Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:13:31.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subsidiary Networks and Foreign Subsidiary Performance: A Coopetition Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2019

Yang Liu Open the ORCID record for Yang Liu [Opens in a new window] ,
Jie Jiao  and
Jun Xia
Yang Liu
Affiliation:
Cornell University, USA
Jie Jiao*
Affiliation:
Tsinghua University, China
Jun Xia
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Dallas, USA
*
Corresponding author: Jie Jiao (jiaoj@sem.tsinghua.edu.cn)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

From a coopetition perspective, we differentiate between a multinational enterprise's product-similar subsidiary network and product-different subsidiary network in a host country. We argue that the product-similar network will have a curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) effect on foreign subsidiary performance, whereas the product-different network will produce a monotonic (positive) effect. Moreover, we introduce host-country economic advantage and intangible resource of the subsidiary as moderators into the relationship between subsidiary network and performance. Using longitudinal panel data of foreign subsidiaries, we find evidence that when host-country economic advantage is large, and the level of intangible asset intensity is high, the inverted U-shaped effect of product-similar subsidiary network is less pronounced. Moreover, host-country economic advantage and intangible asset intensity both enhance the positive effect of product-different subsidiary network. However, the moderating effect of intangible asset intensity is opposite to our prediction.

摘要

基于竞合（竞争与合作）的观点，我们区分了跨国企业在东道国的不同类型的子公司网络--产品相似的子公司网络和产品不同的子公司网络。我们认为产品相似的网络将对外国子公司的绩效产生非线型（倒U型）的作用，而产品不同的网络将产生正向作用。此外，我们将东道国经济优势和子公司的无形资源作为调节变量影响子公司网络与绩效之间的关系。利用国外子公司的纵向面板数据，我们发现当东道国经济优势较大，无形资产强度水平较高时，产品相似的子公司网络的倒U型作用的显著性下降。虽然我们预测东道国的经济优势和无形资产强度都将增强产品不同的子公司网络的正向作用，但无形资产强度的调节作用与我们的预测相反。

Аннотация

С точки зрения перспективы кооперативной конкуренции, в многонациональной компании мы различаем сети дочерних предприятий, которые производят одинаковые продукты, и сети дочерних предприятий, которые выпускают различные продукты в принимающей стране. Мы предполагаем, что наличие сети филиалов, производящих подобные продукты, будет оказывать криволинейный эффект (обратный U-образный) на производительность дочерней компании за рубежом, тогда как наличие сети филиалов, выпускающих различные продукты, будет производить монотонный (положительный) эффект. Кроме того, мы вводим экономическое преимущество принимающей страны и нематериальные ресурсы дочерней компании в качестве факторов, регулирующих взаимосвязь между сетью дочерних компаний и производительностью. На основании панельных данных из зарубежных филиалов за продолжительный период времени, мы находим доказательства того, что в случае, если экономическое преимущество принимающей страны велико, а уровень интенсивности нематериальных активов высокий, обратный U-образный эффект будет менее заметным для сети дочерних компаний, которые производят подобные продукты. Кроме того, экономическое преимущество принимающей страны и интенсивность нематериальных активов усиливают положительный эффект для сети дочерних компаний, производящих различные продукты. Тем не менее, регулирующий эффект, который зависит от интенсивности нематериальных активов, противоречит нашему предположению.

Resumen

Desde una perspectiva de coopetición, diferenciamos entre una red de filiales de productos similares de una empresa multinacional y una red de filiales de productos diferenciados en un país anfitrión. Argumentamos que la red de productos similares tendrá un efecto curvilíneo (forma de U invertida) en el desempeño de la filial en el extranjero, mientras que la red de productos diferentes producirá un efecto monotónico (positivo). También, introducimos la ventaja económica del país anfitrión y el recurso intangible de la filial como moderadores de la relación entre red de la filial y desempeño. Usando datos de paneles longitudinales de filiales en el extranjero, encontramos evidencia de que cuando la ventaja económica del país anfitrión es grande, y el nivel de intensidad del activo intangible es alto, el efecto de forma de U invertida de una red de filiales de productos similares es menos pronunciada. Por otra parte, la ventaja económica del país anfitrión y la intensidad del activo intangible aumentan tanto el efecto positivo de la red de filiales de productos diferentes. Sin embargo, el efecto moderador de la intensidad del activo intangible es opuesto a nuestra predicción.

Keywords

coopetitionhost-country economic advantageintangible asset intensitysubsidiary networksubsidiary performance竞合母公司经济优势无形资产强度分公司网络分公司绩效кооперативная конкуренцияэкономическое преимущество принимающей страныинтенсивность нематериальных активовсеть филиаловпроизводительность дочерней компанииCoopeticiónventaja económica del país anfitriónintensidad de activo intangiblered de filialesdesempeño de filiales
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 111 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Accepted by: Senior Editor Bent Petersen

References

REFERENCES

Al-Laham, A., & Amburgey, T. L. 2005. Knowledge sourcing in foreign direct investments: An empirical examination of target profiles. MIR: Management International Review: 247–275.Google Scholar
Ambos, T. C., & Birkinshaw, J. 2010. Headquarters’ attention and its effect on subsidiary performance. Management International Review, 50(4): 449–469.Google Scholar
Anand, J., & Delios, A. 2002. Absolute and relative resources as determinants of international acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 23(2): 119–134.Google Scholar
Andersson, U., Björkman, I., & Forsgren, M. 2005. Managing subsidiary knowledge creation: The effect of control mechanisms on subsidiary local embeddedness. International Business Review, 14(5): 521–538.Google Scholar
Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Holm, U. 2002. The strategic impact of external networks: Subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 23(11): 979–996.Google Scholar
Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Pedersen, T. 2001. Subsidiary performance in multinational corporations: The importance of technology embeddedness. International Business Review, 10(1): 3–23.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. 2000. ‘Coopetition' in business networks–To cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5): 411–426.Google Scholar
Bertrand, O., & Lumineau, F. 2016. Partners in crime: The effects of diversity on the longevity of cartels. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3): 983–1008.Google Scholar
Beugelsdijk, S. 2007. The regional environment and a firm's innovative performance: A plea for a multilevel interactionist approach. Economic Geography, 83(2): 181–199.Google Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., & Fry, N. 1998. Subsidiary initiatives to develop new markets. Sloan Management Review, 39(3): 51–61.Google Scholar
Birkinshaw, J. 2001. Strategies for managing internal competition. California Management Review, 44(1): 21–38.Google Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N., & Young, S. 2005. Subsidiary entrepreneurship, internal and external competitive forces, and subsidiary performance. International Business Review, 14(2): 227–248.Google Scholar
Björkman, I., Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Li, L. 2004. Managing knowledge transfer in MNCs: The impact of headquarters control mechanisms. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5): 443–455.Google Scholar
Brandenburger, A. M., Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenberger, A. 1996. Co-opetition. New York: Currency Doubleday Google Scholar.Google Scholar
Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. 1979. A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47(5): 1287–1294.Google Scholar
Buckley, P. J. 2009. The impact of the global factory on economic development. Journal of World Business, 44(2): 131–143.Google Scholar
Chang, B.-J. 2012. Strategies of post-entry foreign expansion: Speed-up or slow-down? International Business Research, 5(8): 123.Google Scholar
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
Chin, K.-S., Chan, B. L., & Lam, P.-K. 2008. Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for coopetition strategy. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(4): 437–454.Google Scholar
Chung, C. C., Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. 2008. Multinational networks during times of economic crisis versus stability. Management International Review, 48(3): 279–296.Google Scholar
Chung, C. C., Lee, S.-H., Beamish, P. W., & Isobe, T. 2010. Subsidiary expansion/contraction during times of economic crisis. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(3): 500–516.Google Scholar
Ciabuschi, F., Dellestrand, H., & Martín, O. M. 2011. Internal embeddedness, headquarters involvement, and innovation importance in multinational enterprises. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7): 1612–1639.Google Scholar
Contractor, F. J., Kundu, S. K., & Hsu, C.-C. 2003. A three-stage theory of international expansion: The link between multinationality and performance in the service sector. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1): 5–18.Google Scholar
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
Delios, A., & Ensign, P. C. 2000. A subnational analysis of Japanese direct investment in Canada. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17(1): 38–51.Google Scholar
Dellestrand, H., & Kappen, P. 2012. The effects of spatial and contextual factors on headquarters resource allocation to MNE subsidiaries. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(3): 219–243.Google Scholar
Demirbag, M., Apaydin, M., & Tatoglu, E. 2011. Survival of Japanese subsidiaries in the Middle East and North Africa. Journal of World Business, 46(4): 411–425.Google Scholar
Demirbag, M., Tatoglu, E., & Glaister, K. W. 2010. Institutional and transaction cost determinants of Turkish MNEs' location choice. International Marketing Review, 27(3): 272–294.Google Scholar
Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. 1984. Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1): 52–73.Google Scholar
Dhanaraj, C., & Beamish, P. W. 2009. Institutional environment and subsidiary survival. Management International Review, 49(3): 291–312.Google Scholar
Dicken, P., & Malmberg, A. 2001. Firms in territories: A relational perspective. Economic Geography, 77(4): 345–363.Google Scholar
Dow, D., & Karunaratna, A. 2006. Developing a multidimensional instrument to measure psychic distance stimuli. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5): 578–602.Google Scholar
Dowling, M. J., Roering, W. D., Carlin, B. A., & Wisnieski, J. 1996. Multifaceted relationships under coopetition: Description and theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5(2): 155–167.Google Scholar
Dunning, J. H. 1993. Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Wokingham, Berkshire: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Dunning, J. H. 1994. Reevaluating the benefits of foreign direct investment. University of Reading, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
Dunning, J. H. 1998. Location and the multinational enterprise: A neglected factor? Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1): 45–66.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1): 31–41.Google Scholar
Fang, Y., Wade, M., Delios, A., & Beamish, P. W. 2013. An exploration of multinational enterprise knowledge resources and foreign subsidiary performance. Journal of World Business, 48(1): 30–38.Google Scholar
Fauli-Oller, R., & Giralt, M. 1995. Competition and cooperation within a multidivisional firm. Journal of Industrial Economics, 43(1): 77–99.Google Scholar
Fey, C. F., & Björkman, I. 2001. The effect of human resource management practices on MNC subsidiary performance in Russia. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(1): 59–75.Google Scholar
Florida, R. 1997. The globalization of R&D: Results of a survey of foreign-affiliated R&D laboratories in the USA. Research Policy, 26(1): 85–103.Google Scholar
Forsgren, M., Holm, U., & Johanson, J. 2005. Managing the embedded multinational : A business network view. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
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
Ghemawat, P. 2001. Distance still matters. Harvard Business Review, 79(8): 137–147.Google Scholar
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. 1990. The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network. Academy of Management Review, 15(4): 603–626.Google Scholar
Gnyawali, D. R., & Madhavan, R. 2001. Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(3): 431–445.Google Scholar
Gnyawali, D. R., He, J., & Madhavan, R. 2006. Impact of co-opetition on firm competitive behavior: An empirical examination. Journal of Management, 32(4): 507–530.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. S. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481–510.Google Scholar
Guler, I., & Guillén, M. F. 2010. Institutions and the internationalization of US venture capital firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 185–205.Google Scholar
Haunschild, P. R., & Miner, A. S. 1997. Modes of interorganizational imitation: The effects of outcome salience and uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3): 472–500.Google Scholar
Hausman, J. A. 1978. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6): 1251–1271.Google Scholar
Holm, U., Johanson, J., & Thilenius, P. 1995. Headquarters’ knowledge of subsidiary network contexts in the multinational corporation. International Studies of Management & Organization, 25(1–2): 97–119.Google Scholar
Jarillo, J. C., & Martíanez, J. I. 1990. Different roles for subsidiaries: The case of multinational corporations in Spain. Strategic Management Journal, 11(7): 501–512.Google Scholar
Kalnins, A. 2004. Divisional multimarket contact within and between multiunit organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1): 117–128.Google Scholar
Keats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A. 1988. A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3): 570–598.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.-C., Lu, J. W., & Rhee, M. 2012. Learning from age difference: Interorganizational learning and survival in Japanese foreign subsidiaries. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(8): 719–745.Google Scholar
Kogut, B., & Chang, S. J. 1991. Technological capabilities and Japanese foreign direct investment in the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(3): 401–413.Google Scholar
Kogut, B., & Kulatilaka, N. 1994. Operating flexibility, global manufacturing, and the option value of a multinational network. Management Science, 40(1): 123–139.Google Scholar
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4): 625–645.Google Scholar
Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., & Hanlon, S. C. 1997. Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: A syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 110–141.Google Scholar
Levy, M., Loebbecke, C., & Powell, P. 2003. SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge sharing: The role of information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(1): 3–17.Google Scholar
Lieberman, M. B., & Asaba, S. 2006. Why do firms imitate each other? Academy of Management Review, 31(2): 366–385.Google Scholar
Luo, Y. 2003. Market-seeking MNEs in an emerging market: How parent–subsidiary links shape overseas success. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(3): 290–309.Google Scholar
Luo, Y. 2004. A coopetition perspective of MNC–host government relations. Journal of International Management, 10(4): 431–451.Google Scholar
Luo, Y. 2005. Toward coopetition within a multinational enterprise: A perspective from foreign subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 40(1): 71–90.Google Scholar
Makino, S., Lau, C.-M., & Yeh, R.-S. 2002. Asset-exploitation versus asset-seeking: Implications for location choice of foreign direct investment from newly industrialized economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3): 403–421.Google Scholar
Malhotra, D., & Lumineau, F. 2011. Trust and collaboration in the aftermath of conflict: The effects of contract structure. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5): 981–998.Google Scholar
McCann, P., & Mudambi, R. 2005. Analytical differences in the economics of geography: The case of the multinational firm. Environment and Planning A, 37(10): 1857–1876.Google Scholar
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
Miller, S. R., & Eden, L. 2006. Local density and foreign subsidiary performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2): 341–355.Google Scholar
Miller, S. R., Thomas, D. E., Eden, L., & Hitt, M. 2008. Knee deep in the big muddy: The survival of emerging market firms in developed markets. Management International Review, 48(6): 645–666.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W., Shaver, J. M., & Yeung, B. 1994. Foreign entrant survival and foreign market share: Canadian companies' experience in United States medical sector markets. Strategic Management Journal, 15(7): 555–567.Google Scholar
Moschieri, C. 2011. The implementation and structuring of divestitures: The unit's perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 32(4): 368–401.Google Scholar
Nohria, N., & Ghoshal, S. 1997. The differentiated network: Organizing multinational corporations for value creation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Novicevic, M. M., & Harvey, M. 2004. Export-import relationships in a global organization: A relational contracting analysis of subsidiary behavior. International Marketing Review, 21(4/5): 378–392.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, S. W. 2000. Managing foreign subsidiaries: Agents of headquarters, or an interdependent network? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5): 525–548.Google Scholar
Park, S. H., & Russo, M. V. 1996. When competition eclipses cooperation: An event history analysis of joint venture failure. Management Science, 42(6): 875–890.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations: Resource dependence perspective (First ed.). New York: Harper and Row Publishers.Google Scholar
Phelps, N. A., & Fuller, C. 2000. Multinationals, intracorporate competition, and regional development. Economic Geography, 76(3): 224–243.Google Scholar
Prajogo, D. I., & Sohal, A. S. 2004. Transitioning from total quality management to total innovation management: An Australian case. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 21(8): 861–875.Google Scholar
Rangan, S., & Sengul, M. 2009. The influence of macro structure on the foreign market performance of transnational firms: The value of IGO connections, export dependence, and immigration links. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2): 229–267.Google Scholar
Rawung, F. H., Wuryaningrat, N. F., & Elvinita, L. E. 2015. The influence of transformational and transactional leadership on knowledge sharing: An empirical study on small and medium businesses. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 20(1): 123–145.Google Scholar
Schipper, K. 2005. The introduction of International Accounting Standards in Europe: Implications for international convergence. European Accounting Review, 14(1): 101–126.Google Scholar
Shaver, J. M., Mitchell, W., & Yeung, B. 1997. The effect of own-firm and other-firm experience on foreign direct investment survival in the United States, 1987–92. Strategic Management Journal, 18(10): 811–824.Google Scholar
Song, J. 2002. Firm capabilities and technology ladders: Sequential foreign direct investments of Japanese electronics firms in East Asia. Strategic Management Journal, 23(3): 191–210.Google Scholar
Soppe, B., Lechner, C., & Dowling, M. 2014. Vertical coopetition in entrepreneurial firms: Theory and practice. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 21(4): 548–564.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, K. M., & Huber, G. P. 1998. Firm and industry as determinants of executive perceptions of the environment. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8): 793–807.Google Scholar
Tsai, W. 2002. Social structure of ‘coopetition’ within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2): 179–190.Google Scholar
Tsang, E. W., & Yip, P. S. 2007. Economic distance and the survival of foreign direct investments. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5): 1156–1168.Google Scholar
Venaik, S., Midgley, D. F., & Devinney, T. M. 2005. Dual paths to performance: The impact of global pressures on MNC subsidiary conduct and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6): 655–675.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. 2002. Pace, rhythm, and scope: Process dependence in building a profitable multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 23(7): 637–653.Google Scholar
Weber, K., Davis, G. F., & Lounsbury, M. 2009. Policy as myth and ceremony? The global spread of stock exchanges, 1980–2005. Academy of Management Journal, 52(6): 1319–1347.Google Scholar
Xia, J. 2011. Mutual dependence, partner substitutability, and repeated partnership: The survival of cross-border alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 32(3): 229–253.Google Scholar
Yu, J., Zhou, L.-A., & Zhu, G. 2016. Strategic interaction in political competition: Evidence from spatial effects across Chinese cities. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 57: 23–37.Google Scholar
Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 341–363.Google Scholar
Zhang, K. H., & Markusen, J. R. 1999. Vertical multinationals and host-country characteristics. Journal of Development Economics, 59(2): 233–252.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Li, Y., & Li, H. 2014. FDI spillovers over time in an emerging market: The roles of entry tenure and barriers to imitation. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3): 698–722.Google Scholar