Advertisement

When to go it alone: Examining post-conversion performance of international joint ventures

  • Sea-Jin ChangEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study examines the decision to convert international joint ventures to either foreign or local wholly owned entities and the subsequent impact on performance from the perspective of incomplete contract theory. With China’s relaxation of the joint venture requirement, foreign partners are more likely to take full control and thereby improve performance in provinces with fewer institutional barriers and industries with high intangible asset intensity, while local partners are more likely to do so in provinces with higher institutional barriers and low intangible asset intensity. Furthermore, the performance improvement is more salient when transitioning from foreign minority-local majority joint ventures.

Keywords

international joint ventures wholly owned subsidiaries acquisition incomplete contract theory property rights theory performance 

Résumé

Cette étude examine la décision de convertir des coentreprises internationales en entités entièrement détenues par des entreprises étrangères ou locales, ainsi que son impact significatif sur la performance du point de vue de la théorie des contrats incomplets. Avec l’assouplissement des exigences de la Chine concernant les coentreprises, les partenaires étrangers sont plus susceptibles de prendre le contrôle total et d’améliorer de ce fait les performances dans les provinces ayant moins d’obstacles institutionnels et des industries à forte intensité d’actifs intangibles, tandis que les partenaires locaux sont plus susceptibles de le faire dans les provinces ayant des barrières institutionnelles plus fortes et une faible intensité d’actifs intangibles. En outre, l’amélioration de la performance est plus évidente lors de la transition de coentreprises détenues minoritairement par des entreprises étrangères et majoritairement par des entreprises locales.

Resumen

Este estudio examina la decisión de convertir empresas conjuntas (joint ventures) en ya sea entidades totalmente de propiedad extranjera o local y el impacto posterior en el desempeño desde una perspectiva de la teoría de contratos incompletos. Con la flexibilización de China del requerimiento para empresas conjuntas, es más probable que los socios extranjeros tomen el control total, y por ende mejoren el desempeño en provincias con menos barreras institucionales y en industrias con alta intensidad de activos intangibles, mientras que los socios locales son más propensos a hacerlo en provincias con barreras institucionales mayores y con baja intensidad de activos intangibles. Además, el mejoramiento del desempeño es más destacado cuando se realiza la transición de empresas conjuntas con minoría extranjera y mayoría local.

Resumo

Este estudo examina a decisão de converter joint ventures internacionais em entidades locais ou estrangeiras totalmente controladas e o subsequente impacto no desempenho sob a perspectiva da teoria de contratos incompletos. Com a flexibilização do requisito de joint venture pela China, é mais provável que parceiros estrangeiros assumam o controle total e, assim, melhorem o desempenho nas províncias com menos barreiras institucionais e indústrias com alta intensidade de ativos intangíveis, enquanto parceiros locais têm maior probabilidade de fazê-lo em províncias com maiores barreiras e menor intensidade de ativos intangíveis. Além disso, a melhoria de desempenho é mais marcante na transição de joint ventures minoritárias em capital estrangeiro para majoritárias em capital local.

摘要

本研究考察了将国际合资企业转换为外国或本土全资实体的决定, 以及从不完全契约理论角度对业绩的相应影响。随着中国对合资企业要求的放宽, 外国合作伙伴更有可能完全控制,从而在体制壁垒较少的省份以及在无形资产强度较高的行业改善业绩, 而当地合作伙伴更有可能在体制壁垒较高的省份以及在无形资产强度较低的行业这样做。此外, 从外方少股份- 本土多股份的合资企业转型时,业绩改善更为突出。

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I appreciate financial support from the National University of Singapore, Research Grant No. R313-000-086-133 and helpful comments and suggestions from Andrew Delios, Ivan Png, and Kulwant Singh. I also appreciate three anonymous reviewers and Area Editor Tailan Chi for their guidance during the review process.

References

  1. Aghion, P., & Tirole, J. 1994. The management of innovation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(4): 1185–1209.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, S. A., & Parker, S. C. 2009. Emerging firms and the allocation of control rights: A Bayesian approach. Academy of Management Review, 34(2): 209–227.Google Scholar
  3. Anand, J., & Delios, A. 1997. Location specificity and the transferability of downstream assets to foreign subsidiaries. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(3): 579–603.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, G. P., & Hubbard, T. N. 2003. Make versus buy in trucking: Asset ownership, job design and information. American Economic Review, 93(3): 551–571.Google Scholar
  5. Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. E., & Werner, S. 2003. Transaction cost-enhanced entry mode choice and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 1239–1248.Google Scholar
  6. Carson, S. J., & John, G. 2013. A theoretical and empirical investigation of property rights sharing in outsourced research, development, and engineering relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 1065–1085.Google Scholar
  7. Chang, S. J., Chung, J., & Moon, J. J. 2013. When do wholly owned subsidiaries perform better than joint ventures? Strategic Management Journal, 34(3): 317–337.Google Scholar
  8. Chang, S. J., & Wu, B. 2014. Institutional barriers and industry dynamics. Strategic Management Journal, 35(8): 1103–1123.Google Scholar
  9. Chi, T. 1996. Performance verifiability and output sharing in collaborative ventures. Management Science, 42(1): 93–109.Google Scholar
  10. Chi, T., & McGuire, J. 1996. Collaborative ventures and value of learning: Integrating the transactions cost and strategic option perspectives on the choice of market entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(2): 285–307.Google Scholar
  11. Coase, R. H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica, 4: 386–405.Google Scholar
  12. Dasgupta, S., & Tao, Z. 1998. Contractual incompleteness and the optimality of equity joint ventures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 37: 391–413.Google Scholar
  13. De Loecker, J. 2007. Do exports generate higher productivity? Evidence from Slovenia. Journal of International Economics, 73(1): 69–98.Google Scholar
  14. Gatignon, H., & Anderson, E. 1988. The multinational corporation’s degree of control over foreign subsidiaries: An empirical test of transaction cost explanation. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 4: 305–336.Google Scholar
  15. Gibbons, R. 2005. Four formal(izable) theories of firm? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58: 200–245.Google Scholar
  16. Girma, S., & Görg, H. 2007. Evaluating the foreign ownership wage premium using a difference-in-differences matching approach. Journal of International Economics, 72(1): 97–112.Google Scholar
  17. Gomes-Casseres, B. 1987. Joint venture instability: Is it a problem? Columbia Journal of World Business, Summer: 97–102.Google Scholar
  18. Grossman, S. J., & Hart, O. 1986. The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of vertical and lateral integration. Journal of Political Economy, 94: 691–719.Google Scholar
  19. Hart, O. 1988. Incomplete contracts and the theory of the firm. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 4(1): 119–139.Google Scholar
  20. Hart, O. 2009. Hold-ups, asset ownership, and reference points. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(1): 267–300.Google Scholar
  21. Hart, O., & Moore, J. 1988. Incomplete contracts and renegotiation. Econometrica, 56(4): 755–785.Google Scholar
  22. Hart, O., & Moore, J. 1990. Property rights and the nature of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6): 1119–1158.Google Scholar
  23. Hellmann, T. 1998. The allocation of capital rights in the venture capital contracts. Rand Journal of Economics, 29(1): 59–76.Google Scholar
  24. Hennart, J. F. 1982. A theory of multinational enterprise. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hennart, J. F. 2009. Down with the MNC-centric theories! Market entry and expansion as the bundling of MNE and local assets. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1432–1454.Google Scholar
  26. Hennart, J. F., & Slangen, A. H. L. 2015. Yes, we really do need more entry mode studies! A commentary on Shaver. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(1): 114–122.Google Scholar
  27. Holmstrom, B. 1982. Moral hazards in teams. Bell Journal of Economics, 13: 324–340.Google Scholar
  28. Hsieh, C. T., & Klenow, P. J. 2009. Misallocation and manufacturing TFP in China and India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4): 1403–1448.Google Scholar
  29. Huang, Y. 2003. Selling China: Foreign direct investment during the reform era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. 2009. Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(1): 5–86.Google Scholar
  31. Inkpen, A. C., & Beamish, P. W. 1997. Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 177–202.Google Scholar
  32. Jia, N. 2014. Are collective political actions and private political actions substitute or complements? Empirical evidence from China’s private sector. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2): 292–315.Google Scholar
  33. Kim, J., & Mahoney, J. 2005. Property rights theory, transactions cost theory, and agency theory: An organizational economics approach to strategic management. Managerial and Decision Economics, 26: 223–242.Google Scholar
  34. Kogut, B. 1991. Joint ventures and the option to expand and acquire. Management Science, 37(1): 19–33.Google Scholar
  35. Kumar, M. 2005. The value from acquiring and divesting a joint venture: A real options approach. Strategic Management Journal, 26(4): 321–331.Google Scholar
  36. Leiponen, A. 2008. Control of intellectual assets in client relationships: Implications for innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1371–1394.Google Scholar
  37. Lerner, J., & Merges, R. P. 1998. The control of technology alliances: An empirical analysis of the biotechnology industry. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2): 125–156.Google Scholar
  38. Makino, S., Lau, C., & Yeh, R. 2002. Asset-exploitation versus asset-seeking: Implications for location choice of foreign direct investment from newly industrialized economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3): 403–422.Google Scholar
  39. Maskin, E., & Tirole, J. 1999. Unforeseen contingencies and incomplete contract. Review of Economic Studies, 66: 83–114.Google Scholar
  40. Masten, S. 1993. Transactions costs, mistakes, and performance: Assessing the importance of governance. Managerial and Decision Economics, 14: 119–129.Google Scholar
  41. Nitsch, D., Beamish, P., & Makino, S. 1996. Entry mode and performance of Japanese FDI in Western Europe. Management International Review, 36: 27–38.Google Scholar
  42. Puck, J. F., Holtbrügge, D., & Mohr, A. T. 2009. Beyond entry mode choice: Explaining the conversion of joint ventures into wholly owned subsidiaries in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of International Business Studies, 40: 388–404.Google Scholar
  43. Reuer, J. 2000. Parent firm performance across international joint venture life-cycle stages? Journal of International Business Studies, 31(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
  44. Reuer, J. 2001. From hybrids to hierarchies: Shareholder wealth effects of joint venture partner buyouts. Strategic Management Journal, 22(1): 27–44.Google Scholar
  45. Shaver, J. M. 2013. Do we really need more entry mode studies? Journal of International Business Studies, 44(1): 23–27.Google Scholar
  46. StataCorp. 2013. Stata treatment effects reference manual: Release 13. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  47. Tong, T. W., & Li, S. 2013. The assignment of call option rights between partners in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 34(10): 1232–1243.Google Scholar
  48. Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  49. Woodcock, C. P., Beamish, P. W., & Makino, S. 1994. Ownership-based entry mode strategies and international performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(2): 253–273.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NUS Business SchoolNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.College of BusinessKorea Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations