Market Entry Strategies in Uncertain Markets: The Alliance or Acquisition Trade-off

Although every foreign market entry mode comes with its peculiar challenges, the question of market uncertainty is a recurring trait no matter the entry choice embarked upon by a firm. According to Peck & Shell (1991) uncertain markets are analogous to imperfect markets. In such markets firms are known to: have an influence over market prices - exercising monopolistic power in such markets; or governmental policies erect a barrier to entry and exist - which either forces the institution to remain in the market or incur a huge cost if it decides to leave the market. In addition, the suppliers offer differentiated products or services and the information asymmetry that encourages prices is in existence. Sanders and Boivie (2004) note that information asymmetry results in the increase in both adverse selection – hidden information – and moral hazards – hidden actions – (Nayyar, 1990; Stiglitz, 1965). Furthermore, uncertain markets are also as a result of other characteristics other than the firm’s behaviour, an example is that of a difference in time lag in the market (Peck & Shell, 1991). Whereas each market entry mode has its own advantages and disadvantages (Anderson & Hubert, 1986), organizations are required to evaluate their mission and vision, and compare these core values with the strategic intent to go abroad. This essay will describe and analyse two specific market entry modes, then suggest ways that organizations can use in selecting the most appropriate entry mode strategy in uncertain markets.

One of the ways a firm can enter an uncertain market is by a strategic alliance. Barlett, Sumantra & Beamish (2008) see a strategic alliance as a cooperative agreement among certain organizations in the sharing of research projects, minority equity concerns or a joint venture. Mowery, Oxley & Silverman (1996) mention five desiderata behind the formation of such a strategic entity: the hankering for the acquisition of cutting-edge technological skills or competency from partnering firms; the inclination to increase market power – achieved by strategic coordination among competitors in a specific market; the capital requisition for the development of such projects; anticipated associated risk with innovation; and the desire to spread cost. Alternatively, a firm could enter a foreign market by an acquisition entry mode, purchasing part or the entire entity of an existing institution. Slangen & Hennart (2007) point out that this entry mode choice gives such a firm the status of a partial owner – when part of an existing firm is purchased – or a wholly owned subsidiary – when the entire entities of the existing firm are purchased. In addition, Kogut & Singh (1998) consider the purchase of stocks in an existing company, competent enough to take control of the activities of the firm, as an acquisition.

The selection of the most suitable foreign market entry mode for a firm nurturing such an intention usually follows a strategic analysis process. This procedure enumerates the objectives of the firm, comparing such aspirations with the gains associated with going abroad. Hennart & Reddy (1997) propose that a strategic alliance takes place only because there is an existence of high transaction cost to the firms involved. Anderson & Gatignon (1986) describe transaction cost as the cost of participating in a market; an explication of this construct results in a transaction cost analysis. Four key elements arise from this analysis, they are:

                   I.        Transaction specific assets: which state the investments, both physical and human that are               specialized to one or a few users or uses;

                II.            External uncertainty: elaborating on the unpredictability of the entrant’s external environment

             III.            Internal uncertainty: the entrants inability to determine its agents performance by observing output measures

             IV.            Free-riding potential: agents’ ability to receive benefits without bearing the associated costs.

The most prominent grounds for choosing a strategic alliance over an acquisition entry mode are when there are governmental and institutional barriers (Hennart & Reddy, 1997); these obstacles could be local laws or regulations that prohibit foreign direct investment or differences in corporate culture that prevent employees of both firms from integrating (Hennart & Reddy, 1997).

The acquisition entry mode has a strong relationship with a firm’s international strategy, Hazing (2002) notes that there are two types of international strategy that firms follow: the global strategy – renowned for efficiency, thus producing standardized products in a remarkably cost-efficient manner with an emphasis on economies of scale and scope. And the multidomestic strategy – symbolized for its focus on decentralized networks, allowing its firms to compete at the local level by adapting its product and or service offering to local taste and preferences. The multidomestic international strategy is acclaimed for a low level of integration (forgoing the benefits of economies of scale and scope) and a high level of localization. These characteristics suggest the most suitable entry strategy for firms intending to go abroad, where the multidomestic strategy corresponds strongly with acquisition intent. Hazing (2002) suggests that the fact that a firm is willing to readapt its business strategy to suit local desires gives such an institution a better chance at achieving its objective, if it enters the market by acquisition.

This paper has given an account of the features of an uncertain market and how these traits determine the choice of foreign market entry mode. In order to enhance the success of the decision to go abroad, especially where an air of uncertainty is present, it is first necessary to fully understand the firm’s corporate level strategy, the firm’s mission and vision, and the conditions prevalent in the chosen market. Such a strategic assessment identifies needs and opportunities for all involved, and provides opportunity for partnering institutions to recognise and value the strategic liaison. A collaborative approach to goal setting (if the firm opts for a strategic alliance) and the design of intervention strategies (if the organization chooses an acquisition entry mode) provides the best chance of successful implementation

----------------

References List

1.      Anderson, E., & Hubert, G. (1986). Modes of Foreign Entry: A Transaction Cost Analysis and Propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 1-26.

2.      Bartlett, Christopher A., Sumantra Ghoshal, and Paul W. Beamish. Transnational

 Management: Text, Cases, and Readings in Cross-border Management. Boston:

McGraw-Hill/ Irwin, 2008. Print.

3.      Erin Anderson and Huber Gatignon. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 17,   No. 3 (autumn, 1986), pp. 1-26.

4.      Hennart, J. F., & Reddy, S. (1997). The choice between mergers/acquisitions and

joint ventures: The case of Japanese investors in the United States. Strategic

Management Journal, 18(1), 1-12.

5.      Harzing. A.W. (2002). Acquisitions versus Greenfield investments: International

             strategy and management of entry modes, Strategic Management Journal, 23: 211-227.

6.      Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode.  Journal of international business studies, 411-432.

7.      Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic Alliances and Interfirm       Knowledge Transfer. Strategic management journal, 17, 77-91.

8.      Nayyar PR, (1990). Information Asymmetries: A Source of Competitive Advantage for Diversified Service Firms. Strategic Management journal 11(7): 513-519.

9.      Peck, J., & Shell, K. (1991). Market Uncertainty: Correlated Sunsport Equilibria in Imperfectly Competitive Economics. The Review of Economic Studies, 1011-1029.

10.  Sanders, W. M., & Boivie, S. (2004). Sorting things out: Valuation of new firms in uncertain markets. Strategic Management Journal, 25(2), 167-186.

11.  Slangen, A., & Hennart, J. F. (2007). Greenfield or acquisition entry: A review of

the empirical foreign establishment mode literature. Journal of International Management, 13(4), 403-429.

12.  Stiglitz JE. 185. Information and Economic Analysis: A Perspective. Economic

Journal 95: 21-41.

The Contagion Effect: An Inquiry into the Positivity of Foreign Direct Investment

Globalization has driven governments across the globe to enter into a fierce competition to secure international capital through foreign direct investments – FDI. Although multinational enterprises are driven by a specific factor that underlines location choice – for instance resource seeking (Dunning, 1994), the incentives provided by host government equally play a role in the location choice. Krugman and Obstfeld (1994) argue that there are two types of capital movement: the international borrowing and lending – which has been viewed as intertemporal trade; and foreign direction investment – capital flows in which a firm in one country creates or expands a subsidiary in another (Zilinske, 2010). The government policies that attract these capital flows include: industrial space, tax exemption or abatement, red tape waiver and land grants (Mudambi, 1995). Host country governments’ design these policies with the aim that there will be positive spillovers from the capital flow of these multinational organizations. Advocates of Keynesian approach (e.g. Lipsey, Pourvis & Courant, 1994; Epstein, 1999; Sims & Lake, 2000) argue that because market failures exist, a free market structure does not ensure market efficiency . Their argument is based on two key ideas: imperfect information – information is not always perfect thus incorrect information can lead to the wrong kind of investment; and divergent interest – Multinational Corporation’s interest is perhaps different for that of the host government. Conversely, Neo-liberals (e.g. IMF, 1999; Ciburiene and Zaharieva, 2006; Tong and Hu, 2003) argue that the positive spill overs from foreign direct investment far outweighs the negatives. This essay will enumerate and analyse two key positive spillover effects of foreign direct investment, then suggest how host nations can benefit from the capital flow of multinational organizations. One of the benefits of foreign direct investment is technology diffusion (Borensztein, Gregorio and Lee, 1997). According to Findlay (1998) foreign direct investment increases the rate of technological progress of the host country through a process referred to as the “contagion effect”. This process takes place through an array of avenues thus benefiting the host country in the transmission and generation of ideas and new technologies. Borensztein, Gregorio and Lee (1997) identify three channels of technology diffusion: imports of high-technology products – creates awareness for the host country helping the country keep abreast with modern products; adoption of foreign technology – host country can build on the technological idea to manufacture indigenous products; and acquisition of human capital – host country can hire the manufactures to train local producers in the latest technology. Aside these benefits, Borensztein, Gregorio and Lee (1997) note that foreign direct investment by multinational corporations is considered as one of the major means by which developing nations access advanced technologies. This is because multinational corporations are among the most technologically advanced institutions in the world and they account for a considerable amount of the world’s research and development (R&D) investment. Likewise, the development of human capital can be achieved through foreign direct investment. Blomstrom and Kokko (2003) argue that technology is not embodied only in machinery, equipment and patent rights but also in human capital of the affiliates’ local employee, thus developing them through direct and indirect training is vital for the success of the multinational enterprise in the host country. Blomstrom and Kokko (2003) suggest three avenues that the human capital of the host country can be developed: formal education, employee education and service industries education. Because multinational corporations increasingly demand for highly skilled graduates in the fields of natural sciences, engineering and business science (Blomstrom and Kokko, 2003), the host country government is driven to invest in higher education. In addition, the opportunity of gaining employment with a multinational enterprise is an added incentive for gifted students; this gives them an added impetus to start and complete tertiary education. Further, Blomstrom and Kokko (2003) argue that multinational corporations are actively involved in sponsoring higher institutions; this financial support helps the institutions in the area of research and development. Human capital is also developed through multinational employee education; Blomstrom and Kokko (2003) suggest this is done on the basis on of the industry, the mode of entry of the firm, type of operations and the local conditions. Regardless of the training, employees are developed in areas that add value to their knowledge, making them mobile within and outside the industry that they currently work. According to Blomstrom and Kokko (2003), the education in the service industry is focused on strengthening skills and know-how embodied in employees. In addition, UNCTAD (1994) suggest that the reason training is vital is because services are not tradable across international borders, thus multinational corporations in the service sector are compelled to invest in more training as they go abroad. Blomstrom and Kokko (2003) argue that the training in large service sectors – finance and IT – and simpler services industries – hotels and restaurants – have received great attention from multinational corporations. This paper has given an account of two benefits of foreign direct investment and elucidated the capital flow of multinational organizations. Although there are valid arguments against foreign direct investment, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. For a country to successfully attract foreign direct investment that will benefit its people, the host government is required to first draft a strategic economic plan that clearly states how it wants to achieve economic growth and the types of multinational institutions that can play a role in accomplishing such a goal. Once this is successfully done, the host government has been able to narrow down the investors that match their economic development objectives. -------- Notes 1. Keynesian economics is considered to be a “demand-side” theory that focuses on changes in the economy over the short run. An economic situation that suggests that in any given market scenario, the quantity of goods demanded by consumers does not equate to the quantity of goods supplied by the suppliers 2. A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e. buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation. 3. The degree to which stock prices reflect all available, relevant information. 4. Neo-liberal approach in economics and social studies is synonymous with control of economic factors and the shifted from the public sector to the private sector. Drawing upon principles of neoclassical economics, neoliberalism suggests that governments reduce deficit spending, limit subsidies, reform tax law to broaden the tax base, remove fixed exchange rates, open up markets to trade by limiting protectionism, privatize state-run businesses, allow private property and back deregulation. The term "liberal" in economics is different from its use in politics. Liberalism in economics refers to "freeing up" the economy by removing barriers and restrictions to what actors can do. Neoliberalism's policies seek to create a laissez-faire atmosphere for economic development. ---------- References 1. Blomstrom, M. and Kokko, A. (2003) Human capital and inward FDI. Working Papers Series, No. 167, The European Institute of Japanese Studies (Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden). 2. Borensztein, E., De Gregorio, J., & Lee, J. W. (1998). How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth?. Journal of international Economics, 45(1), 115-135 3. Ciburiene, J., & Zaharieva, G. (2006) International Trade as a factor of competitiveness: comparison of Lithuanian and Bulgarian cases. Inžinerinė Ekonomika-Engineering Economics (4). 48-56. 4. Dunning, John. H. (1994). Re-evaluating the benefits of foreign direct investment. Transnational corporations, 3(1), 23-51. 5. Epstein G. (1999). A critique of neo-liberal globalization. Third World Network. 6. Findlay, R., 1978. Relative backwardness, direct foreign investment, and the transfer of technology: a simple dynamic model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 92, 1–16. 7. Graf, M., & Mudambi, S. M. (2005). The outsourcing of IT-enabled business processes: a conceptual model of the location decision. Journal of International management, 11(2), 253-268. 8. Obstfeld, M. (1996). Models of currency crises with self-fulfilling features. European economic review, 40(3), 1037-1047. 9. Tong, S. Y., & Hu, A. Y. (2003, December). Do domestic firms benefit from foreign direct investment? Initial evidence from Chinese manufacturing. In The Conference on China’s Economic Geography and Regional Development. 10. UNCTAD (1994), World Investment Report 1994: Transnational Corporations, Employment and the Workplace, United Nations, New York and Geneva.

The Contagion Effect: An Inquiry into the Positivity of Foreign Direct Investment