How do multinational firms from emerging countries use acquisitions in advanced economies to upgrade their capabilities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Debate is ongoing on whether firms from emerging economies are catching up technologically and will be ultimately able to produce new technology. Such debate has been primarily fed by the recent boom of acquisitions of firms located in advanced countries by emerging multinationals enterprises (EMNEs) (UNCTAD 2006). Extant research has indeed documented that EMNEs extensively use acquisitions to address their competitive disadvantage (Child and Rodrigues 2005) by furthering up the technological ladder and upgrading their resources and capabilities (Guillén and Garcıa-Canal 2009; Rui and Yip 2008). These scholars, however, have provided empirical evidence on and discussed upgrading via acquisitions primarily with reference to a generic strategy of capabilities upgrading (e.g. Luo and Tung 2007: Makino, Lau and Yeh 2002). \n\tWe seek to advance this literature by asking whether different technology-intensive EMNEs follow different capability upgrading strategies when acquiring advanced country targets. In particular, we distinguish between a dual capability upgrading strategy which encompasses the simultaneous upgrading of technological and complementary (e.g. managerial and organizational) capabilities, and a pure complementary capability upgrading strategy. To this end, we investigate whether manufacturing and services EMNEs operating in different technology-intensive sectors select advanced country firms in the same or higher technology-intensive sectors. We assume that within the same technology-intensive sector advanced country firms tend to have superior complementary assets as a result of their home country advantage (Erramilli, Agarwal and Kim 1997), while advanced country targets in higher technology-intensity sectors own both higher technological and complementary capabilities. Thus, EMNEs follow a dual capability upgrading strategy when they simultaneously upgrade their technological and complementary capability by acquiring higher technology-intensive advanced country firms, and a pure complementary capability upgrading strategy by acquiring advanced country firms at the same technology-intensive level. An EMNE acquiring an advanced country firm within the same technology-intensive sector may indeed acquire new technological knowledge without, however, technologically upgrading. \nWe rely on a large database of over 600 mergers and acquisitions undertaken by EMNEs from Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) in Europe, North-America (USA and Canada) and Japan between 1985 and 2008, and classified according to the level of technology intensity of acquirer and target. \tOur findings suggest that medium technology-intensive EMNEs follow a dual capability upgrading strategy as they already have a critical mass of competences and resources. EMNEs that are at the top and bottom of the technological ladder pursue a pure complementary capability upgrading strategy. Low technology-intensive EMNEs are yet unable to climb up the technological ladder, while high technology-intensive EMNEs are willing to address their competitive disadvantage by gaining complementary capabilities and resources (Barney and Zajac 1994). We found that these patterns are consistent across manufacturing and services. \n\tThe study offers two contributions. First, it adds to the literature on EMNEs by providing a finely-grained analysis of different capability upgrading strategies via acquisitions based upon the level of technological-intensity of acquirer and target. To this literature, it also offers a comparative analysis of manufacturing and services acquisitions. Studies on EMNEs have indeed primarily focused on manufacturing (e.g. Knoerich 2010; Van-Hoesel 1999), while our knowledge on service EMNEs is still scant. Second, it extends the literature on international knowledge sourcing by pointing out the need to consider south-north patterns.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».