Skip to main content

Foreign direct investment via M&A and domestic entrepreneurship: blessing or curse?

Abstract

There are conflicting predictions in the literature about the relationship between FDI and entrepreneurship. This paper explores how foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows, measured by lagged cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&A), affect entrepreneurial entry in the host economy. We have constructed a micro-panel of more than two thousand individuals in each of seventy countries, 2000–2009, linked to FDI by matching sectors. We find the relationship between FDI inflows and domestic entrepreneurship to be negative across all economies. This negative effect is much more pronounced in developed than developing economies and is also identified within industries, notably in manufacturing. Policies to encourage FDI via M&A need to consider how to counteract the prevailing adverse effect on domestic entrepreneurship.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Positive spillover effects can occur through the local dissemination of innovations (Barrios et al. 2005; Ayyagari and Kosová 2010), demonstration effects (Barry et al. 2003), labor mobility (Fosfuri et al. 2001), enhanced export performance (Greenaway et al. 2004) and economic restructuring (Caves 1974; Kokko et al. 1996).

  2. 2.

    See Aitken and Harrison (1999), Kathuria (2000) and Barrios et al. (2005). Negative spillovers can derive from, for example, reduced market competition through entry-deterrence (Dixit 1980) or crowding out (Caves 1996).

  3. 3.

    The Thomson SDC Platinum database is extensively used in M&A research (see, Deutsch et al. 2007; Finkelstein and Haleblian 2002).

  4. 4.

    The 10 % threshold level is the one set by international institutions such as the OECD, IMF and UNCTAD.

  5. 5.

    We also experimented with gross fixed capital formation and market capitalization of listed companies to normalize FDI, but due to multicollinearity problems, we opted for GDP.

  6. 6.

    The cutoff points used to generate the remaining dummy variables are shown in supplement Table 6 in the online appendix.

  7. 7.

    Nearly 85 %. Information retrieved on April, 18 2012 from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_46.

  8. 8.

    See, Alfaro et al. (2004), Durham (2004) and Lensink and Morrissey (2006). The generalized method of moments (GMM) in differences is also a commonly used estimator to deal with the endogeneity of FDI (Carkovic and Levine 2005). However, in a (highly) unbalanced panel like ours, GMM drops too many observations.

  9. 9.

    Estimation results that are not reported are available from the authors upon request.

  10. 10.

    This value is calculated by multiplying the FDI variable coefficient with its standard deviation, which is 0.01877 × 0.808 = 0.015.

  11. 11.

    These are 3.18 and 6.12, respectively.

  12. 12.

    As we do not have data on inter-industry linkages for all countries in the sample, we cannot analyze the effects of non-horizontal FDI inflows on domestic entrepreneurship.

  13. 13.

    The impact of the control variables is also in line with the analysis of the aggregate data.

  14. 14.

    We follow the definition of The World Bank (WB) in our categorization. If a country’s classification changes over the sample period (applies to Argentina, Chile, Croatia, Latvia, Malaysia, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Uruguay and Venezuela), we use the most recent WB categorization for the whole period.

References

  1. Acs, Z., & Audretsch, D. (2003). Handbook of entrepreneurship research. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Acs, Z., Desai, S., & Hessels, J. (2008). Entrepreneurship, economic development and institutions. Small Business Economics, 31(3), 219–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aggarwal, R., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Peria, M. S. (2011). Do remittances promote financial development? Journal of Development Economics, 96(2), 255–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aidis, R., Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. (2012). Size matters: Entrepreneurial entry and government. Small Business Economics, 39(1), 119–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aitken, B., Hanson, G. H., & Harrison, A. E. (1997). Spillovers, foreign investment and export behavior. Journal of International Economics, 43(1–2), 103–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Aitken, B. J., & Harrison, A. E. (1999). Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review, 89(3), 605–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Alfaro, L., Chanda, A., Kalemli-Ozcan, S., & Sayek, S. (2004). FDI and economic growth: The role of local financial markets. Journal of International Economics, 64(1), 89–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Anokhin, S., & Schulze, W. S. (2009). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and corruption. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 465–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Asiedu, E. (2002). On the determinants of foreign direct investment to developing countries: Is Africa different? World Development, 30(1), 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Autio, E., Pathak, S., & Wennberg, K. (2013). Consequences of cultural practices for entrepreneurial behaviors. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(4), 334–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ayyagari, M., & Kosová, R. (2010). Does FDI facilitate domestic entry? Evidence from the Czech Republic. Review of International Economics, 18(1), 14–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Barrios, S., Görg, H., & Strobl, E. (2005). Foreign direct investment, competition and industrial development in the host country. European Economic Review, 49(7), 1761–1784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Barry, F., Görg, H., & Strobl, E. (2003). Foreign direct investment, agglomerations, and demonstration effects: An empirical investigation. Review of World Economics, 139(4), 583–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Baumol, W., & Strom, R. (2007). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 233–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Berry, H., Guillen, M., & Zhou, N. (2010). An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(9), 1460–1480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bevan, A., & Estrin, S. (2004). The determinants of foreign direct investment into European transition economies. Journal of Comparative Economics, 32(4), 775–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brainard, L. S. (1997). An empirical assessment of the proximity-concentration trade-off between multi-national sales and trade. American Economic Review, 87(4), 520–544.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Carkovic, M., & Levine, R. (2005). Does foreign direct investment accelerate economic growth? In T. H. Moran, E. M. Graham, & M. Blomström (Eds.), Does foreign direct investment promote development? (pp. 195–220). Washington, DC: Institute of International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Carr, D. L., Markusen, J. R., & Markusen, K. E. (2001). Estimating the knowledge-capital model of the multinational enterprise. American Economic Review, 91(3), 693–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Caves, R. E. (1974). Multinational firms, competition and productivity in host country markets. Economica, 41(162), 176–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Caves, R. (1996). Multinational enterprise and economic analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. De Backer, K., & Sleuwaegen, L. (2003). Does foreign direct investment crowd out domestic entrepreneurship? Review of Industrial Organization, 22(1), 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Deutsch, Y., Keil, T., & Laamanen, T. (2007). Decision making in acquisitions: The effect of outside directors’ compensation on acquisition patterns. Journal of Management, 33(1), 30–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dixit, A. (1980). The role of investment in entry-deterrence. The Economic Journal, 90(357), 95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Djankov, S., & Hoekman, B. (2000). Foreign investment and productivity growth in Czech enterprises. World Bank Economic Review, 14(1), 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2002). The regulation of entry. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dunning, J. H. (1993). Multinational enterprise and the global economy. Wokingham: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Durham, J. B. (2004). Absorptive capacity and the effects of foreign direct investment and equity foreign portfolio investment on economic growth. European Economic Review, 48(2), 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Feenstra, R., & Hansen, G. H. (1997). Foreign direct investment and relative wages: Evidence from Mexico’s maquiladoras. Journal of International Economics, 42, 371–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Finkelstein, S., & Haleblian, J. (2002). Understanding acquisition performance: The role of transfer effects. Organization Science, 13(1), 36–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fosfuri, A., Motta, M., & Ronde, T. (2001). Foreign direct investment and spillovers through labor mobility. Journal of International Economics, 53(1), 205–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Frankel, J. A., & Romer, D. (1999). Does trade cause growth? American Economic Review, 89(3), 379–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Görg, H., & Strobl, E. (2002). Multinational companies and indigenous development: An empirical analysis. European Economic Review, 46(7), 1305–1322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Greenaway, D., Sousa, N., & Wakelin, K. (2004). Do domestic firms learn to export from multinationals? European Journal of Political Economy, 20(4), 1027–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Greene, W. (2011). Econometric analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Haskel, J., Pereira, S., & Slaughter, M. (2007). Does inward foreign direct investment boost the productivity of domestic firms? Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(3), 482–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hayton, J. C., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). National culture and entrepreneurship: A review of behavior research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 33–52.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Head, K. (2003). Gravity for beginners. New York and Geneva: UNCTAD Virtual Institute, United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hechavarria, D. M., & Reynolds, P. (2009). Cultural norms & business start-ups: The impact of national values on opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5(4), 417–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Inglehart, R. (2006). Mapping global values. Comparative Sociology, 5(2), 115–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. (2000). Modernization, cultural change and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Javorcik, B. S. (2004). Does foreign investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages. American Economic Review, 94(3), 605–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kathuria, V. (2000). Productivity spillovers from technology transfer to Indian manufacturing firms. Journal of International Development, 12(3), 343–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., and Mastruzzi, M. (2009). Governance matters VIII: Aggregate and individual governance indicators, 1996–2008. (Policy Research Working Paper 4978). Washington, DC: World Bank.

  46. Kemeny, T. (2010). Does foreign direct investment drive technological upgrading? World Development, 38(11), 1543–1554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kneller, R., & Pisu, M. (2007). Industrial linkages and export spillovers from FDI. The World Economy, 30(1), 105–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Knight, G. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2004). Innovation, organizational capabilities, and the born-global firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 124–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Koellinger, P. D., & Thurik, A. R. (2012). Entrepreneurship and the business cycle. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(4), 1143–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kokko, A. (1992). Foreign direct investment, host country characteristics, and spillovers. Stockholm: The Economic Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kokko, A., Tasini, R., & Zejan, M. (1996). Local technological capability and productivity spillovers from FDI in the Uruguayan manufacturing sector. Journal of Development Studies, 32(4), 602–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kwon, S. W., & Arenius, P. (2010). Nations of entrepreneurs: A social capital perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(3), 315–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lee, J. (1993). International trade distortions and long run economic growth. IMF Staff Papers, 40(2), 299–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Lensink, R., & Morrissey, O. (2006). Foreign direct investment: Flows, volatility, and the impact on growth. Review of International Economics, 14(3), 478–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lipsey, R. E., & Sjoholm, F. (2004). Foreign direct investment, education and wages in Indonesian manufacturing. Journal of Development Economics, 73(1), 415–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Markusen, J. R., & Venables, A. J. (1999). Foreign direct investment as a catalyst for industrial development. European Economic Review, 43(2), 335–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Mayer, T., & Zignago, S. (2011). Notes on CEPII’s distances measures: The GeoDist database. CEPII Working Paper Retrieved from July 03, 2016, from http://www.cepii.fr/PDF_PUB/wp/2011/wp2011-25.pdf.

  58. Navaretti, G. B., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Multinational firms in the world economy. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Parker, S. C. (2004). The economics of self-employment and entrepreneurship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. Reynolds, P., Bygrave, W.D. and Autio, E. (2003). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2003 Executive Report. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership at the Ewing Kaufman Foundation. Retrieved on April 23, 2012, from http://www.gemconsortium.org/docs/259/gem-2003-global-report.

  61. Reynolds, P., Bygrave, W.D., Autio, E., Cox, L.W. & Hay, M. (2002). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2002 Executive Report. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership at the Ewing Kaufman Foundation. Retrieved on April 23, 2012, from http://www.gemconsortium.org/docs/256/gem-2002-global-report.

  62. Reynolds, P., Hay, M., & Camp, S. M. (1999). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 1999 Executive Report. Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership at the Ewing Kaufman Foundation. Retrieved on April 23, 2012, from http://www.gemconsortium.org/docs/221/gem-1999-global-report.

  63. Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Stiebale, J., & Reize, F. (2011). The impact of FDI through mergers and acquisitions on innovation in target firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 29(2), 155–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Suddle, K., Beugelsdijk, S., & Wennekers, S. (2010). Entrepreneurial culture and its effect on the nascent entrepreneurship. In A. Freytag & A. R. Thurik (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and culture (pp. 227–244). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  66. UNCTAD. (2007). World investment report 2007: transnational corporations, extractive industries and development. United Nations: New York and Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Van Stel, A., Storey, D. J., & Thurik, A. R. (2007). The effect of business regulations on nascent and young business entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 28(2–3), 171–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Wennekers, S., Van Stel, A., Thurik, R., & Reynolds, P. (2005). Nascent entrepreneurship and the level of economic development. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 293–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge helpful comments from two anonymous referees, as well as Niels Bosma, Jolanda Hessels, Klaus Meyer, Wim Naude, Erik Stam and participants in a seminar at the National Academies in Washington, the German Institute for Economic Research in Washington (DIWDC), the Maastricht School of Management, Utrecht University School of Economics and session participants at the 2013 European Economic Association Meetings in Gothenburg, at the 2013 Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference in Lyon and at the workshop on ‘Institutions and the Allocation of Entrepreneurship’ in Utrecht. Any remaining errors are their own. We also gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Dutch Ministry for Economic Affairs.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seçil Hülya Danakol.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 85 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Danakol, S.H., Estrin, S., Reynolds, P. et al. Foreign direct investment via M&A and domestic entrepreneurship: blessing or curse?. Small Bus Econ 48, 599–612 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9792-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Foreign direct investment
  • Entrepreneurship
  • New firm entry
  • Spillovers

JEL Classifications

  • F23
  • M13
  • L26