THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONAL DISTANCE, BUSINESS GROUP AFFILIATION AND OWNERSHIP LEVEL IN CROSS-BORDER M&As OF TURKISH FIRMS

Year 2020, , 623 - 638, 13.10.2020

Ayşe Kayacı

https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.798535

Abstract

Institutional environment has become a key phenomenon for internationalization studies of
emerging market firms. As the presence of emerging market firms has increased in global economy, the
investigation of the impacts of institutional environment on internationalization has become vital. The
aim of this study is to examine the impacts of formal and informal institutional environment differences
and business group affiliation on the choice of ownership level in cross border merger and acquisitions
of Turkish firms. The study has analyzed 280 completed cross border merger and acquisitions of Turkish
firms between years 1987-2018. As the formal institutional distance increases, Turkish firms prefer lower
level of equity ownership. In contrast, Turkish firms prefer higher level of ownership as the informal
institutional distance increases. Moreover, business group affiliation has a mitigating effect only in
informal institutional distance and ownership level relationship.

Keywords

Cross Border Merger and Acquisitions, Emerging Markets, Institutional Distance, Turkey, Business Groups

References

• Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. (1986). Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17(17), 1-26.
• Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. The Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1301–1328.
• Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influental data and sources of collinearity. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Bhaumik, S. K., Driffield, N., & Pal, S. (2010). Does ownership structure of emerging-market firms affect their outward FDI the case of the Indian automotive and pharmaceutical sectors. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(3), 437-450.
• Bhaumik, S. K., & Selarka, E. (2012). Does ownership concentration improve M&A outcomes in emerging markets?: Evidence from India. Journal of Corporate Finance, 18(4), 717-726.
• Brouthers, K. D. (2002). Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2), 203-221.
• Brouthers, K. D., & Brouthers, L. E. (2000). Acquisition or greenfield start-up? Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1), 89-97.
• Buckley, P. J. (2017). Internalisation theory and outward direct investment by emerging market multinationals. Management International Review, 1-30.
• Buğra, A. (1995). Devlet ve işadamları: State and business in modern Turkey; A comparative study. İletişim Yayınları.
• Chakrabarti, R., Gupta-Mukherjee, S., & Jayaraman, N. (2009). Mars-Venus marriages: Culture and cross-border M & A. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(2), 216-236.
• Chari, M. D., & Chang, K. (2009). Determinants of the share of equity sought in cross-border acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(8), 1277-1297.
• Chen, Y. Y., & Young, M. N. (2010). Cross-border mergers and acquisitions by Chinese listed companies: A principal-principal perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(3), 523-539.
• Child, J., & Rodrigues, S. B. (2005). The internationalization of Chinese firms: A case for theoretical extension? Management and Organization Review, 1(3), 381-410.
• Chung, H. M. (2014). The role of family management and ownership on semi-globalization pattern of globalization: The case of family business groups. International Business Review, 23(1), 260-271.
• Colpan, A. M. (2010). Business groups in Turkey. In A. M. Colpan, T, Hikino, J. R. Lincoln (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business groups (pp. 486-525). Oxford University Press.
• Contractor, F. J., Lahiri, S., Elango, B., & Kundu, S. K. (2014). Institutional, cultural and industry related determinants of ownership choices in emerging market FDI acquisitions. International Business Review, 23(5), 931-941.
• Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2012). Extending theory by analyzing developing country multinational companies: Solving the Goldilocks debate. Global Strategy Journal, 2(3), 153-167.
• Demirbag, M., Glaister, K. W., & Tatoglu, E. (2007). Institutional and transaction cost influences on MNEs’ ownership strategies of their affiliates: Evidence from an emerging market. Journal of World Business, 42(4), 418-434.
• Demirbag, M., McGuinness, M., & Altay, H. (2010). Perceptions of institutional environment and entry mode. Management International Review, 50(2), 207-240.
• 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.
• Deng, P. (2009). Why do Chinese firms tend to acquire strategic assets in international expansion? Journal of World Business, 44(1), 74-84.
• Filatotchev, I., Stephan, J., & Jindra, B. (2007). FDI by firms from newly industrialised economies in emerging markets: Corporate governance, entry mode and location. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 556-572.
• Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2010). Agency perspectives on corporate governance of multinational enterprises. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2), 471-486.
• Fuad, M., & Sinha, A. K. (2018). Entry-timing, business groups and early-mover advantage within industry merger waves in emerging markets: A study of Indian firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(4), 919-942.
• Gaffney, N., Karst, R., & Clampit, J. (2016). Emerging market MNE cross-border acquisition equity participation: The role of economic and knowledge distance. International Business Review, 25(1), 267-275.
• Granovetter, M. (2005). Business groups and social organization. In N. J. Smelser, R, Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology (pp. 429-450). New Jersey,USA: Princeton University Press.
• Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage publications.
• Hofstede Insights (no date). Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/comparecountries/ Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M. & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 249-267.
• Hoskisson, R. E., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., & Peng, M. W. (2013). Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50(7), 1295-1321.
• Ilhan-Nas, T., Okan, T., Tatoglu, E., Demirbag, M., & Glaister, K. W. (2018). The effects of ownership concentration and institutional distance on the foreign entry ownership strategy of Turkish MNEs. Journal of Business Research, 93, 173-183.
• Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2000). The future of business groups in emerging markets: Long-run evidence from Chile. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 268-285. Retrieved from: http:// www.jstor.org/stable/1556395%5Cnhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1556395?seq=1&cid=pdfreference# references_tab_contents%5Cnhttp://about.jstor.org/terms.
• Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3), 411-432.
• Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. The Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 64-81.
• Lebedev, S., Peng, M. W., Xie, E., & Stevens, C. E. (2015). Mergers and acquisitions in and out of emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 50(4), 651-662.
• Liou, R.-S., Chao, M. C., & Ellstrand, A. (2017). Unpacking institutional distance: Addressing human capital development and emerging-market firms’ ownership strategy in an advanced economy. Thunderbird International Business Review, 59(3), 281-295.
• Liou, R. S., Chao, M. C. H., & Yang, M. (2016). Emerging economies and institutional quality: Assessing the differential effects of institutional distances on ownership strategy. Journal of World Business, 51(4), 600-611.
• Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. (2007). International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 481-498.
• Madhok, A., & Keyhani, M. (2012). Acquisitions as entrepreneurship: Asymmetries, opportunities, and the internationalization of multinationals from emerging economies. Global Strategy Journal, 2(1), 26-40.
• Malhotra, S., Lin, X., & Farrell, C. (2016). Cross-national uncertainty and level of control in cross-border acquisitions: A comparison of Latin American and U.S. multinationals. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 1993-2004.
• Malhotra, S., Sivakumar, K., & Zhu, P. C. (2011). Curvilinear relationship between cultural distance and equity participation: An empirical analysis of cross-border acquisitions. Journal of International Management, 17(4), 316-332.
• Mathews, J. A. (2006). Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(1), 5-27.
• North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Economic Perspective, 5(1), 97-112.
• Pablo, E. (2009). Determinants of cross-border M&As in Latin America. Journal of Business Research, 62(9), 861-867.
• Peng, M. W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B., & Chen, H. (2009). The institution-based view as a third leg for a strategy tripod. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 63-81.
• Peng, M. W. (2012). The global strategy of emerging multinationals from China. Global Strategy Journal, 107, 97-107.
• Pinto, C. F., Ferreira, M. P., Falaster, C., Fleury, M. T. L., & Fleury, A. (2017). Ownership in cross-border acquisitions and the role of government support. Journal of World Business, 52(4), 533-545.
• Popli, M., Akbar, M., Kumar, V., & Gaur, A. (2016). Reconceptualizing cultural distance: The role of cultural experience reserve in cross-border acquisitions. Journal of World Business, 51(3), 404- 412.
• Ramamurti, R. (2009). Why study emerging-market multinationals? In R. Ramamurti, J. V. Singh (Eds.), Emerging multinationals in emerging markets (pp. 3-22). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Extending the theory of the multinational enterprise: Internalization and strategic management perspectives. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2), 125- 137.
• Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://books. google.com/books?id=7Y-0bDCw_aEC
• Singh, D., & Delios, A. (2017). Corporate governance, board networks and growth in domestic and international markets: Evidence from India. Journal of World Business, 52(5), 615-627.
• Singla, C., George, R., & Veliyath, R. (2017). Ownership structure and internationalization of Indian firms. Journal of Business Research, 81 (December 2016), 130-143.
• Stoian, C., & Mohr, A. (2016). Outward foreign direct investment from emerging economies: Escaping home country regulative voids. International Business Review, 25(5), 1124-1135.
• The Heritage Foundation. (2018). Index of Economic Freedom. Retrieved August 14, 2018, from https:// www.heritage.org/index/about
• UNCTAD. (2017). World Investment Report 2017: Investment and Digital Economy.
• UNCTAD. (2019). World Investment Report 2019: Key Messages and Overview.
• Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics : The governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law & Economics, 22(2), 233-261.
• Yamak, S., & Üsdiken, B. (2006). Economic liberalization and the antecedents of top management teams: Evidence from Turkish “big” business. British Journal of Management, 17(3), 177-194.
• Yang, M. (2015). Ownership participation of cross-border mergers and acquisitions by emerging market firms. Management Decision, 53(1), 221-246.
• Yang, M., & Deng, P. (2017). Cross-border M&As by Chinese companies in advanced countries: Antecedents and implications. Thunderbird International Business Review, 59(3), 263-280.
• Yaprak, A., Yosun, T., & Cetindamar, D. (2018). The influence of firm-specific and country-specific advantages in the internationalization of emerging market firms: Evidence from Turkey. International Business Review, 27(1), 198-207.
• Yildirim-Öktem, Ö., & Üsdiken, B. (2010). Contingencies versus external pressure: Professionalization in boards of firms affiliated to family business groups in late-industrializing countries. British Journal of Management, 21(1), 115-130.
• Yiu, D. W. (2011). Multinational advantages of Chinese business groups: A theoretical exploration. Management and Organization Review, 7(2), 249-277.
• Yurtoglu, B. (2000). Ownership, control and performance of Turkish listed firms. Empirica, 27, 193-222. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026557203261.
• Zhang, J., Zhou, C., & Ebbers, H. (2011). Completion of Chinese overseas acquisitions: Institutional perspectives and evidence. International Business Review, 20(2), 226-238.