IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eab/tradew/22010.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does FDI Mode of Entry Matter for Economic Performance? - The Case of Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Seong-Bong Lee

    (Korean Institute for International Economic Policy)

  • Mikyung Yun

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Seong-Bong Lee & Mikyung Yun, 2006. "Does FDI Mode of Entry Matter for Economic Performance? - The Case of Korea," Trade Working Papers 22010, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:eab:tradew:22010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eaber.org/node/22010
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert E. Lipsey, 2002. "Home and Host Country Effects of FDI," NBER Working Papers 9293, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria Cipollina & Giorgia Giovannetti & Filomena Pietrovito & Alberto F. Pozzolo, 2012. "FDI and Growth: What Cross-country Industry Data Say," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(11), pages 1599-1629, November.
    2. Dierk Herzer & Philipp Hühne & Peter Nunnenkamp, 2014. "FDI and Income Inequality—Evidence from Latin American Economies," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(4), pages 778-793, November.
    3. Alessia LO TURCO, 2005. "Integration Agreements, FDI and Structural Reforms. An Analysis of the Determinants of European Investment in Latin America," Working Papers 229, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    4. Abayomi Toyin Onanuga Olaronke Toyin Onanuga, 2016. "Do Financial and Trade Openness Lead to Financial Sector Development in Nigeria?," Zagreb International Review of Economics and Business, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 19(2), pages 57-68, November.
    5. Sjoholm, Fredrik & Lipsey, Robert E, 2006. "Foreign Firms and Indonesian Manufacturing Wages: An Analysis with Panel Data," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(1), pages 201-221, October.
    6. Juan Carluccio & Thibault Fally, 2008. "Multinationals, technological incompatibilities and spillovers," Working Papers halshs-00586040, HAL.
    7. Bickenbach, Frank & Liu, Wan-Hsin & Li, Guoxue, 2015. "The EU-China bilateral investment agreement in negotiation: Motivation, conflicts and perspectives," Kiel Policy Brief 95, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    8. Waldkirch, Andreas & Ofosu, Andra, 2010. "Foreign Presence, Spillovers, and Productivity: Evidence from Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1114-1126, August.
    9. Gilad Aharonovitz & James Miller, 2008. "Are Net FDI Flows and Reversals of Capital Flows a Result of Output Growth?," Working Papers 2009-05, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
    10. Lee, Hsiu-Yun & Lin, Kenneth S. & Tsui, Hsiao-Chien, 2009. "Home country effects of foreign direct investment: From a small economy to a large economy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1121-1128, September.
    11. Yuko Hashimoto & Konstantin M. Wacker, 2012. "The Role of Risk and Information for International Capital Flows: New Evidence from the SDDS," Courant Research Centre: Poverty, Equity and Growth - Discussion Papers 124, Courant Research Centre PEG.
    12. Natasha Agarwal & Chris Milner & Alejandro Riaño, 2011. "Credit Constraints and FDI Spillovers in China," Discussion Papers 11/21, University of Nottingham, GEP.
    13. Nikolaj Malchow-Møller & Jakob R. Munch & Jan Rose Skaksen, 2012. "Do Immigrants Affect Firm-Specific Wages?," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 114(4), pages 1267-1295, December.
    14. Sourafel Girma & Holger Görg, 2016. "Evaluating the foreign ownership wage premium using a difference-in-differences matching approach," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES AND HOST COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT Volume 53: World Scientific Studies in International Economics, chapter 2, pages 17-32, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Argentino Pessoa, 2008. "Multinational Corporations, Foreign Investment, and Royalties and License Fees: Effects on Host-Country Total Factor Productivity," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 28, pages 6-31, December.
    16. Hossain, Sharif M. & Hosoe, Nobuhiro, 2020. "Welfare and equity impacts of cross-border factor mobility in Bangladesh: A general equilibrium analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 172-184.
    17. Laura Alfaro, 2017. "Gains from Foreign Direct Investment: Macro and Micro Approaches," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 30(Supplemen), pages 2-15.
    18. Beata K. Bierut & Piot Dybka, 2019. "Institutional determinants of export competitiveness among the EU countries: evidence from Bayesian model averaging," KAE Working Papers 2019-043, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.
    19. Yilmaz Bayar & Marius Dan Gavriletea, 2018. "Foreign Direct Investment Inflows and Financial Development in Central and Eastern European Union Countries: A Panel Cointegration and Causality," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-13, May.
    20. Kun-Ming Chen & Shu-Fei Yang, 2013. "Impact of Outward Foreign Direct Investment on Domestic R&D Activity: Evidence from Taiwan's Multinational Enterprises in Low-wage Countries," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 17-38, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    FDI; modes of entry; greenfield; M&A; P&A;
    All these keywords.

    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

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eab:tradew:22010. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Shiro Armstrong (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaberau.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.