THE DETERMINANTS OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP IN DIRECT INVESTMENTS: CASES OF TURKEY AND GERMANY

Year 2016, Volume: 18 Issue: 2, 197 - 226, 12.07.2016

Gülşah Kulalı

https://doi.org/10.16953/deusbed.84469

Abstract

The aim of this study is to find answers to the following research questions: which business-life and firm-unique factors have influences over foreign ownership concentration of inward FDI’s to Turkey as a developing country, and to Germany as a developed country? Multiple linear regression analysis method is used in this study. There are ten approaches about building ownership strategy in theoretical literature. Results of this research are as follows: “transaction cost approach” is valid for explaining foreign ownership concentration for both countries. Other than that, “bargaining power approach” is applicable to explain foreign ownership concentration of investments to Turkey, whereas “organizational competences approach” is applicable to explain foreign ownership concentration of investments to Germany.

Keywords: International Investment Decisions, Ownership Structure, Corporate Governance.

DOĞRUDAN YATIRIMLARDA YABANCI SAHİPLİK YOĞUNLUĞUNUN BELİRLEYİCİLERİ: TÜRKİYE VE ALMANYA ÖRNEKLERİ

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, gelişmekte olan bir ekonomi olarak Türkiye'ye yönelik ve gelişmiş bir ekonomi olarak Almanya’ya yönelik doğrudan yabancı yatırımlardaki yabancı sahiplik yoğunluğu, ev sahibi ülke ve kaynak ülkelerin ticaret hayatı ile ve yatırım çeken şirketler ile ilgili hangi faktörlerin etkisi altında değişmektedir? sorusuna cevap bulmaktır. Araştırmada çoklu doğrusal regresyon analizi kullanılmaktadır. Teorik alan yazında sahiplik stratejisinin oluşturulması ile ilgili on yaklaşım mevcuttur. Araştırma sonucunda her iki ülke için yabancı sahiplik yoğunluğunu açıklayan faktörlerin ortaya konulmasında “işlem maliyeti yaklaşımı”nın geçerli olduğu bulunmuştur. Bu yaklaşımdan başka Türkiye’ye yönelik yatırımlarda sahiplik yoğunluğunun açıklanmasında “pazarlık gücü yaklaşımı”nın, Almanya’ya yönelik yatırımlarda “örgütsel yeterlilikler” yaklaşımının geçerli olduğu bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Uluslararası Yatırım Kararları, Sahiplik Yapısı, Kurumsal Yönetim.

Keywords

Uluslararası Yatırım Kararları, Sahiplik Yapısı, Kurumsal Yönetim

References

• Agrawal, S. ve Ramaswami, S. N. (1992). Choice of foreign market entry mode: Impact of ownership, location and internalization factors. Journal of International Business Studies, 23 (1): 1-27.
• Akgündüz, A. (2008). Labour migration from Turkey to Western Europe, 1960-1974: A multidisciplinary analysis. England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
• Asiedu, E. ve Esfahani, H. S. (2001). Ownership structure in foreign direct investment projects. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83 (4): 647-662.
• Aydın, N. (Proje Koordinatörü) (2011). Almanya’da faaliyet gösteren Türk sermayeli şirketlerle Alman sermayeli şirketlerin finansal performanslarının ve etkinliklerinin karşılaştırmalı analizi. Tübitak Projesi,
• No:109K145.
• Bhattacharya, P. S. ve Graham, M. A. (2009). On institutional ownership and firm performance: A disaggregated view. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 19 (5): 370-394.
• Blodgett, L. L. (1991). Partner contributions as predictors of equity share in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 22 (1): 63-78.
• Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. D. ve Werner, S. (2003). Transaction cost-enhanced entry mode choices and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (12): 1239-1248.
• Chan, M. C. (2002). Institutional perspective of foreign direct investment strategy: The case of Japanese multinational corporations.Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
• Chang, S. J. ve Rosenzweig, P. M. (2001). The choice of entry mode in sequential foreign direct investment. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (8): 747-776.
• Chokkar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C. ve House, R. J. (2007). Culture and leadership across the world: The globe book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. London: Lea Publishers.
• Claessens, S., Djankov, S. ve Lang, L. H. P. (2000). The separation of ownership and control in East Asian corporations. Journal of Financial Economics, 58 (1-2): 81-112.
• Cohen, S. D. (2007). Multinational corporations and foreign direct investment: Avoiding simplicity, embracing complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Daniels, R. J. ve Iacobucci, E. M. (2000). Some of the causes and consequences of corporate ownership concentration in Canada. R. K. Morck (Ed.) Concentrated corporate ownership: İçinde 55-80. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Deephouse, D. L. ve Wiseman, R. M. (2000). Comparing alternative explanations for accounting risk-return relations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 42 (4): 463-482.
• Demsetz, H. ve Lehn, K. (1985). Managerial ownership of voting rights: Causes and consequences. Journal of Political Economy, 93 (6): 1155-1177.
• Desai, M. A., Foley, C. F. ve Hines, J. R. (2002). International joint ventures and the boundaries of the firm. USA: International Investment Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce.
• Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T. ve Eisner, A. B. (2008). Strategic management: Text and cases. 4th edition. China: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
• Dunning, J. H. (1988). Explaining international production. London: Unwin Hyman.
• Erramilli, M. K. (1996). Nationality and subsidiary ownership patterns in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (2): 225-248.
• Faccio, M. ve Lang, L. H. P. (2002). The ultimate ownership of Western European corporations. Journal of Financial Economics. 65 (3): 365-395.
• Garengo, P. ve Bititci, U. (2007) Towards a contingency approach to performance measurement: An empirical study in Scottish SMEs. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27 (8): 802-825.
• Gomes-Casseres, B. (1989). Ownership structures of foreign subsidiaries: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 11 (1): 1-25.
• Govindarajan, V. (1988). A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the business-unit level: Integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (4): 828-853.
• Gürsoy, G. (2001). Equity ownership structure and its consequences: An empirical investigation in Turkish firms. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Bilkent Üniversitesi, Ekonomi ve Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20 (4): 986-1014.
• Hennart, J. F. (1988). A transaction cost theory of equity joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 9 (4): 361-374.
• Hill, C. W. L., Hwang, P. ve Kim, W. C. (1990). An eclectic theory of the choice of international entry mode. Strategic Management Journal, 11 (2): 117-128.
• Himmelberg, C. P., Hubbard, R. G. ve Palia, D. (1999). Understanding the determinants of managerial ownership and the link between ownership and performance. NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) Working Paper No. 7209.
• Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14 (2): 75-89.
• Hofstede, G. (2003). What is culture? A reply to Baskerville. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28 (7): 811-813.
• Holderness, C. G., Kroszner, R .S. ve Sheehan, D. P. (1999). Were the good old days that good? Changes in managerial stock ownership since the great depression. The Journal of Finance, 54 (2): 435-469.
• Jung, J. C. (2007). The varying patterns of ownership strategy of MNEs: A Japan- US comparison. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Western Ontorio, Richard Ivey School of Business, Ontario, USA.
• Kyaw, N. A. ve Theingi, H. (2009). A performance analysis of wholly owned subsidiaries and joint ventures: Electrical and electronic industry in Thailand. International Journal of Business Studies, 17 (1): 107-125.
• La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, 54 (2): 471-517.
• Laeven, L. ve Woodruff, C. (2004). The quality of the legal system, firm ownership, and firm size. World Bank Policy Research Paper No. 3246.
• Leaven, L. ve Levine, R. (2006). Complex ownership structures and corporate valuations. NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) Working Paper No. 12675.
• Luo, Y. ve Park, S. H. (2001). Strategic alignment and performance of market seeking MNCs in China. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (2): 141-155.
• Mahoney, J. T. (2005). Economic foundations of strategy. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Makino, S. ve Neupert, K. E. (2000). National culture, transaction cost, and the choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4): 705-713.
• Mani, S., Antia, K. D. ve Rindfleisch, A. (2007). Entry mode and equity level: A multilevel examination of foreign direct investment ownership structure. Strategic management journal, 28 (8): 857-866.
• Morck, R. K. (2000). Concentrated corporate ownership. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• OECD (2008). OECD benchmark definition of foreign direct investment. Fourth Edition. OECD Publishing.
• Pan, Y. (1996). Influences on foreign equity ownership level in joint ventures in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 27 (1): 1-26.
• Pan, Y. (2002). Equity ownership in international joint ventures: The impact of source country factors. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (2): 375-384.
• Pedersen, T. ve Thomsen, S. (2003). Ownership structure and value of the largest European firms: The importance of owner identity. Journal of Management and Governance, 7 (1): 27-55.
• Prescott, G. L., Madden, E. K. ve Foster, R. M. (2010). Forms of business ownership: A primer for commercial lenders. Commercial Lending Review, 25 (6): 27-55.
• Raff, H., Ryan, M. J. ve Stahler, F. (2007). Whole versus shared ownership of foreign affiliates. Christian Albrechts Universitat Kiel Economics Working Paper No. 2007-18.
• 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.
• Sirkeci, İ., Cohen, J. H., ve Yazgan, P. (2012). Turkish culture of migration: Flows between Turkey and Germany, socio-economic development and conflict. Migration Letters, 9 (1): 33-46.
• Tallman, S. ve Li, J. (1996). Effects of international diversity and product diversity on the performance of multinational firms. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (1): 179-196.
• The World Bank Investment Climate Advisory Services (2010). Investing across borders 2010: Indicators of FDI regulation in 87 economies. Washigton, DC: The World Bank Publication.
• Thomsen, S. ve Pedersen, T. (1996). Nationality and ownership structures: The 100 largest companies in six European Nations. Management International Review, 36 (2): 149-166.
• Todeva, E. (2006). Business networks: Strategy and structure. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
• Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Influences on foreign ownership level and entry mode choice in Vietnam. International Business Review, 14 (4): 441-463.
• UNCTAD (2010). World investment report 2010-Overview. Geneva: United Nations Publication.
• Van der Elst, C. (2004). Industry-specificities and size of corporations: determinants of ownership structures. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute Discussion Paper Series: 04-19.
• Vibert, C. (2004). Theories of macro organizational behavior. New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
• World Economic Forum (2010). The global enabling trade report 2010. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum Publishing.
• Yan, A. ve Gray, B. (2002). Negotiating control and achieving performance in international joint ventures: A conceptual model. Journal of International Management, 7 (4): 295-315.
• Zeitun, R. ve Tian, G. G. (2007). Does ownership affect a firm’s performance and default risk in Jordan? Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society. 7 (1): 66-82.
• Zhang, R. ve Rezaee, Z. (2009). Do credible firms perform better in emerging markets? Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 90 (2): 221-237.