The effects of institutional distance on FDI inflow: General environmental institutions (GEI) versus minority investor protection institutions (MIP)

Jongmoo Jay Choi, Sangmook Lee, Amir Shoham

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Existing research suggests that foreign direct investment (FDI) flows into countries with good institutional infrastructure. We distinguish between general environmental institutions (GEI) that promote societal interests at large, and minority investor protection (MIP) institutions that promote the interests of a specific group, and argue that these types of institutions affect international investments differently. We tested this hypothesis by examining the effects of institutional distance on international M&A activities of US firms during 1981–2008. We found that better GEI in the host country attracts inflowing FDI while better MIP may discourage it, because of the perception that it reduces the potential gain an acquiring firm can earn from an international acquisition in that country.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)114-123
Number of pages10
JournalInternational Business Review
Volume25
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2016

Fingerprint

Investor protection
Minorities
Foreign direct investment
Host country
International acquisitions
International investments
Institutional infrastructure

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Business and International Management
  • Finance
  • Marketing

Cite this

@article{c47590f190ca43c5822c9891ee978bb1,
title = "The effects of institutional distance on FDI inflow: General environmental institutions (GEI) versus minority investor protection institutions (MIP)",
abstract = "Existing research suggests that foreign direct investment (FDI) flows into countries with good institutional infrastructure. We distinguish between general environmental institutions (GEI) that promote societal interests at large, and minority investor protection (MIP) institutions that promote the interests of a specific group, and argue that these types of institutions affect international investments differently. We tested this hypothesis by examining the effects of institutional distance on international M&A activities of US firms during 1981–2008. We found that better GEI in the host country attracts inflowing FDI while better MIP may discourage it, because of the perception that it reduces the potential gain an acquiring firm can earn from an international acquisition in that country.",
author = "Choi, {Jongmoo Jay} and Sangmook Lee and Amir Shoham",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.11.010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "114--123",
journal = "International Business Review",
issn = "0969-5931",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "1",

}

The effects of institutional distance on FDI inflow : General environmental institutions (GEI) versus minority investor protection institutions (MIP). / Choi, Jongmoo Jay; Lee, Sangmook; Shoham, Amir.

In: International Business Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, 01.02.2016, p. 114-123.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effects of institutional distance on FDI inflow

T2 - General environmental institutions (GEI) versus minority investor protection institutions (MIP)

AU - Choi, Jongmoo Jay

AU - Lee, Sangmook

AU - Shoham, Amir

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - Existing research suggests that foreign direct investment (FDI) flows into countries with good institutional infrastructure. We distinguish between general environmental institutions (GEI) that promote societal interests at large, and minority investor protection (MIP) institutions that promote the interests of a specific group, and argue that these types of institutions affect international investments differently. We tested this hypothesis by examining the effects of institutional distance on international M&A activities of US firms during 1981–2008. We found that better GEI in the host country attracts inflowing FDI while better MIP may discourage it, because of the perception that it reduces the potential gain an acquiring firm can earn from an international acquisition in that country.

AB - Existing research suggests that foreign direct investment (FDI) flows into countries with good institutional infrastructure. We distinguish between general environmental institutions (GEI) that promote societal interests at large, and minority investor protection (MIP) institutions that promote the interests of a specific group, and argue that these types of institutions affect international investments differently. We tested this hypothesis by examining the effects of institutional distance on international M&A activities of US firms during 1981–2008. We found that better GEI in the host country attracts inflowing FDI while better MIP may discourage it, because of the perception that it reduces the potential gain an acquiring firm can earn from an international acquisition in that country.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84919665045&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84919665045&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.11.010

DO - 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.11.010

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84919665045

VL - 25

SP - 114

EP - 123

JO - International Business Review

JF - International Business Review

SN - 0969-5931

IS - 1

ER -