Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theories of the (state-owned) firm

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

State-owned enterprises (SOEs) contribute approximately 10% of the world’s GDP. SOEs at one time were predicted to disappear from the economic landscape of the world, but today SOEs are growing more prevalent in the world economy. The current theories of the firm that form the pillars of the management discipline largely ignore the theoretical differences that SOEs introduce into the conceptualization of the firm. Therefore, we extend four core theories of the firm by incorporating SOEs as a mainstream (not special or marginal) organizational form into these theories. We focus specifically on property rights theory, transaction cost theory, agency theory, and resource-based theory, culminating in a research agenda with 12 testable propositions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For exceptions, see Hafsi, Kiggundu, and Jorgensen (1987); Peng and Heath (1996); Perry and Rainey (1988); Ramamurti (1987); and Ralston et al. (2006).

  2. For example, SOEs are not mentioned in two recent review papers explicitly dealing with “ownership issues” (Connelly et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2010).

  3. Another term for “state ownership” is “public ownership.” However, “public ownership” can be confused with “publicly listed but privately owned firms.” To minimize confusion, we use the term “state ownership.”

  4. We are aware of the debates within the resources and capabilities literature on whether these two terms can be used interchangeably. Since joining these debates is outside the scope of our article, we have decided to use these two terms interchangeably. Also, we acknowledge there are debates on whether the resource-based view is merely a “view” but not a “theory” (Barney, 2001; Priem & Butler, 2001). We do not intend to join these debates and have followed Conner (1991) to label the resource-based view a “theory.”

  5. See Galambos (2000) and Kole and Mulherin (1997) for SOEs in the United States. While this point is outside the scope of our article, one can argue that the very first colony that settled in today’s United States, the Virginia Company that founded Jamestown in 1607, was an SOE.

  6. Similarly, in India, partial (not full) privatization is found to enhance profitability and productivity (Gupta, 2005).

  7. The official US government jargon for such SOEs is “government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs).”

  8. Neither Williamson (1975) nor Williamson (1985) has an entry of “SOEs” in their index.

  9. In addition to the US government taking 61% of GM’s equity, the Canadian government took 8%.

  10. The US Treasury Department now manages US government holdings in hundreds of SOEs. On the day when GM’s IPO went well in November 2010, the official in charge shared with BusinessWeek (2010: 35): “We have responsibility for almost $200 billion of assets and only one of those, which is very important, is GM. While it would have been nice to spend the day watching and feeling good about it, there was other business to attend to.”

  11. Of course, not all slack is bad for performance (Cyert & March, 1963; Stan et al., 2014; Tan & Peng, 2003; Xu et al., 2015).

  12. In China, tobacco advertising is illegal on radio, television, and in newspapers, but there is little restriction on sales and sponsorship activities (BusinessWeek, 2011). Sponsoring rural schools and advertising on school gates is legal.

References

  • Aharoni, Y. 1986. The evolution and management of state-owned enterprises. Cambridge: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Yayavaram, S. 2011. Explaining influence rents: The case for an institution-based view of strategy. Organization Science, 22, 1631–1652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano-Gault, D., Demortain, D., Rouillard, C., & Thoenig, J.-C. 2013. Bringing public organization and organizing back in. Organization Studies, 34, 1023–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arend, R. J., & Levesque, M. 2010. Is the resource-based view a practical organizational theory?. Organization Science, 21, 913–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyres, N. S., & Zenger, T. D. 2012. Capabilities, transaction costs, and firm boundaries. Organization Science, 23, 1643–1657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. 1997. Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. 2001. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27, 643–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, A. E., & Chakrabarty, S. 2014. Resource security: Competition for global resources, strategic intent, and governments as owners. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 961–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortolotti, B., & Faccio, M. 2009. Government control of privatized firms. Review of Financial Studies, 22, 2907–2939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bremmer, I. 2010. The end of the free market. New York: Portfolio/Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Puky, T. 2009. Institutional differences and the development of entrepreneurial ventures: A comparison of the venture capital industries in Latin America and Asia. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 762–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruton, G. D., Filatotchev, I., Chahine, S., & Wright, M. 2010. Governance, ownership structure, and performance of IPO firms: The impact of different types of private equity investors and institutional environments. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 491–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruton, G. D., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Stan, C. V., & Xu, K. 2015. State-owned enterprises around the world as hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1), 92–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BusinessWeek. 2010. A good day for Obama’s auto bankers. Nov. 29: 34–35.

  • BusinessWeek. 2011. For Chinese students, smoking isn’t all bad. Oct. 3: 29–31.

  • Capron, L., & Chatain, O. 2008. Competitors’ resource-oriented strategies: Acting on competitors’ resources through interventions in factor markets and political markets. Academy of Management Review, 33, 97–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, R. W., & Child, T. B. 2013. Changes to the ownership and control of East Asian corporations between 1996 and 2008: The primacy of politics. Journal of Financial Economics, 107, 494–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. Y., & Young, M. N. 2010. Cross-border mergers and acquisitions by Chinese listed companies: A principal-principal perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(3), 523–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, S. N. S. 1983. The contractual nature of the firm. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child, J., & Lu, Y. 1996. Institutional constraints on economic reform: The case of investment decisions in China. Organization Science, 7, 60–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica, 4, 386–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, B. L., Hoskisson, R. E., Tihanyi, L., & Certo, S. T. 2010. Ownership as a form of corporate governance. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1561–1589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, K. R. 1991. A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: Do we have a new theory of the firm? Journal of Management, 17, 121–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Inkpen, A., Musacchio, A., & Ramaswamy, K. 2014. Governments as owners: State-owned multinational companies. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 919–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, L., & Jiang, F. 2012. State ownership effect on firms’ FDI ownership decisions under institutional pressure: A study of Chinese outward-investing firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 43, 264–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R., & March, S. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  • Dewenter, K. L., & Malatesta, P. H. 2001. State-owned and privately owned firms: An empirical analysis of profitability, leverage, and labor intensity. American Economic Review, 91, 320–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieleman, M., & Boddewyn, J. 2012. Using organizational structure to buffer potential ties in emerging markets: A case study. Organization Studies, 33, 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, S., Meyer, K. E., & Day, M. 2010. Stages of organizational transformation in transition economies: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 416–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djankov, S., & Murrell, P. 2002. Enterprise restructuring in transition: A quantitative survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 739–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Economist. 2012a. Edging toward capitalism. Mar. 24: 7–9.

  • Economist. 2012b. Special report: State capitalism. Jan. 21: 1–18.

  • Economist. 2013. General Motors: Now it’s time to step on the gas. Jan. 19: 63–64.

  • Estrin, S., & Prevezer, M. 2011. The role of informal institutions in corporate governance: Brazil, Russia, India, and China compared. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(1), 41–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faccio, M. 2006. Politically connected firms. American Economic Review, 96, 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faccio, M., Lang, L., & Young, L. 2001. Dividends and expropriation. American Economic Review, 91, 54–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filatotchev, I., Buck, T., & Zhukov, V. 2000. Downsizing in privatized firms in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 286–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, K., & Foss, N. J. 2005. Resources and transaction costs: How property rights economics furthers the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 541–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galambos, L. 2000. State-owned enterprises in a hostile environment: The U.S. experience. In P. A. Toninelli (Ed.). The rise and fall of state-owned enterprises in the Western world: 273–298. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Goldberg, E., Grunfeld, L. A., & Benito, G. R. G. 2008. The performance differential between private and state owned enterprise: The roles of ownership, management, and market structure. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1244–1273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, S. J., & Hart, O. D. 1986. The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of vertical and lateral integration. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 691–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillen, M., & Garcia-Canal, E. 2009. The American model of the multinational firm and the “new” multinationals from emerging economies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 23–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, N. 2005. Partial privatization and firm performance. Journal of Finance, 60, 987–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafsi, T., Kiggundu, M. N., & Jorgensen, J. J. 1987. Strategic apex configurations in state-owned enterprises. Academy of Management Review, 12, 714–730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, O. D. 1995. Firms, contracts, and financial structures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  • Hayek, F. 1945. The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35, 519–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, R. M., Miller, T., Hitt, M. A., & Salmador, M. P. 2013. The interrelationships among informal institutions, formal institutions, and inward foreign direct investment. Journal of Management, 39, 531–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskisson, R. E., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., & Peng, M. W. 2013. Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 1295–1321.

    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, 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, Y., & Peng, M. W. 2011. Principal-principal conflicts during crisis. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(4), 683–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, Y., Peng, M. W., Yang, X., & Mutlu, C. 2015. Privatization, governance, and survival: MNE investments in private participation projects in emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 50, 294–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. A., Schnatterly, K., Johnson, S. G., & Chiu, S. C. 2010. Institutional investors and institutional environment: A comparative analysis and review. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1590–1613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. R., & Hill, C. W. L. 1988. Transaction cost analysis of strategy-structure choice. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ju, M., & Zhao, H. 2009. Behind organizational slack and firm performance in China: The moderating roles of ownership and competitive intensity. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26, 701–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., & Mahoney, J. T. 2005. Property rights theory, transaction costs theory, and agency theory: An organizational economics approach to strategic management. Managerial and Decision Economics, 26, 223–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., & Mahoney, J. T. 2010. A strategic theory of the firm as a nexus of incomplete contracts: A property rights approach. Journal of Management, 36, 806–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24, 625–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kole, S. R., & Mulherin, J. H. 1997. The government as a shareholder: A case from the United States. Journal of Law and Economics, 40, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornai, J. 1992. The socialist system. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., & Hult, G. T. M. 2016. Meyer and Peng’s 2005 article as a foundation for an expanded and refined international business research agenda: Context, organizations, and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 47, 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriauciunas, A., & Kale, P. 2006. The impact of socialist imprinting and search on resource change: A study of firms in Lithuania. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 659–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T., Leca, B., & Zilber, T. 2013. Institutional work: Current research, new directions, and overlooked issues. Organization Studies, 34, 1023–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le, T. V., & O’Brien, J. P. 2010. Can two wrongs make a right? State ownership and debt in a transition economy. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1297–1316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebedev, S., Peng, M. W., Xie, E., & Stevens, C. 2015. Mergers and acquisitions in and out of emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 50, 651–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., & Zhang, Y. 2007. The role of managers’ political networking and functional experience in new venture performance: Evidence from China’s transition economy. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 791–804.

  • Li, W., He, A., Lan, H., & Yiu, D. 2012. Political connections and corporate diversification in emerging economies: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(3), 799–818.

  • Li, Y., Peng, M. W., & Macaulay, C. 2013. Market-political ambidexterity during institutional transitions. Strategic Organization, 11, 205–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., & Germain, R. 2003. Organizational structure, context, customer orientation, and performance: Lessons from China’s state-owned enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1131–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lux, S., Crook, T. R., & Woehr, D. J. 2011. Mixing business with politics: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and outcomes of corporate political activity. Journal of Management, 37, 223–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, X., Yao, X., & Xi, Y. 2006. Business group affiliation and firm performance in China’s transition economy: A focus on ownership voids. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(4), 467–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, X., Yiu, D., & Zhou, N. 2014. Facing global economic crisis: Foreign sales, ownership groups, and corporate value. Journal of World Business, 49, 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J. T. 2005. Economic foundations of strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Makhija, M. 2002. Comparing the resource-based and market-based views of the firm in a period of great change: Empirical evidence from Czech privatization. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 433–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mantse, R., & Streda, R. 2006. Corporación Nacional del Cobre de Chile (Codelco). Dominion Bond Rating Service. Retrieved Nov. 20, 2011, from http://www.dbrs.com/research/209907/corporacion-nacional-del-cobre-de-chile.pdf.

  • Marquis, C., & Qian, C. 2014. Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance?. Organization Science, 25, 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. 1967 [1867]. Capital: A critique of political economy. New York: International Publishers.

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 2000. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Megginson, W. L., & Netter, J. M. 2001. From state to market: A survey of empirical studies on privatization. Journal of Economic Literature, 39, 321–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E., Ding, Y., Li, J., & Zhang, H. 2014. Overcoming distrust: How SOEs adapt their foreign market entries to institutional pressures. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 1005–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E., & Peng, M. W. 2005. Probing theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe: Transactions, resources, and institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 600–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E., & Peng, M. W. 2016. Theoretical foundations of emerging economy business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 47, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro, G., & Zylbersztajn, D. 2012. A property rights approach to strategy. Strategic Organization, 10, 366–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musacchio, A., Lazzarini, S. G., & Aguilera, R. V. 2015. New varieties of state capitalism: Strategic and governance implications. Academic of Management Perspectives, 29(1), 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutlu, C., Wu, Z., Peng, M. W., & Lin, Z. 2015. Competing in (and out of) transition economies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(3), 571–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. 2008. Envy, comparison costs, and the economic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1429–1449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. New York: Norton.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Okhmatovskiy, O. 2010. Performance implications of ties to the government and SOEs: A political embeddedness perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1021–1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C., & Holzinger, I. 2008. The effectiveness of strategic political management: A dynamic capabilities framework. Academy of Management Review, 33, 496–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. L., de Castro, J. O., & Guillen, M. F. 2008. Influencing politics and political systems: Political systems and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 33, 493–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W. 2000. Business strategies in transition economies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28, 275–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W. 2012. The global strategy of emerging multinationals from China. Global Strategy Journal, 2, 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., & Heath, P. 1996. The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. Academy of Management Review, 21, 492–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., & Markóczy, L. 2015. Human capital and CEO compensation during institutional transitions. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 117–147.

  • Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. 2009. The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. T. 1959. A theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. 1988. The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13, 182–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. F. 2016. A culture theory commentary on Meyer and Peng’s theoretical probe into Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of International Business Studies, 47, 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. 2001. Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26, 22–40.

  • Puffer, S., & McCarthy, D. 2007. Can Russia’s state-managed, network capitalism be competitive? Journal of World Business, 42, 1–13.

  • Rajan, R. G. 2010. Fault lines. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Ralston, D. A., Terpstra-Tong, J., Terpstra, R. H., Wang, X., & Egri, C. 2006. Today’s state-owned enterprises of China: Are they dying dinosaurs or dynamic dynamos? Strategic Management Journal, 27, 824–843.

  • Ramamurti, R. 1987. Performance evaluation of state-owned enterprises in theory and practice. Management Science, 33, 876–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramamurti, R. 1992. Why are developing countries privatizing? Journal of International Business Studies, 23, 225–249.

  • Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, W., Markóczy, L., & Stan, C. V. 2014. The continuing importance of political ties in China. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28, 57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A. 1998. State versus private ownership. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 133–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, J. 2007. Contingent political capital and international alliances: Evidence from South Korea. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 621–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spicer, A., McDermott, G., & Kogut, B. 2000. Entrepreneurship and privatization in Central Europe: The tenuous balance between destruction and creation. Academy of Management Review, 25, 630–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stan, C. V., Peng, M. W., & Bruton, G. D. 2014. Slack and the performance of state-owned enterprises. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(2), 473–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su, W., Peng, M. W., Tan, W., & Cheung, Y.-L. 2016. The signaling effect of corporate social responsibility in emerging economies. Journal of Business Ethics (in press).

  • Tan, J., & Peng, M. W. 2003. Organizational slack and firm performance during economic transitions: Two studies from an emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1249–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toninelli, P. A. (Ed.). 2000. The rise and fall of state-owned enterprises in the Western world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, J., & Yarrow, G. 1991. Economic perspectives on privatization. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wall Street Journal. 2011. Ailing Greece tries national tag sale. June 28: 1.

  • Wang, C., Hong, J., Kafouros, M., & Wright, M. 2012. Exploring the role of government involvement in outward FDI from emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 43, 655–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., & Judge, W. Q. 2012. Managerial ownership and the role of privatization in transition economies: The case of China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 479–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, S. 2000. Competition, capabilities, and the make, buy, or ally decisions of Chinese state-owned firms. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 324–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, R. 2012. Big strategy/small strategy. Strategic Organization, 10, 263–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. 1991. Economic institutions: Spontaneous and intentional governance. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 7, 159–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. 2005. Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia, J., Ma, X., Lu, J. W., & Yiu, D. W. 2014. Outward foreign direct investment by emerging market firms: A resource dependence logic. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1343–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, E., Huang, Y., Peng, M. W., & Zhuang, G. 2016. Resources, aspirations, and emerging multinationals. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies (in press).

  • Xu, E., Yang, H., Quan, M., & Lu, Y. 2015. Organizational slack and corporate social performance: Empirical evidence from China’s public firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(1), 181–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. N., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G. D., & Jiang, Y. 2008. Corporate governance in emerging economies: A review of the principal-principal perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 196–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. N., Tsai, T., Wang, X., Liu, S., & Ahlstrom, D. 2014. Strategy in emerging economies and the theory of the firm. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(1), 331–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenger, T. D., Felin, T., & Bigelow, L. 2011. Theories of the firm-market boundary. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 89–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Earlier versions of the paper were presented at the Research Conference on Central and Eastern Europe (Vienna, March 2012), Academy of Management (Orlando, August 2013), and Strategic Management Society Extension Conferences (Sydney, December 2014; Fort Worth, October 2015). We thank Jane Lu (Editor-in-Chief) and an anonymous reviewer for constructive feedback, and Dave Ahlstrom, Arnold Shuh, and Mike Young for helpful discussions. This research was supported in part by the Jindal Chair at UT Dallas.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jindal School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas, 800 West Campbell, SM 43, Richardson, TX, 75080, USA

    Mike W. Peng

  2. Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, 76129, USA

    Garry D. Bruton

  3. College of Business, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA

    Ciprian V. Stan

  4. School of Management, Xi’an Jiaotong University, 28 Xianning West Road, Xi’an, 710049, China

    Yuanyuan Huang

Authors
  1. Mike W. Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Garry D. Bruton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ciprian V. Stan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuanyuan Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike W. Peng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peng, M.W., Bruton, G.D., Stan, C.V. et al. Theories of the (state-owned) firm. Asia Pac J Manag 33, 293–317 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-016-9462-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-016-9462-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation