Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ownership strategies in knowledge-intensive cross-border acquisitions: Comparing Chinese and Indian MNEs

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

Abstract

Drawing on the comparative ownership framework, we perform a comparative analysis of Chinese and Indian multinational enterprises (MNEs)’ ownership strategies in knowledge-intensive cross-border acquisitions (CBAs). Specifically, we claim that due to their lower comparative ownership advantage, and the consequent higher information asymmetry, Chinese MNEs are more cautious (than Indian MNEs) in their ownership strategy. We rely on a dataset of acquisitions undertaken by high and medium-high tech Chinese and Indian MNEs worldwide during the period 2000–2014. Results confirm that Chinese MNEs prefer lower equity control than their Indian counterparts. However, such a preference for lower equity decreases with higher home-host institutional distance and host country-specific previous experience. These factors do not seem to modify the ownership preference of Indian MNEs in the same way.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is important to note that in H1 we do not take into account whether the acquisition was made in a developed or emerging market.

  2. The initial sample was composed by 425 Chinese and Indian knowledge-intensive acquisitions. Considering the significant amount of missing data especially for firm-level variables, the final sample is smaller compared to the initial one. Therefore, we performed three different χ2 tests on three sample dimensions (i.e., host countries, acquirer sectors and target sectors) using the original sample. The tests show that there are no statistically significant differences between the distribution of the sample firms across the three dimensions and the corresponding distribution of the population from which the sample was drawn (p-values: .36, .26 and .18, respectively).

  3. We use the classification provided by the International Monetary Fund for categorizing the target countries included in the sample.

  4. The items of the Economics Freedom Index are actually 10, but the 10th (i.e., labor freedom) is not employed as it has been made available only since 2005, while the deals included in our sample range from 2000 to 2014.

  5. Following Gaur and Lu (2007) and Contractor et al. (2014) we distinguish between formal and informal institutions. In particular, we call simply institutions the former, which relate to rules, law and practices, while informal institutions refer to values, norms and traditions of culture, language and society (North, 1973).

  6. In case the index of host country was not available, we assigned these countries the score of others supposed to have similar institutional environment (for a similar approach, see Quer, Claver, & Rienda, 2012).

  7. In our sample the direction of the institutional distance is positive in 97% of the observations, indicating that knowledge-intensive acquisitions undertaken by Chinese and Indian firms are targeting more institutionally advanced countries, as hypothesized in our theoretical framework.

  8. It may be worth noting that, compared to the models presented in Table 4, we included less control variables. This is due to the smaller number of observations in the two split samples that causes a reduction in the degrees of freedom of the models. However, to avoid any potential omitted variable bias we run further robustness checks on the full model specification and results are in line with the ones presented in Table 6 (results are available upon request from the authors).

References

  • Akerlof, G. A. 1970. The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3): 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amighini, A., Cozza, C., Giuliani, E., Rabellotti, R., & Scalera, V. G. 2015. Multinational enterprises from emerging economies: What theories suggest, what evidence shows. A literature review. Economia e Politica Industriale, 42(3): 343–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. 1986. Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17(3): 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asakawa, K., & Som, A. 2008. Internationalization of R&D in China and India: Conventional wisdom versus reality. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(3): 375–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aybar, B., & Ficici, A. 2009. Cross-border acquisitions and firm value: An analysis of emerging-market multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(8): 1317–1338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkema, H. G., & Schijven, M. 2008. How do firms learn to make acquisitions? A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 34(3): 594–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkema, H. G., & Vermeulen, F. 1998. International expansion through start-up or acquisition: A learning perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1): 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilgili, T. V., Kedia, B. L., & Bilgili, H. 2016. Exploring the influence of resource environments on absorptive capacity development: The case of emerging market firms. Journal of World Business, 51(5): 700–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandl, K., Mudambi, R., & Scalera, V. G. 2015. The spectacular rise of the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Entrepreneur & Innovation Exchange. Available at https://eiexchange.com/content/111-the-spectacular-rise-of-the-indian-pharmaceutical-industry.

  • Brouthers, K. D., & Brouthers, L. E. 2001. Explaining the national cultural distance paradox. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(1): 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., Clegg, J., Cross, A. R., Liu, X., Voss, H., & Zheng, P. 2007. The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4): 499–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., Munjal, S., Enderwick, P., & Forsans, N. 2016. The role of experiential and non-experiential knowledge in cross-border acquisitions: The case of Indian multinational enterprises. Journal of World Business, 51(5): 675–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chari, M. D. R., & Chang, K. 2009. Determinants of the share of equity sought in cross-border acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(8): 1277–1297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S.-F., & Hennart, J.-F. 2004. A hostage theory of joint ventures: Why do Japanese investors choose partial over full acquisitions to enter the United States? Journal of Business Research, 57(10): 1126–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, T. 1994. Trading in strategic resources: Necessary conditions, transaction cost problems, and choice of exchange structure. Strategic Management Journal, 15(4): 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child, J., & Rodrigues, S. B. 2005. The internationalization of Chinese firms: A case for theoretical extension?. Management and Organization Review, 1(3): 381–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cloodt, M., Hagedoorn, J., & van Kranenburg, H. 2006. Mergers and acquisitions: Their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries. Research Policy, 35(5): 642–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F., Yong, Y., & Gaur, A. S. 2016. Firm-specific intangible assets and subsidiary profitability: The moderating role of distance, ownership strategy and subsidiary experience. Journal of World Business, 51(6): 950–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F. J., Kumar, V., & Dhanaraj, C. 2015. Leveraging India: Global interconnectedness and locational competitive advantage. Management International Review, 55(2): 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F. J., Lahiri, S., Elango, B., & Kundu, S. K. 2014. Institutional, cultural and industry related determinants of ownership choices in emerging market FDI acquisitions. International Business Review, 23(5): 931–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, L., & Jiang, F. 2009. FDI entry mode choice of Chinese firms: A strategic behavior perspective. Journal of World Business, 44(4): 434–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Beule, F., Elia, S., & Piscitello, L. 2014. Entry and access to competences abroad: Emerging market firms versus advances market firms. Journal of International Management, 20(2): 137–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, P. 2009. Why do Chinese firms tend to acquire strategic assets in international expansion?. Journal of World Business, 44(1): 74–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhanaraj, C., & Beamish, P. W. 2004. Effect of equity ownership on the survival of international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3): 295–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dow, D., Cuypers, I. R., & Ertug, G. 2016. The effects of within-country linguistic and religious diversity on foreign acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(3): 319–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dow, D., & Karunaratna, A. 2006. Developing a multidimensional instrument to measure psychic distance stimuli. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5): 578–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duanmu, J. L. 2012. Firm heterogeneity and location choice of Chinese multinational enterprises (MNEs). Journal of World Business, 47(1): 64–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duysters, G., Jacob, J., Lemmens, C., & Jintian, Y. 2009. Internationalization and technological catching up of emerging multinationals: A comparative case study of China’s Haier group. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(2): 325–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elango, B., & Pattnaik, C. 2007. Building capabilities for international operations through networks: A study of Indian firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4): 541–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat-OECD. 2007. Science, technology and innovation in Europe. Luxembourg: Eurostat Pocketbooks.

  • Filatotchev, I., Strange, R., Piesse, J., & Lien, Y.-C. 2007. FDI by firms from newly industrialized economies in emerging markets: Corporate governance, entry mode and location. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4): 556–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaur, A. S., Delios, A., & Singh, K. 2007. Institutional environments, staffing strategies and subsidiary performance. Journal of Management, 33(4): 611–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaur, A. S., Kumar, V., & Singh, D. 2014. Institutions, resources, and internationalization of emerging economy firms. Journal of World Business, 49(1): 12–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaur, A. S., & Lu, J. W. 2007. Ownership strategies and survival of foreign subsidiaries: Impacts of institutional distance and experience. Journal of Management, 33(1): 84–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaur, A. S., Ma, X., & Ding, Z. 2018. Home country supportiveness/unfavorableness and outward foreign direct investment from China. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(3): 324–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaur, A. S., Malhotra, S., & Zhu, P. 2013. Acquisition announcements and stock market valuations of acquiring firms’ rivals: A test of the growth probability hypothesis in China. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2): 215–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Globerman, S., & Shapiro, D. 2009. Economic and strategic considerations surrounding Chinese FDI in the United States. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(1): 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. 1993. Econometric analysis, 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. 1998. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice- Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.-F., & Larimo, J. 1998. The impact of culture on the strategy of multinational enterprises: Does national origin affect ownership decisions by foreign direct investors into the United States?. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(3): 515–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobdari, B., Gammeltoft, P., Li, J., & Meyer, K. 2017. The home country of the MNE: The case of emerging economy firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. London: Sage Publications.

    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(7): 1295–1321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm—A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1): 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jory, S. R., & Ngo, T. N. 2014. Cross-border acquisitions of state-owned enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(9): 1096–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, T., Holmes, K. R., & O’Grady, M. A. 2007. 2007 Index of Economic Freedom. Washington, DC and New York: The Heritage Foundation and Dow Jones & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplinsky, R., & Morris, M. 2009. Chinese FDI in sub-Saharan Africa: Engaging with large dragons. European Journal of Development Research, 21(4): 551–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kedia, B. L., & Bilgili, T. V. 2015. When history matters: The effect of historical ties on the relationship between institutional distance and shares acquired. International Business Review, 24(6): 921–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kedia, B. L., & Mukherjee, D. 2009. Understanding offshoring: A research framework based on disintegration, location and externalization advantages. Journal of World Business, 44(3): 250–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D. R., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Kesner, I. 2008. Performance implications of firm resource interactions in the acquisition of R&D-intensive firms. Organization Science, 19(2): 327–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Singh, H. 1988. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3): 411–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstad, I., & Wiig, A. 2012. What determines Chinese outward FDI? Journal of World Business, 47(1): 26–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 64–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., Mudambi, R., & Gray, S. 2013. Internationalization, innovation and institutions: The 3I’s underpinning the competitiveness of emerging market firms. Journal of International Management, 19(3): 203–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landau, C., Karna, A., Richter, A., & Uhlenbruck, K. 2016. Institutional leverage capability: Creating and using institutional advantages for internationalization. Global Strategy Journal, 6(1): 50–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebedev, S., Peng, M. W., Xie, E., & Stevens, C. E. 2015. Mergers and acquisitions in and out of emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 50(4): 651–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., Yang, J. Y., & Yue, D. R. 2007. Identity, community, and audience: How wholly owned foreign subsidiaries gain legitimacy in China. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liou, R. S., Chao, M. C. H., & Yang, M. 2016. Emerging economies and institutional quality: Assessing the differential effects of institutional distances on ownership strategy. Journal of World Business, 51(4): 600–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., & Woywode, M. 2013. Light-touch integration of Chinese cross-border M&A: The influences of culture and absorptive capacity. Thunderbird International Business Review, 55(4): 469–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., & Peng, M. W. 1999. Learning to compete in a transition economy: Experience, environment, and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(2): 269–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., Sun, J., & Wang, S. L. 2011. Comparative strategic management: An emergent field in international management. Journal of International Management, 17(3): 190–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. 2007. International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4): 481–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., & Zhang, H. 2016. Emerging market MNEs: Qualitative review and theoretical directions. Journal of International Management, 22(4): 333–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madhok, A., & Keyhani, M. 2012. Acquisitions as entrepreneurship: Asymmetries, opportunities, and the internationalization of multinationals from emerging economies. Global Strategy Journal, 2(1): 26–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, S., & Gaur, A. S. 2014. Spatial geography and control in foreign acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(2): 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, S., Lin, X., & Farrell, C. 2016a. Cross-national uncertainty and level of control in cross-border acquisitions: A comparison of Latin American and US multinationals. Journal of Business Research, 69(6): 1993–2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, S., Morgan, H. M., & Zhu, P. 2016b. Sticky decisions anchoring and equity stakes in international acquisitions. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316664008.

  • Meyer, K., Ding, Y., Li, J., & Zhang, H. 2014. Overcoming distrust: How state-owned enterprises adapt their foreign entries to institutional pressures abroad. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(8): 1005–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morosini, P., Shane, S., & Singh, H. 1998. National cultural distance and cross-border acquisition performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1): 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee, D., Gaur, A. S., & Datta, A. 2013. Creating value through offshore outsourcing: An integrative framework. Journal of International Management, 19(4): 377–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee, D., Lahiri, S., Ash, S. R., & Gaur, A. S. 2018a. Search motives, local embeddedness, and knowledge outcomes in offshoring. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.035.

  • Mukherjee, D., Makarius, E. E., & Stevens, C. E. 2018b. Business group reputation and affiliates’ internationalization strategies. Journal of World Business, 53(2): 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New York Times. 2010. Chinese carmaker Geely completes acquisition of Volvo from Ford. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/business/global/03volvo.html.

  • Nicholson, R. R., & Salaber, J. 2013. The motives and performance of cross-border acquirers from emerging economies: Comparison between Chinese and Indian firms. International Business Review, 22(6): 963–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. 1973. The rise of the Western world: A new economic history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y., & Jiang, Y. 2008. An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5): 920–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perri, A., Scalera, V. G., & Mudambi, R. 2017. What are the most promising conduits for foreign knowledge inflows? Innovation networks in the Chinese pharmaceutical industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26(2): 333–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, C. F., Ferreira, M. P., Falaster, C., Fleury, M. T. L., & Fleury, A. 2017. Ownership in cross-border acquisitions and the role of government support. Journal of World Business, 52(4): 533–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piscitello, L., Rabellotti, R., & Scalera, V. G. 2015. Chinese and Indian M&As in Europe: The relationship between motive and ownership choice. In A. Risberg, D. King, & O. Meglio (Eds.). The Routledge companion to mergers and acquisitions. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popli, M., Akbar, M., Kumar, V., & Gaur, A. 2016. Reconceptualizing cultural distance: The role of cultural experience reserve in cross-border acquisitions. Journal of World Business, 51(3): 404–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popli, M., & Sinha, A. K. 2014. Determinants of early movers in cross-border merger and acquisition wave in an emerging market: A study of Indian firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(4): 1075–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. 1990. The competitive advantage of notions. Harvard Business Review, 68(2): 73–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portes, R., & Rey, H. 2005. The determinants of cross-border equity flows. Journal of International Economics, 65(2): 269–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, K. S., & Rhee, M. 2016. Experience in different institutional environments and foreign subsidiary ownership structure. Journal of Management, 42: 1434–1461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quer, D., Claver, E., & Rienda, L. 2012. Political risk, cultural distance, and outward foreign direct investment: Empirical evidence from large Chinese firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(4): 1089–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuer, J. J., & Koza, M. P. 2000. On lemons and indigestibility: Resource assembly through joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 21(2): 195–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricardo, D. 1817. Principles of political economy and taxation. London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R., Schendel, D., & Teece, D. (Eds.) 1994. Fundamental issues in strategy: A research agenda. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D. S., & Gaur, A. S. 2009. Business group affiliation, firm governance, and firm performance: Evidence from China and India. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4): 411–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, C., Makarius, E., & Mukherjee, D. 2015. It takes two to tango: Signaling behavioral intent in SMNC’s foreign entry strategies. Journal of International Management, 21(3): 235–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, C. E., & Makarius, E. E. 2015. Overcoming information asymmetry in foreign entry strategy: The impact of reputation. Global Strategy Journal, 5(3): 256–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, S. L., Peng, M. W., Ren, B., & Yan, D. 2012. A comparative ownership advantage framework for cross-border M&As: The rise of Chinese and Indian MNEs. Journal of World Business, 47(1): 4–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD. 2016. World Investment Report 2016: Investor nationality: Policy challenges. New York and Geneva: United Nations Conference for Trade and Development.

  • Welch, D. E., Welch, L. S., & Marschan-Piekkari, R. 2001. The persistent impact of language on global operations. Prometheus, 19(3): 193–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Z., & Li, J. 2017. Selective imitation of compatriot firms: Entry mode decisions of emerging market multinationals in cross-border acquisitions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(1): 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D., Pan, Y., & Beamish, P. W. 2004. The effect of regulative and normative distances on MNE ownership and expatriate strategies. Management International Review, 44(3): 285–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D., & Shenkar, O. 2002. Note: Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 27(4): 608–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H., Sun, S. L., Lin, Z. J., & Peng, M. W. 2011. Behind M&As in China and the United States: Networks, learning, and institutions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(2): 239–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yiu, D. W., Lam, L. W., Gaur, A. S., Lee, S.-H., & Wong, C.-S. 2018. Asian relevance, global impact: Asian management research entering a new era. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(3): 565–571.

  • Zhang, H., Young, M. N., Tan, J., & Sun, W. 2018. How Chinese companies deal with a legitimacy imbalance when acquiring firms from developed economies. Journal of World Business, 53(5): 752–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, H., & Zhu, Q. 2016. Mergers and acquisitions by Chinese firms: A review and comparison with other mergers and acquisitions research in the leading journals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(4): 1107–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, Plantage Muidergracht 12, 1018, TV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Vittoria G. Scalera

  2. Department of Management, University of Akron, 259 South Broadway Street, Akron, OH, USA

    Debmalya Mukherjee

  3. DIG - Politecnico di Milano, Via R. Lambruschini 4/b, 20156, Milan, Italy

    Lucia Piscitello

Authors
  1. Vittoria G. Scalera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Debmalya Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lucia Piscitello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debmalya Mukherjee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scalera, V.G., Mukherjee, D. & Piscitello, L. Ownership strategies in knowledge-intensive cross-border acquisitions: Comparing Chinese and Indian MNEs. Asia Pac J Manag 37, 155–185 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9616-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9616-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation