Advertisement

Varieties of capitalism and the internationalization of state-owned enterprises

  • Sergio Mariotti
  • Riccardo MarzanoEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article sheds light on how the internationalization of state-owned enterprises is influenced by the state involvement in ownership and by the home country’s institutional settings. Integrating international business literature with the debate on the varieties of capitalism, we contend that state-dominated enterprises internationalize more (less) than privately owned enterprises in coordinated (liberal) market economies, whereas they exhibit an inconstant behavior in state-influenced market economies. Our analysis on a sample of enterprises pertaining to 20 OECD countries supports our hypotheses. This article adds to studies on the influence of institutions on firms’ internationalization and has implications for both managers and policymakers.

Keywords

business/government interaction and relations internationalization state-owned enterprises varieties of capitalism institutional theory multiple regression analysis 

Résumé

Cet article met en lumière la manière dont l’internationalisation des entreprises publiques est influencée par la participation de l’État dans le capital et par le cadre institutionnel du pays d’origine. En intégrant la littérature en international business au débat sur les variétés du capitalisme, nous affirmons que les entreprises dominées par l’État s’internationalisent plus (moins) que les entreprises privées dans les économies de marché coordonnées (libérales), alors qu’elles affichent un comportement inconstant dans les économies de marché influencées par l’État. Notre analyse sur un échantillon d’entreprises appartenant à vingt pays de l’OCDE confirme nos hypothèses. Cet article vient s’ajouter aux études sur l’influence des institutions sur l’internationalisation des entreprises et a des implications pour les dirigeants et les décideurs politiques.

Resumen

Este artículo esclarece sobre cómo la internacionalización de empresas de propiedad del estado es influenciada por la participación estatal en la propiedad y por los entornos institucionales del país de origen. Integrando la literatura de negocios internacionales con el debate de las variedades de capitalismo, sostenemos que las empresas dominadas por el estado se internacionalizan más (menos) que las empresas privadas en económicas de mercado coordinadas (liberales), en tanto que exhiben un comportamiento inconstante en las economías de mercado influenciadas por el estado. Nuestro análisis en una muestra de empresas pertenecientes a veinte países de la OCDE apoya nuestras hipótesis. Este artículo se suma a los estudios sobre la influencia de las instituciones en la internacionalización de empresas y tiene implicaciones tanto para los gerentes como para los encargados de políticas.

Resumo

Este artigo esclarece como a internacionalização de empresas estatais é influenciada pelo envolvimento do Estado na propriedade e pelos arranjos institucionais do país de origem. Integrando a literatura em negócios internacionais com o debate sobre as variedades do capitalismo, afirmamos que as empresas dominadas pelo Estado se internacionalizam mais (menos) do que as empresas privadas em economias de mercado coordenadas (liberais), enquanto exibem um comportamento inconstante em economias de mercado influenciadas pelo Estado. Nossa análise em uma amostra de empresas pertencentes a vinte países da OCDE corrobora nossas hipóteses. Este artigo contribui para estudos sobre a influência das instituições na internacionalização de empresas e tem implicações tanto para administradores quanto para os formuladores de políticas.

摘要

本文阐述了国有企业的国际化如何受国家对所有权的参与以及受母国制度环境的影响。我们将国际商务文献与关于资本主义多样性的辩论相结合, 认为国家主导的企业在协调的(自由的)市场经济中比私营企业更多(少)国际化, 而它们在受国家影响的市场经济中则表现出不一致的行为。我们对20个经合组织国家的企业样本的分析支持了我们的假设。 本文对制度对企业国际化的影响的研究做出了贡献, 并给管理者和决策者带来启示。

Notes

Aknowledgements

Our heartfelt thanks go to Ilan Vertinsky and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. Your efforts helped us improve this paper.

REFERENCES

  1. 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(2): 277–297.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, A. B., & Stiglitz, J. E. 1980. Lectures on public economics. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  3. Bai, C. E., & Xu, L. C. 2005. Incentives for CEOs with multitasks: Evidence from Chinese state-owned enterprises. Journal of Comparative Economics, 33(3): 517–539.Google Scholar
  4. Bass, A. E., & Chakrabarty, S. 2014. Resource security: Competition for global resources, strategic intent, and governments as owners. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(8): 961–979.Google Scholar
  5. Benito, G. R. G., Rygh, A., & Lunnan, R. 2016. The benefits of internationalization for state-owned enterprises. Global Strategy Journal, 6(4): 269–288.Google Scholar
  6. Biais, B., & Perotti, E. 2002. Machiavellian privatization. American Economic Review, 92(1): 240–258.Google Scholar
  7. Bismut, S. 2006. Competition in European telecom markets. Communications & Strategies, 64(4): 17–28.Google Scholar
  8. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. 1998. Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1): 115–143.Google Scholar
  9. Boardman, A. E., & Vining, A. R. 1989. Ownership and performance in competitive environments: A comparison of the performance of private, mixed, and state-owned enterprises. Journal of Law and Economics, 32(1): 1–33.Google Scholar
  10. Bohle, D., & Greskovits, B. 2012. Capitalist diversity in Europe’s periphery. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bond, S. R. 2002. Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese Economic Journal, 1(2): 141–162.Google Scholar
  12. Bortolotti, B., & Faccio, M. 2009. Government control of privatized firms. The Review of Financial Studies, 22(8): 2907–2939.Google Scholar
  13. Bortolotti, B., & Pinotti, P. 2008. Delayed privatization. Public Choice, 136(3): 331–351.Google Scholar
  14. Boycko, M., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. 1996. A theory of privatization. Economic Journal, 106(435): 309–319.Google Scholar
  15. Bruton, G. D., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Ciprian, S., & Xu, K. 2015. State-owned enterprises around the world as hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1): 92–114.Google Scholar
  16. Buckley, P. J., Clegg, L. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Chari, A., & Gupta, N. 2008. Incumbents and protectionism: The political economy of foreign entry liberalization. Journal of Financial Economics, 88(3): 633–656.Google Scholar
  18. Chen, V. Z., Musacchio, A., & Li, S. 2016. Hybrid Leviathans overseas: Government–private shareholder conflicts in cross-border acquisitions. Academy of Management Proceedings.  https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.45.Google Scholar
  19. Chong, A., & López-de-Silanes, F. (Eds.). 2005. Privatization in Latin America: Myths and reality. Washington, DC: World Bank and Stanford University.Google Scholar
  20. Clifton, J., Comin, F., & Díaz-Fuentes, D. 2011. From national monopoly to multinational corporation: How regulation shaped the road towards telecommunications internationalization. Business History, 53(5): 761–781.Google Scholar
  21. Clifton, J., Díaz-Fuentes, D., & Revuelta, J. 2010. The political economy of telecoms and electricity internationalization in the single market. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(7): 988–1006.Google Scholar
  22. Colli, A., Mariotti, S., & Piscitello, L. 2014. Governments as strategists in designing global players: The case of European utilities. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(4): 487–508.Google Scholar
  23. Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Inkpen, A., Musacchio, A., & Ramaswamy, K. 2014. Governments as owners: State-owned multinational companies. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(8): 919–942.Google Scholar
  24. 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(3): 264–284.Google Scholar
  25. Dharwadkar, B., George, G., & Brandes, P. 2000. Privatization in emerging economies: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25(3): 650–669.Google Scholar
  26. Dinc, I. S., & Gupta, N. 2011. The decision to privatize: Finance and politics. Journal of Finance, 66(1): 241–269.Google Scholar
  27. Dore, R. 2000. Stock market capitalism: Welfare capitalism: Japan and Germany versus the Anglo-Saxons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Duanmu, J. 2014. State-owned MNCs and host country expropriation risk: The role of home state soft power and economic gunboat diplomacy. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(8): 1044–1060.Google Scholar
  29. Dunning, J. H. 1993. Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  30. Estrin, S., Meyer, K. E., Nielsen, B. B., & Nielsen, S. 2016. Home country institutions and the internationalization of state owned enterprises: A cross-country analysis. Journal of World Business, 51(2): 294–307.Google Scholar
  31. Faccio, M. 2006. Politically connected firms. American Economic Review, 96(1): 369–386.Google Scholar
  32. Faccio, M., & Lang, L. H. 2002. The ultimate ownership of Western European corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 65(3): 365–395.Google Scholar
  33. Financial Times. 2018. E.On deal with RWE set to transform German energy sector. March 11.Google Scholar
  34. Garrone, P., & Marzano, R. 2015. Why do local governments resist contracting out? Urban Affairs Review, 51(5): 616–648.Google Scholar
  35. Grøgaard, B., Gioia, C., & Benito, G. R. G. 2013. An empirical investigation of the role of industry factors in the internationalization patterns of firms. International Studies of Management & Organization, 43(1): 81–100.Google Scholar
  36. Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (Eds.). 2010. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education International.Google Scholar
  37. Hall, P. A. 2014. Varieties of capitalism and the Euro crisis. West European Politics, 37(6): 1223–1243.Google Scholar
  38. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of competitiveness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hancké, B., Rhodes, M., & Thatcher, M. (Eds.). 2007. Beyond varieties of capitalism: Conflict, contradictions, and complementarities in the European economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Henisz, W. J., Zelner, B. A., & Guillén, M. F. 2005. The worldwide diffusion of market-oriented infrastructure reform, 1977–1999. American Sociological Review, 70(6): 871–897.Google Scholar
  41. Hennart, J. F. 2011. A theoretical assessment of the empirical literature on the impact of multinationality on performance. Global Strategy Journal, 1(1/2): 135–151.Google Scholar
  42. Hodges, M., & Woolcock, S. 1993. Atlantic capitalism versus Rhine capitalism in the European community. West European Politics, 16(3): 329–344.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Hu, H. W., Cui, L., & Aulakh, P. S. 2018. State capitalism and performance persistence of business group-affiliated firms: A comparative study of China and India. Journal of International Business Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0165-5.Google Scholar
  45. Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. 2008. Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 540–561.Google Scholar
  46. Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. 2012. The long-term trajectories of institutional change in European capitalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(8): 1109–1125.Google Scholar
  47. Karolyi, G. A., & Liao, R. C. 2017. State capitalism’s global reach: Evidence from foreign acquisitions by state-owned companies. Journal of Corporate Finance, 42(C): 367–391.Google Scholar
  48. Kirca, A. H., Hult, G. T. M., Perryy, M. Z., & Cavusgil, S. T. 2010. A multilevel examination of the drivers of multinationality: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 38(2): 502–530.Google Scholar
  49. Knutsen, C. H., Rygh, A., & Hveem, H. 2011. Does state ownership matter? Institutions’ effect on foreign direct investment revisited. Business and Politics, 13(1): 1–33.Google Scholar
  50. La Porta, R., & Lopez-de-Silanes, F. 1999. The benefits of privatization: Evidence from Mexico. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4): 1193–1242.Google Scholar
  51. Lenway, S. A., & Murtha, T. P. 1994. The state as strategist in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(3): 513–535.Google Scholar
  52. Li, M., Cui, L., & Lu, J. 2014. Varieties in state capitalism: Outward FDI strategies of central and local state-owned enterprises from emerging economy countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(8): 980–1004.Google Scholar
  53. Liang, H., Ren, B., & Sun, S. 2015. An anatomy of state control in the globalization of state-owned enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(2): 223–240.Google Scholar
  54. Marzano, R. 2015. One more ride on the merry-go-round! Public ownership and delayed competition in local public services. Journal of Comparative Economics, 43(4): 981–996.Google Scholar
  55. Mazzolini, R. 1980. The international strategy of state-owned firms: An organizational process and politics perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 1(2): 101–118.Google Scholar
  56. Mazzucato, M. 2013. The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
  57. Meyer, K. E., 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.Google Scholar
  58. Molina, O., & Rhodes, M. 2007. The political economy of adjustment in mixed market economies: A study of Spain and Italy. In B. Hancké, M. Rhodes, & M. Thatcher (Eds.), Beyond varieties of capitalism: Conflict, contradictions and complementarities in the European economy: 223–252. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Mueller, D. C. 2003. Public choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Musacchio, A., Lazzarini, S. G., & Aguilera, R. V. 2015. New varieties of state capitalism: Strategic and governance implications. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1): 115–131.Google Scholar
  61. O’Sullivan, M. 2000. Contests for corporate control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. OECD. 2017. The size and sectoral distribution of state-owned enterprises. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  63. Pan, Y., Teng, L., Supapol, A. B., Lu, X., Huang, D., & Wang, Z. 2014. Firms’ FDI ownership: The influence of government ownership and legislative connections. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(8): 1029–1043.Google Scholar
  64. Pedersen, T., & Thomsen, S. 1997. European patterns of corporate ownership: A twelve-country study. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4): 759–778.Google Scholar
  65. Pollitt, M. G. 2012. The role of policy in energy transitions: Lessons from the energy liberalisation era. Energy Policy, 50(C): 128–137.Google Scholar
  66. Scharfstein, D. 1988. The disciplinary role of takeovers. Review of Economic Studies, 55(2): 165–199.Google Scholar
  67. Schmidt, V. A. 2009. Putting the political back into political economy by bringing the state back in yet again. World Politics, 61(3): 516–546.Google Scholar
  68. Schmidt, V. A. (2016). Varieties of capitalism: A distinct French model? In R. Elgie, A. Mazur, E. Grossman, & A. Appleton (Eds.), Oxford handbook of French politics: 606–635. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Scott, P., & Falcone, S. 1998. Comparing public and private organizations: An explanatory analysis of three frameworks. American Review of Public Administration, 28(2): 126–145.Google Scholar
  70. 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.Google Scholar
  71. Stopford, J., & Strange, S. 1991. Rival state, rival firms: Competition for world market shares. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Sullivan, D. 1994. Measuring the degree of internationalization of a firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(2): 325–341.Google Scholar
  73. Thomas, S. 2006. The British model in Britain: Failing slowly. Energy Policy, 34(5): 583–600.Google Scholar
  74. Vernon, R. 1971. Sovereignty at bay. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  75. Vickers, J., & Yarrow, G. 1991. Economic perspectives on privatization. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(2): 111–132.Google Scholar
  76. Vitols, S. 2001. Varieties of corporate governance: Comparing Germany and the UK. In P. A. Hall & D. Soskice (Eds.), Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of competitiveness: 337–360. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. 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(7): 655–676.Google Scholar
  78. Witt, M. A., & Jackson, G. 2016. Varieties of capitalism and institutional comparative advantage: A test and reinterpretation. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(7): 778–806.Google Scholar
  79. Witt, M. A., & Redding, G. 2013. Asian business systems: Institutional comparison, clusters and implications for varieties of capitalism and business systems theory. Socio-Economic Review, 11(2): 265–300.Google Scholar
  80. Wooldridge, J. M. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  81. 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(9): 1343–1363.Google Scholar
  82. Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 341–363.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management, Economics and Industrial EngineeringDIG - Politecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Computer, Control and Management EngineeringDIAG - Sapienza Università di RomaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations