Does FDI Mode of Entry Matter for Economic Performance? - The Case of Korea
AbstractThis paper attempted to empirically test the proposition that unlike the typical concern against M&A, there is little difference in firm performance by modes of FDI entry. If this is the case, there is no reason to prefer other modes of entry over M&A. The major contribution of this paper is that it calls into question the current classification scheme of mode of FDI entry, on which government tax incentives are based. This paper corrects for this, reclassifying the modes of entry through detailed analysis of each investment case to reflect as much as possible actual complexity of the cross border investment deal. The empirical part of this paper confirms, even after reclassifying the mode of entry into three groups, that there are indeed no significant differences between greenfield, M&A and P&A in terms of corporate performance (measured by various profitability measures) and subsequent investment behavior (measured by changes in total assets). As shown through the case studies, the main reason behind this result is that at the time of entry, investing multinationals and target domestic companies employ complex deals, mixing various modes within a single investment case. Therefore, when the impact analysis is made at the level of the firm, which is a reasonable thing to do, it is not surprising to find that there are no differences between the various modes. Further, sequential investment may take different forms from the original mode of entry, making it difficult to alienate economic impact of each part of a single investment deal over time. An important policy implication of this result is that there is no logical foundation to provide tax incentives on the basis of mode of FDI entry, which assumes that different modes of entry will have differential economic impact on the host country. The tax incentives for FDI, which are granted for the FDI of an acquisition of newly issued stocks, should be changed. Especially, the tax incentives for the FDI in the mode of P&A should be abolished, because there is no difference between the modes of P&A and M&A in terms of economic substance.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by East Asian Bureau of Economic Research in its series Trade Working Papers with number 22010.
Date of creation: Jan 2006
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: JG Crawford Building #13, Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government, Australian National University, ACT 0200
Web page: http://www.eaber.org
More information through EDIRC
FDI; modes of entry; greenfield; M&A; P&A;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- F21 - International Economics - - International Factor Movements and International Business - - - International Investment; Long-Term Capital Movements
- F23 - International Economics - - International Factor Movements and International Business - - - Multinational Firms; International Business
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Robert E. Lipsey, 2002. "Home and Host Country Effects of FDI," NBER Working Papers 9293, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shiro Armstrong).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.