EQUITY PARTICIPATION LEVEL OF MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES IN CROSS-BORDER MERGER AND ACQUISITIONS: A STUDY IN TURKEY CONTEXT

Öz

This study tries to examine how industry and institutional environment differences in cross-border merger and acquisitions affect equity participation level of multinational enterprises in an emerging market. We have based our research model and hypotheses on transaction cost based and institution-based view. Since industry and institutional environment differences cause risk and uncertainty to MNEs which lead higher transaction costs for these firms, these two theoretical approaches would be still relevant to understand MNEs' strategic behavior in emerging market contexts. Our findings support the positive influence of industry relatedness on ownership participation but we cannot find support for the moderating influence of both formal and informal institutions on the relationship between industry relatedness and equity participation level. Consequently, our study has shown that transaction cost-based view is still relevant for MNEs' foreign investment decisions in emerging markets and despite institutional voids perspective, formal and informal institutions could not hinder MNEs to take risk in strategic choices.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cross-border merger and acquisitions
• multinational enterprises
• industry relatedness
• institutional distance
• Turkey

ÇOK ULUSLU İŞLETMELERİN ULUSLARARASI BİRLEŞME VE SATIN ALMALARDAKİ MÜLKİYET ORTAKLIĞI DÜZEYİ: TÜRKİYE BAĞLAMINDA BİR ÇALIŞMA

Öz

Bu çalışmada gelişmekte olan ülkelerde gerçekleşen uluslararası birleşme ve satın almalarda tercih edilen mülkiyet ortaklığı düzeyinin endüstri ve kurumsal çevre farklılıklarından nasıl etkilendiği tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Araştırma modelimiz ve hipotezlerimiz, işlem maliyeti ve kurumsal temelli bakış açısı etrafında oluşturulmuştur. Endüstri ve kurumsal çevre koşullarından kaynaklanan risk ve belirsizliğin çok uluslu işletmeler için daha yüksek işlem maliyetlerine yol açması, bu iki teorik bakış açısının çok uluslu işletmelerin gelişmekte olan ülkelerdeki stratejik davranışlarını açıklamakta hala geçerli olduğunu göstermektedir. Hipotezlerimiz, Türkiye’de 1999-2017 yılları arasında gerçekleştirilmiş uluslararası birleşme ve satın almalardan oluşan bir örneklemde çoklu regresyon yöntemi ile analiz edilmiştir. Ülke, endüstri ve firma düzeyinde ilgili ikincil veriler bir araya getirildi. Araştırma bulgularımız ilişkili endüstride olmanın sahiplik katılımı üzerindeki pozitif etkisini desteklemiştir fakat resmi ve gayrı resmi kurumların, ilişkili endüstri ve mülkiyet ortaklığı düzeyi arasındaki ilişkide düzenleyici etkisine dair dayanak bulunamamıştır. Sonuç olarak, çalışmamız işlem maliyeti temelli bakış açısının çok uluslu işletmelerin gelişmekte olan ülkelerdeki yabancı yatırımlarında hala geçerli olduğunu ve kurumsal boşluklar bakış açısının aksine resmi ve gayrı resmi kurumların çok uluslu işletmelerin stratejik tercihlerinde risk almalarını engelleyemediğini göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Uluslararası birleşme ve satın almalar
• çok uluslu işletmeler
• ilişkili endüstri
• kurumsal mesafe
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage Publications.
2. Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. (1986). Modes of Foreign Entry: A Transaction Cost Analysis and Propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490432
3. Arslan, A., & Dikova, D. (2015). Influences of Institutional Distance and MNEs’ Host Country Experience on the Ownership Strategy in Cross-Border M&As in Emerging Economies. Journal of Transnational Management, 20(4), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475778.2015.1093784
4. Berry, H., Guillén, M. F., & Zhou, N. (2010). An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(9), 1460–1480. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.28
5. 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.
6. Brouthers, K. D., & Hennart, J.-F. (2007). Boundaries of the Firm: Insights From International Entry Mode Research. Journal of Management, 33(3), 395–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300817
7. Buckley, P. J., Elia, S., & Kafouros, M. (2014). Acquisitions by emerging market multinationals: Implications for firm performance. Journal of World Business, 49(4), 611–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JWB.2013.12.013
8. Caprio, L., Croci, E., & Del Giudice, A. (2011). Ownership structure, family control, and acquisition decisions. Journal of Corporate Finance, 17(5), 1636–1657. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCORPFIN.2011.09.008

9. Cavusgil, S. T. (2021). Advancing knowledge on emerging markets: Past and future research in perspective. International Business Review, 30(2), 101796. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IBUSREV.2021.101796
10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2008.58
11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2008.103
12. Chen, S.-F. S. (2008). The motives for international acquisitions: capability procurements, strategic considerations, and the role of ownership structures. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(3), 454–471. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400357
13. Chen, S.-F. S., & Hennart, J.-F. (2004). A hostage theory of joint ventures: why do Japanese investors choose partial over full acquisitions to enter the United States? Journal of Business Research, 57(10), 1126–1134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00041-9
14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.02.005
15. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2007.06.004
16. Di Guardo, M. C., Marrocu, E., & Paci, R. (2016). The effect of local corruption on ownership strategy in cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4225–4241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.002
17. Dikova, D. (2009). Performance of foreign subsidiaries: Does psychic distance matter? International Business Review, 18(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.11.001
18. Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Death to Dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1086/589561
19. Gatignon, H., & Anderson, E. (1988). The Multinational Corporation’s Degree of Control over Foreign Subsidiaries: An Empirical Test of a Transaction Cost Explanation. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 4(2), 305–336. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/764925
20. Haleblian, J., Devers, C. E., McNamara, G., Carpenter, M. A., & Davison, R. B. (2009). Taking stock of what we know about mergers and acquisitions: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 35(3), 469–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330554
21. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. In Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/unf_research/53
22. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01085.x
23. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(02), 220–246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200046
24. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. (1997). Why Focused Strategies May Be Wrong for Emerging Markets. Harvard Business Review, (July-August).
25. 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.
26. Lahiri, S. (2017). The moderating influence of market potential and prior experience on the governance quality-equity participation relationship: Evidence from acquisitions in BRIC. Management Decision, 55(1), 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2016-0408
27. Lahiri, S., Elango, B., & Kundu, S. K. (2014). Cross-border acquisition in services: Comparing ownership choice of developed and emerging economy MNEs in India. Journal of World Business, 49(3), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JWB.2013.08.003
28. Lim, M.-H., & Lee, J.-H. (2016). The effects of industry relatedness and takeover motives on cross-border acquisition completion. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4787–4792. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2016.04.031
29. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.21839
30. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2015.10.145
31. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2011.06.001
32. Morosini, P., Shane, S., & Singh, H. (1998). National Cultural Distance and Cross-Border Acquisition Performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490029
33. North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Economic Perspective, 5(1), 97–112.
34. 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. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2009.43479264
35. Shimizu, K., Hitt, M. A., Vaidyanath, D., & Pisano, V. (2004). Theoretical foundations of cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A review of current research and recommendations for the future. In Journal of International Management (Vol. 10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2004.05.005
36. UNCTAD. (2019). World Investment Report 2019:Special Economic Zones.
37. Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-Cost Economics : The Governance of Contractual Relations. The Journal of Law & Economics, 22(2), 233–261.
38. Yang, M. (2015). Ownership participation of cross-border mergers and acquisitions by emerging market firms. Management Decision, 53(1), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2014-0260
39. Yin, X., & Shanley, M. (2008). Industry determinants of the “merger versus alliance” decision. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.31193515