Institutional distance and the performance of Chinese enterprises′ cross-border&nbsp;mergers and acquisitions

ZHOU Nan; YANG Zhu

PDF(340 KB)

Science Research Management ›› 2023, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (2) : 81-88.

Institutional distance and the performance of Chinese enterprises′ cross-border mergers and acquisitions

Zhou Nan^1,2, Yang Zhu³

Author information +

History +

Abstract

This paper explores the impact of different dimensions of institutional distance on the innovation performance of Chinese enterprise after cross-border M&A. While more and more Chinese firms participate in cross-border M&A to seek knowledge abroad, many of them failed due to the difficulties brought by institutional distance between the host and home countries. However, the academic literature provides limited understanding of the impact of institutional distance on innovation performance after cross-border M&A. Therefore, it is imperative for us to examine this issue in the context of Chinese firms.Institutional distance is a multi-dimensional concept. In this study, we distinguish between formal and informal institutional distance and examine their different impacts on the innovation performance of cross-border M&A. In particular, we argue that the information asymmetry and political discrimination brought by formal institutional distance are hard for firms to overcome, thus leading to a negative impact of formal institutional distance on the innovation performance of cross-border M&A. On the contrary, informal institutional distance could increase knowledge diversity that firms face, thus increasing the innovation performance of cross-border M&A. Moreover, prior M&A experience of firms could help them learn how to overcome the difficulties brought by formal institutional distance, thus weakening the negative impact of formal institutional distance on innovation performance of cross-border M&A.We test these ideas using a sample of Chinese listed manufacturing firms that have implemented cross-border M&A from 2014 to 2017. We adopt zero-inflated negative binomial regression model to examine the effect of formal and informal institutional distance on the innovation performance of cross-border M&As, as well as the moderating role of acquirers′ M&A experience. Empirical results indicate that formal institutional distance has a significant negative impact on the innovation performance of Chinese enterprises after cross-border M&A, while the informal institutional distance has a significant positive impact on the innovation performance of Chinese enterprises after cross-border M&A. In addition, we find that acquirers′ prior experience in cross-border M&A weakens the negative effect of formal institutional distance on innovation performance. Although we predict that prior M&A experience could also strength the positive impact of informal institutional distance on innovation performance, we did not find support for this prediction. It could be driven by the fact that informal institutions are tacit and cross-border M&A experience in one country could not be applied in another country without modification, thus mitigating the positive moderating effect of M&A experience on the relationship between informal institutional distance and innovation performance of cross-border M&As.The findings of this study enrich our understanding of the impact of institutional distance on innovation performance of cross-border M&As. Institutional distance is a double-edged sword when it comes to the innovation performance of cross-border M&As. On the one hand, formal institutional distance creates barriers for innovation after cross-border M&As. On the other hand, informal institutional distance creates opportunities for firms to benefit from knowledge diversity. For managers of firms conducting cross-border M&As, it is necessary to understand such difficulties and opportunities, and evaluate whether their firms have the capability to overcome such difficulties and capture the opportunities before they make the strategic decision of conducting cross-border M&As. Our study suggests that one proper way to develop such capability is to accumulate relevant cross-border M&A experience. Our study thus provides both theoretical support and practical guidance to firms that intend to increase their innovation capability by engaging in cross-border M&As.

Key words

institutional distance / cross-border M&A / innovation performance / cross-border M&A experience

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Zhou Nan, Yang Zhu. Institutional distance and the performance of Chinese enterprises′ cross-border mergers and acquisitions[J]. Science Research Management. 2023, 44(2): 81-88

References

主要参考文献
[1] 曹勇,孙合林,蒋振宇,熊素莹.异质性知识对企业创新绩效的影响:理论述评与展望[J].科技管理研究,2016,36(02):168-171+178.
[2] 杜江,宋跃刚.制度距离、要素禀赋与我国OFDI区位选择偏好——基于动态面板数据模型的实证研究[J].世界经济研究,2014(12):47-52+85.
[3] 杜晓君,杨勃,任晴阳.基于扎根理论的中国企业克服外来者劣势的边界跨越策略研究[J].管理科学,2015,28(02):12-26.
[4] 杜晓君,朱园园.制度距离、信息不对称和国际并购绩效——基于中国上市公司并购案的实证研究[J].东北大学学报(自然科学版),2013,34(10):1504-1507+1520.
[5] 范诵.非正式制度对技术创新的影响分析[J].深圳特区科技,2005(00):497-500.
[6] 方玉梅,魏晓文.科技创新中国家制度安排理论研究述评[J].现代管理科学,2012(03):96-98.
[7] 郭苏文,黄汉民.制度距离对我国外向FDI的影响——基于动态面板模型的实证研究[J].国际经贸探索,2010,26(11):21-26.
[8] 李强.制度距离对我国企业跨国并购绩效的影响研究——基于上市公司数据的实证分析[J].软科学,2015,29(10):65-68+82.
[9] 刘璐,杨蕙馨.制度距离对中国上市公司跨国并购绩效的影响——国际经验与知识吸收能力的中介作用[J].科技进步与对策,2018,35(05):113-119.
[10] 潘镇,殷华方,鲁明泓.制度距离对于外资企业绩效的影响——一项基于生存分析的实证研究[J].管理世界,2008(07):103-115.
[11] 祁春凌,邹超.东道国制度质量、制度距离与中国的对外直接投资区位[J].当代财经,2013(07):100-110.
[12] 吴亮,吕鸿江.制度距离与中国企业海外进入模式选择——一个整合知识转移和合法性的框架[J].经济经纬,2016,33(03):102-107.
[13] 阎大颖.国际经验、文化距离与中国企业海外并购的经营绩效[J].经济评论,2009(01):83-92.
[14] 阎大颖.制度距离、国际经验与中国企业海外并购的成败问题研究[J].南开经济研究,2011(05):75-97.
[15] 张一,柳春,魏昀妍,李之昂.制度距离如何影响FDI进入模式选择——来自工业企业的证据[J].国际经贸探索,2019,35(08):67-83.
[16] 朱治理, 温军, 李晋. 海外并购、文化距离与技术创新[J]. 当代经济科学, 2016(02):79-86.
[17] Akaike H . A New Look At The Statistical Model Identification[J]. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 1975, 19(6):716-723.
[18] Berry, Heather, Guillén, Mauro F, Zhou, Nan. An institutional approach to cross-national distance[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 2010, 41(9):1460-1480.
[19] Bj?rkman I , Stahl, Günter K, Vaara E . Cultural differences and capability transfer in cross-border acquisitions: the mediating roles of capability complementarity, absorptive capacity, and social integration[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 2007, 38(4):658-672.
[20] Chan C M , Makino I S . Which Country Matters? Institutional Development and Foreign Affiliate Performance[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2008, 29(11):1179-1205.
[21] Chao C H , Kumar V . The impact of institutional distance on the international diversity-performance relationship[J]. Journal of world business, 2010, 45(1):93-103.
[22] Clarke J E , Tamaschke R , Liesch P W . International Experience in International Business Research: A Conceptualization and Exploration of Key Themes[J]. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2013, 15(3):265-279.
[23] Collins J D , Holcomb T R , Certo S T , et al. Learning by doing: Cross-border M & A[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2009, 62(12):1329-1334.
[24] Cox T H , Blake S . Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competitiveness[J]. The Executive, 1991, 5(3):45-56.
[25] Eden L and Miller S R. Distance matters: liability of foreignness, institutional distance, and ownership strategy[A]. Hitt M A and Cheng JLC (eds). Advances in international management[C], New York: Elsevier,2004:187-221.
[26] Estrin S , Baghdasaryan D , Meyer K E . The Impact of Institutional and Human Resource Distance on International Entry Strategies[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2009, 46(7):1171-1196.
[27] Finkelstein S, Haleblian J . Understanding Acquisition Performance: The Role of Transfer Effects[J]. Organization Science, 2002, 13(1):36-47.
[28] Freeman C, Soete L. The economics of industrial innovation[M]. London: Pinter Publishers, 1997.
[29] Henisz W J , Williamson O E . Comparative Economic Organization—Within and Between Countries[J]. Business & Politics, 1999, 1(3): 261-276.
[30] Kogut B，Singh H. The Effect of National Culture on the Choice of Entry Mode[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1988,19(3) :411-432.
[31] Kostova T, Roth K. Adoption of an Organizational Practice by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations: Institutional and Relational Effects[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2002, 45(1):215-233.
[32] Kostova T, Zaheer S . Organizational Legitimacy under Conditions of Complexity: The Case of the Multinational Enterprise[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1999, 24(1):64-81.
[33] Kostova T. Transnational Transfer of Strategic Organizational Practices: A Contextual Perspective[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1999, 24(2):308-324.
[34] Lu J W , Beamish P W . International Diversification and Firm Performance: The S-curve Hypothesis[J]. The Academy of Management Journal, 2004, 47(4):598-609.
[35] Markides C C, Ittner C D. Shareholder Benefits from Corporate International Diversification: Evidence from U.S. International Acquisitions[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1994, 25(2):343-366.
[36] North D C . Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Institutions[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1990, 18(1):142-144.
[37] Patel P, Pavitt K. Uneven (and Divergent) Technological Accumulation among Advanced Countries: Evidence and a Framework of Explanation[J]. Industrial & Corporate Change, 1994, 3(3): 759-787.
[38] Paul J. DiMaggio, Walter W. Powell. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields[J]. American Sociological Review, 1983, 48(2):147-160.
[39] Phillips N, Tracey P, Karra N. Rethinking institutional distance: strengthening the tie between new institutional theory and international management[J]. Strategic Organization, 2009, 7(3):339-348.
[40] Pogrebnyakov N , Maitland C F . Institutional distance and the internationalization process: The case of mobile operators[J]. journal of international management, 2011, 17(1):68-82.
[41] Scott W R. Institutions and Organizations[M]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.
[42] Tobias, S. and S. Wolfgang. Liability of foreignness as a barrier to knowledge spillovers: Lost in translation[J]. journal of international management, 2009, 15(4):460-474.
[43] Zaheer S . The liability of foreignness, redux: a commentary[J]. Journal of International Management, 2002, 8(3):351-358.
[44] Zaheer, S. Overcoming The Liability of Foreignness.[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1995, 38(2):341-363.