Advertisement

Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 50, Issue 8, pp 1253–1282 | Cite as

Internalization advantage and subsidiary performance: The role of business group affiliation and host country characteristics

  • Ajai S Gaur
  • Chinmay Pattnaik
  • Deeksha Singh
  • Jeoung Yul LeeEmail author
Article

Abstract

We extend internalization theory by examining the contingencies associated with market internalization and its impact on foreign subsidiary survival. Based on a sample of 6170 subsidiary–year observations in 63 countries belonging to 292 MNCs from Korea during 1995–2013, we find that greater product and labor market internalization have weaker impacts on the survival of subsidiaries operating in countries with more developed institutional environments but stronger for subsidiaries of MNCs affiliated with business groups. The impact of business group affiliation is further dependent on host country institutional development, and the diversification and size of the business group.

Keywords

internalization advantages MNCs business groups subsidiary survival Korea 

Résumé

Nous développons la théorie de l’internalisation en examinant les contingences associées à l’internalisation du marché et son impact sur la survie des filiales étrangères. Sur la base d’un échantillon de 6 170 observations subsidiaires annuelles, appartenant à 292 multinationales coréennes, effectuées dans 63 pays entre 1995 et 2013, nous trouvons qu’une plus grande internalisation du marché des produits et du travail a un impact plus faible sur la survie des filiales opérant dans des pays plus développés sur le plan institutionnel, mais plus fort pour les filiales de multinationales affiliées à des groupes d’activités. L’impact de l’affiliation à un groupe d’entreprises dépend en outre du développement institutionnel du pays d’accueil, de la diversification et de la taille du groupe d’activités.

Resumen

Extendemos la teoría de internalización al examinar las contingencias asociadas con la internalización del mercado y su impacto en la supervivencia de las filiales en el extranjero. Con base en una muestra de 6170 observaciones de filiales-año en 63 países pertenecientes a 292 multinacionales de Corea durante 1995 a 2013, encontramos que una mayor internalización del producto y del mercado laboral tiene un impacto más débil en la supervivencia de las filiales operando en países con entornos institucionales más desarrollados, pero más fuerte para filiales de multinacionales afiliadas con grupos empresariales. El impacto de la afiliación a un grupo empresarial depende más del desarrollo institucional del país anfitrión, y de la diversificación y el tamaño del grupo empresarial.

Resumo

Estendemos a teoria da internalização por examinar as contingências associadas à internalização de mercado e seu impacto na sobrevivência de subsidiárias estrangeiras. Com base em uma amostra de 6170 observações de subsidiária-ano em 63 países pertencentes a 292 MNCs da Coréia de 1995 a 2013, descobrimos que uma maior internalização dos mercados de produto e trabalho tem impacto mais fraco na sobrevivência de subsidiárias que operam em países com ambientes institucionais mais desenvolvidos, mas mais forte para subsidiárias de MNCs afiliadas a grupos empresariais. O impacto da filiação a grupo empresarial depende ainda do desenvolvimento institucional do país anfitrião e da diversificação e tamanho do grupo empresarial.

摘要

我们通过研究与市场内部化相关的偶发事件及其对外国子公司生存的影响来拓展内部化理论。基于1995至2013年间来自韩国292个跨国公司在63个国家的6170个子公司-年的观察样本,我们发现更大的产品和劳动力市场内部化对在制度环境较发达的国家经营的子公司的生存的影响较弱,但对于隶属于商业集团的跨国公司子公司则较强。商业集团隶属关系的影响进一步取决于东道国的制度发展,以及商业集团的多样化及规模。

Notes

Acknowledgements

A previous version of this manuscript was presented at the AOM 2016 conference in Anaheim. It was also nominated for IM Division GWU-CIBER Best Paper on Emerging Markets award. We are grateful for the invaluable comments received from Christian Asmussen, Peter Buckley, Mark Casson, Tailan Chi, Farok Contractor, Vikas Kumar, Sumit Kundu, Ram Mudambi, Rajneesh Narula and Jane Lu on earlier versions of this paper.

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A. 1970. The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3): 488–500.Google Scholar
  2. Almeida, H., & Wolfenzon, D. A. 2006. Theory of pyramidal ownership and family business groups. Journal of Finance, 61: 2637–2681.Google Scholar
  3. Ambos, B., Kunisch, S., Leicht-Deobald, U., & Steinberg, A. S. 2019. Unravelling agency relations inside the MNC: The roles of socialization, goal conflicts and second principals in headquarters-subsidiary relationships. Journal of World Business, 54(2): 67–81.Google Scholar
  4. Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. 2007. Balancing subsidiary influence in the federative MNC: A business network view. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5): 802–818.Google Scholar
  5. Antras, P., Desai, M. A., & Foley, C. F. 2009. Multinational firms, FDI flows, and imperfect capital markets. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3): 1171–1219.Google Scholar
  6. Asmussen, C. G. 2009. Local, regional, or global? Quantifying MNE geographic scope. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(7): 1192–1205.Google Scholar
  7. Asmussen, C. G., Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. 2011. Knowledge Transfer and accommodation effects in multinational corporations: Evidence from European subsidiaries. Journal of Management, 39(6): 1397–1429.Google Scholar
  8. Asmussen, C. G., Larsen, M. M., & Pedersen, T. 2016. Organizational adaptation in offshoring: The relative performance of home- and host-based Learning strategies. Organization Science, 27(4): 911–928.Google Scholar
  9. Asmussen, C. G., Pedersen, T., & Dhanaraj, C. 2009. Host-country environment and subsidiary competence: Extending the diamond network model. Journal of International Business Studies, 40: 42–57.Google Scholar
  10. Benito, G., Grogaard, B., & Narula, R. 2003. Environmental influences on MNE subsidiary roles: Economic integration and the Nordic countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 34: 443–456.Google Scholar
  11. Bhaumik, S., Driffield, N., Gaur, A. S., Mickiewicz, T., Vaaler, P., 2019. Corporate governance and MNE strategies in emerging markets. Journal of World Business.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2019.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Birkinshaw, J. 2000. Entrepreneurship in the global firm. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Buckley, P. J. 1990. Problems and developments in the core theory of international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 21(4): 657–666.Google Scholar
  14. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. 1976. The future of the multinational enterprise. London: Homes & Meier.Google Scholar
  15. Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. C. 2009. The internalization theory of the multinational enterprise: A review of the progress of a research agenda after 30 years. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1563–1590.Google Scholar
  16. Buckley, P. J., & Strange, R. 2011. The governance of the multinational enterprise: Insights from internalization theory. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 460–470.Google Scholar
  17. Cantwell, J. A., & Mudambi, R. 2005. MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 1109–1128.Google Scholar
  18. Caves, R. 1982. Multinational enterprises and economic analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Chang, S. J. 1995. International expansion strategy of Japanese firms: Capability building through sequential entry. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 383–407.Google Scholar
  20. Chang, S.-I. 2012. Study on human resource management in Korea’s chaebol enterprise: A case study of Samsung electronics. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(7): 1436–1461.Google Scholar
  21. Chang, S., & Hong, J. 2000. Economic performance of group-affiliated companies in Korea: Intragroup resource sharing and internal business transactions. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 429–448.Google Scholar
  22. Chi, T. 2015. Commentary: Internalization theory and its relation to RBV and TCE. Journal of World Business, 50(4): 634–636.Google Scholar
  23. Coase, R. H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica, 4: 386–405.Google Scholar
  24. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128–152.Google Scholar
  25. Contractor, F., Yang, 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.Google Scholar
  26. Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Luo, Y., Ramamurti, R., & Ang, S. H. 2018. The impact of home country on internationalization. Journal of World Business, 53(5): 593–604.Google Scholar
  27. Delios, A., & Beamish, P. W. 2001. Survival and profitability: The roles of experience and intangible assets in foreign subsidiary performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5): 1028–1038.Google Scholar
  28. Delios, A., & Henisz, W. 2000. Japanese firms’ investment strategies in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 305–323.Google Scholar
  29. Dieleman, M., & Sachs, W. M. 2008. Coevolution of institutions and corporations in emerging economies: How the Salim group morphed into an institution of Suharto’s crony regime. Journal of Management Studies, 45(7): 1274–1300.Google Scholar
  30. Doz, Y., & Prahalad, C. K. 1984. Patterns of strategic control within multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 15: 55–72.Google Scholar
  31. Duchateau, L., & Janssen, P. 2008. The frailty model. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Dunning, J. H. 1988. The eclectic paradigm of FDI: A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(1): 1–31.Google Scholar
  33. Dunning, J. H. 1995. Reappraising the eclectic paradigm in the age of alliance capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, 26: 461–491.Google Scholar
  34. Dunning, J., & Lundan, S. M. 2008. Institutions and the OLI paradigm of the multinational enterprise. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25: 573–593.Google Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. Elango, B., & Pattnaik, C. 2011. Learning before making the big leap: Acquisition strategies of emerging market firms. Management International Review, 51(4): 461–481.Google Scholar
  37. Encarnation, D. J. 1989. Dislodging multinationals: India’s strategy in comparative perspective. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Erramilli, M. K., Agarwal, S., & Kim, S. S. 1997. Are firm-specific advantages location-specific too? Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4): 735–757.Google Scholar
  39. Feinberg, S. E., & Gupta, A. K. 2009. MNC subsidiaries and country risk: Internalization as a safeguard against weak external institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 381–399.Google Scholar
  40. Feinberg, S. E., & Keane, M. P. 2006. Accounting for the growth of MNC-based trade using a structural model of U.S. MNCs. American Economic Review, 96(5): 1515–1558.Google Scholar
  41. Foss, N., & Pedersen, T. 2004. Organizing knowledge processes in the multinational corporation: An introduction. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5): 340–349.Google Scholar
  42. Fuad, M., & Gaur, A. S. 2019. Merger waves, entry-timing, and cross-border acquisition completion: A frictional lens perspective. Journal of World Business, 54(2): 107–118.Google Scholar
  43. Gaur, A. S., & Delios, A. 2015. International diversification of emerging market firms: The role of ownership structure and group affiliation. Management International Review, 55: 235–253.Google Scholar
  44. Gaur, A. S., Delios, A., & Singh, K. 2007. Institutional environments, staffing strategies, and subsidiary performance. Journal of Management, 33(4): 611–636.Google Scholar
  45. Gaur, A. S., & Kumar, V. 2009. International diversification, business group affiliation and firm performance: Empirical evidence from India. British Journal of Management, 20(2): 172–186.Google Scholar
  46. Gaur, A. S., Kumar, V., & Singh, D. A. 2014. Resources, institutions and internationalization process of emerging economy firms. Journal of World Business, 49: 12–20.Google Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. Gedajlovic, E., & Shapiro, D. M. 2002. Ownership structure and firm profitability in Japan. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 565–575.Google Scholar
  50. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. 1990. The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network. Academy of Management Review, 15(4): 603–625.Google Scholar
  51. Goldstein, H. 1994. Multilevel cross-classified models. Sociological Methods and Research, 22(3): 364–375.Google Scholar
  52. Granovetter, M. 1994. Business groups. In N. J. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology: pp. 453–475. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Grogaard, B., Rygh, A., & Benito, G. 2019. Bringing corporate governance into internationalization theory: State ownership and foreign entry strategies, Journal of International Business Studies, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  54. Guillén, M. F. 2000. Business groups in emerging economies: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3): 362–380.Google Scholar
  55. Guillén, M. 2002. Structural inertia, imitation and foreign expansion: South Korean firms and business groups in China, 1987–1995. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 509–525.Google Scholar
  56. Guillén, M. F. 2003. Experience, imitation, and the sequence of foreign entry: Wholly owned and jointventure manufacturing by South Korean firms and business groups in China, 1987–1995. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 185–198.Google Scholar
  57. Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. 1991. Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 16(4): 768–792.Google Scholar
  58. Heckman, J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1): 153–161.Google Scholar
  59. Hennart, J. F. 1982. A theory of multinational enterprise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  60. Hennart, J-F. 1991. The transaction costs theory of joint ventures: An empirical study of Japanese subsidiaries in the United States. Management Science 37(4): 483–497.Google Scholar
  61. Hennart, J.-F. 1993. Control in multinational firms: The role of price and hierarchy. In: S. Ghoshal, D. E. Westney (Eds.), Organization theory and the multinational corporation (pp. 157–181). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  62. Hennart, J. F. 2009. Theories of the multinational enterprise. In A. M. Rugman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of international business (2nd ed., pp. 125–145). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Heritage Foundation. 2015. The heritage foundation website for index of economic freedom. http://www.heritage.org/index/about.
  64. Hillman, A. J., & Wan, W. P. 2005. The determinants of MNE subsidiaries’ political strategies: Evidence of institutional duality. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3): 322–340.Google Scholar
  65. Holmes, R. M., Hoskisson, R., Kim, H., Wan, W. P., & Holcomb, T. R. 2018. International strategy of business groups: A review and future research agenda. Journal of World Business.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2016.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hougaard, P. 2000. Analysis of multivariate survival data. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. Hox, J. J. 2010. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  68. Kalnins, A. 2018. Multicollinearity: How common factors cause Type 1 errors in multivariate regression. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8): 2362–2385.Google Scholar
  69. Kawai, N., & Chung, C. 2019. Expatriate utilization, subsidiary knowledge creation and performance: The moderating role of subsidiary strategic context. Journal of World Business, 54(1): 24–36.Google Scholar
  70. Kedia, B. L., & Mukherjee, D. 2009. Understanding offshoring: a research framework based on disintegration, location and externalization advantages. Journal of World Business, 44: 250–261.Google Scholar
  71. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000. Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. The Journal of Finance, 55(2): 867–891.Google Scholar
  72. Khanna, T., & Rivkin, J. 2001. Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 45–74.Google Scholar
  73. Khanna, T., & Yafeh, Y. 2007. Business groups in emerging markets: Paragons or parasites? Journal of Economic Literature, 45(2): 331–372.Google Scholar
  74. Kim, H., Kim, H., & Hoskisson, R. E. 2010. Does market-oriented institutional change in an emerging economy make business-group-affiliated multinationals perform better? An institution based view. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 1141–1160.Google Scholar
  75. 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.Google Scholar
  76. Kostova, T., Marano, V., & Tallman, S. 2016. Headquarters-subsidiary relationships in MNCs: Fifty years of evolving research. Journal of World Business, 51(1): 176–184.Google Scholar
  77. Kumar, V., Gaur, A. S., & Pattnaik, C. 2012. Product diversification and international expansion of business groups. Management International Review, 52(2): 175–192.Google Scholar
  78. Lee, J.-H., & Gaur, A. S. 2013. Managing multi-business firms: A comparison between Korean chaebols and diversified US firms. Journal of World Business, 48(4): 443–454.Google Scholar
  79. Leff, N. 1978. Industrial organization and entrepreneurship in the developing countries: The economic groups. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 26: 661–675.Google Scholar
  80. Lu, J. W., & Ma, X. 2008. The contingent value of local partners’ business group affiliations. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2): 295–314.Google Scholar
  81. Makhija, M. V., Kim, K., & Williamson, S. D. 1997. Measuring globalization of industries using a national industry approach: Empirical evidence across five countries and over time. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4): 679–710.Google Scholar
  82. Malhotra, S., & Gaur, A. S. 2014. Spatial geography and control in foreign acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(2): 191–210.Google Scholar
  83. Manikandan, K. S., & Ramachandran, J. 2015. Beyond institutional voids: Business groups, incomplete markets, and organizational form. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4): 598–617.Google Scholar
  84. Masters, J. K., & Miles, G. 2002. Predicting the use of external labor arrangements: A test of the transaction costs perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 431–442.Google Scholar
  85. Menard, S. 1995. Applied logistic regression analysis: Sage University series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  86. Meyer, K. E., Mudambi, R., & Narula, R. 2011. Multinational enterprises and local contexts: The opportunities and challenges of multiple embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 235–252.Google Scholar
  87. Meyer, K. E., & Sinani, E. 2009. When and where does foreign direct investment generate positive spillovers? A meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(7): 1075–1094.Google Scholar
  88. Mingo, S., Junkunc, M., & Morales, F. 2018. The interplay between home and host country institutions in an emerging market context: Private equity in Latin America. Journal of World Business, 53(5): 653–667.Google Scholar
  89. Mudambi, R. 2011. Hierarchy, coordination, and innovation in the multinational enterprise. Global Strategy Journal, 1: 317–323.Google Scholar
  90. Mudambi, R., & Navarra, P. 2004. Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power and rent-seeking within MNCs. Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 385–406.Google Scholar
  91. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Mukherjee, D., Makarius, E. E., & Stevens, C. E. 2018b. Business group reputation and affiliates’ internationalization strategies. Journal of World Business, 53(2): 93–103.Google Scholar
  93. Narula, R. 2014. Exploring the paradox of competence-creating subsidiaries: balancing bandwidth and dispersion in MNEs. Long Range Planning, 47: 4–15.Google Scholar
  94. Narula, R., & Verbeke, A. 2015. Making internalization theory good for practice: The essence of Alan Rugman’s contributions to international business. Journal of World Business, 50(4): 612–622.Google Scholar
  95. Narula, R., & Zanfei, A. 2005. Globalisation of innovation: The role of multinational enterprises. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation: pp. 318–345. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Nguyen, Q. T., & Rugman, A. M. 2015. Internal equity financing and the performance of multinational subsidiaries in emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(4): 468–490.Google Scholar
  97. Nielsen, B. B., & Raswant, A. 2018. The selection, use, and reporting of control variables in international business research: A review and recommendations. Journal of World Business, 53(6): 958–968.Google Scholar
  98. Nohria, N., & Ghoshal, S. 1994. Differentiated fit and shared values: Alternatives for managing headquarters–subsidiary relations. Strategic Management Journal, 15(4): 491–502.Google Scholar
  99. North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Nuruzzaman, N., Gaur, A. S., & Sambharya, R. 2018. A micro-foundations approach to studying innovation in multinational subsidiaries. Global Strategy Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Pattnaik, C., Lu, Q., & Gaur, A. S. 2018. Size, market power, and entry barriers? Evidence from business groups in emerging economies. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3914-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. 2012. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata, Volume 2: categorical responses, counts, and survival (3rd ed.). College Station: Stata.Google Scholar
  103. Ramondo, N., Rappoport, V., & Ruhl, K. J. 2016. Intrafirm trade and vertical fragmentation in U.S. multinational corporations. Journal of International Economics, 98: 51–59.Google Scholar
  104. Reuer, J. J., & Leiblein, M. J. 2000. Downside risk implications of multi-nationality and international joint ventures. Academy of Management Journal 43(2): 203–214.Google Scholar
  105. Riordan, M. H., & Williamson, O. E. 1985. Asset specificity and economic organization. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 3(4): 365–378.Google Scholar
  106. Rondeau, V., Mazroui, Y., & Gonzalez, J. R. 2012. Frailtypack: An R package for the analysis of correlated survival data with frailty models using penalized likelihood estimation or parametrical estimation. Journal of Statistical Software, 47(4): 1–28.Google Scholar
  107. Rugman, A. 1981. Inside the multinational: The Economics of internal markets. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Rugman, A., & Verbeke, A. 1992. A note on the transnational solution and the transaction cost theory of multinational strategic management. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4): 761–771.Google Scholar
  109. Rugman, A., & Verbeke, A. 2001. Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22(3): 237–250.Google Scholar
  110. Rugman, A., & Verbeke, A. 2003. Extending the theory of the multinational enterprises: Internalization theory and strategic management perspectives. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 125–137.Google Scholar
  111. Rugman, A., & Verbeke, A. 2009. The regional dimension of multinationals and the end of ‘varieties of capitalism’. In S. Collinson, & G. Morgan (Eds.), Images of The Multinational Firm: pp. 23–44. London: WileyGoogle Scholar
  112. Rugman, A., Verbeke, A., & Yuan, W. 2011. Re-conceptualizing Bartlett and Ghoshal’ s classification of national subsidiary roles in the multinational enterprise. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 253–277.Google Scholar
  113. Sartori, Anne E. 2003. An estimator for some binary-outcome selection models without exclusion restrictions. Political Analysis, 11: 111–138.Google Scholar
  114. Siegel, J., & Choudhury, P. 2012. A reexamination of tunneling and business groups: New data and new methods. The Review of Financial Studies, 25(6): 1763–1798.Google Scholar
  115. Singh, D., Pattnaik, C., Lee, J. Y., & Gaur, A. S. 2019. Subsidiary staffing, cultural friction, and subsidiary performance: Evidence from Korean subsidiaries in 63 countries. Human Resource Management.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Strange, R., & Humphrey, J. 2018. What lies between market and hierarchy? Insights from internalization theory and global value chain theory. Journal of International Business Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0186-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Teece, D. 1985. Multinational enterprise, internal governance, and industrial organization. American Economic Review, 75(2): 233–238.Google Scholar
  118. Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institution of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  119. Wooldridge, J. 1995. Selection corrections for panel data models under conditional mean independence assumptions. Journal of Econometrics, 68(1): 115–132.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajai S Gaur
    • 1
  • Chinmay Pattnaik
    • 2
  • Deeksha Singh
    • 3
  • Jeoung Yul Lee
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Management and Global BusinessRutgers Business School - Newark and New BrunswickNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Discipline of International BusinessUniversity of Sydney Business SchoolSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.School of BusinessRutgers UniversityCamdenUSA
  4. 4.National Research Base of Intelligent Manufacturing ServiceChongqing Technology and Business UniversityChongqingChina
  5. 5.School of Business ManagementHongik UniversitySejongSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations