Influence of Factor Mobility on Chinese Multinationals’ ODI Mode Choice: Theoretical and Empirical Analysis
Journal of Investment and Management
Volume 9, Issue 1, March 2020, Pages: 31-39
Received: Feb. 16, 2020; Accepted: Feb. 26, 2020; Published: Mar. 6, 2020
Views 201      Downloads 66
Author
Naixi Liu, Department of International Economics, China Foreign Affairs University, Beijing, China
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
ODI by Chinese multinationals’ has grown rapidly in recent decades, and the ratio of M&A investment to aggregate ODI flow has demonstrated a “W” shape history, while the global ratio has demonstrated an “M” shape history. The recent theoretical progress in new century supplied a new perspective focused on firm heterogeneity such as the firm’s factor mobility to explain the diversity of international organization of production choices including the mode choice of ODI. Respectively, we supposed three hypothesizes based on theoretical discussion with combining the new-classical international direct investment theory and the frontier theoretical progress of international organization of production. We use micro level data for more than 2200 large scale ODI transactions by Chinese multinationals to study the relationship between cross-border factor mobility and ODI mode choice with a panel logit estimation. Our results testified all three hypothesizes supposed. Firstly, the results provide evidence that cross-border factor mobility affects the choice between Greenfield and M&A ODI. Secondly, the results also support the view that ODI mode choices are influenced by characteristics of host economies. The ease of registering property has a positive effect on the probability of choosing Greenfield ODI, while the ease of obtaining credit, enforcing contracts and trading across borders has a positive effect on the probability of choosing M&A. Finally, we find that the probability of choosing M&A increases when a multinational belongs to an industry that relies on obtaining natural resources or investment takes place in an economy with high labor costs. In general, our research shows that ODI mode choices by Chinese multinationals varies across host countries and industries due to the internal trade-off impact from the firm heterogeneity such as factor mobility. Moreover, at the end we discussed two short boards of our empirical process due to the data shortage problem and take a positive prospect for the following research.
Keywords
Factor Mobility, Chinese Multinationals, ODI Mode Choice
To cite this article
Naixi Liu, Influence of Factor Mobility on Chinese Multinationals’ ODI Mode Choice: Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, Journal of Investment and Management. Vol. 9, No. 1, 2020, pp. 31-39. doi: 10.11648/j.jim.20200901.15
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Nocke V., Yeaple S. Cross-border mergers and acquisitions vs. greenfield foreign direct investment: The role of firm heterogeneity [J]. Journal of International Economics, 2007, 72 (2), 336-365.
[2]
Ivashina V., Scharfstein D. Bank lending during the financial crisis of 2008 [J]. Journal of Financial economics, 2010, 97 (3), 319-338.
[3]
Beltratti A, Paladino G. Is M&A different during a crisis? Evidence from the European banking sector [J]. Journal of Banking & Finance, 2013, 37 (12), 5394-5405.
[4]
Melitz M. J. The impact of trade on intra‐industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity [J]. Econometrica, 2003, 71 (6), 1695-1725.
[5]
Helpman E, Melitz M. J., Yeaple S. R. Export Versus FDI with Heterogeneous Firms [J]. American Economic Review, 2004, 94 (1), 300-316.
[6]
Castellani, D., A. Zanfei. Internationalization, Innovation and Productivity: How Do Firms Differ in Italy [J]. World Economy, 2004, 30 (1), 156-176.
[7]
Arnold, J. M., K. Hussinger. Exports versus FDI in German Manufacturing: Firm Performance and Participation in International Markets [J]. Review of International Economics, 2010, 18 (4), 595-606.
[8]
Engel, D., V. Procher. Export, FDI and Firm Productivity [J]. Applied Economics, 2012, 44 (15), 1931-1940.
[9]
Nocke V., Yeaple S. An assignment theory of foreign direct investment [J]. The Review of Economic Studies, 2008, 75 (2), 529-557.
[10]
Wang A. The choice of market entry mode: cross-border M&A or Greenfield investment [J]. International Journal of business and management, 2009, 4 (5), 239-245.
[11]
Schiffbauer M., Siedschlag I., Ruane F. Do foreign mergers and acquisitions boost firm productivity? [R]. ESRI working paper, No. 305. 2017.
[12]
Stiebale J., Trax M. The effects of cross‐border M&As on the acquirers’ domestic performance: firm‐level evidence [J]. Canadian Journal of Economics, 2011, 44 (3), 957-990.
[13]
Kalkbrenner E. Acquired versus Non-Acquired Subsidiaries-Which Entry Mode do Parent Firms Prefer [R]. NRN Working Paper, NRN: The Austrian Center for Labor Economics and the Analysis of the Welfare State. 2010.
[14]
Byun Hyung-suk, Lee Hyun-Hoon, Park Cyn-Young. Assessing Factors Affecting M&As Versus Greenfield FDI in Emerging Countries [R]. Asian Development Bank Economics Working Paper Series No. 293. 2012.
[15]
Ayca, T. K. Cross-Border M&A vs. Greenfield Investments: Does Corruption Make A Difference? [R]. MPRA Working Paper, No. 42857. 2012.
[16]
Dunning J. H. International Production and the Multinational Enterprise (RLE International Business) [M]. Routledge. 2012.
[17]
Buckley P. J, Clegg L. J., Cross A. R., et al. The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment [J]. Journal of international business studies, 2007, 38 (4), 499-518.
[18]
Hijzen A., Grag H., Manchin M. Cross-border mergers and acquisitions and the role of trade costs [J]. European Economic Review, 2008, 52 (5), 849-866.
[19]
Chen M. X, Moore M O. Location decision of heterogeneous multinational firms [J]. Journal of International Economics, 2010, 80 (2), 188-199.
[20]
Chen M. X. Interdependence in multinational production networks [J]. Canadian Journal of Economics, 2011, 44 (3), 930-956.
[21]
Huang Y., Wang B J. Chinese outward direct investment: Is there a China model? [J]. China & World Economy, 2011, 19 (4), 1-21.
[22]
Huang Y., Wang B J. Investing overseas without moving factories abroad: The case of Chinese outward direct investment [J]. Asian Development Review, 2013, 1, 85-107.
[23]
Ma Y, Tang H, Zhang Y. Factor intensity, product switching, and productivity: Evidence from Chinese exporters [J]. Journal of International Economics, 2014, 92 (2): 349-362.
[24]
Yan Lili, Wu Lixue. Input output structure, industry heterogeneity and China's economic fluctuation [J]. World economy (in Chinese), 2017, 40 (08): 3-28.
[25]
Zhang Wanli, Wei Wei. Factor density, industrial agglomeration and productivity improvement: empirical research from micro data of Chinese enterprises [J]. Finance and trade research (in Chinese), 2018, 29 (07): 28-41.
[26]
Zhang Bochao, Jin laiqun, MI Yanxia. Resource mismatch and industrial structure upgrading among manufacturing elements with heterogeneity in China [J]. Contemporary economic management (in Chinese), 2019, 41 (02): 60-67.
[27]
He Binfeng, Fang Sheng, Feng Jin. An Empirical Study on energy conservation, emission reduction and stable growth based on the concentration of industrial factors [J]. Industrial technology and economy (in Chinese), 2017, 36 (01): 10-14.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186