants. On the other hand, some findings are not consistent with the theoretical explanations or logic of the theory. The main reason why agencies amended their form of operation to a more involved mode, according to their executives, was that their clients’ investment in China had increased. They argued that change in operational form is client-driven, rather than being driven by an increase in market knowledge. Furthermore, certain legal forms or entry into particular geographical locations only became gradually available as China has proceeded down the path of transition to a market economy. Thus, the observed stages of market involvement could—at one level—be explained by client-following behaviour in tandem with the availability of certain forms. Thus, for example, the rapid movement of late comer agencies through the various stages can be explained by their pressing need to make up for lost time (under pressure from clients), allied to an availability of legal forms that were not an option for TNAAs which entered early. However, the importance of learning, experience and knowledge of markets should not be dismissed; rather what our paper indicates is that form must not be taken for the substance. Some aspects of the Uppsala model will undoubtedly explain the stages and changes of modality in TNAAs operations in China, for example the choices available at any moment in time, or the timing itself. However, a more nuanced approach—and research—is needed.