We examine the effects of family control on entry mode choice by integrating Transaction Costs Economics with the family business literature. Using a dataset of 951 foreign investments, we investigate the role of family involvement on entry modes. After controlling for endogeneity, we find that if both the investing and the local firm are family firms, forming a joint venture is preferred, while if only the investing firm is a family firm, a wholly owned subsidiary is more likely. Results show that family control has an important impact on entry modes, an hypothesis that has not yet been fully explored.
AbdellatifM.AmannB.JaussaudJ. (2010) Family versus nonfamily business: A comparison of international strategies. Journal of Family Business Strategy1(2): 108–116.
2.
AndersonE.GatignonH. (1986) Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies17(3): 1–26.
3.
AngristJ. D.PischkeJ.-S. (2009) Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
AroraA.FosfuriA.GambardellaA. (2001) Markets for technology: The economics of innovation and corporate strategy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
ArregleJ.-L.DuranP.HittM. A.van EssenM. (2017) Why is family firms’ internationalization unique? A meta-analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice41(5): 801–831.
6.
ArregleJ.-L.HittM. A.SirmonD. G.VeryP. (2007) The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies44(1): 73–95.
7.
BalakrishnanS.KozaM. P. (1993) Information asymmetry, adverse selection and joint-ventures: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization20(1): 99–117.
8.
BanalievaE. R.EddlestonK. A. (2011) Home-region focus and performance of family firms: The role of family vs non-family leaders. Journal of International Business Studies42(8): 1060–1072.
9.
BarontiniR.CaprioL. (2006) The effect of family control on firm value and performance: Evidence from continental Europe. European Financial Management12(5): 689–723.
10.
BertrandM.JohnsonS.SamphantharakK.SchoarA. (2008) Mixing family with business: A study of Thai business groups and the families behind them. Journal of Financial Economics88(3): 466–498.
11.
BoellisA.MariottiS.MinichilliA.PiscitelloL. (2016) Family involvement and firms’ establishment mode choice in foreign markets. Journal of International Business Studies47(8): 929–950.
12.
BrouthersK. D.HennartJ.-F. (2007) Boundaries of the firm: Insights from international entry mode research. Journal of Management33(3): 395–425.
13.
BrouthersK. D.NakosG. (2004) SME entry mode choice and performance: A transaction cost perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice28(3): 229–247.
14.
CaprioL.CrociE.Del GiudiceA. (2011) Ownership structure, family control, and acquisition decisions. Journal of Corporate Finance17(5): 1636–1657.
15.
ChiaoY.-C.LoF.-Y.YuC.-M. (2010) Choosing between wholly-owned subsidiaries and joint ventures of MNCs from an emerging market. International Marketing Review27(3): 338–365.
16.
ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.SharmaP. (2005) Trends and directions in the development of a strategic management theory of the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice29(5): 555–575.
17.
ChrismanJ. J.MemiliE.MisraK. (2014) Nonfamily managers, family firms, and the winner’s curse: The influence of noneconomic goals and bounded rationality. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice38(5): 1103–1127.
18.
ChuaJ. H.ChrismanJ. J.ChangE. P. C. (2004) Are family firms born or made? An exploratory investigation. Family Business Review17(1): 37–54.
19.
ChuaJ. H.ChrismanJ. J.SharmaP. (1999) Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice23(4): 19–39.
20.
CorbettaG.SalvatoC. (2004) Self-serving or self-actualizing? Models of man and agency costs in different types of family firms: A commentary on “Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: Conceptual issues and exploratory evidence”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice28(4): 355–362.
21.
CuypersI. R. P.ErtugG.HennartJ.-F. (2015) The effects of linguistic distance and lingua franca proficiency on the stake taken by acquirers in cross-border acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies46(4): 429–442.
22.
D’AngeloA.MajocchiA.BuckT. (2016) External managers, family ownership and the scope of SME internationalization. Journal of World Business51(4): 534–547.
23.
DeephouseD. L.JaskiewiczP. (2013) Do family firms have better reputations than non-family firms? An integration of socioemotional wealth and social identity theories. Journal of Management Studies50(3): 337–360.
24.
De MassisA.ChiricoF.KotlarJ.NaldiL. (2014) The temporal evolution of proactiveness in family firms: The horizontal S-curve hypothesis. Family Business Review27(1): 35–50.
25.
De MassisA.FrattiniF.MajocchiA.PiscitelloL. (2018) Family firms in the global economy: Toward a deeper understanding of internationalization determinants, processes, and outcomes. Global Strategy Journal8(1): 3–21.
26.
DemsetzH.LehnK. (1985) The structure of corporate ownership: Causes and consequences. Journal of Political Economy93(6): 1155–1177.
27.
DikovaD.BrouthersK. (2016) International establishment mode choice: Past, present and future. Management International Review56(4): 489–530.
28.
DikovaD.Van WitteloostuijnA. (2007) Foreign direct investment mode choice: Entry and establishment modes in transition economies. Journal of International Business Studies38(6): 1013–1033.
29.
DowD.KarunaratnaA. (2006) Developing a multidimensional instrument to measure psychic distance stimuli. Journal of International Business Studies37(5): 578–602.
30.
DyerJ. H. (1997) Effective interfirm collaboration: How firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value. Strategic Management Journal18(7): 535–556.
31.
FaccioM.LangL. H. P. (2002) The ultimate ownership of Western European corporations. Journal of Financial Economics65(3): 365–395.
32.
FeranitaF.KotlarJ.De MassisA. (2017) Collaborative innovation in family firms: Past research, current debates and agenda for future research. Journal of Family Business Strategy8(3): 137–156.
33.
FernándezZ.NietoM. J. (2006) Impact of ownership on the international involvement of SMEs. Journal of International Business Studies37(3): 340–351.
34.
FilatotchevI.StrangeR.PiesseJ.LienY.-C. (2007) FDI by firms from newly industrialised economies in emerging markets: Corporate governance, entry mode and location. Journal of International Business Studies38(4): 556–572.
35.
GedajlovicE. R.CarneyM. (2010) Markets, hierarchies, and families: Toward a transaction cost theory of the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice34(6): 1145–1172.
36.
GentryR.DalzielT.JamisonM. A. (2013) Who do start-up firms imitate? A study of new market entries in the CLEC industry. Journal of Small Business Management51(4): 525–538.
37.
Gomes-CasseresB. (1989) Ownership structure of foreign subsidiaries: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization11(1): 1–25.
38.
GrossmanS. J.HartO. D. (1986) The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of vertical and lateral integration. Journal of Political Economy94(4): 691–719.
39.
HennartJ.-F. (1991) The transaction costs theory of joint ventures: An empirical study of Japanese subsidiaries in the United States. Management Science37(4): 483–497.
40.
HennartJ.-F. (2009) Down with MNE-centric theories! Market entry and expansion as the bundling of MNE and local assets. Journal of International Business Studies40(9): 1432–1591.
41.
HennartJ.-F.ShengH. H.PimentaG. (2015) Local complementary inputs as drivers of entry mode choices: The case of US investments in Brazil. International Business Review24(3): 466–475.
42.
HennartJ.-F.SlangenA. (2015) Yes, we really do need more entry mode studies! A commentary on shaver. Journal of International Business Studies46(1): 114–122.
43.
HittM. A.LeeH.-U.YucelE. (2002) The importance of social capital to the management of multinational enterprises: Relational networks among Asian and western firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management19(2): 353–372.
44.
HosmerD. W.LemeshowS. (2004) Applied logistic regression, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
45.
JohansonJ.VahlneJ.-E. (2009) The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies40(9): 1411–1431.
46.
KanoL.VerbekeA. (2018) Family firm internationalization: Heritage assets and the impact of bifurcation bias. Global Strategy Journal8(1): 158–183.
47.
KaoM. S.KuoA. (2017) The effect of uncertainty on FDI entry mode decisions: The influence of family ownership and involvement in the board of directors. Journal of Family Business Strategy8(4): 224–236.
48.
KaoM.-S.KuoA.ChangY.-C. (2013) How family control influences FDI entry mode choice. Journal of Management and Organization19(4): 367–385.
49.
KotlarJ.De MassisA. (2013) Goal setting in family firms: Goal diversity, social interactions, and collective commitment to family-centered goals. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice37(6): 1263–1288.
50.
KuoA.KaoM.-S.ChangY.-C.ChiuC.-F. (2012) The influence of international experience on entry mode choice: Difference between family and non-family firms. European Management Journal30(3): 248–263.
51.
LeitterstorfM. P.RauS. B. (2014) Socioemotional wealth and IPO underpricing of family firms. Strategic Management Journal35(5): 751–760.
52.
LiJ.LamK.QianG. (2001) Does culture affect behavior and performance of firms? The case of joint ventures in China. Journal of International Business Studies32(1): 115–131.
53.
LuoX.ChungC.-N.SobczakM. (2009) How do corporate governance model differences affect foreign direct investment in emerging economies?Journal of International Business Studies40(3): 444–467.
54.
MajocchiA.D’AngeloA.ForlaniE.BuckT. (2018) Bifurcation bias and exporting: Can foreign work experience be an answer? Insight from European family SMEs. Journal of World Business53(2): 237–247.
55.
MajocchiA.MayrhoferU.CampsJ. (2013) Joint ventures or non-equity alliances? Evidence from Italian firms. Management Decision51(2): 380–395.
56.
MajocchiA.StrangeR. (2012) International diversification: The impact of ownership structure, the market for corporate control and board independence. Management International Review52(6): 879–900.
57.
MakinoS.NeupertK. E. E. (2000) National culture, transaction costs, and the choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary. Journal of International Business Studies31(4): 705–713.
58.
MemiliE.ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H. (2011) Transaction costs and outsourcing decisions in small- and medium-sized family firms. Family Business Review24(1): 47–61.
59.
MemiliE.ChrismanJ. J.ChuaJ. H.ChangE. P. C.KellermannsF. W. (2011) The determinants of family firms’ subcontracting: A transaction cost perspective. Journal of Family Business Strategy2(1): 26–33.
60.
MemiliE.MisraK.ChrismanJ. J.WelshD. H. B. (2017) Internationalisation of publicly traded family firms: A transaction cost theory perspective and longitudinal analysis. International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development16(1–2): 80–108.
61.
MillerD.Le Breton-MillerI. (2005) Managing for the long run: Lessons in competitive advantage from great family businesses, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
62.
MillerD.MinichilliA.CorbettaG. (2013) Is family leadership always beneficial?Strategic Management Journal34(5): 553–571.
63.
PollakR. A. (1985) A transaction cost approach to families and households. Journal of Economic Literature23(2): 581–608.
64.
PuckJ. F.HoltbrueggeD.MohrA. T. (2009) Beyond entry mode choice: Explaining the conversion of joint ventures into wholly owned subsidiaries in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of International Business Studies40(3): 388–404.
65.
PukallT. J.CalabròA. (2013) The internationalization of family firms: A critical review and integrative model. Family Business Review27(2): 103–125.
66.
PutnamR. D. (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy6(1): 65–78.
67.
RugmanA. M.VerbekeA. (1990) Global corporate strategy and trade policy, London: Croom Helm.
68.
RugmanA. M.VerbekeA. (2001) Subsidiary specific advantages in multinational enterprises. Strategic Management Journal22(3): 237–250.
69.
SemadeniM.WithersM. C.CertoT. (2014) Friends, acquaintances, or strangers? Partner selection in R&D alliances. Strategic Management Journal35(7): 1070–1079.
70.
SharmaP.ChrismanJ. J. (1999) Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice23(3): 11–28.
71.
ShimizuK.HittM. A.VaidyanathD.PisanoV. (2004) Theoretical foundations of cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A review of current research and recommendations for the future. Journal of International Management10(3): 307–353.
72.
SlangenA. H. L.DikovaD. (2014) Planned marketing adaptation and multinationals’ choices between acquisitions and greenfields. Journal of International Marketing22(2): 68–88.
73.
SlangenA. H. L.HennartJ.-F. (2008) Do multinationals really prefer to enter culturally distant countries through greenfields rather than through acquisitions? The role of parent experience and subsidiary autonomy. Journal of International Business Studies39(3): 472–490.
74.
StockJ. H.YogoM. (2005) Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In: AndrewsD. W. K.StockJ. H. (eds) Identification and inference for econometric models: Essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 80–108.
75.
SwinthR. L.VintonK. L. (1993) Do family-owned businesses have a strategic advantage in international joint ventures?Family Business Review6(1): 19–30.
76.
VerbekeA.KanoL. (2010) Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) and the family firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice34(6): 1173–1182.
77.
VerbekeA.KanoL. (2012) The transaction cost economics theory of the family firm: Family-based human asset specificity and the bifurcation bias. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice36(6): 1183–1205.
78.
VillalongaB.AmitR. (2010) Family control of firms and industries. Financial Management39(3): 863–904.
79.
YiuD.MakinoS. (2002) The choice between joint venture and wholly owned subsidiary: An institutional perspective. Organization Science13(6): 667–683.
80.
ZellwegerT. M.DehlenT. (2012) Value is in the eye of the owner: Affect infusion and socioemotional wealth among family firm owners. Family Business Review25(3): 280–297.
81.
ZellwegerT. M.NasonR. S.NordqvistM. (2012) From longevity of firms to transgenerational entrepreneurship of families: Introducing family entrepreneurial orientation. Family Business Review25(2): 136–155.
82.
ZhaoH.LuoY.SuhT. (2004) Transaction cost determinants and ownership-based entry mode choice: A meta-analytical review. Journal of International Business Studies35(6): 524–544.
