97 臺大管理論叢 2018/8 第 28 卷第 2 期 97-128 DOI:10.6226/NTUMR.201808_28(2).0004 國際化與績效之分量迴歸分析 Internationalization and Performance: An Application of Quantile Regressions 摘 要 國際化與績效之研究一直未能獲得一致之結論,我們認為不一致的結果導因於不同規 模廠商在整體結構上存有相當程度的差異,這些差異導致國際化對於廠商的績效產生 不同的影響。本研究根據經濟部統計處 (2006) 的「製造業對外投資實況調查」之問卷 資料,應用分量迴歸模型分析國際化對台灣製造業經營績效的影響,實證結果顯示: 國際化對不同規模企業之邊際貢獻呈現非線性之關係;其中,國際化深度對規模越大 企業之影響越大,國際化經驗對小型企業之貢獻明顯高於大企業,而國際化廣度有益 於大企業之績效表現,但無助於中型企業,甚至不利於小型企業。 【關鍵字】國際化、績效、企業規模、分量迴歸 Abstract As previous studies have yet obtained a consistent relationship between internationalization and performance, we propose that the contributions from internationalization on performance may vary with the scale of firms. This study employs quantile regression to analyze the influence of internationalization on the performance of Taiwan’s manufacturing firms. Empirical results indicate that the relationship between internationalization and performance is non-linear. First, the larger the firm size, the higher the marginal effects are for the depth of internationalization. Second, the contribution of international experience on small firms is significantly higher than that on large firms. Third, the breadth of internationalization is only positively related to the performance of large firms, but is not significant to medium firms, and is even negative upon small firms. 【Keywords】 internationalization, performance, firm size, quantile regression 李 揚 / 國立高雄大學經營管理研究所教授 Yang Li, Professor, Institute of Business and Management, National University of Kaohsiung 吳錦錩 / 中國文化大學國際企業管理學系助理教授 Ching-Chang Wu, Assistant Professor, Department of International Business, Chinese Culture University 劉怡君 / 國立台灣大學國際企業學系暨研究所博士生 Yi-Chun Liu, Ph.D. Student, Department of International Business, National Taiwan University 劉華順 / 渣打國際商業銀行財富管理處投資顧問 Hua-Shun Liu, Investment Advisor, Wealth Management Department, Standard Chartered Bank Received 2015/1, Final revision received 2015/12
32
Embed
國際化與績效之分量迴歸分析review.management.ntu.edu.tw/paper/4204-P.pdf國際化與績效之分量迴歸分析 100 Yeung (1991) 及Kotabe, Sirnivasan, and Aulakh (2002)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
As previous s tudies have yet obta ined a consis tent re la t ionship between internationalization and performance, we propose that the contributions from internationalization on performance may vary with the scale of firms. This study employs quantile regression to analyze the influence of internationalization on the performance of Taiwan’s manufacturing firms. Empirical results indicate that the relationship between internationalization and performance is non-linear. First, the larger the firm size, the higher the marginal effects are for the depth of internationalization. Second, the contribution of international experience on small firms is significantly higher than that on large firms. Third, the breadth of internationalization is only positively related to the performance of large firms, but is not significant to medium firms, and is even negative upon small firms.【Keywords】 internationalization, performance, firm size, quantile regression
李 揚 / 國立高雄大學經營管理研究所教授Yang Li, Professor, Institute of Business and Management, National University of Kaohsiung
吳錦錩 /中國文化大學國際企業管理學系助理教授Ching-Chang Wu, Assistant Professor, Department of International Business, Chinese Culture
University
劉怡君 / 國立台灣大學國際企業學系暨研究所博士生Yi-Chun Liu, Ph.D. Student, Department of International Business, National Taiwan University
劉華順 / 渣打國際商業銀行財富管理處投資顧問Hua-Shun Liu, Investment Advisor, Wealth Management Department, Standard Chartered BankReceived 2015/1, Final revision received 2015/12
國際化與績效之分量迴歸分析
98
壹、前言
企業為求掌握日益龐大與蓬勃發展的全球市場商機,無不致力於將其產品、服
務及價值鏈活動推向國際市場,以期獲得規模經濟、分散經營風險與拓展市場等競
爭優勢。然而,國際化有助於提升企業經營績效嗎?截至目前的研究,尚未取得一
致的結論,我們認為可能原因在於不同規模企業之資源稟賦、組織結構、管理系統、
投資動機等皆不相同,導致國際化對不同規模企業之貢獻不盡相同。由於過去研究
皆利用迴歸模型分析國際化對績效之「平均行為」的影響,忽略了整體條件分配的
異質性,特別是分配兩端之較小規模與較大規模企業之間的差異,故而無法完整分
析國際化對不同規模企業之影響;故本研究採用分量迴歸模型探討國際化對不同規
模企業的貢獻,以期較完整的描述國際化與績效之間的關係。
過去有關國際化的研究成果相當豐碩,許多研究發現國際化對績效有正向影響 (Grant, 1987; Daniels and Bracker, 1989; 李揚、郭憲章與楊淨麟,2005;Li, Qian, and Qian, 2012; Hsu, Lien, and Chen, 2013; 2015),然而有些則認為它們之間為負向關係 (Collins, 1990; Geringer, Tallman, and Olsen, 2000; LiPuma, 2012),亦有文獻指出兩者存在更複雜的非線性關係 (Hitt, Hoskisson, and Kim, 1997; Contractor, Kundu, and Hsu, 2003; Qian, Li, Li, and Qian, 2008; Qian, Khoury, Peng, and Qian, 2010; Assaf, Josiassen, Ratchford, and Barros, 2012; Chen, Jiang, Wang, and Hsu, 2014; Olmos and Díez-Vial, 2015)。此外,大部份之國際化研究僅針對大型企業進行分析,但藉由國際化使企業成長不單是大型企業的策略選擇,對於在國際市場中亦扮演著重要角色
的中小企業也非常重要 (Acs and Audretsch, 1988; Oviatt and Mcdougall, 1994; Acs, Morck, Shaver, and Yeung, 1997; Lu and Beamish, 2001; Qian, 2002; Hsu, Chen, and Cheng, 2013)。於是許多學者開始對中小企業著手進行研究,例如 Hsu, W. et al. (2013) 發現國際化有助於台灣中小企業的發展;Lu and Beamish (2001) 及Qian (2002) 分別以日本與美國中小企業為樣本,不過前者研究發現國際化與績效為 U型關係,後者卻得到倒 U型的結果。為何國際化與績效的相關研究會有不一致的結果?何種因素造成國際化對企業
化與績效呈現正向關係 (Gande, Schenzler, and Senbet, 2009; Daniels and Bracker, 1989; Qian, Yang, and Wang, 2003; Al-Shammari, O’Brien, and AlBusaidi, 2013; Hsu, C. et al., 2013; Hsu, W. et al., 2013)。國際化雖然能夠帶來諸多利益,然而亦可能會因為文化與環境不熟悉的學習成
本、市場與經營環境風險、溝通協調的管理成本等對績效產生負面的影響 (Geringer, Beamish, and DaCosta, 1989; Hill and Hoskisson, 1987);此外,Hitt et al. (1997) 根據交易成本觀點,認為國際化增加了交易對象的不確定性、複雜性與資訊不對稱,因
而增加協商及談判成本;Collins (1990)、Geringer et al. (2000) 及 LiPuma (2012) 發現企業的國際化與績效呈現負向關係。De Jong and van Houten (2014) 的實證研究指出:若企業營運在文化較相似的國家,則國際化程度對績效有正向之貢獻,可是若在異
質性較大的國家發展,則二者之關係為負;Chen and Tan (2012) 發現中國的跨國企業在大中華經濟圈 (The Greater China Region) 的國際化績效最好。不過,Morck and
國際化與績效之分量迴歸分析
100
Yeung (1991) 及 Kotabe, Sirnivasan, and Aulakh (2002) 以美國多國籍企業為樣本之研究發現,兩者並未存在顯著的關係,亦即國際化所帶來的利益與成本會約略相互抵
消,不會明顯的影響企業的經營績效。
上述之研究假設國際化與績效為線性關係,有些學者認為兩者之間的關係應該
是更複雜的曲線關係。例如,有些研究認為企業國際化的擴張可以帶來立即性的正
面效果,然而國際化的涉入程度超越某一門檻值後,會因企業溝通協調成本大幅提
高、資源與能力的成長速度不及海外規模擴張等因素,使國際化對績效帶來負向的
效果,因此國際化與績效呈現倒 U型關係 (Geringer et al., 1989; Qian, 2002; Chen et al., 2014)。相對於前述的倒 U型關係,亦有文獻主張二者為 U型關係 (Ruigrok and
Wagner, 2003; Chen and Hsu, 2010; Assaf et al., 2012)。Ruigrok and Wagner (2003) 根據組織學習理論,認為在國際化初期企業因不熟悉國外市場的文化與環境產生較高
的學習成本,造成負向績效的結果,隨著企業適應國外市場,擴大經營規模取得規
模經濟後,國際化對績效將會帶來正向幫助,因此國際化與績效呈現 U型關係;Hsu et al. (2015) 發現研發國際化與績效的關係亦為U型曲線。Contractor et al. (2003) 綜合兩類型的曲線關係,認為過去研究的不一致的原因,係導因於未探究到國際化
績效表現的全貌,只捕捉到先遞減、後遞增、再遞減之三階段水平 S型曲線的一部分;不過,Chiang and Yu (2005) 以台灣 1998到 2002年非金融業為研究樣本,發現國際化程度與績效則是呈現先遞增、後遞減、再遞增的倒 S型曲線關係;Olmos and Díez-Vial (2015) 的研究指出:若企業採行漸近式國際化策略,則二者為 U型關係;若為加速型國際化策略,則二者為 S型曲線。
Gomes and Ramaswamy (1999) 及 Hitt et al. (1997) 認為一般所採用之國際化指標只能檢視企業依賴國外市場的程度,並不能反應企業國際化的全貌;例如企業的海
導致溝通與協調的管理成本上升 (Gomes and Ramaswamy, 1999; Tallman and Li, 1996);而且企業營運銷售範圍所涉及的國家越多,整合各營業據點的交易成本越高,而且在資訊傳遞上的需求也會愈來愈多 (Hitt, Hoskisson, and Ireland, 1994)。Hitt et al. (1997) 與 Qian et al. (2008) 的研究發現地理多角化與績效會呈現先上升後下降的倒 U型關係;然而,Lu and Beamish (2001) 認為中小企業與大型企業不論在資源、所有權、組織結構或管理系統上多有不同,導致國際化廣度對不同規模企業營運績
效之影響不盡相同,他們以日本中小企業為研究樣本發現企業 FDI國家數目與績效有 U型關係;Hsu et al. (2015) 發現研發國際化廣度與績效的關係亦為 U型曲線。國際化經驗有助於瞭解跨文化差異,降低跨國經營風險與環境不熟悉的學習成
本,Hitt et al. (1994)及 Contractor and Kundu (1998) 認為此有助於獲得適當的資源、知識及技能,且可提升國際經營管理能力及承擔國際經營風險。Welch and Loustarinen (1988) 指出企業國際化是依附於內部人員所投入的國際知識、經驗和技能而發展的。許多研究亦發現國際化經驗有助於提升企業績效 (Li et al., 2012; Hsu, C. et al., 2013; Hsu, W. et al., 2013; Hsu et al., 2015)。
參、研究假說與研究方法
一、研究假說
有關國際化與績效的關係並未達成一致的結論,可能導因於國際化對於不同規
模之企業的貢獻不盡相同。規模較大之企業擁有較充足的資源與專屬優勢,如品牌、
人力資源、通路與專業管理技能 (Dunning, 2000; Kotabe et al., 2002),且在資本市場上的融通能力比中小企業強,並能夠容納較細緻的分工,發揮生產與行銷上的規模
(Kojima, 1973; Li and Hu, 2002),但這種生產要素成本優勢容易隨著地主國之總體經濟發展而縮減;相對而言,大企業對外投資則多為擴大海外市場規模之擴張型投資 (Hymer, 1960; 陳忠榮與楊志海,1999),有助延伸企業競爭優勢於海外市場,擴大產品在地主國的市場佔有率。此外,中小企業組織與制度較有彈性,具備高度的
國際化與績效之分量迴歸分析
102
應變能力與政策執行能力,在生產與銷售均具有高度的彈性,可隨市場需求變化而
調整,利於因應海外市場經營環境之變動;大企業則因組織過於僵化,過度依賴階
層式的管理制度,易使內部組織官僚化,導致較小的經營彈性。Lu and Beamish (2001) 和 Qian (2002) 的研究亦指出,不同規模的企業不論在資源稟賦、所有權、組織結構、管理能力、投資動機等皆不相同,這些差異造成企業在產業位置與相對競
爭優勢的不同,進而對國際化效果產生不同的影響。
早期學者大多以單一項目之指標衡量企業國際化程度 (Buckley, Dunning, and Pearce, 1978; Michel and Shaked, 1986; Grant, 1987; Daniels and Bracker, 1989; Geringer et al., 1989; Collins, 1990),單一項目指標雖然易於使用,但由於研究者使用衡量指標不同而過於混雜,並無助於建立標準的準則,亦無法說明衡量的效度 (Sullivan, 1994)。因此,學者陸續提出多重項目指標,希望可以改善單一項目指標之缺失,進而增加解釋企業國際化程度之效度(Welch and Luostarinen, 1988; Sullivan, 1994; Gomes and Ramaswamy, 1999; 李揚等,2005)。本研究以國際化深度、國際化廣度及國際化經驗等構面衡量企業國際化策略:國際化深度衡量企業整體對
許多研究常以銷售額衡量企業規模 (Hitt et al., 1997; Lu and Beamish, 2004; Qian, 2002; Kotabe et al., 2002),因此不同分量下之應變數可視為不同的企業規模,其中越高的分量表示規模越大;其二是模型所估計的係數為解釋變數對銷售成長率的邊
企業之國際化深度的效果,而且愈靠近二端的誤差愈大。再者,表 3之四組跨分量的 F檢定 (0.01 vs. 0.99、0.05 vs. 0.95、0.1 vs. 0.9、0.25 vs. 0.75),皆在 1%的顯著水準下,否決國際化深度貢獻相同之虛無假說 (Null Hypothesis; H0),亦即企業規模越大,國際化深度之邊際貢獻愈大。綜合以上分析的結果,本研究之假說 H1獲得支持。
平方法皆顯著大於零,亦即國際化經驗有助於企業績效的提升,此與 Delios and Beamish (2001) 及 Contractor and Kundu (1998) 研究結果一致。圖 1亦顯示從左尾至中位數分量之間頗為平坦,且分量迴歸估計係數之信賴區間與最小平方法相互重
疊,不過在中位數分量至大規模分量處有遞減的趨勢,但在右尾極大規模分量卻又
略顯回升。此外,表3之四組跨分量的F檢定指出,僅有 (0.05 vs. 0.95) 及 (0.1 vs. 0.9) 兩組存在顯著的差異,極端企業規模 (0.01 vs. 0.99) 與四分位距間 (0.25 vs. 0.75) 則無明顯不同。整體而言,我們的實證結果發現國際化經驗對企業的銷售成長之貢獻
角化海外投資)對不同企業規模之影響,表 2之 OLS估計係數顯著為負,此與Geringer et al. (1989)、Qian (2002) 、鄭政秉等 (2006)及 Chang and Wang (2007)之研究發現一致,亦即企業在進行國際化時,應採用相關多角化策略;然而,圖 1顯示分量迴歸係數隨著企業規模分量增加而遞增,表示企業規模愈大,非相關產品多角
Internationalization and Performance: An Application of Quantile Regressions
SummaryFirms that are dedicated to promoting their products, services, and value chains to
international markets are doing so in order to seize continually growing and strong developing business opportunities. Global success allows firms to have competitive advantages, such as greater economies of scale, decreased operational risks, more market access, and etc. However, does internationalization really help increase business performance? Many studies have found that internationalization has a positive effect on performance (Grant, 1987; Daniels and Bracker, 1989; Li, Qian, and Qian, 2012; Hsu, Lien, and Chen, 2013, 2015), while others argue that there is a negative relation between internationalization and performance (Collins, 1990; Geringer, Tallman, and Olsen, 2000; LiPuma, 2012). Some in the literature further indicate that these two concepts have a more complicated non-linear relationship (Hitt, Hoskisson, and Kim, 1997; Contractor, Kundu, and Hsu, 2003; Qian, Li, Li, and Qian, 2008; Qian, Khoury, Peng, and Qian, 2010; Assaf, Josiassen, Ratchford, and Barros, 2012; Chen, Jiang, Wang, and Hsu, 2014; Olmos and Díez-Vial, 2015). In addition, previous studies of internationalization are mainly based on samples of large firms, yet many small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) also play important roles in foreign markets (Acs and Audretsch, 1988; Oviatt and Mcdougall, 1994; Acs, Morck, Shaver, and Yeung (1997); Lu and Beamish, 2001; Qian, 2002). Lu and Beamish (2001) found that the relationship between internationalization and performance is U-shaped for SMEs in Japan, while Qian (2002) claimed that it is inversely U-shaped for SMEs of the U.S. So far, there is no common conclusion on this topic. Hence, empirical research studies are still unable to achieve any consistent conclusion about the effect of internationalization on enterprises’ performance.
One of the possible reasons for the inconsistent conclusions may be that firms with different operating scales have different resources, organizational structure, management systems, and investment targets. In other words, operating scales may limit firms to
Yang Li, Professor, Institute of Business and Management, National University of Kaohsiung
Ching-Chang Wu, Assistant Professor, Department of International Business, Chinese Culture University
Yi-Chun Liu, Ph.D. Student, Department of International Business, National Taiwan University
Hua-Shun Liu, Investment Advisor, Wealth Management Department, Standard Chartered Bank
國際化與績效之分量迴歸分析
118
completely adopt internationalization strategies, which could explain why we observe inconsistent conclusions on the influence of internationalization on performance. This study therefore hypothesizes that the contributions of internationalization on performance may vary with firms’ operating scales. Hence, the appropriate internationalization strategies and configurations should vary with sizes of firms.
Internationalization is a wide-ranging and complex business behavior. Applying just a single indicator to measure internationalization will likely gain a partial property of internationalization on performance of firms. This is another possible reason why the relationship between the two does not achieve a consistent conclusion. We therefore construct multi-dimensional indices to measure degrees of internationalization: the depth of internationalization, the breadth of internationalization, and the experience of internationalization. The depth of internationalization measures a firm’s dependence on the foreign market. The breadth of internationalization reflects the degree of a firm’s geographic diversification. The experience of internationalization represents the knowledge a firm has accumulated from previous operations abroad. Hence, we propose the following hypotheses to be empirically investigated by the data of Taiwanese manufacturing firms.H1: The marginal contribution from the depth of internationalization is greater for
larger firms.H2: The marginal benefit from the breadth of internationalization is greater for
larger firms.H3: The marginal effect of international experience to larger firms is smaller than
that to smaller companies.
Taiwan is an open economy with a small domestic market and few natural resources, consequently, our economic development must depend heavily on international trade. For instance, the value of exports accounted for 73.66 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and that of exports plus imports was 140.13 percent of GDP in 2010. It is well known that Taiwan’s economy has been growing at a rapid pace with per capita income growing from US$196 in 1952 to US$18,603 in 2010. Lucas (1993) argues that the economic miracle of Taiwan comes from the rapid accumulation of human capital to push economic growth, which results from learning-by doing through a huge volume of exports. Taiwan’s FDI took off in 1986 and most FDI in recent years have been
119
臺大管理論叢 第28卷第2期
undertaken by export-oriented firms (Chen, 1992). These firms ventured abroad ever since the value of Taiwan’s currency (NT$) and the domestic wage rate skyrocketed simultaneously, both undermining their competitiveness (van Hoesel, 1996). According to information published by the Investment Commission in the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan's government approved of only US$374.58 million in overseas investment in 1987, while it surged to US$62.5 billion by the end of 2010. Hence, the dataset of Taiwan’s manufacturing firms is appropriate to test the hypotheses, the relationship between internationalization and performance.
Previous studies employed the maximum likelihood (ML) method or the ordinary least squares (OLS) method to estimate the contribution of internationalization on performance. However, they only provide location measures of mean, representing the “averaging” behavior or “central” tendency of a conditional distribution; hence, they are unable to explain the behaviors of firms with small and/or large operating scales (i.e., the right-tail or left-tail behaviors of the distribution). Therefore, the entire conditional distribution needs to be fully explored to investigate the relationship between internationalization on performance. The quantile regression method offers multiple vectors of parametric estimators corresponding to each conditional quantile of a firm’s operating scale distribution. Hence, it can better completely describe the relationship between internationalization and performance. Moreover, the corresponding estimators are robust to outliers, skewed tails, or truncated distribution. Taiwan’s SMEs have the competitive advantage of flexibility and adaptability to confront capital shortages, energy crises, and depressions. After rapid economic growth since the 1960s, the SMEs still constitute 97.68 percent of all businesses in Taiwan as of 2010. The share of sales and exports by SMEs were 29.55 percent and 16.16 percent, but they accounted for 50.65 percent of exports and even 78.06 percent of employment. Hence, a quantile regression is very appropriate for analyzing the relationship between internationalization and performance of Taiwan’s manufacturing firms.
The dataset, collected from “Report on Foreign Investment Strategies of the Manufactures”, conducted by Department of Statistics, Ministry of Economic Affairs, consists of 1,151 manufacturing firms. Empirical results show that all hypotheses are supported and that the marginal contribution of internationalization to different sizes of firms exhibits a non-linear relationship. More specifically, the larger the firm size the higher the marginal effects are for the depth of internationalization, while the contribution
國際化與績效之分量迴歸分析
120
of international experience on small firms is significantly higher than that on large firms. Thus, whether a firm is small or big, it should continually reinforce the depth of its internationalization and international experience. On the other hand, the contribution from the breadth of internationalization to larger firms is positive, its effect on medium-sized companies is not significant, and it is even unfavorable to the performance of small businesses. We may conclude that firms under different operating scales need distinct international strategies.
121
臺大管理論叢 第28卷第2期
參考文獻
李揚、郭憲章與楊淨麟,2005,企業國際化與經營績效關係之研究-亞洲金融風暴分析,中山管理評論,第十三卷第一期:49-73。(Li, Yang, Kuo, Hsien-Chang, and Yang, Jing-Ling. 2005. Internationalization and operating performance: An Analysis of the Asian financial crisis. Sun Yat-sen Management Review, 13 (1): 49-73.)
陳忠榮與楊志海,1999,台灣對外直接投資的決定因素-擴張型與防禦型的比較,經濟論文叢刊,第二十七卷第二期:215-240。(Chen, Jong-Rong, and Yang, Chih-Hai. 1999. Determinants of Taiwanese foreign direct investment: Comparison between expansionary FDI and defensive FDI. Taiwan Economic Review, 27 (2): 215-240.)
莊家彰與管中閔,2005,台灣與美國股市價量關係的分量迴歸分析,經濟論文,第三十三卷第四期:379-404。(Chuang, Chia-Chang, and Kuan, Chung-Ming. 2005. A quantile regression analysis of return-volume relation: Evidence from the Taiwan and U.S. institute of economics. Academia Economic Papers, 33 (4): 379-404.)
經濟部統計處,2006,製造業對外投資實況調查報告,台北,台灣:經濟部統計處出版品。(Department of Statistics, Ministry of Economic Affairs. 2006. Report on Foreign Investment Strategies of the Manufactures. Taipei, Taiwan:
Department of Statistics, Ministry of Economic Affairs.)趙雨潔、鄭鈞云、湯明哲與黃逸平,2017,以實質選擇權觀點探討探索性與利用性
活動對公司績效之影響:中介效果模型,臺大管理論叢,第二十七卷第三
期:109-136。(Chao, Yu-Chieh, Cheng, Chun-Yun, Tang, Ming-Je, and Huang, Yi-Ping. 2017. The real options perspective on exploration, exploitation, and firm performance: Test of a mediation model. NTU Management Review, 27 (3): 109-136.)
鄭政秉、李揚與黃晉偉,2006,多角化海外投資對台灣製造業經營效率的影響,管理與系統,第十三卷第三期:315-331。(Cheng, Cheng-Ping, Li, Yang, and Huang, Chin-Wei. 2006. FDI diversification and performance in Taiwan’s manufacture sector. Journal of Management & Systems, 13 (3): 315-331.)
Acs, Z. J., and Audretsch, D. B. 1988. Innovation in large and small firms: An empirical analysis. American Economic Review, 78 (4): 678-690.
Acs, Z. J., Morck, R. K., Shaver, J. M., and Yeung, B. 1997. The internationalization of small and medium-sized enterprises: A policy perspective. Small Business Economics, 9 (1): 7-20.
國際化與績效之分量迴歸分析
122
Al-Shammari, H. A., O’Brien, W. R., and AlBusaidi, Y. H. 2013. Firm internationalization and IPO firm performance: The moderating effects of firm ownership structure. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 23 (3): 242-261.
Assaf, A. G., Josiassen, A., Ratchford, B. T., and Barros, C. P. 2012. Internationalization and performance of retail firms: A Bayesian dynamic model. Journal of Retailing, 88 (2): 191-205.
Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J., and Almeida, J. G. 2000. Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (5): 909-1014.
Buckley, P. J., Dunning, J. H., and Pearce, R. D. 1978. The influence of firm size, industry nationality, and degree of multinationality in the growth and profitability of the world’s largest firms. Review of World Economics, 114 (2): 243-257.
Caves, R. E. 1971. International corporation: The industrial economics of foreign investment. Economica, 38 (149): 1-27.
Chang, S. C., and Wang, C. F. 2007. The effect of product diversification strategies on the relationship between international diversification and firm performance. Journal of World Business, 42 (1): 61-79.
Chen, H., and Hsu, C. W. 2010. Internationalization, resource allocation and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 39 (7): 1103-1110.
Chen, S., and Tan, H. 2012. Region effects in the internationalization-performance relationship in Chinese firms. Journal of World Business, 47 (1): 73-80.
Chen, T. 1992. Determinants of Taiwan’s direct foreign investment: The case of a newly industrializing country. Journal of Development Economics, 39 (2): 397-407.
Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Wang, C., and Hsu, C. W. 2014. How do resources and diversification strategy explain the performance consequences of internationalization?. Management Decision, 52 (5): 897-915.
Chiang, Y. C., and Yu, T. H. 2005. The relationship between multinationality and the performance of Taiwan firms. Journal of American Academy of Business, 6 (1): 130-134.
Cohen, W. M., and Klepper, S. 1996. A reprise of size and R&D. The Economic Journal, 106 (437): 925-951.
Collins, J. M. 1990. A market performance comparison of U.S. firms active in domestic, developed and developing countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 21 (2): 271-287.
123
臺大管理論叢 第28卷第2期
Contractor, F. J. 2007. Is international business good for companies? The evolutionary or multi-stage theory of internationalization vs. the transaction cost perspective. Management International Review, 47 (3): 453-475.
Contractor, F. J., and Kundu, S. K. 1998. Modal choice in a world of alliances: Analyzing organization forms in the international hotels sector. Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (2): 325-358.
Contractor, F. J., Kundu, S. K., and Hsu, C. C. 2003. A three-stage theory of international expansion: The link between multinationality and performance in the service sector. Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (1): 5-18.
Damanpour, F. 1992. Organizational size and innovation. Organization Studies, 13 (3): 375-402.
Daniels, J. D., and Bracker, J. 1989. Profit Performance: Do foreign operations make a difference?. Management International Review, 29 (1): 46-56.
De Jong, G., and van Houten, J. 2014. The impact of MNE cultural diversity on the internationalization-performance relationship: Theory and evidence from European multinational enterprises. International Business Review, 23 (1): 313-326.
Delios, A., and Beamish, P. W. 2001. Survival and profitability: The roles of experience and intangibles assets in foreign subsidiary performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5): 1028-1038.
Dunning, J. H. 2000. The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity. International Business Review, 9 (2): 163-190.
Gande, A., Schenzler, C., and Senbet, L. W. 2009. Valuation effects of global diversification. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (9): 1515-1532.
Geringer, J. M., Beamish, P. W., and DaCosta, R. C. 1989. Diversification strategy and internationalization: Implications for MNE performance. Strategic Management Journal, 10 (2): 109-119.
Geringer, J. M., Tallman, S., and Olsen, D. M. 2000. Product and international diversification among Japanese multinational firms. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (1): 51-80.
Ghobadian, A., and Gallear, D. N. 1996. Total quality management in SMEs. Omega, 24 (1): 83-106.
Gomes, L., and Ramaswamy, K. 1999. An empirical examination of the form of the relationship between multinationality and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (1): 173-187.
國際化與績效之分量迴歸分析
124
Grant, R. M. 1987. Multinationality and performance among British manufacturing companies. Journal of International Business Studies, 18 (3): 79-89.
Hill, C. W. L., and Hoskisson, R. E. 1987. Strategy and structure in the multiproduct firm. Academy of Management Review, 12 (2): 331-341.
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., and Ireland, R. D. 1994. A mid-range theory of the interactive effects of international and product diversification on innovation and performance. Journal of Management, 20 (2): 297-326.
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., and Kim, H. 1997. International diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (4): 767-798.
Horst, T. 1972. Firm and industry determinants of the decision to invest abroad: An empirical study. Review of Economics and Statistics, 54 (3): 258-266.
Hsu, C. W., Lien, Y. C., and Chen, H. 2013. International ambidexterity and firm performance in small emerging economies. Journal of World Business, 48 (1): 58-67.. 2015. R&D internationalization and innovation performance. International Business Review, 24 (2): 187-195.
Hsu, W. T., Chen, H. L., and Cheng, C. Y. 2013. Internationalization and firm performance of SMEs: The moderating effects of CEO attributes. Journal of World Business, 48 (1): 1-12.
Hymer, S. H. 1960. The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Direct Foreign Investment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kim, W. C., Hwang, P., and Burgers, W. P. 1989. Global diversification strategy and corporate profit performance. Strategic Management Journal, 10 (1): 45-57.. 1993. Multinationals’ diversification and the risk-return trade-off. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (4): 275-286.
Koenker, R., and Bassett, G. 1978. Regression quantile. Econometrica, 46 (1): 33-50.Koenker, R. W., and d’Orey, V. 1987. Algorithm AS 229: Computing regression quantiles.
Applied Statistics, 36 (3): 383-393.Kogut, B. 1985. Designing global strategies: Profiting from operational flexibility. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 27 (1): 27-38.Kojima, K. 1973. A macroeconomic approach to foreign direct investment. Hitotsubashi
Journal of Economics, 14 (1): 1-21.
125
臺大管理論叢 第28卷第2期
Kotabe, M., Srinivasan, S. S., and Aulakh, P. S. 2002. Multinationality and firm performance: The moderating role of R&D and marketing capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (1): 79-97.
Kuo, H. C., and Li, Y. 2003. A dynamic decision model of SMEs’ FDI. Small Business Economics, 20 (3): 219-231.
Lall, S. 1980. Monopolistic advantages and foreign involvement by U.S. manufacturing industry. Oxford Economic Papers, 32 (1): 102-122.
Li, L., Qian, G., and Qian, Z. 2012. Early internationalization and performance of small high-tech “born-globals”. International Marketing Review, 29 (5): 536-561.
Li, Y., and Hu, J. L. 2002. Technical efficiency and location choice of small and medium-sized enterprises. Small Business Economics, 19 (1): 1-12.
LiPuma, J. A. 2012. Internationalization and the IPO performance of new ventures. Journal of Business Research, 65 (7): 914-921.
Lu, J. W., and Beamish, P. W. 2001. The internationalization and performance of SMEs. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (6-7): 565-586.. 2004. International diversification and firm performance: The S-curve hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (4): 598-609.
Lucas, R. E. 1993. Making a Miracle. Econometrica, 61 (2): 251-272.Michel, A., and Shaked, I. 1986. Multinational corporations vs. domestic corporations:
Financial performance and characteristics. Journal of International Business Studies, 17 (3): 89-100.
Miller, K. D. 1992. A framework for integrated risk management in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 23 (2): 311-331.
Morck, R., and Yeung, B. 1991. Why investors value multinationality. The Journal of Business Research, 64 (2): 165-187.
Olmos, F. M., and Díez-Vial, I. 2015. Internationalization pathways and the performance of SMEs. European Journal of Marketing, 49 (3-4): 420-443.
Oviatt, B. M., and McDougall, P. P. 1994. Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (1): 45-61.
Qian, G. 2002. Multinationality, product diversification, and profitability of emerging US small- and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing, 17 (6): 611-633.
國際化與績效之分量迴歸分析
126
Qian, G., Khoury, T. A., Peng, M. W., and Qian, Z. 2010. The performance implications of intra- and inter-regional geographic diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (9): 1018-1030.
Qian, G., Li, L., Li, J., and Qian, Z. 2008. Regional diversification and firm performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (2): 197-214.
Qian, G., Yang, L., and Wang, D. 2003. Does multinationality affect profit performance? An empirical study of U.S. SMEs. Journal of General Management, 28 (4): 37-46.
Riahi-Belkaoui, A. 1998. The effect of the internationalization on firm performance. International Business Review, 7 (3): 315-321.
Rothmuller, L. 2003. Does FDI Matter for Trade in Brazil? An Application of Gravity Model (working paper).
Ruigrok, W., and Wagner, H. 2003. Internationalization and performance: An organizational learning perspective. Management International Review, 43 (1): 63-83.
Rumelt, R. P. 1982. Diversification strategy and profitability. Strategic Management Journal, 3 (4): 359-369.
Salter, M. S., and Weinhold, W. A. 1981. Choosing compatible acquisitions. Harvard Business Review, 59 (1): 117-127.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London, UK: Routledge.Sullivan, D. 1994. Measuring the degree of internationalization of a firm. Journal of
International Business Studies, 25 (2): 325-342.Tallman, S., and Li, J. 1996. Effects of international diversity and product diversity on the
performance of multinational firms. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (1): 179-196.
Tang, D. 2003. The effect of European integration on trade with the APEC countries: 1981-2000. Journal of Economics and Finance, 27 (2): 262-278.
van Hoesel, R. 1996. Taiwan foreign investment and the transformation of the economy. In Dunning, J., and Narula, R. (Eds.), Foreign Direct Investment and Government: Catalysts for Economic Restructuring: 280-315. London, UK: Routledge.
Welch, L., and Luostarinen, R. 1988. Internationalization: Evolution of a concept. Journal of General Management, 14 (2): 34-55.
127
臺大管理論叢 第28卷第2期
作者簡介*李揚美國愛荷華州立大學統計碩士、經濟博士,現職為國立高雄大學經營管理研究
所教授。主要研究領域為國際直接投資、生產力與效率、金融機構管理。論文曾刊
登於 Journal of Productivity Analysis、Small Business Economics、Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Economics、The Developing Economies、Applied Economics、The Service Industry Journal、Journal of Statistics and Management Systems、臺大管理論叢、管理與系統、中山管理評論、應用經濟論叢等期刊。