Abstract
This paper explores the nature of the influence that business groups exert in shaping performance outcomes in emerging economies. Set in India, this study used a longitudinal research design to assess the independent and collective performance impact of group affiliation and diversification both before and after economic reforms were introduced in the country. Consistent with the institutional theory perspective, results show that in the pre-reform period the group structure exerted an important positive moderating effect on the diversification-performance relationship. However, these group benefits appear to persist even after many of the sources of market failure had started to decline rapidly. This persistence of group effect may be indicative of the continued relevance of non-diversification benefits of the group structure in emerging economies. It may also be indicative of the fairly slow process of building institutional infrastructure in emerging economies where reforms are seldom introduced en masse but more a series of continuing measures as was the case in India.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahluwalia, M. S. 2002. Economic reforms in India since 1991: Has gradualism worked?. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16: 67–88.
Baltagi, B. H. 2005. Econometric analysis of panel data, 3rd ed. Chichester, UK; Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley & Sons.
Bhagat, R. S., McDevitt, A. S., & McDevitt, I. 2010. On improving the robustness of Asian management theories: Theoretical anchors in the era of globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(2): 179–192.
Brickley, J. A., Lease, R. C., & Smith, C. W., Jr. 1988. Ownership structure and voting on antitakeover amendments. Journal of Financial Economics, 20: 267–291.
Campbell, J. Y. 1996. Understanding risk and return. Journal of Political Economy, 104: 298–345.
Certo, S. T., & Semadeni, M. 2006. Strategy research and panel data: Evidence and implications. Journal of Management, 32: 449–471.
Chang, S. J., & Hong, J. 2002. How much does the business group matter in Korea?. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 265–274.
Fang, T. 2010. Asian management research needs more self-confidence: Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and beyond. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(1): 155–170.
Ferris, S. P., Kim, K. A., & Kitsabunnarat, P. 2003. The costs (and benefits?) of diversified business groups: The case of Korean chaebols. Journal of Banking & Finance, 27: 251–273.
Fisman, R., & Khanna, T. 2004. Facilitating development: The role of business groups. World Development, 32: 609–628.
Granovetter, M. 1994. Business groups. In N. J. Smelser & R. Sweberg (Eds.). Handbook of economic sociology: 453–475. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Guillen, M. F. 2000. Business groups in emerging economies: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 362–380.
Hausman, J. A. 1978. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46: 1251–1271.
Heckman, J. J., & Macurdy, T. E. 1980. A life cycle model of female labour supply. Review of Economic Studies, 47: 47–74.
Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A., Tihanyi, L., & White, R. E. 2005. Diversified business groups and corporate refocusing in emerging economies. Journal of Management, 31: 941–965.
Jacquemin, A. P., & Berry, C. H. 1979. Entropy measure of diversification and corporate growth. Journal of Industrial Economics, 27: 359–369.
Khandwalla, P. N. 2002. Effective organisational response by corporates to India’s liberalisation and globalisation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2–3): 423–448.
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 1997. Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4): 41–51.
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 1999. The right way to restructure conglomerates in emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 77(4): 125–134.
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000a. The future of business groups in emerging markets: Long-run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 268–285.
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000b. Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance, 55: 867–892.
Khanna, T., & Rivkin, J. W. 2001. Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 45–74.
Kim, H., Hoskisson, R. E., Tihanyi, L., & Hong, J. 2004. The evolution and restructuring of diversified business groups in emerging markets: The lessons from chaebols in Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21(1–2): 25–48.
Lee, K., Peng, M. W., & Lee, K. 2008. From diversification premium to diversification discount during institutional transitions. Journal of World Business, 43: 47–65.
Li, M., Ramaswamy, K., & Petitt, B. S. P. 2006. Business groups and market failures: A focus on vertical and horizontal strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(4): 439–452.
Lin, Z., Peng, M. W., Yang, H., & Sun, S. 2009. How do networks and learning drive M&As? An institutional comparison between China and the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 1113–1132.
Luo, X., & Chung, C.-N. 2005. Keeping it all in the family: The role of particularistic relationships in business group performance during institutional transition. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 404–439.
Martin, J. D., & Sayrak, A. 2003. Corporate diversification and shareholder value: A survey of recent literature. Journal of Corporate Finance, 9: 37–57.
North, D. C. 2005. Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Palich, L. E., Cardinal, L. B., & Miller, C. C. 2000. Curvilinearity in the diversification-performance linkage: An examination of over three decades of research. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 155–174.
Peng, M. W. 2000. Business strategies in transition economies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28: 275–296.
Peng, M. W., & Delios, A. 2006. What determines the scope of the firm over time and around the world? An Asia Pacific perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(4): 385–405.
Peng, M. W., Lee, S.-H., & Wang, D. Y. L. 2005. What determines the scope of the firm over time: A focus on institutional relatedness. Academy of Management Review, 30: 622–633.
Rumelt, R. P., Schendel, D., & Teece, D. J. (Eds.). 1994. Fundamental issues in strategy: A research agenda. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Schuman, M. 2009. The miracle: The epic story of Asia’s quest for wealth. New York: Harper Business.
White, H. 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48: 817–838.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ramaswamy, K., Li, M. & Petitt, B.S. Why do business groups continue to matter? A study of market failure and performance among Indian manufacturers. Asia Pac J Manag 29, 643–658 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-010-9215-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-010-9215-7