The Exit Advantage: Overcoming Barriers to National Exit



When a firm is engaged in relocationary foreign direct investment (FDI) as part of an offshoring strategy, it offsets its investment in the host nation with a divestment outside it. FDI is viable only if a firm possesses an ownership advantage to counter barriers to national market entry, but if the offshoring firm needs to overcome barriers to national market exit, it must possess an unidentified advantage analogous to, yet distinct from, the ownership advantage. This study attempts to determine how national exit barriers impact on a firm’s reported probability of undertaking RFDI, using an ordinal regression analysis of online survey data specifically collected for the purpose. Results suggest political and strategic exit barriers from the origin nation are significant inhibitors to offshoring. The implications of this finding are discussed.


Foreign Direct Investment Production Capital Foreign Direct Investment Inflow Outward Foreign Direct Investment Location Advantage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aizenman J, Marion N (2004) The merits of horizontal versus vertical FDI in the presence of uncertainty. J Int Econ 62:125–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin R (1988) Hysteresis in import prices: the beachhead effect. NBER Working Paper Series 2545Google Scholar
  3. Benito G, Welsh L (1997) De-internationalization. Manage Int Rev 37(2):7–25Google Scholar
  4. Bevan A, Estrin S (2004) The determinants of foreign direct investment into European transition economies. J Comp Econ 32:775–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanton R, Blanton S (2012) Rights, institutions, and foreign direct investment: an empirical assessment. Foreign Policy Anal 8:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boddewyn J (1979) Foreign divestment: magnitude and factors. J Int Bus Stud 10:21–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boddewyn J (1983) Foreign and domestic divestment and investment decisions: like or unlike? J Int Bus Stud 14:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caves R (1998) Industrial organization and new findings on the turnover and mobility of firms. J Econ Lit 36:1947–1982Google Scholar
  9. Chan S, Gau G, Wang K (1995) Stock market reaction to capital investment decisions: evidence from business relocations. J Financ Quant Anal 30(1):81–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colombo M, Delmastro M (2000) A note on the relation between size, ownership status and plant’s closure: sunk costs vs strategic size liability. Econ Lett 69:421–427MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixit A (1989) Entry and exit decisions under uncertainty. J Polit Econ 97:620–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunning J (1958) American investment in British manufacturing industry. George Allen and Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunning J (1977) Trade, location of economic activity and the multinational enterprise: A search for an eclectic approach. In: Ohlin B, Hesselborn P, Nijkman P (eds) The international allocation of economic activity, Macmillan, London, pp 395–418Google Scholar
  14. Dunning J (1980) Towards an eclectic theory of international production: some empirical tests. J Int Bus Stud 11:9–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunning J (1988) The eclectic paradigm of international production: a restatement and some possible extensions. J Int Bus Stud 19:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunning J (2000) The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity. Int Bus Rev 9:163–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eaton B, Lipsey R (1980) Exit barriers are entry barriers: the durability of capital as a barrier to entry. Bell J Econ 11:721–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Filippov S, Costa I (2007) Redefining foreign direct investment policy: a two dimensional framework. UNU-MERIT Working Papers, #2007–209Google Scholar
  19. Gilmour S (1973) The divestment decision process. Unpublished DBA dissertation graduate school of business administration, Harvard University, BostonGoogle Scholar
  20. Holcomb J, Evans D (1987) The effect of sunk costs on uncertain decisions in experimental markets. J Behav Econ 16:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hymer S (1976) The international operations of national firms: a study of direct foreign investment. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Karakaya F (2000) Market exit and barriers to exit: theory and practice. Psychol Mark 17(8):651–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kobrin S (1980) Foreign enterprise and forced divestment in LDCs. Int Organ 34:65–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kobrin S (2001) Sovereignty@Bay: globalization, multinational enterprise, and the international political sytem. In: Rugman A, Brewer T (eds) Oxford handbook of international business. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 181–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li J, Rugman A (2007) Real options and the theory of foreign direct investment. Int Bus Rev 16:687–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lindgren U, Spåndberg K (1981) Corporate acquisitions and divestments: the strategic decision-making process. Int Stud Manage & Organ 11:24–27Google Scholar
  27. Madhok A (1998) The nature of multinational firm boundaries: transaction costs, firm capabilities and foreign market entry mode. Int Bus Rev 7(3):259–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mello-Sampayo F, de Sousa-Vale S, Camões F (2010) Delaying the timing of offshoring low-skilled tasks. Econ Model 27(5):951–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mezias J (2002) How to identify liabilities of foreignness and assess their effects on multinational corporations. J Int Manage 8(3):265–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Muccielli J, Saucier P (1997) European industrial relocations in low-wage countries: policy and theory debates. In: Buckley P, Muccielli J (eds) Multinational firms and international relocation. Edward Elgar, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Nargundkar S, Stahl M, Karakaya F (1996) Market exit barriers. J Manag 8(1996):239–259Google Scholar
  32. Pennings E, Sleuwaegen L (2000) International relocation: firm and industry determinants. Econ Lett 67(2):179–186MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Penrose E (1959) The theory of the growth of the firm. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Porter M (1976) Please note location of nearest exit: exit barriers and planning. Calif Manage Rev 19(2):21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ramamurti R (2003) Can Government’s make credible promises: insights from infrastructure projects in emerging economies? J Int Manage 9(3):253–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schnell M (2006) Existence and effectiveness perceptions of exit-barrier factors in liberalized airline markets. Transp Res Part E: Logistics Transp Rev 42(3):225–242Google Scholar
  37. Shapiro D, Khemani R (1987) The determinants of entry and exit reconsidered. Int J Ind Organ 5(1):15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Siegfried J, Evans L (1994) Empirical studies of entry and exit: a survey of the evidence. Rev Ind Organ 9(2):121–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Torneden R (1975) Foreign divestment by U.S. Multinational corporations. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Tsetsekos G, Gombola G (1992) Foreign and domestic divestments: evidence on valuation effects of plant closings. J Int Bus Stud 23:203–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vernon R (1966) International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quart J Econ 80:190–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg Manag J 5(2):171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. World Economic Forum (2006) Global Competitiveness Report 2006–2007. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  44. World Economic Forum (2008) Global Competitiveness Report 2008–2009. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  45. Yoffie D (1993) Introduction: from comparative advantage to regulated competition. In: beyond free trade: firms, governments, and global competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  46. Young S, Hood N (1995) Attracting managing and developing inward investment in the single market. In: Amin A, Tomaney J (eds) Behind the myth in the European Union. Routledge, London, pp 282–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management and International BusinessThe University of Auckland Business SchoolAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations