Intellectual Property Protection and Degree of Ownership of Emerging-market Multinational Enterprises: The Moderating Role of Home-country Government Support
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024
Intellectual Property Protection and Degree of Ownership of Emerging-market Multinational Enterprises: The Moderating Role of Home-country Government Support
In this article, we aimed to investigate the influence of the distance of intellectual property protection (IPP) between the home and host countries in the degree of ownership of subsidiaries of emerging-market multinational enterprises (EMNEs) and the moderating role of the financial support of the home-country government in the relationship between the IPP distance and the degree of ownership. We applied a binominal panel probit model to analyze data from 296 subsidiaries of 32 Brazilian multinationals in 40 host countries during the period 2006–2015. The results indicate that Brazilian multinationals tend to opt for full ownership in host countries with a positive IPP distance and that this tendency is maintained with financial support from the home-country government. The results support the importance of formal institutions to EMNEs’ strategic decisions and contribute to the discussion of the importance of IPP for international business. This study seeks to contribute to the literature by analysing the link between the degree of ownership of EMNEs and the distance of IPP between the home country and the host countries, an under-analysed topic. In addition, the present study also contributes to the advancement of research on EMNEs by examining the Latin American context.
AguileraR., CiravegnaL., Cuervo-CazurraA., & Gonzalez-PerezM. (2017). Multilatinas and the internationalization of Latin American firms. Journal of World Business, 52(4), 447–460.
2.
ArslanA., & DikovaD. (2015). Influences of institutional distance and MNEs’ host country experience on the ownership strategy in cross-border M&As in emerging economies. Journal of Transnational Management, 20(4), 231–256.
3.
BarkemaH. G., & VermeulenF. (1998). International expansion through start-up or acquisition: A learning perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 7–26.
4.
Bazel-ShohamO., LeeS. M., AhammadM. F., TarbaS. Y., & AlonI. (2023). IP protection and ownership in cross-border acquisitions. International Business Review, 32(3), 102101.
5.
BoatengA., DuM., WangY., WangC., & AhammadM. F. (2017). Explaining the surge in M&A as an entry mode: Home country and cultural influences. International Marketing Review, 34(1), 87–108.
6.
BlomqvistK., HaraV., KoivuniemiJ., & ÄijöT. (2004). Towards networked R&D management: The R&D approach of Sonera Corporation as an example. R&D Management, 34(5), 591–603.
7.
BrandlK., DarendeliI., & MudambiR. (2019). Foreign actors and intellectual property protection regulations in developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(5), 826–846.
8.
BrouthersK., & HennartJ. (2007). Boundaries of the firm: Insights from international entry mode research. Journal of Management, 33(3), 395–425.
9.
BrunoR. L., CrescenziR., EstrinS., & PetraliaS. (2021). Multinationals, innovation, and institutional context: IPR protection and distance effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 53, 1945–1970.
10.
Candelin-PalmqvistH., SandbergB., & MyllyU. M.(2012). Intellectual property rights in innovation management research: A review. Technovation, 32(9-10), 502–512.
11.
ChariM. D., & ChangK. (2009). Determinants of the share of equity sought in cross-border acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1277–1297.
12.
ChenS. F. S., & HennartJ. F. (2002). Japanese investors’ choice of joint ventures versus wholly-owned subsidiaries in the US: The role of market barriers and firm capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 1–18.
13.
Cuervo-CazurraA. (2016). Multilatinas as sources of new research insights: The learning and escape drivers of international expansion. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 1963–1972.
14.
CuiL., & JiangF. (2009). FDI entry mode choice of Chinese firms: A strategic behavior perspective. Journal of World Business, 44(4), 434–444.
15.
DeBeuleF., EliaS., & PiscitelloL. (2014). Entry and access to competencies abroad: Emerging market firms versus advanced market firms. Journal of International Management, 20(2), 137–152.
16.
DomínguezB., FuentelsazL., GarridoE., & GonzálezM. (2020). Birds of a feather flock together: Ownership in cross-border acquisitions by emerging multinationals. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 28(1), 177–201.
17.
FalasterC., FerreiraM. P., & LiD. (2021). The influence of generalized and arbitrary institutional inefficiencies on the ownership decision in cross-border acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(1), 1724–1749.
18.
FinchelsteinD. (2017). The role of the state in the internationalization of Latin American firms. Journal of World Business, 52(4), 578–590.
19.
FuentelsazL., GarridoE., & GonzálezM. (2020). Ownership in cross-border acquisitions and entry timing of the target firm. Journal of World Business, 55(2), 101046.
20.
GaurA. S., & LuJ. W. (2007). Ownership strategies and survival of foreign subsidiaries: Impacts of institutional distance and experience. Journal of Management, 33(1), 84–110.
21.
GuillénM., & García-CanalE. (2011). The rise of emerging market multinationals. Cambridge University Press.
22.
GuptaR. S. (2018). Risk management and intellectual property protection in outsourcing. Global Business Review, 19(2), 393–406.
23.
HairJ. F., BlackW. C., BabinB. J., & AndersonR. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
24.
HanX., LiuX., XiaT., & GaoL. (2018). Home-country government support, interstate relations and the subsidiary performance of emerging market multinational enterprises. Journal of Business Research, 93, 160–172.
25.
HennartJ. F. (2018). Springing from where? How emerging market firms become multinational enterprises. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 13(3), 568–585.
26.
HernándezV, & NietoM. J. (2015). The effect of the magnitude and direction of institutional distance on the choice of international entry modes. Journal of World Business, 50(1), 122–132.
27.
HoskissonR. E., WrightM., FilatotchevI., & PengM. W. (2013). Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies: The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50(7), 1295–1321.
28.
HurmelinnaP., KyläheikoK., & JauhiainenT. (2007). The Janus face of the appropriability regime in the protection of innovations: Theoretical re-appraisal and empirical analysis. Technovation, 27(3), 133–144.
29.
Ilhan-NasT., OkanT., TatogluE., DemirbagM., & GlaisterK. W. (2018). The effects of ownership concentration and institutional distance on the foreign entry ownership strategy of Turkish MNEs. Journal of Business Research, 93, 173–183.
30.
JayanthiB., SivakumarS. N. V., & HaldarA. (2016). Cross-border acquisitions and host country determinants: Evidence from Indian pharmaceutical companies. Global Business Review, 17(3), 684–699.
31.
JohansonJ., & VahlneJ. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm—a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8, 23–32.
32.
JungJ. C., BeamishP. W., & GoerzenA. (2010). Dynamics of experience, environment and MNE ownership strategy. Management International Review, 50, 267–296.
33.
KashimaE. S., & KashimaY. (1998). Culture and language: The case of cultural dimensions and personal pronoun use. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(3), 461–486.
34.
KediaB., & BilgiliT. (2015). When history matters: The effect of historical ties on the relationship between institutional distance and shares acquired. International Business Review, 24(6), 921–934.
35.
KhouryT., & PengM. (2011). Does institutional reform of intellectual property rights lead to more inbound FDI? Evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean. Journal of World Business, 46(3), 337–345.
36.
KonaraP., BatsakisG., & ShirodkarV. (2022). “Distance” in intellectual property protection and MNEs’ foreign subsidiary innovation performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 39(1), 534–558.
37.
KonaraP., & ShirodkarV. (2018). Regulatory institutional distance and MNCs’ subsidiary performance: Climbing up vs. climbing down the institutional ladder. Journal of International Management, 24(4), 333–347.
38.
KostovaT., & ZaheerS. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 64–81.
39.
LeeY., HemmertM., & KimJ. (2014). What drives the international ownership strategies of Chinese firms? The role of distance and home-country institutional factors in outward acquisitions. Asian Business & Management, 13(3), 197–225.
40.
LichtA. N., GoldschmidtC., & SchwartzS. H. (2007). Culture rules: The foundations of the rule of law and other norms of governance. Journal of Comparative Economics, 35(4), 659–688.
41.
LiouR. S., ChaoM. C. H., & EllstrandA. (2017). Unpacking institutional distance: Addressing human capital development and emerging-market firms’ ownership strategy in an advanced economy. Thunderbird International Business Review, 59(3), 281–295.
42.
LiouR., ChaoM., & YangM. (2016). Emerging economies and institutional quality: Assessing the differential effects of institutional distances on ownership strategy. Journal of World Business, 51(4), 600–611.
43.
Lopez-MoralesJ. S. (2018). Multilatinas: A systematic literature review. Review of International Business and Strategy, 28(3), 331–357.
44.
LuJ., LiuX., WrightM., & FilatotchevI. (2014). International experience and FDI location choices of Chinese firms: The moderating effects of home country government support and host country institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(4), 428–449.
45.
LuoY., & TungR. L. (2007). International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 481–498.
46.
LuoY., XueQ., & HanB. (2010). How emerging market governments promote outward FDI: Experience from China. Journal of World Business, 45(1), 68–79.
47.
MalhotraS., LinX., & FarrellC. (2016). Cross-national uncertainty and level of control in cross-border acquisitions: A comparison of Latin American and US multinationals. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 1993–2004.
48.
MarraG., & RadiceR. (2011). Estimation of a semiparametric recursive bivariate probit model in the presence of endogeneity. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 39(2), 259–279.
49.
MaskusK. (2000). Intellectual property rights and foreign direct investment (Working Paper 22). Centre for International Economic Studies.
50.
MathewsJ. A. (2006). Dragon multinationals: New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(1), 5–27.
51.
MauryaG., & SahuS. (2022). Cross-country variations in economic complexity: The role of individualism. Economic Modelling, 115, 105961.
52.
MayC. (2006). The world intellectual property organization. New Political Economy, 11(3), 435–445.
53.
MeyerK., DingY., LiJ., & ZhangH. (2014). Overcoming distrust: How state-owned enterprises adapt their foreign entries to institutional pressures abroad. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1), 1005–1028.
54.
MuellerM. J., HendriksG., & SlangenA. H. (2017). How the direction of institutional distance influences foreign entry mode choices: An information economics perspective. In Distance in international business: Concept, cost and value (Vol. 12, pp. 271–296). Emerald Publishing Limited.
55.
NicholsA. (2007). Causal inference with observational data. The Stata Journal, 7(4), 507–541.
56.
PintoC., FerreiraM., FalasterC., FleuryM., & FleuryA. (2017). Ownership in cross-border acquisitions and the role of government support. Journal of World Business, 52(4), 533–545.
57.
PowellK. S., & LimE. (2017). Investment motive as a moderator of cultural-distance and relative knowledge relationships with foreign subsidiary ownership structure. Journal of Business Research, 70(1), 255–262.
58.
PuttitanunT. (2006). Intellectual property rights and multinational firms modes of entry. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 11(1), 269–273.
59.
QuerD., & AndreuR. (2021). International strategies of Chinese tourism MNEs: The impact of the Belt and Road Initiative and state ownership. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 13(2), 518–535.
60.
RugmanA. M., NguyenQ. T., & WeiZ. (2014). Chinese multinationals and public policy. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 9(2), 205–215.
61.
SadeghiV. J., Nkongolo-BakendaJ. M., AndersonR. B., & DanaL. P. (2019). An institution-based view of international entrepreneurship: A comparison of context-based and universal determinants in developing and economically advanced countries. International Business Review, 28(6), 1–16.
62.
SauerS., BalestroM. V., & SchneiderS. (2018). The ambiguous stance of Brazil as a regional power: Piloting a course between commodity-based surpluses and national development. Globalizations, 15(1), 32–55.
63.
ShirodkarV., & KonaraP. (2017). Institutional distance and foreign subsidiary performance in emerging markets: Moderating effects of ownership strategy and host-country experience. Management International Review, 57(2), 179–207.
64.
SolisM. (2003). The politics of self-restraint: FDI subsidies and Japanese mercantilism. World Economy, 26(2), 153–180.
65.
SongS. (2017). Ownership increase in international joint ventures: The within-and across-country flexibility perspective. Management International Review, 57, 93–120.
66.
StaigerD., & StockJ. H. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica, 65(3), 557–586.
67.
TabelliniG. (2008). Institutions and culture. Journal of the European Economic Association, 6(2-3), 255–294.
68.
WeiZ., & NguyenQ. T. (2017). Subsidiary strategy of emerging market multinationals: A home country institutional perspective. International Business Review, 26(5), 1009–1021.
69.
WuJ., ZhouN., ParkS. H., KhanZ., & MeyerM. (2022). The role of FDI motives in the link between institutional distance and subsidiary ownership choice by emerging market multinational enterprises. British Journal of Management, 33(3), 1371–1394.
70.
XuD., PanY., & BeamishP. W. (2004). The effect of regulative and normative distances on MNE ownership and expatriate strategies. MIR: Management International Review, 44(3), 285–307.
71.
YangJ. (2005). Knowledge integration and innovation: Securing new product advantage in high technology industry. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 16(1), 121–135.
72.
YangY., XuJ., AllenJ. P., & YangX. (2022). Strategic asset-seeking foreign direct investments by emerging market firms: The role of institutional distance. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 18(12), 6081–6101.
73.
ZhangL., & ShanX. (2023). The use of intellectual property right bundles and firm performance in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1–13.
74.
ZhaoM. (2006). Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection. Management Science, 52(8), 1185–1199.
