THE ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORKS IN FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS: THE CASE OF TURKISH BUSINESS GROUPS

Yıl 2022, , 280 - 304, 16.06.2022

Tülay İlhan-nas , Şengül Duran

https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2022.ozelsayi13

Öz

This study aims to examine the effect of network structures of Turkish business groups on foreign direct investment decisions. In line with this study, social network structures (in the dimensions of centrality and betweenness) that are handled at the business group level, are evaluated in the context of overlapping boards of directors. The scope of the study consists of 13 business groups determined according to the deliberate sampling method and 83 affiliates operating as affiliated companies of these business groups. In the study, the data about 96 enterprises (13 holdings and 83 affiliates) is obtained between 1997-2019, and their network structures (degrees of centrality and betweenness) are revealed. Afterward, the hypotheses, which are developed within the scope of the study, are tested through panel regression models. Research results show that degree centrality at the enterprise group level positively affects FDI decisions and activities. Another significant finding obtained within the scope of the study shows that there is no effect of betweenness at the enterprise group level on FDI activities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Social networks, foreign direct investments, Turkish business groups

DOĞRUDAN YABANCI YATIRIMLARDA SOSYAL AĞLARIN ROLÜ: TÜRK İŞLETME GRUPLARI

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türk işletme gruplarının sahip oldukları ağ yapılarının doğrudan yabancı yatırım kararları üzerindeki etkisini incelemektir. Bu doğrultuda işletme grubu düzeyinde ele alınan sosyal ağ yapıları (merkezilik ve arasındalık boyutlarında) örtüşen yönetim kurulları bağlamında değerlendirilmektedir. Çalışmanın kapsamı, kasıtlı örneklem yöntemine göre belirlenen 13 işletme grubundan, bu işletme gruplarına bağlı şirketler olarak faaliyet gösteren 83 bağlı işletmeden oluşmaktadır. Çalışmada öncelikle toplamda 96 işletmenin (13 holding ve 83 bağlı şirket) 1997-2019 yılları arasında elde edilen verileri ile ağ yapıları (merkezilik ve arasındalık dereceleri) ortaya konulmaktadır. Sonrasında da çalışma kapsamında geliştirilen hipotezler, panel regresyon modelleri aracılığıyla test edilmektedir. Çalışmanın bulguları, işletme grubu düzeyinde derece merkeziliğinin işletme gruplarının DYY karar ve faaliyetlerini olumlu yönde etkilediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında elde edilen diğer önemli bulgu ise işletme grubu düzeyinde arasındalığın işletme gruplarının DYY faaliyetleri üzerinde herhangi bir etkisinin olmadığını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sosyal ağlar, doğrudan yabancı yatırımlar, Türk işletme grupları

Kaynakça

• Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital : Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(1), 17–40.
• Ar, A., & Fıcıcı, A. (2017). The emerging market manufacturing business groups (embgs) and the ınterplay between ınnovation in environmental sustainability, Digitalization, Internationalization and Corporate Governance Structures: The Case of Turkish Holding Companies. Turkish Economic Review, 4(1), 55–65.
• Ataay, A. (2012). Türk aile işletme gruplarının uluslararasılaşma deneyimleri. In T. Koçel (Ed.), 5. Aile İşletmeleri Kongresi Kongre Kitabı. İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Baltagi, B. H., & Wu, P. X. (1999). Unequally spaced panel data regressions with AR(1) disturbances. Econometric Theory, 15(6), 814–823. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266466699156020
• Barney, J. (1991). Film resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
• Barringer, B. R., & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26(3), 367–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600302
• Bhargava, A., Franzini, L., & Narendranathan, W. (1982). Serial correlation and the fixed effects model. Source: The Review of Economic Studies, 49(4), 533–549.
• Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 795–817. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159624
• Buğra, A. (2010). Devlet ve iş adamları (7.), İletişim Yayınları.
• Buğra, A. (2018). Devlet ve işadamları (11.), İletişim Yayınları.
• Burt, R. S. (1992). The social structure of competition. Contemporary Sociology. https://doi.org/10.2307/2075713
• Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365.
• Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behaviour (Vol. 22). Elsevier Science Inc.
• Burt, R. S. (2002). Bridge decay. Social Networks, 24(4), 333–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8733(02)00017-5
• Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ıdeas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787
• Burt, R. S. (2007). Secondhand brokerage: Evidence on the importance of local structure for managers, bankers and analysts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 119–148. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24162082
• Chetty, S. K., & Stangl, L. M. (2010). Internationalization and innovation in a network relationship context. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11), 1725–1743. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011079855
• Çolpan, M. A., & Hikino, T. (2008). Türkiye’nin büyük şirketler kesiminde işletme gruplarının iktisadi rolü ve çeşitlendirme stratejileri. Yönetim Araştırmları Dergisi, 8(1–2), 23–58.
• Coviello, N. E. (2006). The network dynamics of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5), 713–731.
• De Masi, G., & Ricchiuti, G. (2018). A network analysis of foreign direct ınvestments. Networks of International Trade and Investment, September 2017, 1–20. https://vernonpress.com/book/96
• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The ıron cage revisited : institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
• Erdilek, A. (2003). A comparative analysis of inward and outward FDI in Turkey. Uctad/Ite/Iıt, 12(3), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.3848/iif.2005.233.3044
• Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
• Frees, E. W. (1995). Assessing cross-sectional correlation in panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 69(2), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01658-M
• Frees, E. W. (2004). Longitudinal and panel data : Analysis and applications in the social sciences. In Cambridge University Press. (Vol. 101, Issue 473).
• Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality ımplicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32(200), 675–701.
• Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. (1998). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization Science, 11(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.2.183.12514
• Grandori, A., & Soda, G. (1995). Inter-firm networks: Antecedents, mechanisms and forms. Organization Studies, 16(2), 183–214.
• Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure :The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 3(3).
• Güler, I., & Guillén, M. F. (2010). Home country networks and foreign expansion: Evidence from the venture capital industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(2), 390–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.49389027
• Gummesson, E. (2007). Case study research and network theory: Birds of a feather. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 2(3), 226–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465640710835373
• Hadjit, A., & Browne, E. M. (2005). Foreign direct investment in Turkey : The implications of EU accession. Turkish Studies, 6(3), 321–340.
• Hagedoorn, J. (2006). Understanding the cross-level embeddedness of interfirm partnership formation. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 670–680. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.21318924
• Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. (2000). Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 249–267.
• Jensen, M. (2008). The use of relational discrimination to manage market entry: When do social status and structual holes work against you? Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 723–743. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.33665259
• Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The internationalization process of the fırm-a model of knowledge development and increasıng foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1139/y89- 072
• Kenis, P., & Oerlemans, L. (2007). The social network perspective: understanding the structure of cooperation. In The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199282944.003.0011
• KHU-DEİK-KPMG-VCC. (2011). Turkish MNEs steady on their course despite crisis , survey finds. 1–26.
• KHU-DEİK-VCC. (2009). Survey provides the first ever ranking of Turkish multinationals investing abroad. Vcc, 1–14.
• KHU-DEİK-VCC. (2014). Turkish OFDI continues to grow. Vcc, 1–34. http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2014/03/EMGP-Turkey-Report-March-24-2014.pdf
• Kim, H., Kim, H., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2010). Does market-oriented institutional change in an emerging economy make business-group-affiliated multinationals perform better? An institution-based view. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(7), 1141–1160. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.17
• Klein, S. (1989). A transaction cost explanation of vertical control in international markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17(3), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02729817
• Koka, B. R., Madhavan, R., & Prescott, J. E. (2006). The evolution of interfirm networks: Environmental effects on patterns of network change. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 721–737. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.21318927
• Li, H., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2002). The adoption of agency business activity, product innovation, and performance in Chinese technology ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 23(6), 469–490. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.233
• Lin, J. Z., Peng, W. M., Yang, H., & Sun, L. S. (2009). How do networks and learning drive m&as?an institutional comparison between China and the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 894(June 2006), 1113–1132. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj
• Majkgård, A., & Sharma, D. D. (1998). Client-following and market-seeking strategies in the internationalization of service firms. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 4(3), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1300/J033v04n03_01
• Maman, D. (1999). Research Note: Interlocking ties within business groups in Israel — A Longitudinal Analysis. Organization Studies, 20(2), 323–339.
• Mizruchi, M. S. (1996). What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 271–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.271
• Musteen, M., Francis, J., & Datta, D. K. (2010). The influence of international networks on internationalization speed and performance: A study of Czech SMEs. Journal of World Business, 45(3), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.12.003
• Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital , intellectual capital , and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
• O’Malley, A. J., & Marsden, P. V. (2008). The analysis of social networks. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 8(4), 222–269.
• Ojala, A. (2009). Internationalization of knowledge-intensive SMEs: The role of network relationships in the entry to a psychically distant market. International Business Review, 18(1), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.10.002
• Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150202800601
• Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). Defining international entrepreneurship and modeling the speed of internationalization. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 537–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00097.x
• Özkara, B., Kurt, M., & Karayormuk, K. (2008). Türkiye’de ı̇şletme grupları :eski̇ler ve yeni̇ler. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 59–83.
• Park, S. H., Li, S., & Tse, D. K. (2006). Market liberalization and firm performance during China’s economic transition. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400178
• Peng, M. W. (2003). Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040678
• 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
• Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y. L., & Jiang, Y. (2008). An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5), 920–936. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400377
• Pesaran, M. . (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. In Cambridge working Paper in Economics (Issue 1240).
• Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market. American Journal of Sociology, 98(4), 829–872.
• Prell, C., Hubacek, K., & Reed, M. (2009). Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 22(6), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802199202
• Quatman, C., & Chelladurai, P. (2008). Social network theory and analysis: A complementary lens for inquiry. Journal of Sport Management, 22(3), 338–360. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.22.3.338
• Sargut, A. S. (2006). Sosyal sermaye : Yapının sunduğu bir olanak mı , yoksa bireyin amaçlı eylemi mi ? Akdeniz Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 12(January), 1–13.
• Selekler- Gökşen, N., & Üsdiken, B. (2001). Uniformity and diversity in Turkish business groups: Effects of scale and time of founding. British Journal of Management, 12(4), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00213
• Selekler-Gökşen, N., & Karataş, A. (2008). Board structure and performance in an emerging economy: Turkey. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 4(2), 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBGE.2008.019172
• Shi, W., Sun, S. L., Pinkham, B. C., & Peng, M. W. (2014). Domestic alliance network to attract foreign partners: Evidence from international joint ventures in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(3), 338–362. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.71
• Smallbone, D., & Welter, F. (2001). The distinctiveness of entrepreneurship in transition economies. 249–262.
• Soda, G., Usai, A., & Zaheer, A. (2004). Network memory: The influence of past and current networks on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 893–906. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159629
• Sözen, C., Basım, N., & Hazır, K. (2009). Social network analysis in organizational studies. International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 1(1), 21–35.
• Sözen, C., & Gürbüz, S. (2015). Örgütsel ağlar (H. C. Sözen & N. Basım (eds.). Beta Yayıncılık.
• Tatoglu, E., & Glaister, K. W. (1998). Determinants of foreign direct investment in Turkey. Thunderbird International Business Review, 40(June), 279–314.
• Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2018). Panel veri ekonometrisi / Stata uygulamalı. Beta Yayıncılık.
• Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: a replication of ‘the role of intrafirm networks’ by Wenpin Tsai and Sumantra Ghoshal. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(2), 464–476. https://doi.org/10.11634/216796061706277
• Udomkit, N., & Schreier, C. (2017). Tie the ties: The significance of the binding networks in SMEs’ Internationalization process. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 18(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10599231.2017.1272992
• Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis in the social and behavioral sciences. Social Network Analysis, May, 275–296.
• Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261. https://doi.org/10.1086/466942
• Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. (2005). Strategy research in emerging economies: Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00487.x
• Xiao, Z., & Tsui, A. S. (2007). When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.1.1
• Yamin, M., & Kurt, Y. (2018). Revisiting the Uppsala internationalization model: Social network theory and overcoming the liability of outsidership. International Marketing Review, 35(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-11-2014-0345
• Yiu, D., Bruton, G. D., & Lu, Y. (2005). Understanding business group performance in an emerging economy: Acquiring resources and capabilities in order to prosper. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00493.x
• Zaheer, A., & Soda, G. (2009). Network evolution : Structural holes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 1–31.
• Zain, M., & Ng, I. S. (2006). The impacts of network relationships on SMEs’ internationalization process. Thunderbird International Business Review, 48(2), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/tie
• Zhao, Z., Anand, J., & Mitchell, W. (2005). A dual networks perspective on inter-organizational transfer of R&D capabilities: International joint ventures in the Chinese automotive industry. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00491.x
• Zhou, L., Wu, W. P., & Luo, X. (2007). Internationalization and the performance of born-global SMEs: The mediating role of social networks. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400282.