Ownership strategies in knowledge-intensive cross-border acquisitions: comparing Chinese and Indian MNEs

[thumbnail of APJM_2018_final.pdf]
Preview
Text - Accepted Version
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.
| Preview

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Scalera, V. G., Mukherjee, D. and Piscitello, L. (2020) Ownership strategies in knowledge-intensive cross-border acquisitions: comparing Chinese and Indian MNEs. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 37. pp. 155-185. ISSN 1572-9958 doi: 10.1007/s10490-018-9616-6

Abstract/Summary

Drawing on the comparative ownership framework, we perform a comparative analysis of Chinese and Indian multinational enterprises (MNEs)’ ownership strategies in knowledge-intensive cross-border acquisitions (CBAs). Specifically, we claim that due to their lower comparative ownership advantage, and the consequent higher information asymmetry, Chinese MNEs are more cautious (than Indian MNEs) in their ownership strategy. We rely on a dataset of acquisitions undertaken by high and medium-high tech Chinese and Indian MNEs worldwide during the period of 2000-2014. Results confirm that Chinese MNEs prefer lower equity control than their Indian counterparts. However, such a preference for lower equity decreases with higher home-host institutional distance and host country-specific previous experience. These factors do not seem to modify the ownership preference of Indian MNEs in the same way.

Altmetric Badge

Item Type Article
URI https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/79856
Identification Number/DOI 10.1007/s10490-018-9616-6
Refereed Yes
Divisions Henley Business School > International Business and Strategy
Publisher Springer
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar