The impact of multiple investment purposes on international joint venture (IJV) termination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foreign direct investment (FDI) research on investment purpose has mostly focused on the implication of each purpose rather than the portfolio of multiple purposes within a firm. We suggest a new perspective on investment purpose by considering multiple purposes as real options portfolio. Using real options theory, this study examines the effects of (1) investment purpose portfolio configuration and (2) change in the configuration on the decision to terminate an international joint venture (IJV). Using the real options logic of economic hysteresis, we propose that if an IJV is initiated with a greater depth of portfolio, the venture is less likely to be terminated. We also argue that when the portfolio is more broadly defined, the termination is less likely to happen. Further, we consider the dynamic nature of IJV evolution. Using the logic of growth options, we propose that as the depth of portfolio increases, the IJV is less likely to be terminated. As the breadth of portfolio increases over time, the termination is less likely to happen. The empirical results confirm the hypotheses with the data of 1,111 IJVs located in 11 countries during the period of 1991- 2010.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".