Examining the Impact of Outward Foreign Direct Investments on Home Country Sustainable Innovation within the Framework of the Updated Uppsala Internationalization Model

Öz

While the world is constantly transforming itself in an unstoppable hyper-competitive environment, theories are also updating themselves. In this process that starts with globalisation, internationalisation activities and the theories that draw their theoretical framework are also renewed. &e Uppsala internationalisation model in our study has been updated again after 40 years. &e first Uppsala model, characterized by an individual, controlled, and gradual approach to internationalization, was updated to incorporate perspectives like the network approach, reflecting the competitive dynamics of the modern business environment. Increased competitiveness has highlighted the need for strategic tools in internationalization, with outward FDI being emphasized as a key competitive tool for achieving sustainable advantage. In order to examine the impact of outward FDI on sustainable innovation in the home country, a qualitative theoretical comparative analysis based on a systematic literature review was conducted and country-based empirical studies were reviewed. It argues that the limitations of growth based solely on internal resources necessitate the internalization of external resources, aligned with absorptive capacity. It is aimed to explain the contribution of networked entry, exclusion effect, reverse knowledge spillovers and absorptive capacity to sustainable innovation in the home country through outward FDI to enhance competitive advantage. &e research considers the application of theoretical models in business strategies and country-based internationalisation processes. It is also stated that outward FDI contributes to sustainable innovation, protecting competitive advantage for developed countries and acting as a stepping stone for developing countries.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uppsala Model
• Outward Foreign Direct Investments
• Development Strategies
• Sustainable Innovation

Güncellenmiş Uppsala Uluslararasılaşma Modeli Çerçevesinde Dışa Dönük Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımların Ana Ülke Sürdürülebilir İnovasyonuna Etkisinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Dünya önü alınamaz aşırı rekabetçi bir ortamda sürekli kendini dönüştürürken teoriler de kendini güncellemektedir. Globalleşmeyle başlayan bu süreçte uluslararasılaşma faaliyetleri ve bunların teorik çerçevesini çizen teoriler de yenilenmektedir. Çalışmamızda yer alan Uppsala uluslararasılaşma modeli, aşırı rekabetçi ortamda rekabet avantajı elde etmek ve korumak isteyen şirketlerin yaklaşımlarını ortaya koymak için 40 yıl sonra tekrar güncellenmiştir. Eski Uppsala modeli, uluslararasılaşma sürecinde bireysel, daha kontrol edilebilir ve aşamalı bir yaklaşım temelli iken güncellenmiş Uppsala modeli, ağ yaklaşımı başta olmak üzere çeşitli perspektiflerle uluslararasılaşma sürecine dair orijinal teoriyi modern iş dünyasındaki rekabet dinamiklerini dikkate alarak yeniden değerlendirmiştir. Artan rekabetçilikle güncellenen model, uluslararasılaşmada stratejik araç ihtiyacını beraberinde getirmektedir. Sürdürülebilir rekabet avantajı elde etmek için stratejik rekabet araçlarından olan dışa dönük doğrudan yabancı yatırımların, aşırı rekabetçi ortamdaki stratejik önemi vurgulanmıştır. Dışa dönük doğrudan yabancı yatırımların, ana ülkedeki sürdürülebilir inovasyona etkisini incelemek amacıyla sistematik literatür taramasına dayalı nitel teorik karşılaştırmalı analiz yapılmış ve ülke bazlı ampirik çalışmalar incelenmiştir. Rekabet avantajını geliştirmek için dışa dönük doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar aracılığıyla ev sahibi ülkeye ağ yaklaşımıyla giriş, dışlanma etkisi, tersine bilgi yayılımı ve emme kapasitesinin, ana ülkedeki sürdürülebilir inovasyona katkısını anlatmak amaçlanmıştır. Global rekabetin artmasıyla yalnızca iç kaynaklara dayalı büyüme performansının sınırlı kaldığı; bu nedenle, dış kaynakların emme kapasitesi doğrultusunda içselleştirilmesinin önemi vurgulanmaktadır. Araştırmada teorik modelin, işletme stratejileri ve ülke esaslı olarak uluslararasılaşma süreçlerindeki uygulama boyutu dikkate alınmıştır. Dışa dönük doğrudan yabancı yatırımların, sürdürülebilir inovasyona katkı sağlayarak gelişen ülkeler için rekabet avantajını koruyucu, gelişmekte olan ülkeler için sıçrama tahtası özelliği gösterdiği de ifade edilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uppsala Modeli
• Dışa Dönük Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar
• Kalkınma Stratejileri
• Sürdürülebilir İnovasyon

Kaynakça

1. Barry, F. (2019). Ireland and the changing global foreign direct investment landscape. Administration, 67(3), 93-110. doi: 10.2478/admin-2019-0022
2. Buckley, P. J., ve Chapman, M. (1997). The perception and measurement of transaction costs. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 21(2), 127-145. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a013663
3. Chen, T., Chen, X., Luo, W., & Xiang, X. (2023). Foreign Direct Investment and Innovation: Evidence From Chinese Firms’Patent Filing. The Singapore Economic Review, 68(02), 507-538. doi: 10.1142/S0217590822500217
4. Chandrawanshi, A. G., ve Banerji, A. (2014). Review of outward foreign direct investment from India post liberalization. American Journal of Business Research, 7(1), 19-44. Erişim adresi: https://amhighed.com/journals/ajbr/
5. Clougherty, J. A., Kim, J. U., Skousen, B. R., ve Szücs, F. (2017). The foundations of international business: Cross‐border investment activity and the balance between market‐power and efficiency effects. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 340-365. doi:10.1111/joms.12205
6. Coe, D. T., ve Helpman, E. (1995). International r&d spillovers. European Economic Review, 39(5), 859-887. doi:10.1016/0014-2921(94)00100-E
7. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. doi: 10.2307/2393553
8. Cyert, R., ve March, J. (2015). Organizational behavior 2. New York: Routledge Publishing. doi: 10.4324/9781315702001

9. Deng, P. (2007). Investing for strategic resources and its rationale: The case of outward FDI from Chinese companies. Business Horizons, 50(1), 71-81. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2006.07.001
10. DiMaggio, P. J., ve Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. doi:10.2307/2095101
11. Dow, D., ve Karunaratna, A. (2006). Developing a multidimensional instrument to measure psychic distance stimuli. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 578-602. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400221
12. Dunning, J. H. (1993). Internationalizing Porter's diamond. MIR: Management International Review, 33, 7-15. Erişim adresi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40228187
13. Dunning, J. H., ve Lundan, S. M. (2008). Institutions and the OLI paradigm of the multinational enterprise. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25, 573-593. doi:10.1007/s10490-007-9074-z
14. Durham, J. B. (2003). Foreign portfolio investment, foreign bank lending, and economic growth. FRB International Finance Discussion Paper, 757, 1-35. doi:10.17016/IFDP.2003.757
15. Fältén, A. I. (2016). Essays on mergers and acquisitions (Doktora Tezi). Erişim adresi: https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/essays-on-mergers-and-acquisitions
16. Feldstein, M. S. (2000). Aspects of global economic intergration: Outlook for the future. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, w7899. Erişim adresi: http://www.nber.org/papers/w7899
17. Flatten, T. C., Engelen, A., Zahra, S. A., & Brettel, M. (2011). A measure of absorptive capacity: Scale development and validation. European Management Journal, 29(2), 98-116. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2010.11.002
18. Fosfuri, A., & Tribó, J. A. (2008). Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance. Omega, 36(2), 173-187. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2006.06.012
19. Francis, J., Zheng, C., ve Mukherji, A. (2009). An institutional perspective on foreign direct investment: A multi-level framework. Management International Review, 49, 565-583. doi:10.1007/s11575-009-0011-x
20. Gaur, A. S., Ma, X., ve Ding, Z. (2018). Home country supportiveness/unfavorableness and outward foreign direct investment from China. Journal of International Business Studies, 49, 324-345. doi: 10.1057/s41267-017-0136-2
21. Gereffi, G., ve Lee, J. (2012). Why the world suddenly cares about global supply chains. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(3), 24-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-493X.2012.03271.x
22. Ghosh, M., ve Wang, W. (2009). Does fdi accelerate economic growth? The OECD experience based on panel data estimates for the period 1980-2004. Global Economy Journal, 9(4), 1-23. doi:10.2202/1524-5861.1496
23. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510. doi:10.1086/228311
24. Guo, X., & Wang, J. (2023). Outward foreign direct investment, green financial development, and green total factor productivity: evidence from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(16), 47485-47500. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-25651-z
25. He, W. (2023). The Impact of OFDI Reverse Technology Spillover on Regional Innovation Capabilities: A Spatial Analysis Based on Provincial Panel Data. Finance Research Letters, 58. doi:10.1016/j.frl.2023.104652
26. Hejazi, W., Tang, J., & Wang, W. (2023). Absorptive capacity, learning and profiting from outward FDI: Evidence from Canadian firms. Journal of World Business, 58(3), 101427. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2023.101427
27. Herzer, D. (2010). Outward FDI and economic growth. Journal of Economic Studies, 37(5), 476-494. . doi:10.1108/01443581011075424
28. Javorcik, B. S. (2007). Foreign Direct Investment and International Technology Transfer: What Do We Know? What Would We Like to Know?. The World Bank and CEPR Working Paper.
29. Johanson, J., ve Mattsson, L. G. (2013). Internationalisation in industrial systems a network approach, in strategies in global competition. New York: Routledge Publishing.
30. Johanson, J., ve Vahlne, J. E. (2015). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: from liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership, knowledge, network and power. New York: Routledge Publishing.
31. Jung, M. S., Yang, Y. S., ve Kim, D. Y. (2016). Global value chains perspective of Korea foreign direct investment (OFDI) and policy direction. Korea Trade Review, 41(4), 245-267. Erişim adresi: www.koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO201618053139368.page
32. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., ve Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. The Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325-1348. doi:10.1086/261737
33. Kahneman, D., ve Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk, in handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making. New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing. doi: 10.1142/8557
34. Kim, J., ve Rhee, D. K. (2009). Trends and determinants of Korean outward fdi. The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, 27(1), 126-154. doi:10.22439/cjas.v27i1.2288
35. KOF Swiss Economic Institute, 2021. Erişim adresi: https://kof.ethz.ch/en/forecasts-and-indicators/indicators/kof-globalisation-index.html
36. Kuźmińska-Haberla, A. (2012). Promotion of outward foreign direct investments in emerging markets–the example of South Korea. Ekonomia, (20), 83-93. Erişim adresi: https://www.dbc.wroc.pl/publication/19815
37. Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 833-863. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2006.22527456
38. Lee, E. S., Liu, W., ve Yang, J. Y. (2023). Neither developed nor emerging: Dual paths for outward FDI and home country innovation in emerged market MNCs. International Business Review, 32(2), 101925. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101925
39. Li, J., Strange, R., Ning, L., ve Sutherland, D. (2016). Outward foreign direct investment and domestic innovation performance: Evidence from China. International Business Review, 25(5), 1010-1019. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.01.008
40. Lipsey, R. E., Ramstetter, E., ve Blomström, M. (2000). Outward fdi and parent exports and employment: Japan, the United States, and Sweden. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, w7623. Erişim adresi: http://www.nber.org/papers/w7623
41. Liu, Y., Liu, W., Zhang, X., Dong, H., Zhao, Z., ve Zhang, Z. (2024). Domestic environmental impacts of OFDI: City-level evidence from China. International Review of Economics & Finance, 89, 391-409. doi:10.1016/j.iref.2023.07.095
42. Loukil, K. (2016). Foreign direct investment and technological innovation in developing countries. Oradea Journal of Business and Economics, 1(2), 31-40. doi: 10.47535/1991ojbe008
43. Lundvall, B. Å. (2015, Eylül 23). The origins of the national innovation system concept and its usefulness in the era of the globalizing economy (Kongre bildirisi). In thirteenth Globelics Conference. Havana, Cuba. Erişim adresi: www.cienciapr.org/en/event/13th-globelics-international-conference
44. Lyles, M., Li, D., ve Yan, H. (2014). Chinese outward foreign direct investment performance: The role of learning. Management and Organization Review, 10(3), 411-437. doi:10.1111/more.12056
45. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., ve Lampel, J. B. (2020). Strategy safari: The complete guide through the wilds of strategic management. London: Pearson UK.
46. Morone, P. ve Taylor, R. (2010). Knowledge diffusion and innovation: modelling complex entrepreneurial behaviours. London: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781849803472
47. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
48. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511808678
49. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). Outward fdi stocks dataset. https://data.oecd.org/fdi/outward-fdi-stocks
50. Osarumwense, O. I., ve Igor M, D. (2023). Global outward foreign direct investment and economic growth across income groups: The mediating effect of home country institutions. SAGE Open, 13(2). doi:10.1177/21582440231163843
51. Pak, Y. S., ve Park, Y. R. (2005). Characteristics of Japanese fdi in the east and the west: understanding the strategic motives of Japanese investment. Journal of World Business, 40(3), 254-266. doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2005.05.003
52. Pan, X., Li, M., Wang, M., Chu, J., & Bo, H. (2020). The effects of outward foreign direct investment and reverse technology spillover on China's carbon productivity. Energy Policy, 145, 111730. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111730
53. Posner, M. V. (1961). International trade and technical change. Oxford Economic Papers, 13(3), 323-341. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a040877
54. Qiao, P., Lv, M., ve Zeng, Y. (2020). R&D intensity, domestic institutional environment, and smes’ ofdi in emerging markets. Management International Review, 60, 939-973. doi:10.1007/s11575-020-00432-9
55. Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). What makes entrepreneurs entrepreneurial?. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.909038
56. Su, H., ve Fu, Y. (2021). The Impact of the Outward and Inward FDI on Global Value Chains. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 11(6), 1. doi:10.32479/ijefi.11950
57. Surdu, I., Greve, H. R., ve Benito, G. R. (2021). Back to basics: behavioral theory and internationalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(6), 1047-1068. doi:10.1057/s41267-020-00388-w
58. Thurbon, E., ve Weiss, L. (2006). Investing in openness: The evolution of fdi strategy in South Korea and Taiwan. New Political Economy, 11(1), 1-22. doi:10.1080/13563460500494784
59. Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management review, 32(3), 774-786. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2007.25275513
60. Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996-1004. doi: 10.2307/3069443
61. Tyson, L. D., ve Guile, B. (2021). Innovation-Based Economic Security. Issues in Science and Technology, 37(4), 44-47.
62. Vahlne, J. E., Schweizer, R., ve Johanson, J. (2012). Overcoming the liability of outsidership—the challenge of HQ of the global firm. Journal of International Management, 18(3), 224-232. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2012.04.002
63. Vahlne, J. E., ve Johanson, J. (2017). From internationalization to evolution: The Uppsala model at 40 years. Journal of International Business Studies, 48, 1087-1102. doi:10.1057/s41267-017-0107-7
64. Vernon, R. (2015). In international business strategy. New York: Routledge Publishing.
65. Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). Perspective—Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science, 21(4), 931-951. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1513184
66. Weick, K. E. (2005). Organizing and failures of imagination. International Public Management Journal, 8(3), 425-438. doi:10.1080/10967490500439883
67. Williamson, O. E. (2009). In regulation, deregulation, reregulation. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
68. Ye, Y., & Zhao, S. (2023). The Effect of Outward FDI on Capabilities of Sustained Innovation: Evidence from China. Sustainability, 15(5), 4196. doi: 10.3390/su15054196
69. Yim, H. R., ve Jung, W. (2016). Sequantial foreign direct investment under information asymmetry: lessons from Korean companies' outward fdis to China. Transformations in Business & Economics, 15(3). Erişim adresi: https://repository.hanyang.ac.kr/handle/20.500.11754/101816
70. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185-203. doi: 10.2307/4134351
71. Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., Jin, H., Tu, W., ve Liu, Y. (2024). Innovation and ofdi along the belt and road. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 200, 123136. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123136
72. Zhang, W., Zhong, X., & Li, X. (2024). The impact of degree of internationalization of MNEs on green innovation performance: The moderating role of absorptive capacity and global dynamic management capability. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(1), 659-675. doi: 10.1002/csr.2592