Family firms in India: family involvement, innovation and agency and stewardship behaviors

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：A. S. Ashwin ; Rishikesha T. Krishnan ; Rejie George
• 关键词：Family ownership ; Family management ; Business group affiliation ; R&D investments ; Indian pharmaceutical industry ; Agency theory ; Family firms ; India ; Innovation ; Stewardship theory
• 刊名：Asia Pacific Journal of Management
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：December 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：32
• 期：4
• 页码：869-900
• 全文大小：756 KB
• 参考文献：Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. 2012. Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. New York: Crown Business.
  Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. 1992. A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2): 323-51.CrossRef
  Ahlstrom, D. 2010. Innovation and growth: How business contributes to society. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3): 10-3.CrossRef
  Ahlstrom, D., & Ding, Z. 2014. Entrepreneurship in China: An overview. International Small Business Journal, 32(6): 610-18.CrossRef
  Ahuja, G., Lampert, C. M., & Tandon, V. 2008. Chapter 1: Moving beyond Schumpeter: Management research on the determinants of technological innovation. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1): 1-8.CrossRef
  Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. 2003. Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58(3): 1301-328.CrossRef
  Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. 2004. Board composition: Balancing family influence in S&P 500 firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2): 209-37.
  Arora, A., Branstetter, L., & Chatterjee, C. 2008. Strong medicine: Patent reform and the emergence of a research-driven pharmaceutical industry in India. Presented at the NBER Conference on Location of Biopharmaceutical Activity, Boston (pp. 7-).
  Balasubramanian, N., & Lee, J. 2008. Firm age and innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(5): 1019.CrossRef
  Baliga, B. R., Moyer, R. C., & Rao, R. S. 1996. CEO duality and firm performance: What’s the fuss?. Strategic Management Journal, 17(1): 41-3.CrossRef
  Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4): 644-75.CrossRef
  Baysinger, B. D., Kosnik, R. D., & Turk, T. A. 1991. Effects of board and ownership structure on corporate R&D strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1): 205-14.CrossRef
  Blomqvist, K., KylaKheiko, K., & Virolainen, V.-M. 2002. Filling a gap in traditional transaction cost economics: Towards transaction benefits-based analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 79(Sept.): 1-4.CrossRef
  Bushee, B. J. 1998. The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. Accounting Review, 73(3): 305-33.
  Cameron, K. S., Whetten, D. A., & Kim, M. U. 1987. Organizational dysfunctions of decline. Academy of Management Journal, 30(1): 126-38.CrossRef
  Cappelli, P., Singh, H., Singh, J., & Useem, M. 2010. The India way: How India’s top business leaders are revolutionizing management. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
  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(3): 429-48.CrossRef
  Chari, M. D., & Banalieva, E. R. 2015. How do pro-market reforms impact firm profitability? The case of India under reform. Journal of World Business, 50(2): 357-67.CrossRef
  Chaudhuri, S. 2005. The WTO and India’s pharmaceuticals industry: Patent protection, TRIPS, and developing countries. New York: Oxford University Press.
  Chaudhuri, P., & Khanna, T. 2014. Toward resource independence—Why state-owned entities become multinationals: An empirical study of India’s public R&D laboratories. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(8): 943-60.CrossRef
  Chen, H. L., & Hsu, W. T. 2009. Family ownership, board independence, and R&D investment. Family Business Review, 22(4): 347-62.CrossRef
  Chen, V. Z., Li, J., & Shapiro, D. M. 2011. Are OECD-prescribed “good corporate governance practices-really good in an emerging economy?. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(1): 115-38.CrossRef
  Chen, Y. Y., & Young, M. N. 2010. Cross-border mergers and acquisitions by Chinese listed companies: A principal–principal perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(3): 523-39.CrossRef
  Chittoor, R., Ray, S., Aulakh, P. S., & Sarkar, M. 2008. Strategic responses to institutional changes: Indigenous growth model of the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Journal of International Management, 14(3): 252-69.CrossRef
  Choi, S. B., Lee, S. H., & Williams, C. 2011. Ownership and firm innovation in a transition economy: Evidence from China. Research Policy, 40(3): 441-52.CrossRef
  Cohen, W. M., & Levin, R. C. 1989. Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (Eds.). Handbook of industrial organization, Vol. 2: 1059-107. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  Connelly, B. L., Hoskisson, R. E., Tihanyi, L., & Certo, S. T. 2010. Ownership as a form of corporate governance. Journal of Management Studies, 47(8): 1561-589.CrossRef
  Corbetta, G., & Salvato, C. 2004. Self serving or self actualizing? Models of man and agency costs in different types of family firms: A commentary on “Comparing the agency costs of family and non family firms: Conceptual issues and exploratory evidence- Entrepreneurship: Theory an
• 作者单位：A. S. Ashwin (1)
  Rishikesha T. Krishnan (2)
  Rejie George (3)
  
  1. Infosys Labs, Infosys Limited, Electronics City, Hosur Road, Bangalore, India, 560 100
  2. Strategic Management Area, Indian Institute of Management Indore, Indore, India
  3. Corporate Strategy & Policy Area, Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore, India, 560 076
  
• 刊物类别：Business and Economics
• 刊物主题：Economics
  Management
  Business
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1572-9958

文摘

Family firms and business groups play an important role in many emerging economies. In this paper we study how different aspects of family involvement influence technological innovation in a firm. Arguments drawn from agency theory and particularly the principal-principal agency hypothesize a negative influence of family involvement with respect to technological innovation. In contrast, stewardship theory predicts a positive influence of family involvement on technological innovation. Drawing on these theoretical lenses with contrasting directionalities with regard to the impact of family involvement on technological innovation, we study how family involvement in ownership, management and board of directors, and business group affiliation influence R&D investments and patents obtained by the firm. The hypotheses are empirically tested on a seven-year panel of 172 firms from the pharmaceutical industry in India. Our results indicate that family shareholding and family control over both CEO and chairperson positions have a positive and significant influence on the firm’s R&D investments, broadly lending support to stewardship theory. We also find a positive influence of business group affiliation on R&D investments and patents applied by the firm. Our conjecture is that the high technology opportunity environment in the Indian pharmaceutical industry facilitates stewardship behavior which in turn promotes innovation in these firms. Keywords Family ownership Family management Business group affiliation R&D investments Indian pharmaceutical industry Agency theory Family firms India Innovation Stewardship theory