Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The First Global Merger Wave and the Enigma of Chinese Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2016


Killian J. McCarthy
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Wilfred Dolfsma
Affiliation:
Loughborough University London, UK
Utz Weitzel
Affiliation:
Utrecht University School of Economics, The Netherlands Radboud University, IMR, The Netherlands
Corresponding

Abstract

The first five merger waves were US-led events. In this article we show that the largely over-looked sixth wave (2003–2008) emerged in all regions simultaneously. Because of this, and building upon interconnected literatures – which: (1) suggests that agency is a big predictor of merger performance; (2) distinguishes between three distinct governance traditions; and (3) argues that the Anglo-Saxon system puts the most effort into protecting investors and aligning interests, and the Confucian system the least – we predicted that Anglo-Saxon acquirers would create value in the sixth wave, and Confucian acquirers would destroy it. We find the opposite to be true and show that Chinese acquirers, in particular, created the most value in the sixth wave. In attempting to explain why, we find that China outperformed its Asian neighbors while doing the same thing, and outperformed its Western peers while doing what the literature suggests that they shouldn't do. This not only points to the limits of the generalizability of the existing literature, but supports the suggestion that Chinese acquirers are ‘different’. We call, therefore, for additional research into understanding Chinese and Confucian acquirers using the standard comparative merger data.


摘要:

摘要:

前五次并购浪潮是美国领引的事件。在这篇文章中, 我们显示, 在很大程度上被忽视的第六次浪潮 (2003 - 2008) 同时出现在所有地区。因为这一点, 并基于相关文献, 即 (1) 提出代理商是并购绩效的一个大预测指标༛ (2) 区分三种不同的治理传统༛ (3) 认为, 盎格鲁 - 撒克逊系统最努力保护投资者和协调利益, 而儒家系统最少 ─我们预测, 盎格鲁-撒克逊收购者将在第六次浪潮中创造价值, 而儒家收购者会捣毁它。我们发现相反的是真实的, 并显示特别是中国收购者在第六次浪潮中创造了最大的价值。在试图解释为什么的时候, 我们发现, 中国做同样事情的表现优于其亚洲邻国, 并在做文献建议他们不应做的事情的方面优于西方同行。这不仅指出现有文献的普遍性局限, 而且支持中国收购者“与众不同”的提法。我们因此呼吁做附加研究, 用标准的可比较的并购数据去了解中国和儒家收购者。


पहली पांच औद्योगिक विलय की लहरें अमरीकी प्रभाव की घटनाएं थीं. इस शोध पत्र में हम ने मूलतः अनदेखी षष्टम विलय लहर (२००३-२००८) को देखा है जो सारे क्षेत्रों में एक साथ उभरी थी. इस कारण से और अंतःसंबंधित शोध साहित्य के आधार पर—जिसके अनुसार: (१) अभिकर्ता विलय के परिणाम का भविष्य सूचक है; (२) तीन नियत संचालन प्रणालियों में अभिन्न अंतर है; और (३) ऐंग्लो-सैक्सन व्यवस्था में निवेशक सुरक्षा के सबसे अधिक प्रयत्न होते हैं और कन्फ्यूशियन में सबसे अल्प—हम ने अनुमानित किया था की षष्टम विलय धारा में ऐंग्लो-सैक्सन अधिग्रहक मूल्य बढ़ाएंगे और कन्फ्यूशियन मूल्य घटाएंगे. इसके विपरीत हमारे शोध ने यह पाया की चीनी अधिग्रहकों ने विशेष तौर पर अधिग्रहीत कम्पनियों का मूल्य बढ़ाया. हमने यह भी पाया जहां चीनी कम्पनियों ने पडोसी देशों की कम्पनियों की तुलना में सामान्यतः अपेक्षित कदमों से अधिक मूल्य बढ़ाया, वहीँ पश्चिमी देशों की कम्पनियों की तुलना में अधिक मूल्य उन क़दमों से बढ़ाया जो शोध साहित्य के अनुसार नहीं लिए जाने चाहिए. इन परिणामों से न केवल उपलब्ध शोध साहित्य के सामान्यीकरण की सीमायें दिखती हैं वरन चीनी अधिग्रहकों के भिन्न होने के परिप्रेक्ष्य को भी बल मिलता है. इसी लिए चीनी और कन्फ्यूशियन अधिग्रहकों पर बेहतर समझ बनाने के लिए हम उपलब्ध विलय सम्बन्धी आंकड़ों पर और अधिक शोध के पक्षधर हैं.


Sumário:

SUMÁRIO:

As primeiras cinco ondas de fusões foram eventos liderados pelos Estados Unidos. Neste artigo, vamos mostrar que a sexta onda, em grande parte negligenciada (2003-2008), surgiu em todas as regiões simultaneamente. Devido a isso, e criando a partir de literatura correlata que: (1) sugere que a agência é um grande preditor do desempenho da fusão; (2) caracteriza-se por três distintas tradições de governança; e (3) argumenta que o sistema anglo-saxão aloca o máximo de esforço para proteger os investidores e alinhar interesses, enquanto o sistema confucionista, o mínimo – nós previmos que os adquirentes anglo-saxões criariam valor na sexta onda, e adquirentes confucionistas iriam destruí-lo . Achamos que o oposto é verdadeiro e mostramos que os adquirentes chineses, em particular, criaram o maior valor na sexta onda. Na tentativa de explicar a razão disso, nós concluímos que a China superou os seus vizinhos asiáticos ao fazerem a mesma coisa, e superaram seus pares ocidentais ao fazerem o que a literatura sugere que eles não façam. Isto não só aponta para os limites da generabilidade da literatura existente, mas também sustenta a sugestão de que os adquirentes chineses são “diferentes”. Convocamos, portanto, pesquisas adicionais para entender adquirentes chineses e confucionistas usando os dados comparativos padrão sobre fusões.


Аннотация:

Аннотация:

Первые пять волн корпоративных слияний были возглавлены США. В данной работе мы показываем, что в целом неисследованная шестая волна (2003-2008) произошла во всех регионах одновременно. В этой связи, на основании соответствующей литературы, которая 1) предполагает, что агентность во многом предопределяет успех слияния; 2) проводит различие между тремя разными традициями управления; 3) утверждает, что англо-саксонская система более всего защищает и согласует интересы инвесторов, а конфуцианская система – менее всего; мы предположили, что англо-саксонские компании-приобретатели добьются успеха во время шестой волны, а конфуцианские компании-приобретатели потерпят неудачу. Мы приходим к выводу, что верно обратное, и показываем, что китайские компании-приобретатели, в особенности, добились самого большого успеха во время шестой волны. В попытке объяснить почему, мы доказываем, что Китай превзошел своих азиатских соседей, которые делали то же самое, а также опередил западных конкурентов, которые делали то, что, согласно литературе, они не должны были делать. Этот результат не только показывает, что существуют пределы для обобщения в существующей литературе, но и подтверждает предположение, что китайские компании-приобретатели отличаются. Соответственно, мы приходим к выводу, что необходимо провести дополнительные исследования китайских и конфуцианских компаний-приобретателей на основании стандартных сравнительных данных о слияниях.


Las cinco primeras olas de fusiones fueron eventos liderados por los Estados Unidos. En este artículo mostramos como la ampliamente observada sexta ola (2003-2008) surgió en todas las regiones simultáneamente. Debido a esto, y con base en las literaturas interconectadas –la cual: (1) sugiere que la agencia es un gran predictor del rendimiento de la fusión; (2) distingue entre tres diferentes tradiciones de gobernanza; y (3) sostiene que el sistema anglosajón pone el mayor esfuerzo en proteger inversionistas y en alinear intereses, y el sistema confucionista el menor – predecimos que los adquisidores anglosajones crearían valor en la sexta ola, y los adquisidores confusionistas lo destruirían. Encontramos todo lo contrario y mostramos que los adquisidores chinos, en particular, crearon mayor valor en la sexta ola. En un intento de explicar porque, encontramos que China superó a sus vecinos asiáticos haciendo lo mismo, y superó a sus pares occidentales haciendo lo que la literatura sugiere que no deben hacer. Esto no solamente alerta los limites de la generalización en la literatura existente, sino que apoya la sugerencia que los adquisidores chinos son “diferentes”. Hacemos un llamado, por ende, para investigación adicional en entender los adquisidores chinos y confusionistas usando datos comparativos estándar de fusiones.


Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The International Association for Chinese Management Research 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abowd, J., & Bognanno, M. 1995. International differences in executive and managerial compensation. In Freeman, R. B. & Katz, L. F. (Eds.), Differences and changes in wage structures: 67104. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ahlstrom, D., Chen, S. J., & Yeh, K. S. 2010. Managing in ethnic Chinese communities: Culture, institutions, and context. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27 (3): 341354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akerlof, G. A. 1970. The Market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84 (3): 488500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. 1972. Production, information costs, and economic organization. The American Economic Review, 62 (5): 777795.Google Scholar
Alexandridis, G., Mavrovitis, C. F., & Travlos, N. G. 2012. How have M&As changed? Evidence from the sixth merger wave. The European Journal of Finance, 18 (8): 663688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alston, J. P. 1989. Wa, guanxi, and inwha: Managerial practices in Japan, China, and Korea. Business Horizons, 32 (2): 2631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrade, G., Mitchell, M., & Stafford, E. 2001. New evidence and perspectives on mergers. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15 (2): 103120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bain, J. S. 1944. Industrial concentration and government antitrust policy. In Williamson, H. F. (Ed.), The growth of the American economy: 616630. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Baker, M., Ruback, R. S., & Wurgler, J. 2004. Behavioral corporate finance: A survey. NBER Working Paper No. 10863.Google Scholar
Begley, T. M., & Tan, W. L. 2001. The socio-cultural environment for entrepreneurship: A comparison between East Asian and Anglo-Saxon countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (3): 537553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. 1933. The modern corporation and private property. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Betton, S., & Eckbo, B. E. 2000. Toeholds, bid jumps, and expected payoffs in takeovers. The Review of Financial Studies, 13 (4): 841882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, B. S. 2000. First international merger wave (and the fifth and last U.S. wave). University of Miami Law Review, 54 (4): 799818.Google Scholar
Boisot, M., & Child, J. 1996. From fiefs to clans and network capitalism: Explaining China's emerging economic order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (4): 600628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouwman, C., Fuller, K., & Nain, A. 2009. Market valuation and acquisition quality: Empirical evidence. Review of Financial Studies, 22 (2): 633679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briloff, A. J. 1970. Accounting practices and the merger movement. Notre Dame Lawyer, 45 (4): 604628.Google Scholar
Carney, M., Gedajlovic, E. R., Heugens, P., van Essen, M., & van Oosterhout, J. H. 2011. Business group affiliation, performance, context, and strategy: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (3): 437460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, S., & Schoenberg, R. 2006. Thirty years of mergers and acquisitions research: Recent advances and future opportunities. British Journal of Management, 17 (S1): S1–S5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cernat, L. 2004. The emerging European corporate governance model: Anglo-Saxon, Continental, or still the century of diversity? Journal of European Public Policy, 11 (1): 147166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, S. 1986. Types of synergy and economic value: The impact of acquisitions on merging and rival firms. Strategic Management Journal, 7 (2): 119139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C. C., Chen, X-P., & Huang, S. 2013. Chinese guanxi: An integrative review and new directions for future research. Management and Organisation Review, 9 (1): 167207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, W. K., & Hamilton, G. 2001. Social logic as business logic: Guanxi, trustworthiness and the embeddedness of Chinese business practices. In Appelbaum, R. P., Felsteiner, W. L. F., & Gessner, V. (Eds.), Rules and networks: 302349. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Cui, L., & Jiang, F. 2010. Behind ownership decision of Chinese outward FDI: Resources and institutions. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27 (4): 751774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Datta, D. K. 1991. Organizational fit and acquisitions performance: Effects of post-acquisitions integration. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (4): 281297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Datta, D. K., & Puia, G. 1995. Cross-border acquisitions: An examination of the influence of relatedness and cultural fit on shareholder value creation in U.S. acquiring firms. Management International Review, 35 (4): 337359.Google Scholar
Deng, P. 2007. Investing for strategic resources and its rationale: The case of outward FDI from Chinese companies. Business Horizons, 50 (1): 7181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dharwadkar, R., George, G., & Brandes, P. 2000. Privatization in emerging economies: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25 (3): 223238.Google Scholar
Eis, C. 1969. The 1919–1930 merger movement in American industry. Journal of Law and Economics, 12 (2): 267296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fei, X. 1992. From the soil: The foundations of Chinese society: A translation of Fei Xiaotong's Xiangtu Zhongguo. Berkley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gaughan, P. A. 2007. Mergers, acquisitions, and corporate restructurings. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Gelauff, G. M. M., & Den Broeder, C. 1996. Governance of stakeholder relationships. The German and Dutch experience. Central Plan Bureau: The Hague.Google Scholar
Globerman, S., & Shapiro, D. 2009. Economic and strategic considerations surrounding Chinese FDI in the United States. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26 (1): 163183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gort, M. 1969. An economic disturbance theory of mergers. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83 (4): 624642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. 1992. Multivariate data analysis. New York: McMillan.Google Scholar
Hamilton, G. G. 1996. Asian business networks. New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennart, J. F., & Larimo, J. 1998. The impact of culture on the strategy of multinational enterprises: Does national origin affect ownership decisions? Journal of International Business Studies, 29 (3): 515538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heron, R. A., & Lie, E. 2002. Operating performance and the method of payment in takeovers. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 37 (1): 137155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heugens, P., van Essen, M., & van Oosterhout, J. 2009. Meta-analyzing ownership concentration and firm performance in Asia: Towards a more fine-grained understanding. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26 (3): 481512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitt, M. A., Lee, H. U., & Yucel, E. 2002. The importance of social capital to the management of multinational enterprise: Relational networks among Asian and western firms. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19 (2–3): 353372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitt, M. A., & Pisano, V. 2003. The cross-border merger and acquisition strategy: A research perspective, management research. The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 1 (2): 133144.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. 1984. Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1 (2): 8199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. 2004. Business goals and corporate governance. Asia Pacific Business Review, 10 (3–4): 292301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, G. 2007. Asian management in the 21st Century. Asian Pacific Journal of Management, 24 (4): 411420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmström, B., & Kaplan, S. N. 2001. Corporate governance and merger activity in the United States: Making sense of the 1980s and 1990s. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15 (2): 121144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICMG (International Capital Markets Group). 1995. International corporate governance: Who holds the reins? London: ICMG.Google Scholar
Jarrell, G. A., Brickley, J. A., & Netter, J. M. 1988. The market for corporate control: The empirical evidence since 1980. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2 (1): 4968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M. 1986. Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. American Economic Review, 76 (2): 323329.Google Scholar
Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3 (4): 305360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M. C., & Ruback, R. S. 1983. The market for corporate control: The scientific evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 11 (1): 550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Y., & Peng, M. W. 2011. Are family ownership and control in large firms good, bad, or irrelevant? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28 (1): 1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jovanovic, B., & Rousseau, P. L. 2001. Mergers and technological change: 1885–1998. Working paper No. 0116, Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
Kao, J. 1993. The worldwide web of Chinese business. Harvard Business Review, 71 (2): 2436.Google Scholar
Keister, L. A. 1998. Engineering growth: Business group structure and firm performance in China's transition economy. American Journal of Sociology, 104 (2): 404440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keister, L. A. 2009. Organizational research on market transition: A sociological approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26 (4): 719742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000. Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of Indian diversified business groups. Journal of Finance, 55 (2): 867891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, D. R., Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., & Covin, J. G. 2004. Meta-analyses of post-acquisition performance: Indications of unidentified moderators. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (2): 187200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kling, G., Ghobadian, A., Hitt, M.A., Weitzel, U., & O'Regan, N., 2014. The effects of cross-border and cross-industry mergers and acquisitions on home-region and global multinational enterprises. British Journal of Management, 25 (S1): 116132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kling, G., & Weitzel, U. 2011. The internationalization of Chinese companies: Firm characteristics, industry effects and corporate governance. Research in International Business and Finance, 25 (3): 357–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1997. Legal determinants of external finance. Journal of Finance, 52 (3): 11311150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., Vishny, R. W. 1998. Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106 (6): 11131155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. 2000. Investor protection and corporate governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 58 (1–2, 2000): 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. 2002. Investor protection and corporate valuation. The Journal of Finance, 57 (3): 11471170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leung, K., & Brew, F. P. 2009. A cultural analysis of harmony and conflict: Toward an integrative model of conflict styles. In Wyers, R. S., Chiu, C. Y., and Hong, Y. Y. (Eds.), Understanding culture: Theory, research and application: 411428. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Lin, Z. J., Peng, M. W., Yang, H., & 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 (10): 11131132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovett, S., Simmons, L. C., & Kali, R. 1999. Guanxi versus the market: Ethics and efficiency. Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (2): 231247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y., Huang, Y., & Wang, S. L. 2011. Guanxi and organisational performance: A meta-analysis. Management and Organization Review, 8 (1): 139172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y. 1997. Guanxi and performance of foreign-invested enterprises in China: An empirical inquiry. Management International Review, 37 (1): 5171.Google Scholar
Markham, J. 1955. Survey of the evidence and findings on mergers. In Stigler, G. J. (Ed.), Business concentration and price policy: 141182. Boston: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Martynova, M., & Renneboog, L. 2008. A century of corporate takeovers: What have we learned and where do we stand? Journal of Banking and Finance, 32 (10): 21482177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, J. 1993. Takeover motives during the conglomerate merger wave. RAND Journal of Economics, 24 (3): 357379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, K. J., & Dolfsma, W. A. 2012. Understanding mergers and acquisitions in the 21st century: A multidisciplinary approach. Houndsmill: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
McKinsey. 2005. Addressing China's looming talent shortage. McKinsey Report .Google Scholar
Miles, L., & Goo, S. H. 2013. Corporate governance in Asian countries: Has Confucianism anything to offer? Business & Society Review, 118 (1): 2345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, M., & Mulherin, J. H. 1996. The impact of industry shocks on takeover and restructuring activity. Journal of Financial Economics, 41 (2): 193229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moeller, S. B., Schlingemann, F. P., & Stulz, R. M. 2005. Wealth destruction on a massive scale? A study of acquiring-firm returns in the recent merger wave. Journal of Finance, 60 (2): 757782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1988. Characteristics of hostile and friendly takeovers. In Auerbach, A. J. (Ed.), Corporate takeovers: Causes and consequences: 101136. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moschieri, C., & Campa, J. M. 2009. The European M&A industry: A market in the process of construction. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (4): 7187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, D. C. 1969. A theory of conglomerate mergers. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83 (4): 659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naughton, T. 2002. The role of stock markets in the Asian-Pacific Region. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, 13 (1): 2235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navin, T. R., & Sears, M. V. 1955. The rise of a market for industrial securities, 1887–1902. Business History Review, 29 (2): 105138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R. L. 1959. Merger movements in American industry, 1895–1954. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nicholson, R. R., & Salaber, J. 2013. The motives and performance of cross-border acquirers from emerging economies: Comparison between Chinese and Indian firms. International Business Review, 22 (6): 963980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, S. H., & Luo, Y. 2001. Guanxi and organizational dynamics: Organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (5): 455477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, M. W., & Jiang, Y. 2010. Institutions behind family ownership and control in large firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47 (2): 253273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, M. E. 1992. Capital disadvantage: America's failing capital investment system. Harvard Business Review, 70 (5): 6582.Google ScholarPubMed
Porter, M. E. 1998. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76 (6): 7790.Google Scholar
Prodhan, B. 1993. Corporate governance and long-term performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 1 (4): 172177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rau, P., & Vermaelen, T. 1998. Glamour, value and the post-acquisition performance of acquiring firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 49 (2): 223253.Google Scholar
Redding, S. G., & Ng, M. 1983. The role of ‘face’ in the organizational perceptions of Chinese managers. International Studies of Management & Organization, 13 (3): 92123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhoades, S. A. 1983. Power, empire building and mergers. Lexington, MA: DC Heath and Co.Google Scholar
Rohwer, J. 1996. Asia rising: Why America will prosper as Asia's economies boom. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Roll, R. 1986. The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers. Journal of Business, 59 (2): 197216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rui, H., & Yip, G. S. 2008. Foreign acquisitions by Chinese firms: A strategic intent perspective. Journal of World Business, 43 (2): 213226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, W. S., & Gedajlovic, E. R. 2010. Whither family business? Journal of Management Studies, 47 (2): 191204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwert, G. W. 1996. Markup pricing in mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Financial Economics, 41 (2): 153192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selmer, J. 2006. Language ability and adjustment: Western expatriates in China. Thunderbird International Business Review, 48 (3): 347368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 1991. Takeovers in the '60s and the '80s: Evidence and implications. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (S2): 5159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R.W. 1989. Management entrenchment: The case of manager-specific investments. Journal of Financial Economics, 25 (1): 123139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. 2003. Stock market driven acquisitions. Journal of Financial Economics, 70 (3): 295311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigler, G. 1950. Monopoly and oligopoly power by merger. American Economic Review, 40 (2): 2334.Google Scholar
Stocking, G. 1955. Comment. In Stigler, G. (Ed.), Business Concentration and Price Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Su, Y., Xu, D., Phan, P. H. 2008. Principal–principal conflict in the governance of the Chinese public corporation. Management and Organization Review, 4 (1): 1738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sudarsanam, S. 2003. Creating value from mergers and acquisitions: The challenges. Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall/Financial Times.Google Scholar
Szeto, R. 2010. Chinese folk wisdom: Implications for guarding against unethical practice by Chinese managers. Journal of Public Affairs, 10 (3): 173185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Economist . 2005. Europe's nascent merger boom. 3 September.Google Scholar
The Economist . 2006. Once more unto the breach, dear clients, once more. 8 April.Google Scholar
Thorp, L. W. 1941. The increasing responsibility of management. Journal of Accountancy, 72 (5): 403.Google Scholar
Toms, S., & Wright, D. M. 2002. Corporate governance, strategy and structure in British business history. Business History, 44 (3): 91124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trautwein, F. 1990. Merger motives and merger prescriptions. Strategic Management Journal, 11 (4): 283295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, M. 1927. Industrial Combinations and Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weimer, J., & Pape, J. C. 1999. A taxonomy of systems of corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 7 (2): 152166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, J. F. 1961. The management of corporate capital: A review article. The Journal of Business, 34 (2): 129139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, J. F., & Mansinghka, S. K. 1971. Tests of efficiency performance in conglomerate firms. Journal of Finance, 26 (4): 919936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, J. F., Mitchell, M. L., & Mulherin, H. J. 2004. Takeovers, restructuring and corporate Governance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E., 1993. The economic analysis of institutions and organisations in general and with respect to country studies. OECD Economics Department Working Papers 133, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Yang, Z., & Su, C. 2013. Understanding Asian business strategy: Modeling institution-based legitimacy-embedded efficiency. Journal of Business Research, 66 (12): 23692374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yiu, D. W., Lau, C. M., & Bruton, G. D. 2007. International venturing by emerging economy firms: The effects of firm capabilities, home country networks, and corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (4): 519540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshikawa, T., & Phan, P. H. 2005. The effects of ownership and capital structure on board composition and strategic diversification in Japanese corporations. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13 (2): 303312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, M. N., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G. D., & Jiang, Y. 2008. Corporate governance in emerging economies: A review of the principal-principal perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (1): 196220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. The Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2): 341363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., & Keh, H. T. 2011. Interorganisational exchange in China: Organisational forms and governance mechanism. Management and Organization Review, 6 (1): 123147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., & Ma, H. 2009. Adoption of professional management in Chinese family business: A multilevel analysis of impetuses and impediments. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26 (1): 119139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, W. Z., & Yao, Y. C. 2008. On the value of traditional Confucian culture and the value of modern CSR. International Journal of Business and Management, 3 (2): 5862.Google Scholar
Zollo, M., & Meier, D. 2008. What is M&A performance. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 22 (3): 5577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score


Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 22
Total number of PDF views: 300 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 2nd December 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-79f79cbf67-8q5vc Total loading time: 1.15 Render date: 2020-12-02T16:52:23.386Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Wed Dec 02 2020 16:07:04 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The First Global Merger Wave and the Enigma of Chinese Performance
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The First Global Merger Wave and the Enigma of Chinese Performance
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The First Global Merger Wave and the Enigma of Chinese Performance
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *