Advertisement

Technology pp 57-88 | Cite as

Foreign Multinationals and Domestic Enterprises: Comparison of Their Technological and Other Characteristics in the Indian Machinery Industry

  • Pradeep Kumar KeshariEmail author
Chapter
Part of the India Studies in Business and Economics book series (ISBE)

Abstract

The paper empirically examines differences in the technological and other characteristics of two ownership groups of firms, foreign multinational enterprises (FMEs) and domestic enterprises (DEs) in the Indian machinery industry (IMI). Analysis is performed with the help of data on a large sample of firms during a period in which FMEs enjoyed level playing field vis a vis DEs and India became the second most attractive destination for inward foreign direct investment (FDI). We apply three alternative techniques for comparison: univariate mean value (of a variable) method, multivariate linear discriminants analysis (LDA) and dichotomous probabilistic logit and probit models. The significant findings of the study are: (i) probabilistic models are most suitable for the study; (ii) FMEs have greater technical efficiency (TE), firm size (SZ), export intensity (XI), intensity to import intermediate goods (IMIG) and intensity to import disembodied technology (IMDT) but the lower advertisement and marketing intensity (AMI) and financial leverage (LEV); (iii) choice of techniques (CAPI), research and development intensity (RDI), gross profit margin (GPM) and market concentration (MC) do not differ significantly between the two ownership groups. The major recommendations of this study are that the current outward orientations of the economy with liberal and transparent FDI policy for IMI need to be continued. This would not only contribute towards the indigenous production of additional and better machinery products with the help of FMEs but also check the influx of import of final goods and improve the efficiency of the IMI. Besides, the domestic suppliers of intermediate goods need to improve the availability and quality of their products for achieving greater linkages with FMEs. To encourage FMEs to spend more on R&D, the Government of India (GoI) needs to take steps to improve R&D infrastructure, regulatory and legal framework and implementation of IPR regime in the country so that the FMEs find India attractive enough to locate their core R&D functions.

Keywords

Foreign multinationals enterprises Domestic enterprises FDI Indian machinery industry Linear discriminants analysis Probit/logit models 

References

  1. Akhtar, S., & Barry, R. O. (2009). Determinants of capital structure for Japanese multinational and domestic corporations. International Review of Finance, 9(1–2), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anastassopoulos, G. (2004). Profitability differences between MNE subsidiaries and domestic firms: The case of the food industry in Greece. Agribusiness, 20(1), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbosa, N., & Louri, H. (2005). Corporate performance: Does ownership matter? A comparison of foreign- and domestic-owned firms in Greece and Portugal. Review of Industrial Organization, 27(1), 73–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battese, G. E., & Coelli, T. J. (1992). Frontier production functions, technical efficiency and panel data: With application to paddy farmers in India. The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellak, C. (2004). How domestic and foreign firms differ and why does it matter? Journal of Economic Survey, 18(4), 483–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellak, C., & Pfaffermayr, M. (2002). Why foreign-owned firms are different: A conceptual framework and empirical evidence for Austria. In R. Jungnickel (Ed.), Foreign-owned firms–Are they different? (pp. 13–57). Houndsmill: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  7. Bhaduri, S., & Ray, A. (2004). Exporting through technological capability: Econometric evidence from India’s pharmaceutical and electrical/electronics firms. Oxford Development Studies, 32(1), 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgman, T. A. (1996). An empirical examination of multinational corporate capital structure. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(3), 553–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castellani, D., & Zanfei, A. (2006). Multinational firms, innovation and productivity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caves, R. E. (1996). Multinational enterprise and economic analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chhibber, P. K., & Majumdar, S. K. (2005). Property rights and the control of strategy: Foreign ownership rules and domestic firm globalization in Indian Industry. Law & Policy, 27(1), 52–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chhibber, P. K., & Majumdar, S. K. (1999). Foreign ownership and profitability: Property rights, control, and the performance of firms in Indian Industry. Journal of Law and Economics, 42, 209–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chkir, I. E., & Cosset, J. C. (2001). Diversification strategy and capital structure of multinational corporations. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 11, 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chuang, Y. C., & Lin, C. E. (1999). Foreign direct investment, R&D and spillover efficiency: Evidence from Taiwan’s manufacturing firms. Journal of Development Studies, 35(4), 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chudnovsky, D., & López, A. (2004). Transnational corporations’ strategies and foreign trade patterns in MERCOSUR countries in the 1990s. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28(5), 635–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dachs, B., Ebersberger, B., & Loof, H. (2008). The innovative performance of foreign-owned enterprises in small open economies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(4), 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doukas, J. A., & Pantzalis, C. (2003). Geographic diversification and agency costs of debt of multinational firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 9, 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Du, J., & Girma, S. (2007). Finance and firm export in China. Kyklos, 60(1), 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunning, J. H. (2000). The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity. International Business Review, 9(1), 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eiteman, D. K., Stonehill, A. I., & Moffett, H. M. (1998). Multinational business finance (8th ed.). New York, USA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  21. Fung, H., Gao, G. Y., Lu, J., & Mano, H. (2008). Impacts of competitive position on export propensity and intensity: An empirical study of manufacturing firms in China. The Chinese Economy, 41(5), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Global Business Policy Council. (2008). New concerns in an uncertain world: The 2007 A.T. Kearney foreign direct investment confidence index. Chicago: A.T. Kearney Inc.Google Scholar
  23. GoI. (2013). Consolidated FDI policy. New Delhi: Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry.Google Scholar
  24. Goldar, B., Renganathan, V. S., & Banga, R. (2004). Ownership and efficiency in engineering firms: 1990–91 to 1999–2000. Economic and Political Weekly, Review of Industry and Management, 39(5), 441–447.Google Scholar
  25. Greenaway, D., & Kneller, R. (2007). Firm heterogeneity Exporting and foreign direct investment. The Economic Journal, 117(February), F134–F161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gujarati, D. N. (2004). Basic econometrics. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd.Google Scholar
  27. Helleiner, G. K. (1988). Direct foreign investment and manufacturing for export in developing counties: A review of the issues. In S. Dell (Ed.), Policies for development (pp. 123–153). London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hennart, J.-F. (1986). What is internalisation? Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 122, 791–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hennart, J.-F. (2007). The theoretical rationale for a multinationality-performance relationship. Management International Review, 47(3), 423–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hymer, S. H. (1976). The international operation of national firms: A study of direct foreign investment (Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, 1960). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Ito, K. (2002). Are foreign multinationals more efficient? Plant productivity in the thai automobile industry. Working Paper 2002–19, Kitakyushu: International Centre for the Study of East Asian Development.Google Scholar
  32. Jenkins, R. (1989). Transnational corporations, competition and monopoly. Review of Radical Political Economy, 21(4), 12–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jenkins, R. (1990). Comparing foreign subsidiaries and local firms in LDCs: Theoretical issues and empirical evidence. The Journal of Development Studies, 26(2), 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jensen, C. (2002). Foreign direct investment, industrial restructuring and the upgrading of Polish exports. Applied Economics, 34(2), 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jungnickel, R. (2002). Foreign-owned firms: Are they different ?. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kapila, U. (Ed.). (2001). Indian economy since independence. New Delhi: Academic Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Kathuria, V. (2001). Foreign firms, technology transfer and knowledge spillovers to Indian manufacturing firms—A stochastic frontier analysis. Applied Economics, 33(5), 625–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kathuria, V. (2008). Impact of FDI inflows on R&D investment by medium and high-tech firms in India in the post reform period. Transnational Corporations, 17(2), 45–66.Google Scholar
  39. Keshari, P. K. (2011). Comparative performance of foreign controlled and domestic firms in the Indian non-electrical machinery industry: A micro-level study. PhD thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  40. Keshari, P. K. (2012). Efficiency spillovers from FDI in the Indian machinery industry: A firm level study using panel data model. In T. Tripathy et al. (Eds.), A compendium of essays in applied econometrics (pp. 24–55). Hyderabad: IBS-Hyderabad, IFHE University.Google Scholar
  41. Keshari, P. K. (2013). Technological determinants of firm-level technical efficiency in the Indian machinery industry. Innovation and Development, 3(2), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kneller, R., & Pisu, M. (2007). Industrial linkages and export spillover from FDI. World Economy, 30(1), 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kobrin, S. J. (2005). The determinants of liberalization of FDI: Policy in developing countries: A cross-sectional analysis, 1992–2001. Transnational Corporations, 14(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
  44. Kokko, A., Zejan, M., & Tansini, R. (2001). Trade regimes and spillover effects from FDI: Evidence from Uruguay. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 137(1).Google Scholar
  45. Konings, J. (2001). The effects of foreign direct investment on domestic firms: Evidence from firm level panel data in eemerging economies. Economics of Transition, 9, 619–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kumar, N. (1990). Multinational enterprises in India: Industrial distribution, characteristics and performance. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kumar, N. (2005). Liberalisation, foreign direct investment flows and development: Indian experience in the 1990s (pp. 1459–1469). Economic and Political weekly, April 2, 2005.Google Scholar
  48. Kumar, N., & Aggarwal, A. (2005). Liberalization, outward orientation and in-house R&D activity of multinational and local firms: A quantitative exploration for Indian manufacturing. Research Policy, 34(4), 441–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kumar, N., & Saqib, M. (1996). Firm size, opportunities for adaptation and in-house R&D activity in developing countries: The case of Indian manufacturing. Research Policy, 25(5), 712–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kumar, N., & Siddharthan, N. S. (1997). Technology, market structure and internationalization. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Kumari, A. (2007). Liberalisation, TRIPS and technological behaviour of firms in Indian pharmaceutical industry. International Review of Business Research Papers, 3(1), 12–22.Google Scholar
  52. Lall, S. (1978). Transnationals, domestic enterprises and industrial structure in LDCs: A survey. Oxford Economic Papers, 30(2), 217–248.Google Scholar
  53. Lall, S. (1979). Multinationals and market structure in an open developing economy: The case of Malaysia. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 115, 325–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lall, S., & Narula, R. (2004). Foreign direct investment and its role in economic development: Do we need a new agenda? European Journal of Development Research, 16(3), 447–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S. K., & Peng, M. W. (2009). Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mueller, D. C. (1986). Profits in the long run. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mukherjee, D. D. (2008). Credit appraisal, risk analysis and decision making: An integrated approach to on and off balance sheet lending. Mumbai: Snow white Publications Pvt. Ltd.Google Scholar
  58. Myers, S. C. (1984). The capital structure puzzle. Journal of Finance, 30, 575–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Newfarmer. (1983). Multinationals and marketplace magic in the 1980s. In C. P. Kindleberger & D. Audretsch (Eds.), The multinational corporation in the 1980s. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Ngoc, P. M., & Ramstetter, E. D. (2004). foreign multinationals and local firms in Vietnam’s economic transition. Asian Economic Journal, 18(4), 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. OECD. (2005). Internationalisation of R&D: Trends, issues and implications for S&T policies: A review of literature. Presented at the Forum on the Internationalisation of R&D, Brussels.Google Scholar
  62. Oguchi, N., Amdzah, N. A. M., Bakar, Z., Abidin, R. Z., & Shafii, M. (2002). Productivity of foreign and domestic firms in Malaysian manufacturing industry. Asian Economic Journal, 16, 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  64. Pohar, M., Blas, M., & Turk, S. (2004). Comparison of logistic regression and linear discriminant analysis: A simulation study. Metodološki Zvezki, 1(1), 143–161.Google Scholar
  65. Pradhan, J. P. (2002). Liberalization, firm size and R&D performance: A firm level study of Indian pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, 14(4), 647–666.Google Scholar
  66. Ramstetter, E. D. (1999a). Comparisons of foreign multinationals and local firms in Asian manufacturing over Time. Asian Economic Journal, 13(2), 163–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ramstetter, E. D. (1999b). Trade propensities and foreign ownership shares in Indonesian manufacturing. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 35(2), 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ramstetter, E. D. (2003). Labor productivity, wages, nationality, and foreign ownership shares in Thai manufacturing, 1996–2000. Journal of Asian Economics, 14, 861–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ramstetter, E. D., & Matsuoka, A. (2001). Recent trends in large firms in Singapore and Thailand: Did foreign multinationals perform differently than local firms through the crisis? In M. Toida & D. Hiratsuka (Eds.), Projections for Asian Industrializing Region (pp. 79–180). Tokyo: Institute of Developing Economies.Google Scholar
  70. Rasiah, R., & Kumar, A. (2008). Foreign ownership, technological intensities and economic performance of automotive parts firms in India. Asia Pacific Business Review, 14(1), 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rasiah, R. (2004). Exports and technological capabilities: A study of foreign and local firms in the electronics industry in Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. European Journal of Development Research, 16(3), 587–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rasiah, R., & Malakolunthu, A. (2009). Technological intensities and economic performance: A study of foreign and local electronics firms in Malaysia. Asia Pacific Business Review, 15(2), 181–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rasiah, R., & Gachino, G. (2005). Are foreign firms more productive and export- and technology-intensive than local firms in Kenyan manufacturing. Oxford Development Studies, 33(2), 211–227.Google Scholar
  74. Ray, A. S., & Bhaduri, S. (2001). R&D and technological learning in Indian industry: Econometric estimation of research production function. Oxford Development Studies, 29(2), 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ray, P. K., & Rahman, S. (2006). The propensity for local innovation and inter-firm linkages in transnational corporations versus local enterprises in India. Transnational Corporations, 15(2), 71–98.Google Scholar
  76. Ray, S. (2004). MNEs, strategic alliances and efficiency of firms: Emerging trends. Economic and Political Weekly, Review of Industry and Management, 39(5), 434–440.Google Scholar
  77. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2001). Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rugman, A. M. (1981). Inside the multinationals: The economics of internal market. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  79. Sasidharan, S., & Ramnathan, A. (2007). Foreign direct investment and spillovers: Evidence from Indian manufacturing. International Journal of Trade and Global Markets, 1(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Siddharthan, N. S. (2009). Determinants of R&D: Lessons from literature. Working Paper, Forum for Global Knowledge Sharing and Madras School of Economics.Google Scholar
  81. Siddharthan, N. S., & Nollen, S. (2004). MNE affiliation, firm size and exports revisited: A study of information technology firms in India. The Journal of Development Studies, 40(6), 146–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Singh, K., & Hodder, J. E. (2000). Multinational capital structure and financial flexibility. Journal of International Money & Finance, 19(6), 853–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Smeets, R. (2008). Collecting the pieces of the FDI knowledge spillovers puzzle. The World Bank Research Observer, 23(2), 107–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sun, S. (2009). How does FDI affect domestic firms’ exports? Industrial Evidence. World Economy, 32(8), 1203–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sunil, K. A., & Sharma, R. (2013). Innovation by firms in a high and medium-high technology industries: An Indian experience. In Conference Proceedings of VIII Annual International Conference of Forum for Global Knowledge Sharing on Emerging Technologies and Development (pp. 117–144).Google Scholar
  86. Takii, S. (2004). Productivity differentials between local and foreign plants in Indonesian manufacturing, 1995. World Development, 32(11), 1957–1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Takii, S., & Ramstetter, E. D. (2003). Employment, production, labor productivity, and foreign multinationals in Indonesian manufacturing, 1975–2000. Working Paper No. 2003–25, International Centre for the Study of East Asian Development, Kitakyushu.Google Scholar
  88. Takii, S., & Ramstetter, E. D. (2005). Multinational presence and labour productivity differentials in Indonesian manufacturing, 1975–2001”. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 41, 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. UNCTAD. (2014). World investment report 2014: Investing in the SDGs—An action plan. New York and Geneva: United Nations.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wignaraja, G. (2008). foreign ownership, technological capabilities and clothing exports in Sri Lanka. Journal of Asian Economics, 19, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wiwattanakantang, Y. (2001). Controlling shareholders and corporate value: Evidence from Thailand. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 9, 323–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Zaheer, S. (1995). Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IDBI Bank LimitedKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations