2019
DOI: 10.1080/1540496x.2018.1545118
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Institutional Distance, Organizational Learning, and Innovation Performance: Outward Foreign Direct Investment by Chinese Multinational Enterprises

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

2
16
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
2
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Institutional distance between the subsidiary home and host contexts can be formal or informal (Hitt, 2016), with the former involving differences on explicit rules and standards (Hitt, 2016), and the latter on aspects such as culture, administration, geography, and economy (Benito and Gripsrud, 1992; Ghemawat, 2007; Berry et al ., 2010; Antunes et al ., 2019). While both aspects impact subsidiaries differently (Aguilera‐Caracuel et al ., 2013), and at times in opposite directions (Yi et al ., 2020), research on institutional distance mainly looks at formal institutional distance and informal institutional distance, either alone, together in isolation, or as a combined construct (Wu, 2013; Yeh and Hsiao, 2020). This leads to low generalizability (Tihanyi et al ., 2005) and inconsistency of findings (Xu et al ., 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Institutional distance between the subsidiary home and host contexts can be formal or informal (Hitt, 2016), with the former involving differences on explicit rules and standards (Hitt, 2016), and the latter on aspects such as culture, administration, geography, and economy (Benito and Gripsrud, 1992; Ghemawat, 2007; Berry et al ., 2010; Antunes et al ., 2019). While both aspects impact subsidiaries differently (Aguilera‐Caracuel et al ., 2013), and at times in opposite directions (Yi et al ., 2020), research on institutional distance mainly looks at formal institutional distance and informal institutional distance, either alone, together in isolation, or as a combined construct (Wu, 2013; Yeh and Hsiao, 2020). This leads to low generalizability (Tihanyi et al ., 2005) and inconsistency of findings (Xu et al ., 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Scholars have studied various types of distance, including the aspects of cultural distance (CD), e.g. (Beugelsdijk et al, 2018;Deng et al, 2019;Kirkman et al, 2017;Lucke and Eichler, 2016) and institutional distance (ID), for instance (Aguilera and Grøgaard, 2019;Choi et al, 2016;Jackson and Deeg, 2019;Yi et al, 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The positive effects that enterprises are accessible to external advanced technology and thus improve their private technological innovation capability through OFDI have been empirically con rmed (García et al, 2013;Oscar and Carmen, 2015;Piperopoulos et al, 2018;Javorcik et al, 2018). The realization of this positive effect involves reverse technology spillover effect (Du et al, 2012;Hamida,2017), feedback effect of investment income (Li et al, 2016b;Piperopoulos et al, 2018); Learning effect (Bena and Li, 2014;Ye et al, 2018;Yi et al, 2020), and other contexts.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%