最終所有權結構對國際化之績效與創新的影響

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：18

、訪客IP：13.59.247.140

姓名

陳光政(Guang-Zheng Chen) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

企業管理學系

論文名稱

最終所有權結構對國際化之績效與創新的影響
(The Effect of Ultimate Ownership Structure on the Relationship of Internationalization to Corporate Performance and Innovation)

相關論文

★ 我國中小企業貸款門檻操縱行為分析 -以某銀行授信戶為例	★ 董事會結構與自願性財務預測之關聯性
★ 國際化、創新活動與公司績效：台灣上市公司董事會結構論析	★ 國際化對公司經營績效的影響：資訊透明度的中介效果
★ 內部人持股與會計師選擇關聯性之研究-以馬來西亞上市公司為例	★ 利用吸引力因子進行嚴重服務失誤補救之成效
★ 提升企業價值之永續發展策略－以H公司資源回收為例	★ 組織變革對業務人員銷售力的影響-以電子零組件通路商為例
★ 會計保守性與法說會的關聯性	★ 探索產品品牌、品牌個性與人格特質的對應關係
★ 復徵證券交易所得稅對台灣股市之影響	★ 法人說明會對國際化績效與創新的影響
★ 投資人情緒與資訊透明度關聯性之研究	★ 公司股權結構與內部人交易關聯性之研究
★ 分析師是否高估應計項目的價值-兼論其對現金增資偏低訂價之影響	★ 分析師預測與新上市公司新股折價關聯性之研究

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)

摘要(中)

過去有關國際化對公司績效與創新的實證研究呈現不一致的情況。本文以代理理論為主軸並假定控制股東的現金流量權與控制權–現金流量權偏離能調節此一不一致的結果。本文以2000–2007年之台灣上市公司為研究對象，實證結果指出控制股東的現金流量權能正向調節國際化對績效與創新的效果，然而，控制權–現金流量權的偏離則負向的調節此一關係。本文的研究結果有助於了解過去文獻不一致的結果。此外，迥異於美國與英國，大部份的國家存有股權高度集中的情況，因此，本文的研究較能提供一般化的推論，並且有助於了解公司治理對於國際化的影響。

摘要(英)

A substantial body of research has examined the impact of internationalization on corporate performance and innovation, but has shown inconsistent results. Drawing on agency theory, we attempt to reduce this equivocality by asserting that the controlling shareholders’ cash flow rights and the separation of control from cash flow rights moderate the relationship. Using a sample of publicly traded firms listed on the Taiwan Stock Exchange from 2000 to 2007, we find that the controlling shareholders’ cash flow rights have a positive moderating effect on the relationship of internationalization to performance and innovation, while the control–cash flow rights divergence shows a negative effect. These findings may shed light on the mixed results of the literature. In addition, most countries other than the United States and the United Kingdom have high ownership concentration; therefore, our results may be generalizable to other settings, providing insight into the role of corporate governance in internationalization.

關鍵字(中)

★ 股權結構
★ 控制股東
★ 創新
★ 公司績效
★ 國際化

關鍵字(英)

★ ownership structure
★ controlling shareholder
★ internationalization
★ corporate performance
★ innovation

論文目次

Abstract in Chinese…………………………………………………………... i
Abstract in English…………………………………………………………… ii
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………… iii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………… v
List of Figures………………………………………………………………... vi
Chapter
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………... 1
1.1. Motivation and Research Purpose………………………………….. 1
1.2. Result Preview……………………………………………………... 5
1.3. Thesis Structure…………………………………………………….. 6
2. Literature Review…………………………………………………...... 7
2.1. Firm Performance and Internationalization………………………… 7
2.2. Firm Innovation and Internationalization………………………....... 9
2.3. Incentive–alignment and Entrenchment Effects of Concentrated Ownership…………………………………………………...…….. 11
3. Hypothesis Development…………………………………………….. 13
3.1. The Effect of Ultimate Ownership Structure on the Association between Performance and Internationalization…………………….. 13
3.1.1. Cash Flow Rights and the Performance of Internationalization…………………………………………….
13
3.1.2. Control–Cash Flow Rights Divergence and the Performance of Internationalization…………………………………………….
15
3.2. The Effect of Ultimate Ownership Structure on the Association between Innovation and Internationalization………………………. 16
3.2.1. Cash Flow Rights and the Innovation of Internationalization…………………………………………….
16
3.2.2. Control-Cash Flow Rights Divergence and the Innovation of Internationalization……………………………………………. 18
4. Research Design……………………………………………………… 20
4.1. Sample and Data Sources………………………………………....... 20
4.2. Performance Measures……………………………………………...
23
4.3. Innovation Measures……………………………………………...... 23
4.4. Measure of Internationalization…………………………………….. 24
4.5. Ownership Definition………………………………………………. 25
4.6. Regression Model………………………………………………....... 26
5. Empirical Results…………………………………………………….. 30
5.1. Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………...... 30
5.2. Multivariate Analyses………………………………………………. 34
5.3. Additional Analysis and Robustness Checks…...……………….......
44
5.3.1. Comparison of Multinational Firms and Domestic Firms.......... 44
5.3.2. Other Robustness Checks………………………………………
47
6. Conclusions…………………………………………………………... 48
References……………………………………………………………………. 52
Appendix A…………………………………………………………………... 61

參考文獻

[1] Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. 2005. Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2): 701–728.
[2] Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[3] Anderson, R. C. & Reeb, D. M. 2003. Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58(3): 1301–1328.
[4] Asakawa, K. Som, A. 2008. Internationalization of R&D in China and India: Conventional wisdom versus reality. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(3): 375–394.
[5] Bartlett, C. A. & Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
[6] Berger, P. G. 1993. Explicit and implicit tax effects of the R&D tax credit. Journal of Accounting Research, 31(2): 131–171.
[7] Burgman, T. 1996. An empirical examination of multinational capital structure. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(3): 553–570.
[8] Canibano, L., Garcia-Ayuso, M., & Sanchez, M. P. 2000. Shortcomings in the measurement of innovation: Implications for accounting standard setting. Journal of Management and Governance, 4(4): 319–342.
[9] Cantwell, J. 1989. Technological innovation and multinational corporations. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
[10] Cantwell, J. 1992. The theory of technological competence and its application to international production. In D. G. McFetridge (Ed.), Foreign investment, technology and economy growth, 33–67. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.
[11] Cantwell, J. 1993. The internationalization of technological activity and its implications for competitiveness. In O. Granstrand, L. Hakanson, & S. Sjolander (Eds.), Technology management and international business, 137–162. Chichester: Wiley.
[12] Carney, M. 2008. The many futures of Asian business groups. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(4): 595–613.
[13] Claessens, S. & Fan, J. P. H. 2002. Corporate governance in Asia: A survey. International Review of Finance, 3(2): 71–103.
[14] Claessens, S., Djankov, S., & Lang, L. H. P. 2000. The separation of ownership and control in East Asian corporation. Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1–2): 81–112.
[15] Claessens, S., Djankov, S., Fan, J. P. H., & Lang, L. H. P. 2002. Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholdings. Journal of Finance, 57(6): 2741–2771.
[16] Collier, D. W. 1983. Technology in diversified decentralized firms. Journal of Business Strategy, 3(2): 91–93.
[17] 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.
[18] 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.
[19] Contractor, F. J., Kundu, S. K., & 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.
[20] Cuervo-Cazurra, A. 2006. Business groups and their types. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(4): 419–437.
[21] Dechow, P. M. & Sloan, R. G. 1991. Executive incentives and the horizon problem: An empirical investigation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 14(1): 51–89.
[22] Francis, J. & Smith, A. 1995. Agency costs and innovation: Some empirical evidence. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19(2): 383–409.
[23] Goldberg, P. K., & Knetter, M. M. 1999. Measuring the intensity of competition in export markets. Journal of International Economics, 47(1): 27–60.
[24] Gomes, A. 2000. Going public without governance: Managerial reputation effects. Journal of Finance, 55(2): 615–646.
[25] Gomes, L. K. & Ramaswamy, K. 1999. An empirical examination of the form of the relationship between multinationality and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(1): 173–188.
[26] Gomez-Mejia, L. & Balkin, D. 1992. Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(5): 921–955.
[27] Grant, R. M. 1987. Multinationality and performance among British manufacturing companies. Journal of International Business Studies, 18(3): 79–89.
[28] Grant, R. M., Jammine, A. P., & Thomas, H. 1988. Diversity, diversification, and profitability among British manufacturing companies, 1972–84. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4): 771–801.
[29] Hansen, G. S. & Hill, C. W. L. 1991. Are institutional investors myopic? A time-series study of four technology-driven industries. Strategic Management Journal, 12(1): 1–16.
[30] Helpman, E., Melitz, M. J., & Yeaple, S. R. 2004. Export versus FDI with heterogeneous firms. American Economic Review, 94(1): 300–316.
[31] Hennart, J.-F. 2007. The theoretical rationale for a multinationality-performance relationship. Management International Review, 47(3): 423–452.
[32] Heugens, P., van Essen, M., & van Oosterhout, J. 2009. Meta-analyzing ownership concentration and firm performance in Asia: Towards a more fine-grained understanding. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(3): 481–512.
[33] Hitt, M. A. & Keats, B. W. 1992. Strategic leadership and restructuring: A reciprocal interdependence. In R. L. Phillips & J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Strategic leadership: A multi-organizational perspective, 45–61. New York: Quorum Books.
[34] Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Ireland, R. D. 1994. A mid-term theory of the interactive effects of international and product diversification on innovation and performance. Journal of Management, 20(2): 297–326.
[35] Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. 1997. International diversification: effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4): 767–798.
[36] Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Ireland, R. D., & Harrison, J. S. 1991. Effects of acquisitions on R&D inputs and outputs. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 693–706.
[37] Hitt, M. A., Tihanyi, L., Miller, T., & Connelly, B. 2006. International diversification: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 32(6): 831–867.
[38] Holmstrom, B. 1989. Agency costs and innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 12(3): 305–327.
[39] Hymer, S. H. 1976. A study of direct foreign investment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[40] Jensen, M. C. & Meckling, W. H. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4): 305–360.
[41] Jensen, M. C. 1986. Agency cost of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review, 76(2): 323-329.
[42] Khan, A. M. & Manopichetwattana, V. 1989. Innovative and noninnovative small firms: Types and characteristics. Management Science, 35(5): 597–606.
[43] Kim, W. C., Hwang, P., & Burgers, W. P. 1993. Multinationals’ diversification and the risk–return trade-off. Strategic Management Journal, 14(4): 275–286.
[44] Kobrin, S. J. 1991. An empirical analysis of the determinants of global integration. Strategic Management Journal, 12(1): 17–37.
[45] Kogut, B., & Chang, S. J. 1991. Technological capabilities and Japanese foreign direct investment in the United States. Review of Economies and Statistics, 73(3): 401–413.
[46] La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. 1999. Corporate ownership around the world. Journal of Finance, 54(2): 471–517.
[47] Lee, K. & Kwok, C. 1988. Multinational corporations vs. domestic corporations: International environmental factors and determinants of capital structure. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(2): 195–217.
[48] Lee, P. M. & O’Neill, H. M. 2003. Ownership structures and R&D investments of U.S. and Japanese firms: Agency and stewardship perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 46(2): 212–225.
[49] Lehn, K., Netter, J., & Poulsen, A. 1990. Consolidating corporate control: Dual-class recapitalizations versus leveraged buyouts. Journal of Financial Economics, 27(2): 557–580.
[50] Lins, K. V. 2003. Equity ownership and firm value in emerging markets. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 38(1): 159–184.
[51] Lu, J. W. & Beamish, P. W. 2004. International diversification and firm performance: The S-curve hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4): 598–609.
[52] Lu, Y. & Yao, J. 2006. Impact of state ownership and control mechanisms on the performance of group affiliated companies in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(4): 485–503.
[53] Meyer, K. E. 2009. Motivating, testing, and publishing curvilinear effects in management research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(2): 187–193.
[54] Michel, A. & Shaked, I. 1986. Multinational corporations vs. domestic corporations: Financial performance and characteristics. Journal of International Business Studies, 17(3): 89–100.
[55] Morck, D., Wolfenson, D., & Yeung, B. 2005. Corporate governance, economic entrenchment and growth. Journal of Economics Literature, 43(3): 655–721.
[56] Morck, R. & Yeung, B. 1991. Why investors value multinationality. Journal of Business, 64(2): 165–187.
[57] Pegels, C. C. & Thirumurthy, M. V. 1996. The impact of technology strategy on firm performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43(4): 246–249.
[58] Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.
[59] Porter, M. E. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.
[60] Qian, G. 1997. Assessing product-market diversification of US firms. Management International Review, 37(2): 127–149.
[61] Ramaswamy, K. 1995. Multinationality, configuration, and performance: A study of MNEs in the US drug and pharmaceutical sector. Journal of International Management, 1(2): 231–253.
[62] Rugman, A. M. 1981. Inside the multinationals: The economics of international markets. London: Croom Helm.
[63] Ruigrok, W. & Wagner, H. 2003. Internationalization and performance: An organizational learning perspective. Management International Review, 43(1): 63–83.
[64] Shleifer, A. & Vishny, R. 1997. A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 52(2): 737–783.
[65] Stein, J. C. 1988. Takeover threats and managerial myopia. The Journal of Political Economy, 96(1): 61–80.
[66] Sullivan, D. 1994. Measuring the degree of internationalization of a firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(2): 325–342.
[67] Tallman, S. & Li, J. 1996. Effects of international diversity and product diversity on the performance of multinational firms. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1): 179–189.
[68] Tsai, W. 2001. Knowledge in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5): 996–1004.
[69] Tybout, J. R. 2003. Plant- and firm- level evidence on “new” trade theories. In E. K. Choi & J. Harrigan (Eds.), Handbook of International Trade, 388–415. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
[70] Wan, C.-C. 1998. International diversification, industrial diversification and firm performance of Hong Kong MNCs. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 15(2): 205–217.
[71] Young, M. N., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G. D., & Jiang, Y. 2008. Corporate governance in emerging economies: A review of the principal-principal perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1): 196–220.
[72] Zahra, S. A., Ireland, D. R., & Hitt, M. A. 2000. International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5): 925–950.

指導教授

曹壽民(Shou-Min Tsao)

審核日期

2010-7-2

推文