Performance of international joint ventures from developing and developed countries: An empirical...

Performance of International Joint Ventures

from Developing and Developed Countries:

An Empirical Study in a Developing Country Context

A. B. Sim Yunus Ali

In response 6zt the needfQr research on ~~ter~a#~ona~ Joint Ventlares ~~JVs~ $rom deveio~~~g cotdnfries~ this paper examines the mtdtivariate determinants ofpeflormance of 59 IJVs from both developing and developed countries in a developing country context. Resource complementarity, cooperation, joint venture experience, technology and export-orientation were found to be significant determinants ofper- formance of joint ventures. While the determinatzts varied for IIVs from developing and developed counties, there were no s~g~~~cant d~~ere~ces k their ~e~orma~ce levels. The ernp~rica~~~d~~gs and their ~~np~icatio~, i~cl~d~~g limitations and areas for~rther research are d&used.

P ast studies on International Joint Ventures (IJVs) have concentrated

on IJVs from developed countries operating in other developed and developing countries (Beamish & Killing, 1996; Woodcock, Beamish, & Makina, 1994; Inkpen, 1994; Beamish, 1988; Lecraw, 1983; Blodgett, 1992). Since the early 1980’s a growing number of

Dr. A.B. Sim, Wepattment of Management, Univer- sity of Wo~~o~goff~ Wo~~on~o~~ NSW 2522, ALIS- tralia <a b s~m~~o~.ed~.a~>. Dr. Yunus Hi, Department- of Marketing, Monash University (Gippsland Campus), Churchill, Vie 3842, Australia <[email protected],edu.av>.

firms from developing countries, including newly industrialized countries or economies (NIEs), have been investing overseas through direct investments, particularly in other developing countries (Agarwal & Agmon, 1990; Lall, 1983; Lecraw, 1993; Ting, 1985; Wells, 1983). In recent years, the phenomenal growth of East Asia (World Bank, 1993) has also resulted in increased intra-regional direct investments, particularly from the Asian NIEs (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore) into other parts of Asia, The foreign entry mode fre-

quently used by the multinationals from the developing countries is joint venture (Yeung, 1994; Monkiewicz, 1986). However, little research have been reported on these IJVs from developing countries, including NIEs (Lee & Beamish, 1995; Tallman & Shenkar, 1990). There is also a dearth of empirical research on the comparative analysis of joint ventures originating from developed and developing countries.

The purpose of this paper is to attempt to fill this gap and to report the results of a study on the determinants of performance of joint ventures from developing and developed countries operating in a developing country (Bangladesh). A brief review of past research is presented, followed by discussion of the research methodology and results. Our emphasis here is on equity joint ventures between foreign firms and local (Bangladesh) firms and not on other forms of alliances. The popularly accepted notion of developed and developing countries is used to categorise countries of foreign sponsors of IJVs (United Nations, 1994, p.xii). The term Developed Countries (DC) refer to the industrialized countries of North America, North and Western Europe, Japan and Australia. Developing Countries (DG, for ease of labelling) refer to countries of Asia (excluding Japan), Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America. The rapidly developing economies or NIEs are included under the Developing Coun- tries category for our analysis here. Hence our developing countries will include the NIEs and the Less Devel- oped Countries (LDCs).

BACKGROUNDANDHYPOTHESES

The use or incidence of joint ventures as foreign entry strategies has increased during the past two decades (Beamish & Delios, 1997; UNCTAD, 1995). However, Beamish & Delios (1996) found that the propensity or rate of alliance formation (number of alliance scaled to FDI flows) has dropped in recent years Despite the popularity of joint ventures in international business, a considerable proportion of joint ventures are unstable or performed unsatis- factorily. Further, the rates of instability and unsatisfactory performance are relatively higher in developing countries than in developed countries (Beamish 1988; Killing 1983). A number of studies investigated performance of IJVs in developing_ countries (Beamish 1988; Luo, 1995), as well as in developed countries (Harrigan 1988; Geringer & Hebert, 1989) but the reasons for success or failure are still far from clear. Most studies investigated only a few factors at a time and the relative importance of these factors remains unre- solved. Some of the studies even reported contradictory impacts.

A review of the literature suggests that parent firm-related, industry- related, managerial and parent country- related factors all have impact on joint venture performance. These explanatory factors were included in a conceptual framework used to operationalise the research study. Firm-related factors found to have an impact on JV performance were relative firm size, extent of multinationality, JV experience, extent of linkages and relatedness and resource complementarily. The management of a JV influences its perfor-

358 Journal of World Business / 33(4) / 1998

mance. Managerial factors, such as control, operational autonomy and cooperation were key variables in JV performance. Key industry-related factors relevant to a developing country were technology level and market (export) orientation and were included in the conceptual model. Cultural differences have impact on JV success and was operationalised as psychic distance in the model for study. These factors, derived from the literature review, were operationalised as independent variables to test their hypothesized relationship with the dependent variable, JV success. These independent variables were chosen for their relevance to the study and comparison of performance of joint ventures from developing and developed countries operating in a developing country and are discussed below. While the independent variables may be interrelated in their effects, these relationships are not the focus of the present study.

In research relating to firm-related variables, some researchers have suggested an adverse effect of parents’ firm size asymmetry on joint venture performance, due to a mismatch of strategic priorities and influence. However, this has not been consistently substantiated empirically (Harrigan, 1988; Killing, 1983; Kogut, 1988). In developing country contexts, size asymmetry would be expected to be more significant and exert a negative influence on joint venture performance. The past joint venture experience of the parent firms was postulated to have a positive influence on performance. Experience would lead to an accumulation of knowledge about doing business in host

countries, with positive consequences for joint venture performance. How- ever, the empirical evidence is conflict-

ing (Blumenthal, 1988; Harrigan,

1988; Makino & Delios, 1996). Makino and Delios (1996) indicated that the

impact may be contingent on the level of joint venture experience and pres-

ence of local partner in a study of Japa- nese joint ventures in Southeast and

East Asia. The extent of multinational-

ity in terms of the spread of business across national boundaries of the for-

eign parents has been found to have an

impact on the choice of and commit-

ment to international joint ventures

(Comes-Casseres, 1990; Hladik, 1985),

but its impact on performance is less

clear. As a firm expands its spatial spread and becomes more global, it

could be expected that its joint venture relationship with local partners would

be less stable and less successful. The horizontal, vertical or other linkages of

a parent firm to a joint venture also

have an impact on joint venture success

and stability (Harrigan, 1988; Killing,

1983). Joint ventures tend to be more successful when parents are related or

horizontally linked to their IJVs than

when they are vertically linked or unre-

lated. Vertically linked joint ventures

are more integrated to parents and can

create conflicts with local partners with

adverse impact on performance. Based

on this discussion of firm-related char-

acteristics, it could be expected that:

Hl: Joint venture success would

be negatively berated to difler-

ences in parents ‘firm size;

Performance of International Joint Ventures 359

H2: Joint venture success would be negatively related to parents’ multinationality;

H3: Joint venture success would be positively related to parents’ joint venture experience;

H4: Joint venture success would be positively related to parents’ horizontal linkage to the joint ventures;

H5: Joint venture success would be negatively related to parents ’

vertical linkage to the joint ventures;

H6: Joint venture success would be positively related to parents’ relatedness to the joint ventures.

The resource complementarity of partners is a prime reason for the formation of collaborative joint venture (Hamel, 199 1; Geringer, 199 1; Beamish 1984) and has been exten- sively researched. Johnson, Cullen, Sakano, and Takenouchi (1996) found that partners’ complementarity contributed to the building of trust in the joint venture for the U.S. partner, but not for the Japanese partner. However, empirical research into its impact on IJV performance is limited and not adequately established. Beamish and Banks (1987) reported that greater need between partners resulted in more satisfactory performance. Awadzi (1987) and Awadzi, Kedia, and Chinta (1988) found a positive relationship between resource complementarity and performance but their findings are constrained by the nature of operational measurement and a small sample size. Awadzi (1987) used a sub-

jective measure of resource complementarity while Awadzi et al (1988) utilised a composite index of partners’ relative contribution. These operation- alizations of complementarity as partners’ relative contributions in an aggregate index may not actually reflect the complementarity of partners which is unique to each partnership and venture. A more rigorous operationaliza- tion is required to measure the unique complementarity relationship in each joint venture. The present research developed a new measure of resource complementarity for this study to test the hypothesis that:

H7: The greater the complementarity in partners’ contribution to the joint venture, the higher the success of the joint venture.

The effect of management control of the joint venture on performance remains inconclusive (Geringer & Hebert, 1989). While the domination of one parent in the overall management of the joint venture was found most effective in some studies (Al-Aali, 1987; Phatak & Chowdhury, 1991; Killing, 1983), shared management control was found effective in other studies (Blodgett 1992; Beamish 1984). Similarly, empirical findings on the impact of autonomy of the IJV over operating decisions are tentative and not consistent (Blumenthal, 1988; Kill- ing, 1983). Dussauge & Garrette (1995) linked IJV performance to the choice of a more structured rather than an unstructured configuration of alliances. Since the existence of more structure and overall control may be beneficial to

360 Journal of World Business /33(d) / 1998

joint ventures, particularly in developing countries (Al-Aali, 1987; Phatak & Chowdhury, 1991), it could be expected that:

HSa: The greater the parents’ overall control over the joint venture, the higher the success of the joint venture.

However, greater autonomy in operational decisions at a joint venture level would contribute to quicker and more flexible adaptation to host country market conditions (Blumenthal, 1988). Hence:

HSb: The greater the operational autonomy of the joint venture, the higher the success of the joint venture.

Cooperation between partners seems to be a condition for success of a cooperative joint venture (Buckley & Cas- son, 1988; Mohr & Spekman, 1994). Cooperation works when there is mutual trust. Awadzi (1987) and Awadzi et al. (1988) in their studies of joint ventures in developed countries and Phatak and Chowdhury (1991) in developing countries found some significant correlation between cooperation (or lack of conflict) and performance. However, the.se studies only examined cooperation in a restricted and limited model of performance. The relative and simultaneous impact of cooperation on performance in a broader multivariate model has not been tested. The expected relationship or hypothesis for cooperation is that:

H9: The greater the cooperation between parents, the higher the success of the joint venture.

Several industry-related factors, such as industry growth, industry structure, technology, product-market and competitive factors, may have an influence on IJV preference and performance (Luo, 1995; Kogut, 1988; Harrigan, 1988; Franko, 1987; Hennart, 1991; Gomes-Casseres, 1987). While it is not practical to investigate many industry

variables in a joint venture study, two factors (the nature of technology and export orientation) are particularly per- tinent in a developing country context, as direct foreign investment and joint ventures are routes to technology transfer and export development. While past research examined their relationships with joint venture preference, the present study concentrated on their impact on performance. In developing countries, mature or standardised technology would be more appropriate and would not be a source of contention for control of proprietary technology between joint venturers. The reverse would be true for sophisticated technology. Hence:

HlO: Joint ventures involving mature technology are relatively more successful than those involving sophisticated technol-

ogy.

With the premium on export development, coupled with the size constraint of host country markets in developing countries, joint ventures which are more


export oriented would be expected to perform better. Hence:

Hll: Joint venture smxss is positively related to its export orientation.

The impact of country-related factors, such as cultural differences on a firm’s preference fur international collective ventures, have been examined (e.g. Kogut & Singh 1988; Shane, 1994). Their impact on success and failure of a JV has also attracted attention (Frank0 1971; Li and Guisinger, 1991; Parkhe, 199 1; Geringer & Hebert, 199 1) but findings are not conclusive. Li and Guisinger (1991) found positive relationships between cultural dissimilarities and failure rates, which was contrary to Franko’s (197 3) findings. The different, and often crude methods of measuring cultural distance, seem to be responsible far these conflicting and inconclusive results. Frank0 (197 1) subjectively ranked countries according to their cultural proximity tatheUS.,whileLiandGuisinger(1991) categorised countries as similar or dis- similar using Hofstede (1980) indices, which might be dated. Further explura- tion of this cultural factor as a performance determinant, using a more rigarous research methodology and a new measure of psychic distance, has been attempted in this study. In line with the contention that cultural similiarities facilitate trust and cooperation between partners, it would be expected that:

Hl2: The greater the psychic distance between parents, the lower will be the swxxss of the jooint venture.

These findings were based on empirical research into joint ventures from developed countries operating in either developed or developing countries, As indicated earlier, there has been an accelerating rate of direct foreign investments and joint ventures originating from the rapidly developing countries. While there is evidence that suggests the country of origin of firms affect its behaviour (Pan, 1996; Lee & Beamish, 1995; Pan & Tse, 1996), it is not clear whether the performance determinants already reviewed are applicable to IJVs from developing countries, including the NIEs. This knowledge gap constrains a complete managerial ~~derst~ding of joint ventures and the development of a generai theory on joint ventures (Tallman & Shenkar, 1994: Lee & Beamish, 1995).

There is a dearth of published research. Tallman and Shenkar (1990) studied the preferred models of overseas outward investment in cooperative ventures of a sample of small and medium sized Korean firms and con- cluded that the current models of the international firm and of cooperative ventures have limited application to firms which are not large multinationals. They found that firms in high tech fields emphasized contractual ventures in LDCs (offering their explicit core technologies for sale), while low tech firms preferred equity ventures. Yeung (1994, 1997) shared similar views in his study of Hong Kong firms operating in Southeast Asia and pointed out the unique role of Chinese business networks in the competitive advantage and implementation of cooperative strategies among Chinese international firms.

362 Journal of World Business / U(4) / 1998

In a recent study, Lee and Beamish f 1995) examined the characteristics and performance of 31 joint ventures from Korea operating in LDCs. Several key findings were found to be different from those on joint ventures from developed countries operating in LDCs. Korean joint ventures were motivated by the need for partners’ knowledge and skills, instead of responding to government pressures, and had better stability and higher satisfaction levels. Unlike their counterparts from developed countries, a direct relationship was found between ownership and control for Korean IJVs. Control and partner need were positively related to performance, while commitment was not significant. The findings on control and co~itment were different from previous findings from developed countries- sponsored IJVs. Lee and Beamish’s (1995, p. 650) study suggest that “the characteristics of joint ventures differ depending on the development stage of both the originating and host countries.”

However, the results of these studies on joint ventures from NIEs, particularly South Korea, are tentative and in need of further verification in other developing countries. The present study attempts to provide additio~~ empirical evidence through a comparative study of the characteristics and performance of joint ventures from developed and developing countries. Specifically, it investigated a multivariate model of performance in a sample of joint ventures from developing and developed countries operating within a developing country (Bangladesh). As the current literature provides very limited evidence in the comparison of joint

venture performance determinants by country origin, the hypotheses have been phrased in the null form, as fol- lows:

H13a: Developed countries sponsored joint veatures do not differ from developing countries sponsored joist ventures in terms of success levels.

HDb: Developed countries span- sored joist ventures do not differ from developing countries sponsored joint ventures in terms of determinants of success.

THE P~SENT STUDY

The data used in this study were drawn from a survey of 59 private sector joint ventures with at least three years’ operations in Bangladesh. There were 242 joint ventures registered with the government of Bangladesh, but only 67 satisfied both criteria of: (a) owned by foreign and local private firms; and (b) had been in operations for at least three years, Out of the defined population of 67 joint ventures, 59 participated in the study. Twenty six of the JVs were from developed countries (Western Europe, Japan and U.S.) and 33 were from developing countries. Of these 33 joint ventures, 17 were from the NlBs (Hong Kong, South Korea and Singapore) and 16 from LDCs (India, Pakistan, Thai- land and China). The JVs represented a range of industries, including textile and apparel, chemical, ph~aceutical, leather and shoes, electrical and metal products. Data were collected using


personal interviews with a structured questionnaire. The chief executive officer or senior executives (local and expatriate) of the joint venture were interviewed. Prior to the survey, a pilot field study was undertaken to test the questionnaire and instruments.

The measurement of the variables is summarized in Appendix 1. The measurement of two variables, resource complementarity and psychic distance, were developed for this study. The remaining variables were based on measures used in the previous research cited in the literature review. Resource complementarity (RESCOM) was measured on a 5-point scale that indicated the degree of balance in parent firms’ weighted contributed resources in 13 resource areas. Following Awadzi et al. (1988), both local and foreign parents’ proportionate contributions (rated between O-100% of contribution for each item) to the joint venture in 13 areas (Plant and Equipment, Production and Process Technology, Technical Personnel, M~agement Personnel, Dis- tribution Channel, Market Access, Mar- ket Knowledge, Capital and Finance, Established Brandname, Material and Components, Cheap Labour, National Identity, and Government Relations) were weighted by their importance (measured on a 5-point scale where 1 = not important at all, and 5 = extremely important) to the success of the joint venture. Instead of using a simple arithmetic average as a composite index (Awadzi et al., 1988), clusters of joint ventures with different patterns of parent firms’ weighted contributions were used in this study to rank the joint ventures according to the degree of balance

in contributed resources. The more balanced the contributions, the more mutu- ally interdependent, or complements, are the parents, This definition is consistent with Geringer’s (1988) concept of a bell-shaped relationship between partners’ mutual dependence and joint venture performance and that a joint venture performs better when a “middle level” dependency exists between partners.

A cluster analysis was used for the purpose of identifying and grouping joint ventures according to homogene- ity in the mix of parent firms’, weighted contribution. The SPSS Quick Cluster procedure was used to classify the JVs into groups based on the closest distance to the cluster centres (nearest cen- troid sorting algorithm). After testing for different cluster solutions (3 to 7), a five-cluster solution was found to be most appropriate in terms of the contribution of clustering dimension to the formation and interpretation of clusters. Local and foreign parents’ proportionate contributions in each cluster were calculated and the ratio of contributed resources for each cluster (which varied from 29:71 to 55:45) was used to rank order clusters of joint ventures. The more balanced the ratio of contributed resources, the greater the rank for complementarity (for instance, the cluster with contribution ratio 55:45 was ranked 5, and the cluster with contribution ratio 29:71 was ranked 1 in a 5- point ordinal scale).

Psychic distance (or proximity, its converse) between parents (PSYCHIC) was measured by a composite index indicating the degree of similarity between parents’ country of origin in

364 Journal of World Business /33(4) / 1998

terms of cultural attitudes, business practices and the ease of communication among the joint venture parties. A 5-point Likert scale was used to measure the extent of similarities in culture and business practices, and the ease of communication. The item scale was found to be reliable, with high Cron- bath alpha of 0.92. The arithmetic average of the 23 items on differences in cultural attitudes towards certain work- related values (‘7 items including partic- ipation, work habits, time, future orientation, change, superior-subordinate relations, and rewards; alpha = 0.89), differences in business practices of the local and foreign parents’ country of origin (8 items including terms of employment, adherence to budgets/pro- cedures, financial arrangements, use of contracts, and dealing with government; alpha = 0.92) and the state of communication difficulty among the joint venture parties (8 items including negotiation, board meetings, reporting relationships, understanding of instruc- tions, and oral communications; alpha = 0.82), were used to construct this index.

This research used perceptual rating to measure joint venture success. Simi- lar measures have been used in previous joint venture research (Beamish, 1988, 1984; Killing, 1983). The choice of a subjective performance measure was motivated by the difficulties of obtain- ing reliable objective financial data in Bangladesh (as borne out by the pilot study) and to avoid the problems of the comparability of financial data of joint ventures from different countries. This choice was supported by research that showed subjective and objective measures of IJV performance are positively

correlated (Geringer & Herbert, 1991). Joint venture success (ACHIEVE) was measured using a composite index (an arithmetic average). Respondents assessed the satisfaction of the parent firms with the extent of fulfillment of nine joint venture goals on a 5-point scale (where 1 denoted “far short of expectation” and 5 denoted “far exceed- ing expectation”). The items included sales growth, market share, profits and dividends, local and foreign market development, training and acquisition of marketing, manufacturing and other skills. Achievement level was weighted by the importance of each goal to the parent firms (also rated on a 5-point Likert scale).

Multiple regression analysis was used to ascertain the multivariate relationship of each independent variable with joint venture success. A stepwise regression procedure was used to iden- tify variables with significant multivariate relationship. In addition, ANOVA and correlation analysis were used in a further analysis on the sample data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Descriptive and comparative results for the sample are presented in Table 1. Joint ventures from developed countries were significantly different from developing countries in terms of parents’ relative firm size, multinationality, joint venture experience, extent of vertical linkage, technology level and psychic distance (at p < 0.05). These differences were expected and consistent with previous research (Yeung, 1994; Lall, 1983; Lecraw, 1993; Lee & Beamish, 1995; Tallman & Shenkar, 1990). Par-


ent firms from developed countries the supply of inputs (for example, mate- were relatively larger (US$702.9m vs rials and components) and technology $79.0m) and had more international and for the marketing of the finished spread (28 vs 1.3 countries) and JV products. Parents from the developed experience (18.9 vs 2.2 joint ventures). countries (particularly from Europe They also had higher technology levels and United States) had a higher psychic and greater vertical linkages and psy- distance (lower psychic proximity in chic distance from the joint ventures in Table 1) than firms from neighbouring Bangladesh. More of the joint ventures Asian regions. The majority of both from developed countries (46%) were groups of joint ventures from developed in the high technology sectors than (53.8%) and developing (75.8%) coun- those from developing countries (9%). tries were targeting export-oriented Developed countries-sponsored IJVs markets, though those from the devel- had more vertical linkages with their oping countries had a significantly parents than their developing coun- higher percentage of export-oriented tries’ counterparts. This reflected the firms (significant at p c .lO). Differ- greater reliance of the joint ventures on ences in other variable characteristics the developed countries’ parents for were not significant.

Table 1 Differences between Developed Country and

Developing Country Sponsored Joint Ventures

Factors

Parents’ relative firm size (in million US$)

Parents’ multinationality (number of countries)

parents’ JV experience (no. of JVs)

Extent of parents’ horizontal linkage

Extent of parents’ vertical linkage

Relatedness with parents

Resource complementarity

Locus of operational decisions

Cooperation between parents

Proportion of export-oriented JVs

Proportion of hightech JVs

Psychic proximity (distance)

IJV success (ACHIEVE weighty score)

DC DG sponsored sponsored

JVs JVs

702.9 79.0

28.0 1.3

18.9 2,2

2.27 2.36

2.00 1.42

0.31 0.55

3.00 3.33

3.35 3.26

4.36 4.20

53.8% 75.8%

46.2% 9.1%

3.22 4.19

6.32 6.69

Sig. Level

m ,000

.OOl

.OOl

NS

.039

NS

NS

NS

NS

.078

,001

BOO

NS

Notes:

366

NS = Not significant

JVs = Joint Ventures DC = Developed countries

DG = Developing countries See Appendix 1 for definition and operationalisation of the above variables.

Journal of World Business / 33(4) / 1998

The developing countries data were analysed for differences between joint ventures from the NIEs and the LDCs. Joint ventures from the NIEs and LDCs were similar in all variable characteristics, except psychic distance, cooperation, and export-orientation. Significant differences (at p I .OS) for psychic distance (mean psychic proximity rating of 3.82 for NIEs vs 4.23 for LDCs) were logical given that the joint ventures from LDCs were drawn largely from neighbouring Pakistan, India Thailand and China while NIEs were Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore. This closer psychic proximity contributed a significantly better cooperation level (significant at p I -10) for LDC parents (rating of 4.38) than NIE parents(4.02). A significantly (at p I .lO)

higher proportion of IJVs from NIEs (88%) were exportoriented than were those from the LDCs (63%). This reflects the export-oriented growth focus and development path that NIEs have taken. With the exception of these three characteristics, the parent firms from the NIEs and LDCs in the sample did not vary much.

Firms from both developed and developing countries rated their joint ventures as meeting expectations. There were no significant differences between the two groups (though the ratings were slightly higher for the developing countries). Similarly, there were no significant differences between NIEs and LDCs. This differed from Lee & Beamish (1995), who found Korean partners were significantly more satisfied with the performance of their joint ventures than partners from developed countries. These findings might be peculiar to

Bangladesh, where the developed countries (DC) sponsored joint ventures were concentrated in higher technology sectors catering the domestic market, while developing countries (DG) sponsored joint ventures were in the traditional mature sectors which could take advantage of low labour costs in Bangladesh for the export markets. This factor could have equalised the performance rating of the two groups.

The focus was on the determinants of performance. Table 2 shows the correlation matrix for the independent variables and the dependent variable (ACHIEVE) that measured joint venture success. High multicollinearity among partners’ firm size difference (LOGSIZE), multinationality (LOG- MNC) and joint venture experience (JVEXP) are likely to be problematic in regression. The rule of dropping all multicollinear variables except one was adopted (Mason & Perreault, 1991). LOGSIZE and LOGMNC were removed. Joint venture experience was retained as this variable was widely used in past studies, enabling a comparability of research findings. Correla- tions of several other variables were significant but not high enough to be of concern for regression analysis (Mason & Perreault, 199 1). Bivariate relationships (in Table 2) with success indicated support for hypotheses relating to the following independent variables: complementarily (H7), technology level (HlO), market orientation(Hll), and horizontal relationships (H4).

The results of a stepwise regression for the sample are presented in Table 3, column 1. These results show that the F-value for the model was significant


2 6 F.

%

3 T

able

2

k C

orre

lati

on

Mat

rix

of t

he D

epen

dent

an

d In

depe

nden

t V

aria

bles

m

E

e.

s

Var

iabl

e M

ean

S.D

. A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J K

L

M

N

0

z . A

. L

OG

SIZ

E

1.25

1.

19

2 s B

. L

OG

MN

C

. C

. JV

EX

P z kz

D

. R

ESC

OM

P

E.

HO

RZ

F. V

ER

T

G.

RL

D

H.

CO

NT

RO

L1

I. C

ON

TR

OL

2

J. C

ON

TR

OL

3

K.

LO

CU

S

L.

CO

OPE

R

M.

TE

CH

LE

V

N.

MA

RK

ET

0.

PSY

CH

IC

P. A

CH

IEV

E

59

.61

3.19

2.32

1.68

44

.25

.31

.37

3.30

4.27

1.25

1.66

3.67

6.53

.65

.85’

.56

.83’

1.44

.3

0b

1.55

.0

5

1.07

.5

2’

.82

-.08

44

.18

.46

.17

.49

.31b

1.04

-.

21

.53

.21

44

.22a

.48

.32b

.59

.32b

.90c

.27a

.07

.51C

-.07

.23a

.18

.34b

.03

.21

.26a

.31b

-.4S

b

.24a

.08

.54C

-.05

.32b

.07

.32b

.oo

.21

.32b

.32b

.31b

.28a

.12

.lO

-.18

-.03

.24a

-.03

.18

.Ol

.07

.05

.54C

-.26

a -.

03

-.12

.2

5a

.21

-.04

.0

6 .0

5 .3

9b

.20

-.13

-.

20

.45C

.5

1C

.02

.08

.lO

.32b

-.

03

-.02

-.O

l .0

8 -.

Ol

-.21

.3

3b

-.22

a -.

47C

-.lO

.2

9a

-.03

-.

07

.12

.03

-.09

.2

6a

.lO

-.18

.1

7 .1

7 -.

15

-.04

.1

5 -.

2ga

.49C

-.14

-.

27a

.17

.oo

-.lO

-.

02

-.05

-.

20

-.2g

a .2

6a

1.64

.1

7 .0

8 ..1

2 .3

oa

.2ga

.1

9 -.

oO

.lO

.13

-.18

.o

o .2

0 -.

2ga

.33b

.1

8

Not

es;

Sign

ific

ance

L

evel

s: a

=p

< 0

.5;

b =p

<

0.0

1; c

=p

< 0

.001

. Se

e A

ppen

dix

1 fo

r de

fini

tion

of

vari

able

s.

(F-value 6.32, significant at .OOl with 5,53 d.f.). It also shows that the regression explained 37% of the variation in joint venture performance data. The total amount of variation explained by the model is substantial and similar to other joint venture studies (Al-Aali, 1987; Awadzi, 1987). The stepwise regression procedure found five significant variables, which are discussed later.

To examine differences in performance determinants by country of origin, separate regressions were run for the subsamples of parent firms from developed (DC) and developing countries (DG). This analysis was motivated by the existence of significant differences between the DC and the DG subsamples across a number of independent variables, as was evident in

Table 1. ANOVA and Discriminant analysis also suggested differences in the two subsamples. These regression models (for the DC and DGsponsored joint venture subsamples) are sum- marised in the last two columns of Table 3. Sample size precluded separate regressions for the NIE and LDC subsamples. Parent firms’ joint venture experience and resources complementarity are the only common explanatory variables in the three models. The other variables differed, indicating likely type of country effects.

The equation for the whole sample (column 1 in Table 3) suggests that parents’ joint venture experience, the degree of resource complementarily, the degree of cooperation between parents and the export-orientation of the joint venture have a positive impact on

Table 3 Multiple Regression Results

All JVs DC JVs

Number of cases 59 26

Multiple R .611 .785

R Square .374 ,617

Adjusted R* ,314 .544

Standard Error 1.361 1.072

DF $53 4.21

F-value 56.325*** 6.440***

Variables in Model B B

JVEXP 1.002** 1.294***

RESCOM .358** .462**

CONTROL2 - -

COOPER .753* 1.226**

TECHLEV -1.065* -

MARKET 1.181** 2.180***

(Constant) ,933 4.961**

Notes: B denotes regression coefficients of the variable in the model. Significance Level: * =p c.05; ** =p c.01; and *** =p 401. DC = Developed Countries DG = Developing Countries

DG JVs

33

.653

,426

,346

1.372

4,27

5.200***

B

1.843*

.418*

1.802** -

1.879* -

6.234***


perceived performance while high technology has a negative impact. These relationships are in their expected direc- tions, supporting hypotheses H3, H7, H9, HlO and Hll. The other hypotheses were not supported by regression analysis. Table 4 summarises the findings of this study by hypotheses. The regression result for joint venture experience (JVEXP) suggests that the greater the past experience of parents, the higher the level of joint venture success. This relationship was also valid for both DC and DG-sponsored IJVs (as shown in columns 2 and 3 in Table 3). This provides empirical support for Blumenthal’s (1988) proposition. Expe- rience in joint ventures can provide a basis for sharing skills and capabilities and managing and resolving difficult issues (Harrigan, 1988). While such experience mitigates local knowledge disadvantages and enhances IJV performance, Makino and Delios (1996) have pointed out that the impact of experience is contingent on the length of the joint venture experience and the pres- ence of a local partner in the joint venture. The greater use of IJVs by a parent firm also indicates its commitment to this mode of market entry, which has been found to be correlated to performance (Beamish, 1988) and enhances its capability to manage joint venture relationships successfully.

Resource complementarity is another important determinant of joint venture performance for the whole sample as well as for the two subsamples. The positive regression coefficient indicates that, the higher the degree of balance in partners’ contributed resources, the greater is the level of achievement

of a joint venture. This provides further empirical support for previous studies (Awadzi et al., 1988; Lee & Beamish, 1995).

Cooperation between partners had a significant impact on joint venture success for the whole sample and for the DC-sponsored IJVs. Cooperation is the essence of a joint venture relationship, which builds a spirit of cooperation and trust to achieve business goals that can- not be achieved by working alone. Opportunistic behaviour by one party can ruin joint venture harmony and create disagreement and conflicts (Awadzi, 1987; Habib, 1987). This finding also provides support to Madhok’s (1995) call for greater attention to relationship- centred and trust-based approaches to joint venture study. Cooperation was not a significant variable in DG-IJVs. Interview information suggests that several joint ventures in this subsample were assessed to be successful, despite disagreements over certain policy issues in the past. This may indicate that conflict resolution processes in the DG- sponsored IJVs are effective and the close psychic proximity between partners might have contributed to better understanding and an amicable settle- ment of disagreements.

The finding on the relationship between market-orientation and joint venture success indicates that export- oriented IJVs in Bangladesh performed better than domestic market-oriented joint ventures. This supports the hypothesis put forward in this study. The relatively better performance of the export-oriented IJVs in Bangladesh can be attributed to the labour cost advantage and better foreign market knowl-

370 Journal of World Business / 33(4)! 1998

edge and marketing knowhow of the foreign parents, especially the DC- sponsors. This is consistent with Hladik’s (1985) finding of a positive relationship between foreign partners’ access to international markets and the export activities of joint ventures.

Market orientation did not emerge as a significant determinant of the success of the developing countries (DG)sponsored IJVs. Since export-oriented joint ventures are targeted at markets in developed countries, joint ventures from developing countries may not ben- efit as much from their parents’ market access and linkages. The impact of market o~entation in the DG-IJVs may be overshadowed by the effect of technology, which emerged as a significant negative variable for the DG subsample

and the whole sample, but not for the DC subsample. This indicates that the higher technology sectors were outper- formed by the labour-intensive mature sectors, where the joint ventures from developing countries predominated. Bangladesh is a labour-surplus econ- omy, where mature technology and export-oriented industries (e.g. cloth- ing and apparel) have flourished in recent years. The negative impact of technology is probably peculiar to joint ventures from developing countries operating in an LDC context, like Bang- ladesh, and is not consistent with findings that joint venture preference and subsequent performance is influenced by technology (R&D) levels in joint ventures from developed countries (Kobrin, 1988; Hennart, 1991).

Table 4 Summary of Findings of Joint Venture Success with each Variable

Hypothesized Empirical Results Variables Sign of this Study

Hl Difference in parents’ firm size No support found

H2 Difference in p~ents’multination~ity No support found

H3 Parents’ joint venture experience + Supported

H4 Parents’ horizontal linkage to the JV f Some support*

H5 Parents’ vertical linkage to the JV No support found

H6 Parents’ relatedness to the JV + No support found

H7 Parents’ resources complemen~ly + Supported

H8a Overall parent control of the JV + Some support**

H8b Locus of operational decisions + No support found

H9 Cooperation between parents + Supported

H10 JV technological sophistication Supported

Hl 1 JV market orientation + Supported

HI2 Psychic distance between parents No support found

H13a DC & DC sponsored JV Performance No diff. No significant diff

H13b DC & DG sponsored JV Determinants No diff. Differences found

Noies: * only supported by bivariate relationship ** only DG JV DC = Developed countries DG = Developing countries


An interesting finding for the developing counties-sponso~d UV subsam- pte is the signi~cant positive impact of the overall control by local parent on IJV success. This implies that overall control by the local parent leads to better JV success than does control by the foreign parent or joint control. This is different from Lee & Beamish’s (1995) finding of a positive correlation between strong control and performance in Korean IJVs, The present finding could be attributed to the lack of good formalised management control systems in joint ventures from developing countries (as observed by Busjeet ,198U) and the nature of the subsample, which had a high portion of parents from Pakistan and India, that are more relaxed about local Bangladesh control.

The regression analysis of the developed country and developing country subsamples highlighted differences in the determinants of performance which merit further study. The replication of this research design and methods in other countries could test for the existence of “universe” or underlying determinants of performance (e.g. joint venture experience and resource complementarity as suggested by this study). Potential hypotheses on country differences could centre on performance determinants relating to cooperation, psychic distance, market orientation, technology level, control, and their interaction effects. Such repli- cations could also test the usefulness of the ~omplement~ily and psychic distance measures developed in the present paper,

CONCLUSIONS

This research has identified several determinants of joint venture performance in a developing country. Parents’ past joint venture experience, complementary resources, and cooperation between parents were found to be important determinants of joint venture success. The need for complementary resources and the past experience of joint ventures of partners are likely to lead to more collaborative relationships and to help reconcile differences and create an atmosphere of trust and cooperation. The managerial and policy implications are self-evident, suggest- ing that attention should be paid to these three factors when selecting joint venture partners. Firms should look for potential partners with joint venture experience and ability to provide complementary resources. For example, Bangladeshi firms should seek foreign partners with complementary specific factors, such as appropriate technology, joint venture experience, managerial expertise and overseas marketing knowledge and networks. For foreign firms, the selection criteria for Bang- ladeshi partners include local market knowledge, past joint venture experience and cost effective inputs. For both partners, building and fostering cooperative relationships is important for success.

Technology and market orientation were the other key variables in determin- ing joint venture performance. In the context of a developing country such as Bangladesh, mature technology and export orientation were key success factors for joint ventures. These two characteristics are commonly observed in

372 Journal of World Business / 33(a) / 1998

joint ventures in developing countries. Policy planners in developing countries have emphasized export-orientation in their policies to attract foreign investments and joint ventures, but are now encouraging higher technology ventures.

A comparison of the joint ventures from developed and developing coun-

tries revealed that, despite their similarity in average success ratings, the determinants of performance varied. Technology level and local parental control were important determinants of success for joint ventures from developing countries, but not for developed countries. This suggests that developing

Appendix Measurement of Variables

Variables

Parents’ Relative Firm Size (LOGSIZE)

Parents’ Multinationality (LOGMNC)

Parents JV Experience (JVEXP)

Resource Complementarity (RESCOM)

Measurement

The absolute difference between parent firms in terms of total assets (Log measure used)

The absolute difference between the parents firms’ international spread in terms of the number of countries the parent have operation in (Log measure used)

The sum of number of joint ventures formed and operated by the parent firms (Log measure used)

Ordinal measure developed on the basis of cluster analysis of parents’ weighted contribution. The measure indicated the degree of balance in parents’ contributed resources in 13 categories.

Horizontal Linkage with Parents An index indicating the number of a JV’s activities (production, products, market- (HORZ)

Vertical Linkage with Parents (VERT)

Related with Parents

(RLD)

Overall Control (CONTROL)

Extent of JV Operational Autonomy (LOCUS)

Cooperation between Parents (COOPER)

Export-orientation of the JV (MARKET)

Nature of Technology used (TECHLEV)

Psychic Distance (proximity) between Parents PSYCHIC)

Joint Venture Performance (ACHIEVE)

ing) which are similar to those of the parents.

An index indicating the number of buying and selling relationships of the JV with its parent firms. It ranged between 0 (not linked to both parents in any way) and 6 (linked to both parents for technology, inputs and distribution).

An index indicating the number of a JV’s activities (production, products, etc) which are not similar but related to those of parents.

A set of dummy variables to indicate who makes the overall decisons: Foreign parent (CONTROLl), Local parent CONTROL2), and both parents (CONTROW).

A composite index of 16 items were used to indicate the extent of JV autonomy (measured on a S-point Likert scale) over these operating areas.

A composite index of the frequency of disagreements (measured on 5-point Likert scale) over 16 operating and policy issues. The scale was reversed.

A dummy variable to indicate whether a JV was export oriented or domestic market-oriented.

A dummy variable to indicate whether a JV used sophisticated or mature technol-

ogy.

A composite index of 23 items indicating similarities in cultural attitudes, business practices, and ease of communication between parents (measured on a 5- point Likert scale).

A composite index of the parents’ satisfaction with the extent of fulfillment of nine goals weighted by importance of each goal. Both were measured on a 5-point Likert scale.


countries-sponsored joint ventures that are in mature technology sectors under the overall management of local parents tends to perform better. In contrast, export market orientation is a more important determinant of success for developed countries-sponsored joint ventures. These country differences are tentative and can form the basis for for- mulating testable hypotheses of differences by foreign sponsors for future research. These differences should also be considered in developing managerial and public policy for joint ventures from developing and developed countries. A more contingent perspective, reflecting country or situational envi- ronment in joint venture study and theory development, could be fruitful.

The present findings are tentative and only applicable to developing countries like Bangladesh. The sample size and the nature of a one country analysis are limitations to the present study. Never- theless, the research has provided empirical evidence about the determinants of joint venture performance from developing and developed countries in a developing country. These findings provide useful inputs for management practice and policy making for joint ventures in developing countries. Fur- ther research on joint venture performance, particularly focussing on IJVs from LDCs and NIEs in other countries are needed. Indepth longitudinal studies of these joint ventures emphasizing changing partners’ relationships and impact over time are also potentially fruitful areas of future research.

Acknowledgment: The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable

comments made by three anonymous reviewers and the Editor, Pacific Rim of the journal.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, K., & Agmon, T. (1990). The intema-

tional success of developing country

firms: Role of government directed advantage. Management International

Review, 30(2): 163-l 80.

Al-Aali, A. Y. (1987). A performance model for

American manufacturing and service

joint ventures in Saud iArabia. Unpub- lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia State

University, U.S.A.

Awadzi, W. K. (1987). Determinants of joint

venturi performance: A study of IJVs in

the U.S. Unpublished PhD Dissertation,

Louisiana State University, U.S.A.

Awadzi, W. K., Kedia, B., & Chinta, R. (1988). Strategic implications of co-operation and

complementary resources in international joint ventures. International Journal of

Management, 5(2): 125-132.

Beamish, P. W. (1984). Joint venture perfor-

mance in developing countries. Unpub-

lished PhD Dissertation, University of

Western Ontario, Canada

Beamish, P. W. (1988). Multinational joint ven-

tures in developing countries. London:

Routledge.

Beamish, P. W., & Banks, J. C. (1987). Equity joint ventures and the theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of Interna-

tional Business Studies, I8(2): 116.

Beamish, P. W., & Delios, A. (1997). Incidence

and propensity of alliance formation. In P.

W. Beamish & J. P. Killing (Eds.), Coop- erative strategies: Asian perspectives (pp.

91-114). San francisco: The New Lexing- ton Press..

Beamish, P. W., & Killing, P. (1996). Introduc- tion to the special issue. Journal of Inter-

national Business Studies, 27( 5): iv- xxxi.

Blodgett, L. (1992). Factors in the instability of international joint ventures: An event his-


tory analysis. Strategic Management

Journal, 13(6): 475-481.

Blumenthal, J. F. (1988). Strategic and organi-

sational conditionsfor joint venture for-

mation and success. Unpublished Ph.D.

Dissertation, University of Southern Cali-

fornia, U.S.A.

Buckley, P. J., & Casson, M. (1988). A theory of co-operation in international business.

Management International Review, (Spe-

cial Issue): 19-38.

Busjeet, V. (1980). Foreign investors from less developed countries: A strategic profile,

DBA Dissertation, Harvard University.

Dussauge, P. & Garrette, B. (1995). Determi- nants of success in international strategic

alliances: Evidence from the global aero-

space industry. Journal of International

Business Studies, 26(3): 505-530.

Franko, L. G. (1971). Joint venture survival in multinational corporations, New York:

Praeger Publishers.

Franko, L. G. (1987). New forms of investment in developing countries by U.S. compa- nies: A 5 industry comparison. Columbia

Journal of World Business, (Summer): 39-56.

Geringer, J. M. (1988). Partner selection criteria for developed country joint ventures.

Business Quarterly (Canada), 53( 1): 55-

62.

Geringer, J. M. (1991). Strategic determinants of partner selection criteria in IJVs. Jour-

nal of International Business Studies,

22( 1): 41-62.

Geringer, J. M., & Hebert, L. (1989). Control and performance of international joint

ventures. Journal of International Busi-

ness Studies, 20(2): 235-254.

Geringer, J. M., & Hebert, L. (1991). Measuring joint venture performance. Journal of

International Business Studies, 22(2): 249-263.

Gomes-Casseres, B. (1987). Joint venture instability: Is it a problem? Columbia Journal

of World Business, (Summer): 97-101.

Gomes-Casseres, B. (1990). Firm ownership preferences and host government restric- tions: An integrated approach. Journal of

International Business Studies, 21(l): l-

21.

Habib, G. M. (1987). Measures in manifest conflict in international joint ventures Acad-

emy of Management Journal, 30 (4): 808-

816.

Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and interpartner learning within Interna-

tional Strategic Alliances. Strategic Man-

agement Journal, 12(Special Issue): 83-

103.

Harrigan, K. R. (1988). Strategic alliance and partner asymmetries. Management Znter-

national Review, 9(Special Issue): 53-72.

Hennart, J. F. (1991). The transaction cost theory of joint ventures: An empirical study

of Japanese subsidiaries in the U. S. Man-

agement Science, 37(4): 483-497.

Hladik, J. (1985). International joint venture;

An economic analysis of US-foreign part-

nerships. Lexington, MA, Lexington Books.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Beverley Hills, CA. Sage Publish-

ing.

Inkpen, A, (1994). The Japanese corporate net- work transferred to North America:

Implications for North American firms.

The International Executive, 36(4): 41 l-

434.

Johnson, J. L., Cullen, J. B., Sakano, T. & Tak-

enouchi, H. (1996). Setting the stage for

trust and strategic integration in Japanese U.S. co-operative alliances. Journal of

International Business Studies, 27(5, Spe- cial Issue): 981-1004.

Killing, J. P. (1983). Strategies for joint venture

success. London: Croom Helm.

Kobrin, S. J. (1988). Trends in ownership of

U.S. manufacturing subsidiaries in devel-

oping countries: An interindustry analysis. In F. J. Contractor & P. Lorange

(Eds.), Cooperative strategies in interna-

tional business (pp. 129-142). Lexington, MA., Lexington Books.

Kogut, B. (1988). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic

Management Journal, 9: 319-332.


Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect of

national culture on the choice of entry

mode. Journal of International Business

Studies, 19(3): 44 l-452.

Lall, S. (1983). The third world multinationals:

The spread of third world enterprises.

Chichester, England: J. Wiley & Sons.

Lecraw, D. (1983). Performance of transna-

tional corporations in less developed

countries. Journal of International Busi-

ness Studies, 14(l): 15-33.

Lecraw, D. (1993). Outward direct investment

by Indonesian firms: Motivations and

effects. Journal of International Business

Studies, 24( 3): 5 89-600.

Lee, C., & Beamish, P. W. (1995). The charac-

teristics and performance of Korean joint

ventures in the LDCs. Journal of Znterna-

tional Business Studies, 26(3): 637-654.

Li, J., & Guisinger, S. (1991). Comparative

business failures of foreign-controlled firms in the U.S. Journal of International


Luo, Y. (1995). Business strategy, market struc-

ture, and performance of international

oint ventures: The case of joint ventures

in China. Management International

Review, 35 (3): 241-264.

Madhok, A. (1995). Revisiting multinational

firms’ tolerance for joint ventures: .A

trust-based approach. Journal of Interna-

tional Business Studies, 26(l): 117-137.

Makino, S., & Delios, A. (1996). Local knowl-

edge transfer and performance: Implica-

tions for alliance formation in Asia.

Journal of International Business Studies,

27(5 Special Issue): 905-928.

Mason, C. M., & Perrault, W. D. (1991). Col-

linearity, power and interpretation of mul-

tiple regression analysis, Journal of

Marketing Research, 28(August): 268-

280.

Monkiewicz, J. (1986). Multinational enterprises of developing countries: Some

emerging trends. Management lnterna-

tional Review, 26(3): 67-79.

Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteris- tics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behaviour and

conflict resolution techniques. Strategic

Management Journal, 15: 135-152.

Pan, Y. (1996). Influences on foreign equity

owernership level in joint ventures in

China. Journal of International Business

Studies, 27( 1): l-26.

Pan, Y., & Tse, D. K. (1996). Cooperative strat-

egies between foreign firms in an overseas country. Journal of international


Phatak, A. V., & Chowdhury, J. (1991). IJV

success in developing countries: An

empirical testing of a predictive model

based on national partners’ responses.

Paper presented at the AIB Conference,

Miami, USA.

Parkhe, A. (1991). Interfirm diversity, organi-

zational learning and longevity in global

strategic alliances. Journal of interna-

tional Business Studies, 22(4): 579-601.

Shane, S. (1994). The effect of national culture

on the choice between licensing and

direct foreign investment. Strategic Man-

agement Journal, 15(8): 627-642.

Tallman S. B., & Shenkar, 0. (1990). Interna-

tional cooperative venture strategies: Out-

ward investments and small Firms from

NICs. Management International Review,

30(4): 299-315.

Tallman, S. B., & Shenkar, 0. (1994). A managerial decision model of international

joint cooperative venture formation. Jour-

nal of International Business Studies,

25(l): 91-113.

Ting, W. (1985). Business and technological

dynamics in newly industrialising Asia.

Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

UNCTAD. (1995). World investment report

1995: Transnational corporations and

competitiveness, New York & Geneva: United Nations.

United Nations. (1994). World economic and

socials Survey 1994. New York: United

Nations.

Wells, L. T. (1983). Third world multinationals.

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Woodcock, C. P., Beamish, P. W., & Makino,

S. (1994). Ownership-based entry mode strategies and international performance.


Journal of International Business Studies, 25(2): 253-273.

World Bank. (1993). The East Asian miracle: Economic growth and public policy. New York: Oxford Unive~ity Press.

Yeung, H. W. C. (1994). Transnational corporations from Asian developing countries: Their characteristics and competitive edge. Journal of Asian Business, IU(4): 17-58.

Yeung, H. W. C. (1997). Cooperative strategies and Chinese business networks: A study of Hong Kong transnational corporations in the ASEAN region. In P. W. Beamish & P. Killing (Eds.), Coopera- tive strategies: Asian perspectives (pp. 22-56). San Francisco: The New Lex- ington Press.

Pe~o~~ce of Intemation~ Joint Ventures 377

Performance of international joint ventures from developing and developed countries: An empirical...

Documents

Transcript of Performance of international joint ventures from developing and developed countries: An empirical...