联系我们

论文查询结果	返回搜索

论文编号：	12334
作者编号：	1120146007
上传时间：	2021/3/11 0:03:10
中文题目：	中国跨国公司在尼日利亚的国际化:前因过程和结果
英文题目：	The internationalization of Chinese Multinational firms in Nigeria: Antecedents, Processes and Outcomes
指导老师：	林润辉
中文关键字：	企业国际化；新兴市场跨国公司；尼日利亚；中国跨国公司；进入模式
英文关键字：	Internationalization; Emerging Market Multinationals; Nigeria; Chinese MNCs; Entry Mode
中文摘要：	目前各个学科已有的涉及国际商务的研究中，针对非洲情景的研究较少（Alon等，2018）。例如根据评估非洲采购与供应链研究的报告，通过对40种期刊在40年期间的审查，发现仅发表了19篇关于非洲大陆供应链研究的文章。研究认为造成这一现象的主要原因在于缺乏可靠的数据，甚至在某些情况下根本没有数据。因此，在有关国际化和外国直接投资的文献中，对非洲的研究最少。但是在现实情景中，流入和流出非洲大陆的外国直接投资的总量和价值非常大，更重要的是，非洲在中国对外直接投资的目的地排名中占据着很高的位置。例如，中国公司最近在非洲进行了巨额投资，非洲获得的中国对外直接投资总额已经超过了欧洲和北美。 尽管如此，对于直接投资流动的动机和决定因素，已有研究中存在着不同的意见。 一些人认为，这些投资主要是出于从体制薄弱国家获取自然资源的愿望；而另一些人则指出，中国的对外直接投资被吸引到具有高增长潜力的大型市场；但还有第三种观点认为，这些投资主要是出于外交和政治目的。同样，对于现存的国际化理论与中国国情的相关性研究，也没有形成一个一致的观点，这就产生了所谓的“金发姑娘之争”（Cuervo-Cazurra，2012），即是否需要新的理论来解释新兴市场跨国公司，特别是中国公司的国际化，或者现有的理论是否足够解释已有现象。有学者持中间立场，指出中国企业具有相对独特性，但不是绝对独特，因此需要的并不是对现存理论的基本假设进行调整。 自2001年中国政府提出“走出去”政策以来，抓住机遇走向国际化的中国企业数量显著增加。这也引起了学术界对中国企业国际化研究的兴趣。随着近期一带一路倡议（BRI）的推出，“一带一路”倡议将涵盖亚洲，非洲和欧洲的60多个新兴市场和发展中国家，预计中国的对外直接投资将大幅增长。较之2001年宣布的政策对中国对外直接投资水平的影响，“一带一路”倡议很可能与持平甚至更大。无论如何，自2016年以来，中国已经成为第二大海外直接投资来源国，仅次于美国。 传统观点认为，中国不具备任何可识别的企业特定优势（FSA）。在承认中国企业特定优势机构的地方，通常会有这样的警告：这些企业特定优势机构不是知识资产，而是依赖于中国制造能力所提供的规模经济。然而，这种观点回避了一个问题：如果中国企业没有所谓的FSA或知识资产，为什么它们能够成功实现国际化？这就产生了一个难题，因为现有理论认为，一个企业要想在国际上取得成功，就必须拥有知识资产或其他企业特定优势，这些资产或协定将与区位或国家特定优势相结合，使其能够抵消外国责任，并与国内企业进行有利的竞争，这是一个很难解决的问题。然而，如果我们接受关于中国企业国际化的开篇论断，那么现有理论在解释中国企业国际化方面就显得力不从心。事实上，这是几位学者所支持的观点，他们认为，在现有理论的形成过程中，没有考虑到中国公司的独特特点，因此并不存在将出现ICF现象的倾向。此外，现有的理论过于以西方为中心，忽略了中国跨国公司的细微差别和特质。因此，他们认为有必要制定新的理论，以考虑到中国跨国公司乃至其他新兴市场跨国公司的现象。但也有其他学者认为，现有的理论足以解释ICF，也有一些持中间立场的人认为，虽然现有理论存在明显的缺陷，但它们并不需要大规模的改变，对理论进行轻微的调整就能适应中国跨国公司的独特性质，学者们对于中国企业的国际化以及现有理论在理解中国企业国际化中的作用并没有达成共识。 本研究正是在这样的背景下进行的，本文旨在扩展中国企业国际化的研究现状，尤其是其前因，过程和结果，特别关注进入模式和区位选择。此外，本文还将考察中国企业国际化与企业社会绩效之间的关系，中国跨国公司在这些领域的创新，特别是在目前缺乏研究工作的非洲大陆，这是至关重要的。 选择尼日利亚作为研究背景有以下几个原因：一方面，非洲已成为中国对外直接投资的首选目的地，尼日利亚是中国对外直接投资的最大接受国之一。根据全球投资追踪机构的数据，中国企业在过去十年（2010-2019年）中对尼日利亚的投资超过了400亿美元，约有10%的中国对外直接投资流入非洲，最终流入尼日利亚。因此，非洲作为中国外国直接投资的一个主要目的地有研究的必要性，因为正如前面导言中所述，非洲接受的中国直接投资比欧洲多。 过去15年来，中国对发达国家和发展中国家的对外直接投资在规模和数量上都大幅增长。 从2005年开始持续上升，到2016年底达到1830亿美元。 2016年首次超过对外直接投资流入量（贸发会议，2016）。 然而，尽管中国跨国公司的投资活动不断增加，但学术界对中国跨国公司的研究仍处于起步阶段（Deng，2012），这在本质上导致了对中国跨国公司的行为缺乏深刻的理解。关于为什么会出现这种情况，人们提出了几种解释，其中一个原因是，所进行的许多研究都是利用先进和成熟经济体发展的理论来解释中国企业的行为，而现实情况是这些企业是在发展中经济体中存在和运作的。因此，这些尝试并没有产生引发开悟的洞见，相反，它们只起到了进一步混淆的作用。 显而易见的问题是，为什么这种状态会持续下去？是不是对公司特定优势的定义过于狭隘，导致一些学者在评估中国跨国公司的实力时受到限制？例如,尽管新兴市场的跨国公司可能具有较弱的竞争优势，但它们具有较强的政治能力，而且这些都是有用的、真正的公司优势。 此外，由于全球化和技术进步的影响，任何规模、年龄和资源的公司都可以参与国际业务。换句话说，全球化起到了某种均衡器的作用。学者们认为，由于概念和结构的定义不清，国际商业领域支离破碎，理论上缺乏严谨性。此外，国际化的研究主要集中在静态维度上，而忽略了动态和过程驱动的维度，而国际化进程模型的发展为研究天生的全球性企业和国际新企业提供了希望。 本文的研究旨在解决先前查明的差距，即缺乏比较研究、研究结果的概括性问题、对现有理论解释力的充分性缺乏共识、对一般商业研究和对非洲大陆中国企业国际化的研究较少的问题。通过解决这些差距，希望扩大该领域的研究范围。本文的研究将有助于进一步研究中国企业的国际化和国际企业的国际化，它将对现存理论是否足以解释中国企业国际化的争论产生影响，通过定量和定性的方法对现存理论的一些基本假设进行实证性的挑战来实现这一目标。为了做到这一点，本文将研究集中于来自各个省份和行业，在非洲有广泛业务的中国跨国公司。并将这些公司根据不同的所有权性质进行分类研究，即对比国有企业和私营企业的情况进行分析。此外，本研究对各行业、不同规模的企业进行了比较研究，如制造业与服务业、大型国有企业、私营企业与中小型企业。 本文采用了前因、过程和结果的组织框架对中国跨国公司进行评价并特别关注后两类，即进程和结果。这是因为这两个类别在现存的文献中都很少受到关注，因为大部分的研究都集中在“前因”上。该框架将现有研究分为三部分（前因，过程和结果），并在每一类下确定了若干主题。将前因定义为国际化的主要驱动因素，过程定义为国际化之前和过程中的活动，而将结果定义为国际化的结果。在进程类别的四个主题中有三个主题，及成果类别中的两个主题被发现没有得到充分的分析和（或）严重调查不足。所调查主题的例子包括对进程的辅助作用和控制，公司目标的实现以及成果类别下的非财务业绩计量。总之，文献中发现的差距包括:学者们对现有理论的充分性缺乏共识，没有足够的实证研究来进一步检验现有理论，以及由于目前研究重点的狭窄而导致的结论的概括性问题。 本研究的目的在于弥合这些差距，从而深化和拓展中国企业国际化的研究领域。此外，如果我们研究中国跨国公司在非洲的投资，非洲国家有许多可以增进我们对中国跨国公司的了解的框架。除了前面强调的制度相似性外，对于一些非洲国家，中国企业相对于当地企业拥有更优越的知识资产，因此现存的理论如Vernon的产品生命周期理论和OLI理论应该能够预测和解释中国企业在这些国家的国际化。 本研究的出发点是寻找问题的答案，以具体的问题为出发点：中国在尼日利亚的对外直接投资有什么独特之处？这个问题奠定了研究项目的基调和背景，这一广泛的调查引发了一些具体的问题，例如，什么因素影响了中国在尼日利亚的直接投资，以及中国人在尼日利亚的国际化程度如何？此外，还要确定中国公司是否难以将其公司特定资产与尼日利亚国家特定资产相结合。最后，本文探讨了中国企业如何将这些资产组合起来，即资产捆绑过程，特别是进入模式和引导过程。 为了回答这些问题，本研究设计从不同的视角和方法对问题进行了探讨。例如，第三章从国家和企业两个层面对中国对尼日利亚直接投资的决定因素和中国企业的国际化程度进行了定量研究。第四章通过对尼日利亚付费电视产业中的一家中国跨国公司和南非跨国公司的比较案例研究，探讨了中国企业的资产捆绑过程。此外，第五章的主题是中国企业的企业社会绩效，同时使用企业社会责任以及环境、社会和治理得分进行了调查。 尼日利亚的基础设施不足，吸引了中国对尼日利亚的直接投资，而尼日利亚的市场规模和丰富的自然资源则更吸引了中国对尼日利亚的直接投资。回归结果显示，尼日利亚基础设施赤字的替代指标与其他测试变量，如市场规模和自然资源相比，显示出最大的重要性。此外，发现天然气可能是中国投资的首选石油资源，而不是原油本身。考虑到尼日利亚铁路系统现代化所花费的资金数额，基础设施例如铁路是中国对尼日利亚外国直接投资的一个重要决定因素，这并不令人意外。 通过对国际化程度的调查发现，无论采用何种国际化测度，中国国有企业的国际化程度都低于民营企业。这一发现适用于使用解释国际化多维度的复合测度DOI（Degree of Internationalization）和基于网络扩散指数（NSI）的测度计算的国际化程度。此外，国有企业在所有单项变量和总体得分上都处于落后状态。最后，研究发现网络扩散指数与销售比率呈共线性，表明使用国家扩散来归一化销售比率并不能很好地解决销售比率的一维性。 对中国跨国公司进入尼日利亚的模式及其资产捆绑能力的调查表明，中国企业确实具有为东道国开发新产品的能力，相较于中国企业的所有权优势，企业特定优势和国家特定优势的组合能力并不像人们认为的那么弱。案例研究结果表明，中国企业充分认识到补充当地资产市场的低效率的重要性，这些市场缺陷在它们的规划和决策过程中表现突出。另一个重要的结论是，这些补充当地资产的所有人意识到，由于他们在低效率市场中控制和拥有补充资产，因而具有有利的讨价还价地位。 本文的重要启示是，必须承认中国对外直接投资不是同质的，即中国对外直接投资是由不同的刺激因素驱动的，并且对不同的刺激因素敏感，而这些刺激因素依赖于几个背景变量。因此，必须认识到，即使在非洲，影响外国直接投资流动的因素也会因国而异，我们必须谨慎行事，不要草率地一概而论。 这项研究的一个关键贡献是，来自尼日利亚的证据表明，关于中国FDI被吸引到制度薄弱的资源丰富国家的观点值得进一步审视。此外，研究发现了对资产捆绑理论的经验支持，并对国家相关优势在有效市场中可自由获得的假设提出了挑战。最后，通过整合FSA/CSA矩阵和资产捆绑框架，本研究引入了一个决策框架，供管理者和从业者在做出进入模式决策时用于分析最优选择。
英文摘要：	There is a dearth of research within the African context across the various international business, and management disciplines. For instance, in sourcing and supply chain research in Africa, a review of 40 journals over four decades returned only 19 articles on supply chain research in the continent. While several factors have been adduced for this state of affairs, including a lack of reliable data, as well as the unavailability of data at all, the fact is, Africa is the least researched context in the internationalization and foreign direct investment (FDI) literature. Furthermore, since the introduction of the going global initiative of the Chinese government in 2001, there has been a marked increase in the internationalization of Chinese firms. Also, Chinese outward FDI into developed and developing countries increased both in magnitude and volume in the last decade and a half. It rose consistently from 2005, and by the end of 2016, it stood at $183 billion. In 2016, it surpassed FDI inflows for the first time. Nevertheless, studies into the internationalization of Chinese firms in Africa and their foreign direct investment have been few and far between. This is a bit surprising given the volume and value of FDI flows into and out of the continent. Of extra significance is the fact that Africa is one of the leading destinations for Chinese investment. As it stands, Africa receives more Chinese FDI than both Europe and North America. Despite the increase in investment activities of Chinese Multinationals, scholarly research into their activities remains at its infancy. Although there has been a rise in the number of studies investigating Chinese multinationals, there is no consensus on the motives and determinants of the direct investment flows.. While some scholars argue that they are primarily driven by the desire to acquire natural resources from institutionally weak countries, others posit that Chinese FDI is attracted to large markets with high growth potential, and yet a third view holds that the investments serve diplomatic and political purposes. Therefore, these attempts have not yielded insights that engender enlightenment, rather they have only served to further confound, which has resulted in a lack of deep understanding of the behaviours of Chinese multinationals. One reason is that a lot of the research conducted has been done by utilizing theories developed in advanced and mature economies to attempt to explain the behaviour of Chinese firms, which are essentially a developing country’s multinationals. In the same vein, there is no consensus on the relevance of extant theories of internationalization in the Chinese context, prompting the “goldilocks debate” (Cuervo‐Cazurra, 2012). That is, whether new theories are needed to explain the internationalization of emerging market multinationals, particularly Chinese firms, or whether extant theories are adequate as they are. Some scholars point out that Chinese firms are relatively unique and not absolutely unique, therefore what is needed is not wholesale changes to extant theories but adjustments to the underlying assumptions of extant theories while others advocate the need for new theories. The conventional view is that Chinese firms do not possess any discernable firm-specific advantages (FSAs). Moreover, where there is an acknowledgement of Chinese FSAs, there is usually the caveat that these FSAs are not Knowledge assets, but are reliant on the economies of scale that Chinese manufacturing capacity affords. However, this begs the question; if Chinese firms do not have FSAs or Knowledge assets as claimed, how come they have been relatively successful at internationalizing? The conundrum is extant theories assert that for a firm to succeed internationally, it must possess knowledge assets or FSAs, that would be combined with country-specific advantages(CSAs) which would enable it to offset the liability of foreignness and compete favourably with domestic firms. However, if we are to accept the opening assertion about Chinese firms, then it would appear that extant theories are inadequate in explaining the internationalization of Chinese firms. Indeed this view is espoused by several scholars, who contend that at the formulation of extant theories, there was no inclination that the phenomenon of ICF would emerge. Consequently, no allowance was made for the unique characteristics of Chinese firms. Furthermore, it is argued that extant theories are too western-centric and, therefore, would overlook the nuances and idiosyncrasies of Chinese MNCS. Leading to the conclusion, therefore, that there is a need for new theories that would allow for the phenomenon of Chinese MNCs and, indeed, other emerging market multinationals. However, other scholars argue that extant theories are sufficient as they are in explaining the internationalization of Chinese Firms. A third group maintains that while there are obvious shortcomings with extant theories, they do not require wholesale changes, rather slight adjustments to the theories would accommodate the unique nature of the Chinese Multinationals. It is against this backdrop that this research was conducted. Given that both internationalization in Africa and the internationalization of Chinese firms in Africa are under-researched. It sought to extend the current state of research on the internationalization of Chinese firms with Special focus on the entry mode and location choices, as well as the determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment. Additionally, the relationship between the internationalization of Chinese firms and their corporate social performance was examined. Nigeria was chosen as the research context because it is one of the highest recipients of Chinese OFDI. Approximately ten percent of total Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) flows into Africa end up in Nigeria, and according to the Global Investment Tracker, Chinese firms have invested more than $40 Billion US dollars in Nigeria in the last ten years, 2010-2019. Therefore, it was pertinent to study a top destination of Chinese foreign direct investment. Chinese multinational firms were evaluated using the antecedents, processes, and outcomes framework(Deng, 2012). With particular attention devoted to the latter two categories, processes and outcomes. This is because both categories are the least researched in the extant literature, as the bulk of research has focused on “Antecedents”. The research set out to find answers to the question; what is unique about Chinese foreign direct investment in Nigeria? This question set the tone of the research project, and the broad inquiry dovetailed to specific questions such as, what influences the flow of Chinese direct investment in Nigeria? As well as, what is the degree of internationalization of Chinese firms in Nigeria? In addition to determining if Chinese firms struggle to combine their firm-specific assets with the country-specific assets in Nigeria. Lastly, it addressed the question of how Chinese firms actually combine these assets; in other words, their asset bundling process. To answer these questions, the research design approached the questions from different perspectives and methodologies. For instance, Chapter 3 adopted two quantitative studies at both the country and firm-level to investigate the determinants of Chinese FDI into Nigeria and the degree of internationalization of Chinese firms. While chapter 4 explored the asset bundling processes of Chinese firms through a comparative case study of a Chinese multinational and South African multinational in the Nigerian Pay-tv industry. Furthermore, the corporate social performance of Chinese firms, the subject of chapter 5 was investigated using both the corporate social responsibility, and environmental, social and governance scores. It emerged that Chinese FDI to Nigeria is attracted to and by the infrastructure deficit in Nigeria. More so than the market size of the economy and the abundance of natural resources. Results of the regressions revealed that the proxies for the infrastructure deficit in Nigeria indicated the strongest significance compared to the other variables tested, market size and natural resources. Furthermore, it emerged that natural gas may be the petroleum resource of choice for Chinese investment rather than crude oil per se. Unsurprisingly, given the amount of funds expended on the modernization of railway systems in Nigeria, the infrastructure proxy railway emerged as a significant determinant of Chinese FDI to Nigeria. From the investigations into the degree of internationalization, it was discovered that the degree of internationalization of Chinese state-owned enterprises was lower than their privately-owned counterparts, regardless of the measurement of internationalization adopted. This finding held true for both the degree of internationalization computed using the composite measure DOINGR that accounts for the multi-dimensionality of internationalization as well as the network spread index (NSI*) based measure. Furthermore, it was discovered that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) lagged in all the individual variables as well as the overall scores. Lastly, it emerged that the network spread index indicates co-linearity with the sales ratio, suggesting that using the country spread to normalize the sales ratio does not do much in addressing its uni-dimensionality. Inquiries into the entry mode of Chinese Multinationals into Nigeria and their asset bundling capabilities indicated that Chinese Firms do indeed have the capacity to develop new products for the host country. It also came to light that the combinatory ability of the Chinese firms, vis-à-vis their ownership and firm-specific advantages and the country-specific advantages are not as weakly developed as believed. The case study firm revealed that they were fully cognizant of the inefficiencies in the market for complementary local assets, and these market imperfections featured prominently in their planning and decision making. Of additional significance was the finding that the owners of these complementary local assets are aware of their advantageous bargaining position as a consequence of their control and ownership of the complementary assets in inefficient markets. One key take away from this research is that it is important to acknowledge the fact that Chinese FDI is not homogenous. That is, it is motivated by and sensitive to different stimuli that are dependent on several contextual variables. Therefore, it is essential to realize that factors influencing FDI flows are going to be different from country to country, even in Africa, and we must be cautious of hasty generalizations. Nigeria is a unique country that combines several attractive determinants of FDI. It is a large country that is resource-rich, with infrastructure that is in disrepair, it also has a relatively weak institutional climate; therefore one must be circumspect in identifying which of these factors influence the flow of investments. A key contribution of this research is that evidence from Nigeria suggests that the notion that Chinese FDI is attracted to resource-rich Countries with weak institutions deserves further scrutiny. Furthermore, the research unearthed empirical support for the asset bundling theory and challenged the assumption that country-specific advantages are freely available in efficient markets. Lastly, by integrating both the FSA/CSA matrix and the asset bundling framework, the research introduced a decision framework for managers and practitioners to use in the analysis of optimal choices when making entry mode decisions.
查看全文：	预览  下载(下载需要进行登录)