Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Indian business groups: Evolution and transformation

  • Reviews
  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Business groups are an important constituent of many emerging economies. In this paper, we focus on the evolution and transformation of Indian business groups (IBGs) over two economic eras — pre-reform era (pre 1991) and reform era (post 1991). To this end, we analyze IBG behavior during these periods, and explain the implications of such behavior on IBG value creation. Our conceptualization of IBG dynamics utilizes the perspectives of product relatedness and institutional relatedness, and undertakes a broad review of the extant literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Institutions are “humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction” e.g., banks, regulatory bodies, courts, political parties, marketing research organizations etc. (Khanna & Palepu, 1997; North, 1990:3). Institutional frameworks refer to “the set of fundamental political, social and legal ground rules that establishes the basis for production, exchange, and distribution” (Davis & North, 1971:6).

  2. Lee, Peng, and Lee (2007) reviewed the BG literature on South Korea, and reported a similar pattern: Studies using datasets from an earlier era (until the early 1990s) tend to report a diversification premium, whereas more recent studies often find a diversification discount.

References

  • Arnold, D. J., & Quelch, J. A. 1998. New strategies in emerging markets. Sloan Management Review, 40(1): 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asia Times. 2004. India’s great global takeover game. Retrieved from http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South Asia/FF22Df04.html, April 12, 2005.

  • Berger, P. G., & Ofek, E. 1995. Diversification’s effect on firm value. Journal of Financial Economics, 37: 39–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, M., Mehta, P., & Mullainathan, S. 2002. Ferreting out tunneling: An application to Indian business groups. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117: 121–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharyya, S. K., & Rahman, Z. 2003. Why large local conglomerates may not work in emerging markets? European Business Review, 15(2): 105–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromiley, P. 2005. The behavioral foundations of strategic management. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M. 2004. The institutions of industrial restructuring in Southeast Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21: 171–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M., & Gedajlovic, E. 2003. Strategic innovation and the administrative heritage of East Asian Chinese family business groups. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20: 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chacar, A., & Vissa, G. 2005. Are emerging economies less efficient? Performance persistence and business group affiliation. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 933–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chhibber, P. K., & Majumdar, S. K. 2005. Property rights and the control of strategy: Foreign ownership rules and domestic firm globalization in Indian industry. Law and Policy, 27: 52–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, S. 2004. The Nehru years in Indian politics. Working paper no. 16 (2001). Edinburgh papers in South Asian studies.

  • Davis, L., & North, D. 1971. Institutional change and American economic growth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Echeverri-Gent, J. 2004. Financial globalization and India’s equity market reforms. India Review, 3(4): 306–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P., & Khanna, T. 1998. The nature of diversified business groups: A research design and two case studies. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46: 35–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goyal, N. 1988. Nature and growth of the Indian corporate sector. Institute for Studies in Industrial Development: New Delhi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. 1994. Business Groups. In Smesler, N., & Swedberg, R. (Eds.). Handbook of economic sociology, pp 453–475. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guillen, M. F. 2000. Business groups in emerging economies: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 362–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazari, R. K. 1966. The structure of the corporate private sector: A study of concentration, ownership and control. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. 1988. Internal capital market controls and financial performance in multidivisional firms. Journal of Industrial Economics, 37: 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., & Wright, M. 2000. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 249–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaipuria, J. 2002. Restructuring in India: The Tata group. Merrill Lynch, April 17: 1–32.

  • Kali, R., & Sarkar, J. 2005. Diversification, propping and monitoring: Business groups, firm performance and the Indian economic transition. Working Papers 2005–006. Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.

  • Kedia, B. L., & Perez, L. 2004. Globalization and economic growth in developing countries: A case of India. In Michelson, C., Kedia, B. L., & Ahmed, Z. (Eds.). Advances in global business research, vol. 1: 309–318.

  • Kedia, B. L., Dibrell, C., & Harveston, P. D. 1998. Enhancing India’s competitiveness through factors of national capacity: The road to greater prosperity. In Jayachandran, C., Balasubramanian, N., & Dastagir, S. M. (Eds.). Managing economic liberalization in South Asia: Directions for the 21st century, pp 61–69. New Delhi: Macmillan India Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khandwalla, P. N. 2002. Effective organisational response by corporates to India’s liberalisation and globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19: 423–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 1997. Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets? Harvard Business Review, 75(4): 41–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 1999a. Policy shocks, market intermediaries, and corporate strategy: The evolution of business groups in Chile and India. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 8: 271–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 1999b. The right way to restructure conglomerates in emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 77(4): 125–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000a. Is group membership profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance, 55: 867–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000b. The future of business groups in emerging markets: Long run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal, 433: 268–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2004a. The evolution of concentrated ownership in India: Broad patterns and a history of the Indian software Industry [National Bureau of Economic Research working paper series]. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w10613. July 16, 2005.

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2004b. Globalization and convergence in corporate governance: Evidence from Infosys and the Indian software industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(6): 484–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Rivkin, J. 2001. Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 45–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Yafeh, Y. 2005. Business groups and risk sharing around the world. Journal of Business, 78: 301–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D., Kandemir, D., & Cavusgil, T. 2004. The role of family conglomerates in emerging markets: What Western companies should know? Thunderbird International Business Review, 46: 13–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K., & Prescott, J. E. 2005. Deregulatory forms, variations in the speed of governance adaptation, and firm performance. Academy of Management Review, 30: 414–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripalani, M. 2004. Ratan Tata: No one’s doubting now. Business Week, July 26: 50–51.

  • Lee, K. B., Peng, M. W., & Lee, K. 2007. From diversification premium to diversification discount during institutional transitions. Journal of World Business: In press.

  • Leff, N. 1976. Capital markets in the less developed countries: The group principal. In McKinnon, R. (Ed.). Money and finance in economic growth and development. New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leff, N. 1978. Industrial organization and entrepreneurship in developing countries: The economic groups. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 26: 661–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., Ramaswamy, K., & Petitt, P. B. 2006. Business groups, market failures, and corporate strategy: An integrative framework. Asia Pacific Journal of Management (in press).

  • Majumdar, S. K. 2004. The hidden hand and the license Raj to An evaluation of the relationship between age and the growth of firms in India. Journal of Business Venturing, 19: 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohan, R., & Aggarwal, V. 1990. Commands and controls: Planning for Indian industrial development. Journal of Comparative Economics, 14: 681–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naik, S. D. 2001. Decade of corporate churning and change [Financial Daily].Retrieved from http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/businessline/2001/07/31/stories/043120ma.htm. November 12, 2005.

  • North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 1999. Regulatory reform in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/19/2478900.pdf, July 20, 2005.

  • Oliver, C. 1997. Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 679–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W. 2001. The resource-based view and international business. Journal of Management, 27: 803–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W. 2002. Towards an institution-based view of business strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19: 251– 267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28: 275–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W. 2006. Global strategy. Cincinnati: Thomson South-Western.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., & Heath, P. 1996. The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. Academy of Management Review, 21: 492–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., Lee, S., & Wang, D. 2005. What determines the scope of the firm over time? A focus on institutional relatedness. Academy of Management Review, 30: 622–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., & Zhou, J. Q. 2005. How network strategies and institutional transitions evolve in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22: 321–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petitt, P. B., Ramaswamy, K., & Li, M. 2005. A temporal study of diversification, group affiliation and performance among Indian manufacturers. Academy of Management Proceedings, E1–E6.

  • Piramal, G. 2003. Big business and entrepreneurship. Retrieved from http://www.india-seminar.com/2003/528/528%20gita%20piramal.htm, March, 1 2005.

  • Ramamurti, R. 2001. Wipro’s Chairman Azim Premji on Building a world-class Indian company. Academy of Management Executive, 15(2): 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, S. 2004. Environment–corporate strategy–performance linkages: A study of Indian firms during economic liberalization. Vikalpa, 29(2): 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saran, A., & Guo, C. 2005. Competing in the global marketplace: The case of India and China. Business Horizons, 48: 135–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1991. Takeovers in the 60s and in the 80s: Evidence and implications. Strategic Management Journal, 12: 51–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations: Foundations for organizational science. California: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheth, J. 2004. Making India globally competitive. Vikalpa, 25(4): 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singhal, A., & Tagore, A. 2002. Big industry before independence: 1860–1950. Retrieved from http://www.ccsindia.org/Intern2002_9_bigindustry_b4_independance.pdf, March 2, 2005.

  • Whitley, R. D. 1999. Divergent capitalisms: The social structuring and change of business systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wipro India Press Release. 2004. Retrieved from http://www.wipro.com/pdf_files/USGAAP-Press-Release-Apr-2004.PDF, March 2, 2005.

  • World Bank Report. 2005. India at a glance. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/aag/ind_aag.pdf, April 20, 2005.

  • Yiu, D., Bruton, G. D., & Lu, Y. 2005. Understanding business group performance in an emerging economy: Acquiring resources and capabilities in order to prosper. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 183–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Robert Wang Center for International Business Education and Research, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, 38152, USA

    Ben L. Kedia, Debmalya Mukherjee & Somnath Lahiri

Authors
  1. Ben L. Kedia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Debmalya Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Somnath Lahiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben L. Kedia.

Additional information

We are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Our sincere thanks are due to Andrew Delios, Ajai Gaur, Mike Carney, and especially Mike Peng for their valuable suggestions. We also thank the Asia Academy of Management, NUS Business School, and Memphis CIBER for providing financial support to attend APJM special issue conference.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kedia, B.L., Mukherjee, D. & Lahiri, S. Indian business groups: Evolution and transformation. Asia Pacific J Manage 23, 559–577 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-006-9020-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-006-9020-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation