|
Mnf工作更好的原因 为什么mnf表现得更好？原因可能是其本身的结构，更有可能来自于知识和技术转让所获得的协同作用。 背景和假设： a)前提研究： 有关M&A或类似于M&A活动的文献十分丰富。很多学者通过对国内以及跨国并购的案例来考察对公司绩效的影响。尤其是很多论文报告了所涉及的国际并购公司的绩效有了明显改善。 通过研究包括Fukao，Ito，Kwon Takizawa(2006)在内的超过3000家的日本上市公司的国内和跨境并购案件，发现在收购的第一个四年后，公司的生产力和总体性能都有了提高。这些跨境并购的影响力优于单纯的国内并购。Ito(2004)对印度尼西亚汽车行业的外资公司做出了相似的报告，他们同时都提出了这样的问题：受益人的作用到底来自哪里？Ito (2004)特别提出这归于它的规模经济，而不是技术优势或要素生产率的增加。 Why mnf perform better Why is it that MNF perform better? Reason might be the structure of MNF itself; more likely the synergy gained from knowledge and technology transfer Background And Hypothesis: a) Preceding Studies: The literature on M&A or M&A-like activity is abundant. Numerous scholars have examined the effects on firms' performance in the case of domestic as well as cross-border M&A. Especially for international M&A many papers report a significant improvement in the involved firms' performance. In a study of over 3,000 domestic and cross-border M&A cases involving Japanese listed firms, Fukao, Ito, Kwon and Takizawa (2006) found improvements in both the firms' productivity and overall performance in the first four years after the acquisition. These effects where larger for cross-border M&A, outperforming purely domestic M&A. Ito (2004) reports the same for foreign-owned firms of the Indonesian automotive industry. Both raise questions as to where the beneficiary effects really come from, Ito (2004) notably attributing it to economies of scale rather than technological advantages or increased factor productivity. Arnold and Javorcik (2005) report similar findings in terms of plant productivity and performance for foreign owned Indonesian industry but attribute it rather to the introduction of superior technology and management. A study on the long-term effect of M&A in high-tech sectors, such as the computer or bio-medical industries, points to an improvement of merged firms' technological performance and innovative capacity in the long run (Hagedoorn and Duysters, 2000). The study also emphasises the importance of strategic considerations and organisational planning as aspects of M&A decisions to react to uncertainty within the market and in transactions with other firms. The latter seems to hold true in the case of European banks as well. Altunbas and Ibanez (2004) find that, especially for cross-border M&A, the bank's performance is enhanced after a merger, due to higher diversity in loan and risk strategies and increased security. While the focus lies mainly on the acquired firms, there is some research that surveys the acquiring side of M&A deals. Saboo and Gopi (2009) surveyed the performance of Indian acquiring firms between 2000 and 2007 and found that operating profits increased significantly for those firms after the merger in the case of domestic M&A. For international M&A however, their results were insignificant. As of late the flow of capital from developing to developed countries has intensified. Even though according to Neoclassical theory, capital should flow from capital-abundant markets to markets where capital is scarce, many firms from emerging economies are now actively looking for foreign firms to acquire to get a foothold in mature markets. Chari, Chen and Dominguez (2009) conducted a large scale analysis of the performance of US listed firms that have been acquired by firms from emerging markets. They find that overall performance and in particular the target firms' return on assets increased significantly after announcement of the M&A and in the 5 years following. Given the fact, that the performance increase can't be easily explained by attributing it to e.g. overall lower factor prices in the new market or utilization of larger economies of scale by the acquiring firm for this kind of cross-border M&A, their results are very interesting, as they again raise the question what effects actually cause it. b) Hypothesis: Concluding the results of many studies, M&A seem to have inherent performance enhancing effects of some kind. Furthermore these effects are apparently bigger in the case of cross-border M&A and unrelated to the acquiring firm's country of origin or field of business. The one underlying problem is to identify and explain these effects in order to understand their nature and to be able to accurately predict their impact and utilize their potential. As it holds more promise I will focus mainly on cases of international M&A in the following. There are two possible explanations that deserve further examination. The first reason why both acquiring as well as acquired firms exhibit increased performance after M&A could be the structure of the newly formed multinational corporation (MNC) itself. MNC might command larger economies of scale and eliminate transaction costs. They might be able to pay higher wages and thus have access to a bigger and better trained workforce or might benefit from dispersed resources and access to multiple markets. The list of structural advantages one can think of goes on and on. The other explanation could be the exchange and transfer of knowledge and technology between the acquiring and acquired firms and the resulting synergies. The effects of which could be very big, but exchange of sensitive information and technology always holds high risks as well and cultural differences might make internal communication difficult and therefore expensive. An important thing to remember when evaluating M&A affected performance changes is the existence of a selection-bias on the side of the acquiring firm. Basically firms will pick targets for acquisition based on their profitability and prospects, which in turn leads to an increase in performance after the M&A. However, the fact that the increase for cross-border M&A is regularly larger than for domestic M&A (Hagedoorn and Duysters, 2000; Altunbas and Ibanez, 2004; Fukao, Ito, Kwon and Takizawa, 2006) whilst the selection-bias is surely present for both types of M&A, allows to rule out the possibility, that the selection-bias is the dominant cause of post-merger performance changes. Hypothetically, performance increases after international M&A are hence affected by two things: Structural advantages gained from forming a multinational corporation (MNC). Synergy effects gained from a larger pool of knowledge and technology and a faster creation of new knowledge. How exactly and to what degree, these factors play a relevant role in reality shall be discussed in the following. Multinational Corporations: The change in forms of organisation in business and the development of completely new business types after World War 2 has been greatly influenced by increasing internationalisation and globalisation. The formation of multinational corporations (MNC) is part of this and today big MNC are more powerful than ever. Despite their great importance for world economy there is a surprising scarcity of research on the matter and it is not as easy as it seems to say exactly what a MNC actually is and how it is different from national enterprises. a) What is a multinational corporation? Dunning (1989 and 1993) defines companies that own and control entrepreneurial activities in more than two countries as MNC. Even though this definition is very basic, it grasps the quality of MNC that discerns them from national enterprises: presence and action in a number of countries and across borders. It does however raise the question as to why companies would want to become multinational instead of simply trying to enter foreign markets by means of export and trade, whilst staying rooted in their country of origin. This answered by Dunning's OLI-paradigm, according to which companies will opt for direct-investment abroad if three criteria are met. First, the company must have an “ownership advantage” over potential or actual competitors after the investment, meaning direct ownership in a foreign market must bear a competitive advantage in comparison to non-ownership activities, like for example licensed retailing or joint-ventures. The most common example for an ownership advantage would be the utilisation of economies of scale. Further, the company must be able to realise “location advantages” innate to the foreign market it enters. Typical location advantages would be lower factor prices or attractive trade and tax law. Finally, it is usually profitable for a company to internalise its activities abroad to gain greater control and reduce transaction costs, realising an “internalisation advantage”. According to the OLI-paradigm, if a company's specific advantages of directly entering a foreign market outweigh the costs and risks of differences in language, culture, legal and political system as well as business practice, it will engage in the venture. b) Knowledge and multinational corporations: From a “resource-based” point of view (Barney, 1991), a firm is a set of material and immaterial resources. The firm's competitiveness and its ability to survive and strife in the market are determined by its success in using its own resources to create specialised or unique skills. In other words, it is dependent on its ability to create and utilise knowledge and technology of any kind.#p#分页标题#e# Grant (1996) modifies the resource-based view accordingly, towards a “knowledge-based” view on the firm, making the generation of knowledge and technology the most important resource and the key aspects of a modern firm's thrift. In the case of MNC, the challenge is to internationally allocate and apply its knowledge effectively, as well as incorporate all the knowledge of its subdivisions to avoid loss or waste. Potentially the pool of skill and knowledge is bigger in MNC, making them more efficient at the gathering and creation of knowledge in general (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000) but it is difficult to eliminate redundant knowledge and coordinate the knowledge creation process. Furthermore, the access to specific pre-existing knowledge of foreign subsidiary companies provides advantages on local and global markets and might hold valuable assets. M&A just to get access to a competitor's knowledge base is not uncommon. Because of different cultural backgrounds and languages of the foreign subsidiaries as well as spatial and time differences within MNC, organisation of day-to-day business is made more difficult and there is an increased need for coordination and control by the MNC's headquarter. The main difficulty is to find the right balance between standardisation and utilisation of each subsidiary's specific know-how. c) Types of multinational corporations: MNC can be categorised according to their organisational design and the relationship between headquarters and subsidiaries. Commonly accepted is the classification of Heenan and Perlmutter (1979), who discern between different types of MNC. The theory includes four types of organisational and management design: ethnocentric, polycentric, regiocentric and geocentric. The ethnocentric type is characterised as the most centralist of all concepts, focussing heavily on the headquarters setting up standards, which have to implemented and followed by all subsidiaries worldwide. The high degree of integration allows for increased efficiency, smooth processes and economies of scale. However, the subsidiaries' flexibility is hindered in this concept. Ethnocentric setup of MNC is common if many of the subsidiaries are located in developing economies, in which case the efficiency effects usually outweigh the loss of flexibility. Executive positions in the subsidiary firms are usually filled with expatriates from the headquarters, partly because there may be a shortage of adequate personnel at the subsidiary's location, but also to ensure the implication of the headquarters strategies and to transfer management and procedural knowledge. Hierarchies are straightforward and knowledge or technology mainly flows in one direction, from the headquarters towards the subsidiaries. Ethnocentric MNC often do not utilise a subsidiary's pre-existing know-how and creative potential. The polycentric type, opposed to the ethnocentric type, exhibits an organisational design of strong decentralisation. The autonomy of each subsidiary is relatively high, to maximise adaption to the local market's peculiarities and requirements. Subsidiaries are thus very flexible and can react freely to changes in market environment, and implement strategies best fit for given challenges. On the other hand they are hardly able to realise any efficiency increasing effects of supra-regional integration. Management consists almost exclusively of local personnel that are familiar with the culture, language and the market's distinctive features. Communication between the headquarters and the subsidiaries is scarce and rarely observed at all in between subsidiaries, which inhibits the flow of knowledge resulting in higher cost for maintaining multiple, possibly redundant bases of knowledge. The regiocentric type basically presents itself as a slightly altered form of the polycentric type. Instead of separation of every single market, like in polycentric setups, several subsidiaries are grouped according to their location (e.g. South-East Asia or Eastern Europe) to form regional clusters. Decisions and strategies are made on a regional level. Efficiency effects due to centralisation, as well as satisfactory flexibility to react to regional changes are both realised to some degree. Integration within clusters is normally high and there is a frequent exchange of personnel and technology. Cultural differences are usually not as grave and communication or adaptation problems are kept minimal. As knowledge flows rather freely within regional clusters, but seldom in between clusters, the formation of multiple knowledge bases is likely, the size of which can be considerably bigger than in polycentric MNC. Finally, the geocentric type follows a concept of global coordination of the MNC's activities, trying to achieve both the efficiency effects of integration as well as the flexibility effects of local adaption. The constant interaction necessary for this results in very high organisational complexity as well as interdependency of the subsidiaries. Polycentric subsidiaries are globally connected via the headquarters, which is not directly in control, but merely coordinates the widely autonomous subsidiaries' activities from a monitoring perspective. Frequent and effective communication and flow of knowledge is crucial to the functioning of geocentric MNC and is assured by global exchange of personnel and a homogeneous corporate culture. The geocentric management concept is characterised as superior to the other concepts of MNC organisation as it combines their best qualities. However, the setup for a geocentric MNC to work is difficult and often costly. Furthermore, some MNC might be better off with one of the other types, depending on the individual conditions and requirements. In reality there are also many mixed forms and hardly any MNC can be definitely classified as one of the four types. In summary, it is both possible and likely, that MNC will enjoy structural advantages from standardising business and integrating processes (Bartlett and Goshal, 1990). The degree of these effects and the ability to utilise economies of scale will strongly depend on the MNC's setup. However, the real factor behind post M&A performance increases in MNC surveyed in many studies seems to be the more effective use of knowledge. The Relevance And Impact Of Knowledge: According to the knowledge-based view of the firm (Grant, 1996), the most important way for a firm to gain competitive advantages is to have the edge over other firms in strategically useful knowledge. The management of knowledge as one of the firm's crucial resources is one of the biggest keys to success, and a major challenge for MNC. But what is knowledge actually and how can it be successfully managed? a) What is knowledge? Knowledge in an economic sense has to be distinguished from data and information (Henry 1974). Data, information and knowledge are thereby hierarchically related. Data is composed of signs or characters, like letters and numbers that are connected and carries un-construed meaning. Connection and interpretation turns sets of data into information, which holds expedient meaning. Knowledge is then made up of linking up information to create a complex relevant to a certain question or problem. As the interpretation of data as well as the connection of information is done by individuals, knowledge always has subjective components (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). This hierarchy is not completely rigid however, as there are always mutual influences between data and information respectively information and knowledge, the compilation of data to information, for example, often requires knowledge about processing or interpretation methods. b) Types of Knowledge: Knowledge can furthermore be categorised in different kinds along certain criteria. The most profound differentiation is that of tacit and explicit knowledge (Polany, 1966). Explicit knowledge can be formulated or codified. It is not connected to certain individuals and can be transferred without loss of content or quality. Tacit knowledge on the other hand is dependent from a person or a group of persons (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). It can in many cases not easily be transferred. Tacit knowledge is knowledge that individuals either are unaware of or that they cannot formulate and explain. It is a person's experience and intuition. In a business context management skills are often tacit knowledge as they are difficult to teach. There are simply too many layers to being a good manager to pin point them exactly and formalise them in a way for others to understand and acquire them fully. Tacit knowledge is hard to replace and almost impossible to copy, it thus works as a distinctive competitive advantage. Another differentiation is that of individual and collective knowledge. Individual knowledge is the knowledge of an individual, collective knowledge of a group consists of the individual knowledge of its members. Collective knowledge of organisations is more than just the sum of each member's individual knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). It is a complex network of individual knowledge bases that mutually influence and manipulate each other. Collective knowledge can take many forms, for example common values and convictions or corporate codes of conduct. Because it is dependent on and results from a group's coherence it cannot easily be extracted and transferred. Collective organisational knowledge therefore is another important factor of competitiveness. c) Knowledge transfer: Knowledge transfer is the logistic problem of handling knowledge distribution. Knowledge transfer is used to provide knowledge at the right place and time (Wallace, 2007). Efficient knowledge transfer is characterised by providing exactly the needed knowledge at the required detail.#p#分页标题#e# In MNC knowledge transfer is arguably the most important aspect of knowledge management, as effective knowledge transfer allows the MNC to utilise all its knowledge bases to their full potential as well as eliminate redundancies within them. A MNC's performance is thus critically linked to its ability to effectively communicate and transfer its knowledge. Knowledge transfer can be categorised according to the level on which it takes place (Heppner, 1997). First, there is knowledge transfer on the individual level, for example between two employees. Secondly, knowledge transfer on group level takes place between an individual and a group, for example an executive and a group of employees. The third level of knowledge transfer is the organisational level of knowledge being transferred between two groups, for example two subsidiaries of the same MNC. On the individual level, knowledge transfer takes place through different channels (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Explicit knowledge is transferred by combining two individual's bases of knowledge through communication. Explicit knowledge is readily formulated and concrete and an exchange can take place via electronic information systems, making its transfer the easiest. In MNC exchange of data, information and knowledge between the headquarters and the subsidiaries leads to the combination and expansion of their knowledge bases. Tacit knowledge on the other hand can be transferred via socialisation only, meaning the exchange of individual experiences and impressions. Because tacit knowledge is hard to formalise, direct dialogue and interaction of the individuals is necessary. Problems with knowledge transfer via socialisation are that it requires high willingness and dedication from both the transferring and the receiving individual. Furthermore transferred knowledge is not available to other individuals than the ones directly involved and the cost and insecurity of outcome is usually high (Szulanski, 1996). The appliance of practice based experience in one market to another one is an example for the use of knowledge transfer via socialisation in MNC. Internalisation is the process of transferring explicit knowledge of individuals into tacit knowledge. It is achieved by repetition and practice (“learning by doing”) on the individual level (Teece, 1981). In MNC this can be done by setting up formal codes of conduct for every subsidiary based on experience. Externalisation on the other hand is the transfer of difficult to grasp, tacit knowledge into tangible, easy to understand and learn explicit knowledge. Externalisation is a much more complicated process than internalisation and holds insecurities concerning the quality of outcomes, because there is usually a substantial loss of tacit knowledge that cannot be articulated. By holding seminars with representatives from the headquarters as well as the subsidiaries to gain deeper insight from their experience and put it to paper, MNC might succeed in recording tacit knowledge, making its further transfer easier. On group level, knowledge transfer mainly happens in form of socialisation and combination, leading to an extended base of knowledge for the individual as well as the group (Heppner, 1997). In the case of MNC the group level process of knowledge transfer will often be a flow from an executive individual towards a group of employees. However, in most cases the group will also influence the individual and broaden its knowledge. This effect is increased in the case of managers that are sent to subsidiaries from the headquarters, having to deal with a new and unknown cultural and business environment and getting in touch with the subsidiary's base of knowledge. Lastly, on organisational level, knowledge transfer is a process of acculturation (Heppner, 1997). Goal is the adaption and harmonisation of the different groups' bases of knowledge. The process of acculturation can happen if in a setting of discernable differences between the groups' (sub-)culture a direct exchange of tacit and explicit knowledge is possible and takes place (Berry, 1983). Finally, change must occur in at least one of the groups involved because of the knowledge transferred. In MNC the formation of a common corporate culture and generally accepted practices are usually the result of acculturation. Especially knowledge that originates from cultural differences is thereby a potential competitive advantage, as it is socially very complex and cannot be substituted (Barney, 1991). Acculturation leads to the homogenisation of MNC and can significantly improve cooperation of subsidiaries and facilitate further knowledge transfer. d) Problems of knowledge transfer: Knowledge transfer holds two basic problem areas, the logistic problem of organising and handling the transfer on the one hand (Probst et al, 1998) and the problem of learning and implementing transferred knowledge on the other hand (Krogh and Roos, 1996). The organisational problem at this consists of the problem of coordinating limited bases of knowledge of the involved individuals and groups and the motivational problem of their willingness to transfer or receive knowledge. The organisational problem is most commonly one of non-availability of necessary means, information or experts required for knowledge transfer. It is especially drastic for transferring tacit knowledge that cannot be detached from certain individuals and thus cannot be transferred without transferring the individual as well (Thiel, 2001). The motivational problem is of particular relevance in MNC, because successful knowledge transfer is dependent on the subsidiaries mutual trust and respect. However in MNC trust and respect takes time and resources to build, because of spatial and cultural distance. In the case of acculturation in MNC, conflicts in interest on strategic and operative level can hinder the willingness of subsidiaries to cooperate and partake in successful knowledge transfer (Berry, 1983). In a study of 5,000 American MNC, Wong and Leung (2001) find moral hazard an unwillingness to cooperate, amongst other factors, to be the cause for as much as 30% of international joint ventures and 15% of wholly foreign owned enterprises to fail and be aborted. Of critical importance for knowledge management today is the efficient utilisation of modern technologies and information exchange systems. High performance data-banks and internal communication methods are essential for a company's ability to learn and adapt to a changing environment (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Through combination of new technologies and a corporate culture of transparency and communication, MNC can achieve global connection of their knowledge base and availability to every subsidiary, at least in the case of explicit knowledge. Still, employees have to be trained in the use of these systems which is costly, also due to the fact that in order for the system to stay cutting-edge it has to be constantly changed and improved. Furthermore the risk of loss or theft of knowledge is heightened by the use of large scale electronic knowledge transfer (Katz, Rebentisch and Allen, 1996). e) The risk of lost knowledge The drain of knowledge, technology and expert personnel is a major risk for a company's competitiveness and consequently for its performance and profitability. The actual cost of knowledge loss or theft is hard to estimate though, because of difficulties in accurately valuating information and knowledge. The level of risk proportionally depends on the degree of integration and engagement of the MNC. It will be substantially lower in the case of licensed manufacturing abroad, for example than in the case of joint ventures, or wholly owned subsidiaries (Hill, Hwang and Kim, 1990). Research shows, that in the case of international joint ventures, the loss of knowledge can only be avoided, if the joined venture partner's utility from actively cooperating, participating in knowledge transfer and using the knowledge confidentially is higher than the utility of draining knowledge to then end the cooperation and work alone (Desai, Foley and Hines, 2002, Gattai and Molteni, 2005). MNC therefore have to carefully examine, whether the advantages to be gained from joint ventures, outweigh the risk of lost knowledge, especially in countries lacking sufficient legal security and predictability of legal decisions (Wong and Leung, 2001). By integrating foreign partners into the MNC as wholly owned subsidiaries, the risk is lowered, as the moral-hazard effect is internalised and the subsidiary also benefits from protecting the MNC's knowledge. The focus of investment in China, for example, shifted from mainly joint ventures towards more wholly owned foreign subsidiaries (Jiang, Wang and Yang, 2004). While this can be at least partly explained with China's entry into the WTO it also shows the problem of lacking copyright protection and the involved risk of lost or stolen knowledge (Hu, Jefferson and Jinchang, 2003). Empiric studies support this trend, not only for investment in developing economies, but also between developed nations (UN World investment Report, 2005). Of Japanese firms seeking market entry in Europe, 60% decided for direct investment in a wholly owned subsidiary (Gattai and Molteni, 2005). Japanese firms also stress intensive knowledge transfer via the rotation of experts and managers from headquarters and subsidiaries (Urata, Matsuura and Wei, 2006) to secure direct control over the subsidiary and its employees and lower the risk of knowledge drain. But even in this case, the experts can be “head hunted” by competitors and knowledge can be lost this way. To find effective counter measures against the loss or theft of knowledge is of vital importance to any company that wants to stay competitive and profitable. For MNC the need to find an appropriate response to the problem is even more crucial, as the risk is heightened in their case due to a more difficult overview and control of globally dispersed knowledge bases.#p#分页标题#e# Conclusion: In summary, MNC will opt for direct investment if they can realise ownership, location and internalisation advantages from entering foreign markets and wholly owning their subsidiaries (Dunning, 1977). MNC are thereby first and foremost on the lookout for comparative advantages through global arbitrage resulting from imperfect capital, labour and information markets (Bartlett and Goshal, 1990). More importantly however, MNC see significant performance enhancements if they can successfully tap their most valuable resource: knowledge. To find adequate methods to fully utilise their creative and knowledge creating potential is arguably one of the biggest and most difficult tasks for MNC, as knowledge as a resource is not without problems. Contrary to older characterisations of knowledge as a public good that can readily be transferred at low cost (Arrow, 1974), the transfer of knowledge can be both costly and fraught with risk depending on the type of knowledge transferred (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Cost for transferring knowledge can be as high as 59% of the total project cost depending to the MNC's experience with knowledge transfer, the compatibility and transferability of the technology (Teece, 1977, 1981). Further criteria that influence the cost and difficulty of knowledge transfer are the complexity and strategic importance of the knowledge, the frequency of transfers, the number of subsidiaries involved, the cultural and spatial distance and the information processing and transferring capabilities of the MNC. Even though current research addresses the problem of accurately measuring the intangible asset knowledge in monetary terms for financial statements there is a need for more research on the matter, especially for the quantification of the cost of knowledge transfer. For an exact understanding of knowledge transfer and its problems it is necessary to understand not only knowledge itself, but also its functionality and the mechanisms and persons involved in its creation and handling and management. To ensure efficiency and quality in knowledge creation and transfer, as a general course of action, management of MNC should: Establish a business culture of dialogue and openness to encourage all of its employees to participate in the process of knowledge creation and transfer Construct organisational information network and utilise modern technology to allocate its knowledge functionally, timely and at the right place for all its subunits and subsidiaries Find ways to appeal to employees' motivation and willingness to share and transfer their knowledge to reduce barriers for the transfer of knowledge Collect information about its own knowledge bases on every level (company, subsidiary, individual) to understand their capacities, avoid redundancy and recognise need for improvement Set up guidelines for the formalisation and expression of tacit knowledge to make it transferable Create a system to accurately assess the impact of certain knowledge to recognise potential value and to be able to transfer successful knowledge and experience to subsidiaries around the world References: Altunbas, Y. and Ibá?ez, D. M. 2004. Mergers and Acquisitions and Bank Performance in Europe; the Role of Strategic Similarities. European Central Bank Working Paper Series No. 398. Arnold, J. M. and Javorcik, B. S. 2005. Gifted Kids or Pushy Parents? Foreign Acquisitions and Plant Performance in Indonesia. Development Studies Working Paper No. 197. Centro Studi Luca D'Agliano. Arrow, Kenneth 1974. The limits of organization, New York. Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. Bartlett, C. A., Ghoshal, S. 1990. Managing innovation in the transnational corporation. Managing the Global Firm, Bartlett/Doz/Hedlung, 215-255. Berry, J. 1983. Acculturation: A Comparative Analysis of Alternative Forms. Perspectives in Immigrant and Minority Education, Samuda/Woods, 9-25. Desai, M. A., Foley, F. C., Hines, J. R. 2002. International Joint Ventures and the Boundaries of the Firm. Havard Working Papers 07/2002, 1-52. Dunning, J. H. 1989. Multinational Enterprises and the Growth of Services: Some Conceptual and Theoretical Issues. Service Industries Journal, Jan 1989, Vol. 9 Issue 1, 5-39. Dunning, J. H. 1993. Trade, Location of Economic Activity and the Multinational Enterprise: A Search for an Eclectic Approach. The Theory of Transnational Corporations, United Nations Library Transnational Corporations, Vol. 1, London, Routledge. Fukao, K., Ito, K., Kwon, H., and Takizawa, M. 2006. Cross-Border Acquisitions and Target Firms' Performance: Evidence From Japanese Firm-Level Data. NBER Working Paper No. 12422. Gattai, V., Molteni, C. 2005. Dissipation of Knowledge and the Boundaries of the Multinational Enterprise. ISESAO Working Papers, 10/2005, 1-28. Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, 109-122. Gupta, A. K., Govindarajan, V. 2000. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 473-496. Hagedoorn, J. and Duysters, G. 2000. The Effect of Mergers and Acquisitions on the Techonological Performance of Companies in a High-Tech Environment. Unpublished. Heenan, D. A., Perlmutter, H. V. 1979. Multinational Organization Development. Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley. Henry, N. L.1974. Knowledge Management: A New Concern for Public Administration. Public Administration Review 34. Heppner K. 1997. Organisation des Wissenstransfers: Grundlagen, Barrieren und Instrumente. Wiesbaden: Dt. Univ.-Verl. Hill, C. W. L., Hwang, P., Kim, C. W. 1990: An Eclectic Theory of the Choice of International Entry Mode. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, 117-128. Hu, A. G. Z., Jefferson, G. H., Jinchang, Q. 2003. R&D and Technology Transfer: Firm-Level Evidence from Chinese Industry. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2/2003, 1-21. Ito, K. 2004. Foreign Ownership and Productivity in the Indonesian Automobile Industry: Evidence from Establishment Data for 1990-99. NBER-East Asia Seminar on Economics, Vol. 13, 229 - 276. Jiang, X., Wang, Y., Yang, L. 2004. A Study of the Gradual Shift of Foreign Investment. The Chinese Economy, Vol.37, Nr.5, 2004, S.19-36. Katz, R., Rebentisch, E. S., Allen, T. J. 1996. A Study of Technology Transfer in a Multinational Cooperative Joint Venture. IEEE, Vol. 43, No.1, 97-98. Krogh, G. v., Roos, J. 1996. Five claims on knowing. European Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4, 423-426. Markusen, J. R. 1995. The Boundaries of Multinational Enterprises and the Theory of International Trade. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, 169-189. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York, Oxford University Press. Perlmutter, H. 1969. The Tortuous Evolution of the Multinational Corporation. Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 4 Issue 1, 9-18. Polanyi, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Gloucester. Probst, G. J., Raub, S., Romhardt, K. 1998. Wissen managen, Wie Unternehmen ihre wertvollste Ressource optimal nutzen. 3.Aufl., Wiesbaden. Saboo, S. and Gopi, S. 2009. Comparison of Post-Merger performance of Acquiring Firms (India) involved in Domestic and Cross-border acquisitions. MPRA Paper No. 19274. Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm, 27-43. Teece, D. J. 1977. Technology Transfer by Multinational Firms: The Ressource Cost of Transferring Technological Know-How. The Economic Journal, Vol. 87, 242-261. Teece, D. J. 1981. The market for know-how and the efficient international transfer of technology. AAPSS, Vol. 458, 81-96. Thiel, M. 2002. Organisation und Implementierung des Wissenstransfers, Wiesbaden.www.ukassignment.org UN 2005. World Investment Report 2005, Transnational Corporations and the Internationalization of R&D. http://www.unctad.org/Templates/WebFlyer.asp?intItemID=3489&lang=1. Urata, S., Matsuura, T., Wie, Y. 2006. International Intrafirm Transfer of Management Technology by Japanese Multinational Corporations. RIETI Discussion Paper, 2/2006, 1-30. Wallace, D. P. 2007. Knowledge Management: Historical and Cross-Disciplinary Themes. Libraries Unlimited. Wong, K., Leung, W. 2001. International Joint Ventures, Moral Hazards and Technology Spillovers. University of Washington Papers, Vol. 1 2001, 1-26. |
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
