دانلود رایگان مقاله اثر فاصله نهادی بر ورود FDI نهاد عمومی زیست محیطی

ABSTRACT

Existing research suggests that foreign direct investment (FDI) flows into countries with good institutional infrastructure. We distinguish between general environmental institutions (GEI) that promote societal interests at large, and minority investor protection (MIP) institutions that promote the interests of a specific group, and argue that these types of institutions affect international investments differently. We tested this hypothesis by examining the effects of institutional distance on international M&A activities of US firms during 1981–2008. We found that better GEI in the host country attracts inflowing FDI while better MIP may discourage it, because of the perception that it reduces the potential gain an acquiring firm can earn from an international acquisition in that country.

5. Conclusion

Previous empirical analyses in international business used a single measure of institutional distance as if the effect of institutional infrastructure is homogeneous. Our typology of institutions suggests that there is a significant qualitative difference between general environmental institutions (GEI) and minority investor protection institutions (MIP). GEI institutions aim at serving the general societal interests by promoting a better general environmentfor all investors. These include the rule of law, efficacy of judicial system, contract enforcement, accounting standards and the like. On the other hand, MIP institutions promote and protect the interests of specific investors at the expense of other corporate or overall societal interests, and include provisions concerning minority shareholder rights, creditor rights, and the like. We find thatthe two categories of institutions not only load on two different factors in principal component analysis, but also have different impacts on FDI inflows in relation to the distance between home and host country. Improvement in the GEI of a country leads to an increase in FDI inflows from the US while improved MIP may discourage FDI inflows. As the institutional gap increases in MPI in favor of further protecting local minority investors in a country, US MNCs may be less willing to acquire local firms in that country because the potential for flexibility and profitability t achievable by international acquisitions might decrease. This contrasts with the tendency of most empirical studies that include institutional distance as a single homogeneous variable.