The role of regional formal institutions and foreign direct investment in innovation in Chinese enterprises

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Qu ◽  
Ting Qu ◽  
Yaoan Wu
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Formal Institutions ◽  
Chinese Enterprises

Technological innovation policy and Chinese heterogeneity enterprises' outward foreign direct investment

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinjing Zhao ◽  
Jongchul Lee
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Innovation Policy ◽  
Local Economy ◽  
Outward Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Central State ◽  
Chinese Enterprises ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Privately Owned

PurposeThe study aims to analyze the role of the Made in China 2025 (MIC2025) initiative in China's Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI) and the factors affecting the success or failure of Chinese enterprises' OFDI from the perspectives of the heterogeneity of home country enterprises.Design/methodology/approachBased on data on China's OFDI obtained from the China Global Investment Tracker (CGIT), the study uses the difference-in-differences model to analyze 2,670 completed OFDI deals and 211 failed OFDI deals by Chinese enterprises, from 2009 to 2018.FindingsThe study found that the effect of MIC2025 on Chinese enterprises' OFDI varies according to the ownership structure of the home country's enterprises. For successful OFDI, MIC2025 significantly impacted central state-owned enterprises (CSOEs), while it did not significantly influence local SOEs and privately owned enterprises. For failed OFDI, the MIC2025 plan only increased the failure of CSOEs' OFDI for the technology-seeking motivation in high-income host countries. Further, the investment options of local SOEs differ from those of CSOEs. Considering their aim to drive the local economy and seek profits, they are more similar to those of privately owned enterprises.Originality/valueThis study used a new database (i.e. the CGIT) to analyze Chinese enterprises' OFDI. It discussed the role of MIC2025 for different enterprises from the perspectives of successful and failed OFDI. It thus provided a new basis for analyzing policy affecting the OFDI of Chinese enterprises.

scholarly journals Is Home-Host Cultural Distance a Risk? Evidence from Outward Foreign Direct Investment by Chinese Enterprises

2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-12
Author(s):  
Hang Su ◽  
Yao Fu
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Cultural Distance ◽  
Cultural Dimensions ◽  
Mediating Effect ◽  
Outward Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Chinese Enterprises ◽  
Singh Index ◽  
Innovation Capacity

Cultural distance is always regarded as a “risk” in the decision making of enterprises involved in the outward foreign direct investment (OFDI), however, investment is a powerful driver of productivity growth and increased innovation capacity of enterprises in both countries. Is cultural distance a “risk” ? Using Hofstede's indicators and the Kogut and Singh index (1988), this paper calculates the cultural distance based on six cultural dimensions and further examines the effect of cultural distance on the outward foreign direct investment by Chinese enterprises and its mediating effects on the role of other factors influencing the decisions of multinationals. The results indicate that there is a nonlinear effect of cultural distance and the mediating effect of cultural distance is negative.

Economic Actors' Lobbying Influence on the Prospects for War and Peace

2013 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 863-888 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen G. Brooks
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Economic Globalization ◽  
Economic Incentives ◽  
Special Interests ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Government

AbstractPolitical scientists and economists have long been interested in the role of special interests in the policymaking process. In the past few years, a series of important new books have argued forcefully that the lobbying activities of economic actors have an important influence on the prospects for war and peace. All of these analyses claim that whether economic actors enhance or decrease the likelihood of conflict ultimately depends on the domestic political balance between economic actors who have a strong vested interest in pushing for peace versus those that do not. I advance two contrary arguments. At least among the advanced states, I posit there are no longer any economic actors who will be favorable toward war and who will lobby the government with this preference. All of the identified mechanisms that previously contributed to such lobbying in these states have been swept away with the end of colonialism and the rise of economic globalization. In particular, I show that the current structure of the global economy now makes it feasible for foreign direct investment to serve as an effective substitute for conquest in a way that was not possible in previous eras. My second argument concerns those economic actors in advanced states with a preference for peace. I posit that it has become unnecessary for them to directly lobby the government to avoid war on economic grounds because economic globalization—the accumulation of decisions by economic actors throughout the globe—now has sufficiently clear economic incentives for leaders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document