Do Firms Experience Enhanced Productivity After Cross-Border M&As?

  • Zihan Zhou
  • Lei Zhang
  • Dongmei HeEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1002)


This paper used a dataset of 86 cross-border M&A cases by Chinese listed firms from 2007 to 2012 and matched them with 81 domestic M&A cases to examine the post M&A performances. First, Probit and Logistic estimation methods were used to analyze whether the Chinese listed firm M&A decisions (cross-border or domestic) affected productivity levels, after which FGLS and OLS estimations were conducted to estimate the productivity changes five years before and after the merger years. It was found that firms involved in cross-border M&As have higher productivity than the domestic M&A group. However, in contrast with the domestic M&A, there was no significant productivity enhancements after the cross-border M&As. Further investigations found that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) performed better than privately-owned enterprises after the mergers and that firms located in developed areas were more likely to experience significant productivity enhancements after the cross-border M&As.


Cross-border M&A Domestic locations State ownership Total factor productivity 



This paper is partially supported by The National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.61563044, 61762074); National Natural Science Foundation of Qinghai Province (2017-ZJ-902).


  1. 1.
    Ashraf, A., Herzer, D., Nunnenkamp, P.: The effects of greenfield fdi and cross-border m&as on total factor productivity. World Econ. 39(11), 1728–1755 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ataullah, A., Hang, L., Sahota, A.S.: Employee productivity, employment growth, and the cross-border acquisitions by emerging market firms. Hum. Resour. Manag. 53(6), 987–1004 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aybar, B., Ficici, A.: Cross-border acquisitions and firm value: An analysis of emerging-market multinationals. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 40(8), 1317–1338 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertrand, O., Betschinger, M.A.: Performance of domestic and cross-border acquisitions: Empirical evidence from russian acquirers. J. Comp. Econ. 40(3), 413–437 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertrand, O., Capron, L.: Productivity enhancement at home via cross-border acquisitions: The roles of learning and contemporaneous domestic investments. Strat. Manag. J. 36(5), 640–658 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang, S.C.: The determinants and motivations of china’s outward foreign direct investment: A spatial gravity model approach. Glob. Econ. Rev. 43(3), 244–268 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, C., Yu, M., Tian, W.: Outward fdi and Domestic Input Distortions: Evidence from Chinese Firms (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, V.Z., Li, J., Shapiro, D.M.: International reverse spillover effects on parent firms: Evidences from emerging-market mnes in developed markets. Eur. Manag. J. 30(3), 204–218 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, Y., Young, M.: Cross-border mergers and acquisitions by chinese listed companies: A principal principal perspective. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 27(3), 523–539 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Danbolt, J., Maciver, G.: Cross-border versus domestic acquisitions and the impact on shareholder wealth. J. Bus. Financ. Account. 39(7–8), 1028–1067 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diaz, B.D., Olalla, M.G.: The Effect of Acquisitions on the Performance of European Credit Institutions: Panel Data Analysis for the 90s. Social Science Electronic Publishing (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dickerson, A.P., Gibson, H.D., Tsakalotos, E.: The impact of acquisitions on company performance: Evidence from a large panel of uk firms. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 49(3), 344–361 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Du, M., Boateng, A.: State ownership, institutional effects and value creation in cross-border mergers and acquisitions by chinese firms. Int. Bus. Rev. 24(3), 430–442 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dunning, J.H.: Trade, location of economic activity and the mne: A search for an eclectic approach. Int. Alloc. Econ. Act. 1023, 203–205 (1977)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gubbi, S.R., Aulakh P.S.: Do international acquisitions by emerging-economy firms create shareholder value? the case of indian firms. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 41(3), 397–418 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hai, Y.L., Deseatnicov, I.: Exchange rate and chinese outward fdi. Appl. Econ. 48(51), 1–16 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Helpman, E., Yeaple, M.S.R.: Export versus fdi with heterogeneous firms. Am. Econ. Rev. 94(1), 300–316 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Levinsohn, J., Petrin, A.: Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables. Rev. Econ. Stud. 70(2), 317–341 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li, M., Liu, S.: Regional differences and threshold effects of fdi reverse technology spillover-a threshold regression analysis based on chinese provincial panel data. Manag. World 1, 21–32 (2012). (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li, S.U., Xian, G.: Does chinese enterprises’ cross-border m&a promote productivity progress? China Economic Studies (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lichtenberg, F.R.: Siegel Dea (1987) Productivity and changes in ownership of manufacturing plants. Brook.S Pap. Econ. Act. 3, 643–683 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Luo, Y., Tung, R.L.: International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 38(4), 481–498 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nocke, V., Yeaple, S.: Cross-border mergers and acquisitions versus greenfield foreign direct investment: The role of firm heterogeneity. J. Int. Econ. 72(2), 336–365 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Poncet, S., Steingress, W., Vandenbussche, H.: Financial constraints in china: Firm-level evidence. China Econ. Rev. 21(3), 411–422 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raff, H., Ryan, M., Stahler, F.: Firm productivity and the foreign-market entry decision. J. Econ. Manag. Strat. 21(3), 849–871 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Siegel, D.S., Simons, K.L.: Assessing the effects of mergers and acquisitions on firm performance, plant productivity, and workers: newl evidence from matched employer employee data. Strat. Manag. J. 31(8), 903–916 (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Slangen, A.H.L., Hennart, J.F.: Do multinationals really prefer to enter culturally distant countries through greenfields rather than through acquisitions? the role of parent experience and subsidiary autonomy. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 39(3), 472–490 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Solow, R.M.: Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev. Econ. Stat. 39(3), 554–562 (1957)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Spearot, A.C.: Firm heterogeneity, new investment and acquisitions. J. Ind. Econ. 60(1), 1–45 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yang, Y.: Research on corporate m&a and total factor productivity change. Hum. Resour. Manag. 11, 23–29 (2016). (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business School of Sichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.College of Computer Science of Sichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations