دانلود رایگان مقاله تاثیر فرهنگ در مذاکرات قیمت انتقال

ABSTRACT

Luft and Libby (1997) posit that American transfer price negotiators tend to settle on prices that result in smaller differences in profit between divisions than the external market price will dictate. They attribute the results to a fairness effect. While fairness is present in all cultures, what is considered “fair” differs between cultures (Bian & Keller, 1999; Bolton et al., 2009; Gao, 2009; Surowiecki, 2009). This study ascertains whether cultural affiliation of the negotiator impacts this fairness effect. American and Chinese subjects participated in within-culture and cross-cultural negotiations in an experiment modeled after Luft and Libby (1997). Our results confirm Luft and Libby's (1997) fairness effect when American participants negotiate with each other, but illustrate a contrary effect when Chinese participants negotiate with each other. The negotiator's cultural affiliation is found to determine profit distribution in cross-cultural negotiations. These findings are consistent with longstanding theories of cultural traits (Hofstede, 1980) that are relevant to transfer price negotiation activities. Our results imply that the fairness effect in transfer price negotiation may need to be refined to account for the impact of culture.

6. Conclusions

The “fairness effect” of transfer price negotiation predicts that negotiators are biased towards “fair” and equal divisions of profits, particularly when market prices would result in grossly unequal profit distributions. Prior research (e.g., Kachelmeier & Towry, 2002; Luft & Libby, 1997) based on American subjects supported the fairness effect. This experimental study extends the current literature by integrating Hofstede's (1994) cultural dimensions model with transfer price negotiation, and demonstrating how differently American and Chinese cultures affect such negotiations.

Perceptions of fairness are culture-specific. According to Hofstede (1997), collectivist cultures with a large power distance consider unequal profit distributions favoring empowered parties as fair. Conversely, individualist cultures with a small power distance consider such unequal distributions as unfair. Thus, in cross-cultural negotiations where these two cultures meet, differing perceptions of fairness may lead to more disagreements and longer time to reach agreement.

Using participants from the U.S. and China, we examine how differences in the concepts of fairness between cultures impact transfer price negotiation. Supporting Luft and Libby (1997) and Kachelmeier and Towry (2002), we note that Americans negotiating with other Americans tend to agree to transfer prices significantly different from the market price when the market price would result in highly unequal profits. On the other hand, evidence exists that cross-cultural differences in the perception of fairness affect transfer price negotiation. Chinese negotiating with other Chinese tend to settle close to the market price, which results in highly unequal profits. Furthermore, there are fewer agreements in cross-cultural dyads than in intra-culture dyads.

Future researchers may wish to explore the impact of social presence, previously investigated by Kachelmeier and Towry (2002), on negotiated transfer prices. Kersten, Koeszegi, and Vetschera (2003), for instance, posited that cultural dimensions such as power distance rely on communicating social cues. Thus, the significance of power distance might strengthen or weaken through the use of technologies that enhance or inhibit such communications.

In addition, future researchers may replicate and extend our study with cultures significantly different from American and Chinese in regards to the individualism/collectivism and power distance (Hofstede, 1994). Furthermore, they may explore whether self-reported perceptions of fairness and expectations of outcomes are consistent with actual negotiated profit distributions in experimental studies.

There are limitations in this study. First, this study relies on Hofstede's work in characterizing Chinese culture as collectivist with large power distance, and American culture as individualist with small power distance. To the extent that national cultures evolve over time, it is fair to doubt the validity of our characterization. Second, we have no evidence that participants' concerns over fairness are indeed the mechanism driving the observed results, which therefore could be open to alternative explanations. Third, we put the experiment in a surplus labor context because Big Four Accounting firms, among other service-based enterprises, are known to crossutilize staff from offices across countries. We acknowledge that cross-utilization in other industries could be subject to industryspecific limitations.