A study of core competences and diversification strategies of Chinese private enterprises

ZENG Ping; WANG Jin-Ai; WANG Jin-Ai Di-Wei

PDF(1334 KB)

Science Research Management ›› 2022, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (3) : 89-98.

A study of core competences and diversification strategies of Chinese private enterprises

Zeng Ping¹, Wang Jin′ai², Lyu Diwei³

Author information +

History +

Abstract

It is a fundamental question in the strategy research of what determines the scope of the firm. Theorists suggest that it is product diversification or geographic diversification which determines the scope of the firm, and appeal that empirical studies should examine both effects in a context outside America and the developed countries. In this study we respond to these calls and examine the effects of different types of firms′ core competences and their influences on the product diversification or geographic diversification simultaneously. With the integration of institution-based view and resource-based view (RBV), we extend the research of this fundamental question to the context of the fast development and distinct path selections of the Chinese private enterprises. Private enterprise is one of the most important engines of economic growth in China since the reform and opening up of China, but we know very little about the process of diversification, one of the most popular development strategy for the Chinese private enterprises, especially the relationship among different core competences and dimensions of diversification strategy which determine the scope of the firm. Because of the legitimacy and liability of newness, most private enterprises in China have the characteristics of new starting firms. Usually, Chinese private enterprises discover and exploit business opportunities by developing capabilities of R&D or political connections, choose different development paths and lead to different scopes of firm in the end, i.e. different level of product diversification or geographic diversification. These processes are influenced by the institutional differences especially different levels of the market liberalization come from the obvious regional segmentation in China. In this study, we select a specific sample from 1291 private enterprises public listed in the Chinese stock market. We delete banks and the other financial companies which operated very differently with most private companies and firms have no obvious development strategy such as special treated firms (i.e. ST and *ST firms) with very poor performance. In the end, we select 1161 private firms in the 19 industries. We measure the product diversification with an entropy index of prime operating revenue and geographic diversification with the Herfindahl-Hirschman index according to the authority literatures. Since product diversification and geographic diversification are continuous variables, we employ multiple linear regression for the analysis using the Stata software, and apply hierarchical moderated regression approach to test all the hypotheses. Hierarchical analysis allows for a comparison between alternative models with and without interaction terms, where an interaction effect only exists if the interaction term contributes significantly to the variance explained in the dependent variable over the main effects of the independent variables. We also check the robustness by different measures of the major study variables, and construct models to examine the endogeneity using the Granger causality test. Our results are robust when examined with different measures of the major study variables and pass through the causality test desirably, it is the capability of R&D or political connections which lead to high-level or low-level product diversification and geographic diversification and not the vice versa. We select 2007 as the data starting year, because in 2007 all listed companies are required to implement the new accounting standards by Chinese government and disclose company information with even more high quality. Empirical results of the private enterprises in 2007-2014 reveal that both core competence, i.e. capabilities of R&D or political connections, have direct effects on product diversification and geographic diversification. Capabilities of R&D lead to high level geographic diversification and more focused product diversification, and political connections lost some significance which imply its mechanism is more complex than the R&D capabilities. However, political connections have significant negative moderate effects which changes the above relationships to the contrary directions. In the firms with high level capabilities of political connections, R&D capabilities make firms more localized and operated in many industries, so they have high level product diversification and low-level geographic diversification. On the contrary, in the firms with low-level political connections, R&D capabilities make firms devoted to the focused industries and enter different regions to make use of the R&D advantages, so they have low-level product diversification and high-level geographic diversification. But with the improvement of the regional institutions measured by the market liberalization, negative effects of political connections are suppressed and R&D effects are protected. In the regions with high-level market liberalization, market mechanism surpasses the effects of the political connections, direct effect of R&D capabilities appears again, private firms select the path of low-level product diversification and high-level geographic diversification. In practice, both capabilities are useful and to fully understand their effects need to consider the special contexts and the strategic outcomes. In the regions where institutions of the market liberalization are not formed it is better to develop capabilities of political connections and build up a local "business empire" which operates in many industries or many product units, i.e. high-level product diversification and low-level geographic diversification. Many firms set up in the county or the 4th- and 5th-tierd cities have the characteristics which deeply connected to the government officials and operates in many industries such as real estate, department store, hotel and catering industry besides their major field. On the contrary, In the regions with more mature of market economy institution, private firms usually devote to R&D capabilities and focus on narrow product field. In this context, political connections are very expensive or not very useful so they are replaced by market mechanism, market efficiency and protection of law help firms to select the path of internal development. In the long run, it is much better to develop capabilities of R&D and push the company to be a specialized competitor operating in the countrywide or worldwide which operates only in several industries or focused product fields, i.e. low-level product diversification and high-level geographic diversification.

Key words

R&D capability / political connection / institutional environment / private enterprise / diversification strategy

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Zeng Ping, Wang Jin′ai, Lyu Diwei. A study of core competences and diversification strategies of Chinese private enterprises[J]. Science Research Management. 2022, 43(3): 89-98

References

宋铁波, 蓝海林, 曾萍. 区域多元化还是产品多元化：制度环境约束下优势企业的战略选择. 广州大学学报, 2010, 9(3): 45-52.
[2] 汪建成, 毛蕴诗. 中国上市公司扩展的业务, 地域多元化战略研究. 管理世界, 2006, 2006(2): 152-153.
[3] 曾萍, 邓腾智, 宋铁波. 制度环境, 核心能力与中国民营企业成长. 管理学报, 2013, 10(5): 663-670.
[4] 黄孟复. 坚定不移地促进民营经济蓬勃发展. 中国流通经济, 2012, 26(11): 4-7.
[5] 张建君, 张志学. 中国民营企业家的政治战略. 管理世界, 2005, 2005(7): 94-105.
[6] OLIVER C., HOLZINGER I. The Effectiveness of Strategic Political Management: A Dynamic Capabilities Framework. Academy of management review, 2008, 33(2): 496-520.
[7] PENG M. W., DELIOS A. What Determines the Scope of the Firm over Time and around the World? An Asia Pacific Perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2006, 23(4): 385-405.
[8] RUMELT R. P., SCHENDEL D. E., TEECE D. J. Fundamental Issues in Strategy: A Research Agenda. Boston, MA; Harvard Business School Press. 1994.
[9] 杨其静. 企业成长: 政治关联还是能力建设? 经济研究, 2011, 2011(10): 54-66.
[10] 袁建国, 后青松, 程晨. 企业政治资源的诅咒效应——基于政治关联与企业技术创新的考察. 管理世界, 2015, 2015(1): 139-155.
[11] 俞峰, 钟昌标. 企业政治资源真的存在诅咒效应吗?——基于中国科技部创新企业数据的经验证据. 南开经济研究, 2017, 2017(2): 41-54.
[12] 汪金爱. 创始人初始社会地位与社会资本对创业绩效的影响研究. 管理科学, 2016, 29(5): 45-56.
[13] BENITO-OSORIO D., áNGEL GUERRAS-MARTíN L., áNGEL ZU?IGA-VICENTE J. Four Decades of Research on Product Diversification: A Literature Review. Management Decision, 2012, 50(2): 325-344.
[14] AHUJA G., NOVELLI E. Redirecting Research Efforts on the Diversification–Performance Linkage: The Search for Synergy. Academy of Management Annals, 2017, 11(1): 342-390.
[15] MACKEY T. B., BARNEY J. B., DOTSON J. P. Corporate Diversification and the Value of Individual Firms: A Bayesian Approach. Strategic Management Journal, 2017, 38(2): 322-341.
[16] PALICH L. E., CARINI G. R., SEAMAN S. L. The Impact of Internationalization on the Diversification–Performance Relationship: A Replication and Extension of Prior Research. Journal of Business Research, 2000, 48(1): 43-54.
[17] SCHOMMER M., RICHTER A., KARNA A. Does the Diversification–Firm Performance Relationship Change over Time? A Meta‐Analytical Review[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2019, 56(1): 270-298.
[18] QIAN G., LI L., RUGMAN A. M. Liability of Country Foreignness and Liability of Regional Foreignness: Their Effects on Geographic Diversification and Firm Performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 2013, 44(6): 635-647.
[19] KISTRUCK G. M., QURESHI I., BEAMISH P. W. Geographic and Product Diversification in Charitable Organizations. Journal of Management & Organization, 2013, 39(2): 496-530.
[20] PENG M. W., LEE S.-H., WANG D. Y. What Determines the Scope of the Firm over Time? A Focus on Institutional Relatedness. Academy of management review, 2005, 30(3): 622-633.
[21] CHABOWSKI B. R., HULT G. T. M., KIYAK T., MENA J. A. The Structure of Jibs's Social Network and the Relevance of Intra-Country Variation: A Typology for Future Research. Journal of International Business Studies, 2010, 41(5): 925-934.
[22] 巫景飞, 何大军, 林日韦, 王云. 高层管理者政治网络与企业多元化战略: 社会资本视角——基于我国上市公司面板数据的实证分析. 管理世界, 2008, 2008(8): 18.
[23] 陈凌, 吴炳德, 陈士慧. 战略创业与家族企业持续成长——第十一届创业与家族企业国际研讨会侧记. 管理世界, 2016, 2016(6): 167-169.
[24] LI M., WONG Y.-Y. Diversification and Economic Performance: An Empirical Assessment of Chinese Firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2003, 20(2): 243-265.
[25] WAN W. P., HOSKISSON R. E., SHORT J. C., YIU D. W. Resource-Based Theory and Corporate Diversification Accomplishments and Opportunities. Journal of Management, 2011, 37(5): 1335-1368.
[26] PENG M. W. Institutional Transitions and Strategic Choices. Academy of management review, 2003, 28(2): 275-296.
[27] PRAHALAD C., HAMEL G. The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review, 1990, 68(3): 79-91.
[28] ITAMI H., NUMAGAMI T. Dynamic Interaction between Strategy and Technology. Strategic Management Journal, 1992, 13(S2): 119-135.
[29] MILLER D. Firms' Technological Resources and the Performance Effects of Diversification: A Longitudinal Study. Strategic Management Journal, 2004, 25(11): 1097-1119.
[30] RODRíGUEZ-DUARTE A., SANDULLI F. D., MINGUELA-RATA B., LóPEZ-SáNCHEZ J. I. The Endogenous Relationship between Innovation and Diversification, and the Impact of Technological Resources on the Form of Diversification. Research Policy, 2007, 36(5): 652-664.
[31] SILVERMAN B. S. Technological Resources and the Direction of Corporate Diversification: Toward an Integration of the Resource-Based View and Transaction Cost Economics. Management science, 1999, 45(8): 1109-1124.
[32] BRESCHI S., LISSONI F., MALERBA F. Knowledge-Relatedness in Firm Technological Diversification. Research Policy, 2003, 32(1): 69-87.
[33] ALONSO-BORREGO C., FORCADELL F. J. Related Diversification and R&D Intensity Dynamics. Research Policy, 2010, 39(4): 537-548.
[34] MELLAHI K., FRYNAS J. G., SUN P., SIEGEL D. A Review of the Nonmarket Strategy Literature: Toward a Multi-Theoretical Integration. Journal of Management, 2016, 42(1): 143-173.
[35] ZHU H., CHUNG C.-N. Portfolios of Political Ties and Business Group Strategy in Emerging Economies Evidence from Taiwan. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2014, 59(4): 599-638.
[36] 田利辉, 张伟. 政治关联影响我国上市公司长期绩效的三大效应. 经济研究, 2013, 2013(11): 71-86.
[37] HOANG H., ANTONCIC B. Network-Based Research in Entrepreneurship: A Critical Review. Journal of Business Venturing, 2003, 18(2): 165-187.
[38] 于蔚, 汪淼军, 金祥荣. 政治关联和融资约束: 信息效应与资源效应. 经济研究, 2012, 2012(9): 125-139.
[39] LI W., HE A., LAN H., YIU D. Political Connections and Corporate Diversification in Emerging Economies: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2012, 29(3): 799-818.
[40] SHENG S., ZHOU K. Z., LI J. J. The Effects of Business and Political Ties on Firm Performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Marketing, 2011, 75(1): 1-15.
[41] ZHANG J., TAN J., WONG P. K. When Does Investment in Political Ties Improve Firm Performance? The Contingent Effect of Innovation Activities. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2015, 32(2): 363-387.
[42] LI J. J., POPPO L., ZHOU K. Z. Do Managerial Ties in China Always Produce Value? Competition, Uncertainty, and Domestic Vs. Foreign Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 2008, 29(4): 383-400.
[43] BOUBAKRI N., COSSET J.-C., SAFFAR W. Political Connections of Newly Privatized Firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2008, 14(5): 654-673.
[44] GUO H., XU E., JACOBS M. Managerial Political Ties and Firm Performance During Institutional Transitions: An Analysis of Mediating Mechanisms. Journal of Business Research, 2014, 67(2): 116-127.
[45] HAVEMAN H. A., JIA N., SHI J., WANG Y. The Dynamics of Political Embeddedness in China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2017, 62(1): 67-104.
[46] WANG D., LUO X. R. Retire in Peace: Officials’ Political Incentives and Corporate Diversification in China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2018, 0001839218786263.
[47] WRIGHT M., FILATOTCHEV I., HOSKISSON R. E., PENG M. W. Strategy Research in Emerging Economies: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 2005, 42(1): 1-33.
[48] PENG M. W., SUN S. L., PINKHAM B., CHEN H. The Institution-Based View as a Third Leg for a Strategy Tripod. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 2009, 23(3): 63-81.
[49] WAN W. P., HOSKISSON R. E. Home Country Environments, Corporate Diversification Strategies, and Firm Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 2003, 46(1): 27-45.
[50] KOGUT B., ZANDER U. Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science, 1992, 3(3): 383-397.
[51] MAHMOOD I. P., ZHU H., ZAJAC E. J. Where Can Capabilities Come From? Network Ties and Capability Acquisition in Business Groups. Strategic Management Journal, 2011, 32(8): 820-848.
[52] MILLER D. Technological Diversity, Related Diversification, and Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 2006, 27(7): 601-619.
[53] TEECE D. J. Towards an Economic Theory of the Multiproduct Firm. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1982, 3(1): 39-63.
[54] 李玉刚. 非核心技术创新战略--当前中国企业的一种战略选择. 中国工业经济, 2001, 2001(11): 18-21.
[55] EISENHARDT K. M. Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High-Velocity Environments. Academy of Management Journal, 1989, 32(3): 543-576.
[56] FORBES D. P. Managerial Determinants of Decision Speed in New Ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 2005, 26(4): 355-366.
[57] SHANE S., VENKATARAMAN S. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of management review, 2000, 25(1): 217-226.
[58] SUN P., WRIGHT M. The Contingent Value of Corporate Political Ties. Academy of Management Perspectives, 2012, 26(3): 68-82.
[59] WANG C. L., AHMED P. K. Dynamic Capabilities: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2007, 9(1): 31-51.
[60] KOR Y. Y., MESKO A. Dynamic Managerial Capabilities: Configuration and Orchestration of Top Executives' Capabilities and the Firm's Dominant Logic. Strategic Management Journal, 2013, 34(2): 233-244.
[61] VARGO S. L., LUSCH R. F. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 2004, 68(1): 1-17.
[62] AHUJA G., YAYAVARAM S. Perspective-Explaining Influence Rents: The Case for an Institutions-Based View of Strategy. Organization Science, 2011, 22(6): 1631-1652.
[63] CARNEY M., GEDAJLOVIC E., YANG X. Varieties of Asian Capitalism: Toward an Institutional Theory of Asian Enterprise. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2009, 26(3): 361-380.
[64] KATILA R., SHANE S. When Does Lack of Resources Make New Firms Innovative? Academy of Management Journal, 2005, 48(5): 814-829.
[65] 马光荣, 樊纲, 杨恩艳, 潘彬. 中国的企业经营环境:差异、变迁与影响. 管理世界, 2015, 2015(12): 58-67.
[66] 曹春方, 周大伟, 吴澄澄, 张婷婷. 市场分割与异地子公司分布. 管理世界, 2015, 2015(9): 92-103.
[67] 邓新明. 我国民营企业政治关联, 多元化战略与公司绩效. 南开管理评论, 2011, 2011(4): 4-15.
[68] 朱沆, 周影辉. 社会情感财富抑制了中国家族企业的创新投入吗? 管理世界, 2016, 2016(3): 99-114.
[69] 温军, 冯根福. 异质机构、企业性质与自主创新. 经济研究, 2012, 2012(3): 53-64.
[70] 张天舒, 陈信元, 黄俊. 政治关联, 风险资本投资与企业绩效. 南开管理评论, 2015, 2015(05): 18-27.
[71] 樊纲, 王小鲁, 朱恒鹏. 中国市场化指数——各地区市场化相对进程报告. 北京: 经济科学出版社, 2010.
[72] HITT M. A., XU K. The Transformation of China: Effects of the Institutional Environment on Business Actions. Long Range Planning, 2015,
[73] 陈凌, 王昊. 家族涉入, 政治联系与制度环境. 管理世界, 2013, 2013(10): 130-141.
[74] 罗党论, 唐清泉. 政治关系、社会资本与政策资源获取:来自中国民营上市公司的经验证据. 世界经济, 2009, 2009(7): 84-96.
[75] 袁建国, 后青松, 程晨. 企业政治资源的诅咒效应——基于政治关联与企业技术创新的考察. 管理世界, 2015, 1): 139-155.
[76] JACCARD J., TURRISI R. Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression. Sage, 2003.
[77] AIKEN L. S., WEST S. G. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991.
[78] PELLED L. H., EISENHARDT K. M., XIN K. R. Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict and Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999, 44(1): 1-28.
[79] HURLIN C., VENET B. Granger Causality Tests in Panel Data Models with Fixed Coe?cients[R]. Document De Recherche Leo, 2001.