Country, Industry And Firm Size Effects On Foreign Subsidiary Strategy.An Example Of Five Cee Countries
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.
|Date of creation:||2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (+372 7) 376 310
Fax: (+372 7) 376 312
Web page: http://www.mtk.ut.ee
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- 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.
- Eduardo Borensztein & Jose De Gregorio & Jong-Wha Lee, 1995. "How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth?," NBER Working Papers 5057, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Magnus Blomstrom & Ari Kokko, 2003.
"The Economics of Foreign Direct Investment Incentives,"
NBER Working Papers
9489, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Blomström, Magnus & Kokko, Ari, 2003. "The Economics of Foreign Direct Investment Incentives," CEPR Discussion Papers 3775, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Blomström, Magnus & Kokko, Ari, 2003. "The Economics of Foreign Direct Investment Incentives," EIJS Working Paper Series 168, The European Institute of Japanese Studies.
- 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.
- 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.
- Magnus Blomstrom & Fredrik Sjoholm, 1998.
"Technology Transfer and Spillovers? Does Local Participation with Multinationals Matter?,"
NBER Working Papers
6816, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Blomstrom, Magnus & Sjoholm, Fredrik, 1999. "Technology transfer and spillovers: Does local participation with multinationals matter?1," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4-6), pages 915-923, April.
- 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.
- Blomström, Magnus & Sjöholm, Fredrik, 1998. "Technology Transfer and Spillovers: Does Local Participation with Multinationals Matter?," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 268, Stockholm School of Economics.
- 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.
- Balasubramanyam, V N & Salisu, M & Sapsford, David, 1996.
"Foreign Direct Investment and Growth in EP and IS Countries,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(434), pages 92-105, January.
- V N Balasubramanyam & M Salisu & David Sapsford., . "Foreign Direct Investment and Growth in EP and IS Countries," Working Papers ec18/94, Department of Economics, University of Lancaster.
- 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.
- 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 - Economics Institute, Prague.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.