COMPARING THE PROFITABILITY OF FIRMS WITH DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CAPITAL: THE CASE OF BIG MANUFACTURERS IN TURKEY

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 1, 115 - 127, 19.06.2018

Aytuğ Sözüer , Esin Bengü Ceran , Fatih Semerciöz

https://doi.org/10.24889/ifede.337368

Öz

YERLİ VE YABANCI SERMAYELİ İŞLETMELERİN KÂRLILIKLARININ KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI: TÜRKİYE’DEKİ BÜYÜK ÜRETİCİ FİRMALAR ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Bu
çalışma, işletmelerin sermaye yapısında yabancı iştirak bulunmasının firma
performansıyla ilişkili olup olmadığına dair, mevcut yazında devam eden
tartışmaya katkı sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmanın öngörüsü, büyük ve
yerleşik işletmeler arasındaki taşma (yayılma) etkisi dikkate alındığında,
yerli ve yabancı sermayeli firmaların ekonomik getirileri arasında belirgin bir
farkın bulunmayacağıdır. Araştırma için İstanbul Sanayi Odasının hazırladığı
Türkiye’nin en büyük sanayi kuruluşları listeleri ikincil veri olarak
kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, yerli ve yabancı sermayeli işletmelerin özellikle
aktif kârlılıkları açısından eşdeğer performans gösterdikleri hipotezini
desteklemektedir. Çalışmanın, Türkiye’deki bir grup büyük sanayi kuruluşunun
belirli bir dönemdeki ekonomik getirilerinin hangi aralıkta dağıldığını tespit
etmesi açısından özgün değer taşıdığı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlar, Uluslararasılaşma, Pazara Giriş Yöntemleri, İşletme Performansı

Kaynakça

• Al-Matari, E.M., Al-Swidi, A.K. ve Fadzil, F.H.B. (2014). The measurements of firm performance’s dimensions. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, 6(1), 24-49.
• Aslanoğlu, E. (2000). Spillover effects of foreign direct investments on Turkish manufacturing industry. Journal of International Development, 12, 1111-1130.
• Aydın, N., Sayım, M. ve Yalama, A. (2007). Foreign ownership and firm performance: Evidence from Turkey. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 11, 103-111.
• Barbosa, N. ve Louri, H. (2005). Corporate performance: Does ownership matter? A comparison of foreign- and domestic-owned firms in Greece and Portugal. Review of Industrial Organization, 27(1), 73-102.
• Basti, E. ve Bayyurt, N. (2008). Efficiency performance of foreign-owned firms in Turkey. Transformations in Business & Economics, 7/3(15), 20-30.
• Bellak, C. (2004). How domestic and foreign firms differ and why does it matter?. Journal of Economic Surveys, 18(4), 483-514.
• Bilyk, O. (2009). Foreign ownership and firm performance: A closer look at offshore-owned companies in Ukraine. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Kiev İktisat Fakültesi.
• Birkinshaw, J.M. (1996). How multinational subsidiary mandates are gained and lost. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(3), 467-496.
• Birkinshaw, J.M. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18(3), 207-229.
• Brouthers, K.D. ve Hennart, J-F. (2007). Boundaries of the firm: Insights from international entry mode research. Journal of Management, 33(3), 395-425.
• Bruno, R.L. ve Cipollina, M. (2014). FDI impact on firm performance in enlarged Europe: Evidence from a meta-regression Analysis. IZA Discussion Paper No. 8085, http://ftp.iza.org/dp8085.pdf (24.12.2015)
• Buckley, P. ve Casson, M. (1976). The future of the multinational enterprise, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
• Canabal, A. ve White III, G.O. (2008). Entry mode research: Past and future. International Business Review, 17, 267-284.
• Chen, H. ve Hu, M.Y. (2002). An analysis of determinants of entry mode and its impact on performance. International Business Review, 11, 193-210.
• 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
• Dunning, J.H. (1977). Trade, location of economic activity and the MNEs: A search for an eclectic paradigm. İçinde P. Wijikman (ed.), The international allocation of economic activity (ss. 395-418). London: Macmillan.
• Douma, S., George, R. ve Kabir, R. (2006). Foreign and domestic ownership, business groups, and firm performance: Evidence from a large emerging market. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 637-657.
• Ertuna, B. ve Yamak, S. (2011). Foreign equity configurations in an emerging country: Implications for performance. European Management Journal, 29, 117– 128.
• Gedajlovic, E., Yoshikawa,T. ve Hashimoto M. (2005). Ownership structure, investment behaviour and firm performance in Japanese manufacturing industries. Organization Studies, 26(1), 7-35.
• Gürbüz, A.O. ve Aybars, A. (2010). The impact of foreign ownership on firm performance, evidence from an emerging market: Turkey. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 2(4), 350-359.
• Hymer, S.H. (1960). The international operations of national firms: A study of direct foreign investment. Doktora tezi, MIT Üniversitesi.
• Hennart, J. F. (1982). A theory of multinational enterprise. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• How2stats. (2017). Pitman-Morgan test: Test the difference between correlated variances [Blog yazısı]. http://www.how2stats.net/ 2011/06/testing-difference-between-correlated.html (22.07.2017)
• İSO (İstanbul Sanayi Odası), (2017a). Tarihçe ve metodoloji. http://www.iso500.org.tr/iso-500-hakkinda/tarihce-ve-metodoloji (20.07.2017)
• İSO (İstanbul Sanayi Odası), (2017b). Geçmiş yıl verileri. http://www.iso500.org.tr/iso-500-hakkinda/gecmis-yil-verileri (20.07.2017)
• Johanson, J. ve Mattsson, L.G. (1988). Internationalisation in industrial systems. İçinde M. Hood & J.E. Vahlne (ed.), Strategies in global competition (ss. 287-314). New York: Croom Helm.
• Johanson, J. ve Vahlne, J.E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23-32.
• Koçtürk, M. ve Eker, M. (2012). Dünyada ve Türkiye'de doğrudan yabancı sermaye yatırımları ve çok uluslu şirketlerin gelişimi. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 18(1), 35-42.
• Liu, Q, Lu, R. ve Qiu, L.D. (2017). Foreign acquisitions and target firms’ performance in China. The World Economy, 40(1), 2-20
• Mihai, I.O. ve Mihai, C. (2013). The impact of foreign ownership on the performance of Romanian listed manufacturing companies. The International Journal of Management Science and Information Technology, 10(2), 106-122.
• Morschett, D., Schramm-Klein, H. ve Swoboda, B. (2010). Decades of research on market entry modes: What do we really know about external antecedents of entry mode choice?. Journal of International Management, 16, 60-77.
• Notta, O. ve Vlachvei, A. (2008). Foreign-owned versus domestically-owned firms: Evidence from Greece. New Medit, 4, 13-19.
• Rogers, J.L., Howard, K.I. ve Vessey, J.T. (1993). Using significance tests to evaluate equivalence between two experimental groups. Psychology Bulletin, 113(3), 553-565.
• Rugman, A.M., Verbeke, A. ve Nguyen, Q.T.K. (2011). Fifty years of international business theory and beyond. Management International Review, 51, 755-786.
• Togan, S. (2010). Turkey: Trade policy review, 2007. The World Economy, 33(11): 1339-1389.
• UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), (2017). World investment report 2017, annex tables. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationChapters/wir2017_AnnexTables_en.pdf (21.07.2017)
• Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product life cycle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2), 190-207.
• Werner, S. (2002). Recent developments in international management research: A review of 20 top management journals. Journal of Management, 28, 277-305.
• Yaşar, M. ve Paul, C.J.M. (2007). Firm performance and foreign direct investment: Evidence from transition economies. Economics Bulletin, 15(21), 1-11.