主导行为、网络嵌入与子公司成长研究
|
摘要
企业集团是我国国民经济的支柱力量,子公司作为集团组织边界及集团组织拓展的主要形式,是整个集团竞争优势的重要来源,研究与探索如何使其在实践运营中得到有效治理对于我国经济发展和社会福利提升均具有重要意义。但相较于国外关于跨国集团子公司的丰富研究成果,我国学术界对本土情境下的子公司相关理论,尤其是对基于集团网络化运营实践的子公司成长理论的探索还略显薄弱,对实践中出现的一些新问题、新现象还缺乏解释力度和指导作用。
我国企业集团有其独特的发展路径。一方面,我国现行经济发展处于由计划经济向市场经济转型的阶段,仅简单套用国外基于效率逻辑的分析范式无法对我国企业集团的成长与发展进行有效解释与指导,还需将制度环境要素纳入分析框架。另一方面,随着集团运营实践的网络化,对集团的研究需要转向“企业-市场-网络”的网络视角,将其看作是嵌入在一定的社会关系中的协调合作网络。在这样的实践现实和理论背景下,本研究的目标为：探索在制度环境和技术环境的双重作用下,子公司如何通过实行主导行为来构建或解消对集团网络的嵌入,进而基于最大化的网络效应实现成长的内在机理。
为解决这些问题,本研究主要分三个部分逐层深入进行了研究：
首先阐明以子公司为核心的研究主体,界定了从子公司行为的分析角度入手,解构子公司主导行为、网络嵌入与成长之间逻辑关系的内容设计。在此基础上,基于对国内外相关研究的评析,本研究采纳了从“关系”维度对网络的定义,并延循了以个体为焦点,研究其对整体网络影响的分析范式。
随后,基于确定的研究目标与内容,对子公司主导行为的内在动机、实施条件与影响因素进行了整理分析,指出子公司通过实施主导行为推动了企业集团的网络化进程。并以此为基础进一步地细化,引入子公司面临的就业压力作为来自制度环境合法性压力的代理变量,来深入分析子公司在效率压力和合法性压力的双重驱动下,通过实施主导行为改变网络嵌入实现成长的机理,提出相关研究假设,籍此建构本研究的理论体系。概括而言：即子公司在集团网络内部的嵌入程度不是无限增大的,而是受到网络嵌入的边际效应影响。子公司在满足合法性和追求效率的双重目标驱动下,通过从内部主导向外部主导的转化实现对集团网络的动态嵌入,来追求网络效应的最大化,进而实现成长。
最后,本研究以海信集团作为案例研究对象,对研究假设的相关部分进行了深入分析和检验,验证了关于内部主导行为的相关假设。对于案例数据不足的部分,补充选取了2003-2011年间沪深300指数中非金融类上市公司作为研究对象,对外部主导行为的相关假设进行大样本检验。检验结果表明：子公司外部主导行为对公司的成长性的影响总体而言是正向的,尤其对总资产增长率这一指标的影响最为显著。子公司外部主导行为对集团内部网络嵌入程度有负向的影响,说明外部主导行为降低了子公司网络嵌入的联结强度,子公司对外部机会的关注和追求削弱了它与企业集团内部其它结点二元关系层面上的知识、信息和资源的交流。子公司外部主导行为与集团网络外部嵌入程度之间的关系正相关,其余关于制度压力下子公司行为的分析也都得到了数据的支持。
本研究主要采用文献研究、案例研究、深度访谈、问卷调查和二手数据分析等研究手段,结合了质性研究与量化研究的分析方法。
本研究的创新之处和积极意义在于：首先,本研究结合组织理论和制度理论,将网络观点引入到对企业集团母子公司间关系的分析,是对已有研究的深化与补充,拓展了公司创业理论的研究视角,弥补了交易成本理论、代理理论等对此类问题研究的局限。其次,本研究建立的企业集团的整合研究框架基于我国的转型经济情境,分析在制度环境与技术环境共同作用下,企业集团中子公司的成长路经、以及企业集团网络形态的演变机理,是对企业集团内部横向协调机制问题研究的进一步深化。此外,本研究还将社会网络分析方法引入到对企业集团母子公司关系网络及其子公司治理机制的研究中来,分析母子公司运营网络、子公司特性、环境特性与子公司主导行为的关系；以量化的方式提供有关我国企业集团母子公司关系网络治理层面的重要信息变量,是对已有企业集团关于子公司治理研究描述性编码或定性研究的一个突破和补充。
总体而言,本研究是对企业集团内部横向协调机制研究的理论深化,同时也为企业集团管理者提供了一个对子公司进行治理的分析视角。为我国经济转型背景下企业集团中的母公司如何合理的决定子公司决策自主权、有效治理子公司提供了经验支持,也为企业集团子公司治理研究的后续展开奠定基础。
Enterprise group is the backbone of our country national economy strength, subsidiary as the group organization boundary and the main form of organization development, is an important source of competitive advantage, the whole group study and explore how to make it get effective governance in practice operation in promoting China's economic development and social welfare are of great significance. But relative to foreign about multinational group, a subsidiary of the rich research achievements, Chinese scholars of domestic situation, a subsidiary of related theory, especially the network based on the group's operating practice, a subsidiary of growth theory exploration is slightly weak. Existing researches on some new problems and new phenomena also lack of explanation and guidance.
Our country enterprise group has its unique development path. On the one hand, in the current economic development in our country from the planned economy, in which the government fully allocate resources to the market economy, the market completely rationing resources transformation phase, simply apply abroad study of enterprise group based on the efficiency of logic analytical paradigm can't effectively to the growth and development of enterprise group in our explanation and guidance, therefore institutional environment elements must be incorporated into the analysis framework. On the other hand, along with the practice of group operating network transformation, the study of enterprise group need to network perspective of "enterprise market-network", the enterprise group as a network connection, is embedded in a certain social relations coordination in the network. In such a practice under the background of reality and theory, the goal of this research is:the exploration in the institutional environment and technology environment, under the dual role of subsidiary, how to build a dominant behavior with embedded or dissolution of group network, and then based on the maximization of the inner mechanism of the growth of network effects.
To solve these problems, this research mainly is divided into three parts in-depth studied one by one:
firstly, introduce the practice of the present study background and significance of theory to clarify of this study is based on unit as the research subject, from the analysis point of view of subsidiary actions are defined; deconstruction, a subsidiary of the leading behavior, embedded network and growth the internal logic relationship between the content design, and to study the overall architecture of the arrangement accordingly. On this basis, based on the domestic and foreign about the network theory, the leading behavior, subsidiary growth related research literature and theory, this study adopted the definition of network from the dimension of "relationship", and follow the individual as the focus, study its impact on the overall network analytical paradigm. Study selected subsidiary dominate the behavior as a breakthrough point, and strive to to grow from subsidiaries behavior to embedded network to which the entire logical chain gives the complete analysis, organic combination of firing a company leading behavior and the network effect, analyzed the dominant behavior by enhancing the mechanism of network effects and then accelerate the development of subsidiary.
Secondly, based on certain research goal and the content, the first subsidiary company the leading behavior of intrinsic motivation, implementation, and analyzes the influence factors, points out that the leading behavior and implementation on the one hand, by the subsidiary of rights and interests of the internal drive, at the same time also are motivated by the group of external competitive environment. Subsidiary implementation leading behavior to promote the enterprise group's network process, based on the perspective of the subsidiary role of dynamic change, this study will group parent-subsidiary constitute the behavior of the structure with dispersion, interdependent, across the unit is divided into four major characteristics of the network learning and elastic structure system. On this basis, the subsidiary company how to achieve its dominant behavior by implementing the group network construction and the elimination the inner mechanism of the dynamic process was studied, and put forward theoretical propositions and research hypothesis.
This study used to construct the theoretical proposition, a subsidiary of leading behavior and the logic of network embedded system, namely, under the rule of reason, subsidiary within the group network embedded degree is not unlimited increase, but is affected by the marginal effect of embedded network, the embedded network changes along with the evolution of subsidiary, which led to an external led conversion process from within. On the basis of the theoretical proposition, this study further refinement, facing the employment pressure and introduce subsidiary as the proxy variable from the pressure of system environment legitimacy, to analyze the subsidiary in efficiency and legitimacy of the dual growth, driven by embedded network growth by implementing the leading behavior change mechanism, and put forward the research hypothesis.
Thirdly, the use of hisense group as the object of case study, this study analyzes the part of theoretical propositions and preliminary inspection. Sselected the csi300indexes between2003and2011china-africa financial listed companies as the research object. Test results show that:(1) the company's overall growth subsidiaries outside the leading behavior in general is positive, the influence of the total assets growth rate of the most significant, and the correlation analysis and regression analysis showed a consistent direction.(2) a subsidiary of external dominant behavior has reverse effect on the degree group internal network embedded. Reduces the subsidiary that external dominant behavior embedded network connection strength, the attention of subsidiary to external opportunities and pursue weakened the rest of the enterprise group internal node binary relation level of knowledge, information and communication resources.(3) a subsidiary of external dominated the relationship between the degree of external behavior and group network embedded are related.(4) the analysis of system pressure following company's behavior are also supported by the data.
This research mainly adopts literature research, case studies, in-depth interviews, questionnaire survey and the research methods such as second-hand data analysis, combined with the analysis of qualitative research and quantitative research methods.
The innovation of this study and positive significance lies in:first, combined with the organization theory and system theory, this study will be introduced to the network point of view on the analysis of the relationship between enterprise group subsidiary company, is the deepening and complement the existing research, expand the view of corporate entrepreneurship theory studies, makes up for the transaction cost theory, agency theory and so on the limitations of research on this problem.Second, this study established enterprise group integrating research framework based on the transformation of the economic situation in our country, analysis on the institutional environment and technology environment, the growth of the enterprise group, a subsidiary of the path, and the enterprise group in the form of network evolution mechanism, is the enterprise group internal lateral coordination mechanism further deepening of the research.In addition, this research also introduces the method of social network analysis into the group parent-subsidiary relationship network of the enterprise and its subsidiaries in the study of governance mechanism, analysis of parent-subsidiary operation network, subsidiary characteristics, the relationship between environmental features and subsidiary dominated the behavior;In quantitative way to provide the level of our country enterprise group parent-subsidiary relationship network governance variables, important information is about the existing enterprise group subsidiary management research descriptive coding or a breakthrough and complement of qualitative research.
Overall, this study is to the enterprise group internal lateral coordination mechanism theory deepening of the research, but also for the enterprise group management provides a subsidiary company of governance perspective. For the parent company in China under the background of economic transformation enterprise group how to reasonable decision subsidiaries decision-making autonomy, effective governance which provides the support experience, also lay a foundation for research into enterprise group governance.
我国企业集团有其独特的发展路径。一方面,我国现行经济发展处于由计划经济向市场经济转型的阶段,仅简单套用国外基于效率逻辑的分析范式无法对我国企业集团的成长与发展进行有效解释与指导,还需将制度环境要素纳入分析框架。另一方面,随着集团运营实践的网络化,对集团的研究需要转向“企业-市场-网络”的网络视角,将其看作是嵌入在一定的社会关系中的协调合作网络。在这样的实践现实和理论背景下,本研究的目标为：探索在制度环境和技术环境的双重作用下,子公司如何通过实行主导行为来构建或解消对集团网络的嵌入,进而基于最大化的网络效应实现成长的内在机理。
为解决这些问题,本研究主要分三个部分逐层深入进行了研究：
首先阐明以子公司为核心的研究主体,界定了从子公司行为的分析角度入手,解构子公司主导行为、网络嵌入与成长之间逻辑关系的内容设计。在此基础上,基于对国内外相关研究的评析,本研究采纳了从“关系”维度对网络的定义,并延循了以个体为焦点,研究其对整体网络影响的分析范式。
随后,基于确定的研究目标与内容,对子公司主导行为的内在动机、实施条件与影响因素进行了整理分析,指出子公司通过实施主导行为推动了企业集团的网络化进程。并以此为基础进一步地细化,引入子公司面临的就业压力作为来自制度环境合法性压力的代理变量,来深入分析子公司在效率压力和合法性压力的双重驱动下,通过实施主导行为改变网络嵌入实现成长的机理,提出相关研究假设,籍此建构本研究的理论体系。概括而言：即子公司在集团网络内部的嵌入程度不是无限增大的,而是受到网络嵌入的边际效应影响。子公司在满足合法性和追求效率的双重目标驱动下,通过从内部主导向外部主导的转化实现对集团网络的动态嵌入,来追求网络效应的最大化,进而实现成长。
最后,本研究以海信集团作为案例研究对象,对研究假设的相关部分进行了深入分析和检验,验证了关于内部主导行为的相关假设。对于案例数据不足的部分,补充选取了2003-2011年间沪深300指数中非金融类上市公司作为研究对象,对外部主导行为的相关假设进行大样本检验。检验结果表明：子公司外部主导行为对公司的成长性的影响总体而言是正向的,尤其对总资产增长率这一指标的影响最为显著。子公司外部主导行为对集团内部网络嵌入程度有负向的影响,说明外部主导行为降低了子公司网络嵌入的联结强度,子公司对外部机会的关注和追求削弱了它与企业集团内部其它结点二元关系层面上的知识、信息和资源的交流。子公司外部主导行为与集团网络外部嵌入程度之间的关系正相关,其余关于制度压力下子公司行为的分析也都得到了数据的支持。
本研究主要采用文献研究、案例研究、深度访谈、问卷调查和二手数据分析等研究手段,结合了质性研究与量化研究的分析方法。
本研究的创新之处和积极意义在于：首先,本研究结合组织理论和制度理论,将网络观点引入到对企业集团母子公司间关系的分析,是对已有研究的深化与补充,拓展了公司创业理论的研究视角,弥补了交易成本理论、代理理论等对此类问题研究的局限。其次,本研究建立的企业集团的整合研究框架基于我国的转型经济情境,分析在制度环境与技术环境共同作用下,企业集团中子公司的成长路经、以及企业集团网络形态的演变机理,是对企业集团内部横向协调机制问题研究的进一步深化。此外,本研究还将社会网络分析方法引入到对企业集团母子公司关系网络及其子公司治理机制的研究中来,分析母子公司运营网络、子公司特性、环境特性与子公司主导行为的关系；以量化的方式提供有关我国企业集团母子公司关系网络治理层面的重要信息变量,是对已有企业集团关于子公司治理研究描述性编码或定性研究的一个突破和补充。
总体而言,本研究是对企业集团内部横向协调机制研究的理论深化,同时也为企业集团管理者提供了一个对子公司进行治理的分析视角。为我国经济转型背景下企业集团中的母公司如何合理的决定子公司决策自主权、有效治理子公司提供了经验支持,也为企业集团子公司治理研究的后续展开奠定基础。
Enterprise group is the backbone of our country national economy strength, subsidiary as the group organization boundary and the main form of organization development, is an important source of competitive advantage, the whole group study and explore how to make it get effective governance in practice operation in promoting China's economic development and social welfare are of great significance. But relative to foreign about multinational group, a subsidiary of the rich research achievements, Chinese scholars of domestic situation, a subsidiary of related theory, especially the network based on the group's operating practice, a subsidiary of growth theory exploration is slightly weak. Existing researches on some new problems and new phenomena also lack of explanation and guidance.
Our country enterprise group has its unique development path. On the one hand, in the current economic development in our country from the planned economy, in which the government fully allocate resources to the market economy, the market completely rationing resources transformation phase, simply apply abroad study of enterprise group based on the efficiency of logic analytical paradigm can't effectively to the growth and development of enterprise group in our explanation and guidance, therefore institutional environment elements must be incorporated into the analysis framework. On the other hand, along with the practice of group operating network transformation, the study of enterprise group need to network perspective of "enterprise market-network", the enterprise group as a network connection, is embedded in a certain social relations coordination in the network. In such a practice under the background of reality and theory, the goal of this research is:the exploration in the institutional environment and technology environment, under the dual role of subsidiary, how to build a dominant behavior with embedded or dissolution of group network, and then based on the maximization of the inner mechanism of the growth of network effects.
To solve these problems, this research mainly is divided into three parts in-depth studied one by one:
firstly, introduce the practice of the present study background and significance of theory to clarify of this study is based on unit as the research subject, from the analysis point of view of subsidiary actions are defined; deconstruction, a subsidiary of the leading behavior, embedded network and growth the internal logic relationship between the content design, and to study the overall architecture of the arrangement accordingly. On this basis, based on the domestic and foreign about the network theory, the leading behavior, subsidiary growth related research literature and theory, this study adopted the definition of network from the dimension of "relationship", and follow the individual as the focus, study its impact on the overall network analytical paradigm. Study selected subsidiary dominate the behavior as a breakthrough point, and strive to to grow from subsidiaries behavior to embedded network to which the entire logical chain gives the complete analysis, organic combination of firing a company leading behavior and the network effect, analyzed the dominant behavior by enhancing the mechanism of network effects and then accelerate the development of subsidiary.
Secondly, based on certain research goal and the content, the first subsidiary company the leading behavior of intrinsic motivation, implementation, and analyzes the influence factors, points out that the leading behavior and implementation on the one hand, by the subsidiary of rights and interests of the internal drive, at the same time also are motivated by the group of external competitive environment. Subsidiary implementation leading behavior to promote the enterprise group's network process, based on the perspective of the subsidiary role of dynamic change, this study will group parent-subsidiary constitute the behavior of the structure with dispersion, interdependent, across the unit is divided into four major characteristics of the network learning and elastic structure system. On this basis, the subsidiary company how to achieve its dominant behavior by implementing the group network construction and the elimination the inner mechanism of the dynamic process was studied, and put forward theoretical propositions and research hypothesis.
This study used to construct the theoretical proposition, a subsidiary of leading behavior and the logic of network embedded system, namely, under the rule of reason, subsidiary within the group network embedded degree is not unlimited increase, but is affected by the marginal effect of embedded network, the embedded network changes along with the evolution of subsidiary, which led to an external led conversion process from within. On the basis of the theoretical proposition, this study further refinement, facing the employment pressure and introduce subsidiary as the proxy variable from the pressure of system environment legitimacy, to analyze the subsidiary in efficiency and legitimacy of the dual growth, driven by embedded network growth by implementing the leading behavior change mechanism, and put forward the research hypothesis.
Thirdly, the use of hisense group as the object of case study, this study analyzes the part of theoretical propositions and preliminary inspection. Sselected the csi300indexes between2003and2011china-africa financial listed companies as the research object. Test results show that:(1) the company's overall growth subsidiaries outside the leading behavior in general is positive, the influence of the total assets growth rate of the most significant, and the correlation analysis and regression analysis showed a consistent direction.(2) a subsidiary of external dominant behavior has reverse effect on the degree group internal network embedded. Reduces the subsidiary that external dominant behavior embedded network connection strength, the attention of subsidiary to external opportunities and pursue weakened the rest of the enterprise group internal node binary relation level of knowledge, information and communication resources.(3) a subsidiary of external dominated the relationship between the degree of external behavior and group network embedded are related.(4) the analysis of system pressure following company's behavior are also supported by the data.
This research mainly adopts literature research, case studies, in-depth interviews, questionnaire survey and the research methods such as second-hand data analysis, combined with the analysis of qualitative research and quantitative research methods.
The innovation of this study and positive significance lies in:first, combined with the organization theory and system theory, this study will be introduced to the network point of view on the analysis of the relationship between enterprise group subsidiary company, is the deepening and complement the existing research, expand the view of corporate entrepreneurship theory studies, makes up for the transaction cost theory, agency theory and so on the limitations of research on this problem.Second, this study established enterprise group integrating research framework based on the transformation of the economic situation in our country, analysis on the institutional environment and technology environment, the growth of the enterprise group, a subsidiary of the path, and the enterprise group in the form of network evolution mechanism, is the enterprise group internal lateral coordination mechanism further deepening of the research.In addition, this research also introduces the method of social network analysis into the group parent-subsidiary relationship network of the enterprise and its subsidiaries in the study of governance mechanism, analysis of parent-subsidiary operation network, subsidiary characteristics, the relationship between environmental features and subsidiary dominated the behavior;In quantitative way to provide the level of our country enterprise group parent-subsidiary relationship network governance variables, important information is about the existing enterprise group subsidiary management research descriptive coding or a breakthrough and complement of qualitative research.
Overall, this study is to the enterprise group internal lateral coordination mechanism theory deepening of the research, but also for the enterprise group management provides a subsidiary company of governance perspective. For the parent company in China under the background of economic transformation enterprise group how to reasonable decision subsidiaries decision-making autonomy, effective governance which provides the support experience, also lay a foundation for research into enterprise group governance.
引文
1 蓝海林.经济转型中我国国有企业集团行为的研究：[博士学位论文].广州：暨南大学,2004.
2 武立东.母子公司关系网络治理中影响子公司自主决策的因素分析.现代财经,2007.
1 Subsidiary Business Networks and Opportunity Development in Multinational Enterprises:A Comparison of the Influence of Internal and External Business Networks, Mohammad Yamin,2005, Business Opportunity Development in Business Networks.
2 Building Firm-Specific Advantages in Multinational Corporations:The Role of Subsidiary Initiative, Julian Birkinshaw, Neil Hood and Stefan Jonsson, Srrategic Management Journal,1998,Vol19,221-241.
3 多国籍企业子公司自主权与主导行为影响之研究——以多国籍企业在台子公司为例,曾志宏,台湾中山大学,博士论文,2001
[1]Almeida H., Park S.Y., Subrahmanyam M.G., Wolfenzon D. The structure and formation of business groups:Evidence from Korean chaebols. Journal of Financial Economics,2011. vol99:447-475.
[2]Ambos T.C., Bjorn Ambos. The impact of distance on knowledge transfer effectiveness in multinational corporations. Journal of International Management,2009. vol15:1-14.
[3]Andersson U., Bjorkman I., Forsgren M. Explaining subsidiary network embeddedness:The impact of headquarters control mechanisms. Working paper,2002.
[4]Andersson U., Forsgren M. In search of centre of excellence:Network embeddedness and subsidiary roles in multinational corporations. Management International Review,2000. vol 40:487-508.
[5]Andersson U., Forsgrent M. Subsidiary Embeddedness and control in the multinational corporation. International Business Review,1996. vol5:487-508.
[6]Andrew C.I. Knowledge transfer and international joint ventures:The case of NUMMI and GENERAL MOTORS. Strategic Management Journal,2008. vol29:447-453.
[7]Ansoff I.H. Strategic issues management. Strategic Management Journal,1980. vol1:131-148.
[8]Baliga, Jaeger. Multinational Corporations:Control Systems and Delegation Issues. Journal of International Business Studies,1984. vol15:25-39.
[9]Barney J.B.Strategic factor markets:Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science,1986. vol 10:1231-1241.
[10]Bartlett C.A., Ghoshal S. Managing across borders:The transnational solution. Harvard Business School Press,1989.
[11]Benito GR.G, Grogaard B., Narula R. Environmental influences on MNE subsidiary roles: economic integration and the Nordic countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 2003. vol34:443-456.
[12]Benjamin K., Crawford R.A., Annan A. A vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting proeess. Journal of Law and economics,1978. vol21:297-326.
[13]Birkinshaw J. Corporate entrepreneurship in network organizations:How subsidiary initiative drives internal market efficiency. European Management Journal,1998. vol16: 355-365.
[14]Birkinshaw J. Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations:The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal,1997. vol 18:207-229.
[15]Birkinshaw J. How multinational subsidiaries mandates are gained and lost. Journal of International Business Studies,1996. vo!27:467-495.
[16]Birkinshaw J. Network organizations:How subsidiary initiative drives internal market efficiency. European Management Journal,1998. vol 16:355-364.
[17]Birkinshaw J., Fry N. Subsidiary initiatives to develop new markets. Sloan Mangement Review,1998. Spring:51-61.
[18]Birkinshaw J., Hood N. Multinational corporate evolution and subsidiary development, MacMillan Press Inc,1998.
[19]Birkinshaw J., Hood N. Multinational Subsidiary Evolution:Capability and Charter Change in Foreign-Owned Subsidiary Companies. The Academy of Management Review, 1998. vol23:773-795.
[20]Birkinshaw J., Hood N., Jonsson S. Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations:The role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal,1998. vol19: 221-241.
[21]Birkinshaw J., Hood N., Young S. Subsidiary entrepreneurship, internal and external competitive forces, and subsidiary performance. International Business Review,2005. vol.14:227-248.
[22]Birkinshaw J., Ridderstrale J. Fighting the corporate immune system:A process study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations. International Business Review,1999. vol8:149-180.
[23]Birkinshaw J.M., Morrison A.J. Configurations of Strategy and Structure in Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations. Journal of International Business Studies,1995. vol26:729-753.
[24]Burt R. Structural Holes:The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1992.
[25]Chandler A.D. Strategy and structure:Chapter in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Cambridge Mass:The MIT Press,1962.
[26]Cheong K., Choo K., Lee K. Understanding the behavior of business groups:A dynamic model and empirical analysis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,2010. vol76: 141-152.
[27]Child J. Predicting and understanding organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly,1973. vol18:168-185.
[28]Christmann, P., Day D., Yib GS. The relative influence of country conditions, industry structure and business strategy on multinational corporation subsidiary performance. Journal of International Management,1999. vol5:241-265.
[29]Christopher M. Creating resilient supply chains. Logistics Europe,2004. vol 11:18-19.
[30]Christopher W., Craighead G., Tomas M.H., David J., Ketchen Jr. The effects of innovation-cost strategy, knowledge, and action in the supply chain on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management,2009. vol27:405-421.
[31]Delany E. Strategic development of the multinational subsidiary through subsidiary initiative-taking. Long Range Planning,2000. vol 33:220-244.
[32]Dorrenbacher C., Geppert M.J. A micro-political perspective on subsidiary initiative-taking: Evidence from German-owned subsidiaries in France. European Management Journal,2009. vol27:100-112.
[33]Fong C., Ho H., Weng L., Yang K. The intersubsidiary competition in an MNE:Evidence from the greater china region. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,2007. vol24: 45-57.
[34]Frost T.S. The geographic sources of foreign subsidiaries "innovations". Strategic Management Journal,2001. vol22:101-123.
[35]Fry N., Birkinshaw J. Subsidiary initiatives to develop new markets. Sloan Management Review,1998. Spring:51-61.
[36]Gates S.R., Egelhoff W.G. Centralization in headquarters-subsidiary relationships. Journal of International Business Studies,1986. vol17:71-92.
[37]Ghoshal S., Bartlett C. The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network. Academy of Management Review,1990. vol15:603-625.
[38]Ghoshal S., Nohria N. Internal differentiation within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal,1989. vol10:323-337.
[39]Ghoshal S., Westney D.E. Introduction and overview. In S.Ghoshal and Westney (eds.) Organization theory and the multinational cooperation. St. Martin's Press,1993.
[40]Goold, Campbell, Alexander. Corporate-Level Strategy. John Wiley & Sons Inc,1994.
[41]Granovetter M. Business groups. Princeton University Press,1994:453-475.
[42]Guillen M. Business groups in emerging economies:A resource-based view. Academy of Magement Journal,2000. vol43:362-381.
[43]Gulati R. Network location and learning:The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal,1999. vol20:397-420.
[44]Gulati R. Where do interorganizational networks come from. American journal of sociology,1999. vol104:1398-1438.
[45]Gulati R., Nohria N., Zaheer A. Strategic Networks. Strategic Management Journal,2000. vol 21:203-215.
[46]Gupta A.K., Govindarajan V. Organizing for Knowledge within MNCs. International Business Review,1994. vol3:443-457.
[47]Hedlund G, Rolander D. Action in hierarchies:New approaches to managing the MNC, In C.A. Bartlett, Y. Doz and G Hedlund (eds).Managing the Global Finn. London and New York:Routledge and Kegan Paul,1990.
[48]Hennart J.F. The Transaction cost theory of the multinational enterprise. The nature of the transnational firm,1991:81-116.
[49]Hill C.W.L., Hitt M.A., Hoskisson R.E. Cooperative versus competitive structure in related and unrelated diversified firms. Organization Science,1992. vol4:501-521.
[50]Hillman A., Hitt M.A. Corporate political strategy formulation:A model of approach, participation and strategy dicisions. Academy of Management Review,1999. vol24:825-842.
[51]Hong K., Bae, Jeong S. The value-relevance of earnings and book value, ownership structure, and business group affiliation:Evidence from Korean business groups. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting,2007. vo134:740-766.
[52]Hoskisson R.E., Eden L., Lau C.M., Wright M. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal,2000. vo143:249-267.
[53]Hoskisson R.E., Hitt M.A., Wan W., Yiu D. Theory and research in strategic management: swings of a pendulum. Journal ofMangement,1999. vol3:417-456.
[54]Jacobides M.G., Winter S.G. The co-evolution of capabilities and transaction costs: explaining the institutional structure of production. Strategic Management Journal,2005. vo126:395-413.
[55]James B., Rice, Sheffi Y. A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. MIT Sloan management review,2005. vo147:41-48.
[56]Jan O.P., Andreas H. Less is sometimes more:The role of information quantity and specific assets in the propensity to engage in cost data exchange processes. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management,2009. vo115:71-78.
[57]Jap S.D., Anderson E. Safeguarding interorganizational performance and continuity under Ex Post opportunism. Management Science,2003. vo149:1684-1701.
[58]Jap S.D., Ganesan S. Control mechanisms and the relationship life cycle:implications for safeguarding specific investments and developing commitment. Journal of marketing research,2000. vol7:227-245.
[59]Jarrillo J.C., Martinez J.I. Different roles for subsidiaries:The case of multinational corporations in Spain. Strategic Management Journal,1990. vol11:501-512.
[60]Jindra B., Giroud A., Scott J.K. Subsidiary roles, vertical linkages and economic development:Lessons from transition economies. Journal of World Business,2009. vol44: 167-179.
[61]Jochem E., Gruber E. Local learning-networks on energy efficiency in industry-Successful initiative in Germany. Applied Energy,2007. vol84:806-816.
[62]Kang M, Mahoney J.T., Tan D. Why firms make unilateral investments specific to other firms:The case of OEM suppliers. Strategic Management Journal,2009. vol30:117-135.
[63]Keister L.A. A dyad analysis of the strength of interfirm exchange relations during China's economic transition. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,1999. vol1:5-24.
[64]Keister L.A. Chinese business groups:The structure and impact of inter-firm relations during economic development. Oxford University Press,2000.
[65]Keister L.A. Engineering growth:Business group structure and firm performance in China's transition economy. American Journal of Sociology,1998. vol104:404-440.
[66]Keister L.A. Interfirm relations in China:Group structure and firm performance in business groups. American Behavioral Scientist,2009.
[67]Khanna T. Business groups and social welfare in emerging markets:Existing evidence and unanswered questions. European Economic Review,2000. vol44:748-761.
[68]Khanna T., Palepu K. Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance,2000.vol2:867-892.
[69]Khanna T., Palepu K. The future of business groups in emerging economies:Long-run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal,2000. vol43:268-285.
[70]Khanna T., Rivkin J.W. Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal,2002. vol22:45-74.
[71]Khanna T., Rivkin J.W. Interorganizational ties and business group boundaries:Evidence from an emerging economy. Organization Science,2006. vol17:333-352.
[72]Khanna T., Yafeh Y. Business groups in emerging markets:Paragons or parasites? Journal of Economic Literature,2007. vol45:331-372.
[73]Kolasinski A.C. Subsidiary debt, capital structure and internal capital markets. Journal of Financial Economics,2009. vol94:327-343.
[74]Kumar V., Pedersen T., Zattoni A. The performance of business group firms during institutional transition:A longtitudinal study of Indian finns. Working paper,2008.
[75]La Porta, Rafael, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer A., Vishny R.W. Investor protection and corporate valuation. Journal of Finance,2002. vol 57:1147-1170.
[76]Lawrence P., Lorsch J. Organization and Environment. Boston:Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of Research,1967.
[77]Lee K. Business groups as an organizational device for development and transition. The international conference on managing development and transition, organized by the Institute for Social Sciences, Tokyo University,2002.
[78]Lee S., Park K., Shin H. Disappearing internal capital markets:Evidence from diversified business groups in Korea. Journal of Banking & Finance,2009. vol33:326-334.
[79]Leff N. Industrial organization and entrepreneurship in the developing countries:The economic groups. Economic Development and Cultural Change,1978. vol26:661-675.
[80]Lemmon, Michael L., Lins K.V. Ownership structure, corporate governance, and firm value: evidence from the East Asian financial crisis. Journal of Finance,2003. vol 58: 1445-1468.
[81]Maman D. The emergence of business groups:Israel and South Korea compared. Organization Studies,2002. vol5:737-758.
[82]Mark A., Subramaniam Y.M., Scott A.S. Intellectual Capital Profiles:An Examination of Investments and Returns. Journal of Management Studies,2004. vol41:335-361.
[83]Masten S.E., Meehan J.W., Snyder E. The costs of organization. The Journal of law, Economics and Organization,1991. vol7:1-25.
[84]Michel J.G., Hambrick D.C. Diversification posture and top management team characteristics. Academy of Management Journal,1992. vol35:9-37.
[85]Miller K.D. A framework for integrated risk management in international business. Journal of International Business Studies,1992. vol23:311-331.
[86]Murtha T.P., Lenway S.A. Country capabilities and the strategic state:How national political institutions affect multional corporations'strategies. Strategic Management Journal,1994. vol15:113-129.
[87]Nohria N., Gulati R. Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 1996. vol39:1245-1264.
[88]North D. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press,1990.
[89]Okazaki T. Role of holding companies in prewar Japanese economic development: Rethinking Zaibatsu in perspectives of corporate governance. Social Science Japan Journal,2001. vol4:263-268.
[90]Orru M., Biggard N.W., Hamilton G.G. Organizational isomorphism in East Asia. In Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio (editors):The new institutionalism in organization analysis. University of Chicago Press,1991:361-389.
[91]Ozsomer A., Gencturk E. A Resource-Based Model of Market Learning in the Subsidiary: The Capabilities of Exploration and Exploitation. Journal of International Marketing,2003. vol11:1-29.
[92]Palepu K. Diversification strategy, profit performance and the entropy measures. Strategic Management Journal,1985. vol6:239-255.
[93]Park S.H., Luo Y. Guanxi and organizational dynamics:Organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal,2001. vol22:455-477.
[94]Penrose E. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Wiley and Sons,1959.
[95]Peteraf M.A. The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation. Columbia Journal of World Business,1993. vol4:179-191.
[96]Pomboa C., Guti6rrez L.H. Outside directors, board interlocks and firm performance: Empirical evidence from Colombian business groups. Journal of Financial Economics, 2011.
[97]Prahalad C.K., Bettis R.A. The dominant logic:a new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal,1986. vol7:485-501.
[98]Prahalad C.K., Hamel G. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,1990. vol68:79-81.
[99]Qiu L.D., Spencer B.J., Keiretsu. Relationship-specific investment:Implications for market-opening trade policy. Working Paper Series. Hong Kong University of Science & Technology and University of British Columbia,2001.
[100]Rajan R., Servaces H., Zingales L. The cost of diversity:The diversification discount and inefficent investment. Journal of Finance,2000. vol55:35-80.
[101]Richard N. Orders and organizations:Toward an austrian theory of social institutions. In Bruce Caldwell and Stephan Bohm, eds., Austrian Economics:Tensions and Directions. 1993.
[102]Ridderstrale J. and Birkinshaw J. Fighting the corporate immune system:A prosess study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations. International Business Review, 1999. vol8:149-180.
[103]Robert J.D., Shin-Kap Han. A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost economics. Strategic Management Journal,2004. vol25:39-58.
[104]Roth K., Morrison A.J. Implementing global strategy:Characteristics of global subsidiary mandates. Journal of International Business Studies,1992. vol 23:715-735.
[105]Roth K., Schweiger M.D., Morrison A.J. Global strategy implementation at the business unit level:Operational capabilities and administrative mechanisms. Journal of International Business Studies,1991. Vol22:369-402.
[106]Saliola F., Zanfei A. Multinational firms, global value chains and the organization of knowledge transfer. Research Policy,2009. vol38:369-381.
[107]Sargent J., Matthews L. The drivers of evolution/upgrading in Mexico's maquiladoras: How important is subsidiary initiative? Journal of World Business,2006. vol41:233-246.
[108]Sargent John., Matthews L. The drivers of evolution/upgrading in Mexico's maquiladoras: How important is subsidiary initiative? Journal of World Business,2006. vol41:233-246.
[109]Saviotti P.P. On the dynamics of appropriability, of tacit and of codified knowledge. Research Policy,1998.vol26:843-856.
[110]Schmid S., Schurig A. The development of critical capabilities in foreign subsidiaries: Disentangling the role of the subsidiary's business network. International Business Review,2003. vol12:755-782.
[Ill]Scott W.R. The changing world of Chinese enterprise:An institutional perspective. In A.S. Tsui & C.-M. Lau (Eds.). The management of enterprises in the People's Republic of China. Kluwer Academic Publishers,2002:59-78.
[112]Shaffer B., Hillman A.J. The development of business-government strategies by-diversified firms. Strategic Management Journal,2000. vol21:175-190.
[113]Sheffi Y. The resilient enterprise:Overcoming vulnerability for competitive advantage. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,2007.
[114]Simon A. Regional integration through contracting networks:An empirical analysis of institutional collection action framework. Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies, 2009. vol44:378-402.
[115]Starr Randy., Newfrock J., Delurey M. Enterprise Resilience:managing risk in the networked economy. Strategy & business magazine,2003. vol30:1-13.
[116]Stevenson M., Spring M. Flexibility from a supply chain perspective:definition and review. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,2007. vol27: 685-713.
[117]Taggart J., Hood N. Determinants of autonomy in multinational corporation subsidiaties. Euroupean Management Journal,1999. vol17:226-236.
[118]Tseng C., Fong C., Su K. The determinants of MNC subsidiary initiatives implications for small business. Globalisation and Small Business,2004. voll:92-114.
[119]Verbeke A., Yuan W. Subsidiary autonomous activities in multinational enterprises:A transaction cost perspective. Management International Review,2005. vol45:31-52.
[120]Wan W.P., Hoskisson R.E. Home country environments, corporate diversification strategies and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal,2003. vol46:27-45.
[121]White R.E., Hoskisson R.E., Yiu D.W., Bruton GD. Employment and market innovation in Chinese business group affiliated firms:The role of group control systems. Management and Organization Review,2008. vol4:225-256.
[122]White S. Competition, capabilities, and the make, buy, or ally decisions of Chinese state-owned firms. Academy of Mangement Journal,2000. vol43:324-341.
[123]Williams C. Subsidiary-level determinants of global initiatives in multinational corporations. Journal of International Management,2009. vol15:92-104.
[124]Williamson O.E. Markets and hierarchies:Analysis and anti-trust implications. Free Press, 1975.
[125]Williamson O.E. The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press,1985.
[126]Yamin M. Subsidiary business networks and opportunity development in multinational enterprises:A comparison of the influence of internal and external business networks. Opportunity Development in Business Networks,2005.
[127]Yamin M., Andersson U. Subsidiary importance in the MNC:What role does internal embeddedness play? International Business Review,2011. vol20:151-162.
[128]Yiu D., Bruton G.D., Lu Y. Understanding business group performance in an emerging economy:acquiring resources and capabilities in order to prosper. Journal of Management Studies,2005. vol42:183-206.
[129]Yiu D., Hoskisson R.E., Lu Y. Business groups' control mechanisms, government legacy and policy, and corporate entrepreneurial intensity. Working paper,2003.
[130]Yiu D., Lu Y, Bruton G.D., Hoskisson R.E. Business groups:An integrated model to focus future research. Journal of Management Studies,2007. vol44:1551-1579.
[131]Yiu D.W., Lau C.M. Corporate entrepreneurship as resource capital configuration in emerging market firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,2008. vol32:37-57.
[132]Zhang L.J.,Wong P.K.,et al. The use of networks in human resource acquisition for entrepreneurial firms:Multiple "fit" considerations. Journal of Business Venturing,2Q06. vol21:664-686.
[133]Reiiie George,Rezaul Kabir.Heterogeneity in business groups and the corporate diversification-firm performance relationship.Journal of Business Research,2012(3):412-420.
[134]Wlamir Goncalves Xavier,Rodrigo Bandeira-de-Mello,Rosilene Marcon.Instirutional environment and business groups'resilience in Brazil Journal of Business Research,2013(7),in press.
[135]Raja Kali,Jayati Sarkar.Diversification and tunneling:evidence from Indian business groups Journal of Comparative Economics,2011(9):349-367.
[136]Winnie Qian Peng,K.c.John Wei,Zhishu Yang.Tunneling orpropping:evidence from connected transactions in china.Journal of Corporate Finance,2011(4):306-325.
[137]Liangbo Ma,Shiguang Ma, Gary Tian.Political connections,founder-managers and their impact on tunneling in China's listed firms.Pacific-Basin Finance Journal,2013(7),in press.
[138]Robson So Rocha,Lise Granerud.The research for legitimacy and organizational change:the agency of subordinated actors. Scandinavian Journal of Management,2011(9):261-272.
[139]Stefan Schmid,Lars R.Dzedek,Mark Lehrer.From rocking the boat to wagging the dog:a literature review of subsidiary initiative research and integrative framework.Journal of International Management,2013(9),in press.
[140]Christoph Dorrenbacher.Mike Geppert.A micro-political perspective on subsidiary initiative-taking:evidence from German-owned subsidiaries in France.European Management Journal,2009(4):100-112.
[141]Andrew Cavanagh,Susan Freeman.Thedevelopment of subsidiary roles in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry.International Business Review,2012(9):602-617.
[142]Andreas Schotter,Paul W.Beamish.Performance effects of MNC headquarters-subsidiary confilict and the role of boundary spanners:the case of headquarter initiative rejection.Journal of International Management,2011(9):243-259.
[143]Anna Grandori主编.刘刚等译.企业网络：组织和产业竞争力[C].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005
[144]陈志军,薛光红.股权结构与企业集团多元化战略关系研究.财贸研究,2010(5)：126-131.
[145]陈志军.母子公司管控模式选择.经济管理,2007(3)：34-40.
[146]方刚.基于资源观的企业网络能力与创新绩效关系研究：[博士学位论文].杭州：浙江大学,2008
[147]葛晨、徐金发.母子公司的管理与控制模式.管理世界,1999(6)：190-196.
[148]葛京.跨国企业海外子公司的地位与作用及其演进.管理评论,2007(5)：57-62.
[149]郭毅、罗家德.社会资本与管理学.上海：华东理工大学出版社,2007
[150]郭毅、胡美琴、王晶莺、刘亦飞等.组织与战略管理中的新制度主义视野.2009,上海,格致出版社.
[151]和金生、王雪利.母公司对子公司知识转移的影响因素研究.西安电子科技大学学报.2006(2)：87-91.
[152]何铮.从主流战略管理研究折射中国国有企业战略管理实践的演变.南开管理评论,2006(2)：106-109.
[153]贾根良.网络组织：超越市场与企业两分法.经济社会体制比较.1998(4)：13-19.
[154]杰弗里·菲佛、杰勒尔德·R·萨兰基克著.组织的外部控制——对组织资源依赖的分析.东方出版社,2006.
[155]今井贤一、小宫隆太郎,陈晋、陈清远等译.日本现代企业制度.经济科学出版社,1995,第一版.
[156]汤普森著,敬乂嘉译.行动中的组织.上海人民出版社,第1版,2007.
[157]唐文雄、吴广谋、盛昭瀚.企业集团化过程中政府作用的理论思考.中国软科学,2000(6)：35-39.
[158]陶向南、赵曙明.子公司角色、绩效表现对跨国公司人力资源本土化配置影响的实证研究.管理世界,2003(8)：92-98.
[159]W·理查德·斯科特著,姚伟、王黎芳译.制度与组织——思想观念与物质利益.中国人民大学出版社,2010.
[160]席酉民、赵增耀等.企业集团治理.机械工业出版社,2002.
[161]蓝海林.经济转型中我国国有企业集团行为的研究：[博士学位论文].广州：暨南大学,2004.
[162]武立东.母子公司关系网络治理中影响子公司自主决策的因素分析.现代财经,2007.
[163]初可佳.企业集团子公司弹性限制与经营绩效——基于网络视角.求索,2007.
[164]孙国强,石海瑞.网络组织负效应的实证分析.科学学与科学技术管理,2011.
[165]王世权,王丹,武立东.母子公司关系网络影响子公司创业的内在机理——基于海信集团的案例研究.管理世界,2012.
[166]杨忠.跨国公司及其子公司治理结构分析.南京大学学报,2004(4)
[167]伊藤秀史、菊谷达弥、林田修.母子公司间的多面关系与子公司治理(日文).研究报告,2004.
[168]张军等著,中国企业的转型道路.格致出版社,2008.
[169]赵景华.跨国公司在华子公司竞争优势与战略倾向实证研究.中国工业经济,2007(4)：79-87.
[170]赵曙明、赵薇、徐军.我国企业集团及其发展历程研究.生产力研究,2002(3)：6-8.
[171]曾国军.跨国公司在华子公司战略角色演变的影响因素与路径：以业务范围和竞争能力为框架.管理学报,2006(6)：692-702.
[172]蓝海林.经济转型过程中国有企业集团行为的再认识.经济管理,2004(21)：36-38.
[173]雷蒙德·E·迈尔斯、查尔斯·C·斯诺.组织的战略结构和过程。东方出版社,2006.
[174]李海舰、聂辉华.论企业与市场的相互融合.中国工业经济,2004(8)：26-35.
[175]李维安、武立东.企业集团的公司治理——规模起点、治理边界和子公司治理.南 开管理评论,1999(1)：44-8.
[176]梁樑、吴文明、王志强.企业集团形成动因的模型分析.中国管理科学,2003(2)：71-76.
[177]林南著,张磊译.社会资本——关于社会结构与行动的理论.上海人民出版社,2005
[178]刘小玄.奠定中国市场经济的微观基础——企业革命30年.格致出版社,2008.
[179]罗珉、何长见.组织间关系：界面规则与治理机制.中国工业经济,2006(5)：87-95.
[180]吕源、姚俊、蓝海林.企业集团的理论综述与探讨.南开管理评论,2005(4)：28-35.
[181]迈克尔·C·詹森著,孙经纬译.组织战略的基础.上海财经大学出版社,2008.
[182]毛蕴诗.企业集团：扩展动因模式与案例,2001.
[183]沈志渔、刘兴国、周小虎.基于社会责任的国有企业改革研究.中国工业经济,2008(9)：141-149.
[184]郑小勇,魏江Business Group、企业集团和关联企业概念辨析及研究范畴、主题、方法比较.外国经济与管理,2011(10)：17-25.
[185]罗仲伟.中国国有企业改革：方法论和策略.中国工业经济,2009(1)：5-17.
[186]杨友仁,夏铸九.跨界生产网络的组织治理模式——以苏州地区信息电子业台商为例.地理研究,2005(2)：253-264.
[187]甄志宏.从网络嵌入性到制度嵌入性——新经济社会学制度前沿.江苏社会科学,2006(3)：97-100.
[188]徐向龙、毛蕴诗.我国中央企业的成长特征与战略重组研究.产经评论,2010(3)：60-68.
[189]徐向艺、谢明亮.协调与合作视角下的企业集团治理框架研究.文史哲,2008(1)：151-157.
[190]薛求知、阎海峰.跨国公司新组织形态：网络组织.世界经济文汇,2001(1)：54-57.
[191]薛求知、侯仕军.海外子公司地位研究：从总部视角到子公司视角.南开管理评论,2005(4)：60-66.
[192]薛求知、罗来军.跨国公司对合资子公司的外部控制.经济管理,2006(13)：11-14.
[193]郑方.嵌入性视角下的连锁董事网络研究：[博士学位论文].济南：山东大学,2012.
[194]郭劲光.网络嵌入：嵌入差异与嵌入绩效.经济评论,2006(11)：24-30.
[195]许冠南.关系嵌入性对技术创新绩效的影响研究：[博士学位论文].杭州：浙江大学,2008.
[196]刘雪锋.网络嵌入性影响企业绩效的机制案例研究.管理世界,2009(2)：3-12.
[197]章威.基于知识的企业动态能力研究：嵌入性前因及创新绩效结果：[博士学位论文].杭州：浙江大学,2009.
[198]杨桂菊.跨国公司子公司角色演化机制理论模型——子公司网络资本的分析视角.世界经济研究,2006(11)：16-21.
[199]朱顺林.基于网络嵌入的子公司演化成长机制研究：[博士学位论文].杭州：浙江大学,2012.
[200]蒲明,毕克新.内部嵌入性与跨国子公司成长能力关系的实证研究,中国软科学,2013 (8)：136-143.
[201]刘群慧,李丽.关系嵌入性、机会主义行为与合作创新意愿——对广东省中小企业样本的实证研究.科学学与科学技术管理,2013(7)：83-94.
[202]刘巍.“嵌入性”理论及其在中国研究中的发展.淮阴师范学院学报,2010(4)：507-511.
[203]彭正银,包凤耐.网络嵌入的文献述评与发展动态分析.第六届中国管理学年会论文集,2011.
[204]林嵩.国内外嵌入性研究述评.技术经济,2013(5)：48-53.
[205]李新春,刘莉.嵌入性、市场性关系网络与家族企业创业成长.中山大学学报：社会科学版,2009(3)：190-202.
2 武立东.母子公司关系网络治理中影响子公司自主决策的因素分析.现代财经,2007.
1 Subsidiary Business Networks and Opportunity Development in Multinational Enterprises:A Comparison of the Influence of Internal and External Business Networks, Mohammad Yamin,2005, Business Opportunity Development in Business Networks.
2 Building Firm-Specific Advantages in Multinational Corporations:The Role of Subsidiary Initiative, Julian Birkinshaw, Neil Hood and Stefan Jonsson, Srrategic Management Journal,1998,Vol19,221-241.
3 多国籍企业子公司自主权与主导行为影响之研究——以多国籍企业在台子公司为例,曾志宏,台湾中山大学,博士论文,2001
[1]Almeida H., Park S.Y., Subrahmanyam M.G., Wolfenzon D. The structure and formation of business groups:Evidence from Korean chaebols. Journal of Financial Economics,2011. vol99:447-475.
[2]Ambos T.C., Bjorn Ambos. The impact of distance on knowledge transfer effectiveness in multinational corporations. Journal of International Management,2009. vol15:1-14.
[3]Andersson U., Bjorkman I., Forsgren M. Explaining subsidiary network embeddedness:The impact of headquarters control mechanisms. Working paper,2002.
[4]Andersson U., Forsgren M. In search of centre of excellence:Network embeddedness and subsidiary roles in multinational corporations. Management International Review,2000. vol 40:487-508.
[5]Andersson U., Forsgrent M. Subsidiary Embeddedness and control in the multinational corporation. International Business Review,1996. vol5:487-508.
[6]Andrew C.I. Knowledge transfer and international joint ventures:The case of NUMMI and GENERAL MOTORS. Strategic Management Journal,2008. vol29:447-453.
[7]Ansoff I.H. Strategic issues management. Strategic Management Journal,1980. vol1:131-148.
[8]Baliga, Jaeger. Multinational Corporations:Control Systems and Delegation Issues. Journal of International Business Studies,1984. vol15:25-39.
[9]Barney J.B.Strategic factor markets:Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science,1986. vol 10:1231-1241.
[10]Bartlett C.A., Ghoshal S. Managing across borders:The transnational solution. Harvard Business School Press,1989.
[11]Benito GR.G, Grogaard B., Narula R. Environmental influences on MNE subsidiary roles: economic integration and the Nordic countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 2003. vol34:443-456.
[12]Benjamin K., Crawford R.A., Annan A. A vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting proeess. Journal of Law and economics,1978. vol21:297-326.
[13]Birkinshaw J. Corporate entrepreneurship in network organizations:How subsidiary initiative drives internal market efficiency. European Management Journal,1998. vol16: 355-365.
[14]Birkinshaw J. Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations:The characteristics of subsidiary initiatives. Strategic Management Journal,1997. vol 18:207-229.
[15]Birkinshaw J. How multinational subsidiaries mandates are gained and lost. Journal of International Business Studies,1996. vo!27:467-495.
[16]Birkinshaw J. Network organizations:How subsidiary initiative drives internal market efficiency. European Management Journal,1998. vol 16:355-364.
[17]Birkinshaw J., Fry N. Subsidiary initiatives to develop new markets. Sloan Mangement Review,1998. Spring:51-61.
[18]Birkinshaw J., Hood N. Multinational corporate evolution and subsidiary development, MacMillan Press Inc,1998.
[19]Birkinshaw J., Hood N. Multinational Subsidiary Evolution:Capability and Charter Change in Foreign-Owned Subsidiary Companies. The Academy of Management Review, 1998. vol23:773-795.
[20]Birkinshaw J., Hood N., Jonsson S. Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations:The role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal,1998. vol19: 221-241.
[21]Birkinshaw J., Hood N., Young S. Subsidiary entrepreneurship, internal and external competitive forces, and subsidiary performance. International Business Review,2005. vol.14:227-248.
[22]Birkinshaw J., Ridderstrale J. Fighting the corporate immune system:A process study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations. International Business Review,1999. vol8:149-180.
[23]Birkinshaw J.M., Morrison A.J. Configurations of Strategy and Structure in Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations. Journal of International Business Studies,1995. vol26:729-753.
[24]Burt R. Structural Holes:The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1992.
[25]Chandler A.D. Strategy and structure:Chapter in the history of the American industrial enterprise. Cambridge Mass:The MIT Press,1962.
[26]Cheong K., Choo K., Lee K. Understanding the behavior of business groups:A dynamic model and empirical analysis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,2010. vol76: 141-152.
[27]Child J. Predicting and understanding organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly,1973. vol18:168-185.
[28]Christmann, P., Day D., Yib GS. The relative influence of country conditions, industry structure and business strategy on multinational corporation subsidiary performance. Journal of International Management,1999. vol5:241-265.
[29]Christopher M. Creating resilient supply chains. Logistics Europe,2004. vol 11:18-19.
[30]Christopher W., Craighead G., Tomas M.H., David J., Ketchen Jr. The effects of innovation-cost strategy, knowledge, and action in the supply chain on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management,2009. vol27:405-421.
[31]Delany E. Strategic development of the multinational subsidiary through subsidiary initiative-taking. Long Range Planning,2000. vol 33:220-244.
[32]Dorrenbacher C., Geppert M.J. A micro-political perspective on subsidiary initiative-taking: Evidence from German-owned subsidiaries in France. European Management Journal,2009. vol27:100-112.
[33]Fong C., Ho H., Weng L., Yang K. The intersubsidiary competition in an MNE:Evidence from the greater china region. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,2007. vol24: 45-57.
[34]Frost T.S. The geographic sources of foreign subsidiaries "innovations". Strategic Management Journal,2001. vol22:101-123.
[35]Fry N., Birkinshaw J. Subsidiary initiatives to develop new markets. Sloan Management Review,1998. Spring:51-61.
[36]Gates S.R., Egelhoff W.G. Centralization in headquarters-subsidiary relationships. Journal of International Business Studies,1986. vol17:71-92.
[37]Ghoshal S., Bartlett C. The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network. Academy of Management Review,1990. vol15:603-625.
[38]Ghoshal S., Nohria N. Internal differentiation within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal,1989. vol10:323-337.
[39]Ghoshal S., Westney D.E. Introduction and overview. In S.Ghoshal and Westney (eds.) Organization theory and the multinational cooperation. St. Martin's Press,1993.
[40]Goold, Campbell, Alexander. Corporate-Level Strategy. John Wiley & Sons Inc,1994.
[41]Granovetter M. Business groups. Princeton University Press,1994:453-475.
[42]Guillen M. Business groups in emerging economies:A resource-based view. Academy of Magement Journal,2000. vol43:362-381.
[43]Gulati R. Network location and learning:The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal,1999. vol20:397-420.
[44]Gulati R. Where do interorganizational networks come from. American journal of sociology,1999. vol104:1398-1438.
[45]Gulati R., Nohria N., Zaheer A. Strategic Networks. Strategic Management Journal,2000. vol 21:203-215.
[46]Gupta A.K., Govindarajan V. Organizing for Knowledge within MNCs. International Business Review,1994. vol3:443-457.
[47]Hedlund G, Rolander D. Action in hierarchies:New approaches to managing the MNC, In C.A. Bartlett, Y. Doz and G Hedlund (eds).Managing the Global Finn. London and New York:Routledge and Kegan Paul,1990.
[48]Hennart J.F. The Transaction cost theory of the multinational enterprise. The nature of the transnational firm,1991:81-116.
[49]Hill C.W.L., Hitt M.A., Hoskisson R.E. Cooperative versus competitive structure in related and unrelated diversified firms. Organization Science,1992. vol4:501-521.
[50]Hillman A., Hitt M.A. Corporate political strategy formulation:A model of approach, participation and strategy dicisions. Academy of Management Review,1999. vol24:825-842.
[51]Hong K., Bae, Jeong S. The value-relevance of earnings and book value, ownership structure, and business group affiliation:Evidence from Korean business groups. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting,2007. vo134:740-766.
[52]Hoskisson R.E., Eden L., Lau C.M., Wright M. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal,2000. vo143:249-267.
[53]Hoskisson R.E., Hitt M.A., Wan W., Yiu D. Theory and research in strategic management: swings of a pendulum. Journal ofMangement,1999. vol3:417-456.
[54]Jacobides M.G., Winter S.G. The co-evolution of capabilities and transaction costs: explaining the institutional structure of production. Strategic Management Journal,2005. vo126:395-413.
[55]James B., Rice, Sheffi Y. A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. MIT Sloan management review,2005. vo147:41-48.
[56]Jan O.P., Andreas H. Less is sometimes more:The role of information quantity and specific assets in the propensity to engage in cost data exchange processes. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management,2009. vo115:71-78.
[57]Jap S.D., Anderson E. Safeguarding interorganizational performance and continuity under Ex Post opportunism. Management Science,2003. vo149:1684-1701.
[58]Jap S.D., Ganesan S. Control mechanisms and the relationship life cycle:implications for safeguarding specific investments and developing commitment. Journal of marketing research,2000. vol7:227-245.
[59]Jarrillo J.C., Martinez J.I. Different roles for subsidiaries:The case of multinational corporations in Spain. Strategic Management Journal,1990. vol11:501-512.
[60]Jindra B., Giroud A., Scott J.K. Subsidiary roles, vertical linkages and economic development:Lessons from transition economies. Journal of World Business,2009. vol44: 167-179.
[61]Jochem E., Gruber E. Local learning-networks on energy efficiency in industry-Successful initiative in Germany. Applied Energy,2007. vol84:806-816.
[62]Kang M, Mahoney J.T., Tan D. Why firms make unilateral investments specific to other firms:The case of OEM suppliers. Strategic Management Journal,2009. vol30:117-135.
[63]Keister L.A. A dyad analysis of the strength of interfirm exchange relations during China's economic transition. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,1999. vol1:5-24.
[64]Keister L.A. Chinese business groups:The structure and impact of inter-firm relations during economic development. Oxford University Press,2000.
[65]Keister L.A. Engineering growth:Business group structure and firm performance in China's transition economy. American Journal of Sociology,1998. vol104:404-440.
[66]Keister L.A. Interfirm relations in China:Group structure and firm performance in business groups. American Behavioral Scientist,2009.
[67]Khanna T. Business groups and social welfare in emerging markets:Existing evidence and unanswered questions. European Economic Review,2000. vol44:748-761.
[68]Khanna T., Palepu K. Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. Journal of Finance,2000.vol2:867-892.
[69]Khanna T., Palepu K. The future of business groups in emerging economies:Long-run evidence from Chile. Academy of Management Journal,2000. vol43:268-285.
[70]Khanna T., Rivkin J.W. Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal,2002. vol22:45-74.
[71]Khanna T., Rivkin J.W. Interorganizational ties and business group boundaries:Evidence from an emerging economy. Organization Science,2006. vol17:333-352.
[72]Khanna T., Yafeh Y. Business groups in emerging markets:Paragons or parasites? Journal of Economic Literature,2007. vol45:331-372.
[73]Kolasinski A.C. Subsidiary debt, capital structure and internal capital markets. Journal of Financial Economics,2009. vol94:327-343.
[74]Kumar V., Pedersen T., Zattoni A. The performance of business group firms during institutional transition:A longtitudinal study of Indian finns. Working paper,2008.
[75]La Porta, Rafael, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer A., Vishny R.W. Investor protection and corporate valuation. Journal of Finance,2002. vol 57:1147-1170.
[76]Lawrence P., Lorsch J. Organization and Environment. Boston:Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of Research,1967.
[77]Lee K. Business groups as an organizational device for development and transition. The international conference on managing development and transition, organized by the Institute for Social Sciences, Tokyo University,2002.
[78]Lee S., Park K., Shin H. Disappearing internal capital markets:Evidence from diversified business groups in Korea. Journal of Banking & Finance,2009. vol33:326-334.
[79]Leff N. Industrial organization and entrepreneurship in the developing countries:The economic groups. Economic Development and Cultural Change,1978. vol26:661-675.
[80]Lemmon, Michael L., Lins K.V. Ownership structure, corporate governance, and firm value: evidence from the East Asian financial crisis. Journal of Finance,2003. vol 58: 1445-1468.
[81]Maman D. The emergence of business groups:Israel and South Korea compared. Organization Studies,2002. vol5:737-758.
[82]Mark A., Subramaniam Y.M., Scott A.S. Intellectual Capital Profiles:An Examination of Investments and Returns. Journal of Management Studies,2004. vol41:335-361.
[83]Masten S.E., Meehan J.W., Snyder E. The costs of organization. The Journal of law, Economics and Organization,1991. vol7:1-25.
[84]Michel J.G., Hambrick D.C. Diversification posture and top management team characteristics. Academy of Management Journal,1992. vol35:9-37.
[85]Miller K.D. A framework for integrated risk management in international business. Journal of International Business Studies,1992. vol23:311-331.
[86]Murtha T.P., Lenway S.A. Country capabilities and the strategic state:How national political institutions affect multional corporations'strategies. Strategic Management Journal,1994. vol15:113-129.
[87]Nohria N., Gulati R. Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 1996. vol39:1245-1264.
[88]North D. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press,1990.
[89]Okazaki T. Role of holding companies in prewar Japanese economic development: Rethinking Zaibatsu in perspectives of corporate governance. Social Science Japan Journal,2001. vol4:263-268.
[90]Orru M., Biggard N.W., Hamilton G.G. Organizational isomorphism in East Asia. In Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio (editors):The new institutionalism in organization analysis. University of Chicago Press,1991:361-389.
[91]Ozsomer A., Gencturk E. A Resource-Based Model of Market Learning in the Subsidiary: The Capabilities of Exploration and Exploitation. Journal of International Marketing,2003. vol11:1-29.
[92]Palepu K. Diversification strategy, profit performance and the entropy measures. Strategic Management Journal,1985. vol6:239-255.
[93]Park S.H., Luo Y. Guanxi and organizational dynamics:Organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management Journal,2001. vol22:455-477.
[94]Penrose E. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Wiley and Sons,1959.
[95]Peteraf M.A. The tortuous evolution of the multinational corporation. Columbia Journal of World Business,1993. vol4:179-191.
[96]Pomboa C., Guti6rrez L.H. Outside directors, board interlocks and firm performance: Empirical evidence from Colombian business groups. Journal of Financial Economics, 2011.
[97]Prahalad C.K., Bettis R.A. The dominant logic:a new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal,1986. vol7:485-501.
[98]Prahalad C.K., Hamel G. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,1990. vol68:79-81.
[99]Qiu L.D., Spencer B.J., Keiretsu. Relationship-specific investment:Implications for market-opening trade policy. Working Paper Series. Hong Kong University of Science & Technology and University of British Columbia,2001.
[100]Rajan R., Servaces H., Zingales L. The cost of diversity:The diversification discount and inefficent investment. Journal of Finance,2000. vol55:35-80.
[101]Richard N. Orders and organizations:Toward an austrian theory of social institutions. In Bruce Caldwell and Stephan Bohm, eds., Austrian Economics:Tensions and Directions. 1993.
[102]Ridderstrale J. and Birkinshaw J. Fighting the corporate immune system:A prosess study of subsidiary initiatives in multinational corporations. International Business Review, 1999. vol8:149-180.
[103]Robert J.D., Shin-Kap Han. A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost economics. Strategic Management Journal,2004. vol25:39-58.
[104]Roth K., Morrison A.J. Implementing global strategy:Characteristics of global subsidiary mandates. Journal of International Business Studies,1992. vol 23:715-735.
[105]Roth K., Schweiger M.D., Morrison A.J. Global strategy implementation at the business unit level:Operational capabilities and administrative mechanisms. Journal of International Business Studies,1991. Vol22:369-402.
[106]Saliola F., Zanfei A. Multinational firms, global value chains and the organization of knowledge transfer. Research Policy,2009. vol38:369-381.
[107]Sargent J., Matthews L. The drivers of evolution/upgrading in Mexico's maquiladoras: How important is subsidiary initiative? Journal of World Business,2006. vol41:233-246.
[108]Sargent John., Matthews L. The drivers of evolution/upgrading in Mexico's maquiladoras: How important is subsidiary initiative? Journal of World Business,2006. vol41:233-246.
[109]Saviotti P.P. On the dynamics of appropriability, of tacit and of codified knowledge. Research Policy,1998.vol26:843-856.
[110]Schmid S., Schurig A. The development of critical capabilities in foreign subsidiaries: Disentangling the role of the subsidiary's business network. International Business Review,2003. vol12:755-782.
[Ill]Scott W.R. The changing world of Chinese enterprise:An institutional perspective. In A.S. Tsui & C.-M. Lau (Eds.). The management of enterprises in the People's Republic of China. Kluwer Academic Publishers,2002:59-78.
[112]Shaffer B., Hillman A.J. The development of business-government strategies by-diversified firms. Strategic Management Journal,2000. vol21:175-190.
[113]Sheffi Y. The resilient enterprise:Overcoming vulnerability for competitive advantage. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,2007.
[114]Simon A. Regional integration through contracting networks:An empirical analysis of institutional collection action framework. Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies, 2009. vol44:378-402.
[115]Starr Randy., Newfrock J., Delurey M. Enterprise Resilience:managing risk in the networked economy. Strategy & business magazine,2003. vol30:1-13.
[116]Stevenson M., Spring M. Flexibility from a supply chain perspective:definition and review. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,2007. vol27: 685-713.
[117]Taggart J., Hood N. Determinants of autonomy in multinational corporation subsidiaties. Euroupean Management Journal,1999. vol17:226-236.
[118]Tseng C., Fong C., Su K. The determinants of MNC subsidiary initiatives implications for small business. Globalisation and Small Business,2004. voll:92-114.
[119]Verbeke A., Yuan W. Subsidiary autonomous activities in multinational enterprises:A transaction cost perspective. Management International Review,2005. vol45:31-52.
[120]Wan W.P., Hoskisson R.E. Home country environments, corporate diversification strategies and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal,2003. vol46:27-45.
[121]White R.E., Hoskisson R.E., Yiu D.W., Bruton GD. Employment and market innovation in Chinese business group affiliated firms:The role of group control systems. Management and Organization Review,2008. vol4:225-256.
[122]White S. Competition, capabilities, and the make, buy, or ally decisions of Chinese state-owned firms. Academy of Mangement Journal,2000. vol43:324-341.
[123]Williams C. Subsidiary-level determinants of global initiatives in multinational corporations. Journal of International Management,2009. vol15:92-104.
[124]Williamson O.E. Markets and hierarchies:Analysis and anti-trust implications. Free Press, 1975.
[125]Williamson O.E. The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press,1985.
[126]Yamin M. Subsidiary business networks and opportunity development in multinational enterprises:A comparison of the influence of internal and external business networks. Opportunity Development in Business Networks,2005.
[127]Yamin M., Andersson U. Subsidiary importance in the MNC:What role does internal embeddedness play? International Business Review,2011. vol20:151-162.
[128]Yiu D., Bruton G.D., Lu Y. Understanding business group performance in an emerging economy:acquiring resources and capabilities in order to prosper. Journal of Management Studies,2005. vol42:183-206.
[129]Yiu D., Hoskisson R.E., Lu Y. Business groups' control mechanisms, government legacy and policy, and corporate entrepreneurial intensity. Working paper,2003.
[130]Yiu D., Lu Y, Bruton G.D., Hoskisson R.E. Business groups:An integrated model to focus future research. Journal of Management Studies,2007. vol44:1551-1579.
[131]Yiu D.W., Lau C.M. Corporate entrepreneurship as resource capital configuration in emerging market firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,2008. vol32:37-57.
[132]Zhang L.J.,Wong P.K.,et al. The use of networks in human resource acquisition for entrepreneurial firms:Multiple "fit" considerations. Journal of Business Venturing,2Q06. vol21:664-686.
[133]Reiiie George,Rezaul Kabir.Heterogeneity in business groups and the corporate diversification-firm performance relationship.Journal of Business Research,2012(3):412-420.
[134]Wlamir Goncalves Xavier,Rodrigo Bandeira-de-Mello,Rosilene Marcon.Instirutional environment and business groups'resilience in Brazil Journal of Business Research,2013(7),in press.
[135]Raja Kali,Jayati Sarkar.Diversification and tunneling:evidence from Indian business groups Journal of Comparative Economics,2011(9):349-367.
[136]Winnie Qian Peng,K.c.John Wei,Zhishu Yang.Tunneling orpropping:evidence from connected transactions in china.Journal of Corporate Finance,2011(4):306-325.
[137]Liangbo Ma,Shiguang Ma, Gary Tian.Political connections,founder-managers and their impact on tunneling in China's listed firms.Pacific-Basin Finance Journal,2013(7),in press.
[138]Robson So Rocha,Lise Granerud.The research for legitimacy and organizational change:the agency of subordinated actors. Scandinavian Journal of Management,2011(9):261-272.
[139]Stefan Schmid,Lars R.Dzedek,Mark Lehrer.From rocking the boat to wagging the dog:a literature review of subsidiary initiative research and integrative framework.Journal of International Management,2013(9),in press.
[140]Christoph Dorrenbacher.Mike Geppert.A micro-political perspective on subsidiary initiative-taking:evidence from German-owned subsidiaries in France.European Management Journal,2009(4):100-112.
[141]Andrew Cavanagh,Susan Freeman.Thedevelopment of subsidiary roles in the motor vehicle manufacturing industry.International Business Review,2012(9):602-617.
[142]Andreas Schotter,Paul W.Beamish.Performance effects of MNC headquarters-subsidiary confilict and the role of boundary spanners:the case of headquarter initiative rejection.Journal of International Management,2011(9):243-259.
[143]Anna Grandori主编.刘刚等译.企业网络：组织和产业竞争力[C].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005
[144]陈志军,薛光红.股权结构与企业集团多元化战略关系研究.财贸研究,2010(5)：126-131.
[145]陈志军.母子公司管控模式选择.经济管理,2007(3)：34-40.
[146]方刚.基于资源观的企业网络能力与创新绩效关系研究：[博士学位论文].杭州：浙江大学,2008
[147]葛晨、徐金发.母子公司的管理与控制模式.管理世界,1999(6)：190-196.
[148]葛京.跨国企业海外子公司的地位与作用及其演进.管理评论,2007(5)：57-62.
[149]郭毅、罗家德.社会资本与管理学.上海：华东理工大学出版社,2007
[150]郭毅、胡美琴、王晶莺、刘亦飞等.组织与战略管理中的新制度主义视野.2009,上海,格致出版社.
[151]和金生、王雪利.母公司对子公司知识转移的影响因素研究.西安电子科技大学学报.2006(2)：87-91.
[152]何铮.从主流战略管理研究折射中国国有企业战略管理实践的演变.南开管理评论,2006(2)：106-109.
[153]贾根良.网络组织：超越市场与企业两分法.经济社会体制比较.1998(4)：13-19.
[154]杰弗里·菲佛、杰勒尔德·R·萨兰基克著.组织的外部控制——对组织资源依赖的分析.东方出版社,2006.
[155]今井贤一、小宫隆太郎,陈晋、陈清远等译.日本现代企业制度.经济科学出版社,1995,第一版.
[156]汤普森著,敬乂嘉译.行动中的组织.上海人民出版社,第1版,2007.
[157]唐文雄、吴广谋、盛昭瀚.企业集团化过程中政府作用的理论思考.中国软科学,2000(6)：35-39.
[158]陶向南、赵曙明.子公司角色、绩效表现对跨国公司人力资源本土化配置影响的实证研究.管理世界,2003(8)：92-98.
[159]W·理查德·斯科特著,姚伟、王黎芳译.制度与组织——思想观念与物质利益.中国人民大学出版社,2010.
[160]席酉民、赵增耀等.企业集团治理.机械工业出版社,2002.
[161]蓝海林.经济转型中我国国有企业集团行为的研究：[博士学位论文].广州：暨南大学,2004.
[162]武立东.母子公司关系网络治理中影响子公司自主决策的因素分析.现代财经,2007.
[163]初可佳.企业集团子公司弹性限制与经营绩效——基于网络视角.求索,2007.
[164]孙国强,石海瑞.网络组织负效应的实证分析.科学学与科学技术管理,2011.
[165]王世权,王丹,武立东.母子公司关系网络影响子公司创业的内在机理——基于海信集团的案例研究.管理世界,2012.
[166]杨忠.跨国公司及其子公司治理结构分析.南京大学学报,2004(4)
[167]伊藤秀史、菊谷达弥、林田修.母子公司间的多面关系与子公司治理(日文).研究报告,2004.
[168]张军等著,中国企业的转型道路.格致出版社,2008.
[169]赵景华.跨国公司在华子公司竞争优势与战略倾向实证研究.中国工业经济,2007(4)：79-87.
[170]赵曙明、赵薇、徐军.我国企业集团及其发展历程研究.生产力研究,2002(3)：6-8.
[171]曾国军.跨国公司在华子公司战略角色演变的影响因素与路径：以业务范围和竞争能力为框架.管理学报,2006(6)：692-702.
[172]蓝海林.经济转型过程中国有企业集团行为的再认识.经济管理,2004(21)：36-38.
[173]雷蒙德·E·迈尔斯、查尔斯·C·斯诺.组织的战略结构和过程。东方出版社,2006.
[174]李海舰、聂辉华.论企业与市场的相互融合.中国工业经济,2004(8)：26-35.
[175]李维安、武立东.企业集团的公司治理——规模起点、治理边界和子公司治理.南 开管理评论,1999(1)：44-8.
[176]梁樑、吴文明、王志强.企业集团形成动因的模型分析.中国管理科学,2003(2)：71-76.
[177]林南著,张磊译.社会资本——关于社会结构与行动的理论.上海人民出版社,2005
[178]刘小玄.奠定中国市场经济的微观基础——企业革命30年.格致出版社,2008.
[179]罗珉、何长见.组织间关系：界面规则与治理机制.中国工业经济,2006(5)：87-95.
[180]吕源、姚俊、蓝海林.企业集团的理论综述与探讨.南开管理评论,2005(4)：28-35.
[181]迈克尔·C·詹森著,孙经纬译.组织战略的基础.上海财经大学出版社,2008.
[182]毛蕴诗.企业集团：扩展动因模式与案例,2001.
[183]沈志渔、刘兴国、周小虎.基于社会责任的国有企业改革研究.中国工业经济,2008(9)：141-149.
[184]郑小勇,魏江Business Group、企业集团和关联企业概念辨析及研究范畴、主题、方法比较.外国经济与管理,2011(10)：17-25.
[185]罗仲伟.中国国有企业改革：方法论和策略.中国工业经济,2009(1)：5-17.
[186]杨友仁,夏铸九.跨界生产网络的组织治理模式——以苏州地区信息电子业台商为例.地理研究,2005(2)：253-264.
[187]甄志宏.从网络嵌入性到制度嵌入性——新经济社会学制度前沿.江苏社会科学,2006(3)：97-100.
[188]徐向龙、毛蕴诗.我国中央企业的成长特征与战略重组研究.产经评论,2010(3)：60-68.
[189]徐向艺、谢明亮.协调与合作视角下的企业集团治理框架研究.文史哲,2008(1)：151-157.
[190]薛求知、阎海峰.跨国公司新组织形态：网络组织.世界经济文汇,2001(1)：54-57.
[191]薛求知、侯仕军.海外子公司地位研究：从总部视角到子公司视角.南开管理评论,2005(4)：60-66.
[192]薛求知、罗来军.跨国公司对合资子公司的外部控制.经济管理,2006(13)：11-14.
[193]郑方.嵌入性视角下的连锁董事网络研究：[博士学位论文].济南：山东大学,2012.
[194]郭劲光.网络嵌入：嵌入差异与嵌入绩效.经济评论,2006(11)：24-30.
[195]许冠南.关系嵌入性对技术创新绩效的影响研究：[博士学位论文].杭州：浙江大学,2008.
[196]刘雪锋.网络嵌入性影响企业绩效的机制案例研究.管理世界,2009(2)：3-12.
[197]章威.基于知识的企业动态能力研究：嵌入性前因及创新绩效结果：[博士学位论文].杭州：浙江大学,2009.
[198]杨桂菊.跨国公司子公司角色演化机制理论模型——子公司网络资本的分析视角.世界经济研究,2006(11)：16-21.
[199]朱顺林.基于网络嵌入的子公司演化成长机制研究：[博士学位论文].杭州：浙江大学,2012.
[200]蒲明,毕克新.内部嵌入性与跨国子公司成长能力关系的实证研究,中国软科学,2013 (8)：136-143.
[201]刘群慧,李丽.关系嵌入性、机会主义行为与合作创新意愿——对广东省中小企业样本的实证研究.科学学与科学技术管理,2013(7)：83-94.
[202]刘巍.“嵌入性”理论及其在中国研究中的发展.淮阴师范学院学报,2010(4)：507-511.
[203]彭正银,包凤耐.网络嵌入的文献述评与发展动态分析.第六届中国管理学年会论文集,2011.
[204]林嵩.国内外嵌入性研究述评.技术经济,2013(5)：48-53.
[205]李新春,刘莉.嵌入性、市场性关系网络与家族企业创业成长.中山大学学报：社会科学版,2009(3)：190-202.