Does FDI Mode of Entry Matter for Economic Performance? - The Case of Korea
This 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.
|Date of creation:||Jan 2006|
|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
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.:
- Robert E. Lipsey, 2002. "Home and Host Country Effects of FDI," NBER Working Papers 9293, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eab:tradew:22010. 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: (Shiro Armstrong)
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.