Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

State-Owned Multinationals pp 175–210Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Varieties in State Capitalism: Outward FDI Strategies of Central and Local State-Owned Enterprises from Emerging Economy Countries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: JIBS Special Collections ((JIBSSC))

Abstract

Institutional diversity characterizing state-owned enterprises (SOEs) from emerging economies holds critical but under-examined implications for their internationalization activities. Different types of SOEs can exhibit distinct motivations, strategic resources, and adaptive capabilities for penetrating foreign markets. To understand how such idiosyncratic differences emerge, we conceptualize the heterogeneity of SOEs as an outcome of multiple institutional reform processes – administrative and fiscal decentralization, industrial restructuring, and market liberalization – which create diversity between SOEs affiliated with central and local levels of government. Building on the idea of “institutions-as-configurations”, we elucidate how such reforms reconfigure SOEs’ constellation of resources, capabilities, and priorities which shape the parameters of their ability to negotiate for home and host country institutional legitimacy. Specifically, we propose that the restructuring of central SOEs into “national champions” exposes them to stronger institutional pressures from home and host country governments while local SOEs which have fewer obligations to serve national strategic prerogatives display greater managerial autonomy and market orientation, but lower levels of monopolistic behavior. We discuss how such contrasting attributes contribute to variations in SOEs’ international business diversification patterns, foreign subsidiary establishment and ownership modes, and overseas location preferences. Recognition of SOEs’ organizational diversity holds important implications for theories on state-owned multinationals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We use the term “heterogeneity” and “diversity” interchangeably in this paper.

  2. 2.

    The term “central government” refers to the highest level of government and is used interchangeably with “federal government” and “national government” while the term “local government” is applied to provincial or municipal levels of government. Most studies on decentralization typically examine the evolving relationship between central and local levels of government which is why we focus our analysis on these two levels of government.

References

  • Abubakar, M. 2010. Towards world class corporations. Presentation by the Indonesian Minister of State-Owned Enterprises, http://www.euromoneyconferences.com/downloads/Asia/2010/Indonesia10/SOE.pdf, accessed 15 October 2013.

  • Aguilera, R., Desender, K., & Kabbach de Castro, L. 2012. A bundle perspective to comparative corporate governance. In T. Clarke, & D. Branson (Eds), The SAGE handbook of corporate governance. London: Sage Publications, pp. 379–405.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad, E., & Mansoor, A. 2002. Indonesia: Managing decentralization. IMF Working Paper, Fiscal Affairs Department and Independent Evaluation Office, Washington DC, 136(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoki, M. 1994. The contingent governance of teams: Analysis of institutional complementarity. International Economic Review, 35(3): 657–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aoki, M., Jackson, G., & Miyajima, H. 2007. Corporate governance in Japan: Institutional change and organizational diversity. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aulakh, P. S., & Kotabe, M. 2008. Institutional changes and organizational transformation in developing economies. Journal of International Management, 14(3): 209–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. 1999. The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4): 411–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartel, A. P., & Harrison, A. E. 2005. Ownership versus environment: Disentangling the sources of public-sector inefficiency. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(1): 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, R. 2012. A new epoch but still diversity within and between capitalisms: China in comparative perspective. In C. Lane, & G. Wood (Eds), Capitalist Diversity and Diversity within Capitalism: 32–67. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouthers, K. D. 2002. Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2): 203–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucheli, M., & Kim, M. Y. 2012. Political institutional change, obsolescing legitimacy, and multinational corporations. Management International Review, 52(6): 847–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. 2004. Institutional change and globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield, J. 2006. Local government reform in China: A rational actor perspective. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72(2): 253–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chien, S. S. 2006. Institutional innovations, asymmetric decentralization, and local economic development: A case study of Kunshan, in post-Mao China. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(2): 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child, J., & Rodrigues, S. 2005. The internationalization of Chinese firms: A case for theoretical extension? Management Organization Review, 1(3): 381–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child, J., & Tse, D. K. 2001. China’s transition and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(1): 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, W., Mitchell, W., & Yeung, B. 2003. Foreign direct investment and host country productivity: The American automotive component industry in the 1980s. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(2): 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C. 2005. Capitalist diversity and change: Recombinant governance and institutional entrepreneurs. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cuervo, A., & Villalonga, B. 2000. Explaining the variance in the performance effects of privatization. Academy of Management Review, 25(3): 581–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cui, L., & Jiang, F. 2012. State ownership effect on firms’ FDI ownership decisions under institutional pressure: A study of Chinese outward-investing firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(3): 264–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. 2002. Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J. 1997. Culture and cognition: An interdisciplinary review. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1): 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. 1991. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Minin, A., Zhang, J., & Gammeltoft, P. 2012. Chinese foreign direct investment in R&D in Europe: A new model of R&D internationalization? European Management Journal, 30(3): 189–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J. P. 2000. Entrepreneurial privatization strategies: Order of entry and local partner collaboration as sources of competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 25(3): 551–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J. P., Teegen, H., & Mudambi, R. 2004. Balancing private and state ownership in emerging markets’ telecommunications infrastructure: Country, industry, and firm influences. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(3): 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domadenik, P., Prašnikar, J., & Svejnar, J. 2008. Restructuring of firms in transition: Ownership, institutions and openness to trade. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 725–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitriningrum, A. 2008. SOEs towards a central or coordinated ownership unit. Indonesian Ministry of State-Owned Enterprises, http://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/corporategovernanceofstateownedenterprises/44787681.pdf, accessed 15 October 2013.

  • Globerman, S., & Shapiro, D. 2009. Economic and strategic considerations surrounding Chinese FDI in the United States. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(1): 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, K., & Tash, A. 2009. Foreign government-controlled investors and recipient country investment policies: A scoping paper. OECD Investment Division, Paris, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. 1996. Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1022–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. 2011. Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 317–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, N. 2005. Partial privatization and firm performance. Journal of Finance, 60(2): 987–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. 1996. Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5): 936–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancke, B., Rhodes, M., & Thatcher, M. (Eds) 2007. Beyond varieties of capitalism: Conflict, contradiction, and complementarities in the European economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haveman, H., & Rao, H. 2006. Hybrid forms and the evolution of thrifts. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7): 974–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, W., & Lyles, M. A. 2008. China’s outward foreign direct investment. Business Horizons, 51(6): 485–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henisz, W. J., & Zelner, B. A. 2005. Legitimacy, Interest groups pressures, and change in emergent institutions: The case of foreign investors and host country governments. Academy of Management Review, 30(2): 361–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inoue, C., Lazzarini, S., & Musacchio, A. 2013. Leviathan as a minority shareholder: Firm-level implications of state equity purchases. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6): 1775–1801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishizuka, F. 2009. Vietnamese local state-owned enterprises (SOEs) at the crossroads: Implications of SOE restructuring at the local level. Japan External Trade Organization Working Paper, Chiba, Japan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. 2008. Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 540–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. 1993. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3): 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. -E. 1977. The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1): 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. -E. 2009. The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(9): 1411–1431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, P. 2012. The rise of hybrid governance. The Mckinsey Center for Government, http://www.mckinsey.com/features/government_designed_for_new_times/the_rise_of_hybrid_governance, accessed 18 May 2013.

  • Kim, H., Kim, H., & Hoskisson, R. E. 2010. Does market-oriented institutional change in an emerging economy make business group-affiliated multinationals perform better? An institution-based view. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(7): 1141–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W., Nam, I. C., & Cuong, T. T. 2010. On the governance of state-owned economic groups in Vietnam, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1729093&download=yes, accessed 18 May 2013.

  • Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1): 64–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski, P., Büge, M., & Egeland, M. 2013. State-owned enterprises: Trade effects and policy implications. OECD Trade Policy Paper, No. 147, Paris, France.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, C. 2005. Institutional transformation and system change: changes in the corporate governance of German corporations. In G. Morgan, R. Whitley, & E. Moen (Eds), Changing capitalisms? Complementarities, contradictions and capability development in an international context: 78–109. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, C., & Wood, G. 2009. Capitalist diversity and diversity within capitalism. Economy and Society, 38(4): 531–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, C., & Wood, G. 2012. Capitalist diversity and diversity within capitalism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, P., & Meyer, K. E. 2009. Contextualizing experience effects in international business: A study of ownership strategies. Journal of World Business, 44(4): 370–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, J. Y.,&Liu, Z. 2000. Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in China. Economic Development & Cultural Change, 49(1): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, R.E. 2004. Home and host country effects on foreign direct investment. In R. Baldwin, & A. Winters (Eds), Challenges to globalization: Analyzing the economics: 333–382. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Lu, J., & Chizema, A. 2014. Top executive compensation, regional institutions and Chinese OFDI. Journal of World Business, 49(1): 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J. 2002. Intra- and inter-organizational imitative behavior: Institutional influences on Japanese firms’ entry mode choice. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(1): 19–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J., & Xu, D. 2006. Growth and survival of international joint ventures: An external–internal legitimacy perspective. Journal of Management, 32(3): 426–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. D., & Tung, R. L. 2007. International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4): 481–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., Xue, Q., & Han, B. 2010. How emerging market governments promote outward FDI: Experience from China. Journal of World Business, 45(1): 68–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, X. F., Yao, X. T., & Xi, Y. M. 2006. Business group affiliation and firm performance in a transition economy: A focus on ownership voids. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(4): 467–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, X. F., Tong, T. W., & Fitza, M. 2013. How much does subnational region matter to foreign subsidiary performance? Evidence from Fortune Global 500 Corporations’ investment in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(1): 66–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malesky, E. J. 2008. Straight ahead on red: How foreign direct investment empowers subnational leaders. Journal of Politics, 70(1): 97–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malesky, E. J. 2009. The Vietnam provincial competitiveness index: Measuring economic governance for private sector development. Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry Policy Paper, No. 14, Hanoi, Vietnam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, J. A., & Zander, I. 2007. The international entrepreneurial dynamics of accelerated internationalisation. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(3): 387–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E., & Nguyen, H. 2005. Foreign investment strategies and sub-national institutions in emerging markets: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 63–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. 1993. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6): 1175–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E., Mudambi, R., & Narula, R. 2011. Multinational enterprises and local contexts: The opportunities and challenges of multiple embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 235–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of National Development Planning. 2010. Regulation of the President of the Republic of Indonesia number 5 of 2010 regarding the national medium-term development plan (RPJMN) 2010–2014, http://www.theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/rpjmn-2010-2014-english-version__20100521111052__2608__0.pdf, accessed 6 September 2013.

  • Mishra, R. K. 2009. State owned enterprises in India: Reviewing the evidence. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Occasional Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morck, R., & Nakamura, M. 2007. Business groups and the big push: Meiji Japan’s mass privatization and subsequent growth. Working Paper Series, No. 13171, The National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D., & Nelson, R. 1999. Sources of industrial leadership: Studies of seven industries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Murrell, P. 2003. Institutions and firms in transition economies. In C. Ménard, & M. Shirley (Eds), Handbook of new institutional economics 667–694. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murtha, T.,& Lenway, S. 1994. Country capabilities and the strategic state: How national political-institutions affect multinational-corporations’ strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2): 113–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musacchio, A., & Lazzarini, S. 2014. Reinventing state capitalism: Leviathan in business, Brazil and beyond. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R. 2012. Do we need different frameworks to explain infant MNEs from developing countries? Global Strategy Journal, 2(3): 188–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, K. 2000. Organizational transformation during institutional upheaval. Academy of Management Review, 25(3): 602–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2000. The Indonesian privatization program. Joint OECD/APEC Privatisation Forum, http://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/corporategovernanceofstate-ownedenterprises/1923660.pdf, accessed 18 May 2013.

  • OECD. 2008. State owned enterprises in Russia. OECD Roundtable on Corporate Governance of SOEs, http://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/corporategovernanceprinciples/42576825.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2013.

  • Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A., & Santos, F. 2010. When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3): 455–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. H., Li, S., & Tse, D. K. 2006. Market liberalization and firm performance during China’s economic transition. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(1): 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., & Heath, P. S. 1996. The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. The Academy of Management Review, 21(2): 492–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purfield, C. 2004. The decentralization dilemma in India. IMF Working Paper Series, No. 04/32, Asia and Pacific Department of the International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A., Terpstra-Tong, J., Terpstra, R. H.,Wang, X., & Egri, C. 2006. Today’s state-owned enterprises of China: Are they dying dinosaurs or dynamic dynamos? Strategic Management Journal, 27(9): 825–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos-Vijande, M. L., Sanzo-Perez, M. J., Alvarez-Gonzalez, L. I., & Vazquez-Casielles, R. 2005. The effects of market orientation on business strategic behaviour. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 13(1): 17–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. 2004. Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In K. G. Smith, & M. A. Hitt (Eds), Great minds in management: The process of theory development: 460–484. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, D., & Globerman, S. 2012. The international activities and impacts of state-owned enterprises. In K. Sauvant, L. Sachs, & W. Jongbloed (Eds), Sovereign investment: Concerns and policy reactions: 98–144. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. 1995. Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3): 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smoke, P. 2001. Fiscal decentralization in developing countries: A review of current concepts and practice. Democracy, Governance and Human Rights Programme Paper No. 2, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. A. 2005. Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, P., Mellahi, K., & Thun, E. 2010. The dynamic value of MNE political embeddedness: The case of the Chinese automobile industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(7): 1161–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J. 2007. Phase transitions and emergence of entrepreneurship: The transformation of Chinese SOEs over time. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1): 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., Jones, C., & Kury, K. 2005. Institutional logics and institutional change: Transformation in accounting, architecture, and publishing. In C. Jones, & P. H. Thorton (Eds), Research in the sociology of organizations: 125–170. New York: Elsevier/JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhlenbruck, K., Meyer, K. E., & Hitt, M. A. 2003. Organizational transformation in transition economies: Resource-based and organizational learning perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2): 257–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., Hong, J., Kafouros, M., & Wright, M. 2012. Exploring the role of government involvement in outward FDI from emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(7): 655–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei, Y. H. D. 2007. Regional development in China: Transitional institutions, embedded globalization, and hybrid economies. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 48(1): 16–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D., & Shenkar, O. 2002. Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 27(4): 608–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamakawa, Y., Peng, M. W., & Deeds, D. L. 2008. What drives new ventures to internationalize from emerging to developed economies? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1): 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yiu, D. W. 2011. Multinational advantages of Chinese business groups: A theoretical exploration. Management and Organization Review, 7(2): 249–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yiu, D. W., & Makino, S. 2002. The choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary: An institutional perspective. Organization Science, 13(6): 667–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yusuf, S., & Nabeshima, K. 2008. Two decades of reform: The changing organization dynamics of Chinese industrial firms. In J. Logan (Ed.), Urban China in transition: 27–47. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 341–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Li, X. 2006. Ownership structure and corporate diversification. Business & Politics, 8(1): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Zhou, C., & Ebbers, H. 2011. Completion of Chinese overseas acquisitions: Institutional perspectives and evidence. International Business Review, 20(2): 226–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was developed based on a presentation made at the 3rd Copenhagen Conference on Outward Investment from Emerging Economies. A revised version was presented at the JIBS Special Issue Conference on State-Owned Multinationals at Harvard Business School. We would like to thank Aldo Musacchio, Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra, Andrew Inkpen, Ari Kokko, John Cantwell, Kannan Ramaswamy, Klaus Meyer, Rajneesh Narula, and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and encouragement. We gratefully acknowledge the Otto Mønsted Foundation, the Sino–Danish Center for Education and Research, and the National Science Foundation of China (# 71172020) for their financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Economics and Management, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Ming Hua Li

  2. Research School of Management, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    Lin Cui

  3. Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Jiangyong Lu

Authors
  1. Ming Hua Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lin Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiangyong Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ming Hua Li .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. D'Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra

Appendix

Appendix

Table A.1 Illustrative case references
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Li, M.H., Cui, L., Lu, J. (2018). Varieties in State Capitalism: Outward FDI Strategies of Central and Local State-Owned Enterprises from Emerging Economy Countries. In: Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (eds) State-Owned Multinationals. JIBS Special Collections. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51715-5_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation