Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

State capitalism and performance persistence of business group-affiliated firms: A comparative study of China and India

  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Business groups emerged in developing economies through direct or indirect support from the state in order to overcome a variety of institutional voids and/or to further state objectives of economic growth. However, the efficacy of this organizational form and its associated governance structures have been debated given the dual possibility of business groups to allocate resources among its affiliates for cross-subsidization or winner-picking. We argue that elements of the institutional environment comprising of the state’s approach to organizations and the political context of these interactions vary across countries, thereby influencing business groups’ resource allocation strategies and affecting the persistence of affiliated firms’ superior performance. Contrasting the types of state capitalism in China and India, we develop and test our hypotheses. We find that the effect of business group affiliation on firms’ superior performance persistence is stronger in a state-led system of state capitalism (e.g., China) than in a co-governed system (e.g., India) and that this divergence of the business group effect is weakened as affiliated firms internationalize. Our findings have implications for understanding business groups across institutional contexts and the influence of diversity in the types of state capitalism on organizational strategies.

Resume

Les groupes d’entreprises ont émergé dans les économies en développement grâce au soutien direct ou indirect de l’Etat pour contourner une variété de vides institutionnels et/ou pour déclarer d’autres objectifs de croissance économique. Cependant, l’efficacité de cette forme organisationnelle et des structures de gouvernance qui y sont associées ont été débattues étant donné la double possibilité pour les groupes d’entreprises d’allouer des ressources à leurs affiliés par le biais de subventions croisées ou de sélection des vainqueurs. Nous considérons que les éléments de l’environnement institutionnel, comprenant l’approche de l’État envers les organisations et le contexte politique de ces interactions, varient selon les pays; influençant ainsi les stratégies d’allocation des ressources des groupes d’entreprises et affectant la persistance des performances supérieures des entreprises affiliées. Différenciant les types de capitalisme d’Etat en Chine et en Inde, nous développons et testons nos hypothèses. Nous constatons que l’effet d’affiliation aux groupes d’entreprises sur la persistance des performances supérieures des firmes est plus fort dans un système de capitalisme d’Etat dirigé par l’Etat (Chine) que dans un système co-gouverné (Inde), et que cette divergence de l’effet du groupe d’entreprises est affaiblie à mesure que les sociétés affiliées s’internationalisent. Nos résultats ont des implications pour comprendre les groupes d’entreprises à travers des contextes institutionnels différents et l’influence de la diversité des types de capitalisme d’Etat sur les stratégies organisationnelles.

Resumen

Los grupos empresariales surgieron en economías en desarrollo a través del apoyo directo o indirecto del estado con la finalidad de superar una variedad de vacíos institucionales y/o para avanzar los objetivos del estado de crecimiento económicos. Sin embargo, la eficacia de esta forma organizacional y sus estructuras de gobierno asociadas ha sido debatido dada la doble posibilidad de que los grupos empresariales asignen recursos entre sus afiliados para subsidios cruzados o selección de ganadores. Sostenemos que los elementos del entorno institucional que comprende el enfoque del estado a las organizaciones y el contexto político de estas interacciones varía entre países, influyendo la estrategia de asignación recursos de los grupos empresariales y afectando la persistencia del desempeño superior de las firmas afiliadas. Contrastando los tipos de capitalismo de estado en China e India, desarrollamos y probamos nuestras hipótesis. Encontramos que el efecto de afiliación al grupo empresarial en la persistencia superior de desempeño de las empresas es más fuerte en un sistema liderado por el estado de capitalismo de estado (por ejemplo, China) que en un sistema co-gobernado (por ejemplo, India) y que esta divergencia del efecto del grupo empresarial se debilita a medidas que las empresas afiliadas se internacionalizan. Nuestros hallazgos tienen implicaciones en el entendimiento de los grupos empresariales entre contextos institucionales y en la influencia de la diversidad en los diferentes tipos de capitalismo de estado en las estrategias organizacionales.

Resumo

Grupos de negócios emergiram nas economias em desenvolvimento por meio de apoio direto ou indireto do Estado, a fim de superar uma variedade de vazios institucionais e / ou para promover objetivos de crescimento econômico do Estado. No entanto, a eficácia dessa forma organizacional e de suas associadas estruturas de governança tem sido debatida, dada a dupla possibilidade de que grupos de negócios alocarem recursos entre suas afiliadas para subsídios cruzados ou seleção de vencedores. Argumentamos que os elementos do ambiente institucional que compõem a abordagem do Estado às organizações e o contexto político dessas interações variam entre os países, influenciando assim as estratégias de alocação de recursos dos grupos de negócios e afetando a persistência do desempenho superior de empresas afiliadas. Contrastando os tipos de capitalismo de estado na China e na Índia, desenvolvemos e testamos nossas hipóteses. Descobrimos que o efeito da filiação ao grupo de negócios na persistência do desempenho superior das empresas é mais forte em um sistema estatal de capitalismo de estado (por exemplo, China) do que em um sistema cogovernado (por exemplo, Índia) e que essa divergência no efeito do grupo de negócios é enfraquecida na medida em que as empresas afiliadas se internacionalizam. Nossas descobertas têm implicações para a compreensão de grupos de negócios em contextos institucionais e a influência da diversidade nos tipos de capitalismo de estado nas estratégias organizacionais.

摘要

发展中经济体里受国家直接或间接支持的商业集团出现, 以克服各种制度空隙和/或实现经济增长的国家目标。然而, 考虑到商业集团在其附属机构中分配资源进行交叉补贴或赢家选择的双重可能性, 这种组织形式及其相关治理结构的功效一直存在争议。我们认为, 由国家对组织的态度以及这些相互作用的政治情境组成的制度环境要素因国家的不同而不同, 从而影响商业集团的资源分配策略, 并影响附属企业卓越绩效的持续性。对比中国和印度国家资本主义的类型, 我们开发并测试了我们的假设。我们发现, 在国家主导的国家资本主义的体系(如中国)中, 商业集团的归属对企业卓越绩效持续性的影响要强于共同治理体系(如印度), 而且商业集团影响的这种差异随着关联企业的国际化而减弱。我们的发现对理解跨制度情境下企业集团以及国家资本主义类型的多样性对组织战略的影响具有启示意义。

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alfaro, L., & Chari, A. 2014. Deregulation, misallocation, and size: Evidence from India. Journal of Law and Economics, 57: 897–936.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrellano, M., & Bond, E. 1991. Some tests of specification for panel data. Review of Economic Studies, 58: 277–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltagi, B. 1995. Econometric analysis of panel data. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banalieva, E. R., Eddleston, K. A., & Zellweger, T. M. 2015. When do family firms have an advantage in transitioning economies? Toward a dynamic institution-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9): 1358–1377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaumik, S. K., Driffield, N., & Pal, S. 2010. Does ownership structure of emerging-market firms affect their outward FDI? The case of the Indian automotive and pharmaceutical sectors. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(3): 437–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouthers, K. D., & Dikova, D. 2010. Acquisitions and real options: The greenfield alternative. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6): 1048–1071.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., Clegg, L. J., Voss, H., Cross, A. R., Liu, X., & Zeng, P. 2018. A retrospective and agenda for future research on Chinese outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 49: 4–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P. J., Doh, J. P., & Benischke, M. H. 2017. Towards a renaissance in international business research? Big questions, grand challenges, and the future of IB scholarship. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 1045–1064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M., Gedajlovic, E., Heugens, P., van Essen, M., & van Oosterhout, J. 2011. Business group affiliation, performance, context, and strategy: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3): 437–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M., Shapiro, D., & Tang, Y. 2009. Business group performance in China: Ownership and temporal considerations. Management and Organization Review, 5(2): 167–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carney, R. W., & Witt, M. A. 2014. The role of the state in Asian business systems. In M. A. Witt & G. Redding (Eds), The Oxford handbook of Asian business systems: 538–560. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Certo, S. T., Busenbark, J. R., Woo, H., & Semadeni, M. 2016. Sample selection bias and Heckman models in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 2639–2657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cestone, G., & Fumagalli, C. 2005. The strategic impact of resource flexibility in business groups. RAND Journal of Economics, 36(1): 193–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chacar, A., Newburry, W., & Vissa, B. 2010. Bringing institutions into performance persistence research: Exploring the impact of product, financial, and labor market institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 1119–1140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chacar, A., & Vissa, B. 2005. Are emerging economies less efficient? Performance persistence and the impact of business group affiliation. Strategic Management Journal, 26(10): 933–946.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarty, S., & Bass, A. E. 2014. Institutionalizing ethics in institutional voids: Building positive ethical strength to serve women microfinance borrowers in negative contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 119: 529–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S. J., Chung, C. N., & Mahmood, I. P. 2006. When and how does business group affiliation promote firm innovation? A tale of two emerging economies. Organization Science, 17(5): 637–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S. J., & Hong, J. 2000. Economic performance of group-affiliated companies in Korea: Intragroup resource sharing and internal business transactions. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 429–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chari, M. R. D., & David, P. 2012. Sustaining superior performance in an emerging economy: An empirical test in the Indian context. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 217–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chittoor, R., Kale, P., & Puranam, P. 2015. Business groups in developing capital markets: Towards a complementarity perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9): 1277–1296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., & Wang, H. 2009. Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(8): 895–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colpan, A. M., Hikino, T., & Lincoln, J. R. 2010. The Oxford handbook of business groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cui, L., & Jiang, F. 2012. State ownership effect on firms’ FDI ownership decisions under institutional pressure: A study of Chinese outward-investing firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(3): 264–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dastidar, S. G., Fisman, R., & Khanna, T. 2008. Testing limits to policy reversal: Evidence from Indian privatizations. Journal of Financial Economics, 89: 513–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. 2006. Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 917.r–926.r.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doh, J., Rodrigues, S., Saka-Helmhout, A., & Makhija, M. 2017. International business responses to institutional voids. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 293–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estrin, S., Poukliakova, S., & Shapiro, D. 2009. The performance effects of business groups in Russia. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3): 393–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, G., Wang, X., & Zhu, H. 2012. NERI Index of Marketization of China’s Provinces. Beijing: Economic Science Press. (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedom House. 2009. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2009 (accessed on May 26, 2018).

  • Gaur, A. S., Ma, X., & Ding, Z. 2018. Home country supportiveness/unfavorableness and outward foreign direct investment from China. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(3): 324–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gedajlovic, E., & Shapiro, D. M. 2002. Ownership structure and firm profitability in Japan. Academy of Management Journal, 45(3): 565–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghemawat, P., & Khanna, T. 1998. The nature of diversified business groups: A research design and two case studies. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(1): 35–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopalan, R., Nanda, V., & Seru, A. 2007. Affiliated firms and financial support: Evidence from Indian business groups. Journal of Financial Economics, 86(3): 759–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Diaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. 2010. The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21(2): 521–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. 2011. Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 317–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gryglewicz, S. 2011. A theory of corporate financial decisions with liquidity and solvency concerns. Journal of Financial Economics, 99(2): 365–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gubbi, S. R., Aulakh, P. S., & Ray, S. 2015. International search behavior of business group affiliated firms: Scope of institutional changes and intragroup heterogeneity. Organization Science, 26(5): 1485–1501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gubbi, S. R., Aulakh, P. S., Ray, S., Sarkar, M. B., & Chittoor, R. 2010. Do international acquisitions by emerging-economy firms create shareholder value? The case of Indian firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(3): 397–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guest, P., & Sutherland, D. 2010. The impact of business group affiliation on performance: Evidence from China’s ‘national champions. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(4): 617–631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., & Westphal, J. D. 1999. Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3): 473–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancké, B., Rhodes, M., & Thatcher, M. 2007. Beyond varieties of capitalism: Conflict, contradictions, and complementarities in the European economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henisz, W. J. 2000. The institutional environment for economic growth. Economics and Politics, 12(1): 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hotho, J. J. 2014. From typology to taxonomy: A configurational analysis of national business systems and their explanatory power. Organization Studies, 35(5): 671–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, H. W., & Cui, L. 2014. Outward foreign direct investment of publicly listed firms from China: A corporate governance perspective. International Business Review, 23: 750–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y. 2008. Capitalism with Chinese characteristics: Entrepreneurship and the state. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, G., & Deeg, R. 2008. Comparing capitalisms: Understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 540–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffries, I. 2006. China: A guide to economic and political developments. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jia, N., Shi, J., & Wang, Y. 2013. Coinsurance within business groups: Evidence from related party transactions in an emerging market. Management Science, 59(10): 2295–2313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keister, L. 2000. Chinese business groups: The structure and impact of interfirm relations during economic development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T. 2007. Billions of entrepreneurs: How China and India are reshaping their futures and yours. Boston, MA: HBS Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000. Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance, 55(2): 867–891.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2010. Winning in emerging markets: A road map for strategy and execution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Yafeh, Y. 2005. Business groups and risk sharing around the world. Journal of Business, 78(1): 301–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Yafeh, Y. 2007. Business groups in emerging markets: Paragons or parasites. Journal of Economic Literature, XLV: 331–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochanek, S. 1996. Liberalization and business lobbying in India. Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 34(3): 155–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. 2004. State-directed development: Political power and industrialization in the global periphery. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. 2006a. Politics of economic growth in India, 1980–2005. Part I: The 1980s. Economic and Political Weekly, 41(13): 1251–1259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. 2006b. Politics of economic growth in India, 1980–2005. Part II: The 1990s and beyond. Economic and Political Weekly, 41(14): 1361–1370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. 2007. State, business, and economic growth in India. Studies in Comparative International Development, 42: 87–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., & Chadha, A. 2009. India’s outward foreign direct investments in steel industry in a Chinese comparative perspective. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18: 249–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamin, A. 2013. The business group as an information resource: An investigation of business group affiliation in the Indian software services industry. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5): 1487–1509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. 2009. State-owned enterprises in China: Reviewing the evidence. OECD Working Paper on Privatisation and Corporate Governance of State Owned Assets.

  • Lee, K., & Kang, Y.-S. 2010. Business groups in China. In A. Colpan, T. Hikino, & J. Lincoln (Eds), The Oxford handbook of business groups: 210–236. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, M. H., Cui, L., & Lu, J. 2014. Varieties in state capitalism: Outward FDI strategies of central and local state-owned enterprises from emerging economy countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(8): 980–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, M. H., Cui, L., & Lu, J. 2017. Marketized state ownership and foreign expansion of emerging market multinationals: Leveraging institutional competitive advantages. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34(1): 19–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lien, Y.-C., Piesse, J., Strange, R., & Filatotchev, I. 2005. The role of corporate governance in FDI decisions: Evidence from Taiwan. International Business Review, 14(6): 739–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L., & Milhaupt, C. J. 2013. We are the (national) champions: Understanding the mechanisms of state capitalism in China. Stanford Law Review, 65: 697–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Z., Peng, M. W., Yang, H. B., & Sun, S. L. 2009. How do networks and learning drive M&As? An institutional comparison between China and the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 1113–1132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, J. R., Gerlach, M. L., & Ahmadjian, C. L. 1996. Keiretsu networks and corporate performance in Japan. American Sociological Review, 61: 67–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. 2007. International expansion of emerging market enterprises: A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38: 481–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair, J., Marti, I., & Ventresca, M. J. 2012. Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4): 819–850.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majumdar, S. K., & Sen, K. 2007. The debt wish: Rent seeking by business groups and the structure of corporate borrowing in India. Public Choice, 130: 209–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manikandan, K. S., & Ramachandran, J. 2015. Beyond institutional voids: Business groups, incomplete markets, and organizational form. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4): 598–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marano, V., Tashman, P., & Kostova, T. 2017. Escaping the iron cage: Liabilities of origin and CSR reporting of emerging market multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 386–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. C., Washburn, N. T., & Glick, W. H. 2013. The myth of firm performance. Organization Science, 24(3): 948–964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, R. K. 2009. State owned enterprises in India: Reviewing the evidence. OECD Working Paper on Privatisation and Corporate Governance of State Owned Assets.

  • Musacchio, A., & Lazzarini, S. G. 2012. Leviathan in business: Varieties of state capitalism and their implications for economic performance. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 12-108, June.

  • Musacchio, A., Lazzarini, S. G., & Aguilera, R. 2015. New varieties of state capitalism: Strategic and governance implications. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1): 115–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nee, V. 1992. Organizational dynamics of market transition: Hybrid forms, property rights, and mixed economy in China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1): 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nee, V., & Opper, S. 2007. On politicized capitalism. In V. Nee & R. Swedberg (Eds), On capitalism: 93–127. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickell, S. 1981. Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica, 49(6): 1417–1426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 145–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W. 2003. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 275–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, P. C. B., & Sul, D. 2007. Bias in dynamic panel estimation with fixed effects, incidental trends and cross section dependence. Journal of Econometrics, 137: 162–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramamurti, R., & Hillemann, J. 2018. What is “Chinese” about Chinese multinationals? Journal of International Business Studies, 49: 34–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. 2002. Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12): 1077–1093.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrick, D., & Subramanian, A. 2005. From “Hindi Growth” to productivity surge: The mystery of the Indian growth transition. IMF Staff Papers, 52(2): 193–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rueschemeyer, D. 2003. Can one or a few cases yield theoretical gains? In J. Mahoney & D. Ruesschemeyer (Eds), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences: 305–336. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, J. 2010. Business groups in India. In A. Colpan, T. Hikino, & J. Lincoln (Eds), The Oxford handbook of business groups: 294–321. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, J., & Choudhury, P. 2012. A reexamination of tunneling and business groups: New data and new methods. Review of Financial Studies, 25(6): 1763–1798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D. A., & Gaur, A. S. 2009. Business group affiliation, firm governance, and firm performance: Evidence from China and India. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4): 411–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, D. 1994. Measuring the degree of internationalization of a firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(2): 325–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallman, S., & Li, J. T. 1996. Effects of international diversity and product diversity on the performance of multinational firms. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1): 179–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist. 2012. The visible hand. Special Report: State Capitalism. January 21: 1–18.

  • The Economist. 2016a. Tata Group: Mistry’s Elephant. September 24.

  • The Economist. 2016b. Tata Group: Clash of the Tatas. November 19.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. 2003. How national are business systems? The role of different state types and complementary institutions in constructing homogenous systems of economic co-ordination and control. Manchester: Manchester Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt, M. A., de Castro, L. R. K., Amaeshi, K., Mahroum, S., Bohle, D., & Saez, L. 2018. Mapping the business systems of 61 major economies: A taxonomy and implications for varieties of capitalism and business systems research. Socio-Economic Review, 16(1): 5–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt, M. A., & Redding, G. 2013. Asian business systems: Institutional comparison, clusters and implications for varieties of capitalism and business systems theory. Socio-Economic Review, 11(2): 265–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia, J., Ma, X., Lu, J. W., & Yiu, D. W. 2014. Outward foreign direct investment by emerging market firms: A resource dependence logic. Strategic Management Journal, 35(9): 1343–1363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia, F., & Walker, G. 2015. How much does owner type matter for firm performance? Manufacturing firms in China 1998–2007. Strategic Management Journal, 36: 576–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X., & Whitley, R. 2013. Changing macro-structural varieties of East Asian capitalism. Socio-Economic Review, 11(2): 301–336.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors contributed equally to this article. We thank the JIBS Editor Mona Makhija, three anonymous reviewers, and participants at the 2013 Academy of International Business Annual Conference and 2013 Academy of Management Annual Conference for their constructive comments. Lin Cui acknowledges funding support from the Australian Research Council (Grant Number DE130100860), and Preet S. Aulakh acknowledges funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant Number 435-2012-1219).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Marketing, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Helen Wei Hu

  2. Research School of Management, Australian National University, LF Crisp, Building 26, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia

    Lin Cui

  3. Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, Canada

    Preet S Aulakh

Authors
  1. Helen Wei Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lin Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Preet S Aulakh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lin Cui.

Additional information

Accepted by Mona Makhija, Area Editor, 26 May 2018. This article has been with the authors for four revisions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, H.W., Cui, L. & Aulakh, P.S. State capitalism and performance persistence of business group-affiliated firms: A comparative study of China and India. J Int Bus Stud 50, 193–222 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0165-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0165-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation