Advertisement

Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 545–557 | Cite as

Historical ties and foreign direct investment: An exploratory study

  • Shige MakinoEmail author
  • Eric W K Tsang
Research Note

Abstract

Recent research suggests that the distance between countries in terms of culture, institutions, geographic proximity, and economic development matters in the foreign direct investment (FDI) decisions made by firms. This study focuses on the historical ties between countries as an additional factor affecting such decisions. In particular, it examines three major historical factors that affect cross-country ties with Vietnam, namely, Chinese occupation and conflict, French colonization, and socialist ideology, and examines the ways in which these historical ties have influenced FDI. The database consists of 631 wholly owned subsidiaries and 1215 joint ventures formed in Vietnam by multinational enterprises from 35 countries and regions between 1989 and 1999. The results indicate that firms from Hong Kong, Taiwan, France, and former and current socialist countries tended to be early movers in Vietnam, whereas firms from Mainland China tended to be late movers. Using the example of Vietnam, this study clearly shows that historical ties can provide additional explanatory power regarding FDI decisions beyond the conventional distance variables.

Keywords

foreign direct investment history of FDI and the MNE markets and institutions Southeast Asia relational embeddedness 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Sea Jin Chang, Lorraine Eden, Don Lessard, Arjen Slangen, Fabienne Fortanier, Rob van Tulder, Takehiko Isobe, and Christine Chan for their comments. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2009 Academy of International Business Conference, San Diego, USA. This paper was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Project No. CUHK 451010H).

References

  1. Alfaro, L., Kalemli-Ozcan, S., & Volovych, V. 2008. Why doesn’t capital flow from rich to poor countries? An empirical investigation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 90 (2): 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anwar, S., & Nguyen, L. P. 2010. Foreign direct investment and economic growth in Vietnam. Asia Pacific Business Review, 16 (1–2): 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arunatilake, N., Jayasuriya, S., & Kelegama, S. 2001. The economic cost of the war in Sri Lanka. World Development, 29 (9): 1483–1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crane, K., Peterson, D. J., & Oliker, O. 2005. Russian investment in the Commonwealth of Independent States. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 46 (6): 405–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eden, L., & Miller, S. R. 2004. Distance matters: Liability of foreignness, institutional distance and ownership strategy. Advances in International Management, 16: 187–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frankel, J., & Rose, A. 2002. An estimate of the effect of common currencies on trade and income. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117 (2): 437–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ghemawat, P. 2001. Distance still matters: The hard reality of global expansion. Harvard Business Review, 79 (8): 137–147.Google Scholar
  8. Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3): 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hiebert, M., Thayer, N., & Chanda, N. 1993. French dressing. Far Eastern Economic Review, 156 (8): 10–11.Google Scholar
  10. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. 2000. Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65 (1): 19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ingram, P., Robinson, J., & Busch, M. L. 2005. The intergovernmental network of world trade: IGO connectedness, governance, and embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 111 (3): 824–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Isobe, T., Makino, S., & Montgomery, D. B. 2000. Resource commitment, entry timing, and market performance of foreign direct investments in emerging economies: The case of Japanese international joint ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3): 468–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jenkins, R. 2006. Globalization, foreign investment and employment in Viet Nam. Transnational Corporations, 15 (1): 115–142.Google Scholar
  15. Jensen, N. M., & Young, D. J. 2008. A violent future? Political risk insurance markets and violence forecasts. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52 (4): 527–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, G. 1996. The evolution of international business: An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Jones, G., & Khanna, T. 2006. Bringing history (back) into international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (4): 453–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Krugman, P. 1991. Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99 (3): 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li, Q., & Vashchilko, T. 2010. Dyadic military conflict, security alliances, and bilateral FDI flows. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (5): 765–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lundan, S. M., & Jones, G. 2001. The “Commonwealth effect” and the process of internationalisation. World Economy, 24 (1): 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. 1997. World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology, 103 (1): 144–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morck, R., Yeung, B., & Zhao, M. 2008. Perspectives on China’s outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (3): 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nigh, D. 1985. The effect of political events on United States direct foreign investment: A pooled time-series cross-sectional analysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 16 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nørlund, I. 1991. The French Empire, the colonial state in Vietnam, and economic policy: 1885–1940. Australian Economic History Review, 31 (1): 72–89.Google Scholar
  28. Rangan, S. 2000. Search and deliberation in international exchange: Microfoundations to some macro patterns. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (2): 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rangan, S., & Drummond, A. 2004. Explaining outcomes in competition among foreign multinationals in a focal host market. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (3): 285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rangan, S., & Sengul, M. 2009. The influence of macro structure on the foregin market performance of transnational firms: The value of IGO connections, export dependence, and immigration links. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54 (2): 229–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rauch, J. E., & Trindade, V. 2002. Ethnic Chinese networks in international trade. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84 (1): 116–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rivoli, P., & Salorio, E. 1996. Foreign direct investment and investment under uncertainty. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (2): 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rugman, A. M. 2009. The Oxford handbook of international business, (2nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shenkar, O. 2001. Cultural distance revisited: Towards a more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of cultural differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (3): 519–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shenkar, O., Luo, Y., & Yeheskel, O. 2008. From “distance” to “friction”: Substituting metaphors and redirecting intercultural research. Academy of Management Review, 33 (4): 905–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Slangen, A., Fortanier, F., & van Tulder, R. 2007. The importance and dynamics of types of distance: An empirical test of Ghemawat’s CAGE framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar
  37. Tong, S. Y. 2005. Ethnic networks in FDI and the impact of institutional development. Review of Development Economics, 9 (4): 563–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tsang, E. W. K., & Yip, P. S. L. 2007. Economic distance and the survival of foreign direct investments. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5): 1156–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Twomey, M. J. 2000. A century of foreign investment in the Third World. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61 (4): 674–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilkins, M. 1998. Multinational enterprises and economic change. Australian Economic History Review, 38 (2): 103–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Xu, D., & Shenkar, O. 2002. Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 27 (4): 608–618.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementThe Chinese University of Hong KongShatinHong Kong
  2. 2.School of Management, University of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA

Personalised recommendations