Skip to main content
Log in

Revisiting the Bright and Dark Sides of Capital Flows in Business Groups

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prior studies report that the business group structure and the associated intra-group capital flows are prone to conflicts of interest between controlling shareholders and minority investors. Yet business group is a prevalent and stable structure around the globe, particularly where capital markets are underdeveloped. Using data from China, this paper empirically studies the trade-off between the negative and positive roles played by intra-group capital flows and tests the efficiency implications of such trade-off. We find that from the perspective of the whole group, intra-group capital flows are most efficient when the groups are least subject to conflicts of interest between controlling shareholders and minority shareholders and when they face strong external financing constraints.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We have to be cautious in not overstating that we can completely address the endogeneity problem facing other datasets. Even though firms do not individually decide on the carving out policy, the central government that decides on this might well take into consideration the firm characteristics such as firm profitability.

  2. La Porta et al. (1999) document the widespread use of pyramids, Claessens et al. (2000) find a large divergence between cash flow rights and control rights in many East Asian firms, and Claessens et al. (2002), La Porta et al. (2002), Mitton (2002), Lemmon and Lins (2003), and Baek et al. (2004) find that the separation of cash flows and control rights of controlling shareholders negatively affect firm value.

  3. There is also a growing literature on how financing constraints affect firm investments in developed markets. See, for example, Almeida et al. (2004, 2006), Almeida and Campello (2007), Fazzari et al. (1988, 2000), Fee et al. (2008), Hadlock and Pierce (2008), Kaplan and Zingales (1997, 2000), Moyen (2004), Rauh (2006), Whited and Wu (2006). Several contemporary case studies focus on the roles of managerial power on internal capital allocations (Cremers 2008; Glaser et al. 2008).

  4. Fisman and Wang (2010) also point out that looking at only one component of the transfers within a group may lead to a very misleading view of the impact of pyramidal transactions. However, in their paper, the different effects of intra-group financing on the value of the whole group are not directly tested.

  5. The fact that many of the heads of the controlling owners are bureaucrats in charge of the SOEs does not necessarily diminish the incentive to expropriate. Although the heads of SOEs may not have as strong monetary incentives from the better performance of their firms, they do have non-monetary incentives, such as their own promotion in the political hierarchy. It is thus not clear whether the reward for better performance is necessarily smaller. In addition, as implied in the analysis of Jiang et al. (2010) and others, the cost of expropriation might be low: both the odds of being caught and the odds of being disciplined when caught might be low in China, compared to those in other countries. We thus believe that it is quite possible that there are not many fewer expropriations in SOEs than in non-SOEs. In untabulated results, we find that the patterns documented in our paper are not significantly different across the SOE and non-SOE subsamples.

  6. Consistent with the literature, we define “private benefits” broadly to include things like pet projects, managerial perks, and waste in the parent company. We measure the amount of private benefits as the difference between the benefit received and the cost of arranging such a transfer. For example, if the parent company transfers $1 from the subsidiary to itself and incurs a cost of $0.03 for such a transfer, then the net private benefit of the transfer would be $0.97.

  7. We believe this assumption is consistent with the empirical observations in many emerging markets. In the specific case of China, we provide more details in the next section to justify this assumption.

  8. This also means that there is a possibility, at least in theory, that a dollar transferred from the subsidiary to the parent could be worth more than a dollar to the parent. If the net private benefit of the dollar transfer is $0.9 and it also enables the undertaking of a positive NPV project with an NPV of 0.3, then the total value of the dollar transfer to the parent would be $1.2.

  9. This asymmetry is an important characteristic that differentiates the intra-financing of a business group from that of a typical conglomerate and helps to differentiate intra-group capital flows and other mechanisms in terms of why shocks to cash flows might propagate through a business group, such as cross-subsidization and risk sharing among member firms. See also footnote 2 in Bertrand et al. (2002).

  10. Beginning in 1993, all industrial firms in China, regardless of ownership type and size, have been required to report their financial statements according to the same “Accounting Standards for Enterprises.” As almost our entire sample is composed of industrial firms, the financial and operating information of the listed firms and the parent firms are thus consistent. Note that the NBS data is non-consolidated, and therefore the financial data reported for an entity does not incorporate the numbers for its legally separate affiliates.

  11. This may occur, for example, when organizational changes (e.g., restructuring, mergers, or acquisitions) result in a firm legally changing its name and identification code such that the name and business of the parent firm recorded in a listed firm’s annual report might not be precisely the same as that recorded in the NBS Database. Data entry errors made during the NBS survey and data collection process may also account for some mismatches.

  12. Although not all of the parent firms have an absolute majority stake in the associated listed firms, our descriptive statistics (not reported) show the cash flow rights of the parent firms to be about six times larger by mean, or ten times larger by median, than the sum of the cash flow rights of the second and third largest block holders. The non-listed parents in our sample are thus dominant shareholders because the other large shareholders are not sufficiently large to have a comparable impact on the listed firms.

  13. We conducted robustness checks based on the enlarged sample where we did not drop these observations. The results are qualitatively unchanged.

  14. When the listed subsidiary firms have negative adjusted cash flows, our regression can be interpreted differently. It implicitly assumes that when a listed subsidiary experiences a negative cash flow, the parent correspondingly invests less. In other words, capital may flow in the reverse direction, from the parent to the listed subsidiary, to support the subsidiary that might be in financial trouble. The literature documents ample evidence to show that even a controlling shareholder or a corporate insider of a listed firm may occasionally prop up a firm, if this would preserve future opportunities for more expropriation (Friedman et al. 2003; Jin and Myers 2006). However, there is no reason to believe that the extent of the prop up is the same as the extent of the intra-group capital flow, so as to generate the same slope coefficient β 2 in the regressions. To avoid the potential asymmetry in the regression coefficients for the positive and negative cash flows and to allow us to focus on the intra-group capital flow “tunneling” aspect of intra-group financing, we exclude the small sub-sample of listed subsidiaries with a negative cash flow. The inclusion of the negative cash flow observations will not qualitatively change our main results.

  15. In unreported robustness checks, we find that replacing the listed subsidiary industry average Q with its own Q does not qualitatively change any of our results.

  16. The draft for open comments on this document was issued at the beginning of 2004. Details of the regulations can be found at http://www.csrc.gov.cn/n575458/n4239016/n6634558/n9768098/n9768450/index_1.html.

  17. To evaluate our claim that the bank ownership variable is exogenous to firm decisions, we compare characteristics between firms with and firms without bank ownerships). We compare firm characteristics (parent’s cash flow right, government control, region effect, and some financial characteristics) but do not find significant differences in these characteristics between the two groups, for either the parent or the listed subsidiary samples. Overall, it does not appear that bank ownership in our sample is affected by those firm characteristics that also drive the pattern of related-party transactions. We thank our referee for this suggestion.

  18. We have no data to calculate the adjusted cash flow measure 2 and measure 3 for the parent firms, but this is not that important since we are mainly focusing on how parent investment relies on the cash flow from the listed subsidiary, which has the three adjusted measures.

  19. We are fully aware that not all inter-corporate loans are ill purposed. In fact, some might be due to legitimate reasons such as normal business interactions between business group members. If that is the case, these measures will overstate the true magnitude of the “abnormal” intra-group capital flows. The fact that we still find, despite the noise in the measure, that these activities are highly related to our proxies for conflicts of interest and financial constraints could be interpreted to mean that the true relationship might be even stronger.

  20. An interesting study by Chow and Fung (2000) showed that in the earlier stage of China's economic reform, in the city of Shanghai, small firms might enjoy more financial flexibility than bigger firms, as small firms are more likely to be in the non-SOE sector, more nimble, and thus more profitable. They did warn that it might be difficult to extrapolate their results beyond the specific region and time period that they examined, as the higher profitability of smaller firms is unlikely to be sustainable. Indeed, more recent surveys, such as the study done by McKinsey (2006), indicate that smaller enterprises, particularly those non-SOE firms, are subject to more financial constraints in China.

References

  • Allen, F., Qian, J., & Qian, M. J. (2005). Law, finance, and economic growth in China. Journal of Financial Economics, 77(1), 57–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, H., Campello, M., & Weisbach, M.S. (2006). Corporate financial and investment policies when future financing is not frictionless. NBER Working Paper 12773.

  • Almeida, H., & Campello, M. (2007). Financial constraints. Asset Tangibility, and Corporate Investment, Review of Financial Studies, 20(5), 1429–1460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, H., Campello, M., & Weisbach, M. S. (2004). The cash flow sensitivity of cash. Journal of Finance, 59(4), 1777–1804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, H., Park, S. Y., Subrahmanyam, M. G., & Wolfenzon, D. (2011). The structure and formation of business groups: Evidence from Korean Chaebols. Journal of Financial Economics, 99(2), 447–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, H. V., & Wolfenzon, D. (2006). A theory of pyramidal ownership and family business groups. Journal of Finance, 61(6), 2637–2680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayyagari, M., Demirgüc-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. (2010). Formal versus informal finance: Evidence from China. Review of Financial Studies, 23(8), 3048–3097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bae, K.-H., Kang, J.-K., & Kim, J.-M. (2002). Tunneling or value added? Korean business groups. Journal of Finance, 57(6), 2695–2740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baek, J., Kang, J., & Lee, I. (2006). Business groups and tunneling: Evidence from private securities offerings by Korean Chaebols. Journal of Finance, 61(5), 2415–2449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baek, J.-S., Kang, J.-K., & Suh-Park, K. (2004). Corporate governance and firm value: Evidence from the Korean financial crisis. Journal of Financial Economics, 71(2), 265–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, T., & Levine, R. (2002). Industry growth and capital allocation: Does having a market- or bank-based system matter? Journal of Financial Economics, 64(2), 147–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, T., Levine, R., & Loayza, N. (2000). Finance and the sources of growth. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1/2), 261–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belenzon, S., & Berkovitz, T. (2010). Innovation in business groups. Management Science, 56(3), 519–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, M., Mehta, P., & Mullainathan, S. (2002). Ferreting out tunneling: An application to Indian business groups. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 121–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, Y. L., Jing, L., Lu, T., Rau, P. R., & Stouraitis, A. (2009a). Tunneling and propping up: An analysis of related party transactions by Chinese listed companies. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 17(3), 372–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, Y. L., Rau, P. R., & Stouraitis, A. (2006). Tunneling, Hong Kong. Journal of Financial Economics, 82(2), 343–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, Y. L., Rau, P. R., & Stouraitis, A. (2009b). Buy high, related party transactions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 33(5), 914–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow, G. C. (1993). Capital formation and economic growth in China. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 809–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow, C. K., & Fung, M. K. (2000). Small businesses and liquidity constraints in financing business investment: Evidence from Shanghai’s manufacturing sector. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(4), 363–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chuang, Y. C., & Hsu, P. F. (2004). FDI, trade and spillover efficiency: Evidence from China’s manufacturing sector. Applied Economics, 36(10), 1103–1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claessens, S., Djankov, S., Fan, J. P. H., & Lang, L. H. P. (2002). Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholdings. Journal of Finance, 57(6), 2741–2771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claessens, S., Djankov, S., & Lang, L. H. P. (2000). The separation of ownership and control in East Asian corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1–2), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cremers, M., Huang, R., & Sautner, Z. (2008). Internal capital markets: The bright side of corporate politics. Working Paper, Yale School of Management, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, University of Amsterdam.

  • Cull, R., & Xu, L. C. (2000). Bureaucrats. state banks, and the efficiency of credit allocation: The experience of Chinese state-owned enterprises. Journal of Comparative Economics, 28(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cull, R., & Xu, L. C. (2003). Who gets credit? The behavior of bureaucrats and state banks in allocating credit to Chinese state-owned enterprises. Journal of Development Economics,71(2), 533–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • dela Rama, M., 2012, Corporate governance and corruption: Ethical dilemmas of Asian business groups. Journal of Business Ethics,109:501–519.

  • Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2008). The law and economics of self-dealing. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(3), 430–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, X. (forthcoming). Does religion mitigate tunneling? Evidence from Chinese Buddhism. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1917-6.

  • Erickson, T., & Whited, T. M. (2000). Measurement error and the relationship between investment and q. Journal of Political Economy, 108(5), 1027–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, J. P. H., Huang, J., & Zhu, N. (2013a) Institutions, ownership structures, and distress resolution in China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 23, 71–87.

  • Fan, J. P. H., Wong, T. J., & Zhang, T. (2013b) Institutions and organizational structure: The case of state-owned corporate pyramids, The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 29(6), 1217–1252.

  • Fazzari, S. M., Hubbard, R. G., & Petersen, B. C. (1988). Financing constraints and corporate investment. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 141–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazzari, S. M., Hubbard, R. G., & Petersen, B. C. (2000). Investment-cash flow sensitivities are useful: A comment on Kaplan and Zingales. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(2), 695–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fee, C. E., Hadlock, C. J., & Pierce, J. R. (2008). Investment, financing constraints, and internal capital markets: Evidence from the advertising expenditures of multinational firms. Review of Financial Studies, 22(6), 2361–2392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firth, M., Lin, C., Liu, P., & Wong, S. M. L. (2009). Inside the black box: Bank credit allocation in China’s private sector. Journal of Banking & Finance, 33(6), 1144–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisman, R., & Wang, Y. (2010). Trading favors within Chinese business groups. American Economic Review, 100(2), 429–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, E., Johnson, S., & Mitton, T. (2003). Propping and tunneling. Journal of Comparative Economics, 31(6), 732–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gertner, R., Powers, E., & Scharfstein, D. (2002). Learning about internal capital markets from corporate spin-offs. Journal of Finance, 57, 2479–2506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, M., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Sautner, Z. (2008). Looking inside a conglomerate: Efficiency of internal capital allocation and managerial power within a firm. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1263–1285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopalan, R., Nanda, V., & Seru, A. (2007). Affiliated firms and financial support: Evidence from Indian business groups. Journal of Financial Economics, 86(3), 759–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadlock, C. J., & Pierce, J. R. (2008). Does the KZ index provide a useful measure of financial constraints? Working Paper, Michigan State University.

  • Hoshi, T., Kashyap, A., & Scharfstein, D. (1991). Corporate structure, liquidity, and Iivestment: Evidence from Japanese industrial groups. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(1), 33–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, G., Lee, C. M. C., & Yue, H. (2010). Tunneling through intercorporate loans: The China experience. Journal of Financial Economics, 98(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, L., & Myers, S. C. (2006). R2 around the world: New theory and new tests. Journal of Financial Economics, 79(2), 257–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2000). Tunneling. American Economic Review, 90(2), 22–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. N., & Zingales, L. (1997). Do investment-cash flow sensitivities provide useful measures of financial constraints. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(1), 159–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. N., & Zingales, L. (2000). Investment-cash flow sensitivities are not valid measures of financing constraints. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(2), 707–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000). Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? Diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance, 55(2), 867–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Yafeh, Y. (2007). Business groups in emerging markets: Paragons or parasites? Journal of Economic Literature, 45(2), 331–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, R. G., & Levine, R. (1993). Finance and growth: Schumpeter might be right. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 717–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, 54(2), 471–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). Legal determinants of external finance. Journal of Finance, 52(3), 1131–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106(6), 1113–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (2002). Investor protection and corporate valuation. Journal of Finance, 57(3), 1147–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Zamarripa, G. (2003). Related lending. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 231–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, O. (1997). Cash flow and investment: Evidence from internal capital markets. Journal of Finance, 52(1), 83–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemmon, M. L., & Lins, K. V. (2003). Ownership structure, evidence from the East Asian financial crisis. Journal of Finance, 58(4), 1445–1468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, K., Yue, H., & Zhao, L. (2009). Ownership, evidence from Chinese firms. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37(3), 471–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., Zhang, Y., & Zhu, N. (2009). Does bank ownership increase firm value? Evidence from China. Journal of International Money and Finance, 28(4), 720–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lins, K. V., & Servaes, H. (2002). Is corporate diversification beneficial in emerging markets? Financial Management, 31(2), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Q., & Siu, A. (2011). Institutions and corporate investment: Evidence from investment implied return on capital in China. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 46, 1831–1863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, W., Zhang, Y., & Zhu, N. (2011). Bank ownership and executive perquisites: New evidence from an emerging market. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(2), 352–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskin, E., & Xu, C. (2001). Soft budget constraint theories: From centralization to the market. Economics of Transition, 9(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masulis, R. W., Pham, P. K., & Zein, J. (2011). Family business groups around the world: Financing advantages, control motivations, and organizational choices. Review of Financial Studies, 24, 3556–3600.

  • McKinsey. (2006). Putting China’s capital to work: The value of financial system reform. McKinsey Global Institute.

  • Mitton, T. (2002). A cross-firm analysis of the impact of corporate governance on the East Asian financial crisis. Journal of Financial Economics, 64(2), 215–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morck, R., Wolfenzon, D., & Yeung, B. (2005). Corporate governance, economic entrenchment and growth. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(3), 657–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyen, N. (2004). Investment-cash flow sensitivities: Constrained versus unconstrained firms. Journal of Finance, 59(5), 2061–2092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozbas, O., & Scharfstein, D. S. (2010). Evidence on the dark side of internal capital markets. Review of Financial Studies, 23(2), 581–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, W. Q., Wei, K. C. J., & Yang, Z. (2011). Tunneling or propping: Evidence from connected transactions in China. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(2), 306–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pistor, K., & Xu, C. (2005). Governing stock markets in transition economies: Lessons from China. American Law and Economics Review, 7(1), 184–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, R., Servaes, H., & Zingales, L. (2000). The cost of diversity: The diversification discount and inefficient investment. Journal of Finance, 55(1), 35–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, R. G., & Zingales, L. (1998). Financial dependence and growth. American Economic Review, 88(3), 559–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauh, J. D. (2006). Investment and financing constraints: Evidence from the funding of corporate pension plans. Journal of Finance, 61(1), 33–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, H.-H., & Stulz, R. M. (1998). Are internal capital markets efficient? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 531–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenbacka, R., & Tombak, M. (2002). Investment, capital structure, and complementarities between debt and new equity. Management Science, 48(2), 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whited, T. M., & Wu, G. (2006). Financial constraints risk. Review of Financial Studies, 19(2), 531–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the comments and suggestions from guest co-editors Douglas Cumming, Edward Lee, Wenxuan Hou, two anonymous referees, Randall Morck, Bernard Yeung, seminar participants of University of Queensland, Queensland University of Technology, Shanghai Advanced Institute of Finance, participants of 2008 NBER China Workshop, 2009 China International Conference in Finance, 2009 CAF-FIC-SIFR Emerging Market Finance Conference, 2009 AFA Annual Conference, the Global Crossroads Conference at Stanford, Ackerman Conference on Corporate Governance at Bar Ilan University, and 2013 JBE Special Issue Conference in Beijing. Zheng thanks the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Approval Numbers 71272199, 71002057) for financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guojian Zheng.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 44 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fan, J.P.H., Jin, L. & Zheng, G. Revisiting the Bright and Dark Sides of Capital Flows in Business Groups. J Bus Ethics 134, 509–528 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2382-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2382-6

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation