淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-0107200814353700
中文論文名稱 海外投資進入模式選擇與績效之分析-台灣製造業為例
英文論文名稱 Entry Mode Choice and Performance-Taiwanese manufacture firms
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 產業經濟學系博士班
系所名稱(英) Department of IndustrialEconomics
學年度 96
學期 2
出版年 97
研究生中文姓名 史致中
研究生英文姓名 Chih-Chung Shih
學號 695540012
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2008-06-12
論文頁數 64頁
口試委員 指導教授-陳明園
共同指導教授-洪小文
委員-陳業寧
委員-林佩蒨
中文關鍵字 進入模式  自我選擇  交易成本  Heckman 兩階段估計 
英文關鍵字 entry mode  self-selected  Transaction cost  Heckman’s two-stage method 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學經濟學
中文摘要 在全球化的驅動且基於成本或競爭的考量,廠商會進行對外投資或是拓展海外市場。過程中廠商面對的首要課題為如何選擇一最適組織型態,因為進入模式的選擇除了反映內在經營動機及發展歷程外,也將對公司投資績效產生重大影響。
本研究以增展型交易成本分析架構為基礎,探討各層面因素對台灣製造業廠商之海外投資進入模式選擇的影響,以及進入模式選擇與海外投資績效間之關係。過去許多實證研究在忽略決策為內生且具自我選擇特性下,估計經營型態對投資績效的效果,然而此種潛在問題有可能會使分析結果產生偏誤。因此,本研究透過已發展能控制自我選擇特性的計量工具進行分析。
其實證結果顯示,相對規模大小、資產專屬性、產品相關性、資源導向投資、出口銷售比率及環境不確定等因素皆會影響台商對外投資時的進入模式選擇。績效估計方面,若模型未控制進入模式選擇的內生性,獨資有較佳的績效結果;但是在模型加入了自我選擇調整因子,則經營型態對績效之影響將變得不顯著。藉由建立的決策偏離變數亦可發現,按照本研究理論架構所選擇的進入模式其績效表現較佳。
英文摘要 As the forces of globalization drive firm to expand outside their home market, a primary issue of concern is in establishing effective boundaries for the firm. Because of the entry mode choice besides the reflection management motive and the development course, also will havethe significant influence to the corporate investment achievements.
In this study, we add TC variables to a set of variables previously used to predict Taiwanese manufacture firms’ mode choice and performance .Firms choose strategies based on their attributes and industry conditions;therefore, strategy choice is endogenous and self-selected. Previous empirical models that do not account for this and regress performance measure on strategy choice variables are potentially misspecified and their conclusions are incorrect. We use Heckman’s two-stage method to correct this biased.
The finding reveal first the firm- and transaction-specific are strong influence of firms’ entry mode choice. Second, firms that use TC-enhanced selected mode choices perform better than firms that do not. Third, the significance of this effect that strategy on performance disappears once we account for self-selection of entry mode in the estimates.
論文目次 第一章 緒論 …………………………………………………………………………1
第一節 研究動機 ………………………………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的 ………………………………………………………………3
第三節 研究流程 ………………………………………………………………4
第二章 文獻回顧與探討 ……………………………………………………………5
第一節 進入模式意義與選擇之動機 …………………………………………5
第二節 進入模式類型……………………………………………………………6
第三節 海外投資進入模式選擇之相關理論基礎 ……………………………10
第三章 研究設計與方法 …………………………………………………………17
第一節 研究架構 ………………………………………………………………17
第二節 研究假說發展 …………………………………………………………20
第三節 實證模型 ………………………………………………………………29
第四節 研究變數之說明與衡量 ………………………………………………32
第四章 資料來源與實證結果分析 ………………………………………………38
第一節 資料來源與樣本特性分析 ……………………………………………38
第二節 實證結果 ………………………………………………………………44
第五章 結論與建議 ………………………………………………………………55
第一節 研究結論 ………………………………………………………………55
第二節 研究限制與建議 ………………………………………………………56
參考文獻 ……………………………………………………………………………58
附表 …………………………………………………………………………………63

圖目錄
圖1-1 研究架構圖 …………………………………………………………4
圖3-1 增展型交易成本分析模型 …………………………………………19
圖4-1 Heckman 兩階段方法步驟 …………………………………………44

表目錄
表2-1 契約、獨資與股權合資 ……………………………………………7
表2-2 進入模式與類型 ……………………………………………………8
表3-1 變數預期效果與參考文獻 ………………………………………… 37
表4-1 對外投資行業(前十名)-按國內事業中業別分…………………… 40
表4-2 對外投資地區(複選前十名) ……………………………………… 41
表4-3 海外事業的投資型態 ……………………………………………… 42
表4-4 各變數之敘述統計表 ……………………………………………… 43
表4-5 第一階段之Probit模型:進入模式決策 …………………………47
表4-6 第二階段之海外投資績效(營業額)估計結果 …………………… 50
表4-7 預期平均營業額 …………………………………………………… 52
表4-8 第二階段之海外投資績效(獲利水準)估計結果 ………………… 54

參考文獻 中文部分
曹為忠、曹雪蘭、李文瑞、陳旭銘(2002),進入模式、產業環境、以及廠商特性對廠
商海外市場經營績效之影響,企業管理學報,54,頁61-86。

吳讚庭,『交易成本、制度環境、國際化經驗』對海外進入模式與經營績效之影響∼台商
赴海外投資之實證研究,元智大學管理研究所碩士論文。

英文部分
Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. 1986. Modes of foreign entry: A transaction
cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies,
17: 1-26.

Ahmed, Z. U., Mohamad, O., Tan, B., & Johnson, J. P. 2002. International risk
perceptions and mode of entry: A case study of Malaysian multinational firms.
Journal of Business Research, 55: 805-813.

Barkema, H. G., Bell, J. H. J., & Pennings, J. M. 1996. Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and learning. Strategic Management Journal, 17(2): 151-166.

Beamish, P. W. and J. C. Banks (1987). ‘Equity joint ventures and the theory of multinational enterprise’, Journal of International Business Studies, 18(2):1–16.

Brouthers, K. D. 2002. Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences
on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business
Studies, 33(2): 203-221.

Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. E., & Werner, S. 2003. Transaction cost-enhanced
entry mode choices and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24:
1239-1248.

Brouthers K.D. and Hennart J.F. (2007). Boundaries of the Firm:Insight From International Entry Mode Research. Journal of Management,33(3):395-425

Brouthers, K. D., & Nakos, G. 2004. SME international entry mode choice
and performance: A transaction cost perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice, 28(3): 229-247.

Chen, H., & Hu, M. Y. 2002. An analysis of determinants of entry mode and
its impact on performance. International Business Review, 11: 193-210.

Cleeve, E. 1997. The Motives for Join Ventures: A Transaction Costs Analysis
of Japanese MNEs in the U.K. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 44(1): 31-43.

Delios, A., & Beamish, P. W. 1999. Ownership strategy of Japanese firms:
Transactional, institutional, and experience influences. Strategic
Management Journal, 20: 915-933.

Dunning, J. H. 1993. Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Wokingham, UK: Addison-Wesley.

Erramilli, M. K., Agarwal, S., & Kim, S. S. 1997. Are firm-specific advantages location specific too? Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 28:735-757.

Erramilli, M. K., & Rao, C. P. 1993. Service firms’ international entry-mode choice: A modified transaction-cost analysis approach. Journal of Marketing, 57: 19-38.

Gomes-Casseres, B. 1989. Ownership structures of foreign subsidiaries. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organizations, 11: 1-25.

Grant, R.M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17:109-122.

Hamilton, B.H. & Nickerson, J.A. 2003. Correcting for endogeneity in strategic
management research. STRATEGIC ORGANIZATION,1(1): 51–78.

Heckman, J. (1978), “Dummy Endogenous Variables in A Simultaneous Equation System”, Econometrics, Vol.46(6), pp.931-959.

Heckman, J. (1979), “Sample Selection Bias as A Specification Error”, Econometrics, Vol.47,pp.153-161.
Hennart, J. F. 1989. Can the “new forms of investment” substitute for the “old forms?” A transaction costs perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 20: 211-234.

Hennart, J. F. 1991. The transaction cost theory of joint ventures: An empirical study of Japanese subsidiaries in the United States. Management Science, 37(4): 483-497.

Hennart, J. F. 2000. The transaction cost theory of the multinational enterprise. In C. Pitelis & R. Sugden (Eds.),The nature of the transnational firm (2nd ed.): 81-116. London: Routledge.

Hennart, J. F., & Larimo, J. 1998. The impact of culture on the strategy of multinational enterprises: Does national origin affect ownership decisions? Journal of International Business Studies, 29(3): 515-538.

Hill, C. W. L., Hwang, P., & Kim,W. C. 1990. An eclectic theory of the choice of international entry mode. Strategic Management Journal 11: 117-128.

Johansson, J.& Vahlne, J. 1997. The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments, Journal of International Business Studies, 8 (1): 23–32.

Kim, W. C., & Hwang, P. 1992. Global strategy and multinationals’ entry mode choice. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(1): 29-54.

Klein, S., Frazier, G. L., & Roth, V. J. 1990. A transaction cost analysis model of channel integration in international markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 27: 196-208.

Kogut, B., & Singh, H. 1988. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 18: 411-432.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1993. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation.Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4): 625-645.

Leiblein, M.J., Reuer, J.J., & Dalsace, F. (2002), “Do Make or Buy Decisions Matter? The Influence of Organizational Governance on Technological Performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.23(9), pp.817-833.

Luo, Y. 2002. Capability exploitation and building in a foreign market: Implications for multinational enterprises. Organization Science, 13(1): 48-63.

Masten SE. 1993.Transaction costs, mistakes, and performance:assessing the
importance governance. Managerial and Decision Economics 14:119-129.

Meyer, K. E., & Nguyen, H. V. 2005. Foreign investment strategies and sub-national institutions in emerging markets: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1): 63-93.

Mayer, K.J. 2000. Transactional Alignment and Project Performance: Evidence from Information Technology. ISNIE Conference.

Mutinelli, M., & Piscitello, L. 1998. The entry mode choice of MNEs: An evolutionary approach. Research Policy,27: 491-506.

North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Oliver ,C. 1991. Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. The Academy of Management Review,16(1):145-179.

Pan,Y., & Chi, P. S. K. 1999. Financial performance and survival of multinational corporations in China. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 359-374.

Pan, Y., Li, S., & Tse , D. K. 1999. The impact of order and mode of market entry on profitability and market share. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(1): 81-103.

Porter, M.E. 1991. Towards a Dynamic Theory of Strategy. Strategic Management Journal,12:95-117.

Punnett, B. J., & Ricks, D. A. 1992. International business. Boston: PWS-Kent.

Roberts, P.W. & Greenwood, R. 1991. Integrating Transaction Cost and Institutional Theories: Toward a Constrained-Efficiency Framework for Understanding Organizational Design Adoption,22(2):346-373

Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shaver, J. M. 1998. Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Management Science, 44(4): 571-585.

Silverman, B.S.& Nickerson, J.A. 2003. Why Firms Want to Organize Efficiently and What Keeps Them from Doing so: Inappropriate Governance, Performance, and Adaptation in a Deregulated Industry. Administrative Science Quarterly,48(3):433-465.

Taylor, C. R., Zou, S., & Osland, G. E. 1998. A transaction cost perspective on foreign market entry strategies of US and Japanese firms. Thunderbird International Business Review, 40(4): 389-412.

Tse, D. K., Pan, Y., & Au, K. Y. 1997. How MNCS choose entry modes and form alliances: The China experience. Journal of International Business Studies, 28: 779–805.

Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,5(2):171-180.

Williamson, O. E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Basic Books.

Yiu, S. & Makino, S. 2002. The Choice Between Joint Venture and Wholly Owned Subsidiary: An Institutional Perspective,13(6):667-683
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2013-07-30公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2013-07-30起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信