区域一体化与制度距离作用下的中国企业跨境并购

doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2019.10.006

Abstract

Abstract:

Under the background of booming regional integration, studying cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As) of enterprises can help understand capital flow in regions of different scales. This study used the BVD-Zephyr cross-border M&As data of Chinese enterprises from 2003 to 2017 to explore the accomplishment rate and transaction scale of cross-border M&As from the perspective of regional integration and institutional distance. Through Heckman's two-stage regression, this study found that: 1) Regional integration can promote the closing of cross-border M&A deals, but does not contribute to an increase in the amount of M&A transactions. 2) Rising formal institutional distance (significant differences of laws and regulations) helps close the deals, but it is not conducive to expand the scale of transaction. 3) Decreasing informal institutional distance (disparities of culture and identity) is able to assist the completion of transactions, but as long as the deal is done, it has larger amount. Besides, with the deepening of regional integration, formal institutional distance between the members is believed to be attenuated, which leads to a decreasing difficulty of closing deals and the hindrance of institutional distance to the transaction scale will be weakened.

Key words: regional integration, cross-border mergers and acquisitions, institutional distance, Chinese enterprises

HE Canfei,LI Zhenfa,CHEN Hanghang. Cross-border mergers and acqusitions of Chinese enterprises under the influence of regional integration and institutional distance[J].PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(10): 1501-1513.

Figures/Tables 14

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Fig.11

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

References 55

[1]	陈雯 . 2009. 中国-东盟自由贸易区的贸易效应研究: 基于引力模型“单国模式”的实证分析[J]. 国际贸易问题, ( 1):61-66.
	[ Chen W . 2009. Research on the trade effect of China-ASEAN Free Trade Area: Based on the gravity model of "single country mode". Journal of International Trade, ( 1):61-66. ]
[2]	贺灿飞, 郭琪, 马妍 , 等. 2014. 西方经济地理学研究进展[J]. 地理学报, 69(8):1207-1223.
	[ He C F, Guo Q, Ma Y , et al 2014. Progress of economic geography in the west: A literature review. Acta Geographica Sinica, 69(8):1207-1223. ]
[3]	贺灿飞, 毛熙彦 . 2015. 尺度重构视角下的经济全球化研究[J]. 地理科学进展, 34(9):1073-1083. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2015.09.001
	[ He C F, Mao X Y . 2015. Economic globalization research based on scale-construction in western human geography. Progress in Geography, 34(9):1073-1083. ] doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2015.09.001
[4]	李元旭, 刘勰 . 2016. 制度距离与我国企业跨国并购交易成败研究[J]. 财经问题研究, ( 3):94-103.
	[ Li Y X, Liu X . 2016. Study on the relationship of institutional distance and the success of cross-border mergers and acqusitions of Chinese multinational enterprises. Resarch on Financial and Economic Issues, ( 3):94-103. ]
[5]	苗长虹 . 2004. 变革中的西方经济地理学: 制度、文化、关系与尺度转向[J]. 人文地理, 19(4):68-76.
	[ Miao C H . 2004. Western economic geography in transformation: Insititutional, cultural, relational and scalar turns. Human Geography, 19(4):68-76. ]
[6]	潘镇 . 2006. 制度质量、制度距离与双边贸易[J]. 中国工业经济, ( 7):45-52.
	[ Pan Z . 2006. Institutional quality, institutional distance and bilateral trade. China Industrial Economy, ( 7):45-52. ]
[7]	汪占熬, 陈小倩 . 2013. 中国-东盟自由贸易区投资效应研究[J]. 华东经济管理, ( 6):65-69.
	[ Wang Z A, Chen X Q . 2013. Study on investment effect of China-ASEAN Free Trade Area. East China Economic Management, ( 6):65-69. ]
[8]	吴加伟, 陈雯, 张鹏 . 2017. 企业并购投资区位选择机理与效应的研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 36(11):1423-1434.
	[ Wu J W, Chen W, Zhang P . 2017. A literature review of merger and acquisition (M&A) study from the geographical perspective: Location choice, driving mechanism and implications. Progress in Geography, 36(11):1423-1434. ]
[9]	徐婧 . 2008. CAFTA对中国和东盟贸易扩大效应的实证研究[J]. 世界经济研究, ( 10):63-68.
	[ Xu J . 2008. The Empirical study on the trade expansion effect of CAFTA. Word Economy Studies, ( 10):63-68. ]
[10]	宗芳宇, 路江涌, 武常岐 . 2012. 双边投资协定、制度环境和企业对外直接投资区位选择[J]. 经济研究, ( 5):71-82.
	[ Zong F Y, Lu J Y, Wu C Q . 2012. Bilateral investment treaties, institutional environment and outward FDI location choices of firms: An empirical study of Chinese listed firms. Economic Research Journal, ( 5):71-82. ]
[11]	Bae J H, Salomon R . 2010. Institutional distance in international business research[J]. Advances in International Management, 23:327-349.
[12]	Baldwin R E, Forslid R, Haaland J I . 1995. Investment creation and investment diversion: Simulation analysis of thesingle market programme [R]. NBER Working Paper Series: No. W5364. Cambridge, USA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
[13]	Bertrand O, Zitouna H . 2006. Trade liberalization and industrial restructuring: The role of cross-border mergers and acquisitions[J]. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 15(2):479-515.
[14]	Böckerman P, Lehto E . 2006. Geography of domestic mergers and acquisitions (M&As): Evidence from matched firm-level data[J]. Regional Studies, 40(8):847-860.
[15]	Boisot M, Meyer M W . 2008. Which way through the open door? Reflections on the internationalization of Chinese firms[J]. Management & Organization Review, 4(3):349-365.
[16]	Boschma R, Hartog M . 2014. Merger and acquisition activity as driver of spatial clustering: The spatial evolution of the Dutch banking industry, 1850-1993[J]. Economic Geography, 90(3):247-266.
[17]	Boschma R, Marrocu E, Paci R . 2016. Symmetric and asymmetric effects of proximities: The case of M&A deals in Italy[J]. Journal of Economic Geography, 16(2):505-535.
[18]	Breinlich H . 2006. Trade liberalization and industrial restructuring through mergers and acquisitions[J]. Journal of International Economics, 76(2):254-266.
[19]	Buckley P J, Clegg J, Wang C . 2007. Is the relationship between inward FDI and spillover effects linear? An empirical examination of the case of China[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(3):447-459.
[20]	Buckley P J, Yu P, Liu Q , et al 2016. The institutional influence on the location strategies of multinational enterprises from emerging economies: Evidence from China's cross-border mergers and acquisitions[J]. Management and Organization Review, 12(3):425-448.
[21]	Busse M, Hefeker C . 2007. Political risk, institutions and foreign direct investment[J]. European Journal of Political Economy, 23(2):397-415.
[22]	Chakrabarti R, Gupta-Mukherjee S, Jayaraman N . 2009. Mars-Venus marriages: Culture and cross-border M&A[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(2):216-236.
[23]	Colombo L V A, Turati G . 2014. Why do acquiring banks in mergers concentrate in well-developed areas? Regional development and mergers and acquisitions (M&As) in banking[J]. Regional Studies, 48(2):363-381.
[24]	Di Guardo M C, Marrocu E, Paci R . 2016. The concurrent impact of cultural, political, and spatial distances on international mergers and acquisitions[J]. The World Economy, 39(6):824-852.
[25]	Dikova D, Sahib P R, Witteloostuijn A V . 2010. Cross-border acquisition abandonment and completion: the effect of institutional differences and organizational learning in the international business service industry, 1981-2001[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2):223-245.
[26]	Du M, Boateng A . 2015. State ownership, institutional effects and value creation in cross-border mergers & acquisitions by Chinese firms[J]. International Business Review, 24(3):430-442.
[27]	Estrin S, Ionascu D, Meyer K E . 2005. Formal and informal institutional distance, and international entry strategies [R]. William Davidson Institute Working Paper, No. 728.
[28]	Fanning B . 2009. The European politics of a political integration: policy harmonization, cultural convergence and the case of the Republic of Ireland [R]. UCD School of Applied Social Science Working Paper,(09/06). Dublin, Ireland: University College Dublin.
[29]	Grote M H, Umber M P . 2006. Home biased? A spatial analysis of the domestic merging behavior of us firms [R]. Working paper series: Finance & Accounting, No.161. Frankfurt, Germany: Goethe University.
[30]	Helpman E, Melitz M, Rubinstein Y. 2008. Estimating trade flows: Trading partners and trading volumes [J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 123(2):441-487.
[31]	Hofstede G . 1991. Cultures and organizations. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival[M]. New York, USA: Mc Graw-Hill.
[32]	Hofstede G, Hofstede G J, Minkov M . 2010. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind[M]. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.
[33]	House R J, Hanges P J, Javidan M , et al 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The globe study of 62 societies[M]. New York, USA: Sage Publications.
[34]	Jonas A E G . 1992. Corporate takeover and the politics of community: The case of Norton Company in Worcester[J]. Economic Geography, 68(4):348-372.
[35]	Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M . 2011. The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues[J]. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(2):220-246.
[36]	Knoerich D J . 2010. Gaining from the global ambitions of emerging economy enterprises: An analysis of the decision to sell a German firm to a Chinese aquirer[J]. Journal of International Management, 16(2):177-191.
[37]	Kogut B, Singh H . 1988. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(3):411-432.
[38]	Kox H, Lejour A, Montizaan R . 2004. Intra-EU trade and investment in service sectors, and regulation patterns [R]. CPB Memorandum 102. Den Haag, Netherlands: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
[39]	Lall S, Siddharthan N S . 1982. The Monopolistic Advantages of Multinationals: Lessons from Foreign Investment in the U S[J]. Economic Journal, 92:668-683.
[40]	Mayer T, Zignago S . 2011. Notes on CEPII's distances measures: The GeoDist Database [R]. CEPII Working Paper, No. 2011-25. Paris, France: CEPII Database.
[41]	McCarthy K J, Dolfsma W . 2015. The Euro and its ipact on the number, size, performance and regional spread of European mergers and acquisitions[J]. Regional Studies, 49(8):1407-1422.
[42]	Meyer C O . 2005. Convergence towards a European strategic culture? A constructivist framework for explaining changing norms[J]. European Journal of International Relations, 11(4):523-549.
[43]	Meyer J W, Rowan B . 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2):340-363.
[44]	Moschieri C, Ragozzino R., Campa J M . 2014. Does regional integration change the effects of country-level institutional barriers on M&A? The case of the European Union[J]. Management International Review, 54(6):853-877.
[45]	Neary J P . 2007. Cross-border mergers as instruments of comparative advantage[J]. The Review of Economic Studies, 74(4):1229-1257.
[46]	Ramasamy B, Yeung M, Laforet S . 2012. China's outward foreign direct investment: Location choice and firm ownership[J]. Journal of World Business, 47(1):17-25.
[47]	Rodríguez-Pose A, Zademach H M . 2003. Rising metropoli: The geography of mergers and acquisitions in Germany[J]. Urban Studies, 40(10):1895-1923.
[48]	Rodríguez-Pose A, Zademach H M . 2006. Industry dynamics in the german merger and acquisitions market[J]. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie (Journal of Economic and Social Geography), 97(3):296-313.
[49]	Venables A J. 2016. Regional integration agreements: A force for convergence or divergence? [M]. New York, USA: Social Science Electronic Publishing.
[50]	Viner J. 2014. The customs union issue [M]. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[51]	Weterings A, Marsili O . 2015. Spatial concentration of industries and new firm exits: Does this relationship differ between exits by closure and by M&A?[J]. Regional Studies, 49(1):44-58.
[52]	Witt M A, Lewin A Y . 2007. Outward foreign direct investment as escape response to home country institutional constraints[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4):579-594.
[53]	Xu D, Shenkar O . 2002. Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise[J]. Academy of Management Review, 27(4):608-618.
[54]	Zademach H-M, Rodríguez-Pose A . 2009. Cross-border M&As and the changing economic geography of Europe[J]. European Planning Studies, 17(5):765-789.
[55]	Zhang J, Zhou C, Ebbers H . 2011. Completion of Chinese overseas acquisitions: Institutional perspectives and evidence[J]. International Business Review, 20(2):226-238.

变量	完成率	交易总量	平均正式制度距离
完成率	1
交易总量	0.5476^**	1
平均正式制度距离	-0.6369^**	-0.579^**	1

变量维度	变量名称	计算方法	数据来源
被解释变量	并购成败(IFDEALCLOSE)	并购成功为1;撤销或终止为0	BVD-Zephyr
被解释变量	并购金额(DEALVALUE)	成交金额	BVD-Zephyr
解释变量	是否区域一体化(RI)	交易前一年签署双边或有限多边自由贸易协定为1,否则为0	商务部自贸区服务网
	正式制度距离(FID)	基于全球治理指数计算	World Bank WGI
	非正式制度距离(IID)	基于Hofstede文化指数(2015年数据)	Hofstede
控制变量	子公司数量(ACSUB)	收购方子公司数量	BVD-Zephyr
	股权比例(ACSTAKE)	收购标的股份比例	BVD-Zephyr
	目的国经济体量(GDP)	目的国GDP总量	World Bank
	目的国外资开放度(FDI)	目的国FDI流入占其GDP比重	World Bank
	是否国企(SOE)	收购方是否是国有控股	BVD-Zephyr
	审批效率(COMPTIME)	目的国审批外资平均耗时	World Bank

变量	基础回归				加入交叉项
变量	交易金额	交易是否完成	交易金额	交易是否完成	交易金额	交易是否完成
RI	-1.444^***	1.324^***			-1.795^***	1.368^***
	(0.444)	(0.137)			(0.547)	(0.181)
FID	-0.418^***	0.204^***	-0.724^***	0.239^***	-0.506^***	0.209^***
	(0.115)	(0.0566)	(0.192)	(0.0626)	(0.135)	(0.0582)
IID			0.471^***	-0.148^***
			(0.163)	(0.0412)
RI_FID					0.292^**	-0.0524^***
					(0.248)	(0.138)
ACSUB	0.455^***	-0.0527^***	0.513^***	-0.0737^***	0.460^***	-0.0526^***
	(0.0502)	(0.0187)	(0.0866)	(0.0188)	(0.0513)	(0.0187)
ACSTAKE	0.285^**	-0.330^***	0.474^***	-0.287^***	0.312^***	-0.330^***
	(0.114)	(0.0367)	(0.209)	(0.0345)	(0.118)	(0.0367)
FDI	0.186^**	-0.0439			0.178^**	-0.0422
	(0.0737)	(0.0325)			(0.0754)	(0.0328)
GDP	0.302^***	-0.0115	0.0992	0.00458	0.313^***	-0.0120
	(0.0627)	(0.0250)	(0.101)	(0.0314)	(0.0643)	(0.0251)
SOE	1.590^***	-0.341^**	1.550^**	-0.330^**	1.630^***	-0.340^**
	(0.428)	(0.144)	(0.604)	(0.155)	(0.435)	(0.144)
COMPTIME		0.121^***		0.0870^**		0.121^***
		(0.0306)		(0.0339)		(0.0307)
λ		-2.430^***		-3.885^**		-2.663^***
		(0.854)		(1.753)		(0.889)
行业虚拟变量	包含	包含	包含	包含	包含	包含
年份虚拟变量	包含	包含	包含	包含	包含	包含
常数	6.046^***	1.506^***	7.973^***	1.446^***	6.054^***	1.504^***
	(0.671)	(0.296)	(1.004)	(0.315)	(0.683)	(0.296)
观测值	1416	1416	1416	1416	1416	1416

Cross-border mergers and acqusitions of Chinese enterprises under the influence of regional integration and institutional distance

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 14

References 55

Related Articles 6

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

[1]	SI Yuefang,LIU Wanxin,ZHU Yiwen,NIE Yuhan. R&D internationalization of Chinese enterprises and innovation performance:Based on the survey data of enterprises at the China International Industry Fair 2016-2018 [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(10): 1523-1534.
[2]	Hong'ou ZHANG, Yang WANG, Yuyao YE, Lixia JIN, Gengzhi HUANG. Key scientific issues and important topics in the joint development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao region [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2018, 37(12): 1587-1596.
[3]	Xun LI, Jinmiao ZHOU, Yaofu HUANG, Meiyu HUANG. Understanding the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area from the perspective of mega-city region [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2018, 37(12): 1609-1622.
[4]	WANG Jue, CHEN Wen. Implication of regionalism and regional integration under the global shift [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2013, 32(7): 1082-1091.
[5]	WANG Liang, LIU Weidong. Progress in the Study of Border and Border Effects Issues by Economic Geographers: Western Countries&rsquo\|Experience and Its Implications for China [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2010, 29(5): 601-608.
[6]	Pang Xiaomin . THE CONCEPTION OF REGIONAL INTEGRATION AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 1997, 16(2): 39-47.