Institutional fragility and outward foreign direct investment from China
中国机构脆弱性与对外直接投资

D Yan, Center for Transnationals’ Studies, School of Economics, Nankai University, Tianjin, China.
D Yan，南开大学经济学院跨国研究中心，中国天津。
Tel: (86) 13612038884;  电话：(86) 13612038884；
e-mail: dayingy@nankai.edu.cn
电子邮件：dayingy@nankai.edu.cn

Received: 19 October 2014
收到：2014 年 10 月 19 日
Revised: 27 June 2016
修改：2016 年 6 月 27 日
Accepted: 5 October 2016
接受：2016 年 10 月 5 日
Online publication date: 31 January 2017
在线发表日期：2017 年 1 月 31 日

Keywords: institution-based view; outward foreign direct investment; emerging economies; market-based reform
关键词：基于制度的观点；对外直接投资；新兴经济体；市场化改革

Escaping from a home country through outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) is an increasingly important phenomenon that is underdeveloped in both strategy and international business literature (Boisot & Meyer, 2008; Child & Rodrigues, 2005; Luo & Tung, 2007; Witt & Lewin, 2007; Yamakawa, Peng, & Deeds, 2008). Existing literature, however, tends to predominantly focus on firms’ OFDI as a response to institutional constraints in developed economies (Boddewyn & Brewer, 1994; Narula, 2002; Rugman & Verbeke, 1998; Schoppa, 2006; Tallman, 1988). Our study shifts this focus toward firms in emerging economies in which institutional constraints are different from those of developed economies. We argue that prior studies along this line view institutions in the developed economies as inertial forces-which increase the risk of slowness in institutional adjustment (Witt & Lewin, 2007)—while the development of institutions in emerging economies seems to be more enabling since the way to develop these institutions is to create a new institutional regime.
通过对外直接投资（OFDI）逃离母国是一种日益重要的现象，在战略和国际商务文献中都尚未得到充分研究（Boisot & Meyer, 2008; Child & Rodrigues, 2005; Luo & Tung, 2007; Witt & Lewin, 然而，现有文献主要关注发达国家制度约束下企业的 OFDI 行为（Boddewyn & Brewer, 1994; Narula, 2002; Rugman & Verbenke, 1998; Schoppa, 2006; Tallman, 1988）。我们的研究将这一焦点转向新兴经济体中的企业，这些国家的制度约束与发达国家不同。我们认为，此前的相关研究将发达国家的制度视为一种惯性力量——这种力量会增加制度调整过程中的迟缓风险（Witt & Lewin, 2007）——而新兴经济体制度的发展则更具促进性，因为发展这些制度的方式是建立一个新的制度体系。

We argue that firms in emerging economies escape their domestic institutional regimes in the form of OFDI because of institutional fragility-defined as a situation in which different institutional dimensions are not progressing at the same pace and
我们认为，新兴经济体的公司由于制度脆弱性——即不同制度维度的发展步伐不一致——而以对外直接投资（OFDI）的形式逃避其国内制度体系
thus creating internal friction and conflict during development. The notion of institutional fragility is consistent with the perspective that views institutional reform as dynamic (Kim, Kim, & Hoskisson, 2010; Banalieva, Eddleston, & Zellweger, 2015) and multidimensional (Jackson & Deeg, 2008; Sun, Shi, & Chen, 2013; Marquis & Raynard, 2015) rather than static (Aoki, 2001), discrete (Kim et al., 2010), or as an aggregate or unidimensional construct. This dynamic and multidimensional view recognizes the fact that after decades of reforms, institutional regimes in emerging economies are evolving over time; however, the current focus is on how different institutional dimensions can interact in a coherent and consistent manner (Jackson & Deeg, 2008; Schneider, Schulze-Bentrop, & Paunescu, 2010). Such internal friction and conflict among different institutional dimensions could raise both the cognitive and relational complexity that firms must face in an environment (Boisot & Child, 1999; Child & Rodrigues, 2011). We therefore ask the following research questions: to what extent does institutional fragility associate with a firm’s key strategic response, that is, to engage in OFDI or not? What are the mechanisms underlying this relationship?
这导致了在发展过程中产生内部摩擦和冲突。制度脆弱性的概念与将制度变革视为动态的（Kim, Kim, & Hoskisson, 2010; Banalieva, Eddleston, & Zellweger, 2015）和多维的（Jackson & Deeg, 2008; Sun, Shi, & Chen, 2013; Marquis & Raynard, 2015）而非静态的（Aoki, 2001）、离散的（Kim 等，2010）或聚合的、单一维度的结构的观点是一致的。这种动态和多维的观点认识到，在经历了数十年的改革之后，新兴经济体的制度体系正在随时间而演变；然而，当前的重点是不同制度维度如何以一致和协调的方式相互作用（Jackson & Deeg, 2008; Schneider, Schulze-Bentrop, & Paunescu, 2010）。不同制度维度之间的这种内部摩擦和冲突可能会增加企业在一个环境中必须面对的认知和关系复杂性（Boisot & Child, 1999; Child & Rodrigues, 2011）。 因此，我们提出以下研究问题：制度脆弱性在多大程度上与企业的重要战略反应相关，即是否进行对外直接投资？这种关系背后的机制是什么？

In addition, we argue that different firms exercise different OFDI choices to respond to institutional fragility. Building on Child and Rodrigues’s (2011) three modes of firm engagement with external complexity, we develop hypotheses on fragility reduction, fragility penetration, and fragility mediation. We argue that firms with high productivity could be well suited to reduce institutional fragility by “imposing their own practices and rules” (Child & Rodrigues, 2011: 811). State-owned enterprises (SOEs) have strong resource-dependent relationships with home-country institutions (Cui & Jiang, 2012; Lu, Liu, Wright, & Filatotchev, 2014) and thus multiple channels through which to interpret and penetrate institutional fragility. Meanwhile, existing local normative systems can help firms learn from the behavior of others, which mediates institutional fragility. In addition, firms with accumulated foreign experience could minimize the impact of institutional fragility via their external networks. Therefore such firm characteristics could weaken or strengthen the mechanisms underlying the relationship between institutional fragility and OFDI. These factors all point to limitations of the escape argument that prior studies have ignored (Cuervo-Cazurra, 2016).
此外，我们认为不同的企业会采取不同的对外直接投资（OFDI）策略来应对制度脆弱性。在 Child 和 Rodrigues（2011）提出的三种企业应对外部复杂性的参与模式基础上，我们提出了关于制度脆弱性降低、制度脆弱性渗透和制度脆弱性调和的假设。我们认为，生产率高的企业可能更适合通过“推行自己的实践和规则”（Child & Rodrigues, 2011: 811）来减少制度脆弱性。国有企业（SOEs）与母国制度之间具有很强的资源依赖关系（Cui & Jiang, 2012; Lu, Liu, Wright & Filatotchev, 2014），因此有多种渠道来理解和渗透制度脆弱性。同时，现有的当地规范体系可以帮助企业通过学习他人的行为来调和制度脆弱性。此外，拥有丰富海外经验的企业可以通过其外部网络来最小化制度脆弱性的影响。因此，这些企业特征可能会削弱或加强制度脆弱性与 OFDI 之间关系的内在机制。 这些因素都表明，先前的研究忽略了一些限制，这些限制使得“逃避论”（escape argument）存在局限性（Cuervo-Cazurra, 2016）。

Drawing from the Chinese Industrial Enterprises Database and the Directory of Chinese Outward FDI Firms Database, which consist of 578,360 Chinese firm-year observations from 2000 to 2009, we find that (1) institutional fragility at the provincial level associates with OFDI, which substantiates the escape argument; (2) such a relationship is weaker while firms have higher productivity or have higher ownership controlled by state and, (3) the relationship is stronger when firms have a high level of export intensity.
基于中国工业企业数据库和中国对外直接投资企业名录数据库，这两个数据库包含 2000 年至 2009 年间 578,360 个中国企业的年度数据，我们发现：（1）省级制度脆弱性与对外直接投资（OFDI）相关，这支持了“逃避论”；（2）当企业生产率较高或国有股权比例较高时，这种关系会变弱；（3）而当企业出口强度较高时，这种关系则会增强。

Our study makes three contributions to the field of international business and strategy. First, we advance the OFDI escape argument by extending it to emerging economies. In this way, we introduce institutional fragility as a key concept in understanding OFDI in emerging economies. The notion of institutional fragility is important both theoretically and empirically as it emphasizes the enabling function rather than the inertia function of institutions. It also champions the view of a multidimensional and dynamic construct of institutions in that different dimensions progress at different rates. This idea greatly enriches the concept of institutional void that prior studies on emerging economies have constantly stressed (CuervoCazurra & Dau, 2009). The concept of institutional fragility supplements and improves our understanding of the institutional void by examining the effects of institutions with a multidimensional perspective through a temporal angle. We want to stress that institutional development is not missing in China-the key is to focus on the incongruent pace of institutional development as well as the resulting clashes and resistances.
我们的研究对国际商务与战略领域做出了三项贡献。首先，我们将 OFDI 逃避论扩展到了新兴经济体。通过这种方式，我们引入了制度脆弱性作为理解新兴经济体 OFDI 的关键概念。制度脆弱性的概念在理论上和实证上都很重要，因为它强调的是制度的促进功能，而不是惯性功能。它也支持了制度的多维和动态构建的观点，即不同的维度以不同的速度发展。这一理念大大丰富了先前关于新兴经济体的研究一直强调的制度空缺概念（Cuervo Cazurra & Dau，2009）。通过从时间角度以多维视角考察制度的影响，制度脆弱性的概念补充并改进了我们对制度空缺的理解。我们要强调的是，中国并不存在制度发展的缺失，关键在于关注制度发展不协调的速度以及由此产生的冲突和阻力。

Second, the boundary conditions enrich the theoretical underpinnings of the escape argument. Firms, as adaptive systems (Boisot & Child, 1999), could take heterogeneous actions to respond to institutional fragility. The logic of how firms flow investment out of their home countries should be understood in conjunction with other theoretical lenses such as political action, resource dependency, firm capabilities, and institutional theory. Third, Witt and Lewin (2007: 579) have argued that “rigorous empirical treatment of OFDI as an escape response from the home country has been relatively sparse in the IB literature,” and the majority of prior studies on this topic provide either anecdotal or qualitative evidence. Our study helps to fill this void.
其次，边界条件丰富了逃逸论的理论基础。企业作为适应性系统（Boisot & Child，第 1999 年），可以采取不同的行动来应对制度的脆弱性。企业从母国流出投资的逻辑应结合其他理论视角来理解，例如政治行动、资源依赖、企业能力以及制度理论。第三，Witt 和 Lewин（2007: 579）认为，“在国际商务文献中，对 OFDI 作为从母国逃逸反应的严格实证研究相对较少”，而且大多数先前的研究仅提供了轶事或定性证据；我们的研究有助于填补这一空白。

Emerging economies have become the new center of attention in strategy research that focuses on an institution-based view. The rapid economic reforms in emerging economies provide a great context for the examination of institutional change (Peng, 2003; Wan & Hoskisson, 2003). These institutional changes in emerging economies should not be treated as static and discrete but rather as a dynamic and interconnected process (Banalieva et al., 2015; Jackson & Deeg, 2008). Recently, some scholars argue that the scope of institutional reform is important in encouraging firms’ profit maximization strategy (Cuervo-Cazurra & Dau, 2009; Peng, Wang, & Jiang, 2008) while others focus on the speed at which an emerging economy moves toward a market-based system over time (Banalieva et al., 2015). Both the scope and speed of reform are critical in understanding a dynamic view of institutional change. The scope of reform emphasizes the idea that reform is multidimensional and interconnected, while the speed of reform recognizes that institutional reform is not static but evolves over time. Our construct of institutional fragility incorporates both of these aspects as it focuses on the situation in which different dimensions of institutions are not progressing at the same pace and thus create internal friction and conflict during institution reform.
新兴经济体已成为基于制度的视角的战略研究中的新焦点。新兴经济体的快速经济改革为研究制度变迁提供了很好的背景（Peng，2003；Wan & Hoskisson，2003）。这些新兴经济体中的制度变迁不应被看作是静态和孤立的，而应被视为一个动态且相互关联的过程（Banalieva 等，2015；Jackson & Deeg，2008）。最近，一些学者认为制度改革的范围在鼓励企业利润最大化战略方面很重要（Cuervo-Cazurra & Dau，2009；Peng，Wang & Jiang，2008），而另一些学者则关注新兴经济体向市场化体系演进的速度（Banalieva 等，2015）。改革的范围和速度在理解制度变迁的动态视角中都至关重要。改革的范围强调了改革是多维且相互关联的概念，而改革的速度则认识到制度变革不是静止的，而是随时间演变的。 我们的制度脆弱性概念包含了这两个方面，因为它关注的是不同制度维度的发展速度不一致的情况，从而在制度改革过程中产生内部摩擦和冲突。

Theoretically, our conceptualization of institutional fragility is consistent with the institutional diversity literature (Hall & Gingerich, 2009; Hall & Soskice, 2001; Schneider et al., 2010) and the institutional information-space argument (Boisot & Child, 1999). Both perspectives regard institutional reform as a process consisting of multiple dimensions that can vary in the degree of progression (McCarthy, Lawrence, Wixted, & Gordon, 2010). According to these views, institutional reforms should adopt a complementarity approach in that one dimension of institutional reform is “complementary to another when its presence raises the returns available from the other” (Hall & Gingerich, 2009: 136). For example, Fukuyama (2014) proposes that effective governance involves the complementarity among three sets of political institutions: the state, the rule of law, and political accountability. However, when such a complementary change is absent, internal friction and conflict tend to arise within the overall institutional reform and results in institutional fragility. Based on these arguments, both
从理论上讲，我们对制度脆弱性的概念与制度多样性文献（Hall & Gingerich, 2009; Hall & Soskice, 2001; Schneider et al., 2010）以及制度信息空间论点（Boisot & Child, 1999）是一致的。这两种观点都将制度变革视为一个由多个维度组成的进程，这些维度在推进程度上可能有所不同（McCarthy, Lawrence, Wixted & Gordon, 2010）。根据这些观点，制度变革应采取互补性方法，即当某一维度的存在提高了另一维度的收益时，它就与另一维度“互补”（Hall & Gingerich, 2009: 136）。例如，福山（2014）提出，有效的治理涉及三组政治制度之间的互补性：国家、法治和政治问责制。然而，当这种互补性变化缺失时，整体制度变革内部容易产生摩擦和冲突，从而导致制度脆弱性。基于这些论点，两者都认为……
the institutional diversity literature and the institutional information-space perspective emphasize the scope of reform, which pinpoints the nature of multidimensionality and interconnectedness of institutional reform. Both views, however, overlook the importance of the speed of reform in driving institutional change. A more complete dynamic view of institutions requires us to “extend the theory’s traditional focus on the static concept of scope to consider the dynamic concept of speed of these reforms” (Banalieva et al., 2015: 2). In other words, different dimensions of reform should not only be present to support each other, but these dimensions should also progress at a similar pace in order to create a favorable institutional environment.
制度多样性文献和制度信息空间视角强调了改革的范围，这指出了制度改革的多维性和相互关联性。然而，这两种观点都忽视了改革速度在推动制度变革中的重要性。对制度更全面的动态视角要求我们“将理论的传统重点从静态的范围概念扩展到考虑这些改革的动态速度概念”（Banalieva 等，2015: 2）。换句话说，不同的改革维度不仅应该相互支持，而且这些维度还应该以相似的速度推进，以创造有利的制度环境。

In this study, we illustrate the concept of institutional fragility using marketization reform in the context of China. Marketization is defined as a type of institutional reform that aims to restructure and change the institutional environment in order to achieve more efficient market functioning (Hoeven & Sziráczki, 1997; Fan, Wang, & Zhu, 2007; 2010; Cuervo-Cazurra & Dau, 2009). There are five dimensions of marketization: the relationship between government and business, private economy development, product market development, factor market development, and legal system and law service intermediaries (Fan et al., 2007; 2010). All five dimensions are highly related to institutional development. For example, the development of the private economy is arguably the most important component of marketization and overall institutional development (Bevan, Estrin, & Meyer, 2004; Sun, Shi, & Chen, 2013). An increasing market share of privatized firms indicates a defining institutional change in transition economies (Bonnell & Gold, 2002). Over the last two decades, the private sector in China has expanded into a powerful growth engine along the path toward a market economy by drastically increasing industrial output and capital investments (Bai, Lu, & Tao, 2006). Another integral element of institutional development is the product market, in which the reliability of information regarding market supply and demand directly influences firms’ ability to make sound decisions (Khanna & Palepu, 1997). Some argue that if the product market of an emerging economy is insufficient and unreliable, it becomes a serious institutional void that hinders the success of institutional development overall (Khanna, Palepu, & Sinha, 2005). In addition, the creation
在本研究中，我们通过中国市场化改革的背景来说明制度脆弱性的概念。市场化被定义为一种旨在重构和改变制度环境以实现更有效市场运作的制度性改革（Hoeven & Sziráczki，1997；Fan，Wang，& Zhu，2007；2010；Cuervo-Cazurra & Dau，2009）。市场化有五个维度：政府与企业之间的关系、私营经济发展、产品市场发展、要素市场发展以及法律制度和法律服务中介（Fan 等，2007；2010）。所有五个维度都与制度发展密切相关。例如，私营经济的发展可以说是市场化和整体制度发展的最重要组成部分（Bevan，Estrin，& Meyer，2004；Sun，Shi，& Chen，2013）。私有化企业的市场份额增加表明转型经济中制度的标志性变化（Bonnell & Gold，2002）。 在过去二十年中，中国私营部门通过大幅增加工业产出和资本投资，沿着市场经济的道路发展成为强大的增长引擎（Bai、Lu 和 Tao，2006）。制度发展的另一个重要组成部分是产品市场，在这个市场中，有关市场供需的信息可靠性直接影响企业的决策能力（Khanna 和 Palepu，1997）。一些人认为，如果新兴经济体的产品市场不充分且不可靠，就会成为一个严重的制度空缺，阻碍整体制度发展的成功（Khanna、Palepu 和 Sinha，2005）。此外，制度的建立