國際參進模式與經營績效

International Entry Modes and Performance

10.30104/CYMR.201204.0003

朱珊瑩(Shan-Ying Chu)；陳姿蓉(Zi-Rong Chen)

國際參進模式 ； 折衷理論 ； 經營績效 ； 內生性問題 ； 隨機效果模型 ； International Entry Modes ； Performance ； Electic Approach ； Endogeneity Problem ； Random Effects Model

中原企管評論

10卷1期（2012 / 04 / 01）

51 - 71

繁體中文

本文根據折衷理論先探討影響台商選擇國際參進模式之因素，再檢視參進模式與經營績效的關係。折衷理論建議參進模式為廠商內生的決策變數。然而，過去驗證參進模式與經營績效的實證文獻普遍忽略此內生性問題而使實證結果極可能產生偏誤與不一致。有鑑於此，本文先以二元離散選擇模型刻劃台商獨資或合資的參進模式選擇，再根據檢定結果調整參進模式與經營績效之間的內生性偏誤。二元離散選擇模型之結果顯示當國際化經驗越久、投資規模越大、環境不確定性越高、產業競爭程度越高或參進障礙越高時，台商越傾向採用合資模式進入中國市場。但若選在經濟特區設廠或產業需求條件越佳，則台商越傾向於獨資模式。在深入績效的分析前，Hausman檢定的結果支持獨資、合資之參進模式與經營績效間存在內生性問題，並同時指出隨機效果模型的設定較合適。據此，兩階段隨機效果模型之實證結果指出獨資之經營績效優於合資。最後，我們納入出口的參進模式，重新檢視獨資、合資、出口與經營績效的關係，結果發現以獨資模式參進者經營績效最佳、合資次之、出口最差。

Based on the electic approach, this paper investigates the determinants of international entry modes upon entering China among Taiwan-funded enterprises and their subsequent performance Although extant theories suggest that entry mode should be an endogenous decision variable, most studies examining the factors of international enterprises' performance generally take entry modes as exogenous and such an endogeneity problem may lead to biased/inconsistent estimates. In view of this, we employ a binary choice model to characterize the entry mode decision between wholly owning and joint venture, and their determinants. We proceed to use the binary estimated results to adjust for the endogeneity bias in the subsequent model for firm performance. The results from the binary analysis show that the Taiwan enterprises tend to prefer the mode of joint ventures if they possess more international experience, invest more, face higher uncertainty, or exist in industries with higher competition or entry barriers. On the contrary, firms like to go with wholly owning if they are to be located at a special economic zone or to enter an industry with superior market demand conditions. From the entertained Hausman test, we confirm the endogeneity problem and the necessity of a random effect model specification for our panel data. Our empirical evidence shows that the mode of wholly owning produces better performance than the mode of joint venture does. Finally, we reexamine the model by considering an additional entry mode of export in our analysis. We find the mode of wholly owning outperforms the other two modes, followed by the model of joint venture, and export as the worst.

1. 邱正仁、吳志正、姚美慧(2003)。臺商投資大陸及東南亞的參進模式與經營績效之研究。問題與研究，42(1)，101-122。
   連結：
2. Aleksandrova, A., Lubys, J., 2004, Application of the Structure-Conduct-Performance Paradigm in Transition Economy: Explaining Reported Profitability of Largest Latvian Firms, Working Paper, Submitted to Stockholm Scholl of Economics.
3. Agarwal, S.,Ramaswami, S. N.(1992).Choice of Foreign Market Entry Mode:Impact of Ownership, Location and Internalization Factors.Journal of International Business Studies,23(1),47-54.
4. Ahmed, Z. U.,Mohamad, O.,Tan, B.,Johnson, J. P.(2002).International Risk Perceptions and Mode of Entry: A Case Study of Malaysian Multinational Firms.Journal of Business Research,55(10),802-813.
5. Amine, L. S.,Cavusgil, T. S.(1986).Export Marketing Strategies in the British Clothing Industries.European Journal of Marketing,20(7),21-33.
6. Anderson, E.,Gatignon, H.(1986).Modes of Foreign Entry: A Transaction Cost Analysis and Propositions.Journal of International Business Studies,17(3),1-26.
7. Camacho, E. G. de S.,Sanchez, A. V.,Reyes, C. de la O.(2011).Mode of Entry, Strategic Flexibility and Real Options in Internationalization Process of Hotel Chains.International Conference of Tourism Studies,Algarve:
8. Chen, M. Y.,Chang, J. Y.(2011).The Choice of Foreign Market Entry Mode: An Analysis of the Dynamic Probit Model.Economic Modelling,28(1),439-450.
9. Collis, D. J.(1991).A Resource-Based Analysis of Global Competition: The Case of the Bearings Industry.Strategic Management Journal,12(1),49-68.
10. Dunning, J. H.(2000).The Eclectic Paradigm as an Envelope for Economic and Business Theories of MNE Activity.International Business Review,9(2),163-190.
11. Dunning, J. H.(2009).Location and the Multinational Enterprise: A Neglected Factor?.Journal of International Business Studies,40(1),5-19.
12. Elango, B.,Sambharya, R. B.(2004).The Influence of Industry Structure on the Entry Mode Choice of Overseas Entrants in Manufacturing Industries.Journal of International Management,10(1),107-124.
13. 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 and Organization,4(2),305-336.
14. Hausman, J. A.(1978).Specification Tests in Econometrics.Econometrica,46(6),1251-1271.
15. Hertenstein, J. H.,Platt, M. B.(2000).Performance Measures and Management Control in New Product Development.Accounting Horizons,14(3),303-323.
16. Hill, C. W. L.,Hwang , P.,Kim, W. C.(1990).An Eclectic Theory of the Choice of International Entry Mode.Strategic Management Journal,11(2),117-128.
17. Kedron, P.,Sharmistha, B. S.(2012).Foreign Direct Investment in Europe by Multinational Pharmaceutical Companies from India.Journal of Economic Geography
18. Kogut, B.,Signh, H.(1988).The Effect of National Culture on the Choice of Entry Mode.Journal of International Business Studies,19(3),411-432.
19. Lu, J. W.(2002).Intra- and Inter-Organizational Imitative Behavior: Institutional Influences on Japanese Firms' Entry Mode Choice.Journal of International Business Studies,33(1),19-37.
20. Luo, Y.(2001).Determinants of Entry in an Emerging Economy: A multilevel approach.Journal of Management Studies,38(3),443-472.
21. Madsen, T. K.(1989).Successful Export Marketing Management: Some Empirical Evidence.International Marketing Review,6(4),41-57.
22. Makino, S.,Neupert, K. E.(2000).National Culture, Transaction Costs, and the Choice Between Joint Venture and Wholly-Owned Subsidiary.Journal of International Business Studies,31(4),705-713.
23. Martin, S.(1979).Advertising, Concentration, and Profitability: The Simultaneity Problem.The Bell Journal of Economics,10(2),639-647.
24. Minor, M.,Wu, W. Y.,Choi, M. K.(1991).A Proposition-Based Approach to International Entry Strategy Contingencies.Journal of Global Marketing,4(3),69-87.
25. Padmanabhan, P.,Cho, K. R.(1999).Ownership Strategy for A Foreign Affiliate: An Empirical Investigation of Japanese.Management International Review,36(1),45-65.
26. Pan, Y.,Li , S.,Tse, D. K.(1999).The Impact of Order and Mode of Market Entry on Profitability and Market Share.Journal of International Business Studies,30(1),81-104.
27. Peng, M. W.(2001).Controlling the Foreign Agent: How Governments Deal With Multinationals in a Transition Economy.Management International Review,40(2),141-165.
28. Porter, M. E.(Ed.)(1986).Competition in Global Industries.Boston:Harvard Business School Press.
29. Ramamurti, R.(2012).What is Really Different about Emerging Market Multinationals?.Global Strategy Journal,2(1),41-47.
30. Root, F. R.(1994).Entry Strategies for International Markets, Revised and expanded.California:Jossey-Bass.
31. Samiee, S.,Walters, P. G. P.(1990).Influence of Firm Size on Export Planning and Performance.Journal of Business Research,20(3),235-248.
32. Scherer, F. M.,Ross, D., Ⅲ(1990).Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance.Massachusetts:Houghton Mifflin.
33. Shaver, J. M.(1998).Accounting for Endogeneity When Assessing Strategy Performance: Does Entry Mode Choice Affect FDI Survival.Management Science,44(4),571-585.
34. Tseng C. H.,Lee R. P.(2010).Host Environmental Uncertainty and Equity-Based Entry Mode Dilemma: The Role of Market Linking Capability.International Business Review,19(4),407-418.
35. Wei, Y.,Liu, B.,Liu, X.(2005).Entry Modes of Foreign Direct investment in China: A Multinomial Logit Approach.Journal of Business Research,58(11),1495-1505.
36. Woodcock, C. P.,Beamish, P. W.,Makino, S.(1994).Ownership-Based Entry Mode Strategies and International Performance.Journal of International Business Studies,25(2),253-273.
37. 中華經濟研究院(2009)。,台北:中華經濟研究院。