Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Country, Industry And Firm Size Effects On Foreign Subsidiary Strategy.An Example Of Five Cee Countries

Contents:

Author Info

  • Katrin Männik
  • Helena Hannula
  • Urmas Varblane

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to analyse the contribution of FDI to knowledge and technology transfer into five CEE economies (Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia) by examining the influences of country, industry, firm-size and foreign ownership on the choice of the subsidiaries’ strategies. Only the autonomy of subsidiaries across business functions is focused in the current analysis. Proceeding from the results of the analysis one can see many differences in the autonomy of subsidiary. Subsidiaries from the more developed CEE countries Slovenia and Hungary had the highest scores for the autonomy, especially in terms of management and financial autonomy.Analyses supported also hypothesis that minority foreign owned subsidiaries are more autonomous than majority owned, even taken into account all other variables. More productive manufacturing industries have more autonomous subsidiaries only in the case of more developed countries (Slovenia and Hungary). Only in Poland, Hungary and Estonia there exist more autonomous subsidiaries among large firms. In Slovenia and Slovakia the smaller firms have higher autonomy. Generally no some common pattern of subsidiary mandates could be presented in all five CEE. The role of subsidiary is above all industry and firm size specific. Drawing parallels between the received results about the autonomy scores for business functions and three subsidiary roles, `World/Regional Mandate` strategy is most pronounced in Hungary and less extent in Slovenia, `Specialised Contributor` in Slovenia, Estonia and Slovakia, and `Local Implementer` in Poland.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://www.mtk.ut.ee/sites/default/files/mtk/RePEc/mtk/febpdf/febawb27.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu (Estonia) in its series University of Tartu - Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper Series with number 27.

as in new window
Length: 63 pages
Date of creation: 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:mtk:febawb:27

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Narva mnt 4, 51009 Tartu
Phone: (+372 7) 376 310
Fax: (+372 7) 376 312
Email:
Web page: http://www.mtk.ut.ee
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Blomström, Magnus & Sjöholm, Fredrik, 1998. "Technology, Transfer and Spillovers: Does Local Participation With Multinationals Matter?," CEPR Discussion Papers 2048, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  2. Borensztein, E. & De Gregorio, J. & Lee, J-W., 1998. "How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth?1," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 115-135, June.
  3. James H Taggart, 1997. "Autonomy and Procedural Justice: A Framework for Evaluating Subsidiary Strategy," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(1), pages 51-76, March.
  4. Yuko Kinoshita, 2000. "R&D and technology spillovers via FDI: Innovation and absorptive capacity," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp163, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economic Institute, Prague.
  5. Balasubramanyam, V N & Salisu, M & Sapsford, David, 1996. "Foreign Direct Investment and Growth in EP and IS Countries," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(434), pages 92-105, January.
  6. Blomström, Magnus & Kokko, Ari, 2003. "The Economics of Foreign Direct Investment Incentives," CEPR Discussion Papers 3775, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  7. Julian Birkinshaw, 1996. "How Multinational Subsidiary Mandates are Gained and Lost," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(3), pages 467-495, September.
  8. Boris Majcen & Slavo Radosevic & Matija Rojec, 2003. "FDI Subsidiaries and Industrial Integration of Central Europe: Conceptual and Empirical Results," IWH Discussion Papers 177, Halle Institute for Economic Research.
  9. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
  10. Peter Nunnenkamp, Julius Spatz, 2003. "Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: How Relevant Are Host-country and Industry Characteristics?," Kiel Working Papers 1176, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
  11. Kendall Roth & Allen J Morrison, 1992. "Implementing Global Strategy: Characteristics of Global Subsidiary Mandates," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(4), pages 715-735, December.
  12. Luiz de Mello, 1997. "Foreign direct investment in developing countries and growth: A selective survey," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(1), pages 1-34.
  13. Yuko Kinoshita, 2000. "R&D and Technology Spillovers via FDI: Innovation and Absorptive Capacity," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series 349, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  14. Sumantra Ghoshal & Christopher A Bartlett, 1988. "Creation, Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(3), pages 365-388, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Urmas Varblane & Katrin Männik & Helena Hannula, 2005. "Autonomy and Performance of Foreign Subsidiaries in five Transition Countries," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series wp780, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
  2. Urmas Varblane & Katrin Männik & Helena Hannula, 2005. "Autonomy And Performance Of Foreign Subsidiaries In Transition Countries," University of Tartu - Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper Series 38, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu (Estonia).
  3. Kokko, Ari & Kravtsova, Victoria, 2006. "Innovative Capability In Mnc Subsidiaries: Evidence From Four European Transition Economies," EIJS Working Paper Series 224, The European Institute of Japanese Studies.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mtk:febawb:27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Tonu Roolaht).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.